ML16159A040

{{Adams | number = ML16159A040 | issue date = 04/22/2016 | title = Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2 and 3, Proposed Technical Specifications Change TS-505 - Request for License Amendments - Extended Power Uprate (EPU) - Supplement 13, Response to Request for Additional Information | author name = Shea J W | author affiliation = Tennessee Valley Authority | addressee name = | addressee affiliation = NRC/Document Control Desk, NRC/NRR | docket = 05000259, 05000260, 05000296 | license number = DPR-033, DPR-052, DPR-068 | contact person = | case reference number = CNL-16-075 | document type = Letter, Response to Request for Additional Information (RAI) | page count = 1018 }}

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:Tennessee Valley Authority, 1101 Market Street, Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402 CNL-16-075 April 22, 2016 ATTN: Document Control Desk U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3

• 10 CFR 50.90 Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-33, DPR-52, and DPR-68 NRG Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296

Subject:

Proposed Technical Specifications (TS) Change TS-505 -Request for License Amendments -Extended Power Uprate (EPU) -Supplement 13, Responses to Requests for Additional Information

References:

1. Letter from TVA to NRG, CNL-15-169, "Proposed Technical Specifications (TS) Change TS-505 -Request for License Amendments -Extended Power Uprate (EPU)," dated September 21, 2015(ML15282A152) 2. Letter from NRG to TVA, "Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3 -Request for Additional Information Related to License Amendment Request Regarding Extended Power Uprate (CAC Nos. MF6741, MF6742, and MF6743)," dated April 4, 2016 (ML 16064A286) By the Reference 1 letter, Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) submitted a license amendment request (LAR) for the Extended Power Uprate (EPU) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) Units 1, 2 and 3. The proposed LAR modifies the renewed operating licenses to increase the maximum authorized core thermal power level from the current licensed thermal power of 3458 megawatts to 3952 megawatts. During their technical review of the LAR, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRG) identified the need for additional information. The Reference 2 letter provided NRG Requests for Additional Information (RAI) related to the environmental review of the BFN EPU LAR. The due date for the responses to the NRG RAls provided by the Reference 2 letter is April 22, 2016. The enclosure to this letter provides the responses to the RAls included in the Reference 2 letter, with the exception of the responses to NRG RAls RERP-GE-RAI 2 and r U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission CNL-16-075 Page 2 April 22, 2016 RERP-GE-RAI 4. NRC RAls RERP-GE-RAI 2 and RERP-GE-RAI 4 involve providing environmental information associated with transmission system upgrades. However, due to changes in the modifications associated with these transmission system upgrades, the due date for the responses to NRC RAls RERP-GE-RAI 2 and RERP-GE-RAI 4 was extended to May 27, 2016, per communication with the NRC Project Manager. TVA has reviewed the information supporting a finding of no significant hazards consideration and the environmental consideration provided to the NRC in the Reference 1 letter. The supplemental information provided in this submittal does not affect the bases for concluding that the proposed license amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration. In adqition, the supplemental information in this submittal does not affect the bases for concluding that neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment needs to be prepared in connection with the proposed license amendment. Additionally, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.91(b)(1), TVA is sending a copy of this letter to the Alabama State Department of Public Health. There are no new regulatory commitments associated with this submittal. If there are any questions or if additional information is needed, please contact Mr. Edward D. Schrull at (423) 751-3850. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on the 22nd day of April 2016. V e President, Nuclear Licensing

Enclosure:

Responses to NRC Requests for Additional Information Related to the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Extended Power Uprate Environmental Review cc: NRG Regional Administrator -Region II NRG Senior Resident Inspector -Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant State Health Officer, Alabama Department of Public Health ENCLOSURE Responses to NRC Requests for Additional Information Related to Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Extended Power Uprate Environmental Review Enclosure Contains Responses to the Following Environmental Review RAls General (GE) RERP-GE-RAI 1 RERP-GE-RAI 3 Visual Resources (VR) RERP-VR-RAI 1 Noise (NO) RERP-NO-RAI 1 Surface Water Resources (SW) RERP-SW-RAI 1 (includes Attachment 1) RERP-SW-RAI 2 (includes Attachments 2 and 3) RERP-SW-RAI 3 RERP-SW-RAI 4 RERP-SW-RAI 5 (includes Attachment 4) RERP-SW-RAI 6 (includes Attachments 5 and 6) Aquatic Resources (AQ) RERP-AQ-RAI 1 RERP-AQ-RAI 2 (includes Attachments 7 through 12) Protected Species and Habitats (PS) RERP-PS-RAI 1 ENCLOSURE RERP-GE-RAI 1 The NRG issued a final Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONS/) related to the BFN, Units 1, 2, and 3 previously proposed extended power uprate (EPU) LARs in February 2007 (ADAMS Accession No. ML070190246). Describe any new and significant information regarding an impact on the human environment because of the currently proposed EPU LAR dated September 21, 2015, and its supplements. Also, describe any environmental impact that has arisen since the publication of the final EA and FONS/ in February 2007. TV A Response: New and significant information related to the proposed Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) extended power uprate (EPU) since the NRC publication of the environmental assessment (EA) and finding of no significant impact (FONSI) is described below.

• Hydrothermal conditions: TVA updated the hydrothermal analysis on September 21, 2015, in the BFN EPU License Amendment Request (LAR), _ Attachment 42, Supplemental Environmental Report, Section 7.2.3, Impact on Discharge.
• Cooling Towers: TVA replaced all but two of the original cooling towers, and constructed one additional new cooling tower. As described in the BFN EPU LAR, Attachment 42, Supplemental Environmental Report, Section 2.2, Related Power Uprate Submittals and NEPA Documentation, TVA prepared EAs for the cooling tower replacements and construction of the new cooling tower and issued associated FONSls.
• Transmission System Upgrades: TVA transmission system upgrades will be required for EPU that are not discussed in, or bounded by, the assessment documented in the BFN EPU LAR, Attachment 42, Supplemental Environmental Report. The environmental information associated with these upgrades will be provided in response to RERP-GE-RAl-2. E-1 ENCLOSURE RERP-GE-RAI 3 On page 12 of the Interconnection System Impact Study, TVA estimates that related upgrades and modifications would be completed 7 to 10 years after TVA receives authorization to begin work. Given this timeline and assuming the EPU is approved, would BFN be able to operate at EPU levels prior to the transmission upgrades being completed? If not, please provide revised estimates of when each unit would begin operating at EPU levels, included revisions to the EPU outage schedules, if applicable. TV A Response: a. The interconnection system impact study (SIS) identified six breaker failure relays requiring upgrade. Installation of relay upgrades will not preclude or delay the BFN operating at EPU conditions. All six relays will be replaced prior to the first unit uprate (Unit 3) in the Spring of 2018. Therefore, the relay replacement schedule will not affect the EPU schedule. b. The SIS determined that the TVA transmission system would require incremental installation of 774 mega volt amp reactive (MVAR) capacitor banks in four locations throughout the TVA transmission system. The proposed locations are the Clayton Village Substation located in Oktibbeha County Mississippi, Holly Springs Substation located in Marshall County Mississippi, Corinth Substation located in Alcorn County Mississippi, and the Wilson Substation located in Wilson County Tennessee. The preliminary estimated completion of the final capacitor bank is Spring of 2019. TVA Transmission Operation and Power Supply does not preclude BFN operating at EPU levels during the capacitor bank installations. Therefore, the MVAR capacitor bank installation schedule will not affect the EPU schedule. c. The SIS determined that the TVA transmission system would require a new 500 kV transmission line to support the EPU of all three BFN units. The new line mitigates a transient stability issue that could arise if a 3-phase fault develops while one of the four 500 kV lines specified in the SIS is out of service and BFN is operating at EPU conditions. Until the new transmission line is constructed, TVA will issue a detailed temporary operating guide to eliminate these issues during 500 kV line outages; otherwise, BFN will operate at EPU levels. Therefore, the new transmission line construction schedule will not affect the EPU schedule. E-2 ENCLOSURE RERP-VR-RAI 1 The NRC's 2005 final supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) for license renewal of BFN (ADAMS Accession No. ML051730443) describes the BFN viewshed as the following: "There are no homes within foreground viewing distance to the north and east. Adjacent to the site however, is a small residential development located to the northwest. Another residential development is located across Wheeler Reservoir to the southwest, and the Mallard Creek public use area is directly across the reservoir. These developments have at least partial views of the plant site. A berm, graded during the initial construction of the plant and containing approximately 2. 5 million cubic meter (3.3 million cubic yard) of earth excavated to make cooling water channels, lies adjacent to the cooling tower complex and blocks views of the northern and eastern plant area (TV A 2003a)." Confirm that this description continues to accurately depict the BFN viewshed. TV A Response: This description of the viewshed has changed since the 2005 final supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). The first three sentences remain correct as written, however the remainder of the quote requires some modification. In 2012, a larger but architecturally similar cooling tower (CT 7) was constructed north of the original six CTs. Construction of CT 7, required relocation of part of the berm to the north side of CT 7 where it continues to block views of the northern and eastern plant area. In addition, a portion of Shaw Road near the entrance to the BFN was relocated to facilitate construction of CT 7. Portions of CTs 1 through 6, and CT 7 continue to be visible to motorists traveling on Shaw Road. Construction of CT 7 and relocation of Shaw Road altered the viewscape such that the view on this stretch of road is now dominated by CT 7. Because the viewscape is similar, the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on the viewshed are insignificant. The paragraph from the NRC's 2005 supplemental environmental impact statement should be revised for use in the BFN extended power uprate environmental assessment as follows. "There are no homes within foreground viewing distance to the north and east. Adjacent to the site however, is a small residential development located to the northwest. Another residential development is located across Wheeler Reservoir to the southwest, and the Mallard Creek public use area is directly across the reservoir. These developments have at least partial views of the plant site. Two earthen berms lie adjacent to the cooling tower complex. These berms block views of the northern and eastern plant areas. The berms, as well as portions of the cooling tower complex, are visible to motorists traveling on Shaw Road." E-3 ENCLOSURE RERP-NO-RAI 1 Section 7.1.5 of the Supplemental Environmental Report (ER) summarizes a 2012 environmental sound pressure level assessment that found the ambient noise level in the Paradise Shores community located 1,500 feet from the BFN property boundary to be 59. 7 decibels in the absence of cooling tower operation and 61.9 decibels with six cooling towers in operation. Previously, a 2001 background noise survey (described on page 8 of NRC's 2007 Final EA and page 2-67 (Section 2.2.8.4) of NRC's 2005 license renewal SEIS) found that the noise level in the Paradise Shores community with six cooling towers operating was 52 decibels. Explain the increase in background noise levels between the 2001 and 2011 assessments. TV A Response: A number of factors may account for differences in the background noise levels between the 2001 and the 2012 noise surveys. Background noise surveys were taken in the Paradise Shores residential community in June 2001 without cooling towers operating, and again in July 2001 with three cooling towers in operation. The BFN cooling tower contribution to the background noise was estimated to be 1 to 2 decibels (dBA). Noise surveys were again taken in the Paradise Shores residential community in August 2012 with six cooling towers in service, and again in September 2012 without cooling towers operating. The BFN cooling tower contribution to the background noise was estimated to be 2.2 decibels. The NRC final supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS), June 2005, states that the dominant contributors to the background noise were traffic, lawn mowers, home air conditioners, fauna (insects and frogs), and family activities. It should be noted that the data collection represents a single 24-hour period for each date. The background noise level in these surveys is influenced by several factors that can vary significantly from day to day, season to season, and year to year. Specific differences between the 2001 and 2012 surveys, and the effect of those differences, cannot be quantified. The general differences in local conditions between the 2001 and 2012 surveys are described below.
• The Paradise Shores residential community has undergone some demographic changes. According to 2000 and 2010 census profile information, the number of housing units increased from 56 to 72. The number of households increased from 39 to 46 and the* total population increased from 93 to 101. The change in the demographics results in changes in the number of operating air conditioning units, automobiles, lawn mowers, boats, and other noise generating devices.
• The July 2001 survey was conducted with three cooling towers actually in service. The September 2012 survey was conducted with six cooling towers actually in service.
• There are seasonal variations between the two surveys. The 2001 surveys were conducted entirely in the summer months. The 2012 surveys began in the summer and were concluded in the fall. Fauna, flora, agricultural equipment use, social activities, river activities (recreational and commercial), and traffic patterns are some factors that exhibit seasonal variation. The specific day(s) of the week when the 2001 survey data was collected are not known, however the day of the week also influences traffic patterns, lawn mower use, and river activities.
• Weather factors also influence background noise level. Specifically, wind velocity and rain would affect noise generation while wind direction, wind gradient, air temperature, and relative humidity would affect noise propagation. However, the meteorological conditions on the dates of data collection for either survey year were not documented. E-4 ENCLOSURE RERP-SW-RAI 1 TVA indicates in Sections 7.1.6 and 7.2.3 of the Supplemental ER that the proposed EPU would not increase temperature or flow rates of discharged water beyond permitted National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) limits. Clarify whether implementation of the EPU will change the volume or quality of effluents discharged to the Tennessee River, including usage of cooling water treatment chemicals. If so, quantify the changes in discharge characteristics and specify whether an NPDES permit modification will be required or whether notification to Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) has been made. Additionally, provide relevant documentation of correspondence to/from the State. TV A Response: Most of the water withdrawn at the plant intake is returned to the river. As noted in the BFN EPU license amendment request (LAR), Attachment 42, Supplemental Environmental Report, Section 7.2.3, Impact on Discharge, water losses from evaporation and drift will occur for the condenser circulating water (CCW) system when cooling towers are in operation (helper mode). For other systems, water loss would be comparatively negligible, unquantifiable amounts. Operating at EPU conditions will not change the CCW flow entering and leaving the main condenser. In the open mode of operation, essentially all of the water that enters the forebay is subsequently discharged back to the Tennessee River. Therefore, EPU operation does not affect the volume of water discharged to the Tennessee River in the open mode of operation. Operating at EPU conditions is expected to increase the number of days that the cooling towers are operated in the helper mode by about 22 days per year. Therefore, for an average of 22 additional days per year, BFN discharge volume to the Tennessee River will be reduced due to cooling tower evaporation and drift. No modification is required for the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM), National Pollutant Discharge Elimination (NPDES) permit. Page Att 42-46 of the BFN EPU LAR, Attachment 42, Section 7.2.3, Impact on Discharge, states "For years with warm summers, the number of days of helper mode operation, on the average, is expected to increase by about 13 days at 120 percent [original licensed thermal power (OLTP)] as compared to 105 percent OLTP." Table 7.2-3, Summary of BFN Hydrothermal Impacts for Warm, Summer Meteorology, under Helper Mode Operation, indicates the model predicted average number of days of cooling tower operation per year for 105 percent OL TP and 120 percent OL TP to be 66 days and 89 days respectively. The change from 105 percent OL TP to 120 percent OL TP is given as +13 days. These numbers contain a typographical error and a mathematical error. The actual model predicted average number of days of cooling tower operation at 120 percent OL TP is 88 days resulting in a change of +22 days. See the Attachment 1 mark-up for changes to BFN EPU LAR, Attachment 42, Supplemental Environmental Report, Section 7.2.3, Impact on Discharge, and Table 7.2-3, Summary of BFN Hydrothermal Impacts for Warm, Summer Meteorology. As noted in the BFN EPU LAR, Attachment 42, Supplemental Environmental Report, Table 7.2-3, both the Diffuser Discharge Temperature, Flow-Weighted and the Temperature at Downstream End of Mixing Zone at Compliance Depth will change under EPU conditions. These changes however, remain within the temperature limitations contained in the NPDES Permit for the plant and will not require a modification to the NPDES permit. The types, frequency, and amounts of cooling water treatment chemicals used in the raw water chemical treatment system are not affected by EPU. The hydrothermal impact on water quality is discussed in detail in the BFN EPU LAR, Attachment 42, Section 7.2.3, Impact on Discharge. E-5 ENCLOSURE There will be no change in the volume or quality of effluents discharged to the Tennessee River associated with the EPU. All monitored effluents will remain within current NPDES limits. Operation at EPU will not affect the water quality discharge to the Tennessee River. An NPDES permit modification is not required and notification to the ADEM is not required. Because no changes to the NPDES permit have been identified, there is no applicable correspondence to/from the State of Alabama. E-6 ENCLOSURE RERP-SW-RAI 2 Please provide a copy of BFN's current ADEM-issued NPDES permit and most recent NPDES permit renewal application. TV A Response: The BFN NPDES permit issued by the ADEM, dated July 3, 2012 is included as Attachment 2. The most recent BFN permit renewal application from March 2011 is provided as Attachment 3 of this response. Development of the BFN 2017 NPDES permit renewal application will begin during the summer of 2016. E-7 Supplemental Environmental Report Table 7.2-3: Summary of BFN Hydrothermal Impacts for Warm, Summer Meteorology Change 0% 105% 120% 105%-.120% Parameter (1l OLTP(2l OLTP OLTP OLTP Water Temperature (°F) Average 66.5 66.5 66.5 0 Hourly Max 94.3 94.3 94.3 0 Ambient River Temperature at Hourly Min 37.6 37.6 37.6 0 Compliance Depth 24-hr Avg Max 91.5 91.5 91.5 0 24-hr Avg Min 38.4 38.4 38.4 0 Average NA(4l 86.9 89.5 +2.6 F0 Diffuser Discharge Hourly Max NA 112.5 117.2 +4.7 F0 Temperature, Hourly Min NA 60.3 58.0 -2.3 F0 Flow-Weighted 24-hr Avg Max NA 107.1 110.5 +3.5 F0 24-hr Avg Min NA 60.8 64.3 +3.5 F0 Average 66.5(3) 70.8 71.4 +0.6 F0 Temperature at Downstream Hourly Max 94_3(3) 92.1 92.0 -0.1 F0 End of Mixing Zone at Hourly Min 37_5(3) 39.8 40.3 +0.5 F0 Compliance Depth 24-hr Avg Max 91.5 (3) 89.4 89.3 -0.1 F0 24-hr Avg Min 38.4 (3) 40.4 41.2 +0.8 F0 Helper Mode Operation Max No. days of cooling tower operation per year NA 82 121 +39 Avg No. days of cooling tower operation per year NA 66 88 +8-+22 Hydrothermal Derate Operation Percent of Summers with Derates NA 1 in 6 1 in 6 unchanged Max No. Hours of Derate for Summers with Derate NA 185 207 +28 Max Derate MWH for Summers with Derate NA 81065 101850 +20785 Avg Derate MWe for Summers with Derate NA 438 492 54 Changes in Net Generation (106 MWH) Maximum Annual Net Generation NA 29.6 34.5 +4.9 Minimum Annual Net Generation NA 29.2 34.1 +4.9 Average Annual Net Generation NA 29.4 34.3 +4.9 Notes: 1. Based on simulations with historical hydrology and meteorology for years 2007-2012. 2. 0% OL TP = no withdrawal from or discharge to the river from BFN. 3. Value assumed to be the same as ambient (i.e., neglects any heat exchange between the reservoir and the atmosphere/riverbed in the reach between the ambient measurement at TRM 297.8 and the downstream end of mixing zone at TRM 293.5). NA=not applicable. Att 42-52 Supplemental Environmental Report For the simulations summarized herein, the results at 105 percent OL TP assume the configuration of cooling towers is the same as that summarized in Table 7 .2-1. Results at 120 percent OL TP assume that CTs 1 and 2 are replaced with new cooling towers with design characteristics the same as those for CT 5. Presented in Table 7.2-3 are the results comparing plant operation at 120 percent OL TP with plant operation at 105 percent OL TP. The table includes four sections: the first summarizes impacts on water temperature, the second summarizes impacts on helper mode operation (i.e., cooling tower operation), the third and fourth summarize impacts on plant electrical generation (i.e., derates and net generation). Notable observations include the following:
• For years with warm summers, the temperature of water exiting the diffusers at 120 percent OL TP, on the average, will be about 2.6 F0 warmer than the temperature of water at 105 percent OL TP. For the maximum hourly value, as well as the maximum 24-hour average value, the model results imply a change in the temperature of water exiting the diffusers of 4.7 F0 warmer and 3.4 F0 warmer, respectively.
• For years with warm summers, the temperature of the river at the compliance depth at the downstream end of the mixing zone at 120 percent OL TP, on the average, will be about 0.6 F0 warmer than the temperature at 105 percent OL TP. For the maximum hourly value, as well as the maximum 24-hour average value, the model results imply very subtle changes in the temperature of the river at the compliance depth at the downstream end of the mixing zone (only 0.1 F0 cooler). This primarily is due to additional helper mode operation.
• For years with warm summers, the number of days of helper mode operation, on the average, is expected to increase by about rs-22 days at 120 percent OL TP as compared to 105 percent OL TP. At 120 percent OL TP, the most extreme years are expected to include about 121 days of helper mode operation.
• For years with warm summers the number of summers containing derates is expected to remain at 1 in 6 at EPU conditions. For warm summers containing derates, the maximum number of hours of derate per year is expected to increase by about 28 at 120 percent OL TP with a maximum overall increase in annual hydrothermal derate energy loss of about 20,785 MWh. In derate events, the average amount of derate power loss is expected to increase by about 54 MW at 120 percent OL TP.
• The average annual net generation with the uprate from 105 percent OL TP to 120 percent OL TP is expected to increase by about 4.9x106 MWh. At both 105 percent and 120 percent OL TP, the derate predictions summarized in Table 7 .2-3 occurred only for 2010, the warmest summer of record (see Figure 7.2-1 ). Other notable observations from the hydrothermal simulations include the following:
• In helper mode operation, the model results indicate a water loss due to cooling tower evaporation of about 2.7 percent of the cooling tower flow on average. Berger (1995) suggests that manufacturers strive to limit cooling tower drift to about 0.2 percent of the flow. Thus, during helper mode operation, the combined loss due to evaporation and drift is expected to be roughly 3 percent of the cooling tower flow. If all seven cooling towers Att 42-46 ATTACHMENT 1 Markup of Changes to BFN EPU LAR Attachment 42, Supplemental Environmental Report ENCLOSURE References 1. Letter from United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service to TVA, "Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant -Proposed Extended Power Uprate -Updated list of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project," dated February 1, 2016 (ML 16032A044 ). 2. Ortmann 1925. The American Midland Naturalist, Volume IX, Number 7, The Fauna of the Tennessee River System Below Walden Gorge; dated March 1925. E-20 ENCLOSURE p. Fleshy-fruit gladecress (Leavenworthia crassa): Fleshy-fruit gladecress (Leavenworthia crassa) has a narrow global range and is currently known from seven locations in Lawrence and Morgan County, Alabama. The nearest occurrence is approximately 8 miles southwest of the BFN site. While native habitat for the species consists of limestone glades and other areas with thin soils and limestone outcrops, fleshy-fruit glade cress can also persist in areas of disturbed soil adjacent to suitable native habitat. Limestone glade habitat does not occur on or adjacent to the BFN site and proposed BFN EPU project areas where work would occur do not receive the type of disturbance necessary to support a population of the species. The proposed BFN EPU would have no effect on fleshy-fruit gladecress. q. Kral's water-plantain (Sagittaria secundifolia): Kral's water-plantain (Sagittaria secundifolia) is a diminutive, perennial that grows in cracks of bedrock located in stream channels with shallow water. Extant populations are only known from the Little River drainage of northeast Alabama and northwest Georgia, the Sipsey Fork of the Black Warrior River, and Hatchet Creek. The nearest population of Kral's water-plantain is located in Winston County, Alabama, over 35 miles south -southwest of the BFN site. No suitable habitat occurs on or near the BFN site and the species would not be affected by the proposed BFN EPU project. r. Leafy prairie-clover (Da/ea fo/iosa): Leafy prairie-clover (Da/ea fo/iosa) occurs in high quality barren remnants and in wet, limestone glades. The nearest populations of leafy prairie-clover are more than 20 miles to the south and west of the BFN site. Construction, operation, and maintenance of the BFN has drastically altered the physical landscape on-site. The highly-disturbed, anthropogenic plant communities currently on the BFN site are not capable of supporting leafy clover. The species would not be affected by the proposed BFN EPU project. s. Lyrate bladderpod (Lesquerel/a lvrata): Lyrate bladderpod (Lesquerella /yrata) occurs in association with limestone glades. The species has only been documented south of the Tennessee River. The nearest extant populations of lyrate bladderpod are about 25 miles southwest of the BFN site. Suitable habitat does not occur on or adjacent to the BFN site and lyrate bladderpod would not be affected by the proposed BFN EPU project. t. Price's potato-bean (Apios priceana): Price's potato-bean (Apios priceana) requires plant habitats that are found relatively frequently on the landscape. Rich forested slopes and forest edges underlain by limestone are not uncommon, but those habitats are not found on the BFN site. Price's potato-bean does not occur at the BFN site and would not be affected by the proposed BFN EPU project. u. Flattened musk turtle (Sternotherus depressus): Flattened musk turtles are restricted to the Black Warrior River drainage. They are found above the Fall Line (the juncture of the coastal plain and upland provinces) within the Black Warrior River Basin. This species appears to prefer large creeks or small rivers where vegetation grows in shallow areas. Pools within these bodies of water typically have an abundance of submerged rocks where crevices are plentiful. The BFN site is not located in the Black Warrior River drainage, therefore no habitat for this species would be affected by the proposed BFN EPU project. Flattened musk turtles would not be affected by the proposed BFN EPU project. E-19 ENCLOSURE USFWS final OCH for this species does not overlap with the potential action area of the proposed BFN EPU project. Therefore, the proposed BFN EPU project would not affect OCH for the triangular kidneyshell. I. Alabama streak-sorus fern (The/ypteris pilosa var. alabamensis): The Alabama streak-sorus fern is a rare endemic restricted to semi-shaded crevices of sandstone rock faces along a 4.25 miles section of the Sipsey Fork. The nearest known extant occurrence of Alabama streak-sorus fern is about 35 miles south -southwest of BFN. The highly specialized habitat required by this fern does not occur on or near the BFN site and the proposed BFN EPU would have no effect on the species. m. Boulder darter (Etheostoma wapiti): The boulder darter was federally listed on September 1, 1988, along with a non-essential, experimental population designated between Shoal Creek miles 41.7 and 14. This small fish inhabits streams and medium rivers with moderate to high gradient in areas with boulder/rubble substrate. The closest records of this species to the BFN site are well upstream of the mainstem Tennessee River in the Elk River and Shoal Creek tributaries. Given the lack of evidence that the boulder darter inhabits the Tennessee River, particularly near the BFN site, TVA has concluded that it would not occur at the BFN site and, thus, would not be affected by the proposed BFN EPU project. The USFWS has not published OCH for the boulder darter, therefore, the proposed BFN EPU would not affect OCH for this species. n. Rush darter (Etheostoma phvtophilum): The rush darter was federally listed as endangered on August 9, 2011. The biology of this small fish species is not well-known, but is likely similar to the goldstripe darter. It lives along the benthic (bottom) habitat of springs and spring-fed streams with very shallow depths. This species is known only in Etowah, Jefferson, and Winston Counties in Alabama, which fall within the upper Mobile River basin. Because the rush darter does not occur in the Tennessee River basin, and no habitat for this species occurs in the BFN EPU project area, the proposed BFN EPU project would not affect this species. The USFWS final OCH for this species does not overlap with the potential action area of the proposed BFN EPU project. Therefore, the proposed BFN EPU project would not affect OCH for the rush darter. o. Slackwater darter (Etheostoma boschung1): The slackwater darter was federally listed as threatened on October 11, 1977. It is known only in streams in Lauderdale, Limestone, and Madison Counties within the Alabama portion of its range. This small fish species is a benthic (bottom) dweller in low to moderate grade creeks and small to medium-sized streams, where it utilizes various habitats and aquatic vegetation for spawning habitat. While it is known in Swan Creek, a tributary to the Tennessee River (Wheeler Reservoir), this species has not been found in the mainstem Tennessee River. Given the lack of appropriate habitat and lack of records in the Tennessee River near BFN, TVA has concluded that the slackwater darter would not be found in the BFN EPU project area or affected by the proposed BFN EPU project. The USFWS final OCH for this species does not overlap with the potential action area of the proposed BFN EPU project. Therefore, the proposed BFN EPU project would not affect OCH for the slackwater darter. E-18 ENCLOSURE River basin and is not found near the BFN site. TVA has determined that the proposed BFN EPU project would have no effect on the orangenacre mucket. The USFWS final OCH for this species does not overlap with the potential action area of the proposed BFN EPU project. Therefore, the propose BFN EPU project would not affect OCH for the orangenacre muck et. h. Ovate clubshell (Pleurobema perovatum): The ovate clubshell was federally listed on March 17, 1993. This small to medium sized freshwater mussel inhabits sand/gravel mixtures of shoal and run habitat in large streams and small rivers. Its range falls completely within streams of the Mobile River basin and does not exist within the Tennessee River basin. Therefore, the ovate clubshell is not found near the BFN site and would not be affected by the proposed BFN EPU project. The USFWS final OCH for this species does not overlap with the potential action area of the proposed BFN EPU project. Therefore, the proposed BFN EPU project would not affect OCH for the ovate clubshell. i. Sheepnose mussel (Plethobasus cvphvus): The sheepnose was federally listed as endangered on April 12, 2012. This medium-sized freshwater mussel is typically found in low to moderate gradient reaches of medium and large rivers. It occurs throughout much of the Mississippi River basin, including portions of the Tennessee River. The sheepnose is currently found in the riverine portions of Pickwick Reservoir (i.e., Wilson Dam tailwater) and Wheeler Reservoir (i.e., Guntersville Dam tailwater). Sheepnose records in Wheeler Reservoir closest to the BFN site at TRM 294 occur approximately 15 miles upstream near TRM 309. The closest records of this species downstream of BFN are recorded at TRM 259 (approximately 30 miles away). Given the void of records for sheepnose in the Tennessee River near the BFN site, TVA has determined that this species does not occur within the proposed BFN EPU project area and would not be affected by the proposed BFN EPU project. The USFWS has not published OCH for the sheepnose. j. Snuffbox mussel (Epioblasma triquetra): The snuffbox was federally listed as endangered on March 15, 2012. This small to medium sized, triangular-shaped freshwater mussel is typically found in riffles of medium and large rivers in swift currents. This species is widely distributed throughout the Mississippi River basin and is known to occur in five counties within Alabama, including Lauderdale County. Snuffbox was recorded in the Tennessee River near Wilson Dam (TRM 259) in 1939, recently in the Elk River (a tributary of Wheeler Reservoir) near Elk River Mile (ERM) 34, and recently in the Tennessee River well upstream of the BFN site near TRM 334. Given the vast distances between the BFN site and known records of the snuffbox, in conjunction with the lack of preferable habitat at the site, TVA has determined that this species does not occur near the BFN site and would not be affected by the proposed BRN EPU project. The USFWS has not published OCH for the snuffbox, therefore, the proposed BFN EPU would not affect OCH for this species. k. Triangular kidneyshell (Ptvchobranchus greenil): The triangular kidneyshell was federally listed on March 17, 1993. This freshwater mussel is most commonly found in reaches of creeks and medium-sized to large rivers with moderate current and coarse gravel I sand mixtures of substrate. This species is known from five counties in Alabama, including Lawrence County; however, it is known only from the upper watershed of the Mobile River. Therefore, the triangular kidneyshell does not occur in the Tennessee River basin and would not be affected by the proposed BFN EPU project. The E-17 ENCLOSURE designated critical habitat for the cracking pearlymussel, therefore, the proposed BFN EPU would not affect OCH for this species. d. Dark pigtoe (Pleurobema furvum): The dark pigtoe was federally listed as endangered on March 17, 1993. This freshwater mussel is known to occur in three drainages (Sipsey Fork, Rush Creek, and North River) within the upper Black Warrior River drainage of Alabama, which is part of the Mobile River basin that flows into the Gulf of Mexico. The dark pigtoe does not occur in the Tennessee River basin and therefore would not be affected by the proposed BFN EPU. The USFWS final OCH for this species does not overlap with the potential action area of the proposed BFN EPU project. Therefore, the proposed BFN EPU would not affect the dark pigtoe or its OCH. . e. Fanshell (Cyprogenia stegaria): The fanshell was federally listed as endangered on June 21, 1990 with non-essential, experimental population designation listed for portions of the French Broad and Holston Rivers (which to form the head of the Tennessee River) in 2007. This medium-sized freshwater mussel occurs in gravel substrates of medium to large rivers in locations with moderate to strong current. The fanshell was historically found throughout the Tennessee, Cumberland, and Ohio River systems, but its distribution has been reduced dramatically in recent decades, presumably due to habitat changes caused by impoundment and water quality problems. The fanshell has been recorded from Lauderdale and Colbert Counties in Alabama, but not Limestone or Lawrence Counties adjacent the BFN site. More specifically, records indicate the fanshell occurs in the mainstem Tennessee River throughout much of Pickwick Reservoir and in the upstream-most portion of Wheeler Reservoir (i.e., Guntersville Dam tailwater), where it was found most recently as 1978. Given the closest record of this species relative to the BFN site is approximately 50 miles upstream within Wheeler Reservoir, TVA has determined that this species does not exist within the BFN EPU project area and therefore would not be affected by the proposed BFN EPU project. The USFWS has not designated critical habitat for the fanshell, therefore, the proposed BFN EPU would not affect OCH for this species. f. Littlewing pearlymussel (Pegias tabula): The littlewing pearlymussel was federally listed as endangered on November 14, 1988. This very small freshwater mussel species is most common near the upstream and downstream margins of riffles in sand and gravel substrates, sometimes containing cobble-size particles within creeks and medium-sized rivers. Although the littlewing pearlymussel was historically known in Lauderdale and Limestone Counties in Alabama, the most recently published USFWS five-year review of this species reported that existing populations currently occur only in portions of the Cumberland River drainage and Tennessee River drainage outside of Alabama. This species is presumed extirpated from the state of Alabama. Consequently, TVA has determined that the littlewing pearlymussel does not occur at the BFN site and would not be affected by the proposed BFN EPU project. The USFWS has not published OCH for the littlewing pearlymussel, therefore, the proposed BFN EPU would not affect OCH for this species. g. Orangenacre mucket (Hamiota [formerly LampsilisJ perovalis): The orangenacre mucket was federally listed as threatened on March 17, 1993. This species is a medium sized freshwater mussel typically found in creeks to medium-sized rivers near riffles. The orangenacre mucket inhabits streams of Mississippi and Alabama that are only within the Mobile River system. This species does not occur in the Tennessee E-16 ENCLOSURE would not be relevant to an environmental review of the proposed BFN site action are provided below for each species. In addition, nonessential experimental populations listed in Reference 1 have been discounted from environmental review of the proposed BFN EPU as allowed under Section 1 O of the Endangered Species Act. It should be noted that this examination of species does not include those associated with the proposed transmission system upgrades. Site specific environmental review of transmission system upgrades will occur once the proposed scope of work has been sufficiently defined for upgrade actions. Potential effects to each of the relevant species will be assessed during that review. a. Black warrior waterdog (Necturus a/abamensis): The Black Warrior waterdog is a large, aquatic salamander that permanently retains its external gills throughout its adult life. The Black Warrior waterdog inhabits streams above the Fall Line (the juncture of the coastal plain and upland provinces) within the Black Warrior River Basin. This also includes parts of the North River, Locust Fork, Mulberry Fork, and Sipsey Fork drainages and their tributaries. BFN is not located in these river drainages, nor would this habitat be affected by the proposed BFN EPU project. Therefore, the Black Warrior waterdog would not be affected by the proposed BFN EPU project. b. Alabama moccasinshell (Medionidus acutissimus): The Alabama moccasinshell was federally listed as threatened on March 17, 1993. This species is a small freshwater mussel averaging about one inch in length that is typically found in sand or sand/gravel mixtures in clear streams with moderate flows but also can be found in small and large rivers. This species is restricted to the Mobile River basin, which drains into the Gulf of Mexico adjacent Alabama. The upstream-most reaches of the Mobile River basin includes headwater streams in the southern portion of Lawrence County, Alabama. The Alabama moccasinshell does not occur in the Tennessee River or its watershed and therefore does not occur on or near the BFN site. The USFWS final Designated Critical Habitat (OCH) for this species does not overlap with the potential action area of the proposed BFN EPU project. Therefore, the proposed BFN EPU would not affect the Alabama moccasinshell. c. Cracking pearlymussel (Hemistena lata): The cracking pearlymussel was federally listed as endangered on September 28, 1989 with non-essential, experimental populations designated in the French Broad and Holston Rivers (headwater tributaries of the Tennessee River) in 2007 and in the free-flowing reach of the Tennessee River from Wilson Dam downstream to the .backwaters of Pickwick Reservoir in 2001. This relatively small species of freshwater mussel prefers habitat in sand, gravel, cobble mixtures within swift currents but can be found in mud and sand substrate in slower currents from medium-sized creeks to large rivers. Although this species is reported from the mainstem Tennessee River, records show it occurred downstream of Wheeler Dam in the Wilson Reservoir. The closest historical record of cracking pearlymussel relative to the BFN site, Tennessee River Mile (TRM) 294, is at the mouth of the Elk River, which enters Wheeler Reservoir at TRM 285; however, this collection was reported by Ortmann in 1925 (Reference 2). The cracking pearlymussel is known to currently inhabit the Elk River. Recent surveys by TVA and the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources indicate that there is no reported evidence that this species recently inhabited the Wheeler Reservoir reach of the Tennessee River. Therefore, TVA has concluded that this species would not be affected by the proposed BFN EPU. The USFWS has not E-15 ENCLOSURE RERP-PS-RAI 1 In an Information for Planning and Conservation Report dated February 1, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML 16032A044), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife identified a number of Federally listed species that are not addressed in the Supplemental ER. Provide any available information on potential habitat, occurrence, or sightings of the following species as well as an assessment of impacts of the proposed EPU on each species, as applicable. a. black warrior waterdog (Necturus alabamensis) b. Alabama moccasinshell (Medionidus acutissimus) c. cracking pearlymussel (Hemistena lata) d. dark pigtoe (Pleurobema furvum) e. fanshell (Cyprogenia stegaria) f. /ittlewing pearlymussel (Pegias tabula) g. orangenacre mucket (Lampsilis perovalis) h. ovate clubshel/ (Pleurobema perovatum) i. sheepnose mussel (Plethobasus cyphyus) j. snuffbox mussel (Epioblasma triquetra) k. triangular kidneyshell (Ptychobranchus greenii) I. Alabama streak-sorus fem (Thelypteris pilosa var. alabamensis) m. boulder darter (Etheostoma wapiti) n. rush darter (Etheostoma phytophilum) o. slackwater darter (Etheostoma boschungi) p. fleshy-fruit gladecress (Leavenworthia crassa) q. Kral's water-plantain (Sagittaria secundifolia) r. leafy prairie-clover (Dalea foliosa) s.
• lyrate bladderpod (Lesquerella lyrata) t. Price's potato-bean (Apios priceana) u. flattened musk turtle (Stemotherus depressus) TV A Response: In an Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) Report dated February 1, 2016 (Reference 1 ), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) identified a number of federally listed species that were not addressed in the Supplemental Environmental Report (ER) for the proposed BFN EPU LAR. Discrepancies between the species addressed in the Supplemental ER and those identified in Reference 1 are primarily due to differences in search boundaries for species' records used in development of the list reviewed in the Supplemental ER and those listed in Reference 1. An explanation of why each additional species identified in Reference 1 E-14 ENCLOSURE RERP-AQ-RAI 2 Provide copies of the following references cited in the Supplemental ER. a. TVA. 2010. Fish impingement at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, September 2007 through September 2009. TVA Environmental Stewardship and Policy. b. TVA. 2012a. Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River Near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2011. TVA Biological and Water Resources, Chattanooga, Tennessee. c. TVA. 2012b. Entrainment of lchthyoplankton at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant During 2008-2009. Knoxville, Tennessee: TVA Biological and Water Resources. d. TVA. 2013. Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River Near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2013. e. TVA. 2014. Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River Near Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant Discharge, Autumn 2014. Knoxville, Tennessee: River and Reservoir Compliance Monitoring Program. TVA Response: Copies of the following references cited in the BFN EPU LAR, Attachment 42, Supplemental Environmental Report, are attached to this response. In addition to the requested documents, the report for Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River Near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2015, has become available and is attached to this response. a. TVA. 2010. Fish Impingement at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, September 2007 Through September 2009. TVA Environmental Stewardship and Policy. (Attachment 7 to this response) b. TVA. 2012a. Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River Near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2011. TVA Biological and Water Resources, Chattanooga, Tennessee. (Attachment 8 to this response)
• c. TVA. 2012b. Entrainment of lchthyoplankton at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant During 2008-2009. Knoxville, Tennessee: TVA Biological and Water Resources. (Attachment 9 to this response) d. TVA. 2013. Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River Near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2013. (Attachment 10 to this response) e. TVA. 2014. Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River Near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2013. Knoxville, Tennessee: River and Reservoir Compliance Monitoring Program. (Attachment 11 to this response) f. Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River Near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2015. (Attachment 12 to this response) E-13 ENCLOSURE RERP-AQ-RAI 1 Section 2.1.3 of the NRC's 2005 license renewal SEIS states that when the intake forebay gates are in a full-open position and the plant is operating in either open or helper modes, the average flow velocity through the openings is about 0.2 meters per second (mis) (0.6 feet per second (fps)) for the operation of one unit, 0.34 mis (1.1 fps) for the operation of two units, and 0.52 mis (1. 7 fps) for the operation of all three units. Confirm that these flow rates would continue to describe the inflow of cooling water under EPU conditions. TV A Response: The average flow velocities referenced in the NRC's 2005 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) assumes the BFN total intake water withdrawal of approximately 734,000 gallons per minute (gpm) for each unit. The 2015 average intake water withdrawal was approximately 664,000 gpm for each unit. TVA is making no physical or operational modifications to the circulating water systems, residual heat removal service water system, emergency equipment cooling water system, raw cooling water, or raw water systems for EPU operation. Therefore, no changes are expected in the volume flow rate of water through the intake forebay. The physical parameters of the forebay have not changed. Therefore, the velocities stated in the NRC's 2005 SEIS bound intake flow velocities for the BFN units at EPU conditions. E-12 ENCLOSURE RERP-SW-RAI 6 Provide a copy of BFN's current Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs Water Withdrawal/Use Permit. TVA Response: As a federal agency with statutory authority to manage, control, and use water resources, TVA voluntarily cooperates with the State of Alabama in its water management programs under the Alabama Water Resource Act. The BFN Certificate Of Use (GOU) from the Alaba*ma Department of Economic and Community Affairs (ADECA)/Office of Water Resources (OWR), dated December 1, 2005, is maintained on file with the ADECA/OWR and is provided as Attachment 5 to this response. TVA periodically applies to renew the certificate and updates the OWR of any changes in facility data by submitting a Declaration of Beneficial Use to ADECA/OWR. The most recent application for renewal and Declaration of Beneficial Use, dated September 23, 2015, is provided as Attachment 6 of this response. The ADECA/OWR updates facility data and maintains the GOU but has not reissued the GOU for each renewal application. The ADECA/OWR has received the most recent BFN application for renewal and is processing the application in accordance with ADECA/OWR administrative rules. E-11 ENCLOSURE* RERP-SW-RAI 5 Please provide the volume (in million gallons per day (mgd)) of surface water withdrawn annually by BFN from the Tennessee River (covering the last 5 years). Provide copies of relevant reports submitted to the State. TV A Response: The BFN average annual volume flow rate, in million gallons per day (mgd), for the last five years (2011-2015) is summarized in Table SW-5 below. The BFN average and peak volume of surface water withdrawn, in mgd, from the Tennessee River, by month for the last five years is provided in Attachment 4 to this response. The reports provided in Attachment 4 were previously submitted to the State of Alabama. Table SW-5 2011 Annual 2012 Annual 2013 Annual 2014 Annual 2015 *Annual Average (mgd) Average (mgd) Average (mgd) Average (mgd) Average (mgd) 2567.6 2607.8 2639.3 2621.8 2867.3 E-10 ENCLOSURE RERP-SW-RAI 4 TVA indicates in Section 7.2.2 of the Supplemental ER that the proposed EPU will not impact the current volume of water withdrawn from the Tennessee River. Clarify and confirm whether TVA projects any incremental increase in the volume of water withdrawn from the Tennessee River upon implementation of the EPU. If any increase is projected, quantify the increase. TV A Response: BFN is making no modifications to the circulating water systems, residual heat removal service water system, emergency equipment cooling water system, raw cooling water, or raw water systems for EPU operation. Therefore, no changes are expected in the volume of water withdrawn from the Tennessee River upon implementation of EPU. E-9 ENCLOSURE RERP-SW-RAI 3 In Section 7.2-3 of the Supplemental ER, TVA summarizes modeling results that compare plant operation at the existing 105 percent original licensed thermal power (OL TP) versus 120 percent OL TP that include projected impacts on water temperature, cooling tower (helper mode) operations, and other parameters. To clarify and to provide context for some of the results presented, please provide a summary of the actual hours of cooling tower operation as well as derate hours experienced over the last five years of operations. TV A Response: Operation of the cooling towers (CTs) and unit derate information for the years 2011 through 2015 is summarized in Table SW-3 below. The CT operation data is based upon review of operator logs during the time period. The data represents periods where at least one BFN unit was operating with at least one CT in service. River temperature (inlet temperature or delta between upstream and downstream temperature) is the primary reason for CT operation. Note that the response to NRC request for additional information RERP-SW-RAl-1 describes corrections to the BFN EPU LAR, Attachment 42, Supplemental Environmental Report, Section 7.2.3, Impact on Discharge, and to Table 7.2-3, Summary of BFN Hydrothermal Impacts for Warm, Summer Meteorology. These corrections relate to the model prediction for the average annual number of days of CT operation at 120 percent original licensed thermal power. Table SW-3 Year CT CT Operation Derates (Hrs) Operation (Days) (Hrs) 2011 1889 81 U1=182.51 U2 = 99.4 I U3 = 63.5 2012 1940 84 0 2013 1207 52 0 2014 1865 85 0 2015 1438 65 U1 =O I U2 = 2.7 I U3 = 3.4 E-8 ATTACHMENT 2 Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Issued by the Alabama Department of Environmental Management, dated July 3, 2012 ADEM Alabama Depar1ment of Environmental Management PERMITTEE: FACILITY LOCATION: PERMIT NUMBER: RECEIVING WATERS: NATIONAL POLL UT ANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT 10835 SHAW ROAD ATHENS, AL 35611 AL0022080 DSN001, DSN005, DSN012, DSN013, DSN018, DSN019, DSN024: TENNESSEE RIVER In accordance witli. and su6ject to tli.e provisions of tli.e tf'edera[ 'Water CFo[[ution Contro[ }let, as amended, 33 V.S.C. §§ 1251-13 78 (tli.e tli.e }lfa6ama 'Water <Po[fution Contra[ }let, as amended, Coae of }lfa6ama 1975, §§ 22-22-1 to 22-22-14 (tli.e 'YlMC/l,, tli.e }lfa6ama 'Environmentaf :Management }let, as amended, Coae of }lfa6ama 1975, §§22-22}1-1 to 22-22}1-15, and rufes and regufations adopted tli.ereunder, and su6ject furtli.er to tli.e tenns and conditions set fortli. in tli.is pennit, tli.e <Pennittee is li.ere6y autli.orized to discli.arge into tli.e a6ove-named receiving waters. ISSUANCE DATE: JULY 03,2012 EFFECTIVE DATE: JULY 03,2012 EXPIRATION DATE: JULY 02,2017 Alabama Department of Environmental Management INDUSTRIAL SECTION NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) PERMIT TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS. CONDITIONS, AND REQUIREMENTS ..................................................................................................................... I A. DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS AND MONITORTNG REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................................................ I B. DISCHARGE MONITORING AND RECORD KEEPING REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................................................. !6 I Representative Sampling ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 16 2. Test Procedures ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... l 6 3. Recording of Results ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 16 4. Records Retention and Production ........................................................................................................................................................................... 16 5. Monitoring Equipment and Instrumentation ............................................................................................................................................................ 17 C. DISCllARGE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................................................................................................. 17 I Reporting of Monitoring Requirements ................................................................................................................................................................... I 7 2. Noncompliance Notification .................................................................................................................................................................................... 19 D. OTHER REPORTING AND NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................................................................... 19 I Anticipated Noncompliance .................................................................................................................................................................................... 19 2. Termination of Discharge ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 19 3. Updating Information .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 20 4. Duty to Provide Information ................................................................................................................................................ : ................................... 20 5. Cooling Water and Boiler Water Additives ............................................................................................................................................................. 20 6. Permit Issued Based On Estimated Characteristics .................................................................................................................................................. 20 E. SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 21 PART 11 OTHER REQUIREMENTS. RESPONSIBILITIES, AND DUTIES ............................................................................................................................. 22 A. OPERATIONAL AND MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................................................................ 22 I Facilities Operation and Maintenance ...................................................................................................................................................................... 22 2. 13est Management Practices ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 22 3. Spill Prevention, Control, and Managemcnt ............................................................................................................................................................ 22 a. OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 22 l Duty to Mitigate Adverse Impacts .......................................................................................................................................................................... 22 2. Right of Entry and Inspection ................................................................................................................................................................................. 22 C BYPASS AND UPSET .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 22 I. Bypass ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 22 2. llpset ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 23 D. DUTY TO COMPLY WITH PERMIT. RULES, AND STATUTES .................................................................................................................................. 23 I. Duty to Comply ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 23 2. Removed Substances ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 24 3. Loss or Failure of Treatment Facilities .................................................................................................................................................................... 24 4. Compliance with Statutes and Ruks ........................................................................................................................................................................ 24 E. PERMIT TRANSFER. MODIFICATION, SUSPENSION. REVOCATION. AND REISSUANCE ................................................................................... 24 I Dul} to Reapply or Notify of Intent to Cease Discharge ......................................................................................................................................... 24 2. Change in Discharge .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 24 3. Transfer of Pcrmit... ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 25 4. Permit Modification and Revocation ....................................................................................................................................................................... 25 5. Pennit Termination .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 26 6. Permit Suspension ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 26 7 Request for Permit Action Docs Not Stay Any Permit Rcquirement... .................................................................................................................... 26 F. COMPLIANCE WITH TOXIC POLLUTANT STANDARD OR PROHIBITION ............................................................................................................. 26 G. DISCHARGE OF WASTEWATER GENERATED BY OTHERS ..................................................................................................................................... 26 PART Ill OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 27 A. CIVIL AND CRIMINAL LIABILITY ................................................................................................................................................................................ 27 B. OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE LIABILITY ........................................................................................................................................................ 27 C. PROPERTY AND OTHER RIGHTS ................................................................................................................................................................................... 27 D. AVAILABILITY OF REPORTS .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 28 E. EXPIRATION OF PERMITS FOR NEW OR TNCREASED DISCHARGES ..................................................................................................................... 28 F. COMPLIANCE WITH WATER QUALITY STANDARDS ............................................................................................................................................... 28 G. GROUNDWATER ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 28 H. DEFINITIONS ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 28 I. SEVERABILITY .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 31 PART IV ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS, CONDITIONS, AND LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................. 32 ATTACHMENT: FORM 421 NON-COMPLIANCE NOTIFICATION FORM NPDES PERMIT NUMBER AL0022080 PARTI Pagel of37 PART I DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS, CONDITIONS, AND REQUIREMENTS A. DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting through the expiration date of this permit, the permittee is authorized to discharge from the following point source(s) outfall(s). described more fully in the permittee's application: DSNOOl I :Once-through cooling water from the Condenser Circulating Water (CCW). Raw Cooling Water (RCW), Turbine building station sump effluent, intake building sump eftluent, and Liquid Rad waste System via DSNOO I B through the diffuser outfall to the Tennessee River (Normal River Conditions -See DSNOO 12 for Cooling Anomaly Conditions ill). UJ Such discharge shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below: DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS MONITORING REQUIREMENTS 1/ EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTIC Temperature, Water Deg. Fahrenheit v Temperature, Water Deg. Fahrenheit 10/ Temperature, Water Deg. Fahrenheit pH '}! Temp DiffBetween Up/Down Stream Deg F {!/ Flow, In Conduit or Thru Treatment Plant Daily Maximum REPORT MGD Monthly Daily Daily Average Minimum Maximum REPORT MGD 6.0S.U. REPORTF 93 F '1J 8.5 s.u. REPORTF Daily Average REPORTF REPORTF 90 F §./ IOF Measurement Freguency 2/ Daily Daily Daily Weekly Daily Daily Sam11le Tyl!e Recorder Recorder Recorder Grab Recorder Pump Log Ji THE DISCHARGE SHALL HAVE NO SHEEN, AND THERE SHALL BE NO DISCHARGE OF VISIBLE OIL, FLOATING SOLIDS OR VISIBLE FOAM IN OTHER THAN TRACE AMOUNTS. Seasonal 11 Samples collected to comply with the monitoring requirements specified above shall be collected at the following location: At the nearest accessible location just prior to discharge and after final treatment. Unless otherwise specified, composite samples shall be time composite samples collected using automatic sampling equipment or a minimum of eight (8) equal volume grab samples collected over equal time intervals. Al! composite samples shall be collected for the total period of discharge not to exceed 24 hours. 2/ If only one sampling event occurs during a month. the sample result shall be reported on the discharge monitoring report as both the monthly average and daily maximum value for all parameters with a monthly average limitation. 31 Pump log verified by annual dye testing or diffuser head measurement. 41 The Ambient Upstream River Temperature (Deg F) shall be determined by an upstream monitor located in the main channel at about river mile 297.8. In the event of a failure of this monitor, the five-foot depth temperature at the monitor located at river mile 296.1 will serve as the measured ambient temperature. Measurements shall be every 15 minutes at 3, 5, and 7 foot depths and averaged to obtain a 5 foot depth measurement. The temperatures shall be averaged and reported on a 24-hour calendar day basis. 51 See Part IV.F. for downstream monitoring requirements.

NPDES PERMIT NUMBER AL0022080 PARTI Page2 of37 61 Temp Diff Between Up/Down Stream (Deg F) shall be determined by subtracting the ambient temperature values monitored from the downstream river temperature monitored 7/ The hourly average of the three downstream temperature monitors. See Part IV.F. 8/ When the 24-hour ambient average upstream temperature exceeds 90°F, the downstream temperature may equal but not exceed the upstream value. 91 The pH shall not be less than 6.0 s.u. nor greater than 8.5 s.u. unless ambient river conditions prevent compliance at that range. Upstream monitoring by the permittee within one hour of a non-complying pH value will serve to demonstrate that ambient river conditions are preventing compliance. I 0/ Effluent Temperature (Deg F). 11/ When weather or other events cause cooling of the Ambient Upstream River Temperature (Deg F) at a rate 0.5°F per day (based on a 6-hour trend) a cooling anomaly condition exists and the requirements ofDSN0012 shall apply for that 24 hour calendar day. 12/ When cooling water anomaly (see footnote 1 I/) conditions exist, NODI=9 shall be reported for all parameters associated with DSNOOl l. NPDES PERMIT NUMBER AL0022080 PART I Page 3 of37 During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting through the expiration date of this permit, the permittee is authorized to discharge from the following point source(s) outfall(s), described more fully in the permittee's application: DSNOOl2: Once-through cooling water from the Condenser Circulating Water (CCW), Raw Cooling Water (RCW), Turbine building station sump effluent, intake building sump effluent. and Liquid Rad waste System via DSNOO 1B through the diffuse (Cooling Anomaly ill Such discharge shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below: DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS MONITORING REQUIREMENTS 1/ EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTIC Temperature, Water Deg. Fahrenheit Temperature, Water Deg. Fahrenheit 10/ Temperature, Water Deg. Fahrenheit 'J!W pH,W Temp DiffBetween Up/Down Stream Deg 'JI Flow, In Conduit or Thru Treatment Plant Daily Maximum REPORT MGD Monthly Daily Daily Average Minimum Maximum REPORT MGD 6.0S.U. REPORTF 8.5 S.U. REPORTF Daily Average REPORTF REPORTF 90 F REPORTF Measurement Freguency 2/ Daily Daily Daily Weekly Daily Daily Saml!le Ty(!e Recorder Recorder Recorder Grab Recorder Pump Log'Jj THE DISCHARGE SHALL HA VE NO SHEEN, AND THERE SHALL BE NO DISCHARGE OF VISIBLE OIL, FLOATING SOLIDS OR VISIBLE FOAM IN OTHER THAN TRACE AMOUNTS. Seasonal 11 Samples collected to comply with the monitoring requirements specified above shall be collected at the following location: At the nearest accessible location just prior to discharge and after final treatment. Unless otherwise specified, composite samples shall be time composite samples collected using automatic sampling equipment or a minimum of eight (8) equal volume grab samples collected over equal time intervals. All composite samples shall be collected for the total period of discharge not to exceed 24 hours. 21 If only one sampling event occurs during a month, the sample result shall be reported on the discharge monitoring report as both the monthly average and daily maximum value for all parameters with a monthly average limitation. 31 Pump log verified by annual dye testing or diffuser head measurement. 41 The Ambient Upstream River Temperature (Deg F) shall be determined by an upstream monitor located in the main channel at about river mile 297.8. In the event of a failure of this monitor, the five-foot depth temperature at the monitor located at river mile 296. I will serve as the measured ambient temperature. Measurements shall be every 15 minutes at 3, 5, and 7 foot depths and averaged to obtain a 5 foot depth measurement. The temperatures shall be averaged and reported on a 24-hour calendar day basis. 51 When weather or other events cause cooling of the Ambient Upstream River Temperature (Deg F) at a rate of::::_ 0.5°F per day (based on a 6-hour trend) a cooling anomaly condition exists and the requirements of DSNOO 12 shall apply for that 24 hour calendar day. NPDES PERMIT NUMBER AL0022080 PART I Page 4 of37 6/ See Part IV.F. for downstream monitoring requirements. 71 Temp Diff Between Up/Down Stream (Deg F) shall* be determined by subtracting the ambient temperature values monitored in 'lf from the downstream river temperature monitored in 'j/. 81 The hourly average of the three downstream temperature monitors. See Part IV.F. 91 The pH shall not be less than 6.0 s.u. nor greater than 8.5 s.u. unless ambient river conditions prevent compliance at that range. Upstream monitoring by the permittee within one hour ofa non-complying pH value will serve to demonstrate that ambient river conditions are preventing compliance. IOI Effluent Temperature (Deg F). 11/ When cooling water anomaly (see footnote 5/) conditions do not exist, NODI=9 shall be reported for all parameters associated with DSN0012. NPDES PERMIT NUMBER AL0022080 PART I Page 5 of37 During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting through the expiration date of this permit, the permittee is authorized to discharge from the following point source(s) outfaJl(s), described more fully in the permittee's application: DSNOO IQ: Once-through cooling water from the Condenser Circulating Water (CCW), Raw Cooling Water (RCW), Turbine building station sump effluent, intake building sump effluent, and Liquid Rad waste System via DSNOO I 8 through the diffuser outfall to the Tennessee River. Such discharge shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below: DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS MONITORING REQUIREMENTS 1 / EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTIC Chlorine, Total Residual Monthly Average Daily Maximum Daily Minimum Monthly Average 0.034 mg/1 Daily Maximum 0.044 mg/I Measurement Frequency 2/ Quarterly Sample Type Grab THE DISCHARGE SHALL HA VE NO SHEEN, AND THERE SHALL BE NO DISCHARGE OF VISIBLE OIL, FLOATING SOLIDS OR VISIBLE FOAM IN OTHER THAN TRACE AMOUNTS. Seasonal I/ Samples collected to comply with the monitoring requirements specified above shall be collected at the following location: At the nearest accessible location just prior to discharge and after final treatment. Unless otherwise specified, composite samples shall be time composite samples collected using automatic sampling equipment or a minimum of eight (8) equal volume grab samples collected over equal time intervals. All composite samples shall be collected for the total period of discharge not to exceed 24 hours. 21 If only one sampling event occurs during a month, the sample result shall be reported on the discharge monitoring report as both the monthly average and daily maximum value for all parameters with a monthly average limitation. 31 Total residual chlorine (TRC) and free available chlorine (FAC) may not be discharged from any single generating unit for more than 2 hours per day unless the permittee demonstrates (with records retained on-site) to ADEM that discharge for more than 2 hours is required for macro invertebrate control. NPDES PERMIT NUMBER AL0022080 PART I Page 6 of37 During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting through the expiration date of this permit, the permittee is authorized to discharge from the following point source(s) outfall(s). described more fully in the permittee's application: DSNOOIY: Once-through cooling water from the Condenser Circulating Water (CCW), Raw Cooling Water (RCW). Turbine building station sump effluent, intake building sump effluent, and Liquid Radwaste System via DSNOO IB through the diffuser outfall to the Tennessee River. Such discharge shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below: EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTIC Toxicity, Ceriodaphnia Chronic JJ. Toxicity. Pimephales Chronic JJ. Monthly Average DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS Daily Daily Monthly Maximum Minimum Average 0 pass(O) /fail( I) 0 pass(O) /fail( I) Daily Maximum MONITORING REOUlREMENTS JI Measurement Frequency 2/ Annually Annually Sample Type 24-Hr Composite 24-Hr Composite Seasonal THE DISCHARGE SHALL HA VE NO SHEEN, AND THERE SHALL BE NO DISCHARGE OF VISIBLE OIL, FLOATING SOLIDS OR VISIBLE FOAM IN OTHER THAN TRACE AMOUNTS. I/ Samples collected to comply with the monitoring requirements specified above shall be collected at the following location: At the nearest accessible location just prior to discharge and after final treatment. Unless otherwise specified. composite samples shall be time composite samples collected using automatic sampling equipment or a minimum of eight (8) equal volume grab samples collected over equal time intervals. All composite samples shall be collected for the total period or discharge not to exceed 24 hours. 2/ If only one sampling event occurs during a month, the sample result shall be reported on the discharge monitoring report as both the monthly average and daily maximum value for all parameters with a monthly average limitation. 31 See Part lY.C for Effluent Toxicity Requirements. NPDES PERMIT NUMBER AL0022080 PARTI Page 7 of37 During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting through the expiration date of this permit, the permittee is authorized to discharge from the following point*source(s) oulfall(s). described more fully in the permittee's application: DSNOOS l: Residual Heat Removal Service Water (RHRSW) System Such discharge shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below: DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTIC Temperature, Water Deg. Fahrenheit pH Flow, In Conduit or Thru Treatment Plant Monthly Average REPORT MGD Daily Maximum Daily Minimum 6.0S.U. Monthly Average REPORTF Daily Maximum REPORTF 8.5 S.U. MONITORING REQUIREMENTS 1/ Measurement Frequency 2/ Bi-Weekly Bi-Weekly Bi-Weekly Sample Type Grab Grab Estimate Seasonal THE DISCHARGE SHALL HAVE NO SHEEN, AND THERE SHALL BE NO DISCHARGE OF VISIBLE OIL, FLOATING SOLIDS OR VISIBLE FOAM IN OTHER THAN TRACE AMOUNTS. 1/ Samples collected to comply with the monitoring requirements specified above shall be collected at the following location: At the nearest accessible location just prior to discharge and after final treatment. Unless otherwise specified, composite samples shall be time composite samples collected using automatic sampling equipment or a minimum of eight (8) equal volume grab samples collected over equal time intervals. All composite samples shall be collected for the total period of discharge not to exceed 24 hours. 2/ If only one sampling event occurs during a month, the sample result shall be reported on the discharge monitoring report as both the monthly average and daily maximum value for all parameters with a monthly average limitation. NPDES PERMIT NUMBER AL0022080 PART I Page 8 of37 During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting through the expiration date of this permit. the permittee is authorized to discharge from the following point source(s) outfall(s), described more fully in the permittee's application: DSNO I 3Y: Storm water from the toxicity testing laboratory parking lot. northeast corner of the Training Center's parking lot. storm drain at sedimentation pond. area south of the toxicity testing lab, DSN013A, DSNOI38, and DSNOl3C. Ji. Such discharge shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below: EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTIC pH DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS MQNIIORIISG REOillREMEISIS JL Daily Daily Monthly Daily Measurement Monthly Average Maximum Minimum Average REPORT Maximum Freguency 2/ Solids, Total Suspended Oil & Grease Flow, In Conduit or Thru Treatment Plant REPORT MGD S.U. REPORT Annually s.u. REPORT Annually mg/J 15.0 mg/J Annually Annually THE DISCHARGE SHALL HA VE NO SHEEN, AND THERE SHALL BE NO DISCHARGE OF VISIBLE OIL, FLOATING SOLIDS OR VISIBLE FOAM IN OTHER THAN TRACE AMOUNTS. Grab Grab Grab Estimate Seasonal ll Samples collected to comply with the monitoring requirements specified above shall be collected at the following location: At the nearest accessible location just prior to discharge and after final treatment. Unless otherwise specified, composite samples shall be time composite samples collected using automatic sampling equipment or a minimum of eight (8) equal volume grab samples collected over equal time intervals. All composite samples shall be collected for the total period of discharge not to exceed 24 hours. 2/ If only one sampling event occurs during a month, the sample result shall be reported on the discharge monitoring report as both the monthly average and daily maximum value for all parameters with a monthly average limitation. 31 See Part IV.A for Best Management Practices (BMP) Plan Requirements. 4/ See Part IV.B for Stormwater Measurement and Sampling Requirements. NPDES PERMIT NUMBER AL0022080 PART I Page 9 of37 During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting through the expiration date of this permit, the permittee is authorized to discharge from the following point source(s) outfall(s), described more fully in the permittee's application: DSN018Y: Stormwater from Materials and Procurement Complex parking lot. the firing range parking lot. the Facilities Maintenance area, the vehicle fuel dispensing area. and adjacent grass area. 'Ji. Such discharge shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below: DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS MONITORING REQUIREMENTS ll Daily Daily Month Iv Daily Measurement EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTIC pH Monthly Average Maximum Minimum Average REPORT Maximum Freguency 2/ Solids, Total Suspended Oil & Grease Benzene, Ethylbenzenetoulene, Xylene Combn Naphthalene Flow. In Conduit or Thru Treatment Plant REPORT MGD S.U. REPORT Annually S.U. REPORT Annually mg/I 15.0 mg/I Annually 15.47 ug/l Annually 600.0 ug/I Annually Annually THE DISCHARGE SHALL HAVE NO SHEEN, AND THERE SHALL BE NO DISCHARGE OF VISIBLE OIL, FLOATING SOLIDS OR VISIBLE FOAM IN OTHER THAN TRACE AMOUNTS. Grab Grab Grab Grab Grab Estimate Seasonal 1/ Samples collected to comply with the monitoring requirements specified above shall be collected at the following location: At the nearest accessible location just prior to discharge and after final treatment. Unless otherwise specified. composite samples shall be time composite samples collected using automatic sampling equipment or a minimum of eight (8) equal volume grab samples collected over equal time intervals. All composite samples shall be collected for the total period of discharge not to exceed 24 hours. 2/ If only one sampling event occurs during a month. the sample result shall be reported on the discharge monitoring report as both the monthly average and daily maximum value for all parameters with a monthly average limitation. 31 See Part IV.A for Best Management Practices (BMP) Plan Requirements. 4/ See Part IV.B for Stormwater Measurement and Sampling Requirements. NPDES PERMIT NUMBER AL0022080 PART I Page 10 of37 During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting through the expiration date of this permit, the permittee is authorized to discharge from the following point source(s) outfall(s). described more fully in the permittee's application: DSNO l 9Y: Storm water from the east side of plant which includes the Fire Training area. the Low Level Radwaste storage facility. the inert landfill. and the Hazardous Waste storage area. JL Such discharge shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below: DISCHARGE LJMITATIONS MONITORING REQUIREMENTS 1/ Daily Daily Monthly Measurement .E.EELIJ_ENI CHARACTERISTIC pH Monthly Average Maximum Minimum Average REPORT Daily Maximum REPORT S.U. Freguency 2/ Sam11le TYl!e Solids. Total Suspended Oil & Grease Flow, In Conduit or Thru Treatm.:nt Plant Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) REPORT MGD s.u. REPORT mg/I 15.0 mg/! REPORT mg/I Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually THE DISCHARGE SHALL HAVE NO SHEEN, AND THERE SHALL BE NO DISCHARGE OF VISIBLE OIL, FLOATING SOLIDS OR VISIBLE FOAM IN OTHER THAN TRACE AMOUNTS. Grab Grab Grab Estimate Grab Seasonal II Samples collected to comply with the rnonitoring requirements specified above shall be collect.:d at the following location: At the nearest accessible location just prior to discharge and after final treatment. Unless otherwise specified, composite samples shall be time composite samples eollected using automatic sampling equipment or a minimum of eight t8) equal volume grab samples collected over equal time intervals. All composite samples shall be colkcted for the total period of discharge not to exceed 24 hours. 21 If only one sampling event occurs during a month, the sample result shall be reported on the discharge monitoring report as both the monthly average and daily maximum value for all parameters with a monthly average limitation. 3/ See Part IV.A for Best Management Practices (BMP) Plan Requirements. 41 See Part IV.B for Stormwatcr Measurement and Sampling Requirements. NPDES PERMIT NUMBER AL0022080 PART I Page 11 of37 During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting through the expiration date of this permit, the permittee is authorized to discharge from the following point source(s) outfall(s), described more fully in the permittee's application: DSNOIBI: Liquid Radwaste System (Low Volume Waste Water). Such*discharge shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below: DISCHARGE I.IMITAIIOISS MQJSIIORING REOllIREMENIS 1L Daily Daily Monthtr Daily Measurement EFFLUENT CHARACIERISIIC pH Monthly Average Maximum Minimum Average Maximum Freguencl'. 2/ Sam(!le T}'.(!e Solids, Total Suspended Oil & Grease Flow, In Conduit or Thru Treatment Plant REPORT MGD 6.0 s.u. 30.0 mg/I 15.0mg/l 9.0S.U. Monthly 100.0 mg/I Monthly 20.0 mg/I Monthly Monthly THE DISCHARGE SHALL HAVE NO SHEEN, AND THERE SHALL BE NO DISCHARGE OF VISIBLE OIL, FLOATING SOLIDS OR VISIBLE FOAM IN OTHER THAN TRACE AMOUNTS. Grab Grab Grab Estimate Seasonal I/ Samples collected to comply with the monitoring requirements specified above shall be collected at the following location: At the nearest accessible location just prior to discharge and after final treatment. Unless otherwise specified, composite samples shall be time composite samples collected using automatic sampling equipment or a minimum of eight (8) equal volume grab samples collected over equal time intervals. All composite samples shall be collected for the total period of discharge not to exceed 24 hours. 2/ If only one sampling event occurs during a month, the sample result shall be reported on the discharge monitoring report as both the monthly average and daily maximum value for all parameters with a monthly average limitation. NPDES PERMIT NUMBER AL0022080 PARTI Page 12 of37 During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting through the expiration date of this permit, the permittee is authorized to discharge from the following point source(s) outfall(s). described more fully in the permittee's application: DSN024Y: Storm water from the northeast and east perimeters which include the adjacent farmland, vehicle service shop, and mechanic shop. 'Ji. 11. Such discharge shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below: DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS MONITORING REOI!IREMENIS IL Daily Daily Monthly Daily Measurement EFFUJENT CHARACTERISTIC pH Monthly Average Maximum Minimum Average REPORT Maximum Freguency 2/ SameleTyee Solids, Total Suspended Oil & Grease Flow, In Conduit or Thru Treatment Plant REPORT MGD S.U. REPORT Annually S.U. REPORT Annually mg/I 15.0 mg/J Annually Annually THE DISCHARGE SHALL HAVE NO SHEEN, AND THERE SHALL BENO DISCHARGE OF VISIBLE OIL, FLOATING SOLIDS OR VISIBLE FOAM IN OTHER THAN TRACE AMOUNTS. Grab Grab Grab Estimate Seasonal I/ Samples collected to comply with the monitoring requirements specified above shall be collected at the following location: Al the nearest accessible location just prior to discharge and after final treatment. Unless otherwise specified, composite samples shal I be time composite samples collected using automatic sampling equipment or a minimum of eight (8) equal volume grab samples collected over equal time intervals. All composite samples shall be collected for the total period of discharge not to exceed 24 hours. 2/ If only one sampling event occurs during a month, the sample result shall be reported on the discharge monitoring report as both the monthly average and daily maximum value for all parameters with a monthly average limitation. 31 See Part IV.A for Best Management Practices (BMP) Plan Requirements. 41 See Part IV.B for Stormwater Measurement and Sampling Requirements. NPDES PERMIT NUMBER AL0022080 PART I Page 13 of37 During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting through the expiration date of this permit. the permittee is authorized to discharge from the following point source(s) outfall(s), described more fully in the permittee's application:

• DSN l 3A Y: Storm water runoff from the switchyard drainage ditch (including the 4 kV operator the main plant transformer yard, the switchyard, the east parking lot, and the grassland north of the east parking lot. Ji. 1f. Such discharge shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below: EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTIC pH Solids, Total Suspended Oil & Grease Flow, In Conduit or Thru Treatment Plant Monthly Average DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS Daily Daily Monthly Maximum Minimum Average REPORT REPORT MGD s.u. Daily Maximum REPORT s.u. REPORT mg/I 15.0 mg/I MONITORING REQUIREMENTS 11 Measurement Frequency 2/ Annually Annually Annually Annually Sample Type Grab Grab Grab Estimate Seasonal THE DISCHARGE SHALL HA VE NO SHEEN, AND THERE SHALL BE NO DISCHARGE OF VISIBLE OIL, FLOATING SOLIDS OR VISIBLE FOAM IN OTHER THAN TRACE AMOUNTS. I I Samples collected to comply with the monitoring requirements specified above shall be collected at the following location: At the nearest accessible location just prior to discharge and after final treatment. Unless otherwise specified, composite samples shall be time composite samples collected using automatic sampling equipment or a minimum of eight (8) equal volume grab samples collected over equal time intervals. All composite samples shall be collected for the total period of discharge not to exceed 24 hours. 2/ If only one sampling event occurs during a month, the sample result shall be reported on the discharge monitoring report as both the monthly average and daily maximum value for all parameters with a monthly average limitation. 3/ See Part IV .A for Best Management Practices (BMP) Plan Requirements. 41 See Part IV .B for Storm water Measurement and Sampling Requirements.

NPDES PERMIT NUMBER AL0022080 PART I Page 14 of37 During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting through the expiration date of this permit. the permittee is authorized to discharge from the following point source(s) outfall(s). described more fully in the permittee's application: DSNIJBI: Sedimentation pond discharge. Ji. !!l Such discharge shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below: DISCHARGE I,IMIIAIIQNS MQNIIQRllSG REQIJIREMEISIS lL EFFLUENT Monthll'. Daill'. Daill'. Monthll'. Daill'. Measurement CHARACIERISTIC Average Maximum Minimum Average Maximum Freg uencl'. 2/ Tl'.l!e pH 6.0 S.U. 9.0S.U. Once per batch Grab Solids, Total Suspended 30.0 mg/I 100.0 mg/I Once per batch Grab Oil & Grease 15.0 mg/I 20.0 mg/! Once per batch Grab Flow, In Conduit or Thru Treatment REPORT REPORT Once per batch Measured Plant MGD MGD THE DISCHARGE SHALL HAVE NO SHEEN, AND THERE SHALL BE NO DISCHARGE OF VISIBLE OIL, FLOATING SOLIDS OR VISIBLE FOAM IN OTHER THAN TRACE AMOUNTS. Seasonal II Samples collected to comply with the monitoring requirements specified above shall be collected at the following location: At the nearest accessible location just prior to discharge and after final treatment. Unless otherwise specified, composite samples shall be time composite samples collected using autom.atic sampling equipment or a minimum.of eight (8) equal volume grab samples collected over equal time intervals. All composite samples shall be collected for the total period of discharge not to exceed 24 hours. 21 If only one sampling event occurs during a month, the sample result shall be reported on the discharge monitoring report as both the monthly average and daily maximum value for all parameters with a monthly average limitation. 31 See Part IV.A for Best Management Practices (BMP) Plan Requirements. 41 See Part IV.8 for Stormwater Measurement and Sampling Requirements. NPDES PERMIT NUMBER AL0022080 PART I Page 15 of37 During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting through the expiration date of this permit, the permittee is authorized to discharge from the following point source(s) outfall(s), described more fully in the permittee's application: DSNl3Cl:Treated domestic wastewater, medical lab photo developing waste, blowdown from the Training Center's chiller system, flush water from the stand-by liquid control system, flush water from cooler/air compressor cleaning, filtered waste from insulator showers used by personnel involved in the periodic asbestos stripping and handling operations, and rainwater. Such discharge shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below: DISCHARGE LIMITAIIQNS MQNIIQRING REQUIREMENTS IL EFFLl!ENT CHARACTERISTIC BOD, 5-Day (20 Deg. C) pH Solids, Total Suspended Flow, In Conduit or Thru Treatment Plant Monthly Average REPORT MGD Daily Daily Monthly Maximum Minimum Average REPORT MGD 6.0S.U. 30.0 mg/I 90.0 mg/I Daily Measurement Maximum Freguency 2/ Samule Tyue 45.0 mg/! Bi-Weekly Grab 9.0S.U. Bi-Weekly Grab 135.0 mg/! Bi-Weekly Grab Bi-Weekly Instantaneous THE DISCHARGE SHALL HA VE NO SHEEN, AND THERE SHALL BE NO DISCHARGE OF VISIBLE OIL, FLOATING SOLIDS OR VISIBLE FOAM IN OTHER THAN TRACE AMOUNTS. Seasonal I I Samples collected to comply with the monitoring requirements specified above sh al I be collected at the following location: At the nearest accessible location just prior to discharge and after final treatment. Unless otherwise specified, composite samples shall be time composite samples collected using automatic sampling equipment or a minimum of eight (8) equal volume grab samples collected over equal time intervals. All composite samples shall be collected for the total period of discharge not to exceed 24 hours. 2/ If only one sampling event occurs during a month, the sample result shall be reported on the discharge monitoring report as both the monthly average and daily maximum value for all parameters with a monthly average limitation. 3/ See Part IV.A for Best Management Practices (BMP) Plan Requirements. 41 *Sampling location for BOD, TSS, and pH is at the end ofDSNl3AY and samples must be taken during dry weather with no storm water runoff.

8. DISCHARGE MONITORING AND RECORD KEEPING REQUIREMENTS I. Representative Sampling PART I Page 16 of37 Samples and measurements taken as required herein shall be representative of the volume and nature of the monitored discharge and shall be in accordance with the provisions of this permit. 2. Test Procedures For the purpose of reporting and compliance, permittees shall use one of the following procedures: a. For parameters with an. EPA established Minimum Level (ML). report the measured value if the analytical result is at or above the ML and report "O" for values below the ML. Test procedures for the analysis of pollutants shall conform to 40 CFR Part 136 and guidelines published pursuant to Section 304(h) of the FWPCA, 33 U.S.C. Section 1314(h). If more than one method for analysis of a substance is approved for use, a method having a minimum level lower than the permit limit shall be used. If the minimum level of all methods is higher than the permit limit, the method having the lowest minimum level shall be used and a report of less than the minimum level shall be reported as zero and will constitute compliance; however, should EPA approve a method with a lower minimum level during the term of this permit the permittee shall use the newly approved method. b. For pollutants parameters without an established ML, an interim ML may be utilized. The interim ML shall be calculated as 3.18 times the Method Detection Level (MDL) calculated pursuant to 40 CFR Part 136, Appendix B. Permittees may develop an effluent matrix-specific ML, where an effluent matrix prevents attainment of the established ML. However, a matrix specific ML shall be based upon proper laboratory method and technique. Matrix-specific MLs must be approved by the Department. and may be developed by the permittee during permit issuance. reissuance. modification, or during compliance schedule. In either case the measured value should be reported ifthe analytical result is at or above the ML and --o** reported for values below the ML. c. For parameters without an EPA established ML. interim ML, or matrix-specific ML. a report of less than the detection limit shall constitute compliance if the detection limit of all analytical methods is higher than the permit limit using the most sensitive EPA approved method. For the purpose of calculating a monthly average, "O" shall be used for values . reported less than the detection limit. The Minimum Level utilized for procedures A and B above shall be reported on the permittee's DMR. When an EPA approved test procedure for analysis ofa pollutant does not exist, the Director shall approve the procedure to be used. 3. Recording of Results For each measurement or sample taken pursuant to the requirements of this permit. the permittee shall record the following information: a. The facility name and location. point source number, date, time and exact place of sampling; b. The name(s) ofperson(s) who obtained the samples or measurements; c. The dates and times the analyses were performed: d. The name(s) of the person(s) who performed the analyses: e. The analytical techniques or methods used, including source of method and method number: and f. The results of all required analyses. 4. Records Retention and Production The permittee shall retain records of all monitoring information, including all calibration and maintenance records and all original strip chart recordings for continuous monitoring instrumentation, copies of all reports required by the permit, and records of all data used lo complete the above reports or the application for this permit, for a period of at least three years from the date of the sample measurement, report or application. This period may be extended by request of the Director at any time. If litigation or other enforcement action, under the A WPCA and/or the FWPCA, is ongoing which involves any of the above records, the records shall be kept until the litigation is resolved. Upon the written request of the Director or his designee, the permittee shall provide the Director with a copy of any record required to be retained by this paragraph. Copies of these records shall not be submitted unless requested.

PART I Page 17 of37 All records required to be kept for a period of three years shall be kept at the permitted facility or an alternate location approved by the Department in writing and shall be available for inspection. 5. Monitoring Equipment and Instrumentation All equipment and instrumentation used to determine compliance with the requirements of this permit shall be installed, maintained, and calibrated in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions or. in the absence of manufacturer's instructions. in accordance with accepted practices. The permittee shall develop and maintain quality assurance procedures to ensure proper operation and maintenance of all equipment and instrumentation. The quality assurance procedures shall include the proper use. maintenance, and installation, when appropriate, of monitoring equipment at the plant site. C. DISCHARGE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS l. Reporting of Monitoring Requirements a. The permittee_shall conduct the required monitoring in accorda11ce with the following schedule: MONITORING REQUIRED MORE FREQUENTLY THAN MONTHLY AND MONTHLY shall be conducted during the first full month following the effective date of coverage under this permit and every month thereafter. QUARTERLY MONITORING shall be conducted at least once during each calendar quarter. Calendar quarters are the periods of January through March, April through June. July through September, and October through December. The permittee shall conduct the quarterly monitoring during the first coqiplete calendar quarter following the effective date of this permit and is then required to monitor once during each quarter thereafter. Quarterly monitoring may be done anytime during the quarter, unless restricted elsewhere in this permit, but it should be submitted with the last DMR due for the quarter, i.e. (March. June, September and December DMRs). SEMIANNUAL MONITORING shall be conducted at least once during the period of January through June and at least once during the period of July through December. The permittee shall conduct the semiannual monitoring during the first complete calendar semiannual period following the effective date of this permit and is then required to monitor once during each.semiannual period thereafter. Semiannual monitoring may be done anytime during the semiannual period, unless restricted elsewhere in this permit, but it should be submitted with the last DMR due for the month of the semiannual period, i.e. (June and December DMRs). ANNUAL MONITORING shall be conducted at least once during the period of January through December. The permittee shall conduct the annual monitoring during the first complete calendar annual period following the effective date of this permit and is then required to monitor once during each annual period thereafter. Annual monitoring may be done anytime during the year. unless restricted elsewhere in this permit. but it should be submitted with the *December DMR. b. The permittee shall submit discharge monitoring reports (DMRs) on the forms provided by the Department and in accordance with the following schedule: REPORTS OF MORE FREQUENTLY THAN MONTHLY AND MONTHLY TESTING shall be submitted on a monthly basis. The first report is due on the 28th day of August, 2012. The reports shall be submitted so that they are received by the Department no later than the 28th day of the month following the reporting period. REPORTS OF QUARTERLY TESTrNG shall be submitted on a quarterly basis. The first report is due on the 28th day of 28th day of October, 2012. The reports shall be submitted so that they are received by the Department no later than the 28th day of the month following the reporting period. REPORTS OF SEMIANNUAL TESTING shall be submitted on a semiannual basis. The reports are due on the 28th day of JANUARY and the 28th day of JULY. The reports shall be submitted so that they are received by the Department no later than the 28th day of the month following the reporting period. REPORTS OF ANNUAL TESTING shall be submitted on an annual basis. The first report is due on the 28th day of JANUARY. The reports shall be submitted so that they are received by the Department no later than the 28th day of the month following the reporting period. c. The Department is utilizing a web-based electronic environmental (E2) reporting system for submittal of DMRs. The E2 DMR system allows ADEM to electronically validate, acknowledge receipt, and upload data to the state's central wastewater database. This improves the accuracy of reported compliance data and reduces costs to both the regulated community and ADEM. If the permittee is not already participating in the e-DMR system, within 180 days of coverage under this permit, permittee must apply for participation in the e-DMR system unless the facility submits in writing valid justificatiQn as to why they cannot participate and the Department approves in writing utilization of hard copy DMR submittals. To participate in this program, the Permittee Participation Package may be downloaded online at httos://e2.adem.alabama.gov/npdes. If the electronic environmental (E2) reporting system is down (i.e. electronic submittal of DMR data is unable to be completed due to technical problems originating with the PART I Page 18 of37 Department's system: this could include entry/submittal issues with an entire set of DMRs or individual parameters). permittee is not relieved of their obligation to submit DMR data to the Department by the required submittal date. However, if the E2 system is down on the zgth day of the month or is down for an extended period f time as determined by the Department when a DMR is required to be submitted, the facility may submit the data in an alternate manner and format acceptable to the Department. Preapproved alternate acceptable methods include faxing, e-mailing, mailing, or hand-delivery of data such that they are received by the required reporting date. Within five calendar days of the E2 system resuming operation, the permittee shall enter the data into the E2 reporting system, unless an alternate timeframe is approved by the Department. An attachment should be included with the E2 DMR submittal verifying the original submittal date (date of the fax, copy of dated e-mail. or hand-delivery stamped date). If a permittee is allowed to submit via the US Postal Service, the DMR must be legible and bear an original signature. Photo and electronic copies of the signature are not acceptable and shall not satisfy the reporting requirements of this permit. If the permittee, using approved analytical methods as specified in Provision I.B.2 monitors any discharge from a point source for a limited substance identified in Provision I.A of this permit more frequently than required by this permit, the results of such monitoring shall be included in the calculation and reporting of values on the DMR form and the increased frequency shall be indicated on the DMR form. In the event no discharge from a point source identified in Provision I.A of this permit and described more fully in the permittee's application occurs during a monitoring period. the permittee shall report "No Discharge" for such period on the appropriate DMR form. d. All reports and forms required to be submitted by this permit, the A WPCA and the Department's Rules and Regulations. shall be electronically signed (or, if allowed by the Department, traditionally signed) by a "responsible official" of the permittee as defined in ADEM Administrative Code Rule 335-6-6-.09 or a "duly authorized representative" of such official as defined in ADEM Administrative Code Rule 335-6-6-.09 and shall bear the following certification: "/ certify. under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible/or gathering information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment/or knowing violations." e. The permittee may certify in writing that a discharge will not occur for an extended period of time and after such certification shall not be required to submit monitoring reports. Written notification of a planned resumption of discharge shall be submitted at least 30 days prior to resumption of the discharge. If an unplanned resumption of discharge occurs. written notification shall be submitted within 7 days of the resumption. In any case. all discharges shall comply with all provisions of this permit. f. All Discharge Monitoring Report forms required to be submitted by this permit, the A WPCA, and the Department's Rules shall be addressed to: Alabama Department of Environmental Management Permits and Services Division Environmental Data Section Post Office Box 301463 Montgomery, Alabama 36130-1463 Certified and Registered Mail containing Discharge Monitoring Reports shall be addressed to: Alabama Department of Environmental Management Permits and Services Division Environmental Data Section 1400 Coliseum Boulevard Montgomery, Alabama 36110-2059 g. All other correspondence and reports required to be submitted by this permit, the A WPCA, and the Department's Rules shall be addressed to: Alabama Department of Environmental Management Water Division Post Office Box 301463 Montgomery, Alabama 36130-1463 Certified and Registered Mail shall be addressed to: Alabama Department of Environmental Management Water Division 1400 Coliseum Boulevard Montgomery, Alabama 36110-2059 PARTI Page 19 of37 h. If this permit is a reissuance. then the permittee shall continue to submit DMRs in accordance with the requirements of their previous permit until such time as DMRs are due as discussed in Part LC.Lb. above. 2. Noncompliance Notification a. 24-Hour Noncompliance Reporting The permittee shall report to the Director, within 24-hours of becoming aware of the noncompliance. any noncompliance which may endanger health or the environment. This shall include but is not limited to the following circumstances: (I) does not comply with any daily minimum or maximum discharge limitation for an effluent characteristic specified in Provision I. A. of this permit which is denoted by an "(X)"; (2) threatens human health or welfare, fish or aquatic life, or water quality standards; (3) does not comply with an applicable toxic pollutant effluent standard or prohibition established under Section 307(a) of the FWPCA, 33 U.S.C. Section 1317(a); ( 4) contains a quantity of a hazardous substance which has been determined may be harmful to public health or welfare under Section 31 l(b)(4) of the FWPCA. 33 U.S.C. Section 1321(b)(4); (5) exceeds any discharge limitation for an effluent characteristic as a result of an unanticipated bypass or upset: and (6) is an unpermitted direct or indirect discharge of a pollutant to a water of the state (unpermitted discharges properly reported to the Department under any other requirement are not required to be reported under this provision). The permittee shall orally report the occurrence and circumstances of such discharge to the Director within 24-hours after the permittee becomes aware of the occurrence of such discharge. In addition to the oral report. the permittee shall submit to the Director or Designee a written report as provided in Part l.C.2.c no later than five (5) days after becoming aware of the occurrence of such discharge. b. If for any reason, the permittee's discharge does not comply with any limitation of this permit, the permittee shall submit to the Director or Designee a written report as provided in Part l.C.2.c below, such report shall be submitted with the m:xt Discharge Monitoring Report required to be submitted by Part LC. I of this permit after becoming aware of the occurrence of such noncompliance. c. Any written report'required to be submitted to the Director or Designee by Part I.C.2 a. orb. shall be submitted using a copy of the Noncompliance Notification Form provided with this permit and shall include the following information: (I) A description of the discharge and cause of noncompliance: (2) The period of noncompliance, including exact dates and times or, if not corrected, the anticipated time the noncompliance is expected to continue: and (3) A description of the steps taken and/or being taken to reduce or eliminate the noncomplying discharge and to prevent its recurrence. D. OTHER REPORTING AND NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS I. Anticipated Noncompliance The permittee shall give the Director written advance notice of any planned changes or other circumstances regarding a facility which may result in noncompliance with permit requirements. 2. Termination of Discharge The permittee shall notify the Director, in writing, when all discharges from any point source(s) identified in Provision I. A. of this permit have permanently ceased. This notification shall serve as sufficient cause for instituting procedures for modification or termination of the permit.

3. Updating Information PART I Page20 of37 a. The permittee shall inform the Director of any change in the pennittee's mailing address, telephone number or in the permittee's designation of a facility contact or office having the authority and responsibility to prevent and abate violations of the AWPCA, the Department's Rules, and the terms and conditions of this pennit, in writing, no later than ten (10) days after such change. Upon request of the Director or his designee, the permittee shall furnish the Director with an update of any information provided in the permit application. b. If the permittee becomes aware that it failed to submit any relevant facts in a pennit application, or submitted incorrect information in a permit application or in any report to the Director, it shall promptly submit such facts or information with a written explanation for the mistake and/or omission. 4. Duty to Provide Information The permittee shall furnish to the Director, within a reasonable time, any information which the Director or his designee may request to determine whether cause exists for modifying, revoking and re-issuing, suspending, or tenninating this permit, in whole or in part, or to determine compliance with this permit. 5. Cooling Water and Boiler Water Additives a. The permittee shall notify the Director in writing not later than thirty (30) days prior to instituting the use of any biocide corrosion inhibitor or chemical additive in a cooling or boiler system, not identified in the application for this permit. from which discharge is allowed by this permit. Notification is not required for additives that do not contain a heavy metal(s) as an active ingredient and that pass through a wastewater treatment system prior to discharge nor is notification required for additives that should not reasonably be expected to cause the cooling water or boiler water to exhibit toxicity as determined by analysis of manufacturer's data or testing by the permittee. Such notification shall include: (I) name and general composition ofbiocide or chemical; (2) 96-hour median tolerance limit data for organisms representative of the biota of the waterway into which the discharge will ultimately reach: (2) quantities to be used; (3) frequencies of use; (4) proposed discharge concentrations; and (6) EPA registration number, if applicable. b. The use of a biocide or additive containing tributyl tin, tributyl tin oxide, zinc, chromium or related compounds in cooling or boiler system(s), from which a discharge regulated by this permit occurs. is prohibited except as exempted below. The use of a biocide or additive containing zinc, chromium or related compounds may be used in special circumstances if (I) the permit contains limits for these substances, or (2) the applicant demonstrates during the application process that the use of zinc, chromium or related compounds as a biocide or additive will not pose a reasonable potential to violate the applicable State water quality standards for these substances. The use of any additive, not identified in this pennit or in the application for this pennit or not exempted from notification under this permit is prohibited, prior to a determination by the Department that permit modification to control discharge of the additive is not required or prior to issuance ofa permit modifica.tion controlling discharge of the additive. 6. Permit Issued Based On Estimated Characteristics a. If this pennit was issued based on estimates of the characteristics of a process discharge reported on an EPA NPOES Application Form 20 (EPA Fonn 3510-20), the pennittee shall complete and submit an EPA NPOES Application Form 2C (EPA Form 3510-2C) no later than two years after the date that discharge begins. Sampling required for completion of the Form 2C shall occur when a discharge(s) from the process(s) causing the new or increased discharge is occurring. If this permit was issued based on estimates concerning the composition of a storm water discharge(s), the permittee shall perform the sampling required by EPA NPOES Application Form 2F (EPA Form 3510-2F) no later than one year after the industrial activity generating the stormwater discharge has been fully initiated. b. This permit shall be reopened if required to address any new information resulting from the completion and submittal of the Form 2C and or 2F.

E. SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE PART I Page 21 of37 I. The permittee shall achieve compliance with the discharge limitations specified in Provision I. A. in accordance with the following schedule: COMPLIANCE SHALL BE ATTAINED ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS PERMIT 2. No later than 14 calendar days following a date identified in the above schedule of compliance, the permittee shall submit either a report of progress or, in the case of specific actions being required by identified dates, a written notice of compliance or noncompliance. In the latter case, the notice shall include the cause of noncompliance, any remedial actions taken, and the probability of meeting the next scheduled requirement. PART II OTHER REQUIREMENTS, RESPONSIBILITIES, AND DUTIES A. OPERATIONAL AND MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS I. Facilities Operation and Maintenance PART II Page 22 of37 The permittee shall at all times properly operate and maiqtain all facilities and systems of treatment and control (and related appurtenances) which are installed or used by the permittee to achieve compliance with the conditions of the permit. Proper operation and maintenance includes effective performance, adequate funding, adequate operator staffing and training, and adequate laboratory and process controls, including appropriate quality assurance procedures. This provision requires the operation of backup or auxiliary facilities only when necessary to achieve compliance with the conditions of the pem1it. 2. Best Management Practices a. Dilution water shall not be added to achieve compliance with discharge limitations except when the Director or his designee has granted prior written authorization for dilution to meet water quality requirements. b. The permittee shall prepare, implement. and maintain a Spill Prevention. Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan in accordance with 40 C.F.R. Section 112 if required thereby. c. The permittee shall prepare, submit for approval and implement a Best Management Practices (BMPl Plan for containment of any or all process liquids or solids, in a manner such that these materials do not present a significant potential for discharge. if so required by the Director or his designee. When submitted and approved, the BMP Plan shall become a part of this permit and all requirements of the BMP Plan shall become requirements of this permit. 3. Spill Prevention. Control. and Management The permittee shall provide spill prevention, control. and/or management sufficient to prevent any spills of pollutants from entering a water of the state or a publicly or privately owned treatment works. Any containment system used to implement this requirement shall be constructed of materials compatible with the substance(s) contained and which shall prevent the contamination of groundwater and such containment system shall be capable of retaining a volume equal to 110 percent of the capacity of the largest tank for which containment is provided. B. OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES I. Duty to Mitigate Adverse Impacts The permittee shall promptly take all reasonable steps lo mitigate and minimize or prevent any adverse impact on human health or the environment resulting from noncompliance with any discharge limitation specified in Provision L A. of this permit, including such accelerated or additional monitoring of the discharge and/or the receiving waterbody as necessary to determine the nature and impact of the noncomplying discharge. 2. Right of Entry and Inspection The permittee shall allow the Director, or an authorized representative, upon the presentation of proper credentials and other documents as may be required by [aw to: a. enter upon the permittee's premises where a regulated facility or activity or point source is located or conducted. or where records must be kept under the conditions of the permit; b. have access to and copy, at reasonable times, any records that must be kept under the conditions of the permit; c. inspect any facilities, equipment (including monitoring and control equipment), practices, or operations regulated or required under the permit; and d. sample or monitor. for the purposes of assuring permit compliance or as otherwise authorized by the A WPCA, any substances or parameters at any location. C. BYPASS AND UPSET I. Bypass a. Any bypass is prohibited except as provided in b. and c. below: PART II Page 23 of37 b. A bypass is not prohibited if: (I) It does not cause any discharge limitation specified in Provision I. A. of this permit to be exceeded: (2) It enters the same receiving stream as the permitted outfall; and (3) It is necessary fo,r essential maintenance of a treatment or control facility or system to assure efficient operation of such facility or system. c. A bypass is not prohibited and need not meet the discharge limitations specified in Provision I. A. of this permit if: (I) It is unavoidable to prevent loss of life. personal injury, or severe property damage; (2) There are no feasible alternatives to the bypass, such as the use of auxiliary treatment facilities, retention of untreated wastes, or maintenance during normal periods of equipment downtime (this condition is not satisfied if adequate back-up equipment should have been installed in the exercise of reasonable engineering judgment to prevent a bypass which occurred during normal periods of equipment downtime or preventive maintenance); and (3) The permittee submits a written request for authorization to bypass to the Director at least ten ( l 0) days prior to the anticipated bypass (if possible). the permittee is granted such authorization, and the permittee complies with any conditions imposed by the Director to minimize any adverse impact on human health or the environment resulting from the bypass. d. The permittee has the burden of establishing that each of the conditions of Provision Il.C. l .b. or c. have been met to qualify for an exception to the general prohibition against bypassing contained in a. and an exemption, where applicable. from the discharge limitations specified in Provision I. A. of this permit. 2. Upset a. A discharge which results from an upset need not meet the discharge limitations specified in Provision I. A. of this permit if: (I) No later than 24-hours after becoming aware of the occurrence of upset, the permittee orally n:ports the occurrence and circumstances of the upset to the Director or his designee: and (2) No later than five (S) days after becoming aware of the occurrence of the upset, the permittee furnishes the Director with evidence, including properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs. or other relevant evidence, demonstrating that (i) an upset occurred; (ii) the permittee can identify the specific cause(s) of the upset; (iii) the permittee's facility was being properly operated at the time of the upset; and (iv) the permittee promptly took all reasonable steps to minimize any adverse impact on human health or the environment resulting from the upset. b. The permittee has the burden of establishing that each of the conditions of Provision II. C.2.a. of this permit have been met to qualify for an exemption from the discharge limitations specified in Provision I.A. of this permit. D. DUTY TO COMPLY WITH PERMIT, RULES, AND STATUTES I. Duty to Comply a. The permittee must comply with all conditions of this permit. Any permit noncompliance constitutes a violation of the A WPCA and the FWPCA and is grounds for enforcement action, for permit termination, revocation and reissuance, suspension, modification; or denial of a permit renewal application. b. The necessity to halt or reduce production or other activities in order to maintain compliance with the conditions of the permit shall not be a defense for a permittee in an enforcement action. c. The discharge of a pollutant from a source not specifically identified in the permit application for this permit and not specifically included in the description o_f an outfall in this permit is not authorized and shall constitute noncompliance with this permit. d. The permittee shall take all reasonable steps, including cessation of production or other activities, to minimize or prevent any violation of this permit or to minimize or prevent any adverse impact of any permit violation. e. Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude and negate the permittee's responsibility or liability to apply for, obtain, or comply with other ADEM, Federal, State, or Local Government permits, certifications, licenses, or other approvals.

2. Removed Substances PART II Page 24 of37 Solids, sludges. filter backwash, or any other pollutant or other waste removed in the course of treatment or control of wastewaters shall be disposed of in a manner that complies with all applicable Department Rules. 3. Loss or Failure ofTreatment Facilities Upon the loss or failure of any treatment facilities, including but not limited to the loss or failure of the primary source of power of the treatment facility, the permittee shall, where necessary to maintain compliance with the discharge limitations specified in Provision I. A. of this permit, or any other terms or conditions of this permit, cease, reduce. or otherwise control production and/or all discharges until treatment is restored. 1 f control of discharge during loss or failure of the primary source of power is to be accomplished by means of alternate power sources, standby generators, or retention of inadequately treated effluent. the permittee must furnish to the Director within six months a certification that such control mechanisms have been installed. 4. Compliance with Statutes and Rules a. This permit has been issued under ADEM Administrative Code, Chapter 335-6-6. All provisions of this chapter, that are applicable to this permit, are hereby made a part of this permit. A copy of this chapter may be obtained for a small charge from the Office of General Counsel. Alabama Department of Environmental Management, 1400 Coliseum Blvd .. Montgomery, AL 36130. b. This permit does not authorize the noncompliance with or violation of any Laws of the State of Alabama or the United States of America or any regulations or rules implementing such laws. FWPCA. 33 U.S.C. Section 1319. and Code of Alabama 1975, Section 22-22-14. E. PERMIT TRANSFER, MODIFICATION, SUSPENSION, REVOCATION, AND REISSUANCE I. Duty to Reapply or Notify oflntent to Cease Discharge a. If the permittee intends to continue to discharge beyond the expiration date of this permit. the permittee shall file a complete permit application for reissuance of this permit at least I 80 days prior to its expiration. If the permittee does not intend to continue discharge beyond the expiration of this permit, the permittee shall submit written notification of this intent which shall be signed by an individual meeting the signatory requirements for a permit application as set forth in ADEM Administrative Code Rule 335-6-6-.09. b. Failure of the permittee to apply for reissuance at least 180 days prior to permit expiration will void the automatic continuation of the expiring permit provided by ADEM Administrative Code Rule 335-6-6-.06 and should the permit not be reissued for any reason any discharge after expiration of this permit will be an unpermilted discharge. 2. Change in Discharge a. The permittee shall apply for a permit modification at least 180 days in advance of any facility expansion, production increase, process change, or other action that could result in the discharge of additional pollutants or increase the quantity of a discharged pollutant such that existing permit limitations would be exceeded or that could result in an additional discharge point. This requirement applies to pollutants that are or that are not subject to discharge limitations in this permit. No new or increased discharge may begin until the Director has authorized it by issuance of a permit modification or a reissued permit. b. The permittee shall notify the Director as soon as it is known or there is reason to believe: (I) That any activity has occurred or will occur which would result in the discharge on a routine or frequent basis, of any toxic pollutant which is not limited in this permit, if that discharge will exceed the highest of the following notification levels: (a) one hundred micrograms per liter: (b) two hundred micrograms per liter for acrolein and acrylonitrile; five hundred micrograms per liter for 2,4-dinitrophenol and for 2-methyl-4,6-dini-trophenol; and one milligram per liter for antimony; (c) five times the maximum concentration value reported for that pollutant in the permit application; or (2) That any activity has occurred or will occur which would result in any discharge, on a non-routine or infrequent basis, of a toxic pollutant which is not limited in the permit, if that discharge will exceed the highest of the following notification levels: (a) five hundred micrograms per liter: (b) one milligram per liter for antimony; PART II Page25 of37 (cl ten times the maximum concentration value reported for that pollutant in the permit application. 3. Transfer of Permit This permit may not be transferred or the name of the permittee changed without notice to the Director and subsequent modification or revocation and reissuance of the permit to identify the new permittee and to incorporate any other changes as may be required under the FWPCA or A WPCA. In the case of a change in name, ownership or control of the permittee's premises only, a request for permit modification in a format acceptable to the Director is required at least 30 days prior to the change. In the case of a change in name, ownership or control of the permittee's premises accompanied by a change or proposed change in effluent characteristics, a complete permit application is required to be submitted to the Director at least 180 days prior to the change. Whenever the Director is notified of a change in name, ownership or controL he may decide not to modify the existing permit and require the submission of a new permit application. 4. Permit Modification and Revocation a. This permit may be modified or revoked and reissued, in whole or in part, during its term for cause, including but not limited to, the following: (I) If cause for termination under Provision II. E. 5. of this permit exists. the Director may choose to revoke and reissue this permit instead of terminating the permit; (2) If a request to transfer this permit has been received, the Director may decide to revoke and reissue or to modify the permit; or (3) If modification or revocation and reissuance is requested by the permittee and cause exists, the Director may grant the request. b. This permit may be modified during its term for cause, including but not limited to. the following: (I) If cause for termination under Provision II. E. 5. of this permit exists, the Director may choose to modify this permit instead of terminating this permit; (2) There are material and substantial alterations or additions to the facility or activity generating wastewater which occurred after permit issuance which justify the application of permit conditions that are different or absent in the existing permit: (3) The Director has received new information that was not available at the time of permit issuance and that would have justified the application of different permit conditions at the time of issuance; (4) A new or revised requirement(s) of any applicable standard or limitation is promulgated under Sections 30I(b)(2)(C). (D), (E). and (F). and 307(a)(2) of the FWPCA: (5) Errors in calculation of discharge limitations or typographical or clerical errors were made; (6) To the extent allowed by ADEM Administrative Code, Rule 335-6-6-.17, when the standards or regulations on which the permit was based have been changed by promulgation of amended standards or regulations or by judicial decision after the permit was issued; (7) To the extent allowed by ADEM Administrative Code, Rule 335-6-6-.17, permits may be modified to change compliance schedules; (8) To agree with a granted variance under 30l(c), 30J(g), 301(h), 30l(k), or 3l6(a) of the FWPCA or for fundamentally different factors; (9) To incorporate an applicable 307(a) FWPCA toxic effluent standard or prohibition; (10) When required by the reopener conditions in this permit: ( l I) When required under 40 CFR 403.8(e) (compliance schedule for development of pretreatment program); (12) Upon failure of the state to notify. as required by Section 402(b)(3) of the FWPCA, another state whose waters may be affected by a discharge permitted by this permit; ( 13) When required to correct technical mistakes, such as errors in calculation, or mistaken interpretations of law made in determining permit conditions; or PARTll Page 26 of37 ( 14) When requested by the permittee and the Director determines that the modification has cause and will not result in a violation of federal or state law, regulations or rules. 5. Permit Termination This permit may be terminated during its term for cause, including but not limited to, the following: a. Violation of any term or condition of this permit; b. The permittee's misrepresentation or failure to disclose fully all relevant facts in the permit application or during the permit issuance process or the permittee's misrepresentation of any relevant facts at any time; c. Materially false or inaccurate statements or information in the permit application or the permit: d. A change in any condition that requires either a temporary or permanent reduction or elimination of the permitted discharge; e. The permittee's discharge threatens human life or welfare or the maintenance of water quality standards; f. Permanent closure of the facility generating the wastewater permitted to be discharged by this permit or permanent cessation of wastewater discharge: g. New or revised requirements of any applicable standard or limitation that is promulgated under Sections 301(b)(2)(C), (D). (E), and (F), and 307(a)(2) of the FWPCA that the Director determines cannot be complied with by the permittee; or h. Any other cause allowed by the ADEM Administrative Code. Chapter 335-6-6. 6. Permit Suspension This permit may be suspended during its term for noncompliance until the permittee has taken action(s) necessary to achieve compliance. 7. Request for Permit Action Does No! Stay Any Permit Requirement The filing of a request by the permittee for modification. suspension or revocation of this permit, in whole or in part, does not stay any permit term or condition. F. COMPLIANCE WITH TOXIC POLLUTANT STANDARD OR PROHIBITION If any applicable eilluen! standard or prohibition (including any schedule of compliance specified in such effluent standard or prohibition) is established under Section 307(a) of the FWPCA, 33 V.S.C. Section I 3 l 7(a), for a toxic pollutant discharged by the permittee and such standard or prohibition is more stringent than any discharge limitation on the pollutant specified in Provision I. A. of this permit, or controls a pollutant not limited in Provision l. A. of this permit, this permit shall be modified to conform to the toxic pollutant effluent standard or prohibition and the permittee shall be notified of such modification. If this permit has not been modified to conform to the toxic pollutant effluent standard or prohibition before the effective date of such standard* or prohibition, the permittee shall attain compliance with the requirements of the standard or prohibition within the time period required by the standard or prohibition and shall continue to comply with the standard or prohibition until this permit is modified or reissued. G. DISCHARGE OF WASTEWATER GENERATED BY OTHERS The discharge of wastewater, generated by any process. facility, or by any other means not under the operational control of the permittee or not identified in the application for this permit or not identified specifically in the description of an outfall in this permit is not authorized by this permit PART III A. CIVIL AND CRIMINAL LIABILITY I. Tampering OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS PART III Page27 of37 Any person who falsifies, tampers with, or knowingly renders inaccurate any monitoring device or method required to be maintained or performed under the permit shall. upon conviction. be subject to penalties as provided by the A WPCA. 2. False Statements Any person who knowingly makes any false statement, representation, or certification in any record or other document submitted or required to be maintained under this permit, including monitoring reports or reports of compliance or noncompliance shall, upon conviction, be subject to penalties as provided by the A WPCA. 3. Permit Enforcement a. Any NPDES permit issued or reissued by the Department is a permit for the purpose of the A WPCA and the FWPCA and as such any terms, conditions, or limitations of the permit are enforceable under state and federal law. b. Any person required to have a NPDES permit pursuant to ADEM Administrative Code Chapter 335-6-6 and who discharges pollutants without said permit, who violates the conditions of said permit, who discharges pollutants in a manner not authorized by the permit. or who violates applicable orders of the Department or any applicable rule or standard of the Department. is subject to any one or combination of the following enforcement actions under applicable state statutes. (I) An administrative order requiring abatement. compliance, mitigation, cessation, clean-up. and/or penalties: (2) An action for damages; (3) An action for injunctive relief: or ( 4) An action for penalties. c. If the permittee is not in compliance with the conditions of an expiring or expired permit the Director may choose to do any or all of the following provided the petmittee has made a timely and complete application for reissuance of the permit: ( l) initiate enforcement action based upon the permit which has been continued; (2) issue a notice of intent to deny the permit reissuance. 1f the permit is denied, the owner or operator would then be required to cease the activities authorized by the continued permit or be subject to enforcement action for operating without a permit: (3) reissue the new permit with appropriate conditions: or (4) take other actions authorized by these rules and A WPCA. 4. Relief from Liability Except as provided in Provision 11.C. I (Bypass) and Provision II.C.2 (Upset), nothing in this permit shall be construed to relieve the permittee of civil or criminal liability under the A WPCA or FWPCA for noncompliance with any term or condition of this permit. B. OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE LIABILITY Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the institution of any legal action or relieve the permittee from any responsibilities, liabilities or penalties to which the permittee is or may be subject under Section 311 of the FWPCA, 33 U.S.C. Section 1321. C. PROPERTY AND OTHER RIGHTS This permit does not convey any property right.s in either real or personal property, or any exclusive privileges, nor does it authorize any injury to persons or property or invasion of other private rights, trespass, or any infringement of federal, state, or local laws or regulations, nor does it authorize or approve the construction of any physical structures or facilities or the undertaking of any work in any waters of the state or of the United States.

D. AVAILABILITY OF REPORTS PART III Page 28 of37 Except for data determined to be confidential under Code of Alabama 1975, Section 22-22-9(c), all reports prepared in accordance with the terms of this permit shall be available for public inspection at the offices of the Department. Effluent data shall not be considered confidential. E. EXPIRATION OF PERMITS FOR NEW OR INCREASED DISCHARGES I. If this permit was issued for a new discharger or new source, this permit shall expire eighteen months after the issuance date if construction of the facility has not begun during the eighteen-month period. 2. If this permit was issued or modified to allow the discharge of increased quantities of pollutants to accommodate the modification of an existing facility and if construction of this modification has not begun during the eighteen month period after issuance of this permit or permit modification, this permit shall be modified to reduce the quantities of pollutants allowed to be discharged to those levels that would have been allowed ifthe modification of the facility had not been planned. 3. Construction has begun when the owner or operator has: a begun. or caused to begin as part of a continuous on-site construction program: (I) any placement, assembly, or installation of facilities or equipment; or (2) significant site preparation work including clearing, excavation, or removal of existing buildings. structures, or facilities which is necessary for the placement. assembly, or installation of new source facilities or equipment; or b. entered into a binding contractual obligation for the purpose of placement. assembly. or installation of facilities or equipment which are intended to be used in its operation within a reasonable time. Options to purchase or contracts which can be terminated or modified without substantial loss, and contracts for feasibility. engineering. and design studies do not constitute a contractual obligation under the paragraph. The entering into a lease with the State of Alabama for exploration and production of hydrocarbons shall also be considered beginning construction. F. COMPLIANCE WITH WATER QUALITY STANDARDS I. On the basis of the permittee's application, plans, or other available information. the Department has determined that compliance with the terms and conditions of this permit should assure compliance with the applicable water quality standards. 2. Compliance with permit terms and conditions notwithstanding. if the permittee's discharge(s) from point sources identified in Provision I. A. of this permit cause or contribute to a condition in contravention of state water quality standards. the Department may require abatement action to be taken by the permittee in emergency situations or modify the permit pursuant to the Department's Rules, or both. 3. If the Department determines, on the basis of a notice provided pursuant to this permit or any investigation, inspection or sampling, that a modification of this permit is necessary to assure maintenance of water quality standards or compliance with other provisions of the A WPCA or FWPCA, the Department may require such modification and. in cases of emergency. the Director may prohibit the discharge until the permit has been modified. G. GROUNDWATER Unless specifically authorized by a permit issued by the Department, the discharge of pollutants to groundwater is prohibited. Should a threat of groundwater contamination occur. the Director may require groundwater monitoring to properly assess the degree of the problem and the Director may require that the permittee undertake measures to abate any such discharge and/or contamination. H. DEFINITIONS I. Average monthly discharge limitation -means the highest allowable average of "daily discharges" over a calendar month, calculated as the sum of all "daily discharges" measured during a calendar month divided by the number of "daily discharges" measured during that month (zero discharge days shall not be included in the number of "daily discharges" measured and a less than detectable test result shall be treated as a concentration of zero ifthe most sensitive EPA approved method was used). 2. Average weekly discharge limitation -means the highest allowable average of "daily discharges" over a calendar week, calculated as the sum of all "daily discharges" measured during a calendar week divided by the number of "daily discharges" measured during that week (zero discharge days shall not be included in the number of "daily discharges" measured and a less than detectable test result shall be treated as a concentration of zero ifthe most sensitive EPA approved method was used). PART III Page 29 of37 3. Arithmetic Mean -means the summation of the individual values of any set of values divided by the number of individual values. 4. A WPCA -means the Alabama Water Pollution Control Act. 5. BOD-means the five-day measure of the pollutant parameter biochemical oxygen demand. 6. Bypass -means the intentional diversion of waste streams from any portion ofa treatment facility. 7. CBOD-means the five-day measure of the pollutant parameter carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand. 8. Daily discharge -means the discharge of a pollutant measured during any consecutive 24-hour period in accordance with the sample type and analytical methodology specified by the discharge permit. 9. Daily maximum -means the highest value of any individual sample result obtained during a day. I 0. Daily minimum -means the lowest value of any individual sample result obtained during a day. 11. Day -means any consecutive 24-hour period. 12. Department -means the Alabama Department of Environmental Management. 13. Director -means the Director of the Department. 14. Discharge -means "[t]he addition, introduction, leaking, spilling or emitting of any sewage, industrial waste, pollutant or other wastes into waters of the state". Code of Alabama 1975. Section 22-22-l(b)(S). 15. Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) -means the form approved by the Director to accomplish reporting requirements of an NPDES permit. 16. DO -means dissolved oxygen. 17. 81-IC -means 8-hour composite sample, including any of the following: a. The mixing of at least 5 equal volume samples collected at constant time intervals of not more than 2 hours over a period of not less than 8 hours between the hours qf 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. If the sampling period exceeds 8 hours, sampling may be conducted beyond the 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. period. b. A sample continuously collected at a constant rate over period of not less than 8 hours between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. If the sampling period exceeds 8 hours, sampling may be conducted beyond the 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. period. 18. EPA -means the United States Environmental Protection Agency. 19. FC -means the pollutant parameter fecal coliform. 20. Flow -means the total volume of discharge in a 24-hour period. 21. FWPCA -means the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. 22. Geometric Mean -means the Nth root of the product of the individual values of any set of values where N is equal to the number of individual values. The geometric mean is equivalent to the antilog of the arithmetic mean of the logarithms of the individual values. For purposes of calculating the geometric mean. values of zero (0) shall be considered one (I). 23. Grab Sample -means a single influent or effluent portion which is not a composite sample. *The sample(s) shall be collected at the period(s) most representative of the discharge. 24. Indirect Discharger -means a nondomestic discharger who discharges pollutants to a publicly owned treatment works or a privately owned treatment facility operated by another person. 25. Industrial User -means those industries identified in the Standard Industrial Classification manual, Bureau of the Budget 196 7, as amended and supplemented, under the category *'Division D -Manufacturing" and such other classes of significant waste producers as, by regulation, the Director deems appropriate. 26. MOD -means million gallons per day. 27. Monthly Average -means, other than for fecal coliform bacteria, the arithmetic mean of the entire composite or grab samples taken for the daily discharges collected in one month period. The monthly average for fecal coliform bacteria is the geometric PART III Page 30 of37 mean of daily discharge samples collected in a one month period. The monthly average for flow is the arithmetic mean of all flow measurements taken in a one month period. 28. New Discharger -means a person, owning or operating any building, structure, facility or installation: a. from which there is or may be a discharge of pollutants: b. that did not commence the discharge of pollutants prior to August 13, 1979, and which is not a new source: and c. which has never received a final effective NPDES permit for dischargers at that site. 29. NH3-N -means the pollutant parameter ammonia, measured as nitrogen. 30. Permit application -means forms and additional information that is required by ADEM Administrative Code Rule 335-6-6-.08 and applicable permit fees. 31. Point source -means "any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance, including but not limited to any pipe, channel, ditch. tunnel, conduit. well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding operation, or vessel or other floating craft, ... from which pollutants are or may be discharged." Section 502( 14) of the FWPCA. 33 U.S.C. Section 1362(14). 32. Pollutant -includes for purposes of this permit, but is not limited to, those pollutants specified in Code of Alabama 1975, Section 22-22-l(b)(3) and those effluent characteristics specified in Provision I. A. of this permit. 33. Privately Owned Treatment Works -means any devices or system which is used to treat wastes from any facility whose operator is not the operator of the treatment works, and which is not a *'POTW". 34. Publicly Owned Treatment Works -means a wastewater collection and treatment facility owned by the State, municipality, regional entity composed of two or more municipalities, or another entity created by the State or local authority for the purpose of collecting and treating municipal wastewater. 35. Receiving Stream -means the "waters" receiving a "discharge** from a **point source". 36. Severe property damage -means substantial physical damage to property, damage to the treatment facilities which causes them to become inoperable, or substantial and permanent loss of natural resources which can reasonably be expected to occur in the absence ofa bypass. Severe property damage does not mean economic loss caused by delays in production. 37. Significant Source -means a source which discharges 0.025 MGD or more to a POTW or greater than five percent of the treatment work's capacity, or a source which is a primary industry as defined by the U.S. EPA or which discharges a priority or toxic pollutant. 38. TKN -means the pollutant parameter Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen. 39. TON -means the pollutant parameter Total Organic Nitrogen. 40. TRC -means Total Residual Chlorine. 41. TSS -means the pollutant parameter Total Suspended Solids. 42. 24HC -means 24-hour composite sample. including any of the following: a. the mixing of at least 12 equal volume samples collected at constant time intervals of not more than 2 hours over a period of24 hours; b. a sample collected over a consecutive 24-hour period using an automatic sampler composite to one sample. As a minimum, samples shall be collected hourly and each shall be no more than one twenty-fourth ( 1/24) of the total sample volume collected; or c. a sample collected over a consecutive 24-hour period using an automatic composite sampler composited proportional to flow. 43. Upset -means an exceptional incident in which there is an unintentional and temporary noncompliance with technology-based permit discharge limitations because of factors beyond the reasonable control of the permittee. An upset does not include noncompliance to the extent caused by operational error, improperly designed treatment facilities, inadequate treatment facilities. lack of preventive maintenance, or careless or improper operation. 44. Waters -means "[a]il waters of any river, stream, watercourse. pond, lake, coastal, ground or surface water, wholly or partially within the state, natural or artificial. This does not include waters which are entirely confined and retained completely upon the PART III Page 31of37 property of a single individual. partnership or corporation unless such waters are used in interstate commerce." Code of Alabama 1975, Section 22-22-l(b)(2). Waters "include all navigable waters" as defined in Section 502(7) of the FWPCA. 22 U.S.C. Section 1362(7), which are within the State of Alabama. 45. Week -means the period beginning at twelve midnight Saturday and ending at twelve midnight the following Saturday. 46. Weekly (7-day and calendar week) Average -is the arithmetic mean of all samples collected during a consecutive 7-day period or calendar week. whichever is applicable. The calendar week is defined as beginning on Sunday and ending on Saturday. Weekly averages shall be calculated for all calendar weeks with Saturdays in the month. If a calendar week overlaps two months (i.e .. the Sunday is in one month and the Saturday in the following month). the weekly average calculated for the calendar week shall be included in the data for the month that contains the Saturday. SEVERABILITY The provisions of this permit are severable, and if any provision of this permit or the application of any provision of this permit to any circumstance is held invalid, the application of such provision to other circumstances, and the remainder of this pennit. shall not be affected thereby. PART IV ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS, CONDITIONS, AND LIMITATIONS A. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP) PLAN REQUIREMENTS I. BMP Plan PART IV Page 32 of37 The permittee shall develop and implement a Best Management Practices (BMP) Plan which prevents, or minimizes the potential for, the release of pollutants from ancillary activities, including material storage areas; plant site runoff: in-plant transfer, process and material handling areas; loading and unloading operations, and sludge and waste disposal areas, to the waters of the State through plant site runoff: spillage or leaks; sludge or waste disposal; or drainage from raw material storage. 2. Plan Content The permittee shall prepare and implement a best management practices (BMP) plan, which shall: a. Establish specific objectives for the control of pollutants: ( 1) Each facility component or system shall be examined for its potential for causing a release of significant amounts of pollutants to waters of the State due to equipment failure, improper operation, natural phenomena such as rain or snowfall, etc. (2) Where experience indicates a reasonable potential for equipment failure (e.g., a tank overflow or leakage), natural condition (e.g. precipitation), or circumstances to result in significant amounts of pollutants reaching surface waters, the plan should include a prediction of the direction, rate of flow. and total quantity of pollutants which could be discharged from the facility a result of each condition or circumstance. b. Establish specific best management practices to meet the objectives identified under paragraph a. of this section, addressing each component or system capable of causing a release of significant amounts of pollutants to the waters of the State, and identifying specific preventative or remedial measures to be implemented; c. Establish a program to identify and repair leaking equipment items and damaged containment structures, which may contribute to contaminated stonnwater runoff. This program must include regular visual inspections of equipment, containment structures and of the facility in general to ensure that the BMP is continually implemented and effective: d. Prevent the spillage or loss of fluids, oil, grease. gasoline, etc. from vehicle and equipment maintenance activities and thereby prevent the contamination of stormwater from these substances; e. Prevent or minimize stbrmwater contact with material stored on site; f. Designate by position or name the person or persons responsible for the day to day implementation of the BMP: g. Provide for routine inspections, on days during which the facility is manned, of any structures that function to prevent storm water pollution or to remove pollutants from storm water and of the facility in general to ensure that the BMP is continually implemented and effective; h. Providefor the use and disposal of any material used to absorb spilled fluids that could contaminate stormwater; i. Develop a solvent management plan, if solvents are used on site. The solvent management plan shall include as a minimum lists of the total organic compounds on site; the method of disposal used instead of dumping, such as reclamation, contract hauling; and the procedures for assuring that toxic organics do not routinely spill or leak into the stormwater; j. Provide for the disposal of all used oils, hydraulic fluids, solvent degreasing material, etc. in accordance with good management practices and any applicable state or federal regulations; k. Include a diagram of the facility showing the locations where stormwater exits the facility, the locations of any structure or other mechanisms intended to prevent pollution of storm water or to remove pollutants from storm water, the locations of any collection and handling systems; I. Provide control sufficient to prevent or control p.ollution of stormwater by soil particles to the degree required to maintain compliance with the water quality standard for turbidity applicable to the waterbody(s) receiving discharge(s) under this permit: m. Provide spill prevention. control. and/or management sufficient to prevent or mm1m1ze contaminated stormwater runoff. Any containment system used to implement this requirement shall be constructed of materials compatible with the substance(s) contained and shall prevent the contamination of groundwater. The containment system shall also be PART IV Page 33 of37 capable of retaining a volume equal to I JO percent of the capacity of the largest tank for which containment is provided; n. Provide and maintain curbing, diking or other means of isolating process areas to the extent necessary to allow segregation and collection for treatment of contaminated stormwater from process areas; o. Be reviewed by plant engineering staff and the plant manager; and p. Bear the signature of the plant manager. 3. Compliance Schedule The permittee shall have reviewed (and revised if necessary) and fully implemented the BMP plan as soon as practicable but no later than six months after the effective date of this permit. 4. Department Review a. When requested by the Director or his designee, the permittee shall make the BMP available for Department review. b. The Director or his designee may notify the permittee at any time that the BMP is deficient and require correction of the deficiency. c. The permittee shall correct any BMP deficiency identified by the Director or his designee within 30 days of receipt of notification and shall certify to the Department that the correction has been made and implemented. 5. Administrative Procedures a. A copy of the BMP shall be maintained at the facility and shall be available for inspection by representatives of the Department. b. A log of the routine inspection required above shall be maintained at the facility and shall be available for inspection by representatives of the Department. The log shal I contain records of all inspections performed for the last three years and each entry shall be signed by the person performing the inspection. c. The permittee shall provide training for any personnel required to implement the BMP and shall retain documentation of such training at the facility. This documentation shall be available for inspection by representatives of the Department. Training shall be performed prior to the date that implementation of the BMP is required. d. BMP Plan Modification. The permittee shall amend the BMP plan whenever there is a change in the facility or change in operation of the facility which materially increases the potential for the ancillary activities to result in a discharge of significant amounts of pollutants. e. BMP Plan Review. The permittee shall complete a review and evaluation of the BMP plan at least once every three years from the date of preparation of the BMP plan. Documentation of the BMP Plan review and evaluation shall be signed and dated by the Plant Manager. B. STORMWATER FLOW MEASUREMENT AND SAMPLING REQUIREMENTS I. Stormwater Flow Measurement a. All stormwater samples shall be collected from the discharge resulting from a storm event that is greater than 0.1 inches. b. The total volume of stormwater discharged for the event must be monitored, including the date and duration (in hours) and rainfall (in inches) for storm event(s) sampled. The duration between the storm event sampled and the end of the previous measurable (greater than 0.1 inch rainfall) storm event must be a minimum of 72 hours. This information must be recorded as part of the sampling procedure and records retained according to Part I.B. of this permit. c. The volume may be measured using flow measuring devices, or estimated based on a modification of the Rational Method using total depth of rainfall, the size of the drainage area serving a stormwater outfall, *and an estimate of the runoff coefficient of the drainage area. This information must be recorded as part of the sampling procedure and records retained according to Part l.B. of this permit. 2. Stonnwater Sampling PART IV Page 34 of37 a. A grab sample, if required by this permit, shall be taken during the first thirty minutes of the discharge (or as soon thereafter as practicable); and a flow-weighted composite sample, ifrequired by this permit, shall be taken for the entire event or for the first three hours of the event. b. All test procedures will be in accordance with part 1.8. of this permit. C. EFFLUENT TOXICITY LIMITATIONS AND BIOMONITORING REQUIREMENTS I. The permittee shall perform short-term chronic toxicity tests on the wastewater discharges required to be tested for chronic toxicity by Part I of this permit. a. Test Requirements (Definitive Test) (1) The effluent shall be tested with appropriate replicates of 49% effluent, a control and a minimum of four serial dilutions of 13, 25, 49. 75, and 100% effluent. (2) Any test result that shows a statistically significant reduction in survival, growth or reproduction between the control and the test at the 95% confidence level indicate chronic toxicity and constitute noncompliance with this permit. b. General Test Requirements (I) A minimum of three (3) 24-hour composite samples shall be obtained for use in the above biomonitoring tests and collected every other day so that the laboratory receives water samples on the first. third and fifth day of the seven-day test period. The holding time. for each composite sample shall not exceed 36 hours. The control water shall be a water prepared in the laboratory in accordance with the EPA procedure described in EPA 821-R-02-013 or the most current edition or another control water selected by the permittee and approved by the Department. (2) Effluent toxicity tests in which the control survival is less than 80%, P. promelas dry weight per surviving control organism is less than 0.25 mg. Ceriodaphnia number of young per surviving control organism is less than 15, Ceriodaphnia reproduction where less than 60% of surviving control females produce three broods or in which the other requirements of the EPA Test Procedure are not met shall be unacceptable and the permittee shall rerun the tests as soon as practical within the monitoring period. (3) In the event of an invalid test, upon subsequent completion of a valid test, the results of all tests. valid and invalid, are reported with an explanation of the tests performed and results. c. Reporting Requirements ( 1) The permittee shall notify the Department in writing within 48 hours after toxicity has been demonstrated by the scheduled test(s). (2) Biomonitoring test results obtained during each monitoring period shall be summarized and reported using the appropriate Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) form approved by the Department. In accordance with Section 2. of this part, an effluent toxicity report containing the information in Section 2. shall be included with the DMR. Two copies of the test results must be submitted to the Department no later than 28 days after the month in which the tests were performed. d. Additional Testing Requirements ( 1) If chronic toxicity is indicated (noncompliance with permit limit), the permittee shall perform two additional valid chronic toxicity tests in accordance with these procedures to determine the extent and duration of the toxic condition. The toxicity tests shall run consecutively beginning on the first calendar week following the date on which the permittee became aware of the permit noncompliance and the results of these tests shall be submitted no later than 28 days following the month in which the tests were performed. (2) After evaluation of the results of the follow-up tests, the Department will determine if additional action is appropriate and may require additional testing and/or toxicity reduction measures. The permittee may be required to perform a Toxicity Identification Evaluation (TIE) and/or a Toxicity Reduction Evaluation (TRE). The TIE/TRE shall be performed in accordance with the most recent protocols/guidance outlined by EPA (e.g., EP A/600/2-88/062, EP A/600/R-92/080, EP A/600/R-91-003, EP A/600/R-92/081. EP A/83 3/8-99/022 and/or EP A/600/6-9 l /005F,etc.) e. Test Methods PART IV Page 35 of37 (I) The tests shall be performed in accordance with the latest edition of the EPA Short-Term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms." The Larval Survival and Growth Test, Methods 1000.0, shall be used for the fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) test and the Survival and Reproduction Test, Method 1002.0, shall be used for the cladoceran (Ceriodaphnia dubia) test. 2. EFFLUENT TOXICITY TESTING REPORTS The following information shall be submitted with each discharge monitoring report unless otherwise directed by the Department. The Department may at any times suspend or reinstate this requirement or may decrease or increase the frequency of submittals. a. Introduction (I) Facility name, location and county (2) Permit number (3) Toxicity testing requirements of permit ( 4) Name ofreceiving water body (5) Contract laboratory information (if tests are performed under contract) (a) Name of firm (b) Telephone number (c) Address (6) Objective oftes\ b. Plant Operations (I) Discharge Operating schedule (if other than continuous) (2) Volume of discharge during sample collection to include Mean daily discharge on sample collection dates (MGD, CFS, GPM) (3) Design flow of treatment facility at time of sampling c. Source of Effluent and Dilution Water (I) Effluent samples (a) Sampling point (b) Sample collection dates and times (to include composite sample start and finish times) (c) Sample collection method (d) Physical and chemical data of undiluted effluent samples (water temperature, pH. alkalinity, hardness. specific conductance, total residual chlorine (if applicable), etc.) (e) Lapsed time from sample collection to delivery (t) Lapsed time from sample collection to test initiation (g) Sample temperature when received at the laboratory (2) Dilution Water (a) Source (b) Collection/preparation date(s) and time(s) (cl Pretreatment (if applicable) (d) Physical and chemical characteristics (water temperature, pH, alkalinity. hardness. specific conductance, etc.) d. Test Conditions (I) Toxicity test method utilized (2) End point(s) oftest (3) Deviations from referenced method, if any. and reason(s) ( 4) Date and time test started (5) Date and time test terminated (6) Type and volume oftest chambers (7) Volume of solution per chamber ( 8) Number of organisms per test chamber (9) Number of replicate test chambers per treatment PART IV Page36 of37 (10) Test temperature, pH and dissolved oxygen as recommended by the method (to include ranges) (I I) Specify if aeration was needed (12) Feeding frequency, amount and type of food ( 13) Specify if (and how) pH control measures were implemented (14) Light intensity (mean) e. Test Organisms ( l) Scientific name (2) Life stage and age (3) Source (4) Disease(s) treatment (if applicable) f. Quality Assurance (I) (2) (3) (4) (5) g. Results (I) (2) (3) (4) (5) Reference toxicant utilized and source Date and time of most recent chronic reference toxicant test(s), raw data and current control chart(s). The most recent chronic reference toxicant test shall be conducted within 30 days of the routine. Dilution water utilized in reference toxicant test Results of reference toxicant test(s) (NOEC. IC25, PASS/FAIL, etc.). report concentration-response relationship and evaluate test sensitivity Physical and chemical methods utilized Provide raw toxicity data in tabular form. including daily records of affected organisms in each concentration (including controls) and replicate Provide table of endpoints: NOECs. 1C25s. PASS/FAIL, etc. (as required in the applicable NPDES permit) Indicate statistical methods used to calculate endpoints Provide all physical and chemical data required by method Results oftest(s) (NOEC, IC25, PASS/FAIL. etc.), report concentration-response relationship (ddinitive test only), report percent minimum significant difference (PMSD) calculated for sublethal endpoints determined by hypothesis testing. h. Conclusions and Recommendations (I) Relationship between test endpoints and permit limits (2) Actions to be taken I/ Adapted from *'Short-Term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms"", Fourth Edition, October 2002 (EPA 821-R-02-013). Section 10. Report Preparation D. COOLING WATER INTAKE REQUIREMENTS I. The cooling water intake structure used by the permittee has been evaluated using available information. At this time, the Department has determined that the cooling water intake structure represents the best technology available (BT A) to minimize adverse environmental impact in accordance with Section 316(b) of the federal Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. section 1326). 2. The permittee shall submit the following information at least 180 days prior to permit expiration of this permit:

• design intake flow of the CWIS:
• percentage of intake flow . based on highest monthly average in last 5 years, used for cooling purposes:
• an estimate of the intake flow reduction at the facility based upon the use ofa 100 percent (or some lesser percentage) cycle re-circulating cooling water system compared to a conventional once-through coo ling water system;
• through screen design intake flow velocity;
• any impingement and entrainment data that may have been collected based on the operation of the facility's CWIS, collected since the effective date of this NPDES permit; and, PART IV Page 37 of37
• a detailed description of any changes in the operation of the CWIS, or changes in the type of technologies used at the CWIS such as screens or other technologies affecting the rates of impingement and/or entrainment of fish and shell fish. 3. The permittee is required to operate and maintain the CWIS in a manner that minimizes impingement and entrainment levels. The permittee is required to make advance notification to the Department of any planned changes to facility operation and/or maintenance activities which could have a significant impact on impingement and entrainment levels. E. 316(a) DEMONSTRATION REQUIREMENTS Permit Monitoring Program Re-application Monitoring Program: Should the permittee wish a continuance of its 3 l6(a) request beyond the term of this permit, application for such a continuance shall be submitted in accordance with 40 CFR Part 125.70 Subpart H-Criteria for Determining Alternative Effluent Limitations Under Section 316(a) of the Act and 40 CFR Part 122.21 (m)(6) Subpart B-Permit Application and Special NPDES Program Requirements, Variance Requests by Non-POTWs. Re-application must be received 180 days prior to permit expiration. Re-application shall include necessary technical data and relevant information to include data collected within the life of the permit to support a continuation of the variance. Re-Opener Clause This permit shall be modified, or revoked and re-issued in the event that the Department determines through biological and/or water quality monitoring that more stringent limitations and/or monitoring requirements are necessary to assure the protection and propagation ofa balanced. indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife in and on the Tennessee River. F. DOWNSTREAM MONITORING Compliance with downstream river temperature and temperature rise limitations shall be applicable at the edge of the mixing zone which shall not exceed the following dimensions: "(I) A maximum length of2400 feet downstream of the diffusers. (2) a maximum width of2,000 feet, and (3) a maximum length of 150 f<:et upstream of the diffusers to the top of the diffuser pipes and extends to the bottom downstream of the diffusers. Downstream river temperature measurements shall be made by three monitors located in a line across the reservoir at approximate river mile 293.45. Temperature data shall be measured every 15 minutes at 3, 5, and 7 foot depths and averaged to obtain a 5 foot depth measurement. Temperatures at each monitor will be averaged using a 24-hour calendar day average. The temperatures from the monitors corresponding to the diffusers in operation will then be averaged to representative spatial mean.

PERMITTEE NAME: FACILllY LOCATION: ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT WATER DIVISION -INDUSTRIAL AND MUNICIPAL SECTIONS NONCOMPLIANCE NOTIFICATION FORM PERMIT NO: 1. DESCRIPTION OF DISCHARGE: (Include outfall number (s)) 2. DESCRIPTION OF NON-COMPLIANCE: (Attach additional pages if necessary): LIST EFFLUENT VIOLATIONS (If applicable) NONCOMPLIANCE Result Reported Permit Limit Outfall Number (s) PARAMETERfS) <Include units) (Include units) LIST MONITORING I REPORTING VIOLATIONS (If applicable) NONCOMPLIANCE Monitoring I Reporting Violation Outfall Number (s) PARAMETERfS) (Provide description) 3. CAUSE OF NON-COMPLIANCE (Attach additional pages if necessary): 4. PERIOD OF NONCOMPLIANCE: (Include exact date(s) and time(s) or, if not corrected, the anticipated time the noncompliance is expected to continue): 5. DESCRIPTION OF STEPS TAKEN AND/OR BEING TAKEN TO REDUCE OR ELIMINATE THE NONCOMPLYING DISCHARGE AND TO PREVENT ITS RECURRENCE (attach additional pages if necessary): "I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supeivision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations." NAME AND TITLE OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL (type or print) SIGNATURE OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL I DATE SIGNED ADEM Form 421 09/05 ATTACHMENT 3 Most Recent Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Renewal Application from March 2011 ASO 110225 503 Env. Document Type: NP DES Permit Application March 1, 2011 Mr. Eric Sanderson Alabama Department of Environmental Management 1400 Coliseum Boulevard Montgomery, Alabama 36110-2059

Dear Mr. Sanderson:

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (TVA) -BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT (BFN)-NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPOES) PERMIT NO. AL0022080 -NPDES PERMIT RENEWAL.APPLICATION Enclosed are three copies of an application for re*isst,Jance of the subject permit. The permit renewal application package includes the Alabama Department of Environmental Management Form 187; EPA Form 1 and a site map, EPA Form 2C and a wastewater flow schematic, EPA Form 2E, and EPA Form 2F. Also enclosed is a check in the amount of $8,400.00 for the application fee. For completing the application forms, TVA elected to use a 12-month historical monitoring period July and June 201 O, to bracket renewal sampling TVA requests that the permit requirements for process outfalls be continued from the current requirements, with the exception of the items noted below.

• DSN 001 1. TV A requests continuation of the alternative thermal limitations and associated monitoring requirements contained in the current NP DES permit., A copy of the report discussing the results of monitoring tQ support this request is enclosed. 2. A summary of the reasonable potential evaluation and toxicity test results for DSN 001 the last permit renewal application is enclosed. TVA reque$ts that the current annual frequency for toxicity monitoring be maintained. 3. TV A proposes to incorporate additional chemicals into its Raw Water Treatment Program as described in Attachment 4 to the enclosed AD.EM Form 187. Specifically, TVA proposes the use of Zinc Sulfate/Orthophosphate (FLOWGARD MS6209) and a biodispersant (GE SPECTRUS BD15QO). As discussed in the TVA believes that the proposed use of FLOWGARD MS6209 will not pose a reasonable potential t(J violate the applicable water quality criteria for zinc. TVA requests ADEM's detennination (per Part 1.0;5.b of BFN's current permit} that a permit modification or renewal is not required to allow the use of zinc containing chemicals.

Mr. Eric Sanderson Page2 March 1, 2011 .4. Herbicide Treatments at BFN are* associated with grounds maintenance use and to control aquatic*vegetation In the oold water and warm herbicides potentially could us4!(t to control aquatic Jn the anti *wam; watefbhanners Table 1).depending*on the speOieS. CJ.f'a.quatic time of ,cooling tower usage. All for grounds maintenance in or near ditches have.approved aquatic labels by EPA The herbicides that may be sprayed in or that flow to the Tenne$See River include R6deo alid Aqua Master Herbicides. Herbicides that are for grass anQ weed away fro.m dltchei? *(e.g., an.d -gravel parking tots) may not labels. The niain Herbicides in the switchyard parking GLY-4 OUST Round-Up. Regardless of .. of atl applications are pert9rmec:J. in accordance with: the label instructions. Ms:oSs for alt aquatic. herblciides currently planned for use are .enclosed. * * ' BFN currently has six cooling towei'.S

• MDCT can, .Qnly support approximately 8()% .of needs fr'orn the 9peraVng units; During the hot summer months, this lack of cooling capacity has. resulted in having to make significant derates. During the summer of 2010, derates to below 50% of full pdwer were made to meet NPDES permit r:equirements. As'a TVA is currently an 28-ceH *Jinear MDC.T on the BFN ai')d planning to replace :four of BFN's existing MOCT. The fol.Jr MDCT .(Towers 1. 2, *s, 6) are to be rebyilt afa later No increase. in tt:ie total BFN flow rate is proposed at this time. TVA appreciates the conslc:teration of the ltelTIS. requested with this NPOES renewal If you have any questions or require additional infom'iation,. please contact Stief,I at(423) 7.51-6844 or by email at mbstlefel@tva.gqv. *
• Sincerely; (Qri9,n.a1 signed .t>Y) Lindy P. Johnson, SeniQrSpeciSlist Water Permits and Compliance 50. Lookout..Place cc:. See 3 Mr. Eric Sanderson Page3 March 1, 2011 MBS:SMF Enclosures cc (Enclosures): C. R. Cooper, NAB 1 G-BFN J. G. Doyle, NAB 2A-BFN J. E. Emens, SAB 28-BFN K. M. Hodges (EDMS), LP 2V-C R. M. Krich, LP T. A. Marlow, NAB 1A-BFN D. B. Nida, LP 5U-C K. J. Polson, NAB 2A-BFN (w/o Enclosures) G. R. Signer, WT 6A-K (w/o Enclosures) U:\media files\water\npdes\bfn\bfn 2011 permit renewal applieation\bfn npdes renewal 2011 cover letter.doc Ter.su aee Valley a.---.. 110 ..... , 1 Market Street, Chattanooga. Tennessee 37402-2801 Mareh 1. 2011 Mr. Eric Sanderson Alabama Department of Environmental Management 1400 Coliseum Boulevard MontgomerY, Alabama 36110-2059

Dear Mr. Sanderson:

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (TVA)-BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT (BFN)-NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) PERMIT NO. AL0022080-NPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION Enclosed are three of an application for re-issuance of the subject The permit renewal application package includes the Alabama Deparbnent of Environmental Management Fonn 187; EPA Fonn 1 and a site map, EPA Fonn 2C and a wastewater flow schematic, EPA Form 2E, and EPA Form 2F. Also enclosed is a check in the amount of $8,400.00 for the application fee. For completing the application forms. TV A elected to use a 12-month historical monitoring period between July 2009 and June 2010, to bracket the renewal sampling event TV A requests that the permit requirements for process outfalls be continued from the current raqulrements. With the exception of the items noted below. DSN001 1. TV A requests continuation of the alternative thermal limitations and associated monitoring requirements contained in the current NPDES pennit. A copy of the

• report discussing the results of monitoring to support this request is enclosed. 2. A summary of the reasonable potential evaluation and toxicity test results for DSN 001 since the last permit renewal application is enclosed. TVA requests that the current annual frequency for toxicity monitoring be maintained. 3. TVA proposes to incorporate additional chemicals into its Raw Water Treatment Program as described in Attachment 4 to the enclosed ADEM Fonn 187. Specifically TVA proposes the use of Zinc Sulfate/Orthophosphate (FLOWGARD MS6209) a biodispersant (GE SPECTRUS 801500). As discussed in the enclosure, TVA believes that the proposed use of FLOWGARD_ will not
• pose a reasonable potential to violate the appllcable water quality criteria for zinc. TVA requests ADEM's determination (per Part 1.0.5.b of BFN's current permit) that a permit modification or renewal Is not required to allow the use of zinc containing chemicals. -... --

Mr. Eric Sanderson Page2 March 1, 2011 * . 4. Herbicide Treatments at BFN are associated with grounds maintenance use and to aquatic vegetation in the cold water and warm water channels. Several herb1ades potentially could be used to control aquatic vegetation In the cold and Table 1) depending on the species of aquatic plant and of projected cooling tower usage. All herbicides used for grounds maintenance that are sprayed in or near ditches have approved aquatic labels by EPA. The herbicides that may be sprayed in or near ditches that flow to the Tennessee River include Rodeo and Aqua Master Herbicides. Herbicides that are applied for grass and weed controls away from ditches (e.g., switehyards and gravel parking lots) may not have aquatic labels. The main Herbicides used In the switchyard and parking lot arus are GL Y PLUS, OUST and Round-Up. Regardless of the area of application, all herbicide applications are perfonned in accordance with tile label instructions. MSDSs for all aquatic herbicides currently planned for use are enclosed. BFN currently has slx mechanical draft cooling towers (MDCT). These exiSting MDCT can only support approxil'1!8tely 80% of the heat rejection needs from the three operating units. During the hot summer months, this lack of cooling capacity has resulted in lVA having to make significant derates. During the summer of 2010, derates to below 50% of full power were made to meet NPDES pennit requirements. As a result, TVA is currently constructing an addltlonal 28-cell linear MOCT on the BFN site and is planning to replace four of BFN's existing MDCT. The four replacement MDCT (Towers 1, 2, 5, and 6) are to be rebuilt at a later date. No increase in the total BFN flow rate is proposed at this time. TV A appreciates the consideration of the items requested with this NPDES renewal application. If yau have any questions or require add'dional information, please contact Mike Stiefel in Chattanooga, Tennessee. at (423) 751-6844 or by email at mbstiefel@tva.gov. Enclosures TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (TVA)-BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT NPDES PERMIT NO. AL0022080 *APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL Current Whole Effluent Toxicity <WED Requirements: DSN001

• 7-day Pimepha/es prome/as and 3-brood Ceriodaphnia dubia IC2s = 49% effluent (2.04 TUc) Monitoring Frequency: 1 /year Proposed Whole Effluent <WET) Toxicity Requirements: DSN001
• DSN001: 7 -day Pimepha/es prome/as and 3-brood Ceriodaphnia dubia IC2s = 41 % effluent (2.44 TUc) Monitoring Frequency: 1 /year In accordance with EPA's recommendation (Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control, EPN505/2-90-001 BFN DSN001 would not be required to have a chronic WET limit based on a demonstration of no Reasonable Potential (RP) for excursions above the ambient water quality chronic (CCC) criterion using effluent data for current operating conditions. Following guidance in the Technical Support Document (TSO), where no RP exists, biomonitoring would be conducted at a frequency of only once every 5 years as part of the permit renewal process to document acceptable effluent toxicity, and toxicity at the instream wastewater concentration (IWC) would serve only as a hard trigger for accelerated toxicity biomonitoring. Since, however, BFN might require modification of the chemical program for control of biofouling organisms, TVA requests maintaining the current annual testing schedule to demonstrate continuing comp.liance with WET permit limitations. TVA also requests continuation of testing of intake samples to ider:itify and invalidate test results when effluent toxicity is attributable to toxicity in ambient intake water used for plant operations. The following data summary and RP calculations utilize 20 years (29 studies) of WET biol'T!onitoring data. The 6 most recent studies were conducted in accordance with Part IV of the current NPDES Permit AL0022080. At no time during this monitoring was the permit limit (2.04 TUc) exceeded. Table 1 summarizes BFN biomonitoring results, followed by the RP calculations.

BFN Documentation: of BFN DSN 001 WET Biomonitoring Results Acute Results Chronic {96-h Survival} Results % Survival Study Study Undiluted Toxicity Toxicity Sa mete Units Q:Ual Units iTUcl NOEC: 1. Sep 14-21, 1990 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100 <1.0 <1.0 Pimepha/es prome/as 98 2. Feb 20-27, 1992* Ceriodaphnia dubia 100 <1.0 <1.0 Pimephales prome/as 95 3. Jul 23-30, 1992* Ceriodaphnia dubia 100 <1.0 <1.0 Pimepha/es prome/as 100 4. Oct 28-Nov 4, 1992* Ceriodaphnia dubia 100 <1.0 <1.0 Pimephales prome/as 98 5. May 20-27, 1993* Ceriodaphnia dubia 100 <1.0 <1.0 Pimephales promelas 98 6. Mar 10-17, 1994 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100 <1.0 <1.0 Pimepha/es prome/as 100 7. Jun 22-29, 1994 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100 <1.0 <1.0 Pimephales prome/as 100 8. Dec 6-13, 1995 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100 <1.0 <1.0 Pimepha/es promelas 100 NOEC 9. Jun 11-18, 1996 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100 <1.0 <1.0 Pimephales prome/as 100 10. Nov 15-22, 1996 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100 <1.0 <1.0 Pimepha/es prome/as 100 11. May 14-21, 1997 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100 <1.0 <1.0 Pimepha/es prome/as 100 12. Nov4-11, 1997 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100 <1.0 <1.0 Pimepha/es prome/as 98 13. May 6-13, 1998 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100 <1.0 <1.0 Pimephales promelas 100 14. Oct 27-Nov 3, 1998 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100 <1.0 1.4 Pimepha/es prome/as 98 15. May 18-25, 1999 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100 <1.0 Pimephales promelas 100 1.3 16. Nov 9-17, 1999 Ceriodaphnia dubia 90 <1.0 1.02 Pimephales promelas 100 1.5 17. May 23-30, 2000 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100 <1.0 <1.0 Pimepha/es prome/as 100 18. Nov 14-21, 2000 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100 <1.0 <1.0 Pimepha/es prome/as 100 2 BFN Documentation: Summary of BFN DSN 001 WET Biomonitoring Results-continued Acute Resu Its (96-h Survival) % Survival Study Undiluted Toxicity Sample Units (TUa) 19. Nov 6-13, 2001 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100 <1.0 Pimepha/es prome/as 100 20. Oct 22-29, 2002 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100 <1.0 Pimepha/es promelas 100 21. Oct 7-14, 2003 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100 <1.0 Pimepha/es promelas 100 22. Jul 13-20, 2004 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100 <1.0 Pimephales promelas 100 23. Oct 19-26, 2005 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100 <1.0 Pimepha/es promelas 100 Chronic Results Study Toxicity Units (TUc) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 cepikomutum tes!:ii were .al$o attributable to OSN001 occurred. §Test was invalidated because the COC was not correctly filled in. Data collected under the current permit. 3 Dilution and lnstream Waste Concentration Calculation OSN001: Maximum Discharge Flow= 2895 MGD (based on application schematic) Tennessee River Flow (7010) = 7109 MGD (based on ADEM 1994 rationale) Dilution Factor (OF): DF:;; Qs = 7109 = 2.46 Qw 2895 . Qw 2895 lnstream Waste Concentration (IWC): IWC:;;-xl00=--x100=41% Qs 7109 Reasonable Potential Determination: Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step4 Step 5 Total number of observations "n" for chronic effluent data= 30; maximum value of the sample results is 1.5 TUc The value of the CV is 0.12 (minimum table value of 0.1 used) The value of the ratio for<:!: 20 pieces of data and a CV of 0.1 is 1.2 (99% Confidence Level and 99% Probability Basis) The value that exceeds the 99111 percentile of the distribution (ratio times Xmax) after dilution is calculated as: (1.5 TUc x 1.2 x 0.41] = 0.74 TUc 0.74 TUc is less than the ambient CCC of 1.0 TUc. There is no reasonable potential for this effluent to cause an excursion above the CCC. Based on EPA's recommendation in the Technical Support Document for Water based Toxics Control, toxicity tests for DSN001 should be repeated at a frequency of at least once every 5 years as a part of the permit application. 4 Mr. Eric Sanderson Page2 March 18, 2011 cc (Enclosure -Electronic Distribution): C. M. Ariderson, LP 5D-C W.A Bruss, WCA 1A-STA L. C. Diamond, LP 5U-C

• S. W. Eslinger, LP 2G-C K. M. Hodges (EDMS), LP 2V-C J. D. Mullins, LP 5E-C c. H. Reed, wee 1A-STA T. S. Rudder, WCA 1A-STA G. "R. Signer, WT 6A-K M. G. Tritapoe, LP 50-C U:\ WCF GYPSUM RELEASE\ADEM CONSENT ORDER RESPONSE Plan\WCF\WCF Consent Order Update Mar 2011.doc

............................................ .. A60 110309 500 Env. Document Type: NPDES Correspondence March 18, 2011 ,Mr. Eric Sanderson Water Division Alabama Department of Environmental Management 1400 Coliseum Boulevard Montgomery, Alabama 36110-2059

Dear Mr. Sanderson:

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (TVA) -WIDOWS CREEK FOSSIL PLANT (WCF) -NPDES PERMIT NO AL0003875 -CONSENT ORDER NO. 10-002-CWP -PROGRESS AND UPDATED SCHEDULE FOR OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MODIFICATION REPORT (O&M MODIFICATION PLAN) This letter is to provide you with a formal progress update on the activities listed in the O&M Modification Plan. Enclosed is a revised schedule of activities for the O&M Modification Plan for your information. The revised schedule was prepared in regard to TVA's commitment for a status report on the progress of the items listed in O&M Modification Plan. Some projects were delayed pending ADEM's approval of the O&M Modification Plan, which was provided by letter dated September 30, 2010. Since receiving approval, TVA tias commenced scheduling Phase 1 engineering studies on that portion of the projects that were awaiting approval.

• TV A appreciates the consideration and time ADEM has spent reviewing the O&M Modification Plan. The following summarizes the progress to date: Stormwater Outfall Reroute. TVA has. commenced Phase 1 engineering studies to reroute the stormwater outfalls as proposed in the O&M Modification Plan. TVA has submitted the proposed modifications in an updated NPDES permit renewal application. TVA expects this will facilitate the modification of the permit when construction is complete and the outfalls are removed from the permit.

Mr. Eric Sanderson Page2 March 18, 2011 Cenosphere Management Plan As part of the O&M Modification Plan, TVA implemented a cenospheres management plan. The plan is in place, and implementation is ongoing with successful minimization of cenospheres reaching the discharge to the receiving stream. Red Water Pond Geotechnical Assessment The geotechnical assessment for the Red Water Pond has been completed and submitted to TVA Conclusions presented in the report stated that current stability projects already scheduled for the* Ash Pond Complex will improve the stability factor of safety to satisfactory levels. The risk remediation projects that will improve stability in the Red Water Pond include lowering of the Main Ash Pond pool and the construction of a rock buttress with reverse-graded filter along the Main Ash Pond dike on one side of the Red Water Pond dike. Stability Improvements The first projects initiated for stability improvements include the reverse graded filter and rock buttress along the toe of slope at the Gypsum and Ash Pond dikes. The Gypsum Pond was higher priority for stability improvements as studies showed it having a lower factor of safety in some cross sections of the dike. The Gypsum Pond Buttress is complete with the exception of portions of the dike that abut wetlands; the buttress construction would encroach on the wetlands and was halted until necessary permits were issued. The wetlands permits (ADEM 401 certification and Department of Army Permit No. 2008-0217 4) have been issued as of February 15, and construction will be completed after remobilization. If you have questions regarding this revised schedule or require more information, please contact Anna Brodie in Chattanooga, Tennessee, at (423} 751-3357 or by email at acbrodie@tva.gov Sincerely, (Original signed by) Lindy Johnson, Senior Specialist Water Permits and Compliance Lookout Place 50 ACB:SMF:VMG Enclosure cc: (see Page 3) WCFP ADEM Lvl 1 *Consent Order {TA0-1485) . . :1 I: ! : M \'Ot:f"* 1:lOllU Subnlll Cor\!.f!fll Or<<kii H1:sf1t7*s.t: lt.1 AOLM v, cr.1.iuuo TVI\ NEPA Rt.'V1r.w lnibalr-d Wt:r -1'.iOOO 5ctl<:dulo 1.!Tg /ADEM lo Rcv1c-,\ O&M Mu:M1calu:ins Hp! \'.'CF* 11000 AOEM A.:tptCN:j tt Mtd11ical10t1 Rcqocslt.'(j for O&M Mod Plan \".'Cf021CJ00 TVA Dis.cuss Mad1fc:lfw1t1sw'A!JEMfo Pcr1ml Acltais N1:<:dc<fl *:;t.:F='*22000 Su1Jm11 PtapCIScd Pk.d1f1c.*1tion To NPDES Af)plu:nt1on Wt:f -1:.1110 lVA NIZPI\ f\pptoval Cc1tnplt'te WCF -123!JO NC11fy /\DEM of O&M Mod WCF-12440 Slab1l1ly Improvements EP&C F.P&C EP&C EP&C E'.P&C EPAC E.P&C oP&C .!H-H *:*r :.;.:.*.j.:+ *t-:-r .. \.'i'CF--12400 Sccpagc: lmprovcmcnls 01-Ap1°10A 29-Jun-12 310Cl11 '* ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' * * .. :* ................. . Y.'Cf-42'120 Dallam /"5tl Stack M1hgnt1on 01-Apr-10/\ 28-Scp-12 010CT11 * * , ** ' ** , * * ' , * * ' * * ' ' * ' ' *** 0 ' '.",*Cf'-42410 OrcdgeCel!CapandClosurc-Oes1gn&CCJ'lstruc1 01-Apr*10A 30*Sep-16 010CT11 \",*CF024000 Conlraci:rConduclRad'WatetPCl'ldGootochnica"Asscssmcnl CCPE 21-Jun-10f\ JO-Jun-10f\ 30JUN10 *:*i :*:*:*:*;*:**::*!*!*:*:*:*:*:*:*;*;*::*:*:*: :*:*:*:*:*:*: WCF-42470 Develop CBMPP 22-Jul-10 A :* : j : : . . ; ; : : ! : j \\*CF-42480 22-Jul*10A 15-Fcb-11 : ; iliiiilliiiiO: ; : ; : : : . ; : : i;:;: WCF-20000 Conlrac:lcrSubm1IROOWalC1PmdGoolL'ChnicalAss<$Sn1cntloTVf\ CCf'>E 01-Sap-10A 01SEP10 , * : : . , : : : : . : : : : : : : , , WCF-40010 TVAROVteWRedWuh:rPondRe?Crt CCPEIEP&C 18-0ct-10A 29-0cMDA 310CT10 : : : : ;1:::; * * * *;: * * * .. ............... R iUUI ' '*'. ***. !:' '°i: f i --:::::::::: : ....... . '. '. . : : : j : ! ; ; i .. , l/,'CF-30000 TVA Pha5e II 50"1. (/nltirnnl) Review FPGP 03-0ct-1 t* 03-0ct-11 03NOV10 : : : : '. * : : : : i : ; : : : : : .. WCf-42200 rPGP 01*Ncw*11" 30*Ncw*11 3DAJ"IR11 .. '* ; : : : '.: : : : jQ: * * * * * * * .. : f HIH ;,: I,*-*,:,,! 1,:-,* =,.: :, .. '=.r :,.1 WCF-42100 TVA Issues OCN Packages FPGP 21.fcf>.12' 27-Feb-12 01APR11 . , ; i i wr.r ..f2J10 s1arts CCPOr.t * * :.:-i \SJUNl2 ; ; i) r j 11 WCF-423-tO lVI\ wen Closure FPGP 24-Scp-12 28-Sep-12" . : l ; : ; : : : : : : : : : : : : : i : : : : .... 310EC12 m. ! : ! : ; ! : ! ! ! : : : : ; i::::: j :+::: ! .* §;:: g 1rut-L'!i11:!!ir1:1r11 ::::g1*1111111111 *; .. ;:* .. ** Neas rnt)uinng ind1v1cfunl Corps of C::ng*nl.'crs permit wr.ro deferred until rccc1p\ of permits. -/.,([U.al Wt.lfk PoifJu 1 o11 WCFP ADEM Lvl 1 *Consent Order (TA0-1485) laimlJ Remaining W0tk -Critical Remaining Wcrl: *

• t.tites1one Dal:z Oa1e: 17-Jan-1 I Run Date: I \\'CfP ©Primavera Systems, Inc. < .. n .... "

,/ / Biological of the Tennessee-River Near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge Autumn 2008 ,Jeffrey W. Simmons Dennis S. Baxter May2009 Tennessee Valley Authority Aquatic Monitoring and Management Chattanooga, Tennessee Table of Contents Table of Contents ................................................................................... , ......................................... i List of Tables .......................................................... , ........................................................................ i L. t fF" . .. 1s o

• 1gures ............................................... :* ................................................................................ n Acronyms and Abbreviations ........................................................................................................ iii Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Plant Description .............................................................................. * ........................................... 2 Methods .......................................................................................................................................... 2 Fish and Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sample Locations Upstream and Downstream ofBFN .... 2 Fish Community Sampling Methods and Data Analysis for Sites Upstream and Dowristream of BFN ............................................................................................................................................. 2 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Sampling Methods and Data Analysis for Sites Upstream and Downstream of BFN ............................................................................................ 6 Spring Sport Fish Survey ............................................................................................................. 6 Results and Discussion ................................................................................................................... 7 Fish Community .......................................................................................................................... 7 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community ...................................................................................... 9 Spring Sport Fish Survey ........................................................................................................... 10 Wheeler Reservoir Flow and BFN Temperature ....................................................................... 10 Literature Cited ............................................................................................................................. 12 Appendix 1: Historical RFAI Scores .. _ .......................................................................................... 33 Appendix 2: Historical Fish Species List ..................................................................................... 42 List of Tables Table 1. Scoring criteria (2002) for forebay, transition, and inflow sections of Lower Mainstream reservoirs in the Tennessee River system. Lower Mainstream reservoirs . include Guntersville, Wheeler, Wilson, Pickwick, and Kentucky. Transition scoring criteria were used for sites upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. ************************************************************************************************************************************** 13 Table 2 Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RF AI Scores Downstream (TRM 292.5) and Upstream (TRM 295.9) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2008 .... 14 Table 3. Species Collected, Trophic level, Native and Tolerance Classification, Catch Per Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting at Areas Downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2008 .................................................................................... 18 Table 4. Species Collected, TrophiC level, Native and Tolerance Classification, Catch Per Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting at Areas Upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2008 .................................................................................... 19 1 Table 5. Summary of RF AI Scores from Sites Located Directly Upstream and Downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant as Well as Scores from Sampling Conducted During 1993-2008 as Part of the Vital Signs Monitoring Program in Wheeler Reservoir ...... 20 Table 6. Individual Metric Ratings and the Overall RBI Field Scores for Upstream and Downstream Sampling Sites Near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Wheeler Reservoir, Autumn 2008 ................................................................................................................ 21 Table 7. RBI Field.Scores from Data Collected During 1994-2008 at Wheeler Reservoir Inflow, Transition, Embayment, and Forebay Sampling Sites ................................................. 22 Table 8. Average Mean Density Per Square Meter of Benthic Tax.a Collected at Upstream and Downstream Sites Near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Wheeler Reservoir, Autumn 2008 .............................................................................................................................. 23 Table 9. Electrofishing Catch Rates and Population Characteristics of Black Bass Collected During Spring Sport Fish Surveys on Wheeler Reservoir, 1995-2008 ........................ 24 Table 10. Black Bass Catch Per Hour Compared to Habitat Types by Location During Spring Sport Fish Surveys on Wheeler Reservoir, 2008 ........ : ................................................ 24 List of Figures Figure 1. Browns Ferry Nuclear Power *Plant is located on the north shore of Wheeler Reservoir at Tennessee River Mile 294 ......................................................................................... 25 Figure 2. Location of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant and Condenser Cooling Water (CCW) intake and discharge ................................................................................................................ 26 Figure 3. RF AI electro fishing and gill net locations downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. Black squares represent electrofishing locations; red diamonds represent gill net locations ................................................................ ; ...................................................... 27 Figure 4. RFAI electrofishing and gill net locations upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. 28 Figure 5. Length frequency distribution for largemouth bass collected from Wheeler Reservoir (all sites) during Spring Sport Fish Surveys, 2008 ...................................................... 29 Figure 6. Relative stock density values for Tennessee River reservoirs calculated from 2008 Spring Sport Fish Survey samples ............................................................................... 29 Figure 7. Proportional stock density values for Tennessee River reservoirs calculated from 2008 Spring Sport Fish Survey samples ................................................... * ............................ 30 Figure 8. Wheeler Reservoir mean relative weights (Wr) for largemouth bass, calculated from 2008 Spring Sport Fish Survey samples .................................. : ................................... 30 Figure 9. Daily average flows from Guntersville Dam, October 2007 through November 2008, and historic daily flows, averaged for the period 1976-2007 ...................................... 31 Figure 10. Daily average water temperatures at a depth of five feet, recorded upstream ofBFN intake and downstream ofBFN discharge, October 2007 through November 2008 ... 32 ii ADEM BIP BFN ERM NP DES PSD QA RBI RFAI RSD RSDM RSDP RSDT SAHi SSS TRM TVA USFWS vs Wr Acronyms and Abbreviations Alabama Department of Environmental Management Balanced Indigenous Population Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Elk River Mile National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Proportional Stock Density Quality Assurance Reservoir Benthic Macroinvertebrate Index Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index Relative Stock Density Relative Stock Density of Memorable-sized Relative Stock Density of Preferred-sized Relative Stock Density of Trophy-sized Shoreline Assessment Habitat Index Spring Sport Fish Survey Tennessee River Mile Tennessee Valley Authority U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Vital Signs Relative weight iii Introduction Section 316(a) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) authorizes alternative thermal limits (ATL) for the control of the thermal component of a discharge from a point source so long as the limits will assure the protection of Balanced Indigenous Populations (BIP) of aquatic life. The term "balanced indigenous population," as defined in EPA's regulations implementing Section 316(a), means a biotic community that is typically characterized by: (1) diversity appropriate to ecoregion; (2) the capacity to sustain itself through cyclic seasonal changes; (3) the presence of necessary food chain species; and ( 4) lack of domination by pollution-tolerant species. Prior to 2000, the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TV A) Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) was operating under a 3 l 6(a) ATL that had been continued with each permit renewal based on studies conducted in the mid-l 970s. In 1999, EPA Region IV began requesting additional data in conjunction with NPDES permit renewal applications to verify that BIP was being maintained at TV A's thermal plan.ts with ATLs. TVA proposed that its existing Vital Signs (VS) monitoring program, supplemented with additional fish and benthic macroinvertebrate community monitoring upstream and downstream of thermal plants with ATLs, was appropriate for that purpose. The VS monitoring program began in 1990 in the Tennessee River System. This program was implemented to evaluate ecological health conditions in major reservoirs as part of TV A's stewardship role. One of the 5 *indicators used in the VS program to evaluate reservoir health is the Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index (RF AI) methodology. RF AI has been thoroughly tested on TVA and other reservoirs and published in peer-reviewed literature (Jennings, et al., 1995; Hickman and McDonough, 1996; McDonough and Hickman, 1999). Fish communities are used to evaluate ecolOgical conditions because of their importance in the aquatic food web and because fish life cycles are long enough to integrate conditions over time. Benthic macroinvertebrate populations are assessed using the Reservoir Benthic Index (RBI) methodology. Because benthic macroinvertebrates are relatively immobile, negative impacts to aquatic ecosystems can be detected earlier in benthic macroinvertebrate communities than in fish communities. These data are used to supplement RF AI results to provide a more thorough examination of differences in aquatic communities upstream and downstream of thermal discharges. TV A initiated a study to evaluate fish and benthic macroinvertebrate communities in areas immediately upstream and downstream of BFN during 2000-2008 using RF AI and RBI metric evaluation techniques. This report presents the results of autumn 2008 RF AI and RBI data collected upstream and downstream of BFN with comparisons to RF AI and RBI data collected at these sites during autumn 2000-2007. TV A's Spring Sport Fish Survey (SSS) data from 2008 is also included as supplemental information on the overall health of sport fisheries in Wheeler Reservoir. The TV A SSS is conducted to evaluate the sport fish population of TV A Reservoirs. The t¥SUlts of the survey are used by state agencies to protect, improve and assess the quality of sport fisheries. Predominant habitat types in the reservoir are surveyed to determine sport fish abundance. In addition to 1 accommodating TV A and state databases, this surveying method aligns with TV A Watershed Team and TV A's Reservoir Operations Study objectives. Sample sites are selected using the shoreline habitat characteristics employed by the Watershed Teams. The survey predominantly targets three species of black bass (largemouth, smallmouth, and spotted bass) and black and white crappie. These species are the predominant sport fish sought after by fishermen. Plant Description BFN is a three-unit nuclear-fueled facility and as of June, 2007, all three units are operating. BFN is located on Wheeler Reservoir at Tennessee River Mile (TRM) 294 in Limestone County, Alabama (Figure 1 ). Current operation utilizes a once-through condenser cooling water (CCW) system, withdrawing water from the Tennessee River through an intake structure at TRM 294.3 and discharging the water through diffuser pipes located downstream from the plant at TRM 293.6 (Figure 2). Maximum flow rate of the CCW is about 3,468 million gallons per day. Methods Fish and Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sample Locations Upstream and Downstream of BFN Two sample locations, one upstream and one downstream of the .Plant discharge channel, were selected in Wheeler Reservoir. The BFN discharge enters the Tennessee River TRM 293.6. For the fish community, the downstream site was centered at TRM 292.5 (Figure 3) and upstream sample site was centered at TRM 295.9 (Figure 4). For the benthic macroinvertebrate community, transects across the full width of the reservoir were established at TRM 291. 7 (downstream) and TRM 295.9 (upstream). Fish Community Sampling Methods and Data Analysis for Sites Upstream and Downstream of BFN Fish sampling methods included boat electro-fishing and gill netting (Hubert, 1996; Reynolds, 1996). Electro-fishing methodology consisted of fifteen electro-fishing boat runs near the shoreline, each 300 meters long with a duration of approximately 10 minutes each. The total near-shore area sampled is approximately 4,500 meters (15,000 feet). Experimental gill nets (so called because of their use for research as opposed to commercial fishing) are used as an additional gear type to collect fish from deeper habitats not effectively sampled by electro-fishing. Each experimental gill net consists offive-6.l meter panels for a total length of30.5 meters (100.1 feet). The distinguishing characteristic of experimental gill nets is mesh size that varies between panels. For this application, each net has panels with mesh sizes of 2.5, 5.1, 7.6, 10.2, and 12.7 cm. Experimental gill nets are typically set perpendicular to river flow extending from near-shore to the main channel of the reservoir. Ten overnight experimental gill net sets were used at each area. Fish collected were identified by species, counted, and examined for anomalies (such as disease, deformations, or hybridization). The resulting data were analyzed using RFAI methodology. The RF AI uses 12 fish community metrics from four general categories: Richness and Composition; Trophic Composition; Abundance; and Fish Health. Individual species can be 2 utilized for more than one metric. Together, these 12 metrics provide a balanced evaluation of fish community integrity. The individual metrics are shown befow, grouped by category: Species Richness and Composition I. Total number of species --Greater numbers of species are considered representative of healthier aquatic ecosystems. As conditions degrade, numbers of species at an area decline. 2. Number of centrarchid species --Sunfish species (excluding black basses) are invertivores and a high diversity of this group is indicative of reduced siltation and suitable sediment quality in littoral areas. 3. Number of benthic invertivore species --Due to the special dietary requirements of this species group and the limitations of their food source in degraded environments, numbers of benthic invertivore species increase with better environmental quality. 4. Number of intolerant species --This group is made up of species that are particularly intolerant of physical, chemical, and thermal habitat degradation. Higher numbers of intolerant species suggest the presence of fewer environmental stressors. 5. Percentage of tolerant individuals (excluding Young-of-Year) --This metric signifies poorer water quality with increasing proportions of individuals tolerant of degraded conditions. 6. Percentage dominance by one species --Ecological quality is considered reduced if one species inordinately dominates the resident fish community. 7. Percentage of non-native species --Based on the assumption that native species reduce the quality of resident fish communities. 8. Number of top carnivore species --Higher diversity ofpiscivores is indicative of the availability of diverse and plentiful forage species and the presence of suitable habitat. Trophic Composition 9. Percent of individuals as top carnivores --A measure of the functional aspect of top parnivores which feed on major planktivore populations. 10. Percentage of individuals as omnivores --Omnivores are less sensitive to environmental stresses due to their ability to vary their diets. As trophic links are disrupted due to degraded conditions, specialist species such as insectivores decline while opportunistic omnivorous species increase in relative abundance. Abundance . 11. Average number per run --(number of individuals) --This metric is based upon the assumption that high quality fish assemblages support large numbers of individuals. Fish Health 12. Percentage individuals with anomalies --Incidence of diseases, lesions, tumors, external parasites, deformities, blindness, and natural hybridization 3 are noted for all fish measured, with higher incidence indicating less favorable environmental conditions. RF AI methodology addresses all four attributes or characteristics of a "balanced indigenous population" defined by the CW A, as described below: (1) A biotic community characterized by diversity appropriate to the ecoregion: Diversity is addressed by the metrics in the Species Richness and Composition category, especially metric 1 -Total number of species. Detennination of reference conditions based on the inflow zones of lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs (as described below) ensures appropriate species expectations for the ecoregion. (2) The capacity for the community to sustain itself through cyclic seasonal change: TV A uses an autumn data collection period for biological indicators, both VS and upstream/downstream monitoring. Autumn monitoring is used to document condition or health after being subjected to the wide variety of stressors throughout the year. One of the main benefits of using biological indicators is their ability to integrate stressors through time. Examining the condition or health of a community at the end of the "biological year (i.e., autumn) provides insights into how well the community has dealt with the stresses through an annual seasonal cycle. Likewise, evaluation of the condition of individuals in the community (in this case, individual fish as reflected in Metric 12) insights into bow well the community can be expected to withstand stressors through winter. Further, multiple sampling years during the permit renewal cycle adds to the evidence of whether or not the autumn monitoring approach has correctly demonstrated the ability of the community to sustain itself through repeated seasonal changes. * (3) The presence of necessary food chain species: Integrity of the food chain is measured by the Trophic Composition metrics, with support from the Ab1,mdance metric and Species Richness and Composition metrics. Existence of a healthy fish community indicates presence of necessary food chain species because the fish community is comprised of species that utilize multiple feeding mechanisms that transcend various levels in the aquatic food web. Basing evaluations on a sound multi-metric system such as the RF AI enhances the ability to discern alterations in the aquatic food chain. (4) A lack of domination by pollution-tolerant species: Dmni.Qation by pollution-tolerant species is measured by metrics*3 (Number ofbenthic invertivore species), 4 (Number of intolerant species), 5 (Percentage of tolerant individuals), 6 (Percentage dominance by one species), and 10 (Percentage of individuals as omnivores). Scoring categories are based on "expected" fish community characteristics in the absence of human-induced impacts other than impoundment of the reservoir. These categories were developed from historical fish assemblage data representative of transition zones from lower mainstemTennessee River reservoirs (Hickman and McDonough, 1996). Attained values for each of the 12 metrics were compared to the scoring criteria and assigned scores to represent relative degrees of degradation: least degraded (5); intermediate degraded (3); and greatest degraded (1 ). Scoring criteria for lower mainstem Tennessee River .reservoirs is shown in Table I. 4 If a metric was calculated as a percentage (e.g., Percent tolerance individuals), the data from electro-fishing and gill netting were scored separately and allotted half the total score for that individual metric. Individual metric scores for a sampling area (i.e., upstream or downstream) are summed to obtain the RF AI score for the area. TV A uses RF AI results to determine maintenance of BIP using 2 approaches. One is "absolute" in that it compares the RF AI scores and individual metrics to predetermined values. The other is "relative" in that it compares RF AI scores attained downstream to the upstream control site. The "absolute" approach is based on Jennings et al. (1995) who suggested that favorable comparisons of the attained RF AI score from the potential impact zone to a predetermined criterion can be used to identify the presence of normal community structure and function *and hence existence of BIP. For multi-metric indices, TVA uses two criteria to ensure a conservative screening ofBIP. First, if an RF AI score reaches 70% of the highest attainable score of 60 (adjusted upward to include sample variability as described below), and second, if fewer than half of RF AI metrics receive a low (1) or moderate (3) score, then normal community structure and function would be present indicating that BIP had been maintained, thus no further evaluation would be needed. RFAI scores range from 12 to 60. Ecological health ratings (12-21 ["Very Poor"], 22-31 ["Poor"], 32-40 ["Fair"], 41-50 ["Good"], or 51-60 ["Excellent"]) are then applied to scores. As discussed in detail below, the average .variation for RF AI scores in TVA reservoirs is 6 (+/- 3). Therefore, any location that attains an RF AI score of 45 ( 42 plus the upward sample variation of 3) or higher would be considered to have BIP. It must be stressed that scores below this threshold do not necessarily reflect an adversely impacted fish community. The threshold is used to serve as a conservative screening level; i.e., any fish community that meets* these criteria is obviously not adversely impacted. RF AI scores below this level would require a more in-= depth look to detemiine if BIP exists. An inspection of individual RF AI metric results and species of fish used in each metric would be an initial step to help identify if operation of BFN is a contributing factor. This approach is appropriate because a validated multi-metric index is being used and scoring criteria applicable to the zone of study are available. A difference in RF AI scores attained at the downstream area compared to the upstream (control) area is used as one basis for determining presence or absence of impacts on the resident fish community from BFN's operations. The definition of "similar" is integral to accepting the validity of these interpretations. The Quality Assurance (QA) component of the Vital Signs monitoring program deals with how well the RF AI scores can be repeated and is accomplished by collecting a second set of samples at 15%-20% of the areas each year. Comparison sample QA data collected over seven years shows that the difference in RF AI index scores ranges from 0 to 18 points. The mean difference between these 54 paired scores is 4.6 points with 95% confidence limits of 3.4 and 5.8. The 75th percentile of the sample differences is 6, and the 90th percentile is 12. Based on these results, a difference of 6 points or less in the overall RF AI scores is the value selected for defining "similar" scores between upstream and downstream fish communities. That is, if the downstream RF AI score is within 6 points of.the upstream score and ifthere are no major differences in overall fish community composition, then the two locations are considered similar. It is important to bear in mind that differences greater than 6 points can be expected simply due to method variation (i.e., 25% of the QA paired sample sets exceeded a difference of 6). An examination of the 12 metrics (with emphases on fish 5 species used for each metric) is conducted'to determine any difference in scores and the potential for the difference to be thermally related. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Sampling Methods and Data Analysis for Sites Upstream and Downstream of BFN. Ten benthic grab samples were collected at equally spaced points along the upstream and downstream transects. A Ponar sampler was used for most samples but a Peterson sampler was used when heavier substrate was encountered. Collection and processing techniques followed standard VS procedures. Bottom sediments were washed on a 533µ screen; organisms were then picked from the screen and remaining substrate and identified in the field to Order or Family level without magnification. Benthic community results were evaluated using seven coinmunity characteristics or metrics. Results for each metric were assigned a rating of 1, 3, or 5 depending upon how they scored based on reference conditions developed for VS reservoir inflow sample sites. The ratings for the seven metrics were summed to produce a benthic score for each sample site. Potential scores ranged from 7 to 35. Ecological health ratings (7-12 "Very Poor", 13-18 "Poor", 19-23 "Fair, 24-29 "Good", or 30-35 "Excellent") are then applied to scores. A similar or higher benthic index score at the downstream site compared to the upstream site is used as basis for determining absence of impact on the benthic macroinvertebrate community related to BFN's thermal discharge. The QA component of VS monitoring shows that the comparison ofbenthic index scores from 49 paired sample sets collected over the past seven years range from 0 to 14 points, the 75th percentile is 4, the 901hpercentile is 6. The mean difference between these 49 paired scores is 3.1points'with95% confidence limits of2.2 and 4.1. Based on these results, a difference of 4 points or less is the value selected for defining "similar" scores between upstream and downstream benthic communities. That is, if the downstream benthic score is within 4 points of the upstream score, the communities will be considered similar and it will be concluded that BFN has had no effect. Once again, it is important to bear in mind that differeD:ces greater than 4 points can be expected simply due to method variation (25% of the QA paired sample sets exceeded that value). When such occurs, a metric-by-metric examination will be conducted to determine what caused the difference in scores and the potential for the difference to be thermally related. Prior to 2001, a sampling site in the forebay zone of Wheeler Reservoir (TRM 277) was used as the downstream comparison site. Other factors unrelated to influence from BFN have kept benthic communities depressed, both at the forebay site and in the Elk River embayment (Wheeler Reservoir, Elk River Mile [ERM] 6 -between BFN and the forebay site). In order to more accurately assess the effects from BFN, a second transition zone site two miles downstream from the BFN diffuser at TRM 291. 7 was created in 2000. Benthic scores and community composition from this site have been used since 2000 for downstream comparisons. Spring Sport Fish Survey Spring Sport Fish Surveys were conducted on Wheeler Reservoir during spring 2008. Sampling was conducted using boat mounted electro fishing gear at tWelve sites in the Elk River, Second Creek, and First Creek. Sampling effort at each site consisted of thirty minutes of continuous electrofishing in the littoral zones of prominent habitat types present. After being stunned, fish were collected with dip nets, counted, weighed, measured, and then released upharmed. 6 Results of the SSS monitoring were calculated using Shoreline Assessment Habitat Index (SAHi), Relative Stock Density (RSD), Proportional Stock Density (PSD), and Relative Weight . (Wr). Habitat type is evaluated using the SAHi metric and is a critical component incorporated into the SSS. The resultant habitat designations ("Good", *'Fair, and "Poor") are correlated to black bass abundance (numbers/hour). RSD is the number offish greater than a minimum preferred length in a stock divided by the number of fish greater than or equal to a minimum stock size. PSD is the number of fish greater than or equal to a minimum quality length in a sample divided by the number of fish greater than or equal to a minimum stock length. Wr is an index that quantifies fish condition and the preferred range value is 90%-105% for moderate density bass populations such as th<?se found in the Tennessee Valley latitudes. Results and Discussion Fish Community In 2008, fish community RF AI scores of 45 ("Godd") and 42 ("Good") were observed at the downstream and upstream stations, respectively (Table 2). Both sites met BIP screening criteria, were within the 6 point range of acceptable variation, and are considered similar. An examination of the autumn 2008 RF AI showed that portions of three metrics (gill net portion of percent tolerant individuals, gill net portion of percent non-native species, and the electrofishing and gill net portions of percent omnivores) scored lower at the upstream site while the downstream site scored lower for a portion of one metric ( electrofishing portion of percent top carnivores) (Table 2). A discussion of the individual metric scores follows (refer to Tables 2, 3, and 4): 1. Total number of Species: At both the downstream and upstream sampling areas, 28 native species were collected. Five native species (black red.horse, largescale stoneroller, black buffalo, golden red.horse, sauger) were collected at the downstream area that were not encountered at the upstream area, while five native species (longnose gar, golden shiner, white crappie, northern hogsucker, and bullhead minnow) and two non-native species (striped bass and Atlantic needlefish) were collected at the upstream area that were not encountered at the site downstream of BFN. Both sites received the mid-range score for this metric. 2. Number of Centrarchid Species (less Micropterus): Six centrarchid species were collected at the downstream site while seven centrarchid species were collected at the upstream site (3 white crappie were collected upstream but not downstream). Both sites received the highest score for this metric.
• 3. Number ofbenthic invertivore species: Five benthic invertivore species were collected downstream of BFN, while four benthic invertivore species were collected upstream. Black and golden red.horse were collected upstream but were not encountered downstream ofBFN, while northern hogsucker was collected downstream but not encountered upstream of BFN. Both sites received the mid-range score for this metric. 7

4. Number of intolerant species: Five intolerant species were encountered at both the upstream and downstream sites and both sites received the highest score for this metric.* 5. Percent tolerant individuals: The downstream site received a mid-range score for both the electrofishing and gill net portions of this metric. The upstream site had a considerably higher percentage of tolerant individuals in the electrofishing and gill net samples due to collection of more tolerant species. The upstream site received a mid-range score for the electrofishing portion and the lowest score for the gill net portion of this metric. 6. Percent dominance by one species: Inland silverside (non-native) was the dominant species in the electro fishing portion of the sample at the downstream site while gizzard shad was the dominant species at the upstream site. Both sites received the mid-range score for this portion of the metric. White bass was the dominant species at the downstream site for the gill net portion of this metric while channel catfish was the dominant species at the upstream site. Both sites received a mid-range score for the gill net portion of this metric. 7. Percent non-native fish: Both the upstream and downstream sites received the lowest score for the electrofishing portion of this metric due to a high percentage of inland silversides (52.7% of downstream sample, 29% of upstream sample). The downstream site received the highest score for the gillnet portion of this metric due to collection of 1 common carp while the upstream site received the mid-range score due to collection of 1 common carp and 2 striped bass. 8. Number of top carnivores: Eleven species of top carnivores were collected upstream ofBFN while ten species were collected at the downstream site (white crappie and longnose gar were not collected downstream while sauger were not collected upstream). Both sites received the highest score for this metric. 9. Percent top carnivores: Electrofishing samples collected upstream ofBFN resulted in a higher percentage of top carnivores compared to downstream samples. Conversely, gill net samples collected downstream ofBFN had a much higher percentage of top carnivores than those collected upstream. Both sites received the highest score for the gill net portion of this metric, while the downstream site received a mid-range score for the electro fishing portion of this metric. 10. Percent of omnivore species: The downstream site had a much lower percentage of omnivores in both the electrofishing and gill net samples. The upstream site scored 1 point lower for each portion of this metric, predominately due to higher percentages of gizzard shad in the electrofishing portion and channel catfish in the gill net portion. 11. Overall fish abundance: This metric is measured by the average number of fish caught for each electro-fishing and gill net effort. Average catch per unit effort was low at both sites for the electrofishing portion of this metric; both received the lowest score. Gill net catch rates were similar; both sites received the mid-range score for this portion of the metric. 12. Percent anomalies: Both the upstream and downstream sites received the highest score for this metric due to a low percentage of observed anomalies (i.e. visible lesions, bacterial and 8 fungal infections parasites, muscular and skeletal deformities, and hybridization). As discussed above, RF AI scores have an intrinsic variability of +/-3 points. This variability . comes from various sources, including annual variations in air temperature and stream flow; variations in pollutant loadings from nonpoint sources; changes in habitat, such as extent and density of aquatic vegetation; natural population cycles and movements of the species being measured (TWRC, 2006). Another source of variability arises from the fact that nearly any practical measurement, lethal or non-lethal, of a biological community is a sample rather than a measurement of the entire population. As long as the score is within the 6-point range, there is no certainty that any real change has taken place beyond method variability. Over the nine sample years, both sites have averaged a score of 42 ("Good"). Both sites have been within the 6 point range of accepted variability each year, with the exception of 2005 when the upstream site.scored IO points higher, indicating the sites were similar annually and that the BFN heated effluent is not adversely affecting the fish community in the vicinity of the plant (Table 5). The "Fair" 2005 score at the downstream site was a result of a high percentage of tolerant individuals in the gill net samples and dominance by one species in both gill net and electrofishing samples (Appendices 1-C, 2-E). Individual metric scores arid overall RF AI scores for the upstream and downstream sampling sites of BFN for sample years 2000-i007 are listed in Appendix I (A-H). Species collected and catch per effort during electrofishing at the upstream and downstream sampling sites ofBFN for sample years 2000-2007 are listed in Appendix 2 P). RFAI scores are presented for the Wheeler Reservoir inflow site (TRM 348.0), the forebay site (TRM 277 .0), and the Elk River embayment site (ERM 6.0) to provide additional information of the health of the fish community throughout the reservoir; however, aquatic communities at these sites are not affected by BFN temperature effects and are not used to determine BIP h1. relation to BFN (Table 5). The average RF AI scores at these three sites over all sampling years have remained in the "Good" range. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Benthic macroinvertebrate data collected during autumn 2008 from TRM 295.9 upstream from BFN and from TRM 291.7 downstream ofBFN resulted in a RBI scores of25 ("Good") and 29 ("Good")," respectively (Table 6). Both sites have scored in the "Good" to "Excellent" ecological health range for all sampling years (Table 7). A difference of 4 points or less between upstream and downstream stations is used to define "similar" conditions between the two sites. Scores for these two sites have not exceeded a difference of 4 points during any sampling year. Table 8 provides density by taxon from the 2008 samples .at these sites. These data indicate that a healthy benthic macroinvertebrate community exists in both the upstream and downstream . vicinity of BFN and that the plant is not adversely impacting this fauna. RBI scores for the inflow, forebay, and Elk River embayment sites are included to provide additional data on the overall health of the benthic macro in vertebrate corhmunity in Wheeler Reservoir (Table 7). RBI scores in the "Good" to "Excellent" range have been observed 8 of the 11 sample years at the inflow site. Data collected in Wheeler Reservoir forebay_(TRM 277) and the Elk River embayment (ERM 6.0) have consistently resulted in "Poor RBI scores. The 9 forebay sampling site is located 17 river miles downstream ofBFN. The Elk River embayment sampling site is located 6 river miles upstream of the confluence with the Tennessee River. The confluence of the Elk River is 10 river miles downstream of BFN. Because these sites are located considerable distances from BFN, poor sampling results should not be indicative of temperature effects from the plant. Furthermore, the benthic macroinvertebrate community closest to the discharge should be most affected by BFN thermal effocts and sampling at this site has not indicated negative effects . . Spring Sport Fish Survey A total of 18 hours of electrofishing effort resulted in 1,390 largemouth bass, 30 spotted and 57 smallmouth bass; of these, 66.7% were harvestable 10 inches). Overall catch rate (82.0 fish/hour) was slightly higher than the previous year (76.1 fish/hour) (Table 9). The average weight ofharvestable sized black bass was 1.5 pounds. The largest black bass collected was a 5.9 pound largemouth bass collected from First Creek. Large bass were well represented with 53 bass greater than three pounds, 14 greater than four pounds, and 5 over five pounds. All size classes up to 20 inches were represented in the population. Length frequency histograms illustrated a bimodal distribution with the 8 and 13 inch groups being the dominant size classes (Figure 5). Habitat type is derived from the SARI which was developed by TV A's Resource Stewardship Program. The resultant habitat designations (Good, Fair, and Poor) are correlated to black bass abundance (numbers/hour). Among the three areas sampled during 2008, individual sites showed a lot of variation in abundance to habitat types on Wheeler Reservoir with the exception of First Creek (Table 10). Overall reservoir catch rates were 101, 81, and 66 fish/hour at the Good, Fair, and Poor habitat types, respectively exhibiting a classic positive correlation of black bass density to habitat types. The following results describe the quality and condition of black bass collected in Wheeler Reservoir during spring 2008: The RSD value (12) was within the desirable range (10-25) (Figure 6). The PSD value (55) was also within the preferred range (40-70) (Figure 7). Wr values shown in Figure 8 are designated by inch groups which reflect the classical categories, i.e., 0-7 = substock, 8-11 =stock, 12-14 =quality, 15-19 =preferred, 20-24 =memorable and 25+ = trophy. All categories, except trophy, fell within the desired range, which indicates a balanced population structure. Largemouth bass length frequency histograms illustrated a bimodal distribution with the 8-inch size class (age-2) and 12 and 13-inch class (age-3) being the dominant size classes (Figure 5). A total of 34 crappie, 29 white and 5 black, were also collected during the survey. According to angler accounts, Wheeler Reservoir *has a good crappie population; however, they were not in the shallow areas that coincided with our littoral zone sampling efforts. Wheeler Reservoir Flow and BFN Temperature A comparison of daily average flows from Guntersville Dam, October 2007 through November 2008, and historic daily flows from 1976-2007 are shown in Figure 9. Daily average flows were approximately 50% less than the historical daily average flows from 1976 through 2007. Figure 10 illustrates the comparison of daily average water temperatures recorded upstream of IO BFN intake and downstream ofBFN discharge during October 2007 through November 2008. Despite 50% daily average flow past the plant, BFN operated within their NPDES permit limit and a Balanced Indigenous Population was maintained. 11 Literature Cited Hickman, G.D. and T. A. McDonough. 1996. Assessing the Reservoir Fish Assemblage A potential measure ofreservoir quality. In: D. De Vries (Ed.) Reservoir Multidimensional approaches to reservoir fisheries management. Reservoir Committee, Southern Division, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. pp 85-97. Hubert, W. A., 1996. Passive capture techniques, entanglement gears. Pages 160-165 in B. R. Murphy and D. W. Willis, editors. Fisheries techniques, 2nd edition. American Fisheries Society Bethesda, Maryland, USA. Jennings, M. J., L. S. Fore, and J. R. Karr. 1995. Biological monitoring of fish assemblages in the Tennessee Valley reservoirs .. Regulated Rivers 11 :263-274. McDonough, T.A. and G.D. Hickman. 1999. Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index development: A tool for assessing ecological health in Tennessee Valley Authority impoundments. In: Assessing the sustainability and biological integrity of water resources using fish communities. Simon, T. (Ed.) CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 523-540. Reynolds, J.B., 1996. Electrofishing. Pages 221-251 in B. R. Murphy and D. W. Willis, editors. Fisheries techniques, 2nd edition. American Fisheries Society Bethesda, Maryland, USA. . TWRC 2006. Strategic Plan, 2006-2012. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Commission, Nashville, TN. March 2006. pp 124-125. http://tennessee.gov/twra/pdfs/StratPlan06-12.pdf 12 Table 1. Scoring criteria {2002) for forebay, transition, and inflow sections of Lower Mainstream reservoirs in the Tennessee River system. Lower Mainstream reservoirs include Guntersville, Wheeler, Wilson, Pickwick, and Kentucky. Transition scoring criteria were used for sites upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. Scoring Criteria Forebay Transition Inflow Metric Gear 1 3 5 3 5 3 5 1. Total species Combined <14 14-27 >27 <16 16-30 >30 <14 14-27 >27 2. Total Centrarchid species Combined <2 2-3 >3 <2 2-2 >2 <2 2-4 >4 3. Total benthic invertivores Combined <4 4-6 >6 <4 4-7 >7 <4 4-7 >7 4. Total intolerant species Combined <2 2-4 >4 <3 3-4 >4 <3 3-6 >6 5. Percent tolerant individuals Electrofishing >61% 30-61% <30% >54% 27-54% <27% >51% 26-51% <26% Gill netting >46% 22-46% <22% >30% 15-30% <15% 6. Percent dominance by 1 species Electro fishing >59%1 30-59% <30% >58% 29-58% <29% >47% 24-47% <24% Gill netting >43% 21-43% <21% >34% 17-34% <17% 7. Percent non-native species Electrofishing >2% 2-2% <2% >2% 1-2% <1% >4% 2-4% <2% Gill netting >2% 1-2% <1% >2% 1-2% <1% 8. Total top carnivore species Combined <4 4-7 >7 <4 4-7 >7 <4 4-7 >7 9. Percent top carnivores Electrofishing <6% 6-12% >12% <5% 5-10% >10% <15% 15-29% >29% Gill netting <25% 25-49% >49% <20% 20-39% >39% 10. Percent omnivores Electro fishing >59% 30-59% <30% >48% 24-48% <24% >48% 24-48% <24% Gill netting >49% 24-49% <24% >33% 16-33% <16% 11. Average number per run Electrofishing <170 170-341 >341 <243 243-487 >487 <68 68-136 >136 Gill netting <20 20-40 >40 <11 11-22 >22 12. Percent anomalies Electro fishing >5% 2-5% <2% >5% 2-5% <2% >5% 2-5% <2% Gill netting >5% 2-5% <2% >5% 2-5% <2% 13 Table 2 Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RFAI Scores Downstream (TRM 292.S) and Upstream (TRM 295.9) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2008. Autumn2008 TRM292.5 TRM295.9 Metric Obs Score Obs Score A. Species richness and composition 1. Number of species (Tables 3 and 4) 28 species 3 28 species 3 2. Number of centrarchid species 6 species 7 species (less Micropterus) Green sunfish Green sunfish Bluegill Longear sunfish 5 Longear sunfish 5 Warmouth Wannouth Black crappie Redear sunfish Redear sunfish White crappie Black crappie 3. Number ofbenthic inve,rtivore species S species 4 species Spotted sucker Spotted sucker Black redhorse 3 Northern hog sucker 3 Golden redhorse Freshwater drum Freshwater drum Logperch Logperch 4. Number of intolerant species 5 species 5 species Spotted sucker Spotted sucker Skipjack herring Northern hog sucker Black redhorse 5 Skipjack herring 5 Longear sunfish Longear sunfish Smallmouth bass Smallmouth bass 14 Table 2. (Continued) Autumn2008 TRM292.5* TRM295.9 Metric Obs Score Obs Score 5. Percent tolerant individuals Electrofishing 37.4% 50.6% Bluegill 10.3% Bluegill 8.2% Gizzard shad 31. 7% Gizzard shad 19 .3 % Common carp 0.3% Largemouth bass 7 .2% 1.5 Largemouth bass 9.4% 1.5 Spotfin shiner 0.2% Spotfin shiner 0.2% Green sunfish 0.3% Golden shiner 0.2% Green sunfish 0.4% Gill Netting 32.1% 23.6% Gizzard shad 12.3% Gizzard shad 14.1% Common carp 0.5% Common carp 0.5% 1.5 Bluegill 3.2% 0.5 Largemouth bass 7 .0% Bluegill 1.0% Longnose gar 4.8% Largemouth bass 8.0% Golden shiner 2.7% White crappie 1.6% 6. Percent dominance by one species Electrofishing 52.7% 1.5 31.7% 1.5 Inland silverside Gizzard shad Gill Netting 28.6% 1.5 19.8% 1.5 White bass Channel catfish 7. Percent non-native species Electro fishing 29.5% 52.7% 0.5 Inland silverside 29.0% 0.5 Inland silverside 52. 7% Atlantic needlefish 0.1 % Common carp 0.3% Gill Netting 0.5% 1.6% . Common carp 0.5% 2.5 Common carp 0.5% 1.5 Striped bass 1.1 % 15 Table 2. (Continued) Autumn 2008 TRM292.5 TRM295.9 Metric Obs Score Obs Score 8. Number of top carnivore species 10 species 11 species Spotted gar Longnose gar Largemouth bass Spotted gar Spotted bass Largemouth bass Smallmouth bass Spotted bass Skipjack herring 5 Smallmouth bass 5 Flathead catfish Skipjack herring White bass Flathead catfish Yellow bass White bass Black crappie Yellow bass Sauger Black crappie White crappie B. Trophic composition 9. Percent top carnivores Electro fishing 8.5% 12.6% Largemouth bass 7.2% Largemouth bass 9.4% Spotted bass 0.2% Spotted bass 0.7% Smallmouth bass 1.0% Smallmouth bass 0. 7% Flathead catfish 0.06% Flathead catfish 0.3% 2.5 White bass 0.2% Yellow bass 1.0% Spotted gar 0.2% Gill Netting 61.3% 39.6% Spotted gar 0.5% Longnose gar 4.8% Largemouth bass 8.0% Largemouth bass 7.0% Spotted bass 1.0% Spotted bass 1.6% Skipjack herring 15.6% 2.5 Skipjack herring 1.6% 2.5 Flathead catfish 4.5% Flathead catfish 2J % White bass 28.6% White bass 14.0% Yellow bass 1.5% Yellow bass 5.3% Black crappie 0.5% White crappie 1.6% Sauger 1.0% Black crappie 0.5% 16 Table 2. (Continued) Autumn2008 TRM292.5 TRM295.9 Metric Obs Score Obs Score 10. Percent omnivores Electro fishing 20.7% 38.5% Gizzard shad 19 .3% Gizzard shad 31. 7% Channel catfish 1.2% 2.5 Channel catfish 5.8% 1.5 Blue catfish 0.2% Smallmouth buffalo 0.4% Common carp 0.3% Golden shiner 0.2% Gill Netting 26.6% 44.4% Gizzard shad 14.1% Gizzard shad 12.3% Blue catfish 6.0% 1.5 Blue catfish 5.3% 0.5 Channel catfish 3.5% Channel catfish 19.8% Smallmouth buffalo 2.0% Golden shiner 2.7% Black buffalo 0.5% Smallmouth buffalo 3. 7% Common carp 0.5% Common carp 0.5% C. Fish abundance and health 11. Average number per run Electro fishing 112.2 0.5 59.9 0.5 Gill Netting 19.9 1.5 18.7 1.5 12. Percent anomalies Electro fishing 0.4% 2.5 1% 2.5 Gill Netting 0.5% 2.5 0.5% 2.5 Overall RFAI Score 45 42 Good Good 17 Table 3. Species Collected, Trophic level, Native and Tolerance Classification, Catch Per Effort During ElectrofisJling and Gill Netting at Areas Downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2008. Trophic Sunfish Native Electro fishing Electro fishing Total fish Gill Netting Total Gill Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per Common Name Scientific name level species species Run Hour EF Net Night net fish Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM x TOL 21.67 103.83 325 2.80 28 Common carp Cyprinus carpio OM TOL 0.10 l Spotfin shiner Cyprinella spiloptera IN x TOL 0.20 0.96 3 Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN x x TOL 0.33 l.60 5 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN x x TOL l l.60 55.59 174 0.20 2 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides TC x TOL 8.13 38.98 122 l.60 16 Skipjack herring Alosa chrysoch/oris TC x INT 3.10 31 31 Spotted sucker Minytrema me/anops BI x INT 0.07 0.32 0.30 3 4 Black redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei BI x INT 0.07 0.32 l Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN x x INT 5.60 26.84 84 84 Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC x INT 1.13 5.43 17 17 Spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatus TC x 0.10 l Threadfin shad Dorosoma petenense PK x 0.07 0.32 Largescale stoneroller Campostoma oligolepis HB x 0.07 0.32 Smallmouth buffalo /ctiobus bubalus OM x 0.40 4 4 Black buffalo lctiobus niger OM x 0.10 l l Golden redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum BI x 0.13 0.64 2 0.10 3 Blue catfish Ictalurus jurcatus OM x 0.20 0.96 3 l.20 12 15 Channel catfish lctalurus punctatus OM x 1.33 6.39 20 0.70 7 27 Flathead catfish Pylodictis ofivaris TC x 0.07 0.32 0.90 9 10 White bass Morone chrysops TC x 5.70 57 51 Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC x 0.30 3 3 Warmouth Lepomis gu/osus IN x x 0.07 0.32 I Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN x x 1.40 6.7.l 21 l.10 11 32 Spotted bass Micropterus punctulatus TC x 0.20 0.96 3 0.20 2 5 Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC x x 0.10 l l Logperch Percina caprodes BI x 0.20 0.96 3 3 Sauger Sander canadensis TC x 0.20 2 2 Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI x 0.53 2.56 8 0.70 7 15 Inland silverside Menidia beryllina IN 59.13 283.39 887 887 Total 112.2p 537.72 1,683 93.90 19.90 199 Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected 21 20 18 Table4. Species Collected, Trophic level, Native and Tolerance Classification, Catch Per Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting at Areas Upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2008. Trophic Sunfish Native Electro fishing Electrofishing *Total fish Gill Netting Total Gill Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per EF Catch Rate Per Common Name Scientific name level species species Run Hour NetNight net fish Longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus TC x TOL 0.90 9 9 Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM x TOL 19.00 96.28 285 2.30 23 308 Common carp Cyprinus carpio OM TOL 0.20 1.01 3 0.10 1 4 Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas OM x TOL 0.13 0.68 2 0.50 5 7 Spotfin shiner Cyprinella spiloptera IN x TOL 0.13 0.68 2 2 Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN x x TOL 0.27 1.35 4 4 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN x x TOL 4.93 25.00 74 0.60 6 80 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides TC x TOL 5.60 28.38 84 1.30 13 97 White crappie Pomoxis annularis TC x x TOL 0.30 3 3 Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris TC x INT 0.30 3 3 Northern hog sucker Hypentelium nigricans BI x INT 0.13 0.68 2 2 Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI x INT 0.60 3.04 9 9 Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN x x INT 1.53 7.77 23 23 Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC x INT 0.40 2.03 6 6 Spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatus TC x 0.13 0.68 2 2 Threadfin shad Dorosoma petenense PK x 0.27 1.35 4 4 Bullhead minnow Pimephales vigilax IN x O.Q7 0.34 Smallmouth buffalo Ictiobus bubalus OM x 0.27 1.35 4 0.70 7 11 Blue catfish lctalurus farcatus OM x 1.00 10 10 Channel catfish Ictalurus punc/atus OM x 3.47 17.57 52 3.70 37 89 Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC x 0.20 1.01 3 0.40 4 7 White bass Morone chrysops TC x 0.13 0.68 2 2.60 26 28 Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC x 0.60 3.04 9 1.00 10 19 Striped bass Morone saxatilis TC 0.20 2 2 Wannouth Lepomis gulosus IN x x O.Q7 0.34 1 Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN x x 2.67 13.51 40 0._60 6 46 Spotted bass Micropterus punctulatus TC x 0.40 2.03 6 0.30 3 9 Black crappie Pomoxis nigromacu/atus TC x x 0.10 1 1 Logperch Percina caprodes BI x 0.33 1.69 5 5 Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI x 0.87 4.39 13 1.80 18 31 Inland sil verside Menidia beryllina IN 17.40 88.18 261 261 Atlantic needlefish Strongylura marina TC 0.07 0.34 l 1 Total 59.87 303.4 898 18.7 187 1085 Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected 26 19 19 Table 5. Summary ofRFAI Scores from Sites Located Directly Upstream and Downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant as Well as Scores from Sampling Conducted During 1993-2008 as Part of the Vital Signs Monitoring Program in Wheeler Reservoir. Location 1993 1994 1995 1997 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 TRM 348.0 46 48 42 48 36 38 46 40 44 46 46 38 38 TRM 295.9 43 43 35 42 30 41 37 43 39 43 46 45 39 42 TRM292.5 43 40 41 43 43 36 44 42 45 TRM 277.0 52 44 49 44 42 43 47 46 45 45 48 49 46 ERM 6.0 43 46 36 49 51 44 51 47 39 Note: No data were collected for 1996 and 1998. RFAI Scores: 12-21 ("Very Poor"), 22-31("Poor"),32-40 ("Fair"), 41-50 ("Good"), or 51-60 ("Excellent"). 20 Table 6. Individual Metric Ratings and the Overall RBI Field Scores for Upstream and Downstream Sampling Sites Near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Wheeler Reservoir, Autumn 2008. Downstream Upstream TRM291.7 TRM295.9 Metric Obs Rating Obs Rating 1. Average number of taxa 6.3 5 5.8 5 2. Proportion of samples with long-lived organisms 0.9 5 0.7 3 3. Average number of EPT taxa 1.1 5 0.5 3 4. Average proportion of oligochaete individuals 7.2 5 7.8 5 5. Average proportion of total abundance comprised by the 81.5 3 84.5 3 two most abundant taxa 6. Average density excluding chironomids and 181.7 I 220 1 oligochaetes 7. Zero-samples -proportion of samples containing no 0 5 0 5 organisms Benthic Index Score 29 25 Good Good *TRM 295.9 and TRM 291.7 scored with transition criteria. Reservoir Benthic Index Scores: 7-12 ("Very Poor"), 13-18 ("Poor"), 19-23 ("Fair), 24-29 ("Good"), 30-35 ("Excellent) 21 Table 7. RBI Field Scores from Data Collected During 1994-2008 at Wheeler Reservoir Inflow, Transition, Embayment, and \ Forebay Sampling Sites. Station Location 1994 1995 1997 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Inflow TRM 31 21 25 23 21 25 31 31 31 33 33 347.0 Transition TRM 33 25 31 31 31 29 31 31 33 31 31 33 25 BFN Upstream 295.9 Transition TRM 27 31 27 35 33 31 31 29 29 BFN Downstream 291.7 Forebay TRM 19 15 23 17 17 15 15 19 15 13 13 15 277.0 Elk River ERM 15 13 15 15 15 15 17 13 Embayment 6.0 Note: No data were collected for 1996 and 1998. Reservoir Benthic Index Scores: 7-12 ("Very Poor), 13-18 ("Poor), 19-23 ("Fair), *24-29 ("Good"), 30-35 ("Excellenn 22 Table 8. *Average Mean Density Per Square Meter ofBenthic Taxa at Upstream and Downstream Sites Near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Wheeler Reservoir, Autumn 2008. Taxa Tubellaria Tricladida Planariidae Oligocheata Oligochaetes Hirudinea Crustacea Amphipoda* lsopoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Mayflies other than Hexagenia Ephemeridae Hexagenia (:SIO mm) Hexagenia (> 10 mm) Odonata Trichoptera Caddisflies Plecotera Stoneflies Coeleoptera Diptera Ceratopogonidae Chironomidae Chironomids Gastropoda Snails . Basommatophora Ancylidae Bivalvia Unionoida Unionidae Mussels Veneroida Corbiculidae Corhicula (:SlOmm) Corbicula (>I Omm) Sphaeriidae Fingernail clams Dreissenidae Dreissena palymarpha Density of organisms per meter Number of samples Total area sampled (meter) 23 Downstream TRM291.7 27 5 57 3 40 7 298 8 2, 3 7 50 507 10 0.6 Upstream TRM295.9 57 2 12 27 17 12 432 13 12. 55 72 711 10 0.6

/ Table 9. ElectrofIShing Catch Rates and Population Characteristics of Black Bass Collected During Spring Sport Fish Surveys on Wheeler Reservoir, 1995-2008. EF Catch Mean Bass Bass Largest Year Rate Weight % Harvestable >4 lbs. >5 lbs. bass (no./hr.} (lbs.} (lbs.} 2008 82.0 1.5 55.5 14 5 5.9 2007. 76.1 1.6 53.8 31 7 6.5 2006 37.9 1.3 75.4 15 5 6.2 2005 60.7 1.7 69.9 36 11 6.8 2004 71.8 1.3 76.2 54 23 6.0 2003 55.7 1.3 51.4 20 7 6.4 2002 59.5 1.3 49.4 23 11 6.1 2001 62.7 1.2 41.0 1 0 4.2 2000 73.0 1.2 66.0 5 1 5.6 1999 33.2 1.2 58.3 0 0 4.7 1998 55.5 1.1 38.0 2 0 4.4 1997 47.8 1.0 69.2 5 2 6.1 1996 70.3 1.5 42.8 9 5 6.2 1995 36.8 1.2 68.0 12 5 6.3 Table 10. Black Bass Catch Per Hour Compared to Habitat Types by Location During Spring Sport Fish Surveys on Wheeler Reservoir, 2008. Habitat Designation Wheeler Reservoir Site Good Elk River 45(1) First Creek 126(2) Second Creek 133(2) Catch per hour = number of fish collected per hour ( ) = number of transects sampled at each location 24 Fair

• 94(8) 100(8) 50(8) Poor 47(3) 65(2) 85(2)

I 0 3 N + I e I 12 Miles Tennessee Alabama Athens

• Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant Huntsville
• Figure 1. Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant is located on the north shore of Wheeler Reservoir at Tennessee River Mile 294. 25 \ \

Figure 2. Location of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant and Condenser Cooling Water (CCW) intake and discharge. 26 Electrofishing locations Gill net locations P028 N3442.701 W8708.909 N34 42.723 W8708.858 P029 N34 42.785 W87 08.458 N34 42.816 W87 08.543 P030 N3442.857 W8708.076 N3442.861 W8708.021 P031 N34 42.522 W87 07.533 N3442.977 W87 07.814 P032 N34 42.703 W87 09.375 N34 43.271 W8707.998 P033 N34 43.310 W8708.006 N34 43.776 W8708.650 P034 N3443.030 W8707.728 N34 43.478 W87 08.568 P035 N3443.290 W87 10.130 N3443.247 W87 09.062 P036 N34 43.709 W87 08.377 N3443.052 W87 08.843 P037 N34 44.012 W8708.709 N3442.896 W8709.l ll P038 N34 43.688 W87 10.498 N3443.049 W87 09.256 P039 N34 42.903 W8709.727 N34 43.176 W87 09.331 P040 N3442.250 W8708.981 P041 N34 44.387 W87 09.062 P042 N34 43.843 W8710.763 Figure 3. RFAI electrofishing and gill net locations downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. Black squares represent electrofishing locations; red diamonds represent gill net locations. 27 1596 1597 1598 1599 1600 1601 1602 1603 1604 1605 1606 1607 1608 1609 1610 / ..,.,.. l ,/'.,.,.... ""'*:._ \. r . ...,.,_ \ ............ Electrofishinll locations N34 41.336 W8704.933 N34 41.513 W8705.l62 N34 41.683 W87 05.447 N34 41.887 W87 05.997 N3442.092 W87 06.198 N34 41.917 W87 06.127 N34 41.935 W87 06.365 N34 41.926 W8706.604 N34 41.953 W87 06.840 N34 42.060 W87 07.142 N34 40.770 W8706.793 N3440.610 W8706.515 N3440.278 W8706.503 N34 40.237 W87 06.083 N34 40.097 W8705.930 Si*. Gill net locations N34 47.083 W87 20.788 N3447.250 W8720.972 N34 47.350 W87 21.448 N3447.480 W87 21.912 N3447.723 W87 22.407 N3449.002 W8722.067 N3449.l07 W8722.028 N3448.927 W87 21.533 N3448.910 W87 21.080 N3448.740 W8720.860 N3448.887 W87 20.585 N3448.682 W87 20.458 Figure 4. RF AI electrofishing and gill net locations upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. Black squares represent electrofishing locations; red circles represent gill net locations. 28 207 g1so ! g" I * , 100 100 j: @ -* 48 50 12 I* fu. * > : rt 1* 11 9 5 I 0 ......... ......... 3 5 7 9 11 . 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 Total Length (inches) Figure 5. Length frequency distribution for largemouth bass collected from Wheeler Reservoir (all sites) during Spring Sport Fish Surveys, 2008. 50 45 40 g 35 :! 30 5i 25 e l. 20 15 *,, .,_ --*. -------.. ------------___ ___ ------.. ::.--23* *-.,. __ .* : OesiableRSD15Range ------.*fi 10 --.. -----. -----.... fe. -----. ------------. ------------. ------------. -----. -----.. -----. -----. ------. -----. --5 n "Tl Q ,.. z ::s' -c CD a lU ::s' n r-::I ::J i = i 0 .. .. l 0 CD c O> ; c ;;; n iS' :i a. n Ill 0 :s. . .f a. Ill ... m c c :i iii' ca m Reservoir Figure 6. Relative stock density values for Tennessee River reservoirs calculated from 2008 Spring Sport Fish Survey samples. 29 100 90 80 GI 70 CJI 60 J! c 50 GI 40 GI II. 30 20 10 0 PSD VALUES MAINSTEM RESERVOIRS SPRING 2008 ,.,Q4 / ,, ......... / -..... .. o _,,, -----..-ss (') :l! G> ,; z ,, i :§ ::r c Ill n ii' n ,.... ::s ::s ... I if .. ii' ... 0 &' 2' .!!!. .. 0 c .. Cl, il n .. n ID iii ::s a 0 a ... .. .. .. c ... .. c ::s ca Ill Reservoir Figure 7. Proportional stock density values for Tennessee River reservoirs calculated from 2008 Spring Sport Fish Survey samples. I* Percent --# of Fish I 120 600 100 500 s::. w M ..... -60 l 40 20 0 ---+300 GI .a ---201) E :i ----;-100 z 0 0-7 8-11 12-14 15-19 20-24 25 + Relative Stock Size by Inch Group Figure 8. Wheeler Reservoir mean relative weights (Wr) for largemouth bass, calculated from 2008 Spring Sport Fish Survey samples. 30 80000 70000 -FY 2008 daily average 60000 -Historic daily average, 1976-2007 50000 ! 40000 u:: 30000 20000 10000 A,r;ff A,<::Jco 'fO ,{:>co _\<::1'0 'fO ....,r:S-<::J ....,....,'f' <::Jrpi::,v <:f'<::f-....,r:S-&-Date . Figure 9. Daily average flows from Guntersville Dam, October 2007 through November 2008, and historic daily flows, averaged for the period 1976-2C,07. 31 80 u. 0 t 70 t -Downstream of BFN --Upstream of BFN E 60 50. 30 /::; /::; & & & & & & & & & & ;s ;s & & & i t @ @ i§ §? §i? i ""' i§ ;s & @ & § & c:5 .... 0 0 0 .... Date Figure 10. Daily average water temperatures at a depth of five feet, recorded upstream of BFN intake and downstream of BFN discharge, October 2007 through November 2008. 32 Appendix 1: Historical RF AI Scores Historical Metric Scores and the Overall RF AI Scores for Areas Upstream and Downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, 2000-2007. 33 / Appendix 1-A. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RFAI Scores for Sites Upstream and Downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2007. Autumn2007 Downstream Upstream TRM292.S TRM29S.9 Metric Obs Score Obs Score A. Species richness and composition 1. Number of species 26 3 26 3 2. _Number of centrarchid species 5 5 7 5 3. Number ofbenthic invertivores 5 3 3 1 4. Number of intolerant species 5 5 5 5 5. Percent tolerant individuals Electro fishing 48.l 1.5 64.7 0.5 Gill Netting 23.5 1.5 30.9 0.5 6. Percent dominance by 1 species Electrofishing 37.8 1.5 31.8 1.5 Gill Netting 23.5 1.5 23.6 1.5 7. Percent non-native species Electrofishing 34.2 0.5 16.9 0.5 Gill Netting 0 2.5 0 2.5 8. Number of top carnivore species 9 5 8 5 B. Trophic composition 9. Percent top carnivores Electro fishing 4.8 0.5 16 2.5 Gill Netting 56.3 2.5 54.5 2.5 10. Percent omnivores Electrofi shing 42.5 1.5 36.8 1.5 Gill Netting 38.7 0.5 38.2 0.5 C. Fish abundance and health 11. Average number per run Electrofishing 60.3 0.5 36.3 0.5 Gill Netting 11.9 1.5 5.5 0.5 12. Percent anomalies Electro fishing 1.2 2.5 0.9 2.5 Gill Netting 0 2.5 0 2.5 Overall RFAI Score 42 39 Good Fair 34 Appendix 1-B. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RF AI Scores for Sites Upstream and Downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2006. Autumn 2006 Downstream Upstream TRM292.S TRM295.9. Metric Obs Score Obs Score A. Species richness and composition 1. Number of species 28 3 31 5 2. Number of centrarchid species 6 5 6 5 3. Number of benthic invertivores 4 3 4 3 4. Number of intolerant species 5 5 5 5 5. Percent tolerant individuals Electro fishing 13.9 2.5 35.5 1.5 Gill Netting 32.6 0.5 33 0.5 6. Percent dominance by 1 species Electro fishing 67.4 0.5 47.5 1.5 Gill Netting 25.3 1.5 30 1.5 7. Percent non-native species Electro fishing 0.1 2.5 0.1 2.5 Gill Netting 0 2.5 1 1.5 8. Number of top carnivore species 9 5 11 5 B. Trophic composition 9. Percent top carnivores Electro fishing 12.5 2.5 14.2 2.5 43.2 2.5 45 2.5 10. Percent omnivores Electro fishing 10.2 2.5 21.8 2.5 Gill Netting 53.7 0.5 47 0.5 C. Fish abundance and health 11. Average number per run Electro fishing 119.7 0.5 63.5 0.5 Gill Netting 9.5 0.5 10 0.5 12. Percent anomalies Electro fishing 0.3 2.5 0.6 2.5 Gill Netting 2.1 1.5 2 1.5 Overall RF Al Score 44 45 Good Good 35 .. Appendix 1-C. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RFAI Scores for Sites Upstream and Downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2005. Autumn2005 Downstream Upstream TRM292.5 TRM295.9 Metric Obs Score Obs Score A. Species richness and composition 1. Number of species 27 3 32 5 2. Number of centrarchid species 6 s 6 5

• 3. Number ofbenthic invertivores 5 3 7 3 4. Number of intolerant species 4 3 6 5 5. Percent tolerant individuals Electro fishing 18.2 2.5 37.1 1.5 Gill Netting 39 0.5 10 2.5 6. Percent dominance by 1 species Electro fishing 64.1 0.5 49.1 1.5 Gill Netting 36.4 0.5 20 1.5 7. Percent non-native species Electro fishing 2.3 0.5 0.3 2.5 Gill Netting 0 2.5 0 2.5 8. Number of top carnivore species 7 3 11 5 B. Trophic composition 9. Percent top carnivores Electro fishing 5.5 1.5 3 0.5 Gill Netting 20.8 1.5 53.3 2.5 10. Percent omnivores Electrofishing 16 2.5 33 1.5 Gill Netting 59.7 0.5 35 0.5 C. Fish abundance and health 11. Average number per run Electro fishing 82.2 0.5 118.7 0.5 Gill Netting 7.7 0.5 6 0.5 12. Percent anomalies Electro fishing 0.2 2.5 0.1 2.5 Gill Netting 0 2.5 0 2.5
• Overall RF AI Score 36 46 Fair Good 36 Appendix 1-D. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RFAI Scores for Sites Upstream and Downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2004. Autumn 2004 Downstream Upstream TRM292.S TRM29S.9 *Metric Obs Score Obs Score A. Species richness and composition 1. Number of species 28 3 30 3 2. Number of centrarchid species 5 5 7 5 3. Number of benthic invertivores 6 3 7 3 4. Number of intolerant species 5 5 7 5 5. Percent tolerant individuals Electro fishing 26 2.5 54.6 0.5 Gill Netting 0 2.5 12.6 2.5 6. Percent dominance by 1 species Electro fishing 36 1.5 23.6 2.5 Gill Netting 64.1 0.5 19.3 1.5 7. Percent non-native species Electro fishing 20 0.5 8.8 0.5 Gill Netting 2.6 0.5 7.6 0.5 8. Number of top carnivore species 8 5 11 5 B. Trophic composition 9. Percent top carnivores Electrofishing 9.3 1.5 19.1 2.5 Gill Netting 84.6 2.5 61.3 2.5 10. Percent omnivores Electro fishing 15.1 2.5 36 1.5 Gill Netting 15.4 2.5 29.4 1.5 C. Fish abundance and health 11. Average number per run Electro fishing 65.7 0.5 31.1 0.5 Gill Netting 3.9 0.5 11.9 1.5 12. Percent anomalies Electro fishing 2 1.5 1.5 2.5 Gill Netting 0 2.5 2.5 1.5 Overall RF AI Score 43 43 Good Good 37 Appendix 1-E. Indivjdual Metric Scores and the .Overall RFAI Scores for Sites Upstream and Downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2003. Autumn 2003 Downstream Upstream TRM292.S TRM29S.9 Metric Obs Score Obs Score A. Species richness and composition 1. Number of species 28 3 28 3 2. Number of centrarchid species 7 5 6 5 3. Number ofbenthic invertivores 4 3 4 3 4. Number of intolerant species 4 3 5 5 5. Percent tolerant individuals Electrofishing 48.7 1.5 66.8 0.5 Gill Netting 6.3 2.5 16.9 1.5 6. Percent dominance by 1 species Electrofishing 28.l 2.5 41.8 1.5 Gill Netting . 25.4 1.5 27.7 1.5 7. Percent non-native species Electrofishing 7.1 0.5 8 0.5 Gill Netting 0 2.5 0 2.5 8. Number of top carnivore species 10 5 10 5 B. Trophic composition 9. Percent top carnivores Electro fishing 12.4 2.5 9.7 1.5 Gill Netting 63.5 2.5 36.9 1.5 10. Percent omnivores Electro fishing 38.1 1.5 51.l 0.5 Gill Netting 27 1.5 56.9 0.5 C. Fish abundance and health 11. Average number per run Electro fishing 40.4 0.5 23.5 0.5 Gill Netting 6.3 0.5 6.5 0.5 12. Percent anomalies Electro fishing 3 1.5 0.9 2.5 Gill Netting 0 2.5 0 2.5 Overall RFAI Score 43 39 Good Fair 38 Appendix 1-F. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RF AI Scores for Sites Upstream and Downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2002. Autumn2002 Downstream Upstream. TRM292.5 TRM295.9 Metric Obs Score Obs Score A. Species richness and composition 1. Number of species 25 3 26 3 2. Number of centrarchid species 4 5 4 5 3. Number of benthic invertivores 5 3 4 3 4. Number of intolerant species 5 5 6 5 5. Percent tolerant individuals Electro fishing 54.1 0.5 38.1 1.5 Gill Netting 7.8 2.5 8.4 2.5 6. Percent dominance by 1 species Electrofishing 25.7 2.5 . 30.3 1.5 Gill Netting 36.1 0.5 25.3 1.5 7. Percent non-native species Electro fishing 24.9 0.5 13.3 0.5 Gill Netting 5.6 0.5 7.2 0.5 8. Number of top carnivore species 8 5 8 5 B. Trophic composition 9. Percent top carnivores Electro fishing 9.7 1.5 10.6 2.5 Gill N e_tting 63.3 2.5 74.7 2.5 I 0. Percent omnivores Electrofishing 28.6 1.5 19.2 2.5 Gill Netting 26.7 1.5 21.7 1.5 C. Fish and health 11. Average number per run Electro fishing 68.8 0.5 38.5 0.5 Gill Netting 9 0.5 8.3 0.5 12. Percent anomalies Electro fishing 1.3 2.5 2.1 1.5 Gill Netting 0 2.5 1.2 2.5 Overall RF AI Score 41 43 Good Good 39 Appendix 1-G. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RFAI Scores for Sites Upstream and Downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2001. Autumn2001 Downstream . Upstream TRM292.5 TRM295.9 Metric Obs Score Obs Score A. Species richness and composition 1. Number of species 27 3 29 3 2. Number of centrarchid species 5 5 7 5 3. Number of benthic invertivores 5 3 3 1 4. Number of intolerant species 5 5 6 5 5. Percent tolerant individuals Electrofishing 46 1.5 60.2 0.5 Gill Netting 39.2 0.5 29.7 1.5 6. Percent dominance by 1 species Electro fishing 25.8 2.5 49.2 1.5 Gill Netting 29.4 1.5 28.1 1.5 7. Percent non-native species Electro.fishing 6.8 0.5 7.5 0.5
• Gill Netting 2 1.5 4.7 0.5 8. Number of top carnivore species 8 5 11 5 B. Trophic composition 9. Percent top carnivores Electro fishing 16.2 2.5 10.2 2.5 Gill Netting 35.3 1.5 45.3 2.5 10. Percent omnivores Electrofishing 31.6 1.5 55.7 0.5 Gill Netting 54.9 0.5 46.9 0.5 ., C. Fish abundance and health 11. Average number per run Electrofishing 25.5 0.5 34 0.5 Gill Netting 5.1 0.5 12.8 1.5 12. Percent anomalies Electro fishing 1 2.5 1.4 2.5 Gill Netting 3.9 1.5 3.1 1.5 Overall RF AI Score 40 37 Fair Fair 40 Appendix 1-H. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RFAI Scores for Sites Upstream and Downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2000. Autumn 2000 Downstream Upstream TRM292.S TRM29S.9 Metric Obs Score Obs Score A. Species richness and composition 1. Number of species 24 3 24 3 2. Number of centrarchid species 3 5 3 5 3. Number of benthic invertivores 6 3* 6 3 4. Number of intolerant species 8 5 5 5 5. Percent tolerant individuals Electrofishing 34.4 1.5 64.3 0.5 Gill Netting 17 1.5 9.5 2.5 6. Percent dominance by 1 species Electrofishing 30.9 1.5 48.2 1.5 Gill Netting 56 0.5 55.8 0.5 7. Percent non-native species Electro fishing 0 2.5 2.9 0.5 Gill Netting . 1 1.5 6.3 0.5 8. Number of top carnivore species 8 5 9 5 B. Trophic composition 9. Percent top carnivores Electrofishing 6.9 1.5 14.1 2.5 Gill Netting 68 2.5 82.1 2.5 10. Percent omnivores Electro fishing 37.1 1.5 52.1 0.5 Gill Netting 27 1.5 14.7 2.5 C. Fish abundance and health 11. Average number per run Electrofishing 17.3 0.5 20.7 0.5 Gill Netting 10 0.5 9.5 0.5 12. Percent anomalies Electrofishing 0 2.5 0 2.5 Gill Netting 0 2.5 0 2.5 Overall RFAI Score 43 41 Good Good 41 Appendix 2: Historical Fish Species List Species Collected and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing at Areas Upstream and Downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, 2000-2007. 42 Appendix 2-A. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Native and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Downstream (TRM 292.5) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2007. Trophic Sunfish Native Electro fishing Electrofishing Total fish Gill Netting Total Gill Total fish level species species Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per EF Catch Rate Per net fish Combined Common Name Scientific name Run Hour Net Night Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM x TOL 22.80 119.58 342 2.50 25 367 Common carp Cyprinus carpio OM TOL 0.07 0.35 . I Golden shiner Notemigonus cryso/eucas OM x TOL 0.07 0.35 Spotfin shiner Cyprinella spi/optera IN x TOL 0.40 2.10 6 6 Green sunfish Lepomis cyane/lus IN x x TOL 0.40 2.10 6 6 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN x x TOL 4.00 20.98 60 60 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides TC x TOL 1.27 6.64 19 0.30 3 22 Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris TC x INT 2.80 28 28 Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI x INT 0.27 1.40 4 0.10 5 Black redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei BI x INT 0.07 0.35 I I Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN x x INT 2.00 10.49 30 30 Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC x INT 0.93 4.90 14 14 Spotted gar Lepisosteus ocu/a/us TC x Q.40 4 4 Threadfin shad Dorosoma petenense PK x 0.13 0.70 2 0.10 I 3 Smallmouth buffalo Ictiobus bubo/us OM x 0.53 2.80 8 0.90 9 17 Golden redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum BI x 0.07 0.35 I Blue catfish Ictalurus furcalus OM x 0.70 7 7 Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus OM x 2.13 11.19 32 0.50 5 37 Flathead catfish Py/odiclis o/ivaris TC x 0.13 0.70 2 0.60 6 8 White bass Marone chrysops TC x 0.10 I Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC x 0.33 1.75 5 2.30 23 28 Wannouth Lepomis gulosus IN x x 0.13 0.70 2 2 Redear sunfish Lepomis micro/ophus IN x x 1.27 6.64 19 19 Spotted bass Microplerus punctu/alus TC x 0.20 1.05 3 0.10 4 Logperch Percina caprodes BI x 0.07 0.35 Sauger Sander canadensis TC x 0.10 Freshwater drum Aplodinolus grunniens BI x 2.47 12.94 37 0.40 4 41 Inland silverside Menidia bery/lina IN 20.53 107.69 308 308 Total 60.27 316.10 904 11.90 119 1,023 Number Samples IS 10 Species Collected 23 15 43 Appendix 2-B. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Native and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Upstream (TRM 295.9) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2007. Trophic Sunfish Native Electro fishing Electrofishing Total fish Gill Netting Total Gill Total fish level species species Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per EF Catch Rate Per net fish Combined Common Name Scientific name Run Hour Net Night Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM x TOL 11.53 57.86 173 1.30 13 186 Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas OM x TOL 0.93 4.68 14 14 Spotfin shiner Cyprinella spi/optera IN x TOL 0.13 0.67 2 2 Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus IN x x TOL 0.20 1.00 3 3 Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN x x TOL 0.20 1.00 3 3 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN x x TOL 5.60 28.09 84 84 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides TC x TOL 4.87 24.41 73 0.40 4 77 Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris TC x INT 1.10 II II Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI x INT 0.53 2.68 8 8 . Black redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei BI x INT 0.07 0.33 1 Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN x x INT 1.53 7.69 23 23
• Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC x INT 0.13 0.67 2 2 Spotted.gar Lepisosteus oculatus TC x 0.30 3 3 Threadfin shad Dorosoma petenense PK x 0.07 0.33 I I Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides IN x 0.13 0.67 2 2 Bullhead minnow Pimephales vigilax IN x 0.07 0.33 1 Smallmouth buffalo Ictiobus bubalus OM x 0.40 2.01 6 0.20 2 8 Blue catfish Jctalurus furcatus OM x 0.20 2 2 Channel catfish Icialurus punctatus OM x 0.47 2.34 7 0.40 4 II Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC x 0.07 0.33 I 0.20 2 3 Yellow bass Marone mississippiensis TC x 0.47 2.34 7 0.80 8 15 Wannouth Lepomis gulosus IN x x 0.07 0.33 Redear stlllfish Lepomis microlophus IN x x 1.20 6.02 18 0.10 19 Spotted bass Micropterus punctulatus TC x 0.20 1.00 3 0.10 4 Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC x x o.<n 0.33 I 0.10 2 Yellow perch Perea flavescens IN 0.13 0.67 2 2 Freshwater drum Ap/odinotus grunniens BI x 1.20 6.02 18 0.30 3 21 Inland si!verside Menidia beryllina IN 6.00 30.10 90 90 Total 36.27 181.90 544 5.50 55 599 Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected 25 13 44 Appendix 2-C. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Native and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Downstream (TRM 292.5) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2006. Trophic Sunfish Native Electrofishing Electrofishing Total fish Gill Netting Total Gill Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per Common Name Scientific name level species species Run Hour EF NetNight net fish Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM x TOL 7.13 30.14 107 2.40 24 Common carp Cyprinus carpio OM TOL 0.07 0.28 Spotfin shiner Cyprine/la spi/optera IN x TOL 0.93 3.94 14 Striped shiner Luxilus chrysocepha/us OM x TOL 0.o7 0.28 1 Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN x x TOL 0.87 3.66 13 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN x x TOL 2.87 12.11 43 0.10 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides TC x TOL 4.73 20.00 71 0.50 5 White crappie Pomoxis annularis TC x x TOL 0.10 I Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris TC x INT 1.60 16 16 Spotted sucker Minytrema me/anops BI x INT 0.47 1:97 7 7 Black redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei BI x INT 0.13 0.56 2 2 Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN x x INT 3.80 16.06 51 51 Smallmouth bass Micropterus do/omieu TC x INT 3.93 16.62 59 59 Threadfin shad Dorosoma petenense PK x 0.07 0.28 Emerald shiner No/ropis atherinoides IN x 0.33 1.41 5 5 Bullhead minnow Pimephales vigilax IN x 0.13 0.56 2 2 Smallmouth buffalo Ictiobus buba/us OM x 0.40 I.69 6 0.20 2 8 Blue catfish lcta/urus furcatus OM x 1.50 15 15 Channel catfish /ctalurus punctatus OM x 4.53 19.15 68 1.00 10 78 Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC x 0.53 2.25 8 o.40 4 12 White bass Morone chrysops TC x 2.80 11.83 42 0.20 2 44 Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC x 0.33 1.41 5 0.20 2 7 Striped bass Morone saxatilis TC 0 Hybrid striped x white bass Hybrid morone (chrysops x sax) TC 0.07 0.28 Wannouth Lepomis gulosus IN x x 0.07 0.28 I Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN x x 0.40 1.69 6 6 Spotted bass Micropterus punctu/atus TC x 2.53 10.70 38 0.10 39 Logperch Percina caprodes BI x 0.60 2.54 9 9 Sauger Sander canadensis TC x 0.o7 0.28 1.00 10 11 Freshwater drum Ap/odinotus grunniens BI x 1.13 4.79 17 0.20 2 19 Inland silverside Menidia bery/lina IN 80.67 340.85 1210 1,210 Total 119.66 505.61 1,795 9.50 95 1,890 Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected 27 14 45 Appendix 2-D. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Native and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Upstream (TRM 295.9) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2006. Trophic Sunfish Native Electrofishing Electrofishing Total fish Gill Netting Total Gill level species species Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per EF Catch Rate Per net fish Common Name Scientific name Run Hour Net Night Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM x TOL 11.47 50.59 172 3.00 30 Golden shiner Notemigonus cryso/eucas OM x TOL 0.80 3.53 12 . Spotfin shiner Cyprinel/a spiloptera IN x TOL 0.20 0.88 3 Green sunfish Lepomis cyane/lus IN x x TOL 0.27 1.18 4 4 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN x x TOL 2.93 12.94 44 0.20 2 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides TC x TOL 6.87 30.29 103 0.10 Skipjack herring Alosa chrysoch/oris TC x INT 2.40 24 24 Spotted sucker Minytrema me/anops BI x INT 1.80 7.94 27 27 Black redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei BI x INT 0.27 1.18 4 4 Longear sunfish Lepomis mega/otis IN x x INT 0.60 2.65 9 9 Smallmouth bass Micropterus do/omleu TC x INT 0.07 0.29 1 Spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatus. TC x 0.20 0.88 3 o.so s 8 Bow fin Amia calva TC x O.Q7 0.29 Threadfin shad Dorosoma petenense PK x O.Q7 0.29 Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides IN x 1.13 5.00 17 17 Bullhead minnow Pimepha/es vigi/ax IN x 0.20 0.88 3 3 Smallmouth buffalo /ctiobus buba/us OM x 0.53 2.35 8 0.50 5 13 Bigmouth buffalo /ctiobus cyprinellus PK x 0.07 0.29 1 Blue catfish /ctalurus farcatus OM x 0.20 2 2 Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus OM x 1.07 4.71 16 1.00 10 26 Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC x 0.13 0.59 2 0.20 2 4 Yellow bass Marone mississlppiensls TC x 0.53 2.35 8 0.70 7 15 Hybrid striped x white bass Hybrid morone (chrysops x sax) TC 0.10 1 Warmouth Lepomis gu/osus* IN x x 0.13 0.59 2 2 Redear sunfish Lepomis micro/ophus IN x x 1.27 5.59 19 0.40 4 23 Spotted bass Micropterus punctu/a/us TC x 0.87 3.82 13 0.20 2 IS Hybrid bass Hybrid micropterus sp. TC x O.Q7 0.29 Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC x x O.Q7 0.29 I 0.10 2 Yellow perch Perea jlavescens IN O.Q7 0.29 1 1 Logperch Percina caprodes BI x 0.53 2.35 8 8 Sauger Sander canadensis TC x 0.13 0.59 2 0.10 3 Walleye Stizostedion vilreum TC x 0.10 1 I Freshwater drum Ap/odinotus grunniens BI x 0.93 4.12 14 0.20 2 16 Inland silverside Menidia beryllina IN 30.20 133.24 . 453 453 Total 63.55 280.27 953 10.00 100 1,053 Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected 30 17 46 Appendix 2-.E. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Native and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Downstream (TRM 292.5) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2005. Trophic Sunfish Native Electrofishing Electro fishing Total fish Gill Netting Total Gill Total fish level species species Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per EF Catch Rate Per net fish Combined Common Nam_e Scientific name Run Hour Net Night Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM x TOL .9.60 54.75 144 2.80 28 172 Spotfin shiner Cyprinel/a spi/optera IN x TOL 0.80 4.56 12 12 Bluntnose minnow Pimepha/es notatus OM x TOL 0.13 0.76 2 2 Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus IN x x TOL 0.07 0.38 Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN x x TOL 1.20 6.84 18 18 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN x x TOL 1.93 11.03 29 29 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides TC x TOL 1.27 7.22 19 0.20 2 21 Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris TC x INT 0.40 4 4 Spotted sucker Minytrema me/anops BI x INT 0.53 3.04 8 0.10 .I 9 Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN x x INT 1.20 6.84 18 18 Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC x INT 0.80 4.56 12 12 Threadfin sharl Dorosoma pelenense PK x 52.67 300.38 790 0.20 2 792 Largescale. stonero lier Camposloma o/igolepis HB x 0.13 0.76 2 2 Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides IN x 0.73 4.18 11 11 Smallmouth buffalo Jctiobus buba/us OM x 0.80 4.56 12 0.50 5 17 Silver redhorse Maxostoma anisurum Bl x 0.10 Golden redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum BI x 0.40 4 4 Blue catfish /clalurus farcatus OM x 0.60 6 6 Channel catfish lctalurus punclatus OM x 2.60 14.83 39 0.70 7 46 Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC x 0.60 6 6 White bass Morone chrysops TC x 2.13 12.17 32 32 Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC x 0.20 2 2 Warmouth Lepomis gulosus IN *X x 0.20 1.14 l 3 Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN x x 0.60 3.42 9 0.40 4 13 Spotted bass Micropterus punctulatus TC x 0.33 1.90 s 0.20 2 7 Logperch Percina caprodes BI x 0.40 2.28 6 6 Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI x 2.20 12.55 33 0.30 3 36 Inland silverside Menidia bery/lina IN 1.87 10.65 28 28 Total 82.19 468.80 1,233 7.70 77 1,310 Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected 22 15 47 Appendix 2-F. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Native and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Upstream (TRM 295.9) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2005. Trophic Sunfish Native Electro fishing Electro fishing Total fish Gill Netting Total Gill Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per Common Name Scientific name level species species Run Hour EF Net Night net fish Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM x TOL 38.53 228.46 578 0.30 3* 581 Golden shiner Notemigonus cryso/eucas OM x TOL O.IO 1 1 Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN x x TOL 0.07 0.40 1 1 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN x x TOL 4.40 26.09 66 66 Largemouth bass Microplerus sa/moides TC x TOL 1.00 5.93 15 .0.10 16 White crappie Pomoxis annularis TC x x TOL O.o7 0.40 1 0.1() 2 Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris TC x INT 0.07 0.40 0.70 7 8 Northern hog sucker Hypen/e/ium nigricans BI x INT 0.27 1.58 4 4 Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI x INT 1.53 9.09 23 0.10 24 Black redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei BI x INT 0.10 1 Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN x x INT 1.13 6.72 17 0.10 18 Smallmouth bass Micropterus do/omieu TC x INT 0.20 1.19 3 3 Spotted gar Lepisos/eus oculatus TC x 0.20 1.19 3 3 Threadfin shad Dorosoma pelenense PK x 58.27 345.45 874 874 Largescale stoneroller Campostoma o/igo/epis HB x 0.13 0.79 2 2 Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides IN x 6.93 41.11 104 104 Bullhead minnow Pimephales vigilax IN x O.Q7 0.40 1 Smallmouth buffalo lcliobus bubalus OM x 0.07 0.40 Silver redhorse Moxos/oma anisurum BI x 0.10 Golden redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum er x 0.10 Blue catfish lctalurus furcatus OM x 0.50 5 5 Channel catfish lctalurus punctatus OM x 0.53 3.16 8 1.20 12 20 Flathead catfish Pylodiclis olivaris TC x 0.20 1.19 3 0.20 2 5 White bass Morone chrysops TC x 0.33 1.98 5 O.IO 1 6. Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC x 1.33 7.91 20 0.10 21 Warmouth Lepomis gu/osus IN x x 0.20 1.19 3 3 Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN x x 1.07 6.32 16 0.10 17 Spotted bass Microplerus punctulatus TC x 0.13 0.79 2 1.00 IO 12 Yellow perch Percajlavescens I'N 0.13 0.79 2 2 Logperch Percina caprodes BI x 0.27 1.58 4 4 Sauger Sander canadensis TC x 0.07 0.40 0.80 8 9 Walleye Sander vitreus TC x 0.10 1 1 Freshwater drum Ap/odinotus grunniens BI x 1.27 7.51 19 0.10 20 Inland silverside Menidla bery/lina IN 0.20 1.19 3 3 Total 118.67 703.61 1,780 6.00 60 1,840 Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected 28 20 48 Appendix 2-G. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Native and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Downstream (TRM 292.5) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2004. Trophic Sunfish Native Electrofishing Electro fishing Total fish Gill Netting Total Gill Total fish Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per Catch Rate ]?er Common Name Scientific name level species species Run Hour EF Net Night net fish Combined Giu.ard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM x TOL 7.27 42.91 109 109 Spotfin shiner Cyprinella spi/optera IN x TOL 1.27 7.48 19 19 Redbrei,ist sunfish Lepomis auritus IN x x TOL 0.07 0.39 1 1 Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN x x TOL 0.27 1.57 4 4 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN x x TOL 5.20 30.71 78 78 Largemouth bass Micropterus sa/moides TC x TOL 3.00 17.72 45 45 Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris TC x INT 2.50 25 25 Spotted sucker Minylrema melanops BI x INT 0.o7 0.39 1 Black redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei BI x INT 0.13 0.79 2 2 Longear sunfish Lepomis mega/otis IN x x INT 2.60 15.35 39 39 Smallmouth bass Micropterus do/omieu TC x INT 1.40 8.27 21 21 Threadfin shad Dorosoma petenense PK x 0.07 0.39 Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides IN x 23.67 139.76 355 355 Smallmouth buffalo lctiobus buba/us OM x 0.13 0.79 2 2 Black buffalo Ictiobus niger OM x 0.07 0.39 Silver redhorse Moxostoma anisurum BI x 0.07 0.39 Golden redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum BI x 0.13 0.79 2 2 Blue catfish lcta/urus furcatus OM x 0.50 5 5 Channel catfish Icta/urus punctatus OM x 2.47 14.57 37 0.10 38 Flathead catfish Py/odictis olivaris* TC x 0.13 0.79 2 2 White bass Morone chrysops TC x 0.07 0.39 1 Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC x 0.20 2 2 Striped bass Morone saxatilis TC 0.10 Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN x x 0.20 1.18 3 3 Spotted bass Micropterus punctulatus TC x 1.53 9.06 23 0.20 2 25 r.Ogperch Percina caprodes BI x 1.07 6.30 16 16 Sauger Sander canadensis TC x 0.30 3 3 Freshwater drum Ap/odinotus grunniens BI x 1.67 9.84 25 25 Inland silverside Menidia beryl/ina IN 13.13 77.56 197 197 Chestnut lamprey lchthyomyzon caslaneus PS x 0.07 0.39 Total 65.76 388.17 986 3.90 39 1,025 Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected 25 7 49 Appendix 2-H. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Native and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Upstream (TRM 295.9) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2004. Trophic Sunfish Native Electrofishing . Electrofishing Total fish Gill Netting Total Gill Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per EF Catch Rate Per Common Name Scientific name level species species Run .Hour *Net Night net fish Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM x TOL 7.33 40.59 110 0.80 8 118 Common carp Cyprinus carpio OM TOL 0.07 0.37 I I Golden shiner Notemigonus cryso/eucas OM x TOL 0.53 2.95 8 0.10 9 Bluntnose minnow Pimephales notatus OM x TOL 0.13 0.74 2 2 Green sunfish Lepomis cyane//us IN x x TOL 0.13 0.74 2 2 Bluegill lepomis macrochirus IN x x TOL 4.20 23.25 63 0.10 64 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides TC x TOL 4.60 25.46 69 0.30 3 72 White crappie Pomoxis annu/aris TC x x TOL 0.20 2 2 Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris TC x INT 0.40 4 4 Silver chub Macrhybopsis storeriana BI x INT 0.07 0.37 Northern hog sucker Hypente/ium nigricans BI x INT O.G7 0.37 Spotted sucker Minytrema me/anops BI x INT *2.73 15.13 41 41 Black redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei BI x INT 0.20 2 2 Longear sunfish Lepomis mega/otis IN x x INT 0.60 3.32 9 9 Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC x INT 0.27 1.48 4 4 Spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatus TC x 0.13 0.74 2 0.10 3 Emerald shiner Notropis alherinoides IN x 1.87 10.33 28 28 Smallmouth buffalo Ictiobus buba/us OM x 0.47 2.58 1 0.10 8 Golden redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum BI x 0.13 0.74 2 0.10 3 Blue catfish Ictalurus farcalus OM x 1.90 19 19 Channel catfish Jctalurus punctatus OM x 2.67 14.76 40 0.60 6 46 Flathead catfish Pylodlctls o/ivaris TC x 0.07 0.37 0.20 2 3
• Whitebass Morone chrysops TC x 0.90 9 9 Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis
• TC x 0.33 1.85 s 1.80 18 23 Striped bass Morone saxati/is TC 0.90 9 9 Warmouth Lepomis gulosus IN x x 0.07 0.37 I. Redear sunfish Lepomis micro/ophus IN x x 1.27 7.01 19 0.20 2 21 Spotted bass Microplerus punctulatus TC x 0.47 2.58 7 0.10 8 Black crappie Pomoxis nigromacu/atus TC x x O.o7 0.37 1 0.10 2 Yellow perch Perea flavescens IN 0.13 0.74 2 2 Logperch Percina caprodes BI x 0.13 0.74 2 2 Sauger Sander canadensis TC x 2.30 23 23 Freshwater drum Ap/odinotus grunniens BI x 0.07 0.37 1 0.50 s 6 Inland silverside Menidia beryllina IN 2.53 14.02 38 38 Total 31.14 172.34 467 11.90 119 586 Number Samples IS 10 Species Collected 27 21 50 Appendix 2-1. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Native and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Downstream (TRM 292.5) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2003. Trophic Sunfish Native Electrofishing Electrofishing Total fish Gill Netting Total Gill Total fish Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per EF Catch Rate Per Common Name Scientific name level species species Run Hour Net Night net fish Combined Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM x :roL l l.33 67.73 170 0.30 3 173 Common carp Cyprinus carpio OM TOL 0.13 0.80 2 2 Spotfin shiner Cyprinella spiloptera IN x TOL 0.13 0.80 2 2 Bluntnose minnow Pimephales notatus OM x TOL 0.13 0.80 2 2 Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN x x TOL 0.20 l.20 3 3 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN x x TOL S.80 34.66 87 87 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides TC x TOL 1.87 11.16 28 0.10 29 White crappie Pomoxis annularis TC. x x TOL 0.07 0.40 I Skipjack herring Alosa chrysoch/oris . TC x INT 1.67 . 9.96 25 1.50 15 40 Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI x INT 0.67 3.98 10 0.10 I II Longear sunfish Lepomis mega/otis IN x x INT 2.47 14.74 37 37 Smallmouth bass Mlcropterus dolomteu TC x INT 1.07 6.37 16 16 Threadfin shad Dorosoma petenense PK x 0.07 0.40 I Largescale stoneroller Campostoma oligolepis HB x 0.07 0.40 I Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides IN x 6.33 37.85 95 95 Bullhead minnow Pimephales vigilax IN x 0.07 0.40 Golden redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum BI x 0.10 Blue catfish /ctalurus furcatus OM x 0.20 l.20 3 0.20 2 5 Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus OM x 3.60 21.51 54 1.20 12 66 Flathead catfish Pylodictis o/ivaris TC x 0.07 0.40 0.10 2 White bass Morone chrysops TC x 0.20 2 2 Yellow bass Marone mississippiensis TC x 0,07 o.40 0.30 3 4 Warmouth Lepomis gu/osus IN x x 0.07 0.40 I I Redear sunfish Lepomis micro/ophus IN x x 0.33 l.99 s 0.10 I 6 Spotted bass Micropterus punctulatus TC x 0.07 0.40 0.20 2 3 Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC x x 0.07 0.40 1 Logperch Percina caprodes BI x 0.27 . 1.59 4 4 Sauger Sander canadensis TC x 0.o7 0.40 l 1.60 16 17 Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI x 0.80 4.78 12 0.30 3 15 Inland silverside Menidia beryl/ina IN 2.73 16.33 41 41 Total 40.43 241.45 606 6.30 63 669 Number Samples IS 10 Species Collected 28 14 51 Appendix 2-J. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Native and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Upstream (TRM 295.9) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2003. Trophic Sunfish Native Electrofishing Electrofishing Total fish Gill Netting Total Gill Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per Common Name Scientific name level species species Run Hour EF* Net Night net fish Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM x TOL 9.80 54.65 147 1.00 10 157 Common carp Cyprinus carpio OM TOL 0.20 1.12 3 3 Green sunfish Lepomis cyane//us IN x x TOL 0.20 1.12 3 3 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN x x TOL 3.87 21.56 58 58 Largemouth bass Microplerus sa/moides TC x TOL l.53 8.55 23 0.10 24 White crappie Pomoxis annu/aris :re x x TOL 0.07 0.37 I I Skipjack herring Alosa chrysoch/oris TC x INT 0.13 0.74 2 0.50 5 7 Silver chub Macrhybopsis storeriana BI x INT 0.07 0.37 Spotted sucker Minylrema me/anops BI x INT 0.80 4.46 12 12 Longear sunfish Lepomis megalolis IN x x INT 0.20 1.12 3 3 Smallmouth bass Microplerus do/omieu TC x INT 0.20 1.12 3 3 Spotted gar Lepisosleus oculatus TC x 0.07 0.37 Threadfin shad Dorosoma pelenense PK x 0.07 0.37 l 1 Emerald shiner Nolropis alherinoldes IN x 0.60 3.35 9 9 Bullhead minnow Pimephales vigi/ax 'IN x 0.13 0.74 2 2 Quill back Carpiodes cyprinus OM x 0.10 1 Smallmouth buffalo Jctiobus buba/us OM x 0.07 0.37 Bigmouth buffalo Jctiobus cyprinel/us PK x 0.07 0.37 Golden redhorse Moxosloma erythrurum BI x 0.10 Blue catfish lctalurus /urea/Us OM x 1.80 18 18 Channel catfish Jctalurus punc/a/us OM x 1.93 10.78 29 0.80 8 3g Flathead catfish Pylodictis o/ivaris TC x 0.13 0.74 2 2 White bass Morone chrysops TC x 0.07 0.37. 0.10 2 Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC x 0.07 0.37 0.40 4 5 Warmouth Lepomis gu/osus IN x x 0.20 1.12 3 3 Redear sunfish Lepomis micro/ophus IN x x 0.93 5.20 14 0.20 2 16 Spotted bass Microplerus punctu/a/us TC x 0.60 6 6 Yellow perch Perea j/ovescens IN 0.07 0.37 Sauger Sander canadensis TC x 0.70 7 7 Freshwater drum Ap/odinotus grunniens BI x 0.40 2.23 6 0.10 I 7 Inland silverside Menidia bery//ina IN 1.60 8.92 24 24 Total 23.48 130.85 352 6.50 65 417 Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected 26 13 52 Appendix 2-K. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Native and Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Downstream (TRM 292.5) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2002. Trophic Sunfish Native Electro fishing . Electrofishing Total fish Gill Netting Total Gill Total fish level species species Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per . EF Catch Rate Per net fish Combined Common Name Scientific name Run Hour Net Night Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM x TOL 17.67 104.33 265 0.20 2 267 Golden shiner Notemigonus cryso/eucas OM x TOL O.o7 0.39 1 1 Spotfin shiner Cyprine//a spi/optera IN x TOL 0.60 3.54 9 9 . Green sunfish Lepomis cyane//us IN x x TOL 0.13 0.79 2 2 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN x x TOL 15.87 93.70 238 0.10 1 239 Largemouth bass Micropterus sa/moides TC x TOL 2.87 . 16.93 43 0.40 4 47 Skipjack herring Alosa chrysoch/oris TC x INT 0.07 0.39 1 3.30 33 34 Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops Bl x INT 0.13 0.79 2 2 Black redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei Bl x INT 0.13 0.79 2 2 Longear sunfish Lepomis mega/olis IN x x INT 3.20 18.90 48 48 Smallmouth bass Microplerus do/omieu TC x INT 2.60 15.35 39 39 Threadfin shad Dorosoma petenense PK x 2.87 16.93 43 43 Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides IN x 0.20 1.18 3 3 Quillback Carpiodes cyprinus OM x 0.10 Silver redhorse Moxostoma an/surum BI x 0.o7 0.39 Blue catfish /cta/urus furcatus OM x 1.10 11 11 Channel catfish /ctalurus punctatus OM x 1.93 11.42 29 l.00 10 39 Flathead catfish Py/odictis olivaris TC x 0.o7 0.39 1 0.20 2 3 White bass Morone chrysops TC x 0.20 2 2 Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC x 0.07 0.39 0.10 1 2 . Striped bass Morone saxatilis TC 0.50 5 5 Redear sunfish Lepomis micro/ophus IN x x 1.07 6.30 16 0.30 3 19 Spotted bass Micropterus punctulatus TC x 0.93 5.51 14 o.40 4 18 Hybrid bass Hybrid micropterus sp. TC x 0.07 0.39 1 1 Logperch Percina caprqdes BI x 0.60 3.54 9 9 *Sauger Sander canadensis TC x 0.60 6 6 Freshwater drum Ap/odinotus gnmniens Bl x 0.47 2.76 7 0,50 5 12 Inland silverside Menidia bery//ina IN 17.13 101.18 257 257 Total 68.82 406.28 1,032 9.00 90 1,122 Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected 23 15 53 Appendix 2-L. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Native and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Upstream (TRM 295.9) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2002. Trophic Sunfish Native Electrofishing Electrofishing Total fish Gill Netting Total Gill Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per Common Name Scientific name level species species Run Hour EF NetNight net fish Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM x TOL 3.73 23.14 56 0.60 6 62 Common carp Cyprinus carpio OM TOL 0.13 0.83 2 2 Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas OM x TOL 0.73 4.55 11 11 Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN x x TOL 0.13 0.83 2 2 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN x x TOL 6.60 40:91 99 0.10 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides TC x TOL 3.33 20.66 50 50 Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris TC x INT 2.10 21 21 Northern hog sucker Hypentelium nigricans BI x INT 0.07 0.41 I I Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI x INT 0.73 4.55 11 11 Black redhorse Moxostoma.duquesnei BI. x INT 0.20 1.24 3 3 Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN x x INT 0.27 1.65 4 4 Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC x INT 0.07 0.41 Threadfin shad Dorosoma petenense PK x 11.67 72.31 175 175 Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides IN x 0.13 0.83 2 2 Bullhead minnow Pimephale$ vigilax IN x 0.13 0.83 2 2 Smallmouth buffalo lctiobus bubalus OM x 0.07 0.41 Bigmouth buffalo Ictiobus cyprinellus PK x 0.07 0.41 Black buffalo Ictiobus niger OM x 0.13 0.83 2 2 Blue catfish Jctalurus furcatus OM x 0.80 8 8 Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus OM x 2.60 16.12 39 0.40 4 43 Flathead catfish Pylodictis. o/ivaris TC x 0.20 2 2 White bass Morone chrysops TC x 0.50 5 5 Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC x 0.40 4 4 Striped bass Marone saxatilis TC 0.07 0.41 0.10 1 2 Hybrid striped x white bass Hybrid morone (chrysops x sax) TC 0.50 5 5 Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN x x 1.87 11.57 28 28 Spotted bass Micropterus punctulatus TC x 0.53 3.31 8 1.80 18 26 Sauger Sander canadensis TC x 0.o7 0.41 0.60 6 7 Freshwater drum Ap/odinoius grunniens BI x 0.20 1.24 3 0.20 2 5 Inland silverside Menidia beryllina IN 4.93 30.58 74 74 Total 38.46 238.44 577 8.30 83 660 Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected 24 13 54 I I i Appendix 2-M. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Native and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Downstream (TRM 292.5) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2001. Trophic Sunfish Native Electrofishing Electro fishing Total fish Gill Netting Total Gill Total fish Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per EF Catch Rate Per Common Name Scientific name level species species Run Hour Net Night net fish Combined Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM x TOL 6.60 39.76 99 1.50 15 114 Central stoneroller Campostoma anomalum HB x TOL 0.o7 0.40 I Common carp Cyprinus carpio OM TOL 0.13 0.80 2 2 Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas OM x TOL 0.o7 0.40 1 Spotfin shiner Cyprine//a spiloptera IN x TOL 0.27 1.61 4 4 Green sunfish Lepomis cyane/lus IN x x TOL 0.07 0.40 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN x x TOL 2.80 16.87 42 0.30 3 45 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides TC x TOL 1.73 10.44 26 0.10 27 White crappie Pomoxis. annu/aris TC x x TOL 0.10 I I Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris TC x INT 0.13 0.80 2 0.20 2 4 Spotted sucker Minytrema me/anops BI x INT 0.20 1.20 3 0.10 4 Black redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei BI x INT 0.13 0.80 2 2 Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN x x INT 2.60 15.66 39 39 Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC x INT 0.87 5.22 13 13 Threadfin shad Dorosoma petenense PK x 0.13 0.80 2 2 Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides IN x 2.13 12.85 32 32 Bullhead minnow . Pimepha/es vigilax IN x 0.o7 0.40 I Smallmouth buffalo lctiobus bubalus OM x 0.33 2.01 5 5 Golden redhorse Moxosloma erythrurum BI x 0.13 0.80 2 2 Blue catfish lctalurus furcatus OM x 0.30 3 3 Channel catfish lctalurus punctatus OM x 0.93 5.62 14 1.00 10 24 Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC x 0.27 1.61 4 0.10 I 5 Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC x 0.60 6 6 Striped bass Morone saxatilis TC 0.10 1 Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN x x 0.40 2.41 6 6 Hybrid sunfish Hybrid /epomis spp. IN x x 0.o7 0.40 I Spotted bass Micropterus punctulatus TC x 1.07 6.43 16 0.20 2 18 Logperch Percina caprodes BI x 1.60 9.64 24 24 Sauger . Sander canadensis TC x 0.o7 0.40 I 0.40 4 5 Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI x 1.07 6.43 16 0.10 17 Inland silverside Menidia bery//ina IN 1.60 9.64 24 24 Total 25.54 153.80 383 5.10 51 434 Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected 27 14 55 Appendix 2-N. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Native and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Upstream (TRM 295.9) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 200L Trophic Sunfish Native Electro fishing Electro fishing Total fish Gill Netting Total Gill level species species Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per EF Catch Rate Per net fish Common Name Scientific name Run Hour Net Night Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM x TOL 16.73 99.60 251 3.60 36 Common carp Cyprinus carpio OM TOL 0.33 1.98 5 Golden shiner Notemigonus cryso/eucas OM x TOL 0.80 4.76 12 Bluntnose minnow Pimephales notatus OM x TOL 0.07 0.40
• Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN x x TOL 0.o7 0.40 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN x x TOL 1.53 9.13 23 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides TC x TOL 0.93 5.56 14 0.10 15 White crappie Pomoxis annularis TC x x TOL 0.10 1 I Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris TC x INT I.SO 15 IS Mooneye Hiodon tergisus IN x INT 0.10 Mimic shiner Notropis voluce/lus SP x INT O.o7 0.40 1 Spotted sucker Minytrema me/anops BI x INT 1.87 1 I.I I 28 0.20 2 30 Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN x x INT 0.27 1.59 4 4 Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC x INT 0.07 0.40 1 Spotted gar Lepisosteus ocu/atus TC x 1.20 7.14 18 0.10 19 Threadfin shad Dorosoma petenense PK x 0.73 4.37 11 0.20 2 13 Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides IN x 3.20 19.05 48 48 Smallmouth buffillo Ictiobus bubalus . OM x 0.53 3.17 8 0.40 4 1i Blue catfish Ictalurus furcatus OM x 1.20 12 12 Channel catfish -Ictalurus punctatus OM x . 0.47 2.78 7 0.80 8 15 Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC x 0.13 0.79 2 0.20 2 4 White bass Marone chrysops TC x 0.13 0.79 2 0.30 3 5 Yellow bass Marone mississippiensis TC x 0.20 1.19 3 2.00 20 23 Striped bass Morone saxatilis TC 0.30 3 3 Hybrid striped x white bass Hybrid morone (chrysops x sax) TC 0.30 3 3 Warmouth Lepomis gu/osus IN x x 0.07 0.40 I Redear swifish Lepomis microlophus IN x x 0.33 1.98 5 0.20 2 7 Spotted bass Micropterus punctulatus TC x 0.53 3.17 8 0.50 5 13 Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC x x 0.07 0.40 Logperch Percina caprodes BI x 0.87 5.16 13 13 Sauger Sander canadensis TC x 0.13 0.79 2 0.40 4 6 Hybrid walleye x sauger Hybrid Sander TC 0.07 0.40 Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens _ Bl x 0.47 2.78 7 0.30 3 10 Inland-silverside Menidia beryllina IN 2.13 12.70 32 32 Total 34.00 202.39 510 12.80 128 638 Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected 28 20 56 Appendix 2-0. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Native and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Downstream (TRM 292.5) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2000. Trophic Sunfish Native Electrofishing
• Electrofishing Total fish Gill Netting Total Gill Total fish Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per Common Name Scientific name level species species Run Hour EF Net Night net fish Combined Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM x TOL 5.33 33.61 80 1.60 16 96 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN x x TOL 0.13 0.84 2 0.10 3 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides TC x TOL 0.47 2.94 7 7 Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris TC x INT 5.60 56 56 Northern hog sucker Hypentelium nigricans BI x INT 0.07 0.42 Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI x INT 0.47 2.94 7 7 River redborse Moxostoma carinatum BI x INT 0.20 1.26 3 3 Black redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei BI x INT 0.10 Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN x x INT 0.67 4.20 10 10 Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC x INT 0.53 3.36 8 8 Brook silverside Labidesthes sicculus IN x INT 3.80 23.95 57 57 Threadfin shad Dorosoma petenense PK x 0 Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides IN x 3.40 21.43 51 51 Smallmouth buffalo lctiobus bubo/us OM x 0.53 3.36 8 0.10 9 Blue catfish lctalunis furcaius OM x 0.50 5 5 Channel catfish Ictalunis punctatus OM x 0.53 3.36 8 0.50 5 13 Flathead catfish Py/odictis o/ivaris TC x 0.10 I 1 White bass Morone chrysops TC x 0.60 6 6 Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC x 0.20 2 2 Striped bass Morone sOJCatilis TC 0.10 Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN x x 0.27 1.68 4 0.10 5 Spotted bass Microplerus punctu/atus TC x 0.13 0.84 2 2 Logperch Percina caprodes BI x 0.20 1.26 3 3 Sauger Sander canadensis TC x 0.07 0.42 0.20 2 3 Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI x 0.47 2.94 7 0.20 2 9 Total 17.27 108.81 25.9 10.00 100 359 Number Samples .15 10 Species Collected 17 14 57 Appendix 2-P. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Native and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Upstream (TRM 295.9) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2000. Trophic Sunfish Native Electrofishing Electrofishing Total fish Gill Netting Total Gill Total fish level species species Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per EF Catch Rate Per net fish Combined Common Name Scientific name Run Hour Net Night Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM x TOL 10.00 60.48 150 0.10 151 Common carp Cyprinus carpio-OM TOL 0.47 2.82 7 7 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN x x TOL 0.80 4.84 12 O.lO 13 Largemouth bass Micropterus sa/moides TC x TOL 2.07 12.50 31 0.70 7 38 Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris TC x INT 5.30 53 53 Northern hog sucker Hypentelium nigricans BI x INT 0.o7 0.40 1 Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI x INT 0.33 2.02 5 5 River redhorse Moxostoma carinatum BI x INT 0,07 0.40 I Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC x INT 0.20 1.21 3 3 Spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatus TC x 0.27 1.61 4 0.10 5 Threadtin shad Dorosoma petenense PK x 0 Emerald shiner Notropfs atherinoides IN x 4.33 26.21 65 65 Grass carp Ctenopharyngodon idella HB 0.07 0.40 1 I Smallmouth buffalo Ictiobus bubalus OM x 0.07 0.40 0.10 2 Golden redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum BI x 0.07 0.40 Blue catfish lctalurus furcatus OM x 0.50 5 5 Channel catfish lctalurus punctatus OM x 0.27 1.61 4 0.70 7 11 Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC x 0,07 0.40 I 0.20 2 3 White bass Marone chrysops TC x 0.00 0.00 0 -OAO 4 4 Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC x 0.10 1 I Hybrid striped x: white bass Hybrid morone (chrysops x sax) TC 0.60 6 6 Warmouth Lepomis gulosus IN x x 0,07 0.40 1 Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN x x 0.80 4.84 12 0.20 2 14 Spotted bass Micropterus punctu/atus TC x 0,07 0.40 0.20 2 3 Yellow perch l'ercajlavescens IN O.o7 0.40 Logperch Percina caprodes BI x 0.07 0.40 Sauger Sander canadensis TC x 0.27 1.61 4 0.20 2 6 Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens -BI x 0.27 1.61 4 4 Total 20.78 125.36 311 9.50 95 406 Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected 22 15 58 Table 1. -List of Herbicides for Potential Use in the Brown's Ferry Cooling Channels Brand Name Typical Degradation Active lngredient1 Examples2 Classification3 Type PlantType4 Half-life5 Notes Copper (chelated) -ethanolamines Cutrine Plus Contact Liquid Sub.mersed Hours to 1+ day Can be used for algal control Copper (chelated) -ethanolamines Cutrine Plus Contact Granule Submersed Hours to 1+ day Can be used for algal control Often mixed with diquat to Copper (chelated) -enhance control of vascular ethylene diamine Komeen, Current Contact Liquid Submersed Hours to 1+ day plants; also provides algal control Some deactivation if used in muddy water; commonly used with Komeen in TVA reservoirs to control several species of Diquat Reward Contact Liquid Submersed 0.5 to 7 days vascular plants With a few day contact time, Endothall -provides control of several Potassium salt Aquathol K. Contact Liquid Submersed 2 to 14+ days vascular plants With a few day contact time, Endothall -provides control of several Potassium salt Aquathol Super K Contact Granule Submersed 2 to 14+ days vascular plants High fish toxicity if used at high Endothall -Amine label rates; controls various salt Hydrothol Contact Liquid Submersed 2to14+ days vascular species Water Recently approved by EPA; not dispersable deactivated in muddy water; Flumioxazin Clipper Contact granule Submersed l+day controls various species Page 1 Table 1. -List of Herbicides for Potential Use in the Brown's Ferry Cooling Channels (continued) Active lngredient1 Brand Name Classification 2 Type PlantType3 Fluridone Sonar AS Systemic Liquid Submersed Fluridone SonarQ Systemic Granule Submersed Rodeo, Aqua Glyphosate Master Systemic Liquid Emergent lmazapyr Habitat Systemic Liquid Emergent Sodium carbonate PAK 27 Algaecide, peroxyhyd rate Green Clean Pro Contact Granule Submersed Submersed/ 2,4-D -amine Weedar 64 Systemic Liquid Emergent 2,4-D -butoxy-ethyl ester Navigate Systemic Granule Submersed Active lngredient1 -the chemical that has the herbicidal acitivity for controlling a plant Page 2 -footnotes continued on page 3 Typical Degradation Half-life4 Notes Controls a wide range of vascular plants; previously used in BFN 7 to 30+ days cooling channels Controls a wide range of vascular plants; previously used in BFN 7 to 30+ days cooling channels Controls herbaceous and woody Hours to 1+ day species along shoreline Controls herbaceous and woody 7to14+ days species along shoreline Hours Controls some species of algae Primarily used to control milfoil in reservoirs; ineffective on naiads 4 to 21+ days & pondweeds Used primarily for milfoil control 4 to 21+ days and a few other species Table 1. -List of Herbicides for Potential Use in the Brown's Ferry Cooling Channels (continued) Brand Name Examples2 -herbicide active ingredients are often marketed under several brand names by different companies; brand names listed in this table are examples and other brand names may be used in treatments at Brown's Ferry Nuclear Plant Classification3 -Contact -a herbicide that is not translocated by vascular tissues of a plant; Systemic -a that is translocated or moved to other parts of the plant by its vascular tissues Plant Type4 -Submersed -an aquatic plant whose vegetative parts are primarily below the surface of the water, used here to also include plants with floating leaves; Emergent -an aquatic or wetland plant that has most of its vegetative parts (i.e., stems and leaves) above the surface of the water Typical Degradation Half-life5 -typical time required for the concentration of a chemical to be reduced by one ... half; information in this chart taken primarily from Getty et al., Biology and Control of Aquatic Plants -A Best Management Handbook (2009) DHW/TVA-2/2011 Page3 Material Safety Data Sheet !clipperŽ Herbicide PRODUCT NAME: VC NUMBER(S): . PRODUCT CODE: EPA REGISTRATION NUMBER: PRODUCT DESCRIPTION: ClipperŽ Herbicide 1420 Not Established. 59639-161 Herbicide MANUFACTURER/DISTRIBUTOR VALENT U.S.A. CORPORATION P.O. Box 8025 1600 Riviera Avenue, Suite 200 Walnut Creek, CA 94596-8025. EMERGENCY TELEPHONE NUMBERS HEAL TH EMERGENCY OR. SPILL (24 hr): (800) 892-0099 TRANSPORTATION (24 hr.): CHEMTREC {800) 424-9300 or (202) 483-7616. PRO.DUCT INFORMATION PROFESSIONAL PRODUCTS: 800 898-2536 . The current MSDS is available through our website (www.valent.com), or by calling the product information numbers listed above. EMERGENCY OVERVIEW. CAUTION
• Harmful if inhaled or absorbed through skin.
• Avoid breathing dust or spray mist
• Avoid contact with eyes, skin and clothing
• May cause moderate eye irritation
• Keep out of reach of children POTENTIAL HEAL TH EFFECTS Acute Toxicity (Primary Routes of Exposure): None known. Acute Eye Contact: Based on an evaluation of the ingredients and/or similar products, this product may cause brief and/or minor eye irritation. The expected adverse health effects resulting from an exposure may include redness and possible swelling. Acute Skin Contact: Based on an evaluation of the ingredients and/or similar products, this product may cause brief and/or minor skin irritation. The expected adverse health effects resulting from an exposure may include redness and possibly some minor swelling. This product may be slightly toxic when absorbed through the skin. This product is not expected to cause allergic skin reactions. Acute Ingestion: Based on an evaluation of the ingredients and/or similar products, this product may be minimally toxic when ingested.
• Acute Inhalation: Based on an evaluation of the ingredients and/or similar products, this product is expected to be slightly toxic when inhaled. Exposure to high concentrations of dust may result in respiratory irritation. Signs and symptoms may include, but not be limited to, nasal discharge, sore throat, coughing and difficulty in breathing. Emergency Telephone: REVISION NUMBER: (800) 892-0099. 3 MSDSNO.: REVISION DATE: 0381 11/1112010 ClipperTM Herbicide Page 2 of8 Chronic Toxicity (including cancer): Repeated exposures to Flumioxazin Technical in animals have produced anemia and other blood formation changes, organ weight changes and changes in blood chemistry. Flumioxazin Technical did not produce cancer in life-time feeding studies in laboratory animals. Developmental Toxicity (birth defects): Birth defects were produced in the offspring of female rats exposed to Flumioxazin Technical. No effects were observed in rabbits. Reproductive Toxicity; Reproductive effects were observed in rats exposed to Flumioxazin Technical. . Signs and Symptoms of Systemic Effects: No signs or symptoms occured in animals exposed to high oral or dermal doses of Flumioxazin Technical. Exposure to very high concentrations of Flumioxazin Technical in the air resulted in breathing difficulties, decreased activity and some changes in the tissues of the respiratory system. Potentially Aggravated Medical Conditions: Individuals with anemia or preexisting diseases of the blood may have increased susceptibility to the toxicity of excessive exposures. For complete discussion of the toxicology data from which this evaluation was made, refer to Section 11. For Ecotox/Environmental Information, refer to Section 12. For Regulatory Information, refer to Section 15. Chemical Name CASNumber Welaht/ Percent Purpose Flumioxazin 103361-09-7 45-55 Active Ingredient benzoxazin-6-vll-4,5,6, 7-tetrahvdro-1 H-isoindole-1,3(2Hl-dione). Kaolin clav. 1332-58-7 11-21 Carrier Others (includini:i particulates not otherwise classified). NoCAS# 24-40 -Other ingredients, which are maintained as trade secrets, are any substances other than an active ingredient contained in this product. Some of these may be hazardous, but their identities are withheld because they are considered trade secrets. The hazards associated with the other ingredients are addressed in this document. Specific information on other ingredients for the management of exposures, spills, or safety assessments can be obtained by a treating physician or nurse by calling (800) 892-0099 at any time. EMERGENCY NUMBER (800) 892-0099 Have the product container or label with you when calling a poison control center or doctor, or going for treatment. You may also contact 1-800-892-0099 for emergency medical treatment information. EYE CONTACT: Hold eye open and rinse slowly and gently with water for 15-20 minutes. Remove contact lenses, if present, after the first 5 minutes, then continue rinsing eye. Call a poison control center or doctor for treatment advice. SKIN CONTACT: Take off contaminated clothing. Rinse skin immediately with plenty of water for 15-20 minutes. Call a poison control center or doctor for treatment advice. INGESTION: Call a poison control center or doctor immediately for treatment advice. Have person sip a glass of water if able to swallow. DO NOT induce vomiting unless told to do so by the poison control center or doctor. Do not give anything by mouth to an unconscious person. INHALATION: Move person to fresh air. If person is not breathing, call 911 or an ambulance, then give artificial respiration, if possible. Call a poison control center or doctor for further treatment advice. Emergency Telephone: REVISION NUMBER: (800) 892-0099. 3 MSDSNO.: REVISION DATE: 0381 11/11f201f ,

ClipperŽ Herbicide NOTES TO PHYSICIAN: None . ... * *' FLASH POINT: Not applicable. AUTOIGNITION: No data available EXTINGUISHING MEDIA: Water fog, carbon dioxide, foam, dry.chemical FLAMMABLE LIMITS IN AIR

• LOWER (%): FLAMMABLE LIMITS IN AIR
• UPPER (%): NFPA RA TING: Health: Flammability: Reactivity: Special: 1 1 0 None Page 3 ofB Not applicable Not applicable (Least-0, Slight-1, Moderate-2, High-3, Extreme-4). These values are obtained using professional judgement. Values were not available in the guidelines or published evaluations prepared by the National Fire Protection Association, NFPA. FIRE FIGHTING INSTRUCTIONS: Products of combustion from fires involving this material may be toxic. Avoid breathing smoke and mists. Avoid personnel and equipment contact with fallout and runoff. Minimize the amount of water used for fire fighting. Do not enter any enclosed area without full protective equipment, including self-contained breathing equipment. Contain and isolate runoff and debris for proper disposal. Decontaminate personal protective equipment and fire fighting equipment before reuse. HAZARDOUS DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS: Normal combustion forms carbon dioxide, water vapor and may produce: Oxides of nitrogen . Combustion may produce toxic gases of: Nitrogen compounds, Fluorine compounds. Incomplete combustion can produce carbon monoxide.
• 6. 8ELEASE , , *., VALENT EMERGENCY PHONE NUMBER: (800) 892-0099 CHEMTREC EMERGENCY PHONE NUMBER: (800) 424-9300 OBSERVE PRECAUTIONS IN SECTION 8: PERSONAL PROTECTION Stop the source of the spill if safe to do so. Contain the spill to prevent further contamination of the soil, surface water, or qround water. For additional spill response information refer to the North American Emerqencv Response Guidebook. UN/NA NUMBER: Not applicable.
• EMERGENCY RESPONSE GUIDEBOOK NO.: Not applicable. FOR SPILLS ON LAND: CONTAINMENT: Reduce airborne dust. Avoid runoff into storm sewers or other bodies of water. CLEANUP: Clean up spill immediately. Vacuum or sweep up material and place in a chemical waste container. Wash area with soap and water. Pick up wash liquid with additional absorbent and place in a chemical waste container. FOR SPILLS IN WATER: CONTAINMENT: This material will disperse or dissolve in water. Stop the source of the release. Contain and isolate to prevent further release into soil, surface water and ground water. CLEANUP: Clean up spill immediately. Absorb spill with inert material. Remove contaminated water for treatment or disposal. Emergency Telephone: REVISION NUMBER: (800) 892-0099. 3 MSDS NO.: REVISION DATE: 0381 11/11/2010 ClipperŽ Herbicide END USER MUST READ AND OBSERVE ALL PRECAUTIONS ON PRODUCT LABEL. HANDLING: Page4 of8 Users should wash hands before eating, drinking, chewing gum, using tobacco or using the toilet. Remove contaminated clothing and shoes immediately. Then wash thoroughly and put on clean clothing. STORAGE: Do not contaminate water, food or feed by storage, disposal or cleaning of equipment. Keep pesticide in original container only. Store in a cool, dry place. Do not put formulation or dilute spray solution into food or drink containers. Do not store or transport near food or feed. Do not contaminate food or foodstuffs. Not for use or storage in or around the home. END USER MUST READ AND OBSERVE ALL PRECAUTIONS ON PRODUCT LABEL. EYES & FACE: Do not get this material in your eyes. Eye contact can be avoided by wearing protective eyewear. RESPIRATORY PROTECTION: Use this material only in well ventilated areas. Unless ventilation is adequate to keep airborne concentrations below recommended exposure standards, approved respiratory protection should be worn. This material may be a respiratory irritant and, unless ventilation is adequate, the use of approved respiratory protection is recommended. Use this material only in well ventilated areas. SKIN & HAND PROTECTION: Avoid contact with skin or clothing. Skin contact should be minimized by wearing protective clothing including gloves. EXPOSURE LIMITS Chemical Name i::1umioxazin (2-[7-fluoro-3,4-dihydro-3-oxo-4-(2-propynyl)-2H-1,4-benzoxazin-6-yl]-4,5,6, 7-tetrahydro-1 H-isoindole-1,3(2H)-dionel. Kaolin clay. Others (Including particulates not otherwise classified). PHYSICAL FORM: COLOR: ODOR: FLASH POINT: MELTING POINT: BULK DENSITY: pH: CORROSION CHARACTERISTICS: SOLUBILITY: CHEMICAL STABILITY: INCOMPATIBILITY: Emergency,Telephone: REVISION NUMBER: (800) 892-0099. 3 ACGIH Exposure Limits OSHA Exposure Limits Manufacturer's Exposure None. 2 mg!m* TWA (respirable fraction) None. Granule Light brown Slight Not applicable. Not applicable None. 15mg/m3TWA 5mo/m3TWA None. 0.49 glee (30.8 lb./cu. ft.) 5.4 @ 25°C (1 % suspension) Not corrosive to containers. Dispersible in water Limits None. None None. . :;**.: This material is considered chemically and thermally stable. May react with strong oxidizing agents, such as chlorates, nitrates, peroxides, etc. MSDS NO.: REVISION DATE: 038' 11/11/20' I ClipperTM Herbicide Page5of8 I *** -*-***--... I OXIDATION/REDUCTION PROPERTIES: Not an oxidizing or reducing agent. EXPLODABILITY: Not expected to be explosive. HAZARDOUS DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS: Normal combustion fonns carbon dioxide, water vapor and may produce: Oxides of nitrogen . Combustion may produce toxic gases of: Nitrogen compounds, Fluorine compounds. Incomplete combustion can produce carbon monoxide. ACUTE TOXICITY: Oral Toxicity LDso (rats). Dermal Toxicity LDso (rabbits). Inhalation Toxicity LGso (rats). Eye Irritation (rabbits). Skin Irritation (rabbits). Skin Sensitization (guinea pigs). CARCINOGEN CLASSIFICATION > 5,000 mg/kg > 2,000 mg/kg 0.969 mg/L Brief and/or minor irritation Brief and/or minor irritation Non-sensitizer TOXICITY OF FLUMIOXAZIN TECHNICAL EPA Tax Category EPA Tax Category EPA Tax Category EPA Tox Category EPA Tox Category EPA Tax Category IV Ill Ill Ill IV Not applicable SUBCHRONIC: Compound related effects of Flumioxazin Technical noted in rats following subchronic exposures at high dose levels were hematotoxicity including anemia, and increases in liver, spleen, heart, kidney and thyroid weights. In dogs, the effects produced at high dose levels included a slight prolongation in activated partial thromboplastin time, increased cholesterol and phospholipid, elevated alkaline phosphatase, increased liver weights and histological changes in the liver. The lowest no-observable-effect-level (NOEL) in subchronic studies was 30 ppm in the three-month toxicity study in rats. CHRONIC/CARCINOGENICITY: In a one year dog feeding study, Flumioxazin Technical produced treatment-related changes in blood chemistry and increased liver weights at 100 and 1000 mg/kg/day. Minimal treatment-related histological changes were noted in the livers of animals in the 1000 mg/kg/day group. Based on these data the NOEL is 10 mg/kg/day. Dietary administration of Flumioxazin Technical for 18 months produced liver changes in mice of the 3000 and 7000 ppm groups. There was no evidence of any treatment-related oncogenic effect. The NOEL for this study is 300 ppm. Dietary administration of Flumioxazin Technical for 24 months produced anemia and chronic nephropathy in rats of the 500 and 1000 ppm groups. The anemia lasted throughout the treatment period, however, it was not progressive nor aplastic in nature. No evidence of an oncogenic effect was observed. The NOEL for this study is 50 ppm. DEVELOPMENTAL TOXICITY: Flumioxazin Technical produces developmental toxicity in rats in the absence of maternal toxicity at doses of 30 mg/kg/day by the oral route and 300 mg/kg/day by the dennal route. The developmental effects noted consisted primarily of decreased number of live fetuses and fetal weights, cardiovascular abnormalities, wavy ribs and decreased number of ossified sacrococcygeal vertebral bodies. The developmental NOEL in the rat oral and dermal developmental toxicity studies were 10 and 100 mg/kg/day, respectively. The response in rabbits was very different from that in rats. No developmental toxicity was noted in rabbits at doses up to 3000 mg/kg/day, a dose well above the maternal NOEL of 1000 mg/kg/day. REPRODUCTION: Reproductive toxicity was observed in F1 males, P1 females and F1 females at 300 ppm Flumioxazin Technical, the highest dose tested and a dose that also produced signs of systemic toxicity. Toxicity was also observed in the F1 and F2 offspring at doses of 200 ppm and greater. . Emergency Telephone: REVISION NUMBER: (800) 892-0099. 3 MSDSNO.: REVISION DATE: 0381 11/11/2010 ClipperTM Herbicide Page 6 of 8 MUTAGENICITY: Flumioxazin Technical was not mutagenic in most in vitro assays: gene mutation and a chromosome aberration assay in the absence of metabolic activation. In three in vivo assays, chromosome aberration, unscheduled DNA synthesis and micronucleus assay, Flumioxazin Technical was not mutagenic. The only positive response was observed in the in vitro chromosome aberration assay in the presence of metabolic activation. Overall, Flumioxazin Technical does not present a genetic hazard. For a summary of the potential for adverse health effects from exposure to this product, refer to Section 2. For information regarding regulations pertaining to this product, refer to Section 15. AVIAN TOXICITY: Based upon EPA designation, Flumioxazin Technical is practically non-toxic to avian species. The following results were obtained from studies with Flumioxazin Technical: Oral LDso bobwhite quail: greater than 2250 mg/kg Dietary LCso bobwhite quail: greater than 5620 ppm Dietary LCso mallard duck: greater than 5620 ppm. Flumioxazin Technical in the diet. In mallard ducks, a slight, but not statistically significant reduction in hatchlings and 14-day old survivors was observed. Based on a possible, slight effect on egg production at 500 ppm, the NOEL for this study was 250 ppm. No reproductive effects were observed in bobwhite quail exposed to 500 ppm of Flumioxazin technical in the diet. AQUATIC ORGANISM TOXICITY: Based upon EPA designation, Flumioxazin Technical is slightly to moderately toxic to freshwater fish; moderately toxic to freshwater invertebrates; moderately toxic to estuarine/marine fish and moderately to highly toxic estuarine/marine invertebrates, based on the following tests: OTHER NON-TARGET ORGANISM TOXICITY: Emergency Telephone: REVISION NUMBER: 96-hour rainbow trout: 2.3 mg/L 96-hour LCso bluegill sunfish: greater than 21 mg/L 48-hour LCso Daphnia magna: 5.5 mg/L 96-hour LCso sheepshead minnow: greater than 4. 7 mg/L 96-hour (shell deposition) ECsoeastem oyster: 2.8 mg/L 96-hour LCsomysid shrimp: 0.23 mg/L Fish early life-stage (rainbow trout): NOEC >7.7 µg/L, <16 µg/L Chronic toxicity (mysid shrimp): NOEC >15 µg/L, <27 µg/L Chronic toxicity (Daphnia magna): NOEC >52 µg/L, <99 µg/L. Flumioxazin Technical is practically non-toxic to bees. The acute contact LC50 in bees was greater than 105 µg/bee. (800) 892-0099. 3 MSDSNO.: REVISION DATE: 0381 11111/2010 ClipperŽ Herbicide Page 7 of8 :-*. . ;*.* .. END USERS MUST DISPOSE OF ANY UNUSED PRODUCT AS PER THE LABEL RECOMMENDATIONS. PRODUCT DISPOSAL: Wastes resulting from the use of this product may be disposed of on site or at an approved waste disposal facility. CONTAINER DISPOSAL: Non-refillable container. Do not reuse or refill this container. Offer for recycling if available. Triple rinse as follows: Empty the remaining contents into mix tank. Fill the container 1/4 full with water. Replace and tighten closures. Tip container on its side and roll it back and forth, ensuring at least one complete revolution for 30 seconds. Stand the container on its end and tip it back and forth several times. Empty the rinsate into application equipment or a mix tank or store rinsate for later use or disposal. Repeat this procedure two more times. DISPOSAL METHODS: Check government regulations and local authorities for approved disposal of this material. Dispose in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. I. ** ... . :,:: :, *' . '. . . ' . UN/NA NUMBER: DOT (ground) SHIPPING NAME: TECHNICAL NAME {hazardous material): HAZARD CLASS: PACKING GROUP: DOT REPORTABLE QUANTITY (RQ): REMARKS: EXEMPTION REQUIREMENT: EMERGENCY RESPONSE GUIDEBOOK NO.: MARINE POLLUTANT: Not applicable. Herbicide, solid, non-regulated Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. None None None. Not applicable. Not applicable. PESTICIDE REGULATIONS: All pesticides are governed under FIFRA {Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act). Therefore, the regulations presented below are pertinent only when handled outside of the normal use and applications of pesticides. This includes waste streams resulting from manufacturing/formulation facilities, spills or misuse of products, and storage of large quantities of products containing hazardous or extremely hazardous substances. U.S. FEDERAL REGULATIONS: Ingredients in this product are reviewed against an inclusive list of federal regulations. Therefore, the user should consult appropriate authorities. The federal regulations reviewed include: Clean Water Act, SARA, CERCLA, RCRA, DOT, TSCA and OSHA. If no components or information is listed in the space below this paragraph, then none of the regulations reviewed are applicable. SARA (311, 312): Immediate Health: Chronic Health: Fire: Sudden Pressure: Reactivity: Emergency Telephone: REVISION NUMBER: Yes. Yes. No No No (800) 892-0099. 3 MSDS NO.: REVISION DATE: 0381 11/11/2010 ClipperŽ Herbicide Page 8 of8 STATE REGULATIONS: Each state may promulgate standards more stringent than the federal government. This section cannot encompass an inclusive list of all state regulations. Therefore, the user should consult state or local authorities. The state regulations reviewed include: California Proposition 65, California Directors List of Hazardous Substances, Massachusetts Right to Know, Michigan Critical Materials List, New Jersey Right to Know, Pennsylvania Right to Know, Rhode Island Right to Know and the Minnesota Hazardous Substance list. For Washington State Right to Know, see Section 8 for Exposure Limit information. For Louisiana Right to Know refer to SARA information listed under U.S. Regulations above. If no components or information is listed in the space below this paragraph, then none of the regulations reviewed are applicable. Flumioxazin (2-[7-fluoro-3,4-dihydro-3-oxo-4-(2-propynyl)-2H-1,4-benzoxazin-6-yl]-4,5,6, 7-tetrahydro-1 isoindole-1,3(2H)-dione). California Proposition 65 NJ Right To Know Kaolin clay. MA Right To Know PA Right To Know RI Right To Know Not Listed Listed Listed Listed Listed MN Hazardous Substance Listed
• For information regarding potential adverse health effects from exposure to this product, refer to Sections 2 and 11. REASON FOR ISSUE: MSDSNO.: EPA REGISTRATION NUMBER: REVISION NUMBER: REVISION DATE: SUPERCEDES DATE: RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S): Added the EPA registration number. Added container disposal information. 0381 59639-161 3 11111/2010 March 4, 2009 Valent U.S.A. Corporation, Corporate EH&S, (925) 256-2803. This Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) serves different purposes than and DOES NOT REPLACE OR MODIFY THE EPA-APPROVED PRODUCT LABELING (attached to and accompanying the product container). This MSDS provides important health, safety, and environmental information for employers, employees, emergency responders and others handling large quantities of the product in activities generally other than product use, while the labeling provides that information specifically for product use in the ordinary course. Use, storage and disposal of pesticide products is regulated by the EPA under the authority of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodent_icide Act (FIFRA) through the product labeling. All necessary and appropriate precautionary, use, storage, and disposal information is set forth on that labeling. It is a violation offederal law to use a pesticide product in any manner not prescribed on the EPA-approved label. The information in this MSDS is based on data available to us as of the revision date given herein, and believed to be correct. Contact Valent U.S.A. Corporaton to confirm if you have the most current MSDS. Judgements as to the suitability of information herein for the individual's own use or purposes are necessarily the individual's own responsibility. Although reasonable care has been taken in the preparation of such information, Valent extends no warranties, makes no representations, and assumes no responsibility as to the accuracy or suitability of such information for application to the individual's purposes or the consequences of its use. 2010 Valent U.S.A. Corporation Emergency Telephone: REVISION NUMBER: (800) 892-0099. 3 MSDSNO.: REVISION DATE: 0381 11/11/201(

MONSANTO COMPANY AguaMaster Herbicide Version: 2.0 MONSANTO COMPANY Material Safety Data Sheet Commercial Product 1. PRODUCT AND COMPANY IDENTIFICATION Product name AquaMaster Herbicide EPA Reg.No. 524-343 Produ,ct.use Herbicide. Chemical name Not applicable. Synonyms None. Company . . .. MONSANTO COMPANY, SOON. Lindbergh Blvd., St. Louis, MO, 63167 Telephone: 800-332-3111, Fax: 314-694-5557 Emergency numbers , .... Page: 1/8 Effective date: 02/03/2005 ** *."I' .; *. -"tl.,-ft" .... . . . FOR CHEMICAL EMERGENCY, SPILL LEAK, FIRE, EXPOSURE, OR ACCIDENT Call CHEMTREC -Day or Night: 1-800-424-9300 toll free in the continental U.S., Puerto Rico, Canada, or Virgin Islands. For calls originating elsewhere: 703-527-3887 (collect calls accepted). FOR MEDICAL EMERGENCY -Day or Night:+ 1 (314) 694-4000 (collect calls accepted). 2. COMPOSITION/INFORMATION ON INGREDIENTS Active ingredient Isopropylamine salt of N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine; {lsopropylamine salt of glyphosate} c 'f omoos1100 COMPONENT CASNo. % by weil!ht (approximate) lsoproovlamine salt of glyphosate 38641-94-0 53.8 Water 7732-18-5 46.2 OSHA Status This product is not hazardous according to the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard, 29 CFR 1910.1200. 3. HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION Emergency overview Appearance and odour (colour/form/odour): Colourless -Amber I Liquid, (viscous) I Odourless CAUTION! Potential health effects Likely routes of exposure Skin contact, eye contact, inhalation Eye contact, short term Not expected to produce significant adverse effects when recommended use instructions are followed. Skin contact, short term Not expected to produce significant adverse effects when recommended use instructions are followed. Inhalation, short term MONSANTO COMPANY AquaMasteI Herbicide Version: 2.0 Page: 2 /8 Effective date: 02/03/2005 Not expected to produce significant adverSe effects when recommended use instructions are followed .. Refer to section 11 for toxicological and section 12 for environmental information. 4. FIRST AID MEASURES Eye contact Immediately flush with plenty of water. If easy to do, remove contact lenses. Skin contact Take off contaminated clothing, wristwatch, jewellery. Wash affected skin with plenty of water. Wash clothes and clean shoes before re-use. Inhalation Remove to fresh air. Ingestion Immediately offer water to drink. Do NOT induce vomiting unless directed by medical personnel. If symptoms occur, get medical attention. Advice to doctors This product is not an inhibitor of cholinesterase. Antidote Treatment with atropine and oximes is not indicated. 5. FIRE-FIGHTING MEASURES Flash point none Extinguishing media Recommended: Water, foam, dry chemical, carbon dioxide (C02) Unusual fue and explosion hazards None. Environmental precautions: see section 6. Hazardous products of combustion Carbon monoxide (CO), phosphorus oxides (PxOy), nitrogen oxides (NOx)

• Fire fighting equipment Self-contained breathing apparatus. Equipment should be thoroughly decontaminated after use. 6. ACCIDENTAL RELEASE MEASURES Personal precautions Use personal protection recommended in section 8. Environmental precautions SMALL QUANTITIES: Low environmental hazard.

MONSANTO COMPANY AquaMaster Herbicide LARGE QUANTITIES: Minimise spread. Keep out of drains, sewers, ditches and water ways. Notify authorities. Methods for cleaning up SMALL QUANTITIES: Flush spill area with water. LARGE QUANTITIES: Absorb in earth, sand or absorbent material. Dig up heavily contaminated soil. Collect in containers for disposal. Refer to section 7 for types of containers. Flush residues with small quantities of water. Version: 2.0 Minimise use of water to prevent environmental contamination. Refer to section 13 for disposal of spilled material. 7. HANDLING AND STORAGE Good industrial practice in housekeeping and personal hygiene should be followed. Handling Avoid contact with skin and eyes. When using do not eat, drink or smoke. Wash hands thoroughly after handling or contact. Thoroughly clean equipment after use. Page: 3 I 8 Effective date: 02/03/2005 Do not contaminate drains, sewers and water ways when disposing of equipment rinse water. Refer to section 13 for disposal of rinse water. Emptied containers retain vapour and product residue. Storage Minimum storage temperature: -15 °C Maximum storage temperature: 50 °C Compatible materials for storage: stainless steel, aluminium, fibreglass, plastic, glass lining Incompatible materials for storage: galvanised steel, unlined mild steel, see section I 0. Keep out of reach of children. Keep away from food, drink and animal feed. Keep only in the original container. Partial crystallization may occur on prolonged storage below the minimum storage temperature. If frozen, place in warm room and shake frequently to put back into solution. Minimum shelf life: 5 years. 8. EXPOSURE CONTROLS/PERSONAL PROTECTION A" b 1r orne exposure limits Components Exposure Guidelines Isopropylamine salt of glyphosate No specific occupational exposure limit has been established. Water No specific occupational exposure limit has been established. Engineering controls No special requirement when used as recommended. Eye protection MONSANTO COMPANY AquaMaster Herbicide No special requirement when used as recommended. Skin protection No special requirement when used as recommended. Respiratory protection No special requirement when used as recommended. Version: 2.0 Page: 4/ 8 Effective date: 02/03/2005 When recommended, consult manufacturer of personal protective equipment for the appropriate type of equipment for a given application. 9. PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES These physical data are typical values based on material tested but may vary from sample to sample. Typical values should not be construed as a guaranteed analysis of any specific lot or as specifications for the product. Colour/colour range: Colourless -Amber Form: Liquid, (viscous) Odour: Odourless Flash noint: none Specific gravity: 1.206 <@ 20 °C I 15.6 °c Solubility: Water: Completely miscible. oH: 4.6 -4.8 (a) 63 g/l Partition coefficient (log Pow): < 0.000 (active ingredient) 10. STABILITY AND REACTMTY Stability Stable under normal conditions of handling and storage. Hazardous decomposition Thennal decomposition: Hazardous products of combustion: see section 5. Materials to avoid/Reactivity Reacts with galvanised steel or unlined mild steel to produce hydrogen, a highly flammable gas that could explode. 11. TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION This section is intended for use by toxicologists and other health professionals. Data obtained on product, similar products and on components are summarized below. Mutagenicity Micronucleus test(s): Not mutagenic. Ames test(s): Not mutagenic with and without metabolic activation. Isopropylamine salt ofglvnbosate '62%) Acute oral toxicity Rat, LDSO (limit test): > 5,000 mg/kg body weight Practically non-toxic. FIFRA category IV. No mortality. MONSANTO COMPANY AquaMaster Herbicide Mouse, LDSO (limit test): > 5,000 mg/kg body weight Practically non-toxic. FIFRA category IV. No mortality. Acute dermal toxicity Rabbit, LDSO Qimit test):> 5,000 mg/kg body weight Practically non-toxic. FIFRA category IV. No mortality. Skin irritation Rabbit, 6 animals, Draize test: Days to heal: 3 Primary Irritation Index (PU): 0.0/8.0 Essentially non irritating. FIFRA category IV. Acute inhalation toxicity Rat, 1..CSO, 4 hours, aerosol: > 4.24 mg/L Practically non-toxic. FIFRA category IV. No mortality. Maximum attainable concentration. *Skin sensitization Guinea pig, Buehler test: Positive incidence: 0 % N-fphosphonmnetbyl)g!ycine; folyphosate} Mu tagenicity In vitro and in vivo mutagenicity test(s): Not mutagenic. Repeated dose toxicity Rabbit, dermal, 21 days: NOAEL toxicity: > 5,000 mg/kg body weight/day Target organs/systems: none Other effects: none Rat, oral, 3 months: NOAEL toxicity: > 20,000 mg/kg diet Target organs/systems: none Other effects: none Chronic effects/carcinogenicity Mouse, oral, 24 months: NOEL tumour:> 30,000 mg/kg diet NOAEL toxicity: -5,000 mg/kg diet Tumours: none Target organs/systems: liver Version: 2.0 Other effects: decrease of body weight gain, histopathologic effects Rat, oral, 24 months: NOEL tumour:> 20,000 mg/kg diet NOAEL toxicity: -8,000 mg/kg diet Tumours: none Target organs/systems: eyes Other effects: decrease of body weight gain, histopathologic effects Toxicity to reproduction/fertility Rat, oral, 3 generations: NOAEL toxicity:> 30 mg/kg body weight NOAEL reproduction: > 30 mg/kg body weight Target organs/systems in parents: none Other effects in parents: none Page: 5 I 8 Effective date: 02/03/2005 MONSANTO COMPANY AguaMaster Herbicide Target organs/systems in pups: none Other effects in pups: none Develoomental toxicity/teratogenicity Rat, oral, 6 -19 days of gestation: NOAEL toxicity: 1,000 mg/kg body weight NOAEL development: 1,000 mg/kg body weight Version: 2.0 Other effects in mother animal: decrease of body weight gain, decrease of survival Developmental effects: weight loss, post-implantation loss, delayed ossification Effects on offspring only observed with maternal toxicity. Rabbit, oral, 6 -27 days of gestation: NOAEL toxicity: 175 mg/kg body weight NOAEL development: 175 mg/kg body weight Target organs/systems in mother animal: none Other effects in mother animal: decrease of survival Developmental effects: none 12. ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION This section is intended for use by ecotoxicologists and other environmental specialists. Data obtained on components are summarized below. lsonroovlamjne salt ofglvnbosate (62%) Aquatic toxicity. fish Bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrocbirus): Acute toxicity, 96 hours, static, LC50: > 1,000 mg/L Practically non-toxic. Rainbow trout (Oncorbyncbus mykiss): Acute toxicity, 96 hours, static, LC50: > 1,000 mg/L Practically non-toxic. Aquatic toxicity. invertebrates Water flea (Dapbnia magna): Acute toxicity, 48 hours, static, EC50: 930 mg/L Practically non-toxic. Aquatic toxicity, algae/aquatic plants Green algae (Scenedesmus subspicatus): Acute toxicity, 72 hours, static, ErC50 (growth rate): 166 mg/L Practically non-toxic. Soil organism toxicity, invertebrates Earthworm (Eisenia foetida): Acute toxicity, 14 days, LC50: > 5,000 mg/kg dry soil Practically non-toxic. N-<ohosphonometbyl>glycine; {glvnhosate} Avian toxicity Bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus): Dietary toxicity, 5 days, LC50: > 4,640 mg/kg diet No more than slightly toxic. Mallard duck (Anas platyrhynchos): Dietary toxicity, 5 days, LC50: > 4,640 mg/kg diet No more than slightly toxic. Bobwhite quail (Colinus virgioianus): Acute oral toxicity, single dose, LD50: > 3,851 mg/kg body weight Practically non-toxic. Page: 6 /8 Effective date: 02/03/2005 MONSANTO COMPANY AquaMaster Herbicide Arthropod toxicity Honey bee (Apis mellifera): Oral, 48 hours, LD50: 100 µg/bee Honey bee (Apis mellifera): Contact, 48 hours, LDSO: > 100 µg/bee Practically non-toxic. Bioaccnmnlation Bluegill snnfish (Lepomis macrochirus): Whole fish: BCF: < 1 No significant bioaccumulation is expected. Dissipation Soil, field: Halflife: 2 -174 days Koc: 884 -60,000 L/kg Adsorbs strongly to soil. *Water, ae.robic: Halflife: < 7 days 13. DISPOSAL CONSIDERATIONS Product Version: 2.0 Page: 7 I 8 Effective date: 02/03/2005 Not classified as hazardous waste by the Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 40 CFR 261. Recycle if appropriate facilities/equipment available.

• Burn in special,* controlled high temperature incinerator. Keep out of drains, sewers, ditches and water ways. Follow all local/regional/national/international regulations. Consult your attorney or appropriate regulatory officials for infonnation on disposal. Container Triple or pressure rinse empty containers. Pour rinse water into spray tank. Store for collection by approved waste disposal service. Dispose of as non hazardous industrial waste .. Do NOT re-use containers. Follow all local/regional/national/international regulations. 14. TRANSPORT INFORMATION The data provided in this section is for infonnation only. Please apply the appropriate regulations to properly classify your shipment for transportation. Not hazardous under the applicable DOT, ICAO/IATA, IMO, TDG and Mexican regulations. 15. REGULATORY INFORMATION TSCA Inventory All components are on the US EPA's TSCA Inventory SARA Title III Rnles Section 311/312 Hazard Categories Not applicable. . Section 302 Extremely Hazardous Substances Not applicable. Section 313 Toxic Chemical(s) Not applicable. -*

MONSANTO COMPANY AguaMaster Herbicide Version: 2.0 Page: 8/ 8 Effective date: 02/03/2005 CERCLA Reportable quantity Not applicable. 16. OTHER INFORMATION The information given here is not necessarily exhaustive but is representative ofrelevant, reliable data. Follow all local/regional/national/international regulations. Please consult supplier iffurther infonnation is needed. For more infonnation refer to product label. Please consult Monsanto if further information is needed. In this document the British spelling was applied. Registered trademark of Monsanto Company or its subsidiaries. NFPA Health 0 Flammability 1 Instability 1 Additional Markings 0 =Minimal hazard, I = Slight ha7.ard, 2 =Moderate hazard, 3 =Severe hazard, 4 = Extreme hazard Full denomination of most frequently used acronyms. BCF (Bioconcentration Factor), BOD (Biochemical Oxygen Demand), COD (Chemical Oxygen Demand), EC50 (50% effect concentration), ED50 (50% effect dose), I.M. (intramuscular), I.P. (intraperitoneal), I. V. (intravenous), Koc (Soil adsorption coefficient), LC50 (50% lethality concentration), LD50 (50% lethality dose), LDLo (Lower limit of lethal dosage), LEL (Lower Explosion Limit), LOAEC (Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Concentration), LOAEL (Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level), LOEC (Lowest Observed Effect Concentration), LOEL (Lowest Observed Effect Level), MEL (Maximum Exposure limit), MTD (Maximum Tolerated Dose), NOAEC (No Observed Adverse Effect Concentration), NOAEL (No Observed Adverse Effect Level), NOEC (No Observed Effect Concentration), NOEL (No Observed Effect Level), OEL (Occupational Exposure Limit), PEL (Permissible Exposure Limit), PII (Primary Irritation Index), Pow (Partition coefficient n--0ctanol/water), S.C. (subcutaneous), STEL (Short-Term Exposure Limit), TLV-C (Threshold Limit Value-Ceiling), TLV-TWA (Threshold Limit Value-Time Weighted Average), UEL (Upper Explosion Limit) This Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) serves different purposes than and DOES NOT REPLACE OR MODIFY THE EPA-APPROVED PRODUCT LABELING (attached to and accompanying the product container). This MSDS provides important health, safety, and environmental information for employers, employees, emergency responders and others handling large quantities of the product in activities generally other than product use, while the labeling provides that infonnation specifically for product use in the ordinary course. Use, storage and disposal of pesticide products are regulated by the EPA under the authority of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) through the product labeling, and all necessary and appropriate precautionary, use, storage, and disposal information is set forth on that labeling. It is a violation of federal law to use a pesticide product in anv manner not prescribed on the EP A-annroved label. Although the information and recommendations set forth herein (hereinafter "Information") are presented in good faith and believed to be correct as of the date hereof, MONSANTO Company makes no representations as to the completeness or accuracy thereo( Information is supplied upon the condition that the persons receiving same will make their own determination as to its suitability for the purposes prior to use. In no event will MONSANTO Company be responsible for damages of any nature whatsoever resulting from the use of or reliance upon infonnation. NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR OF ANY OTHER NATURE ARE MADE HEREUNDER WITH RESPECT TO INFORMATION OR TO THE PRODUCT TO WHICH INFORMATION REFERS. 000000006108 c<1rcxagri AQUATHOL K Aquatic Herbicide Material Safety Data Sheet Cerexagri, Inc. 1 PRODUCT AND COMPANY IDENTIFICATION EMERGENCY PHONE NUMBERS: Agrichemicals Group Cerexagri, Inc. 630 Freedom Business Center, Suite 402 King of Prussia, PA 19406 Chemtrec: (800) 424-9300 (24hrs) or (703) 527-3887 Medical: Rocky Mountain Poison Control Center (866) 767-5089 (24Hrs) Information Telephone Numbers Phone Number -------**----. --* --* .. --*--. -. R&D Technical Service Customer Service Product Name Product Synonym(s) Chemical Family Chemical Formula Chemical Name EPA Reg Num Product Use 610-878-6100 1-800-438-6071 AQUA THOL K Aquatic Herbicide Dicarboxylic Acid C8H805K2 Dipotassium Endothall 4581-204 Contact killer for submerged aquatic weeds 2 COMPOSITION/ INFORMATION ON INGREDIENTS Ingredient Name Endothal-potassium 2164-07-0 Available Hrs ----------8:00am to 5:00pm EST 8:00am -5:00 pm EST 40.3 y The substance(s) marked with a "Y" in the OSHA column, are identified as hazardous chemicals according to the criteria of the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard (29 CFR 1910.1200) 3 HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION Emergency Overview Yellow brown liquid, very faint chlorine odor. KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN. DANGER! Causes irreversible eye damage MAY BE FATAL IF SWALLOWED. MAY BE FATAL IF INHALED. HARMFUL IF ABSORBED THROUGH SKIN. Do not get in eyes, on skin or on clothing. Do not breathe vapor. Potential Health Effects Inhalation and skin contact are expected to be the primary routes of occupational exposure to this material. Based on single exposure animal tests, this material is considered to be moderately toxic if swallowed, slightly toxic if absorbed through skin or inhaled, non-irritating to skin and causes irreversible eye damage. ___ .__ .. ___ Product Code: 12-204 Revision: 7 lssued:28 JUL 2003 Page 1 of 7 4 FIRST AID MEASURES IF IN EYES, AQUATHOL K Aquatic Herbicide Material Safety Data Sheet Cerexagri, Inc. -Hold eye open and rinse slowly and gently with water for 15-20 minutes. Remove contact lenses, if present, after the first 5 minutes, then continue rinsing eye. -Call a poison control center or doctor for treatment advice. IF ON SKIN, immediately wash with cool/cold water. If irritation develops, immediately obtain medical attention. IF SWALLOWED, -Call a poison control center or doctor immediately for treatment advice. -Have person sip a glass of water if able to swallow. -Do not induce vomiting unless told to do so by a poison control center or doctor. -Do not give anything by mouth to an unconscious person. IF INHALED, -Move person to fresh air. -If person is not breathing, call 911 or an ambulance, then give artificial respiration, preferably mouth-to-mouth if possible. -Call a poison control center or doctor for further treatment advice. NOTE TO PHYSICIANS, Measures against circulatory shock, respiratory depression, and convulsion may be needed. 5 FIRE FIGHTING MEASURES Fire and Explosive Properties Auto-Ignition Temperature Flash Point Flammable Limits-Upper Lower Extinguishing Media N/A N/A NIA N/A Use water spray, carbon dioxide, foam or dry chemical. Fire Fighting Instructions Flash Point Method Fire fighters and others who may be exposed to products of combustion should wear full fire fighting turn out gear (full Bunker Gear) and self-contained breathing apparatus (pressure demand NIOSH approved or equivalent). Fire fighting equipment should be thoroughly decontaminated after use. Fire and Explosion Hazards None known. ==--*--*-----Product Code: 12-204 Revision: 7 lssued:28 JUL 2003 Page 2 of 7 COl'"Oltll8rl *1 6 ACCIDENTAL RELEASE MEASURES In Case of Spill or Leak AQUATHOL K Aquatic Herbicide Material Safety Data Sheet Cerexagri, Inc. Stop the leak, if possible. Shut off or remove all ignition sources. Ventilate the space involved. Avoid generation of vapors. Prevent waterway contamination. Construct a dike to prevent spreading. Use non-sparking equipment to clean up spill. Absorb, sweep up, place in appropriate containers for recovery or disposal. Collect run-off water and transfer to drums or tanks for later disposal. After removal, clean area with soap and water, collect rinsate. Remove from spill location. Consult a regulatory specialist to determine appropriate state or local reporting requirements, for assistance in waste characterization and/or hazardous waste disposal and other requirements listed in pertinent environmental permits. 7 HANDLING AND STORAGE Handling Do not breathe vapor. Do not breathe mist. Wash thoroughly after handling. Keep container closed. Empty container may contain hazardous residues. KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN. Use only with adequate ventilation. Storage Do not store in a manner where cross-contamination with pesticidest fertilizers, food or feed could occur. 8 EXPOSURE CONTROLS I PERSONAL PROTECTION Engineering Controls Investigate engineering techniques to reduce exposures. Provide ventilation if necessary to minimize exposure. Dilution ventilation is acceptable, but local mechanical exhaust ventilation preferred, if practical, at sources of air contamination such as open process equipment. Consult ACGIH ventilation manual or NFPA Standard 91 for design of exhaust systems. Eye I Face Protection Where there is potential for eye contact, wear chemical goggles and have eye flushing equipment immediately available. Skin Protection Minimize skin contamination by following good industrial hygiene practice. Wearing rubber gloves is recommended. Wash hands and contaminated skin thoroughly after handling. Respiratory Protection Where airborne exposure is likely, use NIOSH approved respiratory protection equipment appropriate to the material and/or its components. If exposures cannot be kept at a minimum with engineering controls, consult respirator manufacturer to determine appropriate type equipment for a given application. Observe respirator use limitations specified by NIOSH or the manufacturer. For emergency and other conditions where there may be a potential for significant exposure, use an approved full face positive-pressure, self-contained breathing apparatus or positive-pressure airline with auxiliary self-contained air supply. Respiratory protection programs must comply with 29 CFR § 1910.1*34.

• Airborne Exposure Guidelines for Ingredients Product Code: 12-204 Revision: 7 lssued:28 JUL 2003 Page 3 of 7 AQUATHOL K Aquatic Herbicide Material Safety Data Sheet Cerexagri, Inc. The components of this product have no established Airborne Exposure Guidelines -Only those components with exposure limits are printed in this section. -Skin contact limits designated with a "Y above have skin contact effect. Air sampling alone is insufficient to accurately quantitate exposure. Measures to prevent significant cutaneous absorption may be required. -ACGIH Sensitizer designator with a value of "Y" above means that exposure to this material may cause allergic reactions. -WEEL-AIHA Sensitizer designator with a value of "Y" above means that exposure to this material may cause allergic skin reactions. 9 PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES Appearance/Odor pH Specific Gravity Vapor Pressure Vapor Density Melting Point Freezing Point Boiling Point Solubility In Water Percent Volatile .1 10 STABILITY AND REACTIVITY .. . . . --' . . c" Stability Yellow brown liquid, very faint chlorine odor. 7.4 (nominal) 1.285 ( H20=1 ) negligible NE NA NA >100 deg C Miscible 59.7 This material is chemically stable under normal and anticipated storage and handling conditions. Hazardous Polymerization Does not occur. Incompatibility Materials that react with water. Hazardous Decomposition Products Elevated temperatures may convert endothall to anhydride, a strong vesicant, causing blistering of eyes, mucous membranes, and skin.(*See section 16) 11 TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION Toxicological Information Data on this material and/or its components are summarized below. Endothal-potassium Although no allergic skin reactions were observed in guinea pigs following exposure to this material in water, allergic skin reactions were observed following exposure to this material in ethanol. Repeated application to the *skin of rats produced severe skin irritation, liver and kidney effects considered to be secondary to irritation, and increased mortality. Long-term dietary administration produced no adverse effects in rats. Product Code: 12-204 Revision: 7 lssued:28 JUL 2003 Page 4 of 7 11 TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION Single exposure (acute) studies indicate; AQUATHOL K Aquatic Herbicide Material Safety Data Sheet Cerexagri, Inc. Oral -Moderately Toxic to Rats (LD50 99.5 mg/kg (Category 11)] Dermal -Slightly Toxic to Rabbits [LD50 2,000 mg/kg (Category Ill)} Inhalation -Slightly Toxic to Rats (4-hr LC50 0.83 mg/I; aerosol (Category II)] .Eye Irritation -Causes irreversible eye damage in rabbits (Category I) Skin Irritation -Non-irritating to Rabbits (Category IV) 7-0xabicyclo[2.2.1 ]heptane-2,3-dicarboxylic acid Intentional swallowing of 40 ml of endothall led to death within 12-hours. Skin allergy was observed in guinea pigs following repeated exposure. Repeated dietary administration (via gelatin capsules) produced vomiting, diarrhea, sluggish movements, and liver, kidney and blood effects in dogs. Long-term dietary administration to rats and mice produced effects in the glandular stomach. High mortality rates and intestinal tumors considered to be secondary to the effects in the stomach were observed in mice. Long-term application to the skin of mice produced no tumors. No birth defects were observed in the offspring of rats given endothall orally during pregnancy, even at dosages which produced adverse effects on the mothers. Skeletal anomalies were observed in the offspring of rabbits and mice given endothall orally during pregnancy, but only a dosages which produced adverse effects in the mothers. Endothall produced no genetic changes in standard tests using bacterial and animal cells or animals. 12 ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION Ecotoxicological Information Data on this material and/or its components are summarized below. Endothal-potassium I This material is practically non-toxic to bluegill sunfish (LC50 316-501.2 mg/I), rainbow trout (LC50 107-528. 7 mg/I), eastern oysters (LC50 117 mg/I), largemouth bass (LC50 130 mg/I), fiddler crab (LC50 752.4 mg/I) antj sheepshead minnow (LC50 340 mg/I), and slightly toxic to mysid shrimp (LC50 79 mg/I) and smallmouth bass (LC50 47 mg/I). lt is practically non-toxic to slightly toxic to Daphnia magna (EC50 72-319.5 mg/I) and no more than moderately toxic to freshwater blue-green algae (LC50 >4.8 mg/I). freshwater diatoms (LC50 >3.6 mg/I), freshwater green algae (LC50 >4.8 mg/I) and marine diatoms (LC50 >9.0 mg/I). The 8-day LC50 for bobwhite quail and mallard ducklings is >5,000 ppm, the 21-day LD50 for mallard ducks is 344 mg/kg, the 14-day EC50 for duckweed is 0.84 mg/I and the 14-day LC50 for juvenile chinook salmon is 62.5 ppm. Chemical Fate Information Data on this material and/or its components are summarized below. Endothal-potassium This material is rapidly degraded in aqeuous systems by the indigenous microbial population to C02 and other non-toxic natural products. . ... ----****--* -Product Code: 12-204 Revision: 7 lssued:28 Jl)L 2003 Page 5 of 7 13 DISPOSAL CONSIDERATIONS Waste Disposal AQUATHOL K Aquatic Herbicide Material Safety Data Sheet Cerexagri, Inc. Pesticide wastes are acutely hazardous. Improper disposal of excess pesticide or rinsate is a violation of Federal law. If these wastes cannot be disposed of by use according to label instructions, contact your State Pesticide or Environmental Control Agency, or the Hazardous Waste representative at the nearest EPA Regional Office for guidance. 14 TRANSPORT INFORMATION DOT Name DOT Technical Name DOT Hazard Class UN Number DOT Packing Group RQ DOT Special Information Pesticides, liquid, toxic, n.o.s. Endothall 6.1 2902 PG Ill 1000 lbs. DOTHM215C= The Keep Away From Foodstuffs (KAFF) label is authorized until October 2003. During the transition period the KAFF or the Toxic label may be used. After October 2003 only the Toxic label is authorized. 15 REGULATORY INFORMATION Hazard Categories Under Criteria of SARA Title Ill Rules (40 CFR Part 370) Immediate (Acute) Health Y Fire N Delayed (Chronic) Health N Reactive N Sudden Release of Pressure N Ingredient Related Regulatory Information: SARA Reportable Quantities Endothal-potassium SARA Title Ill, Section 313 CERCLA RQ NE SARA TPQ This product does contain chemical(s) which are defined as toxic chemicals under and subject to the reporting requirements of, Section 313 ofTitle Ill of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 and 40 CFR Part 372. See Section 2 Endothal-potassium 16 OTHER INFORMATION Revision Information Revision Date 28 JUL 2003 Supercedes Revision Dated 08-JUL-2002 Revision Summary Update section 4 add skin statement Key Revision Number 7 Product Code: 12-204 Revision: 7 lssued:28 JUL 2003 Page 6 of 7 AQUATHOL K Aquatic Herbicide Material Safety Data Sheet Cerexagri, Inc. NE= Not Established NA= Not Applicable (R) = Registered Trademark Miscellaneous Proper PPE and vetnilation should be used when using high heat, such as welding or oxy-acetylene torch cutting, on machinery that may have endothal residue. Cerexagri, Inc. believes that the information and recommendations contained herein (including data and statements) are accurate as of the date hereof. NO WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY, OR ANY OTHER WARRANTY, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE CONCERNING THE INFORMATION PROVIDED HEREIN. The information provided herein relates only to the specific product designated and may not be valid where such product is used in combination with any other materials or in any process. Further, since the conditions and methods of use are beyond the control of Cerexagri, Inc., Cerexagri, Inc. expressly disclaims any and all liability as to any results obtained or arising from any use of the product or reliance on such information. Cerexagri, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of ATOFINA Chemicals, Inc. Product Code: 12-204 Revision: 7 lssued:28 JUL 2003 Page 7 of 7 AQUATHOL (R) SUPER K Material Safety Data Sheet Cerexagri-Nisso LLC I 1 PRODUCT AND COMPANY IDENTIFICATION EMERGENCY PHONE NUMBERS: Pre-Harvest Division Cerexagri-Nisso LLC 630 Freedom Business Center, Suite 402 King of Prussia, PA 19406 Chemtrec: (800) 424-9300 (24hrs) or (703) 527-3887 Medical: Rocky Mountain Poison Control Center Information Telephone Numbers -----*-*------. --R&D Technical Service Customer Service Product Name Product Synonym(s) Chemical Family Chemical Formula Chemical Name EPA Reg Num Product Use AQUATHOL (R) SUPER K Dicarboxylic acid *c8H805K2 Dipotassium endothall 4581-388-82695 Aquatic herbicide (866) 767-5089 (24Hrs) Phone Number 610-878-6100 1-800-438-6071 Available Hrs 8:00am to 5:00pm EST 8:00am -5:00 pm EST 2 COMPOSITION/ INFORMATION ON INGREDIENTS Ingredient Name Endothal-potassium 2-Propenamide, polymer with potassium CAS RegistryNumber ------*-2164-07-0 31212-13-2 Typical Wt. % 63.0% 27.5% OSHA y y The substance(s) marked with a "Y" in the OSHA column, are identified as hazardous chemicals according to the criteria of the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard (29 CFR 1910.1200) 3 HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION Emergency. Overview Beige granular material, odorless. KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN. DANGER! Causes irreversible eye damage MAY BE FATAL IF SWALLOWED. HARMFUL IF ABSORBED THROUGH SKIN. Do not get in eyes, on skin or on clothing. Avoid breathing dust. Potential Health Effects Inhalation and skin contact are expected to be the primary routes of occupational exposure to this material. Based on single exposure animal tests, it is considered to be moderately toxic if swallowed, no more than slightly toxic if absorbed through skin, severely irritating to eyes and slightly irritating to skin . .... --------------------Product Code: 12-388 Revision: 11 Issued: 05 JAN 2006 Page 1 of 6

@ Coo Niuo llC AQUATHOL (R) SUPER K Material Safety Data Sheet Cerexagri-Nisso LLC I 4 FIRST AID MEASURES IF IN EYES, -Hold eye open and rinse slowly and gently with water for 15-20 minutes. Remove contact lenses, if present, after the first 5 minutes, then continue rinsing eye. -Call a poison control center or doctor for treatment advice. IF ON SKIN, immediately wash with cool/cold water. If irritation develops, immediately obtain medical attention. IF SWALLOWED, -Call a poison control center or doctor immediately for treatment advice. -Have person sip a glass of water if able to swallow. -Do not induce vomiting unless told to do so by a poison control center or doctor. -Do not give anything by mouth to an unconscious person. IF INHALED, -Move person to fresh air. -If person is not breathing, call 911 or an ambulance, then give artificial respiration, preferably mouth-to-mouth if possible. -Call a poison control center or doctor' for further treatment advice. 5 FIRE FIGHTING MEASURES Fire and Explosive Properties Auto-Ignition Temperature Flash Point Flammable Limits-Upper Lower Extinguishing Media NE NE NE NE Use water spray, carbon dioxide, foam or dry chemical. Fire Fighting Instructions Flash Point Method Fire fighters and others who may be exposed to products of combustion should wear full fire fighting turn out gear (full Bunker Gear) and self-contained breathing apparatus (pressure demand NIOSH approved or equivalent). Fire fighting equipment should be thoroughly decontaminated after use. Fire and Explosion Hazards None known. 6 ACCIDENTAL RELEASE MEASURES In Case of Spill or Leak Contain spill. Sweep or scoop up and remove to suitable container. Flush with water. Prevent spilled product from entering sewers or natural water. Consult a regulatory specialist to determine appropriate state or local reporting requirements, for assistance in waste characterization and/or hazardous waste disposal and other requirements listed in pertinent environmental permits. 7 HANDLING AND STORAGE Product Code: 12-388 Revision: 11 lssued:05 JAN 2006 Page 2 of 6 AQUATHOL (R) SUPER K Material Safety Data Sheet Cerexagri-Nisso LLC I 7 HANDLING AND STORAGE Handling Do not breathe dust. Avoid contact with eyes, skin and clothing. Wash thoroughly after handling. Keep container closed. Empty container may contain hazardous residues. KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN. Storage Do not store in a manner where cross-contamination with pesticides, fertilizers, food or feed could occur. 8 EXPOSURE CONTROLS I PERSONAL PROTECTION Engineering Controls Investigate engineering techniques to reduce exposures. Provide ventilation if necessary to minimize exposure. Dilution ventilation is acceptable, but local mechanical exhaust ventilation preferred, if practical, at sources of air contamination such as open process equipment. Consult ACGIH ventilation manual or NFPA Standard 91 for design of exhaust systems. Eye I Face Protection Where there is potential for eye contact, wear chemical goggles and have eye flushing equipment immediately available. Skin Protection Minimize skin contamination by following good industrial hygiene practice. Wearing rubber gloves is recommended. Wash hands and contaminated skin thoroughly after handling. Respiratory Protection Where airborne exposure is likely, use NIOSH approved respiratory protection equipment appropriate to the material and/or its components. If exposures cannot be kept at a minimum with engineering controls, consult respirator manufacturer to determine appropriate type equipment for a given application. Observe respirator use limitations specified by NIOSH or the manufacturer. For emergency and other conditions where there may be a potential for significant exposure, use an approved full face positive-pressure, self-contained breathing apparatus or positive-pressure airline with auxiliary self-contained air supply. Respiratory protection programs must comply with 29 CFR § 1910.134. Airborne Exposure Guidelines for Ingredients The components of this product have no established Airborne Exposure Guidelines -Only those components with exposure limits are printed in this section. -Skin contact limits designated with a "Y" above have skin contact effect. Air sampling alone is insufficient to accurately quantitate exposure. Measures to prevent significant cutaneous absorption may be required. -ACGIH Sensitizer designator with a value of "Y" above means that exposure to this material may cause allergic reactions. -WEEL-AIHA Sensitizer designator with a value of "Y" above means that exposure to this IT]aterial may cause allergic skin reactions . . ** --***--*-,.**----------*****-.... Product Code: 12-388 Revision: 11 lssued:05 JAN 2006 Page 3 of 6 ( :.>' I AQUATHOL (R) SUPER K Material Safety Data Sheet AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES Cerexagri-Nisso LLC Appearance!Odor pH Specific Gravity Vapor Pressure Vapor Density Melting Point Freezing Point Boiling Point Solubility In Water Evaporation Rate Percent Volatile 10 STABILITY AND REACTIVITY Stability Beige granular material, odorless. 6.9 (1% aqueous soln) 0.607 gfcm3 Negligible NIA N/A N/A N/A >65 gf100ml N/A N/A This material is chemically stable under normal and anticipated storage and handling conditions. Hazardous Polymerization Does not occur. Incompatibility None known. Hazardous Decomposition Products Elevated temperatures convert endothall to anhydride, a strong vessicant, causing blisters of eyes, mucous membranes, and skin. 11 TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION Toxicological Information Data on this material and/or its components are summarized below. Single exposure (acute) studies indicate: Oral -Moderately Toxic to Rats (LD50 98 mg/kg) Dermal -No More than Slightly Toxic to Rabbits (LD50 >2,000 mg/kg) Eye Irritation -Severely Irritating to Rabbits Skin Irritation -Slightly Irritating to Rabbits No skin allergy was observed in guinea pigs following repeated exposure. Endothal-potassium (technical active ingredient) Although no allergic skin reactions were observed in guinea pigs following exposure to this material in water, allergic skin reactions were observed following exposure to this material in ethanol. Repeated application to the skin of rats produced severe skin irritation, liver and kidney effects considered to be secondary to irritation, and increased mortality. Long-term dietary administration produced no adverse effects in rats. 12 ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION ---------Product Code: 12-388 Revision: 11 Issued: OS JAN 2006 Page 4 of 6 AQUATHOL (R) SUPER K Material Safety Data Sheet Cerexagri-Nisso LLC I 12 ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION Ecotoxicological Information Data on this material and/or its components are summarized below. Endothal-potassium (technical active ingredient) . This material is practically non-toxic to bluegill sunfish (LC50 316-501.2 mg/I), rainbow trout (LC50 107-528. 7 mg/I), eastern oysters (LC50 117 mg/I), largemouth bass (LC50 130 mg/I), fiddler crab (LC50 752.4 mg/I) and sheepshead minnow (LC50 340 mg/I), and slightly toxic to mysid shrimp (LC50 79 mg/I) and smallmouth bass (LC50 47 mg/I). It is practically non-toxic to slightly toxic to Daphnia magna (EC50 72-319.5 mg/I) and no more than moderately toxic to freshwater blue-green algae (LC50 >4.8 mg/I), freshwater diatoms (LC50 >3.6 mg/I), freshwater green algae (LC50 >4.8 mg/I) and marine diatoms (LC50 >9.0 mg/I) . . The 8-day LC50 for bobwhite quail and mallard ducklings is >5,000 ppm, the 21-day LD50 for mallard ducks is 344 mg/kg, the 14-day EC50 for duckweed is 0.84 mg/I and the 14-day LC50 for juvenile chinook salmon is 62.5 ppm. Endothall This material is slightly toxic to bluegill sunfish (96-hr LC50 77 mg/I), rainbow trout (96-hr LCSO 49 mg/I), Daphnia magna (48-hr LCSO 92 mg/I), eastern oysters (96-hr LC50 54 mg/I), mysid shrimp (96-hr LCSO 39 mg/I) and fiddler crab (96-hr LCSO 85.1 mg/I). It is practically non-toxic to sheepshead minnow (96-hr LC50 110 mg/I) and common mummichog (96-hr LC50 213.9 mg/I). This material has an 8-day LC50 of >5,000 ppm (bobwhite quail and mallard ducklings), a 21-day LOSO of 111 mg/kg {mallard ducks), a 30-day MATC of 19 mg/I (fathead minnows) and a 21-day MATC of 6.7 mg/I (Daphnia magna). No adverse effects were observed in mallard ducks and bobwhite quail following repeated (20-weeks) administration in the diet. Chemical Fate Information Data on this material and/or its components are summarized below. Endothal-potassium (technical active ingredient) This material is rapidly degraded in aqeuous systems by the indigenous microbial population to C02 and other non-toxic natural products. 13 DISPOSAL CONSIDERATIONS Waste Disposal Pesticide wastes are acutely hazardous. Improper disposal of excess pesticide or rinsate is a violation of Federal law. If these wastes cannot be disposed of by use according to label instructions, contact your State Pesticide or Environmental Control Agency, or the Hazardous Waste representative at the nearest EPA Regional Office for guidance. 14 TRANSPORT INFORMATION DOT Name DOT Technical Name DOT Hazard Class UN Number DOT Packing Group RQ Pesticides, solid, toxic, n.o.s. Endothall 6.1 2588 PG Ill 1,000 POUNDS 15 REGULATORY INFORMATION Product Code: 12-388 Revision: 11 lssued:05 JAN 2006 Page 5 of 6 AQUATHOL (R) SUPER K Material Safety Data Sheet Cerexagri-Nisso LLC Hazard Categories Under Criteria of SARA Title Ill Rules (40 CFR Part 370) Immediate (Acute) Health Y Fire N belayed'(Chronic) Health N Reactive N Sudden Release of Pressure N Ingredient Related Regulatory Information: SARA Reportable Quantities Endothal-potassium 2-Propenamide, polymer with potassium SARA Title Ill, Section 313 CERCLA RQ NE NE SARA TPQ This product does contain chemical(s) which are defined as toxic chemicals under and subject to the reporting requirements of, Section 313 of Title Ill of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 and 40 CFR Part 372. See Section 2 Endothal-potassium 16 OTHER INFORMATION Revision Information Revision Date 05 JAN 2006 Revision Number 11 Supercedes Revision Dated 03-JAN-2006 Revision Summary Update section 1 Key NE= Not Established NA= Not Applicable (R) = Registered Trademark Miscellaneous Aquathol (R) is a registered trademark of Cerexagri, Inc. Cerexagri-Nisso LLC believes that the information and recommendations contained herein (including data and statements) are accurate as of the date hereof. NO WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY, OR ANY OTHER WARRANTY, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE CONCERNING THE INFORMATION PROVIDED HEREIN. The information provided herein relates only to the specific product designated and may not be valid w_here such product is used in combination with any other materials or in any process. Further, since the conditions and methods of use are beyond the control of Cerexagri-Nisso LLC,Cerexagri-Nisso LLC expressly disclaims any and all liability as to any results obtained or arising from any use of the product or reliance on such information. Product Code: 12-388 Revision: 11 lssued:05 JAN 2006 Page 6 of 6 MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET AB Cutrine Plus Granular 1. Product And Compa11y Identification Supplier Manufacturer Applied Biochemists (WI) Advantis Technologies, Inc. A division of Advantis Technologies, Inc. 1400 Bluegrass Lakes Parkway W175 N11163 Stonewood Drive, Suite 234 Alpharetta, GA 30004 United States Germantown, WI 53022 Telephone Number: (262) 255-4449 Telephone Number: (770) 521-5999 FAX Number: (262) 255-4268 FAX Number: (770) 521-5959 Web Site: www.appliedbiochemists.com Web Site: www.poolspacare.com Supplier Emergencl£ Contacts & Phone Number Manufacturer Emergency: Contacts & Phone Number CHEMTREC

• DAY OR NIGHT: (800) 424-9300 CHEMTREC *DAY OR NIGHT: (800) 424-9300 Issue Date: 02/15/2007 Product Name: AB Cutrine Plus Granular Chemical Name: Chelated Elemental Copper GAS Number: Not Established Chemical Family: Granular Copper Algaecide Chemical Formula: Proprietary Mixture MSDS Number: 377 2. Composition/Information On Ingredients Ingredient CAS Percent Of Name Number TotalWeiaht COPPERCARBONATE 12069-69-1 CRYSTALLINE SILICA . 141!08*60-7 MONOETHANOLAMINE 141-43-5 Ingredients listed in this section have been determined to be hazardous as defined in 29CFR 1910.1200. Materials determined to be health hazards are listed if they comprise 1 % or more of the composition. Materials identified as carcinogens are listed if they comprise 0.1 % or more of the composition. Information on proprietary materials is available in 29CFR 1910.1200(i)(1). 3. Hazards Identification Primary: Routes(s) Of Entiy Eye Contact, Skin Contact Elle Hazards Can cause eye irritation. Skin Hazards May be irritating to skin. Ingestion Hazards May be harmful if swalloy.ied. Inhalation Hazards Inhaled dust may be irritating to mucous membranes. ChroniclCarcinogenicity Effects This product contains clay. IARC has classified crystalline silica (a component of clay) as a probable human carcinogen. Prolonged contact may cause liver damage, kidney damage, and/or chronic muscle damage. Page 1 of5 MATERIAL SA*FETY DA TA AB Cutrine Plus Granular 3. Hazards Identification -Continued Signs And Symptoms Contact with skin and eyes may be irritating. Conditions Aggravated By Exposure May cause skin sensitization. IR.st AJd !Plctcqramsl ";] 4. First Aid Measures Eye SHEET Call a physician or a poison control center immediately. In case of contact, hold eyelids apart and immediately flush eyes with plenty of water for at least 15 minutes. DO NOT let the victim rub his eye(s). Skin In case of contact, immediately flush skin with plenty of water for at least 15 minutes. Remove contaminated clothing and shoes. Thoroughly clean shoes before reuse. Wash clothing before reuse. Ingestion Get medical attention immediately. Inhalation Get medical attention immediately. If breathing is difficult, give oxygen. If inhaled, remove to fresh air. 5. Fire fighting Measures Flammability Class: Not flammable Fire And Explosion Hazards Decomposition of wet chemical may cause auto-ignition above 150F. Extinguishing Media Use C02 (Carbon Dioxide), dry chemical, water fog, or foam. Fire Fighting Instructions Avoid breathing vapors, gases and fumes. Firefighters should wear self-contained breathing apparatus and full protective gear. Water can be used to cool and protect exposed material. 6. Accidental Release Measures Clean up spill immediately. Sweep up and remove immediately. Avoid rinsing into sewer. Use appropriate containers to avoid environmental contamination. Handling & Storage CPictograms) IJ = 7. Handling And Storaae Handling And Storage Precautions Keep out of reach of children. Use only with adequate ventilation. Wash thoroughly after handling. Handling Precautions Avoid contact with eyes. Avoid contact with skin and clothing. Avoid contact with strong acids and nitrates Page2of5 I MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET AB Cutrine Plus Granular 7. Handling And Storage -Continued §torage Precautions Keep out of reach of children. Store in a cool, dry place. Do not stack wet material. Practices Wash thoroughly with soap and water after handling. Use safe chemical handling procedures suitable for the hazards presented by this material. 8. Exposure Controls/Personal Protection Engineering Controls Local exhaust recommended. Protection Safety glasses with side shields or goggles. Skin Protection Chemical-resistant gloves (rubber or plastic). ResgiratoO£ Pr2tection None normally required. lf needed, use NIOSH approved respirator for dusts. lngredient{s} -ExQosure Limits COPPER CARBONATE PEL= 1 mg/m3 (as copper dusts and mists -GAS# 7440-50-8) TLV = 1 mg/m3 (as copper dusts and mists -GAS# 7440-50-8) CRYSTALLINE SILICA PEL= 0.1 mg/m3 TLV = 0.05 mg/m3 MONOETHANOLAMINE PEL= 3ppm TLV = 3 ppm 9. Phvsical And Chemical Prooerties AQQearance Blue/Green granules Odor Amine, slight Chemical Type: Mixture Physical State: Solid Melting Point: N/A °F Boiling Point: Not Determined °F Percent Volitales: Not Determined Packing Density: 1.2-1.3 Vapor Pressure: Not Determined Solubility: Granules are insoluble; Chemical soluble Evaporation Rate: Not Determined 10. Stabilitv And Reactivitv Stability: Stable Hazardous Polymerization: Will not occur To Avoid {StabiliM Temperatures above 150F, especially if the material is damp. Page 3of5 MATERIAL SAFETY DATA AB Cutrine Plus Granular 10. Stability And Reactivity -Continued lncomgatjble Materials Strong acids and nitrates. Hazardous Decomgositjon Products Oxides of Nitrogen and Carbon. 11. Toxicological Information Acute Inhalation Acute Inhalation LC50 > 2.59 mg/L (Male and female rats) 12. Ecoloqical Information Ecotoxicological Information 13. Disposal Considerations Dispose in accordance with applicable federal, state and local government regulations. 14. Transport Information Shigging Name Not regulated Hazard Class Not regulated DOT Identification Number NONE 15. Reaulatorv Information No Data Available ... NFPA HMIS HEALTH 1 IIR ... :: _Q_ . __ , REACTIVITY 0 PERSONAL PROTECTION 16. Other Information Information MSDS Preparer: JHW This MSDS Superceeds A Previous MSDS Dated: 11/15/2006 Disclaimer SHEET Although reasonable care has been taken in the preparation of this document, we extend no warranties and make no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of the information contained therein, and assume no responsibility regarding the suitablility of this information for the user's intended purposes or for the consequences of its use. Each individual should make a determination as to the suitability of the information for their particular purposes(s). Page 4 of5 MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET AB Cutrine Plus Granular Disclaimer -Continued Applied Biochemists (WI) Pnnled Using MSDS Geoeratorno 2000 Page 5 of5 MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET Page 1of5 AB Cutrine Plus 1. Product And Company Identification Supplier Manufacturer Applied Biochemists (WI) Advantis Technologies A division of Advantis Technologies, Inc. 1400 Bluegrass Lakes Parkway W175 N11163 Stonewood Drive, Suite 234 Alpharetta, GA 30004 United States Germantown, WI 53022 Telephone Number: (262) 255-4449 Telephone Number: (770) 521-5999 FAX Number: (262) 255-4268 FAX Number: (770) 521-5959 Web Site: www.appliedbiochemists.com Web Site: www.poolspacare.com SupQlier Emergency Contacts & Phone Number Manufacturer Emergency Contacts & Phone Number CHEMTREC
• DAY OR NIGHT: (800) 424-9300 CHEMTREC -DAY OR NIGHT: (800) 424-9300 ACEAN
• DAY OR NIGHT: (800) 654-6911 ACEAN
• DAY OR NIGHT: (800) 654-6911 Issue Date: 02/19/2010 Product Name: AB Cutrine Plus Chemical Name: Chelated Elemental Copper Chemical Family: Copper Algaecide Chemical Formula: Proprietary Mixture MSDS Number: 366 2. Compositionflnformation On Ingredients Ingredient GAS Percent Of Name Number Total Weight COPPER CARBONATE 12069-69-1 MONOETHANOLAMINE 141-43-5 TRIETHANOLAMINE 102-71-6 Ingredients listed in this section have been determined to be hazardous as defined in 29CFR 1910.1200. Materials determined to be health hazards are listed if they comprise 1 % or more of the composition. Materials identified as carcinogens are listed if they comprise 0.1 % or more of the composition. Information on proprietary materials is available in 29CFR 1910.1200(i)( 1 ). 3. Hazards Identification Primary Routes(s) Of Entry Eye Contact, Skin Contact Eye Hazards Corrosive to eyes. Skin Hazards May be corrosive to skin. Ingestion Hazards Harmful if swallowed. May cause burning of the mouth, throat and stomach. Inhalation Hazards Inhalation may cause dizziness, drowsiness, euphoria, loss of coordination, headache and nausea. Signs And Symptoms Contact with skin and eyes may be irritating. Conditions Aggravated By Exposure May cause skin sensitization.

MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET I :rst Aid (Pictograms) :f:l .... t.J 4. First Aid Measures Eye AB Cutrine Plus Page 2of5 Call a physician or a poison control center immediately.In case of contact, hold eyelids apart and immediately flush eyes with plenty of water for at least 15 minutes.DO NOT let the victim rub his eye(s). Skin In case of contact, immediately flush skin with plenty of water for at least 15 minutes. Remove contaminated clothing and shoes. Thoroughly clean shoes before reuse. Wash clothing before reuse. Ingestion Give two glasses of water. Never give anything by mouth to an unconscious victim. DO NOT INDUCE VOMITING, unless directed to do so by medical personnel. Get medical attention immediately. Inhalation Get medical attention immediately. If breathing is difficult, give oxygen. If inhaled, remove to fresh air. 5. Fire Fighting Measures Flash Point: ND °F Extinguishing Media Use C02 (Carbon Dioxide), dry chemical, or foam. Fire Fighting Instructions Avoid breathing vapors, gases and fumes. Firefighters should wear self-contained breathing apparatus and full protective gear. Water can be used to cool and protect exposed material. 6. Accidental Release Measures Clean up spill immediately. Contain and/or absorb spill with ground corn cob. Avoid rinsing into sewer. Use appropriate containers to avoid environmental contamination. I =r 1P*c**u**m*1 7. Handling And Storage Handling And Storage Precautions Keep out of reach of children. Use only with adequate ventilation. Wash thoroughly after handling. Handling Precautions Avoid contact with eyes. Avoid contact with skin and clothing. Avoid contact with strong acids and nitrates Storage Precautions Keep out of reach of children. Work/Hygienic Practices Wash thoroughly with soap and water after handling. Use safe chemical handling procedures suitable for the hazards presented by this material. 8. Exposure Controls/Personal Protection No Data Available ... MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET Page 3 of5 AB Cutrine Plus 8. Exposure Controls/Personal Protection -Continued Engineering Controls Local exhaust recommended. Eye/Face Protection Safety glasses with side shields or goggles. Skin Protection Chemical-resistant gloves. Respiratory Protection None normally required. If needed, use NIOSH approved respirator for organic vapors and mists. 9. Physical And Chemical Properties Appearance Blue viscous liquid Odor Slight Chemical Type: Mixture Physical State: Liquid Melting Point: N/A °F Boiling Point: Not Determined °F Specific Gravity: 1.220-1.230@ 24 deg C Percent Volitales: Not Determined Vapor Pressure: Not Determined Vapor Density: >1 (air= 1) pH Factor: 10.3-10.5 Solubility: Miscible in water Evaporation Rate: Not Determined 10. Stability And Reactivity Stability: Stable Hazardous Polymerization: Will not occur Conditions To Avoid (Stability) Excessive heat. Thermal decomposition may cause oxides of carbon/nitrogen. Incompatible Materials Strong acids and nitrates. Hazardous Decomposition Products Oxides of Nitrogen and Carbon. 11. Toxicological Information Acute Studies Oral LOSO = 650-2420 mg/kg Rat* Subacute Dietary LC50 = >2,500 ppm Leghorn Chicken* Subacute Dietary LC50 = >1,000 ppm Ring-necked Pheasant** Subacute Dietary LC50 = >1,000 ppm Mallard Duck0 *Data from 9% copper mixed ethanolamine complexes (Cutrine Plus). **Data from 7.1 % copper triethanolamine complexes (Cutrine). 12. Ecological Information No Data Available ... MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET Page 4 of 5 12. Ecological Information -Continued Ecotoxicoloqical Information AB Cutrine Plus 96 Hour LC50 = <3.0 mg/ Rainbow Trout (44ppm Total Hardness)** 96 Hour LC50 = 56 mg/I Rainbow Trout (290 ppm Total Hardness)** 96 Hour LC50 = 13.3 mg/I Bluegill (48 ppm Total Hardness)* 96 Hour LC50 = 83 mg/I Bluegill (200 ppm Total Hardness)* 96 Hour LC50 = 67 mg/I Channel Catfish** 96 Hour LC50 = 211 mg/I Blue Shrimp (Juvenile)* 96 Hour LC50 = 68 mg/I Grass Shrimp** 96 Hour LC50 = 2,200 mg/I Fiddler Crab** *Data from 9% copper mixed ethanolamine complexes (Cutrine Plus). **Data from 7.1 % copper triethanolamine complexes (Cutrine). 13. Disposal Considerations Dispose in accordance with applicable federal, state and local government regulations. !14. Transport Information Proper Shipping Name CORROSIVE LIQUID, NOS (Copper Triethanolamine Complexes) Hazard Class 8,PG Ill (<4L Consumer Commodity ORM-D) DOT Identification Number UN1760 DOT (Pictograms)

• 15. Regulatory Information No Data Available ... PERSONAL PROTECTION 16. Other Information Revision/Preparer Information MSDS Preparer: JHW3 MSDS Preparer Phone Number: 770-521-5999 This MSDS Superceeds A Previous MSDS Dated: 10/21/2004 Disclaimer Although reasonable care has been taken in the preparation of this document, we extend no warranties and make no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of the information contained therein, and assume no responsibility regarding the suitablility of this information for the user's intended -/

MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET Page 5 of 5 AB Cutrine Plus Disclaimer -Continued purposes or for the consequences of its use. Each individual should make a determination as to the suitability of the information for their particular purposes(s). Applied Biochemists (WI) Printed Using MSOS Generator"' 2000 o Algaecide ACTIVE INGREDIENT: Sodium Carbonate Peroxyhydrate* . . . 85% OTHER INGREDIENTS ............ 15% TOTAL ......................... 100%

• Contains 27.6% Hydrogen Dioxide by weight. KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN DANGER -PELIGRO Si usted no entiende la etiqueta, busque a alguien para que se la explique a usted en detalle. (If you do not understand this label, find someone to explain it to you in detail.) EPA Registrati,on No.: 70299-6 EPA Establishment No.: 68660-TX-001 FIRST AID If in eyes
• Hold eye open and rinse slowly and gently with water for 15 -20 minutes.
• Remove contact lenses, if present, after ihe first 5 minutes, then continue rinsing eye.
• Call a poison control center or doctor for treatment advice. If on skin or clothing
• Take off contaminated clothing.
• Rinse skin immediately with plenty of water for 15 -20 minutes. ° Call a poison control center or doctor for treatment advice.
• If swallowed ° Call poison control center or doctor immediately for treatment advice.
• Hav2 person sip a glass of water if able to swallow.
• Do not induce vomiting unless told to do so by the poison control center or doctor. 0 Do not give anything by mouth to an unconscious person. If inhaled
• Move person to fresh air.
• If person is not breathing, call 911 or an ambulance, then give artificial respiration, preferably by mouth-to-mouth, if possible. Call a poison control center or doctor for treatment advice. Have the product container or label with you when calling a poison control center *or doctor, or going for treatment. You may also contact 1-800-858-7378 for emergency medical treatment information. NOTETO PHYSICIAN Probable mucosal damage may contraindicate the use of gastric lavage. PRECAUTIONARY STATEMENTS: HAZARDS TO HUMAN AND DOMESTIC ANIMALS -DANGER: Corrosive. Causes irreversible eye damage. Harmful if swallowed, inhaled or absorbed through skin. Do not get in eyes, on skin or on clothing. Wash thoroughly with soap and water after handling. PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT (PPE): When handling wear protective eyewear (goggles or face shield) and chemical resistant gloves. Applicators and handlers must wear coveralls over longsleeved shirt, long pants, and chemical resistant footwear plus socks. Follow manufacturer's instructions for cleaning/main-. taining PPE. If no such instructions exist for washables, use detergent and hot water. Keep and wash PPE separately from other laundry. USER SAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS: Users should wash hands thoroughly with soap and water before eating, drinking, chewing gum, using tobacco or using the toilet. Users should remove clothing immediately if pesticide gets inside. Then wash thoroughly and put on clean clothing. Remove PPE immediately after handling this product. Wash the outside of gloves before removing. As soon as possible, wash thoroughly and change into clean clothing. ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS: This pesticide is toxic to birds. Do not inate water when cleaning equipment or disposing of equipment washwaters. Do not apply to treated, finished drinking water reservoirs or drinking water receptacles. This product is highly toxic to bees and other beneficial insects exposed to direct contact on blooming crops or weeds. Do not apply this product or allow it*to drift to blooming crops or weeds while bees are actively visiting the treatment area. Do not apply this product or allow it to drift to crops where beneficials are part of an integrated pest management strategy. PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL HAZARDS: Strong oxidizing agent. Corrosive. Do not bring in contact with other pesticides, cleaners or oxidative agents. DIRECTIONS FOR USE: It is a violation of Federal la,;., to use this product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling. For any requirements specific to your State or Tribe, consult the agency responsible for pesticide regulation. Do not apply this product in a way that will contact workers or other persons, either directly or through drift. Only protected handlers . may be in the area during application. Agricultural Use Requirements Use this product only in accordance with its labeling and with the Worker Protection Standard, 40 CFR Part 1 70. This standard contains requirements for the protection of agricultural workers on farms, forests, nurseries and greenhouses, and handlers of agricultural pesticides. It contains requirements for training, decontamination, notification, and emergency assistance. It also contains specific instructions and exceptions pertaining to the statements on this label about personal protective equipment (PPE), notification to workers, and restricted entry intervals (REI). The requirements in this box apply to uses of this product that are covered by the. Worker Protection Standard. For' enclosed environments: There is a restricted entry of one (1 l hour for this product when applied via spraying or foaming on hard surfaces in enclosed environments. PPE requirement for early entry to treated areas that is permitted under the Worker Protection Standard and that involves contact with anything that has been treated, such as plants, soil or water, is coveralls, waterproof gloves and shoes plus socks. There is a restricted entry of zero (0) hours for spreading, broadcasting.. spot treatment, injection or other non-spraying or non-foaming application methods when used in enclosed environments. For water treatment and applications in non-enclosed environments: Keep unprotected persons out of treated areas until sprays have dried or dusts have settled. Non-Agricultural Use Requirements The requirements in this box ;ipply to uses of this product that are not within the scope of the Worker Protection Standard for agricultural pesticides (40 CFR Part 170). The WPS applies when this product is used to produce tural plants on farms, forests, nurseries or greenhouses. Keep unprotected persons out of treated areas until sprays have dried or dusts have settled.

WATER APPLICATION RATES Granular: Large Volume For example: Lakes, Ponds, Lagoons. Granular: Small Volume For example: water gardens, fountains, ornamental waterfalls. Granular: Ground/Surface: For use on non-painted surfaces to control algae, moss, slime molds and their spores. Liquid Applications: For Ground/Surface or Water applications. Foam Applications: For Ground/Surface applications. 20-90 pounds of GreenClean Pro Granular Algaecide per acre-foot of water -or-50-250 pounds of GreenClean Pro Granular Algaecide per million gallons of water. 2-10 Tablespoons of G reenClean Pro Granular Algaecide per 1000 gallons of water. 1-2 pounds of GreenClean Pro Granular Algaecide per 1000 square feet of area. Make granular applications over a wet surface or activate with water immediately following application. 1 lb= 2 Cups 2-9 pounds of GreenClean Pro Granular Algaecide per acre-foot of water -or-5-25 pounds of GreenClean Pro Granular Algaecide per million gallons of water. 1-3 teaspoons of GreenClean Pro Granular Algaecide per 1000 gallons of water. 0.5-1 pounds of GreenClean Pro Granular Algaecide per 1 000 square feet of area. Make granular applications over a wet surface or activate with water immediately following application. Solution Preparation: Due to solubility limitations, use at least 1 gallon of water to fully dissolve each 0.5 pounds of GreenClean Pro Granular Algaecide. Dissolution in cold water takes approximately 5 minutes. Treatment Rates: Use same rates at the granular application above. Solution Preparation: Follow the liquid solution preparation instructions above. Add 2.0 -5.0 fluid ounces of an alkaline-based foam, such as BioSafe Systems "BioFoaming Agent, per gallon of finished solution. Apply GreenClean Pro Granular Algaecide to any listed non-food water or surface sites treated, finished drinking water reservoirs or drinking water receptacles. Standing Water, Bilge Water, Non-Potable Water Reservoirs, Waterways, Canals, Laterals, Conveyance Ditches, Drainage Systems, Catch Basins, Flooded Areas, Sewage Systems, Drain Fields, Fire Ponds, Watering Tanks (Non-Potable Water), Storage Tanks, Water Collectors and DomestidCommercial Non-Potable Waters. (bubbling, bleaching/discoloration of algae). Waters treated with GreenClean Pro Granular Algaecide are permissible to be used without interruption. Application sites include: Sod Farms, Greenhouses, Nurseries, Golf Courses, Amusement Parks, Water Parks, Aquariums, Zoos, Botanical Gardens, Parks, Recreational Areas, Non-Chlorinated Swimming Areas, Raceways, Sports Facilities, Business Parks, Residential Developments, Indoor/Interiors, Malls, Hotels, Kennels, Cemeteries, Carwashes, Marinas, Boats, Docks, Garden Centers, Power Washing, Water Gardens, Landscapes, Municipalities, Waterways, Storm Waters, Drainage Systems, Impounded Waters, and Wastewater. Application surfaces include: WATER SURFACES Ponds, Lakes, Lagoons, Golf Course Ponds, Impounded Waters, Industrial/Commercial Ponds, NON-PAINTED SURFACES Floors, Walkways, Storage Areas, Patios, Decks, Railings, Roofs, Asphalt Shingles, Siding, Fiberglass, Boats, Piers, Docks, Stairs, Ramps, Ground Cover Mats, Weed Control Mats, Concrete, Brick, Tile, Slate, Granite, Outdoor Furniture, Statues/Monuments, Tennis Courts (non-grass), Nursery Yards, Shorelines, Gravel, Dirt Floors, Under Benches, and Other Non-Painted Surfaces. WATER TREATMENT Use GreenClean Pro Granular Algaecide to treat, control, and prevent a broad spectrum of algae. Effects of treatment are immediately apparent SURFACETREATMENT Use GreenClean Pro Granular Algaecide on all listed non-painted surfaces, to prevent and control algae, moss, slime molds and their spores, and the odors and conditions that these organisms cause (such as the breeding grounds for pests such as shore flies and fungus gnats). APPLICATION METHODS

• SPREADING I BROADCASTIN(i: Broadcast GreenClean Pro Granular Algaecide with a mechanical spreader or by hand, directly on the surface. A lawn spreader or any othe* applicator that will ensure uniform coveraf is acceptable.
• SPOT TREATMENT: Apply GreenClean Granular Algaecide directly over the ini area. Re-treatment is required when heavy growth occurs.
• LIQUID: Make a solution with GreenClean Pro Granular Algaecide (refer to I iquid application rates). Spray this solution on the desired treatment surface. If using a slurry, agitate constantly.
• FOAM: Make a solution with GreenClean Pro Granular Algaecide (refer to foam tion rates). Spray this solution on the desired treatment surface. Use a foamer, such as the BioSafe BioFoamer"', to apply.
• INJECTION: Make a solution with GreenClean Pro Granular Algaecide (refer to liquid application rates). Inject this solution into the water via a piping system.
• SUBSURFACE: Place GreenClean Pro Granular Algaecide in burlap bags and drag through the water by means of a boat. Use granular application rates. Begin treatment along the shoreline, and proceed outward. The path of the boat shall ensure an even tion. Continue dragging until all GreenClean Pro Granular Algaecide is dissolved. DETERMINING WATER VOLUME Measure length (L), width (W), and average depth (D) in feet (ft) or meters (m) and calculate volume using one of the following formulas: 1 acre-foot of water = 208.7 ft long x 208.7 ft. wide x 1 ft. deep 43,560 ft.' = 325,851 gal.= 2,780,000 lbs. Avg. L (ft) x Avg. W (ft) x Avg. D (ft) = 43,560 GENERAL TREATMENT NOTES acre-feet of water
• Control is most easily achieved when algae are not yet well established. Treat when growth first begins to appear.
• GreenClean Granular is water activated.
• When applying GreenClean Granular to soil, gravel or other similar media, incorporate the product into the first inch of substrate for optimum effectiveness.
• Apply early in the day under calm, sunny conditions, and when water temperatures are warm. Sunlight and higher temperatures both enhance GreenClean activity. 0 Apply in a manner that will ensure even clistrilJL1tion of GreenClean Granular within the treatment area.
• Break up any_ heavy algae before or during application. to the water's surface after treatment. Allowing dead organics to sink and decay will provide a food source and additional nutrients that stimulate algae re-growth and further blooms.
• If using in conjunction with other water additives (such as bacteria or enzymes), always apply GreenClean Granular first and wait several hours before adding other products.
• Re-treat areas if re-growth begins to appear. Allow 48 hours between consecutive treatments.
• Maintain with maintenance rates at a quency appropriate for your environmental conditions.
• In regions where water freezes in the winter, *treatment with GreenClean Granular (including skimming) 6-8 weeks before expected freeze will help prevent masses of decaying algae under the ice cover.
• After application, do not allow undiluted granules to remain in an area where humans or animals are exposed.
• Non-target plants will suffer contact burn if undiluted granules are accidentally spilled on them. Do not apply in such a way that the concentrated product comes in contact with grass, ornamentals and other foliage.
• Do not tank mix with aquatic herbicides or algaecides containing copper or bromides. EFFECTIVENESS FACTORS
• Effects of GreenClean Pro Granular Algaecide treatment are immediately apparent (bubbling, bleaching/discoloration of algae).
• GreenClean Pro Granular Algaecide treatments are successful when contact of the pesticide is made with the algae.
• Liquid applications will not sink through the water column as readily as a granular application.
• When treating surface mats and blooms, it is possible that GreenClean Pro Granular Algaecide will not penetrate the water umn below the infested area, and a second application is then required for treating any bottom growing algae.
• Apply more frequently during the summer months when water consumption and temperatures are high. STORAGE AND DISPOSAL Do not contaminate water, food, or feed by storage or disposal. PESTICIDE STORAGE:
• Skim dead algae and organic matter that rises Store in original containers in a cool, well-vented area, away from direct sunlight. Do not allow product to become overheated ih storage. This may cause increased degradation of the product, which will decrease product effectiveness. In case of spill, flood area with large quantities* of water. Do not store in a manner where tamination with other pesticides or fertilizers could occur. PESTICIDE DISPOSAL: Wastes resulting from the use of this product may be disposed of on site or at an approved waste disposal facility. Open dumping is hibited. If wastes cannot be disposed of according to label directions, contact your State Pesticide or Environmental Control Agency, or the Hazardous Waste Representative at the nearest EPA Regional Office for guidance. CONTAINER DISPOSAL: Triple rinse (or equivalent). Then offer for recycling or dispose of in a sanitary landfill, or incineration, or if allowed by state and local authorities by burning. If burned, stay out of smoke. WARRANTY This material conforms to the description on the label and is reasonably fit for the purposes referred to in the directions for use. liming, unfavorable temperatures, water conditions, presence of other materials, method of application, weather, watering practices, nature of soil, disease problem, condition of crop, incompatibility with other chemicals, pre-existing conditions and other conditions influencing the use of this product are beyond the control of the seller. Buyer assumes all risks associated with the use, storage, or handling of this material not in strict accordance with directions given herewith. NO OTHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTY OF FITNESS OR MERCHANTIBlLITY IS MADE. A Product of: BiQSafe SystemSuc Glastonbury, CT 06033 888.273.3088 www.biosafesystems.com 3000-7 612004 f5BASF The Chemical Company Safety Data Sheet HABITAT HERBICIDE Revision date: 2010/01/28 Version: 1.0 1. Product and Company Identification Page: 1/8 (30235835/SDS CPA US/EN) Company . BASF CORPORATION 100 Campus Drive 24 Hour Emergency Response Information CHEMTREC: 1-800-424-9300 Florham Park, NJ 07932, USA Substance number: Molecular formula: Chemical family: Synonyms: 2. Hazards Identification Emergency overview CAUTION: BASF HOTLINE: 1-800-832-HELP 000000063383 C(13) H(15) N(3) 0(3). C(3) H(9) N imidazole derivative lsopropylamine salt of imazapyr KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN. Avoid contact with the skin, eyes and clothing. Avoid inhalation of mists/vapours. See Product Label for additional precautionary statements. State of matter: liquid Colour: blue, clear Odour: ammonia-like Potential health effects Primary routes of exposure: Routes of entry for solids and liquids include eye and skin contact, ingestion and inhalation. Routes of entry for gases include inhalation and eye contact. Skin contact may.be a route cif entry for liquified gases. Acute toxicity: Relatively nontoxic after single ingestion. Slightly toxic after shorMerm skin contact. Relatively nontoxic after short-term inhalation. Irritation I corrosion: May cause slight but temporary irritation to the eyes. May cause slight irritation to the skin. Sensitization: Skin sensitizing effects were not observed in animal studies. Chronic toxicity: Repeated dose toxicity: No other known chronic effects.

Safety _Data Sheet HABITAT HERBICIDE Revision date : 2010/01 /28 Version: 1.0 Potential environmental effects Aquatic toxicity: Page: 2/8 (30235835/SDS CPA US/EN) There is a high probability that the product is not acutely harmful to fish. There is a high probability that the product is not acutely harmful to aquatic invertebrates. Acutely hannful for aquatic plants. Terrestrial toxicity: With high probability not acutely hannful to terrestrial organisms. 3. Composition / Information on Ingredients CASNumber 81510-83-0 4. First-Aid Measures General advice: Content IW/W) 28.7% 71.3% Chemical name lsopropylamine salt of imazapyr Proprietary ingredients First aid providers should wear personal protective equipment to prevent exposure. Remove contaminated clothing. Move person to fresh air. If person is not breathing, call 911 or ambulance, then give artificial respiration, preferably mouth-to-mouth if possible. Call a poison control center or physician for treatment advice. Have the product container or label with you when calling a poison control center or doctor or going for treatment. If inhaled: Remove the affected individual into fresh air and keep the person calm. Assist in breathing if necessary. lfon skin: Rinse skin immediately with plenty of water for 15 -20 minutes. lfln eyes: Hold eyes open and rinse slowly and gently with water for 15 to 20 minutes. Remove contact lenses, if present, after first 5 minutes, then continue rinsing. If swallowed: Have person sip a glass of water if able to swallow. Do not induce vomiting unless told to by a poison control center or doctor. Never induce vomiting or give anything by mouth If the victim is unconscious or having convulsions. Note to physician Antidote: Treatment: No known specific antidote. Treat symptomatically. 5. Fire-Fighting Measures Flash point: Self-ignition temperature: Suitable extinguishing media: Non-flammable. not self-igniting foam, dry extinguishing media, carbon dioxide, water spray Hazards during fire-fighting: carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide, nitrogen dioxide, Hydrocarbons, If product is heated above decomposition temperature, toxic vapours will be released. The substances/groups of substances mentioned can be released if the product is involved in a fire. Protective equipment for fire-fighting: Firefighters should be equipped with self-contained breathing apparatus and tum-out gear. Safety Data Sheet HABITAT HERBICIDE Revision date: 2010/01/28 Version: 1.0 Further information: Page: 3/8 (30235835/SDS CPA US/EN) Evacuate area of all unnecessary personnel. Contain contaminated water/firefighting water. Do not allow to enter drains or waterways. 6. Accidental release measures Personal precautions: Take appropriate protective measures. Clear area. Shut off source of leak only under safe conditions. Extinguish sources of ignition nearby and downwind. Ensure adequate ventilation. Wear suitable personal protective clothing and equipment. Environmental precautions: . Do not discharge into the subsoil/soil. Do not discharge into drains/surface waters/groundwater. Contain contaminated water/firelighting water. Cleanup: Dike spillage. Pick up with suitable absorbent material. Place into suitable containers for reuse or disposal in a licensed facility. Spilled substance/product should be recovered and applied according to label rates whenever possible. If application of spilled substance/product is not possible, then spills should be contained, solidified, and placed in suitable containers for disposal. After decontamination, spill area can be washed with water. Collect wash water for approved disposal. 7. Handling and Storage Handling General advice: RECOMMENDATIONS ARE FOR MANUFACTURING, COMMERCIAL BLENDING, AND PACKAGING WORKERS. PESTICIDE APPLICATORS & WORKERS must refer to the Product Label and Directions for Use attached to the product for Agricultural Use Requirements in accordance with the EPA Worker Protection Standard 40 CFR part 170. Ensure adequate ventilation. Provide good ventilation of working area (local exhaust ventilation if necessary). Keep away from sources of ignition -No smoking. Keep container tightly sealed. Protect contents from the effects of light. Protect against heat. Protect from air. Handle and open container with care. Do not open until ready to use. Once container is opened, content should be used as soon as possible. Avoid aerosol formation. Avoid dust formation. Provide means for controlling leaks and spills. Do not return residues to the storage containers. Follow label warnings even after container is emptied. The substance/ product may be handled only by appropriately trained personnel. Avoid all direct contact with the substance/product. Avoid contact with the skin, eyes and clothing. Avoid inhalation of dusts/mists/vapours. Wear suitable personal protective clothing and equipment. Protection against fire and explosion: The relevant fire protection measures should be noted. Fire extinguishers should be kept handy. Avoid all sources of ignition: heat, sparks, open flame. Sources of ignition should be kept well clear. Avoid extreme heat. Keep away from oxidizable substances. Electrical equipment should confonn to national electric code. Ground all transfer equipment properly to prevent electrostatic discharge. Electrostatic discharge may cause ignition. Storage General advice: Keep only in the original container in a cool, dry, well-ventilated place away from ignition sources, heat or flame. Protect containers from physical damage. Protect against contamination. The authority permits and storage regulations must be observed. Storage incompatibility: General advice: Segregate from incompatible substances. Segregate from foods and animal feeds. Segregate from textiles and similar materials. Temperature tolerance Protect from temperatures below: 0 *c Safety Data Sheet HABITAT HERBICIDE Revision date: 2010/01/28 Version: 1.0 Page: 4/8 (30235835/SDS CPA US/EN) Changes in the properties of the product may occur lf substance/product is stored below indicated temperature for extended periods of time. Protect from temperatures above: 40 *c Changes in the properties of the product may occur if substance/product is stored above indicated temperature for extended periods of time. 8. Exposure Controls and Personal Protection Users of a pestlcldal product should refer to the product label for personal protective equipment requirements. Advice on system design: Whenever possible, engineering controls should be used to minimize the need for personal protective equipment. Personal protective equipment RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MANUFACTURING, COMMERCIAL BLENDING, AND PACKAGING WORKERS: Respiratory protection: Wear respiratory protection if ventilation is Inadequate. Wear a NIOSH-certified (or equivalent) TC23C Chemical/Mechanical type filter system to remove a combination of particles, gas and vapours. For situations where the airborne concentrations may exceed the level for which an air purifying respirator is effective, or where the levels are unknown or Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health (IDLH), use NIOSH-certified full facepiece pressure demand self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) or a full facepiece pressure demand supplied-air respirator (SAR) with escape provisions. Hand protection: Chemical resistant protective gloves, Protective glove selection must be based on the user's assessment of the workplace hazards. Eye protection: Safety glasses with side-shields. Tightly fitting safety goggles (chemical goggles). Wear face shield if splashing hazard exists. Body protection: Body protection must be chosen depending on activity and possible exposure, e.g. head protection, apron, protective boots, chemical-protection suit. General safety and hygiene measures: Wear long sleeved work shirt and long work pants in addition to other stated personal protective equipment. Work place should be equipped with a shower and an eye wash. Handle in accordance with good industrial hygiene and safety practice. Personal protective equipment should be decontaminated prior to reuse. Gloves must be inspected regularly and prior to each use. Replace if necessary (e.g. pinhole leaks). Take off immediately all contaminated clothing. Store work clothing separately. Hands and/or face should be washed before breaks and at the end of the shift. No eating, drinking, smoking or tobacco use at the place of work. Keep away from food, drink and animal feeding stuffs. 9. Physical and Chemical Properties Form: Odour: Colour: pH value: Freezing point: Boiling point: Vapour pressure: Density: liquid ammonia-like, faint odour blue, clear 6.6-7.2 approx. o *c approx. 100 *c approx. 23.3 hPa 1.04 -1.09 g/ml ( 1,013.3 hPa) Information applies to the solvent. ( 1,013.3 hPa) Information applies to the solvent. ( 20 °C) Information applies to the solvent. Safety Data Sheet HABIT AT HERBICIDE Revision date: 2010/01/28 Version: 1.0 Bulk density: Viscosity, dynamic: Solubility in water: Molar mass: 1 O. Stability and Reactivity Conditions to avoid: approx. > 1 mPa.s 320.4 g/mol Page: 5/8 (30235835/SDS CPA US/EN) not applicable < 20 °c) miscible Avoid all sources of ignition: heat, sparks, open flame. Avoid extreme temperatures. Avoid prolonged exposure to extreme heat. Avoid contamination. Avoid electro-static discharge. Avoid prolonged storage. Substances to avoid: oxidizing agents, reducing agents Hazardous reactions: The product is chemically stable. Decomposition products: Hazardous decomposition products: No hazardous decomposition products if stored and handled as prescribed/indicated., Prolonged thermal loading can result in products of degradation being given off. Thermal decomposition:

• Possible thermal decomposition products: carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide Stable at ambient temperature. If product is heated above decomposition temperature toxic vapours may be released. If product is heated above decomposition temperature hazardous fumes may be released. Corrosion to metals: Corrosive effect on: mild steel brass Oxidizing properties: not fire-propagating Not an oxidizer. 11. Toxicological information Acute toxicity Oral: Type of value: LDSO Species: rat (male/female) Value: > 5,000 mg/kg Inhalation: Type of value: LC50 Species: rat (male/female) Value: > 5.3 mg/I (OECD Guideline 403) Exposure time: 4 h An aerosol was tested. Dermal: Type of value: LDSO Species: rabbit (male/female) Value: > 2,000 mg/kg Irritation I corrosion Skin: Species: rabbit Result: mildly irritating Safety Data Sheet HABITAT HERBICIDE Revision date: 2010/01/28 Version: 1.0 Method: Primary skin irritation test Eye: Species: rabbit Result: non-irritant Sensitization: Skin sensitization test Species: guinea pig Result: Skin sensitizing effects were not observed in animal studies. Genetic toxicity Information on: imazapyr Page: 6/8 (30235835/SDS CPA US/EN) No mutagenic effect was found in various tests with microorganisms and mammals. Carcinogenicity Information on: imazapyr In long-term studies in rats and mice in which the substance was given by feed, a carcinogenic effect was not obseFVed. Reproductive toxicity Information on: imazapyr The results of animal studies gave no indication of a fertility impairing effect. Development: Information on: imazapyr No indications of a developmental toxic I teratogenic effect were seen in animal studies. 12. Ecological Information Fish Information on: imazapyr Acute: Oncorhynchus mykiss/LC50 (96 h): > 100 mg/I Aquatic invertebrates Information on: imazapyr Acute: Daphnia magna!EC50 (48 h): > 100 mg/I Aquatic plants Toxicity to aquatic plants: other swollen duckweed/EC50 (14 d): 0.0228 mg/I The product has not been tested. The statement has been derived from products of a similar structure and composition. Non-Mammals Information on: imazapyr Safety Data Sheet HABITAT HERBICIDE Revision date : 2010/01/28 Version: 1.0 Other terrestrial non-mammals: maflard duck/LC50: > 5,000 ppm With high probability not acutely harmful to terrestrial organisms. Honey bee/LOSO: > 100 uglbee With high probability not acutely harmful to terrestrial organisms. Degradability I Persistence Biological I Ablologlcal Degradation Page: 7/8 (30235835/SDS CPA US/EN) Evaluation: Not readily biodegradable (by OECD criteria). Other adverse effects: The ecological data given are those of the active ingredient. Do not release untreated into natural waters. 13. Disposal considerations Waste disposal of substance: . Pesticide wastes are regulated. Improper disposal of excess pesticide, spray mix or rinsate is a violation of federal law. If pesticide wastes cannot be disposed of according to label instructions, contact the State Pesticide or Environmental Control Agency or the Hazardous Waste representative at the nearest EPA Regional Office for guidance. Container disposal: Rinse thoroughly at least three times (triple rinse) in accordance with EPA recommendations. Consult state or local disposal authorities for approved alternative procedures such as container recycling. Recommend crushing, puncturing or other means to prevent unauthorized use of used containers. RCRA: This product is not regulated by RCRA. 14. Transport Information Reference Bill of Lading 15. Regulatory Information Federal Regulations Registration status: Crop P,rotection TSCA, US released I exempt Chemical TSCA, US blocked I not listed EPCRA 3111312 (Hazard categories): Acute; State regulations CAProp.65: There are no listed chemicals in this product.

Safety Data Sheet HABITAT HERBICIDE Revision date: 2010/01/28 Version: 1.0 16. Other Information Refer to product label for EPA registration number. Recommended use: herbicide Page: 8/8 (30235835/SDS CPA US/EN) BASF supports worldwide Responsible Care initiatives. We value the health and safety of our employees, customers, suppliers and neighbors, and the protection of the environment. Our commitment to Responsible Care is integral to conducting our business and operating our facilities in a safe and environmentally responsible fashion, supporting our customers and suppliers in ensuring the safe and environmentally sound handling of our products, and minimizing the impact of our operations on society and the environment during production, storage, transport, use and disposal of our products. Local Contact Information Product Stewardship 919 547-2000 IMPORTANT: WHILE THE DESCRIPTIONS, DESIGNS, DATA AND INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN ARE PRESENTED IN GOOD FAITH AND BELIEVED TO BE ACCURATE, IT IS PROVIDED FOR YOUR GUIDANCE ONLY. BECAUSE MANY FACTORS MAY AFFECT PROCESSING OR APPLICATION/USE, WE RECOMMEND THAT YOU MAKE TESTS TO DETERMINE THE SUITABILITY OF A PRODUCT FOR YOUR PARTICULAR PURPOSE PRIOR TO USE. NO WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, ARE MADE REGARDING PRODUCTS DESCRIBED OR DESIGNS, DATA OR INFORMATION SET FORTH, OR THAT THE PRODUCTS, DESIGNS, DATA OR INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT INFRINGING THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS OF OTHERS. IN NO CASE SHALL THE DESCRIPTIONS, INFORMATION, DATA OR DESIGNS PROVIDED BE CONSIDERED A PART OF OUR TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SALE. FURTHER, YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE DESCRIPTIONS, DESIGNS, DATA, AND INFORMATION FURNISHED BY BASF HEREUNDER ARE GIVEN GRATIS AND BASF ASSUMES NO OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY FOR THE DESCRIPTION, DESIGNS, DATA AND INFORMATION GIVEN OR RESULTS OBTAINED, ALL SUCH BEING GIVEN AND ACCEPTED AT YOUR RISK. END OF DATA SHEET HYDROTHOL (R) 191 Aquatic algicide and herbicide Material Safety Data Sheet Cerexagri-Nisso LLC 1 PRODUCT AND COMPANY IDENTIFICATION Pre-Harvest Division Cerexagri-Nisso LLC EMERGENCY PHONE NUMBERS: 630 Freedom Business Center, Suite 402 King of .Prussia, PA 19406 Chemtrec: (800) 424-9300 (24hrs) or (703) 527-3887 Medical: Rocky Mountain Poison Control Center (866) 767-5089 (24Hrs) Information Telephone Numbers Phone Number 610-878-6100 1-800-438-6071 --.. ----*. ---R&D Technical Service Customer Service Product Name Product Synonym(s) Chemical Family Chemical Formula Chemical Name EPA Reg Num Product Use HYDROTHOL (R} 191 Aquatic algicide and herbicide Dicarboxylic Acid-Monoamine Salt C8H905 + HN(CH3)2 R, (where R is C8-C18) Endothall Mono ( N, N-Dimethylalkylamine ) Salt 4581-174-82695 Aquatic herbicide and algicide 2 COMPOSITION / INFORMATION ON INGREDIENTS Ingredient Name CAS RegistryNumber Available Hrs 8:00am to 5:00pm EST 8:00am -5:00 pm EST Typical Wt. % OSHA ----**--* ----. -* --*-----**--*-* ---------Mono(N,N-dimethylalkylamine) salt of endothall 66330-88-9 53.0 y The substance(s) marked with a "Y in the OSHA column, are identified as hazardous chemicals according to the criteria or the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard (29 CFR 1910.1200) 3 HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION Emergency Overview Yellowish brown liquid with very faint chlorine odor. KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN. DANGER! Causes irreversible eye damage MAY BE FATAL IF ABSORBED THROUGH SKIN. MAY BE FATAL IF SWALLOWED. CAUSES SKIN BURNS. HARMFUL IF INHALED. Do not get in eyes, on skin or on clothing. Potential Health Effects Inhalation and skin contact are expected to be the primary routes of occupational exposure to this material. Based on single exposure animal tests, it is considered to be moderately toxic if swallowed or absorbed through skin, slightly toxic if inhaled and severely irritating to eyes and skin. *' ----,. --* --*--* --------Product Code; 12-174 Revision: 13 Issued: 05 JAN 2006 Page 1 of 6 HYDROTHOL (R) 191 Aquatic algicide and herbicide Material Safety Data Sheet L\.C Cerexagri-Nisso LLC I 4 FIRST AID MEASURES IF IN EYES, -Hold eye open and rinse slowly and gently with water for 15-20 minutes. Remove contact lenses, if present, after the first 5 minutes, then continue rinsing eye. -Call a poison control center or doctor for treatment advice. IF ON SKIN, immediately wash with cool/cold water. If irritation develops, immediately obtain medical attention. IF SWALLOWED, -Call a poison control center or doctor immediately for treatment advice. -Have person sip a glass of water if able to swallow. -Do not induce vomiting unless told to do so by a poison control center or doctor. -Do not give anything by mouth to an unconscious person. IF INHALED, -Move person to fresh air. -If person is not breathing, call 911 or an ambulance, then give artificial respiration, preferably mouth-to-mouth if possible. -Call a poison control center or doctor for further treatment advice. 5 FIRE FIGHTING MEASURES Fire and Explosive Properties Auto-Ignition Temperature Flash Point Flammable Limits-Upper Lower Extinguishing Media NE >100 deg C N/A N/A Use water spray, carbon dioxide, foam or dry chemical. Fire Fighting Instructions Flash Point Method Fire fighters and others who may be exposed to products of combustion should wear full fire fighting turn out gear (full Bunker Gear) and self-contained breathing apparatus (pressure demand NIOSH approved or equivalent). Fire fighting equipment should be thoroughly decontaminated after use. Fire and Explosion Hazards None known. 6 ACCIDENTAL RELEASE MEASURES In Case of Spill or Leak Small spills: soak up with an inert absorbent. Scoop up and place in a clean, dry container. Consult with environmental engineer or professional to determine if neutralization is appropriate and for handling procedures for residual materials. Large spills: Pump into marked containers for disposal or reclamation. Consult a regulatory specialist to determine appropriate state or local reporting requirements, for assistance in waste characterization and/or hazardous waste disposal and other requirements listed in pertinent environmental permits. 7 HANDLING AND STORAGE Product Code: 12-17 4 Revision: 13 Issued: 05 JAN 2006 Page 2 of 6 HYDROTHOL (R} 191 Aquatic algicide and herbicide Material Safety Data Sheet llC: Cerexagri-Nisso LLC I 7 HANDLING AND STORAGE Handling Use only with adequate ventilation. Do not get in eyes, on skin or on clothing. Do not breathe mist. Empty container may contain hazardous residues. Keep container closed. Wash thoroughly after handling. Storage Keep from freezing; material may coagulate. 8 EXPOSURE CONTROLS I PERSONAL PROTECTION Engineering Controls Investigate engineering techniques to reduce exposures. Provide ventilation if necessary to minimize exposure. Dilution ventilation is acceptable, but local mechanical exhaust ventilation preferred, if practical, at sources of air contamination such as open process equipment. Consult ACGIH ventilation manual or NFPA Standard 91 for design of exhaust systems. Eye I Face Protection Where there is potential for eye contact, wear chemical goggles and have eye flushing equipment immediately available. Skin Protection Minimize skin contamination by following good industrial hygiene practice. Wearing rubber gloves is recommended. Wash hands and contaminated skin thoroughly after handling. Respiratory Protection Avoid breathing vapor or mist. Where airborne exposure is likely, use NIOSH approved respirator with a N 95 particulate filter. If exposures cannot be kept at a minimum with engineering controls, use NIOSH approved respiratory protection equipment as noted above. Observe respirator use limitations specified by NIOSH or the manufacturer. For emergency and other conditions where there may be a potential for significant exposure, use an approved full face positive-pressure, self-contained breathing apparatus or positive-pressure airline with auxiliary self-contained air supply. Respiratory protection programs must comply with 29 CFR § 1910.134. Airborne Exposure Guidelines for Ingredients The components of this product have no established Airborne Exposure Guidelines -Only those components with exposure limits are printed in this section. -Skin contact limits desigi:iated with a "Y" above have skin contact effect. Air sampling alone is insufficient to accurately quantitate exposure. Measures to prevent significant cutaneous absorption may be required. -ACGIH Sensitizer designator with a value of "Y" above means that exposure to this material may cause allergic reactions. -WEEL.*AIHA Sensitizer designator with a value of "Y" above means that exposure to this material may cause allergic skin reactions. -----. .. -. _ _,,.. _____ .......... .. --,... Product Code: 12-174 -*-*--** ......... _,_, -*--**-.... ---*---Revision: 13 lssued:05 JAN 2006 Page 3 of 6 ---( "! HYDROTHOL (R) 191 Aquatic algicide and herbicide Material Safety Data Sheet :: Nr**o 1.L.C Cere:<agri-Nisso LLC 9 PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES Appearance/Odor pH Specific Gravity Vapor Pressure Vapor Density Melting Point Freezing Point Boiling Point Solubility In Water Percent Volatile Viscosity 10 STABILITY AND REACTIVITY Stability Yellowish brown liquid with very faint chlorine odor. NA 1.044 @2S deg c 9.45 X 10-6 Torr (endothal amine salt) NA N/A <O deg C 100 deg C >SO g/100ml (amine salt) 47.0 100 cps@2S C This material is chemically stable under normal and anticipated storage and handling conditions. Hazardous Polymerization Does not occur. Incompatibility Materials that react with water. Hazardous Decomposition Products Extreme temperatures may convert endothall product to endothall anhydride, a strong vesiccant, causing blistering of eyes, mucous membranes, and skin. (See Section 16) 11 TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION Toxicological Information Data on this material and/or its components are summarized below. Hydrot11ol 191 Single exposure (acute) studies indicate that this material is moderately toxic if swallowed (rat LOSO 233.4 or absorbed through skin (rabbit LOSO 480.9 mg/kg), slightly toxic if inhaled (rat 4-hr LCSO 0.7 mg/I) and severely irritating to rabbit eyes and skin. No skin allergy was observed in guinea pigs following repeated exposure. 7-0xabicyclo[2.2.1]heptane-2.3-dicarboxylic acid (technical active ingredient) Intentional swallowing of 40 ml led to death within 12-hours. Skin allergy was observed in guinea pigs following repeated exposure. Repeated dietary administration (via gelatin capsules) produced vomiting, diarrhea, sluggish movements, and liver, kidney and blood effects in dogs. Long-term dietary administration to rats and mice produced effects in the glandular stomach. High mortality rates and intestinal tumors considered to be secondary to the effects in the stomach were observed in mice. Long-term application to the skin of mice produced no tumors. No birth defects were observed in the offspring of rats exposed orally during pregnancy, even at dosages that produced adverse effects on the mothers. Skeletal anomalies were observed in the offspring of rabbits and mice exposed orally during pregnancy, but only at dosages that produced adverse effects in the mothers. No genetic changes were observed in tests using bacteria, animal cells or animals. Product Code: 12-174 Revision: 13 Issued: OS JAN 2006 Page 4 of 6 HYDROTHOL (R) 191 Aquatic algicide and herbicide Material Safety Data Sheet Cerexagri-Nisso LLC I 12 ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION Ecotoxicological Information Hydrothol 191 This material is highly toxic to Daphnia magna (48-hr LC50 0.36 mg/I), fathead minnow (96-hr LC50 0.94 mg/I), golden shiner (120-hr LC50 0.32 mg/I) and scud (96-hr TL50 0.48 mg/I). It is moderately toxic to mussels {48-hr LC50 4.85 mg/I) and rainbow trout (96-hr LC50 1.7 mg/I). The 7-day LC50 for Ceriodaphnia was 0.18-0.19 mg/I and 0.304 mg/I for fathead minnow. 7-0xabicyclo[2.2.1Jheptane-2,3-dicarboxylic acid (technical active ingredient) This material is slightly toxic to bluegill sunfish (96-hr LC50 77 mg/I), rainbow trout (96-hr LC50 49 mg/I}, Daphnia magna (48-hr LC50 92 mg/I), eastern oysters (96-hr LC50 54 mg/I}, mysid shrimp (96-hr LC50 39 mg/I) and fiddler crab (96-hr LC50 85.1 mg/I). It is practically non-toxic to sheepshead minnow (96-hr*LC50 110 mg/I) and common mummichog (96-hi' LC50 213.9 mg/I). This material has an 8-day LC50 of >5,000 ppm (bobwhite quail and mallard ducklings), a 21-day LD50 of 111 mg/kg (mallard ducks}, a 30-day MATC of 19 mg/I (fathead minnows) and a 21-day MATC of 6. 7 mg/I (Daphnia magna). No adverse effects were observed in mallard ducks and bobwhite quail following repeated (20-weeks) administration in the diet. Chemical Fate Information 7-0xabicyclo[2.2.1Jheptane-2,3-dicarboxylic acid (technical active ingredient) No degradation was observed in irradiated or dark water during a 30-day test period at pH 7 or 9. Rapid degradation was observed in irradiated, but not dark, water at pH 5 (half-life <24 hours). This material adsorbed readily from aqueous solution on to Crosby silt loam. It is not expected to bioccumulate with bioaccumulation factors (BCF) of 10 for mosquito fish and 0.003-0.008 for bluegills. r 13 DISPOSAL CONSIDERATIONS Waste Disposal Pesticide wastes are acutely hazardous. Improper disposal of excess pesticide or rinsate is a violation of Federal law. If these wastes cannot be disposed of by use according to label instructions, contact your State Pesticide or Environmental Control Agency, or the Hazardous Waste representative at the nearest EPA Regional Office for guidance. 14 TRANSPORT INFORMATION DOT Name DOT Technical Name DOT Hazard Class UN Number DOT Packing Group RQ DOT Special Information Pesticides, liquid, toxic,n.o.s. Endothall 6.1 2902 PG Ill 1000lbs. DOT HM215C =The Keep away from foodstuffs (KAFF) label is authorized *until October .2003. During this transition period the KAFF or Toxic label may be used. After October 2003, all 6.1-PG Ill materials must carry the Toxic label. 15 REGULATORY INFORMATION Product Code: 12-174 Revision: 13 Issued: 05 JAN 2006 Page 5 of 6 HYDROTHOL (R) 191 Aquatic algicide and herbicide Material Safety Data Sheet t.l: Cerexagri-Nisso LLC Hazard Categories Under Criteria of SARA Title Ill Rules (40 CFR Part 370) Immediate (Acute) Health Y Fire N Delayed (Chronic) Health N Reactive N Sudden Release of Pressure N Ingredient Related Regulatory Information: SARA Reportable Quantities Mono(N,N-dimethylalkylamine) salt of endothall 16 OTHER INFORMATION Revision Information Revision Date 05 JAN 2006 Supercedes Revision Dated 03-JAN-2006 Revision Summary Update section 1 Key CERCLA RQ NE Revision Number 13 NE= Not Established NA= Not Applicable (R) = Registered Trademark Miscellaneous SARA TPQ NE Proper PPE and ventilation should be used when suing high heat, such as welding or oxy-acetylene torch cutting, on machinery that may have endothal residue. Hydrothol (R) is a registered trademark of Cerexagri, Inc. Cerexagri-Nisso LLC believes that the inforr'nation and recommendations contained herein (including data and statements) are accurate as of lhe date hereof. NO WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WARRANTY OF MERCHANT ABILITY, OR ANY OTHER WARRANTY, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE CONCERNING. THE INFORMATION PROVIDED HEREIN. The information provided herein relates only to the specific product designated and may not be valid where such product is used in combination with any other materials or in any process. Further, since the conditions and methods of use are beyond the control of Cerexagri-Nisso LLC,Cerexagri-Nisso LLC expressly disclaims any and all liability as to any results obtained or arising from any use of the product or reliance on such information . ... Product Code: 12-17 4 Revision: 13 lssued:05 JAN 2006 Page 6 of 6 Conforms to ANSI Z400.5*2004 Standard (United States). Material Safety Datu Sheet f.SePA©I Komeen 1 . Product and company identification Product name EPA Registration Number Material uses Supplier/Manufacturer Responsible name In case of emergency Komeen 67690-25 Aquatic herbicide. SePRO Corporation 11550 North Meridian Street Suite 600 Carmel, IN 46032 U.S.A. Tel: 317-580-8282 Toll free: 1-800-419-7779 Fax: 317-428-4577 Monday -Friday, Barn to 5pm E.S.T. www.sepro.com Atrion Regulatory Services, Inc. INFOTRAC

• 24-hour service 1-800-535-5053 2 . Hazards identification Physical stato Odor OSHA/HCS status Emergency overview Liquid. None This material is considered hazardous by the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard (29 CFR 1910.1200). DANGER! CAUSES RESPIRATORY TRACT, EYE AND SKIN BURNS. MAY CAUSE SEVERE ALLERGIC RESPIRATORY AND SKIN REACTION *. HARMFUL IF SWALLOWED. CONTAINS MATERIAL THAT CAN CAUSE TARGET ORGAN DAMAGE. CANCER HAZARD -CONTAINS MATERIAL WHICH CAN CAUSE CANCER. Harmful if swallowed. Corrosive to the eyes, skin and respiratory system. Causes burns. May cause sensitization by inhalation and skin contact. Avoid exposure -obtain special instructions before use. Do not breathe vapor or mist. Do not ingest. Do not get in eyes or.on skin or clothing. Contains material that can cause target organ damage. Contains material which can cause cancer. Risk of cancer depends on duration and level of exposure. Use only with adequate ventilation. Keep container tightly closed and sealed until ready for use. Wash thoroughly after handling. Routes of entry Dermal contact. Eye contact. Inhalation. Ingestion. Potential acute health effects Inhalation Corrosive to the respiratory system. May cause sensitization by inhalation. Exposure to decomposition products may cause a health hazard. Serious effects may be delayed following exposure. Ingestion Toxic if swallowed. May cause burns to mouth, throat and stomach. Skin Corrosive to the skin. Causes burns. May cause sensitization by skin contact. Eyes Corrosive to eyes. Causes burns. Potential chronic health effects Chronic effects Carcinogenicity Mutagenicity Teratogenlcity Developmental effects Fertility effects Target organs Over-exposure signs/symptoms
• indicates trademark of SaPRO Corporation. Contains material that can cause target organ damage. Once sensitized, a severe allergic reaction may occur when subsequently exposed to very low levels. Contains material which can cause cancer. Risk of cancer depends on duration and level of exposure. No known significant effects or critical hazards. No known significant effects or critical hazards. No known significant effects or critical hazards. No known significant effects or critical hazards. Contains material which causes damage to the following organs: kidneys, liver, upper respiratory tract, skin, eye, lens or cornea. Page: 1/8 Date of Issue 03/15/2009 1'uR1nn Komeen Inhalation Ingestion Skin Eyes Adverse symptoms may include the following: respiratory tract irritation coughing wheezing and breathing difficulties asthma Adverse symptoms may include the following: stomach pains Adverse symptoms may include the following: pain or irritation redness blistering may occur Adverse symptoms may include the following: pain watering redness ISePR©I Medical conditions Pre-existing respiratory and skin disorders and disorders involving any other target organs aggravated by over-mentioned in this MSDS as being at risk may be aggravated by over-exposure to this exposure product. See toxicological information (section 11) 3 . Composition/information on ingredients Name Active ingredient: Copper sulphate pentahydrate Inert ingredient: Proprietary Amine United States CAS number % 7758-98-7 30 -60 Proprietary 10 -30 There are no additional ingredients present which, within the current knowledge of the supplier and in the concentrations applicable, are classified as hazardous to health or the environment and hence require reporting in this section. 4 . First aid measures Eye contact Skin contact Inhalation Ingestion Protection of first-aiders Notes to physician Check for and remove any contact lenses. In case of contact, immediately flush eyes with plenty of water for at least 20 minutes. Get medical attention immediately. In case of contact, immediately flush skin with plenty of water for at least 20 minutes. Get medical attention immediately. If inhaled, remove to fresh air. If not breathing, give artificial respiration. If breathing is difficult, give oxygen. Get medical attention immediately. Do not induce vomiting. Never give anything by mouth to an unconscious person. Get medical attention immediately. No action shall be taken involving any personal risk or without suitable training. If it is suspected that fumes are still present, the rescuer should wear an appropriate mask or self-contained breathing apparatus. It may be dangerous to the person providing aid to give mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. Wash contaminated clothing thoroughly with water before removing it, or wear gloves. In case of inhalation of decomposition products in a fire. symptoms may be delayed. The exposed person may need to be kept under medical surveillance for 48 hours. 5 . Fire-fighting measures Flammability of the product Extinguishing media Suitable Not suitable Special exposure hazards
• Indicates trademark of SePRO Corporation. May be combustible at high temperature. Use an extinguishing agent suitable for the surrounding fire. None known. Promptly isolate the scene by removing all persons from the vicinity of the incident if there is a fire. No action shall be taken involving any personal risk or without suitable training Fire water contaminated with this material must be contained and prevented from being discharged to any waterway, sewer or drain. Page: 2/8 Date of issue 03/15/2009 Komeen Hazardous thermal decomposition products Special protective equipment for fire-fighters Decomposition products may include the following materials: carbon dioxide carbon monoxide nitrogen oxides sulfur oxides metal oxide/oxides Decomposes above 200°C. lsePA©I Fire-fighters should wear appropriate protective equipment and self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) with a full face-piece operated in positive pressure mode. 6 . Accidental release measures Personal precautions Environmental precautions Methods for cleaning up Small spill Large spill No action shall be taken involving any personal risk or without suitable training. Evacuate surrounding areas. Keep unnecessary and unprotected personnel from entering. Do not touch or walk through spilled material. Do not breathe vapor or mist. Provide adequate ventilation. Wear appropriate respirator when ventilation is inadequate. Put on appropriate personal protective equipment (see section 8). May be harmful to the environment if released in large quantities. Stop leak if without risk. Move containers from spill area. Dilute with water and mop up if water-soluble or absorb with an inert dry material and place in an appropriate waste disposal container. Dispose of via a licensed waste disposal contractor. Stop leak if without risk. Move containers from spill area. Approach release from upwind. Prevent entry into sewers, water courses, basements or confined areas. Wash spillages into an effluent treatment plant or proceed as follows. Contain and collect spillage with non-combustible, absorbent material e.g. sand, earth, vermiculite or diatomaceous earth and place in container for disposal according to local regulations (see section 13). Dispose of via a licensed waste disposal contractor. Contaminated absorbent material may pose the same hazard as the spilled product. Note: see section 1 for emergency contact information and section 13 for waste disposal. 7 . Handling and storage Handling Storage Put on appropriate personal protective equipment (see section 8). Eating, drinking and smoking should be prohibited in areas where this material is handled, stored and processed. Workers should wash hands and face before eating, drinking and smoking. Persons with a history of skin sensitization problems or asthma, allergies or chronic or recurrent respiratory disease should not be employed in any process in which this product is used. Do not get in eyes or on skin or clothing. Do not breathe vapor or mist. Do not ingest. Avoid release to the environment. Use only with adequate ventilation. Wear appropriate respirator when ventilation is inadequate. Keep in the original container or an approved alternative made from a compatible material, kept tightly closed when not in use. Empty containers retain product residue and can be hazardous. Do not reuse container. Store in accordance with local regulations. Store in original container protected from direct sunlight in a dry, cool and well-ventilated area, away from incompatible materials (see section 10) and food and drink. Keep container tightly closed and sealed until ready for use. Containers that have been opened must be carefully resealed and kept upright to prevent leakage. Do not store in unlabeled containers. Use appropriate containment to avoid environmental contamination. 8 . Exposure controls/personal protection
• indicatH trademark of SePRO Corporation. Product name Copper sulphate pentahydrate Proprietary Amine Page: 3/8 l'\tHtUM United States Exposure limits ACGIH TLV (United States). TWA: 1 mg/ml 8 hour(s). Form: Copper dust. OSHA PEL (United States). TWA: 1 mg/ml 8 hour(s). Form: Copper dust. ACGIH TLV (United States, 1/2008). Absorbed through skin. TWA: 25 mg/ml 8 hour(s). TWA: 10 ppm 8 hour(s). NIOSH REL (United States, 12/2001). TWA: 25 mg/ml 10 hour(s). TWA: 10 ppm 10 hour(s). Date of Issue 03/15/2009 Komeen OSHA PEL (United States, 11 /2006). TWA: 25 mg/m' 8 hour(s). TWA: 10 ppm 8 hour(s). lsePA©I Consult local authorities for acceptable exposure limits. Recommended monitoring procedures Engineering measures Hygiene measures Personal protection Eyes Skin Respiratory Hands Personal protective equipment (Pictograms) HMIS Code/Personal protective equipment Environmental exposure controls If this product contains ingredients with exposure limits, personal, atmosphere or biological monitoring may be required to determine the effectiveness of the ventilation or other control measures and/or the necessity to use respiratory protective equipment. Applicators should refer to the product label for personal protective clothing and equipment. Use only with adequate ventilation. If user operations generate dust, fumes, gas, vapor or mist, use process enclosures, local exhaust ventilation or other engineering controls to keep exposure to airborne contaminants below any recommended or statutory limits. Wash hands, forearms and face thoroughly after handling chemical products, before eating, smoking and using the lavatory and at the end of the working period. Appropriate techniques should be used to remove potentially contaminated clothing. Wash contaminated clothing before reusing. Ensure that eyewash stations and safety showers are close to the workstation location. Splash goggles. Lab coat. Vapor respirator. Rubber gloves. G Emissions from ventilation or work process equipment should be checked to ensure they comply with the requirements of environmental protection legislation. In some cases, fume scrubbers, filters or engineering modifications to the process equipment will be necessary to reduce emissions to acceptable levels. 9 . Physical and chemical properties Physical state Color Odor pH Relative density Vapor pressure Solubility Liquid. Purple. [Dark] None 9.62 1.22 g/cm' (20°C). No appreciable vapor pressure. Open containers can lose small amounts of water by volatilization. Soluble in water and alcohols. 10 . Stability and reactivity Stability Hazardous polymerization Conditions to avoid Materials to avoid Hazardous decomposition products
• Indicates trademark of SePRO Corporation The product is stable. Under normal conditions of storage and use, hazardous polymerization will not occur. Avoid exposure -obtain special instructions before use. Reactive or incompatible with the following materials: oxidizing materials and acids. (Specific materials to avoid) Do not use where water is below 6. Copper chelate may dissociate and release copper ions which could subsequently be precipitated as insoluble copper salts. Should not be applied when water temperature is below 60°F. Under normal conditions of storage and use, hazardous decomposition products should not be produced. Page: 4/8 A *'1 ICtf lt't Date of Issue 03/15/2009 Komeen ISePA©\ Highly flammable in the presence of the following materials or conditions: open flames, sparks and static discharge. Flammable in the presence of the following materials or conditions: heat. 11 . Toxicological information Acute toxicity Product/ingredient name Copper sulphate pentahydrate Proprietary Amine Inhalation Ingestion Skin Eyes Carcinogenicity Classification Product/Ingredient namo Proprietary Amine Species Dose Result Exposure Rat 20 mg/kg LOSO lntraperitoneal Rat 48900 ug/kg LOSO Intravenous Rat-300 mg/kg LOSO Oral Female Rat 960 mg/kg LOSO Oral Rabbit 730 ul/kg LOSO Dermal Rat 1200 mg/kg LOSO Oral Corrosive to the respiratory system. May cause sensitization by inhalation. Exposure to decomposition products may cause a health hazard. Serious effects may be delayed following exposure. Toxic if swallowed. May cause burns to mouth, throat and stomach. Corrosive to the skin. Causes burns. May cause sensitization by skin contact. Corrosive to eyes. Causes burns. ACGIH A4 IARC EPA NIOSH NTP OSHA 12 . Ecological information Environmental effects Aquatic ecotoxlcity Product/ingredient name Proprietary Amine May be harmful to the environment if released in large quantities. Test 13 . Disposal considerations Species Fish Daphnia Exposure 96 hours 48 hours Result Acute LCSO 11 S700 to 131600 ug/L Acute LCSO 26SOO to 34400 ug/L Waste disposal The generation of waste should be avoided or minimized wherever possible. Empty containers or liners may retain some product residues. This material and its container must be disposed of in a safe way. Dispose of surplus and non-recyclable products via a licensed waste disposal contractor. Disposal of this product, solutions and any products should at all times comply with the requirements of environmental protection and waste disposal legislation and any regional local authority requirements. Avoid dispersal spilled material and runoff and contact with soft, waterways, drains and sewers. Disposal should be in accordance with applicable regional, national and local laws and regulations. Refer to Section 7: HANDLING AND STORAGE and Section 8: EXPOSURE CONTROLS/PERSONAL PROTECTION for additional handling information and protection of employees. 14 . Transport information AERG : 1S1 Regulatory UN number information DOT Classification UN3010 *indicates trademark of SePRO Corpor41tion. Proper shipping Classes name COPPER BASED 6.1 PESTICIDES, LIQUID, TOXIC Page: 5/8 "Hit-,.,., PG* Label Additional information Ill Date of Issue 03/15/2009 Komeen ISePR@I IMDG Class UN3010 COPPER BASED 6 1 Ill . f' PESTICIDES, LIQUID, TOXIC \ -------IATA-DGR Class UN3010 COPPER BASED 6.1 Ill -PESTICIDES, LIQUID. TOXIC PG* : Packing group 15 . Regulatory information United States HCS Classification U.S. Federal regulations SARA 313 Form R -Reporting requirements Toxic material Corrosive material Sensitizing material Carcinogen Target organ effects United States inventory (TSCA Sb): All components are listed or exempted. SARA 302/304/311/312 extremely hazardous substances: Proprietary Amine SARA 302/304 emergency planning and notification : Proprietary Amine SARA 302/304/311/312 hazardous chemicals: Copper sulphate pentahydrate; Proprietary Amine SARA 311/312 MSDS distribution -chemical inventory -hazard identification: Copper sulphate pentahydrate: Immediate (acute) health hazard. Delayed (chronic) health hazard; Proprietary Amine: Fire hazard, Immediate (acute) health hazard, Delayed (chronic) health hazard Clean Water Act (CWA) 307: Copper sulphate pentahydrate Clean Water Act (CWA) 311: Copper sulphate pentahydrate; Proprietary Amine; Proprietary Acid Clean Air Act (CAA) 112 accidental release prevention: Proprietary Amine Clean Air Act (CAA) 112 regulated flammable substances: No products were found. Clean Air Act (CAA) 112 regulated toxic substances: Proprietary Amine Product name Copper sulphate pentahydrate CAS number 7758-98-7 Concentration 30 -60 Supplier notification Copper sulphate pentahydrate 7758-98-7 30 -60 SARA 313 notifications must not be detached from the MSDS and any copying and redistribution of the MSDS shall include copying and redistribution of the notice attached to copies of the MSDS subsequently redistributed. State regulations Connecticut Carcinogen Reporting: None of the components are listed. Connecticut Hazardous Material Survey: None of the components are listed. Florida substances: None of the components are listed. Illinois Chemical Safety Act: None of the components are listed. Illinois Toxic Substances Disclosure to Employee Act: None of the components are listed. Louisiana Reporting: None of the components are listed. Louisiana Spill: None of the components are listed. Massachusetts Spill: None of the components are listed. Massachusetts Substances: The following components are listed: Copper sulphate pentahydrate; Proprietary Amine Michigan Critical Material: None of the components are listed. Minnesota Hazardous Substances: None of the components are listed. New Jersey Hazardous Substances: The following components are listed: Copper sulphate pentahydrate; Proprietary Amine; Proprietary Acid New Jersey Spill: None of the components are listed. New Jersey Toxic Catastrophe Prevention Act: None of the components are listed. New York Acutely Hazardous Substances: The following components are listed: Copper sulphate pentahydrate; Proprietary Amine; Proprietary Acid New York Toxic Chemical Release Reporting: None of the components are listed. Pennsylvania RTK Hazardous Substances: The following components are listed: Copper sulphate pentahydrate; Proprietary Amine; Proprietary Acid Rhode Island Hazardous Substances: None of the components are listed. I
• lndlcatn trademark of SePRO Corporation. Page: 6/8 A Date of issue 03/15/2009 '\.tl11*U1 Komeen California Prop. 65 Ingredient name Sulfuric acid lntern:itional regulations International lists lsePA©I WARNING: This product contains a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer. Cancer Reproductive Yes. No. No significant risk level No. Maximum acceptable dosage level No. This product, (and its ingredients) is (are) listed on national inventories, or is (are) exempted from being listed, in Australia (AICS), in Europe {EINECS/ELINCS), in Korea (TCCL), in Japan (METI), in the Philippines (RA6969). 16 . Other information Label requirements Hazardous Material Information System (U.S.A.) CAUSES RESPIRATORY TRACT, EYE AND SKIN BURNS. MAY CAUSE SEVERE ALLERGIC RESPIRATORY AND SKIN REACTION. HARMFUL IF SWALLOWED. CONTAINS MATERIAL THAT CAN CAUSE TARGET ORGAN DAMAGE. CANCER HAZARD -CONTAINS MATERIAL WHICH CAN CAUSE CANCER. 3 0 0 G HAZARD RATINGS 4-Extreme 3-Serious 2-Moderate 1-Slight 0-Minlmal See section 8 for more detailed information on personal protection. The customer is responsible for determining the PPE code for this material. National Fire Protection Association (U.S.A.) References Date of Issue Version Notice to reader Flammability Health Instability Special ANSI Z400.1, MSDS Standard, 2004. -Manufacturer's Material Safety Data Sheet. -29CFR Part1910.1200 OSHA MSOS Requirements. -49CFR Table List of Hazardous Materials, UN#, Proper Shipping Names, PG. 03/15/2009 To the best of our knowledge, the information contained herein is accurate. However, neither the above named supplier nor any of its subsidiaries assumes any liability whatsoever for the accuracy or completeness of the information contained herein. Final determination of suitability of any material is the sole responsibility of the user. All materials may present unknown hazards and should be used with caution. Although certain hazards are described herein, we cannot guarantee that these are the only hazards that exist. The data in this MSDS relates only to the specific material designated herein. Possible adverse effects (see Section 2, 11and12) may occur if this material is not handled in the recommended manner.
• indicates trademark of SePRO Corporoallon. Page: 7/8 .. _ . ., "' HU>>n Date of Issue 03/15/2009 Komeen *Indicates trademark ol SePRO Corpor.ation. This page has been intentionally left blank Page: 8/8 A "1 ""'" ISePA©I Date of Issue : 03/15/2009 MATERIAL SAFETY DATA AB Navigate SHEET 1. Product And Company Identification Manufacturer Applied Biochemists (WI) Advantis Technologies, Inc. A division of Advantis Technologies, Inc. 1400 Bluegrass Lakes Parkway W175 N11163 Stonewood Drive, Suite 234 Alpharetta, GA 30004 United States Germantown, WI 53022 Telephone Number: (262) 255-4449 Telephone Number: (770) 521-5999 FAX Number: (262) 255-4268 FAX Number: (770) 521-5959 Web Site: www.appliedbiochemists.com Web Site: www.poolspacare.com Emergency Contacts & Phone Number Manufacturer Emergency Contacts & Phone Number CHEMTREC -DAY OR NIGHT: (800) 424-9300 CHEMTREC -DAY OR NIGHT: (800) 424-9300 Issue Date: 02/15/2007 Product Name: AB Navigate Chemical Name: 2,4-0: 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid, Butoxyethyl Ester CAS Number: Not Established Chemical Family: Aquatic Herbicide MSDS Number: 379 2. Comoosition/lnformation On lnaredients Ingredient CAS Percent Of Name Number TotalWel11ht 2-BUTOXYETHYL-2,4-DICHLOROPHENOXY AC ETA TE 1929-73-3 CRYSTALLINE SILICA 14808-60-7 Ingredients listed in this section have been determined to be hazardous as defined in 29CFR 1910.1200. Materials determined to be health hazards are listed if they comprise 1 % or more of the composition. Materials identified as carcinogens are listed if they comprise 0.1% or more of the composition. Information on proprietary materials is available in 29CFR 1910.1200(i)( 1 ). EMERGENCY OVERVIEW Harmful if swallowed, inhaled, or absorbed throught the skin. It is anticipated to be slightly to moderately toxic if swallowed and slightly toxic if inhaled. 3. Hazards Identification Eye Hazards Causes eye irritation. Skin Hazardl! May be irritating to skin. Ingestion Hazards It is anticipated to be slightly to moderately toxic if swallowed. Inhalation Hazardl! It is anticipated to be slightly toxic if inhaled. Chronii;/Caci;inogenii;itll Effects This product contains clay. IARC has classified cystalline silica (a component of clay) as a probably human carcinogen. Prolonged contact may cause lover damage, kidney damage, and/or chronic muscle damage. Signs And Repeated and prolonged inhalation of this material may cause a form of disabling lung disease (commonly known as Page 1 of4 MATERIAL SAFETY DATA AB Navigate 3. Hazards Identification -Continued Signs And S:tmgtoms -Continued SHEET silicosis). Clinical signs and symptoms fo silicosis include cough, shortness of breath, wheezing and impairment of lung function. Impairment of lung function may be progressive. In the usual case of silicosis, there is a slow deterioration of capacity for physical effort, decreased chest expansion, and an increased susceptibility to tuberculosis and other respiratory infections. Short term, extrememly heavy exposure to dust of this material (particularly small sized particles) can result in acute silicosis. Individuals with acute silicosis may suffer an abrupt onset of violent coughing, labored breathing, and weight loss; death has been known to occu within one to two years Conditions Aggravated B:t None known. First Aid {Pictograms) ';] 4. First Aid Measures Eye In case of contact, hold eyelids apart and immediately flush eyes with plenty of water for at least 15 minutes. Get medical attention immediately if irritation develops and persists. Skin In case of contact, immediately flush skin with soap and plenty of water. Get medical attention immediately if irritation (redness, rash, blistering) develops and persists. Ingestion Call a physician or a poison control center immediately. Drink 1 or 2 glasses of water and induce vomiting. Never give anything by mouth to an unconscious victim. Inhalation If inhaled. remove to fresh air. If not breathing, give artificial respiration. Fire Fighting (Pictograms} 5. Fire FiQhtina Measures Flammability Class: Not flammable Fire And Hazards Thermal decomposition products include oxides of carbon, sulfur dioxides and hydrochloric acid. Extinguishing Media Water fog, carbon dioxide, dry chemical, or foam. Fire Fighting Instructions Firefighters should wear self-contained breathing apparatus and full protective gear. Dike to prevent contamination of water sources. 6. Accidental Release Measures Clean up spill immediately. Use appropriate containers to avoid environmental contamination. Prevent release to the environment. Do not flush area with water as it can cause contamination of sewer system. Page 2 of4 MATERIAL SAFETY DATA AB Navigate 7. Handling And Storage Handling And Storage Precautions SHEET Do not swallow, breath dust, store near food, contaminate water, food, or feed, apply to waters used for irrigation, agricultural sprays, watering dairy animals or domestic water supplies. Keep out of reach of children. Handling Precautions Wash hands before eating, drinking, or smoking. 8. Exoosure Controls/Personal Protection Engineering Controls Not normally required. Eye/Face Protection Safety glasses or splash goggles. Skin Protection Wear protective clothing to minimize contact. Wear chemical resistant gloves. Respiratory Protection Not normally required. If needed, use NIOSH approved respirator for dusts. Other/General Protection Use safe chemical handling procedures suitable for the hazards presented by this material. 9. Physical And Chemical Properties Aol::!earance Grayffan granules. Odor Mild, phenolic odor. Chemical Type: Mixture Physical State: Solid Percent Volitales: Not Determined Packing Density: Not Determined Solubility: Insoluble Evaporation Rate: Not Determined 10. Stabilitv And Reactivitv Stability: Stable Hazardous Polymerization: Will not occur Conditions To Avoid None known. Page 3 of4 I I MATERIAL SAFETY DATA AB Navigate 10. Stability And Reactivity -Continued lncomi;iatible Materials Acids. bases. and oxidizers. Hazardous Products SHEET Thermal decomposition products include oxides of carbon, sulfur dioxides and hydrochloric acid. 11. Toxicological Information Acute Studies None available. 12. Information Ecotoxicological Information None available. 13. Disposal Considerations Dispose in accordance with applicable federal, state and local government regulations. RQ for 2-Butoxyethy 2,4-dichlorophenoxy acetate (CAS# 1929-73-3) is 100 lbs. 14. Transport Information Pr2ger Shigging Name Not regulated Hazard Class Not regulated DOT Identification Number NONE 15. Reaulatorv Information No Data Available ... NFPA HMIS HEALTH 2 ',.. *v.. -2 0 . " _<L REACTIVITY [QJ PERSONAL PROTECTION C£J 16. Other Information RevisiQn/Pregarer Information MSDS Preparer: JHW Disclaimer Although reasonable care has been taken in the preparation of this document, we extend no warranties and make no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of the information contained therein, and assume no responsibility regarding the suitablility of this information for the user's intended purposes or for the consequences of its use. Each individual should make a determination as to the suitability of the information for their particular purposes(s). Applied Biochemists (WI) ot.ro1g.n VSOS Ganetiilnf' .. 1000 Page 4 of4 MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET North American Version PAK rM 27 Algaecide It is a violation of State and Federal law to use this product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling. The labeling must be in possession of the user at the time of pesticide use or application. 1. PRODUCT AND COMPANY IDENTIFICATION 1.1. Identification of the substance/preparation Product Name PAKTM27 Algaecide Chemical Name Sodium carbonate peroxyhydrate Synonyms Sodium Percarbonate, PCS, Sodium Carbonate Chemical Formula Molecular Weight CAS Number Grades/Trade Names 1.2. Use of the Substance/Preparation Recommended use 1.3. Company/Undertaking Identification Address 1.4. Emergency telephone numbers Peroxide, PAKŽ27 2Na2C03*3H202 314.06 g/mol 15630-89-4 PAKŽ27 Algaecide End-use Algaecide (pesticide) Use in accordance with label instructions EPA Reg.# 68660-9 Solvay Chemicals, Inc. PO BOX 27328 Houston, TX 77227-7328 3333 Richmond Ave. Houston, Texas 77098 General: 1-800-765-8292 (Solvay Chemicals, Inc.,) All Emergencies (USA): 1-800-424-9300 (CHEMTREC*) Transportation Emergencies (INTERNATIONAUMARITIME): 1-703-527-3887 (CHEMTREC*) Transportation Emergencies (CANADA): 1-613-996-6666 (CANUTEC) Transportation Emergencies (MEXICO-SETIQ): 01-800-00-214-00 (MEX. REPUBLIC) 525-559-1588 (Mexico City and metro area) 2. HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION 2.1. Emergency Overview: General Information Appearance Color Odor Main effects Granular solid White Odorless/odorless Irritating to mucous membranes, eyes and skin. Risk of serious damage to eyes. 2.2. Potential Health Effects: Inhalation MSDS PAK27-020712116120011usMssuing date 0211s12001 FOS I P17607tuk/Report ver.;ion1 .1/31.05 .. 2006 Copyright 2007, Solvay Chemicals Inc., All rights reserved. 1/9 Solvay Chemicals ({) SOLVAY Nose and throat irritation. At high concentrations, cough. In case of repeated or prolonged exposure: risk of sore throat, nose bl_eeds, chronic bronchitis. Eye contact Severe eye irritation, watering and redness. Risk of serious or permanent eye lesions. Skin contact Slight irritation In case of repeated contact: risk of dermatitis. Ingestion Severe irritation of the mouth, throat, esophagus and stomach. Bloating of stomach, belching. Nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. Other toxicity effects See section 11: Toxicological Information 2.3. Environmental Effects: See .section 12: Ecological Information 3. COMPOSITION OF/INFORMATION ON INGREDIENTS Sodium Carbonate Peroxyhydrate CAS-No. Concentration Sodium Carbonate CAS-No. Concentration Sodium Metasilicate CAS-No. Concentration Sodium Chloride CAS-No. Concentration 15630-89-4 > 85.0 % 497-19-8 ca. 13 % 6843-92-0 ca.1.5% 7647-14-5 ca.1 % Note: Oxyper 8141 and 8142 may contain up to 0.5% Boron. 4. FIRST AID MEASURES 4.1. Inhalation Remove the subject from dusty environment and let him blow his nose. Consult with a physician in case of respiratory symptoms. 4.2. Eye contact Flush eyes as soon as possible with running water for 15 minutes, while keeping the eyelids wide open. In the case of difficulty of opening the lids, administer and analgesic eye wash (oxyburprocaine). Consult with an ophthalmologist immediately in all cases. 4.3. Skin contact Wash the affected skin with running water. Clean clothing Consult with a physician in case of persistent pain or redness. 4.4. Ingestion The following actions are recommended: Consult with a physician in all cases. MSCS PAK27*0207i 2116/2007/USN1ssuing date 0211512007 FDS I P17607iuk1Report versionl.1/31.05 .. 2006 Copyright 2007, SolvayChemlcals Inc., All rights reserved 2/9 Solvay Chemicals -* .. .-i. 's' \.:.::." SOLVAY If victim is conscious: Rinse mouth and administer fresh water. Do not induce vomiting. If victim is unconscious but breathing: Not applicable 5. FIRE-FIGHTING MEASURES 5.1. Suitable extinguishing media Large quantities of water, water spray. In case of fire in close proximity, all means of extinguishing are acceptable (subject to section below). 5.2. Extinguishing media which must not be used for safety reasons No restrictions. 5.3. Special exposure hazards in a fire Oxidizer (see section 9). Oxygen released on exothermic decomposition may support combustion in case of surrounding fire. Pressure burst may occur due to decomposition in confined spaces/containers. Do not spray the dry product with water, except in case of fire. Wet product decomposes exothermically and may cause combustion of organic materials. 5.4. Special protective equipment for fire-fighters When intervention in close proximity, wear acid resistant over suit. 5.5. Other Information If safe to do so, remove the exposed containers. [ 6. ACCIDENTAL RELEASE MEASURES 6.1. Personal precautions Follow the protective measures given in sections 5 and 8. Keep away materials and products which are incompatible with the product (see section 10). Avoid direct contact-of the product with water. 6.2. Environmental precautions -Prevent discharges into the environment (sewers, rivers, soils, etc.). -l_mmediately notify the appropriate authorities in case of significant discharge. 6.3. Methods for cleaning up Collect the product with suitable means avoiding dust formation. All receiving equipment should be clean, vented, dry, labeled and made of material that is compatible with the product. Because of the contamination risk, the collected material should be isolated in a safe place. Clean the area with large quantities of water. For disposal methods, refer to section 13. 7. HANDLING AND STORAGE 7.1. Handling Clean and dry piping circuits and equipment before any operations. Never return unused product to storage container. Keep away from incompatible products. Containers and equipment used to handle the product should be used exclusively for that product.
• Avoid any contact with water of humidity. MSDS PAK27-02071211612007tuSA/lssuing date 0211512001 FDS I P176071uk/Report version1.1/31.05 . .2006 Copyright 2007, Solvay Chemicals Inc., All rights reserved. 3/9 Solvay Chemicals 0:\ SOLVAY Storage For more information, consult the supplier. Keep in a dry place. Keep away from direct sunlight. Keep away from heat. Keep away from incompatible products Keep in container fitted with safety valve or vent. The container must be used exclusively for the product. Keep only in the original container at temperature not exceeding 40°C (104°F). 7.2. Packaging material Stainless steel Polyethylene Paper+ PE coating. Glass Passivated aluminum 8. EXPOSURE CONTROLS I PERSONAL PROTECTION .. 8.1 Exeosure Limit Values TLVACGIH OSHA PEL USA Sodium Carbonate Peroxyhydrate Particles not otherwise classified 3 mg/m" resp. dust 5 resp. dust (PNOC) 10mg/m3 15 mg/m3 inhalable inhalable dust dust ACGIH.and TL Ve are registered trademarks of the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists SAEL is Solvay Acceptable Exposure Limit. Time Weighted Average for 8 hour workdays. No specific TLV-STEL (Short Term Exposure Level) has been set. Excursions in exposure level may exceed 3 times the TLV-TWA for no SAEL 5 maim" more than a total of 30 minutes during a workday and under no circumstances should they exceed 5 times the TLV-TWA. 8.2. Engineering controls Ensure adequate ventilation. Provide appropriate local ventilation for the emission risk. Refer to protective measures listed in section 7. 8.3. Personal protective equipment 8.3.1. Respiratory protection In case of dust clouds/fog/fumes, face mask with appropriate cartridge. 8.3.2. Hand protection Wear protective.gloves. Recommended materials: PVC, neoprene, rubber 8.3.3. Eye protection Dust proof goggles, if very dusty. 8.3.4. Skin and body protection Wear suitable protective clothing. 8.3.5. Hygiene measures Shower and eye wash stations. Handle in accordance with good industrial hygiene and safety practice. Consult the industrial hygienist or the safety manager for the selection of personal protective equipment suitable for the working conditions. MSDS PAK27-02071211612007tUSNlssulng dalo 0211 s12007 FDS I P17607/uk/Report veralon1 .1131.05 .. 2006 Copyright 200T, Solvay Chemicals Inc., AU rights reserved 4/9 Solvay Chemicals /*!\ s \. .. SOLVAY

9. PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES 9.1. General Information Appearance Color Odor Granular solid White Odorless 9.2. Important Health Safety and Environmental Information pH Boiling point/range Flash point Flammability*(solid, gas) Explosive properties Oxidizing properties Vapor pressure Relative density I Density Partition coefficient (n-. octanol/water) Viscosity Vapor density Bulk density Solubility 9.3 Other information Melting point/range From 10.4-10.6 Concentration: 1 % solution Remarks: Not applicable Remarks: Not applicable Lower explosion limit: Remarks: Not applicable Remarks: Non-explosive Remarks: Oxidizer Remarks: Not applicable Remarks: No data Remarks: Not applicable Remarks: Not applicable Remarks: Not applicable 0.95-1.2 kg/m3 Water: 150 g/I Temperature: 20°C (68°F) Water: 175 g/I Temperature: 30°C (86°F) Remarks: Not applicable (before melting) Decomposition temperature Remarks: Self-accelerating decomposition with oxygen release starting from 50°C (122°F) 10. STABILITY AND REACTIVITY 10.1. Stability Potential for exothermic hazard. Stable under certain conditions with slow gas release. 10.2. Conditions to avoid Heat. Exposure to moisture. 10.3. Materials to avoid Water MSDS PAK27-02071211612007/USA/lssuing date 0211512001 FDS I versionl.1131.05 .. 2006 Copyright 2007, Solvay Chemicals Inc., All rights reserved. 5/9 Solvay Chemicals @ SOLVAY Acids Bases Heavy metal salts Reducing agents Organic materials Flammable materials 10.4. Hazardous decomposition products Oxygen 11. TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION 11.1 Toxicological data Acute oral toxicity LD50, rat, 1,034 mg/kg Acute inhalation toxicity LCO, 1 h, rat, > 4,580 mg/m3 Acute dermal irritation/corrosion LD lo, rabbit, > 2,000 mg/kg Skin irritation rabbit, slightly irritant (skin) Eye irritation rabbit, Risk of serious damage to eyes. Sensitization No data Chronic toxicity No data available Remarks Harmful if swallowed. Risk of serious damage to eyes. 11.2 Chronic toxicity/ Carcinogenic Designation: None .------------------*----*----*------------*--*-----.------12. ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION 12.1. Ecotoxicity effects Acute toxicity Fishes, Pimephales promelas, LC50, 71 mg/I Fishes, Pimephales promelas, NOEC, 96 h, 7.4 mg/I Crustaceans, Daphnia pulex, EC50, 4.9 mg/I Crustaceans, Daphnia pulex, NOEC, 48 h, 2 mg/I 12.2. Mobility Air Remarks: not applicable Water Remarks: considerable solubility and mobility Soil/sediments, landfill leachate Remarks: non-significant adsorption 12.3. Persistence and degradability Abiotic degradation Air Result: not applicable MSDS PAK27-020712116/2007/USA11ssulllfl date 0211s12001 FDS I P17607/uk/Reporl version1.1/31 05 .2006 Copyright 2007, Solvoy Chemicals Inc., All rfghb raserved. 6/9 Solvay Chemicals ;**?\ S1 \,;:,,.,.,. SOLVAY Soil, Hydrolysis Water Result: significant hydrolysis Degradation products: Sodium carbonate./ carbonic acid/bicarbonate/carbonate I hydrogen peroxide (bio)degradable Biodegradation Aerobic/anaerobic Remarks: no data available 12.4. Bioaccumulative potential Result: Does not bioaccumulate. 12.5. Remarks Toxic to aquatic organisms. Hazard for the aquatic environment is limited due to product properties: Does not bioaccumulate. abiotic degradability. low toxicity of degradation products. 13. DISPOSAL CONSIDERATIONS 13.1 Waste treatment: Sodium Percarbonate (sodium carbonate peroxyhydrate) is not a listed hazardous waste under 40 CFR 261. However, state and local regulations for waste disposal may be more restrictive. Spilled product should be disposed of in an EPA approved disposal facility in accordance with applicable national, state and local environmental laws and regulations. 13.2 Packaging treatment: To avoid treatment, use dedicated containers where possible. Rinse the empty containers and treat'the effluent in the same way as waste. Consult current federal, state and local regulations regarding the proper disposal of emptied containers. 13.3 RCRA Hazardous Waste: D001 (ignitable) 14. TRANSPORT INFORMATION Mode QQ.! IMDG IATA UN Number 3378 3378 3378 Class 5.1 5.1 5.1 (Subsidiary) Proper Sodium Carbonate Sodium Carbonate Sodium Carbonate Shipping Name peroxyhydrate peroxyhydrate Packing Group Ill Ill Marine No No Pollutant Hazard Label Oxidizer (5.1) Oxidizing Agent Placard Oxidizer (5.1) 3378 Emergency ERG Ems Information 140 F-A; S-P Other Consult with manufacturer before transoortinq in bulk MSOS PAK27.Q207/ 2116/2007/USA/lssuing dale 02/15/2007 FDS I P17607/uk/Report version1 .1/31.05 .. 2006 Copyright 2007, Solvay Chemicals Inc., All rights reserved. 7/9 Solvay Chemicals peroxyhydrate Ill No Oxidizer Oxidizer ERG Code SL {Tu\ \!) SOLVAY

15. REGULATORY INFORMATION 15.1 National Regulations (US) TSCA Inventory 8(b): Yes SARA Title Ill Sec. 302/303 Extremely Hazardous Substances (40 CFR355): No SARA Title Ill Sec. 311/312 (40 CFR 370): Yes Hazard Category:

• Fire hazard *Threshold planning quantity-10,000 lbs. SARA Title III Sec. 313 Toxic Chemical Emissions Reporting (40 CFR 372): No CERCLA Hazardous Substance (40CFR Part 302) Listed: No Unlisted Substance: Yes, Reportable quantity 100 lbs. Characteristic: 0001 (lgnitability) State Component Listing: State List NJ Right to Know Substance List 15.2 National Regulations (Canada): Canadian NSN Registration: DSL WHMIS Classification: C Oxidizing Material 028 Poisonous and infectious material -other toxic effects. This product has been classified in accordance with the hazard criteria of the Controlled Products Regulations and the MSDS contains all lhe information required by the Controlled Products Regulations. 15.3 National Regulations (Europe) EINECS I ELINCS # : Labeling according to Directive 67/548/EEC. Name of dangerous products-Symbol(s) 0 Xi R8 22 41 53 8 17 24/25 26 Oxidizing Irritant. Contact with combustible material may cause fire. Irritating to skin. Risk of serious damage to eyes. Keep in a cool place. Keep container dry. Keep away from combustible material. Avoid contact with skin and eyes. In case of contact with eyes, rinse immediately with plenty of water and seek medical advice. -'<\ :,s I Vj MSDS PAK27--02071211e120011usA1lssulng date 0211512007 FDS I P176071uk/Report verslon1 1131 05 2006 Copyright 2007, Solvay Chemicals Inc , All rights reserved. Solvay Chemicals SOLVAY 8/9

16. OTHER INFORMATION 16.1 Ratings: NFPA (NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION) Health = 2 Fire = 0 Instability = 1 Special = OX HMIS (HAZARDOUS MATERIAL INFORMATION SYSTEM) Health = 2 Fire = 0 Reactivity = 1 PPE = Supplied by User; dependent on local conditions 16.2 Other Information: To our actual knowledge, the information contained herein is accurate as of the date of this document. However, neither Solvay Chemicals, Inc., nor any of its affiliates makes any warranty, express or implied, or accepts any liability in connection with this information or its use. This information is for use by technically skilled persons at their own discretion and risk and does not relate to the use of this product in combination with any other substance or any other process. This is not a license under any patent or other proprietary right. The user alone must finally determine suitability of any information or material for any contemplated use, the manner of use and whether any patents are infringed. This information gives typical properties only and is not to be used for specification purposes. Solvay Chemicals, Inc. reserves the right to make additions, deletions or modifications to the information at any time without prior notification. Material Safety Data Sheets contain country specific regulatory information; therefore, this MSDS is for use only by customers of Solvay Chemicals Inc. in the United States of America and, if specifically indicated, Canada and Mexico. If the user is located in a country other than the United States, please contact the Solvay Company serving your country for MSDS information applicable to your region. The previous information is based upon our current knowledge and experience of our product and is not exhaustive. It applies to the product as defined by the specifications. In case of combinations of mixtures, one must confirm that no new hazards are likely to exist. In any case, the user is not exempt from observing all legal, administrative and regulatory procedures relating to the product, personal hygiene, and integrity of the work environment. (Unless noted to the contrary, the technical information applies only to pure product). TRADEMARKS: All trade name of products referenced herein are either trademarks or registered trademarks of Solvay Chemicals, Inc. or its affiliates, unless otherwise identified. 16.3 Reason for revision: Supersedes edition: Solvay Chemicals. Inc. MSDS PAK27-0105 dated: 03-10-05 Purpose of revision: Periodic review and update MSDS PAK27..()2071 211612007/USA/lssuing dale 0211s12001 FDS I P17607iuk/Report version1 1/31 05 2006 Copyright 2007, Solvay Chemicals Inc , All rights reserved 919 Solvay Chemicals SOLVAY synlenta MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. Post Office Box 18300 In Case of Emergency, Call 1-800-888-83 72 Greensboro, NC 27419 *---------*-*---**-*------**----*---* -----1. PRODUCT IDENTIFICATION --* -----*--.. ------------------* --*-. -* -*--------** -------Product Name: REW ARD LANDSCAPE AND AQUATIC Product No.: AI2872A EPA Signal Word: Active Ingredient(%): Chemical Name: Chemical Class: HERBICIDE Warning Diquat dibromide (37.3%) CAS No.: [ 6, 7-dihydrodipyrido(l ,2-a:2 ', l '-c )pyrazinediium dibromide] Bipyridilium ( dipyridilium) contact herbicide 85-00-7 EPA Registration Number(s): 100-1091 (formerly 10182-404) Section(s) Revised: All sections 2. COMPOSITION/INFORMATION ON INGREDIENTS OSHA PEL ACGIH TLV NTP/IARC/OSHA Material Other Carcinogen Diquat dibromide (37.3%) Not Established 0.5 mglm' TWA (total 0.5 mglm' TWA** No dust); 0.08 mg/m' TWA (respirable dust) ** recommended by NIOSH Ingredients not precisely identified are proprietary or non-hazardous. Values are not product specifications. 3. HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION Symptoms of Acute Exposure Harmful if inhaled or swallowed. Dust, mist or vapor irritating to eyes and respiratory tract. May cause skin irritation. Hazardous Decomposition Products Can decompose at high temperatures forming toxic gases. Flammable hydrogen gas may be formed on contact with aluminum. See "Conditions to Avoid", Section 10. Physical Properties Appearance: Odor: Dark brown liquid Odorless Unusual Fire. Explosion and Reactivity Hazards This product may form flammable and explosive hydrogen gas when in contact with aluminum. 4. FIRST AID MEASURES Have the product container, label or Material Safety Data Sheet with you when calling Syngenta (800-888-8372), a poison canto! center or doctor, or going for treatment. Ingestion: If swallowed: Call Syngenta (800-888-8372), a poison control center or doctor immediately for treatment advice. Have the person sip a glass of water if able to swallow. Do not induce vomiting unless told to do so after calling 800-888-8372 or by a poison control center or doctor. Do not give anything by mouth to an unconscious person. Product Name: REW ARD LANDSCAPE AND AQUATIC HERBICIDE Page: l Eye Contact: If in eyes: Hold eye open and rinse slowly and gently with water for 15-20 minutes. Remove contact lenses, if present, after 5 minutes, then continue rinsing eye. Call Syngenta (800-888-8372), a poison control center or doctor for treatment advice. Skin Contact: If on skin or clothing: Take off contaminated clothing. Rinse skin immediately with plenty of water for 15-20 minutes. Call Syngenta (800-888-8372), a poison control center or doctor for treatment advice. Inhalation: If inhaled: Move person to fresh air. If person is not breathing, call 911 or an ambulance, then give artificial respiration, preferably mouth-to-mouth if possible. Call Syngenta (800-888-8372), a poison control center or doctor for further treatment advice. Notes to Phvsician There is no specific antidote if this product is ingested. Treat symptomatically. Medical Condition Likely to be Aggravated by Exposure None known. r-----**-***--------*---*-*-----*-**** -----------*--*-*--***-**-*----* -----* ***--**---*-------------, : 5. FIRE FIGHTING MEASURES L. _______ . -----------**-----*---**---* -*--*--* *-**--*-*-**-*---Fire and Explosion Flash Point (Test Method): Flammable Limits(% in Air): Autoignition Temperature: Flammability: Not Applicable Lower: % Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Unusual Fire. Explosion and Reactivity Hazards Upper: % Not Applicable This product may form flammable and explosive hydrogen gas when in contact with aluminum. In Case of Fire Use dry chemical, foam or C02 extinguishing media. Wear full protective clothing and self-contained breathing apparatus. Evacuate nonessential personnel from the area to prevent human exposure to fire, smoke, fumes or products of combustion. Prevent use of contaminated buildings, area, and equipment until decontaminated. Water runoff can cause environmental damage. If water is used to fight fire, dike and collect runoff. [i RELEASE MEASURES -------**------*. --------****-** ---__ j In Case of Spill or Leak Control the spill at its source. Contain the spill to prevent it from spreading, contaminating soil, or entering sewage and drainage systems or any body of water. Clean up spills immediately, observing precautions outlined in Section 8. If a solid, sweep up material and place in a compatible disposal container. If a liquid, cover entire spill with absorbing material and place into compatible disposal container. Scrub area with hard water detergent (e.g. commercial products such as Tide, Joy, Spic and Span). Pick up wash liquid with additional absorbent and place into compatible disposal container. Once all material is cleaned up and placed in a disposal container, seal container and arrange for disposition. I ---***---*---*------------* __ 7._ HANDLING AND STORAGE -------------This product reacts with aluminum to produce flammable hydrogen gas. Do not mix or store in containers or systems made of aluminum or having aluminum fittings. Store the material in a well-ventilated, secure area out ofreach of children and domestic animals. Do not store food, beverages or tobacco products in the storage area. Prevent eating, drinking, tobacco use, and cosmetic application in areas where there is a potential for exposure to the material. Wash thoroughly with soap and water after handling. r*--** ------***-* ---------**--------* ---.. -*****-----**---**--*---------*---------*--*-*--*-*---**1 1 8. EXPOSURE CONTROLS/PERSONAL PROTECTION 1 THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EXPOSURE CONTROLS/PERSONAL PROTECTION ARE INTENDED FOR THE MANUFACTURE, FORMULATION AND PACKAGING OF THE PRODUCT. FOR COMMERCIAL APPLICATIONS AND ON-FARM APPLICATIONS CONSULT THE PRODUCT LABEL Ingestion: Prevent eating, drinking, tobacco usage and cosmetic application in areas where there is a potential for exposure to the material. Wash thoroughly with soap and water after handling. Product Name: REW ARD LANDSCAPE AND AQUATIC HERBICIDE Page: 2 Eye Contact: Where eye contact is likely, use chemical splash goggles. Facilities storing or utilizing this material should be equipped with an eyewash facility and a safety shower. Skin Contact: Where contact is likely, wear chemical-resistant (such as nitrile or butyl) gloves, coveralls, socks and chemical-resistant footwear. For overhead exposure, wear chemical-resistant headgear. Inhalation: Use process enclosures, local exhaust ventilation, or other engineering controls to keep airborne levels below exposure limits. A NIOSH-certified combination air-purifying respirator with an N, P or R 95 or HE class filter and an organic vapor cartridge may be permissible under certain circumstances where airborne concentrations are expected to exceed exposure limits. Protection provided by air-purifying respirators is limited. Use a pressure deinand atmosphere-supplying respirator if there is any potential for uncontrolled release, exposure levels are not known, or under any other circumstances where air-purifying respirators may not provide adequate protection. 9. PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES Appearance: Odor: Melting Point: Boiling Point: Specific Gravity/Density: pH: Solubility in H20 Diquat dibromide: Vapor Pressure Dark brown liquid Odorless Not Available Not Available l.20 *g/mL@ 68°F (20°C) 4-6 718,000 mg/L @ 68°F (20°C) and pH 7 .2 Diquat dibromide: <10(-8) mmHg@ 77°F (25°C) r . ._.. *---*-*----*--*** *-**-**--***--* ----**--*---*------10. ST ABILITY AND REACTIVITY -. *---------------------* .. -----***-------Stability: Hazardous Polymerization: Stable under normal use and storage conditions. Will not occur. Conditions to Avoid: Concentrate should not be stored in aluminum containers. Spray solutions should not be mixed, stored or applied in containers other than plastic, plastic-lined steel, stainless steel or fiberglass. Materials to Avoid: Strong alkalis and anionic wetting agents (e.g., alkyl and alkylaryl sulfonates). Corrosive to aluminum. Hazardous Decomposition Products: Can decompose at high temperatures forming toxic gases. Flammable hydrogen gas may be formed on contact with aluminum. See "Conditions to Avoid", Section 10. 11. TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION Acute Toxicity/Irritation Studies <Finished Product) Ingestion: Slightly Toxic Oral (LD50 Rat) : Dermal: Inhalation: Eye Contact: Skin Con tact: Skin Sensitization: Neurotoxicity Moderately Toxic Dermal (LD50 Rabbit) Moderately Toxic Inhalation (LC50 Rat) Irritant Not Available Not Available ---*-******--= 600 mg/kg body weight = 260 mg/kg body weight = 0.121 mg/I air -4 hours Diquat dibromide: No evidence for neurotoxic effects in rats dosed up to 400 ppm ion in the diet for 13 weeks. Reproductive Effects Diquat dibromide: Mutagenicity: No evidence in in vivo assays. Product Name: REWARD LANDSCAPE AND AQUATIC HERBICIDE Page: 3 Development Toxicity: In rabbit studies a small percentage offetuses had minor defects at 3 and 10 mg ionlkg/d. Chronic/Subchronic Toxicity Studies Diquat dibromide: Kidney weight decreases and cataracts seen in dogs at 12.5 mg ion/kg/d. Carcinogenicity Diquat dibromide: No evidence of carcinogenicity in rat and mouse studies. Other Toxicity Information None. Toxicity of Other Components Not Applicable Target Organs Active Ingredients Diquat dibromide: Inert Ingredients Eye, kidney Not Applicable 1-12-:-:EcoLoGICAL INFORMATION _________ ---**-**---**-------*-*----*** I_. **--* -*-----*------------. Summary of Effects Diquat dibromide: This material is toxic to fish and wildlife. Eco-Acute Toxicity ----*---*---**-* *--------*-------*---*---**.' Diquat dibromide: Rainbow Trout 96-hour LC50 21 mg/L Mirror Carp 96 hours LC50 67 mg/L Eco-Chronic Toxicity Diquat dibromide: Not Available Environmental Fate Diquat dibromide: No data available for the formulation. The information presented here is for the active ingredient, diquat debromide. Sorption: Extremely tightly adsorbed to (negatively-charged) soil particles due to its dicationic nature. Diquat is primarily adsorbed to clay, less so to OM. Diquat bound to soil is unavailable for plant uptake and is largely unavailable to soil microbes. Koc: Average is 1,000,000 mL/g (estimated). Photodegradation: Losses probably occur on sprayed leaf surfaces and on dead and decaying vegetation. Photochemical decomposition of diquat has been measured in the lab by irradiating thin layers of soil, but has not been unequivocally demonstrated under field conditions. Other degradation: Certain microbe species in soil-less culture media decompose diquat. However, they degrade diquat bound to soil slowly or not at all. Persistence: Typical half-life is l 000 d. Diquat is highly persistent due to strong binding to clay and unavailability to microbes. Diquat in soil is not taken up by plants, so any crop can be seeded at any time after application. Mobility: Immobile in soil. Volatilization: No losses. -----------------*--------------.*.. --**-*-------------------------------------*-----* ' : 13. DISPOSAL CONSIDERATIONS *--. *****--------*-*-----*---**--------------! Disposal Do not reuse product containers. Dispose of product containers, waste containers, and residues according to local, state, and federal health and environmental regulations. Characteristic Waste: Not Applicable Listed Waste: Not Applicable Product Name: REW ARD LANDSCAPE AND AQUATIC HERBICIDE Page: 4

, 14. TRANSPORT INFORMATION DOT Classification Corrosive Liquid, N.O.S. (diquat dibromide, 37.3%), 8, UNI 760, PGIII BIL Freight Classification Herbicides, NOIBN Comments International Transportation Corrosive Liquid, N.0.S. (diquat dibromide, 37.3%), Class 8, UNI 760, PGIII *---*---*-** ----**-*-*-** *****--*--------***---*--*****-------*-***--*-**** -** -**--****--**-----*----------*-*----*-* .. *--*1 I ; 15. REGULATORY INFORMATION -----.. *-* *-*--**--*----** . --**---*** _____ .! EPCRA SARA Title Ill Classification Section 311/312 Hazard Classes: Acute Health Hazard Chronic Health Hazard Section 313 Toxic Chemicals: California Proposition 65 None Not Applicable CERCLA/SARA 302 Re.portable Quantity (RQ) None RCRA Hazardous Waste Classification (40 CFR 261) Not Applicable TSCA Status Exempt from TSCA, subject to FIFRA . 16. OTHER INFORMATION ***---* .. **-** ****-* **--**-*------*--*--*-1 --******* ------*-*----------------*---**-----*** -.. --------.. ---**** -*---****----*-I NFPA Hazard Ratings HMIS Hazard Ratings Health: 2 Health: 2 io .. Minimal !I Slight Flammability: I Flammability: Instability: 0 Reactivity: 0 /2 Moderate 13 Serious ; __ I For non-emergency questions about this product call: 1-800-334-9481 Original Issued Date: 04/11/2002 Revision Date: Replaces: -**--------**----... --*** --*--------*---****---*-*-**--*--------*--1 i The information and recommendations contained herein are based upon data believed to be correct.: i However, no guarantee or warranty of any kind, expressed or implied, is made with respect to the ! j information contained herein. ! ---------*------------*-*----**-*-**---*-* . *--*-**-**-**----*-*-**-*--**-' RSVP# : SCP-955-00349A EndofMSDS Product Name: REW ARD LANDSCAPE AND AQUATIC HERBICIDE Page: 5 MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET .ŽDow AgroSciences RODEO* HERBICIDE Emergency Phone: 800-992-5994 Dow AgroSciences LLC Indianapolis, IN 46268 Effective Date: 3/23/04 Product Code: 84825 MSDS: 006694 L...11_. _PR_O_D_U_C_T_AN_D_C_O_M_P_AN_Y_ID_E ....... ---- EXTINGUISHING MEDIA: Foam, C02, Dry Chemical PRODUCT: Rodeo* Herbicide COMPANY IDENTIFICATION:* Dow AgroSciences LLC 9330 Zionsville Road FIRE AND EXPLOSION HAZARDS: Foam fire extinguishing system is preferred because uncontrolled water can spread possible contamination. Toxic irritating gases may be formed under fire conditions. Indianapolis, IN 46268-1189 FIRE-FIGHTING EQUIPMENT: Use positive-pressure, self* 12. COMPOSITION/INFORMATION ON INGREDIENTS: J apparatus and full protective Glyphosate IPA: CAS # 038641-94-0 53.8% ..-1 ---------------------, N-(phosphono-methyl) 6. ACCIDENTAL RELEASE MEASURES: glycine, lsopropylamine ACTION TO TAKE FOR SPILLS: Absorb small spills with Salt an inert absorbent material such as Hazorb, Zorball, sand, Balance, Total 46.2% or dirt. Report large spills to Dow AgroSciences on 800-.... , 3-. -H-AZA--R-DO_U_S-ID-E-NT-l-Fl-C-AT_l_O_N-S:------....1992-5994. ================= 11. HANDLING AND STORAGE: EMERGENCY OVERVIEW

• Clear, pale yellow liquid. May cause eye irritation. Slightly toxic to aquatic organisms. EMERGENCY PHONE NUMBl;:R: 800-992-5994 PRECAUTIONS TO BE TAKEN IN HANDLING AND STORAGE: Keep out of reach of children. Do not swallow. Avoid contact with eyes, skin, and clothing. Avoid breathing vapors and spray mist. Handle concentrate in .-F-IR_S_T_A-ID_: ______________ __,I area. Wash thoroughly with soap and water after handling L. ---------------------' and before eating, chewing gum, using tobacco, using the EYE: Flush eyes thoroughly with water for several minutes. toilet or smoking. Keep away from food, feedstuffs, and Remove contact lenses after initial 1-2 minutes and water supplies. Store in original container with the lid tightly continue flushing for several additional minutes. If effects closed. Store above 10°F (-12°C) to keep from crystallizing. occur, consult a physician, preferably an ophthalmologist. Is. EXPOSURE CONTROLS/PERSONAL PROTECTION: j SKIN: Wash skin with plenty of water. These precautions are suggested for conditions where the potential for exposure exists. Emergency conditions may INGESTION: No emergency medical treatment necessary. require additional precautions. INHALATION: Remove person to fresh air; if effects occur, EXPOSURE GUIDELINES: None established consult a physician.
• NOTE TO PHYSICIAN: No specific antidote. Treatment of exposure should be directed at the control of symptoms and the clinical condition of the patient. ENGINEERING CONTROLS: Good general ventilation should be sufficient for most conditions. Local exhaust ventilation may be necessary for some operations. Is. FIRE FIGHTING MEASURES: I RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MANUFACTURING, '-* -----------------.....J. COMMERCIAL BLENDING, AND PACKAGING FLASH POINT: >214°F (>101°C) WORKERS: METHOD USED: Setaflash FLAMMABLE LIMITS: LFL: Not applicable UFL: Not applicable "Trademark of Dow AgroSciences LLC 1 EYE/FACE PROTECTION: Use safety.glasses. SKIN PROTECTION: No precautions other than clean body-covering clothing should be needed.

MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET RODEO* HERBICIDE RESPIRATORY PROTECTION: For most conditions, no respiratory protection should be needed; however, if discomfort is experienced, use a NIOSH approved purifying respirator. APPLICATIONS AND ALL OTHER HANDLERS: Please refer to the product label for personal protective clothing Emergency Phone: 800-992-5994 Dow AgroSclences LLC Indianapolis, IN 46268 Effective Date: 3/23/04 Product Code: 84825 MSDS: 006694 SYSTEMIC (OTHER TARGET ORGAN) EFFECTS: For a similar material, glyphosate, in animals, effects have been reported on the following organ: liver. CANCER INFORMATION: A similar material, glyphosate, did not cause cancer in laboratory animals. and equipment. TERATOLOGY (BIRTH DEFECTS): For glyphosate IPA, 19. PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES: I available data are inadequate for evaluation of potential to i.... ---------------------'* cause-birth defects. APPEARANCE: Clear, pale yellow liquid DENSITY: 10.0 -10.5 lbs/gal pH: 4.B-5.0 ODOR: None REPRODUCTIVE EFFECTS: For glyphosate IPA, available data are inadequate to determine effects on reproduction.* SOLUBILITY IN WATER: Miscible SPECIFIC GRAVITY: 1.21 gm/L MUTAGENICITY: For a similar material, glyphosate, in-FREEZING POINT: -7°F __ 10oF (-21oc __ 25oc) vitro and animal genetic toxicity studies were negative . .._I 1_0._S_T_A_B_IL_ITY_AN_D_R_EA_C_T_IV_ITY_: ______ _,1112. ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION: STABILITY: (CONDITIONS TO AVOID) Stable under ENVIRONMENTAL DATA: normal storage conditions. ECOTOXICOLOGY: INCOMPATIBILITY: (SPECIFIC MATERIALS TO AVOID) Galvanized or unlined steel (except stainless steel) containers or spray tanks may produce hydrogen gas which may form a highly combustible gas mixture. HAZARDOUS DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS: None known. Material is practically non-toxic to aquatic organisms on an acute basis (LC50 or EC50 is >100 mg/Lin most sensitive species tested). Acute LC50 for rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) is >2500 mg/L. Acute immobilization EC50 in water flea (Daphnia maqnaJ is 918 mg/L. Material is practically non-toxic to birds on an acute basis HAZARDOUS POLYMERIZATION: Not known to occur. (LD50 is >2000 mg/kg). Acute oral LD50 in bobwhite (Colinus virqinianus) is >2000 111. TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION: I mg/kg. i...----------------------The LC50 in earthworm Eisenia foetida is >1000 mg/kg. EYE: May cause slight temporary eye irritation. Corneal Acute contact LD50 in honey bee (Apis mel/ifera) is >100 injury is unlikely. µg/bee. SKIN: Essentially non-irritating to skin. Prolonged skin contact is unlikely to result in absorption of harmful amounts. The LD50 for skin absorption in rabbits is >5000 mg/kg. Did not cause allergic skin reactions when tested in guinea pigs. Acute oral LD50 in honey bee (Apis mellifera) is >100 µg/bee. Growth inhibition EC50 in green alga (Se/enastrum caoricornutum) is 127 mg/L. Growth inhibition EC50 in duckweed (Lemna sp.J is 24.4 mg/L. INGESTION: Very low toxicity if swallowed. Harmful effects I 13. DISPOSAL CONSIDERATIONS: not anticipated from swallowing small amounts. The oral LDso for rats is >5000 mg/kg. INHALATION: Brief exposure (minutes) is not likely to cause adverse effects. The aerosol LC50 for rats is >6.37 mg/L for 4 hours. *Trademark of Dow AgroSciences LLC ? DISPOSAL METHOD: If wastes and/or containers cannot be disposed of according to the product label directions, disposal of this material must be in accordance with your local or area regulatory authorities. MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET .ŽDow AgroSciences RODEO* HERBICIDE This information presented below only applies to the material as supplied. The identification based on characteristic(s} or listing may not apply if the material has been used or otherwise contaminated. It is the responsibility of the waste generator to determine the toxicity and physical properties of the material generated to determine the proper waste identification and disposal methods in compliance with applicable regulations. If the material as supplied becomes a waste, follow all applicable regional, national and local laws and regulations. Emergency Phone: 800-992-5994 Dow AgroSciences LLC Indianapolis, IN 46268 Effective Date: 3/23/04 ProductCode:84825 MSDS: 006694 STATE RIGHT-TO-KNOW: This product is not known to contain any substances subject to the disclosure requirements of New Jersey Pennsylvania OSHA HAZARD COMMUNICATION STANDARD: This product is a "Hazardous Chemical" as defined by the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard, 29 CFR 1910.1200. l 14 TRANSPORT INFORMATION* I COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE * * . . COMPENSATION AND LIABILITY ACT (CERCLA, or U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (DOT) SUPERFUND): To the best of our knowledge, this product INFORMATION: contains no chemical subject to reporting under CERCLA. For all package sizes and modes of transportation: This material is not regulated for transport. l1s. REGULATORY INFORMATION: NOTICE: The information herein is presented in good faith and believed to be accurate as of the effective date shown above. However, no warranty, express or implied, is given. Regulatory requirements are subject to change and may differ from one location to another; it is the buyer's responsibility to ensure that its activities comply with federal, state or provincial, and local laws. The following specific information is made for the purpose of complying with numerous federal, state or provincial, and local laws and regulations. U.S. REGULATIONS SARA 313 INFORMATION: To the best of our knowledge, this product contains no chemical subject to SARA Title Ill Section 313 supplier notification requirements. SARA HAZARD CATEGORY: This product has been reviewed according to the EPA "Hazard Categories" promulgated under Sections 311 and 312 of the Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA Title Ill} and is considered, under applicable definitions, to meet the following categories: Not to have met any hazard category TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT (TSCA): All ingredients are on the TSCA inventory or are not required to be listed on the TSCA inventory. *Trademark of Dow AgroSciences LLC NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION (NFPA) RATINGS: CATEGORY RATING Health 1 Flammability 1 Reactivity O I 16. OTHER INFORMATION: MSDS STATUS: Revised Sections: 3,4, 11, 12, 13, 14 & 15

Reference:

DR-0361-8028 Replaces MSDS Dated: 1/12/00 Document Code: D03-148-002 Replaces Document Code: DOJ-148-001 The Information Herein Is Given In Good Faith, But No Warranty, Express Or Implied, Is Made. Consult Dow AgroSciences For Further Information. Conforms to ANSI Z400.5-2004 Standard (United States). Mater!al Safety Datj Sheet fSePA©f Sonar A.S. 1 . Product and company identification Product name EPA Registration Number Material uses Supplier/Manufacturer Responsible name In caso of emergency Sonar A.S. 67690-4 Herbicide. SePRO Corporation 11550 North Meridian Street Suite 600 Carmel, IN 46032 U.S.A. Tel: 317-580-8282 Toll free: 1-800-419-7779 Fax: 317-428-4577 Monday -Friday, Sam to 5pm E.S.T. www.sepro.com Atrion Regulatory Services, Inc. INFOTRAC hour service 1-800-535-5053 2 . Hazards identification Physical state Odor OSHA/HCS status Emergency overview Routes of entry Potential acute health effects Inhalation Ingestion Skin Eyes Potential chronic health effects Chronic effects Carcinogenicity Mutageniclty Teratogenlclty Developmental effects Liquid. [Opaque.] Faint sweetness. This material is considered hazardous by the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard (29 CFR 1910.1200). WARNING! MAY CAUSE ALLERGIC SKIN REACTION. MAY BE HARMFUL IF SWALLOWED. MAY CAUSE EYE AND SKIN IRRITATION. May be harmful if swallowed. Slightly irritating to the eyes and skin. May cause sensitization by skin contact. Do not breathe vapor or mist. Do not ingest. Do not get on skin or clothing. Avoid contact with eyes. Wash thoroughly after handling. Dermal contact. Eye contact. Inhalation. Ingestion. Exposure to decomposition products may cause a health hazard. Serious effects may be delayed following exposure. May be harmful if swallowed. Slightly irritating to the skin. May cause sensitization by skin contact. Slightly irritating to the eyes. Once sensitized, a severe allergic reaction may occur when subsequently exposed to very low levels. No known significant effects or critical hazards. No known significant effects or critical hazards. No known significant effects or critical hazards. No known significant effects or critical hazards. Fertility effects No known significant effects or critical hazards. Over-exposure signs/symptoms Inhalation Ingestion Skin Eyes

• Indicates trademark of S*PRO Corporation. No specific data. No specific data. Adverse symptoms may include the following: irritation redness Adverse symptoms may include the following: irritation watering redness Page: 1/6 ._ .. '\lt1UJn Date of issue 01/15/2009 Sonar A.S. Medical conditions aggravated by exposure Pre-existing skin disorders may be aggravated by over-exposure to this product See toxicological information (section 11) 3 . Composition/information on ingredients United States Name CAS number Active ingredient: 4( 1 h )-pyridinone, 1-methyl-3-phenyl-5-[3-(trifl uoromethyl )phenyl]-597 56-60-4 Inert Ingredient: Proprietary Alcohol Proprietary Alcohol 2 Proprietary Proprietary % 41.7 5 -10 1 -5 There are no additional ingredients present which, within the current knowledge of the supplier and in the concentrations applicable, are classified as hazardous to health or the environment and hence require reporting in this section. 4 . First aid measures Eye contact Skin contact Inhalation Ingestion Protection of first-aiders Notes to physician Check for and remove any contact lenses. In case of contact with eyes, rinse immediately with plenty of water. Get medical attention if symptoms occur. Wash with soap and water. Get medical attention if symptoms occur. If inhaled, remove to fresh air. If not breathing, give artificial respiration. Get medical attention if symptoms appear. Do not induce vomiting. Never give anything by mouth to an unconscious person. Get medical attention if symptoms appear. No action shall be taken involving any personal risk or without suitable training. It may be dangerous to the person providing aid to give mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. Wash contaminated clothing thoroughly with water before removing it, or wear gloves. In case of inhalation of decomposition products in a fire, symptoms may be delayed. The exposed person may need to be kept under medical surveillance for 48 hours. 5 . Fire-fighting measures Flammability of the product Extinguishing media Suitable Not suitable Hazardous thermal decomposition products Special protective equipment for fire-fighters May be combustible at high temperature. In case of fire, use water spray (fog), foam, dry chemical or C02 None known. Decomposition products may include the following materials: carbon dioxide carbon monoxide nitrogen oxides halogenated compounds Fire-fighters should wear appropriate protective equipment and self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) with a full face-piece operated in positive pressure mode. 6 . Accidental release measures Personal precautions Environmental precautions Methods for cleaning up Small spill
• Indicates trademark of SePRO Corpor.ation No action shall be taken involving any personal risk or without suitable training. Evacuate surrounding areas. Keep unnecessary and unprotected personnel from entering. Do not touch or walk through spilled material. Avoid breathing vapor or mist. Provide adequate ventilation. Wear appropriate respirator when ventilation is inadequate. Put on appropriate personal protective equipment (see section 8). Avoid dispersal of spilled material and runoff and contact with soil, waterways, drains and sewers. Inform the relevant authorities if the product has caused environmental pollution (sewers, waterways, soil or air). Stop leak if without risk. Move containers from spill area. Dilute with water and mop up if water-soluble or absorb with an inert dry material and place in an appropriate waste disposal container. Dispose of via a licensed waste disposal contractor. Page: 216 A *'\T ltlON Date of issue 01/15/2009 Sonar A.S. Large spill ISePA©I Stop leak if without risk. Move containers from spill area. Approach release from upwind. Prevent entry into sewers. water courses, basements or confined areas. Wash spillages into an effluent treatment plant or proceed as follows. Contain and collect spillage with non-combustible, absorbent material e.g. sand, earth, vermiculite or diatomaceous earth and place in container for disposal according to local regulations (see section 13). Dispose of via a licensed waste disposal contractor. Contaminated absorbent material may pose the same hazard as the spilled product. Note: see section 1 for emergency contact information and section 13 for waste disposal. 7 . Handling and storage Handling Storage Put on appropriate personal protective equipment (see section 8). Eating, drinking and smoking should be prohibited in areas where this material is handled, stored and processed. Workers should wash hands and face before eating, drinking and smoking. Persons with a history of skin sensitization problems should not be employed in any process in which this product is used. Do not get in eyes or on skin or clothing. Do not ingest. Avoid breathing vapor or mist. Keep in the original container or an approved alternative made from a compatible material, kept tightly closed when not in use. Empty containers retain product residue and can be hazardous. Do not reuse container. Avoid freezing. Store in accordance with local regulations. Store in original container protected from direct sunlight in a dry, cool and well-ventilated area, away from incompatible materials (see section 10) and food and drink. Keep container tightly closed and sealed until ready for use. Containers that have been opened must be carefully resealed and kept upright to prevent leakage. Do not store in unlabeled containers. Use appropriate containment to avoid environmental contamination. 8 . Exposure controls/personal protection Product name Proprietary Alcohol United States Exposure limits AIHA WEEL (United States, 1/2008). TWA: 10 mg/m3 8 hour(s). Consult local authorities for acceptable exposure limits. Recommended monitoring procedures Engineering moasurns Hygiene measures Personal protection Eyes Skin Respiratory Hands Personal protective equipment (Pictograms) HMIS Code/Personal protective equipment
• Indicates tradem;i,rk of SePRO COl'J)Oriltion. If this product contains ingredients with exposure limits, personal, workplace atmosphere or biological monitoring may be required to determine the effectiveness of the ventilation or other control measures and/or the necessity to use respiratory protective equipment. Applicators should refer to the product label for personal protective clothing and equipment. No special ventilation requirements. Good general ventilation should be sufficient to control worker exposure to airborne contaminants. If this product contains ingredients with exposure limits, use process enclosures, local exhaust ventilation or other engineering controls to keep worker exposure below any recommended or statutory limits. Wash hands, forearms and face thoroughly after handling chemical products. before eating, smoking and using the lavatory and at the end of the working period. Appropriate techniques should be used to remove potentially contaminated clothing. Wash contaminated clothing before reusing. Ensure that eyewash stations and safety showers are close to the workstation location. Safety glasses. Lab coat. A respirator is not needed under normal and intended conditions of product use. Nitrile gloves. B Page: 3/6 Date of Issue 01 /15/2009 Sonar A.S. Environmental exposure controls lsePR<DI Emissions from ventilation or work process equipment should e checked to ensure they comply with the requirements of enviro I protection leg1 lation. In some cases, fume scrubbers. filters or engineering modifi" s o the process equipment will be necessary to reduce emissions to acceptable levels 9 . Physical and chemical properties
• Physical state Color Odor Flash point pH Boiling/condensation point Relative density Vapor pressure Solubility Liquid. [Opaque.] Off-white to tannish-gray. Faint sweetness. Closed cup: >93.333°C (>200°F) S.6 to 7.6 1oo*c (212°F) 1.1S 0.31 kPa (2.3 mm Hg) Partially soluble in the following materials: cold water and hot water. 10 . Stability and reactivity Stability Hazardous polymerization Conditions to avoid Materials to avoid Hazardous decomposition products The product is stable. Under normal conditions of storage and use, hazardous polymerization will not occur. Avoid freezing. Reactive or incompatible with the following materials: oxidizing materials and acids. If water evaporates, residues may product harmful vapors under fire conditions. Slightly flammable in the presence of the following materials or conditions: open flames, sparks and static discharge. Non-flammable in the presence of the following materials or conditions: heat. 11 . Toxicological information Acute toxicity Product/ingredient name Exposure 4( 1 h)-pyridinone, 1-methyl-3-phenyl-S-[3-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]-Species Rat Dose >10 g/kg Result LOSO Oral Proprietary Alcohol Sonar A.S. Inhalation Ingestion Skin Eyes Rabbit Rat Rabbit Rat 20800 mg/kg 20 g/kg >2000 mg/kg >500 mg/kg LOSO Dermal LOSO Oral LOSO Dermal LOSO Oral Exposure to decomposition products may cause a health hazard. Serious effects may be delayed following exposure. May be harmful if swallowed. Slightly irritating to the skin. May cause sensitization by skin contact. Slightly irritating to the eyes. 12 . Ecological information Environmental effects Aquatic ecotoxicity Product/ingredient name Proprietary Alcohol *indicates trademark or SePRO Corpor1tlon. No known significant effects or critical hazards. Test Species Page: 416 . A .,, 1411 ", Daphnia Fish Daphnia Fish Daphnia Exposure 48 hours 96 hours 48 hours 96 hours 48 hours Result Acute EC50 >10000000 ug/L Acute LC50 710000 ug/L Acute LC50 4919 mg/L Chronic NOEC 600000 ug/L Chronic NOEC 660000 ug/L Date of Issue 01/1Sl2009 Sonar A.S. !SePA©I 13 . Disposal considerations Waste disposal The generation of waste should be avoided or minimized wherever possible. Empty containers or liners may retain some product residues. This material and its container must be disposed of in a safe way. Dispose of surplus and non-recyclable products via a licensed waste disposal contractor. Disposal of this product. solutions and any byproducts should at all times comply with the requirements of environmental protection and waste disposal legislation and any regional local authority requirements. Avoid dispersal spilled material and runoff and contad with soil, waterways, drains and sewers. Disposal should be in accordance with applicable regional, national and local laws and regulations. Refer to Section 7: HANDLING AND STORAGE and Section 8: EXPOSURE CONTROLS/PERSONAL PROTECTION for additional handling information and protection of employees. 14 . Transport information AERG Regulatory information DOT/ IMDG/ IATA Not applicable. Not regulated. 15 . Regulatory information United States HCS Classification U.S. Federal regulations State regulations California Prop. 65 United States inventory (TSCA Sb) International regulations International lists *indicates trademark of S1t?RO Corporation. Sensitizing material United States inventory (TSCA 8b): All components are listed or exempted. SARA 302/304/311/312 extremely hazardous substances: No products were found. SARA 302/304 emergency planning and notification: No products were found. SARA 302/304/311 /312 hazardous chemicals : Proprietary Alcohol SARA 311/312 MSDS distribution -chemical inventory -hazard identification: Proprietary Alcohol: Immediate (acute) health hazard, Delayed (chronic) health hazard Clean Water Act (CWA) 307: No products were found. Clean Water Act (CWA) 311: No products were found. Clean Air Act (CAA) 112 accidental release prevention: No products were found. Clean Air Act (CAA) 112 regulated flammable substances: No products were found. Clean Air Act (CAA) 112 regulated toxic substances: No products were found. Connecticut Carcinogen Reporting: None of the components are listed. Connecticut Hazardous Material Survey: None of the components are listed. Florida substances: None of the components are listed. Illinois Chemical Safety Act: None of the components are listed. Illinois Toxic Substances Disclosure to Employee Act: None of the components are listed. Louisiana Reporting: None of the components are listed. Louisiana Spill: None of the components are listed. Massachusetts Spill: None of the components are listed. Massachusetts Substances: None of the components are listed. Michigan Critical Material: None of the components are listed. Minnesota Hazardous Substances: None of the components are listed. New Jersey Hazardous Substances: None of the components are listed. New Jersey Spill: None of the components are listed. New Jersey Toxic Catastrophe Prevention Act: None of the components are listed. New York Acutely Hazardous Substances: None of the components are listed. New York Toxic Chemical Release Reporting: None of the components are listed. Pennsylvania RTK Hazardous Substances: The following components are listed: Proprietary Alcohol Rhode Island Hazardous Substances: None of the components are listed. No products were found. All components are listed or exempted. This product, (and its ingredients) is (are) listed on national inventories, or is (are) exempted from being listed, in Australia (AICS), in Europe (EINECS/ELINCS), in Korea (TCCL), in Japan (MET!). in the Philippines (RA6969). Page: 5/6 Date of issue 01/15/2009 , _ _,.,A "'"'")"

Sonar A.S. 16 . Other information Label requirements Hazardous Material Information System (U.S.A.) MAY CAUSE ALLERGIC SKIN REACTION. MAY BE HARMFUL IF SWALLOWED. MAY CAUSE EYE AND SKIN IRRITATION. Personal protection 0 B HAZARD RATINGS 4-Extreme 3-Serious 2-Moderate 1-Slight 0-Minimal See section 8 for more detailed infonnation on personal protection. The customer is responsible for determining the PPE code for this material. National Fire Protection Association (U.S.A.) References Date of issue Version Notice to reader Flammability Health Instability Special ANSI Z400.1, MSDS Standard, 2004. -Manufacturer's Material Safety Data Sheet. -29CFR Part1910.1200 OSHA MSDS Requirements. -49CFR Table List of Hazardous Materials, UN#, Proper Shipping Names, PG. 01/15/2009 To the best of our knowledge, the information contained herein is accurate. However, neither the above named supplier nor any of its subsidiaries assumes any liability whatsoever for the accuracy or completeness of the information contained herein. Final determination of suitability of any material is the sole responsibility of the user. All materials may present unknown hazards and should be used with caution. Although certain hazards are described herein, we cannot guarantee that these are the only hazards that exist. The data in this MSDS relates only to the specific material designated herein. Possible adverse effects (see Section 2, 11 and 12) may occur if this material is not handled in the recommended manner.

• lndla:os lndemark of SePRO Corpor tJot1 Page: 6/6 , __ ,. l'\tM:Utn Date of issue 01/15/2009 Conforms to ANSI Z400.5-2004 Standard (United States). Safety Dat _ Sheet Sonar Q Aquatic Herbicide (SePA©I 1 . Product and company identification Product name EPA Registration Number Material uses Supplier/Manufacturer Responsible name in case of emergency Sonar Q Aquatic Herbicide 67690-3 Aquatic herbicide. SePRO Corporation 11550 North Meridian Street Suite 600 Carmel, IN 46032 U.S.A. Tel: 317-580-8282 Toll free: 1-800-419-7779 Fax: 317-428-4577 Monday -Friday, Barn to 5pm E.S.T. www.sepro.com Atrion Regulatory Services, Inc.
• INFOTRAC
• 24-hour service 1-800-535-5053 2 . Hazards identification Physical state Odor OSHA/HCS status Emergency overview Routes of entry Potential acute health effects lnhalntion Ingestion Skin Eyes Potential chronic health effects Chronic effects Carcinogenicity Mutagenicity Teratogenicity Developmental effects Fertility effects Target organs Over-exposure signs/symptoms Inhalation Ingestion Skin
• Indicates trademark of StPRO Corpotarion. Solid. [Pellets.] Faint earthy/musty. This material is considered hazardous by the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard (29 CFR 1910.1200). CAUTION! MAY CAUSE RESPIRATORY TRACT AND EYE IRRITATION. CONTAINS MATERIAL THAT CAN CAUSE TARGET ORGAN DAMAGE. CANCER HAZARD* CONTAINS MATERIAL WHICH CAN CAUSE CANCER. Slightly irritating to the eyes and respiratory system. Avoid exposure -obtain special instructions before use. Avoid contact with eyes. Contains material that can cause target organ damage. Contains material which can cause cancer. Risk of cancer depends on duration and level of exposure. Use only with adequate ventilation. Keep container tightly closed and sealed until ready for use. Wash thoroughly after handling. Dermal contact. Eye contact. Inhalation. Ingestion. Slightly irritating to the respiratory system. Exposure to decomposition products may cause a health hazard. Serious effects may be delayed following exposure. No known significant effects or critical hazards. No known significant effects or critical hazards. Slightly irritating to the eyes. Contains material that can cause target organ damage. Contains material which can cause cancer. Risk of cancer depends on duration and level of exposure. No known significant effects or critical hazards. No known significant effects or critical hazards. No known significant effects or critical hazards. No known significant effects or critical hazards. Contains material which causes damage to the following organs: lungs, upper respiratory tract, eye, lens or cornea. Adverse symptoms may include the following: respiratory tract irritation coughing No specific data. No specific data. Page: 1/6 **-*"'A '\1Htun Date of issue 01/15/2009 Sonar Q Aquatic Herbicide lsePR<DI Eyes Medical conditions aggravated by over-exposure Adverse symptoms may include the following: irritation watering redness Pre-existing disorders involving any target organs mentioned in this MSDS as being at risk may be aggravated by over-exposure to this product. See toxicological information (section 11) 3 . Composition/information on ingredients United States Name CAS number % Active Ingredient: 4(1h)-pyridinone, 1-methyl-3-phenyl-5-[3-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]-59756-60-4 5 -10 Inert Ingredient: Silica, Crystalline -Quartz 14808-60-7 1 -5 There are no additional ingredients present which, within the current knowledge of the supplier and in the concentrations applicable, are classified as hazardous to health or the environment and hence require reporting in this section. 4 . First aid measures Eye contact Skin contact Inhalation Ingestion Protection of first-aiders Notes to physician Check for and remove any contact lenses. In case of contact with eyes, rinse immediately with plenty of water. Get medical attention if symptoms occur. Wash with soap and water. Get medical attention if symptoms occur. If inhaled, remove to fresh air. If not breathing, give artificial respiration. Get medical attention if symptoms appear. Do not induce vomiting. Never give anything by mouth to an unconscious person. Get medical attention if symptoms appear. No action shall be taken involving any personal risk or without suitable training. If it is suspected that fumes are still present, the rescuer should wear an appropriate mask or self-contained breathing apparatus. It may be dangerous to the person providing aid to give mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. Wash contaminated clothing thoroughly with water before removing it, or wear gloves. In case of inhalation of decomposition products in a fire, symptoms may be delayed. The exposed person may need to be kept under medical surveillance for 48 hours. 5 . Fire-fighting measures Flammability of the product Extinguishing media Suitable Not suitable Hazardous thermal decomposition products Special protective equipment for fire-fighters * !ndleatH tnldemark of S*PRO Corpor:atlon Non-flammable. Use an extinguishing agent suitable for the surrounding fire. None known. Decomposition products may include the following materials: carbon dioxide carbon monoxide nitrogen oxides halogenated compounds metal oxide/oxides Fire-fighters should wear appropriate protective equipment and self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) with a full face-piece operated in positive pressure mode. Page: 2/6 A *"\I 1Uftf1 Date of issue 01 /15/2009 Sonar Q Aquatic Herbicide ISePA©I 6 . Accidental release measures Personnl precautions Environmental precautions Methods for cleaning up Small spill Lnrgo spill No action shall be taken involving any personal risk or without suitable training. Evacuate surrounding areas. Keep unnecessary and unprotected personnel from entering. Do not touch or walk through spilled material. Provide adequate ventilation. Wear appropriate respirator when ventilation is inadequate. Put on appropriate personal protective equipment (see section 8). Avoid dispersal of spilled material and runoff and contact with soil, waterways, drains and sewers. Inform the relevant authorities if the product has caused environmental pollution (sewers, waterways, soil or air). Move containers from spill area. Vacuum or sweep up material and place in a designated, labeled waste container. Dispose of via a licensed waste disposal contractor. Move containers from spill area. Approach release from upwind. Prevent entry into sewers, water courses, basements or confined areas. Vacuum or sweep up material and place in a designated, labeled waste container. Dispose of via a licensed waste disposal contractor. Note: see section 1 for emergency contact information and section 13 for waste disposal. 7 . Handling and storage Handling Storage Put on appropriate personal protective equipment (see section 8). Eating, drinking and smoking should be prohibited in areas where this material is handled, stored and processed. Workers should wash hands and face before eating, drinking and smoking. Do not get in eyes or on skin or clothing. Do not ingest. Use only with adequate ventilation. Wear appropriate respirator when ventilation is inadequate. Keep in the original container or an approved alternative made from a compatible material, kept tightly closed when not in use. Empty containers retain product residue and can be hazardous. Do not reuse container. Store in accordance with local regulations. Store in original container protected from direct sunlight in a dry, cool and well-ventilated area, away from incompatible materials (see section 10) and food and drink. Keep container tightly closed and sealed until ready for use. Containers that have been opened must be carefully resealed and kept upright to prevent leakage. Do not store in unlabeled containers. Use appropriate containment to avoid environmental contamination. 8 . Exposure controls/personal protection Product nnmo Silica, Crystalline -Quartz United States Exposure limits ACGIH TLV (United States, 1/2006). TWA: 0.025 mg/m' 8 hour(s). Form: Respirable fraction NIOSH REL (United States, 12/2001). TWA: 0.05 mg/m' 10 hour(s). OSHA PEL Z3 (United States, 9/2005). TWA: 10 mg/m3 8 hour(s). Form: Respirable Consult local authorities for acceptable exposure limits. Recommended monitoring procedures Engineering measures Hygiene measures Personal protection
• indicates trademark of SePRO Corporation. If this product contains ingredients with exposure limits, personal, workplace atmosphere or biological monitoring may be required to determine the effectiveness of the ventilation or other control measures and/or the necessity to use respiratory protective equipment. Applicators should refer to the product label for personal protective clothing and equipment. Use only with adequate ventilation. If user operations generate dust, fumes, gas, vapor or mist, use process enclosures, local exhaust ventilation or other engineering controls to keep worker exposure to airborne contaminants below any recommended or statutory limits. Wash hands, forearms and face thoroughly after handling chemical products, before eating, smoking and using the lavatory and at the end of the working period. Appropriate techniques should be used to remove potentially contaminated clothing. Wash contaminated clothing before reusing. Ensure that eyewash stations and safety showers are close to the workstation location. Page: 3/6 ._.., l'\t *uun Date of issue 01/15/2009 Sonar Q Aquatic Herbicide lsePR@J Eyes Skin Respiratory Hands Personal protective equipment (Pictograms) HMIS Code/Personal protective equipment Environmental exposure controls Safety glasses. Lab coat. A respirator is not needed under normal and intended conditions of product use Disposable vinyl gloves. A Emissions from ventilation or work process equipment should be checked to ensure they comply with the requirements of environmental protection legislation. In some cases, fume scrubbers, filters or engineering modifications to the process equipment will be necessary to reduce emissions to acceptable levels. 9 . Physical and chemical properties Physical state Color Odor pH Relative density Solubility Solid. [Pellets.] Brown to gray. [Dark] Faint earthy/musty. 8.2 [Cone.(% w/w): 31%] 62 to 84 lbs/cu. Ft.(20C). Insoluble; pellets disintegrates in water 10 . Stability and reactivity Stability Hazardous polymerization Conditions to avoid Materials to avoid Hazardous decomposition products The product is stable. Under normal conditions of storage and use, hazardous polymerization will not occur. Avoid exposure -obtain special instructions before use. Reactive or incompatible with the following materials: oxidizing materials. Under normal conditions of storage and use, hazardous decomposition products should not be produced. 11 . Toxicological information Acute toxicity Product/ingredient name 4(1 h)-pyridinone, 1-methyl-3-phenyl-5-[3-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]-Sonar Q Aquatic Herbicide Species Rat Rabbit Rat Dose >10 g/kg >2000 mg/kg >5000 mg/kg Result LD50 Oral LD50 Dermal LDSO Oral Exposure Inhalation Slightly irritating to the respiratory system. Exposure to decomposition products may cause a health hazard. Serious effects may be delayed following exposure. Ingestion Skin Eyes Carcinogenicity Classification Product/ingredient name Silica, Crystalline -Quartz
• indicatas trademark of SaPRO Corporation No known significant effects or critical hazards. No known significant effects or critical hazards. Slightly irritating to the eyes. ACGIH A2 IARC 2A Page: 4/6 /-4 "\l ltlflN EPA NIOSH + NTP Proven. OSHA Date of issue 01/15/2009 Sonar Q Aquatic Herbicide ISePA©I 12 . Ecological information Environmental effects Aquatic ecotoxiclty No known significant effects or critical hazards. ProducUingrcdlcnt nl!mc Test Species Exposure Result 4(1 h)-pyridinone, 1-methyl-3-phenyl-5-(3-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]-Daphnia 48 hours Acute EC50 3.9 mg/L Daphnia 48 hours Acute EC50 3.6 mg/L Fish 96 hours Acute LC50 4.5 mg/L Fish 96 hours Acute LC50 4.25 mg/L Fish 96 hours Acute LC50 4.2 mg/L 13 . Disposal considerations Waste disposal The generation of waste should be avoided or minimized wherever possible. Empty containers or liners may retain some product residues. This material and its container must be disposed of in a safe way. Dispose of surplus and non-recyclable products via a licensed waste disposal contractor. Disposal of this product, solutions and any byproducts should at all times comply with the requirements of environmental protection and waste disposal legislation and any regional local authority requirements. Avoid dispersal spilled material and runoff and contact with soil, waterways, drains and sewers. Disposal should be in accordance with applicable regional, national and local laws and regulations. Refer to Section 7: HANDLING AND STORAGE and Section 8: EXPOSURE CONTROLS/PERSONAL PROTECTION for additional handling information and protection of employees. 14 . Transport information AERG Regulatory Information DOTI IMDG/ IATA Not applicable. Not regulated. 15 . Regulatory information United States HCS Classification U.S. Federal regulations State regulations
• indicatu tradem&rk of SePRO Corporation. Carcinogen Target organ effects United States inventory (TSCA Sb): All components are listed or exempted. SARA 302/304/311/312 extremely hazardous substances: No products were found. SARA 302/304 emergency planning and notification: No products were found. SARA 302/304/311/312 hazardous chemicals: Silica, Crystalline -Quartz SARA 311/312 MSDS distribution -chemical inventory -hazard identification: Silica, Crystalline -Quartz: Immediate (acute) health hazard, Delayed (chronic) health hazard Clean Water Act (CWA) 307: No products were found. Clean Water Act (CWA) 311: No products were found. Clean Air Act (CAA) 112 accidental release prevention: No products were found. Clean Air Act (CAA) 112 regulated flammable substances: No products were found. Clean Air Act (CAA) 112 regulated toxic substances: No products were found. Connecticut Carcinogen Reporting: None of the components are listed. Connecticut Hazardous Material Survey: None of the components are listed. Florida substances: None of the components are listed. Illinois Chemical.Safety Act: None of the components are listed. Illinois Toxic Substances Disclosure to Employee Act: None of the components are listed. Louisiana Reporting: None of the components are listed. Louisiana Spill: None of the components are listed. Massachusetts Spill: None of the components are listed. Massachusetts Substances: The following components are listed: Silica, Crystalline -Quartz Michigan Critical Material: None of the components are listed. Minnesota Hazardous Substances: None of the components are listed. New Jersey Hazardous Substances: The following components are listed: Silica, Crystalline -Quartz Page: 5/6 ,._ .. .,A l"\ffUl>t, Date of issue 01/15/2009 Sonar Q Aquatic Herbicide lsePA©I California Prop. 65 United States inventory (TSCA Sb) International regulations International lists New Jersey Spill: None of the components are listed. New Jersey Toxic Catastrophe Prevention Act: None of the components are listed. New York Acutely Hazardous Substances: None of the components are listed. New York Toxic Chemical Release Reporting: None of the components are listed. Pennsylvania RTK Hazardous Substances: The following components are listed: Silica, Crystalline -Quartz Rhode Island Hazardous Substances: None of the components are listed WARNING: This product contains a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer. United States inventory (TSCA Sb): All components are listed or exempted This product, (and its ingredients) is (are) listed on national inventories, or is (are) exempted from being listed, in Australia (AICS), in Europe (EINECS/ELINCS), in Korea (TCCL). in Japan (METI), in the Philippines (RA6969). 16 . Other information Label requirement Hazardous Material Information System (U.S.A.) MAY CAUSE RESPIRATORY TRACT AND EYE IRRITATION. CONTAINS MATERIAL THAT CAN CAUSE TARGET ORGAN DAMAGE. CANCER HAZARD -CONTAINS MATERIAL WHICH CAN CAUSE CANCER. 0 Personal protection 0 A HAZARD RA TINGS 4-Extreme 3-Serious 2-Moderate 1-Slight O* Minimal See section 8 for more detailed infonnation on personal protection. The customer is responsible for determining the PPE code for this material. National Fire Protection Association (U.S.A.) References Date of issue Date of previous issue Version Notice to reader Health Flammability Instability Special ANSI Z400.1, MSDS Standard, 2004. -Manufacturer's Material Safety Data Sheet. -29CFR Part1910.1200 OSHA MSDS Requirements. -49CFR Table List of Hazardous Materials, UN#, Proper Shipping Names, PG. 01/15/2009 12/15/2008 2 To the best of our knowledge, the information contained herein is accurate. However, neither the above named supplier nor any of its subsidiaries assumes any liability whatsoever for the accuracy or completeness of the information contained herein. Final determination of suitability of any material is the sole responsibility of the user. All materials may present unknown hazards and should be used with caution. Although certain hazards are described herein, we cannot guarantee that these are the only hazards that exist. The data in this MSDS relates only to the specific material designated herein. Possible adverse effects (see Section 2, 11and12) may occur if this material is not handled in the recommended manner.
• indicates b'"adem*A: of S*PRO Corporation. Page: 6/6 A *'\1JHCU1 Date of issue 01/15/2009 MSDS: Nufann Weedar 64 BroadleafHerbicide Page I of7 18' Mufarm WEEDAR 64 BROADLEAF HERBICIDE MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET I. CHEMICAL PRODUCT AND COMPANY DESCRIYI10N Product Name: Nufann Weedar 64 BroadleafHerbicide Synonyms: 2,4-D DMA; 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, dimethylamine salt. EPA Reg. No.: 71368-1 Company Name: Nufann Americas, Inc. Burr Ridge, IL 60521 Phone Numbers: For Chemical Emergency, Spill, Leak, Fire, Exposure, Or Accident, Call CHEMTREC Day or Night: 1-800-424-9300. For Medical Emergencies Only, Call 877-325-1840. J?or additional non-emergency information, call: 1-800-852-5234. Date: March 12, 2002 Revisions: New or updated information in all sections. Reasons for Revisions: General revision utilizing more specific data. Supersedes: March I, 2000 2. COMPOSffiON/INFORMA TION ON INGREI)IENTS COMPONENT Acetic acid, (2,4-dichlorophenoxy)-, dimethylamine salt** Inert ingredients (trade secret)** Note: The other major ingredient in.this product is water. *OSHA hazard **Not OSHA hazard 3. HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION Emergency Overview: Appearance and Odor: Reddish brown liquid, phenolic-amine odor. CASREG.NO. 2008-39-1 %BYWEIGHT 53.2 Warning Statements: DANGER. Keep out of reach of children. Corrosive. Causes irreversible eye damage. Harmful if swallowed. May be fatal if absorbed through the skin. Avoid breathing vapors or spray mist. Do not get in eyes, on skin or on clothing. Potential Adverse Health Effects:

MSDS: Nufarm Weedar 64 BroadleafHerbicide Page2of7 Likely Routes of Exposure: Inhalation, eye and skin contact. Eye Contact: Causes corneal opacity, irreversible eye damage. Vapors and mist can cause irritation. Skin Contact: May cause slight transient irritation. Overexposure by skin absorption may cause nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, decreased blood pressure, muscle weakness, muscle spasms. Inhalation: Harmful if inhaled. May cause upper respiratory tract irritation and symptoms similar to those from ingestion. Ingestion: Harmful if swallowed. May cause nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, decreased blood pressure, muscle weakness, muscle spasms. Medical Conditions Possibly Aggravated By Exposure: Inhalation of product may aggravate existing chronic respiratory problems such as asthma, emphysema or bronchitis. Skin contact may aggravate existing skin disease. Subchronic (Target Organ) Effects: (An adverse effect with symptoms that develop slowly over a long period of time): Repeated overexposure may cause effects to liver, kidneys, blood chemistry, and gross motor function. Rare cases of peripheraf nerve damage have been reported, but extensive animal studies have failed to substantiate these observations, even at high doses for prolonged periods. Chronic Effects/Carcinogenicity: Prolonged overexposure can cause liver, kidney and muscle damage. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) lists exposure to chlorophenoxy herbicides as a class 2B carcinogen, the category for limited evidence for carcinogenicity in humans. However, more current 2,4-D lifetime feeding studies in rats and mice did not show carcinogenic potential. The USEPA has given a class D classification (not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity). Reproductive Toxicity: No impairment of reproductive function attributable to 2,4-D has been noted in laboratory animal studies. Developmental Toxicity: Studies in laboratory animals with 2,4-D have shown decreased fetal body weights and delayed development in the offspring at doses toxic to mother animals. Genotoxicity: There have been some positive and some negative studies, but the weight of evidence is that 2,4-D is not mutagenic. 4. F1RSf AID MEASURES If swallowed: If patient is conscious and alert, give 2 to 3 glasses of water or milk to drink. If available, give one tablespoon of Syrup of Ipecac .to induce vomiting. Alternatively, induce vomiting by touching back of throat with finger. Do not make an unconscious person vomit. Get medical attention. If on skin: Wash skin with plenty of soap and water. Remove contaminated clothing. Get medical attention. If in eyes: Flush with water for at least 15 minutes. Get medical attention, PREFERABLY AN OPITTHALMOLOGIST. If inhaled: Move to an uncontaminated area. Get medical attention. Note to Physician: This product contains a phenoxy herbicidal chemical. There is no specific antidote. All treatments should be based on observed signs and symptoms of distress in the patient. Overexposure to materials other than this product may have occurred. Myotonic effects may include muscle fibrillations, myotonia, and muscular weakness. Ingestion of massive doses may result in persistent fall of blood pressure. Myoglobin and hemoglobin may be found in urine. Elevations in lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), SOOT, SGPT and aldolase indicate the extent of muscle damage. It has been suggested that overexposure in humans may affect both the central and peripheral nerv.ous systems. The acute effects on the central nervous system resemble those produced by alcohol or sedative drugs. In isolated cases, peripheral neuropathy and reduced nerve conduction velocities have been reported although these observations may be related to other factors. Gas-liquid chromatography for detecting and measuring chlorophenoxy compounds in blood and urine may be useful in confirming and assessing the magnitude of chlorophenoxy absorption. 5. FIRE FIGHTING MEASURES Flash Point: >212° F (HX)° C) by Pensky-Martens closed cup method. Autoignition Temperature: Not determined. Flammability Limits: Not determined. Extinguishing Media: Recommended (large fire): foam, water spray. Recommended (small fires): dry chemical, carbon dioxide. I MSDS: Nufann Weedar64 BroadleafHerbicide Page3 of7 Special Fire Fighting Procedures: Firefighters should wear NIOSH/MSHA approved self-contained breathing apparatus and full protective clothing. Dike area to prevent runoff and contamination of water Dispose of fire control water later. Unusual Fire and Explosion hazards: Under fire conditions, toxic, corrosive fumes are emitted. Containers will burst from internal pressure under extreme fire conditions. Hazardous Decomposition Materials (Under Fire Conditions): Hydrogen chloride, oxides of nitrogen, and oxides of carbon. 6. ACCIDENTAL RELEASE MEASURES Evacuation Procedures and Safety: Wear appropriate protective gear for the situation. See Personal Protection information in Section 8. Containment of Spill: Dike *spill using absorbent or impervious materials such as earth, sand or clay. Collect and contain contaminated absorbent and dike material for disposal. Cleanup and Disposal of Spill: Pump any free liquid into an appropriate closed container. Collect washings for disposal. Decontaminate tools and equipment following cleanup. (See Section 13.) Environmental and Regulatory Reporting: Prevent material from entering public sewer system or any waterways. Do not flush to drain, Large spills to soil or similar surfaces may necessitate removal of top soil. The affected area should be removed and placed in an appropriate container for disposal. Spills may be reportable to the National Response Center (800-424-8802) and to state and/or local agencies. 7. HANDLING AND STORAGE Handling: Handle containers carefully to avoid damage and spills. Storage: Store in original container in a dry secured storage area. Do not contaminate wafer, food or feed by storage or disposal. Avoid storage in close proximity to insecticides, fungicides, fertilizers and seeds. Keep container tightly closed when not in use. 8. EXPOSURE CONTROLS/PERSONAL PROTECTION General: These recommendations provide* general guidance for handling this product. Because specific work environments and material handling practices vary, safety procedures should be developed for each intended usage, including maintenance and repair of equipment. Contact personal protective equipment manufacturers for assistance with selection, use and maintenance of such equipment. Personal Protective Equipment: Respiratory Protection: When respirators are required, select NIOSH/MSHA approved equipment based on actual or potential airborne concentrations and in accordance with the appropriate regulatory standards and/or industrial recommendations. Under normal conditions, in the absence of other airborne contaminants, the following devices should provide protection from this material up to the conditions specified by the appropriate OSHA or ANSI standard(s): Air-purifying (half-mask/full-face) respirator with cartridges/canister approved for use against pesticides. Under conditions immediately dangerous to life or health, or emergency conditions with unknown concentrations, use a full-face positive pressure air-supplied respirator equipped with an emergency escape air supply unit or use a self-contained breathing apparatus unit. Eye/Face Protection: Eye and face protection requirements will vary dependent upon work environment conditions and material handling practices. Appropriate ANSI Z87 approved equipment should be selected for the particular use intended for this material. Eye contact should be prevented through use of protective eyewear such as chemical MSDS: Nufann Weedar 64 BroadleafHerbicide Page4of7 safety glasses with side shields or splash proof goggles. An emergency eye wash should be readily accessible to the work area. Skin Protection: Skin contact should be avoided through the use of permeation resistant clothing, gloves and footwear, selected with regard for use conditions and exposure potential. An emergency shower should be readily accessible to the work area. Consider both durability and permeation resistance of clothing. Work Practice Controls: Personal hygiene is an important work practice exposure control measure and the following general measures should be taken when working with or handling this material: (l) Do not store, use, and/or consume foods, beverages, tobacco products, or cosmetics in areas where this material is stored. (2) Wash hands and face carefully before eating, drinking, using tobacco, applying cosmetics, or using the toilet. Exoosure Guidelines: EYDosure Limits: Acetic acid, (2,4-Dichlorophenoxy)-, dimethylamine salt *8-hour TWA unless otherwise noted. **Based on adopted limit for 2,4-D. Ventilation: OSHA PEL* 10** ACGillTLV* STEL Units 10** ND mg/rrf Where engineering controls are indicated by specific use conditions or a potential for excessive exposure, use local exhaust ventilation at the point of generation. 9. PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES NOTE: Physical data are typical values, but may vary from sample to sample. A typical value should not be construed as a guaranteed analysis or as a specification. Physical Appearance: Odor: pH: Specific Gravity: Water Solubility: Melting Point Range: Boiling Point Range: Vapor Pressure: Molecular Weight: Reddish brown to dark brown liquid. Characteristic organic amine and phenolic. Approximately 7 to 9 Approximately 1.155@20°C Soluble. Not Available. Not Available. Expected to be similar to water:> 100°C <l x w-1 mm Hg @26°C (data on 2,4-D dimethylamine salt) 266.1 (data on 2,4-D dimethylamine salt) 10. STABILITY AND REACI1Vl1Y Chemical Stability: This material is stable under normal handling and storage conditions described in Section 7. Conditions To Be Avoided: None known Incompatibility With Other Materials: Strong oxidizing agents: bases, acids. Hazardous Decomposition Products: Decomposition Type:

• Thermal Decomposition Products: Hydrogen chloride, oxides of carbon, nitrogen and sulfur. Hazardous Polymerization: Does not occur. 11. TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION Toxicololdcal Data: Except as noted, data from laboratory studies conducted on this product are summarized below.

Eye Irritation: Severely irritating (Rabbit). Skin Irritation: Minimally irritating (Rabbit). Dermal: Slightly toxic. (Rabbit LD50 1544 mg/kg). MSDS: Nufann Weedar 64 BroadleafHerbicide Inhalation: Slightly toxic. (Rat 4-hr LC50: > 3.5 mg/L) (Data on similar product) Oral: Slightly toxic. (Rat LD50 1161 mg/kg). Page 5 of7 This product contains substances that a:re considered to be probable or suspected human carcinogens as follows: Chiaro (Also see Section 3.) Agua tic Toxicity: Data on 2,4-D dimethylamine*salt: 96-hr LCso Bluegill: 96-hr LC50 Rainbow Trout: 48-hr EC50 Daphnia: Avian Toxicity: Data on 2,4-D dimethylamine salt: Bobwhite Quail Oral LD5o: Mallard Duck 8-day Dietary LC50: Environmental Fate: OSHA No 12. ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION 524 mg/I 250 mg/I 184mg/I 500mg/kg >5620ppm ACGIH In laboratory and field studies, 2,4-D DMA salt rapidly dissociated to parent acid in the environment. The typical half-life of the resultant 2,4-D acid rang*ed from a few days to a few weeks. 13. DISPOSAL CONSIDERATIONS Waste Disposal Method: Pesticide wastes are acutely hazardous. Improper disposal of excess pesticide is a violation of Federal Law and may contaminate ground water. If these wastes cannot be disposed of by use according to label instructions, contact your State Pesticide or Environmental Control Agency, or the Hazardous Waste representative at the nearest EPA Regional Office for guidance. Container Handling and Disposal: Do not reuse empty container. Triple rinse (or equivalent) adding rinsate to application equipment. Then offer empty container for recycling or reconditioning, or puncture and dispose of in a sanitary landfill or by incineration, or, if allowed by State and local authorities, by burning. If burned, stay out ofsmoke. 14. TRANSPORTATION INFORMATION NOTE: Information is for surface transportation of package sizes generally offered and does not address regulatory variations due to changes in package size, mode-of shipment or other conditions. Packages containing less than 26.3 gallons of this product are generally not regulated. For packages containing 26.3 gallons or higher: MSDS: Nufann Weedar 64 BroadleafHerbicide Page6of7 DOT Proper Shipping Name: ENVIRONMENTALLY HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE, LIQUID, N.0.S. (2,4-D SALTS), RQ (2,4-D SALTS) DOT Hazard Class /l.D. No.: 9/UN3082 DOT Label: Class 9 U.S. Surface Freight Classification: Weed killing compound, N.0.1.B.N. 15. REGULATORY INFORMATION Federal Regulations: TSCA Inventory: This product is excepted from TSCA because it is solely for FIFRA regulated use. SARA Hazard Notification: Hazard Cate ories Under Criteria of SARA Title ill Rules 40 CFR Part 3 70 : Fire: Reactive: Release of Pressure: Acute Health: Chronic Health: No No No Yes Yes Section 313 Toxic Chemical(s): ACETIC ACID, (2,4-DICHLOROPHENOXY)-, CAS NO. 94-75-7 (38.9% equivalent by weight in product) RQ 100 lbs a roximatel 26.3 allons of this roduct Selected State Regulations: lated under California Pro osition 65: Ingredient Name Cancer List Reproductive Risk Level List California Not A Iicable Not A licable Not A licable Not A Iicable 16. OTHER INFORMATION National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Hazard Ratings: Ratinl!S for This Product Kev to Ratin2s 2 Health Hazard 0 Minimal I Flammability I Slight 0 Instability 2 Moderate* 3 Serious 4 Severe Abbreviations and Acronyms Not Defined Elsewhere: ACGIH American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists ANSI American National Standards Institute CERClA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act DOT Department of Transportation FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act IARC International Agency for Research on Cancer MSHA Mine Safety and Health Administration NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health NTP National Toxicology Program OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration PEL SARA STEL TLV TSCA TWA USEPA MSDS: Nufann Weedar 64 Broadleaf Herbicide Permissible Exposure Limit Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 Short Term Exposure Limit Threshold Limit Value Toxic Substances Control Act Time Weighted Average U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Page7of7 This Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) serves different purposes than and DOES NOT REPLACE OR MODIFY THE EPA-ACCEPTED PRODUCT LABELING (attached to and accompanying the product container). This MSDS provides important health, safety and environmental information for employers, employees, emergency responders and others handling large quantities of the product in activities generally other than product use, while the labeling provides that information specifically for product use in the ordinary course. Use, storage and disposal of pesticide products are regulated by the EPA under the authority of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) through the product labeling, and all necessary and appropriate precautionary, use, storage, and disposal information is set forth on that labeling. It is a violation offederal law to use a pesticide product in any manner not prescribed on the EPA-accepted label. Although the information and recommendations set forth herein (hereinafter "Information") are presented in good faith and believed to be correct as of the date hereof, Nufarm, Inc. makes no representations as to the completeness or accuracy thereof. Information is supplied upon the condition that the persons receiving same will make their own determination as to its suitability for their purposes prior to use. In no event will Nufarm, Inc. be responsible for damages of any nature whatsoever resulting from the use or of reliance upon Information. NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR OF ANY OTIIER NATURE ARE MADE HEREUNDER WI1H RESPECT TO INFORMATION OR TIIE PRODUCT TO WHICH INFORMATION REFERS. WEEDAR is a registered trademark ofNufann, Inc. NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCt!ARGE ELIMINAi:tON $YSTEM (NPDES) PERMIT APPLICATION SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION *, . . .. . ALAEIAMA OEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT WATER OIViSION-*INOUSTRIAL J MINING PERMIT SECTION . . . . . PQST OFFICE BOX 301463 MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA INSTRUCTIONS: APPLICATIONS SHOULD BE TYPED OR PRINTED IN INK:AND SU$M1mo TO DEP,ART:MENT IN DUPLICATE. IF* INSUFFICIENT SPACE IS AVAILABLE TO ADDRESS ANY ITEM. PLEASE CONTINUE ON AN SHEET OF PAPER.* PLEASE t-liA IN THE APPROPR(ATE BQX WHEN AN l'T;EM TO THE APPLICANT. . . . PURPOSE OF THIS APPLICAnON 0 INITIAL PERMIT NEW FACIJ.JTY . ..0 MODIFICATION OF EXISTING PERMIT Q INITIAL PERMIT APP.UCAnON FOR EXISTiNG FACiLITY JZl .OF .!:1 REVOCATION.& REISSUANCE dF EXiSTtNGPERMti 1. Facility Name: TVA Ferry N\l&:<Sear P1an1 a.. *Operator Name: Tennessee Valley Authority b. Is the opetator identified In 1.a., tt\e owner of the faqility? Yes J.:Il No.D . If '10, provide the name and address of lhe 6peralor and submit information ind'icating the operator's scope of responslbifity 'fcir the facility. *

• 2. NPDE$ AL 2._ .2.._ L _2 _ .L .L L SIO Pef:!'l'.lit (if i;ipptic::able): IU __. _ -__. _ -___ -. __ _ 4. NPOES General Perm.it Number (if ALG _____ _ 5. f aciuty Physical Locatiort (Attach a map with location rrra,tkedi Street. r91Jte flQ, or other specific Jdeolffier) .Street! 16835 Shaw Road City: County; Limestone State: . Aiaban:ta )Zip: Facility (Front Gate) 42' 2s.35M North 81* 06' so.02* west 6. Facility Mai.ling Address (Street or Post Office-Box): ..::.P.::::.O::.:* Bolt::::.:* 2:::000.:::::* -------------State: Allit>ama Zip: 35609 AOEM Form 187.01/10m3 Page 1of14 t_ ResponsJbre (as on ,page 13 of *this application): Name and TiUe: K-J. Pols0n, Sita Vic.a-President P ,o'. 2QOO. NAEJ 2A City: State: _A1_a .... 1>a._.(lla_____ Zip: . 35600 Phone Number: 256*729"3975 EMAIL Address: . 8. Designaied Faciill:y Contact: Narne and Title: c1,1rra11 A. (Rusty) Cooper. ?.e. Phone Number:,___25_a._* ___________________________ _ EMAIL Address* $.. .Designated Dis¢1iarge Monitoring Repc>rt Contact: : .. . Name and Title: R. (fb.lstyJ ______ EMAIL,Address:
• 10. TypeJ>fBusioess Ehtityt LJ. Cprporatlon
• W General Partnership 0 Limited Partnership 0 Sole 0 Other'(Ptease*spec;i.fy) ._.F_ede_ra .... '--------11 ., Complete this. section if the Applfcanfs business eritify is a Corporyition :a) Location of lncq_rpora_tlon: Cio/: ---------*County: --------State: ___ _ Zip: _____ .... b) Parent Corporation'of' AJ?pUcant ____ ..;...--------Addre$s:...._ ________________________________ _ Ctty: ___________________ _____________ ADEMF.onn 18701/TOrn3

¢) Subsidiary COrporatlon(s} of Applicant: NtA _______________ --...;. __________________ Address.!.._ ___ ,__ _____________________________ ,..... City:------------'Slate:._* ________ __..... Zip: ------------'d). corporate Officers; Addre$S:* ...... ---------------State: __________ .Zlp: ---------City; -----------.state:,_. __________ *:Zip: -----'------e)

• Agefif designateQ. by tiJe co.f'PQratie>n for purposes pf service: Name: NIA Cify: ------------$tate:,_. ------,------Zip: --------*Narne:_w_A_-___________ _... _________ ...,.. __ ;..... ____ *Cify: .... ------------State; .... ----------Zip: --------Name: ____________________________ ...... ______ _.._ __ .....;.. _____________________ _ City: ---------------------'---------Zip: --------,----page3of14

13. If the busines$ entity is a.Proprietorship, please* the information; Name: NIA Add Ci\y: -------------------State: __________ Zip.: _ __. _____ _ 14. Permit numbers for Applicant's preyioµsly issued NPDES Permits and, Identification of. any other State of Et.tvironme_ntal Permits presen*IY *heid by _Applicant, its Cll' subsidiary cofp:otations tf)e State of Alabama: * *

• Pe!'l}Jit N.ame *Pem;it Numtiei 15. Identify all Admihisti'$tive N9tice,s of. Vlolatipn, *Directives, Mministtative Orders. or litigation* .water pollution; if any, against il$. parent corporation pr subsidif:lry eprpQrations within the State of Alabama within* the past five years Facility Name Penpit Numtier :TYPil. of Actlo(\ See:attacilment 2 SECTION* B -BUSINESS ACTIVITY *1.
• tn:dicate:ar:ipiicaQkfStaoiiard .JJldt1stiia1 C:lassitJCatlon tor 811 (If mpre than Of)e in .order ofi.mportanCe** a, 4911 b. c. d. e. AO'EN) Form 1870.l/1Qm3 Date ofAClloq Page_4p04

,2. lfy'our facility (lfWill t>t;t, of-the processes beli>'i.; (regard1E$ of lhey_ gent)fate waste* sludge,. or hazardous waste), place a check beside the* cateQbry of business *acttvity {ehiaCk.. all apply): *

• lndustriaj Cat69riries [ ] Aluminum Forming [ J AsbeStos*Manut'acturiog [ ] Battery Manufactuiing .[ J can Making [ ] Canned end. Preserved Fruit and Vegetables l J Canned. and Preserved seafood
• l J Manufacturing r J r J car.n [ J Coal [ 1 can Cciati.rig f J Forming [ l Efeclric* .an,d El"ectro'nie .Compenerits Manufacturing [ }.
• f ] Maoufaciuiihg ( ] * ( l [ l FertiliZEir Manufacturing { ] Foundries (Metal Molding Cikld. O;tstin_g} [( ] 'Gla!)S ME!nufacturing * * ] Grain . * [ 1. Gum Chei'riicals Manufacturing [ l Chemlcais
• c J iron and: steel r *1 .Leaiher Ta_nr.iin9 al'.ld. Fin.ishing* f l Metal .Filiishi!'19 [ l ** Meat Products ( J [ 1 [ 1 [ ] ( ] r 1 f l [ ] [ ) ( J [ ] [ l [ J C I [ l f 1 [ . I [ "] (*I J { l [ J ( J l. l [. 'J Metal Moldil'19 and Casting Metal Products
• Nonferrous Matals forming NQnferrous Metals ManUfacturilig Oil and Organic :chem!cais. Manufaduring Ink Paving and Roofing Manufacturing Pesticides Manufacturing** Retroleui'n Refining P.hQSphate Manufacturing , . PharmaceutlCal .PJastio & Pl8stics Por.oelaln
• Enamet PUip; Paper, and Fiberooal'd Manufacturing Rubber
• anQ Manufacti.iriog Stearn ,sugar Pi'Qciessing Timber .Pi'Oduers: Tran&Portatlon.-c1eanin9 Waste COmbusticin *
• oitt,,,,. (specify)....__ ___ _ . A. facility with pre><;esse$ inctusrve, in bu"siness areas may be cover'ed by Environmental (EPA) standards. These*facllities are termed users" ancfShould'Skip*to que'stion 2 C; a. Give a brief C,f all at this facility incl!Jding primary* or services _(attach additional sheets If necessary): "'!VA Bl'9Wi!S Plant operate$ rtiree bOlling waler r.e&CJoi:s l)Urpose ADEMForrtfl87 Ot/10 m3 page5of14 SECTION C WA$TEWATER.DISCHARGE INFORMATION Facilities jn question 2 of Sedioh.Band are*eoR$idered Categorical Industrial. U$etS.shOuld skip to question 2 of tnis section. * * ** * * * * * * ** * * * *
• 1, .Pro_vide flows for each. of* the prooesses or proposed pro¢esses .. the pro.cess 1 ** pg 1:4)_. enter the description that .corresponds to each process. [New shOuld _provide estimates fQf eaG,h c;!ischatgeJ
• Process Description* NIA Last* 12 .Mbnths (galsiday) . H!gHest Menlf\ AVg; Fkiw Highest of Last 5 * . .
• Moitthty Avg. Flow :if occ:vrs or wili <<cur, indieate: [New facilities may estjrnate.]. a. N1,1rnbet Of _______ perday b. -Average batCh: . (GPO) c: Time.of batchdisch"rges ___ __, __ _ .. of week) d, ----------gailonslmitntte. e. .Percent of -----------*
• Last 12 Months H§lhest"MOt:lth FlOW HlgheSt. FIOw year of Last 5 . (galSfday) . No,,_;Process Dlscilarge$ (e.g. nmw:ontact coo&tJ9*waterr
• MOlithlY Avg; Flow 2; complete secti.:m OJJW if you ctre Sl.lbJect to Categorical Standards and. plan to directly discharge the a.water of the*Stata. :If Categoric81 discnargEid exclusivelyviaan indirect to*a public or wotk.s, qtieck."Yas" -in the appropriate .. below and direcuY,. to part *
• T }Yes .FQr Users: Pmige the wastewater discharge floWs or (Whichever is by the f<>.r-eac,h processes. µsi)'l9 :th.a 1 t pg *14). *enter .d*scriptlon tMt to. facililies .. shol.fld prQvide for* each
• ADEMForm*1a101110 tri3

',2a. Regulated Process . -Applicable Category Appiicable Subpart T.YJle. of Oiscltarge F.low . continuous. intermittent) See attachment 3 Process Descr:iption See attachment 3 last 12 Months . Highest Month Average* Highest Flo'N Vear of Last 5

• csarsrdayJ MonthlyA11era9e .. DisCharge Type* (bate!), nti11uous.
• intermittent) "' Reported v.alues should* in of applJcabfe Feder.ii productian-based standard * .FQr flow (MGO), day); *tc. * . . ..... . .. . If batch. occurs or will oceur; .Indicate: [New fat!lities may.estirriate.J
• a. Number.of batCtl dischafge$:-------P.er day p. Average discharge per batch:.. (GPO) c. i1rne of _________ at (days of week) d. Flow. rate:,_* _,..-----------* .ga.lfonstminute of total discharge: (hours of day) Non Prcices*s Description lilghest Flow (gals/day) Monthly Avij. Ftow If batch discharge Qr rnay estimate.} Numqer *per day b. Average discharge pefl;iatch; -----'------* ((3,PQ) .. . ... . ... c. Time of batch discharges ________ week) o( day) d. Ffow rate:"" _____ ..,.....,..._ _ __,.__,, Pi1!tc.ent orsctiarge T,ype (batcll, conti(lllt>US. Intermittent) 7oft4

.Zd. (e_g_ non*contact cootln9' water). *

• La;rt 12 liigbest Month Ayg. Flow Ffm'! 5 . Monthly Avg. Flow Ail AppJicantS complete questions 3 -s * . 3. Po you have, or plan to have, autorpatic samplhig eq!Jipment Qr i:on.tinuo1.1s WS$tewater fiow metering equipment at *th1$ facility?
• _Flow Metering SampllnQ Equipment Yes Yes No ..f_ No L NIA -* NIA If so. ptease the ,present or 0,; this *on the sewer sehematic and describe :the equil)ment below; ' 4.
• Are ariy or expansions during the next lh.ree yeannJ'tat '0 . No c:z:J .. (lf-no,skij>:Questl0n5) Bimfly these changes arid -Q.n s, LiSt the trade name Qf az:td corrosipn inhibitors used: Traci&: Name Chemrcal composition. See attaehmenl 4 For each biocide-and/or corrosion inhibitor* used, pteas-e include lriformatibn: (1) (2) (3). (4) AOEM-Form 187 Ol/10m3 9$-hour data for organisms representative of the biQfa of tht:i* water\vay into Which. file Cll$Charge/wiH reacli; be frequenCies * . and' *epA registration number. ifappffcable

$ECTION* 0 -WATER SUPPLY \l\fater .(Ch&<'.k as inany as are [ 1 P.rhtate Well [ J' 1 Water Utility (Specify City);, [ ./ J Surface Water [ .] Olh1;1r IFM(./RE THAN ONE WE(..L, OR SURFACE INTAKEj PROVIDE QA.TA FOR EA(;ffON ATTACHMI;_NT City: . o.2J)Q3 W!!lf;_ *MGD Well DepthL......-Ft* Latitude*_----. ..... -------Surface Intake Volumei,._.289_5 __ In.take Eie.vation in ReiaUon to Bott0m* _*1.0 Ft. Intake .51a.o Ft. Lo11gitt,ide: :at*ot04'W Name,of Wt;iter Soui'Ce:-_r_*en.._nessee........,.., ..... Rlve...,. ,_r ________ ......,. __ _ ** MGD -Milflon Gallons 1>9i' i>ay Cooling* Water rntake .Structure Jnfonnatlal:J 'i*and i If by an,outsi<le squrce and no.t by an*Qosite s'rµqture? indu$try, municipality, ete **. } 1.

• of your wate.r a su$ce water intake? Yes O No q (If yes! canUm.Je;, 110\ gc>'to. E.) * * *a)Name of-Providet'_Nt.._'A ..... ___ _..,.. ____ _ ...,...----Lon$Jitude: ____ _ 2. Is *tJle prov_ider a, pubfic wfifqh pt<Mdes:?Natet to t!Je public tor human ¢9nslimpti(Jri .of wnidt P.n.>Vicf es .notl'iiJW water)? .Yes-(tj]. No* [Cl . '(ff xes, go to 'Section e. ifno;, . -Only :to..bQ c.ompreted,if yQu .. have a.* cooling watedntake or yC>ur .s1,1ppfy us." an ln411(e does not treat the rawwater. . Is anyWC:lfer wittrc;frawn so.urea. fo(.COQlfng? Yes ClJ *NoJ::l . 4. Usirig the .nmntflly peri()Cf *. apprpxlmateiy. ofwater withdrawn is used fpt .ec>>Brig % .
• 5, Ooes the coolirtg:water'corisistof treated otliefWiSfi be dfst;harged? Ye$ [C::I). Nq ttU (if.yes,. go section E, 'if no,.complete-questions:e..; 't7.) .. : Is ti'!e GPQjing in. a once.-UlrQugh ortJosed cycle cooflng system? No-p 7. When was 'the il'ltake Installed? COmmel'Cl&IOiiertltiari *bega'ri lo 1gt4 (Uillt t), 1915 (iJnit 2J; and 1971 (Umt3} prov ids. fcir rn"'Jot of inlake comp0n_elits. incl1.1C',fin9 l a. What is the maximum Intake volume? -MGD {maximum pumping capacity in:'gallons per* day_) 'W.oat ti')e intake._volume'? 2.-MGD .. .. puinp in pefio<l) AOEM.FoFl1!_ 187'01/JO m3

10. J-iow the (e;g,, continuouslyt intermitt.;i'ntly, Contil'llJous.IY 11. What is the l'ne$h of tne scrf;len on:)*our intake? 318 in*cti 12; What *is: the intake flo.w-:tl'irciugh 1,455 . . .Whal i$Jtie screen.design ihtak.e flOW 14, is fot clec;inlng the screen? (e,g., does it rotate for cfeanittg) Rolilt!n9 & . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . 15. Do. you *have any fl.sh ifetraction teclinoiogy on your' intake? Yes lDJ No LGl:) 16. Have there baen any studies to determJoe the impact of the i_ntaJte on aquatic* organisms? Yes UllJ No*[J, (If yes please provide.) *

• 17. a map .the location-of the water mtake in retatk>n to the.facility, shotetii}a. wi:tter depth. etc. SECTION E-STOAAqE *#Jl) QISPO$AL INFORMATION Provide a description of ,of $11 si{9$ in .*the. of SQiid1>-or Ulat .eot.!Jd be accidentaliy * ,discharged to* a wafer* of ttie s.uch *. wastew'ater systenis, etc., whfCh ate**1ocated 'af U,e. for whieh is being r'nad,e. the should be noted on and *
• Oeserlption of Waste starase Lo<:ation Provide a description of the location of the ultimate dlspQ,sal sites of solid or liquid waste by'"Pf'oducts (sueh /r:Qm r;1ny-IOJ:atect the facility.
• Description of Waste Quantity (lbs/day) '"Indicate whi.ch wasitl$ identified above* CllspCtSed. WtiiCh-* .of If l!RY. wa.t8$ to* off11ite facility,.-the the ADEM F.oi'h'i J87,*.01/l0 ni3 SECTION F -COASTAL INFORMATION ls. the discharge(s) focated within 10-foot erevation of Mobile or 'j:jalcJwjn County? Yes ll:::;j] No ft:.:j] If yes, then complete items A through M below: A D.oes the pr9ject require.new construction? B. Will the be a .Qf new .air erril$$ions? c. Daes the project rnvolva tilling? Has "the Corps of Engineers* (COE) .!lfll'itiitbeeo Project Number D. the .project involve wetlands and/or submersed grtissbeds? e, .Are Qyster reef$; l9C1ited nE1ar project $ite? *(Include.a .map showing and dis¢11'11r9' IQcatiQn respecOo oyster reefs) F. Does the project il'1VQl¥f! the siting, construction and operation of a.n energy taciUty in* ADEM Adrriin. Code G, Does project. involve shoCE1fine ero$ion. mitigaUon? H. Does the.project involve constrUctionon cjµnes? I. Wiil the project interfere with public aecess to J. Q()e$ the projact lie within ttie 1b£Y,j-yearfloodplaln? K. 0955 the. registration, or epplication* of pesticides? L. Does the project a-new an**tlng wel,Uo pump: more ,thar'l 50 GPO? M. obtained? 8':CTIOt.f G ANTt*PEGRADATION EVALUATION YE$ Q CJ *c:r D. 0 ,__.. r:1 D Q Q 0. Q D. CJ .0 NO *a 'LJ _.,.. a D D. .D. . CJ .L
• r .bl 0 D-. .D. 0 t,:1 ltj ac¢.Qrqan. CFR.1.31.12 and of AdministratiVE! 1"0-.04 for the rollpwing information pl'QVidedi if *.appficable. It. is the responslbility to demonstrate sQCial and lmPQrtance 'Of the If ftlrther iofo.rmation JS: to U:tls altfich tt) .thr:J apptication. '1 * *t$ this .a new or increased discharge that began after N>d! 3, ? tf .question.2 If no;:go to Section*H. Ye*D N()m submlttedtq, tile the new or in question 1? 0. _ . .!l NQ fCJJ ff yes, do not complete' this section. A.DEM l?orm l$7 01/10 mJ
• If no, find the tq n :'e'Jaterbody as defined in AOEM Adrnii'i, Code. r. F below arid ADEPMonns $.11and313 (attached}. Forni 31.3 must be alternative considered technieany * * *
• lnfqrmati9n for-new or increased <fl$charges to high Ql;!ality A. Whal environmental or probl_em will the be corre<:Hrtg? B. How much will the employment (at its exiSting.facilityor as the result of new f!'lcility)'? C. How much reduction in Will dlSchf.ugertie avoii:llng7 O. How mqch a<Jclitional local taxes will the be paying? E, What 'f)ublic $E!rv!ce to-the will. the discharger be prQviding? i=. What economic or sociar"benefit will Ute be providJr;ig to the commµnilY? SEC,TION H -EPA Application Form.s All APPRtant!!l-must submi*t EPA Mor,$ tttan pne application form may be required from a 'ac;mty <f.ependir:tQ 1fie and fypes* of di$.:harges or found Tpe EPA applicatiQn forms .are found on. 'the http:/Jwww;ai;fem.state;al .... us/. T.he *ef>Aappfication forms ml.1st be submitted irHf.upticate asfolloW$: 1. AU applicants mi.Jst.Sllbmit Fol'iT11. 2, Applic.ant$ matiufacturing facilities,:. commercial facilities, and aQtiviti8$) which submit Form 2C. 3. forri!ll'!N _wbich Pr.PPO$' tp prpcess.wastewater musts:upmit Form.20 . . 4. APPiicants for .tJeWiJlhtj extsting on.ly cantact and/ot*Sariitary .Fo$. -5. ApPJlcantsfo.r new and 8'dsting facilities whose discharge-is*oomposed entirely of stoi:tn water associated with. in(lu$lrial aciivily must Stibniit' Form 2F; unless exempted.by*§ t22:26(c)(1)(1i), lflhe dlsq-iat9e is composed of storm non,.storm water, the applicant must a1$o submit. Forms 2.C, 20, and/or 2E.as apprQPrlate' (in tQ Form 2F).. * * * -SECTION I-ENGINEERING REPORT/BMP PLAN REQUIREMENTS AOEM & *o> J\DEM 181 0111(,l m3 SECTl,ON J,-RECE.IVINGWATERS R&ceMng,Water{$) Segment? lncludedJri TMDL ?* lY IN\. i'ON\ Tennei>see River No NIA . TMC)L. $che(lufe; Is requested, the following shoµldJ>e *(1) fQr eornpDance Scliedu!e (e,g" f6i' design and.installation i>f eon1i'Ol Moriitoring'if*ii.llts for. the of f!avl! prevlousiy to ,!he: D-8partment collecilon resull!! (jiiass and melhi:>dS Utiliied, elc,. be submitted as av$ltable): (3) limitations..if-liPP.fic;able; * * * ** * * * * (4) Date the and, {5)'(\ny.other to;*supPQri requested compliance schedure. i< THE INFORMATION CO.NTAtNEO:IN THIS FORM MUST BE CERTIFIED SY A RESPONSfBLE OFFICIAL AS DEFINED IN ADEM . RULE "SIGNATORIE$TO APPLICAT!ONSANO.REPORTS" (SE!: BELOW). <;E:RTiFY PENAz.iy'oF LAW THAT WIS LJ,f.JD£?/j. MY Q(RECTION QtfSUPERViS10/.i IN ACGOROANOE WftHA S.Y$TEM DESJGN#;D TO. ASSUR/:"'THAT OVA.LIFIEQ PIERSON/'!$. GATHER AND EVALUATJ(fHE Si.JBMITTED. BASED *OJ.J MY /Nt;),UIRY OF tf1E.P$$QN O.B PERSONS . WHo MANAGE THE SYS'rJEM, Off THOSE. PERSONS DIRECTLY REsPQNSJBLE FOR t3ATHERIN/3: /NFO/:?MAT.IPN. THE lf.!F6"itMATION /$. *ra. BEST OF ,MY KNOWLIEPG.E'AND BEL.Jez. .. ACGf./RAt.e!: AN.D .QOMPl$TE. I AM AWARE "ffll,T. Tljt;Rt; SIGNIFJCANT PENAL TIES EOR .SUBMITTING 'FAL..SE INFORMATIO#: INCLUbJNG THE OF FINE ;4.ND /MPRISONJ..ii:f.JfFQR l(f<JOW/1'/(lviOlA Tf.ONS. * . .. "'l FUFfffllER CERrli=Y'iJNbER-TY OF LAW THA.T ALL ANAL YSIES REPGRTED AS LESS THAN DETECTABLE IN THIS ;,.ffi..ICATTDN OR ATTACHMENrS.THERETO WERE: PERFORMED USING 'THE TEST METHOD H4.YIN_G *TH..1$ PET_ECiloN LIMIT fpR THI; TESTED.* . . . . . . . .. . . OA'.TE -ti . 1/ . SJGNED: _, .,. (TVPF,:*OR K.J.P.oiS<in NAMEOF'RESPONSIBl;.EOFfJCIA!;.: --------------------------.....--TITLE.OF RESpQNSIBLE OFFIC.IAL! _s_ite_* VM_1e&_._Prilsid_. _**_an_*!---------------.--...... -........ MAILlNG ADDRESS: P;o, Bow 209q; NA,a2A . . . . . *. . . ,CITY,STATE, ZtP: ... _o_eca_. _tu_r;A_L_,356_.09 ____ ----------(25l?) 129-3675 . ..;_..;.;._ _________ _ SIGNATORIES TO PERMIT APPLICATIONS AND REPORTS. (1) .f(lr.an NP't>ES petm!tsbatl a resp9nsibie,!)fficial, as: _below: (a) qf a Qf
• at leiztst of a .. in witf) .... wiiji ff
• r'ql!fted byth$ Department. who. is l'e$pchSible for production. :9". is authonzed to de.Cisions (b) tn.'ffie 'case.or a partnerahip, by a* gene*ra1
• In the case o( a* sore J)n)Prietorshlf), by the proprietor; or . . , . . . . . .* , .. , .. rn Qf a muriieipalj state,. or other public entity, bY.either a principal exe-eutive or ranldng . eJep(eq -Ofrtciaj. . AllEM Form 1S7 0-1 no m3 RAW MA)l;RiALS FIGURE1 BLOERIVER i .90;00Q .GPO . 45;000 GPO 45.ooo $j::ID ------t5,000 ,.... __ .....__..., 20.000 ------.t..:* FIBER r.cn ,....., PREPARATION
• r *10,00Q.GPD 40.0Q9,GPD SOLIOWASTE MUNICIPAL S0.000 CPD 40,000 GPO Bi..UE.RIVSR 1o;OOOGPD 1{),000 GPO . C,Q9i.liil<l WATER I 'l'OPRODUCT * '5,000.GPO GRIT lllt:UlRALtzATtON LOSS. TANK * ""6.0QtGPo STORa.\WATER
• GPO 34.00CIGPO ! 0\JTFALL 002' GpD . ** TREATMENT .ouTP:At.L 001 ,..........,.._,_ _____ ....,.. ______ . MAX: 20,000 GPO' SCl1eMATIC'OFWATER FLOW ATI: ADEM FOrfTl 187' 01110 m3 ATTACHMENT 1 TOADEM FORM 187 NPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION TVA BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT -NPDES PERMIT NO. AL0022080 Permit Name Permit Number Held bv NPDES Permit i-------AL0024635 Bellefonte Nuclear Plant RCRAID @l#_L ________ plaQ.t ____ ----*-*-----**--*-----*----:---*---*-Synthetic Minor Operating Permit Bellefonte Nuclear Plant NPDES Permit AL0022080 Ferry Nuclear Plant -RCRAID AL8640015410 <ID#) Browns Ferrv Nuclear Plant PSD Permit 708-0003-Z001 ----*------*-*----------*-----------------*-.. ----**-*--* PSD Permit 708-0003-Z003 Browns Ferry Nuclear ------*----*---**------* ---------------Inert Landfill Permit 42-02 Browns Ferrv Nuclear Plant Permits Cltl:!J8 h!.i:bine§)_ __ ]'.9_1 _-ZD_Q!t _ Colbert Fossil Plant --------*------*-Air Permits (U1-U5 boilers) 701-001 O-Z009 throuoh -Z013 Colbert Fossil Plant . NP DES Permit r----.:. Colbert Fossil Plant NPDES Construction Storm Water Permit ALHA00777 Colbert Fossil Plant ,______ __________ ,____ -RCRA ID AL7640006675 (ID#) Colbert Fossil Plant Environmental Research NPDES Permit AL0003891 Center General NPDES Permit ALG360011 Guntersville Hvdro Plant M. S. Heavy Equipment RCRAID ALD982083461 (ID#) Deoartment General NPDES Pennit ALG140643 M. S. Power Service Center RCRA (Ooeratina Permit) AL2640 090 005 M. S. Power Service Center General NPDES Permit ALG340195 Scottsboro Power Svs. Ctr. General NPDES Permit ALG 36-0009 Wheeler Hydro Plant NPDES Construction Storm WaJ_er PerrQit ALHA025flj _______ *-*---W_kiows Fossil Plant __ NPDES Permit AL0003S75 Widows Creek Fossil Plant RCRA ID ______ Pla_nt __ Solid Waste Disposal Permit 36-07 Widows Creek Fossil Plant -Title V Air Permit 705-0008 Widows Creek Fossil Plant General NPDES Permit ALG360012 Wilson Hvdro Plant Various TVA Transmission Line & Substation General NPDES Permit ALG610000 Construction Proiects ATTACHMENT 2 TO ADEM FORM 187 NPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION TVA BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT -NPDES PERMIT NO. AL0022080 Facility Name Date of Issuance Description of Action and Resolution Date of Final Resolution Consent Order 10-002-CWP was issued by ADEM in regard to a release of gypsum to Widows Creek Fossil Widows Creek (and other NPDES Permit Plant -NPDES issues which are described in the Order). Permit No. 10/13/2009 TVA has submitted Engineering Reports Pending AL0003875 and O&M Modification Plans which have been conceptually approved* by ADEM. Also, TVA paid a civil penalty in the amount of $25,000 .. Bellefonte Nuclear ADEM issued an NOV for late submittal of Plant -NPDES 07/31/2009 the NPDES permit renewal application. The 11/24/2009 Permit AL0024635 permit was reissued prior to expiration. EPA issued an NOV (settlement offer} for alleged failure to update the Risk Management Plan. Also, a civil penalty of Widows Creek Fossil $7,700 was paid. TVA submitted the 10/17/2008 Plant 10/01/2008 revalidation of the plan and generated (submittal to EPA} automatic notifications which are issued 6-months prior to the RMP re-validation anniversary date. In addition, RMP traini_ng is being conducted.

DSN 001 .,__, ____ 001b 005 L..-*-*-------___ 9j_;!_I?_ DSN 013a(1\ '-* DSN _Qg __ L--------ATIACHMENT 3 TO ADEM FORM 187 NPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION TVA BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT -NPDES PERMIT NO. AL0022080 Type of Last 12 Highest Flow Applicable Category and Discharge Months (MGD) Year of Last 5 Regulated Process Subpart Flow (batch, Process Description Highest Month (MGD) Monthly continuous, Average Average lntennlttent) Once-through 40 CFR Part 423.13 Continuous Removal of waste heat from process 2925.4 2820.8 -egui2ment Low Part _ Liauid rad-waste internal monitoring__ 0.037 0.032 --**---Once-through 40 CFR Part 423.13 Intermittent Residual heat removal system 6.72 4.96 *---*----*----*------***--------wasteL_ 40 CFR Part 423.13 ___ plant 0.282 Last 12 Months Highest Flow Non-Categorical Process Description (MGD) Highest Year of Last 5 Type of Discharge Flow (batch, (MGD) Monthly continuous, Intermittent) Month Average Averaae Sanita!Y_ wastewater treatment system 0.264 0.199 ___________ **------------*----------------------*-Last 12 Months Highest Flow Non-Process Discharge Description (MGD) Highest Year of Last 5 Type of Discharge Flow (batch, (MGD) Monthly. continuous, Intermittent) Month Average Averaae .. *-----*----*---*-*----_t:M_ _____ N/A _________________ -------*-* -----*----------.. 1---*-* ---*---*--*-------------*---------------* PRODUCTS ACTIVE INGRED. Depositrol Co-polymer PY5200 Flogard Zinc& MS6209 OrthophoSllhate Flogard Poly phosphate MS6235 Flogard Poly phosphate MS6201 (ovro) Spectrus Biodispersant BD1500 Spectrus NaBr OX1201 NaOCI NaOCI Inhibitor Tolytriazole AZ8100 (TIA) EVAC Amine Spectrus QUAT CTl300'21 Bentonite Bentonite Clay Cl av AITACHMENT 4 TO ADEM FORM 187 BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT RAW WATER TREATMENT PROGRAM MAXIMUM PROJECTED USAGE RA TES EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT COOLING WATER lEECW) SYSTEM (8000 GPM A VERA GE FLm V)* % PRODUCT ACTIVE FREQUENCY DISCHARGE ACTIVE FEED FEED CONC. !NORED. RATE RATE PRODUCT (PPM) (PPM) (PPM) (ATDSNOO!) 30 3.3 1.0 Continuous 0.02 12 8.3 1.0 Continuous 0.046 52.3 4.4 29 10 2.9 Continuous 0.05 34.2 11.7 4.0 Continuous 0.06 15 20 3 4/week 0.11 40 17 6.8 28"56 NA hrsfwk(IJ 10 51 5.1 28-56 NA hrs/wkl 50 2 I Continuous O.oI 29.6 25 7.4 4/yr 0.14 (72 hrs each) 50 5 2.5 4/yr (3) (72 hrs each) (l) lJ) ll) (3) NA DISCHARGE CONC. ACTIVE (PPM) (ATDSNOOI) 0.006 0.006 O.OL6 0.022 O.OL7 <0.1 <0.1 0.006 0.04 (3) NA

• EECW empties to the intake forebay through DSN 15a, 15b, and 15c, mixes with the forebay water and the condenser circulating water (CCW) flow (2106.1-3026.2 mgd dilution) and discharges to the Tennessee River through DSNOOl. The CCW flow of 3026.2 is typical with 3 Unit operation with all CCW pumps in service and would be considered normal operation. During outages the flow for CCW would be 2106.1 MGD. The discharge concentration is calculated based on what is considered to be two Unit CCW flow (2106.1). The following molluscicide treatment regime and options should be in accordance with SPP-9.7/CHTP-108 and BFN Raw Water Team concurrence. (I) 28-56 hours/week is normal operation for MIC control. Treatment time required varies due to seasoµal demand. Continuous treatment (or some variation) may be used as an alternative to or in conjunction with non-oxidizing treatments, as required, for macrofouling (invertebrate) control. (2) Treatment with Spectrus CT1300 is an alternative treatment plan (non-oxidizing biocide) in place of EVAC. (3) Bentonite Clay is used to detoxify the Spectrus CTI 300. It is applied at a 5: 1 ratio of clay to CTI 300 and is fed a minimum of2 hours after CT1300 ll:rjection is completed.

PRODUCTS ACTIVE INGRED. Depositrol Co-polymer PY5200 Flogard Zinc& MS6209 Orthoohosohate Flogard Poly phosphate MS6235 Flogard Poly phosphate MS6201 fnvm\ Spectrus Biodispersant 801500 Spectrus NaBr OXI201 NaOCl NaOCl Spectrus QUAT CT1300 Bentonite Bentonite Clay Clay RAW COOLING WATER/RAW SERVICE WATER HIGH PRESSURE FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS (58,000 GPM TOTAL AVERAGE FLOW)* % PRODUCT ACTIVE FREQUENCY DISCHARGE ACTIVE FEED FEED CONC. INGRED. RATE RATE PRODUCT (PPM) (PPM) (PPM) (ATDSNOOI) 30 3.3 1.0 Continuous 0.13 12 8.3 1.0 Continuous 0.33 523 4.4 29 10 2.9 Continuous 0.40 34.2 11.7 4.0 Continuous 0.47 15 20 3 4/week 0.8 40 17 6.8 28-56 NA lus/wklll 10 51 5.1 28-56 NA lus/wk111 50 5 2.5 4/yr ,,, (72 hrs each) (2) (*J (lJ l2) NA DISCHARGE CONC. ACTIVE (PPM) (ATDSNOOI) 0.04 0.04 0.12 0.16 0.12 <0.1 <0.1 (2) NA *Portions of these systems empty to the intake forebay through DSN15 and 15d where they mix with forebay water and CCW before discharge to the Tennessee River through DSNOOl. The remainder discharges directly into the CCW and is discharged through DSNOOl (2106.1-3026.2 mgd dilution). The CCW flow of 3026.2 is typical with 3 Unit operation with all CCW pumps in service and would be considered nonnal operation. During outages the flow for CCW would be 2106.1 MGD. The discharge concentration is calculated based on what is*considered to be two Unit CCW flow (2106.1). The following molluscicide treatment regime and options should be in accordance with SPP-9.7/RCTP-108 and BFN Raw Water Team concurrence. (1) 28-56 hours/week is normal operation for MIC control. Treatment time required varies due to seasonal demand. Continuous treatment (or some variation) may be used as an alternative to or in conjunction with non-oxidizing treatments, as required, for macrofouling (invertebrate) control. (2) Bentonite Clay is used to detoxify the Spectrus CT1300 not diluted by CCW (where dilution is acceptable). It is applied at a 5:1 ratio of clay to Spectrus CT1300. It is fed a minimum of 2 hours after Spectrus CTI 300 injection is completed. RHRSW SYSTEM-STAGNANT TREATMENT MODE (2000 GPM AVERAGE FLOW)* PRODUCTS ACTIVE % PRODUCT ACTIVE FREQUENCY DISCHARGE DISCHARGE INGRED. ACTIVE FEED FEED CONC. CONC. !NOR.ED. RATE RATE PRODUCT ACTIVE (PPM) <PPM\ <PP Ml fPPMl Depositrol Co-polymer 28.5 66.S 20 2/Quarter 66.5 20 PY5200 Flogard Zinc& "12 8.3 1.0 2/Quarter 8.3 1.0 MS6209 Orthoohosohate 52.3 4.4 4.4 Flogard Poly phosphate 29 106 30 2/Quarter 106 30 MS6235 Spectrus Biodispersant IS 20 3 2/Quarter 20 3 BDlSOO Spectrus Gluteraldehyde 45 200 90 2/Quarter 200 90 NXllOS

• In the stagnant treatment mode, amounts are based on flushes twice per quarter for each of I 0 heat exchangers (80 flushes per year). Each flush consists of 20 minutes at < 2000 gpm. Discharge is through DSN005. RHRSW SYSTEM-NORMAL TREATMENT MODE (4500 GPM AVERAGE FLOW)* PRODUCTS ACTIVE % PRODUCT. ACTIVE FREQUENCY DISCHARGE DISCHARGE INGRED. ACTIVE FEED FEED CONC. CONC. !NOR.ED. RATE RATE PRODUCT ACTIVE (PPM) <PPM) <PPM) CPPMl Depositrol Co-polymer 30 3,3 1.0 Weekly21 3.3 1.0 PY5200 Flogard Zinc& 12 8.3 1.0 Weekly21 8.3 1.0 MS6209 Orthoohosohate 52.3 4.4 4.4 Flogard Poly phosphate 29 10 2.9 Weekly21 10 2.9 MS6235 Flogard Poly phosphate 34.2 11.7 4.0 Weekly21 11.7 4 MS6201 fovrol Spectrus Biodispersant 15 20 3 Weekly21 20 3 BDlSOO Spectrus NaBr 40 17 6.8 WeekJyl2> NA <2.0 OX!201 NaOCI NaOCI 10 51 5.1 WeeklV21 NA <2.0 Inhibitor Tolytriazole 50 2 I Weeldy21 2.0. 1.0 AZ8100°1 (TT Al EVACll Amine 29.6 25 7.4 Weekly21 25 7.4 Spectrus QUAT 50 5 2.S Weeldy2> 5 2.5 CTl300l'>
• Discharge is through DSN 005. The 4500 gpm flow rate is typical; however, other flow rates may be used, if necessary or desired, as long as the discharge concentrations are not exceeded. (1) These chemicals are not intended for treatment of this system, but may as a part of normal Plant operation (intennittent use ofRHRSW pumps), be observed at the indicated concentrations. Reference use of these chemicals in previous Tables. . (2) The intended treatment schedule is weekly for approximately 30 minutes per heat exchanger, but as indicated in footnote l, the system may receive treatment due to intermittent use ofRHRSW pumps. Intermittent *use is considered to be normal Plant operation of RHRSW pumps. During Unit Refueling Outages (-30 days average), RHRSW pumps are utilized in extended intervals for shutdown cooling and reactor coolant temperature control. Such outages typically occur every two years per unit with Units I and 3 scheduled during even numbered years and Unit 2 scheduled during odd numbered years. GE Betz.doc Evaluation of Proposed Zinc Addition: It is proposed to treat the listed systems with a product containing zinc to be maintained at maximum total zinc concentration of 1.0 ppm . TV A plans to monitor at established internal points to ensure this maximum level is not exceeded. The 7Ql0 flow for the Tennessee River in the vicinity ofBFN is 7,109 MGD per the 1994 NPDES permit rationale. Based on TV A's NPDES pennitrenewal monitoring, the background concentration of total zinc is <0.010 mg/L. Since the background concentration is less than the minimum detection limit (MDL), an actual ambient zinc concentration of 1/2 of MDL or 0.005 mg/L is assumed. Also, a total hardness of 100 mg/L for the receiving stream is assumed. At an assumed hardness of 100 mg/L, the acute and chronic water quality criteria for zinc are both approximately 0.12 mg/L. At the 7Ql0 river flow, the zinc load in the river could be {0.12 x 8.34 x 7,109) pounds per day or 7,115 pounds per day as dissolved zinc. Based on the background zinc concentration of <0.010 mg/L, the assimilative capacity of the receiving stream at the 7Ql0 flow :::::7,115 pounds per day-(0.010 x 8.34 x 7,109) or 6,522 pounds per day. The proposed zinc additions are: Emergency Eguipment Cooling Water: (8,000 x 1440 x 10-6 x 8.34 x 1.0) lb/day or approximately 100 pounds per day as total zinc Raw Cooling Water/Raw Service Water/High Pressure Fire Protection: (58,000 x 1440 x 10-6 x 8.34 x 1.0) lb/day or approximately700 pounds per day as total zinc Residual Heat Removal System: (4,500 x 1440 x 10-6 x 8.34 x 1.0) lb/day or approximately 54 pounds per day as total zinc Total Proposed Zinc Addition: (100 + 700 + 54) lb/day or 854pounds per day which is significantly less than the assimilative capacity of the receiving stream
• ATIACHMENT 5 TO ADEM FORM 187 NPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT -NPDES PERMIT NO.AL0022080 PAGE 1OF2 L c ATIACHMENT 5 TO ADEM FORM 187 NPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT-NPDES PERMIT NO.AL0022080 PAGE 2 OF 2 SOURCE DRAWING 0-31E201 RO TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT NPDES PERMIT NO. AL0022080 316(b) MONITORING PROGRAM FISH IMPINGEMENT AT BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT SEPTEMBER 2007 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 2009 ENVIRONMENT AL STEWARDSHIP AND POLICY APRIL 2010 Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................. i List of Tables ................................................................................................................................... i List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. ii List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ...... : ....................................................................................... ii Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 3 Plant Description ......................................................................................................................... 3 Methods ........................................................................................................................................... 4 Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 4 Fish Community Assessment ...................................................................................................... 5 Results and Discussion ................................................................................................................... 5 Fish Community Assessment -RF AI .......................................................................................... 6 Summary and Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 6 References ....................................................................................................................................... 8 List of Tables Table 1. List of Fish Species by Family, Scientific, and Common Name Including Numbers Collected in Impingement Samples During September 12, 2007 through September 3, 2008 and September 10, 2008 and September 9, 2009 at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. ............................................................................................................ 9 Table 2. Number of fish impinged by month and percent of annual total during September, 2007 through September, 2009 ...................................................................... 11 Table 3. Comparison of estimated weekly fish impingement at TV A's Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant during 2007 and 2008 ................................................................................ 12 Table 4. Annual extrapolated estimates of numbers and biomass of fish impinged by species and year at Watts Bar Nuclear Plant during September 2007 through September 2009 ................................................................................................................. 13 Table 5. Extrapolated annual numbers of fish impinged at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant September 2007 through August 2008 and September 2008 through August 2009. Also included are numbers of fish for which TV A is liable after EA and PF reduction ........................................................................................................................... 15 Table 6. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RF AI Scores Downstream (TRM 292.5) and Upstream (TRM 295.9) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2008 .................................................................................................................... 16 Table 7. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RFAI Scores Downstream (TRM 292.5) and Upstream (TRM 295.9) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2009 .................................................................................................................... 20 Table 8. Summary of RF AI Scores from Sites Located Directly Upstream and Downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant as Well as Scores from Sampling Conducted During 1993-2009 as Part of the Vital Signs Monitoring Program in Wheeler Reservoir ............................................................................................................ 25 List of Figures Figure 1. Location of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant and Condenser Cooling Water (CCW) intake and discharge. Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant is located on the north shore of Wheeler Reservoir at Tennessee River Mile 294 ............................................... 26 Figure 2. Weekly estimate of total fish impinged at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, September 2007 through August 2008 "(Year 1) and September 2008 through August 2009 (Year 2) ........................................................................................................ 27 AM&M BFN ccw CWA EA EPA EPRI GPM MSL MW PF List of Acronyms and Abbreviations Aquatic Monitoring and Management Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Condenser Cooling Water Clean Water Act Equivalent Adult Environmental Protection Agency Formerly the Electric Power Research Institute Gallons Per Minute Mean Sea Level Megawatt Production Foregone ii Introduction Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) is a three unit nuclear-fueled facility located on Wheeler Reservoir in Limestone County, Alabama. Currently, all three units are in operation. Unit 1 was shutdown in 1985 and was returned to service in June 2007. Three condenser cooling water (CCW) pumps associated with Unit 1 are now in operation in addition to the CCW pumps used for Units 2 and 3. BFN's current operation utilizes a once-through CCW system, withdrawing water from the Tennessee River through an intake structure and discharging the water through diffuser pipes located downstream from the plant. This process is regulated by BFN's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit, AL0022080, and is subject to compliance with the federal Clean Water Act (CW A). Section 3 l 6(b) of the CW A requires the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures to reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impacts. A potential impact associated with cooling water intake structures is impingement of aquatic organisms. Impingement occurs when fish and shellfish are trapped against intake screens by the force of cooling water withdrawal. Impingement data related to the operation of Units 2 and 3 were collected during 2003 and 2004 to update baseline data so that potential impingement impacts from increased CCW demand after the restart of Unit 1 could be more accurately assessed (Baxter et al., 2006). Additional impingement data was collected to assess impingement rates associated with the CCW withdrawal for the operation of three units. Impingement monitoring began in September 2007 and continued weekly for two years. This report presents impingement data collected from the CCW intake screens during September 2007 through September 2009. Plant Description BFN is located at Tennessee River Kilometer 473 (Tennessee River Mile 294) on the north shore (right descending bank) of Wheeler Reservoir (Figure 1). The three units (boiling water reactors) each have a nameplate rating of 1,100 megawatts (MW). Units Two and Three were uprated in 1997 and 1998 and Unit One in 2007, resulting in an increase of 1280MW for each unit. The uprate was accomplished without additional increase in CCW demand. Six mechanical draft cooling towers enable BFN to operate in either open or helper mode. The CCW intake channel extends approximately 152 m (500 ft) from the intake structure to the skimmer wall. The skimmer wall is a 66 m (218 ft) long concrete and steel structure positioned across the entrance of the intake channel. Water is drawn into the intake channel through the lower portion of the wall through three 12 m (40 ft) wide sections, enabling BFN to withdraw cooler water from the lower stratum. The three open sections have movable gates with bottom elevations that can vary between 161 m (527 ft) mean sea level (msl) and 167 m (547 ft) msl. Actual water depth in the channel varies based on reservoir elevations: the normal minimum pool elevation is 168 m (550 ft) msl and normal maximum pool elevation is 169 m (556 ft) msl. The CCW pumping station is comprised of a concrete pumping structure 71 m (232 ft) long by 36 m (117 ft) wide and 14 m (47 ft) high. The bottom elevation of the pumping station is 158 m (517 ft) msl. Each unit has three CCW pumps. Each pump has a design flow rate of 220,000 gallons per minute (gpm), giving a design intake flow of 660,000 gpm per unit. The pumps are installed in separate pump bays that are each covered by two trashracks and two traveling screens. The screens are each 2.3 m (7.5 ft) wide with mesh openings of 9.5 mm (318 in). The design through screen velocity is 2.0 feet per second at normal minimum pool and 1.64 feet per second at normal high pool. The CCW pumps can operate in parallel for each unit. However, if one pump is out of service, the two remaining pumps will deliver sufficient flow for full-load operation but with a higher turbine backpressure. The traveling screens and screen wash system can be operated automatically or manually. Differential pressure across each pair of traveling screens for a given CCW pump is monitored. When operating the system in the automatic mode, the screen wash pump is started when a preset differential pressure of water is reached across any of the three pairs of screens. When a preset pressure is established at the screen wash nozzles, the screen motors are automatically started and the screens are washed. In either manual or automatic mode, the pump and screens run until manually stopped. Methods Impingement data presented in this report is from weekly samples collected from September 12, 2007 through September 9, 2009. At BFN, a continuous backwash is utilized to remove fish and debris from the traveling screens. This backwash sends fish and debris back to Wheeler Reservoir through a sluice pipe. A catch basket constructed of9.5 mm (3/8-in) mesh is located at the end of the sluice pipe and is moved into place to catch fish during sampling periods. Weekly, impingement sampling is conducted in six hour intervals during a twenty-four hour period to ensure that any diel variations in fish impingement could be detected. After the Aquatic Monitoring and Management (AM&M) crew removes the sample from the basket during each sampling period, fish are sorted from debris, identified, separated into 25 mm (1 in) length classes, enumerated, and weighed. Any fish collected alive are returned to the reservoir after processing. Incidental numbers offish which appeared to have been dead for more than 24 hours (i.e., exhibiting pale gills, cloudy eyes, fungus, or partial decomposition) are not included in the sample. Data recorded by one member of the AM&M crew is checked and verified (signed) by the other for quality control. Quality Assurance/Quality Control procedures for impingement sampling (TVA 2004) are followed to ensure samples compare with historical impingement mortality data. Data Analysis Estimated annual impingement was calculated by extrapolating impingement rates from weekly samples (24-hr sample x 7 x 52). To facilitate the implementation of and compliance with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations for Section 316(b) of the CWA (Federal Register Vol. 69, No. 131; July 9, 2004), prior to its suspension by EPA, fish lost to impingement were evaluated by extrapolating the losses to equivalent reductions of adult fish, or of biomass production available to predators . in the case of forage species. EPRI (formerly the Electric Power Research Institute) has identified two models for extrapolating losses of juvenile fish at intake structures to numbers or production of older fish (Barnthouse 2004). The Equivalent Adult (EA) model quantifies impingement losses in terms of the number of fish that would have survived to a given future age. The Production Foregone (PF) model was applied to forage fish species to quantify the loss
• from impingement in terms of potential forage available for consumption by predators. These models were used to determine the "biological liability" of the CCW intake structure based on the EPA guidance developed under the suspended rule. Fish Community Assessment Prior to 2000, the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) was operating under a 316( a) Alternative Thermal Limit (A TL) that had been continued with each permit renewal based on studies conducted in the mid-1970s. In 1999, EPA Region IV began requesting additional data in conjunction with NPDES permit renewal applications to verify that BIP was being maintained at TV A's thermal plants with ATLs. TV A proposed that its existing Vital Signs (VS) monitoring program, supplemented with additional fish and benthic macroinvertebrate community monitoring upstream and downstream of thermal plants with ATLs, was appropriate for that purpose. The VS monitoring program began in 1990 in the Tennessee River System. This program was implemented to evaluate ecological health conditions in major reservoirs as part of TV A's stewardship role. One of the 5 indicators used in the VS program to evaluate reservoir health is the Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index (RF AI) methodology. RF AI has been thoroughly tested on TV A and other reservoirs and published in peer-reviewed literature (Jennings, et al., 1995; Hickman and McDonough, 1996; McDonough and Hickman, 1999). TV A initiated a study to evaluate fish communities in areas immediately upstream and downstream of BFN during 2000-2009 using RF AI and RBI multi-metric evaluation techniques. This report presents the results and comparisons of autumn RF AI data collected upstream and downstream ofBFN during autumn 2000-2009 (Shaffer et al. 2010). Results. and Discussion Weekly impingement sampling at BFN from September 12, 2007 through September 9, 2009, resulted in collection of3,983,438 fish, comprising 46 species (Table 1). During Year One of the study (September 2007 through September 2008), 2,810, 778 fish representing 46 species were collected. Of these, 2,731,184 threadfin shad were impinged representing 97% of the total fish collected. During Year Two (September 2008 through September 2009), samples included 1,172,660 fish (43 species) were collected and included 92% (l,074,676) threadfin shad. Threadfin shad were predominant in the samples (96%) for both years combined, followed by gizzard shad (2%), yellow bass, freshwater drum and bluegill (0.1 % each). All other species contributed less than 1 % of the total number of fish impinged. The rate of impingement was highest during November through January (87%) both years (Table 2, Figure 2). The sample collected on January 2 and 3, 2008 contained 1,684,003 fish (99 .1 % threadfin shad) and comprised 60% of the total fish collected during Year One. Low ambient water temperatures caused by a cold front during this period caused the high numbers of threadfin shad upstream of BFN to become lethargic from thermal shoclc to be drawn into the intake and impinged on the traveling screens. This extensive impingement resulted in damage to several traveling screens and a power reduction event which was documented in TV A's Performance Evaluation Report (PER) #135963. The second highest number impinged during Year One was 391,375 on week four of November 2007 (Table 3, Figure 2). Peak impingement during Year Two was recorded during week three of November (208,051) and week two of December (206,874), 2007. Annual extrapolated estimates of numbers impinged and corresponding biomass including the average for both years are compared by species and year in Table 4. Estimated impingement (numbers and biomass) during Year One (19,675,446 fish) was over twice that recorded for Year Two (8,208,620). The impingement of thermally shocked threadfin shad observed on January 2 and 3, 2008 was the primary reason for this difference between years. Relatively similar numbers of gizzard shad and freshwater drum were impinged both years. Application of the EA and PF models to the estimated number impinged annually resulted in reduced numbers of fish (520,309 during Year One and 318,226 during Year Two) which would have been expected to survive to either harvestable size/age or to provide forage (Table 5). This reduced number is considered the biological liability" resulting from plant CCW impingement mortality based on the guidance developed for the now suspended 316(b) regulations. Historical impingement monitoring at BFN conducted during 2003 and 2004 with two units operating estimated an annual impingement of 8.1 million fish. Fish Community Assessment -RFAI In 2008, fish community RF Al scores of 45 ("Good") and 42 ("Good") were observed at the stations downstream and upstream of BFN respectively (Table 6). Both sites met BIP screening criteria, were within the 6 point range of acceptable variation and were therefore, considered similar. In 2009, fish community RF AI scores of 36 ("Fair") and 39 ("Fair") were observed at the downstream and upstream stations, respectively (Table 7). However, both sites were within the 6-point range of acceptable variation and were considered similar. Average scores for 2000-2009 were 41 for both the upstream and downstream sites (Table 8). Summary and Conclusions Impingement monitoring conducted at BFN during September 2007 through September 2009 collected 3,983,438 fish representing 46 species. Threadfin shad dominated the samples comprising 96% during the two years, combined. Gizzard shad (two percent) were next in abundance followed by yellow bass, freshwater drum and bluegill. Seasonal impingement was highest (87%) during November through January both years. Higher impingement during this period is attributed to large numbers of threadfin shad drawn into the plant CCW intake as a result of cold or thermal shock. Extrapolated estimates of numbers impinged were over twice as high (19,675,446) during the first year than estimated for Year Two (8,208,620). This difference was primarily the result of one sample in January, 2008 containing 1,684,003 fish (99.l % threadfin shad). Equivalent Adult and Production Foregone models were applied to the numbers impinged and resulted in reduced numbers of fish or "biological liability" of 520,309 during Year One and 318,226 during Year Two. When the models were applied a second time using an average number of threadfin shad impinged for the anomalous January 2008 sample, the resulting losses to impingement were reduced to 254,509 for Year One. The numbers of fish impinged at BFN are not considered detrimental to the fish community in Wheeler Reservoir.

Fish community or RF AI monitoring during autumn 2008 and 2009 upstream and downstream of BFN resulted in scores rated "Good" in 2008 and "Fair" during 2009. Scores between sites both years were within the acceptable range of variation and were therefore considered similar which suggests no effect from the operation ofBFN to the downstream fish community. References Barnthouse, L. W. 2004. Extrapolating Impingement and Entrainment Losses to Equivalent Adults and Production Foregone. EPRI Report 1008471, July 2004. Baxter, D.S., J.P. Buchanan, and L.K. Kay. 2006. Effects of condenser cooling water withdrawal on the fish community near the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant intake. Tennessee Valley Authority, Aquatic Monitoring and Management, Knoxville, Tennessee. 46 pp. BP A. 2004. NPDES -Final Regulations to Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures at Phase II Existing Facilities; Final Rule. 69 FR No. 131, July 9, 2004. Federal Register Vol. 69, No. 131; July 9, 2004 McDonough, T.A. and G.D. Hickman. 1999. Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index development: A tool for assessing ecological health in Tennessee Valley Authority impoundments. In: Assessing the sustainability and biological integrity of water resources using fish communities. Simon, T. (Ed.) CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 523-540. Shaffer, G.P., J.W. Simmons, and D.S. Baxter. 2010. Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River Near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge Autumn and Spring 2009. Tennessee Valley Authority, Aquatic Monitoring and Management, Knoxville, Tennessee. 78 pp. Tennessee Valley Authority. 1978. Biological Effects of Intake Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. Volume 4: Effects of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Cooling Water Intake on the Fish Populations of Wheeler Reservoir. Division of Forestry, Fisheries, and Wildlife Development, Fisheries and Waterfowl Resources Branch. January, 1978 Tennessee Valley Authority. 2004. Impingement Counts. Quality Assurance Procedure No. RSO&E-BR-23.11, Rev 1. TVA River Systems Operation and Environment, Aquatic Monitoring and Management Knoxville TN. 11 pp. Tennessee Valley Authority. 2009. Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River Near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge. Table 1. List of Fish Species by Family, Scientific, and Common Name Including Numbers Collected in Impingement Samples During September 12, 2007 through September 3, 2008 and September 10, 2008 and September 9, 2009 at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. Total Number Impinged Family Scientific Name Common Name Year One Year Two Petromyzontidae lchthyomyzan castaneus Chestnut lamprey 4 2 Lepisosteidae Lepisosteus osseus Longnose gar 0 3 Lepisosteus aculatus Spotted gar 16 36 Hiodontidae Hiodon tergisus Moon eye 4 0 Clupeidae Dorosoma cepedianum Gizzard shad 34,015 54,678 Alosa chrysochloris Skipjack herring 54 21 Dorosoma petenense Threadfin shad 2,731,184 1,074,676 Alosa pseudoharengus Alewife 122 1,622 Cyprinidae Pimepha/es vigi/ax Bullhead minnow 1,622 197 Pimephales notatus Bluntnose minnow 10 0 Norropis atherinoides Emerald shiner 21 2 Notemigonus cryso/eucas Golden Shiner 25 65 Cyprinella spiloptera Spotfin shiner 5 0 Luxilus chrysocepha/us _ Striped shiner 5 2 Cyprinus carpio Common carp 23 74 Catostomidae Jctiobus b11ba/11s Smallmouth buffalo 2 2 lctiob11s niger Black buffalo 4 0 Moxostoma erythrurom Golden redhorse 0 Hypentelium nigricans Northern hogsucker 6 23 Carpiodes cyprinus Quillback 0 3 Minytrema melanops Spotted sucker 516 735 lctaluridae lctalunrs furcatus Blue catfish 516 735 Jcta/11n1s punctatus Channel catfish 2,907 2,565 Pylodictis olivaris Flathead catfish 46 23 Ameiurns nebulosus Brown bullhead 0 13 Ameiur11s me/as Black bullhead 3 0 Atherinopsidae Labidesthes sicc11/us Brook silverside 13 0 Menidia bery//ina Inland Silverside 40 1,798 Belonidae Strongylura marina Atlantic needlefish 38 11 Moronidae Marone chrysops White bass 535 255 Marone mississippiensis Yellow bass 9,280 15,657 Morone saxatilis Striped bass 7 8 Marone saxatilis x M chrysops Hybrid striped bass 13 5 Centrarchidae Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill 15, 132 5,565 Table 1. (continued) Total Number Impinged Family Scientific Name Common Name Year One Year Two Centrarchidae Lepomis auritus Redbreast sunfish 0 58 Lepomis microlophus Redear sunfish 4,160 534 Lepomis gulosus Warrnouth 14 106 Lepomis humilis Orangespotted sunfish 370 959 lepomis cyanellus Green sunfish 35 270 lepomis mega/otis Longear sunfish 132 174 Hybrid sunfish 0 Micropterus dolomieu Smallmouth bass 2 4 Micropterus sa/moides Largemouth bass 78 73 Micropterus punctu/atus Spotted bass 79 72 Pomoxis annularis White crappie 197 693 Pomoxis nigromaculatus Black crappie 20 2 Percidae Sander canadense Sauger 14 5 Perea jlavescens Yellow perch 512 212 Percina caprodes Logperch 523 211 Percina shumardi River darter 0 3 Sciaenidae Aplodinotus grunniens Freshwater drwn 9,483 11,426 Total Number of Fish 2,810,778 1,172,660 Total Number of Fish Species 46 43 Number of Sample Days 52 53 Table 2. Number of fish impinged by month and percent of annual total during September, 2007 through September, 2009. Total Number of Fish Number of Fish Impinged 2007-2008 Percent of Impinged 2008-2009 Percent of Years 1 and Percent of Two-Month (Year 1) Annual Total (Year 2) Annual Total 2 Combined Year Total Jan 12,051,564 61 1,166,907 14 13,218,471 47 Feb 556,7.03 3 142,702 2 699,405 3 Mar 220,136 1 211,918 3 432,054 2 Apr 274,302 1 91,021 1 365,323 1 May 183,197 1 4,438 0 187,635 1 Jun 23,912 0 7,399 0 31,311 0 Jul 24,570 0 25,186 0 49,756 0 Aug 279,706 1 4,256 0 283,962 1 Sep 127,169 1 58,695 1 185,864 1 Oct 664,783 3 556,395 7 1,221,178 4 Nov 3,025,932 15 2,040,311 25 5,066,243 18 Dec 2,243,472 11 3,899,392 48 6,142,864 22 Total 19,675,446 8,208,620 27,884,066 Table 3. Comparison of estimated weekly fish impingement at TV A's Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant during 2007 and 2008. Sept Oct Nov Dec Year 1 Year2 Year 1 Year2 Year 1 Year2 Year 1 Year2 Week 1 9120 3881 4648 4304 72693 17S411 Week2 lOSO 2494 7900 34764 13330 6119 116023 206874 Week3 2218 4012 2321S S892 *.22923 20SOS1 84264 77367 Week4 6144 180S 23334 3834 391375 72999 47S16 97404 WeekS 31400 31114 Jan Feb March April Year 1 Year2 Year 1 Year2 Year 1 Year2 Year 1 Year2 Week 1 1684003 4S658 4162 7478 5820. . 4121 786S 9810 Week2 . 11410 89Sl2 2Sl96 S439 6506 S274 14337 1309 Week3 12693 16101 26393 S216 7904 1S571 S136 1718 Week4 399S S716 23778 22S3 11218 S308. 290S 166 Weeks 9S51 9714 8943 0 May* June July Aug Year 1 Year2 Year 1 Year2 Year 1

• Year2 Year 1 Year2 Week 1 19708 141 1019 92 861 616 1824 23 Week2 4006 34S. 807 280 612 0 1937 10 Week3 1469 128 747 206 400 1322 1468 148 Week4 988 20 843 479 *s19 47S 34729 427 Weeks 1118 . 118S.

Table 4. Annual extrapolated estimates of numbers and biomass offish impinged by species and year at Watts Bar Nuclear Plant during September 2007 through September 2009. Estimated Number Estimated Biomass (g) 9/12/2007 -9/10/2008 -9/12/2007 -9/10/2008 -Percent Composition SEecies 9/03/2008 9/09/2009 Average 9/03/2008 9/09/2009 Average Threadfin Shad 19,118,288 7,522,732 13,320,510 52,372,460 25,157,615 38,765,038 96 Gizzard Shad 238,105 382,746 310,426 8,348,508 7,366,639 7,857,574 2 Yellow Bass 64,960 109,599 87,280 1,528,870 2,181,942 1,855,406 1 Freshwater Drum 66,381 79,982 73,182 4,842,915 5,830,720 5,336,818 1 Bluegill 105,924 38,955 72,440 580,223 435,358 507,791 1 Channel Catfish 20,349 17,955 . 19,152 948,367 1,082,508 1,015,438 T Redear Sunfish 29,120 3,738 16,429 183,232 140,707 161,970 T Inland Silverside 280 12,586 6,433 1,218 66,010 33,6t4 T Bullhead Minnow 11,354 1,379 6,367 67,130 5,369 36,250 T Alewife 854 11,354 6,104 6,748 116,095 61,422 T Orangespotted Sunfish 2,590 6,713 4,652 12,509 16,506 14,508 T Blue Catfish 3,612 5,145 4,379 321,951 267,337 294,644 T White Crappie 1,379 4,851 3,115 75,775 149,205 112,490 T White Bass 3,745 1,785 2,765 713,489 462,112 587,801 T Logperch 3,661 1,477 2,569 21,280 14,203 17,742 T Longear Sunfish 924 1,218 1,071 8,834 ll,004 9,919 T Green Sunfish 245 1,890 1,068 3,570 7,630 5,600 T Largemouth Bass 546 511 529 68,054 92,491 80,273 T Spotted Bass .553 504 529 50,918 43,491 47,205 T Wannouth 98 742 420 1,799 9,184 5,492 T Common Carp 161 518 340 770 5,068 2,919 T Golden Shiner 175 455 315 1,960 6,503 4,232 T Skipjack Herring 378 147 263 183,015 30,254 106,635 T Flathead Catfish 322 161 242 80,227 22,876 51,552 T Redbreast Sunfish 0 406 203 0 2,513 1,257 T Spotted Gar 112 252 182 215,719 354,508 285,114 T Atlantic Needlefish 266 77 172 23,737 4,501 14,119 T Northern Hog Sucker 42 161 102 441 4,879 2z660 T Table 4. (continued) Estimated Number Estimated Biomass {g} 9/12/2007 -9/10/2008 -9/12/2007 -9/10/2008 -Percent Composition S2ecies 9/03/2008 910912009 Average 9/03/2008 9/09/2009 Average Yellow Perch 84 84 84 728 1,323 1,026 T Emerald Shiner 147 14 81 1,211 168 690 T Black Crappie 140 14 77 8,834 252 4,543 T Sauger 98 35 67 46,858 16,114 31,486 T Hybrid Striped Bass 91 35 63 58,023 371 29,197 T Spotted Sucker *O 126 63 0 41,503 20,752 T Striped Bass 49 56 53 26,523 399 13,461 T Brook Silverside 91 0 46 308 0 154 T Brown Bullhead 0 91 46 0 525 263 T Bluntnose Minnow 70 0 35 252 0 126 T River Darter 35 14 25 35 56 46 T Striped Shiner 35 14 25 294 56 175 T Chestnut Lamprey 28 14 21 1,365 532 949 T Smallmouth Bass 14 28 21 6,986 119 3,553 T Spotfin Shiner 35 0 18 259 0 130 T Black Buffalo 28 0 14 11,550 0 5,775 T Mooneye 28 0 14 9,702 0 4,851 T Smallmouth Buffalo 14 14 14 4,774 7,588 6,181 T Black Bullhead 0 11 203 0 102 T Longnose Gar 0 21 11 0 60,214 30,107 T Quill back 0 21 11 0 27,727 13,864 T Golden Redhorse 7 0 4 4,900 0 2,450 T Hybrid Sunfish 7 0 4 7 0 4 T Table 5. Extrapolated annual numbers of fish impinged at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant September 2007 through August 2008 and September 2008 through August 2009. Also included are numbers of fish for which TV A is liable after EA and PF reduction. Extrapolated Annual Number offish Impinged Number Liable for after EA & PF Reduction Year 1 2007-2008 19,675,446 520,309 Year2 2008-2009 8,208,620 318,226 Table 6. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RFAI Scores Downstream (TRM 292.5) and Upstream (TRM 295.9) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2008. Autumn 2008 TRM 292.5 TRM 295.9 Metric A. Species richness and composition 1. Number of indigenous species 2. Number of centrarchid species (less Micropterus) 3. Number ofbenthic invertivore species 4. Number of intolerant species Obs 28 species 6 species Green sunfish Bluegill Longear sunfish Warmouth Black crappie Redear sunfish 5 species Spotted sucker Black redhorse Golden redhorse Freshwater drum Logperch 5 species Spotted sucker Skipj ack herring Black redhorse Longear sunfish Sroallmouth bass Score 3 5 3 5 Obs 28 species 7 species Green sunfish Bluegill Longear sunfish Warmouth Redear sunfish White crappie Black crappie 4 species Spotted sucker Northern hog sucker Freshwater drum Logperch 5 species Spotted sucker Northern hog sucker Skipjack herring Longear sunfish Sroallmouth bass Score 3 5 3 5 Table 6. (Continued) Autumn 2008 TRM292.5 TRM295.9 Metric Obs Score Obs Score 5. Percent tolerant individuals Electrofishing 37.4% 50.6% Bluegill 10.3% Bluegill 8.2% Gizzard shad 3 1. 7% Gizzard shad 19.3% Common carp 0.3% Largemouth bass 7.2% 1.5 I.5 Spotfin shiner 0:2% Largemouth bass 9.4% Green sunfish 0.3% Spotfin shiner 0.2% Golden shiner 0.2% Green sunfish 0.4% Gill Netting 32.1% 23.6% Gizzard shad 12.3% Gizzard shad 14.1% Common carp 0.5% Common carp 0.5% 1.5 Bluegill 3.2% 0.5 Bluegill 1.0% Largemouth bass 7.0% Largemouth bass 8.0% Longnose gar 4.8% Golden shiner 2. 7% White crappie 1.6% 6. Percent dominance by one species Electrofishing 52.7% 31.7% Inland silvcrside 1.5 Gizzard shad 1.5 Gill Netting 28.6% 19.8% White bass 1.5 Channel catfish 1.5 7. Percent non-indigenous species Electrofishing 29.5% 52.7% 0.5 Inland silverside 29.0% 0.5 Inland silvcrside 52.7% Atlantic needlefish 0.1 % Common carp 0.3% Gill Netting 0.5% 1.6% Common carp 0.5% 2.5 Common carp 0.5% 1.5 Striped bass 1.1 % Table 6. (Continued) Autumn 2008 TRM292.5 TRM295.9 Metric Obs Score Obs Score 8. Number of top carnivore species IO species 11 species Spotted gar Longnose gar Largemouth bass Spotted gar Spotted bass Largemouth bass Smallmouth bass Spotted bass Skipjack herring 5 Smallmouth bass 5 Flathead catfish Skipjack herring White bass Flathead catfish Yellow bass White bass Black crappie Yellow bass Sauger Black crappie White crappie B. Trophic composition 9. Percent top carnivores Electrofishing 8.5% 12.6% Largemouth bass 7 .2% Largemouth bass 9.4% Spotted bass 0.2% Spotted bass 0.7% Smallmouth bass 1.0% Smallmouth bass 0. 7% Flathead catfish 0.06% 1.5 Flathead catfish 0.3% 2.5 White bass 0.2% Yellow bass 1.0% Spotted gar 0.2% Gill Netting 61.3% 39.6% Spotted gar 0.5% Longnose gar 4.8% Largemouth bass 8.0% Largemouth bass 7.0% Spotted bass 1.0% Spotted bass 1.6% Skipjack herring 15.6% 2.5 Skipjack herring 1.6% 2.5 Flathead catfish 4.5% Flathead catfish 2.1 % White bass 28.6% White bass 14.0% Yellow bass 1.5% Yellow bass 5.3% Black crappie 0.5% White crappie 1.6% Sauger 1.0% Black crappie 0.5% Table 6. (Continued) Autumn 2008 TRM292.5 TRM295.9 Metric Obs Score Obs Score I 0. Percent omnivores Electro fishing 20.7% 38.5% Gizzard shad 19.3% Gizzard shad 31. 7% 2.5 Channel catfish 5.8% 1.5 Channel catfish 1.2% Smallmouth buffalo 0.4% Blue catfish 0.2% Common carp 0.3% Golden shiner 0.2% Gill Netting 26.6% 44.4% Gizzard shad 14.1 % Gizzard shad 12.3% Blue catfish 6.0% 1.5 Blue catfish 5.3% 0.5 Channel catfish 3.5% Channel catfish 19.8% Smallmouth buffalo 2.0% Golden shiner 2. 7% Black buffalo 0.5% Smallmouth buffalo 3.7% Common carp 0.5% Common carp 0.5% C. Fish abundance and health 11. Average number per run Electro fishing 112.2 0.5 59.9 0.5 Gill Netting 19.9 1.5 18.7 1.5 12. Percent anomalies Electrofishing 0.4% 2.5 1% 2.5 Gill Netting 0.5% 2.5 0.5% 2.5 Overall RF AI Score 45 42 Good Good Table 7. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RFAI Scores Downstream (TRM 292.5) and Upstream (TRM 295.9) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2009. Autumn2009 Metric A. Species richness and composition 1. Number of indigenous species (Tables 7 and 8) 2. Number of centrarchid species (less Micropterus) 3. Number ofbenthic invertivore species 4. Number of intolerant species TRM 292.5 Obs 27 7 Black crappie Bluegill Green sunfish Longear sunfish Redbreast sunfish Redear sunfish Warmouth 3 Freshwater drum Golden redhorse Logperch 3 Longear sunfish Skipjack herring Smallmouth bass TRM295.9 Score Obs Score 3 26 6 Black crappie Bluegill Green sunfish 5 Longear sunfish Redear sunfish Warmouth 4 Black redhorse Freshwater drum Golden redhorse Spotted sucker 5 Black redhorse 3 Longear sunfish Skipjack herring Smallmouth bass Spotted sucker 3 5 3 5 Table 7. (Continued) Autumn 2009 TRM292.5 TRM295.9 Metric Obs Score Obs Score 5. Percent tolerant individuals Electrofishing 40.9% 43.1% Bluegill 5.67% Bluegill 5.30% Bluntnose minnow 0.07% Common carp 0.18% Common carp 0.07% Gizzard shad 26.97% Gizzard shad 24.93% Golden shiner 0.46% Golden shiner 0.07% 1.5 Green sunfish 0.73% 1.5 Green sunfish 1.00% Largemouth bass 9.05.% Largemouth bass 7.07% Spotfin shiner 0.46% Redbreast sunfish 0.07% Spotfin shiner 1.93% Gill Netting 45.7% 30.5% Bluegill 4.35% Common carp 3.39% Gizzard shad 39.13% 0.5 Gizzard shad 23.73% 0.5 Largemouth bass 2.17% White sucker 3.39% 6. Percent dominance by one species Electro fishing 42.6% 35.6% Inland silverside 1.5 Inland silverside 1.5 Gill Netting 39.1% 23.7% Gizzard shad 0.5 Gizzard shad 1.5 Table 7. (Continued) Autumn2009 TRM292.5 TRM295.9 Metric Obs Score Obs Score 7. Percent non-indigenous species Electrofishing 42.7% 35.8% Common carp 0.07% Common carp 0.18% Inland silverside 42.60% 0.5 Inland silverside 35.56% 0.5 Striped bass 0.09% Gill Netting 0.0% 3.4% 2.5 Common carp 3.39% 0.5 8. Number of top carnivore species 9 9 . Black crappie Black crappie Flathead catfish Flathead catfish Largemouth bass Largemouth bass Skipjack herring 5 Skipjack herring 5 Smallmouth bass Smallmouth bass Spotted bass Spotted bass Spotted gar Spotted gar White bass White bass Yellow bass Yellow bass B. Trophic composition 9. Percent top carnivores Electro fishing 11.5% 14.4% Black crappie 0.07% Black crappie 0.09% Flathead catfish 0.27% Flathead catfish 1.28% Largemouth bass 7 .07% Largemouth bass 9.05% Smallmouth bass 3.73% 2.5 Smallmouth bass 0.18% 2.5 White bass 0.07% Spotted bass 0.46% Yellow bass 0.27% Spotted gar 0.46% Striped bass 0.09% Yellow bass 2.83% Table 7. (Continued) Autumn2009 TRM292.5 TRM295.9 Metric Obs Score Obs Score Gill Netting 32.6% 30.5% Flathead catfish 6.52% Black crappie 1.69% Largemouth bass 2.17% Flathead catfish I .69% Skipjack herring 2. I 7% Skipjack herring 8.47% Spotted bass 6.52% 1.5 Spotted bass 1.69% 1.5 Spotted gar 8.70% Spotted gar 1.69% White bass 4.35% White bass 6. 78% Yellow bass 2.1 7% Yellow bass 8.47% 10. Percent omnivores Elcctrofishing 29.5% 36.8% Bluntnose minnow 0.07% Blue catfish 0.18% Channel catfish 4.20% Channel catfish 8.96% Common carp 0.07% l.5 Common carp 0.18% 1.5 Gizzard shad 24.93% Gizzard shad 26.97% Golden shiner 0.07% Golden shiner 0.46% Smallmouth buffalo 0.20% Smallmouth buffalo 0.09% Gill Netting 56.5% 54.2% Blue catfish 4.35% Blue catfish 3.39% Channel catfish 6.52% 0.5 Channel catfish 20.34% 0.5 Gizzard shad 39. 13% Common carp 3.39% Smallmouth buffalo 6.52% Gizzard shad 23.73% White sucker 3.39% Table 8. Summary of RF AI Scores from Sites Located Directly Upstream and Downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant as Well as Scores from Sampling Conducted During 1993-2009 as Part of the Vital Signs Monitoring Program in Wheeler Reservoir. Station Location 1993 1994 1995 1997 1999 1993-1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2000-2009 Average Average Inflow TRM348.0 46 48 42 48 36 44 38 42 38 44 44 42 38 38 40 40 Transition TRM295.9 43 43 35 40 30 38 41 37 43 39 43 46 41 39 42 39 41 BFN Upstream Transition BFN TRM292.5 NIA 43 40 41 43 43 36 42 42 45 36 41 Downstream Forebay TRM277.0 52 44 49 45 42 46 41 45 44 43 45 46 49 46 47 45 Elk River ERM6.0 43 46 36 49 36 42 49 44 49 47 39 42 45 Embayment Note: No data were collected for 1996 and 1998. RFAI Scores: 12-21 ("Very Poor), 22-31("Poor"),32-40 ("Fair"), 41-50 ("Good"), or 51-60 ("Excellent"). Table 8. Summary of RFAI Scores from Sites Located Directly Upstream and Downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant as Well as Scores from Sampling Conducted During 1993-2009 as Part of the Vital Monitoring Program in Wheeler Reservoir. Station Location 1993 1994 1995 1997 1999 1993-1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 . 2006 2007 2008 2009 2000-2009 Average Average Inflow TRM 348.0 46 48 42 48 36 44 38 42 38 44 44 42 38 38 40 40 Transition TRM295.9 43 43 35 40 30 38 41 37 43 39 43 46 41 39 42 39 41 BFN Upstream Transition BFN TRM292.5 NIA 43 40 41 43 43 36 42 42 45 36 41 Downstream Fore bay TRM277.0 52 44 49 45 42 46 41 45 44 43 45 46 49 46 47 45 Elk River ERM6.0 43 46 36 49 36 42 49 44 49 47 39 42 45 Embayment. Note: No data were collected for 1996 and 1998. RF AI Scores: 12-21 ("Very Poor"), 22-31 ("Poor"), 32-40 ("Fair"), 41-50 ("Good"), or 51-60 ("Excellent"). / ,,----I ,\11*,1.i J "*r

• t't,; '111 .. J .. mon1tora \ \ .* Stn 17 (L) , 3.&?; St. 1 (Ml * . 1;' Stil 6(R) ?/ Otffu r<; 29*1 0 __/ Ove nk ... IHUOt'tt.w&ll nhHllhJr Sta 19(03mtu-., / Ov *rban
• Up tr nm moni oc r<* ackup) 1' IA ,.., (1 8 mt u/a) ' ' UJl"I* .1m Sin.\ p R m1111'<) -... --....... ... Figure 1. Location of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant and Condenser Cooling Water (CCW) intake and discharge. Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant is located on the north shore of Wheeler Reservoir at Tennessee River Mile 294.

""C Q) b.O r:: a. E 12,000,000 10,000,000 -'07-08 -'08-09 8,000,000 r** ----. -------------* -----*-*-***--**--. *----6,000,000 -r------*-***-------*---** -*-**---* I ! .. -**--**--** ------**-**-*--*----------*----*--I 1* ... -*******--*----------4,000,000 ! I 2,000,000 i 0 ;,J,l*"l'i'!*i'i':;1,1:q,);[:i;i,/,l*isfil2l,I* 'i'!'l*I' 'i'l*1'l'i'I' * '1' '.,,'I'* 'i'l'i'i+ 'i Week Week I Week I Week I Week Week Week ! Week I Week Week Week I Week INee* Sept \ Oct I Nov ! Dec I Jan Feb ; Mar I Apr May June July ! Aug isept; Sample Week Figure 2. Weekly estimate of total fish impinged at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, September 2007 through August 2008 (Year 1) and September 2008 through August 2009 (Year 2). Biological Assessment: Effects of Condenser Cooling Water Withdrawal on the Fish Community Near the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Intake by Dennis S. Baxter Johnny P. Buchanan Larry K. Kay June 2006 Aquatic Monitoring and Management Knoxville, Tennessee TABLE OF CONTENTS Page List of Tables................................................................................ 111 List of Figures................................................................................ 1v Executive Summary.......................................................................... v1 Introduction .................................................................................. . Background and Scope ........................................................... . Reservoir and Plant Operation during 2003 and 2004.................... .. .. .. . . . . . . ... 2 Wheeler Reservoir Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 BFN Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Methods........................................................................................ 2 Entrainment........................................................................ 2 Sample Collection.......................................................... 2 Sample Processing......................................................... 3 Data Analysis............................................................... 3 Impingement *........................................................................ 3 Sample Collection.......................................................... 3 Data Analysis............................................................... 3 Results ................... , .............................................. .'....................... 4 Entrainment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Fish Eggs.................................................................... 4 Larval and Juvenile Fish................................................. 4 Hydraulic Entrainment Estimates...................................... 5 Fish Entrainment Estimates............................................ 6 Impingement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Historical Comparisons . .. . . .. . .. .. .. .. . . . .. .. . .. . . .. . . .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. 7 Entrainment......................................................................... 7 Impingement................................................................ . . . . . . . . . 7 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Literature Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . ..... 10 Literature Reviewed.......................................................................... 11 II LIST OF TABLES Page Table I.* Total Volume of Water Filtered by Sample Period during 2003 and 2004 to Estimate Entrainment of Fish Eggs and Larvae. 14 Table 2. List of Fish Eggs by Family Collected in 2003 and 2004 Entrainment Samples and Lowest Level of Taxonomic Resolution for each Family. 14 Table 3. List of Fish by Family collected in 2003 and 2004 Entrainment Samples and Lowest Level of Taxonomic Resolution for each Family. 15 Table 4. Percent Composition of Fish Eggs and Larvae by Family in Entrainment Samples during 2003 and 2004. 16 Table 5. Average Seasonal Density of Fish Eggs and Larvae in Entrainment Samples during 2003 and 2004. 17 Table 6. Estimated Daily Hydraulic Entrainment at BFN by Sample Period during 2003 and 2004. 18 Table 7. Seasonal Entrainment Estimates for Numerically Significant Fish Taxa Collected during 2003 and 2004. 19 Table 8. List of Fish Species Collected in Impingement Samples during 2003 and2004. 20 Table 9. Fish Species Impinged at an Average Rate of One or More Per Day during 2003 and 2004. 21 Table 10. Fish Species Impinged at an Average Rate of One or More Kilogram Per Day during 2003 and 2004. 21 Table 11. Species Composition Expressed as Percentage of Total Number of Fish Collected in Impingement Samples during 2003 and 2004. 22 Table 12. Species Composition Expressed as Percentage of Total Biomass of Fish Collected in Impingement Samples during 2003 and 2004. 23 Table 13. Historical and Current Entrainment Estimates at BFN. 24 Table 14. Historical and Current Entrainment Estimates for Numerically Significant Taxa. 25 iii LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure I. Average daily surface elevation (meters above mean sea level) of Wheeler Reservoir during 2003 and 2004. 26 Figure 2. Average daily rate of flow in Wheeler Reservoir near BFN during 2003 and 2004. 27 Figure 3. Average daily rate of generation at BFN during 2003 and 2004. 28 Figure4. Average daily rate of hydraulic entrainment at BFN during 2003 and 2004. 29 Figure 5. Densities of drum eggs collected in entrainment samples during 2003 and 2004. 30 Figure 6. Densities of clupeid eggs collected in entrainment samples during 2003 and 2004. 31 Figure 7. Densities of larval and juvenile fish collected in entrainment samples during 2003 and 2004. 32 Figure 8. Densities of clupeids collected in entrainment samples during 2003 . and2004 33 Figure 9. Densities of temperate bass collected in entrainment samples during 2003 and 2004. 34 Figure 10. Densities of sunfishes collected in entrainment samples during 2003 and 2004. 35 Figure 11. Densities of freshwater dmm collected in entrainment samples during 2003 and 2004. 36 Figure 12. Densities of silversides collected in entrainment samples during 2003 and 2004. 37 Figure 13. Densities of total fish eggs collected at each station-in 2003 entrainment samples. 38 Figure 14. Densities of total fish eggs collected at each station in 2004 entrainment samples. 39 Figure 15. Densities of total fish collected at each station in 2003 entrainment samples. 40 iv' Figure 16. Densities of fish collected at each station in 2004 entrainment samples. 41 Figure 17. Estimated number of fish impinged daily at BFN during 2003 and2004. 42 Figure 18. Estimated daily biomass of fish impinged at BFN during 2003 and2004. 43 Figure 19. Estimated daily impingement rates ofthreadfin shad during 2003 and2004. 44 Figure 20. Estimated biomass of gizzard shad impinged during 2003 and 2004. 45 Figure 21. Estimated biomass of freshwater drwn impinged during 2003 and2004. 46 v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is pursuing the renewal of the operating license . for the three-unit Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN). To meet future TVA power demands, the new license would extend the life of each unit twenty years and increase the generating capacity by twenty percent. Currently, Units 2 and 3 are in operation and recovery of Unit 1 is scheduled for completion in 2007. A consequence of the increased generation capacity is an increase in the quantity of condenser cooling water (CCW) required during normal operation. Prior to 1980, extensive biological and hydrological studies were conducted to assess the effects of CCW withdrawal on the aquatic community in Wheeler Reservoir. The historical studies demonstrated CCW demand for BFN had no significant effect on the aquatic community. TV A conducted a two year study in 2003 and 2004 to evaluate effects of the current two unit operation on the aquatic fish community and update baseline data prior to the restart of Unit 1.

• CCW withdrawn from Wheeler Reservoir potentially effects the fish community by entrainment (small fish and eggs drawn through the intake screens) and impingement (fish trapped against screens by the intake water velocity). Densities of fish in the reservoir near the intake and daily volume of water transported past the BFN were
• compared to daily CCW demand and densities of fish at the intake skimmer wall to estimate percent entrainment. Fish were collected from the backwash process used in cleaning the traveling screens to estimate impingement rates. *Clupeids were the dominant fish taxon in both entrainment and impingement sampling. Expressed as percent composition, ninety-four percent of the fish eggs and ninety-five percent of the larvae collected in the entrainment samples were clupeids. Clupeids, primarily threadfin and gizzard shad, and freshwater drum were the dominant fish impinged; representing ninety-six percent of the total number of fish collected in the impingement samples. Composition in fish collected in the 2003 and 2004 study was similar to BFN historical baseline data. Fish entrainment estimates were higher in 2004 (eggs -18.8% and larvae -18.7%) than observed in 2003 (eggs-1.3% and larvae-4.5%). The higher estimate in 2004 was attributed to the low flow conditions in Wheeler Reservoir near BFN. Average entrainment rate for the two year study was 7 .6% for fish eggs and 10.8% for larvae, within the range found in the historical studies (2.3-8.2% for eggs and 4.5-11.7% for larvae). The annual impingement rate, based on 2003 and 2004 data, was 8.1 x 105 fish weighing 1.18 x I 04 kg. This is lower than observed historically, however, the 2003 and 2004 estimate was based on twenty-three samples and the historical estimates were based on data collected weekly for three years. Trends observed in the 2003 and 2004 data were similar to the historical assessments with highest numbers of fish impinged in winter and lower numbers impinged in summer. VI Fluctuations in entrainment and impingement rates for BFN are common. Reservoir flow near BFN and the normal movement and cycles in year-class strength of the dominant fish tax.a are factors contributing to these fluctuations. Although fluctuations in annual estimates do occur, the 2003 and 2004 3 l 6(b) assessment and recent Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index evaluations demonstrate Wheeler Reservoir near BFN supports a stable diverse indigenous fish community with no significant impacts from current plant operations. vii INTRODUCTION Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) is a three-unit nuclear fueled facility located on Wheeler Reservoir in Limestone County, Alabama. At present, Units 2 and 3 are in operation and Unit 1 recovery is proceeding as scheduled. BFN's current operation utilizes a once-through condenser cooling water (CCW) system, withdrawing water from the Tennessee River through an intake structure and discharging the water through diffuser pipes located downstream from the plant. The procedure is regulated by BFN's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, AL0022080. This document provides current fishery data associated with the withdrawal of CCW, provides historical comparisons, and updates baseline data prior to the Unit 1 restart. Background and Scope The Tennessee Valley Authority (TV A) initiated an Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) in 1994 to assess the most cost effective approach to meeting future power demands. In response to the IRP, TV A is pursuing the renewal of the operating license for BFN' s Units 1, 2, and 3. The scope of the renewal is to extend the operational license of each unit an additional twenty years beyond the current license and to uprate the units to 120 percent of their original licensed generating levels. After an extended shutdown, Unit 2 returned to service in 1991, Unit 3 in 1995; and restart of Unit 1 is scheduled for 2007. _TV A prepared a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) assessing the
• environmental impacts from the proposed license renewal. However, to more accurately assess potential entrainment and impingement impacts from increased CCW demand after the restart of Unit 1, TV A conducted studies in 2003 and 2004 to update baseline
• data. Section 3 l 6(b) regulation of the Clean Water Act (CW A) provides standards for cooling water intake structures and procedures for assessing impacts. Compliance requires permittee to characterize the aquatic community in the vicinity of the intake structure prior to operation; monitoring during normal operation to assess impacts; and periodically review current operational demands, reservoir operation, and condition of the aquatic community to ensure no significant changes have occurred. Two potential impacts associated with cooling water intake structures are impingement and entrainment of fish eggs and larvae. Impingement occurs when aquatic organisms are trapped against the intake structure.(traveling screens) by the force of cooling water withdrawal and entrainment occurs when small organisms are drawn through the intake structure into the plant cooling system. BFN's preoperational baseline data include 18 years of standing stock surveys (1949-1961and1969-1973), gill and trap net surveys (1970-1973), and ichthyoplankton investigations (1971-1973). Aquatic monitoring continued until 1980 as part of BFN Technical Specifications issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). In 1980, the NRC eliminated the aquatic monitoring requirement from the BFN's Technical Specifications. Since 1980, annual standing stock surveys (1980-1997) and Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index (RF AI) ratings (1993-2005) provide a minimum data base on the fish community in the vicinity of BFN.

RESERVOIR AND PLANT OPERATION DURING 2003 AND 2004 Wheeler Reservoir Operation Surface elevation of Wheeler Reservoir and river flow past BFN is dependent on the rate water is released through Guntersville and Wheeler Dams. TV A's integrated approach to Wheeler Reservoir operation includes winter drawdown for flood control, minimum summer pools, and hydroelectric power generation. In 2003 and 2004, average daily surface elevation of Wheeler forebay ranged from 167.8 m above mean sea level (AMSL) to 169 .5 m AMSL (Figure 1 ). Daily river flow past BFN ranged from 159 m3 /s to 2634 m3 /s in 2003 and 28 m3 Is to 2817 m3 /s in 2004 (Figure 2). BFN Operation BFN Units 2 and 3 were both in operation during the study period (Figure 3). The combined generation rate for Units 2 and 3 averaged 2096 megawatts (MW) in 2003 and 2191 MW in 2004. The average daily withdrawal rate ofCCW from Wheeler Reservoir during the two year study was 87 m3/s. In late February and March, a decrease in the demand for CCW was observed in both 2003 and 2004 as scheduled outages were performed on units (Figure 4). However, CCW demand during entrainment sampling (late March through early July) reflected normal operation, averaging 91 m3/s in 2003 and 89 m3 /s in 2004. METHODS Entrainment Sample Collection To estimate BFN's plant entrainment rate, ichthyoplankton (fish eggs and larvae) samples were collected upstream at TRM 294.5 to estimate densities of fish eggs and larvae in the water column flowing past the plant and in the intake basin near the skimmer wall. Twenty samples were collected weekly from late March through early July in 2003 and 2004. -Eight reservoir samples (four day and night) were collected at three stations; a full stratum sample on both left and right over banks; and two mid-channel stratified samples, surface to mid-depth and mid-depth to near bottom. Twelve* samples (six day and night) were collected in the intake basin near the skimmer wall. Samples were collected with a beam net 0.5 m square, 1.8 m long, with 505 micron "nitex" mesh netting. Nets were equipped with a large-vaned General Oceanics flowmeter used to measure sample volume. Reservoir samples were ten-minute upstream oblique tows with a boat speed of 1 mis, filtering approximately 150 m3 of water. Intake samples were passive, collected in the inflow of the CCW under the skimmer wall gates, and volume filtered during the ten-minute sample was dependent on intake velocity. -2 Sample Processing In the laboratory, all fish eggs and larvae were removed from each sample, identified to the lowest practical taxon, and enumerated. Taxonomic decisions were based on TV A's "Preliminary Guide to the Identification of Larval Fishes in the Tennessee River" (Hogue et al, 1976) and other pertinent literature. The term "unspecified" preceding a taxon indicates taxonomic resolution is not practical beyond this level and "unidentifiable" indicates the specimen(s) were mutilated. A minimum of 100 specimens of each taxon were measured to the nearest millimeter to obtain length frequency data. Data Analysis Data were summarized by type (eggs or larvae), family, number, composition, and relative abundance. Relative abundance of fish eggs and larvae is presented as numbers per 1000 m3 of water sampled. Estimated entrainment is derived from the formula: E= 100 D&i Dr Qr Where Di =mean density (N/1000 m3) of eggs or larvae in intake samples Dr = mean density (N/1000 m3 ) of eggs or larvae in river . Q1 =plant intake water demands (m3/day) Qr =river flow (m3/day) Temporal occurrence and relative abundance were evaluated for each significant taxon. Impingement Sample Collection Historically, fish impingement rates at BFN were lowest in late spring (May-June) and peaked in winter. Weekly impingement samples were collected in the summer 2003 (July-early and winter 2003 and 2004 (December-March) to provide current impingement estimates. At BFN, a continuous backwash is utilized to clean the traveling scn;ens. Fish trapped against the traveling screens were collected from the backwash, identified, separated into 25 mm TL size classes, enumerated, and weighed. In summer, fish were collected in twenty-four hour periods and winter samples in twelve hour intervals. However, winter samples were staggered weekly (i.e., 12 noon to 12 midnight or 12 midnight to 12 noon) to ensure any diel variations in fish impingement would be recorded. Data Analysis Annual and daily impingement rates are expressed in total numbers and biomass (kg) for each species collected in samples. 3 RESULTS Entrainment Densities offish and larvae are expressed as numbers per volume of water sampled. Average volume (m) of water filtered in each intake sample was consistently less the volume filtered in reservoir samples; however, more samples were collected each sampling period in the intake. To evaluate volume filtered per sampling period in the intake and reservoir, the total volume of water filtered in the twelve intake samples was compared to the total volume filtered in the eight reservoir samples (Table 1 ). In 2003, an average of 1, 13 7 m3 of water was filtered per sampling period in the intake and 1,218 m3 in the reservoir. Total water filtered in the 2004 intake sampling averaged 1,087 m3 per sampling period and 1,277 m3 in the reservoir. Therefore, densities offish and eggs in the intake and reservoir were calculated based on similar sample volumes. Tables 2 and 3 present scientific and common names of taxa collected in the 2003 and 2004 study and the taxonomic resolution used in processing samples. Although identification to subfamily, genus, or species was possible for some individuals, results are presented by family for comparative analysis. Fish Eggs A total of 25,364 fish eggs representing four families was collected during the two year project. Freshwater drum eggs comprised 94% of the eggs collected (Table 4). The only other taxon collected in significant numbers were clupeids, comprising 5.5% of total eggs collected. Drum egg densities were higher in 2004, 577/1000 m3 in the intake basin and 693/1000 m3 in the reservoir, than observed in 2003, 76/1000 m3 and 376/1000 m3, respectively (Table 5). In 2003, drum eggs were collected May 1 through July 3 and April 23 through July 8 in 2004 (Figure 5). Peak density occurred on May 29 in 2003, 76311000 m3, and on May 20 in 2004, 3,77111000 m3* Densities of shad eggs were similar in 2003 and 2004, 28/1000 m3 and 26/1000 m3, respectively. Although densities were similar, spatial distribution differed with abundance greater in the intake in 2003 and the reservoir in 2004 (Table 5). Shad eggs were collected April 17 through June 26 in 2003 with a peak density (124/1000 m3) occurring May 1 (Figure 6). In 2004, shad* eggs were collected from April 22 through July 8; however, 93% of the season total were collected on May 13, with a density of 880/1000 m3. Larval and Juvenile Fish A total of 476,434 fish representing twelve families was collected in 2003 and 2004 entrainment sampling. In the reservoir samples, fish densities averaged 3,857/1000 m3 and intake samples averaged 2,836/1000 m (Table 5). Fish densities were higher in 2004 than observed in 2003, primarily a result of the high numbers of shad (Figure 7). Ninety-4 fiye percent of the total number offish collected were shad; other families contributing at least 1 % of total composition were temperate basses 1.8%, sunfishes 1.0%, drum 1.1 %, and silversides 1.0% (Table 4). Shad densities were significantly higher in 2004, 3,656/1000 m3, than observed in 2003, 2,671/1000 m3* Shad were collected from early April to early July in both 2003 and 2004; however, peak densities occurred earlier in the season in 2004-(Figure 8). In 2003, densities on June 12, 13,319/1000 m3, and on May 13 in 2004, 35,282/1000 m3* Temperate basses in Wheeler Reservoir include three Morone species: striped bass, yellow bass, and white bass. Morone were collected during all sampling periods in both 2003 and 2004 averaging 122/1000 m3* During the two year evaluation, densities ranged from 170/l 000 m3 in 2003 79/1000 rn3 in 2004. Typically, Morone are among the earlier spawners in Wheeler Reservoir; a trend reflected in this study. Densities were greater in April and early May in both 2003 and 2004 with peak density of 1,350/I 000 m3 occurring April 3, 2003 (Figure 9). Centrarchids (sunfishes) averaged 22/1000 m3 in 2003 and 100/1000 m3 in 2004. In 2003, peak centrarchid densities occurred in June and in 2004 the peak occurred in May (Figure 10). Composition of the three genera of centrarchids collected in entrainment samples was crappie (5 %), black basses (4%), and lepomids (91%). Average freshwater drum density was significantly higher in 2003 (138/1000 m3) than observed in 2004 (14/1000 m3). Freshwater drum larvae were collected late April through early July with peak density occurring on June 19 in 2003 (77111000 m3) and on May 27 in 2004 (70/l 000 in3) (Figure 11 ). Silversides averaged 1111000 m3 in 2003 entrainment samples and 120/1000 m3 in 2004. Silversides were collected early April through early July with peak densities occurring June 19 in 2003 (20/1000 m3) and May 13 in 2004 (706/1000 m3) (Figure 12). Both . brook and inland silverside occur in Wheeler Reservoir; however, all late po.st yolk-sac larvae and juveniles collected were inland silversides. Hydraulic Entrainment Estimates The hydraulic entrainment estimate for all sampling periods, 2003 and 2004 combined, averaged 8.4%. In 2003, hydraulic entrainment estimate averaged 6.2% (range 4 to 27.6%) and in 2004 averaged 12.7% (range 5.9 to 42%) (Table 6). A decrease in river flow past BFN during most of the 2004 sampling season was the most significant contributing factor to the higher entrainment in 2004. Estimated daily CCW intake was consistent during entrainment sampling in 2003 and 2004; however, average daily volume transported past BFN was 1.3 x 108 m3 in 2003 and decreased to 6.0 x 10 7 m3 in 2004. 5 Fish Entrainment Estimates Entrainment estimates for all numerically significant tax.a of fish eggs and larvae were higher in 2004 (Table 7). The entrainment rate for fish eggs was 1.3% in 2003 and 18.8% in 2004. An estimated 4.5% offish larvae transported past BFN were entrained in 2003 compared to 18.7% in 2004. The overall entrainment estimate based on the two year study averaged 7 .6% for fish eggs and I 0.8% for larval fish. Spatial-temporal distribution varied significantly between sampling periods and stations for both fish eggs (Figures 13 and 14) and larvae (Figures 15 and 16), demonstrating the heterogeneous distribution of individuals both vertically and horizontally in the water column. The unrealistically high entrainment estimate (18.8%) for shad eggs in 2004 is an example of this distribution pattern. In 2004, a total of922 shad eggs was collected during the sampling season and 859 of these were collected May 13. The majority qfthese were found in intake samples and only two in samples collected in the reservoir immediately upstream from BFN intake structure. Similar events may have contributed to the fluctuations in entrainment estimates for other taxa. Impingement Thirty-seven species of fish representing eleven families were collected in the 2003 and 2004 impingement study (Table 8). The estimated daily impingement rate during the study was 2,218 fish per day weighing 32.2 kilograms (kg). Peak numbers offish ( 12, 125) were observed on December 11, 2003, and greatest biomass ( 141.1 kg) occurred on January 7, 2004 (Figures 17 and 18). Average impingement rates were higher in winter (2,581 fish, 41.7 kg) than observed in summer {l,388 fish with biomass of 10.3 kg). Seventeen species were impinged an average of at least one per day in either the summer or winter sampling (Table 9) and seven species contributed an average of one or more kilograms per day to the total biomass (Table I 0). Threadfin shad was the dominant species in numbers, 61 % of total, and freshwater drum contributed the most biomass, 38% of total weight (Tables 11 and 12). Other species occurring in significant numbers were freshwater drum (21.2%), gizzard shad (7.8%), skipjack herring (4.8%), channel catfish (1.4%), and yellow bass (1.3%). In terms of biomass, other important species were gizzard shad (23.1%), threadfin shad (18.3%), channel catfish (6.4%), yellow bass (2.6%), and blue catfish (1.6%). Three species were the primary drivers in the fluctuations in daily estimates observed in the 2003 and 2004 impingement study. The abundance ofthteadfin shad had the most significant affect on total numbers impinged (Figure 19) and was a major contributor to the total biomass. Gizzard shad and freshwater drum were also significant contributors to total biomass (Figure 20 and 21). 6 HISTORiCAL COMPARISONS Entrainment The methodology used to estimate entrainment at BFN was changed in 1977. Prior-to 1977, reservoir ichthyoplankton populations were estimated based on data collected at three transects in Wheeler Reservoir. Entrainment estimates were calculated by comparing reservoir populations with data collected in the BFN intake. Beginning in 1977, reservoir sampling was designed to estimate transport offish eggs and larvae past BFN. Data collected across a single plant transect, located immediately upstream from BFN intake at TRM 294.5, provided estimates offish transport past BFN and was compared to data collected in the intake to estimate entrainment. The 2003 and 2004 assessment used data collected at TRM 294.5 to estimate transport past BFN; therefore, historical comparisons were limited to baseline data collected in 1977 through 1979. Hydraulic entrainment e.stimates in 2003 and 2004 were within the range observed in the historical evaluations; the 6.2% in 2003 was near historical lows and the 12.7% in 2004 near the historical high (Table 13). The 2003 and 2004 data demonstrate the significant effect of river (low on the entrainment estimates. The daily rate of entrainment for fish eggs and larvae was similar in 2003 and 2004; however, a significantly higher percentage of the total volume of water moving past BFN was entrained during the low flow conditions in 2004. Based on historical and 2003 and 2004 data, fluctuations in the annual entrainment estimates at BFN are common. Impingement Impingement at BFN was evaluated for a three-year period from 1974 through 1977 during various modes of operation; no units operating and minimal pump operation, one, two, or three units in operation. As expected, an increase in the number units in operation increases CCW demand and, conse2uently, increases the impingement rate. Estimated annual impingement was 2 .69 x 1 O fish with no units in operation, 5 .26 x 106 with 1-2 units, and 6.67 x 106 with three units operating. Estimated total annual biomass impinged with three units operating was 6.3 x 104 kg. Historically, impingement was usually lowest in May and June and highest in winter. The 2003 and 2004 impingement study was conducted during two time periods, July through September and December through March. Two units were usually in operation during sample collection. Trends observed in the 2003 and 2004 assessment paralleled historical results; peak numbers of fish were impinged in winter (average 2,581 fish/day) and lower number in summer (average 1,388 fish/day). Based on the 2003 and 2004 data with two units operating, an estimated 8.1 x 105 fish having a biomass of 1.18 x 104 kg are impinged annually at BFN. These estimates are lower than reported in the 1974-1977 assessment with two units operating; however, the current estimates are based on twenty-three weekly samples and the historical data were collected weekly for three years. 7 Composition of fish impinged was similar in 2003 and 2004 to the historical data. In the 1974-1977 study, 95% of the total number of fish impinged were clupeids or freshwater drum and no other species contributed more than 1 % of the total composition. Clupeids and freshwater drum represented 96% of the fish impinged in the 2003 and 2004 assessment. Other species contributing more than 1 % in 2003 and 2004 were channel catfish (1.4%) and yellow bass (l.3%). CONCLUSIONS Both historical data and the 2003 and 2004 study demonstrate the variability in the occurrence and spatial-temporal distribution of fish in Wheeler Reservoir near BFN. This variability translates into significant fluctuation in the entrainment and impingement rates associated with plant operation. Factors contributing to these fluctuations include year-class strength of individual species, life history of selected species, and the physical parameters of Wheeler Reservoir in the vicinity ofBFN. Cyclic variation in the year-class strength of the fish species found in Wheeler Reservoir is well documented. In calculating entrainment and impingement estimates, these variations are exacerbated in scenarios where one or two species represent a high percentage of the total composition, as is the case with clupeids and freshwater drum in the vicinity ofBFN. Spawning habitat, fecundity, and spatial distribution of these two species are significant in the fluctuations observed in the entrainment rates at BFN. Freshwater drum spawn in open water while shad spawn near shore and each female produces thousands of eggs, creating areas in the reservoir with high densities of fish eggs and early larvae. As these areas of high density eggs or larvae drift downstream, their occurrence within a sampling area (either intake or reservoir) may significantly affect the entrainment estimate. Juvenile and adult clupeids move in large schools throughout the reservoir; consequently, a large school occurring within a sampling area will significantly affect both entrainment and impingement rates. The location of BFN is probably a contributing factor to the fluctuations in the annual entrainment estimates. Reservoirs are characterized by three zones; the inflow having characteristics more riverine, the forebay is a more lacustrine area immediately upstream from a dam, and the transition zone provides a buffer in the middle of the reservoir. As water flows downstream from the inflow, velocity as the cross-sectional area of the reservoir increases. Areas within the transition zone may exhibit high flow, low flow, or even negative flows depending on the rate water is released through the upstream and downstream dams. The area of Wheeler Reservoir near BFN is characterized as a transition zone where the velocity of water flowing past BFN depends on the rate water released through Guntersville and Wheeler Dams. The rate of water flow past BFN increases and the reservoir surface elevation decreases when the rate of water released through Wheeler Dam exceeds the release through Guntersville Dam. Inversely, the surface elevation increases and rate of flow decreases near BFN when rate of water released through Guntersville Dam exceeds the release in Wheeler Reservoir. CCW 8 demand for BFN remains fairly constant during normal two unit operation, therefore, hydraulic and fish entrainment estimates will increase as reservoir flow past BFN decreases. Entrainment at BFN is significantly influenced by the large overbank located immediately upstream from the intake structure. Historical hydrodynamic studies show 53 to 63 percent of the CCW used by BFN is drawn from this overbank and the quantity of flow along the overbank varies with reservoir stage and flow. Based on the spatial distribution of larval fish collected in 2003 and 2004, this overbank is highly productive and may provide a spawning area and nursery for several species of fish. Densities and composition of fish collected in the 2004 intake sampling suggest a higher percentage of the CCW is drawn from the overbank .during low flow thus, elevating the entrainment estimate for these fish species. TV A's valley-wide vital signs monitoring program is an additional tool used to evaluate the condition of the fish community near BFN. The Reservoir Fish Assemblage Ind.ex (RF Al), a component of the vital signs program, is used to evaluate reservoir health by . rating the system based on community structure and function. A RF Al sampling station was established upstream from BFN at TRM 295.5 in 1992 and a second transition zone . station was added downstream at TRM 292.5 in 2000. Based on RF Al scoring criteria from reservoirs throughout the.Tennessee Valley, scores of 51-60 were classified as excellent, 41-50 as good, 21-40 as fair, and 22-31 as poor. As observed in the BFN 316(b) studies, annual RF Al scores in Wheeler Reservoir near BFN vary; scores range from 30 to 47 at TRM 292.5 and 42 to 45 at TRM 292.5 (2000-2004). Based on the average RF AI scores for all years sampled, the fish community near BFN is classified as "Good," averaging 41 at TRM 295.5 and 43 at TRM 292.5.

• The 2003 and 2004 316(b) data and recent fish community assessments in Wheeler Reservoir near BFN show no significant impacts from current operation of BFN on the fish community near the plant. Furthermore, current 316(b) data support conclusions presented in the 1977-1979 historical assessments. Results demonstrate annual variations in the relative abundance and spatial-temporal distribution of fish and fluctuations in reservoir flow are common in the vicinity ofBFN. Life cycles of the dominant fish species and fluctuation in reservoir flow past BFN are significant factors influencing variations observed in the annual entrainment estimates. These variations in fish density and reservoir flow in the Wheeler transition zone has had little affect on the fish community. Based on the 2003 and 2004 3 l 6(b) evaluation and the annual RF AI scores for Wheeler Reservoir, a viable balanced indigenous aquatic community is present in Wheeler Reservoir in the vicinity of BFN. 9 LITERATURE CITED Hogue, Jacob J., Jr., R. Wallus, and L. K. Kay. 1976. Preliminary Guide to the Identification of Larval Fishes in the Tennessee River. TV A Tech. Note Bl9. 67pp. IO LITERATURE REVIEWED Baxter, D.S. and J.P. Buchanan. 1998a. Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Thermal Variance Monitoring Program-Final Report. Tennessee Valley Authority, Water Management, Environmental Compliance Norris Tennessee. 54pp. __ . 1998b. Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Thermal Variance Monitoring Program Including Statistical Analysis-Final Report. Tennessee Valley Authority, Water Management, Environmental Compliance, Norris Tennessee. 53pp. Baxter, D. S., K. D. Gardner, and D.R. Lowery. 2004. Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River Near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge 2003. Tennessee
• Valley Authority, Resource Stewardship, Norris, Tennessee. 35pp. Baxter, D.S. and D.R. Lowery. 2006. Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River Near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge 2005. Tennessee Valley Authority, Aquatic Monitoring and Management, Knoxville, Tennessee. 27pp. Buchanan, J.P. and W. C. Barr. 1980. Fish Entrainment and Impingement at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Wheeler Reservoir, Alabama, foryears 1978and1979. Supplement to: Effects of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Cooling Water Intake on the Fish populations of Wheeler Reservoir.*Volume 4 of Biological Effects of Intake, Browns Ferry Nuclear plant, January 1978. Division of Water Resources, Water Quality and Ecology, Branch, Norris, TN. Etnier, David A. and Wayne E. Starnes. 1993. The Fishes of Tennessee. The University of Tennessee Press/Knoxville. 681 pp. Dycus, D. L. and D. L. Meinert. 1993. Reservoir monitoring, monitoring and evaluation of aquatic resource health and use suitability in Tennessee Valley Authority reservoirs. Tennessee Valley Authority, Water Resources, Chattanooga, Tennessee, TV NWM-93/15. Hickman, G.D. and T. A. McDonough. 1996. Assessing the Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index -A Potential Measure of Reservoir Quality. Publication in Proceeding of Third National Reservoir Symposium, June 1995, American Fisheries Association. D. DeVries, Editor Kay, L. K. 1995. Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Thermal Variance Monitoring Assessment of Fish Standing Stock in Wheeler Reservoir from 1993 and 1994 Cove Rotenone Data. Tennessee Valley Authority, Water Management, Environmental Compliance, Norris Tennessee. 34pp. 11 Tennessee Valley Authority. 1974. Water quality and biological conditions in Wheeler Reservoir during operation of Browns Ferry (Unit 1 and 2), February 18, 1974 -June 30, 1974. Division of Environmental Planning, Water Quality Branch, Chattanooga, 1N. 86pp. __ . l 975a. Water quality and biological conditions in Wheeler Reservoir during operation of Browns Ferry (Unit 1and2), July 1, 1974-December 31, 1974. Division of Environmental Planning, Water Quality Branch, Chattanooga, TN. 59pp. . l 975b. Water quality and biological conditions in Wheeler Reservoir during operation of Browns Ferry (Unit 1 and 2), January 1, 1975 -June 30, 1975. Division of Environmental Planning, Water Quality Branch, Chattanooga, TN. 74pp. __ . 1976. Water quality and biological conditions in Wheeler Reservoir during operation of Browns Ferry (Unit 1and2), July 1, 1975 -December 31, 1975. Division of Environmental Planning, Water Quality Branch, Chattanooga, TN. 71pp. __ . 1977. Water quality and biological conditions in Wheeler Reservoir during operation of Browns Ferry (Unit 1and2), January 1, 1976 -December 31, 1976. Division of Environmental Planning, Environmental Assessment and Compliance Staff, Chattanooga, TN. 132pp. __ . l 978a. Biological effects of the intake, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Volume 1: Summary of the evaluation of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Intake Structure. Division of Environmental Planning, Environmental Assessment and Compliance Staff, Chattanooga, TN. 29pp. __ . 1978b. Water quality and biological conditions in Wheeler Reservoir during operation of Browns Ferry (Unit 1 and 2), January 1, 1977 ':'December 31, 1977. Division of Environmental Planning, Environmental Assessment and Compliance Staff, Chattanooga, TN. 141pp.
• __ . 1979. Water quality and biological conditions in Wheeler Reservoir during operation of Browns Ferry (Unit 1and2), January 1, 1978 -December 31, 1978. Division of Water Resources, Water Quality and Ecology, Branch. Muscle Shoals, AL. 133pp. __ . 1980a. Evaluation of predicted and observed effects for a 90 ° F mixed temperature limit, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. Tennessee Valley Authority, Chattanooga, TN. March 1980. l 73pp. 12

__ . l 980b. Water quality and biological conditions in Wheeler Reservoir during operation of Browns Ferry (Unit 1and2), January 1, 1979 -December 31, 1979. Division of Water Resources, Western Area Office, Muscle Shoals, AL. 133pp. __ . 1983. Field operations biological resources procedures manual. Division of Natural Resource Operations. __ . 2000. Aquatic ecological health determinations for TVA Reservoirs -1999. An informal summary of 1999 vital signs monitoring results and ecological health determination methods. __ . 2001. Draft supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) for operating license renewal of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant in Athens, Alabama. Tennessee Valley Authority, Chattanooga, TN. December 2001. Wallus, R., T. P. Simon, and B. L. Yeager. 1990. Reproductive biology and early life history of fishes in the Ohio River drainage. Volume 1: Acipenseridae through Esocidae. Tennessee Valley Authority, Chattanooga, TN. 13 Table 1. Total Volume of Water Filtered by Sample Period during 2003 and 2004 to Estimate Entrainment of Fish Eggs and Larvae. Mar28 598 456 1054 Mar25 1334 1336 2670 Apr3 1170 1280 2450 Apr 1 1392 1353 2745 Apr 10 1204 1287 2491 Apr7 1259 1381 2640 Apr 17 1209 1317 2526 Apr 15 1282 1324 2605 Apr24 Apr22 555 540 1095 May 1 1185 1291 2476 Apr29 1222 1275 2497 May8 1219 1212 2431 May6 1106 1404 2510 May15 1262 1294 2556 May13 974 1266 2239 May22 1141 1273 2414 May20 1112 1436 2548 May29 1181 1287 2468 May27 1074 1261 2335 Jun5 1205 1284 2489 Jun3 917 1356 2273 Jun 12 1160 1252 3412 Jun 10 995 1351 2347 Jun 19 1259 1231 2490 Jun 17 1108 1329 2436 Jun26 933 1310 2243 Jun24 937 1270 2207 Jul 3 1188 1273 2461 Jul 1 1042 1276 2318 Jul 7 1048 1282 2330 Total 15915 17046 32961 17356 20439 37795 Average 1137 1218 2354 1087 1277 2364 Table2. List of Fish Eggs by Family Collected in 2003 and 2004 Entrainment Samples and Lowest Level of Taxonomic Resolution for each Family. * * * * ** SCientific' ...... .. Clupeidae Catostomidae Percidae Sciaenidae * :: :' *.. :.* ...... ,.:*_ .".* .. *.*c. ... m3 .. ..... :*.**.*.'.*: ... * * ... . * * .* * / . . <.::Jdentifica601( * * , ; Unspecified Shad Suckers Perches *Drums 14 Identification to family was not possible: Limiting factors were size, stage of development, and season when egg was collected. Family. Family. Family. S ecies. freshwater drum Table 3. List of Fish by Family Collected in 2003 and 2004 Entrainment Samples and Lowest Level of Taxonomic Resolution for each Family. Lepisosteidae Clupeidae Hiodontidae Cyprinidae Catostomidae Ictaluridae Poeciliidae Moronidae Centrarchidae Percidae Sciaenidae Atherinopsidae . ;,,,: Cominoii < .... *. _;-.-._:*X'..:Nahi.e *_,-. * ,_ , . "*. *:..-*Identification ; Gars Shad Mooneyes Minnows and Carps Suckers Catfishes Livebearers Temperate basses Sunfishes Perches Drum Silversides Species -spotted gar. Family -all larvae < 20 mm TL. Genus or species -larger individuals to Alosa spp.-alewife, skipjack, Dorosoma spp. -gizzard and threadfin shad. Species -mooneye. Family -most minnows, shiners, chubs, *dace. Genus or species -common carp, golden shiner, and larger individuals to emerald shiner, mimic shiner, Pimephales spp. Subfamily -ictiobines (buffalo, carpsuckers, and redhorse). Genus -Larger individual to buffalo. Species -Spotted sucker Species -Blue, channel, and flathead catfish. Species -Western mosquitofish Genus -most larval life phases Species -yolk-sac larvae;::: 5 mm TL (striped bass), larger individuals to white, yellow, and striped bass. Genus -crappie, lepomids (sunfishes), and black bass. Species -larger individuals to largemouth and smallmouth bass. Family -darters (Percina or Etheostoma), no yellow perch or sauger were collected. Genus or species -larger individuals to logperch and Percina sp. Species. freshwater drum Family -most larvae (either brook or inland si 1 versicle). Species -larger individuals to inland silverside. 15 Table 4. Eggs Unspecified Clupeidae Catostomidae Percidae Sciaenidae Larvae Lepisosteidae Clupeidae Hiodontidae Cyprinidae Catostomidae lctaluridae Poeciliidae Moronidae Centrarchidae Percidae Sciaenidae Atherinopsidae Percent Composition of Fish Eggs and Larvae by Family in Entrainment Samples during 2003 and 2004. 4.7 T 0.6 0.1 T T 16.5 8.2 9.3 9.5 0.3 3.4 T T T T T T T T T T T T 78.7 91.8 90.1 90.3 99.7 96.5 T T T T T T 91.8 95.0 94.2 88.1 97.3 94.7 T T T T T T 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 1.3 T 0.4 . 0.8 T 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 T T T T T T T T T 1.8 1.0 1.2 6.3 0.7 2.3 0.8 1.7 1.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.2 T 0.1 0.1 T 0.1 3.2 0.1 0.9 3.8 0.2 1.2 0.5 1.8 1.5 0.1 1.0 0.7 T -Taxon was collected in samples but composition was less than 0.1 %. 16 0.2 5.5 T T 94.3 T 94.5 T 0.2 0.3 T T 1.8 1.0 0.1 1.1 1.0 Table 5. . . * . ****** : ...... ,. . :'_.:** *.* . . : .. \ Average Seasonal Density of Fish Eggs and Larvae in Entrainment Samples during 2003 and 2004. * .** .i.,-:;::;. -: : .. ::.;: ::; /.*: ... \>> .::; ,;:. *,Res*ervoir Samples* -.-;; ... All: . *. * : .. ... .: i6ri.t. * '* .. . *.*"'.:. Samples *. . . ;:i 6doirt(/:10001r{; .::: '*tooofii3 > . : * .. 1000m3 .:< *.* . *, 1000m3 .. * .. ,*' ' ... Eggs Unspecified 5 T 1 T T T Clupeidae 15 56 17 40 4 11 Catostomidae T T T T T T Percidae T T T T T T Sciaenidae 76 577 152 376 693 294 Totals 96 633 170 416 697 305 Larvae Lepisosteidae T T T T T T Clupeidae 2943 8354 2671 3877 9241 3656 Hiodontidae T T T T T T Cyprinidae 8 18 6 11 14 7 Catostomidae 43 3 11 34 3 9 lctaluridae 4 6 2 I I I Poeciliidae T T T T T T Moronidae 56 90 35 275 72 87 Centrarchidae 24 157 42 20 55 21 Percidae 8 3 3 6 3 2 Sciaenidae 104 8 25 170 19 47 Atherinopsidae 16 160 41 6 90 28 Totals 3205 8800 2836 4399 9497 3857 T -Taxon was collected in samples but density averaged less than 1 individual per 1000m3* 17 1ooom3 1 27 T T 447 475 T 6327 T 13 19 3 T 122 64 5 72 69 6693 Table 6. 2003 Mar28 Apr3 Apr 10 Apr 17 Apr24 May 1 May8 May 15 May22 May29 Jun5 Jun 12 Jun 19 Jun26 Jul 3 Estimated Daily Hydraulic Entrainment at BFN by Sample Period during 2003 and 2004. 8.0E+06 8.0E+06 8.0E+06 8.0E+06 8.0E+06 8.0E+06 7.9E+06 8.0E+06 8.0E+06 8.0E+06 8.0E+06 8.0E+06 8.0E+o6 5.4E+06 8.0E+06 5.3E+07 2.9E+07 8.4E+07 1.3E+08 1.2E+08 l.OE+08 1.9E+08 2.0E+08 2.0E+08 l.1E+08 1.2E+08 1.1E+08 l.3E+08 l.3E+08 1.8E+08 15.1% 27.6% 9.5% 6.3% 6.7% 7.6% 4.1% 4.0% 4.1% 7.1% 6.8% 7.4% 6.1% 4.2% 4.4% 2004 Mar25 Aprl. Apr7 Apr15 Apr22 Apr29 May6 May 13 May20 May27 Jun3 Jun 10 Jun 17 Jun24 Jul 1 Jul 7 4.0E+06 5.3E+07 7.5% 6.9E+06 6.9E+07 10.0% 8.0E+06 l.9E+07 42.0% 8.0E+06 3.0E+07 27.0% 8.0E+06 4.3E+07 18.6% 8.0E+06 4.1E+07 19.5% 8.0E+06 4.4E+o7 17.9% 8.0E+06 3.5E+07 22.9% 8.0E+06 3.9E+07 20.6% 8.0E+06 3.0E+07 26.6% 7.9E+06 7.2E+o7 33.0% 8.0E+06 5.3E+07 15.1% 8.0E+06 7.0E+07 11.4% 8.0E+o6 l.1E+08 7.2% 8.0E+06 1.4E+08 5.9% 8.0E+06 1.2E+08 6.7% Average 7.8E+o6 l.3E+08 6.2% Average 7.7E+o6 6.0E+07 12.7% 18 Table 7. Seasonal Entrainment Estimates for Numerically Significant Fish Taxa Collected during 2003 and 2004. Taxa Eggs Clupeidae Sciaenidae Total Eggs Larvae Clupeidae Hiodontidae Cyprinidae Catostomidae lctaluridae Moronidae Centrarchidae Percidae Sciaenidac Atherinopsidae Total Larvae Intake Number Entrained PerDay * .Q,XD; l.2E+08 5.8E+08 7.4E+08 2.3E+10 4.5E+05 5.9E+07 3.4E+08 2.8E+07 4.4E+08 l.9E+08 6.1E+07 7.7E+08 l.3E+08 2.5E+10 * -Not Collected 2003 *. 2004 Reservoir Intake Resertoir

• Intake Reserv"oir* ** Total . . Number Total . . Number *Total . . Number*
• Entrainment *Entrained.* Number *Entrainment
• E"ntrained * -Number *. Entrainment Per Daf*.: .. : >'.Per::Dat . , )>er.Day _Estimate ... -.-. .. Per.Day. . .. ::Per.*,:oa:y'.::, Estimate<** . Q_XD;;:*'.* .% . **.-.; ***Q.XD. :.' '"* .. * .... *;,.,* .. :*.:.*:Q:;x*n* ... *:rQ;X:;D']/.: -.-.:::.%. :::/.;, 6.2E+09 4.9E+10 5.5E+10 5.0E+ll 2.2E+07 l.5E+09 2.7E+09 l.2E+08 1.5E+l0 2.9E+09 5.5E+08 2.4E+l0 8.2E+08 5.4E+ll 2.0% 1.2% 1.3% 4.6% 2.0% 3.9% 13.0% 23.4% 3.0% 6.6% 10.9% 3.2% 15.4% 4.5% 4.5E+08 4.6E+09 5.0E+09 6.7E+10
• 1.5E+08 2.3E+07 4.8E+07 7.2E+08 1.2E+09 l.6E+07 6.3E+07 1.3E+09 7.0E+lO 19 2.0E+08 2.7E+l0 2.7E+10 3.6E+ll
• 8.5E+08 1.3E+08 l.3E+08 2.9E+09 2.4E+09 1.4E+08 8.5E+08 3.7E+09 3.8E+11 225.7% 17.3% 18.8% 18.3%
• 17.1% 17.4% 37.1% 24.8% 51.8% 11.8% 7.4% 34.5% 18.7% 3.0E+08 2.7E+09 3.0E+09 4.6E+10 2.1E+05 1.1E+08 1.7E+08 3.9E+07 5.9E+08 7.4E+08 3.7E+07 3.9E+08 7.4E+08 4.9E+10 3.0E+09 3.7E+10 4.0E+lO 4.3E+l 1 1.0E+07 1.2E+09 1.3E+09 l.3E+08 8.4E+09 3.3E+08 3.3E+08 l.2E+10 2.3E+09 4.5E+ll 9.9% 7.3% 7.6% 10.8% 2.0% 9.0% 13.2% 31.0% 7.0% 28.5% 11.1% 3.3% 31.4% 10.8%

Table 8. . . *-* . .. . : *,* Lepisosteidae Clupeidae Hiodontidae Cyprinidae Catostomidae lctaluridae Moronidae Centrarchidae Percidae Sciaenidae Atherinidae List of Fish Species Collected in Impingement Samples during 2003 and 2004

• Lepisosteus Alosa Dorosoma Hiodon Cyprinus Machrybopsis Notemigonus Pimephales Semotilus Hypentelium Ictiobus Minytrema Moxostoma Amerieuru Ictalurus Pylodictis Morone Lepomis Micropterus Pomoxis Percina Sander Aplodinotus Menidia Labidesthes 20 oculatus chrysochloris pseudoharengus cepedianum petenense tergisus carpio storeriana crysoleucas vigilax atromaculatus nigricans bubalus melanops duquesnei erythrurum me las natalis furcatus punctatus olivaris chrysops mississippiensis saxatilis cyanellus gulosus humilis macrochirus megalotis microlophus
• salmoides annularis nigromaculatus cap rodes canadense grunniens beryllina sicculus Spotted gar Skipjack herring Alewife Gizzard shad Threadfin shad Mooneye Common Carp Silver chub Golden shiner Bullhead minnow Creek chub Northern hog sucker Smallmouth buffalo Spotted sucker Black redhorse Golden redhorse Black bullhead Yellow bullhead Blue catfish Channel catfish Flathead catfish White bass Yellow bass Striped bass Green sunfish Warmouth Orangespotted sunfish Bluegill Longear sunfish Redear sunfish Largemouth bass White crappie Black crappie Logperch Sauger Freshwater drum Inland silverside Brook silverside Table 9. Fish Species Impinged at an Average Rate of One or More Per Day during 2003 and 2004 . . **.:.\ (.:;.,g\, . '.*. .. " .. : .. , .. : . .'; :?;. . ..... .. :-,,; .. .,,< .. * ! . . . * : ... *.;.Jul 2+sep.4 . * .. 2003_;2004 '. > .All "* .. 29 Samples** *common Name Number/Day Number/Day Number/Day
• Skipjack herring 5 151 107 Alewife 14 IO Gizzard shad 39 232 173 Threadfin shad 1060 1489 1358 Silver chub I 3 2 Spotted sucker I I Blue catfish 5 5 5 Channel catfish 10 39 30 White bass 7 I 2 Yellow bass 11 37 29 Striped bass I 2 2 Green sunfish I Bluegill 12 IO 10 Redear sunfish 33 1 11 White crappie I 2 2 Black crappie 1 Freshwater drum 199 589 471 Table 10. Fish Species Impinged at an Average Rate of One or More Kilogram Per Day during 2003 and 2004. .. :_. . ' " . 2003 . 2003-2004 .. All ... : ;," .... *.:._. .... ., ... ;. * *: .. Dec it-Mar 29 Samples.* .. Name* . Kilograms/Day Kilograms/Day Skipjack herring 0 2* 1 Gizzard shad 0 11 7 Threadfin shad 2 8 6 Blue catfish 1* I I Channel catfish 1 3 2 Yellow bass 0 I I Freshwater drum 5 15 12 21 Table 11. Species Composition Expressed as Percentage of Total Number of Fish Collected in Impingement Samples during 2003 and 2004 * .. : .* __ < .. ):*_;*\.* >*. .. '.' .. ' ... .. *:* .. ....... * .**".' .. _.-.* .. :: * *. '.':Jul'24-Sep*4* .De*c:U;;;Mat-29?>;:,:-":.;,,;-..Samples :-'->"; . ' .... * ... * *:' Spotted gar T T T Skipjack herring 0.4 5.9 4.8 Alewife NC 0.6 0.5 Gizzard shad 2.8 9.0 7.8 Threadfin shad 76.4 57.7 61.3 Mooneye NC T T Common Carp NC T T Silver chub 0.1 0.1 0.1 Golden shiner T T T Bullhead minnow T T T Creek chub NC T T Northern hog sucker NC T T Smallmouth buffalo NC T T Spotted sucker NC T T Black redhorse NC T T Golden redhorse NC T T Black bullhead NC T T Yellow bullhead NC T T Blue catfish 0.4 0.2 0.2 Channel catfish 0.7 1.5 1.4 Flathead catfish T T T White bass 0.5 T 0.1 Yellow bass 0.8 1.4 1.3 Striped bass 0.1 0.1 0.1 Green sunfish T T T W armouth T T T Orangespotted sunfish NC T T Bluegill 0.9 0.4 0.5 Longear sunfish T T T Redear sunfish 2.4 0.1 0.5 Largemouth bass T T T White crappie 0.1 0.9 0.1 Black crappie T T T Logperch T T T Sauger T T T Freshwater drum 14.4 22.8 21.2 Inland silverside NC T T NC -Species not collected. T -Percent composition for species is < 0.1 %. 22 Table 12. Species Composition Expressed as Percentage of Total Biomass of Fish Collected in Impingement Samples during 2003 and 2004. All 1; ;% Spotted gar 2.3 0.6 0.7 Skipjack herring 1.4 3.9 3.7 Alewife NC 0.5 0.4 Gizzard shad 4.2 25.l 23.1 Threadfin shad 19.3 18.2 18.3 Mooneye NC T T Common Carp NC 0.8 0.1 Silver chub T 0.1 0.1 Golden shiner 0.1 T 0.1 Bullhead minnow T T T Creek chub NC T T Northern hog sucker NC
• T T Smallmouth buffalo NC 0.4 0.4 Spotted sucker NC 0.8 0.7 Black redhorse NC 0.1 0.1 Golden redhorse NC 1.0 0.9 Black bullhead NC T T Yellow bullhead NC 0.1 0.1 Blue catfish 6.1 1.1 1.6 Channel catfish 5.5 6.5 6.4 Flathead catfish T 0.4 0.3 White bass 2.4 0.2 0.5 Yell ow bass 3. 7 2.4 2.6 Striped bass 0.6 0.1 0.1 Green sunfish T T T Warmouth T T T Orangespotted sunfish NC T T Bluegill 0.7 0.7 0.7 Longear sunfish 0.1 T T Redear sunfish 1.2 0.2 0.3 Largemouth bass 0.3 T T White crappie 0.9 0.1 0.1 Black crappie T T T Logperch T T T Sauger 2.0 0.1 0.3 Freshwater drum 49.2 36.4 37.7 Inland silverside NC T T NC -Species not collected. T -Percent composition for species is < 0.1 %. 23 Table 13. Historical and Current Entrainment Estimates* at BFN. *, -,; ... :;.* j::t -*> *. __ : J' <:::, *-* : * : _.: * * :_ ;:}*t: *: :::.': <: *. . _ * : Hydraulic Me*an -* * .. <*Mean.*:* :* * .. : > ,_,>, , .. ,,.,., * * ._.-. *
• _: .* -* *l*; Historical Baseline 1977 12.0 6.4E+09 l.5E+08 2.3 3.2E+IO 3.7E+09 11.7 1978 13.3 l.3E+09 5.0E+07 3.7 5.4E+IO 2.9E+09 5.3 1979 9.0 2.3E+09 l.9E+08 8.2 3.0E+IO 1.3E+09 4.5 Current Evaluation 2003 6.2 5.5E+IO 7.4E+08 1.3 5.4E+ll 2.5E+IO 4.5 2004 12.7 2.7E+IO 5.0E+09 18.8 3.8E+ll 7.0E+IO 18.7 2003-2004 Totals 8.4 4.0E+lO 3.0E+09 7.6 4.SE+ll 4.9E+10 10.8 24 Table 14. Historical and Current Entrainment Estimates for Numerically Significant Taxa. Historical Baseline Current Eyaluation . .
• 1977 . *** 1978 . 1979 2003 **_.'.': :.:'.*>:' /'::: .. :2004 Mean *.** Mean *:.-*Mean Daily. ; .. ,Rate . <. Rate. '.-"-.D"aily *Rate_* rulte Taxa Number %: Number* %*;* * ; *Nuliiber % * .. :% Clupeidae 3.6E+09 12.1 2.8E+09 5.2 1.2E+09 4.4 2.3E+10 4.6 6.7E+10 18.3 Hiodontidae 2.7E+05 1.2 3.9E+04 2.5 2.6E+05 4.6 4.5E+05 2.0 *
• Cyprinidae l.OE+06 4.8 3.IE+06 2.5 2.2E+07 7.9 5.9E+07 3.9 1.5E+08 17.1 Catostomidae 4.4E+07 4.5 1.8E+07 17.0 l.7E+07 3.1 3.4E+08 13.0 2.3E+07 17.4 Ictaluridae 6.IE+05 29.0 6.6E+06 16.2 1.1E+06 6.4 2.8E+07 23.4 4.8E+08 37.4 Moronidae 3.9E+07 15.6 8.4E+07 11.9 5.IE+07 5.3 4.4E+08 3.0 7.2E+08 24.8 Centrarchidae 8.7E+06 4.8 I.6E+07 2.5 7.7E+06 3.7 1.9E+08 6.6 1.2E+09 51.8 Percidae 4.2E+06 14.6 4.0E+06 12.4 5.6E+06 13.9 6.1E+07 10.9 1.6E+07 11.8 Sciaenidae 4.4E+07 6.1 2.5E+07 3.8 5.7E+07 8.6 7.7E+08 3.2 6.3E+07 7.4 Ath erinopsidae * * *
• 1.1E+04 T l.3E+08 15.4 1.3E+09 34.5 * -Not collected. T -Taxon was entrained at a rate of less than 0.1 %. 25 170 169 168.5 168 167.5 167 166.5 -----c: .c ... ... >. c: 3 Cl c. -> u c: .c ... ... >. c: 3 Cl c. -> u n:J Ql n:J c. n:J :I :I Ql u 0 Ql n:J Ql n:J c. n:J :I :I Ql u 0 Ql 7 LL < 7 7 < "} q z c 7 LL < 7 7 < "} q z c I I I .... I I I I I I I .... I I I .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... 2003 2004 Date Figure l. Average daily surface elevation (meters above mean sea level) of Wheeler Reservoir during 2003 and 2004. 26 3000 2500 2000 "'C c 0 (.) Q) Cf') --I/) 1500 ..... OJ . .0 :::i u 1000 500 11 f I -I -.. -... -11 , ij' c *! 4 . 1 .t i! . I *1 *l !
• L * \; 1! . J i :j .. . ! .: :) '1 v r;,i J * . :i 11 L t: '* '. *i* '1' ij r:1 ,! " , ii " ;i i q * \ L . tj , ;*1 r. '!' !J ;** 'I :1 11 i : *I . ' j "*I !: ij ' ' :7:,;t; 11 l:iii *, ;'. ;1 ;1 J "r ;.\ ;,: . ' u d '1 p:J 911 ;: ". , .y*:\ i, . . * '.;'I.
• f . ' , *, t unm I , *"' ¥ ., L... w*' '< *t I :"ii Pl II I l.I I ( I
• 1 0 c: .0 ... ... >. c: :; Cl a. lll Q) co a. Cll ::J :J <II ..., LL. :.?. <( 7 7 <( en I . . . . ..... I I ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... 2003 i i rr*1 .... > 0 0 0 z I . ..... ..... 0 <II c * ..... j I ., ' " foti * *': L; t!
• 1 ;.i ; I ti llJ ;) f*J :"! !. " *1 r' :l p 13 ll :i* . c: .0 ... tll Q) ro ..., LL. :B I I . ..... ..... ..... Date *-*---*--*-**-----*-*---, Q, \'*; t ' . k ,* .... >. c: :; a. ro ::J <( ::!! ..., 7 . I . ..... ...... ..... ..... 2004 " ;: il :' n# : :! t ; ' ' jj,i'* f*: 4 *:. -.' I :j :J V ".. '."! ': ** . :. N g ji 1 £51 l (; i
• ii r;,t' .H " l <.;;.;!: t.k " .*i. ! \i i1 1 tt H + Cl a. ..... > ::J QI 0 0 en 0 z . . I ..... ..... ..... ..... 0 <II 0 . ..... Figure 2. Average dnily rate of flow in Wheeler Reservoir near BFN during 2003 and 2004. 27 , 11 I I 2500
• Unit 2 Iii Unit 3 2000 1500 1000 500 0 c: .c ... ... >. c: :; Cl c. .. > u c: .c ... ... >. c: '3 Cl c. .. > u Ill Q) Ill c. IQ :I :I Q) u 0 GI I'll GI I'll c. I'll :I :I GI u 0 GI :::E < .., 0 :::E 1 7 0 .., LL :::E 7 * < UJ z 0 7 LL 'f 7 < Cl} z 0 * . . . * .... . I . . * * . .... . * . . .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... .... ..... .... ..... .... .... ..... .... ..... .... ..... .... 2003 Date 2004 Figure 3. Average daily rate of generation at BFN during 2003 and 2004. 28 "C c:: 0 (.) Q) en -I/) .... Q) .... Q) :E (.) ..c ::s (..) ..... **-*****---**----**--*------*--**** .. ,. .. --. i i I -.. I ' 70 I . I ' t i ii I I ;L'i-;i 60 I 7 cl I 50 I I I 40 I i I 30 20 I **----**-* .. *-*----*----*-*-----------*---**-* *--**"' --------*-*--* -*-..... ---------.. -----._, **---------------10 0 .... Ill 4= ,.... ... c. <i: ..... >. Ill :¥! I .,.... c: :; Cl ::J ::s 7 7 <i: ..... ..... .... 2003 a. ..... > u c: .0 Q) u 0 Q) Ill Q) '1 q z 't 7 u. I I ..... ..,.... ...... ..... ..... ..... Date ... .... >. c: O'l a. ..... > (.) Ill a. Ill ::s ::s ::i Q) (.) 0 Q) <i: ::!: 7 7 < I/) q z c I ..... I I I I ..... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... 2004 Figure 4. Average daily rate of hydraulic entrainment at BFN during 2003 and 2004. 29 Number/1000 m 3 rjQ" -N l'"" .:... = 'Jo 'Jo 0 g g '"'I g 0 0 -("> ; -0 (JI t:i 28 Mar rl> ::s 3 Apr o-. rl> 10 Apr "' 0 ..... 17 Apr 0.. '"'I I I = 24 Apr 8 I rl> 1 May D aci IJQ D "' 5 May (') 0 "' -0 15 May D -rl> 0 (') w ..... I rl> 22 May 0.. .... ::s 29 May I rl> ::s I ..... 5 Jun '"'I 0 s* 12 Jun c=J 3 rl> 19 Jun I = ..... "' 26Jun p 3 't:i 3 Jul 0 (;' "' 0 w 0.. 0 = .... rl> '"'I s* N 25 Mar Q Q 1 Apr = 7 Apr 0.. N Q 15Apr Q 22 Apr 29 Apr 6May b I N 13 May 0 0 A. 20May 27 May 3 Jun CJ 10 Jun D 17 Jun C:J 24 Jun D 1 Jul I 7 Jul D 3 GQ = 0\ t::j rt> :::s =-* rt> "' 0 ...... n ;=--0 rt> -* 0. rt> GQ (fQ "' N n 0 0 0 w n;-!"') -rt> 0. s* rt> :::s -.... :::s 3 rt> :::s -"' !:) 3 "O w n;-"' II;) -0. r;> = ::r II'Q N 0 0 w t.) :::s 0. N 0 0 A "' 0 0 .::. 0 '.JI 0 8 ! 2 Mar 1 I 3 Apr I ::::: 24 Apr J No Sample 0 0 1 May 5May 15 May 22 May 29May 5 Jun 12 Jun 19 Jun 26 Jun a 3 Jul I I 25 Mar I I I Apr [] . 7 Apr I 15 Apr I I ., 22 Apr -1 29 Apr I 6May 13 May 20 May 27 May 3 Jun IO Jun 17 Jun I 24 Jun I Jul L 7 Jul 'JI 0 Number/1000 m3 N ,o 0 N '.JI 0 0 0 (.;.) lJI 0 0 0 Number/1000 m 3 .... Q'tl -N t..> *.,; *-= g V\ 0 'JI *.11 .., 0 0 g g :;:> It> 0 0 --J 0 0 0 0 0 0 c c =-0 28 Mar I It> = D 3 Apr ..... ;;* 10 Apr 0 0 ...., r ;-17 Apr .., < 24 Apr ampl . 0 1 May I = c.. tJ ..... SMay = < "' p It> 0 IS May = 0 .... (,.) ;;' 22 May L:J =-i b :r 29 May n 0 I = 5 Jun ri> n -12 Jun ri> Q. .... 19 Jun I = ri> = 26 Jun l ..... .., .... 3 Jul D = w 3 0 tv ri> 1:1:1 = .... ..... It> 9 25 Mar I "O ;;' l Apr I Q. = J "" 7 Apr :;* lSApr D N Q l Q 22 Apr w c::s 29 Apr Q. N 6May Q Q .,. 13 May N 0 0 20 May 27 May 3 Jun lOJun 17 Jun I 24 Jun 0 l Jul 7 Jul a "2 '"'I t'O o:i 0 n> ::s ..... ..... t1> "' 0 ....... !!.. i:: 'O 8. Q.. "' (") 2. ii)' n ..... n> Q. -* ::s n> .... ... ..... ..., a* s (!) ::s ..... "' ::>:I s "d ;;-"' r:i. w :::: *J) ..., :::;* IJQ N 0 0 w = Q. N 0 0 J:>,. 'Jl 0 ::: --**-------*---28 Mar 3 Apr 10 Apr 17 Apr 24 Apr No Sample 1 May I 5 May N 0 15 May 0 w 22 May 29 May 5 Jun 12 Jun 19 Jun 26 Jun 3 Jul t:i :.:i ..... n> 25 Mar 1 Apr 7 Apr 6May N 13 May 0 0 .::. 20 May 27 May 3 Jun 10 Jun .0 17 Jun 24 Jun a. l Jul n 7Jul L _____ _ Number/1000 m3 N N ..,,. (,,> ""' 0 0 'Jl 0 '.Jl 0 Ul 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Number/1000 m3 rjQ" = '" .... O'I 00 ,.., .., Q Q Q Q ('!> = 0 0 Q Q ---\C 0 28 Mar ('!> = 3 Apr t:IJ ,_ . ..... ;;* IO Apr t:IJ 0 ...., 17 Apr ..... ('!> 3 24 Apr lHllf le "C ('!> I .., 1 May ll:> ..... ('!> 5May D 1:1' 1:1) "' t:IJ 0 15 May t:IJ 0 (") (;) g, 22 May ;;-(") ..... 29 May ('!> Q. -* 5Jun = ('!> b = 12 Jun ..... ., ll:> 19 Jun I ..... = 3 26 Jun I ('!> = ..... I t:IJ 3 Jul 1:1) (.;.) 3 0 .J::>, "C 1:1) tD' ..... ('!> t:IJ Q. = .., 25 Mar ,.... = (JQ 1 Apr N Q b Q 7 Apr 1:1) = 15 Apr ! Q. N 22 Apr b Q Q I 29Apr I 6May I I I N 13 May 0 0 20May 0 27 May 3 Jun 10 Jun I 17 Jun I 24Jun I 1 Jul I 7 Jul I Number/1000 m3 t-.J '.;J .&>.. Ul Q'\ -l 00 0 0 :::> 0 0 0 0 0 ..; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 Mar C) 3 Apr r:> ::s 10 Apr ::=: ('!> "' 17 Apr 0 ...... "' 24 Apr = Sample = :=i 1 May "' :r ('!> 5May "' n N 0 0 ('!> 0 15 May n w ..... 22 May ('!> 0.. :;* 29 May ('!> = 5 Jun ..... '"1 :::> = 12 Jun 3 ('!> 19 Jun ::s "' 26 Jun :::> 3 't:I 3 Jul ('!> io "' w 0.. ::>:l Vi ..... c: ('!> -* ::s (JQ N 25 Mar Q 0 w I Apr l:j ::s 7 Apr 0.. N 0 15 Apr 0 22 Apr 29 Apr 6May N 13 May 0 0 20 May 27 May * . .r,* .) . 3 Jun 10 Jun 17 Jun ' 24 Jun L 1 Jul 7 Jul .

Number/1000 m3 .... IJQ ...... N (;; tll a-, -..) QO "° = 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ., 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 tD ..... 28 Mar !;::) 3 Apr tD = "' 10 Apr ..... ...,. ;* "' 17 Apr 0 ....., :::;> 24 Apr :'\o ample tD "' 0 :r 1 May D ..... SMay tD ., N b c:i. 0 lSMay ., 0 = w = 22 May ,., ::.. 29 May ;" ,., ..... 5 Jun tD c:i. s* 12 Jun tD = 19 Jun ..... ., s* 26 Jun 9 tD 3 Jul = ..... 5? w "' °' = "O ;" "' 25 Mar c:i. = ., 1 Apr s* IJQ 7 Apr N 0 0 lSApr i:...i = 22 Apr c:i. N 0 29 Apr 0 """ 0 6May N 13 May g 0 0 20 May 27 May CJ 3 Jun 10 Jun D 17 Jun 24 Jun 1 Jul I 7 Jul a ".tl Number/1000 m3 *Tel N ._. .,. Ul °' -:a 00 :::: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 re 0 c 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 28 Mar 0 3 Apr ('!) ::: 10 Apr :-. (II "' 17 Apr 0 ...... "' 24 Apr Sample < ('O 1 May '1 "' 5: 5May r ('!> "' fl.) (') 0 15 May 0 0 --(.J ('!> I (') 22 May .... ('!> 0. 29 May 5* ('!> 5 Jun ::::: .... '1 12 Jun ::I 3 19 Jun (II ::I .... 26 Jun 3 3 Jul "tj ('!> 0 \.;.) "' ::.:> -..) 0. ...... I':> c:: '1 5* cr'Q 25 Mar N 0 0 l Apr w ::.:> 7 Apr = 0.. N 15 Apr 0 0 -!'-22 Apr 29 Apr 6 May fl.) 13 May 0 0 .::.. :f. .\0(10 0 Intake l!I Left Descending Overbank 0 Channel Ueep 0 Channel Surface D Right Descending Overbank -*-'--2000 .., E 0 0 0 ..... 1500 --... Cl) .J:J E :J z: -IOllO * -soo QI a. -E -ro IJ) O* z 0 r n h r rl n D=n ... ... ... ... ... ;.-, ;.-, ;.-, ;.-, o:I Q. Q. Q. Q. o:I o:I o:I o:I <1'. <1'. 00 ff) =-r-"<!' IT) Ill N N N N = = = :; = = = N Q', \Q ff) N Date Figure 13. Densities of total fish eggs collected at each station in 2003 entrainment samples. 38 ,.."' I 18000 I

• 16000 ..... --. .. ---****----------. --* .... -*--*-* . -.. -------**-*-*-... -**-* -.. -:*** *--0 Intake *Left Descending Overbank 0 Channel Deep 0 Channel Surface 0 Right Descending Overbank ----* .... ***--------*---*--**-**---*-*-***** --* *******---** ----14000 -*************-** *--*-******-***--***-****-**-*--**--**-***---* **------**--*-----***--****-* -----***--*--**-**-*---*---**----** .... 12000 0 0 0 ..... I:; 10000 CJ .a s ;::l z 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 ... c.. ..i: l/'l **--------*-**------0 II ... i5. c.. -<i: -<!( N a-N N Date Figure 14. Densities of total fish eggs collected at each station in 2004 entrainment samples. 39 C Intake D Left Descending Overbank D Channel Deep D Channel Surface 0 Right Descending Overbank .rnooo 30000 ,., s c:> 25000 0 0 -,----i... <1> ..0 s 20000 ::I z ,-15000 10000 -,--,--..! 5000 a. E __ ldJ] Ill t/J 0 :z 0 ---,--rfh--r n-GJ]i ... ... .. .... ... ..... ..... ..... ..... Cll Q, Q, Q, Q, Cll Cll Cll Cll ::; < < < < :; :; ::; :; 00 t'l Q r--"" .,., .,., N M M N Date Figure 15. Densities of total fish collected at each station in 2003 entrainment samples. 40 80000 70000 60000 50000 .., a 0 0 0 40000 --i.. ..0 a ::s % 30000 20000 10000 () r. ----*. *-*-_,, ___ .... _ .. -.. ------* __ .,,, _______ *-----.-_,, __ _ 0 Intake *Left Descending Overbank If) N ... a. -... a. < r--,... ,. ; :l=J ri t\ ... ... a. a. < < l/') N N --) ... 1: * " t. 1 f < ... c. < Cl\ N ... --";' 'i !i. ... >.. ;of -t ... r :f. :.!: G " ' \ i [ ;>, ;>, <, <, < 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -....J t'!".l 24 Jul "' ..... 31 Jul D = ..... It> Q. = 7 Aug = 3 D -r::r 14 Aug It> .., 0 D ..... 21 Aug = "' I\,) =-0 D ..... 0 28Aug 3 (,..) "'O s* 4Sep (IQ It> Q. Q. e:. = 11 Dec ..... = 18 Dec '.Z Q. c 29 Dec .., ..... = (JQ N N 7 Jan Q c Q Q) w ..+ D = C'D 15 Jan = Q. N 22 Jan Q Q D 29 Jan 5 Feb tJ 11 Feb I I\,) 0 20 Feb D 0 25 Feb D 3 Mar I 10 Mar I 18 Mar b 23 Mar D 29 Mar D

"=l c: '"I r:i O:> t!i "' e. 3 %1 ,.... 0... 0... )::; '<"° a ;:;* a %1 "' "' N o* 0 ..... 0 w "' :::' .... s "d :;* (fQ ('!> 0.. .... O;l 2 0. c: "'I _.,.. ;* w (JQ N 0 0 0 Q) -(!) ::>:> ::s 0. N 0 0 ,i:... N 0 0 24 Jul 31 Jul 7 Aug 14Aug 21 Aug 28 Aug 4 Sep 11 Dec 18 Dec 29 Dec 7 Jan 15 Jan 22Jan 29 Jan 5 Feb 11 Feb 20 Feb 25 Feb 3 Mar 10 Mar 18 Mar 23 Mar 29 Mar 0 ll , N 0 .. Ol 0 Kilograms co 0 ...... 0 0 ..... N 0 ...... .i:.. 0 ...... m 0 Number _. c: N 01 co 0 N "'I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ...... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 \C trl 24 Jul I "' -§" 31 Jul D "' -0. I 0. 7 Aug 14Aug D 3* "C =* 21 Aug (JCl "' 9 0 0 28Aug (,.) ::::: -"'I "' 4 Sep -rt> "' i:> ..... -=-"'I rt> 11 Dec "' 0. ::; ::::: 18 Dec "' =-"' 0. 29 Dec 0. .j:>. c: .j:>. "'I 7 Jan =* c (JCl QI N -Q CD 15 Jan Q w 22 Jan ::::: 0. N Q 29 Jan Q 5 Feb I 11 Feb p N 0 D 0 20 Feb 25 Feb D 3 Mar D 10 Mar I 18 Mar D 23 Mar 29 Mar Kilograms 11-:i = _,. N N w w .::.. .::.. 0 t,)'l 0 (J't 0 (J't 0 (J't 0 (J't ,..; . N 0 24 Jul 17-l "' :::.'; 31 Jul 3 ;;-0... 7 Aug 0-c;* 3 14 Aug fl) "' "' 0 _, (1Q i:i. N '"I 21 Aug N 0 28 Aug 0 (,) 0. "' 4 Sep I. 0.. 3 "Cl = 11 Dec (fQ 0... Q. 18 Dec s:: '"I ::s ()'Cl 29 Dec N 0 0 Vl w 7 Jan 0 i:.:i Col ::s 0. r+-('!) 15 Jan N 0 0 .::>. 22Jan 29 Jan 5 Feb 11 Feb N 0 20 Feb 0 .i:i. 25 Feb 3 Mar 10 Mar 18 Mar 23 Mar 29 Mar "!':l Kilograms N (,.) "' (JI (j) ....., = 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 '"! ('t> N 24 Jul 0 -t_'r'.l "' 31 Jul I I ..... ....... 8 I I ..... 7 Aug ('t> Q. D c;* 14Aug 3 r.:i "' I "' 21 Aug 0 .... N =1' 0 D ('t> 0 28Aug "' (,.) C" :.e 4Sep D :.:> ..... rt> '"! Q. '"! = 3 ....... 11 Dec 3 "' ....... = 18 Dec ('t> Q. Q. 29 Dec = '"! .;::.. ..... = 0\ 7 Jan N c 0 QI 0 .... D w ct> 15 Jan = Q. 22 Jan g N 0 0 29Jan 5 Feb I 11 Feb N 20 Feb D 0 0 "' 25 Feb D 3 Mar I 10 Mar I 18 Mar l 23 Mar I 29 Mar I

FISH ENTRAINMENT AT BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT, WHEELER RESERVOIR, ALABAMA, Tim YEARS 1978 and 1979 March 1980 Prepared by J. J:>. Buchanan Division of Water Resources E'isberies and Aquatic Ecology Branch Norris, Tennessee ., IN'l'RODUCl'ION Fish* .eggs and larvae entrained in cooling water may suffer mortality from one or more physical effects of passage through the plant. As a consequence, in conjunction with the construction of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFNP)1 rvA the preoperational characteristics and dynamics of the annual ichthyoplankton populations in Wheeler Reservoir (1971-1973) (reported fo Chapter 7 in BFNP Preoperational Fisheries Resources Report, TVA 197.Sa). This investigation was continued through initiation of commercial operation in 1974, and six years of monitoring data have been collected. The 1971-1977 data are available in Volume 4: Effects of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Cooling Water. Intake on the Fish Populations of Wheeler Reservoir (197Bb). This report augments this data base with the results of the 1978 and 1979 tions and provides a reassessment of the _1977 entrainment estimates. Specific objectives as presented in the previous description of larval fish entrainment at 'BFNP (1978b) were: 1. To define the annual patterns and fluctuations in density of the ichthyoplankton community near and/or transported past the plant. 2. To determine the species composition and relative abundance of the various taxa comprising the ichthyoplankton. 3. To define temporal distribution of fish eggs and larvae in order to determine periods of greatest plant entrainment. 4. To describe spatial distribution of ichthyoplankton near the plant in relation to the normal zo.ne of influence of 2 the cooling water intake and relative vulnerabili,ty of the various taxa to entrainment. 5. To estimate numbers and relative abundance of the various taxa entrained during plant operation. 6. To relate periodic densities and relative abundance of ichthyoplankton estimated to be with those in the reservoir in order to determine. and assess the impact of this entrainment on the fish community of Wheeler 'Reservo,ir. MATERIALS AND METHODS Reservoir Sampling Ichthyoplankton sampling was incorporated in the overall Browns Ferry fisheries monitoring program in 1971. San1pling gear and technique for estimating the abundance of ichthyoplankton modified in 1978 to better sample deeper strata. Concurrently, the primary transect sampled to measure seasonal transport of ichthyoplankton past BFNP was relocated at TRH 294.5 (Figure 1). The transect at TRM 293.0, referred to as the plant transect, and utilized since 1971, was maintained for comparison with TRM 294 .5. 'Each year samples were collected weekly during both day and night. Sample periods and corresponding dates for each year of full (three-unit) plant operation are listed in Table 1. Sample gea.r used in 1978 and 1979 consisted of a square 0.5 m (flow meter equipped) side-towed net (0.505. mm mesh). This net was capable of sampling the water column (except the lowest m) in a stair-step, oblique fashion. At a towing speed of l m/sec, 10-minute samples filtered . 3 approximately 150 m of water. This net replaced the 1 m diameter stern-towed net (0.79 mm mesh) used from 1971-1977 because it increased the effectiveness in sampling more than one or two discrete strata and boat _propwash could be avoided. Transport Estimation Techniques The method of estimating total numbers of eggs and larvae annually transported past BFNP from 1974-1977 utilized a cross-sectional. depth profile of the river at Tfill 293. The profile was subdivided into compartments to determine the ra ti.o of overbank 3 m depth) area to open water (> 3 m depth) area. Compartment *weighting factors (0.22-shore-linet 0.78-channel) were multiplied by corresponding larval fish densities BROWNS ISLAND Figure l :* 4 I I Larval Fish Sampling Stations BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT

• e * ** I * ........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . ........ . . ..... . .. . ...... . . . .* . . . . . ' ....
• Ill * * * * * .. * .f
• 41 ** . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . ... . . . .. . . . . ' e
• I I I * * ....... . . . ..... . . . . .. . . .. . . . ... . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * -= **** . .. . . . . ... . . . . . ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . tocatioo of larval fish sample stations (reservoir and intake) at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant in 1978 and 1979.

Table 1. Larval fish sample dates for reservoir and plant intake stations at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant during 1977-1979. Sam£_le Date Sample Period 1977 1978 -1979 l 3-16 3-27 3-13 2 3-23 4-03 3-19 3 3-30 4-10 3-27 4 4-06 4-20 4-02 5 4-13 4-24 4-10 6 4-19 5-01 4-17* 1 4-27 5-08 4-26 8 5-04 5-16 4-30 9 5-11 5-22 5-07 10 5-18 5-30 5-14 11 5-26 6-05 5-21 12 6-02 6-12 5-31 13 6-09 6-19 6-04 14 6-15 6-26 6-12 15 6-22 7-03 6-19 16 6-29* *-7-10 6-27 17 7-07* 7-17 7-02 18 7-13 7-24 7-10 19 7-20 7-31 7-16 20 7-27 8-07 7-25 21 8-03 8-14 7-30 22 8-10 8-21 8-13 23 8-17 8-28 8-06 24 8-24 8-20 25 8-27 intake samples takei1 to obtain a weighted mean transect density for each period. Data from both channel strata {surface and 5 m) were combined to calculate the weighted density for the channel or open water station. initial assumption ,of uniform water velocities across both main channel and overbank areas was in error according to estimates of flow in the transect colllJ>attments at both TRM 293.0 and 294.5 supplied by the TVA Water Systems Development Branch. VelQcity measurements on which these estimates are based were taken by the TVA Hydraulic Data Branch on August 1, 1969, at TRM 291.8 and 294.0 when the average river flow was 391000 *Cfs. '.rhe flows in eaclr trailsec.t compartment (TRM.'293.0 and 294.5) were calculated by multiplying the average velocity in each sample ment by its cross-sectional :area. Flow volWries were calculated for total overbank area and upper and lower strata of the channel or open water area 'Cortesponding to the sections sampled for ichthyoplankton. I<'igure 2 shows the depth profiles of the two sample transects with the proportionate river flow for. each sample compartment. These flow estimates were used as weighting factors to calculate the total number of fish eggs and larvae transp9rted past BFNP du.ring 1978 and 1979. This was an improvement over .the previous method was. based on the simple assumption of uniform transect velocity. Intake Samples densities in the intake basin at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant were sampled from 1974-1977 with a 3 x 3 array of 0 .5 m diameter (0.79 mm mesh) stationary nets. ln accordance with the change to 0.5 'm square nets in the reservoir in 1978, intake nets were also qhanged to 0.5 square with 0.505 llllll mesh; the 3 3 array was retained. The three rows of nets were fished at 0. 5 Ill t middepth, and D Browns Ferry Larval Sampling Stations 1978-1979 TRM TAM 293.0 294.5 ......... ............. Trar.sect Flow* Distribution(%) -E!11 Ci-.an;iel lower stratum El Left & Right overbank [3 Channel upper 5fratum Left 13 56 <>o 32 '° Channel lower stratum 23 Channel 1.q:iper stratum 41 Right overbank 04 % Figure 2: Cross-section profiles of reservoir transects at TRJ.1 293.0 and 294.5 including locations of samp.le compartments and percentages of river flow c:alculatecl for each stratum sampled. 8 approximately I m* f:rom the bottom. Nets were fished for two hours eJ<cept when high intake velocities owing to three-unit operatfon necessitated reduction in sampling duration to one hour. Flowmeters were mounted in intake nets to estimate the volume of water filtered during each sample. of Data Catch data from both reservoir transects and the intake basip 3 were converted to numbers per 1000 M of water filtered. Weekly densities were thus estimated for e-ach of three strata at the two reservoir transects, as well as in the intake basin. Calculation of total fish eggs and larvae transported past the plant utilizing the weighting factors for flow in each sample compartment was accomplished as follows: Observed density x flow weighting factor = weighted density (for each compattment); 1 weighted densities (all compartments in transect) = transect weighted density (includes day and night samples); J weighted density x daily average. flow (m ) past plant = total number ti'ansported/24 hours. Total annual transport can be estimated by determining the area under a graph of numbers transported by sample period. Transported ichthyoplankton and pro.portion entrained by the plan.t by sample pe:rlod were both estimated in th.is maoner for each family collected, as well as total eggs and larvae. Individual intake samples were averaged ,,.. .r 9 to provide overall intake densities for each sample period. Plant ment rate was estimated by the following equation: Di where Di 3 = mean density (No./1,000 m ) x 100 Dr Qr of eggs or larvae in intake samples; Dr = weighted density (No./1,000 m ) of eggs or larvae in the reservoir Qi (transect); 3 = intake water (m /day); Qr = reservoir flow (m /day). Reservoir flows past the plant for each sample period were estimated based on the upstream and downstream hydroelectric releases and tributary inflow (provided by TVA Hydraulic Data Intake water demand was calculated from known rating (833 m3/mi11ule each) of condenser circulating pumps. The number of pumps operating during each sample period was recGrded. Table 2 lists 24-hour reservoir (Qr) and intake (Qi) flows (m3 x 106) and proportion hydraulic plant entrainment (Qi/Qr) for 1977-1979 by sample period. Table 2. Reservoir (Q ) and intake (Q.) flows (m3 x io6) at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, 1977-1979. Flows are 24-hour totafs. (Q./Q ) = hydraul;ic entrainment. 1 r Sampling 1977 1'978 1979 Period Qr Qi Qi/Qr Qr (li Qi/Qr Qr Q. Q/Qr 1 l 296,06 7.19 0.024 86.12 7.19 0.083 303.37 10. 79 o*.035 2 95,91 8.39 0.087 64. l-0 7.19 0.112 139.21 10.79 o.on 3 87.10 10. 79 o.u3 64.59 7.19 lL 111 128.44 10.79 0.0&4 4 511.88. 10.79 0.021 39.15 7.19 0,.1$4 Hl.56 10.79 0.096 5 189.-87 9.59 0.050 45.51 7 .19 0.158 100.30 10.79 o . .io7 6 119 .65 8.39 0.010 6Q.92 7 .19 0.118 224.84 10.79 0.047 7 118. 76 9 *. 59 o. 08*1 143.37 7.19 0.050 92.48 10.79 0.116 8 9&.85 9.59 0.097 103.49 9.59 0.093 98.84 9.59 0.097 9 95.91 10. 79 0.112 77.80 7.19 0.092 79.51 9.59 0.120 10 77.56 10.79 0.139 47.95 9.59 0.200 80.73 9.59 O. ll8 11 82.54 10. 79 0.130 57.25 8.99 0.157 75.35 7.19 0 .. 095 12 76.83 10.79 0.140 100.80 9.59 0.095 179.08 9.59 0.053 13 73.65 10.79 0.146 56.52 8.99 0.159 213.09 10.79 0.050 14 92.98 9.59 0 .103 76.09 8.39 .0.110 106. 91 10.79 0.10.0 15 88.08 7119 0.081 92.97 8.39 0.090 83.67 10.79 0.128 16 66.06 1 70.46 8.39 0.119 83.18 10. 79 0.129 17 78.05 -63.37 8.39 0.132 85.87 10.79 0.125 18 60.68 7.19 Q.118 96.40 8.39 0.087 87.09 10.79 0.12.3 19 70. 71 9.59 o*.135 33.52 8.39 0.250 108.38 10.79 0.099 20 73.40 9 .59 0.130 43.67 8.39 0 .192 221.65 10.79 0.0'48 21 48.93 10.79 0.220 59.33 8.39 0.141 185.69 10. 79 0.058 22 48.44 9.S9 0.197 57.98 8.39 0.145 l l7 .43 10.79 0.09*1 23 6.2.39 9.59 o.153 50.89 9.59 0.18.8 110. 82. lO. 79 0.097 24 39 .15 10. 79 0.275 94.92 9.59 O. lOl 2.5 119.39 7.79 0.065 Mean Seasonal hyd. ent. 0.12 0.133 0.09 --*-.. *-------------------1. Data are not available due to plant operational characteristics. ..... 0 .. / 11 RESULTS Seasonal occurrence and relative abundance of major taxa of fish eggs and larvae colfected in 1978 and 1979 were determined for the reservoir transects (TRM 293.0 and 294.5) and basin. Temporal distribution of larval populations in relation to seasonal transport and entrainment was also determined. Because this report serves to update the results of larval entrairunent at Browns Ferry from 1974-1977 (TVA 1978b), results were compared with those reported for 1977, the first year of full (three-unit) plant operation. In addition to use for estimating egg larval entrainment in 1978 and 1979, the modified weighting factors (based on flow) for TID-1 293.0 were applied to the .1977 data, and the results compared to the earlier estimate. Occurrence and Relative Abundance of Eggs and Larvae 1978 .Planktonic fish eggs were most abundant at Tfil'I 293.0 in 1978 (Appendix Bl) and were virtually all (drum) eggs (Appendix Al). Highest densities of eggs at all three transects (Appendix Bl) occurred on May 22. This was similar to the period of greatest egg density (31500/1,000 m3) in 1977, which was May 18 (TVA 1978b). 1979 Egg densities in 1979 were again greater (7 times) at TRM 293.0 than at TRM 294.5. The peak density in 1979 (5,500/1,000 m3) was similar to the peak in 1978, (61500/1,000 m3) but occurred four weeks later on 12 June 19 (Appendix B2). Greatest densities observed at both TRM 294.S and in the intake basin were approximately 700/1,000 on May 21 and June 12, respectively. Larvae 1978 Larval fish from 14 families were collected in 1978 (Appendix Al); two of th.ese (Lepisostiidae and Poeciliidae) had not been collected in earlier years. Five families were represented by only one specimen each (Appendix Al). As in previous years, the family Clupeidae was the most abundant, composing a high of 95 .5 percent of all larvae collected at TRM 294.5 and a low of. 93.8 percent at the TRM 293.0 transect (Appendix Al). Intake samples .94. 7 percent clupeids. Percicht.hyi.dae and Centrar-chidae were second and third in abundance at the reservoir transects. Temporal of total larval fish by transect for each sample period during 1978 and 1979 are shown in Appendix B. Larval densities in the reservoir and intake highest duri.ng the month of May (Appendix B3). The greatest density (36,400/1,000 m3) was observed at TRM 2!}4.5 on May*22. Larval density in the plant intake was highest (16,800/I,OOO m3) a week earlier (Hay 16). Downstream, at TR.11 293.0, a peak larval density of 3 17 ,700/1,000 m was recorded on May 30. Appendix C contains densities by sample period and transect for the major families of larval fish collected in 1978 and 1979. Twelve families of fish larvae were collected in the 1979 samples, including one fqmily (one specimen) Pet.romyzontidae (lampreys), not !!>>" 13 previously observed in BFNP larval samples. Relative abl!ndance of was lower at all transects than in previous years, ranging from 87.8 percent in the intake to 91. 7 percent at TRH 294.5 (Appendix A2). Pel:'cichthyids (white and yellow bass) and sciaenids (drum) were second and third in abundance, respectively, and each comp.osed from two to four percent of the catch at all three transects. As observed in 1978, greatest larval densities occurred during May (Appendix B4). Intake larval densities were highest on May 7 and 14 at 3,100/1,000 m3. Reservoir densities of 10,100 and 7,700/1,000 rn3 were observed 294.5 (May 14) and TRl1 293.0 (May 7), respectively.' Entrainment 1977 The previous (TVA 1978b) estimate for entrairunent of fish eggs by BFNP was 2.3 percent. This estimate {as described in methods section) was derived by weighting egg densities by only the cross-sectional area in each compartment sampled. Application of the weighting factors based on volume flow in each compartment (Figure 2) to the 1977 data resulted in an increase in estimated egg entrainment to 2.7 percent. This resulted from a lower estimate (4. 76 x 109) of transported eggs than was estimated by the previous method (6.44 x 109). Table 3 shows egg and larval ment by year (1977-1979) both by family and for total eggs and larvae. For 1977, the previous entrainment estimates (TVA 1978b)*are given in paren-theses for comparison with current estimates. 14 Table 3. Annual entrainment (percent) of fish eggs and larvae by family at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant from 1977-1979. Estimated Entrainment (Eercent) Family 1977* 1979** eggs ().7 (0. 3) 5 .* 9 114 .9t Clupeidae eggs I NC NC Sciaenidae eggs 2.7 (2.3) 3.6 8.0 Unidentifiable eggs 12.1 (10.3) 5.9 5.5 Petromyzontidae NC NC I Lepisosteidae NC I NC Clupeidae 9.1 (12. 1) 5.3 4.3 Hiodontidae 1.2 (1.2) 2. l 4.5 Cyprinidae 2.9 (4.8) 2.3 7 .8 Catostomidae 4.1 (4.5) 19.2 3.1 Ictaluridae 31.5 (29.0) 16.4 6.4 NC I 25.9 Poeciiiidae NC I NC Percichthyidae 11.8 (15.6) 14.7 S.3 Centrarchidae 3.5 (4.8) 2.2 3.6 Percidae 12.7 (14. 6) 14.7 13.8 Sciaenidae 6.3 (6.1) 4.4 8.5 Atherinidae R R I Total eggs 2.7 (2.3) 3.6 8. l Total fish 9.0 (11. 7) 5.4 4.5 Mean hydraulic entrainment 12.0 13.3 9.0 (see Table 2) *Based on densities and weighting factors from TRM 293.0 -values in parentheses are previous entrainment estimates weighted by cross-sectional area only. ()n densities *and weighting factors from TRtf 294.5. tseventy-six spec;ime.rts collected in intake bR.sin, six collected in reservoir sampling; thus high entrainment estimate. 1 -Collected in intake samples but not in reservoir (TRM 293.0-1977; TRM 294.5-1978.-1979) sample!J, entrairunent estimate not possible. B -Collected in reservoir samples but not in intake samples, *estimates effectively zero. NC -None collected in either reservoir or intake samples. 15 Mean hydraulic: entrainment (percent of river flo*w by the plant) is shown in Table 3 and was calculated by averaging the 24-hour hydraulic entrainment estimat.es from recorded plant-intake volumes during each sample period. During the period of March 16-August 24, 1977, 12 percent of the flow past BFNP was entrained. This was an increase of 3.6 over entrainment in 1976 (TVA 1978b) due to initial three-unit plant operation in 1977. 1978 .Samples from the transect at TRM 294.5 in *1978 contained.iower densities of fish eggs than observed at TRM 293.0 (Appendix Bl). Calcula-ted total eggs transported (using densities TRH 294.5) in 1978 were 1.37 :x 109. Estimated entrainment of fish eggs was 5.00 x 107, yielding an estimate of 3. 6 percent (Table 3). Mean pydraulic ment in 1978 was 13.3 percent, again higher than the previous year. 1979 Due to increased river flow in 1979 (Table 2), mean hydraulic entrainment was 9.0 percent, a de-crease of 4.3 percent from 1978. Total egg transport for 1979 was 2.30 x 109; total egg by the plant was 1.88 x 108, resulting in an entrainment estimate of 8.1 percent. Larvae 1977 Total larval entrainment for 1977, based on cross-sectional transect weighting factors was estimated to be 11.7 percent (TVA I978b). Utilizing the same densities from the plant transect (TRM 293.0), the 16 weighting factors based on flow were applied, and the est.imate for iarv_,1 entrainutent in 1977 was 9.0 percent (Table 3). Entrainment of the most abundant family, Clupeidae, decreased from 12.1 to 9.4 percent using thl,s method. Conversely, entrainment of Ictaluridae increased from 29.0 tp 32.9 percent. Estimates for Percichthyidae and Percida.e decreased from 15.t;j and to 11.7 and 12..6 percent, respecti'1'ely (Table 3). Entrainment of drum larvae (Sciaenidae) increased from 6.1 to 6.6 percent based on the estimates weighted by compartmental volumes. 1978 In 1978, an estimated 5.35 x 1010 fish larvae were transported past the plant with 2.92 x 109 of these entrained, yielding an annual estimated entrainment of 5.4 percent {Table 3). Again, total entrainment paralleled that oJ the domin<ctnt clt.1pei<fs (5. 3 percent). The two families with the highes.t estimated entrainment were Catostomidae and Ictaluridae at 19; 2 and 16 .5 percent,, r;es'pectively, Two other families, Percichthyidae and Percidae, were estimated to be entrained at rates of 14.8 and 14.5 percent. respectively. 10 Total larval transport in 1979 was estimated to be 2.97 x 10 , lower than for either of the two previous years. Larval entrainment in 1979 was estimated to be 1. 34 x 109, less than one-half the estimated number$ entrained in 1978 .. Entrainment for total fisb larvae transported in 1979 was es*timated to be 4.5 percent. Entrainment of clupeids was 4.4 percent. Cyprinodontidae (topminilow) showed the highest entrainment rate (26.0 percent), but this was based on only two specimens (one each 17 from TRM 294.5 and the intake). Percidae, at 13.9 percent, was the only other family with estimated entrainment greater than 10 percent. Larval drum (Sciaenidae) at 8.6 percent, ranked highest of the remaining families.(Table 3). 18 DISCUSSION entrainment at BFNP during ichthyoplankton sample periods for the first three years of operation, has been 12.0, 13.3, and 9.0 percent for 1977, 1978, and 1979, respectively (Table 3). Entrainment estimates for fish eggs and larvae prior

• to 1978 were derived from reservoir density measurements immediately downstream of the plant at TRM 293.0 (Figure 1). Beginning in 1978, ichthyoplankton transport was calculated from samples collected at TRM 294.5, immediately upstream of the BFNP intake. This transect should more accurately depict egg and larval populations subjected to entrainment. The addition of the sampling station on the south overbank or left line (Figure 1) at TRM 294.5 should further improve estimates of plankton transported past the plant. The availability of velocity profile data from both transects (Figure 2) has rectified the overly simplistic assumption of uniform velocities in both the channel and overbank areas. The horizontal and vertical compartments of the transect were found to have varying water velocities (Figure 2), which required a new estimate for transported eggs and larvae. The refined weighting factors derived from this data resulted in an estimated increase of 0.4 percent for entrainment of fish eggs in 1977; estimated larval entrainment, however, decreased 2.7 percent (Table 3). These variations are due to nonuniform distribution of eggs and larvae between overbank and channel as well as between the upper and lower strata of the channel.

19 Entrainment estimates of 3.6 and 8.1 percent for fish eggs in 1918 and 1979 respectively, represe.p.t a progressive increase over the estimate for 1977.. This increase is attdbuted to the ob$erved difference in abundance of (drum) eggs 'between the two reservoir transects (Appendix Al .an<;! A2). Densities more than an order of magnitude lower at TRM 294.5 than at TRM 293.0 (Appendix Bl and B2) resulted in a significantly lower esti1n.ate of numbers transported and, thus, a greater proportion entrained. It appears th.at in 1978 and 1979, intensive spawning by drum occurred adjacent to or immediately belowBFNP. Since large numbers of drum eggs appear to be spawned below the plant,. it is concluded that estimated. entraiDDient of 8.1 pereent of eggs (highest of three years diScussed) transported past BFNP in 1979 is not a significant adverse impact to the Wheeler Reservoir fish community. In support of this hypothesis, if 1978 data from the TlU1 293.0 transect are employed to estimate egg entrairunent, only 0.5 percent of the total transported eggs are estimated to be entrained. Entratnment of fish larvae, µnl.ike that observed for eggs, showed a decreasing trend for the three years of full (three-unit) operation at BFNP. Even though the highest hydraulic entrairunent (13.3 percent) occurred. ,in 1978, larval entrainment (5.4 percent) showed a decrease of 60 percent f.tom th.e highest obsetved entrainment of 9.0 percent (in 1977). For parison, since entrainment was estimated from a different t.ransect (TRM 294.5) beginning in 1978, data from TRM 293.0 analyzed by the same method yielded an of 6.1 percent entrainment for transported fish larvae. IP.. 1979, hydraulic entrdnment (9. 0 percent) as well as larval entrainment (4.5 percent) decreased from levels observed in 1978. The four families with e$timated entrainment of greater than 10 percent i.n 1978 all had lower entrainment estimates in 1979 (Table 3). A!llon,g the four, 1:mly Percidae (logpE?rch and sauger) continued to be 20 entrained at greater than 10 (13.8) percent. Percids frequently were collected in greater densities in the BFNP intake than at either of the two' reservoir transects (Appendix C 13 and 14), which accounts for entrainment estimates ranging from 12. i to* 14. 7 percent during These data suggest that some percid spawning (probably logperch) may be occurring in or near the intake basin. Ictalurids (catfishes) were similarly collected in the intake in densities often greater than those observed in the reservoir and are also suspected to spawn in the basin. Catostomids (buffalo and suckers) were estimated to be entrained at rates (Table 3) lower than for total larvae in 1977 (4.1 Vs 9.0) ana 1979 (3.1 vs 4.5). Irt 1978, entrainment of catostomids was a sing 19.2 percent. However, on April 20 when catostomids were at peak density (Appendix CS) in both intake and reservoir samples, hydraulic _entrainment by BFNP was 18.4 percent. Percichthyid (white and yellow bass) entrainment in 1977 (11.8 percent) and 1978 (14.7 percent) closely leled hydraulic entrainment (Table 3), but was considerably lower (5.3 percent) in 1979. Percichthyids are the only family of the four discussed above which consistently compose greater than 1 percent of total larvae collected in EFNP larval samples. In 1978 and 1979t percichthyids ranked second only to clupeids in relative abundance at all transects and prised a larger percentage of larvae collected in intake samples (1977-1979) than at either reservoir transect (Appendix A). 21 SUMMARY In sWlmlary, entrainment'estimates for total larvae in 1978 (5.4 percent) and 1979 (4.5 percent) were considerably lower than those calculated for 1977 (9.0 percent), the initial year of full plant operation. Sampling procedures and weighting factors for estimating of f isb eggs and larvae transported past the plant have both improved since the earlier report on entrainment at BFNP (TVA 1978b). Samples from the t*ransect added at TRM 294 .5 should more accurately reflect those eggs a*nd larvae most susceptible to plant entrairunent. Since ichthyoplankton in Wheeler Reservoir are produced above and below BFNP, it can be concluded that estimated plant entraininent, as given here, would not add significantly to expected natural mortality of fiS'h eggs and larvae in the reservoir. 22 REFt:RENCES Tennessee Valley Authority. 1978a. Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Preopera tional Fisheries Res.ources Report. Norris, Tennessee: Division of.forestry, Fisheries, and Wildlife Development, Fisheries and Waterfowl Resources Branch. 1978. 130-157. 1978b. Effects of the Ferry Nuclear Plant Cooling Water Intake, on the Fish Populations of Wheeler Reservoir. Norris, Tennessee: Division of Forestry, Fisheries, and Wildlife Development. 1978. (Biological Effects of Intake Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant; Volume _4.)

• APPENDIX A TOTAL NUMBERS COLLECTED AND RELATIVE ABUNDANCE OF FISH/EGGS AND LARVAE . BY FAMILY AND TRANSECT IN 1978_AND 1979 Key to conunon names of families Family Name PetrQmyzontidae Polyodontidae Lepisosteidae Clupeidae Hiodontidae Cyprinidae Ictaluridae Cyprinodontidae Poeciliidae Percichthyidae Centrarchidae Percidae Sciaenidae Atherinidae Common Name* lampreys paddle fish gar shad and skipjack mooneye minnows and carp buffalo and suckers catfishes topminnows mosquito fish white and yellow bass crappie and sunfishes sauger and logperch freshwater drum broQk silversides *Most common taxa of family occurring Wheeler Reservoir fish. larvae samples.

Al. Total number and relative abundance (percent) of fish egp;s and larvae collected at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant in 1978. TRM 294.5 Intake Basin Plant Transect (TRM 293) Tbtal Relative Total Relative Total Relative Fish Eggs and Larvae Collected Abundance Collected Abundance Collected Abundance Sciaenid eggs (drum) 2,601 92.93 4,087 98.55 18,658 99.97 Unidentifiable fish eggs 198 7.07 60 1.45 5 0.03 Family Clupeidae -155, 702 95.52 213,043 94.70 83,894 93.76 Percichthyidae 2,404 1.47 6,581 2.93 2,527 2 *. 82 Centrarchidae 2,192 1.34 1,283 0.57 1.20 Sciaenidae 1,191 0.73 2,147 0.95 865 0.97 Catostomidae 746 0.46 1,152 0.51 662 o. 74 Cyprinidae 564 0.35 249 0.11 366 0.41 Percidae 117 0.07 289 0.13 62 0.07 Unidentifiable fish larvae 67 0.04 167 0.07 13 0.01 Ictaluridae 12 0.01 56 0.02 18 0.02 Hiodontidae J <0.01 3 < o. 01 4 <0.0i Atherinidae 1 <0.01 0 0.00 0 o.oo Lepisosteidae 0 o.oo. 1 < O. Ol 0 0.00 Cyprinodontidae 0 o.oo 1 < o. 01 0 o.oo Poeciliidae 0 0.00 l* < O.Ol 0 0.00 Polyodontidae 0 o.oo 0 o.oo 1 < 0.01 A2. Total number and relative abundance (percent) of fish eggs and larvae collected at Browns Fer:ry Muclear Plant in 1979. TRM 29.4.5 Intake Basin Plant Transect 293) Total ReJ.etive Total Relative Tot<!ll Relative Fisq Eggs and Larvae Collected Abundance Collected Abundance Collected Abundance Sciaenld Eggs (drum) 2,883 99.93 9,589 99.21 12,128 99.97 Unid'entifiable fish eggs 2 0.07 76 0.79 4 0.()3 *Family Clupeidae 46,068 91.70 62,206 87.76 37,828 90.39 Percichtbyidae 1,721 3.43 3,022 4.26 1,560 Sciaenidae 963 1.92 2,823 3.98 981 2.34 Cyprinidae 468 0.93 1.64 818 1.95 Catostom!C!ae 525 1.04 8*64 1.22 340 0.81 Centrarchidae 303 0.60 396 0.56 167 0.40 .Percidae 104 0.21 255 0.36 63 0.15 Vnidentifiable fish larvae 63 0.13 84 0.12 66 0.16 Ictalm:idae 16 0.03 54 0.08 19 0.05 Hiodontidae 8 0.02 11 0.02 9 0.02 Pett'omyzontidae 0 o.oo 1 0.00 0 o.oo Cyprinodont:idae 1 0.00 l o.oo 0 o.oo . Ather!nidae. 0 o.oo l o.oo 0 o.oo APPENDIX B TEMPORAL DISTRIBUTION OF EGGS AND LARVAE BY TRANSECT IN 1978 AND 1979 Ordinate values are given in logaritluns, i.e., 0 = 1, +1 = 10, etc. OBS HIDDEN -indicates values plotted on top of another by computer due to approximate densities at two or three transects h G G E D N y T I E s NOTES p p T l I 3 oas 111001:.N Bl. DENSITIES OF LARVAL COLLECTED IN LARVAL FISH AT BROWNS NUCLEAR PLANT, 1Q78 TAXATYPEzFlSH EGGS p T p T I I PLUT OF LOGOEN*PERIOO p p p T T I I T I p T I p T I p I T p I p T I I T SVMBOL IS VALUE OF TRANSECT p p p 1 T p T I I J p T 1 p I *1 -P -Plant Transect (TRM 293) T -TIUI 294.,5 p T SAMPLE (WEEKLY) 'I>; L 0 G G E 0 D E N s I T I E 8 B A. s E T E Ill I f 5 + I I I I I I 4 t I I I I I I 3 ... I ' t ' I I 2 ... ' I I I f I l

• I I I I I ' 0 + p I ' I I I I *1 ... I B2. OtNS(T[ES UF LARVAL FISHES COLLECTlD IN LAHVAL FISH AT NUCLEAR PLANT, 197Q TAXATYPE:FJSH EGGS YEAR:1Q79 PLOT OF LOGVEN*PERIOD SYMROL IS VALUE OF TRANSECT I -Intake P -Plant Transect (TRM 293) [ p l I J p p T T t I p T I p I I f> T p I T p I T p J T T I p T -1'RM 29/i .5 p p p T T p T I p T I p T T p t 1 2 3 q 5 6 1 8 g to 11 12 t3 1q 15 *1& 17 ta lQ 20 21 22 23 24 l5 SAMPLE Pf RIOD (WEEKLY) t.JOTE I 2 HIODt"1 h G G E 0 N s l l s B A s 5 E 1 l. N 0 NOTEI I I + I ' I
• t I p T + p I f I . l ' I I + I ' I T I I p I
• I I I
• l I I + f T I p I p I I T I I + I I l ' I I + f B3. OF LARVAL FIShES COLLECTED LARVAL FISH MONITORING.AT BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR 1978 TAXATYPE=FISH YlAR:t97a PLOT OF LOGOEN*-ERIOD SYMBOL IS VALUE OF T p p J I p p I -Intake P -Plant Transect (tBM 293) T l T p l T -TRM 294 .'5 l I p T I I l ,,. T p p T T l T p p l T T T p p I p p p I l I I I 1 I -----+--+**+**+**+**+**+**+**+--+**+**+**+**+**+--+--+--+-*+**+**+**+**+**+--+--+-*+--+--+--*--+--** 1 Z 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 tS tb 17 18 1Q 20 21 22 23 24 2S 28 29 3-0 31 SAMPLE PERIOD CwEEKLY) 8 065 HIOOE.N .,,,

5 " l 0 G G E 0 3 D E N s I T I i:: 2 s a A s E *t T E N 0 -1 JOTE: I I + I I ' I I I + I I I I I I + I I l I I f + I I I I I I + I I I I I I + I I I I I I ... I p T p I T p I B4. 0£1-iSJllE.S OF !..ARV.AL f-TSHES .COLLECTl:.D IN LARVAL FISH MONITORING AT BROWNS FERRY NtJCLE.AR PLANT, f979 TAXATYPE:FISH LARVAE Y£AR:t979 PLOT OF SYMBOL rs VALUE OF TRANSECT I -Intake T P -Plant Transect p p p p T T p I l p I T l I p p T I I p p T 1 p 1 p I r I p I T -TRM 2%.5 T I p I p T I p T I (TRM 293)

• p T I T p I I p 1 1 2 3 ti o 7 B q I 0 11 t Z. 13 1 i.l .15 1 b 1 7 18 1 q 20 21 22
• 23 2<<a 25 SA'-'PLE PF.RlPO Civf.:EKLY) 15 OBS HJODl:'N APPENDIX C LARVAL FISJt DEN'.SITIES FOR MAJOR FAMILIES .BY TRANSECT AND SAMPLE PERIOD IN 1978 AND 1979 Ordinate values are given in logarithms, :i.. e. , -0 = 1, +1 = 10, etc. OBS HIDDEN -indicates values plutted on top of another by computer due to approximate densities at two or three transects Cl. OF LARVAL FISHES COLLECTED JN LARVAL FISH AT FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT, 1Q78 YE.AR:1cna PLOT OF LOGDEN*PERIOD SYMHOL IS VALUt OF TRANSECT I I 5 + I I I T I I I T 1 p I -Intake T p I T jJ T p u + L I *a I G I G I E I 0 I 1 p p P -Plant Transect (TR.."I 293) T I T p T T -TRM 294.S I I p T l 3 .. 0 I E t N I I I l T s I l I I I 2 + r E I s I I M I T p fJ I I T T p T T p l T I p A I s I E l + I T I p T p I J p 1 I p f I I N I T I p I l 0 ... f I 1 I I I I I *1 + i -----t--+--+--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*-*+**+**+*-*--**-*--*--+--+--*--+--+--+--+-*+**+**+*-*--*--** 1 2 3 5 & 7 8 9 10 11 12 ll 15 16 17 18 1Q 20 21* 22 23 2" 25 2b 27 28 29 30 31 SAMPLE PERIOD (WEEKLY) 5 HlOOEN *'

Ii 4 L 0 G G E 0 l D E N s 1 T I 2 E s ij fl. s E 1 T E N 0 *-1 NDH.: I I + ( I I I I I *+ I I I I I I + t I I . f I I + I I I I I I + I I I I I I

• I I I I ' I + I p T p T I T p 1 r il l T fl t C2. Ot..NSJTlES UF LA.RVAL FISHES COLLECTl:l'I AT NLlCLEAR PLANT, 1q79 FAITL'r::lllb f>lSH_\IAfvl:CLIJPE.JOAI-. YEAf.l:1q7q PLOT OF IS Of I -Intake P -Plant Transect T -TRM 294.5 T p p p p T p l p p t I l p T l I T T p T T I p I I l 1 T I p p p I I T p I (TRM 293) p T T p t T I I p r 1 3 q 5 b 7 A q 10 tt tZ 13 14 15 lb 17 tQ 20 2\ 22 23 24 25 Pf PJOO (WEEKLY)

L 0 G G E. 0 0 E "' $ I T I E s 8 A s E T E N I I s + I I I I I I q + I I I I I I 3 + I I I I t I 2 + t I I I I I . l + I I I I t t {) + I I t I I I -1 + I p T I I CJ. Ll\f.lVAL f' I T p T I DtNSITitS Of LARVAL COLLtCTtD FISH MONlTl)klNG AT AROWNS FERRY PLANT, 1Q76 FAMlLY=111 VEAR:tq78 PLOT OF LLJGDEN*PERIOD SYMBOL IS VALUE OF TRANSE.CT p T I p p p I 1 I T . I T p T p p T I I p p I p T 1 T p I T p 1 I -Intake P -Plant Transect (TRM 293) T -TRM 294.5 T p p I I -----+--+--+--+--+--+-*+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+-*+**+**+*-+-*+**+**+**+**+**+**+**+**+**-* t ?. 3 U 5 b 7 B Q 10 lt 12 13 14 15 1& 17 18 1Q 20 21 22 23 2U 25 26 27 28 2Q 30 31 SAMPLE PERIOD (WEEKLY) NO Tf:. I b OBS HlDDf.N , 5 q L 0 G G E D 3 0 f .N s r T I 2 E s 8 A s E 1 T E N 0 -1 NOTf:.: l ' + I I I I I I + I I I I I I + I I I f f I + I I I I I I + I

• t I I I + I T I I I I I + I C4. Otf*;SlfHS OF LARVAL F-!S"1ES Cl1LLfCTf:O AT HROWNS FfRRV NUCLEAR \Q7Q YEAR=tQ79 PLOl OF LOGDEN*PERIOD SVM8UL IS VALUE OF TRANSECT I -Intake P -Plant.Transect (TRM 293) T -TRM 294.5 p p p p p T p T p I p I I p I T T I T I p p l l I T p T p I p p r I l t T p l p l ., T T r I I T I p I l 1 ! a 5 h 7 K q 10 tt 12 ll 14 15 1b 17 18 tQ 20 21 22 23 2a 25 SAMPLf PERtno h OHS H!Ol)f M CS. DENSlJIES OF LARVAL FISHES COLLECTED IN LaRVAL FISH MONITOP!NG AT FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT, 1q1R FAMILY:1t2 FlSH-NAM:CATrlSTOMIOAE YEAP:t978 PLOT OF LOGDEN*PERIDO SYMBOL JS VALUE OF TRANSECT I I 5 + I I I I ' I -Intake I a + L I P -Plant Transect (TRM 293) 0 I G I T -TRM 294.5 G I E I 0 I 3 ... 0 I E , p "' I. s I I T I t T T I T l 2 + p I s I I I p 6 I T A I r s I p I E 1 + I I p T I I .I E r N ' I r 0 + p I I t ' I I 1 *1 + I -----+--+--+*-+--+--+--+--+--+-*+**+--+--+--+--+--+--+-*+--+--+--+--+-*+**+**+**+--+--+--+--+**+**** 1 2 3 S b 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 IS lb 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 26 27 28 2Q 30 31 SAMPLE PE::RlllD (WEEKLY) NOTE: 2 OBS HJDOEM

.1 b G G .£ D D E N s I T I I 5 + I I I I I I q .. i I I I I *

• I I I I I I I 2 + § B A s E 1 T E N 0 *1 I I t ' I I + I I I J I t ... I I I I I ' t I p p p T I I C6. OfllSIT IES OF LARVAL f JSHES COLLFCTE() AT HROWNS f lRWY PLANT 1q7q FAkTLY=tl? FJSH_NAM:CATOSTOMJDAF YEAR:t979 PLOT flF LOGOEN*PERIOfl SYMHOl IS *vALIJf OF TRA111SECT I -Intake P -Plant (TRM 293) T -TRM 294.5 p 1 *t p f I T J T l p T T T 1 2 3 4 S h 1 8 9 l 0 1 1 1 ?. 1 .J I 4 1 5 1 n 1 7 t 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 Q 25 SAMPLE PfRino (WEEKLY) NOTE:

b G G 0 E s I T I E s B A. s E T E I I 5 + r I I I t 4 + I I I I I 3 + I I ' I I I 2 + I I I I I I l + I I t I I I 0 + ' I I I I . *1 + I Cl. OF LARVAL FISHES COLLECTED IN LANVAL FISH MONITORING AT HHOWNS FtRRY PLANT, J97R FAMILY=113 PLOT OF-LUGDENtrPfHIOO SYMBOL IS VALUE:. flF TRANSECT I -Intake P -Plant Transect (TRM 293) T -TRM 294.5 p T p I T p p I T I I p I T I T T l I I ***--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+-*+--+-*+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+-*+**+**+**+**-* 1 2 3 u 5 o 7 8 q 10 11 12 13 14 15 lb 17 18 1q 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 Z8 29 30 31 SAt.1PLE PER It)D C WE'El<L Y) NOTfz 2 OBS HIDDEN i i I. I I I I \ I t 5 ... I I f ' I' I 4 + L f 0 t G ' G I E I D I l + D

• E I N I s I I I T J l 2 + E I s I I 8 t A I s t E 1 + I T 1 E I N I
• I p 0 ... l p I T T I I I ' I *t + ' CB. OF*'<ISrilf:S l)F LARVAL flSHt.S COLLF.CTE:D A"l FERRY NUCLfAH PLANT, 1q79 FAt-'lLY::113 t-lSH_raiv.:JCTALtlRll)AF YEAR=l'Hq PLOT Uf SYMBOL IS VALUE OF TRANSECT I -Intake P -Plant Transect (TRM 293) T -TRM 294.5 r p p p T T T I T p 1 p p p l T p p p l I I I I I I J I 2 l.I 5 fl l 8 Q 10 lt 12 13 1" 15 th 1"1 18 lq 20 2t 22. 23 ?.4 25 SAMPLf PfRJnn NOTE:

&.. 0 G ,.. QI E 0 0 E s I T l E s a f4 r -., 5 + I I I I I I " + I I I I I 3 + I I p ., p I ' . T T ' p l l + T I ' I t I I I .1 + I I I ' I I I 0 + I I ' ' I I -1 + ' C9. DENSITltS OF LARVAL FlSHfS COLLECTED IN LARVAL FISH AT BROWNS NUCLEAR PLANT, 1978 VEAU:t978 PLOT Of SYMHOL IS VALUE OF I -Intake P -Plant Transect (TRM 293) T -TRM 294.5 p I T T I p T I T I T l I I p p p p T I l I I *--*-**-+-*+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+**+--+--+--+--+--+--+-*+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+*-+**+*---1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 q 10 11 12 13 1U 15 tb 17 18 lQ 20 21 22.23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30. 31 SAMPLE PERIOD OTE1 3 HIDDEN .&

• I 5 + I ' I f I ' 4 ... l ' 0 I G I G I E I 0 t l .. 0 I e I p N I s I T I I T I I 2 + E ' s I 8 I t .0, I s I e 1 ... r I p T I E I N '
• I 0 ... I 1 I I I I ' *l + I ClO, lifiJS[TU'.:S LlF LARVAL FlSl-IF.S ClJLLECTH\ AT bWfJiHNS FERRY NUCLl-.AR PHq rAMtLV=1t:12 FlSH-NAM::PfRCJClHt1\'IOAF PLOT OF LOGOtN*PERlOO IS VALUE OF I -Intake P -Plant Transect (TRM293) T -TRM 294.5 r p p p p T I I I I I T T p p r I I p p p I p T T T --+ ..... -+ .... + ---+ ..... -+-,. ..... ---t--*--+--....... ... --+---+---+ *-*+---*---+ *--+-**--*---*---+***+***+***+***+*-*+* 1 ? .5 lJ 5 f> I A q 1 0 tt 12 13 l ii 1 5 1"6 1 7 1 1 9 20 21 22 23 2.tf 25 PER[OD NOH s l 0 G G E 0 0 E N s l I E s B A 8 E T E N I I 5 + I I I I I I 4 + I I I I I I 3 + I I I I I I z + I ' I I I I 1 + I I I I I I 0 + I I I I I ' -1 + I p T p I I p l Cll. DENSITIES OF LARVAL COLLECTED IN LARVAL FISH MONITORING AT FERRY lq78 FAMILY=12J PLOT OF LOGDEN*PERIOD IS VALUE Of TRANSECT I -Intake P -Plant Transect (TRM 293) T -TRM 294.5 r T p T p p T p T T p t T p T T I T I 1 T p p p T T T p I p p I I p p T µ I 1 T l p l I I 1 I I I p I -----+--+--+--+--+--+--+*-+--+--+--+--+-*+**+--+--+--*--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--*----1 2 3 4 5 b 7 8 Q 10 11 12 13 1a 15 16 17 18 .tQ 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 SAMPLE PERIOD CwEEKLY) NOTES 4 OBS HIDDEN L 0 G G E 0 N s I T r E s 8 A s e T E N I I s ... *1 I .f .I I I q + I I I I I 3 + ' I I I I ' 2 ... ., I I I I 1 ! ' ' t I I I 0 + I I I I ' * ... 1 + I T T p " I Cl2. l>tNSlT!F.S OF LARVAL f'.lSHF.S COLU::CTE.11 "l KROwNS FEPHY NUCLEAR PL4Nl, tQ79 . PUH llF LUGOEN-PfMlOO SYf'4HOL IS VALUE Of TRANSECT I -Intake P -Plant Transect (TRM 2.93) T -TRM 294.5 p T T I T p T p T p T I T T p p t T I T I l I p r r p p l T p I l p p p p T r I I p p I I --*---*---*---*---*---*--*+--**-*-*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---+---*---*---*---*---**--+*--*---*-l 2 <' fl b 1 R q 1 0 1 l 12 l 3 t 4 t 5
• 1 b 1 7 1 A 19 2 0 21 2 2 2 3 214 25 PERIOD NOH.: l '

L 0 G G E 0 0 E N s I .T l s B A s 5 3 2 E 1 T E "' 0 -1 NOTE: *-_ .... --Cl3. DENSITIES Of LARVAL FISHES COLLECTEO lN FISH MONITORING AT 6ROwNS FERRY NUCLEAR lq7R YEAR:Jq7a PLOT UF LOGOEN*PERIOD SYMBOL rs VALUE OF TRANSECT

• I I I I I I -Intake I + I P -Plant Transect (TRM 293) I I I T -TRM 294.5 I I + I I I ..
• I I I + I
• I I T I I p p I I I T T + p I T p I p I I r T I I p p I p r I I l + I p T p I I T T I I I I I I I I I + I 1 2 3 4 5 b 7 6 q 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1q 20 21 22 23 24 25 2& l7 28 29 30 31 SAMPLE PERIOD <WEEKLY) 2 OBS HtDDf.111 L 0 G G E D 0 E N s I T I E s 8 A s E T E hi I I 5 + I I I I ' I Q + f. I
• I ' 3 + ' I I I l 2 l f ' I I I T I I l ... ,. p
• T p T I p T I I I l t 0 + I ' I I I I l -1 + f I .p r Cl4. 1>El-JSJTTES OF FISHt-.S CrJLL£CTF.0 Al HRllWNS FERHY NUCLEAR PLANT, lq7f.J PLOT OF SYMBOL IS VALUE *of TRANSECT I -Intake P -Plant Transect (TRM 293) T -TRM 2.94 .5 T p T r p 1 p I I T T p T p 1 I I p I 1. l 2 J b 7 8 Q \0 11 12 t\ lU 15 16 17 tQ 20 21 22 23 2q 25 L 0 G G E D D E s I T I E s 8 A s E T E s + I I I I I I 4 + I I I I I I 3 + I I I I I I 2 + I ' I I I I 1 + . I. I I I ' I 0 + I I I I I I *l + I p I Cl5. DENSITilS OF LARVAL FISHES IN LARVAL FIS" MONITORING AT BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT, 1978 FAMILY=l25 flSH_NAM:SCIAENIOAf YEAR;1q75 PLOT OF LOGDEN*PERlOD SYMBOL IS VALUE OF TRANSECT I -Intake P -Plant Transect (TRM 293) T. -TRM 294.5 T p p T I p p p I p T 1 I T p p p I I p p T I T µ p T p p T p l I I I T I T I T I T I T I I 1 2 3 q 5 b 7 R q 10 11 12 13 1q 15 lb 17 JH IQ 20 21 22 23 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 PfRIOO NOTES 5 OBS HIDDEN 't. .

L 0 G G E D 0 E N s l T I e: s a A s

• T E N ' 1 5 + I ' I I ' I " 't I t I I I l + I t I I ' I 2 + I I I I I I 1 + I I I I I t 0 t I I I I I t
• l -t I T 1 OF LARVAL f:-JSH[S COLLfCTfO AT . PLANT, 1Q7Q YfAR:tQ7q PLIJT (Jf LUGOEN*PERIOO SYMHOL rs VALUE OF" TRANSECT I -Intake P -Plant Transect (TRM T -T;RM 294.5 I p 1 T T p T fol p T p p T p I T 1 I p p J T T I p p p T T I r T t p p l p I t I T l p T I T t p --*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---**--*-*-*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---+---*---*-*-*---*-1 ? 3 4 5 b 7 8 q 10 lt 12 13 14 lS tb 17 18 tQ 20 21 22 23 2a 25 (WEEKLY)

FISH IMPINGEMENT AT BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT, WHEELER RESERVOIR: SUPPLEMENT March 1980 Prepared by William C. Barr Division of Water Resources Fisheries and Aquatic Ecology_ Branch Norris, Tennessee INTRODUCTION The nine BFNP cooling water circulators pump 124.9 m3 sec-I (1. 98 million gpm) of water at full capacity. Fish are impinged as this water passes through 18 vertical traveling screens (9.5 mm mesh) -1 . ' at a velocity of 61.0 cm sec (2.0 fps). Using procedures established as part of the requirements: for the (NRC) and i;lescribed in environmental technical specifications for Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, .impingement monitoring studie& commenced in February 1974 and have con-tinued uninterrupted. Some observed deficiencies in the .sample method .required modification of sample design (BFNP Environmental Technical Specifications September 1976) to include a direct count of fish weekly from each screen during one 24-hour period, Data have been regularly summarized in preoperational and semi-annual and annual operatio-nal reports (TVA 1974a, 1974, 1975a, 1975b, 1976, 1978a l978b, l978c, 1979) and have been examined in detail (February 1974-August 1977) in Biological Effects of Intake, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Volume January 1978. Th.ese documents indicate fish impingement at BFNP has little, if any, environmental impact on the fish community in Wheeler Reservoir. This report serves to supplement and update this earlier information. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION D'ata collected during operation of BFNP show similarities in species composition1 relative -abundance, and cycles of impingement susceptibility throughout the 1974-1979 operational period (Figure 1). Consistent increases and decreases in numbers of fish impinged annually,

• 1974 IU. 0111111 'llWI --,....1. /' I / \ I I I \ 1 I . ,, I \ / I v \ I ,,,...,,,,., __ ! I I I I f I I I I I II \/\ I "' 'I I -.; I I I I /\ ('J \ ,.., I _,; \ I \ \ l *f!IU. uNlt OJ'l&U IDW ,, .. , tllf'*"°'l V.U:IAJilCI D II D *
• D '7& . .,. 'T1 "19 '711 11sure 1. E.atima.ted impingelDf>!nt at Browns Ferr.y Nuclear. by for clupeida (&had) and nll other tnxa combined dur:IJIB the period March 1, 1974 th'C'ough Decellbe'C' Jl. 1979. A gcomecric scale vas used to ahov the large range l.n monthly values. * .. II I I I both clupeids and all other taxa combined show little, if any, effect of either changes in plant operating regime or increases in rnaximwn mixed river temperatures (3o0c to 32.2°C) to the fish community. With the exception of sauger, the three "cpol water" species are impinged in low at BFNP. During 1974-1979 only five walleye were identified in the catch (two in 1977 and three in 1978). Sauger are regularly impinged at BFNP and since habitat requirements of walleye and sauger are generally similar (Pflieger 1975), the paucity of impinged walleye further eorroborates the rarity of this species in Wheeler Rese.rvoir and the low potential to be affected by operation of BFNP: Smallmouth bass were impinged at an average rate of less than one fish per day throughout the operat;ional period. This low rate of ment suggests the BFNP intake area is not an attractive habitat for this species. Table 1 shows standing stock biomass for smallrnoutb bass well distributed between young-of-year, intermediate, and harvestable size classes. A healthy smallmouth bass population in Wheeler Reservoir indicates BFNP does not adversely affect this species. The sauger population in Wheeler Reservoir shows fluctuations in estimated reproductive success (Table 2) and numbers (Table 3) that do not seem to be related to operation of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. Comparison of the total number of s*auger impinged by BFNP with .annual estimated standing stock in Wheeler Reservoir (Table 4) shows large fluctuations bµt an impingement rate of less than one percent. Ichthyoplankton monitoring during plan operation also shows large fluctuations in larval sauger densities (Table 2). lnte*restingly, larval . 2 sauger densities are highly correlated (r = 0.840) with total numbers of young-of-yeai sauger impinged during the same year (Figure 2). *.-*'*

Table 1. Number and biomass 0£ smallmouth bass per hectare ta.ken in cove-rotene $amples, Wheeler Reservoir. YOY =young of year (<:125 mm*TL); I= intermediate (125-200 mm); H = harvestable (>200 DUii)

• Coves at TRM 275, 286, and ERM (Elk River) 2.7 are preoperation.al and operational monitoring sites for .BFNP. YOY I H. Location Year N N !I !& TRM 275 1970 95 0.36 19 1.02 12 4.66 1971 85 0.86 32 1.35 32 18.69 1972 80 0.64 3! 2.56 17 3.39 1973 36 0.41 . 7 0.57 8 1.34 1974 146 0.87 11 0.69 6 0.85 1975 84 o.68 11 0.67 3 0.87 1976 108 1.46 19 . 0.91 24 3.35 1977 7i 0.29 25 1.26 23 4. 77 1978 153 0.12 39 0.97 9 1.24 1979 48 0.31 40 1.03 14 2.37 TRM 286 1970 86 0.15 l3 0.55 2 0.3EJ 1971 135 1.13 83 2.36 5 o. 7l 1972 8 0.05 1 0.09 1 0.18 1973 1 0.01 0 0 1974 l 0.01 0 0 1975 3 0.04 0 0 1976 7 0.10 1 0.03 7 1.13 1977 40 0.15 11 0.51 11 0.47 1978 45 0.23 5 0.11 0 1979 26 0.18 6 0.10 l 0.14 ERM 27 1970 20 0.21 2 0.23 0 (Elk River) 1971 141 1.31 38 LOI 6 0.99 1972 9 0.10 9 0.75 11 1.61 1973 0 0 0 1974 16 0.13 0 0 1975 9 0.10 3 0.18 3 0.35 1976 0 0 0 1977 2 0.01 10 0.23 5 1.18 1978 9 0.()6 s 0.11 5 1.11 1979 0 0 0 1' 400 -c co Q: ... co I ..! 3001 (,) :J Y= ax+b z b= -5.494 Lf "' a= 85.874 c 0.84 e cc .. "C d) C) c 200 *a *74 E -... g :J co en *75 ta ,. I -0
• 100 :J
• 79 0 1.0 2.0 3.0 Estimated Larval Sauger Density [Number./ 1000m3J. Figure 2. Relationships of young-of-year sauger impinged at Browns Ferry Plant to the density of larval sauger (numbers/ 1000 m') in Wheeler Reservoir for the years 1974-1979.

Table 1. Number and biomass of smallmouth bass per hectare taken in co've-rotene samples, Wheeler Reservoir. YOY = young of year (<125 m TL); I = intermedia*te (125-200 mm); H = harvestable (>200 1111J1), Coves-at TRM 275, 286, and ERM (Elk River) 2.7 are preoperational and operational monitoring sites for BFNP * . YOY I 11 Location Year .N !a N N' !& TRM 275 1970 95 0.36 19 1.02 12 4.66 1971 85 0.86 32 1.35 32' 18.69 1972 80 0.64 31 2.56 17 3.39 1973 36 0.41 1 0.57 8 1.34 1974 146 0.87 11 0.69 6 0.85 1975 84 0.68 1.1 o.67 3 0.87 1976' 108 1.46 19 0.91 24 3.35 1'977 71 0 .* 2.9 25 1.26 23 4. 77' 1978 153 0.72 39 0.97 9 1.24 1979 48 o.31 40 1.03 14 2.37 TRM 286 1970 86 0.15 13 0.55 2 0.38 1971 135 1.13 83 *2.36 5 0. 71 1972 8 0.05 1 '0.09 1 0.18 1973 1 0.01 0 0 1974 1 0.01 0 0 1975 3 0.04 0 0 1976 7 0.10 1 0.03 7 1.13 1977 40 0.15 11 0.51 11 0.47 1978 45 0.23 5 O. ll 0 1979 26 0.18 6 0.10 1 0.14 ERM 27 1970 20 0.21 2 0.23 0 (Elk River) 1971 141 1.31 38 LOl 6 0.99 ' 1972 9 0.10 9 o. 75 11 1.61 1973 0 0 0 1974 16 0.13 0 0 1975 '9 0.10 3 0.18 3 0.35 1976 0 0 0 1977 2 0.01 10 0.23 5 1.18 1978 9 0.06 5 0.11 5 1.11 1979 0 0 0 " 4 HF *f!tt *m -* ._,,...,,. . ' Table 2. Total numbers, density, latest occurrence, and temperature data for Stizostedion .spp. (probably sauger) larvae collected from Wheeler Reservoir. 1971-1979. Density Latest Mean Year Total Number (No./100.0 m3) Occurrence Temperature 1971*"*1( 0 0 0 0 1973 93 2.14 Hay 15 19.3 1974 107 1.60 May 15 21.0 1975 112 2.09 21 22.0 1976 13 0.22 May 6 19.7 1977 225 2.96 May 11 21. 9 1978 2 0.07 May 8 19 .9 1979 25 0.85 April 30 20.9

• During period of occurrence. ,"* Mean of day-night water.temperature on date of latest occurrence. Sampling not begun until after the period of larval stizostedion spp! occurrence. (C) 1\i:"

Table 3. Numbers and biomass of sauger per hec,tare taken in cove-rotene samples, Wheeler Reservoir. Location TRM 275 TRM 286 ERM 2. J. YOY = young of year ( <200 mm TL),; I = intermediate (200-300 mm); H = harvestable (>300 mm)

• Coves at nut: 275, 286, and ERM (Elk River) 2. 7 are preoperational and op,erational monitoring sites for BFNP. Sauger -YOY I H Year N !& N g_ N g_ 19.70 5 0.13 0 0 1971 {) I 0.29 0 1972 5 0.35 0 0 1973 16 0.60 0 0 1974 5 0.15 0 1 o*.21 1975' 14 0.37 5 0.62 1 0.11 197"6 6 0.31 5 0.88 0 1977 86 1.85 I 0.14 4 0.87 1978 7 0.21 16 l.80 3 0.81 1979 1 0-.. 03 0 3 0.60 1970 18 0.69 0 0 1971 0 0 0 1972 I 1 o.*05 0 1973 9 0.30 0 1 0.17 1974 8 0.16 1 0.12 1 0.28 1975 27 0.74 10 1.56 0 1976 21 0.99 24 2.48 7 2.45 1977 124 2.76 0 14 4.38 1978 4 0.07 8 0.66 1 0.29 1979 9 0.21 6 0.60 0 1974 5 0.17 0 0 1975 3 0.06 5 . 0.59 1976 0 8 0.77 2 0.60 1977 3 0.09 0 0 1978 0 0.00 0 2 0.23 1979 0 0.00 0 0 Table 4. Estimated standing stock numbers (based on cove rotenone samples) for sauger in Wheeler Resetvoir1 compared with estimated total impingement of sauger during the period March 1, 1974, through December 31, 1979. Estimated Total Estimated Standing Stock Number Impinged (No/ha) in Wheeler Percent impinged 1979 453 516,000 0.088 1978 2,985 1,113,000 0.268* 1977 12' 158 .6,300,000 0.193 1976 837 2,009,000 0.042 1975 2,099 1,788,000 0.117 19742 4,132 578,000 0.715 1973 None 715 ,000 1972 None 193,000 1. Based on a reservoir surface area of 27,154 hectares. 2. Impingement studies began March 1, 1974.

These data suggest the sauger populat.ion in. Wheeler Reservoir is highly variable, but responds to factors unrelated to either the intake structure or thermal e£fluent from BFNP. numbers impinged were low compared to estimated reservoir standing were highly coorelated with l'.lUllibers of larvae present in the reservoir. Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant seems to be consistently sampling, but not adversely affecting, the sauger in Wheeler Reservoir. Literature Cited Pflieger, W. L., 1975. The Fishes of Missouri. Missouri Department of Conservation. 342 pp. Tennessee Valley Authority. 1974a. Water Quality and Biological Conditions in Wheeler Reservoir During Operation of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (Unit 1), August 17, 1973-February 17, 1974. Chattanooga, Tenn.es see: Division of Environmental Planning, Water Quality Branch. 1974b. Water Quality and Biological Conditions in Wheeler Reservoir During Operation of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (Unit 1), February 18, 1974-June 30, 1974. nooga, Tennessee: Division of EnYironmental Planning, Water Quality Branch. 1975a. Water Quality and Biological Conditions in Wheeler Reservoir During Operation of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (Unit 1 and 2), July 1, 1974-December 31, 1974. Chattanooga, Tennessee: Division of Environmental Planning, Water Quality Branch. 1975b. Water Quality and Biological Conditions in Wheeler Reservoir During Operation of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (Units 1 and 2), January 1, 1975-June 30, 1975. Chattanooga, Tennessee: Division of Environmental Planning, Water Quality B.ranch.

• 1976. Water Quality and Biological Conditions in Wheeler Reservoir During Operation of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (Units 1 and 2), July 1, 1975-December 31, 1975. Chattanooga, Tennessee: Division of Environmental Planning, Water Quality Branch. 1977. Water Quality and Biological Conditions in Wheeler Reservoir During Operation of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, January 1, 1976-December 31, 1976. Chattanooga, Tennessee: Division of Env.ironmental Planning, Water Quality Branch. 1978a. Water Quality and Biological Conditions in Wheeler Reservoir During Operation of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, January 1, 1977-December 31, 1977. Chattanooga, Tennessee: Division of Environmental Planning, Water Quality Branch. 1978b. Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant operational Fisheries Resources Report. Norris, Tennessee: Division of Forestry, Fisheries, and Wildlife Development, Fisheries and Waterfowl Resources Branch. 197Bc. Effects of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Cooling Water Intake on the Fish Populations of Wheeler Reservoir. Norris, Tennessee: Division of forestry, Fisheries, and Wildlife Development. (Biological Effects of Intake, Browns Ferry Nuclear* Plant; Volume 4).
• 1919. Water Quality and Biological Conditions in Wheeler Reservoir During of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, January 1, 1978-])ecember 31, 1978. Muscle Shoals, Alabama: Division of Water Resources, Water Quality Ecology Branch.

GE Water & Process Technologies Material Safety Data Sheet DEPOSITROL PY5200 Issue Date: 05-FEB-2009 . Supercedes: 02-0CT-2008 1 Identification Identification of substance or preparation DEPOSITROL PY5200 Product Application Area Water-based deposit control agent. Company/Undertaking Identification GE Betz, Inc. 4636 Somerton Road Trevose, PA 19053 T 21 5 355-3300, F 215 953 5524 Emergency Telephone (800) 877-1940 Prepared by Product Stewardship Group: T 215-355-3300 Prepared on: 05-FEB-2009 2 Hazard(s) identification ******************************************************************************** EMERGENCY OVERVIEW CAUTION .May cause slight irritation to the skin. May cause slight irritation to the eyes. Mists/aerosols may cause irritation to upper respiratory tract. DOT hazard is not applicable Odor: Slight; Appearance: Yellow, Liquid Fire fighters should wear positive pressure self-contained breathing apparatus(full face-piece type). Proper fire-extinguishing media: dry chemical, carbon dioxide, foam or water ******************************************************************************** POTENTIAL BEALTB EFFECTS ACUTE SKIN EFFECTS: Primary route of exposure; May cause slight ir.ritation to the skin. ACUTE EYE EFFECTS: May cause slight irritation to the eyes. ACUTE RESPIRATORY EFFECTS: Mists/aerosols may cause irritation to upper respiratory tract. Substance or Preparation: DEPOSITROL PY5200 Page 1 INGESTION EFFECTS: May cause slight gastrointestinal irritation, TARGET ORGANS: No evidence of potential chronic effects. MEDICAL CONDITIONS AGGRAVATED: Not known. SYMPTOMS OF EXPOSURE: May cause redness or itching of skin. 3 Composition I information on ingredients Information for specific product ingredients as required by the U.S. OSHA HAZARD COMMUNICATION STANDARD is listed. Refer to additional sections of this MSDS for our assessment of the potential hazards of this formulation. HAZARDOUS INGREDIENTS: This product is not hazardous as defined by OSHA regulations. No component is considered to be a carcinogen by the National Toxicology Program, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, or the Occupational Safety and Health Administration at OSHA thresholds for carcinogens. 4 First-aid measures SKIN CONTACT: Wash thoroughly with soap and water. Remove contaminated clothing. Get medical attention if irritation deve:ops or -EYE CONTACT: Remove contact lenses. Hold eyelids apart. Immediately flush eyes with plenty of low-pressure water for at least 15 minutes. Get medical attention if irritation persists after flushing. INHALATION: If nasal, throat or lung irritation develops -remove -to fresh air and get medical attention. INGESTION: Do not feed anything by mouth to an or convulsive victim. Do not induce vomiting. Immediately contact physician. Dilute contents of stomach using 2-B fluid ounces (60-240 mL) of milk or water. NOTES TO PHYSIC_IANS : No special instructions 5 Fire-fighting measures Substance or Preparation: DEPOSITROL PY5200 Page 2 FIRE FIGHTING INSTRUCTIONS: Fire fighters should wear positive pressure self-contained breathing apparatus (full face-piece type). EXTINGUISHING MEDIA: dry chemical, carbon dioxide, foam or water HAZARDOUS DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS: oxides of carbon and sulfur FLASH POINT: > 210F > 99C P-M(CC) 6 Accidental release measures PROTECTION AND SPILL CONTAINMENT: Ventilate area. Use specified protective equipment. Contain and absorb on absorbent material. Place in waste disposal container. Flush area with water. Wet area may be slippery. Spread sand/grit. DISPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS: Water contaminated with this product may be sent to a sanitary sewer treatment facility,in accordance with any local agreement,a permitted waste treatment facility or discharged under a permit. Product as is -Incinerate or land dispose in an approved landfill. 7 Handling and storage HANDLING: Normal chemical handling. STORAGE: Keep containers closed when not in use. Protect from freezing. If frozen, thaw and mix completely prior to use. Shelf life 360 days. 8 Exposure controls I personal protection EXPOSURE LIMITS This product is not hazardous as defined by OSHA regulations. ENGINEERING CONTROLS: adequate ventilation PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT: Use protective equipment in accordance with 29CFR 1910 Subpart I RESPIRATORY PROTECTION: A RESPIRATORY PROTECTION PROGRAM THAT MEETS OSHA'S 29 CFR 1910.134 AND ANSI Z88.2 REQUIREMENTS MUST BE FOLLOWED WHENEVER WORKPLACE CONDITIONS WARRANT A RESPIRATOR'S USE. USE AIR PURIFYING RESPIRATORS WITHIN USE LIMITATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE EQUIPMENT OR ELSE USE SUPPLIED AIR-RESPIRATORS. If air-purifying respirator use is appropriate, use any of the following particulate respirators: N95, N99, NlOO, R95, R99; RlOO, P95, P99 or PlOO. SKIN PROTECTION: rubber, butyl, viton or neoprene gloves --Wash off after each use. Replace as necessary. EYE PROTECTION: splash proof chemical goggles Substance or Preparation: DEPOSITROL PY5200 Page 3 9 Physical and chemical properties Specific Grav.(70F,21C) Freeze Point (FJ 1.169 25 Freeze Point -4 Viscosity(cps 70F,21Cl 42 Odor Jl.ppearance Physical State Flash Point P-M(CC) pH As Is (approx.) Evaporation Rate (Ether=l) Percent VOC: Vapor Pressure (mrnHGJ Vapor Density (air=l) % Solubility (water) Slight Yellow Liquid > 210F > 98C 5.2 < 1.00 0.0 NA = not applicable ND not determined 1 O Stability and reactivity CHEMICAL STABILITY: Stable under normal storage conditions. POSSIBILITY OF HAZARDOUS REACTIONS: INCOMPATIBILITIES: May react with strong m:idizers. DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS: oxides of carbon and sulfur .11 Toxicological information Oral LD50 RAT: Dermal LD50 RABBIT: Inhalation LC50 RAT: Skin Irritation Score RABBIT: Eye Irritation Score RABBIT: 12 Ecological information AQUATIC TOXICOLOGY >5,000 mg/kg >2,000 mgikg >5 mg/L/4hr 1 1.67 Ceriodaphnia 48 Hour Static Renewal Bioassay LC50= 1265 mg/L Ceriodaphnia 7 Day Static Renewal Bioassay IC25 = 538 mg/L -18.0 < 1.00 100.0 Daphnia magna 48 Hour Static Renewal Bioassay (pH adjusted) LC50= 1767; No Effect Level= 1250 mg/L Fathead.Minnow 7 Day Static Renewal Bioassay LC50 Greater Than= 2000; IC25 = 2000 mg/L Fathead Minnow 96 Hour Static Renewal Bioassay (pH adjusted) LC50= 1960; No Effect Level= 313 mg/L Mysid Shrimp 48 Hour Static Renewal Bioassay (pH adjusted) 10% Mortality= 16000; 0% Mortality= 8000 mg/L Sheepshead 96 Hour Static Renewal Bioassay (pH adjusted) 0% Mortality= 16000 mg/L BIODEGRADATION Substance or Preparation: DEPOSITROL PY5200 Page4 BOD-28 (mg/g); 32 BOD-5 (mg/g): 10 COD (mg/g) : 368 TOC (mg/g) : 144 13 Disposal considerations If this undiluted product is discarded as a waste, the US RCRA hazardous waste identification number is : Not applicable. Please be advised; however, that state and local requirements for waste disposal may be more restrictive or otherwise different from federal regulations. Consult state and local regulations regarding the proper disposal of this material. 14 Transport information DOT HAZARD: Not Applicable PROPER SHIPPING NAME: DOT EMERGENCY RESPONSE GUIDE #: Not applicable Note: Some containers may be DOT exempt, please check BOL for exact container classification 15 Regulatory information TSCA: All components of this product are included on or are in compliance with the U.S. TSCA regulations. CERCLA AND/OR SARA REPORTABLE QUANTITY (RQ): No regulated constituent present at OSHA thresholds FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION: FDA APPROVED FOR MILL SUPPLY WATER NSF Registered and/or meets USDA (according to 1998 Guidelines): Registration number: Not Registered This product contains ingredients that have been determined as safe for use in boilers, steamlines and cooling systems where there is no food contact. (G7) SARA SECTION 312 HAZARD CLASS: Product is non-hazardous under Section 311/312 SARA SECTION 302 CHEMICALS: No regulated constituent present at OSHA thresholds SARA SECTION 313 CHEMICALS: No regulated constituent present at OSHA thresholds CALIFORNIA REGULATORY INFORMATION CALIFORNIA SAFE DRINKING WATER AND TOXIC ENFORCEMENT ACT (PROPOSITION 65) : No regulated constituents present MICHIGAN REGULATORY INFORMATION No regulated constituent present at OSHA thresholds 16 Other information Substance or Preparation: DEPOSITROL PY5200 Page5 mas vrI Health Fire Reactivity Special (1) Protective Equipment 1 1 0 NONE B CODE TRANSLATION Slight Hazard Slight Hazard Minimal Hazard No special Hazard Goggles, Gloves (1) refer to section 8 of MSDS for additional protective equipment recommendations. CHANGE LOG EFFECTIVE DATE REVISIONS TO SECTION: SUPERCEDES ----------------------------------------MSDS status: 29-JAN-1997 ** NEW ** 10-SEP-1997 3,8,10,ll,16;EDIT:4 29-JAN-1997 06-FEB-1998 12 10-SEP-1997 18-JAN-2001 15 06-FEB-1998 31-AUG-2001 15 18-JAN-2001 30-0CT-2001 4 31-AUG-2001 17-APR-2006 7,8 30-0CT-2001 02-0CT-2008 4,5,8,10 17-APR-2006 05-FEB-2009 12 02-0CT-2008 Substance or Preparation: DEPOSITROL PY5200 Pages V\10T er S. Proc. Tech no log ies eposiTrolŽ PV5200 Cooling Water Polymeric Dispersant * *

• Patented calcium phosphate scale inhibitor Advanced polymer technology Permits proper phosphate concentration for rosion inhibition of mild steel Provides excellent dispersion of suspended solids Description and Use PY_5200 is a unique deposit control agent for use 1n cooling water systems. It incorporates a polymeric agent. GE Infrastructure Water & Process Technologies HPS I, a third generation cooling water polymer. Typical Applications l(': ppr:*1 iffig/U S pprn (mg/L! 10 pp111 irr'!9/L: Figure 1: Clay Dispersion DeposiTrol PY5200 controls calcium phosphate and general deposition such as silt (see Figure 1), and suspended solids. It is particularly effective in the presence of certain contaminants, such as sults from cationic carryover from clarifiers, or in the case where boiler blowdown is added to the cooling system for discharge or water conservation purposes. DeposiTrol PY5200 is designed to be applied as one component of a Dianodic PlusŽ program. With posiTrol PY5200. phosphate concentrations in a -'"( Dianodic Plus treatment can be maintained at a high enough level to promote the formation of a ing film on mild steel, thereby attaining the desired corrosion protection. Treatment and Feeding Requirement Dosage -The proper treatment levels of DeposiTrol PY5200 depend on the specific needs of your system. The product should be fed in accordance with control procedures that GE establishes for a particular cation. For consistent protection. continuous feed is recommended. Feed point -DeposiTrol PY5200 should be fed to a point in the system where it will be rapidly mixed with the bulk cooling water. Dilution -DeposiTrol PY5200 can be diluted with good quality water to convenient feeding strengths. Feed Equipment -Tanks, pumps, piping, and valves should be made of stainless steel. polyethylene. propylene, PVC, Hypalon, or Teflon. Mild steel should not be used. Physical Properties Physical properties of DeposiTrol PY5200 are shown on the Material Safety Data Sheet, a copy of which is available on request. Packaging Information DeposiTrol PY5200 is a liquid blend available in a wide variety of customized containers and delivery ods. Contact your GE representative for details. Safety Precautions A Material Safety Data Sheet containing detailed formation about this product is available upon quest. ;)JfJ\ . ,.. ..,,., ) ,, 'rd;tW.J Visit us online at www gewatercom ©2004, General Electric Company All rights reserved Global Headquarters Trevose, PA 215-355-3300 North America Minnetonka. MN 952-933-2277-Europe/Middle East/Africa Heverlee. Belgium 32-16-40-20-00 Asia/Pacific Shanghai. China 86-21-5298-4573 Products mentioned ore Lrodemorks of trie General Electric Company and moy be registered in one or more countries PFC756EN0410 GE
• Water & Process Technologies Material Safety Data Sheet Issue Date: 24-JUN-2009 Supercedes: 05-FEB-2009 FLOGARD MS6209 1 Identification Identification of substance or preparation FLOGARD MS6209 Product Application Area Water-based corrosion inhibitor. Company/Undertaking Identification GE Betz, Inc. 4636 Somerton Road Trevose, PA 19053 T 215 355-3300 I F 215 953 5524 Emergency Telephone (800) 877-1940 Prepared by Product Stewardship Group: T 215-355-3300 Prepared on: 24-JUN-2009 2 Hazard(s) identification ******************************************************************************** DANGER EMERGENCY OVERVIEW Corrosive to skin. Corrosive to the eyes. Mists/aerosols cause irritation to the upper respiratory tract. DOT hazard: Corrosive to skin/steel Odor: Slight; Appearance: Colorless To Yellow, Liquid Fire fighters should wear positive pressure self-contained breathing apparatus(full face-piece type). Proper fire-extinguishing media: dry chemical/C02/foam or water--slippery condition; use sand/grit. ******************************************************************************** POTENTIAL HEALTH EFFECTS ACUTE SKIN EFFECTS: Primary route of exposure; Corrosive to skin. ACUTE EYE EFFECTS: Corrosive to the eyes. ACUTE RESPIRATORY EFFECTS: Mists/aerosols cause irritation to the upper respiratory tract. INGESTION EFFECTS: Substance or Preparation: FLOGARD MS6209 Page 1 May cause severe irritation or burning of mouth, throat, and gastrointestinal tract with severe chest and abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, lethargy and collapse. Possible death when ingested in very large doses. TARGET ORGANS: Prolonged or repeated exposures may cause tissue necrosis. MEDICAL CONDITIONS AGGRAVATED: Not known. SYMPTOMS OF EXPOSURE: Causes severe irritation, burns or tissue ulceration with subsequent scarring. 3 Composition I information on ingredients Information for specific product ingredients as required by the U.S. OSHA HAZARD COMMUNICATION STANDARD is listed. Refer to additional sections of this MSDS for our assessment of the potential hazards of this formulation. HAZARDOUS INGREDIENTS: Cas# 13598-37-3 7664-38-2 Chemical Name PHOSPHORIC ACID, ZINC SALT (2:1) Irrit_ant PHOSPHORIC ACID Corrosive 4 First-aid measures SKIN CONTACT: Range(w/w%) 40-70 15-40 URGENT! Wash thoroughly with soap and water. Remove contaminated clothing. Get immediate medical attention. Thoroughly wash clothing before reuse. EYE CONTACT: URGENT! Immediately flush eyes with plenty of low-pressure water for at least 20 minutes while removing contact lenses .. Hold eyelids apart. Get immediate medical attention. INHALATION: Remove to fresh air. If breathing is difficult, give oxygen. If breathing has stopped, give artificial respiration. Get immediate medical attention. INGESTION: Do not feed anything by mouth to an unconscious or convulsive victim. Do not induce vomiting. Immediately contact physician. Rinse mouth with plenty of water. Dilute contents of stomach using 4-10 fluid ounces (120-300 mL) of milk or water. NOTES TO PHYSICIANS: Material is corrosive. It may not be advisable to induce vomiting. Possible mucosal damage may contraindicate the use of gastric lavage. Substance or Preparation: FLOGARD MS6209 Page 2 5 Fire-fighting measures FIRE FIGHTING.INSTRUCTIONS: Fire fighters should wear positive pressure self-contained apparatus (full face-piece type). EXTINGUISHING MEDIA: dry chemical/C02/foam or water--slippery condition; use sand/grit. HAZARDOUS DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS: oxides of phosphorus FLASH POINT: > 200F > 93C P-M(CC) MISCELLANEOUS: Corrosive to skin/steel UN 1805;Emergency Response Guide #154 6 Accidental release measures PROTECT.ION AND SPILL CONTAINMENT: Ventilate area. Use specified protective equipment. Contain and absorb on absorbent material. Place in waste disposal container. Flush area with water. Wet area may be slippery. Spread sand/grit. DISPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS: Water contaminated with this product may be sent to a sanitary sewer treatment facility,in accordance with any local agreement,a permitted waste treatment facility or discharged under a permit. Product as is -Incinerate or land dispose in an approved landfill. 7 Handling and storage HANDLING: Acidic. Corrosive(Skin/eyes). Do not mix with alkaline material. STORAGE: Keep containers closed when not in use. Preferably stored between. 40-lOOF (5-38C). 8 Exposure controls I personal protection CHEMICAL NAME PHOSPHORIC ACID, ZINC SALT (2:1) PEL (OSHA): NOT DETERMINED TLV (ACGIH) : NOT DETERMINED PHOSPHORIC ACID PEL (OSHA) : 1 MG/M3 TLV (ACGIH) : 1 MG/M3 ENGINEERING CONTROLS: EXPOSURE LIMITS Adequate ventilation to maintain air contaminants below exposure limits. PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT: Use protective equipment in accordance with 29CFR 1910 Subpart I RESPIRATORY PROTECTION: A RESPIRATORY PROTECTION PROGRAM THAT MEETS OSHA'S 29 CFR Substance or Preparation: FLOGARD MS6209 Page 3 1910.134 AND ANSI Z88.2 REQUIREMENTS MUST BE FOLLOWED WHENEVER WORKPLACE CONDITIONS WARRANT A RESPIRATOR'S USE. USE AIR PURIFYING RESPIRATORS WITHIN USE LIMITATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE EQUIPMENT OR ELSE USE SUPPLIED AIR-RESPIRATORS. If air-purifying respirator use is appropriate, use any of the following particulate respirators: N95, N99, NlOO, R95, R99, RlOO, P95, P99 or PlOO. SKIN PROTECTION: gauntlet-type rubber, butyl or neoprene gloves, chemical resistant apron --Wash off after each use. Replace as necessary. EYE PROTECTION: splash proof chemical goggles, face shield 9 Physical and chemical properties Spec. Grav. (70F,21C) 1. 711 Freeze Point (F) < -30 Freeze Point (C) < -34 Viscosity(cps 70F,21CJ 70 Odor Appearance Physical State Flash Point P-M(CC) pH As Is (approx.) Evaporation Rate (Ether=l) Percent VOC: Vapor Pressure (mmHG) Vapor Density (air=l) % Solubility (water) Slight Colorless To Yellow Liquid > 200F > 93C < 1. 0 < 1.00 0.0 NA = not applicable ND not determined 1 O Stability and reactivity CHEMICAL STABILITY: Stable under normal storage conditions. POSSIBILITY OF HAZARDOUS REACTIONS: -15.0 < 1. OD 100.0 Contact with strong bases may cause a violent reaction releasing heat. INCOMPATIBILITIES: May react with bases or strong oxidizers. DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS: oxides of phosphorus 11 Toxicological information Oral LDSO RAT: NOTE -Estimated value Dermal LDSO RABBIT: NOTE -Estimated value Inhalation LCSO RAT: NOTE -Estimated value Skin Irritation Score RABBIT: NOTE -EPA Category I Eye Irritation Score RABBIT: NOTE -Estimated value Substance or Preparation: FLOGARD MS6209 >2,500 mg/kg >5,000 mg/kg >20 mg/L/hr CORROSIVE CORROSIVE Page4 12 Ecological information AQUATIC TOXICOLOGY Ceriodaphnia 48 Hour Static Renewal Bioassay LCSO= 1.5; No Effect Level= .63 mg/L Ceriodaphnia 7 Day Static Renewal Bioassay IC25 = 1.9 mg/L Daphnia magna 48 Hour Static Renewal Bioassay LCSO= 12; No Effect Level= 1.5 mg/L Fathead Minnow 7 Day Static Renewal Bioassay IC25 = 5 mg/L Fathead Minnow 96 Hour Static Renewal Bioassay LCSO= 14; No Effect Level= 2.5 mg/L Rainbow Trout 96 Hour Static Renewal Bioassay LC50= 4.9; No Effect Level= 1.6 mg/L BIODEGRADATION Product contains only inorganics that are not subject to typical biological degradation. Ass.irnilation by microbes may occur in waste treatment or the environment. 13 Disposal considerations If this undiluted product is discarded as a waste, the US RCRA hazardous waste identification number is D002=Corrosive (pH,steel); D006=Cadmium; D008=Lead. Please be advised; however, that state and local waste disposal may be more restrictive or otherwise different from federal regulations. Consult state and local regulations regarding the proper disposal of this material. 14 Transport information DOT HAZARD: PROPER SHIPPING NAME: Corrosive to skin/steel PHOSPHORIC ACID SOLUTION 8, UN 1805, PG III, RQ DOT EMERGENCY RESPONSE GUIDE #: 154 Note: Some containers may be DOT exempt, please check BOL for exact container classification 15 Regulatory information TSCA: All components of this product are included on or are in compliance with the U.S. TSCA regulations. CERCLA AND/OR SARA REPORTABLE QUA.i. .... TITY (RQ): 1,962 gallons due to PHOSPHORIC ACID; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION: 21 CFR 176 .170 (components. of pape!" and paperboard in contact with aqueous and fatty foods) NSF Registered and/or meets USDA (according to 1998 Guidelines) : Registration number: 140901 Substance or Preparation: FLOGARD MS6209
• Pages Category Code(s): SARA SECTION 312 HAZARD CLASS: Immediate(acute);Delayed(Chronic) SARA SECTION 302 CBEMICALS: No regulated constituent present at OSHA thresholds SARA SECTION 313 CHEMICALS: CAS# CHEMICAL NAME RANGE 41.0-50.0% 13598-37-3 PHOSPHORIC ACID, ZINC SALT (2:1) CALIFORNIA REGULA'l'ORY INFORMATION CALIFORNIA SAFE DRINKING WATER AND TOXIC ENFORCEMENT ACT (PROPOSITION 65): This product contains one or more ingredients at trace levels known to the state of California to cause cancer and reproductive toxicity. MICHIGAN REGULATORY INFORMJ\.TION No regulated constituent present at OSHA thresholds 16 Other information BMIS VII Health Fire Reactivity Special (1) Protective Equipment 3 0 0 CORR D CODE TRANSLATION Serious Hazard Minimal Hazard Minimal Hazard DOT corrosive Goggles,Face Shield,Gloves,Apron (1) refer to section 8 of MSDS for additional protective equipment recommendations. CHANGE LOG EFFECTIVE DATE REVISIONS TO SECTION: SUPERCEDES ---------------------------------------MSDS status: 29-JAN-1997 ** NEW ** 05-JAN-1999 10 29-JAN-1997 25-JUN-1999 11 05-JAN-1999 23-AUG-1999 12 25-JUN-1999 13-JUL-2000 15 23-AUG-1999 03-JAN-2001 15 13-JUL-2000 01-MAY-2001 12 03-JAN-2001 01-MAY-2007 4,5,8,10,15 01-MAY-2001 29-JAN-2008 4,8,13 01-MAY-2007 29-JAN-2009 3,4,8,10,15 29-JAN-2008 05-FEB-2009 12 29-JAN-2009 24-JUN-2009 15 05-FEB-2009 Substance or Preparation: FLOGARD MS6209 Pages GE BETZ I INC. MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET EFFECTIVE DATE: PRINTED DATE: 02-MAR-2009 SUPERCEDES: 1) Identification Identification of substance or preparation FLOGARD MS6235 Product Application Area ONCE-THROUGH SYSTEM TREATMENT Company/Undertaking Identification GE Betz, Inc. 4636 Somerton Road, Trevose, Pa. 19053 T 215 355 3300 F 215 953 5524 Emergency Telephone 1 800 877 1940 Prepared by Product Stewardship Group: 215 355-3300 2) HAZARD(S) IDENTIFICATION ***************************.**************************************************** EMERGENCY OVERVIEW CAUTION May caLlse slight irritation the skin. May cause moderate irritation to the eyes. Mists/aerosols may cause irritation to upper respiratory tract. DOT hazard: Corrosive to steel Odor: None; Appearance: Colorless, Liquid Fire fighters should wear positive pressure self-contained breathing apparatus(full face-piece type). Proper fire-extinguishing media: dry chemical, carbon dioxide, foam or water POTENTIAL HEALTH EFFECTS ACUTE SKIN EFFECTS: Primary route of exposure; May slight irritation to the skin. ACUTE EYE EFFECTS: May cause moderate irritation to the eyes . . ACUTE RESPIRATORY EFFECTS: Mists/aerosols may cause irritation to upper respiratory tract. PAGE 1 Identification of substance or preparation EFFECTIVE DATE: CONTINUED FLOGARD MS6235 INGESTION EFFECTS: May cause gastrointestinal irritation. TARGET ORGANS: No evidence of potential chronic effects. MEDICAL CONDITIONS AGGRAVATED: Not known. SYMPTOMS OF EXPOSURE: May cause redness or itching of skin. 3) COMPOSITION I INFORMATION ON INGREDIENTS Information for specific product ingredients as required by the U.S. OSHA HAZARD COMMUNICATION STANDARD is listed. Refer to additional sections of this MSDS for our assessment of the potential hazards of this formulation. HAZARDOUS INGREDIENTS: Cas# 7758-29-4 Chemical Name SODIUM TRIPOLYPHOSPHATE Potential irritant 4) FIRST-AID MEASURES SKIN CONTACT: Range(w/w%) 10-29 Wash thoroughly with soap and water. Remove contaminated clothing. Get medical attention if irritation develops or persists. EYE CONTACT: Remove contact lenses. Hold eyelids apart. Immediately flush eyes with plenty of low-pressure water for at least 15 minutes. Get immediate medical attention. INHALATION: If nasal, throat or lung irritation develops -remove to fresh air and get medical attention. INGESTION: Do not feed anything by mouth to an unconscious or convulsive victim. Do not induce vomiting. Immediately contact physician. Dilute contents of stomach using 2-8 fluid ounces (60-249 ml) of milk or water. NOTES TO PHYSICIANS: No special instructions PAGE 2 Identification of substance or preparation EFFECTIVE DATE: CONTINUED FLOGARD MS6235

5) FIRE-FIGHTING MEASURES FIRE FIGHTING INSTRUCTIONS: Ffre fighters should wear positive pressure self-contained breathing apparatus (full face-piece type). EXTINGUISHING MEDIA: dry chemical, carbon dioxide, foam or water HAZARDOUS DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS: oxides of phosphorus FLASH POINT: > 213F > 101C P-M(CC) 6) ACCIDENTAL RELEASE MEASURES PROTECTION AND SPILL CONTAINMENT: Ventilate area. Use specified protective equipment. Contain and absorb on absorbent material. Place in waste disposal container. Flush area with water. Wet area may be slippery. Spread sand/grit. DISPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS: Water contaminated with this product may be sent to a sanitary sewer treatment facility.in accordance with any local agreement.a permitted waste treatment facility or discharged under a permit. Product as is -Incinerate.or land dispose in an approved landfill. 7) HANDLING AND STORAGE HANDLING: Normal chemical handling. STORAGE: Keep containers closed when not in use. Protect from freezing. If frozen, thaw and mix completely prior to use. Store below 100F (38C). Shelf life 90 days. 8) EXPOSURE CONTROLS/PERSONAL PROTECTION CHEMICAL NAME SODIUM TRIPOLYPHOSPHATE PEL (OSHA): NOT DETERMINED TLV (ACGIH): NOT DETERMINED ENGINEERING CONTROLS: adequate ventilation PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT: EXPOSURE LIMITS Use protective equipment in accordance with 29CFR 1910 Subpart I PAGE 3 RESPIRATORY PROTECTION: A RESPIRATORY PROTECTION PROGRAM THAT MEETS OSHA'S 29 CFR 1910.134 AND ANSI Z88.2 REQUIREMENTS MUST BE FOLLOWED WHENEVER WORKPLACE CONDITIONS WARRANT A RESPIRATOR'S USE. Identification of substance or preparation EFFECTIVE DATE: CONTINUED : FLOGARD MS6235 USE AIR PURIFYING RESPIRATORS WITHIN USE LIMITATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE EQUIPMENT OR ELSE USE SUPPLIED AIR-RESPIRATORS.

If air-purifying respirator use is appropriate, use any of the following particulate respirators: N95, N99, N100, R95, R99, R100, P95, P99 or P100. SKIN PROTECTION: rubber, butyl, viton or neoprene gloves --Wash off after each use. Replace as necessary. EYE PROTECTION: splash proof chemical goggles 9) PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES Specific Grav. (70F,21C) 1 .336 Freeze Point (F) -27 Freeze Point (C) * --3 Viscosity(cps 70F,21C) 29 Odor Appearance Physical State Flash Point P-M(CC) pH As Is (approx.) Evaporation Rate (Ether=1) Percent VOC: Vapor Pressure (mmHG) Vapor Density (air=1) % Solubility (water) None Colorless Liquid > 213F > 100C 7.5 < 1.00 e.0 NA= not applicable ND = not determined 10) STABILITY AND REACTIVITY CHEMICAL STABILITY: Stable under normal storage conditions. POSSIBILITY OF HAZARDOUS REACTIONS: No known hazardous reactions. INCOMPATIBILITIES: May react with strong oxidizers. DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS: oxides of phosphorus 11) TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION No Data Available. 12) ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION AQUATIC TOXICOLOGY Ceriodaphnia 48 Hour Static Renewal Bioassay LC50= 759; No Effect Level= 480 mg/L Ceriodaphnia 7 Day Chronic Bioassay IC25 = 623; LC50= 759 mg/L -18.0 < 1.00 100.0 PAGE 4 Identification of substance or preparation EFFECTIVE DATE: CONTINUED FLOGARD MS6235 Fathead Minnow 7 Day Chronic Bioassay LC50= 1441; IC25 = 605 mglL Fathead Minnow 96 Hour Static Renewal Bioassay LC50= 1654; No Effect Level= 480 mg/L B IODEGRADA TI ON No Data Available. 13) DISPOSAL CONSIDERATIONS If this undiluted product is discarded as a waste, the US RCRA hazardous waste identification number is : D002=Corrosive(steel). Please be advised; however, that state and local requirements for waste disposal may be more restrictive or otherwise different from federal regulations. Consult state and local regulations regarding the proper disposal of this material. 14) TRANSPORT INFORMATION DOT HAZARD: Corrosive to steel PROPER SHIPPING NAME: CORROSIVE LIQUID, N.O.S.(SODIUM TRIPOLYPHOSPHATE) 8, UN1760, PG III, RQ DOT EMERGENCY RESPONSE GUIDE #: 154 Note: Some containers may be DOT exempt, please check BOL for exact container classification 15) REGULATORY INFORMATION TSCA: All components of this product are included on or are in compliance with the U.S. TSCA regulations. CERCLA AND/OR SARA REPORTABLE QUANTITY (RQ): 4,321 gallons due to SODIUM TRIPOLYPHOSPHATE; NSF Registered and/or meets USDA (according to 1998 Guidelines): Registration number: Not Registered SARA SECTION 312 HAZARD CLASS: Immediate(acute) SARA SECTION 302 CHEMICALS: No regulated constituent present at OSHA thresholds SARA SECTION 313 CHEMICALS: No regulated constituent present at OSHA thresholds PAGE 5 Identification of substance or preparation EFFECTIVE DA TE : CALIFORNIA REGULATORY INFORMATION CALIFORNIA SAFE DRINKING WATER AND TOXIC ENFORCEMENT ACT (PROPOSITION 65): No regulated constituents present CONTINUED FLOGARD MS6235 MICHIGAN REGULATORY INFORMATION No regulated constituent present at OSHA thresholds 16) OTHER INFORMATION HMIS vII Health Fire Reactivity Special (1) Protective Equipment 1 e 0 CORR B CODE TRANSLATION Slight Hazard Minimal Hazard Minimal Hazard DOT corrosive Goggles,Gloves (1) refer to section 8 of MSDS for additional protective equipment recommendations. CHANGE LOG MSDS status: PAGE 6 EFFECTIVE DATE REVISIONS TO SECTION: SUPERCEDES ** NEW ** GE

• Water & Process Technologies Material Safety Data Sheet FLOGARD MS6201 Issue Date: 29-FEB-2008 Supercedes: 23-JAN-2007 1 Identification of Product and Company Identification of substance or preparation FLOGARD MS6201 Product Application Area Water-based corrosion inhibitor. Company/Undertaking Identification GE Betz, Inc. 4636 Somerton Road Trevose, PA 19053 T 215 355-3300, F 215 953 5524 Emergency Telephone (800) 877-1940 Prepared by Product Stewardship Group: 215 355-3300 2 Composition I Information On Ingredients Information for specific product ingredients as required by the U.S. OSHA HAZARD COMMUNICATION STANDARD is listed. Refer to additional sections of this MSDS for our assessment of the potential hazards of this formulation. HAZARDOUS INGREDIENTS: Cas# 7320-34-5 Chemical Name TETRAPOTASSIUM PYROPHOSPHATE Corrosive to aluminum; severe eye irritant; skin irritant 3 Hazards Identification Range(wiw%) 40-70 ******************************************************************************** EMERGENCY OVERVIEW WARNING May cause moderate irritation to the skin. Severe irritant to the eyes. Mists/aerosols may cause irritation to upper respiratory tract. DOT hazard: Corrosive to aluminum Odor: Slight; Appearance: Colorless To Yellow, Liquid Substance or Preparation: FLOGARD MS6201 Page 1 Fire fighters should wear positive pressure self-contained breathing apparatus(full face-piece type). Proper fire-extinguishing media: dry chemical, carbon dioxide, foam or water ******************************************************************************** POTENTIAL HEALTH EFFECTS ACOTE SKIN EFFECTS: Primary route of exposure; May cause moderate irritation to the skin. ACOTE EYE EFFECTS: Severe irritant to the eyes. ACOTE RESPIRATORY EFFECTS: Mists/aerosols may cause irritation to upper respiratory tract. INGESTION EFFECTS: May cause slight gastrointestinal irritation. TARGET ORGANS: No evidence of potential chronic effects. MEDICAL CONDITIONS AGGRAVATED: Not known. SYMPTOMS OF EXPOSURE: May cause redness or itching of skin. 4 First Aid Measures SKIN CONTACT: Wash thoroughly with soap and water. Remove contaminated clothing. Thoroughly wash clothing before reuse. Get medical attention if irritation develops or persists. EYE CONTACT: Remove contact lenses. Hold eyelids apart. Immediately flush eyes with plenty of low-pressure water for at least 15 minutes. Get immediate medical attention. INHALATION: If nasal, throat or lung irritation develops -remove to fresh air and get medical attention. INGESTION: Do not feed anything by mouth to an unconscious or convulsive victim. Do not induce vomiting. Immediately contact physician. Dilute contents of stomach using 2-8 fluid ounces (60-240 mL) of milk or water. NOTES TO PHYSICIANS: No special instructions 5 Fire Fighting Measures Substance or Preparation: FLOGARD MS6201 Page2 FIRE FIGHTING INSTRUCTIONS: Fire fighters should wear positive pressure self-contained breathing apparatus (full face-piece type). EXTINGUISHING MEDIA: dry chemical, carbon dioxide, foam or water HAZARDOUS DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS: oxides of phosphorus FLASH POINT: > 200F > 93C SETA(CC) 6 Accidental Release Measures PROTECTION AND. SPILL CONTAINMENT: Ventilate area. Use specified protective equipment. Contain and absorb on absorbent material. Place in waste disposal container. Contaminated area may be washed down with water. DISPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS: Water contaminated with this "product may be sent to a sanitary sewer treatment facility, in accordance with any local agreement,a permitted waste treatment facility or discharged under a permit. Product as is -Incinerate or land dispose in an approved landfill. 7 Handling & Storage HANDLING: Alkaline. Do not mix with acidic material. STORAGE: Keep containers closed when not in use. Reasonable and safe chemical storage. 8 Exposure Controls I Personal Protection CHEMICAL NAME TETRAPOTASSIUM PYROPHOSPHATE PEL (OSHA): NOT DETERMINED TLV (ACGIH) : NOT DETERMINED ENGINEERING CONTROLS: adequate ventilation PERSONAL PROTECTIVE*EQUIPMENT: EXPOSURE LIMITS Use protective equipment in accordance with 29CFR 1910 Subpart I RESPIRATORY PROTECTION: A RESPIRATORY PROTECTION PROGRAM THAT MEETS OSP.A'S 29 CFR 1910.134 AND ANSI Z88.2 REQUIREMENTS MUST BE FOLLOWED WHENEVER WORKPLACE CONDITIONS WARRANT A RESPIRATOR'S USE. USE AIR PURIFYING WITHIN USE LIMITATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE EQUIPMENT OR ELSE USE SUPPLIED AIR-RESPIRATORS. If air-purifying respirator use is appropriate, use any of the following particulate respirators: N95, N99, NlOO, R95, R99, RlOO, P95, P99 or PlOO. SKIN PROTECTION: rubber, viton or neoprene gloves Wash off eact use. Replace as necessary. EYE PROTECTION: splash proof chemical goggles Substance or Preparation: FLOGARD MS6201 Page3 9 Physical & Chemical Properties Specific Grav. ( 70F, 21C) 1. 729 Freeze Point (F) < -30 Freeze Point (C) < -34 Viscosity(cps 70F,21C) 78 Odor Appearance Physical State Flash Point SETA(CC) pH As Is (approx.) Evaporation Rate (Ether=l) Percent VOC: Vapor Pressure (mmHG) Vapor Density (air=l) % Solubility (water) Slight Colorless To Yellow Liquid > 200F > 93C 13.0 < 1.00 0.0 NA = not applicable ND not determined 1 O Stability & Reactivity STABILITY: Stable under normal storage conditions. HAZARDOUS POLYMERIZATION: Will not occur. INCOMPATIBILITIES: May react with strong oxides. DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS: oxides of phosphorus INTERNAL PUMPOUT/CLEANOUT CATEGORIES: "A 11 Toxicological Information Oral LDSO RAT: Dermal LDSO RABBIT: Skin Irritation Score RABBIT: 12 Ecological Information AQUATIC TOXICOLOGY 2,980 mg/kg >7,940 mg/kg o.s Bluegill Sunfish 48 Hour Static Screen 0% Mortality= 500 mg/L -15.0 < 1.00 100.0 Daphnia magna 48 Hour Static Renewal Bioassay "(pH adjusted) LCSO= 660; No Effect Level= 268 mg/L Fathead Minnow 96 Hour Static Renewal Bioassay (pH adjusted) LC50= 785; No Effect Level= 423 mg/L BIODEGRADATION Product contains only inorganics that are not subject to typical biological degradation. Assimilation by microbes may occur in waste treatment or the environment. 13 Disposal Considerations Substance or Preparation: FLOGARD MS6201 Page 4 If this undiluted product is discarded as a waste, the US RCRA hazardous waste identification number is : D002=Corrosive(pH). Please be advised; however, that state and local requirements for waste disposal may be more restrictive or otherwise different'from federal regulations. Consult state and local regulations regarding the proper disposal of this material. 14 Transport Information DOT HAZARD: Corrosive to aluminum PROPER SHIPPING NAME: CORROSIVE LIQUID, BASIC, INORGANIC, N.0.S. (POTASSIUM HYDROXIDE) 8, UN 3266, PG III DOT EMERGENCY RESPONSE GUIDE #: 154 Note: Some containers may be DOT exempt, please check BOL for exact container classification 15 Regulatory Information TSCA: All components of this product are included on or are in compliance with the U.S. TSCA regulations. CERCLA AND/OR SARA REPORTABLE QUANTITY (RQ) : No regulated constituent present at OSHA thresholds FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION: 21 CFR 176.170 (components of paper and paperboard in contact with aqueous and fatty foods) USDA FOOD PLANT APPROVALS: SEC.G2,G5,G7 SARA SECTION 312 HAZARD CLASS: Immediate(acute) SARA SECTION 302 CHEMICALS: No regulated constituent present at OSHA thresholds SARA SECTION 313 CHEMICALS: No regulated constituent present at OSHA thresholds CALIFORNIA REGULATORY INFORMATION CALIFORNIA SAFE DRINKING WATER AND TOXIC ENFORCEMENT ACT {PROPOSITION 65) : No regulated constituents present MICHIGAN REGULATORY INFORMATION No regulated constituent present at OSHA thresholds 16 Other Information NFPA/HMIS Health Fire Reactivity Special (1) Equipment 2 0 0 CORR B Substance or Preparation: FLOGARD MS6201 CODE TRANSLATION Moderate Hazard Minimal Hazard Minimal Hazard DOT co!'rosive Goggles, Gloves Page 5 (1) refer to section 8 of MSDS for additional protective equipment recommendations. CHANGE LOG EFFECTIVE DATE REVISIONS TO SECTION: SUPERCEDES ----------------------------------------MSDS status: 28-JAN-1997 ** NEW ** 12-MAY-1997 15 28-JAN-1997 29-MAY-1998 15 12-MAY-1997 15-JUN-1998 15 29-MAY-1998 31-MAY-2001 15 15-JUN-1998 15-JAN-2002 4 31-MAY-2001 29-NOV-2006 4 15-JAN-2002 23-JAN-2007 3,5,14 29-NOV-2006 29-FEB-2008 2,3,4,8,16 23-JAN-2007 Substance or Preparation: FLOGARD MS6201 Page6

. ' . . . . Water & Process Technologies Shee!: FloGardŽ MS6201 General Corrosion Inhibitor & Chelant * *

• Mild steel corrosion inhibitor for once-thorough and recirculating cooling systems Effective iron, manganese and calcium chelant for once-through cooling systems FDA approved for paper mill supply applications Description and Use FloGardŽ MS6201 is a liquid polyphosphate product designed to inhibit corrosion and deposition in once-through and recirculating cooling water systems. Once-through Systems -At typical use levels, the polyphosphate in FloGard MS6201 combines with calcium and/or zinc to form a barrier film as a cathodic inhibitor. FloGard MS6201 also functions as a deposit control agent. Uncontrolled deposition in a water system can cause numerous problems including reduced heat transfer, restricted water flow and deposit corrosion. FloGard MS6201 effectively controls deposition of iron, manganese and calcium to minimize these operating problems.
• Recirculating Cooling Systems -FloGard MS6201 is often used in combination with other corrosion inhibitors to minimize corrosion of mild steel surfaces. Treatment and Feeding Requirements Proper treatment levels for FloGard MS6201 depend on many factors, such as the cal-cium tion and pH of the water, and other conditions ticular to a given installation. This product should be used in accordance with control procedures GE In-frastructure Water & Process Technologies lishes for a specific application. FloGard MS6201 may be fed directly from the ping container or diluted to a convenient strength. For best results, this product should be fed ously. A photometric procedure can be used to monitor the total inorganic phosphate level in the treated water. General Properties Physical properties of FloGard MS6201 are shown on the Material Safety Data Sheet, a copy of which is available upon request. Packaging Information FloGard MS6201 is a liquid blend. supplied in 55-gallon (208-liter). bung-type, nonreturnable steel drums. In addition, it is also available under the GE Semi-Bulk ControlŽ and Point Of FeedŽ Service Programs for contracted quantities in certain graphic areas. Storage Protect from freezing. If this product is frozen during shipment or storage. slight mixing may be required to ensure homogeneity. Safety Precautions A Material Safety Data Sheet containing detailed information about this product is available upon request. Visit us online at www.gewoter.com ©2004, General Electric Campany. All rights reserved. Global Headquarters Trevose. PA 215-355-3300 North America Minnetonka. l>l,N 952-933-2277 Europe/Middle East/Africa Belgiurr' 32-16-40-20-00 Asia/Pacific Shanghai, Chino 86-21-5298-4573 Products mentioned are tradiemorks of the General Eiectnc Company and me:,. be registered cne er more GE Water & Process Technologies Material Safety Data Sheet Issue Date: 24-JUN-2009 Supercedes: 05-FEB-2009 SPECTRUS 801500 1 Identification Identification of substance or preparation SPECTRUS 801500 Product Application Area Water-based deposit control agent. Company/Undertaking Identification GE Betz, Inc. 4636 Somerton Road Trevose, PA 19053 T 215 355-3300, F 215 953 5524 Emergency Telephone (800) 877-1940 Prepared by Product Stewardship Group: T 215-355-3300 Prepared on: 24-JUN-2009 2 Hazard(s) identification ******************************************************************************** EMERGENCY OVERVIEW CAUTION May cause slight irritation to the skin. May cause moderate irritation to the eyes. Mists/aerosols may cause irritation to upper respiratory tract. DOT hazard is not applicable Odor: Slight; Appearance: Colorless, Liquid Fire fighters should wear positive pressure self-contained breathing apparatus(full face-piece type). Proper fire-extinguishing media: dry chemical, carbon dioxide, foam or water ********************************************************************************* POTENTIAL HEALTH EFFECTS ACUTE SKIN EFFECTS: Primary route of exposure; May cause slight irritation to the skin. ACUTE EYE EFFECTS: May cause moderate irritation to the eyes. ACUTE RESPIRATORY EFFECTS: Mists/aerosols may cause irritation to upper respiratory tract. Substance or Preparation: SPECTRUS 801500 Page 1 INGESTION EFFECTS: May cause slight gastrointestinal irritation. TARGET ORGANS: No evidence of potential chronic effects. MEDICAL CONDITIONS AGGRAVATED: Not known. SYMPTOMS OF EXPOSURE: May cause redness or itching of skin. 3 Composition I information on ingredients Information for specific product* ingredients as required by the U.S. OSHA HAZARD COMMUNICATION STANDARD is listed. Refer to additional sections of this MSDS for our assessment of the potential hazards of this formulation. HAZARDOUS INGREDIENTS: This product is not hazardous as defined by OSHA regulations. No component is considered to be a carcinogen by the National Toxicology Program, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, or the Occupational Safety and Health Administration at OSHA thresholds for carcinogens. 4 First-aid measures SKIN CONTACT: Wash thoroughly with soap and water. Remove contaminated clothing. Get medical attention if irritation develops or persists. EYE CONTACT: Remove contact lenses. Hold eyelids apart. Immediately flush eyes with plenty of low-pressure water for at least 15 minutes. Get immediate medical attention. INHALATION: If nasal, throat or lung irritation develops -remove to fresh air and get medical attention. INGE.STION: Do not feed anything by mouth to an unconscious or convulsive victim. Do not induce vomiting. Immediately physician .
• Dilute contents of stomach using 2-8 fluid ounces (60-240 mL) of milk or water. NOTES TO PHYSICIANS: No special instructions 5 Fire-fighting measures Substance or Preparation: SPECTRUS 801500 Page 2 FIRE FIGHTING INSTRUCTIONS: Fire fighters should wear positive pressure self-contained breathing apparatus (full face-piece type). EXTINGUISHING MEDIA: dry chemical, carbon dioxide, foam or water HAZARDOUS DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS: oxides of carbon FLASH POINT: > 200F > 93C SETA(CC) 6 Accidental release measures PROTECTION AND SPILL CONTAINMENT: Ventilate area. Use specified protective equipment. Contain and absorb on absorbent material. Place in waste disposal container. Flush area with water. Wet area may be slippery. Spread sand/grit. DISPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS: Water contaminated with this product may be sent to a sanitary sewer treatment facility,in accordance with any local agreement,a permitted waste treatment facility or discharged under a permit. Product as is -Incinerate or land dispose in an approved landfill. 7 Handling and storage HANDLING: Alkaline. Do not mix with acidic material. STORAGE: Keep containers closed when not in use. Reasonable and safe chemical storage. 8 Exposure controls I personal protection EXPOSURE LIMITS This product is not hazardous as defined by OSHA regulations. ENGINEERING CONTROLS: adequate ventilation PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT: Use protective equipment in accordance with 29CFR 1910 Subpart I RESPIRATORY PROTECTION: A RESPIRATORY PROTECTION PROGRAM THAT MEETS OSHA'S 29 CFR 1910.134 AND ANSI Z88.2 REQUIREMENTS MUST BE FOLLOWED WHENEVER WORKPLACE CONDITIONS WARRANT A RESPIRATOR'S USE. USE AIR PURIFYING RESPIRATORS WITHIN USE LIMITATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE EQUIPMENT OR ELSE USE SUPPLIED AIR-RESPIRATORS. If air-purifying respirator use is appropriate, use any of the following particulate respirators: N95, N99, NlOO, R95, R99, RlOO, P95, P99 or PlOO. SKIN PROTECTION: rubber, butyl or viton gloves --Wash off after each use. Replace as necessary. EYE PROTECTION: splash proof chemical goggles Substance or Preparation: SPECTRUS 801500 Page3 9 Physical and chemical properties Spec. Freeze Point (F) Freeze Point (C) Viscosity(cps 70F,21C) 1.020 31 Odor Appearance Physical State -1 30 Flash Point SETA(CC) pH As Is {approx.) Evaporation Rate (Ether=l) Percent VOC: Vapor Pressure (mrnHG) Vapor Density (air=l) % Solubility (water) Slight Colorless Liquid > 200F > 93C 12.5 < 1.00 o.o NA = not applicable ND not determined 1 O Stability and reactivity CHEMICAL STABILITY: Stable under normal storage conditions. POSSIBILITY OF .HAZARDOUS REACTIONS: -18.0 < 1. 00 100.0 Contact with strong acids may cause a violent reaction releasing heat. INCOMPATIBILITIES: May react with strong oxidizers. DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS: oxides of carbon 11 Toxicological information Oral LD50 RAT: NOTE -Estimated value Dermal LD50 RABBIT: NOTE -Estimated value 12 Ecological information AQUATIC TOXICOLOGY >4,600 mg/kg >2,000 mg/kg Ceriodaphnia 48 Hour Static Renewal Bioassay LC50 Greater Than= 3000 mg/L Ceriodaphnia 7 Day Static Renewal Bioassay .IC25 = 652 mg/L Daphnia magna 48 Hour Static Acute Bioassay 0% Mortality= 2000 mg/L Fathead Minnow 7 Day Static Renewal Bioassay IC25 = 3000; LC50 Greater Than= 3000 mg/L Fathead Minnow 96 Hour Static Bioassay with 48-Hour Renewal 0% Mortality= 2000 mg/L Menidia beryllina (Silversides) 96 Hour Static Acute Bioassay 0% Mortality= 5000 mg/L Mysid Shrimp 96 Hour Static Acute Bioassay 25% Mortality= 5000; No Effect Level= 2500 mg/L Rainbow Trout 96 Hour Static Renewal Bioassay No Effect Level= 3000 mg/L Substance or Preparation: SPECTR!JS 801500 Page 4 No Data Available. BIODEGRADATION BOD-28 (mg/g): 5 BOD-5 (mg/g): 4 COD (mg/g): 341 TOC (mg/g) : 80 13 Disposal considerations If this undiluted product is discarded as a waste, the US RCRA hazardous waste identification number is : D002=Corrosive(pH). Please be advised; however, that state and local requirements for waste disposal may be more restrictive or otherwise different from federal regulations. Consult state and local regulations regarding the proper disposal of this material. 14 Transport information DOT HAZARD: Not Applicable PROPER SHIPPING NAME: DOT EMERGENCY RESPONSE GUIDE i: Not applicable Note: Some containers may be DOT exempt, please check BOL for exact container classification 15 Regulatory information TSCA: All components of this product are included on or are in compliance with the U.S. TSCA regulations. CERCLA AND/OR SARA REPORTABLE QUANTITY (RQ): No regulated constituent present at OSHA thresholds FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION: 21 CFR 176.170 (components of paper and paperboard in contact with aqueous and fatty foods) NSF Registered and/or meets USDA (according to 1998 Guidelines) : Registration number: 141059 Category Code(s): GS Cooling and retort water treatment products -all food processing areas G7 Boiler treatment products -all food areas/nonfood contact SARA SECTION 312 HAZARD CLASS: Product is non-hazardous under Section 311/312 SARA SECTION 302 CHEMICALS: No regulated constituent present at OSHA thresholds SARA SECTION 313 CHEMICALS: No regulated constituent present at OSHA thresholds CALIFORNIA REGULATORY INFORMATION CALIFORNIA SAFE DRINKING WATER AND TOXIC ENFORCEMENT ACT (PROPOSITION 65) : This product contains one or more ingredients at trace levels known Substance or Preparation: SPECTRUS 801500 Page 5 to the state of California to cause cancer and reproductive toxicity. MICHIGAN REGULATORY INFORMATION No regulated constituent present at OSHA thresholds 16 Other information HMIS vII Health Fire Reactivity Special (1) Protective Equipment 1 0 0 ALK B CODE TRANSLATION Slight Hazard Minimal Hazard Minimal Hazard pH above 12.0 Goggles, Gloves (1) refer to section 8 of MSDS for additional protective equipment recommendations. CHANGE LOG EFFECTIVE DATE REVISIONS TO SECTION: SUPERCEDES -----------------------------------------MSDS status: 14-JUL-1997 ** NEW ** 09-SEP-1998 15 14-JUL-1997 15-SEP-1998 15 09-SEP-1998 25-JUN-1999 11 15-SEP-1998 02-APR-2001 12 25-JUN-1999 25-JUN-2001 15 02-APR-2001 05-0CT-2001 4,16 25-JUN-2001 10-JAN-2002 15 05-0CT-2001 18-JAN-2002 15 10-JAN-2002 07-FEB-2006 12 18-JAN-2002 10-JUL-2008 4, 8, 11, 15 07-FEB-2006 31-0CT-2008 11 10-JUL-2008 05-FEB-2009 12 31-0CT-2008 24-JUN-2009 10,15 05-FEB-2009 Substance or Preparation: SPECTRUS 801500 Page 6 GE Water & Process Technologies Material Safety Data Sheet Issue Date: 28-JAN-2009 Supercedes: 16-0CT-2006 SPECTRUS OX1201 1 Identification Identification of substance or preparation SPECTRUS OX1201 Product Application Area Water-based microbial control agent. Company/Undertaking Identification GE Betz, Inc. 4636 Somerton Road Trevose, PA 19053 T 215 355-3300, F 215 953 5524 Emergency Telephone (800) 877-1940 Prepared by Product Stewardship Group: T 215-355-3300 Prepared on: 28-JAN-2009 2 Hazard(s) identification ******************************************************************************** EMERGENCY OVERVIEW CAUTION Non-hazardous to skin. May cause moderate irritation to the eyes. Mists/aerosols may cause irritation to upper respiratory tract. DOT hazard is not applicable Odor: Slight; Appearance: Colorless, Liquid Fire fighters should wear positive pressure self-contained breathing apparatus(full face-piece type). Proper fire-extinguishing media: dry chemical, carbon dioxide, foam or water ******************************************************************************** POTENTIAL HEALTH EFFECTS ACUTE SKIN EFFECTS: Primary route of exposure; Non-hazardous to skin. ACUTE EYE EFFECTS: May cause moderate irritation to the eyes. ACUTE RESPIRATORY EFFECTS: Mists/aerosols may cause irritation to upper respiratory tract. INGESTION EFFECTS: Substance or Preparation: SPECTRUS OX1201 Page 1 May cause gastrointestinal irritation. TARGET ORGANS: No evidence of potential chronic effects. MEDICAL CONDITIONS AGGRAVATED: Not known. SYMPTOMS OF EXPOSURE: May cause redness or itching of skin. 3 Composition I information on ingredients Information for specific product ingredients as required by the U.S. OSHA HAZARD COMMUNICATION STANDARD is listed. Refer to sections of this MSDS for our assessment of the potential hazards of this formulation. HAZARDOUS INGREDIENTS: Casll Chemical Name Range(w/w%) 7647-15-6 SODIUM BROMIDE Irritant 4 First-aid measures SKIN CONTACT: 30-60 Wash thoroughly with soap and water. Remove contaminated clothing. Get medical attention if irritation develops or persists. EYE CONTACT: Remove contact lenses. Hold eyelids apart. Immediately flush eyes with plenty of low-pressure water for at least 15 minutes. Get immediate medical attention. INHALATION: If nasal, throat or lung irritation develops -remove to frest air and get medical attention. INGESTION: Do not feed anything by mouth to an unconscious or convulsive victim. Do not induce vomiting. Immediately contact physician. Dilute contents of stomach using 2-8 fluid ounces (60-240 mL) of milk or water. NOTES TO PHYSICIANS: Probable mucosa! damage may contraindicate the use of gastric lavage. 5 Fire .. fighting measures Substance or Preparation: SPECTRUS OX1201 Page 2 FIRE FIGHTING INSTRUCTIONS: Fire fighters should wear positive pressure self-contained breathing apparatus (full face-piece type) . EXTINGUISHING MEDIA: dry chemical, carbon foam or water HAZARDOUS DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS: hydrogen bromide FLASH pOINT: > 200F > 93C P-M(CC) 6 Accidental release measures PROTECTION AND SPILL CONTAINMENT: Ventilate area. Use specified protective equipment. Contain and absorb on absorbent material. Place in waste disposal container. Contaminated area may be washed down with water. DISPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS: Water contaminated with this product may be sent to a sanitary sewer treatment facility,in accordance with any local agreement,a permitted waste treatment facility or discharged under a permit. Product as is -Dispose of in approved pesticide facility or according to label instructions. 7 Handling and storage HANDLING: Normal chemical handling. STORAGE: Keep containers closed when not in use. Protect from freezing. Do not store at elevated temperatures. Shelf life 360 days. 8 Exposure controls I personal protection CHEMICAL NAME SODIUM BROMIDE PEL (OSHA): NOT DETERMINED TLV (ACGIH) : NOT DETERMINED ENGINEERING CONTROLS: adequate ventilation PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT: EXPOSURE LIMITS Use protective equipment in accordance with 29CFR 1910 Subpart I RESPIRATORY PROTECTION: A RESPIRATORY PROTECTION PROGRAM THAT MEETS OSHA'S 29 CFR 1910.134 AND ANSI Z88.2 REQUIREMENTS MUST BE FOLLOWED WHENEVER WORKPLACE CONDITIONS WARRANT A RESPIRATOR'S USE. USE AIR PURIFYING RESPIRATORS WITHIN USE LIMITATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE EQUIPMENT OR ELSE USE SUPPLIED AIR-RESPIRATORS. If air-purifying respirator use is appropriate, use any of the following particulate respirators: N95, N99, NlOO, R95, R99, RlOO, P95, P99 or PlOO. SKIN PROTECTION: rubber, butyl, viton or neoprene gloves --Wash off after Substance or Preparation: SPECTRUS OX1201 Page3 each use. Replace as necessary. EYE PROTECTION: splash proof chemical goggles 9 Physical and chemical properties Specific Grav.(70F,21C) 1.403 Freeze Point (F) < -30 Freeze Point {C) < -34 Viscosity(cps 70F,21C) 12 Odor Appearance Physical State Flash Point P-M(CC) pH As Is (approx.) Evaporation Rate (Ether=l) Percent voe: Vapor Pressure (mmHG) Vapor Density (air=l) % Solubility (water) Slight Colorless Liquid > 200F > 93C 7.5 < 1.00 0.0 NA = not applicable ND = not determined 1 O Stability and reactivity CHEMICAL STABILITY: Stable under normal storage conditions. POSSIBILITY OF HAZARDOUS REACTIONS: No known hazardous reactions. INCOMPATIBILITIES: -18.0 < 1.00 100.0 Solid sodium bromide may react with easily oxidizable materials. DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS: hydrogen bromide 11 Toxicological information Oral LD50 RAT: Reproductive Toxicity RAT: NOTE Generation: decreased Der.mal LD50 RABBIT: Skin Irritation Score RABBIT: Eye *rrritation Score RABBIT: 12 Ecological information AQUATIC TOXICOLOGY >5,000 mg/kg 4, so.a mg/kg/day fertility* >2,000 mg/kg 0 16 Bluegill Sunfish 96 Hour Static Acute Bioassay (As Bromine) LC50= .* 52; No Effect Level= .3 mg/L Bluegill Sunfish 96 Hour Static Acute Bioassay (Product as is) LCSO Greater Than= 1000 mg/L Daphnia magna 48 Hour Static Acute Bioassay (As Bromine) LCSO= .71; No Effect Level= .41. mg/L Daphnia magna 48 Hour Static Acute Bioassay (Product as is) LCSO= 27500 mg/L Substance or Preparation: SPECTRUS OX1201 Page 4 Mysid Shrimp 96 Hour Flow-Thru Bioassay (As Bromine) LCSO= .17 mg/L Rainbow Trout 96 Hour Static Acute Bioassay (As Bromine) LCSO= .23 mg/L Rainbow Trout 96 Hour Static Acute Bioassay (Product as is) LCSO Greater Than= 1000 mg/L Sheepshead Minnow 96 Hour Flow-Thru Bioassay (As Bromine) LCSO= .19; No Effect Level= .11 mg/L No Data Available. BIODEGRADATION Product contains only inorganics that. are not subject to typical biological degradation. Assimilation by microbes may occur in waste treatment or the environment. 13 Disposal considerations If this undiluted product is discarded as a waste, the US RCRA hazardous waste identification number is : Not applicable. Please be advised; however, that state and local requirements for waste disposal may be more restrictive or otherwise different from federal regulations. Consult state and local regulations regarding the proper disposal of this material. 14 Transport information DOT HAZARD: Not Applicable PROPER SHIPPING NAME: DOT EMERGENCY RESPONSE GUIDE #: Not applicable Note: Some containers may be DOT exempt, please check BOL for exact container classification 15 Regulatory information TSCA: This is an EPA registered biocide and is exempt from TSCA inventory requirements. CERCLA AND/OR SARA REPORTABLE QUANTITY (RQ) : No regulated constituent present at OSHA thresholds FIFRA REGISTRATION NUMBER: 5185-451-3876 FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION: The ingredients in this product are approved by FDA under 21 CFR 176.300. NSF Registered and/or meets USDA (according to 1998 Guidelines) : Registration number: 141071 Category Code(s): SARA SECTION 312 HAZARD CLASS: Immediate(acute) SECTION 302 CHEMICALS: No regulated constituent present at OSHA thresholds SECTION 313 CHEMICALS: No regulated constituent present at OSHA thresholds Substance or Preparation: SPECTRUS OX1201 Page 5 CALIFORNIA REGULATORY INFORMATION CALIFORNIA SAFE DRINKING WATER AND TOXIC ENFORCEMENT ACT (PROPOSITION 65) : *No regulated constituents present MICHIGAN REGULATORY INFORMATION No regulated constituent present at OSHA thresholds 16 Other information HMIS vII Healt.h Fire Reactivity Special (1) Protective Equipment 1 0 0 NONE A CODE TRANSLATION . Slight Hazard Minimal Hazard Minimal Hazard No special Hazard Safety Glasses (1) refer to section 8 of MSDS for additional protective equipment recommendations. CHANGE LOG EFFECTIVE DATE REVISIONS TO SECTION: SUPERCEDES ----------------------------------------MSDS status: 20-0CT-1997 ** NEW ** 02-DEC-1997 15 20-0CT-1997 09-SEP-1998 15 02-DEC-1997 05-NOV-2001 3,4,8,10 09-SEP-1998 27-JAN-2003 7 05-NOV-2001 02-SEP-2005 16 27-JAN-2003 16-0CT-2006 16 02-SEP-2005 28-JAN-2009 4,5,7,8,10 16-0CT-2006 Substance or Preparation: SPECTRUS OX1201 Page6 Microbiological Control Agent
• Stable, safe, economical source of bromine
• Liquid. easy to feed
• Very effective in NH3 contaminated and alkaline waters
• Use to reduce chlorine corrosivity
• FDA Approved (176.300) o USDA Approved (G-5, G-7) a Approved for sale in California Description and Use SpectrusrM OX1201 (40% sodium bromine by weight) is a safe. easy-to-use source of bromine in liquid form. The bromine in this product is present as inactive bromide ion (31% Br). It must be dized to Br+ in order to exert a toxic effect on organisms. Conversion of Br to Br+ is usually achieved by co-feeding Spectrus OX1201 with rine (either gas or liquid bleach). In water, oxidation of Br* to Br+ results in the formation of mous acid (HOBr). which is superior to hypochlorous acid (HOCI) for control of microbes in ammonia taminated. high pH, and/or once-through waters. Process leaks frequently require high rates of chlorination, from gas or liquid bleach, to maintain microbiological control. These high rates impose a penalty in the form of increased corrosion, ever. Experience has shown "topping off" chlorine programs with Spectrus OX1201 can reduce sion rates and enhance microbiological control. Spectrus OX1201 is approved by the EPA for use in once-through and recirculating cooling systems, influent and wastewater systems. as well as based scrubbers, brewery pasteurizers. and trial air washers equipped with mist eliminators. Control of microbiological populations in industrial water systems is essential to prevent biofouling. In cooling systems, biofouling of heat exchange equipment and tower fill reduces heat transfer ciency and can force unscheduled shutdowns and extended turnarounds, leading to lost production. Biofouling can also damage equipment through microbiologically influenced corrosion (MIC). As a result of these effects, biofouling must be prevented in order for operating units to achieve profitability goals. Treatment and Feeding Requirements Activate bromide and generate HOBr by co-feeding Spectrus OX1201 with a source of chlorine. The ratio of chlorine to Spectrus OX1201 can be adjusted to produce an all HOBr stream or a mix of HOBr and HOC!. For example, to generate 100% HOBr, feed 3.6 pounds (1.6 kg) of Spectrus OX1201 per 1 pound (0.45 kg) of chlorine gas. To generate a 50:50 mix of HOBr and HOC!, feed 1.8 pounds (0.82 kg) of Spectrus OX1201 per 1 pound (0.45 kg) of chlorine gas. To ensure efficient bromide activation, mix Spectrus OX1201 with bleach or gas chlorinator discharge solution prior to application to the tower basin or recirculating cooling water lines. Use an in-line static mixer to ensure adequate contact. Consult your GE representative for further information on feed system design. In some systems, conversion from an all chlorine program to a chlorine/bromide program will allow a reduction in daily chlorine usage. A 50% reduction in chlorine consumption is not unusual when Spectrus OX1201 is applied at 1.8 pounds (0.82 kg) per 1 pound (0.45 kg) of chlorine. Further reductions Visit us online at wWN.gewater.com ©2004. General Electric Company All rights reserved Global Headquarters Trevose. PA 215-355-3300 Americas Minnetonka. MN 952-933-2277 Europe/Middle East/Amca Heverlee. Belgium 32-16-40-20-00 Asia/Pacific Shanghai. China 86-21-5298-4573 Products mentioned ore trcdemorks of the General Electrrc Company and may be registered in one or more countries PFC740EN 0410 in chlorine usage may be possible. Your GE representative can assist in optimizing the chlorine/Spectrus OX1201 program. Correct treatment levels and frequency of Spectrus OX1201 addition depend on many factors. These include, but are not limited to, system cleanliness, types of microbes. nutrient concentrations. temperature, pH. retention time, and other system operating characteristics. Consult the product label for general dosage guidelines. Microbiological monitoring is recommended to evaluate product requirements. Consult your GE representative for technical advice on your specific application. In all cases. this product must be applied in accordance with use instructions on the Spectrus OX1201 label. Compatible Materials -Spectrus OX1201 is compatible with the following materials of construction: High Density Cross-linked Polyethylene; Teflon; PVC; PVDF (Kynar); Litharge Viton: Ethylene Propylene Resin: Hypalon; Neoprene: Buna N; and Buna S Rubber. (Teflon is a registered trademark of DuPont. Kynar is a registered trademark of Autofina, Viton is a registered trademark of DuPont Dow Elastomers.J Avoid: mild steel and stainless steel. Genera I Properties Physical properties of Spectrus OX1201 are shown on the Material Safety Data Sheet. a copy of which is available on request. Packaging Information Spectrus OX1201 is supplied as a liquid and is able in a variety of containers and delivery ods. Consult your GE representative for details. Storage Keep the container closed when product not in use. Do not freeze. If frozen, thaw and mix completely prior to use. Safety Precautions A Material Safety Data Sheet containing detailed information about this product is available on re-Page 2 quest. Use splash-proof chemical goggles and gauntlet-type rubber gloves when handling this product. See Section 7 of the MSDS for additional inf9rmation on recommended personal protective equipment. General Information EPA Registration Number ............. .5785-81-3876 Spectrus ox1201 Fact Sheet L8 Name: SOD HYPOCHLORITE 10% (OLIN) Desc: . !AG MID-SOUTII INC. To: Friday, February 25, 2011 Material Safety Data Sheet MSDS Revision Date: 8/20/09 Page 1of6 PRODUCT: Sodium Hypochlorite Solution 1. Product and Company Identification ... ._, Produ.ct Identity: Sodium Hypochlorite Chemical Formula: NaOCI Solution Molecular Weight: 74.45 Synonyms: Sodium Hypochlorite Solution (10-15.6%); Hypochlorite Solution; Bleach Solution, Hypochlorous acid .* sodium salt, &/or AB Bleach; sodium hypochlorite/de-ionized Wclter, Sodium Hypochlorite Solution 10%; Sno-glo Bleach; Hypochlorous acid, sodium salt
• Brenntag Mid-South Inc. 1405Hwy136 W Henderson, KY 42420 2. Hazards Identification *Technical Information: 270-830-1200 Emergency Number: 800-424-9300 .(CHEMTREC) Emergency Number: 703-5273887 (International) PRECAUTIONARY STATEMENTS (Hazards to humans and domestic animals): Danger! Corrosive! May cause severe skin and eye irritation or chemical burns to broken skin. Cause5 eye damage. Exposure to skin may cause sensitization or other allergic responses. *
• INHALATION: Corrosive! Product may cause severe irritation of the nose, throat and respiratory tract. Repeated and/or prolonged exposures may cause productive cough, runny nose, bronchopneumonia, pulmonary edema (fluid build-up in lungs), and reduction of pulmonary function. Repeated inhalation exposure may cause impairment of lung function and permanent lung damage. EYE CONT ACT: Extremely corrosive! This product causes corneal scarring and clouding. Glaucoma, cataracts and permanent blindness may occur. SKIN CONT ACT: Corrosive! Concentrated solutions may cause pain and deep and severe burns to the skin. Prolonged and repeated exposure to diluted solutions often causes irritation, redness, pain and drying and cracking of the skin. Human evidence has indicated that an ingredient in this product can cause skin sensitization. INGESTION: Corrosive! Will immediately cause severe corrosion of and damage to the gastrointestinal tract Exposure characterized by nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, bleeding, and/or tissue ulceration. PRIMARY ROUTES OF ENTRY: Inhalation and contact. 3. Composition/Information on Ingredients CAS NUMBER CHEMICAL NAME(S) *WT% 7681-52-9 Sodium hypochlorite** 10-15.6 1310-73-2 Sodium hydroxide 0.3-1.8 7647-14-5 Sodium Chloride 9-14.9 497-19-8 Sodium carbonate 7732-18-5 Water Balance -----****-*--------**-----*-*----------*.------*..,---* *----------------------. -**-****-* ..

Product#: 987928 Name: SOD HYPOCHLORITE 10% (OLIN) Dcsc: From: BRENNTAG MID-SOUTH INC. To: Friday, February 25, 2011 Material Safety Data Sheet MSDS *Revision Date: 8/20/09 Page2 of6 PRODUCT: Sodium Hypochlorite Solution 4. First Aid Measures BRENNTAG ... '. .., INHALATION: Remove victim to fresh air. Give artificial respiration if not breathing. Get medical attention. EYE CONTACT: Wash eyes with plenty of water for at least 15 minutes while holding eyelids open. Consult an eye specialist immediately. SKIN CONTACT: Flush skin with plenty of water while removing contaminated clothing. Get medical attention for persistent irritation. Clean clothing before reuse. INGESTION:* 1r swallowed drink large quantities of water. Do NOT induce vomiting. Call a poison control cente( or doctor immediately for treatment advice. If spontaneous vomiting occurs, have victim lean forward with* head down to avoid breathing in of vomitus, rinse mouth and administer more water. 5. Fire Fighting Measures FLASH POINT (METHOD USED): Non -flammable . FLAMMABLE LIMITS (% BY VOLUME): n.a. EXTINGUISHING MEDIA: Use water spray, fog, foam, dry chemicals, or carbon dioxide. SPECIAL FIRE .FIGHTING PROCEDURES: Firefighters should wear protective equipment including self contained breathing apparatus. Avoid fumes. Dilute spill with copius amounts of water, ventilate. Be prepared to use respirator. UNUSUAL FIRE AND EXPLOSION HAZARDS: Possible vigorous reaction upon contamination with organics or oxidizing agents. Bleach decomposes when heated, decomposition products may cause containers to rupture or explode. Many reactions can cause fire and explosion. This material will react with some metals which may cause liberation of oxygen. Toxic fumes can be liberated by contact with acid or heat. Vigorous reactions can occur with oxidizable materials and organics. Keep material cool using a water spray from a safe distance. Keep all unnecessary people away. Stay up wind and stay out of low-lying areas. 6. Accidental Release Measures STEPS TO BE TAKEN IN CASE MATERIAL IS RELEASED OR SPILLED: Personnel with proper protective equipment should contain spill. Flush area with large amounts of water. Use reducing agents such as bisulfites or ferrous salt solutions to neutralize. ,_----------*-*----Y---------------*-----******-----**- ./28 Name: SOD HYPOCHLORITE 10% (OLIN) Desc: .ff AG MID-SOUIBINC. To: Friday, February 25, 2011 Material Safety Data Sheet MSDS Revision Date: 8/20/09 Page3 of6 PRODUCTt Sodium Bypochlorite Solution 7. Handling and Storage . SRENNTAG..,_ ... : .... PRECAUTIONS TO BE TAKEN IN HANDLING AND STORAGE: Store this product in a cool dry area; away form direct sunlight and heat to avoid deterioration. In case of spill, flood areas with large quantities of water. Product or rinsates that cannot be used should be diluted with water before disposal in a sanitary sewer. Do not reuse container. Do not contaminate food or feed by storage, disposal or cleaning of equipment. Most metals and metal alloys are NOT suitable for use in contact with sodium hypochlorite solutions including aluminum, brass, bronze, copper, cast iron, galvanized steel, mild steel, nickel, or stainless steel, since these metals act as a catalyst which will cause rapid decomposition of the sodium hypochlorite solution through the release of oxY:gen. *

• Sodium hypochlorite solutions are basically unstable, and on exposure to heat and/or light, will slowly decompose, becoming less concentrated with time. Sodium hypochlorite solutions should never be allowed to contact or mix with acids or other low pH compounds, due to the release of chlorine gas. Do not allow sodium hypochlorite to mix with ammonia, since chloroamines may be formed.
• Decomposition of sodium hypochlorite takes place within a few seconds with following salts: ammonium acetate, ammonium carbonate, ammonium nitrate, ammonium oxalate, and ammonium phosphate. Hypochlorites react with urea to form nitrogen trichloride, which explodes spontaneously in air. Solutions of sodium hypochlorite are corrosive to the skin, eyes, and mucous membranes.* Proper safety equipment should be used when working with or in close proximity of sodium hypochlorlte. OTHER PRECAUTIONS: Use with adequate ventilation. Wash thoroughly after handling. Do not get In eyes, on skin or clothing. Do NOT breathe fumes or mist. Mixing this product with chemicals (e.g. common household cleaners, ammonia, acids, detergents, etc.) or organic matter will release chlorine gas, which is irritating to eyes, lungs, and mucous membranes. STRONG OXIDIZING AGENT: Mix only with water according to label directions. Mixing this product with chemicals (e.g. common household cleaners, ammonia, acids, detergents, etc.} or organic matter (e.g. urine, feces, etc.) will release chlorine gas, which is irritating to eyes, lungs and mucous membranes. 8. Exposure Controls/Persona/ Protection THRESHOLD LIMIT VALUES (UNITS) CAS OSHA: I ACGIH: NUMBER CHEMICAL NAME(S) "WT% PEL I STEL I TLV I STEL 7681-52-9 Sodium hypochlorite** 10-15.6 -NONE ESTABLISHED -1310-73-2 Sodium hydroxide 0.3-1.8 2 mg/m3 Ceiling I -I 2 mg/m3Ceillng 7647-14-5 Sodium Chloride 9-14.9 -NONE ESTABLISH.ED -497-19-8 Sodium carbonate s0.5 -NONE ESTABLISHED -7732-18-5 Water Balance -NONE ESTABLISHED -*" %(w/w) as Cl2 9.5 to 14.9% TLVfTWA (ACGIH) 0.5ppm Cb; TLV/STEL (ACGIH) 1ppm Cl2 & PEL (OSHA) 1ppm Cl2 RESPIRATORY PROTECTION: When fumes present, use NIOSH approved respirator with acid type canister. VENTILATION: Local exhaust preferable as required to control fumes. PROTECTIVE GLOVES: Rubber or plastic. EYE PROTECTION: Chemical goggles. OTHER PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT: Clothing to protect skin. Safety shower and eye wash fountain. I -***-. --* -------*--*---***-**--**---*--* *********-----------*--**----. ***-* -*---*-----*-*--**-------. --------------------------* -*

I 1 q ] ., *; *' Product#: 987928 Name: SOD HYPOCHLORITE 10% (OLIN) Desc: From: BRENNTAG To: Friday, February 25, 2011 Material Safety Data Sheet MSDS Revision Date: 8/20/09 Page4of6 PRODUCT: Sodium Hypochlorite Solution 9. Physical and Chemical Properties BOILING POINT °F * (°Cl: 110 °c for 15% NaOCI VAPOR DENSllY (AIR =11: n.a. VAPOR PRESSURE (mmHg): Vapor pressure of water plus decomposition products. SOLUBILITY IN WATER: Complete 10. Stability and Reactivity ... SPECIAC li*f20=1}: 1.08 -127 EVAPORATION RATE: n.a. PERCENT VOLATILE BY VOLUME (%\:Water vapor plus

• decomposition products. APPEARANCE AND ODOR: Light, yellow-green liquid STABILIIT: Unstable {Contingent upon temperature, contamination (metals), and pH.) HAZARDOUS POLYMERIZATION: Will not occur. CONDITIONS TO AVOID: Heat, light exposure, decrease in pH, and contamination with heavy metals, such as nickel, cobalt, copper and iron. INCOMPATIBILIIT (MATERIALS TO AVOID): Heavy metals, reducing agents, organics, ether, ammonia, ammonium acetate, ammonium carbonate, ammonium nitrate, ammonium oxalate, ammonium phosphate, urea and acids. HAZARDOUS DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS: Hypochlorous acid, chlorine, hydrochloric acid, sodium chloride, .sodium chlorate, and oxygen. Decomposition of sodium hypochlorite takes place within a few seconds with following salts: ammonium acetate, ammonium carbonate, ammonium nitrate, ammonium oxalate, and ammonium phosphate. Hypochlorites react with urea to form nitrogen lrichloride, which explodes spontaneously in air. 11. Toxicological Information TOXICITY DATA: Oral LD50: 8,910 mg/kg. (Rats) Dermal LO 50: > 10,000mg/kg. (Rabbits) Inhalation 0.25-hour LC 50: >10.5 mg/l'{Rats) Acute oral toxicity: IV; LD50, 192 mg/kg Acute dermal toxicity: Ill; LOSO,> 3,000 mg/kg Primary eye Irritation: I; Corrosive Primary skin irritation: I; Corrosive SUMMARY: The concentrated solution is corrosive to skin, and a 5% solution is a severe eye irritant. Solutions containing more than 5% available chlorine are classified by DOT corrosive. Toxicity described in animals from single exposures by ingestion includes muscular weakness, and hyperactivity. Repeated ingestion exposure in animals caused an increase in the relative weight of adrenal glands In one study, but no pathological change were observed in two other studies. Long-term administration of compound in drinking water of rats caused depression of the immune system. No adverse changes were observed in an eight-week dermal study of a 1% solution in guinea pigs. Tests in animals demonstrate no carcinogenic activity by either the oral or dermal routes. Tests in bacterial and mammalian cell cultures demonstrate mutagenic activity. ----*---* -*-*---.. --.*--*--*-**----**---*-_,_ -*-*** -----*****-***---------------*---*--*-*--. -* ----**-------* -------------

I I I l I .l8 Name: SOD HYPOCHLORITE 10% (OLIN) Desc: .fAG MID-SOUTH INC. To: Friday, February 25, 2011 Material Safety Data Sheet MSDS Revision Date: 8/20/09 Page 5 of6 PRODUCT: Hypochlorite Solution 12. Ecological Information BRENNTAG.._ ... ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS: This pesticide is toxic to fish and aquatic organisms. Do not discharge effluents containing this product into lakes, streams, ponds, estuaries, oceans.or other waters unless in accordance with the requirements of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the permitting authority has been notified in writing prior to discharge. Do not discharge effluent containing this to s.ewer s}istemswitholit

• previously notifying the sewage treatment plant authority. For guidance, contact you State Water Board or Regional Office of the EPA. *
• Acute oral-bobwhite quail: LD50, > 2510 mg/kg Acute dietary-mallard duck: LC50; > 5220 ppm Acute dietary-bobwhite quail: LC50, > 5620 ppm Acute fish-rainbow trout: LC50, 0.18-0.22 mg/I A.cute fish-bluegill sunfish: LC50, 0.44-0.79 mgll 13. Disposal Considerations Acute LC50, 0.033-0.048 mg/I .Fathead minnows: 96-hour LC50, 5.9 mg/LO Rainbow Trout: 96-hour LC50, 0.2mg11iter Bluegill sunfish: 96-hour LC50, 0.58mg/liter WASTE DISPOSAL METHOD: Disposal to be in accordance with all Federal, State, and.Local regulations. 14. Transport Information PROPER SHIPPING NAME: Hypochlorite Solutions UN/NA: UN 1791 PACKING GROUP: Ill HAZARD CLASS: 8 (Corrosive) D.0.T. LABEL REQUIRED: Corrosive REPORTABLE QUANTITY OF PRODUCT: 800 to 2,000 15. Regulatory Information TSCA (Toxic Substance Control Act}: All components of this product are listed on the TSCA inventory. CERCLA AND SARA REGULATIONS, 40 CFR §300-373: Super fund Reportable Discharge = 100 pounds (100% NaOCI) CERCLA Hazardous Material: yes SARA Extremely Hazardous substance: No SARA Toxic Chemical: No Title Ill Hazard Classifications: Acute: yes Chronic: yes Fire: no Reactivity: yes Pressure: No EPA "CLEAN AIR ACT": This product does not contain nor is it manufactured with ozone depleting substances. OTHER REGULATIONS/LEGISLATION THAT APPLY TO THIS PRODUCT: Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey Right-to Know Laws. J _______________ **--*-***---*-,*----------"-------. -*

Product#: 987928 Name: SOD HYPOCHLORITE 10% (OLIN) Desc: From: BRENNTAG MID-SOUffi INC. To: Friday, February 25, 2011 Material Safety Data Sheet MSDS Revision Date: 8/20/09 Page6 of6 PRODUCT: Sodium-Hypocblorite Solution 16. Other Information HMIS HAZARD RA TING: Health 3 VOC CONTENT (lbs/gal): n.a. . Flammability o Reactivity 2 This MSDS is provided as an information resource only. It should not be taken as a warranty or representation for which Brenntag assumes legal !!ability. While Brenntag believes the information contained herein is accurate and compiled from sources believed to be reliable, it is the responsibility of the user to investigate and verify its identity. The buyer assumes all responsibility for.using and handling the product in accordance with applicable intern;;ttional, federal, state, and local regulations.

• Brenntag Mid-South Inc. 1405Hwy136 W Henderson, KY 42420 APPROVED BY: lt-4-#f GE Water & Process Technologies Material Safety Data Sheet Issue Date: 05-FEB-2009 Supercedes: 03-MAY-2000 INHIBITOR AZ8100 1 Identification Identification of substance or preparation INHIBITOR AZ8100 Product Application Area Water-based corrosion inhibitor. Company/Undertaking Identification GE Betz, Inc. 4636 Somerton Road Trevose, PA 19053 T 215 355-3300, F 215 953 5524 Emergency Telephone (800) 877-1940 Prepared by Product Stewardship Group: T 215-355-3300 Prepared on: 05-FEB-2009 2 Hazard(s) identification ******************************************************************************** EMERGENCY OVERVIEW DANGER Corrosive to skin. Corrosive to the eyes. Mists/aerosols cause irritation to the upper respiratory tract. DOT hazard: Corrosive to skin Odor: Mild; Appearance: Yellow To Brown, Liquid Fire fighters should we_ar positive pressure self-contained breathing apparatus(full face-piece type). Proper fire-extinguishing media: dry chemical, carbon dioxide, foam or water ******************************************************************************** POTENTIAL HEALTH EFFECTS ACUTE SKIN EFFECTS; Primary route of exposure; Corrosive to skin. ACUTE EYE EFFECTS: Corrosive to the eyes. ACUTE RESPIRATORY EFFECTS: Mists/aerosols cause irritation to the upper respiratory tract. INGESTION EFFECTS: Substance or Preparation: INHIBITOR AZ8100 Page 1 May cause severe irritation or burning of the gastrointestinal tract. TARGET ORGANS: Prolonged or repeated exposures may cause tissue necrosis. MEDICAL CONDITIONS AGGRAVATED: Not known. SYMPTOMS OF EXPOSURE: Causes redness or itching of skin, possibly leading to burns (dependent on the length of exposure) . 3 Composition I information on ingredients Information for specific product ingredients as required by the U.S. OSHA HAZARD COMMUNICATION STANDARD is listed. Refer to additional sections of this MSDS for our assessment of the potential hazards of this formulation. HAZARDOUS INGREDIENTS: Casil Chemical Name Range(w/w%) 64665-57-2 BENZOTRIAZOLE,METHYL,SODIUM SALT (SODIUM TOLYLTRIAZOLE), (TTA) Corrosive (eyes and skin); toxic (by ingestion) 4 First-aid measures SKIN CONTACT: 40-70 Remove clothing. Wash area with large amounts of soap solution or water for 15 min. Immediately contact physician. EYE CONTACT: Remove contact lenses. Hold eyelids apart. Immediately flush eyes with plenty of low-pressure water for at least 15 minutes. Get immediate medical attention. INHALATION: Remove to fresh air. Apply necessary first aid treatment. Immediately contact a physician. INGESTION: Do not feed anything by mouth to an unconscious oi convulsive victim. Do not induce vomiting. Immediately contact physician. Dilute contents of stomach using 2-8 fluid ounces (60-240 mL) of milk or water. NOTES TO PHYSICIANS: No special instructions 5 Fire-fighting measures FIRE FIGHTING INSTRUCTIONS: Fire fighters should wear positive pressure self-contained breathing (full face-piece type). EXTINGUISHING MEDIA: dry chemical, carbon dioxide, foam or water HAZARDOUS DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS: Substance or Preparation: INHIBITOR AZ8100 Page 2 elemental oxides FLASH POINT: > 200F > 93C SETA(CC) MISCELLANEOUS: Corrosive to skin UN 1719;Emergency Response Guide #154 6 Accidental release measures PROTECTION AND SPILL CONTAINMENT: Ventilate area. Use specified protective equipment. Contain and absorb on absorbent material. Place in waste disposal container. Flush area with water. Wet area may be slippery. Spread sand/grit. DISPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS: Water contaminated with this product may be sent to a* sanitary sewer treatment facility,in accordance with any local agreement,a permitted waste treatment facility or discharged under a permit. Product as is -Incinerace or land dispose in an approved landfill. 7 Handling and storage HANDLING: Alkaline. Corrosive(Skin/eyes). Do not mix with acidic material. STORAGE: Keep containers closed when not in use. Store in cool ventilated location. Store away from oxidizers. 8 Exposure controls I personal protection EXPOSURE LIMITS CHEMICAL NAME BENZOTRIAZOLE,METHYL,SODIUM SALT (SODIUM TOLYLTRIAZOLE), (TTA) PEL (OSHA): NOT DETERMINED TLV (ACGIH) : NOT DETERMINED ENGINEERING CONTROLS: adequate ventilation PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT: Use protective equipment in accordance with 29CFR 1910 Subpart I RESPIRATORY PROTECTION: A RESPIRATORY PROTECTION PROGRAM THAT MEETS OSHA'S 29 CFR 1910.134 AND ANSI Z88.2 REQUIREMENTS MUST BE FOLLOWED WHENEVER WORKPLACE CONDITIONS WARRANT A RESPIRATOR'S USE. USE AIR PURIFYING RESPIRATORS WITHIN USE LIMITATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE EQUIPMENT OR ELSE USE SUPPLIED AIR-RESPIRATORS. If air-purifying respirator use is appropriate, use any of the following particulate respirators: N95, N99, NlOO, R95, R99, RlOO, P95, P99 or PlOO. SKIN PROTECTION: gauntlet-type neoprene gloves, chemical resistant Wash off after each use. Replace as necessary. EYE PROTECTION: splash proof chemical goggles, face shield Substance or Preparation: INHIBITOR AZ8100 Page 3 9 Physical and chemical properties Specific Grav.(70F,21C) 1.215 Freeze Point (F) -25 Freeze Point (CJ -32 Viscosity(cps 70F,21C) 190 Odor Appearance Physical State Flash Point SETA(CC) pH 10% Sol. (approx.) Evaporation Rate (Ether=l) Percent voe: Vapor Pressure (rnmHG) Vapor Density (air=l) % Solubility (water) Mild Yellow To Brown Liquid > .200F > 93C -11. 7 < 1.00 o.o NA = not applicable ND = not determined 10 Stability and reactivity CHEMICAL STABILITY: Stable under normal storage conditions. POSSIBILITY OF HAZARDOUS REACTIONS: INCOMPATIBILITIES: May react with acids. DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS: elemental oxides 11 Toxicological information Oral LDSO RAT: Dermal LDSO RABBIT: NOTE -Estimated value 12 Ecological information AQUATIC TOXICOLOGY 1,150 mg/kg >2,000 mg/kg Bluegill. Sunfish 96 Hour Static Acute Bioassay LC50= 109.3; No Effect Level= 42 mg/L Ceriodaphnia 48 Hour Static Renewal Bioassay LC50= 147; No Effect Level= 37 mg/L Ceriodaphnia 7 Day Static Renewal Bioassay IC25 = 20 mg/L -18.0 < 1. 00 lOC. 0 Daphnia magna 48 Hour Static Renewal Bioassay (pn adjusted) LCSO= 243; No Effect Level= 75 mg/L Fathead Minnow 7 Day Static Renewal Bioassay IC25 = 56 mg/L Fathead Minnow 96 Hour Static Renewal Bioassay (pE adjusted) LCSO= 105; No Effect Level= 75 mg/L Mysid Shrimp 48 Hour Static Acute Bioassay LC50= 166; No Effect Level= 10 mg/L Rainbow 96 Hour Static Renewal Bioassay LC50= 34; No Effect Level= 15 mg/L Sheepshead Minnow 48 Hour Static Acute Bioassay Substance or Preparation: INHIBITOR AZ8100 Page 4 LCSO= 475; No Effect Level= 370 mg/L BIODEGRADATION BOD-28 (mg/g) : 22 BOD-5 (mg/g): 4 COD (mg/g): 810 TOC (mg/g): 280 13 Disposal considerations If this undiluted product is discarded as a waste, the US RCRA hazardous waste identification number is : Not applicable. Please be advised; however, that state and local requirements for waste disposal may be more restrictive or otherwise different from federal regulations. Consult state and local regulations regarding the proper disposal of this material. 14 Transport information DOT HAZARD: Corrosive to skin PROPER SHIPPING NAME: CAUSTIC ALKALI LIQUIDS, N.O.S. (SODIUM TOLYLTRIAZOLE) 8, UN 1719, PG II DOT EMERGENCY RESPONSE GUIDE #: 154 Note: Some containers may be DOT exempt, please check BOL for exact container classification 15 Regulatory information TSCA: All components of this product are included on or are in compliance with the U.S. TSCA regulations. CERCLA AND/OR SARA REPORTABLE QUANTITY (RQ) : No regulated constituent present at OSHA thresholds NSF Registered and/or meets USDA (according to 1998 Guidelines): Registration number: Not Registered SARA SECTION 312 HAZARD CLASS: Immediate(acute);Delayed(Chronic) SARA SECTION 302 CHEMICALS: No regulated constituent present at OSHA thresholds SARA SECTION 313 CHEMICALS: No regulated constituent present at OSHA thresholds CALIFORNIA REGULATORY INFORMATION CALIFORNIA SAFE DRINKING WATER AND TOXIC ENFORCEMENT ACT (PROPOSITION 65) : No regulated constituents present MICHIGAN REGULATORY INFORMATION No regulated constituent present at OSHA thresholds 16 Other information Substance or Preparation: INHIBITOR AZ8100 Pages BMIS vII Health Fire Reactivity Special (1) Protective Equipment 3 1 0 CORR D CODE TRANSLATION Serious Hazard Slight Hazard Minimal Hazard DOT corrosive Goggles,Face Shield,Gloves,Apron (1) refer to section 8 of MSDS for additional protective equipment recommendations. CHANGE LOG EFFECTIVE DATE REVISIONS TO SECTION: SUPERCEDES ----------------------------------------MSDS status: 28-JAN-1997 ** NEW ** 19-FEB-1997 12 28-JAN-1997 03-0CT-1997 8 19-FEB-1997 29-MAY-1998 12 03-0CT-1997 OB-FEB-1999 3,5,14 29-MAY-1998 15-JUN-1999 12 OB-FEB-1999 30-AUG-1999 4;EDIT:9 15-JUN-1999 03-MAY-2000 12 30-AUG-1999 05-FEB-2009 12;EDIT:Rebranding 03-MAY-2000 Substance or Preparation: INHIBITOR AZ8100 Page 6

\/veter &. Process Technologies Copper Corrosion Inhibitor

• Inhibits corrosion of copper alloys o Reduces tube failures
• Extends condenser service life o Minimizes mild steel corrosion caused by galvanic reaction Description and Use Inhibitor AZ8100 is a specially-formulated corrosion inhibitor which establishes a protective film on copper alloy condensers. Inhibitor AZ8100 effectively inhibits the corrosion of copper alloy surfaces. Indirectly, it also reduces the corrosion of steel surfaces when the corrosion is the result of a galvanic reaction between the steel surface and the products of copper corrosion which have been deposited on the steel. Figure 1 shows the reduction in corrosion rate for both ralty brass and mild steel in a West Coast power plant through use of Inhibitor AZ8100. 7 -' ::n Cl. E nI +-' I 0 c:r: 2 I / c: 0 I *v; 2 ..... '-::?a:c ""'" 0 u ', 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Time, Months since Start ofTreotment Figure 1: Effect of Inhibitor AZ8100 on the corrosion rates of admiralty brass and of mild steel. !The latter is caused by galvanic reaction between admiralty corrosion products and the mild steel surface.) Treatment and Feeding Requirement The normal treatment level for Inhibitor AZ8100 is 4-30 ppm(mg/LJ. The amount required will depend on many factors, such as operating characteristics of the system and severity of the problem. Therefore, this product should be used in accordance with control parameters GE establishes for a specific application. Inhibitor AZ8100 should be fed to a point in the ing system where turbulence and flow patterns will ensure adequate mixing of the product with the ing water. In recirculating cooling systems the product should be fed continuously to maintain constant siduals in the cooling water. Intermittent product feed is applicable in certain cooling systems. .Inhibitor AZ8100 may be fed directly from the ping container or diluted with water to any convenient feeding strength. Mild steel tanks, pumps, and piping are satisfactory for use with Inhibitor AZ8100. General Properties Physical properties of Inhibitor AZ8100 are shown on the Material Safety Data Sheet. a copy of which is available on request. Packaging Information Inhibitor AZ8100 is available in a variety of containers and delivery methods. Contact your GE sales sentative for details. Safety Precautions A Material Safety Dato Sheet containing detailed formation about this product is available upon quest. Visit us online at www.gewater.com Global Headquarters Americas Minnetonka. MN 952-933-2277 Europe/Middle East/Africa Heverlee, Belgium 32-16-40-20-00 Asia/Pacific Shanghai, China 86-21-5298-4573 ©2004. General Electric Company Trevase. PA All rights reserved. 215-355-3300 Products mentioned are trademarks of the General Electric Company and may be registered m one or more countries CPFCSBEN 0410 NNALCO SAFETY DATA SHEET I PRODUCT EVAC Biocide EMERGENCY TELEPHONE NUMBER(S) (800) 424-9300 (24 Hours) CHEMTREC l 1. j CHEMICAL PRODUCT AND COMPANY IDENTIFICATION PRODUCT NAME : APPLICATION : COMPANY IDENTIFICATION: EMERGENCY TELEPHONE NUMBER(S): NFPA 704M/HMIS RATING EVAC Biocide BIOCIDE Nalco Company 1601 W. Diehl Road Naperville, Illinois 60563-1198 (800) 424-9300 (24 Hours) CHEMTREC HEALTH : 3 / 3 FLAMMABILITY: 1 / 1 INSTABILITY: 0 I 0 OTHER: 0 = Insignificant 1 = Slight 2 = Moderate 3 = High 4 = Extreme * = Chronic Health Hazard I 2. \COMPOSITION/INFORMATION ON INGREDIENTS ] Our hazard evaluation has identified the following chemical substance(s) as hazardous. Consult Section 15 for the nature of the hazard(s).
• Hazardous Substance(s) Endothall, mono(N,N-dimethylcocoamine) salt I 3. I HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION **EMERGENCY OVERVIEW** DANGER CASNO 66330-88-9 % (w/w) 53.0 CORROSIVE. CAUSES IRREVERSIBLE EYE DAMAGE AND SKIN BURNS. MAY BE FATAL IF SWALLOWED OR ABSORBED THROUGH SKIN. HARMFUL IF INHALED. Do not get in eyes, on skin, on clothing. Do not take internally. Avoid breathing vapor. Use with adequate ventilation. Protect product from freezing. Keep container tightly closed and in a well-ventilated place. ln case of contact with eyes, rinse immediately with plenty of water and seek medical advice. After c_ontact with skin, wash immediatefy with plenty of water. Use a mild soap if available. Wear a face shield. Wear chemical resistant apron, chemical splash goggles, impervious gloves and boots. Not flammabfe or combustible. May evolve oxides of carbon (COx) under fire conditions. May evolve oxides of nitrogen (NOx) under fire conditions. PRIMARY ROUTES OF EXPOSURE : Eye, Skin HUMAN HEAL TH HAZARDS -ACUTE : EYE CONTACT : Corrosive. Will cause eye burns and permanent tissue damage. Nalco Company 1601 W. Diehl Road* Naperville, Illinois 60563-1198 * (630)305-1000 For additional copies of an MSDS visit www.nalco.com and request access 1 I 11 SAFETY DATA SHEET I PRODUCT
• EVAC B iocide EMERGENCY TELEPHONE NUMBER(S) (800) 424-9300 (24 Hours) CHEMTREC SKIN CONTACT: Severely irritating; may cause permanent skin damage. Harmful if absorbed through skin. INGESTION: Not a likely route of exposure. May cause burns to mouth and gastro-intestinal tract. May be fatal if swallowed. INHALATION: Not a likely route of exposure. Elevated temperatures or mechanical action may form vapors, mists or fumes which may be irritating to the eyes, nose, throat and lungs. Harmful if inhaled.
• AGGRAVATION OF EXISTING CONDITIONS: A review of available data does not identify any worsening of existing conditions. 14. I FIRST AID MEASURES IF IN EYES: Hold eyelids open and rinse slowly and gently with water for 15-20 mi.nutes. Remove contact lenses, if present, after the first 5 minutes, then continue rinsing. Call poison control center or doctor for treatment advice. IF ON SKIN: Take off contaminated clothing. Rinse skin immediately with plenty of water for 15-20 minutes. Call a poison control center or doctor for treatment advice. IF INHALED: Move person to fresh air. If person is not breathing, call 911 or ambulances, then give artificial respiration, preferably mouth-to-mouth, if possible. Call a poison control center or doctor for treatment advice IF SWALLOWED: Call a Poison Control Center or doctor immediately for treatment advice. Have person sip a glass of water if able to swallow. Do not induce vomiting unless told to by a poison control center or doctor. NOTE TO PHYSICIAN : Probable mucosa! damage may contraindicate the use of gastric lavage. Based on the individual reactions of the patient, the physician's judgement should be used to control symptoms and clinical condition. f 5. *1 FIRE FIGHTING MEASURES FLASH POINT : > 230 °F I> 110 °C ( TCC ) EXTINGUISHING MEDIA: Carbon dioxide, Foam, Dry powder, Other extinguishing agent suitable for Class B fires, For large fires, use water spray or fog, thoroughly drenching the burning material. Water mist may be used to cool closed containers. FIRE AND EXPLOSION HAZARD : Not flammable or combustible. May evolve oxides of carbon (COx) under fire conditions. May evolve oxides of nitrogen (NOx) under fire conditions. SPECIAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT FOR FIRE FIGHTING : In case of fire, wear a full face positive-pressure self contained breathing apparatus and protective suit. Nalco Company 1601 W. Diehl Road* Naperville. Illinois 60563-1198 * (630)305-1000 For additional copies of an MSDS visit www.nalco.com and request access 2 I 11 I NNALCO SAFETY DATA SHEET l EMERGENCY TELEPHONE NUMBER(S) (800) 424-9300 (24 Hours) CHEMTREC j 6. I ACCIDENTAL RELEASE MEASURES PERSONAL PRECAUTIONS : Restrict access to area as appropriate until clean-up operations are complete. Use personal protective equipment recommended in Section 8 (Exposure Controls/Personal Protection). Stop or reduce any leaks if it is safe to do so. Keep people away from and upwind of spill/leak. Ventilate spill area if possible. Ensure clean-up is conducted by trained personnel only. Do not touch spilled material. Have emergency equipment (for fires, spills, leaks, etc.) readily available. Notify appropriate government, occupational health and safety and environmental authorities. METHODS FOR CLEANING UP: SMALL SPILLS: Soak up spill with absorbent material. Place residues in a suitable, covered, properly labeled container. Wash affected area. LARGE SPILLS: Contain liquid using absorbent material, by digging trenches or by diking. Reclaim into recovery or salvage drums or tank truck for proper disposal. Wash site of spillage thoroughly with water. Contact an approved waste hauler for disposal of contaminated recovered material. Dispose of material in compliance with regulations indicated in Section 13 (Disposal Considerations). ENVIRONMENTAL PRECAUTIONS : This product is toxic to fish. Do not discharge effluent containing this active ingredient into lakes, streams, ponds, estuaries, oceans or other waters, unless in accordance with the requirements of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and the permitting authority has been notified in writing prior to discharge. Do not discharge effluent containing this product to sewer systems without previously notifying the local sewage treatment plarit authority. For guidance contact your State Water Board or Regional Office of the EPA. 11. I HANDLING AND STORAGE HANDLING: Do not get in eyes, on skin, on clothing. Do not take internally. Use with adequate ventilation. Avoid generating aerosols and mists. Keep the containers closed when not in use. Have emergency equipment (for fires, spills, leaks, etc.) readily available. STORAGE CONDITIONS : Store the containers tightly closed. Store separately from oxidizers. Store in suitable labeled containers. Protect product from freezing. SUITABLE CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL: Shipping and long term storage compatibility with construction materials can vary; we therefore recommend that compatibility is tested prior to use. I 8. I EXPOSURE CONTROLS/PERSONAL PROTECTION OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE LIMITS: This product does not contain any substance that has an established exposure limit. ENGINEERING MEASURES : General ventilation is recommended. Use local exhaust ventilat'lon if necessary to control airborne mist and vapor. Nalco Company 1601 W. Diehl Road* Naperville, Illinois 60563-1198 * (630)305-1000 For additional copies of an MSDS visit www.nalco.com and request access 3 / 11 SAFETY DATA SHEET [RODUCT Biocide EMERGENCY TELEPHONE NUMBER(S) (800) 424-9300 (24 Hours) CHEMTREC RESPIRATORY PROTECTION : If significant mists, vapors or aerosols are generated an approved respirator is recommended. A dust, mist, fume cartridge may be used. In event of emergency or planned entry into unknown concentrations a positive pressure, full-facepiece SCBA should be used. If respiratory protection is required, institute a complete respiratory protection program including selection, fit testing, training, maintenance and inspection. HAND PROTECTION : NEOPRENE, NITRILE, OR BUTYL GLOVES SKIN PROTECTION : J When handling this product, the use of overalls, a chemical resistant apron and rubber boots is recommended. A full slicker suit is recommended if gross exposure is possible. EYE PROTECTION : Wear a face shield with chemical splash goggles. HYGIENE RECOMMENDATIONS: Use good work and personal hygiene practices to avoid exposure. Eye wash station and safety shower are necessary. If clothing is contaminated, remove clothing and thoroughly wash the affected area. Launder contaminated clothing before reuse. Always wash thoroughly after handling chemicals. When handling this product never eat, drink or smoke. I 9. I PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES PHYSICAL STATE Liquid APPEARANCE Light brown ODOR SPECIFIC GRAVITY DENSITY SOLUBILITY JN WATER FREEZING POINT voe CONTENT Slight 1.044 @ 77°F125 *c 8.7 lb/gal Complete < 5 °F I< -15 °C 0.00% Note: These physical properties are typical values for this product and are to change. I 10. I STABILITY AND REACTIVITY STABILITY: Stable under normal conditions. HAZARDOUS POLYMERIZATION : Hazardous polymerization will not occur. CONDITIONS TO AVOID: Freezing temperatures. Nalco Company 1601 W. Diehl Road* Naperville, Illinois 60563-1198 * (630)305-1000 For additional copies of an MSDS visit www.nalco.com and request access 4 / 11 NNALCO MATERIALS TO AVOID: SAFETY DAT A SHEET PRODUCT EVAC Biocide EMERGENCY TELEPHONE NUMBER(S) (BOO) 424-9300 (24 Hours) CHEMTREC Contact with strong oxidizers (e.g. chlorine, peroxides, chromates, nitric acid, perchlorate, concentrated oxygen, permanganate) may generate heat, fires, explosions and/or toxic vapors. HAZARDOUS DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS : Under fire conditions: Oxides of carbon, Oxides of nitrogen j 11. I TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION The following results are for the product. ACUTE ORAL TOXICITY : Species: Rat LD50: 233.4 mg/kg Test Descriptor: Product ACUTE DERMAL TOXICITY : Species: Rabbit LOSO: 480.9 mg/kg Test Descriptor: ACUTE INHALATION TOXICITY: Species: LC50: Test Descriptor: 0.7 mg/I (4 hrs) Product PRIMARY SKIN IRRITATION: Species: Rabbit Draize Score: 8 /8.0 Test Descriptor: Product PRIMARY EYE IRRITATION : Species: Rabbit Draize Score: 110 /110.0 Test Descriptor: Product SENSITIZATION : This product is not expected to be a sensitizer. CARCINOGENICITY : None of the substances in this product are listed as carcinogens by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the National Toxicology Program (NTP) or the American Confe;ence of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH). Nalco Company 1601 W. Diehl Road* Naperville, Illinois 60563-1198 * (630)305-1000 For additional copies of an MSDS visit www.nalco.com and request access 0 / 11 .

SAFETY DATA SHEET I PRODUCT EVAC Biocide EMERGENCY TELEPHONE NUMBER(S) (800) 424-9300 (24 Hours) CHEMTREC HUMAN HAZJ\RD CHARACTERIZATION: Based on our hazard characterization, the potential human hazard is: High l 12. ) ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION ECOTOXICOLOGICAL EFFECTS : The following results are for the product. ACUTE FISH RESULTS : Species Exposure LC50 Test Descriptor Rainbow Trout 96 hrs 0.29 mg/I Product Fathead Minnow 96 hrs 0.25 mg/I Product Bluegill Sunfish 96 hrs 0.5 mg/I Product Channel Catfish 96 hrs 0.58 mg/I Product ACUTE INVERTEBRATE RESULTS : Species Exposure LC50 EC50 Test Descriptor Daphnia magna 48 hrs 0.09 mg/I Product Mayfly (Ephemeroptera) 96 hrs 0.15 mg/I .Product Hyalella I 96 hrs 0.22 mg/I Product Rotifer 24 hrs 0.47 mg/I Product Worm (Oligochaeta) 96 hrs 0.53 mg/I Product Crayfish 96 hrs 1.96 mg/I Product Midges (Diotera) 96 hrs 0.64 mg/I Product ENVIRONMENTAL HAZJ\RD AND EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION Based on our hazard characterization, the potential environmental hazard is: High If released into the environment, see CERCLA/SUPERFUND in Section 15. j 13. I DISPOSAL CONSIDERATIONS If this product becomes a waste, it is not a hazardous waste as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 40 CFR 261, since it does not have the characteristics of Subpart C, nor is it listed under Subpart D. Pesticide wastes are acutely hazardous. Improper disposal of excess pesticide, spray mixture, or rinsate is a violation of Federal law. If these wastes cannot be disposed of by use according to label instructions, contact your State Pesticide or Environmental Control Agency, or the Hazardous Waste Representative at the nearest EPA Regional Office for guidance. As a pesticide waste, consult the FIFRA label for any additional handling, treatment, or disposal requirements. For disposal, contact a properly licensed waste treatment, storage, disposal or recycling facility. Nalco Company 1601 W. Diehl Road

• Naperville, Illinois 60563-1198 * (630)305-1000 For additional copies of an MSDS visit www.nalco.com and request access 6 / 11 l NNALCO j 14. I TRANSPORT INFORMATION SAFETY DATA SHEET I PRODUCT EVAC Bioclde EMERGENCY TELEPHONE NUMBER(S) (800) 424-9300 (24 Hours) CHEMTREC =1 The information in this section is for reference only and should not take the place of a shipping paper (bill of lading) specific to an order. Please note that the proper Shipping Name I Hazard Class may vary by packaging, properties, and mode of transportation. Typical Proper Shipping Names for this are as follows.
• The presence of an RQ component (Reportable Quantity for U.S. EPA and DOT) in this product causes it to be regulated with an additional description of RQ for road, or as a class 9 for road and air, ONLY when the net weight in the package exceeds the calculated RQ for the product. LAND TRANSPORT : Proper Shipping Name : Technical Name(s) : UN/ID No: Hazard Class -Primary : Packing Group : Flash Point : Reportable Quantity (per package): RQ Component : *AIR TRANSPORT (ICAO/IATA): PESTICIDE, LIQUID, TOXIC, N.O.S. Endothall, mono(N,N-dimethylcocoamine) salt UN 2902 6.1 Ill > 110 °C/> 230 °F 4,280 lbs ENDOTHALL The presence of an RQ component (Reportable Quantity for U.S. EPA and DOT) in this product causes it to be regulated with an additional description of RQ for road, or as a class 9 for road and air, ONLY when the net weight in the package exceeds the calculated RQ for the product. Proper Shipping Name : Technical Name(s) : UN/ID No: Hazard Class -Primary : Packing Group : Reportable Quantity (per package): RQ Component : MARINE TRANSPORT (IMDG/IMO): Proper Shipping Name : Technical Name(s) : UN/ID No: Hazard Class -Primary : Packing Group : *Marine Pollutant : . PESTICIDE, LIQUID, TOXIC, N.O.S. Endothall, mono(N,N-dimethylcocoamine) salt UN 2902 6.1 Ill 4,280 lbs ENDO THALL PESTICIDE, LIQUID, TOXIC, N.O.S. Endothall, mono(N,N-dimethylcocoamine) UN 2902 6.1 Ill Endothall, mono(N,N-dimethylcocoamine) salt *Note: This product is regulated as a Marine Pollutant when shipped by Rail, Highway (in bulk quantities), or Air (if no other hazard class applies), and when shipped by water in all quantities. Nalco Company 1601 W. Diehl Road* Naperville, Illinois 60563-1198 * (630)305-1000 For additional copies of an MSDS visit www.nalco.com and request access 7 / 11 SAFETY DATA SHEET Biocide EM ERG ENCY TELEPHONE NUMBER(S) (800) 424-9300 (24 Hours) CHEMTREC j 1s. I REGULATORY INFORMATION This section contains additional information that may have relevance to regulatory compliance. The information in this section is for reference only. It is not exhaustive, and should not be relied upon to take the place of an individualized compliance or hazard assessment. Nalco accepts no liability for the use of this information. NATIONAL REGULATIONS, USA: OSHA HAZARD COMMUNICATION RULE, 29CFR1910.1200: Based on our hazard evaluation, the following substance(s) in this product is/are hazardous and the reason(s) is/are shown below. Endothall, mono(N,N-dirnethylcocoamine) salt: Corrosive to eyes, Skin irritant CERCLA/SUPERFUND, 40 CFR 302 : This product contains the following Reportable Quantity (RQ) Substance. Also listed is the RO for the product. If a reportable quantity of product is released, it requires notification to the NATIONAL RESPONSE CENTER, WASHINGTON, D.C. (1-800-424-8802). RO Substance Endothall, mono{N,N-dimethylcocoamine) salt RQ 4,280 lbs SARA/SUPERFUND AMENDMENTS AND REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1986 (TITLE Ill) -SECTIONS 302, 311, 312, AND 313: SECTION 302 -EXTREMELY HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES (40 CFR 355): This product does not contain substances listed in Appendix A and Bas an Extremely Hazardous Substance. SECTIONS 311 AND 312 -MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET REQUIREMENTS (40 CFR 370): Our hazard evaluation has found this product to be hazardous. The product should be reported under the following indicated EPA hazard categories: x Immediate (Acute) Health Hazard Delayed (Chronic) Health Hazard Fire Hazard Sudden Release of Pressure Hazard Reactive Hazard Under SARA 311 and 312, the EPA has established threshold quantities for the reporting of hazardous chemicals. The current thresholds are: 500 pounds or the threshold planning quantity (TPQ), whichever is lower, for extremely hazardous substances and 10,000 pounds for all other hazardous chemicals. SECTION 313 -LIST OF TOXIC CHEMICALS (40 CFR 372): This product does not contain substances on the List of Toxic Chemicals. TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT (TSCA): This product is exempted under TSCA and regulated under FIFRA. The inerts are on the Inventory List. Nalco Company 1601 W. Diehl Road* Naperville, Illinois 60563-1198 * (630)305-1000 For additional copies of an MSDS visit www.nalco.com and request access 8 I 11 NNALCO SAFETY DATA SHEET I PRODUCT EVAC Biocide EMERGENCY TELEPHONE NUMBER(S) (800) 424-9300 (24 Hours) CHEMTREC FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE AND RODENTICIDE ACT (FIFRA) : EPA Reg. No. 70506-189-1706 In all cases follow instructions on the product label. FEDERAL WATER POlLUTION CONTROL ACT, CLEAN WATER ACT, 40 CFR401.15 /formerlySec-. 307, 40 CFR 116.4 /formerly Sec. 311 : Substances listed under this regulation are not intentionally added or expected to be present in this product. Listed components may be present at trace levels. CLEAN AIR ACT, Sec. 112 (Hazardous Air Pollutants, as amended by 40 CFR 63), Sec. 602 (40 CFR 82, Class I and II Ozone Depleting Substances) :
• Substances listed under this regulation are not intentionally added or expected to be present in this product. Listed components may be present at trace levels. CALIFORNIA PROPOSITION 65: Substances listed under California Proposition 65 are not intentionally added or expected to be present in this product. MICHIGAN CRITICAL MATERIALS: Substances listed under this regulation are not intentionally added or expected to be present in this product. Listed components may be present at trace levels. STATE RIGHT TO KNOW LAWS: This product is a registered biocide and is exempt from State Right to Know Labelling Laws. INTERNATIONAL CHEMICAL CONTROL LAWS: AUSTRALIA This product contains substance(s) which are not in compliance with the National Industrial Chemicals Notification & Assessment Scheme (NICNAS) and may require additional review. CHINA This product contains substance(s) which are not in compliance with the Provisions on the Environmental Administration of New Chemical Substances and may require additional review. EUROPE This product contains substance(s) which are not in compliance with the European Commission Directive 67/548/EEC and may require additional review. JAPAN This product contains substance(s) which are not in compliance with the Law Regulating the Manufacture and Importation Of Chemical Substances and are not listed on the Existing and New Chemical Substances list (ENCS). Nalco Company 1601 W. Diehl Road* Naperville, Illinois 60563-1198 * (630)305-1000 For additional copies of an MSDS visit www.nalco.com and request access 9 I 11 KOREA SAFETY DATA SHEET I PRODUCT EVAC B iocide EMERGENCY TELEPHONE MUMBER(S) (800) 424-9300 (24 Hours) CHEMTREC This product contains substance(s) which are not in compliance with the Toxic Chemical Control Law (TCCL) and may require additional review. PHILIPPINES This product contains substance(s) which are not in compliance with the Republic Act 6969 (RA 6969) and may require additional review. j *is. I OTHER INFORMATION This product material safety data sheet provides health and safety information. The product is to be used in applications consistent with our product literature. Individuals handling this product should be informed of the recommended safety precautions and should have access to this information. For any other uses, exposures should be evaluated so that appropriate handling practices and training programs can be established to insure safe workplace operations. Please consult your local sales representative for any further information. REFERENCES Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents and Biological Exposure Indices, American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, OH., (Ariel InsightŽ CD-ROM Version), Ariel Research Corp., Bethesda, MD. Hazardous Substances Data Bank, National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, Maryland (TOMES CPSŽ CD-ROM Version), Micromedex, Inc .. Englewood, CO. !ARC Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man, Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer. Integrated Risk Information System, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. (TOMES CPSŽ CD-ROM Version), Micromedex, Inc., Englewood, CO. Annual Report on Carcinogens, National Toxicology Program, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health SerVice. Title 29 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1910, Subpart Z, Toxic and Hazardous Substances, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), (Ariel InsightŽ Cb-ROM Version), Ariel Research Corp., Bethesda, MD. Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, OH, (TOMES CPSŽ CD-ROM Version), Micromedex, Inc., Englewood, CO. Ariel InsightŽ (An integrated guide to industrial chemicals covered under major regulatory and advisory programs), North American Module, Western European Module, Chemical Inventories Module and the Generics Module (Ariel InsightŽ CD-ROM Version), Ariel Research Corp., Bethesda, MD. The Teratogen Information System, University of Washington, Seattle, WA (TOMES CPSŽ CD-ROM Version), Micromedex, Inc., Englewood, CO. Nalco Company 1601 W. Diehl Road* Naperville Illinois 60563-1198 * (630)305-1000 For additional copies of an MSDS visit www.nalco.com and request access 10 I 11 NNALCO Prepared By : Product Safety Department Date issued : 02/09/2011 Version Number : 1.12 SAFETY DATA SHEET EMERGENCY TELEPHONE NUMBER(S) (800) 424-9300 (24 Hours) CHEMTREC Nalco Company 1601 W. Diehl Road* Naperville, Illinois 60563-1198 * (630)305-1000 For additional copies of an MSDS visit www.nalco.com and request access 11 / 11 GE \Nater & Process Technologies Material Safety Data Sheet SPECTRUS CT1300 Issue Date: 12-FEB-2009 Supercedes: 1 O-DEC-2007 1 Identification Identification of substance or preparation SPECTRUS CT1300 Product Application Area Water-based microbial control agent. Company/Undertaking Identification GE Betz, Inc. 4636 Somerton Road Trevose, PA 19053 T 215 355-3300, F 215 953 5524 Emergency Telephone (800) 877-1940 Prepared by Product Stewardship Group: T 215-355-3300 Prepared on: 12-FEB-2009 2 Hazard(s) identification ******************************************************************************** EMERGENCY OVERVIEW DANGER Corrosive to skin. Potential skin sensitizer. Corrosive to the eyes. Vapors, gases, mists and/or aerosols may cause irritation to upper respiratory tract. DOT hazard: Corrosive to skin, Flammable Odor: Mild; Appearance: Colorless To Yellow, Liquid Fire fighters should wear positive pressure self-contained breathing apparatus(full face-piece type). Proper fire-extinguishing media: dry chemical, carbon dioxide or foam--Avoid water if possible. ******************************************************************************** POTENTIAL HEALTH EFFECTS ACUTE SKZN EFFECTS: Primary route of exposure; Corrosive to skin. Potential skin sensitizer. ACUTE EYE EFFECTS: Corrosive to the eyes. ACUTE RESPIRATORY EFFECTS: Vapors, gases, mists and/or aerosols may cause irritation to upper Substance or Preparation: SPECTRUS CT1300 Page 1 respiratory tract. INGESTION EFFECTS: Toxic; May cause severe irritation or burning of mouth, throat, and gastrointestinal tract with severe chest and abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, lethargy and collapse. Possible d<Jath when ingested in very large doses. TARGET ORGANS: Prolonged or repeated exposures may cause CNS depression, tissue narcoses, skin sensitization, and/or toxicity to the liver and kidney. MEDICAL CONDITIONS AGGRAVATED: Not' known. SYMPTOMS OF EXPOSURE: Inhalation of vapors/mists/aerosols may cause eye; nose, throat and lung irritation. Skin contact may cause severe irritation or burns. 3 Composition I information on ingredients Information for specific product ii;igredients as required by the U.S. OSHA HAZARD COMMUNICATION STANDARD is listed. Refer to additional sections of this MSDS for our assessment of the potential hazards of this formulation. HAZARDOUS INGREDIENTS: Caslt Chemical Name Range(w/w%) 68424-85-1 (Cl2-16)ALKYL DIMETHYL BENZYL AMMONIUM CHLORIDE 40-70 64-17-5 Corrosive (eyes and skin);toxic (by*ingestion) ETHYL ALCOHOL Flammable liquid; irritant (eyes); may cause CNS depression; potential liver, kidney, brain, heart and male reproductive toxin; produced mutagenic effects in germ cells and somatic cells (in vivo) 4 First-aid measures SKIN CONTACT: 7-13 URGENT! Wash thoroughly with.soap and water. Remove contaminated clothing. Get immediate medical attention. Thoroughly clothing before reuse. EYE CONTACT: URGENT! Immediately flush eyes with plenty of low-pressure water for at least 20 minutes while removing contact lenses. Hold eyelids apart. Get immediate medical attention. INHALATION: Remove to fresh air. If breathing is difficult, oxygen. If breathing has stopped, give artificial respiration. Get immediate medical attention. INGESTION: Do not feed anything by mouth to an ur.conscious or cor:*.*ulsive Substance or Preparation: SPECTRUS CT1300 Page 2 victim. DiluLe contenLs of stomach. Induce vomiting by one of the standard methods. Immediately contact a physician. NOTES TO PHYSICIANS: Material is corrosive. It may not be advisable to induce vomiting. Possible mucosal damage may contraindicate the use of gastric lavage. 5 Fire-fighting measures FIRE FIGHTING INSTRUCTIONS: Fire fighters should wear positive pressure self-contained breathing apparatus (full face-piece type). EXTINGUISHING MEDIA: dry chemical, carbon dioxide or foam--Avoid water if possible. HAZARDOUS DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS: oxides of carbon and nitrogen, hydrogen chloride FLASH POINT: 130F 54C P-M(CC) MISCELLANEOUS: Corrosive to skin, Flammable UN 2920;Emergency Response Guide #132 6 Accidental release measures PROTECTION AND SPILL CONTAINMENT: Ventilate area. Use specified protective equipment. Contain and absorb on absorbent material. Place in waste disposal container. Remove ignition sources. Flush area with water. Spread sand/grit. DISPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS: Water contaminated with this product may be sent to a sanitary sewer treaLment facility,in accordance with any local agreement,a permitted waste treatment facility or discharged under a permit. Product as is -Dispose of in approved pesticide facility or according to label instructions. 7 Handling and storage HANDLING: Combustible. Corrosive to skin and/or eyes. STORAGE: Keep containers closed when not in use. Keep away from flames or sparks. Bond containers during filling or discharge when performed at temperatures* at or above the product flash point. Shelf life 360 days. 8 Exposure controls I personal protection EXPOSURE LIMITS CHEMICAL NAME (Cl2-16)ALKYL DIMETHYL BENZYL AMMONIUM CHLORIDE PEL (OSHA) : NOT DETERMINED TLV (ACGIH) : NOT DETERMINED ETHYL ALCOHOL Substance or Preparation: SPECTRUS CT1300 Page3 PEL (OSHA): 1,000 PPM TLV (ACGIH): 1,000 PPM ENGINEERING CONTROLS: Adequate ventilation to maintain air contaminants below exposure limits. PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT: Use protective equipment in accordance with 29CFR 1910 Subpart I RESPIRATORY PROTECTION: A RESPIRATORY PROTECTION PROGRAM THAT MEETS OSHA'S 29 CFR 1910.134 AND ANSI ZBB.2 REQUIREMENTS MUST BE FOLLOWED WORKPLACE CONDITIONS WARRANT A RESPIRATOR'S USE. USE AIR PURIFYING RESPIRATORS WITHIN USE LIMITATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE EQUIPMENT OR ELSE USE SUPPLIED AIR-RESPIRATORS. If air-purifying respirator use is appropriate, use organic vapor cartridges and any of the following particulate respirators: N95, N99, NlOO, R95, R99, RlOO, P95, P99 or PlOO. SKIN PROTECTION: gauntlet-type rubber, butyl or neoprene gloves, chemical resistant apron --Wash* off after each use. Replace as necessary. EYE PROTECTION: splash proof chemical goggles, face shield 9 Physical and chemical properties Specific Grav.(70F,21C) 0.965 Freeze Point (F) -7 Freeze Point (C) -22 Viscosity(cps 70F,21C) 73 Odor Appearance Physical State Flash Point P-M(CC) pH As Is (approx.) Evaporation Rate (Ether=l) Percent VOC: Vapor Pressure (mmHG) Vapor Density (air=l) % Solubility (water) Mild Colorless To Yellow Liquid 130F 54C 8.9 < 1. 00 ND NA = not applicable ND not determined 1 O Stability and reactivity CHEMICAL STABILITY: Stable under normal storage conditions. POSSIBILITY OF HAZARDOUS REACTIONS: INCOMPATIBILITIES: May react with strong oxidizers. DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS: oxides of carbon and nitrogen, hydrogen chloride 11 Toxicological information Substance or Preparation: SPECTRUS CT1300 44.0 < 1.00 100.0 Pf;lge 4 Oral LD50 RAT: 445 mg/kg Dermal LD50 RABBIT: >1,800 mg/kg Skin Sensitization G.PIG: NEGATIVE NOTE -Active component' was neither a photoallergen nor a skin sensitizer 12 Ecological information AQUATIC TOXICOLOGY Annelida (Lumbriculus variegatus) 96 Hour Ac.ute Toxicity LC50= 1.47; LClO= .37 mg/L Benthic Crustacean(Gammerus pseutolimnaeus) 96 Hour Acute Toxicity LC50= .07 mg/L Ceriodaphnia 48 Hour Static Renewal Bioassay LC50= .35; No Effect Level= .15 mg/L Ceriodaphnia 7 Day Chronic Bioassay IC25 = .098 mg/L Channel Catfish 96 Hour Acute Toxicity LC50= .86; No Effect Level= .54 mg/L Daphnia magna 48 Hour Flow-Thru Bioassay LC50= .04; No Effect Level= .026 mg/L Daphnia magna 48 Hour Static Acute Bioassay LCSO= .11; No Effect Level= .06 mg/L Daphnia pulex 48 Hour Static Renewal Bioassay LC50= .05; No Effect Level= .031 mg/L Fathead Minnow 7 Day Chronic Bioassay IC25 = .259 mg/L Fathead Minnow 96 Hour Flow-Thru Bioassay LC50= .72; No Effect Level= .41 mg/L Freshwater Snail(Physa sp.) 96 Hour Acute Toxicity LC50= .46; No Effect Level= .36 mg/L Menidia beryllina (Silversides) 96 Hour Flow-Thru Bioassay LC50= .62; No Effect Level= .35 mg/L Midge larvae (Chironomus tentans) 96 Hour Acute Toxicity LC50= .5; No Effect Level= .13 mg/L Mysid Shrimp 96 Hour Flow-Thru Bioassay LCSO= .16; No Effect Level= .03 mg/L Rainbow Trout 96 Hour Flow-Thru Bioassay LC50= 2; No Effect Level= 1.2 mg/L Sheepshead Minnow 96 Hour Flow-Thru Bioassay LC50= 1.76; No Effect Level= 1 mg/L No Data Available. BIODEGRADATION BOD-28 (mg/g) : 156 BOD-5 (mg/g): 43 COD (mg/g): 1470 TOC (mg/g) : 380 13 Disposal considerations Substance or Preparation: SPECTRUS CT1300 Page5 If this undiluted product is discarded as a waste, the US hazardous waste identification number is : Exempt 0001 per 40 CFR 261. 21 (a) ( 1) . Please be advised; however, that state and local requirements for waste disposal may be mo*re restrictive or otherwise different from federal regulations. Consult state and local regulations regarding the proper disposal of this material. 14 Transport information DOT HAZARD: Corrosive to skin, Flammable PROPER SHIPPING NAME: CORROSIVE LIQUIDS, FLAMMABLE, N. 0. S. (QUATERNARY AMMONIUM COMPOUNDS, ETHYL ALCOHOL) 8(3), UN 2920, PG II DOT EMERGENCY RESPONSE GUIDE #: 132 Note: Some containers may be DOT exempt, please check BOL for exact container classification 15 Regulatory information TSCA: This is an EPA registered biocide and is exempt from TSCA inventory requirements. CERCLA AND/OR SARA REPORTABLE QUANTITY {RQ): No regulated constituent present at OSHA thresholds FIFRA REGISTRATION NUMBER: 3876-149 FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION: 21 CFR 176.300 (slimicides for wet end use) When used in this specified application, all ingredients comprising this product are authorized by FDA for the manufacture of paper and paperboard that may contact aqueous and fatty foods as per 21 CFR 176:170(a) (4). NSF Registered and/or meets USDA {according to 1998 Guidelines): Registration number: Not Registered GS, G7 SARA SECTION 312 HAZARD CLASS: Irnmediate(acute);Delayed(Chronic);Fire SARA SECTION 302 CHEMICALS: No regulated constituent present at OSHA.thresholds SARA SECTION 313 CHEMICALS: No regulated constituent present at OSHA thresholds CALIFORNIA REGULATORY INFORMATION CALIFORNIA SAFE DRINKING WATER AND TOXIC ENFORCEMENT ACT {PROPOSITION 65) : No regulated constituents present MICHIGAN REGULATORY INFORMATION No regulated constituent present at OSHA thresholds 16 Other information Substance or Preparation: SPECTRUS CT1300 Page6 HMIS vII Health Fire Reactivity Special (1) Protective Equipment 3 2 0 CORR D CODE TRANSLATION Serious Hazard Moderate Hazard Minimal Hazard DOT corrosive Goggles,Face Shield,Gloves,Apron (1) refer to section 8 of MSDS for additionai protective equipment recommendations. CHANGE LOG EFFECTIVE DATE REVISIONS TO SECTION: SUPERCEDES ----------------------------------------MSDS status: 18-NOV-1997 ** NEW ** 27-FEB-1998 15 18-NOV-1997 15-MAY-1998 2 27-FEB-1998 20-MAY-1998 11 15-MAY-1998 17-AUG-1998 15 20-MAY-1998 27-0C'.r-1998 ;EDIT:9 17-AUG-1998 12-NOV-1998 ;EDIT:9 27-0CT-1998 03-MAY-2000 12 12-NOV-1998 05-JUL-2001 12 03-MAY-2000 24-SEP-2001 3,4,5,7,8,14,16 05-JUL-2001 16-NOV-2001 12 24-SEP-2001 30-DEC-2005 13;EDIT:15 16-NOV-2001 19-DEC-2006 13;EDIT:l5 30-DEC-2005 05-APR-2007 2 19-DEC-2006 10-DEC-2007 5,7,8,10 05-APR-2007 12-FEB-2009 12 10-DEC-2007 Substance or Preparation: SPECTRUS CT1300 Page?

Lot Number: 'HEALTH .s,--_.._ ... . -l 1(:*; **{*-'fl *,*I /!1 f\ Hi**" /u1 * *; !'-' :to;'1**t Material ID: 6020665 FLAMMABILITY REACTIVITY PERSONAL PROTECTION Net Weight: Lbs. Packaging Date: 07/12/00 Wash: Made In USA SPECTRUS CT1* 300 FOR CONTROL OF ALGAE AND ALGAL SLIME GROWTH IN WATER COOLING SYSTEMS PRECAUTIONARY STATEMENTS HAZARDS TO HUMANS AND DOMESTIC ANIMALS DANGER CORROSIVE. CAUSES SEVERE EYE & SKIN DAMAGE. Do not get in eyes, on skin or on clothing. Wear goggles or face shield & rubber gloves when handling. HARMFUL OR FATAL IF SWALLOWED. Avoid contamination of food. Wash thoroughly with soap and water after handling. Remove contaminated clothing and wash before reuse. ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS This product is toxic to fish. Do not discharge effluent containing this product into lakes, streams, ponds, estuaries, oceans or other waters unless in accordance with the requirements of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and the permitting authority has been notified in writing prior to discharge. Do not discharge effluent containing this product to sewer systems without previously notifying the local sewage treatment plant authority. For guidance, contact your State Water Board or Regional Office of the* EPA. PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL HAZARDS Do not use or store near heat or open flame. ACTIVE INGREDIENT: N-Alkyl (50% C14, 40% C12, 10% C16) dimethylbenzyl ammonium chloride INERT INGREDIENTS TOTAL CONTENTS; LIQUID *POUNDS PER GALLON: 8.0 EPA REGISTRATION NUMBER: 3876-149 EPA ESTABLISHMENT NUMBER: 50% 50% 100.0% KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN DANGER For Industrial Use. Technical advice regarding specific site problems Is avallable from Betz

Dearborn,

a Division of Hercules Incorporated. A Material Safety Data Sheet containing mor' detailed information relative to this product Is available upon request. For product use see Panel 2. DIRECTIONS FOR USE: It Is a violation of Federal law to use this product In a manner inconsistent with its labeling. STORAGE AND DISPOSAL PROHIBITIONS: Do not contaminate water, food or feed by storage or disposal. Open dumping Is prohibited. Do not reuse amply container. STORAGE INSTRUCTIONS: Store in original conlainer. Keep from freezing. SPILL OR LEAK PROCEDURE: Small spills may be mopped up or flushed away with water or absorbed on some absorbent material and incinerated. PESTICIDE DISPOSAL Pesticide wastes are acutely hazardous. Improper disposal of excess pesticide, spray mixture or dnsate is a violation of Federal Law. If these wastes cannot be disposed of by use according to label instructions, contact your State Pesticide or Environmental Control Agency, or the Hazardous Waste Represenlallve at the nearest EPA Regional Office for guidance. CONTAINER DISPOSAL ,' STATEMENT OF PRACTICAL TREATMENT In case of contact, immediately flush eyes or skin with plenty of water for at least 15 minutes. For eyes, call a physician. and wash contaminated clothing before reuse. If swallowed, drink promptly a large quantity of milk, egg whites, gelatin solution: or if these are not available, drink large quantities of water. Avoid alcohol. Call a physician immediately. NOTE TO PHYSICIAN: Probable mucosa! damage may contraindicate the use of gastric lavage. Triple rinse (or equivalent). Then offer for recycling or reconditioning, or puncture and dispose of In a sanitary landfill, or by other procedures approved by state and local authorities. Betz

Dearborn Inc.,

Water Management Group, 4636 Somerton Road, Trevose, PA, 19053 Business Phone: 215-355-3300 a Emergency Phone: 800-877-1940 GEN 9905 -7/-12/00. Made in USA GEN 9905-7/12/00 HEALTH :; FLAMMABILITY REACTIVITY PERSONAL PROTECTION SPECTRUS CT1300 FOR CONTROL OF ALGAE AND ALGAL SLIME GROWTH IN WATER COOLING SYSTEMS DIRECTIONS FOR USE: It is a violation of Federal law to use this product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling. _L 0 B INDUSTRIAL Al-JD/OR COMMERCIAL RECIRCUL/\TING COOLING WATER SYSTEMS This product aids in the control of rnollusca, barnacles,. hydrozoa, bryozoa and of bacterial, fungal and algal slimes 111 evaporative condensers, heat exchangi:, waler systems, commercial and Industrial cooling towers, influent systems such as flow-through fillers and lagoons. industrial watot Sl'f'Ublllng systems and br'"wery pasleurlzors. Do not use water containing resfdues from use (Jf lllis product to Irrigate crops used for food or feed_ Use of lhis product Jn either public/municipal or s111gte or multiple family prlvate/resldentlal potable/drinking waler systems ls strictly prohibited. Use of this product in any cooling water system that discharges effluent Within 1/4 mile or either a puhlic/rnu1m::lpal or single or rnulllple family private/residential pota\)le/drh1klnu water lntaka Is stricliy prohllllted. This product may be added to the systems as needed. The frequency of fcedlny and dumllon or the lreatment will depend upon !ho sevem}' of tho problem. BADL \' SYSTEMS must be c:laaned.before lrealment is begun. FOR THE CONTROL OF ALGAE INITIAL DOSE: When the system is noticeably fouled, add this product at the rate of 0.15 to 0.65 pound (18 to 78 ppm) per 1000 gallons of water in the system. Repeat until control is achieved SUBSEQUENT DOSE: When control is evident, add this product at the rate of 0.1to0.45 pound (12 to 36 ppm) per 1000 gallons of water in the system. FOR CONTROL OF BACTERIA AND FUNGI INITIAL DOSE: When Ille system 1s noticeably fouled, add this product at the rate of 0.1 to 0.45 pound (12 to 36 ppm) per 1000 gallons of water in the system. Repeat until control ls achieved. SUBSEQUENT DOSE: When control is evident, add this product at the rate of 0.05 to 0.15 pound (6 to 18 ppm) per 1000 gallons of water in the system. FOR CONTROL OF MOLLUSCA, BARNACLES, HYDROZOA AND BRYOZOA Add this product at the rate of 0.016 to 0.166 pound (2 to 20 ppm) per 1000 gallons of water In the system. Maintain this concentration for 3 to 48 hours. ONCE-THROUGH COOLING WATER SYSTEMS This product aids m the control of n1011usca, barnacles, hydrozoa, bryozoa and of algal, bacterial and fungal slimes in once-through fresh and sea water cooling systems, cooling ponds, canals and lagoons. Tl1is product may he added to the system inlet water or before any contaminated area in the system. BADLY FOULED SYSTEMS must be cleaned before treatment is begun. FOR THE CONTROL OF ALGAE, BACTERIA AND FUNGI INITIAL DOSE: When the system is noticeably fouled, add this product at the rate of 0.15 to 0.65 pound (1 B to 78 ppm) per 1000 gallons of water based on the flow rate through the system. Minimum treatment intervals should be 15 minutes. Repeat until control is achieved. SUBSEQUENT DOSE: When control is evident, add this product at the rate of0.1to0.45 pound (12 to 36 ppm) per 1000 gallons of water based on the flow rate through the system. FOR THE CONTROL OF MOLLUSCA, BARNACLES, HYDROZOA AND BRYOZOA Add this product at the rate of 0.016 to 0.166 pound (2 to 20 ppm) per 1000 gallons of water based on the flow rate through the system. Maintain this concentration for 3 to 48 hours. AUXILIARY WATER/SERVICE WATER AND WASTE WATER SYSTEMS This produGt is effective fo" lha control of rnol!usca, barnacles, hydrozoa, bryozoa and of odor-forming and sllme-formlng bacteria. lung! and algae In auxiliary water syslams sur:h as flre protection systems and pump or screen bays, waste water and waste material disposal, holding or recovery systems such as storage tanks, storage piles, associated piping, settling ponds or lagoons, transpoti spillways or canals and disposal wells. This pr-oduct may be added to the system waler or by spraying onto a was!e pile as needed. The frequency of feed or spray ano the duratlon of treatmen1 will depend upon the severity of the contamination. Additions to vvater systems should be made during the pumping operation and as close to t11e pump as possible to ensure adequate mtxinQ. tNTERMlnENT OR SLUG METHOD-Wt1en treatment Is required, add lliis product at tile rate.of 0.3 to 1.3 pounds (36 to 156 ppm) per 1000 gallons of water already in lhe system. or belng added to lhe system. for 4 to B hours, 1 to 4 limes per week or as needed to achieve the desired level of control. When control Is obtained, add this product at the rate of O.i5 ta 0.65 pound (11.l to 7R ppm) per 1000 gallons of water in the system. Lot Number: Material ID: 6020665 Packaging Date: 07 /12/00 Net Weight: Betz

Dearborn Inc.,

Water Management Group, 4636 Somerton Road, Trevose, PA, 19053 Business Phone: 215-355-3300 -Emergency Phone: 800-877-1940 Lbs. .. ' Water & Process Technologies Fact *Sheet< J ....... ' * .,. ' Spectrus* CT1300 Mollusk Control Agent

• Controls common fouling mollusks at all life stages using brief (6 to 24 hr) seasonal tions
• Effective on all types of fresh and salt water clams, mussels, and oysters
• Can be rapidly detoxified and is readily gradable
• Field test methods available for determining product concentrations Description and Use Spectrus* CT1300 is an environmentally friendly, bio-contral agent that can be used to control lusks in a variety of industrial. water-based systems. Spectrus CT1300 can also be used for control of algae, bacteria. and fungal slimes in these same water systems. Spectrus CT1300 is concentrated. It contains 50% of quaternary ammonium ride (Quot) as active ingredient. Spectrus CT1300, applied in brief (6 to 24 hr) sonal applications, is effective against all mollusks at all life stages. Spectrus CT1300 is effective against adult organisms and will prevent immature forms from growing to a fouling size. Spectrus CT1300 is EPA-approved for use in lating cooling systems. heat exchange systems. and evaporative condensers. This product is also proved for use in once-through cooling systems. service water. auxiliary water, and fire protection systems. as well as influent and wastewater terns. See the Spectrus CT1300 product label for a complete listing of approved end-uses. / ... -: Figure 1: Zebra Mussel Accumulation after 3 Months in a 6-in. (15.2 cm) Diameter Discharge Line. Control of macrofouling organisms such as lusks is needed to prevent blocked water lines and damaged equipment. Uncontrolled growth of rofouling organisms can lead to higher nance and production costs. reduced plant safety, and even plant outages. Therefore. an effective macrofouling control is necessary for operating units to achieve profitability goals. More tantly, effective macrofouling control is essential to ensure availability of fire protection systems and other safety-related equipment. Environmental Benefits The active ingredient in Spectrus CT1300 (Quot) is short-lived in the environment. Quats are cationic qnd rapidly adsorbed by natural,. anionic substrates and sediments. Adsorption effectively detoxifies Quats and renders them harmless to aquatic and benthic organisms as well as microbes. Find a contact near you by visiting www.ge.com/woter or e-mailing custhelp@ge.com. Global Headquarters Trevose. PA +1-215-355-3300 Americas Watertown, MA +l-617-926-2500 Europe/Middle East/Africa Asia/Paci;ic Heverlee, Belgium Shanghai. China +32-16-40-20-00 * +86101411-8366-6489 ©2008. General Electric Company. All rights reserved. pfc72S.ucc Apr-08 *Trademark of General Electric Company; ma:1 be registered in one or more countries.

Spectrus CT1300 can be deliberately detoxified by use of highly adsorbent. anionic materials such as those found in Spectrus DT1400 or DT1401. These products may be used where natural adsorption is not adequate to comply with water quality criteria. Once adsorbed, Quats are readily biodegraded to carbon dioxide and water. Because Spectrus CT1300 provides macrofouling control in just a few hours, it reduces chemical sumption, environmental impact and treatment costs compared to halogen-based macrofouling treatments. When halogens are used for mollusk control. they must be applied continuously for eral weeks if they are to be effective. and they must be dehalogenated. In addition, continuous feed of halogens promotes formation of undesirable products such as trihalomethanes (THMsl. total ganic halides (TOX). and adsorbable halogenated organics (AOX). Since Spectrus CT1300 is not an dizer, it does not produce these compounds. Treatment and Feeding Requirements Correct treatment levels and frequency of Spectrus CT1300 addition depend on many factors. These include, but are not limited to, degree of infestation, type of mollusk, temperature, system retention time, and discharge environment. Heavy infestations of mollusks should be physically removed by ing, dredging, or scraping prior to treatment. sult your GE representative for technical advice on your specific application. Feed point -Apply Spectrus CT1300 to a point in the system where turbulence and flow patterns assure good mixing with the water being treated. Dilution -This product is best fed neat (undiluted) from the storage container. Feed Equipment -Spectrus CT1300 is compatible with the following materials of construction: loy 825; High Density Cross-linked Polyethylene; lon; PVC; Neoprene; Buno N; Buno S: Litharge Viton; Ethylene Propylene Resin; Hypolon. (Teflon and ton are registered trademarks of DuPont.) Avoid use of: 304 and 316 Stainless Steels cially in thin walled feed lines); High Density propylene; Linear High Density Polyethylene; Nylon. This product may be fed using the Pacesetter* trol system. Page 2 General Properties Physical properties of Spectrus CT1300 are shown on the Material Safety Data Sheet, a copy of which is available on request. Packaging Information Spectrus CT1300 is a liquid and is available in a wide. variety of containers and delivery methods, including GE's ChemSure* Drumless Delivery vices Storage Protect from extreme temperatures. Protect from freezing. Keep containers closed when not in use. Keep away from flames or sparks. Safety Precautions Use of eye protection (goggles and face shield) and gauntlet-type neoprene gloves is required when handling this product. See section 7 of the MSDS for additional information on recommended personal protective equipment. General Information EPA Registration Number .............. 3876-149 Purchase of Spectrus CT1300 from GE includes a license to practice the process covered by U.S. ent 4,857,209. Spectrus CT1300 Fact Sheet BENTONITE PERFORMANCE MINERALS MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET NATIONAL Beotonite Revision Date: February 25, 2002 PRODUCT COMPANY AND IDENJ'IFICATION Product Trade Name: Generic

Description:

Supplier: Telephone: Fax Number: Chemtrec Emergency Number: NATIONAL Bentonite Wyoming Bentonite, Sodium montmorillonite Bentonite Performance Minerals 410 17th Street, Suite 405 Denver, Colorado 80202-4447 (303) 571-8240 (303) 571-8280 (800) 424-9300 COMPOSIDON/INFORMATION ON THE COMPONENI'S MATERIAL OR COMPONENT Wyoming Bentonite, Sodium Montmorillonite Crystalline Silica Quartz Cristobalite Tridymite (60-100%) CAS # 1302-78-9 (l-5%) (0-1%) (0-1%) CAS# 14808-60-7 CAS# 14464-46-1 CAS#l5468-32-3 ACGffi-TLV-1WA not applicable 0.05 mglrr? 0.05 mglrr? 0.05 mglrr? CAS# 1302-78-9 OSHA PEL-1WA not applicable (1 omgtm)/(%Si02+2) l/2x( I Omglm)/(%Si02+ 2) t/2x(l 0mg1rr?)t('YoSi02+2) More restrictive exposure limits may be enforced by some states, agencies, or other authorities. HAZARD IDENTIFlCATION Ha7.ard Overview: CAlITION! -ACUTE HEALTH HAZARD May cause eye and respiratory irritation DANGER! -CHRONIC HEALTH HAZARD I I ] Breathing crystalline sjlica can cause lung disease, including and lung cancer. Crystalline silica has also been associated with scleroderma and kidney disease. This product contains quartz, cristobalite and tridymite which may become airborne without a visible cloud. Avoid breathing dust. Avoid creating dusty conditions. Use only with adequate ventilation to keep exposures below recommended exposure limits. Wear a NIOSH specified, European Standard EN 149, or equivalent respirator when using this product. Review the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for this product, which has been provided to your employer. FIRSr AID MEASURES 1 Inhalation

• If inhaled, remove from area to fresh air. Get medical attention if respiratory irritation develops or if breathing becomes difficult. MSDS NATIONAL 2-25-02 PAGE I OF 7 PREPARED BY: Bentonite Perfonnance Minerals; Denver, Colorado BENTONITE PERFORMANCE MINERALS MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET NA TI ON AL Bentonite Revision Date: February 25, 2002 Skin Wash with soap and water. Get medical attention if irritation persists. Eyes In case of contact, immediately flush eyes with plenty of water for at least 15 minutes and get medical attention if irritation persists. Ingestion Under normal conditions, first aid procedures are not required. Notes to Physicians Treat symptomatically. I s. FlRE FJGHDNG MEASURES Flash PointlRange (F): Flash PointlRange (C): Flash Point Method: Autoignition Temperature (F): Autoignition Temperature (C): Flammability Limits in Air-Lower(%): Flammability Limits in Air-Upper(%): Fire Extinguishing Media Special Exposure Hazards Special Protective Equipment for Fire-Fighters NFP A Ratings: HMIS Ratings: lj. ACCIDENTAL RELEASE MEASURES Personal Precautionary Measures: Environmental Precautionary Measures: Procedure for Cleaning/Absorption HANDLING AND STORAGE Not determined Not determined Not detennined Not detennined Not detennined Not detennined Not detennined All standard firefighting media. Not applicable. Not applicable Health 0, Flammability 0, Reactivity 0 Flammability 0, Reactivity 0, Health O* Use appropriate protective equipment. Avoid creating and breathing dust. None known. Collect using dustless method and hold for appropriate disposal. Consider possible toxic or fire hazards associated with contaminating substances and use appropriate methods for collection, storage and disposal. Handling Precautions This product contains quartz, cristobalite and tridymite, which may become airborne without a visible dust cloud. Avoid breathing dust. Avoid creating dusty conditions. Use only with adequate ventilation to keep exposure below recommended exposure limits. Wear a NIOSH specified, European Standard EN 149, or equivalent respirator when using this product. Material is slippery when wet. I I I MSDS NATIONAL 2-25-02 PAGE 2 OF 7 PREPARED BY: Bentonite Perfonnance Minerals; Denver, Colorado BENTONITE PERFORMANCE MINERALS MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET NATIONAL Bentonite Revision Date: February 25, 2002 Storage Information Use good housekeeping in storage and work areas to prevent accumulation of dust. Close container when n*ot in use. Do not reuse empty container.
• I s. EXPOSURE CONTROLS/PERSONAL PROTECTION Engineering Controls Use approved industrial ventilation and local exhaust as required to maintain exposures below applicable exposure limits listed in Section 2.
• Respiratory Protection Wear a NIOSH specified, European Standard EN 149, or equivalent respirator when using this product. Hand Protection Normal work gloves. Skin Protection Wear clothing appropriate for the work environment. Dusty clothing should be laundered before reuse. Use precautionary measures to avoid creating dust when removing or laundering clothes. Eye Protection Wear safety glasses or goggles to protect against exposure. Other Precautions None known PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES Physical State Color Odor pH Specific Gravity (HiO = 1) Density at i.oc Ob/gallon) Bulk Density at 20 C Ob/gal)(uncompacted) Boiling Point/Range (F):
• Boiling Point/Range (C): Freezing Point/Range (F): Freezing Point/Range (C): Vapor Pressure at 20C (mm Hg) Vapor Density (Air= 1) Percent Volatiles: Evaporation Rate (Butyl Acetate=l) Solubility in Water (g/iOOml) Solubility in Solvents (g/ml) Solubility is Sea Water (g/ml) voes Ob/gallon) Viscosity, Dynamic at 20C (centipoise) Viscosity, Kinematic at 20C (centistoke) Partition Coefficient/n-Octanol/water Molecular weight (g/mole) Solid various Odorless 8 to IO in 6% slurry 2.65 Not determined 50-70 lb/ft3 Not determined Not determined Not determined Not determined Not determined Not determined Not determined Not determined Insoluble Not determined Insoluble Not determined Not determined Not determined Not determined Not determined I I MSDS NATIONAL 2-25-02 PAGE 3 OF 7 PREPARED BY: Bentonite Perfonnance Minerals; Denver, Colorado BENTONITE PERFORMANCE MINERALS MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET NATIONAL Bentonite Revision Date: February 25, 2002 I 10. STABILTIY AND REACTIVITY Stability Data: Stable Hazardous Polymerization Will not occur. Conditions to Avoid None anticipated Incompatibility (Materials to Avoid) Hydrofluoric acid Hazardous Decomposition Products Amorphous silica may transform at elevated temperatures to crystallize to tridymite (870C) orcristobalite (1470C). Additional Guidelines Not applicable [11. TOXICOLOGICALINFORMATION Principle Route of Exposure Inhalation Skin Contact Eye Contact Ingestion Aggravated medical Conditions Chronic Effects/Carcinogenicity Eye or skin contact, inhalation. Inhaled crystalline silica in the form of quartz or cristobalite from occupational sources is carcinogenic to humans (IARC Group 1 ). There is sufficient evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity oftridymite (!ARC, Gr011p 2A). Breathing silica dust may cause irritation of the nose, throat, and respiratory passages. Breathing silica dust may not cause noticeable injury or illness even though permanent lung damage may be occurring. Inhalation of dust may also have serious' chronic health effects (See "Chronic Effects/Carcinogenicity subsection below). May cause mechanical skin irritation. May cause eye irritation. None known. Individuals with respiratory disease, including but not limited to asthma and bronchitis, or subject to eye irritation, should not be exposed to quartz dust. Silicosis: Excessive inhalation of respirable crystalline silica dust may cause a progressive, disabling and sometimes-fatal lung disease called silicosis. Symptoms include cough, shortness of breath, wheezing, non-specific chest illness and reduced pulmonary function. This disease is exacerbated by smoking. Individuals with silicosis are predisposed to develop tuberculosis. I I MSDS NATIONAL 2-25-02 PAGE4 OF7 PREPARED BY: Bentonite Performance Minerals; Denver, Colorado BENTONITE PERFORMANCE MINERALS NATIONAL Bentonite Revision Date: February 25, 2002 MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET Cancer Status: The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has determined that crystalline silica inhaled in the fonn of quartz or cristobalite from occupational sources can cause Jung cancer in humans (Group 1 -carcinogenic to humans) and has determined that there is sufficient evidence in experimental-animals for the carcinogenicity oftridymite (Group 2A-possible carcinogen to humans). Refer to IARC Monograph 68. Silica. Some Silicates and Organic Fibres (June 1997) in conjunction with the use of these minerals. The National Toxicology Program classifies respirable crystalline silica as "Known to be a human carcinogen". Refer to the 9th Report on Carcinogens (2000). The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) classifies crystalline silica, quartz, as a . suspected human carcinogen (A2). There is some evidence that breathing respirable crystalline silica or the disease silicosis is associated with an increased incidence of significant disease endpoints such as scleroderma (an immune system disorder manifested by scarring of the lungs, skin and other internal organs) and kidney disease. Other Information: For further infonnation consult "Adverse Effects of Crystalline Silica Exposure" published by the American Thoracic Society Medical Section of the American Lung Association, American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Volume 155,pp 761-768 (1997). Toxicity Tests Oral Toxicity: Dermal Toxicity: Inhalation Toxicity: Primary Irritation Effect: Carcinogenicity Genotoxicity: Reproductive/Developmental Toxicity I 12. ECC)LOGICALINFORMATION Mobility (Water/Air/Soil) Persistence/Degradability Bio-accumulation Not determined Not determined Not determined Not determined International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Group 1 Carcinogen (Carcinogenic to Humans) Not determined Not detennined Not determined Not determined Not determined I MSDS NATIONAL 2-25-02 PAGE 5 OF7 PREPARED BY: Bentonite Performance Minerals: Denver, Colorado BENTONITE PERFORMANCE MINERALS MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET NATIONAL Bentonite Revision Date: February 25, 2002 Ecotoxicological Information Acute Fish Toxicity: Acute Crustaceans Toxicity: 1LM96: 10000 ppm (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Not determined Acute Algae Toxicity: Not determined Chemical Fate Information Not determined Other Information Not applicable . I 13. DISPOSAL Disposal Method Bury in a licensed landfill according to federal, state and local regulations. Contaminated Packaging Follow all applicable national or local regulations. I 14. TRANSPORTATION INFORMATION Land Transportation DOT Canadian TDG ADR Air Transportation ICAO/IATA Sea Transportation IMDG Other Shipping Information Labels: Not restricted Not restricted Not restricted Not restricted Not restricted None I 1s. REGULATORY lNFORMATION US Regulations US TSCA Inventory EPA SARA Title ID Extremely Hazardous Substances EPA SARA (3ll/312) Hazard Class All components are listed on inventory. Not applicable Acute Health Hazard Chronic Health Hazard I I I EPA SARA( 313) Chemicals This product does not contain a toxic chemical for routine annual "Toxic Chemical Release Reporting" under Section 313 ( 40 CFR 3 72). EPA CERCLA/Superfund Reportable Spill Quantity For This Product EPA RCRA Hazardous Waste Classification MSDS NATIONAL 2-25-02 PREPARED BY: Bentonite Performance Minerals; Denver, Colorado Not applicable If product becomes a waste, it does NOT meet the criteria ofa hazardous waste as defined by the US EPA. PAGE60F7 BENTONITE PERFORMANCE MINERALS MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET NATIONAL Bentonite Revision Date: February 25, 2002 California Proposition 65 MA Right-To-Know Law NJ Right-To-Know Law PA Right-To-Know Law Canadian Regulations Canadian DSL Inventory WHMIS Hazard Class The California Proposition 65 regulations apply to this product. One or more components listed. One or more components listed. One or more components listed. All components listed on inventory. D2A Very Toxic Materials (crystalline silica) I 16.. 011IER INFORMATION Abbreviations : Registered Trademark of Halliburton Energy Services Inc. Ž: Trademark of Halliburton Energy Services Inc. NIA: Denotes no applicable infonnation found or available CAS#: Chemical Abstracts Service Number ACGIH: American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists OSHA: Occupational Safety and Health Administration TL V: Threshold Limit Value PEL: Permissible Exposure Limit STEL: Short Term Exposure Limit NTP: National Toxicology Program IARC: International Agency for Research on Cancer R: Risk S: Safety LC50: Lethal Concel)tration 50% LDSO: Lethal Dose 50% BOD: Biological Oxygen Demand KoC: Soil Organic Carbon Partition Coefficient I This information is furnished without warranty, expressed or implied, as to accuracy or completeness. The information is obtained from various sources including the manufacturer and third party sources. This information may not be valid under all conditions nor if this material is used in combination with other materials or in any process. Final determination of suitability of any material is the sole responsibility of the user. MSDS Data Revised: February 25, 2002 MSDS NATIONAL 2-25-02 BENTONITE PERFORMANCE MINERALS 410 17th Street, Suite 405 Denver, CO 80202-4447 Telephone (303) 571-8240 Facsimile (303) 571-8280 PREPARED BY: Bentonite Perfonnance Minerals; Denver, Colorado PAGE 7 OF7 TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHEET WYO-BEN, INC. 550 South 24th Street West, Suite 201 P. 0. Box 1979 Billings, Montana 59103 USA Tel: 406--652-6351 I Fax: 406--656-0748

SUBJECT:

BIG HORN FS 200 BENTONITE Specially sized pure sodium bentonite for animal feed and other industry applications. COLOR: TYPICAL CHEMICAL ANALYSIS: j Si02 Al203 Fe203 Na20 Ti Oz Cao MgO KzO Other H20 L.O.L I E.P. TOXICITY ANALYSIS:

• RPA. Arsenic Barium Cadmium Chromium Lead Mercury Selenium Silver SPECIFIC GRAVITY: Re' 6/99 Standard 5.0 100.0 1.0 5.0 5.0 0.2 1.0 5.0 Light Gray % 60.34 19.28 3.48 2.34 .22 .38 1.67 .IO .07 7.75 4.37 Typical Analysis lWl1 < 0.1 0.5 <0.05 < 0.1 <0.1 <0.02 < 0.05 < 0.1 2.55 +/- 0.1 SURFACE AREA (m2/gIU): External Surface All Surfaces 82 800 BULK DENSITY (lbslft\ 52 +/- 3 TYPICAL PARTICLE SIZE: U.S. Std. Sieve Size % Passing 100 mesh (15m) 96 200 mesh (75m) 80 325 mesh ( 45m) 52 TYPICAL CHARACTERISTICS: Wet Screen Analysis Residue on U.S. Sieve No. 200 Ph Moisture Content -% Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC meq(IOO gm) Swell (cc/2 gm) USES: Binder for animal feed pelletizing. 3.0+/- 0.5 9.1+/-0.4 6-10 70-90 20+/-3 Free choice feed additive for direct feeding. Industrial binding, sealing and gelling.

...

• tDrefife 1Yoe. 111 .* . EPA MARK'X'
• l?PECIFJC QUESTIONS YES NO FQRM ATTACHED x 16 17 18 x x 22 :?a 24 x 28 29 30 x 34 35 38 J. x 40 4f -.2 MA
• If a pn!plfnted label has been ptevided, affix In tlie Clesiglialed Review Ille inforrnailon fully: if 8"'f of It is ineomicl, c:tOss thieugn .it ai1d entiar Ille correct data Iii lhe >llPPfOP.rli.te"fill-ln area beloW. Als0, if any of the preprinted dam ls absent (lhe lilea to Iha lhe lsbeNzpace /(sis tti.e lf!/OmlalJOll .lllat SllOUIC1 SppearJ. please pro1t1ae*it. 1n Ille proper lllJ.il! area(.:J) 11 \he*t.abel is and eorreet. yali need not <:amPJeill llems l, UI, V, and Vt {except vl-B wf/il:ll must tie completed tegardleUJ. complete al! items lrno labei has been to the llisyuctlons: fat d&talled itl!IJI and .ror the legal lWlhorizatlons under \'Whicn this dala ls collected. MARK' SPCCIFIC QUESTIONS YES NO FOR('.r A'ITACHED x 19 20* '21 x 25 26. XT x 31 32:. 33 x 3'1 38 39 ,. a ...
• I iS NOT . of'ih . listed In Ille
• miru:ns a,: P.OienllanY emit 250 roils )( pj!ryeat of ;my air pollutant under tile Cie$1l *Ait Ad ana may altect or be IOl#aled in an. attalmnent. : atea7 !FPRM !>)" 43 44 45 *'p L A N t NAG E.R TENNESSEE s. 15 16 F = FEDERAL M = PUBLIC (ofhfJr' (/Ian fedeni/ 91' sla/9) S = STATE 0 = OTHER P =PRIVATE e. STREET OR P.O. BOX P.,0 ,B b X, 2 0 0 0, NAB 26 F. C.ITY OR TOWN C T I (specify} C T I (specify) ttac:n to 'his appllcatiOn a to>>ogr8P/lie map of the ai'eli to at least one mile beyond boundaries. The map must show the 'line 01.lhe radlity, the location, of each of its existing Pf9posed Intake and each of its waste lteatment; slC!f'S(le, diSPQ$,81 and it iniet;ls fluidS ln<;lude 811 rlvl'irs and Ol.liel' Surface..wiitet In the map ate!!* See mstrudiQns for reel se s. . *
• I S *m Browns Ferry Nudear Plant (BFN) operates !hree boiling water reactors rCr ihe generating electric power. KJ. Polson Site Vice 1 25 o ..... -------0:1s;Mi 'Q -'l()Q(i,*F,1; TVA BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT NPDES PERMIT NO. AL0022080 Athens, Limestone Co., Alabama Jones Crossroads & Hillsboro, Alabama 7.5-minute Quadrangles December 2010 OOib 34 . 42 15 87 0()5. 34 42 15 87 013a 'I 34 42 30. 81 Q13b 34 43 00 87 Diffuser Ois(:harge ineludes:. 001 (1) Treated Raw Cooling Water (RCW) (2) Tuibii'le Buildli'ig station sumps (4) Liquid Radwaste System (DSNOOtb) (.S) C_ondenser Cooiing Water System Residual Heat Remoiial Seivlee Water <RHR$ S stem 005 blOWdown from the Tralni!)g,Ce"ter chil!et sy,stem (includes. stale, blofouling waste from Insulator showers used by personnel with asbestos abatement activities; & raln\liater. 15 07 1.5 ()7 00 07 00 (33.2490 MGD} (0. 1339 MGD) MGD) (0.03MGDJ (2841.7 "1GO) 0.5924MGD 0.0268MGD Tenne$See* River Form Approved OMB No. 2040-0086 Tennessee River Via DSNob1 (internal oionitPtinQ ppijitj River Tennessee River via DSN013a-and River via OSN013 Dis(;harge tQ surface water 4 A Mixing 1 Q Oischarge to sutfaee water 4 A Gnnding i L StiibiliZation Ponds 3 G tecl t:agoon& 3 B Discharge to surface.water 4 A COnUn!ll' on Page ?

013p AL8640015410 (0,0554. MGD) .io surface water (0. 07MGO) (0.0042 MGD) Fotm Approved OMB No. 2040-0086. Re!;ldUal.Heat Removal SSritice 3dayslwk; 3.93 19.60 3.93MG .126 Waler (inc/lldes operational 3-4wks/mo (on avg.} diSChafQes and (OJ'! avg.) 013a(t) wastewater Lagoons 10mos./yr 0.22 0,28 0.22MG 0.28MG. 128 (cin avg;) (on avg.) 013b Sedimentation Ponds 5dyas/wk.; . 1-2 mos.lyr 0.49 0.'23MG. 0.49MG 60 1 wk.Imo (on a\lg.) (on avg.) EPA FOrin 351o.;2c {llev *. 2-llS) PaQe20f4 (2).Xylene EPA .f:aim 35111-2C (8-90) Alaf3400l54.1o (1) The discharge frorn the WasteW;tter Lagoons, DSfli 013a(1), ha!> the potential to cantliin asbeS!ds. Water from provicf!!'J ror

• involved m as!>estos stripping and handling opetatiOns are filtered through 0.03 micron mters prior to being diScharged fo the Wastewater U1go0ns. (2) The dilleharge from DSN 01 $. (9t0rm water _In. F,Qt111 has tile potential to: c6ntain $ne .due to :the presence <if a gesoftne fueJ pump for within the 01*a area.
• Cdntiniie on Page 4 WET BiomooitoringdC;ita hC!s been on prace$S (OSN 001) over the past five years in accordance with Part IV .. Effluent Toxic;i.ty L'mitaiions and Biomonitoring: Requireinent$, ofthe cllrrent NPDES. Permit AL00222080 (si:ie attached Resonable Potential * *
• E:nvirpomenta! Science Corporation Mercury One, L TO GEL LLC 1206'5 Lebanon* Road Mt. Juliet! TN 37122 2241 PinnacleParkway SuiteB . . Ofi 44087 2040 Road Charleston, Sb 29407 . N,WE & (type '"Pr,/ntl PolSt;>n, $ite Vice C; SIGNATURE (B.:S0} Page4of4 800-707-5859 331).,963"'()843 843-556-8.171 All pollutants except field: parameters {pH, temp, TRC, and LUig) were anaiy2ec1: by esc: with the of O$N(l01Q, Low level mercury All OSN Q01b pollutants except fieJd *parameters (pH, ternp, TRC) a. PHONE NO. (area code*& tiO.} (256) 729-3&75 D. DATE SIGNED

... <S,.0 <24. JZ mgJL <1:0. r 2.4 2 :n,gll. (7* 1 1-0. 2:* mgll 4.9 1 2 M!JIL <D .. 10 1 .2843* 2985,5 VAl:.01! 3{!5 MGD VALUE 74;2 "F .. F. <1;0 -Xt I <0.05 I I I I I I e I I *<o.o.s I I. 1 1Q, I I I .1 I 5:0 xi X I : <Q.10 I I I I I 121 I I <MO .1 I I -X I I <Q.10 I I J I I t 2 I rrig(L I I . <0.10 I I 1 &PA FODJI IB*lll!J .PagaV*1 r.ntitrWt n: " .. " *" '2 rt"!91L Oi46 1' x 2 mQIL <5.2 1 x <0.10 mg/L, c;Q.10 1 x x x x x 11. 1 *x .x x x .p;35 2. mgtL. 0.20* 1. o;o3l *'2 <m91t. 0.026 1 x <0;20 2 *mg/L. <;Q.20 1 x <'Q;001Q 2 mgtL <0;,Q019 1 x 0:2a 2 mgJL O;f4 1 x 5.0 :2 mgiL 4.6 1 <0.;0.050 *2 l'r:ISJIL 1 x o;oss 2. mg/L 0.045 1 x <0.0019 2 mg/L <o.0*0.10 1 x <0.010 2 <0.010 1* EPA.Form:3&10-2C Pagev*2 1 x <0;001() 2 'i)lg/l. <0.0010 1 x <0;(>010 2. inQIL <0,0010 1 x, <0.00050. 2 mglL 1 x <0.<;1010 2 ll)g/L <OJJ010 1 x 0;0013 2 mg/L 0;0020 1 x <0;0010 2 .. mgJL 1 .x 2.21 2; ogJL 1..82" 1 x 0;0013* 2 mgll.. 0.0020 1 x <0.0010 2. mgtl <();0010 *1 x <0.00050 2* ll)g/l <0.00050 1 x <O.Q01.Q 2 mgtL <0.0010 1. x <O.P10 2 mg/L. <0'.010 1 x 2 mglL <0.005() f x .;0.040 2 mg/L 1 X. OESCl'{l.BE R!:;SUlTS <0;050 x < mgJL <0.010 1 x <. ci.0.010 2 <0.0010 t .X x <0:0010 2 mg/L <0;0010 1 x <0.0010 2. mgll < 0.0010 1 x 2 mgll *.::* o. 1 x <-0.00.10 tng/L <0.0010 1 x <0,0050. .2 mg/L < :0.0050 *1 x <0-.050 2 mg/L; < O;OS.0 1 x <0;0050. :2 . mg/L <0.0050 1 <O.OOlO 2 rng'L <0.0010 1 x "'0.0050 *2 mg/L <0 .. 0050: *1 x <.0.0010 .2 mglt, <0.0010* .1 x < 0.0010 *2 < 0.0010 1 :X < 0.0010 2' <O.Q010 1 x < 0,0()10 2 mg/l :<b.0010 1 x <il.0020 :z mg/l .. <.0.0020: 1 x <0;0010 ,2 rrig/L <0.0010 1 x <0:0050 2 n.1g1L <o;oo5o. 1 x 2 mg/L < 0"00:25 1 EPA .3610-2C (8-$0)

• PugeVo.4

x x K x x x. x x x x x: x x X: x x x x x < 0.0010 2 i'ng/l. ..:,0.00.10 1 <0.0010 2 JTig/l:. 1 . . . . .* A.:t:SS4QP.1.?410. ** ** ** x x x x x x x x x x x x )( x x x x x :X x EPA*l'orm (8'90) Pao-Y*'t CQN11N\JEl Of,I PAGl!V.;fl

1 mg/L 1 Jrlg/L .1 1 lilg/L VALUE: *19.6 .3.93 27 MGD VA E 103;8 $9.5 13 OF VALUE 18 OF MINIMl.IM EP.A f'onn 3510*2C (8*901 x <5.0 1 rilgll. x 1 mg1.L x x x x x *mQJL* x x x x -OAS 1 mg/L X. 0.029 1 *mgll. )( <0 .. 20 1 tngl!,. x <0.Q010 1 .mgn.. x 0;49 '1 *mg/L x 4.6 1 *mg/L x 1 mg!L x 0.10 t mg/L x <0.001,0 *1* mg!L x <0.910

• t mglL *Pa.a.aV*2. CONtlNlm,'1NPAr.i:

x <0.0010 1 . mg/(. x 1: x <0.0Q050 1 rilQIL * *x l .mglL x .<0.()010 1 mg/L x <0.0010* 1. mg/L x 0.001 1. l'riO/L <o.00:10 1 mg/l X:* <q;09050 .1 mg/l x <0.0010 .1 mg/Lr x. <0.010* 1 mg/l .x <OJloSO 1 n}Q/L 1 x I I I <0 .. 010 I I I I . I I 1 I mgll. x I I I <O.W I I I I I I 1 I X I I x <0.10 . . : : 1 . -X I I I < o,ooto 1 mg/L ... X I I I < 0;0910 1 . *mg/L x I r I < o .. 001n *1 mglL X I I I <*0;0050 1 *mgll -x I I I < (>;050 I I I I I I l I mg/L -x 0.012 :1 mg/l., >C 0;0023. 1 mg/l.,, x < 0;0050 1 n:igtt. X I I I 1 X I r I <<ct0010 1 mg!L -x I I I < o.op10 I I I I I I 1 I m9'1--x I I I < I I I I I 11 I X I I I <0.0020 1 mgll x I t I < O.Qo1o 1 ing/L x I I I <0.0050 I I I I I I 1 I mgiL -* x I I I < o .. 002s I I I I I J 1 I mgll llPAf.onn Page,V-4 CONf1.NllS: it;" <p,oo5Q x <0.0010 1 I mgJL ..._ x <-0;001°0 1 J: t:nW.l -x <0.0050 1 1* mg/l -x <0:0010 1 I nigi.i.. -x <0.0010 I 1 irigrL -x x. <0.0010 <0.0050 . g -* x <0.0010 *1 I .mg/L .. .. .;;.;.:-;..,:. . ..; .... ... .x. <0.040 .. 1 . *jt\gl,L x <0.040 *( mg/l x <Q-,04Q '1 mg/L x <0.040 "1 *mg/L .x <0.Q40. *nig/L x <0.040 f ff!g/L x <.0;040 .1 ,mg(l x <.0.040 1 "1QIL x <0.040 t .X: *<<0.040 , mgtL .x <0,040 tng/L !!PA.Form PagoV-6 *"GlfTlNI IF (lr,I VA x x x >.C *X x x x x x x x x .,)( x :x .x x x < 0.0()10 1 mgll _){ 1 mgJL < 0;0010 x* x: x ,.X: .X x x x :x x x x x x .x x x x x x

Pag&V.S 350 1 mg/L 4.9. 1 mQll 9* n,g/l-t -:fl'IQ/l VAWE -0.21487 12 MGD "C. oc 20. l .rtlg/L x if) 4 l 117 o .. .1 x 1 mgll .PaaeY-1

• x x x x 10. 1' mQIL x x .x X: 0.49 1 rtig/L i 0;(>22 1 X:. <0;20 *1 m9JL x <0.0010 1 n}glt.;; x (}.51 1 mg/.L ),< 4.9. 1 mg/L x 0.0.081 1 m.g/J., x 0;05 '1° rrtg/L x <0 .. 0010 1 mgll x 0.012 *1 mg!L x 1 mg/L x <O,d0.10 1 mg/L x <0.00050 1 *mgll x <0;0010 mlJIL x <0,00.10 1 mg/L x <0.0010 *1 mg/L x* <0.0002Q 1 (ngJL x 0.0013 1 mg IL x <0.0010 1 mgll x-<0,00050 1 mg/J. .X <0.0010 1 mgll x <0,().1() 1 mg/L x <o.OO!SO 1 ingn_ x <0;04Q 1 nlg/t. EPA Fonn 3S10*2C (B-!!j)) CONTINllF.l'.lfliPAnPV.,.t x <0.010 1 mglL }(, <.O.Q01.0 1 !'119ll x x <,.0.0010 l .mgJL x <0.0010 1 mg/L x <O.Q010 1 mgll x <0:0010 1 x <0;0050 1 mg/L x <0.050 1 mgJ.L *X <0.0050 1 mg/L x <0.0010 1 mgli.. x <0.0050 f mg fl x <0.0010 1 mg/L. K <*0.0010 f mgll x <0.0010 1 mg/t. x <().0010 1 ing/L x < 0;0020 1 1Tl91L x < t;>.OOlO 1 mgll x <0.0050 1 mgll x <.Q.0025 1 mg IL Page.1(-4

. .::o;OQ10 1 *mg/L x <0;0010 1 mgiL x *1 mg/l 1. mgtl .. X <0.0010 1 mg/L <0.0010 1 <*O.d010 1 mgt.L <0.0010 <0.040 mgll x <0,()40 1 mgll x <0;040 1 x <:,0.040 1 <.0.040 1 x* <0.040 1 mglL x mg/L *<0.040 1 1 <0:040 1 ing/L x. <0.040 1 i!PA F.omi 3510.zc x x x x X. x x. x x x x x. x <0.00.10 1 x < _0;0010'* . 1 mgit.

EPA fom .:is10.2c (8*9QJ

• CDNTiNiU: ON 1,'Alti:o EPA Form (B-scil

<5.0 180. 1 mg/L. 1 1.1;30 23. 1' VAL E 0.49 96 MGO V:AlUE 5;0. 1 mgll. x .x x x x x x x x x .0.94 *1 *mg/L .X 0,062 1 '<0.20 1 x '<0.00.10 1 'mg/L x x 6;!). ' li"IQ/l x 0.011 1 ITllJIL x d;06.a 1 mglL x. <Q;00.10 1 mfi/L x 1 i:ng/L x p.op11 JnWL x <0;0010 mglL x <0.00050 '1 mgll x <;0;0010 t mQ/L x <0.0010 1 mgll x <0,0010 1' mg/L x x <0.0010 } mg/L x. 0.0016 1 mg/L x. <O.OOOSo 1 mg/L . .X <0.0010 1 mgll x <0.010 1' MglL x <0.0050 1 mg/L x <0.040 1 mg4. x 0£i$0Rl8E.RESULTS: t0'1ITINll£ ON PA(U: V.4 <<1.050 .*x. < 0.010 '1 mQIL x .,<0.0010 1 ll)g/L x x. *<;0;0010 1 moll. x <<*.'0J)010 1 mg/L <0;0010 1 mg/L x <*0.0010 1 mpil .X <OJ.)050 1 !'rigll. x <.0.050 1 mgll X* <.0.0050 1 mgl x < 0;0(>>10 1 mgll x <.0.00.50 , mg1L. x <0,0010 1 mgiL x < 1 mg/L x <Q,0010 1 mg/L x <: 0.00.10 1 ni9/L x 1 rrigtl. x < 0'.001Q. mglL

• x <*O;Q050 1 mg/L x <0.0026 1 mgll

<"0.0010 1 mWL <0;001.0 1 .mgiL <:0;005o 1 mg1L '<0.001(l *1 1 mt/4 < 0.()()10: *t 'rnQIL <0,0010 1 mgfl,. 1 mgtL <.Q;0010 *1 rngl(. <:0.040 :1 !1J91L <:o.04p. , mg/L <0.04() .1 'ing/L <'0;040 f hJg/L <0;040 1 mg1L. <0:040 1. mgi( <*.0.040 1 mgiL <0:040 1 tnWL <.0.040 1 mglt <0.()40 1 n'ig/L 1 mg/l .t:ONTINliF pant: Wi* x x x .. x x x 'X' .x. x x x x x x x x x x <: Q,001.0 1 mg IL x <0,0010 rrigfl. .EPA IlMIO) x X. x x x x x x x x x x x X. x

EPA Form 3510.zc (8*110) Sil Sl 0 0 "' "' z z z z 0 0 0 0 ... ... ..... "' OD ..... p p p t: 0 0 ..... ..... gi "' ..... INTAKE FOREBAV t i : Yard Drain Maintenance Drawdown& Misc. Leakage p "' ..... ..... 0 "' z 0 ..... "' .. ?<-!" BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT-DISCHARGE FLOW SCHEMATIC NPDES PERMIT AL0022080 Schematic Revised Feb 2011 Sanitary sewage, photo development waste, chiller blowdown, & cooler/air com ressor flushes DSND13a Filtered Asbestos TENNESSEE RIVER DSN 012 3.8880 Intake Screen Back s PLANT INTAKE PUMPING STATION r-**----J Abatement Intake Bldg. Residual Heat Removal Service Water DI Makeup Water Storage Tank Washes DI Water Filtration Sys. Backwash Sum I I I I :p *8 I Cf I I I I I I .(0.2880) Unit 3 Control Bldg.Air Handling Units and Drains Emergency Equipment Cooling Water System (9.77S6) .----*-, l Nalco (53.2800) I Treatment L.-----*-Turbine Building MOOE) :. COLDWATER 1 CHANNEL I I I I

• I Sil z 8 .... "' UI .9 z m lg m "' m .!2 Cooling Towers tr 0 IBlowdown ..;;;, 1 z dbchoraeine; 1 m usedantylh I 0 ,. ..... Is I S:: "°'""""fandoll I 0 opetatl,.unltl J 0 areonc.oolifll : towen) I DSNOOlb: (0.03) Liquid Radwaste System p DSN013b ............... io.'0'666)""'"'"" Sedimentation Ponds Condenser Cooling . Water S stem Raw Cooling Water & Fire Protection Systems* OSNOXX Permitted Outfall EECW Primary Pathway 0 Precipitation +Standby diesel engine coolers Alternate Pathway +Core spray pump room coolers ------+RHR pump room coolers __ ... ,_ ..... Intermittent Flow 0 Evaporation +Electric board on ACU condensers +RHR pump seal coolers RCW/FP +Shutdown board on ACU condensers +Turbine lube oil coolers +Shutdown board on Chillers +Gen. stator water & hydrogen coolers +Control Bay chillers +Reactor feed pump turbine oil coolers +H202 analyzers +Svs. & control air compressors +Backup for several RCW components +Steam jet air ejector precoolers Condensate Storage Tank +Gen. alternator coolers +Air conditioning +Recirc. Pump M-!5 sel coolers. +RBCCW heat exchangers +Gen. breakers t Ternoerafute IW'lhterl Value *If noncontac:t eotillng water iS .discharged .... Th8 current pennit requires no monitoring of thfs outfall; this, n0 sarnP1e was colleded for tile EPA Form "3S10-2E fonn seasonal? NONE NIA II. CQ ... C. IQnatute

. ,, or type in the unshaded areas only rorm 2F NPDES EPA EPA ID Number (copy from Item 1 of Form 1) AL8640015410 Form Approved. OMB No. 2040-0085 Approval Expires 5-31-92 United States Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC 20460 Application for Permit to Discharge Storm Water Paperwork Reduction Act Notice Public reporting burden for this application is estimated to average 28.6 hours per application, including times for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding the burden estimate, any other aspect of this collection of information, or suggestions for improving this form, including suggestions which may Increase or reduce this burden to: Chief, Information Policy Branch, PM-223, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW, Washington, DC 20460, or Director, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503 I all Locat B. Latitude c. Longitude 013 34 43 00 87 07 00 Tennessee River 013a 34 42 00 87 07 00 Tennessee River via outfall 013 014* 34 43 00 87 07 30 Tennessee River 017* 34 42 00 87 07 00 Tennessee River 018 34 42 00 87 06 45 Tennessee River 019 34 42 00 87 06 15 Tennessee River 024 34 42 30 87 06 30 Tennessee River via offsite ditch and farmland A. Are you now required by any Federal, State, or local authority to meet any implementation schedule for the construction, upgrading or operation of wastewater treatment equipment or practices of any other environmental programs which may affect the discharges described in this application? This includes, but is not limited to, permit conditions, administrative or enforcement orders, enforcement compliance schedule letters, stipulations, court orders, and grant or loan conditions. NO 1. Identification of Conditions, 2. Affected Outfalls Agreements, Etc. number source of discha e 3. Brief Description of Project NIA 4. Final Com liance Date a. req. b. proj. B. You may attach additional sheets describing any additional water pollution (or other environmental projects which may affect your discharges) you now have under way or which you plan. Indicate whether each program is now under way or planned, and indicate your actual or planned schedules for construction. Ill. Site Draina e Ma

• Attach a site map showing topography (for indicating the outline of drainage areas served by the outfall(s) covered in the application if a topographic map is unavailable) depicting the facility including: each of its intake and discharge structures; the drainage area of each storm water outfall; paved areas and buildings within the drainage area of each storm water outfall, each known past or present areas used for outdoor storage or disposal of significant materials, each existing structural control measure to reduce pollutants in storm water runoff, materials loading and access areas, areas where pesticides, herbicides, soil conditioners and fertilizers are applied; each of its hazardous waste treatment, storage or disposal units (including each area not required to have a RCRA permit which is used for accumulating hazardous waste under 40 CFR 262 .34 ); each well where fluids from the faciflty are Injected underground; springs, and other surface water bodies which receive storm water discharges from the facility. EPA Form 3510-2F (Rev.1-92) Page 1of3 Continue on Page 2

, tion of Pollutant.Sources. . . ,.,ch an of jhji!' fllidlJ.!fe. units} *or.ifnpeniioi.iS $uit.lees l>llYerf and _building f90fs) .. dtafhed to ** s outfall *. anti an estimate of the total surface area drained b the* oulfaU* *

• _013
• 5;0 acres u acres 01e 18.8.aert?$ 013a 40,5 94.5 .019 48.0 acres 014 SJ) acres 202 acres 024 e:it' e1cr$s Oj 7 3..0 acres 6.0 acres Drained (provide units) :M.2'acres 156.7 acres &Uacres B .. Provide a narratiile dascriPtian of significanl materials ¥Uri'itnU;y or in the past lhtee yeara* h8ve bean tteated, or ih a manner to alloW to stonn water. methOd of treatment. past anif tnaterlals management practices
• ernp(Qyed to C:Qntact by the8e .materials with storm runoff; IQadlng i!ncl access areas: .and the *rocatiOn; manner anc:J ffeq1,1en . in Pesticide$. herbicides, $0!1.condiliOners, and feitilizers are a lied. See EPA Form'2F Attachment 1
• c. F.;ir eaeh outfall, provide the location and a deScript1011 of stru91ur$I and ne>nstructural control fo fE!duce in storm water runQff: d&setjption of the treatment the storm water receives; lnclud.il'.19 tile and.type of (qr and treatment measures and the qttintale disp0sal of an . solid or fluld wasteS oih&r.ttian
• Outfal.l liSt Codes from Number . Treatment
• Table 2f'-1* See EPA Form 2F Attachment 1
• v. Nonstormwater Oischal'I *es A. I under peitarty ()f law that .tlie cOver'ed by this application haite beel! tEISted for !fie presence of nonstormwatet discharges, .and th\'Jt all nOll!>tOl'ritWl!ter dlschlirges*frorn !hes& outfall(&) at* tdentificld Iii either 8n aecornpanying Fenn 2C oi' Form 21: . IJPPlicGtion.for ttie:outralL . Date. Sin __ ned N.aine and Official Title (type_*or print) S"tgnalure * ., I<. J. Vice President
• ot>seived durin
• a -test These Outfalls eyr;iluate<f thtQugh field and through.inte,f.VieWS*With plant perspnnel., Vt Si nificant LeakS ot S ill$ . Provide extstirtg infoririation regarding the hlStory of significant reaks or spills *Of toxic or hazardoil$ p0tlutanfs at tile fa'st. three
• ears. the approx/J:nalJf date and recatkin <if.the s m and ihe i>e and amount Of:maferilil reteased. Thet&'have been no significant leaks or at toick: or hazatdous pbilutants at ihe:tacint; during the last three. Y9rs. EPA.Forro ;!St0-2F (Rev. 1-92) Page.2.of3 Continue 01' Page.l
• rt:eil'l'I Page.2 EPA ID 1 pf Fo11ft 1) AL864001s410 &Jisehar e IJ'iformatiori E ..
• Po:lial discharges analysis* liSted In table 2J=..2, 2F-3 or*2 .-4, a ora cpmpontinf Qfa sutstance .Wh!. . Y c;un-ently use or manufacture as an or final prod11ct or No (go to SeCtipn D<) Do you have any knowtedge or reason to believe fhat,any *t fat tit ctironrc.ttOOcity has been milde on any of Y<>lir or on:a receivk)g water Jn relation to yo.ut disctuuge within the*last 3_yeaf!I? . . .. . x .es sliCh p:ooutants below) No {go to IXJ No* biotoglcal test for chronic texlclty has-bael) .on .anv wer Biomonitdri!i9 data has beeri collected on process {PSN 0Q1) th!! past fi11e bl accorclance IV;. Emuerit Toliicity limilalions and Blomoriltorlng Requlreinelits; NPDES P.<!.l'.rilit (l;e* Potenti<il evalUatian). . .. IX. contract Ana
• is Information Were 'any Of lhe ailalySi:s reporte(f In item VII by a :Of fJrrn?* D. (iist:ttie a,ryc1"1el8pbone numtier Of, and i)olrutants ana .
• I>.
• each .sueti lab<itatei or film beloW .. c. Atea,Code & Pttooe No. X Certification O. PoHutants*Ana I certify under penalty of law that this document aiid al! attacflments Went prepared uhder my diif:lefi.on qi superviSion in wltf1 a sy$tem that per$Qnnel properly and sµf)m.itteg; on my inquiry_ of the. person orperson$ who. the system or those pef$Qll$ directly responsible forgathering the infdrmation, /he informatkm 8ubmitted is; to the best of my know/ec/g!J a,nd .. belief, true, accurate, and complete.. 1 am aware tJ1atthere are significant penalfie.$. 'ror sulµnittil?g fa,(se fnc/tlrJ;h
• the ossibilit of fine antJ.im risrininen(toi khOwin violations .. B. Area Code Phqne No. K J. Pols6h, Site Vice c1 EPA ID Number (copy from Item 1 of Form 1) Fonn Approved. OMB No. 2040-0085 AL8640015410 Approval Expires 5-31-92 ... charge Information (Continued from paae 3 of Form 2F) art A* You must provide the results of at least one analysis for every pollutant in this table. Complete one table for each outfall. See instructions for additional details. DSN 013 Maximum Values Average Values Pollutant (include units) (include units) Number and Grab Sample Sample of CASNumber Taken During Taken During Stonn First 20 Flow-weighted First20 Flow-weighted Events (if available) Minutes Composite Minutes Composite Sampled Sources of Pollutants Oil and Grease <5.6 mg/L N/A 1 Biological Oxygen Demand <5.0 mg/L <5.0 mg/L 1 (BOD) Chemical Oxygen Demand 12. mg/L 16. mg/L 1 (COD) Total Suspended Solids 14. mg/L 18. mg/L 1 (TSS) Total Nitrogen 1.30 mg/L 0.62 mg/L 1 Total <0.10 mg/L <0.10 mg/L 1 Phosphorus pH Minimum 7.38 s.u. Maximum 7.38 s.u. Minimum Maximum 1 Part B
• List each pollutant that is limited in an effluent guideline which the facility is subject to or any pollutant listed in the facility's NPDES permit for its process wastewater (if the facility is operating under an existing NPDES pennit). Complete one table for each outfall. See the instructions for additional details and requirements. Maximum Values Average Values Pollutant (include units) (include units) Number and Grab Sample Grab Sample of CAS Number Taken During During Storm First 20 Flow-weighted First 20 Flow-weighted Events (if available) Minutes Composite Minutes Composite Sampled Sources of Pollutants 721 Fecal Coliforms (coloniesl100 ml) NIA 1 Temperature 10.7°C NIA 1 TRC <0.05 mglL Cl NIA 1 Ammonia Nitrogen NIA 0.20 mglL 1 Color 10. pcu 10. pcu 1 Nitrate-Nitrite 0.74 ma/L 0.62 mall 1 TKN 0.58 malL <0.10 mall 1 Antimony <0.0010 mQ/L <0.0010 malL 1 Arsenic <0.0010 mQ/l <0.001 o mall 1 Barium 0.0180 mall 0.0150 mall 1 Beryllium <0.0010 mQ/l <0.0010 ma/L 1 Cadmium <0.00050 mall <0.00050 mall 1 Chromium 0.0013 mglL 0.0026 mall 1 Cobalt <0.0010 mglL * <0.0010 mg/L 1 Copper 0.0025 mglL 0.0039mglL 1 Lead 0.0011 mg/l 0.0016 mglL 1 Nickel 0.0016 ma/L 0.0026 rna/L 1 Selenium <0.0010 mgll <0.0010 mall 1 Silver <0.00050 mall <0.00050 mall 1 Thallium <0.001 O mall * <0.001 O ma/L 1 Tin <0.0010 mall <0.0010 mg/L 1 Zinc 0.016 mall 0.018 mgll 1 Mercurv <0.00020 ma/L <0.00020 mall 1 Naphthalene <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mg/L 1 EPA Fann 3510*2F (Rev. 1-92) Page Vll-1 Continue on Reverse
• .:n pollutant shown in Tables 2F-2, 2F*3, and 2F-4, that you know or have reason to believe is present. See the instructions for details and requirements. Complete one table for each outfall. DSN 013 Maximum Values Average Values Pollutant (include units) (include units) Number and Grab Sample Grab Sample of CAS Number Taken During Taken During Storm First20 Flow-weighted First 20 Flow-weighted Events (if available) Minutes Composite Minutes Composite Sampled Sources of Pollutants Acrolein <0.050 mg/L <0.050 mall 1 Acrvlonitrile <0.010 mgll <0.010mall 1 Benzene . <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mall 1 Bromodichloromethane 0.0020 mg/L <0.0010 mg/L 1 Bromoform <0.0010 mg/l <0.0010 mall 1 Bromomethane <0.0050 mall <0.0050 moll 1 Carbon tetrachloride <0.0010 mall <0.0010 mall 1 Chlorobenzene <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mall 1 Chlorodibromomethane <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mg/L 1 Chloroethane <0.0050 mg/L <0.0050 mg/L 1 2-Chloroethvl vinvl ether <0.050 mg/L <0.050 mall 1 Chloroform 0.0150 mgll 0.0075 mall 1 Ch loromethane <0.0025 mg/L <0.0025 mg/L 1 1,2-Dichlorobenzene <0.0010 mg/l <0.0010 mall 1 1,3-Dichlorobenzene <0.0010 mQ/L <0.0010 mg/L 1 1,4-Dichlorobenzene <0.0010 mall <0.0010 mg/l 1 Dichlorodifluoromethane <0.0050 mg/L <0.0050 mQ/l 1 1, 1-Dichloroethane <0.0010 mgll <0.0010 mQ/l 1 1,2-Dichloroethane <0.0010 mall <0.0010 mall 1 1, 1 <0.0010 mgll <0.0010 mall 1 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mall 1 1,2-Dichloropropane <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mg/l 1 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene <0.0010 mg/l <0.0010 mwl 1 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene <0.0010 mall <0.0010 mall 1 Ethyl benzene <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mall 1 Methylene Chloride <0.0050 mg!L <0.0050 mQ/L 1 1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane <0.0010 mall <0.0010 mg/L 1 Tetrachloroethene <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mQ/L 1 Toluene <0.0050 m11/L <0.0050 mg/L 1 1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mg/L 1 1 , 1,2-Trichloroethane <0.0010 moll <0.0010 mg/l 1 Trichloroethane <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mall 1 Trichlorofluoromethane <0.0050 mg/L <0.0050 mg/L 1 Vinvl chloride <O .0010 mall <0.0010 mall 1 Total Xylenes <0.0030 mg/L <0.0030 mall 1 Toluene-dB 92.4% Rec 103.% Rec 1 Dibromofluoromethane 90.7% Rec 104.% Rec 1 4-Bromofluorobenzene 90.4%Rec 112.% Rec 1 Part D -Provide data for the storm event(s) which resulted in the maximum values for the flow weighted composite sample. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Date of Duration Total rainfall Number of hours between Maximum flow rate during Total flow from Storm of Storm Event during storm event beginning of storm meas-rain event rain event Event (in minutes) (In inches) ured and end of previous (gallons/minute or (gallons or specify units) measurable rain event specify units) 03/21/2010 780 0.82 213 0.931 MGD 73,765 gallons 7. Provide a of the method of flow measurement or estimate. The flow was estimated using Manning's Equation and depth of the flow in the pipe. EPA Form 3510-wF (Rev. 1-92) PageVll-2 EPA ID Number (copy from Item 1 of Form 1) Form Approved. OMB No. 2040-0085
• AL8640015410 Approval Expires 5-31-92 .. charne Information (Continued from oaae 3 of Form 2F) .-art A -You must provide the results of at least one analysis for every pollutant in this table. Complete one table for each outfall. See instructions for additional details. DSN 013a Maximum Values Average Values Pollutant (include units) (include units) Number \ and Grab Sample Grab Sample of CASNumber Taken During Taken During Storm First 20 Flow-weighted First20 Flow-weighted Events (if available) Minutes Composite Minutes Composite Samiiled Sources of Pollutants Oil and Grease <5.3 mg/L N/A 1 Biological Oxygen Demand < 5.0 mg/L <5.0 mg/L 1 (BOD) Chemical Oxygen Demand 10. mg/L 11. mg/L 1 (COD) Total Suspended Solids 32. mg/L 32. mg/L 1 Total Nitrogen 1.4 mg/L 1.1 mg/L 1 Total 0.18 mg/L 0.14 mg/L 1 Phosphorus pH Minimum 7.63 s.u. Maximum 7.63 s.u. Minimum Maximum 1 Part B -List each pollutant that is limited in an effluent guideline which the facility is subject to or any pollutant listed in the facility's NPDES permit for its process wastewater (if the facility is operating under an existing NPDES permit). Complete one table for each outfall. See the instructions for additional details and requirements. Maximum Values Average Values Pollutant (Include units) (include units) Number and Grab Sample Grab Sample of CASNumber Taken During Taken During Storm First20 Flow-weighted First 20 Flow-weighted Events (if available) Minutes Composite Minutes Composite Sampled Sources of Pollutants 181 Fecal Coliforms (coloniesl100 ml) NIA 1 Temperature 14.2°C NIA 1 TRC <0.05 mglL Cl NIA 1 Ammonia Nitrogen 0.14malL 0.20 mall 1 Color 5.0 PCU 5.0i:>cu 1 Nitrate-Nitrite 0.77 mall 0.58 mall 1 TKN 0.66 ma/L 0.53 mall 1 Antimony <0.001 O mg/L <0.0010 mg/L 1 Arsenic 0.0012 mg/L 0.0012 mglL 1 Barium 0.021mg/L 0.021mg/L 1 Beryllium <0.0010 mgll <0.0010 mg/L 1 Cadmium <0.00050 mi:i/L <0.00050 mall 1 Chromium 0.0027 ma/L 0.0028 mQIL 1 Cobalt <0.0010 mall <0.001 o mo/L 1 Coooer 0.0013 ma/L 0.0013 ma/L 1 Lead 0.0023 ma/L 0.0024mg/L 1 Nickel 0.0016 mgll 0.0026 mg/L 1. Selenium 0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mgll 1 Silver <0.00050 mg/L <0.00050 mg/L 1 Thallium <0.0010 mall <0.0010 mall 1 Tin <0.0010 moll <0.0010 moll 1 Zinc 0.014 mg/L 0.015 mall 1 Mercurv <0.00020 mg/L <0.00020 mall 1 Naphthalene <0.0010ma/L <0.0010 ma/L 1 Aluminum 2.2 ma/L 2.0 mall 1 Boron <0.20 mall <0.20 mall 1 Iron 1.4 mall 1.5 mall 1 Magnesium 4.0 mglL 3.9 mall 1 Manganese 0.070 mg/L 0.072 mglL 1 Molybdenum <0.0050 ma/L 0.0052 mgll 1 Titanium 0.046 ma/L 0.039 mg/L 1 EPA Form 3510-2F (Rev.1-92) PageVll-1 Continue on Reverse

. ..on pollutant shown in Tables 2F-2, 2F-3, and 2F-4, that you know or have reason to believe is present. See the instructions for .uitlonal details and requirements. Complete one table for each outfall. DSN 013a Maximum Values Average Values Pollutant (include units} (include units) Number and Grab Sample Grab Sample of CAS Number Taken During Taken During Storm First 20 Flow-weighted First 20 Flow-y.reighted Events (if available) Minutes Composite Minutes Composite Sampled Sources of Pollutants Acrolein <0.050 mg/l <0.050 mg/L 1 Acrylonitrile <0.010 mgJL <0.010 m_a/L 1 Benzene <0.0010 mgfl <0.0010 mgJL 1 Bromodichloromethane <0.0010 moll <0.0010 mall 1 Bromoform <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mall 1 Bromomethane <0.0050 mg/l <0.0050 mall 1 Carbon tetrachloride <0.0010 mgtl <0.0010 mg/l 1 Chlorobenzene <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mg/L 1 Chlorodibromomethane <0.0010 mg/l <0.0010 mall 1 Chloroethane <0.0050 mg/l <0.0050 mg/l 1 2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether <0.050 mall <0.050 mg/l 1 Chloroform <0.0050 mg/L <0.0050 mg/L 1 Chloromethane <0.0025 mg/l <0.0025 mall 1 1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene <0.0010 mgJL <0.0010 mall 1 1,3-Dichlorobenzene <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mg/L 1 1,4-Dichlorobenzene <0.0010 mg/l <0.0010 mall 1 Dichlorodifluoromethane <0.0050 mg/L <0.0050 mg/L 1 1, 1-Dichloroethane <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mg/l 1 1,2-Dichloroethane <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mg/l 1 1, 1-Dichloroethane <0.0010 mall <0.0010 mg/L 1 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene <0.0010 mg/l <0.0010 mg/L 1 1,2-Dichloroorooane <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mg/l 1 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene <0.0010 mg/l <0.0010 ma/L 1 trans-1,3-Dichloroorooene <0.0010 mall <0.0010 mg/L 1 Ethylbenzene <0.0010 mg/l <0.0010 rng/l 1 Methylene Chloride <0.0050 mg/L <0.0050 mall 1 1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane <0.0010 mall. <0.0010 mall 1 Tetrachloroethene <0.0010 mg/l <0.0010 mall 1 Toluene <0.0050 mgll <0.0050 mg/l 1 1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mall 1 1, 1,2-Trichloroethane <0.0010 mgfL <0.0010 mg/L 1 Trichloroethane <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mall 1 T nchlorofluoromethane <0.0050 mg/l <0.0050 mall 1 Vinyl chloride <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mruL 1 Total Xvlenes <0.0030 mg/L <0.0030 mall 1 Toluene-dB ' 92.6%Rec 103.% Rec 1 Dibromofluoromethane 89.1% Rec 103.% Rec 1 4-Bromofluorobenzene 94.2% Rec 113.% Rec 1 Part D -Provide data for the storm event(s) which resulted in the maximum values for the flow weighted composite sample. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Date of Duration Total rainfall Number of hours between Maximum flow rate during Total flow from Storm of Storm Event during storm event beginning of storm meas-rain event rain event* Event (in minutes) (in inches) ured and end of previous. (gallons/minute or (gaflons or specify units) measurable rain event specify units) 03/21/2010 780 0.82 213 0.156MGD 813,418 gallons 7. Provide a description of the method of flow measurement or estimate. The flow was measured using the existing weir. EPA Form 3510-wF (Rev. 1-92) PageVll-2 EPA ID Number (copy from Item 1 of Form 1) Fann Approved. OMB No. 2040-0085 AL8640015410 Approval Expires 5-31-92 .. .:harae Information (Continued from paae 3 of Form 2FJ ,, * -art A -You must provide the results of at least one analysis fqr every pollutant in this table. Complete one table for each outfall. See instructions for additional details. DSN 018 Maximum Values Average Values Pollutant (include unitsJ (Include units) Number and Grab Sample Grab Sample of CAS Number Taken During Taken During Storm First20 Flow-weighted First20 Flow-weighted *Events (if available} Minutes Composite Minutes Composite Sampled Sources of Pollutants Oil and Grease <5.3 mg/L NIA 1 Biological Oxygen Demand <5.0 mg/L . <5.0mg/L 1 (BOD) Chemical Oxygen Demand <10. mg/L <10. mg/L 1 (COD) Total Suspended Solids 4.6 mg/L 5.2 mg/L 1 (TSS) Total Nitrogen 0.40 mg/L 1.3 mg/L 1 Total <0.10mglL <0.10 mg/L 1 Phosphorus pH Minimum 8.30 s.u. Maximum 8.30 s.u. Minimum Maximum 1 Part B -List each pollutant that is limited in an effluent guideline which the facility is subject to or any pollutant listed in the facility's NPDES permit for its process wastewater (if the facility is operating under an existing NPDES permit). Complete one table for each outfall. See the instructions for additional details and requirements. Maximum Values Average Values *Pollutant (include units) (include units) Number and Grab Sample Grab Sample of CAS Number Taken During Taken During stonn First20 Flow-weighted First 20 Flow-weighted Events (if avallable) Minutes Composite Minutes Composite Sampled Sources of Pollutants 181 Fecal Coliforms (colonies/100 ml) NIA 1 Temoerature 11.5°C NIA 1 TRC <0.05 mall Cl NIA 1 Ammonia Nitroaen 0.26 mg/l 0.34 mg/L 1 Color 10.pcu 15.pcu 1 Nitrate-Nitrite 0.40 ma/L 0.72 mg/L 1 TKN <0.10 mglL 0.58 mg/L 1 Antimony <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mg/L 1 Arsenic 0.0011 mg/L 0.0012 mgJL 1 Barium 0.0070 mg/L 0.0089 mg/L 1 Bervflium <0.0010 ma/L <0.0010 mg/L 1 Cadmium <0.00050 ma/L <0.00050 mQ/L 1 Chromium 0.0011 ma/L 0.0015 ma/L 1 Cobalt <0.0010 mall <0.0010 ma/L 1 Conner 0.0036 mg/L 0.0044 mg/L 1 Lead 0.0020 ma/L 0.0019 mg/L 1 Nickel <0.0010 mQ/L 0.0066 mg/L 1 Selenium 0.0032 mglL <0.0010 mg/L 1 Silver <0.00050 ma/L <0.00050 mg/L 1 Thallium <0.0010 mall <0.0010 mg/L 1 Tin <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mall 1 Zinc 0.041 mg/L 0.084 mg/L 1 Mercurv <0.00020 mg/L <0.00020 mg/L 1 Naphthalene <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mg/L *1 EPA Form 3510-2F (Rev. 1-92) PageVIJ-1 Continl!e on Reverse . ..;n pollutant shown in Tables 2F-2, 2F-3, and 2F-4, that you know or have reason to believe is present. See the instructions for A<litional details and requirements. Complete one table for each outfall . . / DSN018 Maximum Values Average Values / Pollutant (Include units) (include units) Number and Grab Sample Grab Sample of CAS Number Taken During Taken During Storm First 20 Flow-weighted First 20 Flow-weighted Events {if available) Minutes Composite Minutes Composite Sampled Sources of Pollutants Acrolein <0.050 mg/l <0.050 mgll 1 Acrylonitrife <0.010 mg/L <0.010 mgll 1 Benzene <0.0010 mgll <0.0010 mall 1 8 romodichloromethane <0.0010 ma/L <0.0010 mgll 1 Bromoform <0.0010 mall <0.0010 mQ/L 1 Bromomethane <0.0050 mg/l <0.0050 mall 1 Carbon tetrachloride <0.0010 mall <0.0010 mg/l 1 Chlorobenzene <0.0010 mglL <0.0010 mg/L 1 Chlorodibromomethane <0.0010 mg/l <0.0010 mg/l 1 Chloroethane <0.0050 mg/l <0.0050 mgll 1 2-Chloroethyf vinyl ether <0.050 mall <0.050 mall 1 Chloroform <0.0050 mg/l <0 .. 0050 mg/l 1 Chforomethane <0.0025 mgll <O;OQ25 mall 1 1,2-Dichlorobenzene <0.0010 mg/l <0.0010 mall 1 1,3-Dichlorobenzene <0.0010 mg/l <0.0010 mg/l 1 1,4-Dichlorobenzene <0.0010 mall <0.0010 mg/L 1 Dichlorodifluoromethane <0.0050 moll <0.0050 mg/l 1 1, 1-Dichloroethane <0.0010 mg/l <0.0010 mall 1 1 ,2-Dichloroethane <0.0010 ma/L <0.0010 ma/l 1 1, 1-Dichloroethane <O .0010 mg/l <0.0010 mg/L 1 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene <0.0010 mg/l <0.0010 mg/l 1 1,2-Dichloropropane <0.0010 mg/l <0.0010 mg/l 1 cis-1,3-Dichlorooropene <0.0010 mgll <0.0010 mgll 1 <0.0010 mgll <0.0010 mglL 1 Ethylbenzene <0.0010 mgll <0.0010 mall 1 Methvlene Chloride <0.0050 mall <0.0050 mQ/L 1 1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane <0.0010 mQ/l <0.0010 mall 1 Tetrachloroethene <0.0010 mgfl <0.0010 mall 1 Toluene <0.0050 mg/L <0.0050 mQ/L 1 1,1, 1-Trichloroethane <0.0010 mg/l <0.0010 mall 1 1, 1,2-Trichloroethane <0.0010 mgll <0.0010 mg/L 1 Trichloroethane <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mg/L 1 Trichlorofluoromethane <0.0050 mg/l <0.0050 mg/l 1 Vinvl chloride <0.0010 mi;ill <0.0010 mQ/l 1 Total Xylenes <0.0030 mg/l <0.0030 mall 1 Toluene-dB 92.7 % Rec 104.% Rec 1 Dibromofluoromethane 93.3% Rec 105.% Rec 1 4-Brornofluorobenzene 93.2% Rec 112.% Rec 1 Part D -Provide data for the storm event{s) which resulted in the maximum values for the flow weighted composite sample. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Date of Duration Total rainfall Number of hours between Maximum flow rate during Total flow from Storm of Storm Event during storm event beginning of storm meas-rain event rain event Event (in minutes) (In inches) ured and end of previous (gallons/minute or (gallons or specify units) measurable rain event specify units) 03/2112010 780 0.82 213 0.8897 324,637 gallons 7. Provide a description of the method of flow measurement or estimate. The flow rate was estimated using the rational method. EPA Form 3510-wF {Rev. 1-92) PageVll-2 EPA ID Number (copy from Item 1 of Form 1) Form Approved. OMB No. 2040-0085 AL8640015410 Approval Expires 5-31-92 ....st:harge Information (Continued from oaoe 3 of Form 2F) art A -You must provide the results of at least one analysis for every pollutant in this table. Complete one table for each outfall. See ./ instructions for additional details . DSN019 Maximum Values Average Values Pollutant (include units) (include unitsJ Number and Grab Sample Grab Sample of CAS Number Taken During Taken During Storm First 20 Flow-weighted First 20 Flow-weighted Events (if available) Minutes Composite Minutes Composite Sampled Sources of Pollutants Oil and Grease <5.0 mg/L NIA 1 Biological Oxygen Demand <5.0 mg/L <5.0 mg/L 1 (BOD) Chemical Oxygen Demand <10. mg/L <10. mg/L 1 (CQD) Total Suspended Solids 8.1 mg/L 10. mg/L 1 (TSS) Total Nitrogen 0.88 mg/L 0.95 mg/L 1 Total <0.10 mg/L <0.10 mg/L 1 Phosphorus pH Minimum 6.52 s.u. Maximum 6.52 s.u. Minimum Maximum 1 Part B -List each pollutant that is limited in an effluent guideline .which the facility is subject to or any pollutant listed in the facility's NPDES permit for its process wastewater (if the facility is operating under an existing NPDES permit). Complete one table for each outfall. See the instructions for additional details and requirements. Maximum Values Average Values Pollutant (include units) (include unitsJ Number and Grab Sample Grab Sample of CAS Number Taken During Taken During Storm First 20 Flow-weighted First 20 Flow-weighted Events (if available) Minutes Composite Minutes Comoosite Sampled Sources of Pollutants <100 Fecal Coliforms (colonies/100 ml) N/A 1 Temoerature 11.6°C N/A 1 TRC <0.05 mg/L Cl N/A 1 Ammonia Nitroaen 0.17 mg/l 0.14 mg/l 1 Color 5.0 pcu 10.pcu 1 Nitrate-Nitrite 0.40 mall 0.72 mg/l 1 TKN 0.33 mall 0.38 mg/l 1 Antimonv 0.0014 m!llL <0.0010 ma/L 1 Arsenic <0.0010 mall <0.0010 ma/L 1 Barium 0.030 mg/L 0.029 mg/L 1 Bervllium <0.0010 mall <0.0010 ma/L 1 Cadmium <0.00050 m!l/L <0.00050 mall 1 Chromium 0.0012 mglL 0.0016 mg/l 1 Cobalt 0.0013 mglL 0.0012 mg/L 1 Coooer 0.0020 mglL 0.0048 mg/L 1 Lead <0.0010 mg/l 0.0012 mg/l 1 Nickel 0.0013 mglL 0.0066mg/L 1 Selenium <0.0010 mg/l <0.001 o ma/L 1 *Silver <O .00050 ma/L 0.00900 mg/L 1 Thallium <0.0010 mg/l <0.0010 mg/L 1 Tin <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mg/L 1 Zinc <0.010 m!:!IL 0.019 mgll 1 Mercury <0.00020 mall <0.00020 mg/L 1 Naphthalene <0.0010 mall <0.0010 m!:l/L 1 Aluminum 0.91 mall 1.3 mgtL 1 Boron <0.20 mg/l <0.20 mglL 1 Iron 0.77 mall 0.91 mg/L 1 Magnesium 2.8 ma/L 2.6 mo/L 1 Man!:lanese 0.33 mall 0.30 mall 1 Molvbdenum <0.0050 mall <0.0050 ma/L 1 Titanium 0.025 mall 0.036 mall 1 EPA Form 3510-2F (Rev. 1-92) PageVll-1 Continue on Reverse ""ch pollutant shown in Tables 2F-2, 2F-3, and 2F-4, that you know or have reason to believe is present. See the instructions for ,....rditional details and requirements. Complete one table for each outfall. DSN 019 Maximum Values Average Values Pollutant (include units) (include units) Number / and Grab Sample Grab Sample of GAS Number Taken During Taken During Storm First 20 Flow-weighted First 20 Flow-weighted Events (if available) Minutes Compos°ite Mlnute5 Composite Sampled Sources of Pollutants Acrolein <O .050 l1lQ/L <0.050mgll 1 Acrylonitrile <0.010 mgll <0.010 mg/L 1 Benzene <0.0010 mQ/L <0.0010 mQ/L 1 Bromodichloromethane <0.0010 mQ/L <0.0010 mg/L 1 Bromoform <0.0010 mo/L <0.0010 mg/L 1 Bromomethane <0.0050 mg/L <0.0050 mQ/L 1 Carbon tetrachloride <0.0010 mQ/L <0.0010 mall 1 Chlorobenzene <0.0010 mgll <0.0010 mglL 1 Chlorodibromomethane <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mg/L 1 Chloroethane <0.0050 mg/l <0.0050 mg/L 1 2-Chloroethyl vinvl ether <0.050 mg/L <Q.050 mg/L 1 Chloroform <0.0050 mQ/L <0.0050 mg/l 1 Chloromethane <0.0025 mg/l <0.0025 mg/l 1 1,2-Dichlorobenzene <0.0010 mQ/l <0.0010 mall 1 1,3-Dichlorobenzene <0.0010 mall <0.0010 mall 1 <0.0010 moll <0.0010 mall 1 Dichlorodifluoromethan.e <0.0050 mQ/L <0.0050 mg/L 1 1, 1-Dichloroethane <0;0010 mgll <0.0010 mg/L 1 1,2-Dichloroethane <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mall 1 1 , 1-Dichloroethane <0.0010 mall <0.0010 mall 1 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene <0.0010 mgfl. <0.0010 mg/L 1 1,2-Dichlorooropane <0.0010 mafl. <0.0010 mg/l 1 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene <0.0010 mg/l <0.0010 mg/l 1 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene <0.0010 mQ/l <0.0010 mg/l 1 Eth vi benzene <0.0010 mall <0.0010 mall 1 Methylene Chloride <0.0050 mg/L <0.0050 mg/l 1 1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane <0.0010 moll <0.0010 mall 1 Tetrachloroethene <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mQ/L 1 Toluene <0.0050 mg/L <0.0050 mg/L 1 1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane <0.0010 mQ/L <0.0010 mall 1 1, 1,2-Trichloroethane <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mgll 1 Trichloroethane 0.023 mg/L 0.023 mall 1 Trichlorofluoromethane <0.0050 mg/L <0.0050 mgll 1 Vinyl chloride <0.0010 moll <0.0010 mall 1 Total Xylenes <0.0030 mall <0.0030 mall 1 Toluene-dB 103.% Rec 103.o/o Rec 1 Dibromofluoromethane 108.% Rec 108.% Rec 1 4-Bromofluorobenzerie 106.% Rec 111.% Rec 1 Part D -Provide data for the storm event(s) which resulted in the maximum values for tile flow weighted composite sample. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Date of Duration Total rainfall Number of hours between Maximum flow rate during Total flow from Stomn of Storm Event during stonn event beginning of storm meas-rain event rain event Event (in minutes) (in Inches) ured and end of previous (gallons/minute or (gallons or specify units) measurable rain event specify units) 03/21/2010 780 0.82 213 0.094MGD 1,208,898 gallons 7. Provide a description of the method of flow measurement or estimate. The flow rate was measured using the existing weir. EPA Form 3510-wF (Rev.1-92) PageVll-2 EPA ID Number (copy from Item 1 of Form 1) Form Approved. OMB No. 2040-0085 AL8640015410 Approval Expires 5-31-92 ..dtharge Information (Continued from page 3 of Form 2F) rt A -You must provide the results of at one analysis for every pollutant in this table. Complete one table for each outfall. See / instructions for additional details. DSN024 Maximum Values Average Values Pollutant (include units) (include units) Number and Grab Sample Grab Sample of CAS Number Taken During Taken During Storm First20 Flow-weighted First 20 Flow-weighted Events (if available) Minutes Composite Minutes Composite Sampled Sources of Pollutants Oil and Grease <5.6 mg/L NIA 1 Biological Oxygen Demand <5.0 mg/L <5.0 mg/L 1 (BOD) Chemical Oxygen Demand 23. mg/L 23. mg/L 1 (COD) Total Suspended Solids 190 mg/L 32. mg/L 1 (TSS) Total Nitrogen 1.6 mg/L 1.2 mg/L 1

• Total 0.29 mg/L 0.13 mg/L 1 Phosphorus pH Minimum 8.58 s.u. Maximum 8.58 s.u. Minimum Maximum 1 Part B -Lisfeach pollutant that is limited in an effluent guideline which the facility Is subject to or any pollutant listed in the facility's NPDES permit for its process wastewater (if the facility is operating under an existing NPOES permit). Complete one table for each outfall. See the instructions for additional details and requirements. Maximum Values Average Values Pollutant (include units) (include units) Number and Grab Sample Grab Sample of CAS Number Taken During Taken During Stqrm Rrst20 Flow-weighted First20 Flow-weighted Events (if available) Minutes Composite Minutes Composite Sampled Sources of Pollutants <100 Fecal Coliforms (colonies/100 ml) NIA 1 Temoerature 11.s0c NIA 1 TRC <0.05 mall Cl NIA 1 Ammonia Nitrogen 0.26 mg/l. 0.19 mg/L 1 Color 100 pcu 75.pcu 1 Nitrate-Nitrite 0.60 mg/L 0.39 mg/L 1 TKN 1.0 mg/L 0.81 mg/L 1 Antimony <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mglL 1 Arsenic 0.0025 mall 0.0012 r'nall 1 Barium 0.0033 ma/L 0.0019ma/L 1 Beryllium* <0.0010 ma/L <0.0010 ma/L 1 Cadmium <0.00050 ma/L <0.00050 ma/L 1 Chromium 0.010 mglL 0.003 mg/L 1 Cobalt 0.0015 mg/L <0.0010 mglL 1 Copper 0.0061 mg/L 0.0027 mall 1 Lead 0.0062 mg/L 0.0019 ma/L 1 Nickel 0.0064 moll 0.0024 mall 1 Selenium 0.0014 ma/L <0.0010 ma/L 1 Silver <O .00050 ma/L <0.00050 mall 1 Thallium <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mg/L 1 Tin <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mg/L 1 Zinc 0.056 m11/L 0.019 mg/L 1 Mercury <0.00020 ma/L <0.00020 mg/L 1 Naphthalene <0.0010 ma/L <0.0010 mQ/L 1 Aluminum 8.4 mg/L 3.7 mall 1 Boron <0.20 mg/L <0.20 mg/L 1 Iron 5.6 mg/L 2.0 mg/L 1 Ma1:mesium 1.8 ma/L 0.89 01g/L 1 Manganese 0.20 ma/L 0.057 ma/L 1 Molvbdenum <0.0050 mo/L <0.0050 ma/L 1 Titanium 0.13 mQ/L 0.089 ma/L 1 EPA Form 3510-2F (Rev. 1-92) PageVll-1 Continue on Reverse

-dCh pollutant shown in Tables 2F*2, 2F-3, and 2F-4, that you know or have reason to believe is present. See the instructions for .Additional details and requirements. Complete one table for each outfall. DSN 024 Maximum Values Average Values / Pollutant (include units) (include units) Number and Gral;>Sample Grab Sample of CAS Number Taken During Taken During Storm First 20 Flow-weighted First 20 Flow-weighted Events (if available) Minutes Composite Minutes Composite Sampled Sources of Pollutants Acrolein <0.050 mall <0.050 mgll 1 Acrylonitrile <0.010 mall <0.010 mg/L 1 Benzene <0.0010 mgll <0.0010 mg}L 1 Bromodichloromethane <0.0010 mQ/L <0.0010 mg/L 1 Bromoform <0.0010 mall <0.0010 mgll 1 Bromomethane <0.0050 mg/L <0.0050 moll 1 Carbon tetrachloride <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mall 1 Chlorobenzene <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mg/L 1 Chlorodibromomethane <O .0010 mg/L <0.0010 moll 1 Chloroethane <0.0050 mg/L <0.0050 mgll 1 2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether <0.050 mgll <0.050 mall 1 Chloroform <0.0050 mg/L <0 .0050 mg/L 1 Chloromethane <0.0025 mgll <0.0025 mgll 1 1,2-Dichlorobenzeme <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mg/L 1 1,3-Dichlorobenzene <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mg/L 1 1,4-Dichlorobenzene <0.0010 mgll <0.0010 mglL 1 Dichlorodifluoromethane <0.0050 mQ/L <0.0050 mg}L 1 1, 1-Dichloroethane <0.0010 mQ/L <0.0010 mgJL 1 1,2-Dichloroethane <0.0010 mall <0.0010 mgJL 1 1, 1-Dichloroethane <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mg/L 1 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene <Q.0010 mQ/L <0.0010 mall 1 1 ,2-Dichloropropane <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mg/L 1 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mall 1 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene <0:0010 mg/L <0.0010 mg/l 1 Ethyl benzene <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mgll 1 Methylene Chloride <0.0050 mall <0.0050 mall 1 1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 nig/L 1 Tetrachloroethene <0.0010 ma/L <0.0010 mall 1 Toluene <0.0050 mgl <0.0050 moll 1 1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane <0.0010 mg'l <0.0010 mg/L 1 1 , 1,2-Trichloroethane <0.0010 mg/l <0.0010 mall 1 Trichloroethane <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mgll 1 Trichlorofluoromethane <0.0050 mg/l <0.0050 mall 1 Vinvl chloride <0.0010 ma/L <0.0010 mg/L 1 Total Xylenes <0.0030 mg/l <0.0030 mall 1 Toluene-dB 93.0 % Rec 103.% Rec 1 Dibromofluoromethane 91.4% Rec 105.% Rec 1 4-Bromofluorobenzene 92.1% Rec 110.% Rec 1 Part D. Provide data for the storm event(s) which resulted in the maximum values for the flow weiahted composite sample. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Date of Duration Total rainfall Number of hours between Maximum flow rate during Total flow from Storm of Storm Event during storm evel')t beginning of stonn meas-rain event rain event Event (in minutes) (in inches) ured and end of previous (gallons/minute or (gallons or specify units) measurable rain event specify units) 03/2112010 780 0.82 213 4.479MGD 523,107 gallons 7. Provide a description of the method of flow measurement or estimate. The flow rate was estimated using Manning's Equation and the measured depth of flow in the pipe. EPA Form 3510-wF (Rev. 1-92) PageVll-2 TVA Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant NPDES Permit No. AL0022080 Renewal Application . EPA Form 2F -ATTACHMENT 1 IV. Narrative Description of Pollutant Sources, B-C BFN's Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan is the basic non-structural control for reducing pollutants in storm water runoff. It incorporates best management practices into daily activities conducted on site and is available for review at all times. BFN has instituted a Chemical Traffic Control Plan for the purpose of ensuring that all chemicals brought on site are reviewed are reviewed to prevent the usage of hazardous materials when a non-hazardous material substitute is available. The plan also ensures the proper use, storage, and disposal of all chemicals used at the facility.

• DSN 013 DSN 013 storm water from the Environmental and Meteorology offices parking lot, the northeast corner of the Training Center parking lot, a storm drain located between the two sedimentation ponds, and from a gravel parking lot and grassy area located south of the Environmental and Meteorology offices (i.e., approximately 1.8 acres of grassed area.and 5.0 acres of impervious surfaces). DSN 013 also receives storm water drainage from DSN 013a and process water discharges from DSN 013b prior to discharging to the Tennessee River. DSNs 013a and 013b were sampled at their respective discharge points in accordance with the . requirements of the renewal application. DSN 013a DSN 013a receives storm water from the 4kV Capacitor Yard, the main plant transformer yard, the switchyard, the parking lot east of and part of the parking lot west of the Wastewater Lagoons, and the grassland north of the east parking lot (i.e., approximately 40.5 acres of impervious area and 54 acres of grassed area). The capacitor yard, the transformer yard, and the switchyard contain only non-PCB, oil-filled equipment. The transformer yard contains two 37,000-gallon mineral oil tanks (abandoned in place) and one 1,500-gallon above-ground diesel storage tank. DSN 013a is provided with secondary containment to prevent oil spills from reaching the river by the presence of a concrete oil skimmer and weir. DSN 013a also receives wastewater discharged from DSN 013a(1 ), the Wastewater Lagoons which includes treated sanitary waste, waste from a photo-processing lab, a metal-processing lab, a medical lab, blowdown from the Training Center's chiller system, flush water from the standby liquid control system and from various cooler and air compressor cleanings, waste from insulator showers used by personnel involved with periodic asbestos stripping and handling operations, and rain water. DSN 013a discharges to DSN 013 which in tum discharges to the Tennessee River. *
• DSN 014 DSN 014 is located northwest of the cooling towers, and receives drainage from two roads (approximately 5 acres), grassland (approximately 197 acres), and offsite farmland located on the north and northwest sides of the facility. OSN 014 discharges directly to the Tennessee River. Beeause monitoring is not required for this outfall in the current NPDES permit and because it receives drainage from areas with no industrial _activity as defined in 40 CFR122.26(b)(14), it was not monitored for the permit renewal application . . 1of2 TVA Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant NPDES Permit No. AL0022080 Renewal.Application EPA Form 2F -AITACHMENT 1 DSN 017 DSN 017 receives storm water runoff from an approximately 6-acre area (approximately 3 acres of which is impervious area) which includes the Training Center and the Live Well Center parking lots, the Training Center roof, and grassed/wooded land. DSN 017 discharges directly into the Tennessee River. Because monitoring is not required for this outfall in the current NPDES permit and because it receives drainage from areas with no industrial activity as defined in 40 it was not monitored for the permit renewal application. DSN 018 OSN 018 receives storm water from the Materials and Procurement Complex (MPC) parking lot, the firing range parking lot, the Facilities Maintenance area, the vehicle fuel dispensing area, part of the parking lot southwest of the MPC, and from adjacent grassed area (approximately 18.8 acres of impervious drainage and 15.4 acres of grassed land). The MPC includes several enclosed chemical staging areas (e.g., for paints, solvents, oil, and lubricants). DSN 018 discharges directly to the Tennessee River. DSN 019 FON 019 receives storm water drainage from the east site drainage area (i.e., 101.1 acres of grassed land, 48 acres of impervious area including a small borrow pit, the Fire Training Area, the Low Level Radwaste Storage Facility, the inert landfill, and the 180-day Hazardous Waste Storage Area. These areas contain kerosene, gasoline, and diesel tanks; a flammable storage area; Facilities Satellite Storage area; a diesel fire pump and fuel tank; oil and used drum storage areas; and hazardous and mixed waste storage area. DSN 019 discharges to the Tennessee River. DSN 024 DSN 024 is located along the facility's east property boundary and discharges to an adjacent farmland. This outfall receives storm water drainage from offsite grassland, offsite farmland located north of the facility, and from a vehicle servicing and mechanic shop located just south ofthe northeast comer of the site (approximately 75.9 acres of grassland and 8.4 acres of impervious surfaces). The shop includes a covered storage area for solvents, oils, and lubricants. 2of2 Review/Concurrence Sheet

Subject:

NPDES Renewal Originating Oraanization Document Prepared By EDMS No.(Optional) Correspond No. Name Carroll R. Cooper/Environmental Mgr. Robert Pitcock/Chemistry Mgr. James Emens/ Licensing Mgr. John Cornelius Gannon, General Mgr. concur.doc Application Environmental l Chemistry Mike Stiefel I Date: 12/23/11 DUE DATE: 2/25/11 CONCURRENCES Signature -Comment Date Worktlow :Status Page 1 of2

• E& T Review & Concurrence Environment & Technology SharePoint Site > E&T Review & Concurrence > NPG > Workflow Status Workflow Status: Approval rw;rkfto;
• I ......................................... ,_ .. , ............... -....................................... -...................................................... _ .. ,., __ , ......... -**-***********************--*** .. *******-***** ............................................... --***-*****-............... ----*******""""-"'***********************--*********-********** .. ***********-****"""""-******--******** .. J Initiator: Gould, Vicki M Started: 2/25/2011 3:57 PM Last run: 2/28/2011 4:44 PM Document: BFN NPDES Renewal 2011 Cover Letter final for approval Status: Rejected r'-*-*---*--------' .. ***-*-*******--* .. --.. ---*----*-**-**--*-.. --.... ---****-.. *-**-***--**-*-.--.. ---* .... *----*-"*** .. -.. -*-.. *------... --... -... *-*-*--.. --.. *--------*-*---"**--*-* ................ -...... _ ..... J The following tasks have been assigned to the participants in this.work.flow. Click a task to edit it. You can also view these tasks in the list Tasks. litle Due Date Status Outcome *Johnson, Linden Printz Please approve BFN NPDES Renewal 2011 Cover Letter final for approval 2/28/2011
• Complet.ed Approved by Johnson, Linden Printz Brickhouse, Brenda Please approve BFN NPDES Renewal 2011 Cover Letter final Etheridge for approval ! HEW Completed Approved by Brickhouse, Brenda Etheridge r ............... ----****-**-*-"***-****---*-.. --*-**---... -.... .-.. -*-*------*--*------*-------*--***-1 ................................. -............................. _ ............... ,.. ______ , ____ ... _ .......... _ ..... ....... , ........................... _ ................... _ .... , ......... _ ... _ ....... ; ... _ ..................................... ,_ ........................................................................ -................ -*-*-***H'"'J a V!ew workflow reports The following events have occurred in this workflow. Date Occurred Event Type @ User ID Description 2/25/2011 3:57 PM Workflow
• e Gould, Vicki M Approval was started. Participants: Johnson, Linden Initiated Printz, Cooper, canoll R, Anderson, Cynthia M, Brickhouse, Brenda Etheridge 2/25/2011 3:57 PM Task I' Gould, Vicki M Task created for Johnson, Linden Printz. Due by: None Created 2/28/2011 8:44 AM Comment 2/28/2011 9:58 AM Task Complet.ed 2/28/2011 9:58 AM Task Created .Stiefel, Michael B Tasks for Approval on BFN NPDES Renewal 2011 Cover Letter final for approval were updated by Stiefel, Michael B. Due by: 2/28/2011 12:00:00 AM Task instructions: Vicki, please review\revise as necessary. Please workflow to Lindy Johnson, carron Cooper, c *Johnson, Task assigned to Johnson, Linden Printz was approved Linden Printz by Johnson, linden Printz. Comments: ok e Gould, Vicki M Task created for Cooper, carroll R. Due by: None 2/28/2011 12:39 PM Task Rolled I) Gould, Vicki M Task update by Stiefel, Michael B was rejected. Back 2/28/2011 12:44 PM Task Deleted *Stiefel, Task assigned to Cooper, carroll R was deleted by Michael B Stiefel, Mlchael B. 2/28/201112:44 PM Task .Stiefel, Task assigned to Cooper, carroll R was automatically Completed Michael B rejected because It was deleted by Stiefel, Michael .B 2/28/2011 12:44 PM Task *Gould, Vicki M Task created for Anderson, Cynthia M. Due by: None Created 2/28/2011 12:44 PM Task Deleted
• Stiefel, Task assigned to Anderson, Cynthia M was deleted by Michael B Stiefel, Michael B. 2/28/2011 12:44 PM Task .Stiefel, Task assigned to Anderson, Cynthia M was automatically Completed
• Michael B rejected because it was deleted by Stiefel, Michael B 2/28/2011 12:44 PM Task e Gould, Vicki M Task aeated for Brickhouse, Brenda Etheridge. Due by: Created None Outcome Approved by Johnson, Linden Printz Reason: The user who attempted to complete the task Is not the user to whom the task is assigned. Rejected by Stiefel, Michael B Rejected by Stiefel, Michael B http://sharepoint.tva.gov/sites/oer/ET. _ReviewConcurrence/ _.Iayouts/WrkStat.aspx?List=% 7b922BFE09... 0310112011 Workflow Status 2/28/2011 4:44 PM 2/28/2011 4:44 PM Task Completed Workflow Completed Brickhouse, Brenda Etheridge e Gould, Vicki M Task assigned to Brickhouse, Brenda Etheridge was approved by Brickhouse, Etheridge. Comments: I conrur. Thanks, B Approval was completed. Page 2 of2 Approved by Brickhouse, Brenda Etheridge Approval on BFN NPDES Renewal 2011 Cover Letter final for approval has successfully completed. All participants have completed their tasks. http://sharepoint.tva.gov/sites/oer!ET .... ReviewConcurrence/ . .Jayouts/WrkStat.aspx?List=% 7b922BFE09 ... 03/0112011 ATTACHMENT 4 Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Annual Water Use Reports 2011 -2015 Owner:. Annual Watel' Use Report for 2015 Alabama Water Use Reporting Program Certificate Number: 1058 TVA..,Browns Ferry Nuclear Withdrawal Name: Browns Ferry Nuclear Status: Active Calendar Year 2015 Average Withdrawal (mgd) Peak Withdrawal (mgd) January 2902.088 2902.088 February 2894.675 2894.675 March 2428.095 2894.895 April 2626.149 2903.149 May 3097.46$ 2894.798 June 2895.076 2895.076 July 2895.154 2895.154 August 2894.502 2894.502 September. 2896.862 2896.862 October 2844.745 2894-.445 November 2989.333 3044.026 December 3043.930 3043.930 Comments: CERTIFICATION: To the best of my knowledge and beli f, the information contained in this report is true, accurat
• d complete. Certified by: Date: 2/12/2016 completed fom1s to t\DECA of Water Resources ADECA -Office of Water Resources -P.O. Box 5690-401 Adams Avenue, Montgomery, AL 36103-5690-Fax 2.;2..0776 Owner: Annual Water Use Report for 2014 Alabama Water Use Reporting Program Certificate Number: 1058 TVA-Urowns Ferry Nuclear Plant Withdrawal Name; Browns Ferry Nuclear Status: Active Calendar Year 2014 Average Withdrawal (mgd) Peak Withdrawal (mgd) January 2509.840 2509.840 February 2035.457 2510.357 March 2178.260 2702.560 April 2509.923 2509.923 May 2758.134 2895.034 June 2894.993 2894.9.93 July 2895.090 2895.090 August 2870.083 2894.883* September 2844.623 2895.923 October 2174.:B9 2902.139 November 2895.323 2895.323 December 2895.831 2895.831 Comments: CERTIF1CATION:-To the;best of my know*tedge and l?elief, the information contained in this report is true, accurate and complete. Certified by: Date: Please. rct\lm comp luted forms to ADECA
• Office oi Water A DE'CA -Office of Water Resources -P.O. Bpx 5690 --IOI Adams Avenue-Mootgommy, Al 36103-5690 -Fax {334) 242-0776 Owner: Annual Water Use Report for 2013 Alabama Water TJse Reporting Program Certificate Number. ioss TV A-Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Withdi:awal Name: Browns Ferry Nuclear Status:* Active Calendar Year 2013 Average Withdrawal (mgd)' Peak Withdrawal (mgd) JantW}' 2701.800 2894.300 February 2576.900 2894.301) Marth 2390.200 2894.300 April 1941.900 2298.500 May 2776.100 2894.300 June 2894.300 2894.300* July 2894.300 2894.300 August 2894.300 284.300 2894.300 284.SOO October 2801.200 2894;.300 No"Vember 2390.400 2701.800 December 2515.800 2701.800 Comments: (Insert. any appropiate comments.) CERTIFICATION: To the best of my knowledge and;. belief, information contained in this report is true, acCUl'ate and complete. Cl'.!J:tified by: Please retum completed.!oims to ADE.CA-Office o£ Water Resouro!S ADECA-Otfice of Water Resolil'Cl?s* P.O. Box 5690-401 Avenue -Montgomety, ALS6103-56'!0 *Fax (334} 242.:o776 Owner: Annual Water Use. Report for 2012 Alabama. Water Use P.rogram Number.1058 TV A-Bri;>wns :Ferry Nuclear Plant Withdrawal Name: Btown:; Feny Status: Active Calendar Year 2012 Average Withdrawal (ingd) Peak Withdrawal (D;1gd) January 2534.100 2701.800 February 2559.800 2894.300 March 2S21.600 2701.800 Aril p 2077.100 2509.200 May 2392.800 2894.300 June 2887.900 2894,300 . July 2894.300 2894.300 August 2894.300 2894.300 September 2894.300 October 2464.500 2894.300 November 2315.700 2701.BOO December 2857.000 2894.300 (Insert any comments.) To the best of my knowledge. d belief, the information contained in this repon is true, accurate at)d complete. Certified by: Date: Pll!llSe-rctlil'n forms to ADECA -0.ffiee ofWater Resources . . ADECA -Office of Water Resources-P.Q. Box 5690-4Ql Adams Avenue-Montgomery, AL36103-5690 -Fax (334) 242-0776 Owner: Water Use Report for 2011 Alabama Wa.terUse Reporting Program Certificate Number: lOSS TV A -Browns Ferry-Nuclear Pl.;i.nt Withdrawal Name: Browns Ferry Pliint Status: Active Calendar Year 2011 Average Withdrawal {mgd) J?eak Withdrawal (mgd) January 2698.1000 2722.5000 February 2770.4000 2894.3000 March 2014;.0000 2701.8000 April 2751;8000 2894.3000 May 967.9000 2894.3000 June 2894.3000 2894.3000 July 2894.3000 2894.3000 August 2875.7000 2894.3000 September 2894.3000 2894.3000 October 2720:4000 2894.3000. November 2733.9000 2894.3000 December 2595.6000 2701.8000 Comments: CERTIFICATION: To the best of my knowledge and belief, the information contained, in this report is true, accurate and complete. Certified by: Date: Plea.seretum comp!etect fprms to ADECA -Office of Water Resources ADECA -Qffice or Water Resotir.:es -P.O. Box5690' -401 Adams Avenue -Montgomei:y, AL -'Fax (3;34) 242-0776 ATTACHMENT 5 Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Certificate Of Use (COU) from the Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs (ADECA)/Office of Water Resources (OWR), dated December 1, 2005 OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR BOB RILEY GOVERNOR ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS Bill JOHNSON DIRECTOR STATE OF ALABAMA Mr. Carroll Cooper Environmental Supervisor TVA -Browns Feny Nuclear Plant P.O. Box 2000 WSP IA Decatur, AL 35609-2000 Re: Renewal Certificate of Use No. 1058.0

Dear Mr. Cooper:

December l, 2005 Enclosed is the Certificate of Use, which has been renewed, based on data provided in the updated Declaration of Beneficial Use you filed with the Office of Water Resources (OWR). The infonnation you provide is vital to maintaining a database that will enable the long term planning and coordination of water resources in Alabama. Each entity filing a Declaration of Beneficial Use is required to provide this office with annual water use reports. Each year, you will continue to receive the forms to complete and submit to OWR. Each entity is also responsible for notifying the OWR of any changes in the data contained in the Declaration of Beneficial Use. If you need to amend your Declaration of Beneficial Use, please contact us to secure the appropriate forms. We look forward to working with you. If we can answer any questions or be of further assistance, please call Tom Littlepage at (334) 242-5697. Enclosures Sincerely, E. Davis, Office of Water Resources 401 ADAMS AVENUE. SUITE 580. P.O. Box 5690

• MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36103-5690 * (334) 242-51 Off STATE OF ALABAMA CERTIFICATE OF USE Alabama Water Use Reporting Program Certificate Number: 1058.0 jTVA -Brown11 Ferry Nuclear Plant Owner 1400 West Summit Hill Drive Address !Knoxville ITN 137902-1499 City State Zip Code Classification N_o_nP_n_b_li_c ___ Estimated System Withdrawal Capacity: Estimated System Annual Withdrawal: 2074.300 Million Gallons /Day (MGD) 746748.00 Million Gallons !Year {MGY) 0 Water Use Reporting Requirements: . As a condition of this Certificate of Use, water use reports shall be submitted to the Office of Water Resources no later than March 31st of each year. The annual water use reporting form(s) shall contain water withdrawn, diverted, or consumed, in gallons, and tabulated for average daily use per month and peak day for the previous calendar year, and other data as deemed appropriate by the Office of Water Resources. The reporting forms shall be provided by the Office of Water Resources to the holder (or representative) of this Certificate of Use. Alternate reporting options must be reviewed and approved by the Office of Water Resources for appropriateness prior to submittal Issued by the Office of Water Resources in accordance with the Alabama Water Resources Act, Code of Alabama 1975, Section 9-lOB-19 and the Administrative Rules implementing the Alabama Water Use Reporting Program. E ward E. Davis, Acting Division Director Office of Water Resources Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs Issued on: Last Revised on: Certificate ofUse EXPIRATION DATE: ' December 01, 2005 January 01, 2011 THE ISSUANCE OF THIS CERTIFICATE OF USE SHALL NOT CONFER OR MODIFY ANY PERMANENT INTERESTS OR RIGHTS IN THE HOLDER THEREOF TO THE CONTINUED USE OF THE WATERS OF THE STATE OF ALABAMA. ADECA
• Office of Water Resources + P.O. Box 5690 + 401 Adams Avenue + Montgomery, AL 36103-5690 + (334) 242-5499
• Fax (334) 242-0776 Owner: TVA -Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Withdrawal Ground Water Surface Water Facility Name Description Location Browns Ferry Nuclear 34° 42' 15" / -87° 7' 15" Totals for: TVA-Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Water Withdrawal Information Source (Stream, Aquifer, etc) Ground Water Summary Wheeler Lake Surface Water Summary Certificate No. 1058.0 Maximum Capacity (MGD) 0 Average Use (MGY) 0 2074.300 746748.000 2074.300 746748.000 2074.300 746748.000 ADECA + Office of Water Resources
• P.O. Box 5690
• 401 Adams Avenue
• Montgomery, AL 36103-5690 * (334) 242-5499
• Fax (334) 242-0776 ATTACHMENT-6 Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Most Recent Application for Renewal and Declaration of Beneficial Use, dated September 23, 2015 Page I or4 Ccr1ilicntl! No. 1058 Declaration of Use Water Use Program (AN APPLICATION IS REQUIRED li'OR E1\Cll WITHDRAWAL OR =owR ----=::** Contpm1y Name TVA
• Brqwns Ferry Nucli?ar Pinnt Opcrntor/Contact Pl!rson Mr. hht1l) Gesroo ! c.:;y11YJ Title Em*ironmcntal Scientist Mailing Address P.O. Box 2000, \VSP l A Moiling Address P.O. Box \YSP I A City Dccall!r State AL Zip 35609 City Dccntur State AL Zip Phonc (2ae) 1 Zf Fa;-; (25.G) 729-3 lO I Phone (256);1.J9 3231 n_9.7!:(j'Z. (256) 729-3101_ Email ke..!.#lt.wYt Gj .f.vo;...i oV Email APPLICATION FOR: Primary Purpose of Water Usl? (check one): 0 Public 5J Non-Public 0 lITiga1ion Purposc(s) ofwntcr use (chcck)i Counties in Service Arca Municipnlilil?S iit Ser-vice Arca No. of Residential Connections Wntcr Trcatnicnt F'm::iiitics (ifapplicable) Purposc(s) of water usc (check}: Purposc(s) of water use (check): PUBLIC WATER USl'i: ONLY D D B Commcrcinl 0 Govcrnmcnt:ll/Jnst itutio1ml ---No. of Non-Residential Conni?clions NON-PUBLIC WATER USE ONLY DI ndustrial/Processing D Commercial @cooli.ng 00thcr IRRIGATION WATER USE ONLY BAgriculture Fish Production BTurf Golt' Courses BNul'Series Other Attnclmu:nts included as part orthls submittal ALL WATER !)SERS (Public, Non-Public, and lrrigntion) D Water Conservation Plan LJOther 0 Drought Plan/Ordinance 0 Withdrawal Calculalion Worksheets BASIS FOR LEGAL USE OF WATER This lkchmniun uf al ;i n1ini111111n, ubn fnclm.lc lhc aum:lnncnls lu 111:11 11\e 11rupmctl water use 1:"ons1i111tc5 n lawf11I, n:asunnbli: am.I bcili:fkfal u.'c uf:.uch w;ncr. is with lhc public nnd doi:s*nOI interfere whh any lc:i;al usag.:: of waler c.'<bling at !he lime i;>fthc submillal nnikornplics with 1hc Ah1bama Water ltusnurccs ;\ct aml the tlf the 1\ l>P.C A Office 11f W;Ucr ltC$OUrc.:s and the Ah1banm Water Rcsoun:cs Conunission (§§ 30S* 7.1) 305-7-12). fann .should be accompanictl by ;i rnup shuwins thu localion ufthc water so11rcc and il.S lo 11Jc nciual use, in cas11 of:i su'l!um. ri\*cr. ar lnkc indicah: whctllcr the :rnun:i: is ar-non*nuvigablc. and bricllr how lhc wi1hdr:iw:il'diwr:linntcons11mp1io11 docs 1101 i11t1:rfon: wilh any JINMmtlyknawn lcgal use at'wnu:r. Ccrtllication Dale 09/tg/fJ...oJ:S To the best ur my knuwlcLl1_tc aml belie I: *niun pmvidcd by this lkclnr,11ion of Ucm:ficfal Use is true. accurJIC :111d-complc1c. ynf:J Title CJ,e,,""."slry/ bfv*'>'"'1P'le.rJ/.e/ ADECA
• Oflicc l,}[°\Valcr.Rcsourccs * [>.0. Bo:-1 5690 *-IOI Achm1s Avenue* Montgomery, ,\L 36103-5690 +* (33.i) 2.iz.5499
• Fax {33-IJ 2-12-0176 Page 4 of4 Certiticale No. l.05S If thll Application includes DlSCllARGES TO SURFi\CE WATER, c11mplctc this sccti11n: Disclmrge ID *DSN 86j. oos 1 Rcceivil1gStream Tennessee Lat it \Ide nnd Longilude 34 ° 42' 15" 1-87° 7' 15" River Basin 06030()02400 -Round lslnnd Creek Average Discharge .Maximum Dischnrgc Cnpacity Stntus Active 18 fO million gallons per year 141 million gallons [ll!fday If the Application includes DISCHARGESTO SURFACE WATEH., complete this sc.e_tion: Disi;hnrge ID
• BSN ea1 PSN DO I\ 1 DO\ Q 1 'D5N DO I Y Receiving Stream Tennessee River Average Discharge Latitude and Longitude-34° 42' 15" /-87° 7' 15" Maximum Discharge Capacity River Bm1in 0603000.2400
• Ro.und Island Creek Stnllls Active I 029592 million gallons per year 2709 million gallons per day If the Application lncludc!S DISCHARGES TO SURFACE WATER, complete tl1is section: Discharge ID 8SN 013,s osN l3C.\ Receiving:Strcam Tcnm:isscc River Latitude and Longitude 34° 42; 30" /-87° 7' O" River Basin 0603000240Q -Rourtd Island Creek Average Maximurn Discharge Capacity Status 72.6 million gallons per year 0.383 million ,gallon:; per dny If the Applic:tlion includes DISCHARGES TO SURFACE WATER, complete (his scction: Discharge ID _ .P.5N \ Receiving Stream LutilUdc and Longi1ucle 34° 43' O" /-87° 7' O" .. _ . River Basin 06030002400 -Round lskmd Creek Average Disclmrnc Maximum Discharge Capacity Status Active 94_.54 million gallons per year 0.778 million gallons per day Uthe Application includes DISCHARGES TO SURFACE WATER, complete this section: Dischargl!' rD Inactive (Old DSN 00 I A) ReceMng Stremn Latitude and Lo11gi1ude 0"' O' 0" /0° O'O" River Basin Average Discharge Muxinmm Discharge Capacity Status Im1c1ive 0 million gallons per year o million gallons per day ADBCA + Ri;soitrccs + P.,O. Box 5690 + 401 A\*c11w + Monlgomucy, AL 36103-5690 t (33-l)*:!.-t:!-5-199 + F.:1x (334) 242-0776 Pnge 3 of4 Ccrlificntc No. Jr'the Application is for SURFACE WATER, complete this section: Withdrawn! ID Browns Ferry Nuclenr Dale of Pump lns1allntio11 06-26-1973 Critical ln1ake Elevation 13 Watt:r Source Wheeler Lake County Latitude and Longitude .34° 15" feet Average Withdrawal 1031563 Maximum \Vithdrn\val Capacity 2$51.l Pumping Capacity 1980000 Estimation Method D Melered 0 Worksheet E] Other bas:d .on pump-calibration Riv1:r Basin 06()30002400 -Round Island Creek lRRIGAflON WATER USE ONLY Status Aciive / -87" 7' 1511 -. *-milli<;m gallons year. million gallons per day gallons pi:r minute Acres irrigated from this source ___ Estimnted numberot' inchc..'i Of waler applied per year 'lype Osl!nsonal Ocontinuous LJVaries Monthly 001hcr _____ .. lfscai;onnble, nppro:-:imatl!' number ofmomhs you irrigate If variable by ntonth, number of days pi:r nt(}nth BASIS FOR LEGAL USE GUIDELINES All Water Users (Public, Non-Public, und Irrigation) Lcgnl Attachments/Documents Attnched (Must at least one) §Property Deed B Le;ise Agreement. Pem1irsfLicenscs o_ pinion ofCounscl Other-(on ......... . Geographk Locntion or the Fncility/Propcrty nnd Proximity to Water Source Please provide a locaiion map and as many delails as possible. See map 011 lile. Stntclncrtt of Legnl Right to Use Wnter Briefly describe the basis of your legal right ro use wa1er to be divened, including how Ute wilhdrnwalldiversion/consumption does not interfere with any presently known existing legal use ofwaier. TVA operates the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant pursuant to the authority granted by Congress under lhe TVA Act of 1933, as amended. The plant is operated in m;cord&1nce with the tern1s and conditions of the operating lccnsc issued by the Nuclear Rcgulntory Commission, Further, discharges of water to the Tennessee River incident to lhe withdrawal are madc in nccordnncc with lhe terms and conditions of the Nnrlonnl Pollutant Discharge Elcmination System (NPDES) pennit issued by the State of Alnbamn for the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. The wa\l!r l1Sl? (334) 24:!.*0776 Page 2:of 4 Ccrtilicale No. If the Application is for SURFACE WATER, com1>lctc tllis section: Withdrawal ID lm1ctivc Facility 4 Date of Pump lnstallalion 01-01-1900 Latitude and Longitude 34° 42' 1.5" Critical Intake Elevation 0 ft.ict Average Withdrawal 0 Water Source _ Maximum Witlldrawal Capacity 0 County Pumping Capacity 0 Estinrntion Method Q:vtctered Oworksluiiit Oothc( River Basin 06030002400 -Round Island Cteck IRRIGATION \VATER USE ONLY 1058 Stntus lnacti\*c I -87° 7' 15" million gallons per year million gallons per day gidlons per minute Acres irrigated from this source Estimated averaue number of inches of wntcr npplicd 1icr year Type of Use Qseasonal Ocontinuous Ovarici; Monthly Ooihcr If seasonable, nppro:<imnrc number of months you irrigate If variable by month, nppro=-.imatc nuuibcr Of days per 11101ith Property Deetl Pcm1 ils/Licenscs Other BASIS FOR LEGAL USE GUIDELINES All Water Users (Public, Non-Public:, and AttachmcntslDocumcnts Att11chcd (Must include ut least one) D Lcnse Agreement Oopinion ot'Counscl Gc9graphic Locution of the Fncilityf Propcrty and Proximit)' "to Watar Sou re:" Please provide a location map and as many details as possible. Statement of Lcgnl to Use \Yater Briefly describe the basis of your legal right 10 use wa1cr to be diverted, including how the wilhdrnwnl/divcrsion/consumption does not inrerfere \vith an)' presently known existing legal use ofwater. Statc111cnt of Nnvig;ibility Water Source Is this source navigable? False ff so, what information was used to nm!ce this detennination'? 0 A DEC A + Officll ot'WaM t P.O. Box 3690 + 401 Admns 1\\'c1mc t Montgomi:ry. AL 36103*5690 t (334) 242-5499 t Fm.: (334) 242*0776 ATTACHMENT 7 Reference TV A. 2010. Fish Impingement at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, September 2007 through September 2009. TVA Environmental Stewardship and Policy.

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT NPDES PERMIT NO. AL0022080 316(b) MONITORING PROGRAM FISH IMPINGEMENT AT BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT SEPTEMBER 2007 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 2009 ENVIRONMENT AL STEWARDSHIP AND POLICY APRIL 2010 Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................. i List of Tables ................................................................................................................................... i List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. ii List of Acronyms and Abbreviations .............................................................................................. ii Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 3 Plant Description ......................................................................................................................... 3 Methods ........................................................................................................................................... 4 Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 4 Fish Community Assessment ...................................................................................................... 5 Results and Discussion ................................................................................................................... 5 Fish Community Assessment -RF AI .......................................................................................... 6 Summary and Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 6 References ....................................................................................................................................... 8 List of Tables Table 1. List of Fish Species by Family, Scientific, and Common Name Including Numbers Collected in Impingement Samples During September 12, 2007 through September 3, 2008 and September 10, 2008 and September 9, 2009 at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. ............................................................................................................ 9 Table 2. Number of fish impinged by month and percent of annual total during September, 2007 through September, 2009 ...................................................................... 11 Table 3. Comparison of estimated weekly fish impingement at TY A's Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant during 2007 and 2008 ................................................................................ 12 Table 4. Annual extrapolated estimates of numbers and biomass of fish impinged by species and year at Watts Bar Nuclear Plant during September 2007 through September 2009 ................................................................................................................ 13 Table 5. Extrapolated annual numbers of fish impinged at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant September 2007 through August 2008 and September 2008 through August 2009. Also included are numbers of fish for which TV A is liable after EA and PF reduction ........................................................................................................................... 15 Table 6. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RF AI Scores Downstream (TRM 292.5) and Upstream (TRM 295.9) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2008 .................................................................................................................... 16 Table 7. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RF AI Scores Downstream (TRM 292.5) and Upstream (TRM 295.9) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2009 .................................................................................................................... 20 Table 8. Summary of RF AI Scores from Sites Located Directly Upstream and Downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant as Well as Scores from Sampling Conducted During 1993-2009 as Part of the Vital Signs Monitoring Program in Wheeler Reservoir ............................................................................................................ 25 List of Figures Figure 1. Location of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant and Condenser Cooling Water (CCW) intake and discharge. Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant is located on the north shore of Wheeler Reservoir at Tennessee River Mile 294 ............................................... 26 Figure 2. Weekly estimate of total fish impinged at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, September 2007 through August 2008 (Year 1) and September 2008 through August 2009 (Year 2) ........................................................................................................ 27 AM&M BFN ccw CWA EA EPA EPRI GPM MSL MW PF List of Acronyms and Abbreviations Aquatic Monitoring and Management Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Condenser Cooling Water Clean Water Act Equivalent Adult Environmental Protection Agency Formerly the Electric Power Research Institute Gallons Per Minute Mean Sea Level Megawatt Production Foregone ii Introduction Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) is a three unit nuclear-fueled facility located on Wheeler Reservoir in Limestone County, Alabama. Currently, all three units are in operation. Unit 1 was shutdown in 1985 and was returned to service in June 2007. Three condenser cooling water (CCW) pumps associated with Unit 1 are now in operation in addition to the CCW pumps used for Units 2 and 3. BFN's current operation utilizes a once-through CCW system, withdrawing water from the Tennessee River through an intake structure and discharging the water through diffuser pipes located downstream from the plant. This process is regulated by BFN's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit, AL0022080, and is subject to compliance with the federal Clean Water Act (CWA). Section 316(b) of the CWA requires the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures to reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impacts. A potential impact associated with cooling water intake structures is impingement of aquatic organisms. Impingement occurs when fish and shellfish are trapped against intake screens by the force of cooling water withdrawal. Impingement data related to the operation of Units 2 and 3 were collected during 2003 and 2004 to update baseline data so that potential impingement impacts from increased CCW demand after the restart of Unit 1 could be more accurately assessed (Baxter et al., 2006). Additional impingement data was collected to assess impingement rates associated with the CCW withdrawal for the operation of three units. Impingement monitoring began in September 2007 and continued weekly for two years. This report presents impingement data collected from the CCW intake screens during September 2007 through September 2009. Plant Description BFN is located at Tennessee River Kilometer 473 (Tennessee River Mile 294) on the north shore (right descending bank) of Wheeler Reservoir (Figure 1). The three units (boiling water reactors) each have a nameplate rating of 1,100 megawatts (MW). Units Two and Three were uprated in 1997 and 1998 and Unit One in 2007, resulting in an increase of 1280MW for each unit. The uprate was accomplished without additional increase in CCW demand. Six mechanical draft cooling towers enable BFN to operate in either open or helper mode. The CCW intake channel extends approximately 152 m (500 ft) from the intake structure to the skimmer wall. The skimmer wall is a 66 m (218 ft) long concrete and steel structure positioned across the entrance of the intake channel. Water is drawn into the intake channel through the lower portion of the wall through three 12 m (40 ft) wide sections, enabling BFN to withdraw cooler water from the lower stratum. The three open sections have movable gates with bottom elevations that can vary between 161 m (527 ft) mean sea level (msl) and 167 m (547 ft) msl. Actual water depth in the channel varies based on reservoir elevations: the normal minimum pool elevation is 168 m (550 ft) msl and normal maximum pool elevation is 169 m (556 ft) msl. The CCW pumping station is comprised of a concrete pumping structure 71 m (232 ft) long by 36 m (117 ft) wide and 14 m (47 ft) high. The bottom elevation of the pumping station is 158 m (517 ft) msl. Each unit has three CCW pumps. Each pump has a design flow rate of220,000 gallons per minute (gpm), giving a design intake flow of 660,000 gpm per unit. The pumps are installed in separate pump bays that are each covered by two trashracks and two traveling screens. The screens are each 2.3 m (7.5 ft) wide with mesh openings of 9.5 mm (3/8 in). The design through screen velocity is 2.0 feet per second at normal minimum pool and 1.64 feet per second at normal high pool. The CCW pumps can operate in parallel for each unit. However, if one pump is out of service, the two remaining pumps will deliver sufficient flow for full-load operation but with a higher turbine backpressure. The traveling screens and screen wash system can be operated automatically or manually. Differential pressure across each pair of traveling screens for a given CCW pump is monitored. When operating the system in the automatic mode, the screen wash pump is started when a preset differential pressure of water is reached across any of the three pairs of screens. When a preset pressure is established at the screen wash nozzles, the screen motors are automatically started and the screens are washed. In either manual or automatic mode, the pump and screens run until manually stopped. Methods Impingement data presented in this report is from weekly samples collected from September 12, 2007 through September 9, 2009. At BFN, a continuous backwash is utilized to remove fish and debris from the traveling screens. This backwash sends fish and debris back to Wheeler Reservoir through a sluice pipe. A catch basket constructed of 9.5 mm (3/8-in) mesh is located at the end of the sluice pipe and is moved into place to catch fish during sampling periods. Weekly, impingement sampling is conducted in six hour intervals during a twenty-four hour period to ensure that any diel variations in fish impingement could be detected. After the Aquatic Monitoring and Management (AM&M) crew removes the sample from the basket during each sampling period, fish are sorted from debris, identified, separated into 25 mm (1 in) length classes, enumerated, and weighed. Any fish collected alive are returned to the reservoir after processing. Incidental numbers of fish which appeared to have been dead for more than 24 hours (i.e., exhibiting pale gills, cloudy eyes, fungus, or partial decomposition) are not included in the sample. Data recorded by one member of the AM&M crew is checked and verified (signed) by the other for quality control. Quality Assurance/Quality Control procedures for impingement sampling (TV A 2004) are followed to ensure samples compare with historical impingement mortality data. Data Analysis Estimated annual impingement was calculated by extrapolating impingement rates from weekly samples (24-hr sample x 7 x 52). To facilitate the implementation of and compliance with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations for Section 316(b) of the CWA (Federal Register Vol. 69, No. 131; July 9, 2004), prior to its suspension by EPA, fish lost to impingement were evaluated by extrapolating the losses to equivalent reductions of adult fish, or of biomass production available to predators in the case of forage species. EPRI (formerly the Electric Power Research Institute) has identified two models for extrapolating losses of juvenile fish at intake structures to numbers or production of older fish (Barnthouse 2004). The Equivalent Adult (EA) model quantifies impingement losses in terms of the number of fish that would have survived to a given future age. The Production Foregone (PF) model was applied to forage fish species to quantify the loss from impingement in terms of potential forage available for consumption by predators. These models were used to determine the "biological liability" of the CCW intake structure based on the EPA guidance developed under the suspended rule. Fish Community Assessment Prior to 2000, the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) was operating under a 316(a) Alternative Thermal Limit (ATL) that had been continued with each permit renewal based on studies conducted in the mid-1970s. In 1999, EPA Region IV began requesting additional data in conjunction with NPDES permit renewal applications to verify that BIP was being maintained at TV A's thermal plants with A TLs. TV A proposed that its existing Vital Signs (VS) monitoring program, supplemented with additional fish and benthic macroinvertebrate community monitoring upstream and downstream of thermal plants with ATLs, was appropriate for that purpose. The VS monitoring program began in 1990 in the Tennessee River System. This program was implemented to evaluate ecological health conditions in major reservoirs as part of TV A's stewardship role. One of the 5 indicators used in the VS program to evaluate reservoir health is the Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index (RF AI) methodology. RF AI has been thoroughly tested on TV A and other reservoirs and published in peer-reviewed literature (Jennings, et al., 1995; Hickman and McDonough, 1996; McDonough and Hickman, 1999). TV A initiated a study to evaluate fish communities in areas immediately upstream and downstream ofBFN during 2000-2009 using RFAI and RBI multi-metric evaluation techniques. This report presents the results and comparisons of autumn RF AI data collected upstream and downstream ofBFN during autumn 2000-2009 (Shaffer et al. 2010). Results and Discussion Weekly impingement sampling at BFN from September 12, 2007 through September 9, 2009, resulted in collection of 3,983,438 fish, comprising 46 species (Table 1). During Year One of the study (September 2007 through September 2008), 2,810,778 fish representing 46 species were collected. Of these, 2,731,184 threadfin shad were impinged representing 97% of the total fish collected. During Year Two (September 2008 through September 2009), samples included 1,172,660 fish (43 species) were collected and included 92% (1,074,676) threadfin shad. Threadfin shad were predominant in the samples (96%) for both years combined, followed by gizzard shad (2%), yellow bass, freshwater drum and bluegill (0.1 % each). All other species contributed less than 1 % of the total number of fish impinged. The rate of impingement was highest during November through January (87%) both years (Table 2, Figure 2). The sample collected on January 2 and 3, 2008 contained 1,684,003 fish (99.1 % threadfin shad) and comprised 60% of the total fish collected during Year One. Low ambient water temperatures caused by a cold front during this period caused the high numbers of threadfin shad upstream of BFN to become lethargic from thermal shock to be drawn into the intake and impinged on the traveling screens. This extensive impingement resulted in damage to several traveling screens and a power reduction event which was documented in TV A's Performance Evaluation Report (PER) #135963. The second highest number impinged during Year One was 391,375 on week four of November 2007 (Table 3, Figure 2). Peak impingement during Year Two was recorded during week three of November (208,051) and week two of December (206,874), 2007. Annual extrapolated estimates of numbers impinged and corresponding biomass including the average for both years are compared by species and year in Table 4. Estimated impingement (numbers and biomass) during Year One (19,675,446 fish) was over twice that recorded for Year Two (8,208,620). The impingement of thermally shocked threadfin shad observed on January 2 and 3, 2008 was the primary reason for this difference between years. Relatively similar numbers of gizzard shad and freshwater drum were impinged both years. Application of the EA and PF models to the estimated number impinged annually resulted in reduced numbers offish (520,309 during Year One and 318,226 during Year Two) which would have been expected to survive to either harvestable size/age or to provide forage (Table 5). This reduced number is considered the "biological liability" resulting from plant CCW impingement mortality based on the guidance developed for the now suspended 316(b) regulations. Historical impingement monitoring at BFN conducted during 2003 and 2004 with two units operating estimated an annual impingement of 8.1 million fish. Fish Community Assessment-RFAI In 2008, fish community RF AI scores of 45 ("Good") and 42 ("Good") were observed at the stations downstream and upstream ofBFN respectively (Table 6). Both sites met BIP screening criteria, were within the 6 point range of acceptable variation and were therefore, considered similar. In 2009, fish community RFAI scores of36 ("Fair") and 39 ("Fair") were observed at the downstream and upstream stations, respectively (Table 7). However, both sites were within the 6-point range of acceptable variation and were considered similar. Average scores for 2000-2009 were 41 for both the upstream and downstream sites (Table 8). Summary and Conclusions Impingement monitoring conducted at BFN during September 2007 through September 2009 collected 3,983,438 fish representing 46 species. Threadfin shad dominated the samples comprising 96% during the two years, combined. Gizzard shad (two percent) were next in abundance followed by yellow bass, freshwater drum and bluegill. Seasonal impingement was highest (87%) during "November through January both years. Higher impingement during this period is attributed to large numbers of threadfin shad drawn into the plant CCW intake as a result of cold or thermal shock. Extrapolated estimates of numbers impinged were over twice as high (19,675,446) during the first year than estimated for Year Two (8,208,620). This difference was primarily the result of one sample in January, 2008 containing 1,684,003 fish (99.1 % threadfin shad). Equivalent Adult and Production Foregone models were applied to the numbers impinged and resulted in reduced numbers of fish or "biological liability" of 520,309 during Year One and 318,226 during Year Two. When the models were applied a second time using an average number of threadfin shad impinged for the anomalous January 2008 sample, the resulting losses to impingement were reduced to 254,509 for Year One. The numbers of fish impinged at BFN are not considered detrimental to the fish community in Wheeler Reservoir. Fish community or RF AI monitoring during autumn 2008 and 2009 upstream and downstream of BFN resulted in scores rated "Good" in 2008 and "Fair" during 2009. Scores between sites both years were within the acceptable range of variation and were therefore considered similar which suggests no effect from the operation of BFN to the downstream fish community. References Barnthouse, L. W. 2004. Extrapolating Impingement and Entrainment Losses to Equivalent Adults and Production Foregone. EPRI Report 1008471, July 2004. Baxter, D.S., J.P. Buchanan, and L.K. Kay. 2006. Effects of condenser cooling water withdrawal on the fish community near the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant intake. Tennessee Valley Authority, Aquatic Monitoring and Management, Knoxville, Tennessee. 46 pp. EPA. 2004. NP DES -Final Regulations to Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures at Phase II Existing Facilities; Final Rule. 69 FR No. 131, July 9, 2004. Federal Register Vol. 69, No. 131; July 9, 2004 McDonough, T.A. and G.D. Hickman. 1999. Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index development: A tool for assessing ecological health in Tennessee Valley Authority impoundments. In: Assessing the sustainability and biological integrity of water resources using fish communities. Simon, T. (Ed.) CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 523-540. Shaffer, G.P., J.W. Simmons, and D.S. Baxter. 2010. Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River Near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge Autumn and Spring 2009. Tennessee Valley Authority, Aquatic Monitoring and Management, Knoxville, Tennessee. 78 pp. Tennessee Valley Authority. 1978. Biological Effects oflntake Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. Volume 4: Effects of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Cooling Water Intake on the Fish Populations of Wheeler Reservoir. Division of Forestry, Fisheries, and Wildlife Development, Fisheries and Waterfowl Resources Branch. January, 1978 Tennessee Valley Authority. 2004. Impingement Counts. Quality Assurance Procedure No. RSO&E-BR-23.11, Rev 1. TVA River Systems Operation and Environment, Aquatic Monitoring and Management Knoxville TN. 11 pp.

• Tennessee Valley Authority. 2009. Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River Near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge.

Table 1. List of Fish Species by Family, Scientific, and Common Name Including Numbers Collected in Impingement Samples During September 12, 2007 through September 3, 2008 and September 10, 2008 and September 9, 2009 at Browns Ferr! Nuclear Plant. Total Number Impinged Family Scientific Name Common Name Year One Year Two Petromyzontidae /chthyomyzon castaneus Chestnut lamprey 4 2 Lepisosteidae Lepisosteus osseus Longnose gar 0 3 Lepisosteus oculatus Spotted gar 16 36 Hiodontidae Hiodon tergisus Moon eye 4 0 Clupeidae Dorosoma cepedianum Gizzard shad 34,015 54,678 Alosa chrysochloris Skipjack herring 54 21 Dorosoma petenense Threadfin shad 2,731,184 1,074,676 Alosa pseudoharengus Alewife 122 1,622 Cyprinidae Pimephales vigilax Bullhead minnow 1,622 197 Pimephales notatus Bluntnose minnow 10 0 Notropis atherinoides Emerald shiner 21 2 Notemigonus cryso/eucas Golden Shiner 25 65 Cyprinella spiloptera Spotfin shiner 5 0 Luxilus chrysocephalus Striped shiner 5 2 Cyprinus carpio Common carp 23 74 Catostomidae /ctiobus bubalus Smallmouth buffalo 2 2 /ctiobus niger Black buffalo 4 0 Moxostoma erythrurum Golden redhorse 1 0 Hypentelium nigricans Northern hogsucker 6 23 Carpiodes cyprinus Quill back 0 3 Minytrema melanops Spotted sucker 516 735 Ictaluridae /ctalurus farcatus Blue catfish 516 735 /ctalurus punctatus Channel catfish 2,907 2,565 Pylodictis olivaris Flathead catfish 46 23 Ameiurus nebulosus Brown bullhead 0 13 Ameiurus me/as Black bullhead 3 0 ,, Atherinopsidae Labidesthes siccu/us Brook silverside 13 0 Menidia beryl/ina Inland Silverside 40 1,798 Belonidae Strongylura marina Atlantic needlefish 38 11 Moronidae Marone chrysops White bass 535 255 Marone mississippiensis Yellow bass 9,280 15,657 Marone saxatilis Striped bass 7 8 Marone saxatilis x M chrysops Hybrid striped bass 13 5 Centrarchidae Leeomis macrochirus Bluegill 15,132 5,565 Table 1. (continued) Total Number Impinged Family Scientific Name Common Name Year One Year Two Centrarchidae Lepomis auritus Redbreast sunfish 0 58 Lepomis microlophus Redear sunfish 4,160 534 Lepomis gulosus Warmouth 14 106 Lepomis humilis Orangespotted sunfish 370 959 Lepomis cyanellus Green sunfish 35 270 Lepomis megalotis Longear sunfish 132 174 Hybrid sunfish 1 0 Micropterus dolomieu Smallmouth bass 2 4 Micropterus salmoides Largemouth bass 78 73 Micropterus punctulatus Spotted bass 79 72 Pomoxis annularis White crappie 197 693 Pomoxis nigromaculatus Black crappie 20 2 Percidae Sander canadense Sauger 14 5 Perea flavescens Yellow perch 512 212 Percina caprodes Logperch 523 211 Percina shumardi River darter 0 3 Sciaenidae Aplodinotus grunniens Freshwater drum 9,483 11,426 Total Number of Fish 2,810,778 1,172,660 Total Number of Fish Species 46 43 Number of Sample Days 52 53 Table 2. Number of fish impinged by month and percent of annual total during September, 2007 through September, 2009. Total Number of Fish Number of Fish Impinged 2007-2008 Percent of Impinged 2008-2009 Percent of Years 1 and Percent of Two-Month (Year 1) Annual Total (Year 2) Annual Total 2 Combined Year Total Jan 12,051,564 61 1,166,907 14 13,218,471 47 Feb 556,703 3 142,702 2 699,405 3 Mar 220,136 1 211,918 3 432,054 2 Apr 274,302 1 91,021 1 365,323 1 May 183,197 1 4,438 0 187,635 1 Jun 23,912 0 7,399 0 31,311 0 Jul 24,570 0 25,186 0 49,756 0 Aug 279,706 1 4,256 0 283,962 1 Sep 127,169 1 58,695 1 185,864 1 Oct 664,783 3 556,395 7 1,221,178 4 Nov 3,025,932 15 2,040,311 25 5,066,243 18 Dec 2,243,472 11 3,899,392 48 6,142,864 22 Total 19,675,446 8,208,620 27,884,066 Table 3. Comparison of estimated weekly fish impingement at TV A's Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant during 2007 and 2008. Sept Oct Nov Dec Year 1 Year2 Year 1 Year2 Year 1 Year2 Year 1 Year2 Week 1 9120 3881 4648 4304 72693 17S411 Week2 lOSO 2494 7900 34764 13330 6119 116023 206874 Week3 2218 4012 2321S S892 22923 208051 84264 77367 Week4 6144 180S 23334 3834 . 39137S 72999 47S16 97404 Weeks 31400 31114 Jan Feb March* April Year 1 Year2 Year 1 Year2 Year 1 Year2 Year 1 Year2 Week 1 1684003 4S6S8 4162 7478 S820 4121 786S 9810 Week2 11410 89S12 2S196 S439 . 6506 5274 14337 1309 Week3 12693 16101 26393 S216 7904 1SS71. Sl36 1718 Week4 399S S716 23778 22S3 11218 S308 290S 166 Weeks 95Sl 9714 8943 0 Ma}'. June July Aug Year 1 'Year 2 Year 1 Year2 Year 1 Year2 Year 1 Year2 Week 1 19708 141 1019 92 861 616 1824 23 Week2 4006 34S 807 280 612 0 1937 10 Week3 1469 128 747 206 400 1322 1468 148 Week4 988 20 843 479 S19 47S 34729 427 Weeks 1118 118S Table 4. Annual extrapolated estimates of numbers and biomass of fish impinged by species and year at Watts Bar Nuclear Plant during September 2007 through September 2009. Estimated Number Estimated Biomass {g) 9/12/2007 -9/10/2008 -9/12/2007 -9/10/2008 -Percent Composition Srecies 9/03/2008 9/09/2009 Average 9/03/2008 910912009 Average Threadfin Shad 19,118,288 7,522,732 13,320,510 52,372,460 25,157,615 38,765,038 96 Gizzard Shad 238,105 382,746 310,426 8,348,508 7,366,639 7,857,574 2 Yellow Bass 64,960 109,599 87,280 1,528,870 2,181,942 1,855,406 1 Freshwater Drum 66,381 79,982 73,182 4,842,915 5,830,720 5,336,818 1 Bluegill 105,924 38,955 72,440 580,223 435,358 507,791 1 Channel Catfish 20,349 17,955 19,152 948,367 1,082,508 1,015,438 T Redear Sunfish 29,120 3,738 16,429 183,232 140,707 161,970 T Inland Silverside 280 12,586 6,433 1,218 66,010 33,614 T Bullhead Minnow 11,354 1,379 6,367 67,130 5,369 36,250 T Alewife 854 11,354 6,104 6,748 116,095 61,422 T Orangespotted Sunfish 2,590 6,713 4,652 12,509 16,506 14,508 T Blue Catfish 3,612 5,145 4,379 321,951 267,337 294,644 T White Crappie 1,379 4,851 3,115 75,775 149,205 112,490 T White Bass 3,745 1,785 2,765 713,489 462,112 587,801 T Logperch 3,661 1,477 2,569 21,280 14,203 17,742 T Longear Sunfish 924 1,218 1,071 8,834 11,004 9,919 T Green Sunfish 245 1,890 1,068 3,570 7,630 5,600 T Largemouth Bass 546 511 529 68,054 92,491 80,273 T Spotted Bass 553 504 529 50,918 43,491 47,205 T Warmouth 98 742 420 1,799 9,184 5,492 T Common Carp 161 518 340 770 5,068 2,919 T Golden Shiner 175 455 315 1,960 6,503 4,232 T Skipjack Herring 378 147 263 183,015 30,254 106,635 T Flathead Catfish 322 161 242 80,227 22,876 51,552 T Redbreast Sunfish 0 406 203 0 2,513 1,257 T Spotted Gar 112 252 182 215,719 354,508 285,114 T Atlantic Needlefish 266 77 172 23,737 4,501 14,119 T Northern Hog Sucker 42 161 102 441 4,879 2,660 T Table 4. (continued) Estimated Number Estimated Biomass {g) 9/1212007 -9/10/2008 -9/12/2007 -9/10/2008 -Percent Composition 9/03/2008 910912009 Average 9/03/2008 910912009 Average b:yNumber Yellow Perch 84 84 84 728 1,323 1,026 T Emerald Shiner 147 14 81 1,211 168 690 T Black Crappie 140 14 77 8,834 252 4,543 T Sauger 98 35 67 46,858 16,114 31,486 T Hybrid Striped Bass 91 35 63 58,023 371 29,197 T Spotted Sucker 0 126 63 0 41,503 20,752 T Striped Bass 49 56 53 26,523 399 13,461 T Brook Silverside 91 0 46 308 0 154 T Brown Bullhead 0 91 46 0 525 263 T Bluntnose Minnow 70 0 35 252 0 126 T River Darter 35 14 25 35 56 46 T Striped Shiner 35 14 25 294 56 175 T Chestnut Lamprey 28 14 21 1,365 532 949 T Smallmouth Bass 14 28 21 6,986 119 3,553 T Spotfin Shiner 35 0 18 259 0 130 T Black Buffalo 28 0 14 11,550 0 5,775 T Mooneye 28 0 14 9,702 0 4,851 T Smallmouth Buffalo 14 14 14 4,774 7,588 6,181 T Black Bullhead 21 0 11 203 0 102 T Longnose Gar 0 21 11 0 60,214 30,107 T Quill back 0 21 11 0 27,727 13,864 T Golden Redhorse 7 0 4 4,900 0 2,450 T Hybrid Sunfish 7 0 4 7 0 4 T Table 5. Extrapolated annual numbers of fish impinged at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant September 2007 through August 2008 and September 2008 through August 2009. Also included are numbers of fish for which TV A is liable after EA and PF reduction. Extrapolated Annual Number of fish Impinged Number Liable for after EA & PF Reduction Year 1 2007-2008 19,675,446 520,309 Year2 2008-2009 8,208,620 318,226 Table 6. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RFAI Scores Downstream (TRM 292.5) and Upstream (TRM 295.9) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2008. Autumn 2008 TRM 292.5 TRM 295.9 Metric A. Species richness and composition 1. Number of indigenous species 2. Number of centrarchid species (less Micropterus) 3. Number ofbenthic invertivore species 4. Number of intolerant species Obs 28 species 6 species Green sunfish Bluegill Longear sunfish Warmouth Black crappie Redear sunfish 5 species Spotted sucker Black redhorse Golden redhorse Freshwater drum Logperch 5 species Spotted sucker Skipjack herring Black redhorse Longear sunfish Smallmouth bass Score 3 5 3 5 Obs 28 species 7 species Green sunfish Bluegill Longear sunfish Warmouth Redear sunfish White crappie Black crappie 4 species Spotted sucker Northern hog sucker Freshwater drum Logperch 5 species Spotted sucker Northern hog sucker Skipjack herring Longear sunfish Smallmouth bass Score 3 5 3 5 Table 6. (Continued) Autumn 2008 TRM292.5 TRM295.9 Metric Obs Score Obs Score 5. Percent tolerant individuals Electro fishing 37.4% 50.6% Bluegill 10.3% Bluegill 8.2% Gizzard shad 31. 7% Gizzard shad 19.3% Common carp 0.3% Largemouth bass 7.2% 1.5 Largemouth bass 9.4% 1.5 Spotfin shiner 0.2% Spotfin shiner 0.2% Green sunfish 0.3% Golden shiner 0.2% Green sunfish 0.4% Gill Netting 32.1% 23.6% Gizzard shad 12.3% Gizzard shad 14.1% Common carp 0.5% Common carp 0.5% 1.5 Bluegill 3.2% 0.5 Largemouth bass 7.0% Bluegill 1.0% Longnose gar 4.8% Largemouth bass 8.0% Golden shiner 2. 7% White crappie 1.6% 6. Percent dominance by one species Electro fishing 52.7% 31.7% Inland silver.side 1.5 Gizzard shad 1.5 Gill Netting 28.6% 19.8% White bass 1.5 Channel catfish 1.5 7. Percent non-indigenous species Electro fishing 29.5% 52.7% 0.5 Inland silverside 29.0% 0.5 Inland silverside 52.7% Atlantic needlefish 0.1 % Common carp 0 .3 % Gill Netting 0.5% 1.6% Common carp 0.5% 2.5 Common carp 0.5% 1.5 Striped bass 1.1 % Table 6. (Continued) Autumn 2008 TRM292.5 TRM295.9 Metric Obs Score Obs Score 8. Number of top carnivore species 10 species 11 species Spotted gar Longnose gar Largemouth bass Spotted gar Spotted bass Largemouth bass Smallmouth bass Spotted bass Skipjack herring 5 Smallmouth bass 5 Flathead catfish Skipjack herring White bass Flathead catfish Yellow bass White bass Black crappie Yellow bass Sauger Black crappie White crappie B. Trophic composition 9. Percent top carnivores Electro fishing 8.5% 12.6% Largemouth bass 7.2% Largemouth bass 9.4% Spotted bass 0.2% Spotted bass 0. 7% Smallmouth bass 1.0% Smallmouth bass 0.7% Flathead catfish.0.06% 1.5 Flathead catfish 0.3% 2.5 White bass 0.2% Yellow bass 1.0% Spotted gar 0.2% Gill Netting 61.3% 39.6% Spotted gar 0.5% Longnose gar 4.8% Largemouth bass 8.0% Largemouth bass 7.0% Spotted bass 1.0% Spotted bass 1.6% Skipjack herring 15.6% 2.5 Skipjack herring 1.6% 2.5 Flathead catfish 4.5% Flathead catfish 2.1 % White bass 28.6% White bass 14.0% Yellow bass 1.5% Yellow bass 5.3% Black crappie 0.5% White crappie 1.6% Sauger 1.0% Black crappie 0.5% Table 6. (Continued) Autumn 2008 TRM292.5 TRM295.9 Metric Obs Score Obs Score 10. Percent omnivores Electrofishing 20.7% 38.5% Gizzard shad 19 .3 % Gizzard shad 31. 7% 2.5 Channel catfish 5.8% 1.5 Channel catfish 1.2% Smallmouth buffalo 0.4% Blue catfish 0.2% Common carp 0.3% Golden shiner 0.2% Gill Netting 26.6% 44.4% Gizzard shad 14.1 % Gizzard shad 12.3% Blue catfish 6.0% 1.5 Blue catfish 5.3% 0.5 Channel catfish 3 .5% Channel catfish 19.8% Smallmouth buffalo 2.0% Golden shiner 2.7% Black buffalo 0.5% Smallmouth buffalo 3. 7% Common carp 0.5% Common carp 0.5% C. Fish abundance and health 11. Average number per run Electro fishing 112.2 0.5 59.9 0.5 Gill Netting 19.9 1.5 18.7 1.5 12. Percent anomalies Electrofishing 0.4% 2.5 1% 2.5 Gill Netting 0.5% 2.5 0.5% 2.5 Overall RFAI Score 45 42 Good Good Table 7. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RFAI Scores Downstream (TRM 292.5) and Upstream (TRM 295.9) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2009. Autumn 2009 Metric A. Species richness and composition 1. Number of indigenous species (Tables 7 and 8) 2. Number of centrarchid species (less Micropterus) 3. Number of benthic invertivore species 4. Number of intolerant species TRM292.5 Obs 27 7 Black crappie Bluegill Green sunfish Longear sunfish Redbreast sunfish Redear sunfish Warmouth 3 Freshwater drum Golden redhorse Logperch 3 Longear sunfish Skipjack herring Smallmouth bass TRM295.9 Score Obs Score 3 26 6 Black crappie Bluegill Green sunfish 5 Longear sunfish Redear sunfish Warmouth 4 Black redhorse 1 Freshwater drum Golden redhorse Spotted sucker 5 Black redhorse 3 Longear sunfish Skipjack herring Smallmouth bass Spotted sucker 3 5 3 5 Table 7. (Continued) Autumn 2009 TRM292.5 TRM295.9 Metric Obs Score Obs Score 5. Percent tolerant individuals Electro fishing 40.9% 43.1% Bluegill 5.67% Bluegill 5.30% Bluntnose minnow 0.07% Common carp 0.18% Common carp 0.07% Gizzard shad 26.97% Gizzard shad 24.93% Golden shiner 0.46% Golden shiner 0.07% 1.5 Green sunfish 0.73% 1.5 Green sunfish 1.00% Largemouth bass 9.05% Largemouth bass 7.07% Spotfin shiner 0.46% Redbreast sunfish 0.07% Spotfin shiner 1.93% Gill Netting 45.7% 30.5% Bluegill 4.35% Common carp 3.39% Gizzard shad 39.13% 0.5 Gizzard shad 23.73% 0.5 Largemouth bass 2.1 7% White sucker 3.39% 6. Percent dominance by one species Electro fishing 42.6% 35.6% Inland silverside 1.5 Inland silverside 1.5 Gill Netting 39.1% 23.7% Gizzard shad 0.5 Gizzard shad 1.5 Table 7. (Continued) Autumn 2009 TRM292.5 TRM295.9 Metric Obs Score Obs Score 7. Percent non-indigenous species Electro fishing 42.7% 35.8% Common carp 0.07% Common carp 0.18% Inland silverside 42.60% 0.5 Inland silverside 35.56% 0.5 Striped bass 0.09% Gill Netting 0.0% 3.4% 2.5 Common carp 3.39% 0.5 8. Number of top carnivore species 9 9 Black crappie Black crappie Flathead catfish Flathead catfish Largemouth bass Largemouth bass Skipjack herring 5 Skipjack herring 5 Smallmouth bass Smallmouth bass Spotted bass Spotted bass Spotted gar Spotted gar White bass White bass Yellow bass Yellow bass B. Trophic composition 9. Percent top carnivores Electrofishing 11.5% 14.4% Black crappie 0.07% Black crappie 0.09% Flathead catfish 0.27% Flathead catfish 1.28% Largemouth bass 7 .07% Largemouth bass 9.05% Smallmouth bass 3.73% 2.5 Smallmouth bass 0.18% 2.5 White bass 0.07% Spotted bass 0.46% Yellow bass 0.27% Spotted gar 0.46% Striped bass 0.09% Yellow bass 2.83% Table 7. (Continued) Autumn 2009 TRM292.5 TRM295.9 Metric Obs Score Obs Score Gill Netting 32.6% 30.5% Flathead catfish 6.52% Black crappie 1.69% Largemouth bass 2.17% Flathead catfish 1.69% Skipjack herring 2.17% Skipjack herring 8.47% Spotted bass 6.52% 1.5 Spotted bass 1.69% 1.5 Spotted gar 8.70% Spotted gar 1.69% White bass 4.35% White bass 6.78% Yellow bass 2.17% Yellow bass 8.47% 10. Percent omnivores Electro fishing 29.5% 36.8% Bluntnose minnow 0.07% Blue catfish 0.18% Channel catfish 4.20% Channel catfish 8.96% Common carp 0.07% 1.5 Common carp 0.18% 1.5 Gizzard shad 24.93% Gizzard shad 26.97% Golden shiner 0.07% Golden shiner 0.46% Smallmouth buffalo 0.20% Smallmouth buffalo 0.09% Gill Netting 56.5% 54.2% Blue catfish 4.35% Blue catfish 3.39% Channel catfish 6.52% 0.5 Channel catfish 20.34% 0.5 Gizzard shad 3 9 .13 % Common carp 3.39% Smallmouth buffalo 6.52% Gizzard shad 23.73% White sucker 3.39% Table 7. (Continued) Autumn 2009 Metric C. Fish abundance and health 11. Average number per run 12. Percent anomalies Overall RF AI Score TRM292.5 Obs Electro fishing 100.0 Gill Netting 4.6 Electro fishing 0.5% Gill Netting 0.0% TRM295.9 Score Obs Score 0.5 72.9 0.5 0.5 5.9 0.5 2.5 0.6% 2.5 2.5 0.0% 2.5 36 39 Fair Fair Table 8. Summary ofRFAI Scores from Sites Located Directly Upstream and Downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant as Well as Scores from Sampling Conducted During 1993-2009 as Part of the Vital Signs Monitoring Program in Wheeler Reservoir. Station Location 1993 1994 1995 1997 1999 1993-1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2000-2009 Average Average Inflow TRM348.0 46 48 42 48 36 44 38 42 38 44 44 42 38 38 40 40 Transition TRM295.9 43 43 35 40 30 38 41 37 43 39 43 46 41 39 42 39 41 BFN Upstream Transition BFN TRM292.5 NIA 43 40 41 43 43 36 42 42 45 36 41 Downstream Fore bay TRM277.0 52 44 49 45 42 46 41 45 44 43 45 46 49 46 47 45 Elk River ERM6.0 43 46 36 49 36 42 49 44 49 47 39 42 45 Embayment Note: No data were collected for 1996 and 1998. RFAI Scores: 12-21 ("Very Poor"), 22-31("Poor"),32-40 ("Fair"), 41-50 ("Good"), or 51-60 ("Excellent").

---

..... ............ ... X,, I \ \ ' ' \ ' ' I I ' ' ',,I \ ' ' ' BFN Downstream monitors * , /;--Intake pumping station St.a 17 (L) _/, ' Sta 1 (M) ' 1 , --Sta 16 (R) 2 , 'Ill . ./ r wa I monitor _/ ', , Sta 19(0.3 ml ) Diffusers. TRM 294.0 ' , o:.. ', ,./ . .A ' / q.v. ' ,.I(.. -' 6.r: ...... , '............ q.9&'>.',K"' ./ Overbank .... , ve51,.. >{"' Upstream moniio Overt>ank X's-' r (backup) .......... '-..., Sta 14 (LB ml u/s) ..... . ' / ' ' ,, ', ' "" ', ' ',, Main channel ' ,.. .... ' .... 'K,.. ', Upstream monitor ' ....... , ',/_ ....... __ ------....... _ -...... --..... ----.............. ..... ..... .... .... ' ' ' ' ' Figure 1. Location of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant and Condenser Cooling Water (CCW) intake and discharge. Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant is located on the north shore of Wheeler Reservoir at Tennessee River Mile 294.

12,000,000 .---------------------------------------------10,000,000 +--------------ff-----------------1 -'07-08 -'08-09 "C 8,000,000 aJ b.O c: c. E 6,000,000 +-------------.._.,__ ___________________________ _ Ill u. ro 4,000,000 +--0 aJ 2,000,000 +---------++----+-----------------------------+' ro E 2 3 4 Week Week Sept Oct Week Week Week Nov Dec Jan 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 Week Week Week Week Week Week Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Sample Week Figure 2. Weekly estimate of total fish impinged at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, September 2007 through August 2008 (Year 1) and September 2008 through August 2009 (Year 2). ATTACHMENT 8 Reference TVA. 2012a. Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River Near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2011. TVA Biological and Water Resources, Chattanooga, Tennessee. Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River Near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge Autumn 2011 July 2012 Tennessee Valley Authority Biological and Water Resources Chattanooga, Tennessee Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................. i List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. ii List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ iv Acronyms and Abbreviations ........................................................................................................ vi Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 2 Plant Description ......................................................................................................................... 3 Methods ........................................................................................................................................... 3 Fish and Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sample Locations Upstream and Downstream of BFN .... 3 Aquatic Habitat in the Vicinity of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant ................................................. 3 Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Assessment. ................................................................................... 3 River Bottom Habitat. .............................................................................................................. 4 Fish Community Sampling Methods and Data Analysis for Sites Upstream and Downstream of BFN ............................................................................................................................................. 4 Traditional Analyses ................................................................................................................ 8 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Sampling Methods and Data Analysis for Sites Upstream and Downstream of BFN .................................................................................... : ....... 9 Visual Encounter Survey (Wildlife Observations) .................................................................... 11 Thermal Plume Characterization ............................................................................................... 12 Wheeler Reservoir Flow and BFN Temperature ....................................................................... 13 Water Quality Parameters at Fish Sampling Stations during RF AI Samples ........................... 13 Results and Discussion ................................................................................................................. 13 Aquatic Habitat in the Vicinity of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant ............................................... 13 Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Assessment. ................................................................................. 13 River Bottom Habitat ............................................................................................................. 14 Aquatic Habitat Summary ..................................................................................................... 14 Fish Community ........................................................................................................................ 14 Traditional Analyses .............................................................................................................. 17 Fish Community Summary ........................................................................................................ 18 Benthic Macro invertebrate Community .................................................................................... 19 Visual Encounter Survey (Wildlife Observations) .................................................................... 24 Thermal Plume Characterization ............................................................................................... 24 Wheeler Reservoir Flow and BFN Water Temperature ............................................................ 24 Water Quality Parameters at Fish Sampling Stations during RF AI Samples ........................... 25 Literature Cited ............................................................................................................................. 27 List of Tables Table 1. Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Index (SAHI) metrics and scoring criteria .......................... 29 Table 2. Expected values for lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoir transition zone calculated from data collected from 900 electrofishing runs and 600 overnight experimental gill net sets in transition areas of lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs. This trisection is intended to show below expected(-), expected (Avg), and above expected ( +) values for trophic level proportions and species occurring within the transition zone in lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs ........................................ 30 Table 3. Average trophic guild proportions and average number of species, bound by confidence intervals (95 %), expected in lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoir transition zones. These values were calculated from data collected from 900 electrofishing runs and 600 overnight experimental gill net sets in transition areas oflower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs ................................................................................................................. 31 Table 4. RF AI scoring criteria (2002) for fish community samples in forebay, transition, and inflow sections oflower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs, which include Guntersville, Wheeler, Wilson, Pickwick, and Kentucky. Transition criteria were used to score the sites upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant.. ..................... 32 Table 5. Scoring criteria for RBI analysis ofbenthic macroinvertebrate samples, compared for the different zones of mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs and for two different sample processing strategies (lab-processing and field-processing) ............................................. 33 Table 6. SAHi scores for 16 sections of shoreline assessed within the RF AI fish community sample area upstream ofBFN, autumn 2009 .................................................................... 34 Table 7. SAHi scores for 16 sections of shoreline assessed within the RF AI fish community sample area downstream ofBFN, autumn 2009 ............................................................... 35 Table 8. Substrate percentages and average water depth (ft) per transect upstream and downstream of BFN, autumn 2009 ................................................................................... 3 6 Table 9. Individual metric scores and the overall RF AI scores downstream (TRM 292.5) and upstream (TRM 295.9) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Autumn 2011. .......................... 37 Table 10. Species collected, ecological and recreational designations, and corresponding electrofishing (EF) and gill net (GN) catch per unit effort downstream (TRM 292.5) of the BFN discharge -Autumn 2011 .................................................................................. 40 Table 11. Species collected, ecological and recreational designations, and corresponding electrofishing (EF) and gill net (GN) catch per unit effort upstream (TRM 295.9) of the BFN Plant discharge-Autumn 2011. ............ : ................................................................. 41 Table 12. Summary of RF AI scores from sites located directly upstream and downstream of BFN and scores from sampling conducted during 1993 through 2011 as part of the Vital Signs monitoring program in Wheeler Reservoir ............................................................. 42 Table 13. Spatial statistical comparisons of numbers of fish species, mean electrofishing catch per unit effort values (number/run), tolerance designations, trophic levels, and indigenous individuals, along with species richness and Simpson and Shannon diversity values, collected downstream and upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, autumn 2011 . ........................................................................................................................................... 43 11 Table 14. Individual metric ratings and the overall RBI scores (laboratory-processed) for downstream and upstream sampling sites near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Wheeler Reservoir, Autumn 2011 ................................................................................................... 44 Table 15. Metric scores and the overall RBI scores determined from field-processed criteria, for sites upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Wheeler Reservoir, Autumn 2000-2010 ........................................................................................................... 45 Table 16. Metric scores and the overall RBI scores determined from lab-processed criteria, for sites upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Wheeler Reservoir, 2001-2006 ................................................................................................................................... 47 Table 17. Mean densities ( organisms/m2) of benthic taxa collected by dredge sample along transects upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, 2011. Estimates of total mean density per sample are included ...................................................................... 48. Table 18. Field estimates of substrate composition in benthic dredge samples collected around Brown's Ferry Nuclear Plant, October 2011 .................................................................... 51 Table 19. RBI scores from data collected from 1994 through 2011 at Wheeler Reservoir inflow, transition, embayment, and fore bay sampling sites .......................................................... 52 Table 20. Wildlife observed along 2100 m transects parallel to the shoreline, upstream and downstream ofBFN, autumn 2011 ................................................................................... 53 Table 21. Water temperature (°F) profiles measured at five locations (10%, 30%, 50%, 70%, 90%) from right descending bank along transects located at TRM 296.5, TRM 294, TRM 292.4, TRM 291.2, and TRM 289.l during autumn 2011 to characterize the BFN thermal plume .............................................................................. : .................................................. 54 Table 22. Water quality parameters collected along vertical depth profiles at the downstream, midpoint, and upstream end of the RF AI sample reach downstream (TRM 292.5) and upstream (TRM 295.9) of BFN, autumn 2011. ................................................................ 55 iii List of Figures Figure 1. Location of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant on Wheeler Reservoir ................................. 56 Figure 2. Location of Condenser Cooling Water (CCW) intake and discharge at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. .................................................................................................................... 57 Figure 3. Locations ofbiomonitoring sites downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, including thermal plume resulting from BFN discharge .................................................. 5 8 Figure 4. Locations ofbiomonitoring sites upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. ............... 59 Figure 5. Locations of transects used to characterize shoreline and river bottom habitat upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. ............................................................. 60 Figure 6. Locations of water temperature monitoring stations used to compare water temperatures upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) intake and downstream of BFN discharge during October 2009 through November 2010. Station 4 was used for upstream ambient temperatures of the BFN intake and was located at TRM 297.8. Stations 1, 16, and 17 were used for temperatures downstream ofBFN discharge and were each located at TRM 293.5. This figure originated in the technical report: Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Module III, Water Temperature Monitoring ................ * .................... 61 Figure 7. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted. Transects 1 and 2 are the farthest downstream of the eight transects established downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant.. ................................................................... 62 Figure 8. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted .............................................................................................................................. 63 Figure 9. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted .............................................................................................................................. 64 Figure 10. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted .............................................................................................................................. 65 Figure 11. Substrate composition at ten spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted. Of the eight transects established upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, transects 1 and 2 are the closest to the plant. .................................................................... 66 Figure 12. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted .............................................................................................................................. 67 Figure 13. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted .............................................................................................................................. 68 Figure 14. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted .............................................................................................................................. 69 IV Figure 15. Comparison of observed values for the Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index metric "Number oflndigenous Species", over twelve years of autumn sampling at the stations upstream and downstream of Brown's Ferry Nuclear Plant. ............................................ 70 Figure 16. Percent composition, by trophic level, of fish community sampled upstream and downstream of Brown's Ferry Nuclear Plant-Autumn, 2011. ........................................ 71 Figure 17. Daily average flows from Guntersville Dam, October 2010 through November 2011, and historic daily flows for the same fiscal year period, averaged o.ver the years 1976-2010 ................................ , .................................................................................................. 72 Figure 18. Daily water temperatures averaged over depth (3, 5, and 7 feet) upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant (BFN) intake and downstream ofBFN discharge-October 2010 through November 2011 .......................................................................................... 73 Figure 19. Water temperature along vertical depth profiles at nine locations within the sampling station centered at TRM 292.5, downstream of Brown's Ferry Nuclear Power Plant, October 2011 ..................................................................................................................... 74 Figure 20. Water temperature along vertical depth profiles at nine locations within the sampling station centered at TRM 295.9, upstream of Brown's Ferry Nuclear Power Plant, October 2011 ................................................................................................................................... 75 Figure 21. Conductivity along vertical depth profiles at nine locations within the sampling station centered at TRM 292.5, downstream of Brown's Ferry Nuclear Power Plant, October 2011 ..................................................................................................................... 76 Figure 22. Conductivity along vertical depth profiles at nine locations within the sampling station centered at TRM 295.9, upstream of Brown's Ferry Nuclear Power Plant, October 2011 ................................................................................................................................... 77 Figure 23. Dissolved oxygen concentration along vertical depth profiles at nine locations within the sampling station centered at TRM 292.5, downstream of Brown's Ferry Nuclear Power Plant, October 2011 ............................................................................................... 78 Figure 24. Dissolved oxygen concentration along vertical depth profiles at nine locations within the sampling station centered at TRM 295.9, upstream of Brown's Ferry Nuclear Power Plant, October 2011 .......................................................................................................... 79 Figure 25. Level of acidity (pH) along vertical depth profiles at nine locations within the sampling station centered at TRM 292.5, downstream of Brown's Ferry Nuclear Power Plant, October 2011 .......................................................................................................... 80 Figure 26. Level of acidity (pH) along vertical depth profiles at nine locations within the sampling station centered at TRM 295.9, upstream of Brown's Ferry Nuclear Power Plant, October 2011 .......................................................................................................... 81 v ATL BIP BFN ccw CWA EPA LD NP DES QA RBI RD RFAI SAHI TRM TVA vs Acronyms and Abbreviations Alternate Thermal Limit Balanced Indigenous Population Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant Condenser Cooling Water Clean Water Act Environmental Protection Agency Left Descending (Bank) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Quality Assurance Reservoir Benthic Macroinvertebrate Index Right Descending (Bank) Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index Shoreline Assessment Habitat Index Tennessee River Mile Tennessee Valley Authority Vital Signs vi Executive Summary As required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Number AL0022080 for operation of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN), this report is an evaluation of operational aquatic monitoring at BFN conducted during autumn 2011. The primary objective of the aquatic monitoring in the vicinity ofBFN was to determine if thermal variances established for control of the thermal component of the discharges assured protection of a Balanced Indigenous Populations (BIP) of aquatic life. Biological and chemical components monitored to detect and evaluate significant effects, if any, ofBFN's thermal discharge included: fish, benthic macroinvertebrate and wildlife communities; thermal plume characterization; and various water quality parameters. Both the upstream and downstream fish communities were found to be similar and met EPA's criteria for a Balanced Indigenous Population (BIP), therefore it was concluded that the BIP was not adversely affected by thermal effluent from BFN. Sampling locations of the benthic macroinvertebrate community were modified in 2011 compared to previous years. Samples were collected upstream at the same site, but were collected at two new sites downstream ofBFN: within the thermal plume and downstream and outside of thermal plume's influence. The three sites were different in diversity and abundance oftaxa, and the most downstream site was deemed "Fair", compared to a rating of "Good" at the upstream site. It was determined that these differences were due to differences in substrate composition and not the BFN thermal effluent. A visual wildlife survey was conducted for the first time in 2011 to assess bird, reptile, and mammal populations upstream and downstream ofBFN. Turtles and a variety of birds were encountered. Based on observations, shoreline wildlife communities appeared to be similar upstream and downstream ofBFN. During the autumn 2011 monitoring period, the thermal plume extended from the discharge (TRM 294) downstream to TRM 291.2. The entire biomonitoring zone downstream of the BFN discharge was not containedwithin the 3.6°F (2°C) isopleth of the thermal plume on the sample date. Depth profiles of water temperature, conductivity, dissolved oxygen concentration, and acidity (pH) indicated that values of all these parameters were within acceptable levels both upstream and downstream ofBFN. It appears that relatively healthy fish, benthic, and wildlife communities existed downstream of the BFN thermal discharge and that the heated BFN effluent has not adversely impacted these communities. 1 Introduction Section 316(a) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) authorizes thermal variances for the control of the thermal component of a point source discharge so long as the limits will assure the protection of Balanced Indigenous Populations (BIP) of aquatic life. The term "balanced indigenous population," as defined by EPA, describes a biotic community that is typically characterized by: (1) diversity appropriate to the ecoregion; (2) the capacity to sustain itself through cyclic seasonal changes; (3) the presence of necessary food chain species; and ( 4) lack of domination by pollution-tolerant species Prior to 2000, the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) was operating under a 316(a) ATL that had been continued with each permit renewal based on studies conducted in the mid-1970s. In 1999, EPA.Region IV requested additional data in conjunction with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit renewal applications to verify that BIP was being maintained at TV A's thermal plants with thermal variances. TV A proposed that its existing Vital Signs (VS) monitoring program, supplemented with additional fish and benthic macroinvertebrate community monitoring upstream and downstream of thermal plants with thermal variances, was appropriate for that purpose. The VS monitoring program began in 1990 in the Tennessee River System. This program was implemented to evaluate ecological health conditions in major reservoirs as part of TV A's stewardship role. One of the 5 indicators used in the VS program to evaluate reservoir health is the Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index (RF Al) methodology which incorporates fish species richness and composition, trophic composition, and fish abundance and health. RF AI has been thoroughly tested on TVA and other reservoirs and published in peer-reviewed literature (Jennings et al., 1995; Hickman and McDonough, 1996; McDonough and Hickman, 1999). Fish communities are used to evaluate ecological conditions because of their importance in the aquatic food web and because fish life cycles are long enough to integrate conditions over time. Benthic macroinvertebrate populations are assessed using the Reservoir Macroinvertebrate Benthic Index (RBI) methodology. Because benthic macroinvertebrates are relatively immobile, negative impacts to aquatic ecosystems can be detected earlier in benthic macroinvertebrate communities than in fish communities. These data are used to supplement RF AI results to provide a more thorough examination of differences in aquatic communities upstream and downstream of thermal discharges. During 2000-2010, TVA conducted monitoring to evaluate fish and benthic macroinvertebrate communities in areas immediately upstream and downstream of BFN using RF AI and RBI multi-metric evaluation techniques. Monitoring was continued in 2011 and broadened to include additional data for analyses requested by the EPA. Reported here are the results of RF Al, RBI, visual wildlife observations, shoreline and river bottom habitat/substrate characterization, and water quality data collected upstream and downstream ofBFN during 2011, with comparisons to RFAI and RBI data collected at these sites during autumn 2000 through 2010. 2 Plant Description BFN is located on Wheeler Reservoir, approximately 18 miles upstream of Wheeler Dam at Tennessee River Mile (TRM) 294 in Limestone County, Alabama (Figure 1). BFN is a unit nuclear-fueled facility. Unit One, which remained idle for several years, returned to service June 2007. Current operation utilizes a once-through condenser cooling water (CCW) system, withdrawing water from the Tennessee River through an intake structure at TRM 294.3 and discharging the water through a multi-port diffuser located downstream froni the plant at TRM 293.6 (Figure 2). Maximum flow rate of the CCW is approximately 3,468 million gallons per day. Methods Fish and Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sample Locations Upstream and Downstream of BFN Thermal discharge from BFN enters the Tennessee River at TRM 293.6 in Wheeler Reservoir (Figure 2). The fish community was sampled at a station centered at TRM 292.5, downstream of the cooling water discharge (Figure 3) and at a station centered at TRM 295.9, upstream of the plant's intake (Figure 4). In previous years, benthic macroinvertebrate community data were collected along transects at two sites: TRM 291.7, downstream of the BFN discharge and TRM 295.9, upstream of the BFN intake. In 2011, samples were collected along transects at three sites. Two sites were selected downstream: one below the thermal plume at TRM 290.4, and a second at TRM 293.2, within the thermal plume from the BFN discharge (Figure 3). The third site, upstream of the plant intake, was maintained at TRM 295.9 (Figure 4). Aquatic Habitat in the Vicinity of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Shoreline and river bottom habitat data presented in this report were collected during autumn 2009; habitat will be sampled again during autumn 2012. TVA assumes habitat data to be valid for three years, barring any major changes to the river/reservoir (e.g., flood). In the event of a major change to the river/ reservoir, habitat would be re-sampled the following autumn. Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Assessment The Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Index (SAHI), which incorporates several habitat parameters important to resident fish species, was used to measure existing fish habitat quality in the vicinity of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant during autumn 2009. Using the general format developed by Plafkin et al. (1989), seven metrics were established to characterize selected physical habitat attributes important to resident fish populations, which rely heavily on the littoral (shoreline) zone for reproduction, recruitment, and prey availability (Table 1 ). Habitat Suitability Indices (US Fish and Wildlife Service), along with other sources of information on biology and habitat requirements (e.g. Etnier and Starnes 1993), were consulted to develop "reference" criteria or "expected" conditions from a high quality environment for each parameter. Some generalizations were necessary in setting up scoring criteria to cover the various requirements of all species into one index. Individual metrics were scored through comparison of observed conditions with these "reference" conditions and assigned a corresponding value: good-5; fair-3; 3 or poor-1 (Table 1 ). The scores for each metric were summed to obtain the SAHi value. The range of potential SAHi values (7-35) was trisected to provide some descriptor of habitat quality (poor 7-16, fair 17-26, and good 27-35). The quality of shoreline aquatic habitat was assessed while traveling parallel to the shoreline in a boat. Eight line-of-sight transects were established across the width of Wheeler reservoir within the BFN downstream (TRMs 290.3 to 293.7) and upstream (TRMs 294.4 to 296.8) fish community sampling stations (Figure 4). Near-shore aquatic habitat was assessed along sections of shoreline corresponding to the left descending (LDB) and right descending bank (RDB) locations for each of the eight line-of-sight transects. These individual sections (8 on the LDB and 8 on the RDB for a total of 16 shoreline assessments) were then scored using SAHi criteria. Percentages of aquatic macrophytes in the littoral areas of the 8 LDB and 8 RDB shoreline sections were also estimated. River Bottom Habitat Along each of the 8 line-of-sight transects described above (8 transects below BFN thermal discharge, 8 transects at upstream reference site; Figure 5), 10 benthic grab samples were collected with a Ponar sa)Jlpler at equally spaced points from the LDB to the RDB. Substrate material collected with the Ponar was emptied into a screen and substrate percentages were estimated to determine existing benthic habitat across the width of the river. Water depths (feet) at each sample location were recorded. If no substrate was collected after multiple Ponar drops, it was assumed that the substrate was bedrock. For example, when the Ponar sampler was pulled shut, collectors could feel substrate consistency. If it shut easily and was not embedded in the substrate on numerous drops within the same location, collectors recorded the substrate as bedrock. Fish Community Sampling Methods and Data Analysis for Sites Upstream and Downstream of BFN Fish sampling methods included boat electrofishing and gill netting (Hubert 1996; Reynolds 1996). Electrofishing methodology consisted of fifteen electrofishing boat runs near the shoreline, each 300 meters long and of approximately 15 minutes duration (Figures 2 and 3). The total near-shore area sampled was approximately 4,500 meters (15,000 feet). Experimental gill nets (so called because of their use for research as opposed to commercial fishing) were used as an additional gear type to collect fish from deeper habitats not effectively sampled by electrofishing. Each experimental gill net consists of five panels, each 6.1 meters in length, for a total length of 30.5 meters (100.l feet). The distinguishing characteristic of experimental gill nets is mesh size that varies between panels. For this application, each net has panels with mesh sizes of2.5, 5.1, 7.6, 10.2, and 12.7 cm. Experimental gill nets are typically set perpendicular to river flow, extending from near-shore toward the main channel of the reservoir. Ten overnight experimental gill net sets were used at each sampling station (Figures 2 and 3). Fish collected were identified by species, counted, and examined for anomalies (such as disease, deformations, parasites, or hybridization). The resulting data were analyzed using RF AI methodology. 4 The RF AI uses 12 fish community metrics from four general categories: Species Richness and Composition; Trophic Composition; Abundance; and Fish Health. Individual species can be utilized for more than one metric. Together, these 12 metrics provide a balanced evaluation of fish community integrity. The individual metrics are described below, grouped by category: Species Richness and Composition (1) Total number of species --Greater numbers of species are considered to be representative of healthier aquatic ecosystems. As conditions degrade, numbers of species at an area decline. (2) Number of centrarchid species --Sunfish species (excluding black basses) are invertivores and a high diversity of this group is indicative of reduced siltation and suitable sediment quality in littoral areas. (3) Number of benthic invertivore species --Due to the special dietary requirements of this species group and the limitations of their food source in degraded environments, numbers of benthic invertivore species increase with better environmental quality. (4) Number of intolerant species --A group comprised of species that are particularly intolerant of physical, chemical, and thermal habitat degradation. Higher numbers of intolerant species suggest the presence of fewer environmental stressors. (5) Percentage of tolerant individuals (excluding young-of-year) --A metric that signifies poorer water quality with increasing proportions of individuals tolerant of degraded conditions. (6) Percent dominance by one species --Ecological quality is considered reduced if one species inordinately dominates the resident fish community. (7) Percentage of non-indigenous species --Based on the assumption that non-indigenous species reduce the quality of resident fish communities. (8) Number of top carnivore species --Higher diversity of piscivores is indicative of the availability of diverse and plentiful forage species and the presence of suitable habitat. Trophic Composition (9) Percentage of individuals as top carnivores --A measure of the functional aspect of top carnivores which feed on major planktivore populations. (10) Percentage of individuals as omnivores --. Omnivores are less sensitive to environmental stresses due to their ability to vary their diets. As trophic links are disrupted due to degraded conditions, specialist species such as insectivores decline while opportunistic omnivorous species increase in relative abundance. 5 Abundance (11) Average number per run --(number of individuals) --A metric based on the assumption that high quality fish assemblages support large numbers of individuals. Fish Health (12) Percentage of individuals with anomalies --Occurrence of diseases, lesions, tumors, external parasites, deformities, blindness, and natural hybridization is noted. A higher proportion of individuals exhibiting such conditions is representative of poor environmental conditions. RF AI methodology addresses all four attributes or characteristics of a "balanced indigenous population" (BIP) defined by the CWA, as described below: (1) A biotic community characterized by diversity appropriate to the ecoregion: Diversity is addressed by the metrics in the Species Richness and Composition category, especially metric 1 -"Number of indigenous species." Determination of reference conditions based on the transition zones of lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs (as described below) ensures appropriate species expectations for the ecoregion. (2) The capacity for the community to sustain itself through cyclic seasonal change: TV A uses an autumn data collection period for biological indicators, both VS and upstream/downstream monitoring. Autumn monitoring is used to document community condition or health after being subjected to the wide variety of stressors throughout the year. One of the main benefits of using biological indicators is their ability to integrate stressors through time. Examining the condition or health of a community at the end of the "biological year" (i.e., autumn) provides insight into how well the community has dealt with the stresses through an annual seasonal cycle. Likewise, evaluation of the condition of individuals in the community (in this case, individual fish as reflected in Metric 12) provides insight into how well the community can be expected to withstand stressors through winter. Further, multiple sampling years during the permit renewal cycle add to the evidence of whether or not the autumn monitoring approach has correctly demonstrated the ability of the community to sustain itself through repeated seasonal changes. (3) The presence of necessary food chain species: Three dominant fish trophic levels exist within Tennessee River reservoirs: insectivores; omnivores, and top carnivores. To determine the presence of necessary food chain species, these three groups should be well represented within the overall fish community. Other fish trophic levels include benthic invertivores, planktivores, herbivores, and parasitic species. Insectivores include most sunfish, minnows, and silversides. Omnivores include gizzard shad, common carp, carpsuckers, buffalo, and channel and blue catfish. Top carnivores include black and temperate bass, gar, skipjack herring, crappie, flathead catfish, sauger, and walleye. Benthic invertivores include drum, suckers, and darters. Planktivores include alewife, threadfin shad, and paddlefish. Herbivores include largescale stonerollers. Lampreys in the genus Ichthyomyzon are the only parasitic species occurring in Tennessee River reservoirs. 6 To establish expected proportions of each trophic guild and the expected number of species included in each guild occurring in lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs (Kentucky, Pickwick, Wilson, Wheeler, and Guntersville reservoirs), data collected from 1993 through 2010 were analyzed for each reservoir zone (forebay, transitiop, inflow). Samples collected in the downstream: vicinity of thermal discharges were not included in this analysis so that accurate expectations could be calculated with the assumption that these data represent what should occur in lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs absent from point source effects (i.e. power plant discharges). Data from 900 electrofishing runs (a total of 405,000 meters of shoreline sampled) and from 600 overnight experimental gill net sets were included in this analysis for transition areas in lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs. From these data, the range of proportional values for each trophic level and the range of the number of species included in each trophic level were trisected. This trisection is intended to show less than expected, expected or average, and above expected or average values for trophic level proportions and species occurring within each reservoir zone in lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs (Table 2). These data were also averaged and bound by confidence intervals (95 % ) to further evaluate expected values for proportions of each trophic level and the number of species expected for each trophic level by reservoir zone (Table 3). (4) A lack of domination by pollution-tolerant species: Domination by pollution-tolerant species is determined by metrics 3 ("Number ofbenthic invertivore species"), 4 ("Number of intolerant species"), 5 ("Percentage of tolerant individuals"), 6 ("Percent dominance by one species"), and 10 ("Percentage of individuals as omnivores"). Scoring categories are based on "expected" fish community characteristics in the absence of human-induced impacts other than impoundment of the reservoir. These categories were developed from historical fish assemblage data representative of transition zones from lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs (Hickman and McDonough, 1996). Attained values for each of the 12 metrics were compared to the scoring criteria and assigned scores to represent relative degrees of degradation: least degraded (5); intermediate degraded (3); and greatest degraded (1). For both the upstream (TRM 295.9) and the downstream (TRM 292.5) stations, RF AI metrics were scored using evaluation criteria for the "transition" reservoir zone (Table 4). If a metric was calculated as a percentage (e.g., "Percentage of tolerant individuals"), the data from electro fishing and gill netting were scored separately and allotted half the total score for that individual metric. Individual metric scores for a sampling area (i.e., upstream or downstream) are summed to obtain the RF AI score for the area. TV A uses RF AI results to determine maintenance of BIP using two approaches. One is "absolute" in that it compares the RF AI scores and individual metrics to predetermined values. The other is "relative" in that it compares RF AI scores attained downstream to the upstream control site. The "absolute" approach is based on Jennings et al. (1995) who suggested that favorable comparisons of the attained RF AI score from the potential impact zone to a predetermined criterion can be used to identify the presence of normal community structure and function and hence existence ofBIP. For multi-metric indices, TVA uses two criteria to ensure a conservative screening ofBIP. First, if an RF AI score reaches 70% of the highest attainable score of 60 (adjusted upward to include sample variability as described below), and second, if 7 fewer than half of RF Al metrics receive a low (1) or moderate (3) score, then normal community structure and function would be present indicating that BIP had been maintained, thus no further evaluation would be needed. RF AI scores range from 12 to 60. Ecological health ratings (12-21 ["Very Poor"], 22-31 ["Poor"], 32-40 ["Fair"], 41-50 ["Good"], or 51-60 ["Excellent"]) are then applied to scores. As discussed in detail below, the average variation for RF AI scores in TV A reservoirs is 6 (+/- 3). Therefore, any location that attains an RF AI score of 45 ( 42 plus the upward sample variation of 3) or higher would be considered to have BIP. It must be stressed that scores below this threshold do not necessarily reflect an adversely impacted fish community. The threshold is used to serve as a conservative screening level; i.e., any fish community that meets these criteria is obviously not adversely impacted. RF AI scores below this level would require a more depth look to determine if BIP exists. An inspection of individual RF AI metric results and species of fish used in each metric would be an initial step tO help identify if operation of BFN is a contributing factor. This approach is appropriate because a validated multi-metric index is being used and scoring criteria applicable to the zone of study are available. A difference in RF AI scores attained at the downstream area compared to the upstream (control) area is used as one basis for determining presence or absence of impacts on the resident fish community from BFN' s operations. The definition of "similar" is integral to accepting the validity of these interpretations. The Quality Assurance (QA) component of the Vital Signs monitoring program deals with how well the RF AI scores can be repeated and is accomplished by collecting a second set of samples at 15%-20% of the areas each year. Comparison sample QA data collected over seven years shows that the difference in RF AI index scores ranges from 0 to 18 points, The mean difference between these 54 paired scores is 4.6 points with 95% confidence limits of3.4 and 5.8. The 75thpercentile of the sample differences is 6, and the 901h percentile is 12. Based on these results, a difference of 6 points or less in the overall RF AI scores is the value selected for defining "similar" scores between upstream and downstream fish communities. That is, if the downstream RF AI score is within 6 points of the upstream score and ifthere are no major differences in overall fish community composition, then the two locations are considered similar. It is important to bear in mind that differences greater than 6 points can be expected simply due to method variation (i.e., 25% of the QA paired sample sets exceeded a difference of 6), An examination of the 12 metrics (with emphases on fish species used for each metric) is conducted to determine any difference in scores and the potential for the difference to be thermally related. Traditional Analyses In addition to RF AI analyses, data were analyzed using traditional statistical methods. Data from the survey were used to calculate catch per unit effort (CPUE), which was expressed as number of fish per electrofishing run. CPUE values were calculated by pollution tolerance, trophic guilds (e.g., benthic invertivores, top carnivores, etc.), thermal sensitivity (Yoder et al. 2006), and indigenousness. CPUE, species richness, and diversity values were computed for each electrofishing effort (to maximize sample size; n = 30) and compared upstream and downstream to assess potential effects of power plant discharges. 8 Diversity was quantified using two commonly used diversity indices: Shannon diversity index (Shannon 1948) and Simpson diversity index (Simpson 1949). Both indices account for the number of species present, as well as the relative abundance of each species. Shannon diversity index values were computed using the formula: s , (ni) (ni) H = -L N ln N i=l where: S = total number of species N = total number of individuals ni = total number of individuals in the ith species The Simpson diversity index was calculated as follows: where: S = total number of species N = total number of individuals ni = total number of individuals in the i1h species An independent two-sample t-test was used to test for differences in CPUE, species richness, and diversity values upstream and downstream ofBFN (a= 0.05). Before statistical tests were performed using this method, data were analyzed for normality using the Shapiro-Wilk test (Shapiro and Wilk, 1965) and homogeneity of variance using Levene's test (Levene, 1960). Non-normal data or data with unequal variances were transformed using square root conversion or the ln(x+ 1) transformation. Transformed data were reanalyzed for normal distribution and equal variances. If transformation normalized the data and/ or resulted in homogeneous variances, transformed data were tested using an independent two-sample t-test. If transformed data were not normally distributed or had unequal variances, statistical analysis was conducted using the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test (Mann and Whitney, 1947; Wilcoxon, 1945). Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Sampling Methods and Data Analysis for Sites Upstream and Downstream of BFN Along each of the three transects described above, a benthic grab sample was collected at each of ten points, equally-spaced from the LDB to the RDB. A Ponar sampler (area per sample 0.06 m2) was used for most samples. When heavier substrate was encountered, a Peterson sampler (area per sample 0.11 m2) was used. Each sample was washed on a 533µ screen, and organisms were picked from the screen and from any remaining substrate. For each sample, organisms and substrate were placed in a sample jar and fixed in formalin. In most previous sample years, samples were processed in the field, which limited the accuracy of taxa identification and 9 abundance. In 2011, samples were lab-processed by an independent consultant who identified each organism to the lowest possible taxonomic level. The samples were evaluated using seven community characteristics, or "metrics". Results for each metric were compared to reference conditions developed for VS reservoir inflow sample sites, and based on this comparison, were then assigned a score of 1, 3, or 5. The increased accuracy oflab-processed samples requires that they be scored using different criteria than those for field-processed samples. Scoring criteria for both processing methods of samples collected from lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs are shown in Table 5. To produce an overall benthic score for each sample site, the scores for the seven metrics were summed: potential scores ranged from 7 to 35. Ecological health ratings (7-12 "Very Poor", 13-18 "Poor", 19-23 "Fair, 24-29 "Good, or 30-35 "Excellent") were then applied to scores. The individual metrics are shown below: (1) Average number of taxa-calculated by averaging the total number oftaxa present in each sample at a site. Greater taxa richness indicates better conditions than lower taxa richness. (2) Proportion of samples with long-lived organisms-a presence/absence metric which is evaluated based on the proportion of samples with at least one long-lived organism (Corbicula, Hexagenia, mussels, or snails) present. The presence of long-lived taxa is indicative of conditions which allow long-term survival. (3) Average number of EPT taxa-calculated by averaging the number of Ephemeroptera (mayfly), Plecoptera (stonefly), and Trichoptera ( caddis fly) taxa present in each sample at a site. Higher diversity of these taxa indicates good water quality and better habitat conditions. ( 4) Average proportion of Oligochaete individuals-calculated by averaging the percentage of oligochaetes in each sample at a site. Oligochaetes are considered tolerant organisms so a higher proportion indicates poorer water quality. (5) Average proportion of total abundance comprised by the two most abundant calculated by selecting the two most abundant taxa in a sample, summing the number of individuals in those two taxa, dividing that sum by the total number of animals in the sample, and converting to a percentage for that sample. The percentage is then averaged for the 10 samples at each site. Often, the most abundant taxa differed among the 10 samples at a site. This allows more discretion to identify imbalances at a site than developing an average for a single dominant taxon for all samples at a site. This metric is used as an evenness indicator. Dominance of one or two taxa indicates poor conditions. (6) Average density excluding Chironomids and Oligochaetes-calculated by first summing the number of organisms, excluding chironomids and oligochaetes, present in each sample and then averaging these densities for the 10 samples at a site. This metric examines the community, excluding taxa which often dominate under adverse conditions. A higher abundance of non-chironomids and non-oligochaetes indicates good water quality conditions. 10 (7) Zero-samples: Proportion of samples containing no organisms-the proportion of samples at a site which have no organisms present. "Zero-samples" indicate living conditions unsuitable to support aquatic life (i.e. toxicity, unsuitable substrate, etc.). Any site having one empty sample was assigned a score of three, and any site with two or more empty samples received a score of one. Sites with no empty samples were assigned a score of five. A similar or higher benthic index score at the downstream site compared to the upstream site is used as basis for determining absence of impact on the benthic macroinvertebrate community related to BFN's thermal discharge. The QA component of VS monitoring shows that the comparison ofbenthic index scores from 49 paired sample sets collected over the past seven years range from 0 to 14 points, the 75th percentile is 4, the 90th percentile is 6. The mean difference between these 49 paired scores is 3.1 points with 95% confidence limits of2.2 and 4.1. Based on these results, a difference of 4 points or less is the value selected for defining "similar" scores between upstream and downstream benthic communities. That is, if the downstream benthic score is within 4 points of the upstream score, the communities will be considered similar and it will be concluded that BFN has had no effect. Once again, it is important to bear in mind that differences greater than 4 points can be expected simply due to method variation (25% of the QA paired sample sets exceeded that value). When such occurs, a _ metric-by-metric examination will be conducted to determine what caused the difference in and the potential for the difference to be thermally related. Prior to 2000, a sampling site in the forebay zone of Wheeler Reservoir (TRM 277) was used as the downstream comparison site. Other factors unrelated to influence from BFN have kept benthic communities depressed, both at the forebay site and in the Elk River embayment (Wheeler Reservoir, Elk River Mile [ERM] 6 -between BFN and the forebay site). In order to more accurately assess the effects from BFN, a second transition zone site two miles downstream from the BFN diffuser at TRM 291.7 was created in 2000. Benthic scores and community composition from this site have been used since 2000 for downstream comparisons. Visual Encounter Survey (Wildlife Observations) Two permanent transects were established both upstream and downstream of the BFN effluent. The midpoint of the upstream transect was positioned at the RF AI upstream study area and spanned a distance of2,100 m within this transect (Figure 4). The downstream transect was directly below the power plant and likewise spanned a distance 2,100 m (Figure 3). The beginning and ending point of each transect was marked with GPS for relocation. Transects were positioned approximately 30 m offshore and parallel to the shoreline occurring on both right and left descending banks. Basic inventories were conducted to provide a representative sampling of wildlife present in autumn. Each transect was surveyed by steadily traversing the length by boat and simultaneously recording observations of wildlife. Sampling frame of each transect generally followed the strip or belt transect concept with all individuals enumerated that crossed the center-line of each transect landward to an area that included the shoreline and riparian zone (i.e., belt width generally averages 60 m where vision is not obscured). Information recorded included wildlife identification (to the lowest taxonomic trophic level) that was observed visually and/or detected audibly and a direct count of individuals observed per trophic level. If flocks of a species or 11 mixed flock of a group of species were observed, an estimate of the number of individuals present was generated. Time was recorded at the start and end points of each transect to provide a general measure of effort expended. However, times may vary among transects primarily due to the difficulty in approaching some wildlife species without inadvertently flushing them from basking or perching sites. To compensate for the variation of effort expended per transect, observations were standardized to numbers per minute or numbers per hectare in preparation for analysis. The principal objective and purpose behind the surveys were to provide a preliminary set of observations to verify trophic levels of birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles have not been affected by thermal effects from the BFN discharge. If trophic levels were not represented, further investigations will be used to target specific species and/or species groups (guilds) in an attempt to determine the cause. Thermal Plume Characterization Physical measurements were taken to characterize and map the BFN thermal plume concurrent with biological field sampling. Measurements were collected during periods of low to no power production from BFN. This effort allowed general delineation of the "Primacy Study Area" per the EPA (1977) draft guidance defined as the "entire geographic area bounded annually by the locus of the 2°C above ambient surface isotherms as these isotherms are distributed throughout an annual period', ensuring placement of the biological sampling locations within thermally influenced areas. However, it is important to emphasize that the 2:2°C isopleth boundary is not a bright line; it is dynamic, changing geometrically in response to changes in ambient river flows and temperatures and BFN operations. As such, samples collected outside of, but generally proximate to the Primary Study Area boundary should not be discounted as non-thermally influenced. Every effort was made to collect biological samples in thermally affected areas as guided by the Primary Study Area definition. Field activities included measurement of surface to bottom temperature profiles along transects across the plume. One transect was located proximate to the thermal discharge point; subsequent downstream transects were concentrated in the near field area of the plume where the change in plume temperature was expected to be most rapid. The distance between transects in the remainder of the Primary Study Area increased with distance downstream or away from the discharge point. The farthest downstream transect was just outside of the Primary Study Area. A transect upstream of the discharge that is not affected by the thermal plume was included for determining ambient temperature conditions. The total number of transects needed to fully characterize and delineate the plume were determined in the field. Temperature profile measurement (surface to bottom) points along a given transect were spaced equally across the river channel. Points began at or near the shoreline from which the discharge originates and continued across the plume [based on surface (0.1mor0.3 ft) depth measurements] until the far shore was reached. Measurements along transects were conducted at points 10%, 30%, 50%, 70%, and 90% from the originating shoreline. The distances between transects and measurement points depended on the size of the discharge plume. 12 The temperature measurement instrument (Hydrolab) was calibrated to a thermometer whose calibration is traceable to the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Temperature data were compiled and analyzed to present the horizontal and vertical dimensions of the BFN thermal plume, which was used to demonstrate the existence of a zone of passage under and/ or around the plume. Wheeler Reservoir Flow and BFN Temperature Total daily average discharge from Guntersville Dam was used to describe the volume of water flowing past BFN and was obtained from TV A's River Operations database. Water temperature data were obtained from TV A's River Operations database. Locations of water temperature monitoring stations used to measure water temperatures upstream of BFN intake and downstream ofBFN discharge are depicted in Figure 6. Ambient temperatures upstream of the BFN intake were measured at Station 4, located at TRM 297.8. Upstream daily mean temperatures were calculated by averaging temperatures collected at depths of 3-, 5-, and 7-feet. Temperatures downstream ofBFN discharge were measured at Stations 1, 16, and 17, all located at TRM 293.5. Downstream temperatures were calculated by first averaging temperatures at each station across depths of 3, 5, and 7 feet. The resultant values from each station were then averaged together to obtain overall mean daily water temperatures downstream ofBFN. Water Quality Parameters at Fish Sampling Stations during RFAI Samples Water quality conditions were measured each season at both the upstream (TRM 295.9) and downstream (TRM 292.5) stations using a hydrolab that provided readings for water temperature (°C), conductivity (µS/cin), dissolved oxygen (ppm), and pH. Three samples-one at the left descending bank, one at mid-channel, and one at the right descending bank-were collected at three locations within each sample station-the most downstream boundary, the mid-point, and the most upstream boundary-for a total of nine samples per station. For each sample, readings were recorded at 1 to 2 meter intervals along a vertical gradient from just above the bottom of the river to approximately 0.3 meters from the surface. Results and Discussion Aquatic Habitat in the Vicinity of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Assessment Of the sixteen shoreline transects sampled upstream ofBFN, 19% (3 transects) rated "Good," 8% (12 transects) "Fair," and 6% (1 transect) "Poor." The average score for transects on the left descending bank was 24 ("Fair"), while scores for transects on the right descending bank averaged 23 ("Fair"). The average SARI score for both shorelines was 23 .5 ("Fair"). The average percentage of macrophytes was 0% on each shoreline (Table 6). 13 Of the sixteen shoreline transects sampled downstream ofBFN, 0% scored as good, 88% (14 transects) scored as fair, and 12% (2 transects) scored as poor. The average scores for transects on the LDB were equal to those on the RDB (20 "Fair"). The average percentage of macrophytes was 0% on each shoreline (Table 7). River Bottom Habitat Figures 7-10 compare substrate proportions at each sample point along each of the 8 transects downstream of BFN during autumn 2009. Figures 11-14 compare substrate proportions at each sample point along each of the 8 transects upstream ofBFN (Figure 5). The three most dominant substrate types encountered along the 8 transects downstream of BFN were silt (65.1%), mollusk shell (19.4%), and sand (5.4%). Silt (51.1%), mollusk shell (32.0%), and sand (5.1 % ) were also the dominant substrate types observed along the 8 transects upstream ofBFN (Table 8). Aquatic Habitat Summary In summary, shoreline habitat was similar between the BFN downstream and upstream sites, as average scores were 23.5 and 20, respectively, both ratings of"Fair." Silt, mollusk shell, and sand were the three dominant substrate types at both upstream and downstream sites; therefore, river bottom habitat was similar between sites. Fish Community In autumn 2011, fish community RFAI scores of38 ("Fair") and 40 ("Fair") were observed at the downstream and upstream stations, respectively. A comparison of each RF AI metric score between sites is shown in Table 9. Fish species collected upstream and downstream ofBFN and corresponding catch rates are shown in Tables 10 and 11. RF AI scores from previous years at these and other monitoring stations in Wheeler Reservoir are shown in Table 12. Results for each metric, as they apply to the characteristics ofBIP, are discussed below. (l)_A biotic community characterized by diversity appropriate to the ecoregion Number ofindigenous species (> 30 required for highest score) Twenty-eight indigenous species were collected downstream and 29 upstream, resulting in range (3) metric scores for both stations. Four species, black redhorse, chestnut lamprey, redbreast sunfish, and silver redhorse, were collected in numbers (four individuals or less) downstream ofBFN but were not collected upstream. Five species (largescale stoneroller, logperch, longnose gar, northern hogsucker, and yellow bass) were collected at the upstream site only. Largescale stoneroller, logperch, and northern hogsucker were represented by only one individual each. Number ofcentrarchid species(> 2 required for highest score) Eight centrarchid species were collected downstream and 7 upstream, resulting in the highest metric score (5) for both stations. Redbreast sunfish (2 individuals collected downstream) was the only species not collected at both sites. 14 Number ofbenthic invertivore species(> 7 required for highest score) Four benthic invertivore species were collected at each station, resulting in mid-range scores at both sites. Freshwater drum and spotted sucker were collected at both stations, black redhorse and silver redhorse were collected at the downstream site only, and logperch and northern hogsucker were collected at the upstream site only. Number ofintolerant species (> 4 required for highest score) Five intolerant species were collected at both upstream and downstream sites, resulting in the highest metric score at both sites. Longear sunfish, skipjack herring, smallmouth bass, and spotted sucker were collected at both stations. Black redhorse was collected at the downstream site only and northern hogsucker was collected only at the upstream site. Number of top carnivore species (> 7 required for highest score) Nine top carnivore species were collected at the downstream site and eleven at the upstream site, which resulted in scores of 5 for both sites. In addition to the top carnivore species encountered at the downstream station (black crappie, flathead catfish, largemouth bass, skipjack herring, smallmouth bass, spotted bass, spotted gar, white bass, and white crappie), longnose gar and yellow bass were collected upstream ofBFN. Both sites received the same scores for each of the metrics discussed above. These results demonstrate the presence of diverse fish communities upstream and downstream of BFN. (2) The capacity for the community to sustain itself through cyclic seasonal change Number of indigenous species(> 30 required for highest score) The species composition of the autumn sample should be indicative of the ability of the fish community to withstand the stressors of an annual seasonal cycle. During autumn 2011, 28 indigenous species were collected downstream ofBFN and 29 upstream; total numbers of species at both sites were within the range of variability observed at each site from autumn 2000 through 2011. Numbers of indigenous species collected from autumn 2000 through 2011 ranged from 23 to 28 at the downstream site and 24 to 32 at the upstream site (Figure 15). Percentage of anomalies(< 2% required for highest score) The percentage of anomalies (i.e. visible lesions, bacterial and fungal infections, parasites, muscular and skeletal deformities, and hybridization) observed in samples is an indicator of the ability of the fish community to withstand the stressors of an annual seasonal cycle. Percentages of anomalies at both sampling sites were low, resulting in the highest score (5) for this metric at both sites. During autumn 2011, species diversity was similar and percentages of anomalies were low at both sites, indicating that fish communities were able to sustain themselves through cyclic seasonal change. 15 (3) The presence of necessary food chain species The trophic composition of the fish community upstream and downstream ofBFN was similar during autumn 2011. At both sites, insectivores and omnivores were dominant trophic guilds (Table 2; Figure 16). Mississippi silversides and bluegill were abundant in samples and accounted for the majority of insectivores at each site. Gizzard shad constituted approximately 90% of omnivores collected at each site. Twice the total number of top carnivores were collected upstream ofBFN than downstream, but proportions of top carnivores were lower than expected at both sites (Tables 2 and 3). Percentages of planktivores (threadfin shad was only planktivore species collected) were similar between sites, but the percentages of benthic invertivores were low at both sites. One parasitic species (one chestnut lamprey) was collected downstream and none were collected upstream. One herbivore (one largescale stoneroller) was collected upstream and none downstream. Proportions of insectivores and planktivores were within the expected range for lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoir transition zones for both sampling sites (Tables 2 and 3; Figure 16). Proportions ofbenthic invertivores and top carnivores were below expected values at both sites. Omnivores were above expected values at both stations which could be an indicator of water quality impairment at both stations. Parasitic and herbivore species are infrequently collected, and when collected, are typically present in low numbers as was the case at both stations. Overall, the number of species collected met or exceeded expectations at both downstream and upstream sites during autumn 2011 (Tables 2 and 3). At the downstream site six trophic levels were represented, which included four benthic invertivore, eight insectivore, seven omnivore, one planktivore, one parasitic, and nine top carnivore species. At the upstream site, six trophic levels were represented and included four benthic invertivore, seven invertivore, seven omnivore, one planktivore, 11 top carnivore, and one herbivore species. Proportions and numbers of species of each trophic guild were similar between sites; therefore, it was determined that the downstream site was similar to the upstream site during autumn 2011 with respect to the presence of necessary food chain species. ( 4) A lack of domination by pollution-tolerant species Number ofintolerant species (> 4 required for highest score) In autumn 2011, five pollution intolerant species were collected at both upstream and downstream sites. Both sites received the highest score of 5 for this metric. Longear sunfish, skipjack herring, smallmouth bass, and spotted sucker were collected at both stations. Black redhorse was collected at the downstream site only and northern hogsucker at the upstream site only (Table 9). Percentage of tolerant individuals (for highest score,< 27% required in electrofishing sample and< 15% required in gill netting sample) At the downstream site, nine pollution tolerant species were collected which consisted of 59.6% of the electrofishing sample and 40.0% of the gill netting sample. Similarly, nine pollution tolerant species were collected upstream composing 54.6% of the electrofishing sample and 16 36.0% of the gill netting sample. Both sites received the lowest score (1) for this metric (Tables 9, 10, and 11). Eight tolerant species, bluegill, common carp, gizzard shad, golden shiner, green sunfish, largemouth bass, spotfin shiner, and white crappie, were collected at both sites. Redbreast sunfish was collected at the downstream site only and longnose gar at the upstream site only. Gizzard shad was the most abundant species collected by both electrofishing and gill netting methods at both sites (34.6% -electrofishing downstream, 32.2% -gill netting downstream; 36.8% -electrofishing upstream, 15.1 % -gill netting upstream). Percentage of omnivores (for highest score,< 24% required in electrofishing sample;< 16% required in gill netting sample) During autumn of 2011, seven omnivore species (channel catfish, common carp, gizzard shad, golden shiner, smallmouth buffalo, black buffalo, and blue catfish) were collected at both sites. At the downstream site, omnivores constituted 37.8% of the electrofishing sample and 52.9% of the gill netting sample. At the upstream site, omnivores made up 41.0% of the electrofishing sample and 33.7% of the gill netting sample. Both sites received scores of 2 for this metric. Percent dominance by one species (for highest score,< 29% required in electrofishing sample;< 17% required in gill netting sample) Gizzard shad were dominant in both electrofishing and gill net samples at the downstream site. Gizzard shad dominated the electrofishing sample and white bass dominated the gill net sample at the upstream site. Both sites received a mid-range score for this metric. The downstream and upstream sites scored equally in the 4 pollution tolerance metrics. Fish communities at both sites showed relatively low abundance and consisted of relatively high percentages of non-indigenous and pollution-tolerant individuals. It was, therefore, determined that the downstream site was similar to the upstream site during autumn 2011 with respect to the lack of domination by pollution-tolerant species. Traditional Analyses Two species richness parameters (benthic invertivore and intolerant species) were statistically (P<0.05) higher at the downstream site than upstream site. Although the differences were not significant, 3 species richness parameters (total number of species and insectivore and planktivore species) were higher at the downstream site and 3 (omnivore, top carnivore, and tolerant species) were higher at the upstream site (Table 13). Of the parameters comparing CPUE, one (CPUE of top carnivore individuals) was statistically significant, being higher at the upstream site than downstream. Two CPUE parameters (CPUEs of omnivores and planktivores) were higher upstream of BFN than downstream, but the differences were not significant. Total CPUE and CPUEs ofbenthic invertivores, insectivores, tolerant, and intolerant individuals were higher at the downstream site, but differences were not significant. Both diversity values were similar between sites (Table 13). 17 Fish Community Summary Overall RF AI scores were similar between the downstream (3 8 -"Fair") and upstream ( 40 -"Fair") sampling sites. The score at the downstream site was within the 6-point range of acceptable variation when compared the upstream site. Therefore, the downstream site met BIP screening criteria and was considered similar to the upstream site. As previously discussed, RF AI scores have an intrinsic variability of+/- 3 points. This variability comes from various sources, including annual variations in air temperature and stream flow; variations in pollutant loadings from nonpoint sources; changes in habitat, such as extent and density of aquatic vegetation; natural population cycles and movements of the species being measured. Another source of variability arises from the fact that nearly any practical measurement, lethal or non-lethal, of a biological community is a sample rather than a measurement of the entire population. As long as the score is within the 6-point range, there is no certainty that any real difference exists beyond method variability. This variability due to methods must be considered when comparing scores between sampling sites. In summary, diversity was similar between downstream and upstream sites. Numbers of both omnivore and top carnivore species exceeded expected values at both sites, while numbers of species collected were lower than expected for only one trophic guild at each site (herbivores downstream and parasitic species upstream). Numbers of all other trophic guilds were within expected ranges (Tables 2, 10 and 11 ). Proportions observed were within or above the expected ranges for four trophic guilds downstream and for three trophic guilds upstream (Table 2; Figure 16). It was therefore concluded that necessary food chain species were present in at both sites. Both sites received identical combined scores for 11 of the twelve RF AI metrics in 2011. The downstream station earned scores of 3 or 5 for eight RF AI metrics, but earned the lowest score (1) for the metrics "Percent tolerant individuals," "Average number per run," the electrofishing portion of "Percent top carnivores," and the gill netting portion of "Percent omnivores." The upstream site earned scores of 3 or 5 for nine of the twelve RFAI metrics, but earned the lowest score (1; 0.5 for metrics portioned by gear) for metrics "Percent tolerant individuals," "Average number per run," and the gill netting portion of "Percent omnivores." Two thermally sensitive species were collected at the upstream site and one downstream (Tables 10 and 11 ). Thermally sensitive species are defined as those having an upper lethal limit for water temperatures less than 90°F, as determined by Yoder et al. (2006). Nine commercially valuable species were collected at the downstream site and seven at the upstream site (Table 10 and 11 ). Commercially valuable species include freshwater drum, buffalo, and all members of the catfish and sucker families (ALDCNR, 2012). Twenty-one recreationally valuable species were collected both sites (Tables 10 and 11 ). Recreationally valuable species are those species that are commonly sought by anglers, bowfishers, or used for bait. All fish species collected were considered Representative Important Species because all species were used to obtain overall RF AI scores. Representative important species are defined in EPA guidance as those species which are representative, in terms of their biological requirements, of a balanced, indigenous community of fish, shellfish, and wildlife in the body of water into which a discharge is released (EPA and NRC 1977). 18 Autumn RF AI sampling was conducted upstream and downstream of BFN from 2000 through 2011. RF AI scores during this period averaged 41 for both upstream and downstream sites (Table 12), resulting in an ecological health rating of"Good" for both sites. Both sites were within the 6-point range of accepted variability each year-with the exception of 2005 when the upstream station scored 10 points higher-indicating the stations were similar annually and that the BFN heated effluent has not adversely affected the fish community in the vicinity of BFN (Table 12). RF AI scores are presented for the Wheeler Reservoir inflow site (TRM 348.0), the forebay site (TRM 277 .0), and the Elk River ernbayment site (ERM 6.0) to provide additional information about the health of the fish community throughout the reservoir. However, aquatic communities at these sites are not subjected to the effects of thermal effluent from Brown's Ferry Nuclear Plant and are not used to determine the status of a BIP in relation to BFN. Average RF AI scores at these three sites among all sampling years have remained in the "Good" range (Table 12). Given the comparison of RF AI scores and analysis of the four characteristics of BIP and their respective metrics discussed above, it can be concluded that during autumn 2011 the fish community at the site downstream of BFN was similar to that at the control site upstream. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Data used to evaluate the benthic macroinvertebrate community near BFN were collected from three sites during autumn 2011. RBI metrics for all three sites were scored using evaluation criteria for laboratory-processed samples collected in the "transition" reservoir zone (Table 5). Data collected at TRM 290.4 downstream of the thermal plume earned an overall RBI score of 21 ("Fair"), and from TRM 293.2, within the thermal plume, a score of23 ("Fair"). Data from the upstream site, TRM 295.9, earned an overall RBI score of27 ("Good") (Table 13). Conditions among sites are considered "similar" ifRBI scores for the sites differ by four points or less. The two sites downstream differed by two points and were considered similar based on the definition above. The upstream site, TRM 295.9, and the site within the thermal plume, TRM 293.2, differed by four points and were also considered similar. The score at TRM 295.9 (upstream) was six points higher than that at TRM 290.4 (farthest downstream), and these two sites were not deemed similar. Based on these comparisons, it was concluded that conditions for the benthic macroinvertebrate community were somewhat degraded between the upstream and the most downstream sampling sites. In order to help determine the causes of the differences in scores from upstream to downstream, the discussion below compares each individual metric among the three sites sampled. To aid in this discussion, historic data from sites upstream and downstream ofBFN were referenced. However, it is important to note that comparisons of these data to those collected in 2011 are limited for several reasons. Firstly, in previous years a single downstream site was established at TRM 291. 7, while in 2011 data were collected at two sites downstream of BFN: one within the thermal plume at TRM 293.2 and one downstream of the plume at TRM 290.4. Secondly, data collected in 2011 were processed in a laboratory. Most samples collected for RBI analysis during the years 2000 through 2010 were field-processed and scored using different criteria than those used for laboratory-processed samples. Metric values and the resultant scores based on 19 field-processed criteria for the years 2000 through 2010 are presented in Table 15. However, some samples collected during this period were processed in a laboratory. The metric values and the resultant scores based on lab-processed criteria are included for comparison in Table 16. Average number oftaxa (> 6.6 required for highest score) The former downstream site (TRM 291. 7) earned a field-based score of 3 for the year 2000, but earned the highest score (5) for each year from 2001through2010. The mean value over the period.from 2000 through 2010 is 5.7 taxa per sample. The site upstream (TRM 295.9) earned a field-based score of 5 for each year from 2000 through 2009, and earned a score of 3 for 2010. The mean value over the period from 2000 through 2010 is 5.5 taxa per sample (Table 15). Lab-based scoring at the downstream site generated the highest score (5) for four of the five years sampled, and a score of 3 for 2002. The mean value over the five years of lab-processed data is 7 .6 taxa per sample. The upstream site earned lab-based scores of 3 for two (2003, 2004) of the six years sampled and 5 for the other four years. The mean value over six years of processed data is 7.4 taxa per sample (Table 16). In 2011, an average of 6.2 taxa per sample was collected at the newly established site further downstream at TRM 290.4, resulting in a score of3. At the upstream site, an average of 8.4 taxa per sample was collected, resulting in a score of 5. The average value at the site within the plume (TRM 293 .2) was 11. 7 taxa per sample, which earned the site a score of 5 (Table 14). This value was appreciably higher than any lab-or field-based scores previously observed either downstream or upstream of this site over the history of sampling at BFN. Proportion of samples with long-lived organisms(> 0.9 required for highest score) The downstream site (TRM 291.7) earned field-based scores of 5 for each year from2000 to 2008 and midrange scores of 3 for 2009 and 2010. The proportion of samples with long-lived organisms was 1.0 from 2000 through 2007, but decreased to 0.9 in 2008 and again to 0.7 in 2009 and 2010. The upstream site earned the highest score of 5 for all years sampled except 2008, when the score was 3 (Table 15). For all years in which samples were lab-processed, the downstream site earned the highest score of 5. The upstream site earned lab-based scores of 5 from 2001through2004, but earned scores of 3 for 2006 and 2011(Table16). In 2011, at the most downstream site (TRM 290.4) the proportion was 0.6. Within the plume (TRM 293.2), 0.8 of samples contained long-lived organisms, compared with 0.7 of the samples upstream. All three sites earned midrange scores (3) (Table 14). Average number o(EPT taxa (> 1.4 required for highest score) The site at TRM 291.7 earned field-based scores of 5 for each year from 2000 through 2008, but scores dropped to 3 in 2009 and 2010. The upstream site (TRM 295.9) earned field-processed mid-range scores or higher (3 or 5) for all years during this period with no discernible trend (Table 15). 20 The downstream site earned lab-based scores of 3 from 2001 through 2004, but the highest score of 5 for 2006. The mean value over this period was 1.12 EPT taxa per sample. The upstream site earned lab-based scores of 3 for all years sampled, with a mean value over these years of 1.0 EPT taxa per sample (Table 16). In 2011, an average of 0. 7 EPT taxa per sample was recorded at the most downstream site. Within the plume, an average of 1.2 EPT taxa per sample was recorded, compared to 1.0 EPT taxa per sample upstream. All three sites earned mid-range scores (3) (Table 14). Average proportion ofoligochaete individuals(< 11 % required for highest score) Both downstream and the upstream sites earned field-based scores of 5 for all years from 2000 through 2010 (Table 15).

• The downstream site earned scores of 5 for each year of lab-processed samples. The mean percentage of oligochaetes for the five years sampled was 4.6%. The upstream site also earned lab-based scores of 5 for each year of sampling. The mean percentage of oligochaetes for the six years sampled was 4.2% (Table 16). In 2011, 5% of the average sample downstream at TRM 290.4 was oligochaete organisms, compared with 6.3% upstream at TRM 295.9. Both these sites earned the highest score of 5, based on lab processing. Within the plume however, at TRM 293.2, the average percentage of oligochaete organisms per sample was 35.4%, resulting in the lowest score (1) (Table 14). Proportion of total abundance comprised by two dominant taxa (< 77.8% required for highest score) The site downstream earned field-based midrange scores or higher (3 or 5) for eight of the eleven years sampled and scores of 1 for three years (2002, 2009 and 2010). The mean proportion downstream over the years 2000 through 2010 was 78. 7%, the criteria limit for a mean score of 5 (Table 5). The site upstream earned mid-range scores or higher for ten of the eleven years sampled, and it earned the lowest score for only one year (2010). The mean proportion upstream for the years 2000 through 2010 was 79.8% (Table 15). For years with lab-scored samples, the downstream site earned the lowest score for only one year (2002). The mean value downstream over the five years sampled was 76.9% for an average score of 5. In 2011, the same two taxa -the chironomid species Coelotanypus tricolor and the fingernail clam Musculium transversum -were the most abundant at all three sites. At the most downstream site, these two taxa made up 89.2% of the average sample, resulting in the lowest score (1). Within the thermal plume, these two taxa constituted 80.6% of the average sample, resulting in a mid-range score (3 ). Upstream, these two taxa composed 81. l % of the average sample, also resulting in a score of 3 (Tables 14 and 16). Average density excluding chironomids and oligochaetes (> 609.9/m2 required for highest score) Based on field-processing criteria, the downstream site at TRM 291.7 earned the lowest score (1) for eight of the eleven years from 2000 through 2010, mid-range scores (3) for 2004 and 2005 21 and the highest score ( 5) for 2003. The upstream site also showed poor results for this metric, earning mid-range scores for five years (2003 through 2007) and the lowest scores for the other six years during this period (Table 15). Lab-based scores were generally the same as field-based scores. The downstream site earned higher lab-based scores of 3 in 2001 and 2006. For all other years sampled, the lab-based scores were the same as the field-based scores: 1 (2002), 5 (2003), 3 (2004). Upstream, lab-based scores were the same as field-based for all years except 2006, when the lab score was higher (5) (Table 16). In 2011, the site further downstream at TRM 290.4 earned the lowest score (1), with an average density oftaxa other than chironomids and oligochaetes of 193.3 organisms per m2. The densities of these organisms increased progressively from downstream to upstream: for the site within the plume, the density was 321.7 organisms per m2, which earned a midrange score (3); for the site farthest upstream, the density was 430 organisms per meter2, also earning a midrange score (3) (Table 14). Proportion of samples containing no organisms (all samples must contain organisms for highest score) No "zero" samples have been collected at any of the sites since 2000. All sites sampled earned the highest rating (5) for each year from 2000 through 2011 (Tables 14, 15, and 16). Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Summary During autumn 2011, the overall score of2f ("Fair") for the most downstream site (TRM 290.4) was due primarily to low scores for the metrics "Proportion of total abundance comprised by two dominant taxa" and "Average density excluding chironomids and oligochaetes." Additionally, the site received a lower score than the other sites for the metric "Average number of taxa" (Table 14). The total mean density at this site was 578 organisms per m2, compared to 1,077 organisms per m2 within the plume and 1, 197 organisms per m2 upstream (Table 17). These values indicate that the benthic macroinvertebrate community at the most downstream site was less diverse and was more heavily dominated (89.2%) by the two most abundant taxa than either of the other two sites upstream (Table 14). At the site within the thermal plume (TRM 293.2), 50 different taxa were collected in 2011, compared with 42 upstream and 31 downstream (Table 17). Both the average number of taxa per sample (11.7 organisms/m2) and the percentage of oligochaetes per sample (35.4%) were greater than any values previously recorded at any of the sites around BFN (Table 14). Excluding chironomids and oligochaetes, the average density of the remaining taxa was still fairly high (321. 7 organisms/m2), which suggests that the high percentage of oligochaetes at this site was made up ofrelatively few species collected in high numbers (Table 14). Silt was the primary component in substrate dredge samples collected upstream; seven samples contained 75% or more silt, while two samples contained mollusk shell in proportions of 85% or more. The second most abundant component was mollusk shell, ranging from 5% to 45% in five samples. Clay constituted 50% of one sample and gravel 15% of another. At the most downstream site, silt was even more abundant in dredge samples as nine often samples 22 contained 80% or more silt, five of which contained 98% silt. The second most abundant component was mollusk shell, ranging from 1% to 20% in six often samples. No clay, sand, or gravel was observed in significant amounts in any sample (Table 18). At the site within the plume, mollusk shell was the most abundant component, ranging from 50 to 100% in five samples; these samples contained sand or gravel as the secondary component. Silt was the primary component in only three samples ranging from 50 to 95%, with detritus as the secondary component (Table 18). Based on these observations, it was concluded that differences in diversity and abundance of benthic macroinvertebrates, and thus the difference in the overall RBI scores between the upstream and the most downstream sites, were due primarily to the differences in substrate composition. Silt, compared to larger particle substrates such as sand, gravel, and cobble, leaves little space for macroinvertebrate colonization and can quickly become anoxic. The large proportion of silt and the particular lack of sand or gravel at the downstream sites indicate that less suitable habitat was available for benthic macroinvertebrates compared to upstream. Similarly, the greater comparative abundance of sand, gravel, mollusk shell, and detritus at the site within the thermal plume helps to explain the "spikes" in the number and density of taxa that were observed at this point between the upstream and downstream sites. To provide additional data on the overall health of the benthic macroinvertebrate community in Wheeler Reservoir, RBI scores for the inflow, forebay, and Elk River embayment sites are presented in Table 19. Comparison of these scores to current RBI scores at the sites near BFN is limited for two reasons. First, as discussed previously the data from these sites were scored from field-based criteria and cannot be directly compared to lab-based scores. Second, these sites are many river miles away from BFN. The inflow site is 53 river miles upstream, and the forebay site located 17 river miles downstream. The Elk River embayment site is located 10 river miles downstream of BFN. Because of these distances from the plant, poor scores at these sites cannot be considered indicative of thermal effects from BFN. The inflow site (TRM 347) earned RBI ratings of "Good" or "Excellent" for 10 of the 13 years sampled, while the Wheeler Reservoir forebay site (TRM 277) and the Elk River embayment site (ERM 6.0) both consistently earned "Poor" scores for all years sampled (Table 19). Based on the correlation of RBI scores to benthic substrate discussed above, it is hypothesized that these scores fit the same pattern: relatively high flow within the inflow reservoir zone keeps silt suspended in the water column and results in higher quality habitat for benthic macroinvertebrates, while as flow slows through the transition zone and into the forebay and embayment areas, silt settles to the bottom, resulting in lower quality habitat within these areas. Overall, it was concluded that the health of the benthic macroinvertebrate community around BFN was relative to the composition of the substrate on the river bottom, and that the health of the community was better in areas with higher proportions of large particle substrates, such as sand, gravel, and mollusk shell. In addition, it was further concluded that the benthic macroinvertebrate community downstream of BFN was not affected by thermal effluent from the plant in 2011. 23 Visµal Encounter Survey (Wildlife Observations) Numbers and categories of wildlife observed during autumn of2011 survey are presented in Table 20. Observations recorded were almost entirely birds commonly associated with riparian or shoreline habitat: kingfishers, sandpipers, blackbirds, herons, and ducks. Other bird species observed included American crow and unidentifiable species of songbirds. The only reptiles recorded were turtles, observed on the left descending bank of the upstream station. No amphibians or mammals were observed.
• The observations recorded indicate fair diversity of common waterfowl and shoreline birds and both sites were similar. However, the lack of observations of other groups targeted by this survey limits what we can conclude about the health of the wildlife community upstream and downstream ofBFN. Limited observations ofreptiles and mammals in this survey were due primarily to the fact that wildlife species are not easily observed by passing visual observation, being cryptically patterned and secretive in behavior. The Visual Encounter Survey provides a preliminary near shore wildlife assessment to determine ifthe thermally affected area downstream of a power plant has adversely affected the bird, reptile, amphibian and mammal communities. If such adverse environmental impact is suspected, more semi-quantitative sampling strategies, such as trapping or netting, active search, investigation of mammal tracks along shoreline areas, long-term observation from blinds, or the use of cameras will be proposed to accurately estimate the presence and diversity of these groups. Thermal Plume Characterization On the date of the autumn sample, the BFN thermal plume extended downstream approximately 2.8 miles to TRM 291.2. The average ambient surface water temperature (0.3 m and 1 m depths) measured upstream at TRM 296.5 on the date of the survey was 76.3°F. The thermal plume (water 3.6°F or 2.0°C above ambient) was detected at all sampling locations (10, 30, 50, and 70% ofRDB) across the river channel at TRM 294, except the one nearest the left descending bank (90% from RDB). The thermal plume was detected only to the mid-channel sampling location (50% from RDB) at TRM 292.4 and only at the sampling location nearest the RDB (10% from RDB) at TRM 291.2 (Table 21; Figure 3). TRM 291.2 was considered the downstream limit of the thermal plume. In summary, the entire biomonitoring zone downstream ofBFN was not contained within the thermal plume when measured in autumn 2011. Wheeler Reservoir Flow and BFN Water Temperature Daily mean flows from Guntersville Dam over the fiscal year 2011(October2010 through November 2011) are compared in Figure 17 to historic daily mean flows over the same fiscal year period, averaged from 1976 through 2010. Figure 18 compares daily average water temperatures recorded upstream ofBFN intake (TRM 294.4) and downstream ofBFN discharge (TRM 293.6) during October 2010 through November 2011. Water temperatures were similar at both stations through this period. 24 Water Quality Parameters at Fish Sampling Stations during RFAI Samples Values of water quality parameters (water temperature, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, and pH) collected along vertical depth profiles at nine locations within each RF AI sample station are presented in Table 22. Depth profiles of water temperature at the sites downstream (TRM 292.5) and upstream (TRM 295.9) ofBFN are presented for comparison in Figures 19 and 20, respectively. Water temperatures collected downstream ranged from 71° to 78°F and 68° to 75°F upstream. With one exception, all profiles generally indicate a decrease in temperature as depth increased. At the upstream station, temperatures were collected at only the surface and at 1.5 m depth for the profile at the left descending bank of the upstream boundary, and within this limited range temperature increased slightly (Table 22).
• Depth profiles of conductivity at the downstream and upstream sites are presented for comparison in Figures 21 and 22, respectively. Conductivity at the downstream site ranged from 176.5 to 181.5 µSiem and 178 to 190 µSiem upstream, with the exception of the profile for the left descending bank of the upper boundary that ranged from 198 to 202 µSiem. Conductivity measurements presented in this profile were collected only at the surface and at 1.5 m depth (Table 22). Depth profiles of dissolved oxygen (DO) concentration at the downstream and upstream sites are presented for comparison in Figures 23 and 24, respectively. Downstream, DO concentrations ranged from 7.7 to 11.8 ppm, and upstream from 6.9 to 10.6 ppm. Profiles collected at the downstream site generally indicated that DO concentrations decreased with increasing depth, while the profiles collected upstream indicated no relationship between DO concentration and water depth (Table 22). Depth profiles of acidity (pH level) for the downstream and upstream stations are presented for comparison in Figures 25 and 26, respectively. Downstream, pH level ranged from 7.39 to 8.58, and profiles generally showed pH level decreased as depth increased. Upstream, pH level ranged from 7.15 to 8.41, but the profiles collected generally showed little change in pH level as depth increased (Table 22). Water Quality Summary Water temperatures at both RF AI stations were in the range expected for lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs in autumn, and the profiles indicated little to no thermal stratification, which is typical during autumn. Conductivity values observed at both RF AI stations were within a range of 14 units and indicated stable concentrations of dissolved ions. Concentrations of dissolved oxygen at both RF AI sites were within the range expected for lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs in autumn, and profiles indicated little difference in concentrations as depth increased from surface to bottom. Values of pH at both RF AI stations were slightly alkaline, but within the range of expected values. Based on these results, it was concluded that water temperatures, conductivity, dissolved oxygen concentrations and pH levels were similar at all stations sampled around BFN during October 25 2011. We further conclude that the values of these parameters indicate that the water around BFN during autumn 2011 was of a quality capable of supporting, in fair ecological health, a* balanced indigenous population of the type expected for this reservoir, and that water quality was not affected by thermal effluent from BFN. 26 Literature Cited Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (ALDCNR). 2012. 2011-2012 game, fish, and fur-bearing animal regulations. http://www.outdooralabama.com/images/file/2011-12%20WFF/2011-12%20Complete%20Reg%20Book%20-3%20Proofll/o20final.pdf EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) and NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1977 (draft). Interagency 316(a) Technical Guidance manual and Guide for Thermal Effects Sections of Nuclear Facilities Environmental Impact Statements. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Enforcement, Permits Division, Industrial Permits Branch, Washington, DC. Etnier, D.A. & Starnes, W.C. 1993. The Fishes of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, Tennessee, 681 pp. Hickman, G.D. and T.A. McDonough. 1996. Assessing the Reservoir Fish Assemblage A potential measure ofreservoir quality. In: D. De Vries (Ed.) Reservoir Multidimensional approaches to reservoir fisheries management. Reservoir Committee, Southern Division, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. pp 85-97. Hubert, W. A. 1996. Passive capture techniques, entanglement gears. Pages 160-165 in B. R. Murphy and D. W. Willis, editors. Fisheries techniques, 2nd edition. American Fisheries Society Bethesda, Maryland, USA. Jennings, M.J., L.S. Fore, and J.R. Karr. 1995. Biological monitoring of fish assemblages in the Tennessee Valley reservoirs. Regulated Rivers 11 :263-274. Jennings, M. J., L. S. Fore, and J. R. Karr. 1995. Biological monitoring offish assemblages in the Tennessee Valley reservoirs. Regulated Rivers 11:263-274. Levene, Howard. 1960. Robust tests for equality of variances. In Ingram Olkin, Harold Hotelling, et alia. Stanford University Press. pp. 278-292. Mann, H.B.; Whitney, D.R. 1947. On a Test of Whether one of Two Random Variables is Stochastically Larger than the Other. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 18 (1): 50-60. McDonough, T.A. and G.D. Hickman. 1999. Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index development: A tool for assessing ecological health in Tennessee Valley Authority impoundments. In: c Assessing the sustainability and biological integrity of water resources using fish communities. Simon, T. (Ed.) CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 523-540. Plafkin, J.L., Barbour, M.T., Porter, K.D., Gross, S.K., and Hughes, R.M. (1989). Rapid assessment protocols for use in streams and rivers: benthic macroinvertebrates and fish. EPA/444/4-89-001, Washington DC, USA. Reynolds, J.B. 1996. Electrofishing. Pages 221-251 in B. R. Murphy and D. W. Willis, editors. Fisheries techniques, 2nd edition. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. 27 Shannon, C.E. 1948. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal 27:379-423, 623-656. Shapiro, S.S. and M. B. Wilk. 1965. An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika 52 (3-4): 591-611 Simpson, E.H. 1949. Measurement of diversity. Nature 163:688. Wilcoxon, F. 1945. Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biometrics Bulletin 1 (6): 80-83 Yoqer, C.O., B.J. Armitage, and E.T. Rankin. 2006. Re-evaluation of the Technical Justification for Existing Ohio River Mainstem Temperature Criteria. Midwest Biodiversity Institute, Columbus, Ohio. 28 Table 1. Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Index (SAHi) metrics and scoring criteria. Metric Cover Substrate Erosion Scoring Criteria Stable cover (boulders, rootwads, brush, logs, aquatic vegetation, artificial structures) in 25 to 75% of the drawdown zone Stable cover in 10 to 25% or> 75% of the drawdown zone Stable Cover in< 10% of the drawdown zone Percent of drawdown zone with gravel substrate > 40 Percent of drawdown zone with gravel substrate between 10 and 40 Percent substrate gravel < 10 Little or no evidence of erosion or bank failure. Most bank surfaces stabilized by woody vegetation. Areas of erosion small and infrequent. Potential for increased erosion due to less desirable vegetation cover (grasses) on> 25% of bank surfaces. Areas of erosion extensive, exposed or collapsing banks occur along> 30% of shoreline. Canopy Cover Tree or shrub canopy> 60% along adjacent bank Tree or shrub canopy 30 to 60% along adjacent bank Tree or shrub canopy< 30% along adjacent bank Riparian Zone Width buffered> 18 meters Habitat Gradient Width buffered between 6 and 18 meters Width buffered < 6 meters Habitat diversity optimum. All major habitats (logs, brush, native vegetation, boulders, gravel) present in proportions characteristic of high quality, sufficient to support all life history aspects of target species. Ready access to deeper sanctuary areas present. Habitat diversity less than optimum. Most major habitats present, but proportion of one is less than desirable, reducing species diversity. No ready access to deeper sanctuary areas. Habitat diversity is nearly lacking. One habitat dominates, leading to lower species diversity. No ready access to deeper sanctuary areas. Drawdown zone gradient abrupt (> 1 meter per 10 meters). Less than 10% of shoreline with abrupt gradient due to dredging. Drawdown zone gradient abrupt. (> 1 meter per 10 meters) in 10 to 40% of the shoreline resulting from dredging. Rip-rap used to stabilize bank along> 10% of the shoreline. Drawdown zone gradient abrupt in> 40 % of the shoreline resulting from dredging. Seawalls used to stabilize bank along> 10 % of the shoreline. 29 Score 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 Table 2. Expected values for lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoir transition zone calculated from data collected from 900 electrofishing runs and 600 overnight experimental gill net sets in transition areas of lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs. This trisection is intended to show below expected(-), expected (Avg), and above expected(+) values for trophic level proportions and species occurring within the transition zone in lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs. Observed Downstream Observed Upstream Lower Mainstem Tennessee River Transition ofBFN ofBFN {TRM292.5} {TRM295.9) Proportion (%) Number of species Trophic Guild Avg + Avg + Proportion Number Proportion Number (%} of Species {%} of Species Benthic In.vertivore < 6.7 6.4 to 13.4 > 13.4 <3 3 to 5 >5 2.5 4 1.5 4 Insectivore <24.6 24.6 to 49.1 >49.1 <4 4 to 8 >8 40.9 8 31.2 7 Top Carnivore < 15.1 15.1to30.2 > 30.2 <4 4 to 8 >8 5.2 9 10.6 11 Omnivore > 38.5 19.3 to 38.5 < 19.3 >6 3 to 6 <3 38.5 7 40.7 7 Planktivore > 18.7 9.4 to 18.7 < 9.4 0 I >1 12.8 1 16.0 I Parasitic < 0.1 0.1 to 0.2 > 0.2 0 1 >1 0.1 1 Herbivore <1.8 1.8 to 3.6 >3.6 0 1 >1 0.1 1 30 Table 3. Average trophic guild proportions and average number of species, bound by confidence intervals (95 %), expected in lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoir transition zones. These values were calculated from data collected from 900 electrofishing runs and 600 overnight experimental gill net sets in transition areas of lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs. Lower Mainstem TN River Reservoir Trophic Guild Transition Zones Average Average Number Proportion of Species (%) Benthic Invertivore 5.5 +/- 1.2 5+/-1 Insectivore 40.0 +/-4.5 8+/-1 Top Carnivore 18.3 +/-2.2 10+/-1 Omnivore 28.7 +/- 3.3 6+/-1 Planktivore 6.4 +/- 2.6 1+/-1 Parasitic 0.1+/-0.04 1+/-0 Herbivore 0.6 +/- 0.4 1+/-0 31 Table 4. RFAI scoring criteria (2002) for fish community samples in forebay, transition, and inflow sections oflower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs, which include Guntersville, Wheeler, Wilson, Pickwick, and Kentucky. Transition criteria were used to score the sites upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. Scoring Criteria Forebay Transition Inflow Metric Gear 1 3 5 1 3 5 1 3 5 1. Total species Combined <14 14-27 >27 <16 16-30 >30 <14 14-27 >27 2. Total Centrarchid species Combined <2 2-3 >3 <2 2-2 >2 <2 2-4 >4 3. Total benthic invertivores Combined <4 4-6 >6 <4 4-7 >7 <4 4-7 >7 4. Total intolerant species Combined <2 2-4 >4 <3 3-4 >4 <3 3-6 >6 5. Percent tolerant individuals Electrofishing >61% 30-61% <30% >54% 27-54% <27% >51% 26-51% <26% Gill netting >46% 22-46% <22% >30% 15-30% <15% 6. Percent dominance by 1 species Electrofishing >59% 30-59% <30% >58% 29-58% <29% >47% 24-47% <24% Gill netting >43% 21-43% <21% >34% 17-34% <17% 7. Percent non-indigenous species Electro fishing >2% 2-2% <2% >2% 1-2% <1% >4% 2-4% <2% Gill netting >2% 1-2% <1% >2% 1-2% <1% 8. Total top carnivore species Combined <4 4-7 >7 <4 4-7 >7 <4 4-7 >7 9. Percent top carnivores Electro fishing <6% 6-12% >12% <5% 5-10% >10% <15% 15-29% >29% Gill netting <25% 25-49% >49% <20% 20-39% >39% 10. Percent omnivores Electrofishing >59% 30-59% <30% >48% 24-48% <24% >48% 24-48% <24% Gill netting >49% 24-49% <24% >33% 16-33% <16% 11. Average number per run Electrofishing <170 170-341 >341 <243 243-487 >487 <68 68-136 >136 Gill netting <20 20-40 >40 <11 11-22 >22 12. Percent anomalies Electro fishing >5% 2-5% <2% >5% 2-5% <2% >5% 2-5% <2% Gill netting >5% 2-5% <2% >5% 2-5% <2% 32 Table 5. Scoring criteria for RBI analysis of benthic macroinvertebrate samples, compared for the different zones of mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs and for two different sample processing strategies (lab-processing and field-processing). Field-processing Criteria Benthic Community Forebay Transition Inflow Metrics 1 3 5 1 3 5 1 3 5 Average number oftaxa ::;2.4 2.5-4.7 ::;2.1 2.2-4.3 ::;2.8 2.9-5.7 Proportion of samples with long-lived ::;0.3 0.4-0.7 ::;0.3 0.4-0.7 ::;o.3 0.4-0.7 organisms Average number ofEPT (Ephemeroptera, ::;0.4 0.5-0.7 ::;0.3 0.4-0.7 ::;o.3 0.4-0.7 Plecoptera, Trichoptera) Average proportion of 14.9-14.0-20.1-::;20.0 oligochaete individuals 29.6 ::;14.8 27.9 ::;13_9 39.9 Average proportion of total abundance 81.4-::;81.3 78.8-::;78.7 78.8-::;78.7 comprised by the two 90.6 87.7 84.9 most abundant taxa Average density 119-292-569-excluding chironomids ::;us 235 ::;291 580 ::;568 1152 and oligochaetes Zero-samples -proportion of samples 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 containing no organisms Lab-processing Criteria Benthic Community Fore bay Transition Inflow Metrics 1 3 5 1 3 5 1 3 5 Average number of taxa <2.8 2.8-5.5 > 5.5 <3.3 3.3-6.6 > 6.6 < 4.2 4.2-8.3 > 8.3 Proportion of samples with long-lived <0.6 0.6-0.8 > 0.8 <0.6 0.6-0.9 > 0.9 < 0.6 0.6-0.8 >0.8 organisms Average numl;Jer ofEPT (Ephemeroptera, <0.6 0.6-0.9 > 0.9 < 0.6 0.6-1.4 > 1.4 <0.9 0.9-1.9 > 1.9 Plecoptera, Trichoptera) Average proportion of > 41.9 41.9-< 21.0 > 21.9 21.9-< 11.0 >23.9 23.9-< 12.0 oligochaete individuals 21.0 11.0 12.0 Average proportion of total abundance > 90.3 90.3-< 81.7 > 87.9 87.9-<77.8 > 86.2 86.2-< 73.l comprised by the two 81.7 77.8 73.l most abundant taxa Average density 125.0-305.0-400.0-excluding chironomids < 125.0 249.9 > 249.9 < 305.0 609.9 > 609.9 < 400.0 799.9 > 799.9 and oligochaetes Zero-samples -proportion of samples >O 0 >O 0 >O 0 containing no organisms 33 Table 6. SAHi scores for 16 sections of shoreline assessed within the RF Al fish community sample area upstream of BFN, autumn 2009. Left Descending 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Avg. Bank Latitude 34.68917 34.6832 34.6806 34.67959 34.67709 34.66978 34.67027 34.66841 Longitude -87.13621 -87.13172 -87.12188 -87.1183 -87.10876 -87.10915 -87.10009 -87.09753 Aquatic Macrophytes 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% SAHi Variables Cover 3 3 5 3 3 3 3 Substrate 5 3 3 5 3 Erosion 3 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 4 Canopy Cover 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Riparian Zone 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 4 Habitat 3 3 3 3 2 Slope 5 5 3 5 3 Total 17 29 27 25 21 25 19 19 24 Rating Fair Good Good Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Right Descending 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Avg. Bank Latitude 34.70109 34.69937 34.69862 34.6986 34.69566 34.69302 34.69062 34.68843 Longitude -87.11896 -87.11535 -87.10973 -87.10061 -87.09157 -87.08836 -87.08452 -87.08094 Aquatic Macrophytes 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% SAHi Variables Cover 3 3 5 5 5 *5 4 Substrate 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 Erosion 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Canopy Cover 5 5 5 3 Riparian Zone 5 5 5 3 Habitat 3 3 2 Slope 3 3 2 Total 15 27 25 19 17 19 19 19 23 Rating Poor Good Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Scoring criteria: poor (7-16); fair (17-26); and good (27-35). 34 Table 7. SAHi scores for 16 sections of shoreline assessed within the RFAI fish community sample area downstream ofBFN, autumn 2009. Left Descending 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Avg. Bank Latitude 34.72824 34.72603 34.72398 34.72068 34.71496 34.7128 34.71082 34.70351 Longitude -87.1759 -87.1728 -87.1704 -87.1678 -87.4621 -87.1577 -87.1543 -87.1488 Aquatic Macrophytes 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% SAHi Variables Cover 3 3 2 Substrate 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 Erosion 5 5 5 5 3 Canopy Cover 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 4 Riparian Zone 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 4 Habitat 3 3 2 Slope 3 Total 21 23 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 Rating Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Right Descending 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Avg. Bank Latitude 34.74369 34.74081 34.73891 34.73519 34.73081 34.7266 34.72058 34.71239 Longitude -87.1565 -87.1522 -87.1507 -87.1475 -87.1428 -87.1376 -87.1325 -87.1275 Aquatic Macrophytes 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% SAHi Variables Cover 3 3 3 5 5 5 3 Substrate 5 5 5 5 3 Erosion 5 5 5 5 5 4 Canopy Cover 5 5 5 5 3 3 4 Riparian Zone 3 5 3 5 3 Habitat 3 3 2 Slope Total 21 17 19 19 19 21 15 15 20 Rating Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Poor Poor Fair Scoring criteria: poor (7-16); fair (17-26); and good (27-35). 35 Table 8. Substrate percentages and average water depth (ft) per transect upstream and downstream ofBFN, autumn 2009. Upstream ofBFN % Substrate per transect Substrate Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 AVG Silt 68.5 45.0 25.5 49.0 27.1 79.5 56.0 58.0 51.1 Mollusk Shell 3.5 30.5 45.5 38.5 56.8 13.5 38.0 30.0 32.0 Sand 12.5 0 19.0 0 9.0 0 0 0 5.1 Detritus 4.0 2.0 0.5 2.5 7.5 2.5 5.5 10.0 4.3 Boulder 9.0 9.5 0 10.0 0 0 0 0 3.6 Gravel 0.5 0.5 9.0 0 1.5 0.5 0.5 0 1.6 Cobble 1.0 10.0 0.5 0 0.5 0 0 0 1.5 Clay 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.0 0 0.5 Average Depth (ft) 19.2 17.4 13.3 17.5 16.2 15.0 15.5 15.5 16.2 Actual Depth Range: 6.5 to 36.9 ft Downstream of BFN % Substrate per transect Substrate Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 AVG Silt 75.4 80.5 77.0 56.3 69.5 55.5 44.0 62.5 65.1 Mollusk Shell 22.6 12.5 14.5 32.0 7.0 11.5 26.0 29.0 19.4 Sand 0 0 0.0 9.1 9.0 9.0 17.0 0.0 5.5 Detritus 2.0 6.5 8.0 2.5 0.5 1.0 2.5 4.5 3.4 Bedrock 0 0 0.0 0.0 9.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 2.4 Boulder 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 Cobble 0 0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.6 Gravel 0 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.2 Clay 0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Average Depth (ft) 21.0 20.0 20.2 18.7 18.3 18.9 20.6 20.2 19.7 Actual Depth Range: 9.1to31.7 ft 36 Table 9. Individual metric scores and the overall RFAI scores downstream (TRM 292.5) and upstream (TRM 295.9) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Autumn 2011. Autumn 2011 TRM292.5 TRM295.9 Metric Gear Obs Score Obs Score Species richness and composition 1. Number of indigenous 28 3 29 3 species 2. Number of 8 7 Centrarchid species Black crappie Black crappie (less Micropterus) Bluegill Bluegill Green sunfish Green sunfish Longear sunfish 5 Longear sunfish 5 Redbreast sunfish Redear sunfish Redear sunfish Warmouth Warmouth White crappie White crappie 3. Number ofbenthic 4 4 invertivore species Black redhorse Freshwater drum Freshwater drum 3 Logperch 3 Silver redhorse Northern hog sucker Spotted sucker Spotted sucker 4. Number of intolerant species 5 5 Black redhorse Longear sunfish Longear sunfish 5 N orthem hog sucker 5 Skipjack herring Skipjack herring Smallmouth bass Smallmouth bass Spotted sucker Spotted sucker 5. Percent tolerant individuals 59.6% 54.6% Gizzard shad 34.6% Gizzard shad 36.8% Bluegill 13.3 % Bluegill 6.7% Spotfin shiner 6.1 % Largemouth bass 5.9% BF Green sunfish 3.7% 0.5 Green sunfish 2.6% 0.5 Largemouth bass 1.6 % Golden shiner 1.4 % Common carp 0.1 % Spotfin shiner 0.8% Golden shiner 0.1 % Common carp 0.3 % Redbreast sunfish 0.1 % White crappie 0.1 % GN 40.2 % 36.0% Gizzard shad 32.2 % Gizzard shad 15.l % White crappie 4.6% Longnose gar 14.0% Largemouth bass 3.4 % 0.5 Largemouth bass 3.5 % 0.5 Bluegill 1.2 % Golden shiner 1.2 % White crappie 1.2 % 37 Table 9. (Continued) Autumn 2011 TRM292.5 TRM295.9 Metric Gear Obs Score Obs Score 6. Percent dominance by 34.6% 36.8% one species EF Gizzard shad 1.5 Gizzard shad 1.5 32.2% 20.9% GN Gizzard shad 1.5 White bass 1.5 7. Percent non-indigenous 15.7% 19.8 % species EF Mississippi silverside 15.6 % 0.5 Mississippi silverside 19.4 % 0.5 Common carp 0.1 % Common carp 0.3 % GN 0% 2.5 0% 2.5 8. Number oftop carnivore 9 11 species Black crappie Black crappie Flathead catfish Flathead catfish Largemouth bass Largemouth bass Skipjack herring Longnose gar Smallmouth bass 5 Skipjack herring 5 Spotted bass Smallmouth bass Spotted gar Spotted bass White bass Spotted gar White crappie White bass White crappie Yellow bass Trophic composition 9. Percent top carnivores 3.8% 8.4% Largemouth bass 1.6 % Largemouth bass 5.9% Smallmouth bass 1.6 % Smallmouth bass 1.0 % Flathead catfish 0.2% Flathead catfish 0.5 % Spotted gar 0.2% Spotted gar 0.5 % EF Black crappie 0.1 % 0.5 Spotted bass 0.2 % 1.5 Spotted bass 0.1 % Black crappie 0.1 % White crappie 0.1 % Yellow bass 0.1% 35.6% 57.0% Flathead catfish 11.5 % White bass 20.9% White bass 9.2% Longnose gar 14.0 % Skipjack herring 4.6% Yellow bass 11.6 % GN White crappie 4.6% 1.5 Largemouth bass 3.5% 2.5 Largemouth bass 3.4 % Flathead catfish 2.3% Spotted gar 2.3% Skipjack herring 2.3 % Smallmouth bass 1.2 % White era ie 1.2 % 38 Table 9. (Continued) Autumn 2011 Metric 10. Percent omnivores Fish abundance and health 11. Average number per run 12. Percent anomalies Overall RF AI Score Gear EF GN EF GN EF GN TRM292.5 Obs 37.8% Gizzard shad 34.6 % Channel catfish 2.6 % Smallmouth buffalo 0.5 % Common carp 0.1 % Golden shiner 0.1 % 52.9% Gizzard shad 32.2% Channel catfish 10.3 % Black buffalo 4.6% Blue catfish 4.6% Smallmouth buffalo 1.1% 118.9 8.7 0.3% 0% TRM295.9 Score Obs 41.0 % Gizzard shad 36.8 % Channel catfish 2.2% 1.5 Golden shiner 1.4% Common carp 0.3 % Smallmouth buffalo 0.3 % 33.7% Gizzard shad 15.1 % Channel catfish 11.6 % 0.5 Black buffalo 2.3 % Blue catfish 2.3 % Golden shiner 1.2 % Smallmouth buffalo 1.2 % 0.5 120.7 0.5 8.6 2.5 0.4 % 2.5 0% 38 Fair RF AI Scores: 12-21 ("Very Poor"), 22-31 ("Poor"), 32-40 ("Fair"), 41-50 ("Good"), or 51-60 ("Excellent"). 39 Score 1.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 2.5 2.5 40 Fair Table 10. Species collected, ecological and recreational designations, and corresponding electrofishing (EF) and gill net (GN) catch per unit effort downstream {TRM 292.5) of the BFN discharge -Autumn 2011. Thermally Comm. Rec. EF EF GN Trophic Indigenous Sensitive Valuable Valuable Species Species Species Catch Catch Total Catch Total Total Fish Percent Common Name Scientific name level species Tolerance Per Run Per Hour Fish EF Per Net Fish GN Combined Compositfon Gizzard shad Common carp* Golden shiner Spotfin shiner Redbreast sunfish Green sunfish Bluegill Largemouth bass White crappie Skipjack herring Spotted sucker Black redhorse Longear sunfish Smallmouth bass Spotted gar Threadfin shad Smallmouth buffalo Black buffalo Silver redhorse Blue catfish Channel catfish Flathead catfish White bass Warmouth Dorosoma cepedianum Cyprinus carpio Notemigonus crysoleucas Cyprinella spiloptera Lepomis auritus OM X TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL INT INT INT INT INT x x x 41.13 188.69 617 2.80 28 645 34.5% Lepomis cyanellus Lepomis macrochirus Micropterus salmoides Pomoxis annularis Alosa chrysochloris Minytrema melanops Moxostoma duquesnei Lepomis megalotis Micropterus dolomieu Lepisosteus oculatus Dorosoma petenense Jctiobus bubalus Ictiobus niger Moxostoma anisurum lctalurus furcatus Jctalurus punctatus Pylodictis olivaris Marone chrysops Lepomis gulosus OM OM X IN X IN X IN X IN X TC X TC X TC X BI X BI X IN X TC X TC X PK X OM X OM X BI OM OM TC TC IN x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 0.07 0.07 7.27 0.13 4.40 15.87 1.93 0.47 0.53 3.67 1.93 0.20 16.00 0.60 0,07 3.07 0.27 0.13 0.31 0.31 33.33 0.61 20.18 72.78 8.87 2.14 2.45 16.82 8.87 0.92 73.39 2.75 0.31 14.07 1.22 0.61 109 2 66 238 29 7 8 55 29 3 240 9 46 4 2 0.30 0.40 0.40 0.10 0.20 0.10 0.40 0.40 0.90 1.00 0.80 3 4 4 2 4 4 9 10 8 109 2 66 238 32 4 4 7 8 56 29 5 240 10 4 1 4 55 14 8 2 Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN X X 0.93 4.28 14 14 Spotted bass Micropterus punctulatus TC X X 0.07 0.31 1 Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC X X 0.07 0.31 Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI X X X 1.40 6.42 21 0.90 9 30 Mississippi silverside* Menidia audens IN 18.60 85.32 279 279 Chestnut lamprey Jchthyomyzon castaneus PS X 0.07 0.31 1 1 Total 118.95 545.58 1,784 8.70 87 1,871 Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected 30 28 1 9 21 25 13 Trophic level: benthic invertivore (BI), insectivore (IN), omnivore (OM), top carnivore (TC); planktivore (PK), parasitic (PS). Tolerance: tolerant species (TOL), intolerant species (INT); Comm.-Commercially, Rec.-Recreationally. *Denotes aquatic nuisance species next to common name. All species are considered representative important species. No species collected have a Federal Threatened or Endangered status. 40 0.1% 0.1% 5.8% 0.1% 3.5% 12.7% 1.7% 0.2% 0.2% 0.4% 0.4% 3.0% 1.5% 0.3% 12.8% 0.5% 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% 2.9% 0.7% 0.4% 0.1% 0.7% 0.1% 0.1% 1.6% 14.9% 0.1% 100.0%

Table 11. Species collected, ecological and recreational designations, and corresponding electrofishing (EF) and gill net (GN) catch per unit effort upstream (TRM 295.9) of the BFN Plant discharge -Autumn 2011. Thermally Comm. Rec. EF EF GN Trophic level Indigenous species Sensitive Valuable Valuable Tolerance Species Species Species Catch Catch Total Catch Total Total Fish Percent Common Name Scientific name Per Run Per Hour Fish EF Per Net Fish GN Combined Composition Longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus Dorosoma cepedianum Cyprinus carpio Notemigonus crysoleucas Cyprinella spiloptera Lepomis cyanellus Lepomis macrochirus Micropterus salmoides Pomoxis annularis TC OM OM OM IN IN IN TC TC TC BI BI IN TC TC PK HB OM OM OM OM TC TC TC IN x x TOL 1.20 12 12 0.6% Gizzard shad Common carp* Golden shiner TOL X 44.40 0.40 1.67 0.93 3.13 8.13 7.13 0.13 197.63 1.78 7.42 4.15 13.95 36.20 31.75 0.59 666 6 25 14 47 122 107 1.30 13 679 35.8% TOL X 6 0.3% TOL X 0.10 26 1.4% Spotfin shiner x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x TOL 14 0.7% Green sunfish Bluegill Largemouth bass White crappie Skipjack herring Northern hog sucker Spotted sucker Longear sunfish Smallmouth bass Spotted gar Threadfin shad Largescale stoneroller Smallmouth buffalo Black buffalo Blue catfish Channel catfish Flathead catfish White bass Yellow bass Warmouth Alosa chrysochloris Hypentelium nigricans Minytrema melanops Lepomis megalotis Micropterus dolomieu Lepisosteus oculatus Dorosoma petenense Campostoma oligolepis Ictiobus bubalus Ictiobus niger Ictalurus furcatus Ictalurus punctatus Pylodictis olivaris Marone chrysops Marone mississippiensis Lepomis gulosus TOL TOL TOL TOL INT INT INT INT INT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 0.07 0.93 1.80 1.27 0.60 20.20 0.07 0.33 2.67 0.60 0.07 0.07 0.30 4.15 8.01 5.64 2.67 89.91 0.30 1.48 11.87 2.67 0.30 0.30 2 14 27 19 9 303 1 5 40 9 0.10 0.30 0.10 0.20 0.10 0.10 0.20 0.20 1.00 0.20 1.80 1.00 3 1 2 2 2 10 2 18 10 47 123 110 3 2 1 14 27 20 9 303 1 6 2 2 50 11 18 11 Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN X X 1.73 7.72 26 0.20 2 28 Spotted bass Micropterus punctulatus TC X X 0.20 0.89 3 3 Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC X X 0.13 0.59 2 2 Logperch Percina caprodes BI X X 0.07 0.30 1 Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI X X X 0.47 2.08 7 0.50 5 12 Mississippi silverside* Menidia audens IN 23.47 104.45 352 352 Total 120.67 537.10 1,810 8.60 86 1,896 Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected 31 29 2 7 21 26 17 Trophic level: benthic invertivore (BI), herbivore (HB), insectivore (IN), omnivore (OM), top carnivore (TC); planktivore (PK). Tolerance: tolerant species (TOL), intolerant species (INT); Comm.-Commercially, Rec.-Recreationally. *Denotes aquatic nuisance species next to common name. All species are considered representative important species. No species collected have a Federal Threatened or Endangered status. 41 2.5% 6.5% 5.8% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.7% 1.4% 1.1% 0.5% 16.0% 0.1% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1% 2.6% 0.6% 0.9% 0.6% 0.1% 1.5% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.6% 18.6% 100.0% Table 12. Summary of RF AI scores from sites located directly upstream and downstream of BFN and scores from sampling conducted during 1993 through 2011 as part of the Vital Signs monitoring program in Wheeler Reservoir. Station Location 1993 1994 1995 1997 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Inflow TRM348.0 46 48 42 48 36 38 42 38 44 44 42 38 38 40 40 46 Transition TRM295.9 45 45 34 40 30 41 37 43 39 43 46 41 39 42 39 44 40 BFN Upstream Transition TRM292.5 43 40 41 43 43 36 42 42 45 36 38 38 BFN Downstream Fore bay TRM277.0 52 44 48 45 42 41 45 44 43 45 46 49 46 47 40 46 Elk River ERM6.0 43 47 36 49 36 49 44 49 47 39 42 43 Embayment Note: No data were collected for 1996 and 1998. RFAI Scores: 12-21 ("Very Poor"), 22-31 ("Poor"), 32-40 ("Fair"), 41-50 ("Good"), or 51-60 ("Excellent") 42 Avg. 42 41 41 45 44 Table 13. Spatial statistical comparisons of numbers of fish species, mean electrofishing catch per unit effort values (number/run), tolerance designations, trophic levels, and non-indigenous individuals, along with species richness and Simpson and Shannon diversity values, collected downstream and upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, autumn 2011. -Mean (Standard Deviation) Parameter Downstream Upstream Significant Test P Value Difference Statistic(a) Number of species (per run) Total (species richness) 16.5 (4.5) 14.7 (5.3) No t = 1.0 0.31 Benthic Invertivores 1.5 (0.7) 0.8 (0.9) Yes z = -2.2 0.01 Insectivores 4.5 (1.7) 3.6 (1.6) No t = 1.5 0.12 Omnivores 2.1 (1.0) 2.7 (1.1) No t = 1.4 0.15 Plank:tivores 0.3 (0.5) 0.2 (0.4) No t = 0.4 0.67 Top Carnivores 1.9 (1.1) 2.1 (1.3) No t=0.5 0.64 Tolerant 4.0 (1.3) 4.1 (1.6) No t= 0.3 0.80 Intolerant 2.1 (0.8) 1.1 (1.1) Yes Z=2.2 0.01 CPUE (per run) Total 13.0 (6.9) 12.7 (9.1) No t = 0.1 0.92 Benthic Invertivores 0.2 (0.1) 0.1 (0.2) No t = 1.0 0.30 Insectivores . 3.4 (2.1) 2.6 (2.5) No t= 0.9 0.35 Omnivores 2.9 (2.3) 3.3 (2.1) No t= 0.5 0.65 Plank:tivores 1.1 (3.1) 1.4 (4.3) No t= 0.2 0.84 Top Carnivores 0.3 (0.3) 0.7 (0.6) Yes Z=2.l 0.02 Tolerant 4.7 (2.3) 4.4 (3.2) No t= 0.3 0.74 Intolerant 0.4 (0.3) 0.3 (0.4) No t = 1.1 0.27 Diversity Indices (per run) Simpson 0.7 (0.1) 0.7 (0.1) No t= 0.7 0.51 Shannon 1.6 (0.3) 1.5 (0.39) No t= 0.6 0.55 a) t-Value indicates results of independent two-sample t-test (a=0.05). Z-Value indicates results of Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Z-test (a=0.05) used when raw data could not be normalized using transformation. 43 Table 14. Individual metric ratings and the overall RBI scores (laboratory-processed) for downstream and upstream sampling sites near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Wheeler Reservoir, Autumn 2011. Downstream Upstream TRM290.4 TRM293.2 TRM295.9 Metric Obs Ra tine: Obs Ra tine: Obs Ra tine: 1. Average number of taxa 6.2 3 11.7 5 8.4 5 2. Proportion of samples with long-lived organisms 0.6 3 0.8 3 0.7 3 3. Average number of EPT taxa 0.7 3 1.2 3 1.0 3 4. Average proportion of oligochaete individuals 5.0 5 35.4 1 6.3 5 5. Average proportion of total abundance comprised by the 89.2 1 80.6 3 81.1 3 two most abundant taxa 6. Average density excluding chironomids and oligochaetes 193.3 1 321.7 3 430 3 7. Zero-samples -proportion of samples containing no 0 5 0 5 0 5 organisms Benthic Index Score 21 23 27 Ecological Health Rating Fair Fair Good Reservoir Benthic Index Scores: 7-12 ("Very Poor"), 13-18 ("Poor"), 19-23 ("Fair"), 24-29 ("Good"), 30-35 ("Excellent") 44 Table 15. Metric scores and the overall RBI scores determined from field-processed criteria, for sites upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Wheeler Reservoir, Autumn 2000-2010. Downstream -TRM 291. 7 Avg No. Taxa % Long-Lived Avg.No.EPT % % Dominant Density excl Zero Samples tax a Oligochaetes Taxa chiro and oligo Sample Year Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score 2000 4 3 1 5 0.8 5 6.4 5 79.6 3 125 1 0 5 2001 5.6 5 1 5 1.1 5 5.7 5 43 5 230 1 0 5 2002 5.7 5 1 5 0.8 5 7.4 5 88.1 1 120 1 0 5 2003 6.5 5 1 5 1 5 0.3 5 76.1 5 1270 5 0 5 2004 6.7 5 1 5 1 5 1.4 5 74.4 5 523.3 3 0 5 2005 5.5 5 1 5 0.8 5 3.6 5 80.3 3 508.3 3 0 5 2006 6.2 5 1 5 0.1 5 2.3 5 77.3 5 272.3 1 0 5 2007 6.4 5 1 5 0.8 5 12.4 5 80.2 3 166.7 1 0 5 2008 6.3 5 0.9 5 1.1 5 7.2 5 81.5 3 181.7 1 0 5 2009 5 5 0.7 3 0.6 3 4.6 5 90.3 1 83.3 1 0 5 2010 4.6 5 0.7 3 0.6 3 0.3 5 94.8 1 126.7 1 0 5 Mean: 5.7 0.9 0.8 4.7 78.7 327.9 0.0 Maximum: 6.7 1 1.1 12.4 94.8 1270 0 -Minimum: 4 0.7 0.1 0.3 43 83.3 0 45 Overall Score 27 31 27 35 33 31 31 29 29 23 23 29 Table 15. (Continued) Upstream -TRM 295.9 Avg No. Taxa % Long-Lived Avg.No.EPT % Oligochaetes % Dominant Density excl Zero Samples tax a Taxa chiro and oligo Overall Sample Year Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Score 2000 4.6 5 1 5 0.8 5 6.6 5 77.6 5 190 1 0 5 31 2001 5.3 5 1 5 1 5 2.7 5 79.8 3 188.3 1 0 5 29 2002 6.5 5 1 5 0.8 5 7.2 5 75.6 5 266.7 1 0 5 31 2003 5.1 5 0.8 5 1 5 0.8 5 84.1 3 456.7 3 0 5 31 2004 6.2 5 1 5 0.9 5 1.1 5 73.7 5 353.6 3 0 5 33 2005 5.6 5 1 5 1.2 5 2.3 5 85.4 3 490 3 0 5 31 2006 5.9 5 0.8 5 0.7 3 7 5 75 5 348.3 3 0 5 31 2007 6.5 5 0.9 5 0.9 5 1.9 5 74.2 5 353.3 3 0 5 33 2008 5.8 5 0.7 3 0.5 3 7.8 5 85.4 3 220 1 0 5 25 2009 5.1 5 1 5 0.4 3 12.2 5 75.2 5 133.3 1 0 5 29 2010 4.2 3 1 5 0.8 5 2.1 5 92 1 108.3 1 0 5 25 Mean: 5.5 0.9 0.8 4.7 79.8 282.6 0 30 Maximum: 6.5 1 1.2 12.2 92 490 0 Minimum: 4.2 0.7 0.4 0.8 73.7 108.3 0 46 Table 16. Metric scores and the overall RBI scores determined from lab-processed criteria, for sites upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Wheeler Reservoir, 2001-2006. Downstream -TRM 291.7 Avg No. Taxa % Long-Lived Avg.No.EPT O/o %Dominant Density excl

• Zero Samples tax a Oligochaetes Taxa chiro and oligo Sample Year Obs Score Obs Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score 2001 7.8 5 1 5 1.1 3 7.6 5 71.7 5 3i5 3 0 5 2002 5.4 3 1 5 0.9 3 10.9 5 88.2 1 106.7 1 0 5 2003 7.3 5 1 5 1 3 0.4 5 73.2 5 1,270.0 5 0 5 2004 7.9 5 1 5 1 3 1.6 5 73.5 5 551.7 3 0 5 2006 9.4 5 1 5 1.6 5 2.3 5 78.1 3 448.2 3 0 5 Mean: 7.56 1 1.12 4.56 76.94 538.32 0 Maximum: 9.4 1 1.6 10.9 88.2 1,270.0 0 Minimum: 5.4 1 0.9 0.4 71.7 106.7 0 U t TRM2959 1ps ream-Avg No. Taxa % Avg.No.EPT % %Dominant Density excl Zero Samples tax a Oligochaetes Taxa chiro and oligo Sample Year Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score 2001 7.4 5 1 5 1 3 6.9 5 75.6 5 281.7 1 0 5 2002 6.8 5 1 5 1.1 3 5 5 74.l 5 281.7 1 0 5 2003 6.3 3 1 5 0.9 3 0.6 5 82.2 3 583.3 3 0 5 2004 6.2 3 1 5 0.8 3 1.1 5 72.2 5 336.2 3 0 5 2006 9.2 5 0.8 3 1.2 3 5.1 5 78.6 3 1,273.3 5 0 5 2011 8.4 5 0.7 3 1 3 6.3 5 81.1 3 430 3 0 5 Mean: 7.4 0.9 1.0 4.2 77.3 531.0 0 Maximum: 9.2 1 1.2 6.9 82.2 1,273.3 0 Minimum: 6.2 0.7 0.8 0.6 72.2 281.7 0 47 Overall Score 31 23 33 31 31 30 Overall Score 29 29 27 29 29 27 28 Table 17. Mean densities ( organisms/m2) of benthic taxa collected by dredge sample along transects upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, 2011. Estimates of total mean density per sample are included.
• Taxon Cnidaria Hydrozoa Hydroida Hydridae Hydrasp. Nematoda Platyhelminthes Turbellaria Tricladida Planariidae Dugesia tigrina Annelida Oligochaeta Haplotaxida Naididae Bratis unidentata Dero trifida Derosp. Nais pardalis Pristina aequiseta Pristina sp. Pristinel!a jenkinae Slavina appendiculata Tubificidae Aulodrilus piqueti Branchiura sowerbyi Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri Quistadrilus multisetosus Hirudinea Rhyncho bdellida Glossiphoniidae Actinobdella inequiannulata Helobdella stagnalis Helobdella sp. Placobde!la montifera Arthropoda Arachnomorpha Arachnida Trombidiformes Unionicolidae Unionicola s . Downstream TRM 290.4 TRM 293.2 48 2 15 5 8 2 7 2 2 3 45 10 2 60 23 2 2 5 5 83 20 13 40 5 3 2 Upstream TRM295.9 5 2 15 32 13 2 25 2 17 2 2 Table (Continued) Downstream Upstream Taxon 290.4 293.2 295.9 Crustacea Brachiopoda Cladocera Sididae Sida crystallina 122 3 Malacostraca Amphipoda Corophiidae Apocorophium lacustre 3 Isopoda Gammaridae Gammarus sp. 2 Maxillopoda Copepoda Cyclopoida 7 Ostracoda 2 Podocopa Candoniidae Candonasp. 13 8 5 Insecta Diptera Chaoboridae Chaoborus punctipennis 2 5 3 Chironomidae Ablabesmyia annulata 5 25 18 Ablabesmyia mallochi 3 Ablabesmyia rhamphe gp. 2 Axarussp. 2 Chironomus crassicaudatus 8 15 18 Chironomus decorus gp. 5 2 Chironomus major 40 10 Chironomus sp. 7 27 Cladotanytarsus sp. 5 8 Coelotanypus tricolor 250 122 228 Coelotanypus sp. 8 30 38 Cryptochironomus sp. 2 5 5 Dicrotendipes lucifer 8 28 Dicrotendipes modestus 3 18 98 Dicrotendipes neomodestus 2 2 Dicrotendipes simpsoni 2 53 Glyptotendipes sp. 3 25 103 Microchironomus sp. 7 Nanocladius alternantherae 2 7 Nanocladius distinctus 3 18 Parachironomus sp. 2 Polypedilum halterale gp 5 3 Procladius sp. 3 5 3 Tanypodinae Tanytarsus sp. 2 Thienemanniella loba odema 2 49 Table 17. (Continued) Downstream Upstream Tax on 290.4 293.2 295.9 Ephemeroptera Caenidae Caenis sp. 3 Ephemeridae Hexagenia limbata <lOmm 3 20 10 Hexagenia limbata >lOmm 12 17 17 Trichoptera Hydroptilidae Orthotrichia sp 2 Polycentropodidae Cyrnellus fraternus 2 23 107 Leptoceridae Oecetis sp. 2 5 Mollusca Gastropoda Mesogastropoda Hydrobiidae Amnicola limosa 2 3 17 Somatogyrus sp. 3 Pleuroceridae Pleurocera canaliculata 3 Viviparidae Campeloma decisum 2 Lioplax sulculosa 3 Viviparus sp. 2 2 Bivalvia Veneroida Corbiculidae Corbiculafluminea <lOmm 7 18 18 Corbicula fluminea > 1 Omm 2 15 77 Sphaeriidae Eupera cubensis 5 2 Musculium transversum 147 177 153 Unionoida Unionidae Megalonaias nervosa 2 Obliquaria reflexa 3 Truncilla donaciformis <1 Omm 2 Number of samples 10 10 10 Total Mean Density per meter2 578 1,077 1,197 Taxa Richness 31 50 42 Sum of area sampled (meter2) 0.6 0.6 0.6 50 Table 18. Field estimates of substrate composition in benthic dredge samples collected around Brown's Ferry Nuclear Plant, October 2011. Sample# % Distance Depth (ft) Primary Component Secondary Component River Mile fromLDB TRM290.4 5 12.4 Silt 85% Mollusk shell 15% 2 15 17.4 Silt 95% Detritus 5% 3 25 21.2 Silt 98% Mollusk shell 1% 4 35 25.5 Silt 90% Mollusk shell 10% 5 45 23.4 Silt 98% Detritus 2% 6 55 10.8 Silt 80% Mollusk shell 20% 7 65 11.8 Mollusk shell 80% Silt 20% 8 75 23.5 Silt 98% Mollusk shell 2% 9 85 12.7 Silt 98% Mollusk shell 2% 10 95 11.5 Silt 98% Boulder 1% TRM293.2 1 5 6.5 Mollusk shell 80% Gravel 15% 2 15 7.8 Mollusk shell 50% Sand 50% 3 25 11.8 Mollusk shell 50% Gravel 50% 4 35 12.7 Mollusk shell 100% --5 45 14.2 Clay 60% Mollusk shell 30% 6 55 12 Clay 60% Mollusk shell 30% 7 65 24 Silt 90% Detritus 8% 8 75 22 Silt 50% Detritus 30% 9 85 20 Silt 95% Detritus 4% 10 95 8.3 Mollusk shell 60% Gravel 38% TRM295.9 1 5 8.9 Silt 88% Detritus 10% 2 15 9.4 Mollusk shell 90% Silt 10% 3 25 9.6 Silt 90% Mollusk shell 8% 4 35 6.1 Mollusk shell 88% Silt 8% 5 45 22.0 Silt 75% Detritus 15% 6 55 26.0 Silt 75% Gravel 15% 7 65 8.0 Clay 50% Mollusk shell 45% 8 75 13.9 Silt 90% Mollusk shell 5% 9 85 11.8 Silt 90% Mollusk shell 8% 10 95 9.1 Silt 75% Mollusk shell 15% 51 Table 19. RBI scores from data collected from 1994 through 2011 at Wheeler Reservoir inflow, transition, embayment, and forebay sampling sites. BFN Downstream BFN Downstream BFN Upstream, 1994-2010 BFNThermal 2011 Elk River Inflow Transition Transition Plume Transition Transition Forebay, Embayment, Sample Year TRM347 TRM295.9 TRM291.7 TRM293.2 TRM290.4 TRM277 ERM6 1994 31 33 19 15 1995 21 25 15 13 1997 25 31 23 15 1999 23 31 17 15 Average: 25 30 NIA NIA NIA 19 15 1994-1999 2000 31 27 2001 21 29 31 17 15 2002 25 31 27 15 2003 31 31 35 15 15 2004 31 33 33 19 2005 31 31 31 15 17 2006 33 31 31 13 2007 33 33 29 13 13 2008 25 29 15 2009 31 29 23 13 13 2010 25 23 2011 27 27 23 21 13 13 Average: 29 30 29 23 21 15 14 2000-2011 Average: 28 30 29 23 21 16 14 1994-2011 Note: No data were collected for 1996 and 1998. Reservoir Benthic Index Scores: 7-12 ("Very Poor"), 13-18 ("Poor"), 19-23 ("Fair"), 24-29 ("Good"), 30-35 ("Excellent") 52 Table 20. Wildlife observed along 2100 m transects parallel to the shoreline, upstream and downstream ofBFN, autumn 2011. RDB = Right descending bank LDB = Left descending bank Transect Birds Obs. Reptiles Obs. Upstream RDB American Crow 6 Belted Kingfisher Songbird sp. Great Blue Heron 4 Double-crested Cormorant 1 Mallard 5 LDB Sandpiper sp. 2 Turtle sp. 20 Belted Kingfisher 2 Great Blue Heron 4 Downstream RDB Blackbird 20 Songbird sp. 2 Belted Kingfisher 1 Great Blue Heron 6 American Coot 6 Wood Duck 8 Mallard 7 LDB Songbird sp. 5 Great Blue Heron 5 Mallard 8 Wood Duck 4 53 Depth 10% (m) 0.3 77.3 77.3 2 77.2 3 77.2 4 5 6 7 8 9 Table 21. Water temperature (°F) profiles measured at five locations (10%, 30%, 50%, 70%, 90%) from right descending bank along transects located at TRM 296.5, TRM 294, TRM 292.4, TRM 291.2, and TRM 289.1 during autumn 2011 to characterize the BFN thermal plume. Ambient (TRM 296.5) TRM 294 (at Discharge) TRM 292.4 (Middle of plume) TRM 291.2 (Downstream limit of TRM 289.1 (Outside of plume) 30% 50% 70% 90% 10% 30% 50% 70% 90% 10% 30% 50% 70% 90% 10% 30% 50% 70% 90% 10% 30% 50% 70% 90% 76.2 76.2 76.2 75.3 82.7 82.5 81.2: 81.9 ' 76.6 81.0 81.1 81.4 79.7 76.4 80.1 79.7 78.1 77.4 76.9 79.6 78.9 78.4 78.1 76.8 76.2 76.2 76.2 75.3 82.6 82.5 81:.1. 81:9 76.7 81:0 81.,1 81.3 79.1 76.4 80.1 79.6 78.1 77.4 76.9 79.6 78.9 78.4 78.1 76.8 76.2 76.2 76.2 75.3 ; 82.4 82.5 78.9 81.8 76.6 81.0 80.9 80.1 76.9 76.4 , 80.1. 79.3 78.1 77.4 76.9 79.6 78.9 78.4 78.1 76.8 76.2 76.2 75.3 82.2 82.4 78.8 77.7 76.4 80.1 79.9 79.5 76.7 76.4 : 80.0 79.1 78.1 77.4 76.9 79.6 78.8 78.4 78.1 76.8 76.3 82.0 79,9 77.9 76.4 . 80.0 ' 78.1 77.4 76.9 79.6 78.7 78.4 78.1 76.8 76.2 81.4 79.8 77.7 77.4 76.9 76.8 76.3 81.2 79.8 77.6 77.4 76.7 76.2 80.9 79.8 77.6 76.2 80.8 ' 80.0 *Shaded numbers represent temperatures 3.6°F (2°C) or greater above ambient temperature 54 Table 22. Water quality parameters collected along vertical depth profiles at the downstream, midpoint, and upstream end of the RFAI sample reach downstream (TRM 292.5) and upstream (TRM 295.9) of BFN, autumn 2011. TRM LOB Mid-channel ROB 292.5 Depth oc OF Cond DO pH Depth oc OF Cond DO pH Depth oc OF Cond DO Downstream 0.3 22.86 73.15 177.6 9.78 8.16 0.3 23.14 73.65 176.9 11.78 8.02 0.3 23.24 73.83 177.3 9.09 Boundary 1.0 22.29 72.12 178.6 8.11 7.52 1.5 22.43 72.37 178.8 9.98 8.03 1.5 22.76 72.97 177.5 9.29 3 22.26 72.07 178.5 7.93 7.43 3 22.41 72.34 177.9 8.68 7.73 3 22.66 72.79 177.9 9.12 4 22.22 72.00 179 7.90 7.39 4 22.41 72.34 178.0 8.64 7.70 6 22.25 72.05 178.0 8.40 7.63 8 22.24 72.03 178.2 8.24 7.59 Midpoint 0.3 23.10 73.58 177.3 10.9 8.40 0.3 24.18 75.52 178.4 9.62 8.18 0.3 24.01 75.22 178.3 9.44 1.5 22.79 73.02 177.1 9.21 7.85 1.5 23.58 74.44 178.1 8.64 7.82 1.5 23.44 74.19 178.1 8.39 3 22.58 72.64 177.0 9.49 7.67 3 23.02 73.44 177.9 8.47 7.61 3 22.98 73.36 178.I 8.33 4 22.68 72.82 177.5 8.36 7.63 6 22.46 72.43 178.5 8.18 7.58 Upstream 0.3 24.91 76.84 180.8 8.62 7.70 0.3 25.23 77.41 180.0 8.84 7.77 0.3 23.15 73.67 181.2 11.58 Boundary 1.5 24.48 76.06 180.7 8.43 7.67 1.5 24.37 75.86 180.1 8.67 7.70 1.5 22.38 72.28 179.7 10.51 3 23.00 73.40 180.4 8.31 7.60 3 23.51 74.32 180.7 8.44 7.62 3 21.69 71.04 179.7 9.80 4 22.84 73.11 179.5 8.20 7.57 4 23.06 73.51 180.8 8.36 7.58 6 22.21 71.98 179.1 7.87 7.48 6 22.48 72.46 181.1 8.18 7.52 8 21.95 71.51 180.0 7.99 7.43 8 22.17 71.91 180.5 8.11 7.46 TRM LOB Mid-channel ROB 295.9 Depth oc OF Cond DO pH Depth oc OF Cond DO pH Depth oc OF Cond DO Downstream 0.3 22.42 72.36 185.0 9.81 7.86 0.3 23.81 74.86 184.4 8.82 7.80 0.3 23.87 74.97 185.0 8.83 Boundary 1.0 21.75 71.15 184.2 9.24 7.82 1.5 22.94 73.29 184.6 8.63 7.78 1.5 23.48 74.26 184.5 8.79 3 21.55 70.79 185.5 9.35 7.8 3 22.67 72.81 184.3 8.68 7.66 3 22.85 73.13 184.2 8.55 4 22.26 72.07 184.1 8.53 7.63 4 22.39 72.30 184.3 8.45 6 21.76 71.17 183.8 8.66 7.62 6 21.92 7 l.46 183.2 8.58 8 21.64 70.95 184.4 8.80 7.62 8 21.36 70.45 185.6 9.01 Midpoint 0.3 21.88 71.38 188.3 7.74 7.28 0.3 21.96 71.53 186.8 7.29 7.32 0.3 20.59 69.06 183.9 8.6 1.5 22.20 71.96 187.4 7.75 7.19 1.5 21.48 70.66 185.6 7.46 7.35 1.5 20.08 68.14 179.4 10.30 3 21.64 70.95 190.0 7.80 7.15 3 21.27 70.29 181.5 7.84 7.40 2 20.04 68.07 179.7 9.98 5 21.23 70.21 180.8 8.11 7.41 7 21.05 69.89 180.3 8.18 7.37 Upstream 0.3 21.18 70.12 199.6 8.38 7.60 0.3 21.77 71.19 187.8 6.95 7.33 0.3 21.46 70.63 182.9 9.36 Boundary 1.5 21.50 70.70 202.2 8.62 7.57 1.5 21.75 71.15 183.5 6.97 7.33 1.5 20.91 69.64 179.9 10.51 3 21.65 70.97 182.5 7.18 7.35 2 20.59 69.06 178.8 10.58 5 21.52 70.74 181.5 7.69 7.42 7 21.36 70.45 180.7 7.85 7.42 55 pH 8.37 8.11 7.87 7.97 7.73 7.61 8.58 8.45 8.09 pH 7.86 7.81 7.73 7.85 7.75 7.83 8.07 8.33 8.27 7.89 8.30 8.41 Figure 1. Location of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant on Wheeler Reservoir. 56 Figure 2. Location of Condenser Cooling Water (CCW) intake and discharge at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. 57 Biomonitoring Zones Downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Electrofishing Station <> Gill Netting Station Benthic Macroinvertebrate Transect Wildlife Observation Transect Thermal Plume Figure 3. Locations of biomonitoring sites downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, including thermal plume resulting from BFN discharge. 58 Biomonitoring Zones Upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Electrofishing Station <> Gill Netting Station Benthic Macrainvertebrate Transect \\flldlife Observation Transect Figure 4. Locations of biomonitoring sites upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. 59 Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Index (SAHi) Transects Upstream and Downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant SAHi Transect Figure 5. Locations of transects used to characterize shoreline and river bottom habitat upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. 60
• River Mlle X :!93 @ Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant RI var 296 Tennessee River (Wheeler Reservoir) 112 a 1000 0 t I 1/2 1 I lie 1000 2fl00 3000 4 0 feet I I I I f'i:1* _r Aile ;x '2117 -Tennessee River (Wheeler Reservoir) -Original River Channel -Water Temperature Monitoring Station Figure 6. Locations of water temperature monitoring stations used to compare water temperatures upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) intake and downstream of BFN discharge during October 2009 through November 2010. *Station 4 was used for upstream ambient temperatures of the BFN intake and was located at TRM 297.8. Stations 1, 16, and 17 were used for temperatures downstream ofBFN discharge and were each located at TRM 293.5. This figure originated in the technical report: Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Module III, Water Temperature Monitoring. 61 Substrate Type N i 2 Kilometers *Depth( ft) of water where sample was taken TVA -E&T -ES&R GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION & ENG! EERING JA UARY2011 Figure 7. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River downstream of Browns Ferry uclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted. Transects 1 and 2 are the farthest downstream of the eight transects established downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. 62 Substrate Type N I I I i 2 Kilometers *Depth( ft) of water where sample was taken TVA -E&T -ES&R GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION & ENGINEERING JANUARY 2011 Figure 8. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted. 63 Substrate Type N i
• 2 Kilometers *Depth( ft) ofwarer where sample was taken TVA -E&T -ES&R GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION & ENGi EERING JANUARY 2011 Figure 9. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted. 64 Substrate Type N l 2 Kilometers
• Depth(ti} of water where sample was taken TVA -E&T -ES&R GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION & ENGINEERING JANUARY 2011 Figure 10. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted. 65 N ! TVA -E&T-ES&R GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION & ENGINEERING DECEMBER 2010 Figure 11. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted. Of the eight transects established upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, transects 1 and 2 are the closest to the plant. 66 N ! TVA -E&T -ES&R GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION & ENGINEERING DECEMBER 2010 Figure 12. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted. 67 Substrate Type N I I I i *Depth( Ii) of water where sample was taken TVA -E&T -ES&R GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION & ENGINEERING DECEMBER 2010 Figure 13. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted. 68 I I I I Substrate Type N t "Depth( ft) of water where sample wa taken TVA -E&T -ES&R GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATIO & ENGINEERING DECEMBER 2010 Figure 14. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted. 69 32 "t:I 30 QJ ..... u J:! 0 u "' QJ *;::; QJ 29 28 -+------"' ::J 0 s:: QJ ti.I) :c s:: .... 27 26 +------1 QJ .0 E ::J z 24 24 23 22 2000 2001 28 28 2002 2003 32 30 30 28 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year 31 28 28 2008 2009 2010 29 28 2011 *TRM 292.5 *TRM 295.9 Figure 15. Comparison of observed values for the Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index metric "Number of Indigenous Species", over twelve years of autumn sampling at the stations upstream and downstream of Brown's Ferry Nuclear Plant. 70
• TRM 292.5 TRM 295.9 45.0 40.9 40.7 40.0 38.S 35.0 31.2 30.0 QI a. E RI Vl 25.0 iii .... 0 I--0 .... 20.0 c: QI u ..... 16.0 QI Q. 15.0 I 12.8 10.6 10.0 5.2 5.0 2.5 1.5 0.0 Benthic lnvertivore Insectivore Omnivore Planktivore Top Carnivore Trophic Level by Sampling Station Figure 16. Percent composition, by trophic level, of fish community sampled upstream and downstream of Brown's Ferry Nuclear Plant-Autumn, 2011. 71 200,000 -FY 2011 Daily Average Historical Daily Average 1976-2010 150,000 +---------------------------------------------::: 0 u:: 100,000 +----------------+-+-----1--------------___,-_______ _ 0 Date Figure 17. Daily average flows from Guntersville Dam, October 2010 through November 2011, and historic daily flows for the same fiscal year period, averaged over the years 1976-2010. 72 u:-QI .... ::I .... ru .... QI c.. E QI .... .... QI .... ru 3: 70 60 so 40 30 Date Downstream of BFN discharge (average of three stations) -Upstream of BFN intake Figure 18. Daily water temperatures averaged over depth (3, 5, and 7 feet) upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant (BFN) intake and downstream of BFN discharge---October 2010 through November 2011. 73 78 77 u:-75 !.-QJ .... :::J .... ru .... QJ 74 Q. E QJ I-.... QJ .... ru 73 72 71 70 0 1 2 3 4 Depth (m) -Downstream Boundary, Left Descending Bank -Downstream Boundary, Mid-channel Downstream Boundary, Right Descending Bank -Midpoint, Left Descending Bank -Midpoint, Mid-channel Midpoint, Right Descending Bank -Upstream Boundary, Left Descending Bank -Upstream Boundary, Mid-channel Upstream Boundary, Right Descending Bank 5 6 7 8 9 Figure 19. Water temperature along vertical depth profiles at nine locations within the sampling station centered at TRM 292.5, downstream of Brown's Ferry Nuclear Power Plant, October 2011. 74 75 73 u:-QJ ... :I 72 .... Ill ... QJ Cl. E QJ I-71 ... QJ .... Ill 70 69 68 67 0 1 2 3 4 5 Depth (m) -Downstream Boundary, Left Descending Bank -Downstream Boundary, Mid-channel Downstream Boundary, Right Descending Bank -Midpoint, Left Descending Bank -Midpoint, Mid-channel Midpoint, Right Descending Bank -Upstream Boundary, Left Descending Bank -Upstream Boundary, Mid-channel Upstream Boundary, Right Descending Bank 6 7 8 9 Figure 20. Water temperature along vertical depth profiles at nine locations within the sampling station centered at TRM 295.9, upstream of Brown's Ferry Nuclear Power Plant, October 2011. 75 181.5 181 -180.5 180 E u ....... 179.5 Vl :i > ... 179 *:;: *z; u ::J 178.5 "C c: 0 u 178 177.5 177 176.5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Depth (m) -Downstream Boundary, Left Descending Bank -Downstream Boundary, Mid-channel Downstream Boundary, Right Descending Bank-Midpoint, Left Descending Bank -Midpoint, Mid-channel -Upstream Boundary, Left Descending Bank Upstream Boundary, Right Descending Bank Midpoint, Right Descending Bank -Upstream Boundary, Mid-channel 7 8 9 Figure 21. Conductivity along vertical depth profiles at nine locations within the sampling station centered at TRM 292.5, downstream of Brown's Ferry Nuclear Power Plant, October 2011. 76 E u ........ VI > ..... *;;; *.;; u :l "C c 0 u 205 200 195 190 185 -Downstream Boundary, Left Descending Bank -Downstream Boundary, Mid-channel Downstream Boundary, Right Descending Bank -Midpoint, Left Descending Bank -Midpoint, Mid-channel Midpoint, Right Descending Bank -Upstream Boundary, Left Descending Bank -Upstream Boundary, Mid-channel Upstream Boundary, Right Descending Bank 180 __ _ -175 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Depth (m) Figure 22. Conductivity along vertical depth profiles at nine locations within the sampling station centered at TRM 295.9, upstream of Brown's Ferry Nuclear Power Plant, October 2011. 77 E c. c. 13 12 11 -10 c Cll g2 )( 0 "'C Cll 9 "' "' c 8 0 1 2 3 4 Depth (m) -Downstream Boundary, Left Descending Bank -Downstream Boundary, Mid-channel Downstream Boundary, Right Descending Bank -Midpoint, Left Descending Bank -Midpoint, Mid-channel -Midpoint, Right Descending Bank -Upstream Boundary, Left Descending Bank -Upstream Boundary, Mid-channel Upstream Boundary, Right Descending Bank 5 6 7 8 9 Figure 23. Dissolved oxygen concentration along vertical depth profiles at nine locations within the sampling station centered at TRM 292.5, downstream of Brown's Ferry Nuclear Power Plant, October 2011. 78 11 10.5 10 9.5 E I Cl. 9 Cl. c QJ a.o > 8.5 )( 0 "'C QJ > 0 8 "' "' 0 7.5 7 6.5 6 0 1 2 3 4 -Downstream Boundary, Left Descending Bank -Downstream Boundary, Mid-channel Downstream Boundary, Right Descending Bank -Midpoint, Left Descending Bank -Midpoint, Mid-channel Midpoint, Right Descending Bank -Upstream Boundary, Left Descending Bank -Upstream Boundary, Mid-channel Upstream Boundary, Right Descending Bank 5 6 7 8 Depth (m) 9 Figure 24. Dissolved oxygen concentration along vertical depth profiles at nine locations within the sampling station centered at TRM 295.9, upstream of Brown's Ferry Nuclear Power Plant, October 2011. 79 8.8 8.4 +-----..---------------------------! 8.2 -Downstream Boundary, Left Descending Bank -Downstream Boundary, Mid-channel Downstream Boundary, Right Descending Bank -Midpoint, Left Descending Bank -Midpoint, Mid-channel Midpoint, Right Descending Bank -Upstream Boundary, Left Descending Bank -Upstream Boundary, Mid-channel Qi > Upstream Boundary, Right Descending Bank 8 Qj ..... :I: c. 7.8 7.6 7.4 7.2 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Depth (m) Figure 25. Level of acidity (pH) along vertical depth profiles at nine locations within the sampling station centered at TRM 292.5, downstream of Brown's Ferry Nuclear Power Plant, October 2011. 80 8.6 -Downstream Boundary, Left Descending Bank -Downstream Boundary, Mid-channel 8.4 +-----Downstream Boundary, Right Descending Bank / -Midpoint, Left Descending Bank -Midpoint, Mid-channel -Midpoint, Right Descending Bank -Upstream Boundary, Left Descending Bank -Upstream Boundary, Mid-channel 8.2 7 8 Upstream Boundary, Right Descending Bank Qi > Cll 7.8 ..... -:I: c.. 7.6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Depth (m) Figure 26. Level of acidity (pH) along vertical depth profiles at nine locations within the sampling station centered at TRM 295.9, upstream of Brown's Ferry Nuclear Power Plant, October 2011. 81 ATTACHMENT 9 Reference TVA. 2012b. Entrainment of lchthyoplankton at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant During 2008-2009. Knoxville, Tennessee: TVA Biological and Water Resources.

ENTRAINMENT OF ICHTHYOPLANKTON AT BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT DURING 2008-2009 2012 ENVIRONMENT AND TECHNOLOGY BIOLOGICAL AND WATER RESOURCES Knoxville, Tennessee TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................... i LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................. ii LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ ii ABB RE VIA TIO NS AND ACRONYMS .......................................................................... iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 1 INTRODUCTIO .............................................................................................................. 2 Background and Scope ................................................................................................... 2 RESERVOIR AND PLANT OPERATION DURING 2008 AND 2009 ........................... 3 Wheeler Reservoir Operation ......................................................................................... 3 BFN Operation ................................................................................................................ 3 METHODS ......................................................................................................................... 3 Sample Collection ........................................................................................................... 3 Sample Processing .......................................................................................................... 4 Data Analysis .................................................................................................................. 4 RESULTS ........................................................................................................... , ............... 4 Fish Eggs ......................................................................................................................... 5 Larval and Juvenile Fish ................................................................................................. 5 Hydraulic Entrainment Estimates ................................................................................... 6 Entrainment Estimates for Eggs and Larvae ................................................................... 6 HISTORICAL COMPARISONS ....................................................................................... 6 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................. 7 LITERATURE CITED ....................................................................................................... 9 LITERATURE REVIEWED ............................................................................................ 10 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Total Volume of Water Filtered by Sample Period at BFN during 2008 and 2009 to Estimate Entrainment of Fish Eggs and Larvae ................................................... 13 Table 2. List of Fish Eggs and Larvae by Family Collected at BFN in 2008 and 2009 Entrainment Samples and Lowest Level of Taxonomic Resolution for each Family . .................................................................................................................................. 14 Table 3. Percent Composition of Fish Eggs and Larvae by Family Collected in Entrainment Samples at BFN during 2008 and 2009 ............................................... 15 Table 4. Number, Average Seasonal and Peak Density, and Percent Composition by Family of Fish Eggs and Larvae Collected at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant during 2008 and 2009 .......................................................................................................... 16 Table 5. Estimated Daily Hydraulic Entrainment at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant by Sample Period during 2008 and 2009 ....................................................................... 18 Table 6. Entrainment Estimates for Fish Eggs and Larvae Collected at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant during 2008 and 2009 ........................................................................ 19 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Location of Condenser Cooling Water (CCW) Intake, Skimmer Wall, and Discharge at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (TRM 294) ............................................. 20 Figure 2. Actual daily releases during 2008 and 2009 and historical (1976-2009) daily average releases from Guntersville Dam (TRM 349) .............................................. 21 Figure 3. Weekly Densities of Fish Eggs Collected in Reservoir and Intake Samples Combined at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (TRM 294) During 2008 and 2009 ....... 22 Figure 4. Weekly Densities of Fish Larvae Collected in Reservoir Samples at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (TRM 294) During 2008 and 2009 .......................................... 23 Figure 5. Weekly Densities of Fish Larvae Collected in Intake Samples at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (TRM 294) During 2008 and 2009 .................................................... 24 Figure 6. Weekly Densities of Clupeidae Larvae Collected in Reservoir and Intake Samples at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (TRM 294) During 2008 and 2009 .......... 25 Figure 7. Weekly Densities ofMoronidae Larvae Collected in Reservoir and Intake Samples at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (TRM 294) During 2008 and 2009 .......... 26 Figure 8. Weekly Densities of Centrarchidae Larvae Collected in Reservoir and Intake Samples at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (TRM 294) During 2008 and*2009 .......... 27 Figure 9. Weekly Densities of Sciaenidae Larvae Collected in Reservoir and Intake Samples at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (TRM 294) During 2008 and 2009 .......... 28 Figure 10. Weekly Densities of Atherinopsidae Larvae Collected in Reservoir and Intake Samples at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (TRM 294) During 2008 and 2009 .......... 29 ii BFN ccw CWA IRP NP DES NRC RFAI SEIS TVA ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Condensed cooling water Clean Water Act Integrated Resource Plan National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Nuclear Regulatory Commission Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Tennessee Valley Authority iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The BFN Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for Power Up-Rate committed to evaluate effects of the 21.5% increase in condenser cooling water (CCW) flow on rate of entrainment of fish eggs and larvae. Unit 1 was returned to service in 2007. A consequence of the increased generation capacity is an increase in the quantity of CCW required during normal operation. Prior to 1980, extensive biological and hydrological studies were conducted to assess the effects of CCW withdrawal on the aquatic community in Wheeler Reservoir. These studies demonstrated CCW withdrawal at BFN had no significant impact on the aquatic community. TV A conducted a two-year entrainment and impingement study in 2003 and 2004 to evaluate effects of two-unit operation on the aquatic fish community and update baseline data prior to the restart of Unit 1. To evaluate the effect of the return of Unit 1 and the Power Up-Rate to 110%, TV A conducted additional entrainment monitoring during 2008 and 2009. Results of that monitoring and comparisons with historical monitoring results are presented in this report. Condenser Cooling Water withdrawn from Wheeler Reservoir potentially affects the fish community by entrainment (small fish and eggs drawn through the intake screens). Densities of fish eggs and larvae in the reservoir near the intake and daily volume of water transported past BFN were compared to daily CCW demand and densities of fish eggs and larvae at the intake skimmer wall to estimate percent entrainment. Sciaenid (freshwater drum) eggs were the dominant egg taxon and clupeids (skipjack herring, gizzard and threadfin shad) the dominant fish taxon collected in entrainment sampling. Expressed as percent composition, 87 percent of the fish eggs were freshwater drum and 95 percent of the larvae collected in the entrainment samples were clupeids. Species composition of fish collected during the 2008 and 2009 monitoring was similar to results recorded during 2003 and 2004. The average larval entrainment rate* of 9% estimated during 2008 and 2009 was within the range ( 4.5-11. 7%) estimated during 2003 and 2004 for larvae. Entrainment estimates were higher in 2008 (eggs-18%; larvae-13%) and 2009 (eggs-7%; larvae-9%) than observed in 2003 and 2004 (eggs-1.3%; larvae-4.5%). Fluctuations in entrainment rates of fish eggs and larvae at BFN are common. Variation in seasonal reservoir flow and the normal cycles in year-class strength of the dominant fish taxa are factors contributing to these fluctuations. Although fluctuations in annual entrainment estimates do occur, the 2008 and 2009 monitoring and recent (2011) Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index (RF Al) evaluations demonstrate Wheeler Reservoir near BFN supports a stable and diverse indigenous fish community with no significant effects from current plant operations. 1 INTRODUCTION Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) is a three-unit nuclear fueled facility capable of producing 3,440 MW of electricity. BFN is located on 840 acres beside Wheeler Reservoir in Limestone County, Athens, Alabama. BFN's current operation utilizes a once-through condenser cooling water (CCW) system, withdrawing water from the Tennessee River through an intake structure and discharging the water through diffuser pipes located downstream from the plant (Figure 1 ). The procedure is regulated by BFN's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, #AL0022080. This document provides current ichthyoplankton (fish eggs and larvae) entrainment estimates associated with the withdrawal of CCW, provides historical comparisons, and updates baseline data collected prior to the Unit 1 restart. Background and Scope The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) initiated an Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) in 1994 to assess the most cost effective approach to meeting future power demands. In response to the IRP, the current BFN operating license extends the life of each unit an additional twenty years and uprates the units to 120 percent of their original licensed generating levels. After an extended shutdown, Unit 2 returned to service in 1991, Unit 3 in 1995, and Unit 1in2007. TVA prepared a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) (TVA 2001) assessing the potential environmental impacts from the proposed license renewal. However, to more accurately assess potential entrainment impacts from increased CCW demand after the restart of Unit 1, TVA conducted studies in 2003 and 2004 (TVA 2006) to update baseline data. Current monitoring conducted during 2008 and 2009 estimates entrainment of fish eggs and larvae at BFN under full three-unit uprated operation. Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) provides standards for cooling water intake structures and procedures for assessing impacts. Compliance requires the permittee to characterize the aquatic community in the vicinity of the intake structure prior to operation, monitor during normal operation to assess impacts, and periodically review current operational demands, reservoir operation, and condition of the aquatic community to ensure no significant changes have occurred. One potential impact associated with cooling water intake structures is entrainment of fish eggs and larvae. Entrainment occurs when small organisms are drawn through the intake structure into the plant cooling system. The BFN' s preoperational baseline data include 18 years of reservoir fish standing stock surveys (1949-1961and1969-1973), gill and trap net surveys (1970-1973), and ichthyoplankton investigations (1971-1973). Aquatic monitoring continued until 1980 as part ofBFN Technical Specifications issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). In 1980, the NRC eliminated the aquatic monitoring requirement from the BFN Technical Specifications. Since 1980, annual fish standing stock surveys (1980-1997) and Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index (RFAI) ratings (1993-2011) provide a minimum data base on condition of the reservoir fish community in the vicinity ofBFN. 2 RESERVOIR AND PLANT OPERATION DURING 2008 AND 2009 Wheeler Reservoir Operation River flow past BFN is dependent on the rate water released through Guntersville and Wheeler Dams. TV A's integrated approach to Wheeler Reservoir operation includes winter drawdown for flood control, minimum summer pools, and hydroelectric power generation. Since 1976, average daily release through Guntersville Dam was 40,093 cubic feet per second ( cfs ). Average daily releases from Guntersville Dam during 2008 and 2009 were 21,760 cfs and 46,259 cfs, respectively (Figure 2). BFN Operation BFN Units 1, 2 and 3 were in operation during the study period and combined generation rate for three Units averaged 2,949 megawatts (MW) in 2008 and 3,030 MW in 2009. The avera9e daily withdrawal rate of CCW from Wheeler Reservoir during the two-year study was 121.8 m Is. However, CCW demand during entrainment sampling (February through early July) averaged 114.4 m3/s in 2008 and 112.7 m3/s in 2009. METHODS Sample Collection Ichthyoplankton samples were collected upstream ofBFN at TRM 294.5 to estimate densities of fish eggs and larvae in the water column drifting past the plant and in the intake basin near the skimmer wall. Twenty samples were collected weekly from February 7, 2008 through June 30, 2008 and February 4 through June 25, 2009. Eight reservoir samples (four day and night) were collected at three stations: a full stratum sample on both left and right overbanks and two channel stratified samples (surface to mid-depth and mid-depth to near bottom). Twelve samples (six day and night) were collected in front of the intake basin at the skimmer wall. Samples were collected with a 0.5 m square beam net, 1.8 m long, with 505 micron "nitex" mesh netting. Nets were equipped with a large-vaned General Oceanics flowmeter used to measure sample volume. Intake samples were collected in the inflow of the CCW under the skimmer wall gates by lowering the net to the bottom of the skimmer wall opening and retrieving it for ten minutes to the top of the opening equally sampling all strata. Volume filtered during each minute sample was dependent on and varied with intake demand and velocity. Ichthyoplankton samples during 2008 and 2009 monitoring were collected using the same methods, diel schedule (day and night), and at the same sample locations as those used in 2003 and 2004. Standard procedures for ichthyoplankton sampling are described in TV A (2009), Appendix A. 3 Sample Processing In the laboratory, all fish eggs and larvae were removed from each sample, identified to the lowest practical taxon, and enumerated. Taxonomic decisions were based on TV A's "Preliminary Guide to the Identification of Larval Fishes in the Tennessee River" (Hogue et al, 1976, Wallus et al., 1990; Kay et al., 1994; Simon and Wallus, 2003; Simon and 2006; Wallus and Simon, 2006; and Wallus and Simon, 2008). Standard procedures for processing ichthyoplankton samples are described in TV A (2009), Appendix B. Data Analysis Data were presented and analyzed by type (eggs or larvae), family (taxon), number and relative abundance. Density offish eggs and larvae was presented as numbers per 1,000 m3 of water sampled. Estimated entrainment was derived from the formula: Where Di was the mean density (number/1000 m3) of eggs or larvae in intake samples; Dr was the mean density (number/1000 m3) of eggs or larvae in the reservoir samples; Qi was the plant intake water demand (m3/d); and Qr was the river flow (m3/d) based on 24-hour daily average release from Guntersville Dam. Temporal occurrence, relative abundance, average seasonal densities and peak densities were discussed for each significant (constituting > 1 % of total) taxon. Average seasonal densities were calculated using the formula: 1,000(Total number fish eggs or larvae collected) D= , Total volume of water sampled RESULTS Densities offish eggs and larvae were expressed as number per volume of water sampled. To evaluate volume filtered per sample period in the intake and reservoir, the total volume of water filtered in the twelve intake samples was compared to the total volume :filtered in the eight reservoir samples. In 2008, an average of 473.9 m3 of water was filtered per sample period in the intake and 594.1 m3 in the reservoir. Total water filtered during 2009 intake sampling averaged 451.2 m3 per sample period and 541.6 m3 in the reservoir (Table 1). Table 2 presents scientific and common names of families of fish eggs and larvae collected during 2008 and 2009 and the taxonomic resolution used in identification. Although identification to subfamily, genus, or species was possible for some individuals, results are presented by family for comparative analysis. Table 3 presents percent composition by family collected during 2008 and 2009 and for the two years combined. 4 Fish Eggs Total fish eggs collected during 2008 was 2,043 and 1,377 in reservoir and intake samples, respectively, and in 2009 was 2,537 in reservoir samples and 2,033 in intake samples (Table 4). Sciaenid (:freshwater drum) eggs constituted 86.7% of the total eggs collected during the two years combined (Table 3). The only other fish eggs collected in significant numbers were those of clupeids at 13.3% during 2008 and 2009 combined (Table 3). During 2009, five catostomid eggs were also collected (Table 4). Fish eggs were collected from late April through June both years. During both years, peak density of eggs occurred during the first week of June, with a smaller peak occurring the first week of May (Figure 3). Greater numbers of drum and shad eggs were collected in reservoir samples than in intake samples in 2008; however, in 2009 numbers were similar in both intake and reservoir samples (Table 4). Average seasonal densities were slightly lower in 2008 (138/1,000 m3 in the intake basin and 164/1,000 m3 in the reservoir) than observed in 2009 (204/1,000 m3 and 234/1,000 m3, in the intake and reservoir, respectively) (Table 4). Larval and Juvenile Fish A total of 50, 179 and 26,567 larval fish representing eleven families was collected during 2008 in reservoir and intake samples, respectively. During 2009, 24,207 and 20,237 larvae representing nine families were collected in reservoir and intake samples, respectively. The two families not collected during 2009 were Belonidae (Atlantic needlefish) and Poeciliidae (Mosquitofish). During 2008, clupeids (shad) represented 96.3% oflarvae collected in reservoir samples and 94.1 % in intake samples. In 2009, clupeid larvae were 93.0% and 92.8% of those collected in reservoir and intake samples, respectively. Other families contributing at least 1 % of the total (2008 and 2009 combined) collected were Moronidae (temperate basses) at 2.3% in intake samples and 2.6% in reservoir samples and Centrarchidae (sunfishes) at 1.5% in intake samples and 1.0% in reservoir samples (Table 3). In both years, larvae were first collected the third week of March. Peak densities (reservoir) were observed during the first week of May through the first week of June during 2008 and an early peak the fifth week of April and second peak the fourth week of May during 2009 (Figure 4). In reservoir samples, average seasonal densities of all larvae averaged 4,022/1,000 m3 in 2008 and 2,235/1,000 m3 in 2009. Average seasonal densities in intake samples were 2,670/1,000 m3 and 2,039/1,000 m3 during 2008 and 2009, respectively (Table 4). Clupeid larvae were collected from mid-April through June in both 2008 and 2009. In 2008 densities peaked on June 12 at 16,128/1,000 m3 in intake samples and 12,725/1,000 m3 in reservoir samples. In 2009, peak densities of 8,454/1,000 m3 in intake samples and 9,556/1,000 m3 in reservoir samples occurred during the second and fourth week of May, respectively (Table 4, Figure 6). Temperate basses (Marone) in Wheeler Reservoir include three Marone species: striped bass, yellow bass, and white bass. Marone were collected during late March or early April through early June in both 2008 and 2009. Typically, Marone are among the earlier spawners in Wheeler Reservoir. Densities were greater in April and early May in both 2008 and 2009 with a peak 5 density of 465/1,000 m3 occurring in reservoir samples the first week in April, 2008 and 439/1,000 m3 in intake samples the first week of May, 2009 (Table 4, Figure 7). In 2008, centrarchid larvae (sunfishes, crappie, and black basses) averaged 37 and 36/1,000 m3 in intake and reservoir samples and 32 and 30/1,000 m3 in 2009, respectively. Peak centrarchid densities in 2008 occurred the second week of June in intake (342/1,000 m3) and reservoir (473/1,000 m3) samples. In 2009, peak densities were recorded the fourth week of June in both intake (283/1,000 m3) and reservoir (298/1,000 m3) samples (Table 4, Figure 8). Freshwater drum (sciaep.id) larvae were collected from late April through June with unusually low numbers (16) collected in 2008 in intake and reservoir samples combined. In 2009, 285 larvae were collected in reservoir samples and 124 in intake samples with peak density (128/1,000 m3) occurring in intake samples the fourth week of June (Table 4, Figure 9). In 2008, silversides larvae averaged 55 and 6/1,000 m3 in intake and reservoir samples, respectively. In 2009, silversides averaged 16 and 9/1,000 m3 in intake and reservoir samples, respectively. Silversides were collected from mid-April through June with a peak density of 503/1,000 m3 occurring the first week of June in intake samples in 2008 and 141/1,000 m3 in intake samples in 2009 (Table 4, Figure 10). Both brook and Mississippi silversides occur in Wheeler Reservoir; however, all late post-yolk sac larvae and juveniles collected were Mississippi silversides. Mississippi silversides are not native to the Tennessee River but have invaded from the Mississippi River drainage and are out-competing the native brook silversides. Hydraulic Entrainment Estimates The hydraulic entrainment estimate for all sample periods, 2008 and 2009 combined, averaged 13.0%. In 2008, hydraulic entrainment averaged 15.7% (range 6.1to63.9%) and in 2009 averaged 11.0% (range 2.2 to 26.5% ). Estimated daily CCW intake volumes were consistent during sampling in 2008 and 2009. Likewise, average daily volume transported past BFN was 1.34 x 109 m3 /day in 2008 and 1.96 x 109 m3 /day in 2009 (Table 5). Entrainment Estimates for Eggs and Larvae The entrainment rate for fish eggs was 18% in 2008 and 7% in 2009. The average entrainment for both years averaged 10% for fish eggs. The high entrainment estimate (15,898%) for shad eggs in 2008 was a result of 597 shad eggs collected in intake samples and only one in reservoir samples (Tables 4 and 6). Whenever numbers of eggs or larvae collected in intake samples are higher than those in reservoir samples, entrainment estimates can be artificially elevated. Usually such events are attributed to actual spawning by taxa which are either resident in the intake basin or migrate there to spawn. An estimated 13% offish larvae transported past BFN was entrained in 2008 compared to 7% in 2009 and averaged 9% for both years (Table 6). HISTORICAL COMPARISONS Hydraulic entrainment estimates in 2008 (15.7%) and 2009 (11 %) were higher than that observed in 2003 (6.2%) and similar to that observed in 2004 (12.7%) (TVA 2006) (Table 5). 6 The 2008 and 2009 average entrainment estimate for larvae (9.0%) was similar to the average (10.8%) for 2003 and 2004 (TVA 2006). Domination by clupeid larvae was almost identical during 2003 and 2004 (94.5%) to that observed during 2008 and 2009 (94.6%). Based on historical and 2008 and 2009 data, fluctuations in the annual entrainment estimates, particularly for specific taxa at BFN, are common and often the result of annual variation in spawning success, variable reservoir flow past the plant, and rate of CCW hydraulic entrainment. CONCLUSIONS Both historical data and the 2008 and 2009 monitoring results demonstrate the variability in the occurrence, abundance and temporal distribution of ichthyoplankton in Wheeler Reservoir near BFN. This variability translates into significant fluctuation in the entrainment rates for individual families or species. Factors contributing to these fluctuations include spawning habits and success, life history variables of individual species, and the physical parameters of Wheeler Reservoir in the vicinity ofBFN. The location ofBFN is probably a contributing factor to the fluctuations in the annual entrainment estimates. Reservoirs are characterized by three zones; the inflow having characteristics more riverine, the forebay is a more lacustrine area immediately upstream from a dam, and the transition zone provides a buffer in the middle of the reservoir. As water flows downstream from the inflow, velocity decreases as the cross-sectional area of the reservoir increases. Areas within the transition zone may exhibit high flow, low flow, or even negative flow depending on the rate water is released through the upstream and downstream dams. The area of Wheeler Reservoir near BFN is characterized as a transition zone where the velocity of water flowing past BFN depends on the rate water is released through Guntersville and Wheeler Dams. The rate of water flow past BFN increases and the reservoir surface elevation decreases when the rate of water released through Wheeler Dam exceeds the release through Guntersville Dam. Inversely, the surface elevation increases and rate of flow decreases near BFN when rate of water released through Guntersville Dam exceeds the release in Wheeler Reservoir. CCW demand for BFN remains fairly constant during normal three-unit operation; therefore, hydraulic and fish entrainment estimates will increase as reservoir flow past BFN decreases. Entrainment at BFN is also influenced by the large overbank area located immediately upstream from the intake structure. Historical hydrodynamic studies show 53 to 63 percent of the CCW used by BFN is drawn from this overbank and the quantity of flow along the overbank varies with reservoir stage and flow (TVA, 2001). TV A's valley-wide Vital Signs monitoring program is an additional tool used to evaluate the condition of the fish community near BFN. The RFAI, a component of TV A's Vital Signs monitoring program, is used to evaluate reservoir health by rating the fish community structure and function. A RF AI sampling station was established upstream from BFN at TRM 295.9 in 1992 and a second transition zone station added downstream at TRM 292.5 in 2000. Based on RFAI scoring criteria from reservoirs throughout the Tennessee Valley, scores of 51-60 are classified as excellent, 41-50 as good, 21-40 as fair, and 22-31 as poor. Annual RF AI scores for 7 the fish community near BFN in the last ten years (2000-2010) have averaged a score of 41 ("Good") (TVA, 2011). The 2008 and 2009 entrainment estimates and recent fish community assessments (TVA, 2011) in Wheeler Reservoir near BFN show no significant impacts from current operation of BFN on the fish community near the plant. Both estimated ichthyoplankton entrainment percentages and RF AI fish community scores were comparable to historical levels. Results demonstrate annual variations in the relative abundance and temporal distribution of fish and fluctuations in reservoir flow are common in the vicinity ofBFN. Life cycles of the dominant fish species and fluctuation in reservoir flow past BFN are significant factors influencing variations observed in the annual entrainment estimates. Based on the annual RF AI scores for Wheeler Reservoir, a viable and balanced indigenous fish community is present in Wheeler Reservoir in the vicinity of BFN. 8 LITERATURE CITED Boschung, Herbert T. and Richard L. Mayden. 2004. Fishes of Alabama. Smithsonian Books/ . Washington. 736 pp. Hogue, Jacob J., Jr., R. Wallus, and L. K. Kay. 1976. Preliminary Guide to the Identification of Larval Fishes in the Tennessee River. TV A Tech. Note B19. 67 pp. Kay, L. K., R. Wallus and B. L. Yeager. 1994. Reproductive biology and early life history of fishes in the Ohio River drainage. Volume 2: Catostomidae. Tennessee Valley Authority, Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA; Simon T. P. and R. Wallus. 2004. Reproductive biology and early life history of fishes in the Ohio River drainage. Volume 3. Ictaluridae. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA. __ . 2006. Reproductive biology and early life history of fishes in the Ohio River drainage. Volume 4. Percidae. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA. Tennessee Valley Authority 1977. Report on Larval Fish Entrainment for the Years 1975-1976. Bellefonte Nuclear Plant Units land 2. Division of Water Management, Knoxville, Tennessee 105 pp. __ . 1985. Preoperational Assessment of Water Quality and Biological Resources of Guntersville Reservoir in the Vicinity of Bellefonte Nuclear Plant, 1974 through 1984. Office of Natural Resources and Economic Development, Division of Air and Water Resources. 489 pp. __ . 2001. Draft supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) for operating license renewal of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant in Athens, Alabama. Tennessee Valley Authority, Chattanooga, TN. December 2001. __ . 2006. Biological Assessment: Effects of Condenser Cooling Water Withdrawal on the Fish Community Near the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Intake. Aquatic Monitoring and Management. Knoxville, TN. June 2006. __ . 2011. Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River Near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2010. Tennessee Valley Authority. Knoxville, TN. Wallus, R., T. P. Simon, and B. L. Yeager. 1990. Reproductive biology and early life history of fishes in the Ohio River drainage. Volume 1: Acipenseridae through Esocidae. Tennessee Valley Authority, Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA. Wallus, R. and T. P. Simon. 2006. Reproductive biology and early life history of fishes in the Ohio River drainage. Volume 5: Percopsidae through Cottidae, Morone, and Sciaenidae. Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, Florida, USA. __ . 2008. Reproductive biology and early life history of fishes in the Ohio River drainage. Volume 6: Elassomatidae and Centrarchidae. Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, Florida, USA. 9 LITERATURE REVIEWED Baxter, D.S. and J.P. Buchanan. 1998a. Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Thermal Variance Monitoring Program-Final Report. Tennessee Valley Authority, Water Management, Environmental Compliance Norris Tennessee. 54pp. Wallus, R., T. P. Simon, and B. L. Yeager. 1990. Reproductive biology and early life history of fishes in the Ohio River drainage. Volume 1: Acipenseridae through Esocidae. Tennessee Valley Authority, Chattanooga, TN. Baxter, D.S., K. D. Gardner, and D.R. Lowery. 2009. Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River Near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge 2008. Tennessee Valley Authority, Resource Stewardship, Norris, Tennessee. 35pp. Baxter, D. S. and D.R. Lowery. 2006. Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River Near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge 2005. Tennessee Valley Authority, Aquatic Monitoring and Management, Knoxville, Tennessee. 27pp. Buchanan, J.P. and W. C. Barr. 1980. Fish Entrainment and Impingement at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Wheeler Reservoir, Alabama, for years 1978 and 1979. Supplement to: Effects of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Cooling Water Intake on the Fish populations of Wheeler Reservoir. Volume 4 of Biological Effects of Intake, Browns Ferry Nuclear plant, January 1978. Division of Water Resources, Water Quality and Ecology, Branch, Norris, TN. Etnier, David A. and Wayne E. Starnes. 1993. The Fishes of Tennessee. The University of Tennessee Press/Knoxville. 681 pp. Dycus, D. L. and D. L. Meinert. 1993. Reservoir monitoring, monitoring and evaluation of aquatic resource health and use suitability in Tennessee Valley Authority reservoirs. Tennessee Valley Authority, Water Resources, Chattanooga, Tennessee, TV A/WM-93/15. Hickman, G.D. and T. A. McDonough. 1996. Assessing the Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index -A Potential Measure of Reservoir Quality. Publication in Proceeding of Third National Reservoir Symposium, June 1995, American Fisheries Association. D. DeVries, Editor Kay, L. K. 1995. Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Thermal Variance Monitoring Assessment of Fish Standing Stock in Wheeler Reservoir from 1993 and 1994 Cove Rotenone Data. Tennessee Valley Authority, Water Management, Environmental Compliance, Norris Tennessee. 34pp. Tennessee Valley Authority. 1974. Water quality and biological conditions in Wheeler Reservoir during operation of Browns Ferry (Unit 1and2), February 18, 1974 -June 30, 1974. Division of Environmental Planning, Water Quality Branch, Chattanooga, TN. 86pp. 10 . 1975a. Water quality and biological conditions in Wheeler Reservoir during operation of Browns Ferry (Unit 1and2), July 1, 1974-December 31, 1974. Division of Environmental Planning, Water Quality Branch, Chattanooga, TN. 59pp. __ . 1975b. Water quality and biological conditions in Wheeler Reservoir during operation of Browns Ferry (Unit 1and2), January 1, 1975 -June 30, 1975. Division of Environmental Planning, Water Quality Branch, Chattanooga, TN. 74pp. __ . 1976. Water quality and biological conditions in Wheeler Reservoir during operation of Browns Ferry (Unit 1 and 2), July 1, 1975 -December 31, 1975. Division of Environmental Planning, Water Quality Branch, Chattanooga, TN. 71pp. __ . 1977. Water quality and biological conditions in Wheeler Reservoir during operation of Browns Ferry (Unit 1 and 2), January 1, 1976 -December 31, 1976. Division of Environmental Planning, Environmental Assessment and Compliance Staff, Chattanooga, TN. 132pp. __ . 1978a. Biological effects of the intake, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Volume 1: Summary of the evaluation of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Intake Structure. Division of Environmental Planning, Environmental Assessment and Compliance Staff, Chattanooga, TN. 29pp. __ . 1978b. Water quality and biological conditions in Wheeler Reservoir during operation of Browns Ferry (Unit 1and2), January 1, 1977 -December 31, 1977. Division of Environmental Planning, Environmental Assessment and Compliance Staff, Chattanooga, TN. 141pp. __ . 1979. Water quality and biological conditions in Wheeler Reservoir during operation of Browns Ferry (Unit 1and2), January 1, 1978 -December 31, 1978. Division of Water Resources, Water Quality and Ecology, Branch. Muscle Shoals, AL. 133pp. __ . 1980a. Evaluation of predicted and observed effects for a 90 ° F mixed temperature limit, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. Tennessee Valley Authority, Chattanooga, TN. March 1980. 173pp. __ . 1980b. Water quality and biological conditions in Wheeler Reservoir during operation of Browns Ferry (Unit 1 and 2), January 1, 1979 -December 31, 1979. Division of Water Resources, Western Area Office, Muscle Shoals, AL. 133pp. __ . 1983. Field operations biological resources procedures manual. Division of Natural Resource Operations. __ . 2000. Aquatic ecological health determinations for TVA Reservoirs-1999. An informal summary of 1999 vital signs monitoring results and ecological health determination methods. 11 __ . 1998b. Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Thermal Variance Monitoring Program Including Statistical Analysis-Final Report. Tennessee Valley Authority, Water Management, Environmental Compliance, Norris Tennessee. 53pp. 12 Table 1. Total Volume of Water Filtered by Sample Period at BFN during 2008 and 2009 to Estimate Entrainment of Fish Eggs and Larvae. 2008 2009 Intake Reservofr Total Intake Reservoir* Total Week .m 3 m3. m3. m 3 . m3 m 3* 1 867.7 573.3 1,441.0 222.3 317.3 539.6 2

• 596.3 596.3 484.6 362.5 847.1 3 446.8 580.l 1,026.9 489.1 299.l 788.3 4 450.4
• 450.4 461.6 602.4 1,064.0 5 489.0 598.0 1,087.0 545.5 609.5 1,154.9 6 453.9 625.6 1,079.5 489.4 583.1 1,072.5 7 453.0 302.7 755.8 484.2 604.6 1,088.8 8 459.5 592.7 1,052.2 493.2
• 493.2 9 459.7 604.l 1,063.8 399.4 631.1 1,030.4 10 462.3 595.6 1,057.9 459.9 535.0 994.9 11 461.0 612.8 1,073.8 448.l 622.4 1,070.6 12 446.6 609.0 1,055.7 445.1 628.0 1,073.1 13 451.2 608.5 1,059.6 431.3 590.2 1,021.5 14 444.4 621.1 1,065.5 436.9 402.5 839.5 15 429.l 611.3 1,040.4 450.9
• 450.9 16 442.9 672.l 1,115.0 449.3 604.l 1,053.4 17 444.3 630.0 1,074.2 440.2 604.7 1,044.9 18 469.6 605.4 1,074.9 467.4 603.0 1,070.3 19 452.9 610.5 1,063.4 462.4 625.7 1,088.1 20 477.9 601.3 1,079.2 449.3 664.7 1,114.0 21 444.4 605.6 1,050.0 459.9 623.6 1,083.5 22 445.2 621.1 1,066.3 456.4 318.9 775.3 TOTAL 9,951.8 12,477.0 22,428.8 9,926.2 10,832.4 20,758.7 AVERAGE 473.9 594.1 1,019.5 451.2 541.6 943.6 *-no sample 13 Table 2. List of Fish Eggs and Larvae by Family Collected at BFN in 2008 and 2009 Entrainment Samples and Lowest Level of Taxonomic Resolution for each Family. Scientific Common Lowest t*evel of Taxonomic Name Name Identification Eggs Catostomidae Suckers Family -Catostomid eggs Clupeidae Shad Family -all Clupeid eggs Sciaenidae Drums Species -Freshwater Drum e!r!!S Larvae Atherinopsidae Silversides Family -silverside Species -Mississippi silverside Belonidae Atlantic Needlefish Species -Atlantic needlefish Catostomidae Suckers Subfamily -ictiobines (buffalo and carpsuckers) Genus -larger individual to buffalo or spotted sucker Centrarchidae Sunfishes Genus -crappie, lepomids (sunfishes), and black bass (not smallmouth bass) Species -larger individuals to bluegill Clupeidae Shad Family -all larvae <20 mm TL Species -larger individuals to gizzard and threadfin shad Cyprinidae Minnows and Carps Family -most minnows, shiners, and chubs Genus or Species -Pimephales spp., bullhead minnow Ictaluridae Catfishes Family -catfish Species -blue catfish Moronidae Temperate Basses Genus -Marone spp. or Marone type, but not saxatilis Species-white and yellow bass Percidae Darters Genus -P.caprodes type, notP. caprodes type Species -logperch Poeciliidae Live bearers Species -western mosquitofish Sciaenidae Drums Species -freshwater drum 14 Table 3. Percent Composition of Fish Eggs and Larvae by Family Collected in Entrainment Samples at BFN during 2008 and 2009. Intake Samples Reservoir Samples Combined* . Combined* All 2008 2009 2008-2009 2008 2009 2008-2009 Samples % % % *O/o % % O/o Eggs Catostomidae 0.0 T T 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 Clupeidae 43.4 10.0 23.5 T 10.2 5.7 13.3 Sciaenidae 56.6 90.0 76.5 99.9 89.6 94.2 86.7 Larvae Atherinopsidae 2.1 0.8 1.5 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.7 Belonidae T 0.0 T T 0.0 T T Catostomidae 0.2 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.7 0.4 0.4 Centrarchidae 1.4 1.6 1.5 . 0.9 1.3 1.0 1.2 Clupeidae 94.1 92.8 93.5 96.3 93.0 95.2 94.6 Cyprinidae T 0.1 0.1 T 0.1 T 0.1 Ictaluridae T 0.1 T T T T T Moronidae 1.9 2.9 2.3 2.3 3.2 2.6 2.5 Percidae 0.2 0.3 0.2 T 0.1 0.1 0.1 Poeciliidae T 0.0 T 0.0 0.0 0.0 T Sciaenidae T 0.6 0.3 T 1.2 0.4 0.4 T -Taxon was collected in samples but composition was less than 0.1 %. 15 Table 4. Number, Average Seasonal and Peak Density, and Percent Composition by Family of Fish Eggs and Larvae Collected at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant during 2008 and 2009. ,. '* .. .. .. *. 2'008 . . .. \. .. " ,. *-\ " .::; ; .. Average. Seasonal \ :.NUMB.ER " -:DENSITY
• Peak D'$NSTTY . ; -... " ,; '_., No./1000in3 . N * .. .. ' * -in taiuf I ' ' ' . . ' * .. _< .I . " J
• Reser.vQlr . Family.) .. *' Eggs ... Clupeidae 597 1 60 0.1 1,177 2 ; Sciaenidae 780 2,042 78 164 " 1,252 651 TOTAL 1,377 2,043 ' 138 164 Larvae .. Atherinopsidae 551 76 55 6 .* 503 34 .. " Belonidae 2 1 0.2 0.1 2 2 Catostomidae 59 140 6 11 104 235 Centrarchidae 372 453 37 36 342 473 Clupeidae 24,989 48,312 ; 2,511 3,872 16,128 12,725 Cyprinidae 9 11 1 1 6 5 Ictaluridae 9 9 ' 1 1 11 6 Moronidae 515 1,154 52 92 . ' 291 465 Percidae 49 14 5 1 '. 45 8 Poeciliidae 5 0 1 0 ,, ... 11 0 Sciaenidae 7 9 1 1 7 8 . " TOTAL 26,567 50,179 .. 2,670 4,022 16 Table 4. (continued) , . .. 2009' Average Seasonal NUMBER .. DENSITY Peak DENSITY No./1,000m3 No./1,00Qm3 Fa milt , l"°take "I * * *. I,itake I -8.eservoir Intake I 1,lese;rvoir ' Eggs Catostomidae 1 4 T 1 2 10 Clupeidae 203 259 20 24 457 457 Sciaenidae 1,829 2,274 184 210 1,767 1,068 TOTAL 2,033 2,537 204 234 Larvae Atherinopsidae 154 101 16 9 141 66 Belonidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 Catostomidae 165 158 17 15 250 132 Centrarchidae 322 325 32 30 283 298 Clupeidae 18,787 22,507 1,893 2,078 8,454 9,556 Cyprinidae 30 16 3 1 33 10 Ictaluridae 11 7 1 1 11 6 .. Moronidae 579 778 58 72 439 295 Percidae 65 30 7 3 45 13 Poeciliidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sciaenidae 124 285 12 26 128 107 ' TOTAL 20,237 24,207 2,039 2,235 T-Taxon was collected in samples but density averaged less than 1 individual per 1,000m3 17 Table 5. Estimated Daily Hydraulic Entrainment at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant by Sample Period during 2008 and 2009. 2008 2009 . 2008-2009 Intake Reservoir Intake Reservoir Intake Reservoir "(m3/day) '. (m3/day) (m3/day)* Entrained (m3/day) Entrained (m3/day) (m3/day) Entrained Week Q; Qr. .% Q; Qr . % ..Q1 Qr % 1 1.06E+07 l.10E+08 9.6 l.15E+07 8.74E+07 13.1 1.09E+07 1.02E+08 10.6 2 1.11E+07 l.10E+08 10.1 l.15E+07 6.27E+07 18.3 1.13E+07 8.63E+07 13.1 3 l.06E+07 9.46E+07 11.2 1.06E+07 5.74E+07 18.5 '. 1.06E+07 7.23E+07 14.6 4 1.07E+07 8.93E+07 12.0 9.78E+06 7.75E+07 12.6 1.03E+07 8.46E+07 12.2 5 l.14E+07 8.19E+07 13.9 1.05E+07 8.70E+07 12.0 1.10E+07 8.39E+07 13.1 6 l.03E+07 1.14E+08 9.0 .. 1.05E+07 6.27E+07 16.7 1.04E+07 8.84E+07 11.7 7 8.94E+06 1.19E+08 7.5 1.05E+07 9.19E+07 11.4 9.70E+06 1.06E+08 9.2 8 6.22E+06 1.03E+08 6.1 l.05E+07 9.91E+07 10.6 8.36E+06 1.01E+08 8.3 9 7.64E+06 4.10E+07 18.6 1.05E+07 7.82E+07 13.4 9.05E+06 5.96E+07 15.2 10 7.64E+06 7.16E+07 10.7 9.99E+06 6.90E+07 14.5 8.81E+06 7.03E+07 12.5 .. 11 7.64E+06 3.77E+07 20.2 9.63E+06 6.74E+07 14.3 8.96E+06 5.75E+07 15.6 12 7.64E+06 3.53E+07 21.6 9.88E+06 6.64E+07 14.9 8.76E+06 5.08E+07 17.2 13 7.64E+06 3.02E+07 25.3 7.54E+06 3.05E+07 24.7 7.59E+06 3.03E+07 25.0 14 7.64E+06 3.49E+07 21.9 . 6.71E+06 3.02E+08 2.2 7.17E+06 l.69E+08 4.3 15 7.64E+06 3.55E+07 21.5 6.85E+06 l.11E+08 6.2 7.25E+06 7.34E+07 9.9 16 7.61E+06 2.46E+07 30.9 6.86E+06 1.48E+08 4.6 7.31E+06 7.38E+07 9.9 17 1.15E+07 1.79E+07 63.9 8.27E+06 8.52E+07 9.7 9.86E+06 5.16E+07 19.l 18 l.15E+07 4.46E+07 25.7 1.03E+07 9.28E+07 11.1 1.10E+07 6.39E+07 17.2 19 1.15E+07 3.38E+07 33.9 1.05E+07 7.97E+07 13.1 1.10E+07 5.67E+07 19.3 20 1.15E+07 3.69E+07 31.0 1.05E+07 7.63E+07 13.7 1.10E+07 5.66E+07 19.4 21 1.15E+07 3.31E+07 34.6 l.13E+07 8.51E+07 13.3 1.14E+07 5.91E+07 19.3 22 1.15E+07 3.98E+07 28.8 l.13E+07 4.27E+07 26.5 1.14E+07 4.12E+07 27.6 Totals 2.10E+08 1.34E+09 15.7 2.15E+08 1.96E+09 11.0 2.13E+08 1.64E+09 13.0 18 Table 6. Entrainment Estimates for Fish Eggs and Larvae Collected at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant during 2008 and 2009. 2008 2009 2008-2009 Intake Reservoir Intake Reservoir Intake Reservoir Number Total Number Total Number Total Entrained Number Entrainment Entrained Number Entrainment Entrained Number Entrainment per day per day Estimate per day per day Estimate per day per day Estimate Tax a QixDi Qrx Dr O/o QixDi Qrx Dr O/o QixDi Qrx Dr O/o Eggs Catostomidae * *
• 1.2E+06 5.3E+07 2 2.5E+06 7.7E+07 3 Clupeidae 7.73E+08 4.86E+06 15,898 2.4E+08 3.4E+09 7 2.0E+09 5.0E+09 39 Sciaenidae l.01E+09 9.92E+09 10 2.1E+09 3.0E+ 10 7 6.4E+09 7.5E+ 10 9 Totals: 1.8E+09 9.9E+09 18 2.4E+09 3.4E+10 7 8.4E+09 8.lE+lO 10 Larvae Atherinopsidae 4.9E+08 2.7E+08 179 l .2E+08 9.2E+08 13 3.9E+07 7.5E+07 53 Belonidae 1.8E+06 3.6E+06 49 *
• 0 l.1E+05 3.9E+05 0 Catostomidae 5.2E+07 5.0E+08 10 l.3E+08 1.4E+09 9 l.2E+07 l.2E+08 10 Centrarchidae 3.3E+08 l.6E+09 20 2.5E+08 3.0E+09 9 3.9E+07 3.2E+08 12 Clupeidae 2.2E+ 10 l.7E+ 11 13 I.SE+ 10 2.0E+l 1 7 2.4E+09 2.9E+ 10 8 Cyprinidae 7.9E+06 3.9E+07 20 2.4E+07 1.5E+08 16 2.2E+06 1.1E+07 19 Ictaluridae 7.9E+06 3.2E+07 25 8.7E+06 6.4E+07 14 l .1E+06 6.6E+06 17 Moronidae 4.5E+08 4.1E+09 11 4.6E+08 7.1E+09 6 6.1E+07 7.9E+08 8 Percidae 4.3E+07 5.0E+07 86 5.1E+07 2.7E+08 19 6.4E+06 1.9E+07 34 Poeciliidae 4.4E+06
• 0 *
• 0 2.8E+05
• 0 Sciaenidae 6.2E+06 3.2E+07 19 9.8E+07 2.6E+09 4 7.3E+06 l.3E+08 6 Totals: 2.3E+10 1.8E+ll 13 1.6E+10 2.2E+ll 7 2.6E+09 3.0E+lO 9 *-Not collected. 19 Figure 1. Location of Condenser Cooling Water (CCW) Intake, Skimmer Wall, and Discharge at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (TRM 294). 20 180,000 160,000 140,000 120,000 z LL. al -:;; 100,000 111 c. iii -80,000 == 0 u::: 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 12/1 1/1 2/1 3/1 4/1 5/1 6/1 Date n 7/1 2008 (Avg: 21, 760 cfs) 2009 (Avg: 46,529 cfs) -Historical Daily Average 1976-2009 (Avg: 40,093 cfs) 8/1 9/1 10/1 11/1 Figure 2. Actual daily releases during 2008 and 2009 and historical (1976-2009) daily average releases from Guntersville Dam (TRM 349). 21

-+-Total Eggs-2008 1200 Total Eggs-2009 1000 -m E 0 0 0 800 ........ .... QJ ..c E ::I c: > 600 ... *u; c: QJ 0 400 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 Week Week Week Week Week Feb Mar Apr May June Figure 3. Weekly Densities of Fish Eggs Collected in Reservoir and Intake Samples Combined at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (TRM 294) During 2008 and 2009. 22 8000 Larvae-Reservoir 2008 7000 Total Larvae-Reservoir 2009 5000 0 0 ......... ..... Qj e 4000 ::s ..:. > .... *;;; 1ij 3000 c 2000 1000 0 Week Feb 2 Week Week Week Week Mar Apr May June Figure 4. Weekly Densities of Fish Larvae Collected in Reservoir Samples at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (TRM 294) During 2008 and 2009. 23 9000 -+-Total Larvae-Intake 2008 8000 Total Larvae-Intake 2009 7000 6000 "' E 0 0 0 5000 ........ ... Qj ..c E :::s c: 4000 > ..... 'iii c: Qj c 3000 2000 1000 0 Week Week Week Week Week Feb Mar Apr May June Figure 5. Weekly Densities of Fish Larvae Collected in Intake Samples at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (TRM 294) During 2008 and 2009. 24 18000 16000 Reservoir 2008 14000 Clupeidae Reservoir 2009 Clupeidae Intake 2008 12000 '""*-Clupeidae Intake 2009 "' E 0 0 0 .-1 10000 ........ .... QJ .c E ::J c: 8000 > .... *v; c: QJ 0 6000 4000 2000 0 Week Week Week Week Week Feb Mar Apr May June Figure 6. Weekly Densities of Clupeidae Larvae Collected in Reservoir and Intake Samples at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (TRM 294) During 2008 and 2009. 25 500 450 -+-Moronidae Reservoir 2008 Moronidae Reservoir 2009 400 Moronidae Intake 2008 Intake 2009 350 "' E 0 300 0 0 ........ ... QI ..c 250 E ::J ..s > .... 200 *v; c QI c 150 100 50 0 1 2 3 4 5 Week Week Week Week Week Feb Mar Apr May June Figure 7. Weekly Densities of Moronidae Larvae Collected in Reservoir and Intake Samples at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (TRM 294) During 2008 and 2009. 26 500 450 -+-Centrarchidae Reservoir 2008 400 Centrarchidae Reservoir 2009 Centrarchidae Intake 2008 350 Intake 2009 "' E 0 300 0 0 .-i ........ .... (1J ..0 250 E :I c: > .... 200 *;;; c: (1J 0 150 100 50 0 Week Week Week Week Week Feb Mar Apr May June Figure 8. Weekly Densities of Centrarchidae Larvae Collected in Reservoir and Intake Samples at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (TRM 294) During 2008 and 2009. 27 140 -.-sciaenidae Reservoir 2008 120 Sciaenidae Reservoir 2009 Intake 2008 100 Intake 2009 "' E 0 0 0 80 .-i ........ ... QI ..c E :l c: > 60 .... *;;; c: QI 0 40 Week Week Week Week Week Feb Mar Apr May June Figure 9. Weekly Densities of Sciaenidae Larvae Collected in Reservoir and Intake Samples at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (TRM 294) During 2008 and 2009. 28 600 Reservoir 2008 500 Atherinopsidae Reservoir 2009 Atherinopsidae Intake 2008 400 I "' Intake 2009 E 0 0 0 ..... ......... .... cu ..c 300 E ::I c: > .... 'iii c: cu c 200 100 0 Week Week Week Week Week Feb Mar Apr May June Figure 10. Weekly Densities of Atherinopsidae Larvae Collected in Reservoir and Intake Samples at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (TRM 294) During 2008 and 2009. 29 ATTACHMENT10 Reference TVA. 2013. Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River Near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2013. Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River Near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge Autumn 2013 May 2014 Tennessee Valley Authority River and Reservoir Compliance Monitoring Program Knoxville, Tennessee Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................. i List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ iii List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. v Acronyms and Abbreviations ....................................................................................................... vii Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 2 Plant Description ......................................................................................................................... 3 Methods ........................................................................................................................................... 3 Fish and Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sample Locations Upstream and Downstream of BFN .... 3 Aquatic Habitat in the Vicinity of BFN ...................................................................................... 4 Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Assessment ................................................................................... 4 River Bottom Habitat .............................................................................................................. 5 Fish Community Sampling Methods and Data Analysis for Sites Upstream and Downstream of BFN ............................................................................................................................................. 6 Statistical Analyses ................................................................................................................ 12 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Sampling Methods and Data Analysis for Sites Upstream and Downstream of BFN .......................................................... : ............................... 14 Visual Encounter Survey (Wildlife Observations) .................................................................... 16 Wheeler Reservoir Flow and BFN Temperature ....................................................................... 17 Thermal Plume Characterization ............................................................................................... 18 Water Quality Parameters at Fish Sampling Sites during RF AI Samples ................................. 19 Results and Discussion ................................................................................................................. 19 Aquatic Habitat in the Vicinity of BF .................................................................................... 19 Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Assessment ................................................................................. 19 River Bottom Habitat ............................................................................................................ 20 Fish Community ........................................................................................................................ 20 Statistical Analyses .................................................................................................................... 26 Fish Community Summary ........................................................................................................ 26 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community .................................................................................... 28 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Summary .................................................................... 30 Visual Encounter Survey (Wi Id life Observations) .................................................................... 32 Wheeler Reservoir Flow and BFN Water Temperature ............................................................ 32 Thermal Plume Characterization ................... , ........................................................................... 33 Water Quality Parameters at Fish Sampling Sites during RFAI Samples ................................. 33 Literature Cited ............................................................................................................................. 35 Figures ........................................................................................................................................... 37 Tables ............................................................................................................................................ 55 11 List of Figures Figure 1. Location of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant on Wheeler Reservoir ................................. 38 Figure 2. Location of Condenser Cooling Water (CCW) intake and discharge at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. ...................................................................................................................... 39 Figure 3. Locations of biomonitoring sites upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. ............... 40 Figure 4. Locations ofbiomonitoring sites downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. .......... 41 Figure 5. Locations of transects used to characterize shoreline and river bottom habitat upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. ............................................................... 42 Figure 6. Locations of water temperature monitoring sites used to compare water temperatures upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) intake and downstream ofBFN discharge . ............................................................................................................................................. 43 Figure 7. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted. Of the eight transects established upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, transects 1 and 2 are the closest to the plant. .................................................. : ............................................ 44 Figure 8. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is

• denoted ............................................................ : ................................................................. 45 Figure 9. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted ................................................................................................................................ 46 Figure 10. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted . ............................................................................................................................................. 47 Figure 11. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted. Transects 1 and 2 are the farthest downstream of the eight transects established downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. ...................................................................... 48 Figure 12. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted ................................................................................................................................ 49 Figure 13. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted ........................................................... .................................................................... 50 Figure 14. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across theTennessee River downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted .............................. ,,, ............................................................................................... 51 Figure 15. Comparison of observed values for the Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index metric "Number of Indigenous Species", over 13 years of autumn sampling at the sites upstream iii (TRM 295.9) and downstream (TRM 292.5) of Brown's Ferry Nuclear Plant. .................. 52 Figure 16. Daily mean flows from Guntersville Dam, October 2012 through November 2013, and historic daily flows for the same fiscal year period, averaged over the years 1976-2012 . ........................................................................................................................ * ..................... 53 Figure 17. Daily water temperatures averaged over depth (3, 5, and 7 feet) upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant (BFN) intake and downstream of BFN discharge -October 2012 through November 2013 ............................................................................................. 54 IV List of Tables Table 1. Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Index (SARI) metrics and scoring criteria .......................... 56 Table 2. Expected trophic guild proportions* and expected numbers of species* in lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoir transition zones, compared to values observed during 2013 monitoring at BFN ..................................................................................................... 57 Table 3. RFAI scoring criteria (2002) for inflow, transition, and forebay sections oflower mainstem reservoirs* in the Tennessee River system .......................................................... 58 Table 4. Scoring criteria for laboratory-processed benthic macroinvertebrate community samples from inflow, transition, and forebay zones of mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs ............................................................................................................................. 59 Table 5. SARI scores for shoreline habitat assessments conducted within the RFAI sample reach upstream ofBFN, autumn 2009 .......................................................................................... 60 Table 6. SARI scores for shoreline habitat assessments conducted within the RF AI sample reach downstream ofBFN, autumn 2009 ..................................................................................... 61 Table 7. Substrate percentages and average water depth (ft) per transect upstream and downstream ofBFN, autumn 2009 ..................................................................................... 62 Table 8. Individual metric scores and the overall RFAI scores upstream (TRM 295.9) and downstream (TRM 292.5) of Browns Ferry Nuclear plant, autumn 2013 .......................... 63 Table 9. Species collected, ecological and recreational designation and corresponding electrofishing (EF) and gill net (GN) catch per unit effort upstream (TRM 295.9) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant discharge-Autumn 2013 ..................................................... 67 Table 10. Species collected, ecological and recreational designation and corresponding electrofishing (EF) and gill net (GN) catch per unit effort downstream (TRM 292.5) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant discharge -Autumn 2013 ..................................................... 69 Table 11. Spatial statistical comparisons of numbers of species, mean electrofishing catch per unit effort values (number/run), tolerance designations, trophic levels, and non-indigenous individuals, including species richness and Simpson and Shannon diversity values, for samples collected near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, autumn 2013 .................................... 71 Table 12. Summary of autumn RF AI scores from sites located directly upstream and downstream ofBFN and scores from sampling conducted during 1993-2013* as part of the Vital Signs monitoring program in Wheeler Reservoir ...................................................... 72 Table 13. Comparison of RBI metric ratings and total scores for laboratory-processed samples collected upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Wheeler Reservoir, autumn 2013 ........................................................................................................................ 73 Table 14. Metric scores and overall RBI scores determined from field processing criteria, for sites upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Wheeler Reservoir, autumn 2000-2010 ............................................................................................................... 74 Table 15. Metric scores and overall RBI scores determined from lab processing criteria, for sites upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Wheeler Reservoir, 2001-2006. v
  • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 76 Table 16a. Mean density per square meter ofbenthic taxa collected upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, autumn 2013. All taxa listed contributed to individual RBI metrics and total scores ....................................................................................................... 77 Table 16b. Mean density per square meter ofbenthic taxa collected but not included in individual RBI metrics or total scores for sites upstream and downstream of BFN, autumn 2013 ..................................................................................................................................... 80 Table 17. RBI scores from sites directly upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant and from sites sampled as part of the Vital Signs monitoring program on Wheeler Reservoir. LTA-Long term average ................................................................................... 81 *=sites with field-processed scores all years. All other sites, 1994-2010 are field-processed scores and 2011 forward are lab-processed scores .............................................................. 81 Table 18. Wildlife observed along 2100 m transects parallel to the Tennessee River shoreline, upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, October 2013 ......................... 82 Table 19. Water temperature (°F) depth profiles collected to determine the extent of the thermal plume from BFN during 2013 .. .' .......................................................................................... 83 Table 20. Water quality parameters collected along vertical depth profiles at three transects within the RFAI sample areas upstream and downstream ofBFN during 2013 ................. 84 Vl ATL BIP BFN ccw CWA LDB NP DES QA RBI RDB RFAI RIS SAHI TRM TVA vs Acronyms and Abbreviations Alternate Thermal Limit Balanced Indigenous Community Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant Condenser Cooling Water Clean Water Act Left Descending Bank National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Quality Assurance Reservoir Benthic Macroinvertebrate Index Right Descending Bank Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index Representative Important Species Shoreline Assessment Habitat Index Tennessee River Mile Tennessee Valley Authority Vital Signs vii Executive Summary In 2013, samples of the ecological community upstream and downstream of Brown's Ferry Nuclear Plant were collected, analyzed, and compared to historical data to determine the effects, if any, of the thermal effluent from the plant, in compliance with §316(a) of the Clean Water Act. Shoreline aquatic habitat assessed along both banks was rated "Fair". Assessment of river bottom habitat indicated that three dominant substrates observed at both sites were silt, mollusk shell, and sand. The fish communities upstream and downstream ofBFN, analyzed using RFAI methodology, both showed fair diversity of species and moderate percentages of pollution tolerant individuals. The downstream community supported lower diversity of top carnivore species, but otherwise, was generally similar to that upstream and was not adversely affected by thermal effluent from BFN. Benthic communities for both downstream sites, at TRM 293.2 within the thermal plume from BFN discharge, and at TRM 290.4 downstream of the thermal plume, were considered similar to the upstream benthic community. All three sites received RBI ratings of "Excellent". A visual wildlife survey was conducted to assess bird, reptile, and mammal populations around BFN. Turtles and a variety of birds were encountered at both locations. Water quality analysis indicated that daily mean flow past BFN was noticeably higher in 2013 than historic values, but that daily mean temperatures were similar upstream and downstream of the plant. Depth profiles of water temperature, conductivity, dissolved oxygen concentration, and acidity (pH) indicated that values of all these parameters were within acceptable levels both upstream and downstream ofBFN. 1 Introduction Section 316(a) of the Clean Water Act (CW A) authorizes alternate thermal limits (ATL) for the control of the thermal component of a point source discharge so long as the limits will assure the protection of Balanced Indigenous Populations (BIP) of aquatic life. The term "balanced indigenous population," as defined by Environmental Protection Agency regulations, describes a biotic community that is typically characterized by: (1) diversity appropriate to the ecoregion; (2) the capacity to sustain itself through cyclic seasonal changes; (3) the presence of necessary food chain species; and ( 4) the lack of domination by pollution-tolerant species. Prior to 2000, the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) was operating under an A TL that had been continued with each permit renewal based on studies conducted in the mid-1970s. In 1999, EPA Region IV began requesting additional data in conjunction with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit renewal applications to verify that BIP was being maintained at TV A's thermal plants with A TLs. TV A proposed that its existing Vital Signs (VS) monitoring program, supplemented with additional fish and benthic macro invertebrate community monitoring upstream and downstream of thermal plants with A TLs, was appropriate for that purpose. The VS monitoring program began in 1990 in the Tennessee River System. This program was implemented to evaluate ecological health conditions in major reservoirs as part of TV A's stewardship role. One of the 5 indicators used in the VS program to evaluate reservoir health is the Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index (RF AI) methodology which incorporates fish species richness and composition, trophic composition, and fish abundance and health. RF AI has been thoroughly tested on TV A and other reservoirs and published in peer-reviewed literature (Jennings, et al., 1995; Hickman and McDonough, 1996; McDonough and Hickman, 1999). Fish communities are used to evaluate ecological conditions because of their importance in the aquatic food web and because fish life cycles are long enough to integrate conditions over time. Benthic macroinvertebrate populations are assessed using the Reservoir Benthic Index (RBI) methodology. Because benthic macroinvertebrates are relatively 2

........ immobile, negative impacts to aquatic ecosystems can be detected earlier in benthic macroinvertebrate communities than in fish communities. These data are used to supplement RF AI results to provide a more thorough examination of differences in aquatic communities upstream and downstream of thermal discharges. During 2000-2010, TVA initiated a study to evaluate fish and benthic macroinvertebrate communities in areas immediately upstream and downstream of BFN using RF AI and RBI multi-metric evaluation techniques. The study was continued in 2011 and broadened to include additional data for analyses requested by the EPA. Reported here are the results of biological monitoring and water quality data collected upstream and downstream ofBFN during 2013, with appropriate comparisons to data collected at these sites during previous autumn samples. Plant Description BFN is a three-unit nuclear-fueled facility with a total generating capacity of 3,300 megawatts. Unit One, which remained idle for several years, returned to service June 2007. BFN is located on Wheeler Reservoir, approximately 18 miles upstream of Wheeler Dam at Tennessee River Mile (TRM) 294 in Limestone County, Alabama (Figure 1). Current operation utilizes a through condenser cooling water (CCW) system, withdrawing water from the Tennessee River through an intake structure at TRM 294.3 and discharging the water through a multi-port diffuser located downstream from the plant at TRM 293.6 (Figure 2). Maximum flow rate of the CCW is approximately 3,468 million gallons per day. Methods Fish and Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sample Locations Upstream and Downstream ofBFN Thermal discharge from BFN enters the Tennessee River at TRM 293.6 in Wheeler Reservoir (Figure 2). Two reaches were selected to sample the fish community: one centered at TRM 295.9, upstream of the plant's intake (Figure 3), and one centered at TRM 292.5, downstream of the cooling water discharge (Figure 4). 3 From 2000 to 2010, to assess the benthic macroinvertebrate community in the vicinity ofBFN data was collected along transects established across the full width of Wheeler reservoir at two sites in the transition zone, one at TRM 295.9, upstream of the intake, and one at TRM 291.7, downstream of the BFN discharge. Prior to this time, a sampling site in the forebay zone of Wheeler Reservoir (TRM 277) was used as the downstream comparison site. Because other factors, unrelated to influence from BFN, kept benthic communities depressed, both at the forebay site and in the Elk River embayment (Wheeler Reservoir, Elk River Mile [ERM] 6 -between BFN and the forebay site), the downstream site was moved into the transition zone two miles downstream from the BFN diffuser at TRM 291.7 in 2000. Benthic scores and community composition from this site were used through 2010 for downstream comparisons to the upstream benthic site at TRM 295.9. Beginning in 2011, samples were collected in the reservoir's transition zone along transects established at three sites. One site, upstream of the plant intake, was maintained at TRM 295.9 (Figure 3). Two sites were selected downstream to more accurately assess possible effects of BFN discharge on the downstream benthic communities: one at TRM 293.2, within the thermal plume from the BFN discharge, and a second at TRM 290.4 downstream of the thermal plume (Figure.4). Aquatic Habitat in the Vicinity of BFN Shoreline and river bottom habitat data presented in this report were collected during autumn 2009. TVA assumes habitat data to be valid for five years, barring any major changes to the river/reservoir (e.g. major flood event). No significant changes have occurred in the river system from the initial characterization, but in the event of a major change to the river/reservoir, habitat would be re-evaluated during the following sample period. Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Assessment An integrative multi-metric index (Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Index or SAHi), including several habitat parameters important to resident fish species, was used to measure existing fish habitat quality in the vicinity ofBFN. Using the general format developed by Pla:tkin et al. (1989), 4 seven metrics were established to characterize selected physical habitat attributes important to reservoir resident fish populations which rely heavily on the littoral (shoreline) zone for reproductive success, juvenile development, and adult feeding (Table 1). Habitat Suitability Indices (US Fish and Wildlife Service), along with other sources of information on biology and habitat requirements (Etnier and Starnes 1993), were consulted to develop "reference" criteria or "expected" _conditions from a high quality environment for each parameter. Some generalizations were necessary in setting up scoring criteria to cover the various requirements of all species within a single index. When possible, the quality of shoreline aquatic habitat was assessed while traveling parallel to the shoreline in a boat and evaluating the habitat within 10 vertical feet of full pool. Transects were established across the width of Wheeler reservoir within the fish community sampling reaches upstream and downstream of BFN (Figure 5). At each transect, near-shore aquatic habitat was assessed along sections of shoreline corresponding to the left descending bank (LDB) and right descending bank (RDB). For each shoreline section (16 upstream and 16 downstream of BFN), percentages of aquatic macrophytes in the littoral areas were estimated, then each section was scored by comparing the observed conditions associated with each individual metric to the "reference" conditions and assigning the metric a corresponding value: "Good" 5; "Fair" 3; or "Poor" 1 (Table 1). These scores for each of the seven metrics were summed to obtain the SARI value for the shoreline section, and this value was assigned a habitat quality descriptor based on trisecting the range of potential SARI values ("Poor" 7-16, "Fair" 17-26, and "Good" 27-35). River Bottom Habitat Along each transect described above, 10 benthic grab samples were collected with a Ponar sampler at points equally spaced from the LDB to the RDB. Substrate material collected with the Ponar was emptied into a screen, and percent composition of each substrate was estimated to determine existing benthic habitat across the width of the river. Water depths (feet) at each sample location were recorded. If no substrate was collected after multiple Ponar drops, it was assumed that the substrate was bedrock. For example, when the Ponar sampler was pulled shut, 5 collectors could feel substrate consistency. If it shut easily and was not embedded in the substrate on numerous drops within the same location, the substrate was recorded as bedrock. Fish Community Sampling Methods and Data Analysis for Sites Upstream and Downstream of BFN Fish sampling methods included boat electrofishing and gill netting (Hubert 1996; Reynolds 1996). Electrofishing methodology consisted of fifteen boat electrofishing runs near the shoreline, each 300 meters long and of approximately 10 minutes duration. The total near-shore area sampled was approximately 4,500 meters (15,000 feet). Experimental gill nets (so called because of their use for research as opposed to commercial fishing) were used as an additional gear type to collect fish from deeper habitats not effectively sampled by electrofishing. Each experimental gill net consists of five 6.1 meter panels for a total length of 30.5 meters (100.1 feet). The distinguishing characteristic of experimental gill nets is mesh size that varies between panels. For this application, each net has panels with mesh sizes of2.5, 5.1, 7.6, 10.2, and 12.7 cm. Experimental gill nets are typically set perpendicular to river flow, extending from near-shore to the main channel of the reservoir. Ten overnight

• experimental gill net sets were used at each area. Fish collected were identified by species, counted, and examined for anomalies (such as disease, deformations, parasites or hybridization). The resulting data were analyzed using RF AI methodology. The RF AI uses 12 fish community metrics from four general categories: Species Richness and Composition; Trophic Composition; Abundance; and Fish Health. Individual species can be utilized for more than one metric, though hybrid species and non-indigenous species are excluded from metrics counting numbers of individual species. Together, these 12 metrics provide a balanced evaluation of fish community integrity. The individual metrics are shown below, grouped by category: 6 Species Richness and Composition (1) Total number of species -Greater numbers of species are considered representative of healthier aquatic ecosystems. As conditions degrade, numbers of species at an area decline. (2) Number of centrarchid species -Sunfish species (excluding black basses) are invertivores and a high diversity of this group is indicative of reduced siltation and suitable sediment quality in littoral .areas. (3) Number of benthic invertivore species -Due to the special dietary requirements of this species group and the limitations of their food source in degraded environments, numbers of benthic invertivore species increase with better environmental quality. ( 4) Number of intolerant species -A group made up of species that are particularly intolerant of physical, chemical, and thermal habitat degradation. Higher numbers of intolerant species suggest the presence of fewer environmental stressors. (5) Percentage of tolerant individuals (excluding young-of-year) -An increased proportion of individuals tolerant of degraded conditions signifies poorer water quality. (6) Percent dominance by one species -Ecological quality is considered reduced if one species inordinately dominates the resident fish community. (7) Percentage of non-indigenous species -Based on the assumption that indigenous species reduce the quality of resident fish communities. 7 (8) Number of top carnivore species -Higher diversity of piscivores is indicative of the availability of diverse and plentiful forage species and the presence of suitable habitat. Trophic Composition (9) Percent top carnivores -A measure of the functional aspect of top carnivores which feed on major planktivore populations. (10) Percent omnivores -Omnivores are less sensitive to environmental stresses due to their ability to vary their diets. As trophic links are disrupted due to degraded conditions, specialist species such as insectivores decline while opportunistic omnivorous species increase in relative abundance. Abundance (11) Average number per run (number of individuals)-Based on the assumption that high quality fish assemblages support large numbers of individuals. Fish Health (12) Percent anomalies -Incidence of diseases, lesions, tumors, external parasites, deformities, blindness, and natural hybridization is noted for all fish collected, with higher incidence indicating less favorable environmental conditions. RF AI methodology addresses all four attributes or characteristics of a "balanced indigenous population" (BIP), defined by the CW A as described below: (1) A biotic community characterized by diversity appropriate to the ecoregion: Diversity is addressed by the metrics in the Species Richness and Composition category, especially metric 1 -"Number of species." Determination ofreference conditions based on the 8 transition zones oflower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs (as described below) ensures appropriate species expectations for the ecoregion. (2) The capacity for the community to sustain itself through cyclic seasonal change: TV A uses an autumn data collection period for biological indicators, both VS and upstream/downstream monitoring. Autumn monitoring is used to document community condition or health after being subjected to the wide variety of stressors throughout the year. One of the main benefits of using biological indicators is their ability to integrate stressors through time. Examining the condition or health of a community at the end of the "biological year" (i.e., autumn) provides insights into how well the community has dealt with the stresses through an annual seasonal cycle. Likewise, evaluation of the condition of individuals in the community (in this case, individual fish as reflected in Metric 12) provides insights into how well the community can be expected to withstand stressors through winter. Further, multiple sampling years during the permit renewal cycle add to the evidence of whether the autumn monitoring approach has correctly demonstrated the ability of the community to sustain itself through repeated seasonal changes. (3) The presence of necessary food chain species: Integrity of the food chain is measured by the Trophic Composition metrics, with support from the Abundance metric and Species Richness and Composition metrics. A healthy fish community is comprised of species that utilize complex feeding mechanisms extending into multiple levels of the aquatic food web. Three dominant fish trophic levels exist within Tennessee River reservoirs: insectivores, omnivores, and top carnivores. To determine the presence of necessary food chain species, these three groups should be well represented within the overall fish community. Other fish trophic levels include benthic invertivores, planktivores, herbivores, and parasitic species. Insectivores include most sunfish, minnows, and silversides. Omnivores include gizzard shad, common carp, carpsuckers, buffalo, and channel and blue catfish. Top carnivores include bass, gar, skipjack herring, crappie, flathead catfish, sauger, and walleye. Benthic invertivores include freshwater drum, suckers, and darters. Planktivores include alewife, 9 threadfin shad, and paddlefish. Herbivores include largescale stonerollers. Lampreys in the genus Jchthyomyzon are the only parasitic species occurring in Tennessee River reservoirs. To establish expected proportions of each trophic guild and the expected number of species included in each guild occurring in transition zones in lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs (Kentucky, Pickwick, Wilson, Wheeler, and Guntersville reservoirs), data collected from 1993 to 2010 were analyzed for each reservoir zone (inflow, transition, forebay). Samples collected in the downstream vicinity of thermal discharges were not included in this analysis so that accurate expectations could be calculated with the assumption that these data represent what should occur in lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs absent from point source effects (i.e. power plant discharges). Data from 900 electrofishing runs (a total of 405,000 meters of shoreline sampled) and from 600 overnight experimental gill net sets were included in this analysis for transition areas in lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs. From these data, the range of proportional values for each trophic level and the range of the number of species included in each trophic level were trisected. These trisections were intended to show less than expected, expected, and above expected values for trophic level proportions and species occurring within transition reservoir zones in lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs. The data were also averaged and bound by confidence intervals (95%) to further evaluate expectations for proportions of each trophic level and the number of species representing each trophic level (Table 2). (4) A lack of domination by pollution-tolerant species: Domination by pollution-tolerant species is determined by metrics 3 ("Number ofbenthic invertivore species"), 4 ("Number of intolerant species"), 5 ("Percent tolerant individuals"), 6 ("Percent dominance by one species"), and 10 ("Percent omnivores"). Scoring categories are based on "expected" fish community characteristics in the absence of human-induced impacts other than impoundment of the reservoir. These categories were developed from historical fish assemblage data representative of transition zones from lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs (Hickman and McDonough, 1996). Attained values for each of the 12 metrics were compared to the scoring criteria and assigned scores to represent 10 relative degrees of degradation: least degraded (5); intermediately degraded (3); and most degraded (1). Scoring criteria for lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs are shown in Table 3. If a metric was calculated as a percentage (e.g., "Percent tolerant individuals"), the data from electrofishing and gill netting were scored separately and allotted half the total score for that individual metric. Individual metric scores for a sampling area (i.e., upstream or downstream) were summed to obtain the RF AI score for the area. TV A uses RF AI results to determine maintenance of BIP using two approaches. One is "absolute" in that it compares the RF AI scores and individual metrics to predetermined values. The other is "relative" in that it compares RF AI scores attained downstream to the upstream control site. The "absolute" approach is based on Jennings et al. (1995) who suggested that favorable comparisons of the RF AI score attained from the potential impact zone to a predetermined criterion can be used to identify the presence of normal community structure and function, and hence existence ofBIP. For multi-metric indices, TVA uses two criteria to ensure a conservative screening of BIP. First, if an RF AI score reaches 70% of the highest attainable score of 60 (adjusted upward to include sample variability as described below), and second, if fewer than half of RF AI metrics receive a low (1) or moderate (3) score, then community structure and function are considered normal, indicating that BIP had been maintained and no further evaluation would be needed. RFAI scores range from 12 to 60. Ecological health ratings (12-21 "Very Poor", 22-31 "Poor, 32-40 "Fair", 41-50 "Good", or 51-60 "Excellent") are then applied to scores. As discussed in detail below, the average variation for RF AI scores in TVA reservoirs is 6 (+/- 3). Therefore, any location that attains a RF AI score of 45 (7 5% of the highest score) or higher would be considered to have BIP. It must be stressed that scores below this threshold do not necessarily reflect an adversely impacted fish community. The threshold is used to serve as a conservative screening level; i.e., any fish community that meets these criteria is obviously not adversely impacted. RF AI scores below this level require a more in-depth look to determine if BIP exists. An inspection of individual RF AI metric results and species of fish used in each metric are an initial 11 step to help identify if operation ofBFN is a contributing factor. This approach is appropriate because a validated multi-metric index is being used and scoring criteria applicable to the zone of study are available. A comparison of RF AI scores from the area downstream of BFN to those from the upstream (control) area is one basis for determining if operation of the plant has had any impacts on the resident fish community. The definition of"similar" is integral to accepting the validity of these interpretations. The Quality Assurance (QA) component of the VS monitoring program deals with how well the RF AI scores can be repeated and is accomplished by collecting a second set of samples at 15%-20% of the areas each year. Comparison of paired-sample QA data collected over seven years shows that the difference in RF AI index scores ranges from 0 to 18 points. The mean difference between these 54 paired scores is 4.6 points with 95% confidence limits of 3 .4 and 5.8. The 75th percentile of the sample differences is 6, and the 90th percentile is 12. Based on these results, a difference of 6 points or less in the overall RF AI scores is the value selected for defining "similar" scores between upstream and downstream fish communities. That is, if the downstream RFAI score is within 6 points of the upstream score and ifthere are no major differences in overall fish community composition, then the two locations are considered similar. It is important to bear in mind that differences greater than 6 points can be expected simply due to method variation (25% of the QA paired sample sets exceeded that value). An examination of the 12 metrics (with emphases on fish species used for each metric) is conducted to analyze any difference in scores and the potential for the difference to be thermally related. Statistical Analyses In addition to RF AI analyses, data were analyzed using traditional statistical methods. Data from the survey were used to calculate catch per unit effort (CPUE), expressed as number of fish per electrofishing run or fish per net night. CPUE values were calculated by pollution tolerance, trophic guilds (e.g., benthic invertivores, top carnivores, etc.), thermal sensitivity (Yoder et al. 2006), and indigenous status. CPUE, diversity, and species richness values were computed for each electrofishing effort (to maximize sample size; n = 30) and compared upstream and downstream to assess potential effects of power plant discharges. 12 Diversity was quantified using two commonly applied indices: Shannon diversity index (Shannon 1948) and Simpson diversity index (Simpson 1949). Both indices account for the number of species present, as well as the relative abundance of each species. Shannon diversity index values were computed using the formula: s , (ni) (ni) H = -L N ln N i=1 where: S = total number of species N = total number of individuals ni = total number of individuals in the ith species The Simpson diversity index was calculated as follows: where: S = total number of species N =total number of individuals ni =total number of individuals in the ith species An independent two-sample t-test was used to test for differences in CPUE, species richness, and diversity values upstream and downstream ofBFN (a= 0.05). Before statistical tests were performed using this method, data were analyzed for normality using the Shapiro-Wilk test (Shapiro and Wilk, 1965) and homogeneity of variance using Levene's test (Levene 1960). normal data or data with unequal variances were transformed using either square root conversion or the ln(x+ 1) transformation. Transformed data were reanalyzed for normal distribution and equal variances. If transformation normalized the data or resulted in homogeneous variances, transformed data were tested using an independent two-sample t-test. If transformed data were 13 not normally distributed or had unequal variances, statistical analysis was conducted using the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test (Mann and Whitney 1947; Wilcoxon 1945). Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Sampling Methods and Data Analysis for Sites Upstream and Downstream ofBFN During autumn 2013, benthic macroinvertebrate data were collected in the transition zone of Wheeler Reservoir along three transects established across the reservoir's width as described above. The upstream transect (TRM 295 .9) was used as a control site to compare to benthic community composition potentially affected by the BFN thermal effluent. One downstream transect (TRM 293.2) was within the thermal plume and one transect (TRM 290.4) was located just below the downstream extent of the plume. A Ponar sampler (area per sample 0.06 m2) was used to collect benthic samples at ten points equally spaced along each transect. When heavier substrate was encountered, a Peterson sampler (area per sample 0.11 m2) was used. Sediments from each sample were washed on a 533µ screen, and organisms were picked from the screen and from any remaining substrate. Samples were fixed in formalin and sent to an independent consultant who identified each organism collected to the lowest possible taxonomic level. Benthic samples were evaluated using seven metrics that represented characteristics of the benthic community. Results for each metric were assigned a rating of 1, 3, or 5, based upon comparison to reference conditions developed for VS reservoir inflow sample sites (Table 4). For each sample site, the ratings for the seven metrics were then summed to produce an RBI score. Potential RBI scores ranged from 7 to 35. Ecological health ratings derived from the range of potential values (7-12 "Very Poor, 13-18 "Poor, 19-23 "Fair", 24-29 "Good", or 30-35 "Excellent") were then applied to scores. The individual metrics are described below: (1) Average number of taxa-Calculated by averaging the total number oftaxa present in each sample at a site. Greater taxa richness indicates better conditions than lower taxa richness. 14 (2) Proportion of samples with long-lived organisms -A presence/absence metric that is evaluated based on the proportion of samples with at least one long-lived organism (Corbicula, Hexagenia, mussels, or snails) present. The presence oflong-lived taxa is indicative of conditions that allow long-term survival. (3) Average number of EPT taxa-Calculated by averaging the number of Ephemeroptera (mayfly), Plecoptera (stonefly), and Trichoptera ( caddis fly) taxa present in each sample at a site. Higher diversity of these taxa indicates good water quality and better habitat conditions. (4) Percentage of oligochaetes -. Calculated by averaging the percentage of oligochaetes in each sample at a site. Oligochaetes are considered tolerant organisms, so a higher proportion indicates poorer water quality. (5) Percentage as dominant taxa -Used as an evenness indicator, this metric is calculated by selecting the two most abundanttaxa in a sample, summing the number of individuals in those two taxa, dividing that sum by the total number of animals in the sample, and converting to a percentage for that sample. The percentage is then averaged for the 10 samples at each site. Because the most abundant taxa often differ among the 10 samples at a site, this approach allows more discretion to identify imbalances at a site than developing an average for a single dominant taxon for all samples at a site. Dominance of one or two taxa indicates poor conditions. (6) Average density excluding chironomids and oligochaetes-Calculated by first summing the number of organisms -excluding chironomids and oligochaetes -present in each sample and then averaging these densities for the 10 samples at a site. This metric examines the community, excluding taxa which often dominate under adverse conditions. Higher abundance of taxa other than chironomids and oligochaetes indicates good water quality conditions. (7) Zero-samples: Proportion of samples containing no organisms -For each site, the proportion of samples which have no organisms present. "Zero-samples" indicate living 15 conditions unsuitable to support aquatic life (i.e. toxicity, unsuitable substrate, etc.). A site with no zero samples was assigned a score of five. Any site with one or more zero samples was assigned a score of one. A similar or higher benthic index score at the downstream sites compared to the upstream site was used as the basis for determining absence of impact on the benthic macroinvertebrate community related to BFN's thermal discharge. The QA component of VS monitoring compared benthic index scores from 49 paired sample sets collected over seven years. Differences between these paired sets ranged from 0 to 14 points; the 75th percentile was four, the 901h percentile was six. The mean difference between these 49 paired scores was 3 .1 points with 95% confidence limits of2.2 and 4.1. Based on these results, a difference of four points or less was the value selected for defining "similar" scores between upstream and downstream benthic communities. That is, ifbenthic scores at the downstream sites are within four points of the upstream score, the communities are considered similar. However, differences greater than four points can be expected simply due to method variation (25% of the QA paired sample sets exceeded that value). Any difference in scores of greater than four points between communities is examined on a metric-by-metric basis to determine what caused the difference and the potential for the difference to be thermally related . . Visual Encounter Survey (Wildlife Observations) Permanent survey sites were established on both the right and left descending banks at one location upstream of the BFN thermal discharge, centered at TRM 295.9 (Figure 3), and at a second location downstream of the discharge, centered at TRM 292.5 (Figure 4). Each survey site spanned a distance of 2, 100 m along the shoreline, and the beginning and ending points were marked using GPS for relocation. Surveys were conducted by steadily traversing the site by boat, at approximately 30 m offshore and parallel to the shoreline, and simultaneously recording observations of wildlife. The sampling frame of each survey generally followed the strip or belt transect concept: from the center-line of each transect landward to an area that included the shoreline and riparian zone (i.e., 16 belt width generally averages 60 m where vision is not obscured), all individuals observed were enumerated. Wildlife observed visually or detected audibly was identified to the lowest taxonomic trophic level, and a direct count of individuals observed per trophic level was recorded. If a flock of a species or a mixed flock of a group of species was observed, numbers of individuals present of each species were estimated. Time was recorded at the start and end points of each survey to provide a general measure of effort expended. Variation of observation times among surveys was primarily due to the difficulty of approaching some wildlife species without inadvertently flushing them from basking or perching sites. The principal objective of the surveys was to provide a preliminary set of observations to verify that trophic levels of birds, mammals and reptiles were not affected by thermal effects from the BFN discharge. If expected trophic levels were not represented, further investigation will be used to target particular species and/or species groups (guilds) in an attempt to determine the cause. Wheeler Reservoir Flow and BFN Temperature Total discharge from Guntersville Dam was used to describe the amount of water flowing past BFN and was obtained from TV A's River Operations database. Water temperature data were also obtained from TV A's River Operations database. Locations of water temperature monitoring sites used to measure water temperatures upstream of BFN intake and downstream ofBFN discharge are depicted in Figure 6. Ambient temperatures upstream of the BFN intake were measured at Site 4, located at TRM 297.8. Upstream daily mean temperatures were calculated by averaging temperatures collected at depths of 3, 5, and 7 feet. Temperatures downstream ofBFN discharge were measured at Sites 1, 16, and 17, all located at TRM 293.5. Downstream temperatures were calculated by first averaging temperatures at each site across depths of3, 5, and 7 feet. The resultant values from each site were then averaged together to obtain overall mean daily water temperatures downstream ofBFN. 17 Thermal Plume Characterization Physical measurements to characterize and map the BFN thermal plume were collected concurrent with biological field sampling. The plume was characterized under representative thermal maxima and seasonally-expected low flow conditions. Measurements were collected during periods of normal operation ofBFN, as reasonably practicable, to capture the thermal plume under existing river flow/reservoir elevation conditions. This effort evaluated potential impacts on recreation water supply uses and allowed general delineation of the "Primary Study Area" -per the EPA (1977) draft guidance defined as tlie "entire geographic area bounded annually by the locus of the 2°C above ambient surface isotherms as these isotherms are distributed throughout an annual periocf' -ensuring placement of the biological sampling locations within thermally influenced areas. However, it is important to emphasize that the isopleth boundary is not a bright line; it is dynamic, changing geometrically in response to changes in ambient river flows and temperatures and BFN operations. As such, samples collected outside of, but generally proximate to the Primary Study Area boundary cannot be considered free of thermal influence and thus should not be discounted. Every effort was made to collect biological samples in thermally affected areas as guided by the Primary Study Area definition. Depth profiles of temperature from the river surface to the bottom were collected at points along transects crossing the plume. One transect was located proximate to the thermal discharge point; subsequent downstream transects were concentrated in the near field area of the plume where the change in plume temperature was expected to be most rapid. The distance between transects in the remainder of the Primary Study Area increased with distance downstream (or away from the discharge point). The farthest downstream transect was just outside of the Primary Study Area. A transect upstream of the discharge, in an area not affected by the thermal plume, was included for determining ambient temperature conditions. The total number of transects needed to fully characterize and delineate the plume was determined in the field. Collection of temperature profiles along a given transect began at or near the shoreline from which the discharge originated and continued until the far shore was reached. Measurements across a transect were typically conducted at points 10%, 30%, 50%, 70%, and 90% from the 18 originating shoreline, though the number of measurement points along transects was sometimes increased in proportion to the magnitude of the temperature change across a given transect. The distances between transects, and between measurement points along each transect, depended on the size of the discharge plume. Temperature data were compiled and analyzed to present the horizontal and vertical dimensions of the BFN thermal plume using spatial analysis techniques to yield plume cross-sections, which can be used to demonstrate the existence of a zone of passage for fish and other aquatic species under or around the plume. Water Quality Parameters at Fish Sampling Sites during RFAI Samples Water quality conditions were measured using a Hydrolab that provided readings for water temperature (°C), conductivity (µSiem), dissolved oxygen (mg/L), and pH. Within each of the electrofishing sample reaches upstream and downstream of BFN, transects were established across the river at the most upstream boundary, at mid-reach, and at the most downstream boundary. Along each transect, samples were collected at the RDB, in mid-channel, and at the LDB by recording readings along a vertical gradient from just above the bottom of the river to approximately 0.3 meters from the surface at one-to two-meter intervals. Results and Discussion Aquatic Habitat in the Vicinity of BFN Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Assessment SARI methodology was used to evaluate shoreline habitat for eight transects located within each of the RFAI sample reaches upstream and downstream ofBFN. Shoreline transects were sampled on each bank (Figure 5). Of the sixteen shoreline transects sampled upstream of BFN, 19% (3 transects) scored as good, 8% (12 transects) scored as fair, and 6% (1 transect) scored as poor. The average score for 19 transects on the left descending bank was 24 ("Fair"), while scores for transects on the right descending bank averaged 23 ("Fair"). No aquatic macrophytes were observed on either shoreline (Table 5). Of the sixteen shoreline transects sampled downstream ofBFN, 0% scored as good, 88% (14 transects) scored as fair, and 12% (2 transects) scored as poor. The average scores for transects on the left bank descending were equal to those on the right bank descending (20, "Fair"). No aquatic macrophytes were observed on either shoreline (Table 6). River Bottom Habitat Figures 7-10 compare substrate proportions at each sample point along each of the eight transects upstream ofBFN during autumn 2009. Figures 11-14 compare substrate proportions at each sample point along each of the eight transects downstream ofBFN during autumn 2009 (Figure 5). Transects in Figures 7-14 are depicted at an exaggerated slant from bank to bank, in order to fit all of the data on the figure. Actual river bottom habitat sampling upstream and downstream ofBFN was conducted in a straight line from the left descending bank to the right descending bank. The three most dominant substrate types encountered along the eight transects upstream of BFN were silt (51.l %), mollusk shell (32.0%), and sand (5.1 %). Though in slightly different proportions-silt (65.1 %), mollusk shell (19.4%), and sand (5.4%)-these three substrates were also the most prominent downstream ofBFN. Fish Community The total RF AI score for the fish community upstream of BFN was 46 ("Good"). The score for the community downstream was 40 ("Fair"). Because the difference between these scores was within the 6-point range of acceptable variation, the communities were considered similar during autumn 2013. 20 Below, the two communities are compared in further detail, utilizing the four characteristics of a BIP. Discussion of this comparison includes the metrics appropriate for each characteristic. (1) A biotic community characterized by diversity appropriate to the ecoregion Total number of species (highest rating requires> 30) Thirty-three indigenous species were collected upstream, earning the highest score (5). Downstream, 27 indigenous species were collected earning a mid-range score (3) (Table 8). Seven species-longnose gar (six specimens), golden shiner (six), white crappie (one), northern hogsucker (one), white bass (two), orangespotted sunfish (three), and spotted bass (one) -were collected only upstream. One individual of stripetail darter was collected only downstream (Tables 9, 10). Number of centrarchid species (highest rating requires > 2) Eight centrarchid species were collected upstream and six were collected downstream, resulting in the highest score (5) for both sites (Table 8). White crappie and orangespotted sunfish were collected only upstream (Tables 9, 10). Number ofbenthic invertivore species (highest rating requires> 7) Five benthic invertivore species were collected upstream and four downstream, resulting in range scores (3) for both sites (Table 8). Spotted sucker, black redhorse, logperch, and freshwater drum were collected at both sites; northern hogsucker was collected only upstream (Tables 9, 10). Number of intolerant species (highest rating requires> 4) Six intolerant species were collected upstream and five collected downstream. Both sites earned the highest score (5) (Table 8). Skipjack herring, spotted sucker, black redhorse, longear sunfish, and smallmouth bass were collected at both sites; northern hogsucker was collected only upstream (Tables 9, 10). 21 Number of top carnivore species (highest rating requires> 7) Twelve top carnivore species were collected upstream, and eight were collected downstream. Both sites earned the highest score (5) (Table 8). Longnose gar, white crappie, white bass and spotted bass were collected only upstream (Tables 9, 10). Summary Both the upstream control site and the site downstream of the BFN discharge earned identical scores for four of the five metrics discussed. The upstream site earned a higher score for only metric 1, "Total number of species". (2) The capacity for the community to sustain itself through cyclic seasonal change Maintenance of diversity can often be indicative of the ability of a fish community to withstand the stressors of an annual seasonal cycle. Autumn RF AI sampling has been conducted at the site upstream ofBFN since 1993, except during 1996, 1998, and 2012. Autumn sampling has been conducted at the site downstream since 2000, except during 2012. Average scores calculated over the history of sampling are identical for both sites ( 41, "Good") (Table 11 ). Figure 15 shows the numbers of indigenous species collected during autumn RFAI samples upstream and downstream of BFN from 2000 through 2013. Over this time period, the numbers collected at the upstream site ranged from 24 to 33, with an average of29 species. Downstream, numbers collected ranged from 23 to 28, with an average of 27 species. Collections upstream have generally been higher than those downstream: more species were collected upstream during nine years, while the same number of species was collected at both sites during 2003, 2007, and 2008, and more species were collected downstream than upstream during only 2009. The numbers of indigenous species collected during autumn 2013 (33 upstream, 27 downstream) showed the greatest difference between the sites over the history of sampling. Percentage of anomalies (highest rating requires < 2 % ) Anomalies (i.e. visible lesions, bacterial and fungal infections, parasites, muscular and skeletal deformities, and hybridization) observed in a fish community can also be an indicator of the 22 ability of the community to sustain itself over an annual seasonal cycle. A greater percentage of anomalies (3.3%) was observed in the electrofishing sample at the upstream site, and the site earned a lower partial score than the downstream site, which exhibited only 1.1 % anomalies. No anomalies were observed in the gill net portion of the sample at either site, and both earned the highest partial score for this portion of the metric (Table 8). Summary Average RF AI scores, determined over the history of autumn sampling around BFN, were identical upstream and downstream. Though more indigenous species were collected upstream during most years, the average numbers of species -calculated over the years during which sampling occurred at both sites -were similar upstream and downstream. The electrofishing catch upstream exhibited a greater percentage of anomalies than that downstream, but no anomalies were observed in the gill net catch at either site. (3) The presence of necessary food chain species Estimates of the trophic compositions of the fish communities upstream and downstream ofBFN were calculated from the collection data (Tables 9, 10) as the proportion of the total sample made up by each trophic guild. In direct comparison of the communities upstream and downstream of BFN, the proportions ofbenthic invertivores and planktivores were somewhat similar. The proportions of other trophic guilds were notably different. However, omnivores and top carnivores were collected in greater proportion upstream, while insectivores were collected in greater proportion downstream. One additional guild -specialized insectivore -was represented downstream but not upstream. No parasitic or herbivore species were collected at either site. The numbers of species collected of four guilds were similar upstream and downstream, but notably more top carnivore species were collected upstream, and one species of specialized insectivore was collected only downstream (Table 2). In comparison to expected values for transition zones in lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs (Table 2), upstream proportions of benthic invertivores and insectivores were within the range of expected values, while the proportions of top carnivores, omnivores, and planktivores were poorer than expected. Downstream, insectivores comprised an unusually high 23 proportion of the sample (60.0%), primarily due to the collection of large numbers of two species: Mississippi silverside comprised more than 33% of the total catch, and spotfin shiner comprised more than 11 % (Table 9, 10). The proportions ofbenthic invertivores and omnivores were within the expected ranges, while the proportions of top carnivores and planktivores were below expectations. The collection_ downstream also included one specimen of "Specialized Insectivore" -the stripetail darter (Table 10) -representing the guild as 0.1 % of the sample. Upstream, the numbers ofbenthic invertivore, insectivore, top carnivore and planktivore species met or exceeded expectations, while the number of omnivore species was poorer (more species) than expected. Downstream, the numbers of species representing all six trophic guilds met or exceeded expectations (Table 2). Summary Trophic composition of the fish community upstream was not similar to that downstream. Proportions of insectivores, top carnivores, omnivores, and specialized insectivores were different between the sites. Although proportions were different between sites, further analysis revealed that numbers collected were similar for all trophic guilds except insectivore and top carnivore. The difference of insectivore proportions between sites was due to larger numbers of Mississippi silverside collected at the downstream site; this species schools, and therefore can be collected in large numbers. (4) A lack of domination by pollution-tolerant species Number of benthic invertivore species Five benthic invertivore species were collected upstream, and four were collected downstream. Both sites earned highest scores (5). Number of intolerant species (highest rating requires> 4) Six intolerant species were collected upstream, and five were collected downstream. Both sites received the highest score (5). Skipjack herring, spotted sucker, black redhorse, longear sunfish, and smallmouth bass were collected at both sites; northern hogsucker was collected only upstream (Tables 8-10). 24 Percentage of tolerant individuals (highest rating requires< 27 % electrofishing; < 15 % gill net) The upstream site earned mid-range scores for both portions of the sample: 49.5% of the electrofishing sample and 26.9% of the gill net sample were tolerant individuals. Downstream, 39.0% of the electrofishing sample-a mid-range partial score-and 33.3% of the gill net sample -the lowest partial score -were tolerant individuals (Table 8). Seven tolerant species -gizzard shad, common carp, spotfin shiner, redbreast sunfish, green sunfish, bluegill, and largemouth bass -were collected at both sites. Longnose gar, golden shiner, white crappie, and northern hogsucker were collected only upstream. Gizzard shad and longnose gar were caught in equal percentages (9.6%) in gill nets upstream1 but gizzard shad was clearly the most abundant species collected by electrofishing upstream (26.6%) and by either method downstream (17.0% of the electrofishirtg catch, 25.5% of the gill net catch) (Table 8). Percent dominance by one species (highest rating requires < 29 % electrofishing; < 17 % gill net) The upstream site earned the highest score for both portions of the sample. Gizzard shad was the most prevalent species in the electrofishing catch (26.6%) and channel catfish was most prevalent in the gill net catch (11.5%). The downstream site earned mid-range scores for both portions of the sample, with Mississippi silverside most prevalent in the electrofishing sample (3 5 .1 % ) and gizzard shad most prevalent in the gill net sample (25 .5%) (Table 8). Percentage of omnivores (highest rating.requires< 24 % electrofishing; < 16 % gill net) The electrofishing catch upstream consisted of a higher percentage of omnivores (39.0%) and earned a lower partial score (1.5) than that downstream, which consisted of 22.4% omnivores and earned the highest partial score (2.5). Gill net portions of the samples at both sites contained high percentages of omnivores (42.3% upstream, 39.2% downstream), and both earned lowest partial scores (Table 8). Six omnivore species -common carp, gizzard shad, smallmouth buffalo, black buffalo, blue catfish, and channel catfish -were collected at both sites. Golden shiner was collected only upstream (Tables 9, 10). 25 Summary Based on RF AI metric scores, the sites upstream and downstream of BFN both exhibited similarly moderate diversity of benthic invertivore species and similarly high diversity of intolerant species. Electrofishing samples at both sites exhibited moderate percentages of tolerant individuals, and gill net samples at both sites exhibited high percentages of omnivores. The community downstream was more heavily dominated by a single species than that upstream, though the most prevalent species collected upstream were different for both gear types than those collected downstream. The gill net sample downstream contained.a greater percentage of tolerant individuals, but the electrofishing sample contained a lower percentage of omnivores. Statistical Analyses Statistical comparison of the fish communities upstream and downstream of BFN showed no significant differences in overall species diversity per run, based on either the Simpson or the Shannon diversity indices. Potential differences in diversity between the two communities were also analyzed by parsing the data into nine species parameters. These tests indicated that significantly more top carnivore sp.ecies were collected per run upstream than downstream, but numbers of species for the other eight parameters were not significantly different between the communities (Table 11 ). The same nine parameters were also tested for differences in richness (numbers of individuals per run, or CPUE) between the two communities. Greater numbers of individual top carnivores were collected per run upstream; greater numbers of intolerant species were collected per run downstream (Table 11 ). Fish Community Summary Thirty-seven representative important species (RIS) were collected at the site upstream of BFN, compared to 31 RIS downstream (Tables 9, 10). RIS are defined in EPA guidance as those species which are representative in terms of their biological requirements of a balanced, indigenous community of fish, shellfish, and wildlife in the body of water into which the discharge is made (EPA and NRC, 1977). RIS often include non-indigenous species. A species 26 is designated as "thermally sensitive" if specimens exhibit avoidance behavior or are subject to mortality at water temperatures equal to or greater than 32.2°C (90°F) (Yoder et al., 2006). The same three thermally sensitive species -emerald shiner, spotted sucker, and logperch -were collected at both sites. Two aquatic nuisance species, common carp and Mississippi silverside, were also collected at both sites (Tables 9, 10). Commercially valuable species are defined by the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (2013) as any of the following non-game fish: drum, buffalo, carp, channel catfish, all members of the catfish family, paddlefish (spoonbill), spotted sucker, all members of the sucker family including the species known as redhorse and black horse, bowfin and all members of the gar family, and mullet. Recreationally valuable species are those that are targeted by anglers or are used as bait. Among the RIS collected upstream were 17 commercially valuable species and 23 recreationally valuable species, compared to 15 commercially valuable and 17 recreationally valuable species downstream (Tables 9, 10). Total RF AI scores for the sampling sites upstream and downstream differed by six points, indicating no substantial differences in ecological structure or balance between the two communities. As previously discussed, RF AI scores have an intrinsic variability of+/- 3 points. This variability comes from several sources, including annual variations in air temperature and stream flow; variations in pollutant loadings from nonpoint sources; changes in habitat, such as extent and density of aquatic vegetation; natural population cycles and movements of the species being measured (TWRC, 2006). Another source of variability arises from the fact that nearly any practical measurement, lethal or non-lethal, of a biological community is a sample rather than a measurement of the entire population. Accordingly, a thorough comparison of the fish communities upstream and downstream ofBFN was conducted by examining each of the twelve individual RFAI metrics as a component of the appropriate characteristic of a BIP. This analysis indicated that the two communities were both poor in abundance (both received low scores for the metric "Average number per run"), but similar in diversity and in their sustainability over an annual cycle. The numbers of species representing the major trophic guilds were generally similar, but distinct differences in 27 proportional trophic composition between the sites were evident. The two sites showed similarly moderate dominance by pollution tolerant species, but the downstream community was more heavily dominated by a single species. This was at least partially due to the collection downstream of an especially large number (33.2% of the total sample) of Mississippi silverside, a species that is often collected in large schools (Table 10). It is also noted that the species of dominance was different upstream and downstream for each type of collection gear (Table 8). To provide additional information about the health of the fish community throughout Wheeler reservoir, Table 12 compares RF AI scores for the sites upstream and downstream of BFN with those from additional VS sites in the reservoir. However, aquatic communities at these sites are not subject to thermal effects from BFN and are not used in determination ofBIP in relation to the plant. Average RF AI scores of these additional VS sites were all in the range of a "Good" rating. Statistical tests indicated that, within the upstream site, more top carnivore species were collected per run and greater numbers of individual top carnivores were collected per run, supporting the observations that this group was both more diverse and comprised a greater proportion of the total sample upstream. Greater numbers of intolerant individuals were collected per run downstream, indicating that conditions below BFN discharge were suitable for sensitive species. In conclusion, though this discussion revealed some differences between the fish communities upstream and downstream ofBFN during autumn 2013, there was no indication that these differences were related to thermal effluent from BFN. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community As discussed previously, data to assess the benthic macroinvertebrate community around BFN were collected from three sites in autumn 2013. RBI metrics for all three sites were scored using evaluation criteria for lab-processed samples collected in the transition reservoir zone (Table 4). Data collected at TRM 290.4, downstream of the thermal plume, produced an overall RBI score of 31 ("Excellent") and data from TRM 293 .2, within the thermal plume, produced an overall 28 RBI score of 35 ("Excellent"). Data from the upstream site, TRM 295.9, produced an overall RBI score of 35 ("Excellent") (Table 13). The upstream site was considered a control site and a difference of 4 points or less was used to define "similar" conditions between the upstream and downstream sites. Because the RBI scores for the two downstream sites were within 4 points of the RBI score for the upstream site, conditions among the three sites were considered "similar" and BIP was maintained. Results for the autumn 2013 benthic macroinvertebrate sampling can be found in Tables 13 and 16. Results were compared between the downstream (TRM's 290.4 and 293.2) and upstream (TRM 295.9) sites and are briefly discussed below for each RBI metric. Average number oftaxa (highest rating requires> 6.6) In autumn 2013, averages of 7.8 and 10.6 taxa were observed for sites downstream ofBFN. The site upstream of BFN averaged 11 taxa per sample. All three sites received the highest score of 5 for this metric (Table 13). Proportion of samples with long-lived organisms (highest rating requires> 0.9) The metric "proportion of samples with long-lived organisms" received the highest score of 5 at both _downstream sites with 100% containing long-lived organisms (proportion of 1.0). The proportion of samples with long-lived organisms was 100% at the upstream site which also received the highest score for the metric (Table 13). Average number of EPT taxa (highest rating requires> 1.4) An average of 1.2 EPT taxa was collected at the most downstream site, TRM 290.4, resulting in the mid-range score of 3. Within the plume at TRM 293.2, an average of 1.8 EPT taxa was collected and upstream of BFN at TRM 295 .9, an average of 1. 7 EPT was collected. Both sites received the highest score (Table 13). 29 Average proportion of oligochaete individuals (highest rating requires< 11 %) Oligochaetes are considered tolerant of poor water quality conditions; therefore a low proportion of oligochaetes in the samples is an indication of good water quality condition. All three sites had low proportions of oligochaetes and received the highest score (5) for the autumn 2013 samples, which included averages of2.7 % and 8.3 % oligochaetes for the two downstream sites and an average of 3.6 % oligochaetes for the upstream site (Table 13). Proportion of total abundance comprised by two dominant taxa (highest rating requires < 77.8%) The two dominant taxa made up 81.1 % of the samples at the most downstream site, TRM 290.4, which received the mid-range score (3) for this metric (Table 13). Total abundance of the two dominant taxa was 66.7 % for the site within the plume, TRM 293.2, and was 67.3 % upstream ofBFN at TRM 295.9 resulting in the highest score for both sites. Hexagenia mayflies (Ephemeridae) and Asiatic clams (Corbiculidae) were the two most abundant taxa at all three sites (Table 16a). Average density excluding chironomids and oligochaetes (highest rating requires> 609.9/m2) At the downstream sites, average densities excluding chironomids and oligochaetes were 1,161.7/m2 and l,228.3/m2* Both sites received the highest score (5). Average density excluding chironomids and oligochaetes at the upstream site was 1,11 l.7/m2, also resulting in the highest score (Table 13). Proportion of samples containing no organisms (highest rating requires that all samples contain organisms) In autumn 2013, there were no samples at any site which were void of organisms. All sites received the highest score (Table 13). Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Summary Monitoring results for autumn 2013 support the conclusion that a BIP ofbenthic macroinvertebrates was maintained downstream ofBFN (Table 13). The site within the thermal 30 plume, TRM 293.2, received the same RBI total score of 35 as the site upstream ofBFN and both rated "Excellent". The downstream site below the plume, TRM 290.4, received a slightly lower RBI total score of 31. However, this score also rated "Excellent" and was within four points when compared with the scores for the other two sites. Thus, the benthic community at the most downstream site was also considered similar to the upstream benthic community. Individual metrics and RBI total scores for benthic community samples from TRM 291.7 (downstream) and TRM 295.9 (upstream) are provided in Tables 14 and 15 for referencing results from 2000 to 2010. Benthic samples from these two locations were field processed every year monitored through 2010, and during some of the years samples were also laboratory processed. Since 2011, samples have been lab processed which produces a more accurate depiction of the benthic community. Although the locations presently used as the downstream sites (TRMs 290.4 and 293.2) are proximate to the downstream transect sampled from 2000 to 2010 (TRM 291.7), RBI laboratory-processed scores for 2011 and 2013 cannot be directly compared to RBI field processed scores from 2000 to 2010 without inference. To provide additional data on the overall health of the benthic macroinvertebrate community in Wheeler Reservoir, RBI scores for VS monitoring locations -inflow, forebay, and Elk River embayment sites -were included in Table 17. Please note that comparison of these scores to current RBI scores at the sites around BFN is limited for two reasons. First, data from these sites were scored from field-based criteria and cannot be closely compared to lab-based scores. Second, these sites are many river miles away from BFN. The inflow site is 53 river miles upstream, and the forebay sampling site is located 17 river miles downstream. The Elk River embayment site is located 6 river miles upstream of the confluence with the Tennessee River, which in tum is 10 river miles downstream ofBFN. Because of these distances from the plant, poor scores at these sites cannot be considered indicative of thermal effects from BFN. The Wheeler inflow site (TRM 347) has produced RBI scores of "Good" or "Excellent" for 11 of the 14 years sampled (Table 17). The forebay (TRM 277) and Elk River embayment sites (ERM 6.0) have produced "Poor" scores most years sampled. 31 Visual Encounter Survey (Wildlife Observations) Wildlife observed from linear shoreline surveys conducted upstream and downstream of BFN during autumn 2013 are presented in Table 18. Observations along the upstream survey site consisted of a variety of birds commonly associated with riparian habitat, map turtles, and one Eastern grey squirrel seen along the right descending bank. Observations downstream consisted of a similar variety of birds and map turtles. No mammals were observed downstream. It is important to note that a Visual Encounter Survey provides a preliminary near shore wildlife assessment to determine if the thermally affected area downstream of a power plant has adversely affected the bird, reptile, or mammal communities. The diversity of bird groups recorded indicated that a healthy ecological community existed both upstream and downstream ofWBN during 2013. However, because determination of the presence and diversity of reptiles and mammals using these methods is made difficult by their typical behaviors, observations of these taxa were limited. If an adverse environmental impact is suspected, sampling strategies of a more quantitative nature, such as trapping or netting, active search, investigation of mammal tracks along shoreline areas, long-term observation from blinds, or the use of cameras will be proposed to more accurately estimate the presence and diversity of these groups. Wheeler Reservoir Flow and BFN Water Temperature Daily mean flows from Guntersville Dam over the fiscal year 2013 (October 2012 through November 2013) are compared in Figure 16 to historic daily mean flows over the same fiscal year period, averaged from 1976 to 2012. From October to November 2012 and August to November 2013, flows were similar to historical averages. During December 2012, flows remained lower than historical. Flows were generally higher than historical from January to July 2013. Figure 17 compares daily average water temperatures recorded upstream of BFN intake and downstream ofBFN discharge during October 2012 through November 2013. Water temperatures were similar at both sites through this period. 32 Thermal Plume Characterization Plume temperatures (water temperatures 3.6°P or greater above ambient) began at the BPN discharge (TRM 294.0) and continued downstream to TRM291.8. At the discharge, the plume extended from the RDB to 30% of the width of the river and from the surface to 1.5 m depth. Downstream (TRM 293.8), the plume extended to a maximum depth of7 m but did not extend farther than 50% of the width of the river from the RDB. At TRM 291.8, plume temperatures were observed only along the RDB, from the surface to 3 m depth. No plume temperatures were detected downstream of this point (Table 19). These profiles indicate that, at maximum, the thermal effluent from BPN was confined to the upper two-thirds of the water column from mid-channel to the RDB, and that a sufficient zone of passage for aquatic wildlife existed around BPN during autumn 2013. Water Quality Parameters at Fish Sampling Sites during RFAI Samples Water temperatures observed at the upstream site, centered around TRM 295 .9, ranged from 71.9 to 78.4 °P, with the highest temperatures occurring in mid-channel at the surface, along the downstream boundary of the sample reach. Water temperatures at the downstream site, centered around TRM 292.5, ranged from 74.0 to 83.9 °P, with the highest temperatures occurring at the surface along the RDB at the upstream boundary of the sample reach. Values for pH, conductivity, and dissolved oxygen concentration fell within narrow and similar ranges upstream and downstream (Table 20). The values of these parameters indicate that pH, conductivity, and dissolved oxygen concentrations surrounding BPN during autumn 2013 were of sufficient quality to support a BIP of the type expected for this reservoir, and that they were not affected by thermal effluent from BPN. The most elevated temperatures within the downstream site were observed along the RDB at the upper boundary, just downstream of the BPN discharge, and are consistent with temperatures recorded at similar locations during plume determination (Table 19). The most elevated temperatures within the upstream site were observed at the surface along the lower boundary of the site. This lower boundary is less than one mile upstream of the discharge, and 33 considering the width of the reservoir and the relatively low velocity of the river at this point, these elevated temperatures can be attributed to diffusion of heated water upstream from the discharge. Discussion above indicated that a zone of passage for aquatic life existed around BFN. Therefore, overall water quality around BFN was not negatively impacted by the thermal effluent. 34 Literature Cited Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (ADCNR), Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries. 2013. 2013-2014 Regulations Relating to Game, Fish, bearers and other Wildlife. http://www.outdooralabama.com/hunting/regulations EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) and NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1977 (draft). Interagency 316(a) Technical Guidance manual and Guide for Thermal Effects Sections of Nuclear Facilities Environmental Impact Statements. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Enforcement, Permits Division, Industrial Permits Branch, Washington, DC. Etnier, D.A. and W.C. Starnes. 1993. The Fishes of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, 681 pp. Hickman, G.D. and T.A. McDonough. 1996. Assessing the Reservoir Fish Assemblage A potential measure ofreservoir quality. In: D. De Vries (Ed.) Reservoir Multidimensional approaches to reservoir fisheries management. Reservoir Committee, Southern Division, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. pp 85-97. Hubert, W. A. 1996. Passive capture techniques, entanglement gears. Pages 160-165 in B. R. Murphy and D. W .. Willis, editors. Fisheries techniques, 2nd edition. American Fisheries Society Bethesda, Maryland, USA. Jennings, M.J., L.S. Fore, and J.R. Karr. 1995. Biological monitoring of fish assemblages in the Tennessee Valley reservoirs. Regulated Rivers 11 :263-274. Levene, H. 1960. Robust tests for equality of variances. In: Contributions to probability and statistics: essays in honor of Harold Hotelling. I. Olkin, S. G. Ghtirye, W. Hoeffding, W. G. Matlow, and H. B. Mann (eds). pp. 278-292. Stanford University Press. Menlo Park, CA. 35 Mann, H.B. and D.R. Whitney. 1947. On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 18:50-60. McDonough, T.A. and G.D. Hickman. 1999. Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index development: A tool for assessing ecological health in Tennessee Valley Authority impoundments. In: Assessing the sustainability and biological integrity of water resources using fish communities. Simon, T. (Ed.) CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 523-540. Plafkin, J.L., Barbour, M.T., Porter, K.D., Gross, S.K., and Hughes, R.M. (1989). Rapid assessment protocols for use in streams and rivers: benthic macroinvertebrates and fish. EPA/444/4-89-001, Washington DC, USA. Reynolds, J.B. 1996. Electrofishing. Pages 221-251 in B. R. Murphy and D. W. Willis, editors. Fisheries techniques, 2nd edition. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. Shannon, C.E. 1948. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal 27:379-423, 623-656. Shapiro, S.S. and M. B. Wilk. 1965. An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika 52:591-611. Simpson, E.H. 1949. Measurement of diversity. Nature 163:688. TWRC. 2006. Strategic Plan, 2006-2012. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Commission, Nashville, TN. March 2006. pp 124-125. http://tennessee.gov/twra/pdfs/StratPlan06-12.pdf Wilcoxon, F. 1945. Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biometrics Bulletin 1:80-83. Yoder, C.O., B.J. Armitage, and E.T. Rankin. 2006. Re-evaluation of the Technical Justification for Existing Ohio River Mainstem Temperature Criteria. Midwest Biodiversity Institute, Columbus, Ohio. 36 Figure 1. Location of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant on Wheeler Reservoir. 38 Figure 2. Location of Condenser Cooling Water (CCW) intake and discharge at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. 39 Biomonitoring Zones Upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Electrofishing Station <> Gill Netting Station Benthic Macroinvertebrate Transect V\Jildlife Observation Transect Figure 3. Locations of biomonitoring sites upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. 40 Biomonitoring Zones Downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Electrofishing Station <> Gill Netting Station Benthic Macroinvertebrate Transect Wildlife Observation Transect Figure 4. Locations of biomonitoring sites downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. 41 Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Index (SAHi) Transects Upstream and Downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant SAHi Transect Figure 5. Locations of transects used to characterize shoreline and river bottom habitat upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. 42 Rn, er Mile X :?93 112 0 112 1 rr lie 1000 O 1000 2000 3000 4 O feet  ? . Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant RJ.,,a1 Mifj,, 296 Tennessee River (Wheeler Reservoir) t ! I I I I. 0 Rm:>r @ Jl.J,*/fl 29 " 14 -Tennessee River (Wheeler Reservoir) River Channel -Water Temperature Monitoring Station Figure 6. Locations of water temperature monitoring sites used to compare water temperatures upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) intake and downstream of BFN discharge. Site 4 was used for upstream ambient temperatures of the BFN intake and was located at TRM 297.8. Sites 1, 16, and L 7 were used for temperatures downstream of BFN discharge and were each located at TRM 293.5. This figure originated in the technical report: Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Module III, Water Temperature Monitoring. 43 N i TVA -E&T -ES&R GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION&. ENGINEERING DECEMBER 2010 Figure 7. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted. Of the eight transects established upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, transects 1 and 2 are the closest to the plant. 44 N 1 TVA -E&T -ES&R GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION & ENGINEERING DECEMBER 2010 Figure 8. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted. 45 N i TVA-E&T-E &R GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATIO & ENGINEERING DECEMBER 2010 Figure 9. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted. 46 I I I I Substrate Type N Depth( ft) of water where sample was taken TVA -E&T-ES&R GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION & ENGINEERING DECEMBER 2010 Figure 10. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted. 47 Substrate Type N i 2 Kilometers *Depth( ft) of water where sample was taken TVA -E&T -ES&R GEOGRAPHIC I FORMATION & ENGINEERING JA UARY2011 Figure 11. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted. Transects 1 and 2 are the farthest downstream of the eight transects established downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. 48 Substrate Type N l 2 Kilometers *Depth( ft) of\\*ater where sample was taken TVA -E&T-ES&R GEOGRAPHIC I FORMATION & ENGINEERING JA UARY2011 Figure 12. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted. 49 Substrate Type N 2 Kilometers *Depth( ft) of water where sample was taken TVA -E&T -ES&R GEOGRAPHIC I FORMATION & ENGINEER! G JANUARY 2011 Figure 13. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River downstream of Browns Ferry uclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted. 50 Substrate Type I I I N l 2 Kilometers *Depth( ft) of water where sample was taken TVA -E&T -ES&R GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION & ENGINEERING JA UARY 2011 Figure 14. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River downstream of Browns Ferry uclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted. 51 34 32 "C .2l 30 u ..9:1 0 u "' QJ u 28 "' "' ::I 0 c: QJ tlJ) :c 26 c: -0 .... QJ ..c § 24 z 22 20 32 30 30 -29 29 --2828 28 2828 28 --f---f------27 27 27 27 27 27 ->-->--->-----26 2626 26 --------,___ 25 >--24 -----------,___ 23 ------------,___ 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2013 Year D TRM 295.9 (Avg=29) D TRM 292.5 (Avg=27) Figure 15. Comparison of observed values for the Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index metric "Number oflndigenous Species", over 13 years of autumn sampling at the sites upstream (TRM 295.9) and downstream (TRM 292.5) of Brown's Ferry Nuclear Plant. 52

-;;;--3 0 u:: 200000 150000 100000 50000 0 10/1 11/1 12/1 1/1 -FY 2013 Daily Mean Flow -Historical Daily Mean 1976-2012 2/1 3/1 4/1 5/1 6/1 7/1 8/1 9/1 10/1 11/1 Date Figure 16. Daily mean flows from Guntersville Dam, October 2012 through November 2013, and historic daily flows for the same fiscal year period, averaged over the years 1976-2012. 53 100 90 80 70 0 -; 60 .... ;j .... 111 .... 50 E Ill .... Ill 40 .... 111 30 -Upstream of BFN Intake -Downstream of BFN Discharge 20 10 0 ">.""'\,, ..... Figure 17. Daily water temperatures averaged over depth (3, 5, and 7 feet) upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant (BFN) intake and downstream of BFN discharge -October 2012 through November 2013. 54 Table 1. Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Index (SAHi) metrics and scoring criteria. Metric Cover Substrate Erosion Scoring Criteria Stable cover (boulders, rootwads, brush, logs, aquatic vegetation, artificial structures) in 25 to 75% of the drawdown zone Stable cover in 10 to 25% or> 75% of the drawdown zone Stable Cover in< 10% of the drawdown zone Percent of drawdown zone with gravel substrate > 40 Percent of drawdown zone with gravel substrate between 10 and 40 Percent substrate gravel < 10 Little or no evidence of erosion or bank failure. Most bank surfaces stabilized by woody vegetation. Areas of erosion small and infrequent. Potential for increased erosion due to less desirable vegetation cover (grasses) on> 25% of bank surfaces. Areas of erosion extensive, exposed or collapsing banks occur along> 30% of shoreline. Canopy Cover Tree or shrub canopy> 60% along adjacent bank Tree or shrub canopy 30 to 60% along adjacent bank Tree or shrub canopy< 30% along adjacent bank Riparian Zone Width buffered > 18 meters Habitat Gradient Width buffered between 6 and 18 meters Width buffered < 6 meters Habitat diversity optimum. All major habitats (logs, brush, native vegetation, boulders, gravel) present in proportions characteristic of high quality, sufficient to support all life history aspects of target species. Ready access to deeper sanctuary areas present. Habitat diversity less than optimum. Most major habitats present, but proportion of one is less than desirable, reducing species diversity. No ready access to deeper sanctuary areas. Habitat diversity is nearly lacking. One habitat dominates, leading to lower species diversity. No ready access to deeper sanctuary areas. Drawdown zone gradient abrupt (> 1 meter per 10 meters). Less than 10% of shoreline with abrupt gradient due to dredging. Drawdown zone gradient abrupt. (> 1 meter per 10 meters) in 10 to 40% of the shoreline resulting from dredging. Rip-rap used to stabilize bank along> 10% of the shoreline. Drawdown zone gradient abrupt in> 40 % of the shoreline resulting from dredging. Seawalls used to stabilize bank along > 10 % of the shoreline. 56 Score 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 Table 2. Expected trophic guild proportions* and expected numbers of species* in lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoir transltion zones, compared to values observed during 2013 monitoring at BFN. Lower Mainstem Tennessee River Transition Zones Proportion(%) Number of species Observed Upstream of Observed Downstream BFN (TRM 295.9) of BFN (TRM 292.5) Trisected range a Average b Trisected range

• Average b Trophic Guild Expected + Expected + Proportion Number of Proportion Number of (%) Species (%) Species Benthic Invertivore <6.7 6.4 to 13.4 > 13.4 5.5 +/- 1.2 <3 3 to 5 >5 5+/-1 10.7 5 8.3 4 Insectivore <24.6 24.6 to 49.1 >49.1 40.0 +/-4.5 <4 4 to 8 >8 8+/-1 32.5 12 60.0 11 Top Carnivore < 15.1 15.1 to 30.2 >30.2 18.3 +/- 2.2 <4 4 to 8 >8 10+/-1 14.4 12 7.1 8 Omnivore >38.5 19.3 to 38.5 <19.3 28.7 +/- 3.3 >6 3 to 6 <3 6+/-1 39.2 7 23.3 6 Planktivore <9.4 9.4 to 18.7 >18.7 6.4 +/-2.6 0 > 1 1+/-1 3.2 1.2 1 Parasitic < 0.1 0.1to0.2 > 0.2 0.1+/-0.04 0 > 1 1+/-0 Herbivore <1.8 1.8 to 3.6 >3.6 0.6 +/- 0.4 0 >1 1+/-0 Specialized Insectivore 0.1 1 *Expected values were calculated from data collected over 900 electrofishing runs and 600 overnight experimental gill net sets in transition areas of lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs. a Trisected ranges are intended to show below expected(-), expected, and above expected(+) values for trophic level proportions and species occurring within the transition zones in upper mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs. bAverage expected values are bound by 95% corifidence intervals. 57 Table 3. RFAI scoring criteria (2002) for inflow, transition, and forebay sections of lower mainstem reservoirs* in the Tennessee River system. Scoring Criteria Inflow Transition Fore bay Metric Gear 1 3 5 1 3 5 1 3 5 1. Total species Combined < 14 14-27 >27 < 16 16-30 >30 < 14 14-27 >27 2. Number of centrarchid species Combined <2 2-4 >4 <2 2-2 >2 <2 2-3 >3 3. Number ofbenthic invertivores Combined <4 4-7 >7 <4 4-7 >7 <4 4-6 >6 4. Number of intolerant species Combined <3 3-6 >6 <3 3-4 >4 <2 2-4 >4 5. Percent tolerant individuals Electro fishing >51% 26-51% <26% >54% 27-54% <27% >61% 30-61% <30% Gill netting >30% 15-30% < 15% >46% 22-46% <22% 6. Percent dominance by one species Electrofishing >47% 24-47% <24% >58% 29-58% <29% >59% 30-59% <30% Gill netting >34% 17-34% < 17% >43% 21-43% <21% 7. Percent non-indigenous species Electro fishing >4% 2-4% <2% >2% 1-2% <1% >2% 2-2% <2% Gill netting >2% 1-2% <1% >2% 1-2% < 1% 8. Number of top carnivore species Combined <4 4-7 >7 <4 4-7 >7 <4 4-7 >7 9. Percent top carnivores Electro fishing < 15% 15-29% >29% <5% 5-10% >10% <6% 6-12% >12% Gill netting <20% 20-39% >39% <25% 25-49% >49% 10. Percent omnivores Electrofishing >48% 24-48% <24% >48% 24-48% <24% >59% 30-59% <30% Gill netting >33% 16-33% < 16% >49% 24-49% <24% 11. Average number per run Electro fishing <68 68-136 >136 <243 243-487 >487 < 170 170-341 >341 Gill netting < 11 11-22 >22 <20 20-40 >40 12. Percent anomalies Electrofishing >5% 2-5% <2% >5% 2-5% <2% >5% 2-5% <2% Gill netting >5% 2-5% <2% >5% 2-5% <2% *Lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs include Guntersville, Wheeler, Wilson, Pickwick, and Kentucky. Transition scoring criteria were used to score sites upstream and downstream of BFN. 58 Table 4. Scoring criteria for laboratory-processed benthic macroinvertebrate community samples from inflow, transition, and forebay zones of mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs. Scoring Criteria Benthic Community Inflow Transition Forebay Metrics 1 3 5 1 3 5 1 3 5 1. Average number of taxa <4.2 4.2-8.3 >8.3 <3.3 3.3-6.6 >6.6 <2.8 2.8-5.5 >5.5 2. Proportion of samples with long-<0.6 0.6-0.8 >0.8 <0.6 0.6-0.9 >0.9 <0.6 0.6-0.8 >0.8 lived organisms 3. Average number of EPT taxa <0.9 0.9-1.9 >1.9 <0.6 0.6-1.4 >1.4 <0.6 0.6-0.9 >0.9 4. Average proportion of oligochaete >23.9 23.9-12.0 <12.0 >21.9 21.9-11.0 <11.0 >41.9 41.9-21.0 <21.0 individuals 5. Average proportion of total abundance comprised by the two most >86.2 86.2-73.l <73.l >87.9 87.9-77.8 <77.8 >90.3 90.3-81.7 <81.7 abundant taxa 6. Average density excluding <400.0 400.0-799.9 >799.9 <305.0 305.0-609.9 >609.9 <125.0 125.0-249.9 >249.9 chironomids and oligochaetes 7. Zero Samples: proportion of samples >O 0 >O 0 >O 0 containing no organisms Transition scoring criteria were used to score sites upstream and downstream of BFN. 59 Table 5. SAHi scores for shoreline habitat assessments conducted within the RFAI sample reach upstream of BFN, autumn 2009. Transects Left Descending 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Avg. Bank Latitude 34.68917 34.6832 34.6806 34.67959 34.67709 34.66978 34.67027 34.66841 Longitude -87.13621 -87.13172 -87.12188 -87.1183 -87.10876 -87.10915 -87.10009 -87.09753 Aquatic Macrophytes 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% SAHi Variables Cover 3 3 5 3 3 3 3 Substrate 5 3 3 5 3 Erosion 3 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 4 Canopy Cover 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Riparian Zone 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 4 Habitat 3 3 3 3 2 Slope 5 5 3 5 3 Total 17 29 27 25 21 25 19 19 24 Rating Fair Good Good Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Transects Right Descending 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Avg. Bank Latitude 34.70109 34.69937 34.69862 34.6986 34.69566 34.69302 34.69062 34.68843 Longitude -87.11896 -87.11535 -87.10973 -87.10061 -87.09157 -87.08836 -87.08452 -87.08094 Aquatic Macrophytes 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% SAHi Variables Cover 3 3 5 5 5 5 4 Substrate 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 Erosion 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Canopy Cover 5 5 5 3 Riparian Zone 5 5 5 3 Habitat 3 3 2 Slope 3 3 2 Total 15 27 25 19 17 19 19 19 23 Rating Poor Good Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Scoring criteria: poor (7-16),fair (17-26), good (27-35) 60 Table 6. SAHi scores for shoreline habitat assessments conducted within the RFAI sample reach downstream ofBFN, autumn 2009. Transects Left Descending 1 .2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Avg. Bank Latitude 34.72824 34.72603 34.72398 34.72068 34.71496 34.7128 34.71082 34.70351 Longitude -87.1759 -87.1728 -87.1704 -87.1678 -87.4621 -87.1577 -87.1543 -87.1488 Aquatic Macrophytes 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% SAHi Variables Cover 3 3 2 Substrate 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 Erosion 5 5 5 5 3 Canopy Cover 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 4 Riparian Zone 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 4 Habitat 3 3 2 Slope 3 Total 21 23 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 Rating Fair Fair Fair Fair. Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Transects Right Descending 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Avg. Bank Latitude 34.74369 34.74081 34.73891 34.73519 34.73081 34.7266 34.72058 34.71239 Longitude -87.1565 -87.1522 -87.1507 -87.1475 -87.1428 -87.1376 -87.1325 -87.1275 Aquatic Macrophytes 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% SAHi Variables Cover 3 3 3 5 5 5 3 Substrate 5 5 5 5 3 Erosion 5 5 5 5 5 4 Canopy Cover 5 5 5 5 3 3 4 Riparian Zone 3 5 3 5 3 Habitat 3 3 2 Slope Total 21 17 19 19 19 21 15 15 20 Rating Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Poor Poor Fair Scoring criteria: poor (7-16),fair (17-26), good (27-35) 61
• Table 7. Substrate percentages and average water depth (ft) per transect upstream and downstream of BFN, autumn 2009. % Substrate per transect upstream of BFN Substrate Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Avg. Silt 68.5 45.0 25.5 49.0 27.1 79.5 56.0 58.0 51.1 Mollusk Shell 3.5 30.5 45.5 38.5 56.8 13.5 38.0 30.0 32.0 Sand 12.5 0 19.0 0 9.0 0 0 0 5.1 Detritus 4.0 2.0 0.5 2.5 7.5 2.5 5.5 10.0 4.3 Boulder 9.0 9.5 0 10.0 0 0 0 0 3.6 Gravel 0.5 0.5 9.0 0 1.5 0.5 0.5 0 1.6 Cobble 1.0 10.0 0.5 0 0.5 0 0 0 1.5 Clay 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.0 0 0.5 Average Depth (ft) 19.2 17.4 13.3 17.5 16.2 15.0 15.5 15.5 16.2 Actual Depth Range: 6.5 to 36.9 ft % Substrate per transect downstream of BFN Substrate Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Avg. Silt 75.4 80.5 77.0 56.3 69.5 55.5 44.0 62.5 65.l Mollusk Shell 22.6 12.5 14.5 32.0 7.0 11.5 26.0 29.0 19.4 Sand 0 0 0.0 9.1 9.0 9.0 17.0 0.0 5.5 Detritus 2.0 6.5 8.0 2.5 0.5 1.0 2.5 4.5 3.4 Bedrock 0 0 0.0 0.0 9.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 2.4 Boulder 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 Cobble 0 0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.6 Gravel 0 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.2 Clay 0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Average Depth (ft) 21.0 20.0 20.2 18.7 18.3 18.9 20.6 20.2 19.7 Actual Depth Range: 9.1to31.7 ft 62 Table 8. Individual metric scores and the overall RFAI scores upstream (TRM 295.9) and downstream (TRM 292.5) of Browns Ferry Nuclear plant, autumn 2013. Autumn 2013 TRM 295.9 TRM 292.5 Metric A. Species richness and composition 1. Number of indigenous species (See Tables 9 and 10) 2. Number of centrarchid species (less Micropterus) 3. Number ofbenthic invertivore species 4. Number of intolerant species Combined Combined Combined Combined Obs 33 8 Black crappie Bluegill Green sunfish Longear sunfish Orangespotted sunfish Redear sunfish Warmouth White crappie 5 Black redhorse Freshwater drum Logperch Northern hog sucker Spotted sucker 6 Black redhorse Longear sunfish Northern hog sucker Skipjack herring Smallmouth bass Spotted sucker 63 Score 5 5 3 5 Obs 27 Black crappie Bluegill Green sunfish Longear sunfish Redear sunfish Warmouth 6 4 Black redhorse Freshwater drum Logperch Spotted sucker 5 Black redhorse Longear sunfish Skipjack herring Smallmouth bass Spotted sucker Score 3 5 3 5 Table 8. (Continued) Autumn 2013 TRM295.9 TRM292.5 Metric Obs Score Obs Score 5. Percent tolerant individuals Electrofishing 49.5% 39.0% Bluegill 10.7% Bluegill 3.3% Common carp 0.9% Common carp 0.2% Gizzard shad 26.6% Gizzard shad 17.% Golden shiner 0.9% Green sunfish 4.7% Green sunfish 1.8% 1.5 Largemouth bass 2.1% 1.5 Largemouth bass 5.3% Redbreast sunfish 0.1% Longnose gar 0.2% Spotfin shiner 11.7% Redbreast sunfish 0.2% Spotfin shiner 2.9% White crappie 0.2% Gill Netting 26.9% 33.3% Gizzard shad 9.6% Bluegill 3.9% Largemouth bass 7.7% 1.5 Common carp 2.0% 0.5 Longnose gar 9.6% Gizzard shad 25.5% Largemouth bass 2.0% 6. Percent dominance by one species Electro fishing 26.6% 2.5 35.1% 1.5 Gizzard shad Mississippi silverside Gill Netting 11.5% 2.5 25.5% 1.5 Channel catfish Gizzard shad 7. Percent non-indigenous species Electrofishing 11.2% 35.4% Common carp 0.9% 0.5 Common carp 0.2% 0.5 Mississippi silverside 10.1% Mississippi silverside 35.1% Redbreast sunfish 0.2% Redbreast sunfish 0.1% Gill Netting NA 2.5 2.0% 1.5 Common carp 64 Table 8. (Continued) Autumn 2013 TRM295.9 TRM292.5 Metric Obs Score Obs Score 8. Number of top carnivore species Combined 12 8 Black crappie Black crappie Flathead catfish Flathead catfish Largemouth bass Largemouth bass Longnose gar Sauger Sauger 5 Skipjack herring 5 Skipjack herring Smallmouth bass Smallmouth bass Spotted gar Spotted bass Yellow bass Spotted gar White bass White crappie Yellow bass B. Trophic composition 9. Percent top carnivores Electrofishing 12.1% 4.8% Black crappie 0.2% Largemouth bass 2.1% Flathead catfish 0.2% Smallmouth bass 2.5% Largemouth bass 5.3% Yellow bass 0.2% Longnose gar 0.2% Smallmouth bass 1.4% 2.5 0.5 Spotted bass 0.2% Spotted gar 0.8% White bass 2.4% White crappie 0.2% Yellow bass 1.5% Gill Netting 44.2% 49.0% Flathead catfish 1.9% Black crappie 2.0% Largemouth bass 7.7% Flathead catfish 7.8% Longnose gar 9.6% 2.5 Largemouth bass 2.0% 2.5 Sauger 7.7% Sauger 5.9% Skipjack herring 11.5% Skipjack herring 23.5% Spotted gar 1.9% Spotted gar 3.9% White bass 3.8% Yellow bass 3.9% 65 Table 8. (Continued) Autumn 2013 TRM295.9 TRM292.5 Metric Obs Score Obs Score 10. Percent omnivores Electro fishing 39.0% 22.4% Black buffalo 0.2% Channel catfish 2.3% Channel catfish 6.2% Common carp 0.2% Common carp 0.9% 1.5 Gizzard shad 17.0% 2.5 Gizzard shad 26.6% Smallmouth buffalo 2.9% Golden shiner 0.9% Smallmouth buffalo 4.2% Gill Netting 42.3% 39.2% Black buffalo 3.8% Black buffalo 2.0% Blue catfish 7.7% Blue catfish 3.9% Channel catfish 11.5% 0.5 Channel catfish 2.0% 0.5 Gizzard shad 9.6% Common carp 2.0% Smallmouth buffalo 9.6% Gizzard shad 25.5% Smallmouth buffalo 3.9% C. Fish abundance and health 11. Average number per run Electrofishing 44.1 0.5 61.2 0.5 Gill Netting 5.2 0.5 5.1 0.5 12. Percent anomalies Electrofishing 3.3% 1.5 1.1% 2.5 Gill Netting 0.0% 2.5 0.0% 2.5 Overall RF AI Score 46 40 Good Fair 66 Table 9. Species collected, ecological and recreational designation and corresponding electrofishing (EF) and gill net (GN) catch per unit effort upstream (TRM 295.9) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant discharge -Autumn 2013. Thermally Comm. Rec. Trophic Native Sensitive Valuable Valuable EF Catch EF Catch Total fish GN Catch Per Total Total fish Percent Common Name Scientific name level Tolerance Per Run Per Hr EF NetNight Fish GN Combined Longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus TC x TOL x O.G7 0.25 1 0.50 5 6 0.8 Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM x TOL x x 11.73 44.67 176 0.50 5 181 25.4 Common carp . Cyprinus carpio OM TOL x 0.40 1.52 6 6 0.8 Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas OM x TOL x x 0.40 1.52 6 6 0.8 Spotfin shiner Cyprinella spiloptera IN x TOL 1.27 4.82 19 19 2.7 Redbreast sunfish* Lepomis auritus IN TOL x O.Q7 0.25 1 0.1 Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN x TOL x 0.80 3.05 12 12 1.7 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN x TOL x 4.73 18.02 71 71 9.9 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides TC x TOL x 2.33 8.88 35 0.40 4 39 5.5 White crappie Pomoxis annularis TC x TOL x O.Q7 0.25 1 1 0.1 Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris TC x INT x 0.60 6 6 0.8 Northern hog sucker Hypentelium nigricans BI x INT 0.07 0.25 1 0.1 Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI x INT x x 1.13 4.31 17 0.10 18 2.5 Black redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei BI x INT x O.Q7 0.25 1 1 0.1 Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN x INT x 1.13 4.31 17 17 2.4 Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC x INT x 0.60 2.28 9 9 1.3 Spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatus TC x x 0.33 1.27 5 0.10 6 0.8 Threadfin shad Dorosoma petenense PK x x x 1.53 5.84 23 23 3.2 Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides IN x x 0.07 0.25 1 1 0.1 Bullhead minnow Pimephales vigilax IN x x 0.47 1.78 7 7 1.0 Smallmouth buffalo /ctiobus bubalus OM x x 1.87 7.11 28 0.50 5 33 4.6 Black buffalo /ctiobus niger OM x x O.Q7 0.25 1 0.20 2 3 0.4 Blue catfish /ctalurus furcatus OM x x x 0.40 4 4 0.6 Channel catfish lctalurus punctatus OM x x x 2.73 10.41 41 0.60 6 47 6.6 Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC x x x 0.07 0.25 1 0.10 1 2 0.3 White bass Marone chrysops TC x x 1.07 4.06 16 0.20 2 18 2.5 Yellow bass Marone mississippiensis TC x x x 0.67 2.54 10 10 1.4 Warmouth Lepomis gulosus IN x x O.Q7 0.25 1 1 0.1 Orangespotted sunfish Lepomis humilis IN x x 0.20 0.76 3 3 0.4 Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN x x 1.73 6.60 26 0.40 4 30 4.2 67 Table 9. (Continued) Thermally Comm. Rec. Trophic Native Sensitive Valuable Valuable EF Catch EF Catch Total fish GN Catch Per Total Total fish Percent Common Name Scientific name level species Tolerance Species Species Species Per Run Per Hr EF Net Night Fish GN Combined Composition Hybrid sunfish Hybrid Lepomis spp. IN x 0.20 0.76 3 3 0.4 Spotted bass Micropterus punctulatus TC x x 0.07 0.25 1 1 0.1 Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC x x 0.07 0.25 1 0.1 Logperch Percina caprodes BI x x 2.33 8.88 35 35 4.9 Sauger Sander canadensis TC x x 0.40 4 4 0.6 Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI x x 1.27 4.82 19 0.20 2 21 2.9 Mississippi silverside
• Menidia audens IN x x 4.47 17.01 67 67 9.4 Total 34 3 17 23 44.16 167.97 662 5.20 52 714 100.0 Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected 34 15 Trophic level: benthic invertivore (BJ), herbivore (HB), insectivore (JN), omnivore (OM), planktivore (PK), parasitic (PS), specialized insectivore (SP), top carnivore (TC); Tolerance: tolerant species (TOL), intolerant species (JNT);Comm.-Commercially, Rec.-Recreationally. *Denotes aquatic nuisance species next to common name. All species are considered representative important species. No species collected have a Federal Threatened or Endangered status. 68 Table 10. Species collected, ecological and recreational designation and corresponding electrofishing (EF) and gill net (GN) catch per unit effort downstream (TRM 292.5) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant discharge -Autumn 2013. Thermally Comm. Rec. Trophic Native Sensitive Valuable Valuable EF Catch EF Catch Total fish GN Catch Per Total Total fish Percent Common Name Scientific name level species Tolerance Species Species Species Per Run Per Hr EF NetNight Fish GN Combined Composition Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM x TOL x x 10.40 40.10 156 1.30 13 169 17.4 Common carp . Cyprinus carpio OM TOL x 0.13 0.51 2 0.10 1 3 0.3 Spotfin shiner Cyprinella spiloptera IN x TOL 7.13 27.51 107 107 11.0 Redbreast sunfish* Lepomis auritus IN TOL x 0.07 0.26 0.1 Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN x TOL x 2.87 11.05 43 43 4.4 Bluegill Lepomis macroqhirus IN x TOL x 2.00 7.71 30 0.20 2 32 3.3 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides TC x TOL x 1.27 4.88 19 0.10 20 2.1 Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris TC x INT x 1.20 12 12 1.2 Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI x INT x x 0.20 0.77 3 3 0.3 Black redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei BI x INT x 0.07 0.26 1 1 0.1 Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN x INT x 4.00 15.42 60 60 6.2 Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC x INT x 1.53 5.91 23 23 2.4 Spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatus TC x x 0.20 2 2 0.2 Threadfin shad Dorosoma petenense PK x x x 0.80 3.08 12 12 1.2 Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides IN x x 0.20 0.77 3 3 0.3 Bullhead minnow Pimephales vigilax IN x 0.33 1.29 5 5 0.5 Smallmouth buffalo Ictiobus bubalus OM x x 1.80 6.94 27 0.20 2 29 3.0 Black buffalo Ictiobus niger OM x x 0.10 0.1 Blue catfish lctalurus farcatus OM x x x 0.20 2 2 0.2 Channel catfish lctalurus punctatus OM x x x 1.40 5.40 21 0.10 1 22 2.3 Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC x x x 0.40 4 4 0.4 Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC x x x 0.13 0.51 2 0.20 2 4 0.4 Warmouth Lepomis gulosus IN x x 0.13 0.51 2 2 0.2 Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN x x 0.27 1.03 4 4 0.4 69 Table 10. (Continued) Thermally Comm. Rec. Trophic Native Sensitive Valuable Valuable EF Catch EF Catch Total fish GN Catch Per Total Total fish Percent Common Name Scientific name level species Tolerance Species Species Species Per Run Per Hr EF Net Night Fish GN Combined Composition Hybrid sunfish Hybrid Lepomis spp. IN x 0.13 0.51 2 2 0.2 Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC x x 0.10 1 0.1 Stripetail darter Etheostoma kennicotti SP x O.D7 0.26 0.1 Logperch Percina caprodes BI x x 1.87 7.20 28 28 2.9 Sauger Sander canadensis TC x x 0.30 3 3 0.3 Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens Bl x x 2.93 11.31 44 0.40 4 48 5.0 Mississippi silverside* Menidia audens IN x x 21.47 82.78 322 322 33.2 Total 28 3 15 17 61.20
• 235.97 918 5.10 51 969 100 Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected 24 15 Trophic level: benthic invertivore (Bl), herbivore (HB), insectivore (IN}, omnivore (OM), planktivore (PK), parasitic (PS}, specialized insectivore (SP), top carnivore (TC); Tolerance: tolerant species (TOL}, intolerant species (INT);Comm.-Commercially, Rec.-Recreationally. *Denotes aquatic nuisance species next to common name. All species are considered representative important species. No species collected have a Federal Threatened or Endangered status. 70 Table 11. Spatial statistical comparisons of numbers of species, mean electrofishing catch per unit effort values (number/run), tolerance designations, trophic levels, and non-indigenous individuals, including species richness and Simpson and Shannon diversity values, for samples collected near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, autumn 2013. Mean (Standard Deviation) Parameter Upstream Downstream Significant Test PValue {TRM295.9) (TRM292.5) Difference Statistic Number of species (per run) Total (Species richness) 11.1 (3.9) 10.3 (2.1) No Z= -1.01 0.31 Benthic invertivores 1.5 (1.0) 1.5 (0.6) No Z= 0.52 0.60 Insectivores 3.9 (1.8) 4.8 (1.6) No t= 1.49 0.15 Omnivores 2.9 (1.2) 2.1 (1.1) No t= -1.97 0.06 Top carnivores 2.6 (1.4) 1.5 (0.6) Yes Z= -2.26 0.02 Non-indigenous 1.1 (0.7) 0.9 (0.7) No Z= -0.75 0.46 Tolerant 3.7 (1.5) 4.1 (1.2) No Z= 0.65 0.52 Intolerant 1.2 (0.9) 1.6 (0.5) No Z= 1.22 0.22 Thermally sensitive 0.9 (0.7) 0.9 (0.5) No Z= -0.22 0.83 CPUE (per run) Total 2.9 (1.7) 4.1 (2.8) No Z= 0.79 0.43 Benthic invertivores 0.2 (0.2) 0.1 (0.1) No Z= 0.52 0.60 Insectivores 1.0 (0.8) 2.6 (2.4) No Z= 1.42 0.16 Omnivores 1.1 (1.1) 0.9 (0.7) No Z= -0.19 0.85 Top Carnivores 0.4 (0.2) 0.2 (0.1) Yes Z= -2.12 0.03 Non-indigenous 0.3 (0.4) 1.4(1.8) No Z= 1.11 0.27 Tolerant 1.5 (1.1) 1.6 (1.1) No Z= 0.60 0.55 Intolerant 0.2 (0.4) 0.4 (0.3) Yes Z= 2.70 0.01 Thermally sensitive 0.2 (0.3) 0.2 (0.1) No Z= -0.11 0.92 Diversity indices (per run) Simpson 0.8 (0.1) 0.8 (0.1) No Z= -1.12 0.26 Shannon 8.1 (5.2) 7.4 (6.0) No t= -0.46 0.65 71 Table 12. Summary of autumn RFAI scores from sites located directly upstream and downstream of BFN and scores from sampling conducted during 1993-2013* as part of the Vital Signs monitoring program in Wheeler Reservoir. Site Location 1993 1994 1995 1997 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2013 Inflow TRM348.0 46 48 42 48 36 38 42 38 44 44 42 38 38 40 40 46 40 Transition TRM295.9 45 45 34 40 30 41 37 43 39 43 46 41 39 42 39 44 42 46 BFN Upstream Transition BFN TRM292.5 43 40 41 43 43 36 42 42 45 36 38 38 40 Downstream Forebay TRM277.0 52 44 48 45 42 41 45 44 43 45 46 49 46 47 40 46 43 Elk River ERM6.0 43 47 36 49 36 49 44 49 47 39 42 43 39 Embayment No data were collected at BFN (TRMs 295.9 and 292.5) during 1996, 1998, or 2012. *Some scores have changed when compared to previous reports. Redbreast sunfish was changed to non-indigenous which may have affected scores for metrics 1 and 7. RFAI Scores: 12-21 ("Very Poor"), 22-31("Poor"),32-40 ("Fair"), 41-50 ("Good"), or 51-60 ("Excellent") 72 1993-2011 Avg. 42 41 41 45 44 Table 13. Comparison of RBI metric ratings and total scores for laboratory-processed samples collected upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Wheeler Reservoir, autumn 2013. Downstream Downstream Upstream TRM290.4 TRM293.2 TRM295.9 Metric Obs Rating Obs Rating Obs Rating 1. Average number of taxa 7.8 5 10.6 5 11 5 2. Proportion of samples with long-lived organisms 1.0 5 1.0 5 1.0 5 3. Average number of EPT taxa 1.2 3 1.8 5 1.7 5 4. Average proportion of oligochaete individuals 2.7 5 8.3 5 3.6 5 5. Average proportion of total abundance comprised by the two most abundant taxa 81.1 3 66.7 5 67.3 5 6. Average density excluding chironomids and oligochaetes 1,161.7 5 1,228.3 5 1,111.7 5 7. Zero-samples -proportion of samples containing no organisms 0 5 0 5 0 5 Benthic Index Score 31 35 35 Ecological Health Rating Excellent Excellent Excellent Reservoir Benthic Index Scores: 7-12 ("Very Poor), 13-18 ("Poor), 19-23 ("Fair"), 24-29 ("Good), 30-35 ("Excellent) 73 Table 14. Metric scores and overall RBI scores determined from field processing criteria, for sites upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Wheeler Reservoir, autumn 2000-2010. Downstream -TRM 291. 7 Avg No. Taxa % Long-Lived Avg.No.EPT % % Dominant Density excl Zero Samples Overall taxa Oligochaetes Taxa chiro and oligo Score Year Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score 2000 4 3 5 0.8 5 6.4 5 79.6 3 125 0 5 27 2001 5.6 5 5 1.1 5 5.7 5 43 5 230 1 0 5 31 2002 5.7 5 5 0.8 5 7.4 5 88.1 120 0 5 27 2003 6.5 5 1 5 1 5 0.3 5 76.1 5 1270 5 0 5 35 2004 6.7 5 5 5 1.4 5 74.4 5 523.3 3 0 5 33 2005 5.5 5 1 5 0.8 5 3.6 5 80.3 3 508.3 3 0 5 31 2006 6.2 5 5 0.1 5 2.3 5 77.3 5 272.3 0 5 31 2007 6.4 5 1 5 0.8 5 12.4 5 80.2 3 166.7 0 5 29 2008 6.3 5 0.9 5 1.1 5 7.2 5 81.5 3 181.7 1 0 5 29 2009 5 5 0.7 3 0.6 3 4.6 5 90.3 1 83.3 0 5 23 2010 4.6 5 0.7 3 0.6 3 0.3 5 94.8 126.7 1 0 5 23 Mean: 5.7 0.9 0.8 4.7 78.7 327.9 0.0 29 Maximum: 6.7 1.1 12.4 94.8 1270 0 Minimum: 4 0.7 0.1 0.3 43 83.3 0 74 Table 14. (Continued) Uestream -TRM 295.9 Avg No. Taxa % Long-Lived Avg.No.EPT % Oligochaetes %Dominant Density excl Zero Samples Overall taxa Taxa chiro and oligo Year Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Score 2000 4.6 5 5 0.8 5 6.6 5 77.6 5 190 0 5 31 2001 5.3 5 5 1 5 2.7 5 79.8 3 188.3 0 5 29 2002 6.5 5 5 0.8 5 7.2 5 75.6 5 266.7 0 5 31 2003 5.1 5 0.8 5 5 0.8 5 84.1 3 456.7 3 0 5 31 2004 6.2 5 1 5 0.9 5 1.1 5 73.7 5 353.6 3 0 5 33 2005 5.6 5 5 1.2 5 2.3 5 85.4 3 490 3 0 5 31 2006 5.9 5 0.8 5 0.7 3 7 5 75 5 348.3 3 0 5 31 2007 6.5 5 0.9 5 0.9 5 1.9 5 74.2 5 353.3 3 0 5 33 2008 5.8 5 0.7 3 0.5 3 7.8 5 85.4 3 220 0 5 25 2009 5.1 5 5 0.4 3 12.2 5 75.2 5 133.3 0 5 29 2010 4.2 3 5 0.8 5 2.1 5 92 108.3 0 5 25 Mean: 5.5 0.9 0.8 4.7 79.8 282.6 0 30 Maximum: 6.5 1 1.2 12.2 92 490 0 Minimum: 4.2 0.7 0.4 0.8 73.7 108.3 0 75 Table 15. Metric scores and overall RBI scores determined from lab processing criteria, for sites upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Wheeler Reservoir, 2001-2006. Downstream -TRM 291. 7 Avg No. Taxa % Long-Lived Avg.No.EPT % % Dominant Density excl Zero Samples Overall tax a Oligochaetes Taxa chiro and oligo Score Year Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score 2001 7.8 5 1 5 1.1 3 7.6 5 71.7 5 315 3 0 5 31 2002 5.4 3 5 0.9 3 10.9 5 88.2 106.7 1 0 5 23 2003 7.3 5 5 3 0.4 5 73.2 5 1270 5 0 5 33 2004 7.9 5 1 5 3 1.6 5 73.5 5 551.7 3 0 5 31 2006 9.4 5 5 1.6 5 2.3 5 78.1 3 448.2 3 0 5 31 Mean: 7.56 1.12 4.56 76.94 538.32 0 30 Maximum: 9.4 1.6 10.9 88.2 1270 0 Minimum: 5.4 1 0.9 0.4 71.7 106.7 0 -TRM 295.9 Avg No. Taxa % Long-Lived Avg.No.EPT % % Dominant Density excl Zero Samples Overall tax a Oligochaetes Taxa chiro and oligo Score Year Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score 2001 7.4 5 1 5 1 3 6.9 5 75.6 5 281.7 0 5 29 2002 6.8 5 5 1.1 3 5 5 74.l 5 281.7 1 0 5 29 2003 6.3 3 5 0.9 3 0.6 5 82.2 3 583.3 3 0 5 27 2004 6.2 3 1 5 0.8 3 1.1 5 72.2 5 336.2 3 0 5 29 2006 9.2 5 0.8 3 1.2 3 5.1 5 78.6 3 1273.3 5 0 5 29 2011 8.4 5 0.7 *3 3 6.3 5 81.1 3 430 3 0 5 27 Mean: 7.4 0.9 1.0 4.2 77.3 531.0 0 28 Maximum: 9.2 1.2 6.9 82.2 1273.3 0 Minimum: 6.2 0.7 0.8 0.6 72.2 281.7 0 76 Table 16a. Mean density per square meter of benthic taxa collected upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, autumn 2013. All taxa listed contributed to individual RBI metrics and total scores. BFN BFN BFN Downstream . Downstream Upstream TRM *Taxa TRM290.4 TRM293.2 295.9 ANNELIDA Hirudinea Rhynchobdellida Glossiphoniidae Actinobdella sp. 2 Actinobdella inequiannulata 2 Helobdella elongata 2 Helobdella stagnalis 7 8 8 Oligochaeta Haplotaxida Naididae 2 Tubificinae 30 78 20 Branchiura sowerbyi 3 7 5 Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri 5 7 18 ARTHROPODA Crustacea Malacostraca Amphipoda Corophiidae Apocorophium lacustre 167 38 282 Gammaridae Gammarus sp. 2 5 Hexapoda Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Dubiraphia sp. 2 Diptera Ceratopogonidae 2 Chironomidae Orthocladiinae Chironominae 2 Axarus sp. 5 32 45 Chironomus sp. 43 28 70 Cryf!.tochironomus Sf!.: 7 5 77 Table 16a. (Continued). BFN BFN BFN Downstream Downstream Upstream TRM Taxa TRM290.4 TRM293.2 295.9 Dicrotendipes neomodestus 7 Glyptotendipes sp. 3 Harnischia sp. 2 Microchironomus sp. 2 Polypedilum halterale gp. 3 2 Stempellina sp. 2 Xenochironomus xenolabis 5 Epoicocladius jlavens 2 Thienemanniella lobapodema 2 Tanypodinae Ablabesmyia annulata 33 13 32 Ablabesmyia mallochi 2 Coelotanypus sp. 97 263 145 Paramerina sp. 30 Procladius sp. 2 7 Ephemeroptera Ephemeridae Hexagenia sp. <l Omm 262 230 163 Hexagenia sp. > 1 Omm 262 213 100 Trichoptera Leptoceridae 2 Oecetis sp. 2 37 28 Polycentropodidae Cyrnellus fraternus 18 32 MOLLUSCA Gastropoda Architaenioglossa Viviparidae Campeloma decisum 2 2 Lioplax sulculosa 3 3 Viviparus sp. 5 3 12 N eotaenioglossa Hydrobiidae Amnicola limosa 5 113 53 Somatogyrus sp. 3 2 Pleuroceridae Pleurocera canaliculata 3 78 Table 16a. (Continued). BFN BFN BFN Downstream Downstream Upstream TRM Taxa TRM290.4 TRM293.2 295.9 Bivalvia Veneroida Corbiculidae Corbiculafluminea <lOmm 263 312 278 Corbicula fluminea > 1 Omm 3 40 Sphaeriidae Eupera cubensis 5 Musculium transversum 158 233 85 Pisidium compressum 2 Unionidae Truncilla donaciformis 3 Utterbackia imbecillis 2 NEMATODA 22 3 PLATYHELMINTHES Turbellaria Tricladida Planariidae Dug_esia tigrina 3 2 5 Number of samples 10 10 10 Mean-Density per meter2 1,380 1,703 1,482 Taxa Richness 21 29 34 Sum of area samEled {meter} 0.6 0.6 0.6 79 Table 16b. Mean density per square meter of benthic taxa collected but not included in individual RBI metrics or total scores for sites upstream and downstream of BFN, autumn 2013. BFN BFN BFN Downstream Downstream Upstream Taxa TRM290.4 TRM293.2 TRM295.9 ARTHROPODA Crustacea Branchiopoda Cladocera Sididae Diaphanosoma sp. 7 Sida crystallina 5 Maxillopoda Cyclopoida Cyclopidae Macrocyclops albidus 5 5 Mesocyclops edax 7 2 Ostracoda Candoniidae Candonasp. 20 27 3 Hexapoda Insecta Diptera Chaoboridae Chaoborus punctipennis 5 10 Chelicerata Arachnida Acariforrnes Arrenuridae Arrenurus sp. 3 Unionicolidae Unionicola sp. 2 2 3 CNIDARIA Medusozoa Hydrozoa Hydridae HJ!..drasp_. 8 3 5 Number of samples 10 10 10 Mean-Density per meter2 40 57 25 Taxa Richness 5 8 6 Sum of area sameled {meter2} 0.6 0.6 0.6 80 Table 17. RBI scores from sites directly upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant and from sites sampled as part of the Vital Signs monitoring program on Wheeler Reservoir. L TA-Long term average. Site Location 1994 1995 1997 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Autumn 2013 LTA Inflow *TRM 347 31 21 25 23 21 25 31 31 31 33 33 31 27 28 BFN Upstream TRM 295.9 33 25 31 31 31 29 31 31 33 31 31 33 25 29 25 27 30 (Transition) BFN Downstream TRM 291.7 27 31 27 35 33 31 31 29 29 23 23 29 (Transition) BFN Downstream TRM 293.2 23 23 (Transition) BFN Downstream TRM 290.4 21 21 (Transition) Forebay *TRM 277 19 15 23 17 I 7 15 15 19 15 13 13 15 13 13 13 Embayment *ERM6 15 13 15 15 15 15 17 13 13 13 13 Reservoir Benthic Index Scores: 7-12 ("Very Poor"), 13-18 ("Poor"), 19-23 ("Fair"), 24-29 ("Good"), 30-35 ("Excellent") *=sites with field-processed scores all years. All other sites, 1994 -2010 are field-processed scores and 2011 forward are lab-processed scores. 81 31 35 35 31 17 13 Table 18. Wildlife observed along 2100 m transects parallel to the Tennessee River shoreline, upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, October 2013. Survey Site Birds Obs. Re12tile/Am12hibian Obs. Mammals Obs. TRM 295.9 (US) RDB Blue Jay 5 Map Turtle 37 Eastern Grey Squirrel 2 Great Blue Heron 6 Carolina Chickadee Belted Kingfisher 4 American Crow American Robin Unidentified Songbird 1 Double-crested Cormorant 2 Brown Thrasher Mockingbird 1 Mallard 2 LDB Ring-billed Gull Map Turtle 26 Common Snipe Turkey Vulture 2 Unidentified Songbird 8 Great Blue Heron 2 Mallard 12 Belted Kingfisher Pileated Woodpecker Killdeer 2 TRM 292.5 (DS) RDB Blue Jay 5 Map Turtle 2 American Robin 2 Downy Woodpecker 2 American Crow 1 Belted Kingfisher 3 Turkey Vulture 2 American Coot 4 Great Blue Heron 2 Nuthatch 1 Mallard 2 European Starling 10 Unidentified Songbird 2 LDB Belted Kingfisher 2 Map Turtle 69 Great Blue Heron 4 Pied-billed Grebe 2 Least Flycatcher Unidentified Songbird 3 Blue Jay Mockingbird 2 RDB -right descending bank; LDB -left descending bank 82 Table 19. Water temperature (°F) depth profiles collected to determine the extent of the thermal plume from BFN during 2013. Transect and Profile Location (width from right descending hank) October 2013 Below Discharge-TRM Ambient-TRM 294.4 BFN Discharge-TRM 294.0 293.8 Mid-plume TRM 291.8 End of Plume-TRM 289.9 Depth (m) 10% 30% 50% 70% 90% 10% 30% 50% 70% 90% 10% 30% 50% 70% 90% 10% 30% 50% 70% 90% 10% 30% 50% 70% 90 % 0.3 74.9 74.1 74.2 74.I 73.8 83.9 82.0 74.0 74.7 74.8 80.2 79.9 79.9 74.0 74.9 77.5 76.6 75.4 75.6 76.4 77.0 76.6 76.5 76.7 76.8 1.5 74.8 74.1 74.2 74.l 73.7 83.2 79.5 74.1 74.7 74.8 81.9 79.8 79.8 74.0 74.8 77.5 76.6 75.4 75.5 76.4 76.8 76.5 76.4 76.7 76.7 2 77.8 3 74.8 74.I 74.2 74.0 74.6 76.3 74.1 74.7 80.8 79,6 74.0 77.5 76.6 75.4 75.5 76.3 76.7 76.5 76.3 76.6 76.3 4 76.5 5 74.1 74.2 74.5 80.2 79.3 75.4 76.2 6 74.5 75.3 7 74.I 73.6 78.7 9 74.1 76.3 Shaded numbers represent temperatures 3.6°F (2°C) or greater above ambient temperature. 83 Table 20. Water quality parameters collected along vertical depth profiles at three transects within the RFAI sample areas upstream and downstream of BFN during 2013. October, 2013 LDB Mid-channel RDB TRM 295.9 De Eth oc OF EH Cond DO De Eth oc OF EH Cond DO De Eth oc OF EH Cond DO Upstream 0.3 22.84 73.11 7.38 173.6 6.92 0.3 22.50 72.50 7.52 167.1 7.89 0.3 22.72 72.90 7.78 162.6 7.98 Boundary 1.5 22.85 73.13 7.38 173.3 6.92 1.5 22.49 72.48 7.50 166.7 7.86 1.5 22.72 72.90 7.76 162.6 7.97 2.5 22.77 72.99 7.38 173.3 6.89 3 22.50 72.50 7.48 166.4 7.85 3 22.61 72.70 7.73 161.9 7.83 Mid-site 0.3 22.45 72.41 7.79 177.7 7.60 0.3 22.94 73.29 7.40 167.0 6.87 0.3 22.94 73.29 7.82 162.3 7.69 1.5 22.47 72.45 7.79 178.1 7.59 1.5 22.89 73.20 7.39 167.2 6.92 1.5 22.92 73.26 7.81 162.2 7.71 3 22.91 73.24 7.79 162.5 7.66 Downstream 0.3 22.15 71.87 7.52 170.4 7.15 0.3 25.77 78.39 7.61 165.7 7.44 0.3 25.16 77.29 7.70 164.4 7.60 Boundary 1.5 23.49 74.28 7.46 166.5 7.07 l.5 23.44 74.19 7.76 162.5 7.64 3 23.14 73.65 7.45 166.7 7.03 3 23.04 73.47 7.80 162.1 7.76 5 23.05 73.49 7.43 167.6 6.99 7 22.97 73.35 7.41 168.0 6.97 TRM 292.5 De Eth oc OF EH Cond DO DeEth oc Of Cond DO De Eth oc Of EH Cond DO Upstream 0.3 23.77 74.79 7.79 171.9 7.83 0.3 23.38 74.08 7.46 169.1 6.98 0.3 28.85 83.93 7.82 166.4 7.82 Boundary I 23.76 74.77 7.75 171.9 7.82 1.5 23.38 74.08 7.47 168.4 6.95 1.5 28.46 83.23 7.80 166.1 7.74 3 23.34 74.01 7.40 168.0 6.83 3 23.66 74.59 7.89 164.0 8.12 5 23.6 74.48 7.82 164.5 8.00 6 23.6 74.48 7.83 164.6 8.02 Mid-site 0.3 24.66 76.39 7.60 167.1 7.17 0.3 24.12 75.42 7.62 167.8 7.63 0.3 25.27 77.49 7.90 164.7 8.02 1.5 24.65 76.37 7.61 166.8 7.19 1.5 24.10 75.38 7.62 167.7 7.34 1.5 25.27 77.49 7.91 165.0 8.03 3 24.59 76.26 7.64 166.7 7.20 3 24.10 75.38 7.62 167.3 7.33 3 25.27 77.49 7.88 165 7.99 5 24.10 75.38 7.62 168.0 7.36 6 24.07 75.33 7.62 169.0 7.35 Downstream 0.3 24.90 76.82 7.72 166.2 7.59 0.3 24.74 76.53 7.70 164.3 7.66 0.3 24.98 76.96 7.81 165.2 7.80 Boundary 1.5 24.85 76.73 7.59 165.5 6.92 1.5 24.69 76.44 7.69 164.3 7.63 1.5 24.91 76.84 7.80 165.4 7.80 3 24.62 76.32 7.52 165.7 6.54 3 24.63 76.33 7.66 164.7 7.56 3 24.85 76.73 7.82 165.2 7.87 5 24.53 76.15 7.62 163.8 7.37 Abbreviations: °C -Temperature in degrees Celsius, °F -Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit, Cond -Conductivity, DO -Dissolved Oxygen 84 ATTACHMENT 11 Reference TVA. 2014. Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River Near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2013. Knoxville, Tennessee: River and Reservoir Compliance Monitoring Program.

Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River Near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge Autumn 2013 December 2014 Tennessee Valley Authority River and Reservoir Compliance Monitoring Program Knoxville, Tennessee Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................. i List of Figures*************************************************************************************.************************************:****** iii List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. v Acronyms and Abbreviations ....................................................................................................... vii Executive Summary .....................................................*.................................................................. 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 2 Plant Description ......................................................................................................................... 3 Methods ........................................................................................................................................... 3 Fish and Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sample Locations Upstream and Downstream of BFN .... 3 Aquatic Habitat in the Vicinity of BFN ...................................................................................... 4 Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Assessment ................................................................................... 5 River Bottom Habitat .............................................................................................................. 5 Fish Community Sampling Methods and Data Analysis for Sites Upstream and Downstream of BFN ............................................................................................................................................. 6 Statistical Analyses ................................................................................................................ 12 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Sampling Methods and Data Analysis for Sites Upstream and Downstream of BFN .......................................................................................... 14 Visual Encounter Survey (Wildlife Observations) .................................................................... 16 Wheeler Reservoir Flow and BFN Temperature ....................................................................... 17 Thermal Plume Characterization ............................................................................................... 18 Water Quality Parameters at Fish Sampling Sites during RF AI Samples ................................. 19 Results and Discussion ................................................................................................................. 19 Aquatic Habitat in the Vicinity of BFN .................................................................................... 19 Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Assessment ................................................................................. 19 River Bottom Habitat ............................................................................................................ 20 Fish Community ........................................................................................................................ 20 Statistical Analyses .................................................................................................................... 26 Fish Community Summary ........................................................................................................ 26 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community .................................................................................... 28 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Summary .................................................................... 30 Visual Encounter Survey (Wildlife Observations) .................................................................... 32 . Wheeler Reservoir Flow and BFN Water Temperature ............................................................ 32 Thermal Plume Characterization ............................................................................................... 33 Water Quality Parameters at Fish Sampling Sites during RFAI Samples ................................. 33 Literature Cited ............................................................................................................................. 35 Figures ........................................................................................................................................... 37 Tables ............................................................................................................................................ 55 ii List of Figures Figure 1. Location of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant on Wheeler Reservoir ..................... , ........... 38 Figure 2. Location of Condenser Cooling Water (CCW) intake and discharge at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. ............. , ........................................................................................................ 39 Figure 3. Locations of biomonitoring sites upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant ................ 40 Figure 4. Locations of biomonitoring sites downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. .......... 41 Figure 5. Locations of transects used to characterize shoreline and river bottom habitat upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. ............................................................... 42 Figure 6. Locations of water temperature monitoring sites used to compare water temperatures upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) intake and downstream of BFN discharge. ********************************************************************************************************************************************* 43 Figure 7. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted. Of the eight transects established upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, transects 1 and 2 are the closest to the plant. ............................................................................................... 44 Figure 8. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted ................................................................................................................................ 45 Figure 9. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted ................................................................................................................................ 46 Figure 10. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted . ............................................................................................................................................. 47 Figure 11. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted. Transects 1 and 2 are the farthest downstream of the eight transects established downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. ...................................................................... 48 Figure 12. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted ................................................................................................................................ 49 Figure 13. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted ................................................................................................................................ 50 Figure 14. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted ................................................................................................................................ 51 111 Figure 15. Comparison of observed values for the Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index metric "Number oflndigenous Species", over 13 years of autumn sampling at the sites upstream (TRM 295.9) and downstream (TRM 292.5) of Brown's Ferry Nuclear Plant. .................. 52 Figure 16. Daily mean flows from Guntersville Dam, October 2012 through November 2013, and historic daily flows for the same fiscal year period, averaged over the years 1976-2012. ********************************************************************************************************************************************* 53 Figure 17. Daily water temperatures averaged over depth (3, 5, and 7 feet) upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant (BFN) intake and downstream ofBFN discharge -October 2012 through November 2013 ............................................................................................. 54 IV List of Tables Table 1. Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Index (SAHI) metrics and scoring criteria .......................... 56 Table 2. *Expected trophic guild proportions* and expected numbers of species* in mainstem Tennessee River reservoir transition zones, compared to values observed during 2013 monitoring at BFN ..................................................................................................... 57 Table 3. RFAI scoring criteria (2002) for inflow, transition, and forebay sections of lower mainstem reservoirs* in the Tennessee River system .......................................................... 58 Table 4. Scoring criteria for laboratory-processed benthic macroinvertebrate community samples from inflow, transition, and forebay zones ofmainstem Tennessee River reservoirs ............................................................................................................................. 59 Table 5. SAHI scores for shoreline habitat assessments conducted within the RFAI sample reach upstream ofBFN, autumn 2009 .......................................................................................... 60 Table 6. SAHI scores for shoreline habitat assessments conducted within the RF AI sample reach downstream ofBFN, autumn 2009 ..................................................................................... 61 Table 7. Substrate percentages and average water depth (ft) per transect upstream and downstream ofBFN, autumn 2009 ..................................................................................... 62 Table 8. Individual metric scores and the overall RFAI scores upstream (TRM 295.9) and downstream (TRM 292.5) of Browns Ferry Nuclear plant, autumn 2013 .......................... 63 Table 9. Species collected, ecological and recreational designation and corresponding electrofishing (EF) and gill net (GN) catch per unit effort upstream (TRM 295.9) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant discharge -Autumn 2013 ..................................................... 67 Table 10. Species collected, ecological and recreational designation and corresponding electrofishing (EF) and gill net (GN) catch per unit effort downstream (TRM 292.5) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant discharge -Autumn 2013 ..................................................... 69 Table 11. Spatial statistical comparisons of numbers of species, mean electrofishing catch per unit effort values (number/run), tolerance designations, trophic levels, and non-indigenous individuals, including species richness and Simpson and Shannon diversity values, for samples collected near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, autumn 2013 .................................... 71 Table 12. Summary of autumn RF AI scores from sites located directly upstream and downstream ofBFN and scores from sampling conducted during 1993-2013 as part of the Vital Signs monitoring program in Wheeler Reservoir ...................................................... 72 Table 13. Comparison of RBI metric ratings and total scores for laboratory-processed samples collected upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Wheeler Reservoir, autumn 2013 .................. * ...................................................................................................... 73 Table 14. Metric scores and overall RBI scores determined from field processing criteria, for sites upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Wheeler Reservoir, autumn 2000-2010 ............................................................................................................... 74 v Table 15. Metric scores and overall RBI scores determined from lab processing criteria, for sites upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Wheeler Reservoir, 2001-2006 . ............................................................................................................................................. 76 Table 16a. Mean density per square meter ofbenthic taxa collected upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, autumn 2013. All taxa listed contributed to individual RBI metrics and total scores ....................................................................................................... 77 Table 16b. Mean density per square meter ofbenthic taxa collected but not included in individual RBI metrics or total scores for sites upstream and downstream ofBFN, autumn 2013 ..................................................................................................................................... 80 Table 17. RBI scores from sites directly upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant and from sites sampled as part of the Vital Signs monitoring program on Wheeler Reservoir. LTA-Long term average ................................................................................... 81 Table 18. Wildlife observed along 2100 m transects parallel to the Tennessee River shoreline, upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, October 2013 ......................... 82 Table 19. Water temperature (°F) depth profiles collected to determine the extent of the thermal plume from BFN during 2013 ............................................................................................. 83 Table 20. Water quality parameters collected along vertical depth profiles at three transects within the RF AI sample areas upstream and downstream of BFN during 2013 ................. 84 Vl ATL BIP BFN ccw CWA LDB NPDES QA RBI RDB RFAI RIS SARI TRM TVA vs Acronyms and Abbreviations Alternate Thermal Limit Balanced Indigenous Community Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant Condenser Cooling Water Clean Water Act Left Descending Bank National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Quality Assurance Reservoir Benthic Macroinvertebrate Index Right Descending Bank Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index Representative Important Species Shoreline Assessment Habitat Index Tennessee River Mile Tennessee Valley Authority Vital Signs Vll Executive Summary In 2013, samples of the ecological community upstream and downstream of Brown's Ferry Nuclear Plant were collected, analyzed, and compared to historical data to determine the effects, if any, of the thermal effluent from the plant, in compliance with §316(a) of the Clean Water Act. Shoreline aquatic habitat assessed along both banks was rated "Fair". Assessment of river bottom habitat indicated that three dominant substrates observed at both sites were silt, mollusk shell, and sand. The fish communities upstream and downstream ofBFN, analyzed using RFAI methodology, both showed fair diversity of species and moderate percentages of pollution tolerant individuals. The downstream community supported lower diversity of top carnivore species, but otherwise, was.generally similar to that upstream and was not adversely affected by thermal effluent from BFN. Benthic communities for both downstream sites, at TRM 293 .2 within the thermal plume from BFN discharge, and at TRM 290.4 downstream of the thermal plume, were considered similar to the upstream benthic community. All three sites received RBI ratings of "Excellent". A visual wildlife survey was conducted to assess bird, reptile, and mammal populations around BFN. Turtles and a variety of birds were encountered at both locations. Water quality analysis indicated that daily mean flow past BFN was noticeably higher in 2013 than historic values, but that daily mean temperatures were similar upstream and downstream of the plant. Depth profiles of water temperature, conductivity, dissolved oxygen concentration, and acidity (pH) indicated that values of all these parameters were within acceptable levels both upstream and downstream of BFN. 1 Introduction Section 316(a) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) authorizes alternate thermal limits (ATL) for the control of the thermal component of a point source discharge so long as the limits will assure the protection of Balanced Indigenous Populations (BIP) of aquatic life. The term "balanced indigenous population," as defined by Environmental Protection Agency regulations, describes a biotic community that is typically characterized by: (1) diversity appropriate to the ecoregion; (2) the capacity to sustain itself through cyclic seasonal changes; (3) the presence of necessary food chain species; and ( 4) the lack of domination by pollution-tolerant species. Prior to 2000, the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TV A) Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) was operating under an ATL that had been continued with each permit renewal based on studies conducted in the mid-1970s. In 1999, EPA Region IV began requesting additional data in conjunction with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit renewal applications to verify that BIP was being maintained at TV A's thermal plants with ATLs. TVA proposed that its existing Vital Signs (VS) monitoring program, supplemented with additional fish and benthic macroinvertebrate community monitoring upstream and downstream of thermal plants with A TLs, was appropriate for that purpose. The VS monitoring program began in 1990 in the Tennessee River System. This program was implemented to evaluate ecological health conditions in major reservoirs as part of TV A's stewardship role. One of the 5 indicators used in the VS program to evaluate reservoir health is the Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index (RF AI) methodology which incorporates fish species richness and composition, trophic composition, and fish abundance and health. RF AI has been thoroughly tested on TV A and other reservoirs and published in peer-reviewed literature (Jennings, et al., 1995; Hickman and McDonough, 1996; McDonough and Hickman, 1999). Fish communities are used to evaluate ecological conditions because of their importance in the aquatic food web and because fish life cycles are long enough to integrate conditions over time. Benthic macroinvertebrate populations are assessed using the Reservoir Benthic Index (RBI) methodology. Because benthic macroinvertebrates are relatively 2 immobile, negative impacts to aquatic ecosystems can be detected earlier in benthic macroinvertebrate communities than in fish communities. These data are used to supplement RF AI results to provide a more thorough examination of differences in aquatic communities upstream and downstream of thermal discharges. During 2000-2010, TVA initiated a study to evaluate fish and benthic macroinvertebrate communities in areas immediately upstream and downstream of BFN using RF AI and RBI multi-metric evaluation techniques. The study was continued in 2011 and broadened to include additional data for analyses requested by the EPA. Reported here are the results of biological monitoring and water quality data collected upstream and downstream ofBFN during 2013, with appropriate comparisons to data collected at these sites previous autumn samples. Plant Description BFN is a three-unit nuclear-fueled facility with a total generating capacity of 3,300 megawatts. Unit One, which remained idle for several years, returned to service June 2007. BFN is located on Wheeler Reservoir, approximately 18 miles upstream of Wheeler Dam at Tennessee River Mile (TRM) 294 in Limestone County, Alabama (Figure 1). Current operation utilizes a through condenser cooling water (CCW) system, withdrawing water from the Tennessee River through an intake structure at TRM 294.3 and discharging the water through a multi-port diffuser located downstream from the plant at TRM 293.6 (Figure 2). Maximum flow rate of the CCW is approximately 3,468 million gallons per day. Methods Fish and Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sample Locations Upstream and Downstream ofBFN Thermal discharge from BFN enters the Tennessee River at TRM 293.6 in Wheeler Reservoir (Figure 2). The fish community was sampled at two sites to evaluate similarities and differences in the fish community in the vicinity ofBFN. One site was centered at TRM 295.9, upstream of the plant's intake (Figure 3), and served as a reference site unaffected by the thermal discharge. 3 The second site was centered at TRM 292.5, downstream of the cooling water discharge (Figure 4). From 2000 to 2010, to assess the benthic macroinvertebrate community in the vicinity ofBFN data was collected along transects established across the full width of Wheeler reservoir at two sites in the transition zone, one at TRM 295.9, upstream of the intake, and one at TRM 291.7, downstream of the BFN discharge. Prior to this time, a sampling site in the forebay zone of Wheeler Reservoir (TRM 277) was used as the downstream comparison site. Because other factors, unrelated to influence from BFN, kept benthic communities depressed, both at the forebay site and in the Elk River embayment (Wheeler Reservoir, Elk River Mile [ERM] 6 -between BFN and the forebay site), the downstream site was moved into the transition zone two miles downstream from the BFN diffuser at TRM 291.7 in 2000. Benthic scores and community composition from this site were used through 2010 for downstream comparisons to the upstream benthic site at TRM 295.9. Beginning in 2011, samples were collected in the reservoir's transition zone along transects established at three sites. One site, upstream of the plant intake, was maintained at TRM 295.9 (Figure 3). Two sites were selected downstream to more accurately assess possible effects of BFN discharge on the downstream benthic communities: one at TRM 293.2, within the thermal plume from the BFN discharge, and a second at TRM 290.4 downstream of the thermal plume (Figure 4). Aquatic Habitat in the Vicinity of BFN Shoreline and river bottom habitat data presented in this report were collected during autumn 2009. TVA assumes habitat data to be valid for five years, barring any major changes to the river/reservoir (e.g. major flood event). No significant changes have occurred in the river system from the initial characterization, but in the event of a major change to the river/reservoir, habitat would be re-evaluated during the following sample period. 4 Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Assessment An integrative multi-metric index (Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Index or SAHi), including several habitat parameters important to resident fish species, was used to measure existing fish habitat quality in the vicinity of BFN. Using the general format developed by Plafkin et al. (1989), seven metrics were established to characterize selected physical habitat attributes important to reservoir resident fish populations which rely heavily on the littoral (shoreline) zone for reproductive success, juvenile development, and adult feeding (Table 1 ). Habitat Suitability Indices (US Fish and Wildlife Service), along with other sources of information on biology and habitat requirements (Etnier and Starnes 1993 ), were consulted to develop "reference" criteria or "expected" conditions from a high quality environment for each parameter. Some generalizations were necessary in setting up scoring criteria to cover the various requirements of all species within a single index. When possible, the quality of shoreline aquatic habitat was assessed while traveling parallel to the shoreline in a boat and evaluating the habitat within 10 vertical feet of full pool. Transects were established across the width of Wheeler reservoir within the fish community sampling reaches upstream and downstream ofBFN (Figure 5). At each transect, near-shore aquatic habitat was assessed along sections of shoreline corresponding to the left descending bank (LDB) and right descending bank (RDB) .. For each shoreline section (16 upstream and 16 downstream of BFN), percentages of aquatic macrophytes in the littoral areas were estimated, then each section was scored by comparing the observed conditions associated with each individual metric to the "reference" conditions and assigning the metric a corresponding value: "Good" 5; "Fair" 3; or "Poor" 1(Table1). These scores for each of the seven metrics were summed to obtain the SAHi value for the shoreline section, and this value was assigned a habitat quality descriptor based on trisecting the range of potential SAHi values ("Poor" 7-16, "Fair" 17-26, and "Good" 27-35). River Bottom Habitat Along each transect described above, 10 benthic grab samples were collected with a Ponar sampler at points equally spaced from the LDB to the RDB. Substrate material collected with the Ponar was emptied into a screen, and percent composition of each substrate was estimated to 5 determine existing benthic habitat across the width of the river. Water depths (feet) at each sample location were recorded. If no substrate was collected after multiple Ponar drops, it was assumed that the substrate was bedrock. For example, when the Ponar sampler was pulled shut, collectors could feel substrate consistency. If it shut easily and was not embedded in the substrate on numerous drops within the same location, the substrate was recorded as bedrock. Fish Community Sampling Methods and Data Analysis for Sites Upstream and Downstream of BFN Fish sampling methods included boat electrofishing and gill netting (Hubert 1996; Reynolds 1996). Electrofishing methodology consisted of fifteen boat electrofishing runs near the shoreline, each 300 meters long and of approximately 10 minutes duration. The total near-shore area sampled was approximately 4,500 meters (15,000 feet). Experimental gill nets (so called because of their use for research as opposed to commercial fishing) were used as an additional gear type to collect fish from deeper habitats not effectively sampled by electrofishing. Each experimental gill net consists of five 6.1 meter panels for a total length of30.5 meters (100.1 feet). The distinguishing characteristic of experimental gill nets is mesh size that varies between panels. For this application, each net has panels with mesh sizes of 2.5, 5.1, 7.6, 10.2, and 12.7 cm. Experimental gill nets are typically set perpendicular to river flow, extending from near-shore to the main channel of the reservoir. Ten overnight experimental gill net sets were used at each area. Fish collected were identified by species, counted, and examined for anomalies (such as disease, deformations, parasites or hybridization). The resulting data were analyzed using RF AI methodology. The RFAI uses 12 fish community metrics from four general categories: Species Richness and Composition; Trophic Composition; Abundance; and Fish Health. Individual species can be utilized for more than one metric, though hybrid species and non-indigenous species are excluded from metrics counting numbers of individual species. Together, these 12 metrics* 6 provide a balanced evaluation of fish community integrity. The individual metrics are shown below, grouped by category: Species Richness and Composition (1) Total number of species -Greater numbers of species are considered representative of healthier aquatic ecosystems. As conditions degrade, numbers of species at an area decline. (2) Number of centrarchid species -Sunfish species (excluding black basses) are invertivores and a high diversity of this group is indicative of reduced siltation and suitable sediment quality in littoral areas. (3) Number of benthic invertivore species -Due to the special dietary requirements of this species group and the limitations of their food source in degraded environments, numbers ofbenthic invertivore species increase with better environmental quality. (4) Number of intolerant species -A group made up of species that are particularly intolerant of physical, chemical, and thermal habitat degradation. Higher numbers of intolerant species suggest the presence of fewer environmental stressors. (5) Percentage of tolerant individuals (excluding young-of-year) -An increasec:J. proportion of individuals tolerant of degraded conditions signifies poorer water quality. (6) Percent dominance by one species -Ecological quality is considered reduced if one species inordinately dominates the resident fish community. 7 (7) Percentage of non-indigenous species -Based on the assumption that indigenous species reduce the quality of resident fish communities. (8) Number of top carnivore species -Higher diversity of piscivores is indicative of the availability of diverse and plentiful forage species and the presence of suitable habitat. Trophic Composition (9) Percent top carnivores -A measure of the functional aspect of top carnivores which feed on major planktivore populations. (10) Percent omnivores -Omnivores are less sensitive to environmental stresses due to their ability to vary their diets. As trophic links are disrupted due to degraded conditions, specialist species such as insectivores decline while opportunistic omnivorous species increase in relative abundance. Abundance (11) Average number per run (number of individuals) -Based on the assumption that high quality fish assemblages support large numbers of individuals. Fish Health (12) Percent anomalies -Incidence of diseases, lesions, tumors, external parasites, deformities, blindness, and natural hybridization is noted for all fish collected, with higher incidence indicating less favorable environmental conditions. RF AI methodology addresses all four attributes or characteristics of a "balanced indigenous population" (BIP), defined by the CW A as described below: 8 (1) A biotic community characterized by diversity appropriate to the ecoregion: Diversity is addressed by the metrics in the Species Richness and Composition category, especially metric 1 -"Number of species." Determination ofreference conditions based on the transition zones oflower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs (as described below) ensures appropriate species expectations for the ecoregion. (2) The capacity for the community to sustain itself through cyclic seasonal change: TV A uses an autumn data collection period for biological indicators, both VS and upstream/downstream monitoring. Autumn monitoring is used to document community condition or health after being subjected to the wide variety of stressors throughout the year. One of the main benefits of using biological indicators is their ability to integrate stressors through time. Examining the condition or health of a community at the end of the "biological year" (i.e., autumn) provides insights into how well the community has dealt with the stresses through an annual seasonal cycle. Likewise, evaluation of the condition of individuals in the community (in this case, individual fish as reflected in Metric 12) provides insights into how well the community can be expected to withstand stressors through winter. Further, multiple sampling years during the permit renewal cycle add to the evidence of whether the autumn monitoring approach has correctly demonstrated the ability of the community to sustain itself through repeated seasonal changes. (3) The presence of necessary food chain species: Integrity of the food chain is measured by the Trophic Composition metrics, with support from the Abundance metric and Species Richness and Composition metrics. A healthy fish community is comprised of species that utilize complex feeding mechanisms extending into multiple levels of the aquatic food web. Three dominant fish trophic levels exist within Tennessee River reservoirs: insectivores, omnivores, and top carnivores. To determine the presence of necessary food chain species, these three groups should be well represented within the overall fish community. Other fish trophic levels include benthic invertivores, planktivores, herbivores, and parasitic species. Insectivores include most sunfish, minnows, and silversides. Omnivores include gizzard shad, common carp, carpsuckers, buffalo, and channel and blue catfish. Top carnivores 9 include bass, gar, skipjack herring, crappie, flathead catfish, sauger, and walleye. Benthic invertivores include freshwater drum, suckers, and darters. Planktivores include alewife, threadfin shad, and paddlefish. Herbivores include largescale stonerollers. Lampreys in the genus Ichthyomyzon are the only parasitic species occurring in Tennessee River reservoirs. To establish expected proportions of each trophic guild and the expected number of species included in each guild occurring in transition zones in lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs (Kentucky, Pickwick, Wilson, Wheeler, and Guntersville reservoirs), data collected from 1993 to 2010 were analyzed for each reservoir zone (inflow, transition, forebay). Samples collected in the downstream vicinity of thermal discharges were not included in this analysis so that accurate expectations could be calculated with the assumption that these data represent what should occur in lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs absent from point source effects (i.e. power plant discharges). Data from 900 electrofishing runs (a total of 405,000 meters of shoreline sampled) and from 600 overnight experimental gill net sets were included in this analysis for transition areas in lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs. From these data, the range of proportional values for each trophic level and the range of the number of species included in each trophic level were trisected. These trisections were intended to show less than expected, expected, and above expected values for trophic level proportions and species occurring within transition reservoir zones in lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs. The data were also averaged and bound by confidence intervals (95%) to further evaluate expectations for proportions of each trophic level and the number of species representing each trophic level (Table 2). (4) A lack of domination by pollution-tolerant species: Domination by pollution-tolerant species is determined by metrics 3 ("Number ofbenthic invertivore species"), 4 ("Number of intolerant species"), 5 ("Percent tolerant individuals"), 6 ("Percent dominance by one species"), and 10 ("Percent omnivores"). Scoring categories are based on "expected" fish community characteristics in the absence of human-induced impacts other than impoundment of the reservoir. These categories were developed from historical fish assemblage data representative of transition zones from lower 10 mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs (Hickman and McDonough, 1996). Attained values for each of the 12 metrics were compared to the scoring criteria and assigned scores to represent relative degrees of degradation: least degraded (5); intermediately degraded (3); and most degraded (1). Scoring criteria for lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs are shown in Table 3. If a metric was calculated as a percentage (e.g., "Percent tolerant individuals"), the data from electrofishing and gill netting were scored separately and allotted half the total score for that individual metric. Individual metric scores for a sampling area (i.e., upstream or downstream) were summed to obtain the RF AI score for the area. TV A uses RF AI results to determine maintenance of BIP using two approaches. One is "absolute" in that it compares the RF AI scores and individual metrics to predetermined values. The other is "relative" in that it compares RF AI scores attained downstream to the upstream control site. The "absolute" approach is based on Jennings et al. (1995) who suggested that favorable comparisons of the RF AI score attained from the potential impact zone to a predetermined criterion can be used to identify the presence of normal community structure and function, and hence existence ofBIP. For multi-metric indices, TVA uses two criteria to ensure a conservative screening of BIP. First, if an RF AI score reaches 70% of the highest attainable score of 60 (adjusted upward to include sample variability as described below), and second, if fewer than half of RF AI metrics receive a low (1) or moderate (3) score, then community structure and function are considered normal, indicating that BIP had been maintained and no further evaluation would be needed. RFAI scores range from 12 to 60. Ecological health ratings (12-21 "Very Poor", 22-31 "Poor", 32-40 "Fair", 41-50 "Good, or 51-60 "Excellent") are then applied to scores. As discussed in detail below, the average variation for RF AI scores in TVA reservoirs is 6 (+/- 3). Therefore, any location that attains a RF AI score of 45 (7 5% of the highest score) or higher would be considered to have BIP. It must be stressed that scores below this threshold do not necessarily reflect an adversely impacted fish community. The threshold is used to serve as a conservative screening level; i.e., any fish community that meets these criteria is obviously not adversely impacted. 11 RF AI scores below this level require a more in-depth look to determine if BIP exists. An inspection of individual RF AI metric results and species of fish used in each metric are an initial step to help identify if operation ofBFN is a contributing factor. This approach is appropriate because a validated multi-metric index is being used and scoring criteria applicable to the zone of study are available. A comparison of RF AI scores from the area downstream of BFN to those from the upstream (control) area is one basis for determining if operation of the plant has had any impacts on the resident fish community. The definition of"similar" is integral to accepting the validity of these interpretations. The Quality Assurance (QA) component of the VS monitoring program deals with how well the RF AI scores can be repeated and is accomplished by collecting a second set of samples at 15%-20% of the areas each year. Comparison of paired-sample QA data collected over seven years shows that the difference in RF AI index scores ranges from 0 to 18 points. The mean difference between these 54 paired scores is 4.6 points with 95% confidence limits of 3.4 and 5.8. The 75ili percentile of the sample differences is 6, and the 90ili percentile is 12. Based on these results, a difference of 6 points or less in the overall RF AI scores is the value selected for defining "similar" scores between upstream and downstream fish communities. That is, if the downstream RF AI score is within 6 points of the upstream score and ifthere are no major differences in overall fish community composition, then the two locations are considered similar. It is important to bear in mind that differences greater than 6 points can be expected simply due to method variation (25% of the QA paired sample sets exceeded that value). An examination of the 12 metrics (with emphases on fish species used for each metric) is conducted to analyze any difference in scores and the potential for the difference to be thermally related. Statistical Analyses In addition to RF AI analyses, data were analyzed using traditional statistical methods. Data from the survey were used to calculate catch per unit effort (CPUE), expressed as number of fish per electrofishing run or fish per net night. CPUE values were calculated by pollution tolerance, trophic guilds (e.g., benthic invertivores, top carnivores, etc.), thermal sensitivity (Yoder et al. 2006), and indigenous status. CPUE, diversity, and species richness values were computed for each electrofishing effort (to maximize sample size; n = 30) and compared upstream and downstream to assess potential effects of power plant discharges. 12 Diversity was quantified using two commonly applied indices: Shannon diversity index (Shannon 1948) and Simpson diversity index (Simpson 1949). Both indices account for the number of species present, as well as the relative abundance of each species. Shannon diversity index values were computed using the formula: s , (ni) (ni) H = -L N In N -i=1 where: S = total number of species N =total number of individuals ni = total number of individuals in the i1h species The Simpson diversity index was calculated as follows: where: S = total number of species N = total number of individuals ni = total number of individuals in the i1h species An independent two-sample t-test was used to test for differences in CPUE, species richness, and diversity values upstream and downstream of BFN (a= 0.05). Before statistical tests were performed using this method, data were analyzed for normality using the Shapiro-Wilk test (Shapiro and Wilk, 1965) and homogeneity of variance using Levene's test (Levene 1960). normal data or data with unequal variances were transformed using either square root conversion or the ln(x+ 1) transformation. Transformed data were reanalyzed for normal distribution and equal variances. If transformation normalized the data or resulted in homogeneous variances, transformed data were tested using an independent two-sample t-test. If transformed data were 13 not normally distributed or had unequal variances, statistical analysis was conducted using the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test (Mann and Whitney 1947; Wilcoxon 1945). Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Sampling Methods and Data Analysis for Sites Upstream and Downstream of BFN During autumn 2013, benthic macroinvertebrate data were collected in the transition zone of Wheeler Reservoir along three transects established across the reservoir's width as described above. The upstream transect (TRM 295.9) was used as a control site to compare to benthic community composition potentially affected by the BFN thermal effluent. One downstream transect (TRM 293.2) was within the thermal plume and one transect (TRM 290.4) was located just below the downstream extent of the plume. A Ponar sampler (area per sample 0.06 m2) was used to collect benthic samples at ten points equally spaced along each transect. When heavier substrate was encountered, a Peterson sampler (area per sample 0.11 m2) was used. Sediments from each sample were washed on a 533 µ screen, and organisms were picked from the screen and from any remaining substrate. Samples were fixed in formalin and sent to an independent consultant who identified each organism collected to the lowest possible taxonomic level. Benthic samples were evaluated using seven metrics that represented characteristics of the benthic community. Results for each metric were assigned a rating of 1, 3, or 5, based upon comparison to reference conditions developed for VS reservoir inflow sample sites (Table 4). For each sample site, the ratings for the seven metrics were then summed to produce an RBI score. Potential RBI scores ranged from 7 to 35. Ecological health ratings derived from the range of potential values (7-12 "Very Poor", 13-18 "Poor", 19-23 "Fair", 24-29 "Good, or 30-35 "Excellent") were then applied to scores. The individual metrics are described below: (1) Average number of taxa -Calculated by averaging the total number oftaxa present in each sample at a site. Greater taxa richness indicates better conditions than lower taxa richness. 14 (2) Proportion of samples with long-lived organisms -A presence/absence metric that is evaluated based on the proportion of samples with at least one long-lived organism ( Corbicula, Hexagenia, mussels, or snails) present. The presence of long.:lived taxa is indicative of conditions that allow long-term survival. (3) Average number of EPT taxa-Calculated by averaging the number of Ephemeroptera (mayfly), Plecoptera (stonefly), and Trichoptera (caddis fly) taxa present in each sample at a site. Higher diversity of these taxa indicates good water quality and better habitat conditions. ( 4) Percentage of oligochaetes -Calculated by averaging the percentage of oligochaetes in each sample at a site. Oligochaetes are considered tolerant organisms, so a higher proportion indicates poorer water quality. (5) Percentage as dominant taxa -Used as an evenness indicator, this metric is calculated by selecting the two most abundant taxa in a sample, summing the number of individuals in those two taxa, dividing that sum by the total number of animals in the sample, and converting to a percentage for that sample. The percentage is then averaged for the 10 samples at each site. Because the most abundant taxa often differ among the 10 samples at a site, this approach allows more discretion to identify imbalances at a site than developing an average for a single dominant taxon for all samples at a site. Dominance of one or two taxa indicates poor conditions. (6) Average density excluding chironomids and oligochaetes -Calculated by first summing the number of organisms -excluding chironomids and oligochaetes -present in each sample and then averaging these densities for the 10 samples at a site. This metric examines the community, excluding taxa which often dominate under adverse conditions. Higher abundance of taxa other than chironomids and oligochaetes indicates good water quality conditions. (7) Zero-samples: Proportion of samples containing no organisms -For each site, the proportion of samples which have no organisms present. "Zero-samples" indicate living 15 conditions unsuitable to support aquatic life (i.e. toxicity, unsuitable substrate, etc.). A site with no zero samples was assigned a score of five. Any site with one or more zero samples was assigned a score of one. A similar or higher benthic index score at the downstream sites compared to the upstream site was used as the basis for determining absence of impact on the benthic macroinvertebrate community related to BFN's thermal discharge. The QA component of VS monitoring compared benthic index scores from 49 paired sample sets collected over seven years. Differences between these paired sets ranged from 0 to 14 points; the 75th percentile was four, the 90th percentile was six. The mean difference between these 49 paired scores was 3 .1 points with 95% confidence limits of 2.2 and 4.1. Based on these results, a difference of four points or less was the value selected for defining "similar" scores between upstream and downstream benthic communities. That is, ifbenthic scores at the downstream sites are within four points of the upstream score, the communities are considered similar. However, differences greater than four points can be expected simply due to method variation (25% of the QA paired sample sets exceeded that value). Any difference in scores of greater than four points between communities is examined on a metric-by-metric basis to determine what caused the difference and the potential for the difference to be thermally related. Visual Encounter Survey (Wildlife Observations) Permanent survey sites were established on both the right and left descending banks at one location upstream of the BFN thermal discharge, centered at TRM 295.9 (Figure 3), and at a second location downstream of the discharge, centered at TRM 292.5 (Figure 4). Each survey site spanned a distance of 2, 100 m along the shoreline, and the beginning and ending points were marked using GPS for relocation. Surveys were conducted by steadily traversing the site by boat, at approximately 30 m offshore and parallel to the shoreline, and simultaneously recording observations of wildlife. The sampling frame of each survey generally followed the strip or belt transect concept: from the center-line of each transect landward to an area that included the shoreline and riparian zone (i.e., 16 belt width generally averages 60 m where vision is not obscured), all individuals observed were enumerated. Wildlife observed visually or detected audibly was identified to the lowest taxonomic trophic level, and a direct count of individuals observed per trophic level was recorded. If a flock of a species or a mixed flock of a group of species was observed, numbers of individuals present of each species were estimated. Time was recorded at the start and end points of each survey to provide a general measure of effort expended. Variation of observation times among surveys was primarily due to the difficulty of approaching some wildlife species without inadvertently flushing them from basking or perching sites. The principal objective of the surveys was to provide a preliminary set of observations to verify that trophic levels of birds, 'mammals and reptiles were not affected by thermal effects from the BFN discharge. If expected trophic levels were not represented, further investigation will be used to target particular species and/or species groups (guilds) in an attempt to determine the cause. Wheeler Reservoir Flow and BFN Temperature Total discharge from Guntersville Dam was used to describe the amount of water flowing past BFN and was obtained from TV A's River Operations database. Water temperature data were also obtained from TV A's River Operations database. Locations of water temperature monitoring sites used to measure water temperatures upstream of BFN intake and downstream ofBFN discharge are depicted in Figure 6. Ambient temperatures upstream of the BFN intake were measured at Site 4, located at TRM 297 .8. Upstream daily mean temperatures were calculated by averaging temperatures collected at depths of 3, 5, and 7 feet. Temperatures downstream ofBFN discharge were measured at Sites 1, 16, and 17, all located at TRM 293.5. Downstream temperatures were calculated by first averaging temperatures at each site across depths of 3, 5, and 7 feet. The resultant values from each site were then averaged together to obtain overall mean daily water temperatures downstream ofBFN. 17 Thermal Plume Characterization Physical measurements to characterize and map the BFN thermal plume were collected concurrent with biological field sampling. The plume was characterized under representative thermal maxima and seasonally-expected low flow conditions. Measurements were collected during periods of normal operation of BFN, as reasonably practicable, to capture the thermal plume under existing river flow/reservoir elevation conditions. This effort evaluated potential impacts on recreation and water supply uses and allowed general delineation of the "Primary Study Area" -per the EPA (1977) draft guidance defined as the "entire geographic area bounded annually by the locus of the 2°C above ambient surface isotherms as these isotherms are distributed throughout an annual periocf' -ensuring placement of the biological sampling locations within thermally influenced areas. However, it is important to emphasize that the 2:2°C isopleth boundary is not a bright line; it is dynamic, changing geometrically in response to changes in ambient river flows and temperatures and BFN operations. As such, samples collected outside of, but generally proximate to the Primary Study Area boundary cannot be considered free of thermal influence and thus should not be discounted. Every effort was made to collect biological samples in thermally affected areas as guided by the Primary Study Area definition. Depth profiles of temperature from the river surface to the bottom were collected at points along transects crossing the plume. One transect was located proximate to the thermal discharge point; subsequent downstream transects were concentrated in the near field area of the plume where the change in plume temperature was expected to be most rapid. The distance between transects in the remainder of the Primary Study Area increased with distance downstream (or away from the discharge point). The farthest downstream transect was just outside of the Primary Study Area. A transect upstream of the discharge, in an area not affected by the thermal plume, was included for determining ambient temperature conditions. The total number of transects needed to fully characterize and delineate the plume was determined in the field. Collection of temperature profiles along a given transect began at or near the shoreline from which the discharge originated and continued until the far shore was reached. Measurements across a transect were typically conducted at points 10%, 30%, 50%, 70%, and 90% from the 18 originating shoreline, though the number of measurement points along transects was sometimes increased in proportion to the magnitude of the temperature change across a given transect. The distances between transects, and between measurement points along each transect, depended on the size of the discharge plume. Temperature data were compiled and analyzed to present the horizontal and vertical dimensions of the BFN thermal plume using spatial analysis techniques to yield plume cross-sections, which can be used to demonstrate the existence of a zone of passage for fish and other aquatic species under or around the plume. Water Quality Parameters at Fish Sampling Sites during RFAI Samples Water quality conditions were measured using a Hydrolab that provided readings for water temperature (0C), conductivity (µSiem), dissolved oxygen (mg/L), and pH. Within each of the electrofishing sample reaches upstream and downstream ofBFN, transects were established across the river at the most upstream boundary, at mid-reach, and at the most downstream boundary. Along each transect, samples were collected at the RDB, in mid-channel, and at the LDB by recording readings along a vertical gradient from just above the bottom of the river to approximately 0.3 meters from the surface at one-to two-meter intervals. Results and Discussion Aquatic Habitat in the Vicinity of BFN Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Assessment SAHi methodology was used to evaluate shoreline habitat for eight transects located within each of the RF AI sample reaches upstream and downstream of BFN. Shoreline transects were sampled on each bank (Figure 5). Of the sixteen shoreline transects sampled upstream ofBFN, 19% (3 transects) scored as good, 8% (12 transects) scored as fair, and 6% (1 transect) scored as poor. The average score for 19 transects on the left descending bank was 24 ("Fair"), while scores for transects on the right descending bank averaged 23 ("Fair"). No aquatic macrophytes were observed on either shoreline (Table 5). Of the sixteen shoreline transects sampled downstream ofBFN, 0% scored as good, 88% (14 transects) scored as fair, and 12% (2 transects) scored as poor. The average scores for transects on the left bank descending were equal to those on the right bank descending (20, "Fair"). No aquatic macrophytes were observed on either shoreline (Table 6). River Bottom Habitat Figures 7-10 compare substrate proportions at each sample point along each of the eight transects upstream ofBFN during autumn 2009. Figures 11-14 compare substrate proportions at each sample point along each of the eight transects downstream ofBFN during autumn 2009 (Figure 5). Transects in Figures 7-14 are depicted at an exaggerated slant from bank to bank, in order to fit all of the data on the figure. Actual river bottom habitat sampling upstream and downstream of BFN was conducted in a straight line from the left descending bank to the right descending bank. The three most dominant substrate types encountered along the eight transects upstream of BFN were silt (51.1 %), mollusk shell (32.0%), and sand (5.1 %). Though in slightly different proportions-silt (65.1 %), mollusk shell (19.4%), and sand (5.4%)-these three substrates were also the most prominent downstream of BFN. Fish Community The total RFAI score for the fish community upstream ofBFN was 46 ("Good"). The score for the community downstream was 40 ("Fair"). Because the difference between these scores was within the 6-point range of acceptable variation, the communities were considered similar during autumn 2013. 20 Below, the two communities are compared in further detail, utilizing the four characteristics of a BIP. Discussion of this comparison includes the metrics appropriate for each characteristic. (1) A biotic community characterized by diversity appropriate to the ecoregion Total number of species (highest rating requires> 30) Thirty-three indigenous species were collected upstream, earning the highest score (5). Downstream, 27 indigenous species* were collected earning a mid-range score (3) (Table 8). Seven species -longnose gar (six specimens), golden shiner (six), white crappie (one), northern hogsucker (one), white bass (two), orangespotted sunfish (three), and spotted bass (one) -were collected only upstream. One individual of stripetail darter was collected only downstream (Tables 9, 10). Number of centrarchid species (highest rating requires> 2) Eight centrarchid species were collected upstream and six were collected downstream, resulting in the highest score (5) for both sites (Table 8). White crappie and orangespotted sunfish were collected only upstream (Tables 9, 10). Number of benthic invertivore species (highest rating requires > 7) Five benthic invertivore species were collected upstream and four downstream, resulting in range scores (3) for both sites (Table 8). Spotted sucker, black redhorse, logperch, and freshwater drum were collected at both sites; northern hogsucker was collected only upstream (Tables 9, 10). Number of intolerant species (highest rating requires> 4) Six intolerant species collected upstream and five collected downstream. Both sites earned the highest score (5) (Table 8). Skipjack herring, spotted sucker, black redhorse, longear sunfish, and smallmouth bass were collected at both sites; northern hogsucker was collected only upstream (Tables 9, 10). 21 Number of top carnivore species (highest rating requires> 7) Twelve top carnivore species were collected upstream, and eight were collected downstream. Both sites earned the highest score (5) (Table 8). Longnose gar, white.crappie, white bass and spotted bass were collected only upstream (Tables 9, 10). Summary Both the upstream control site and the site downstream of the BFN discharge earned identical scores for four of the five metrics discussed. The upstream site earned a higher score for only metric 1, "Total number of species". (2) The capacity for the community to sustain itself through cyclic seasonal change Maintenance of diversity can often be indicative of the ability of a fish community to withstand the stressors of an annual seasonal cycle. Autumn RF AI sampling has been conducted at the site upstream ofBFN since 1993, except during 1996, 1998, and 2012. Autumn sampling has been conducted at the site downstream since 2000, except during 2012. Average scores calculated over the history of sampling are identical for both sites ( 41, "Good") (Table 11 ). Figure 15 shows the numbers of indigenous species collected during autumn RF AI samples upstream and downstream of BFN from 2000 through 2013. Over this time period, the numbers collected at the upstream site ranged from 24 to 33, with an average of29 species. Downstream, numbers collected ranged from 23 to 28, with an average of 27 species. Collections upstream have generally been higher than those downstream: more species were collected upstream during nine years, while the same number of species was collected at both sites during 2003, 2007, and 2008, and more species were collected downstream than upstream during only 2009. The numbers of indigenous species collected during autumn 2013 (33 upstream, 27 downstream) showed the greatest difference between the sites over the history of sampling. Percentage of anomalies (highest rating requires< 2 %) Anomalies (i.e. visible lesions, bacterial and fungal infections, parasites, muscular and skeletal deformities, and hybridization) observed in a fish community can also be an indicator of the 22 ability of the community to sustain itself over an annual seasonal cycle. A greater percentage of anomalies (3.3%) was observed in the electrofishing sample at the upstream site, and the site earned a lower partial score than the downstream site, which exhibited only 1.1 % anomalies. No anomalies were observed in the gill net portion of the sample at either site, and both earned the highest partial score for this portion of the metric (Table 8). Summary Average RF AI scores, determined over the history of autumn sampling around BFN, were -identical upstream and downstream. Though more indigenous species were collected upstream during most years, the average numbers of species -calculated over the years during which sampling occurred at both sites -were similar upstream and downstream. The electrofishing catch upstream exhibited a greater percentage of anomalies than that downstream, but no anomalies were observed in the gill net catch at either site. (3) The presence of necessary food chain species Estimates of the trophic compositions of the fish communities upstream and downstream of BFN were calculated from the collection data (Tables 9, 10) as the proportion of the total sample made up by each trophic guild. In direct comparison of the communities upstream and downstream of BFN, the proportions ofbenthic invertivores and planktivores were somewhat similar. The proportions of other trophic guilds were notably different. However, omnivores and top carnivores were collected in greater proportion upstream, while insectivores were collected in greater proportion downstream. One additional guild -specialized insectivore -was represented downstream but not upstream. No parasitic or herbivore species were collected at either site. The numbers of species collected of four guilds were similar upstream and downstream, but notably more top carnivore species were collected upstream, and one species of specialized insectivore was collected only downstream (Table 2). In comparison to expected values for transition zones in lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs (Table 2), upstream proportions ofbenthic invertivores and insectivores were within the range of expected values, while the proportions of top carnivores, omnivores, and planktivores were poorer than expected. Downstream, insectivores comprised an unusually high 23 proportion of the sample (60.0%), primarily due to the collection of large numbers of two species: Mississippi silverside comprised more than 33% of the total catch, and spotfin shiner comprised more than 11%(Table9, 10). The proportions ofbenthic invertivores and omnivores were within the expected ranges, while the proportions of top carnivores and planktivores were below expectations. The collection downstream also included one specimen of "Specialized Insectivore" -the stripetail darter (Table 10) -representing the guild as 0.1 % of the sample. Upstream, the numbers ofbenthic invertivore, insectivore, top carnivore and planktivore species met or exceeded expectations, while the number of omnivore species was poorer (more species) than expected. Downstream, the numbers of species representing all six trophic guilds met or exceeded expectations (Table 2). Summary Trophic composition of the fish community upstream was not similar to that downstream. Proportions of insectivores, top carnivores, omnivores, and specialized insectivores were different between the sites. Although proportions were different between sites, further analysis revealed that numbers collected were similar for all trophic guilds except insectivore and top carnivore. The difference of insectivore proportions between sites was due to larger numbers of Mississippi silverside collected at the downstream site; this species schools, and therefore can be collected in large numbers. (4) A lack of domination by pollution-tolerant species Number of benthic invertivore species Five benthic invertivore species were collected upstream, and four were collected downstream. Both sites earned highest scores (5). Number of intolerant species (highest rating requires> 4) Six intolerant species were collected upstream, and five were collected downstream. Both sites received the highest score (5). Skipjack herring, spotted sucker, black redhorse, loµgear sunfish, and smallmouth bass were collected at both sites; northern hogsucker was collected only upstream (Tables 8-10). 24 Percentage of tolerant individuals (highest rating requires< 27 % electrofishing; < 15 % gill net) The upstream site earned mid-range scores for both portions of the sample: 49.5% of the electrofishing sample and 26.9% of the gill net sample were tolerant individuals. Downstream, 39.0% of the electrofishing sample-a mid-range partial score-and 33.3% of the gill net sample -the lowest partial score -were tolerant individuals (Table 8). Seven tolerant species -gizzard shad, common carp, spotfin shiner, redbreast sunfish, green sunfish, bluegill, and largemouth bass -were collected at both sites. Longnose gar, golden shiner, white crappie, and northern hogsucker were collected only upstream. Gizzard shad and longnose gar were caught in equal percentages (9.6%) in gill nets upstream, but gizzard shad was clearly the most abundant species collected by electrofishing upstream (26.6%) and by either method downstream (17.0% of the electrofishing catch, 25.5% of the gill net catch) (Table 8). Percent dominance by one species (highest rating requires < 29 % electrofishing; < 17 % gill net) The upstream site earned the highest score for both portions of the sample. Gizzard shad was the most prevalent species in the electrofishing catch (26.6%) and channel catfish was most prevalent in the gill net catch (11.5%). The downstream site earned mid-range scores for both portions of the sample, with Mississippi silverside most prevalent in the electrofishing sample (35.l %) and gizzard shad most prevalent in the gill net sample (25.5%) (Table 8). Percentage of omnivores (highest rating requires< 24 % electrofishing; < 16 % gill net) The electrofishing catch upstream consisted of a higher percentage of omnivores (39.0%) and earned a lower partial score (1.5) than that downstream, which consisted of22.4% omnivores and earned the highest partial score (2.5). Gill net portions of the samples at both sites contained high percentages of omnivores (42.3% upstream, 39.2% downstream), and both earned lowest partial scores (Table 8). Six omnivore species -common carp, gizzard shad, smallmouth buffalo, black buffalo, blue catfish, and channel catfish -were collected at both sites. Golden shiner was collected only upstream (Tables 9, 10). 25 Summary Based on RF AI metric scores, the sites upstream and downstream of BFN both exhibited similarly moderate diversity ofbenthic invertivore species and similarly high diversity of intolerant species. Electrofishing samples at both sites exhibited moderate percentages of tolerant individuals, and gill net samples at both sites exhibited high percentages of omnivores. The community downstream was more heavily dominated by a single species than that upstream, though the most prevalent species collected upstream were different for both gear types than those collected downstream. The gill net sample downstream contained a greater percentage of tolerant individuals, but the electrofishing sample contained a lower percentage of omnivores. Statistical Analyses Statistical comparison of the fish communities upstream and downstream ofBFN showed no significant differences in overall species diversity per run, based on either the Simpson or the Shannon diversity indices. Potential differences in diversity between the two communities were also analyzed by parsing the data into nine species parameters. These tests indicated that significantly more top carnivore species were collected per run upstream than downstream, but numbers of species for the other eight parameters were not significantly different between the communities (Table 11 ). The same nine parameters were also tested for differences in rfohness (numbers of individuals per run, or CPUE) between the two communities. Greater numbers of individual top carnivores were collected per run upstream; greater numbers of intolerant species were collected per run downstream (Table 11 ). Fish Community Summary Thirty-seven representative important species (RIS) were collected at the site upstream of BFN, compared to 31 RIS downstream (Tables 9, 10). RIS are defined in EPA guidance as those species which are representative in terms of their biological requirements of a balanced, indigenous community of fish, shellfish, and wildlife in the body of water into which the discharge is made (EPA and NRC, 1977). RIS often include non-indigenous species. A species 26 is designated as "thermally sensitive" if specimens exhibit avoidance behavior or are subject to mortality at water temperatures equal to or greater than 32.2°C (90°F) (Yoder et al., 2006). The same three thermally sensitive species -emerald shiner, spotted sucker, and logperch-were collected at both sites. Two aquatic nuisance species, common carp and Mississippi silverside, were also collected at both sites (Tables 9, 10). Commercially valuable species are defined by the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (2013) as any of the following non-game fish: drum, buffalo, carp, channel catfish, all members of the catfish family, paddlefish (spoonbill), spotted sucker, all members of the sucker family including the species known as redhorse and black horse, bowfin and all members of the gar family, and mullet. Recreationally valuable species are those that are

• targeted by anglers or are used as bait. Among the RlS collected upstream were 17 commercially valuable species and 23 recreationally valuable species, compared to 15 commercially valuable and 17 recreationally valuable species downstream (Tables 9, 10). Total RF AI scores for the sampling sites upstream and downstream differed by six points, indicating no substantial differences in ecological structure or balance between the two communities. As previously discussed, RF AI scores have an intrinsic variability of+/- 3 points. This variability comes from several sources, including annual variations in air temperature and stream flow; variations in pollutant loadings from nonpoint sources; changes in habitat, such as extent and density of aquatic vegetation; natural population cycles and movements of the species being measured (TWRA, 2014). Another source of variability arises from the fact that nearly any practical measurement, lethal or non-lethal, of a biological community is a sample rather than a measurement of the entire population. Accordingly, a thorough comparison of the fish communities upstream and downstream ofBFN was conducted by examining each of the twelve individual RF AI metrics as a component of the appropriate characteristic of a BIP. This analysis indicated that the two communities were both poor in abundance (both received low scores for the metric "Average number per run"), but similar in diversity and in their sustainability over an annual cycle. The numbers of species representing the major trophic guilds were generally similar, but distinct differences in 27 proportional trophic composition between the sites were evident. The two sites showed similarly moderate dominance by pollution tolerant species, but the downstream community was more heavily dominated by a single species. This was at least partially due to the collection downstream of an especially large number (33.2% of the total sample) of Mississippi silverside, a species that is often collected in large schools (Table 10). It is also noted that the species of dominance was different upstream and downstream for each type of collection gear (Table 8). To provide additional information about the health of the fish community throughout Wheeler reservoir, Table 12 compares RF AI scores for the sites upstream and downstream of BFN with those from additional VS sites in the reservoir. However, aquatic communities at these sites are not subject to thermal effects from BFN and are not used in determination ofBIP in relation to the plant. Average RF AI scores of these additional VS sites were all in the range of a "Good" rating. Statistical tests indicated that, within the upstream site, more top carnivore species were collected per run and greater numbers of individual top carnivores were collected per run, supporting the observations that this group was both more diverse and comprised a greater proportion of the total sample upstream. Greater numbers of intolerant individuals were collected per run downstream, indicating that conditions below BFN discharge were suitable for sensitive species. In conclusion, though this discussion revealed some differences between the fish communities upstream and downstream ofBFN during autumn 2013, there was no indication that these differences were related to thermal effluent from BFN. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community As discussed previously, data to assess the benthic macroinvertebrate community around BFN were collected from three sites in autumn 2013. RBI metrics for all three sites were scored using evaluation criteria for lab-processed samples collected in the transition reservoir zone (Table 4). Data collected at TRM 290.4, downstream of the thermal plume, produced an overall RBI score of 31 ("Excellent") and data from TRM 293 .2, within the thermal plume, produced an overall 28 RBI score of 35 ("Excellent"). Data from the upstream site, TRM 295.9, produced an overall RBI score of 35 ("Excellent") (Table 13). The upstream site was considered a control site and a difference of 4 points or less was used to define "similar" conditions between the upstream and downstream sites. Because the RBI scores for the two downstream sites were within 4 points of the RBI score for the upstream site, conditions among the three sites were considered "similar" and BIP was maintained. Results for the autumn 2013 benthic macroinvertebrate sampling can be found in Tables 13 and 16. Results were compared between the downstream (TRM's 290.4 and 293.2) and upstream (TRM 295.9) sites and are briefly discussed below for each RBI metric. Average number oftaxa (highest rating requires> 6.6) In autumn 2013, averages of 7.8 and 10.6 taxa were observed for sites downstream ofBFN. The site upstream of BFN averaged 11 taxa per sample. All three sites received the highest score of 5 for this metric (Table 13). Proportion of samples with long-lived organisms (highest rating requires> 0.9) The metric "proportion of samples with long-lived organisms" received the highest score of 5 at both downstream sites with 100% containing long-lived organisms (proportion of 1.0). The proportion of samples with long-lived organisms was 100% at the upstream site which also received the highest score for the metric (Table 13). Average number of EPT taxa (highest rating requires > 1.4) An average of 1.2 EPT taxa was collected at the most downstream site, TRM 290.4, resulting in the mid-range score of 3. Within the plume atTRM 293 .2, an average of 1.8 EPT taxa was collected and upstream ofBFN at TRM 295.9, an average of 1.7 EPT was collected. Both sites received the highest score (Table 13). 29 Average proportion of oligochaete individuals (highest rating requires< 11 %) Oligochaetes are considered tolerant of poor water quality conditions; therefore a low proportion of oligochaetes in the samples is an indication of good water quality condition. All three sites had low proportions of oligochaetes and received the highest score ( 5) for the autumn 2013 samples, which included averages of2.7 % and 8.3 % oligochaetes for the two downstream sites and an average of 3.6 % oligochaetes for the upstream site (Table 13). Proportion of total abundance comprised by two dominant taxa (highest rating requires < 77.8%) The two dominant taxa made up 81.1 % of the samples at the most downstream site, TRM 290.4, which received the mid-range score (3) for this metric (Table 13). Total abundance of the two dominant taxa was 66. 7 % for the site within the plume, TRM 293 .2, and was 67 .3 % upstream ofBFN at TRM 295.9 resulting in the highest score for both sites. Hexagenia mayflies (Ephemeridae) and Asiatic clams (Corbiculidae) were the two most abundant taxa at all three sites (Table 16a). Average density excluding chironomids and oligochaetes (highest rating requires> 609.9/m2) At the downstream sites, average densities excluding chironomids and oligochaetes were 1,161.7/m2 and 1,228.3/m2* Both sites received the highest score (5). Average density excluding chironomids and oligochaetes at the upstream site was 1, 111. 7 /m2, also resulting in the highest score (Table 13). Proportion of samples containing no organisms (highest rating requires that all samples contain organisms) In autumn 2013, there were no samples at any site which were void of organisms. All sites received the highest score (Table 13). Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Summary Monitoring results for autumn 2013 support the conclusion that a BIP ofbenthic macroinvertebrates was maintained downstream ofBFN (Table 13). The site within the thermal 30 plume, TRM 293.2, received the same RBI total score of 35 as the site upstream ofBFN and both rated "Excellent". The downstream site below the plume, TRM 290.4, received a slightly lower RBI total score of 31. However, this score also rated "Excellent" and was within [our points when compared with the scores for the other two sites. Thus, the benthic community at the most downstream site was also considered similar to the upstream benthic community. Individual metrics and RBI total scores for benthic community samples from TRM 291.7 (downstream) and TRM 295.9 (upstream) are provided in Tables 14 and 15 for referencing results from 2000 to 2010. Benthic samples from these two locations were field processed every year monitored through 2010, and during some of the years samples were also laboratory processed. Since 2011, samples have been lab processed which produces a more accurate depiction of the benthic community. Although the locations presently used as the downstream sites (TRMs 290.4 and 293.2) are proximate to the downstream transect sampled from 2000 to 2010 (TRM 291.7), RBI laboratory-processed scores for 2011 and 2013 cannot be directly compared to RBI field processed scores from 2000 to 2010 without inference. To provide additional data on the overall health of the benthic macroinvertebrate community in Wheeler Reservoir, RBI scores for VS monitoring locations -inflow, forebay, and Elk River embayment sites -were included in Table 17. Please note that comparison of these scores to current RBI scores at the sites around BFN is limited for two reasons. First, data from these sites were scored from field-based criteria and cannot be closely compared to lab-based scores. Second, these sites are many river miles away from BFN. The inflow site is 53 river miles upstream, and the forebay sampling site is located 17 river miles downstream. The Elk River embayment site is located 6 river miles upstream of the confluence with the Tennessee River, which in turn is 10 river miles downstream ofBFN. Because of these distances from the plant, poor scores at these sites cannot be considered indicative of thermal effects from BFN. The Wheeler inflow site (TRM 347) has produced RBI scores of "Good" or "Excellent" for 11 of the 14 years sampled (Table 17). The forebay (TRM 277) and Elk River embayment sites (ERM 6.0) have produced "Poor" scores most years sampled. 31 Visual Encounter Survey (Wildlife Observations) Wildlife observed from linear shoreline surveys conducted upstream and downstream ofBFN during autumn 2013 are presented in Table 18. Observations along the upstream survey site consisted of a variety of birds commonly associated with riparian habitat, map turtles, and one Eastern grey squirrel seen along the right descending bank. Observations downstream consisted of a similar variety of birds and map turtles. No mammals were observed downstream. It is important to note that a Visual Encounter Survey provides a preliminary near shore wildlife assessment to determine if the thermally affected area downstream of a power plant has adversely affected the bird, reptile, or mammal communities. The diversity of bird groups recorded indicated that a healthy ecological community existed both upstream and downstream ofWBN during 2013. However, because determination of the presence and diversity of reptiles and mammals using these methods is made difficult by their typical behaviors, observations of these taxa were limited. If an adverse environmental impact is suspected, sampling strategies of a more quantitative nature, such as trapping or netting, active search, investigation of mammal tracks along shoreline areas, long-term observation from blinds, or the use of cameras will be proposed to more accurately estimate the presence and diversity of these groups. Wheeler Reservoir Flow and BFN Water Temperature Daily mean flows from Guntersville Dam over the fiscal year 2013 (October 2012 through November 2013) are compared in Figure 16 to historic daily mean flows over the same fiscal year period, averaged from 1976 to 2012. From October to November 2012 and August to November 2013, flows were similar to historical averages. During December 2012, flows remained lower than historical. Flows were generally higher than historical from January to July 2013. Figure 17 compares daily average water temperatures recorded upstream ofBFN intake and downstream ofBFN discharge during October 2012 through November 2013. Water temperatures were similar at both sites through this period. 32 Thermal Plume Characterization Plume temperatures (water temperatures 3.6°P or greater above ambient) began at the BPN discharge (TRM 294.0) and.continued downstream to TRM 291.8. At the discharge, the plume extended from the RDB to 30% of the width of the river and from the surface to 1.5 m depth. Downstream (TRM 293.8), the plume extended to a maximum depth of7 m but did not extend farther than 50% of the width of the river from the RDB. At TRM 291.8, plume temperatures were observed only along the RDB, from the surface to 3 m depth. No plume temperatures were detected downstream of this point (Table 19). These profiles indicate that, at maximum, the thermal effluent from BPN was confined to the upper two-thirds.ofthe water column from mid-channel to the RDB, and that a sufficient zone of passage for aquatic wildlife existed around BPN during autumn 2013. Water Quality Parameters at Fish Sampling Sites during RFAI Samples Water temperatures observed at the upstream site, centered at TRM 295.9, ranged from 71.9 to 78.4 °P, with the highest temperatures occurring in mid-channel at the surface, along the downstream boundary of the sample reach. Water temperatures at the downstream site, centered at TRM 292.5, ranged from 74.0 to 83.9 °P, with the highest temperatures occurring at the surface along the RDB at the upstream boundary of the sample reach. Values for pH, conductivity, and dissolved oxygen concentration fell within narrow and similar ranges upstream and downstream (Table 20). The values of these parameters indicate that pH, conductivity, and dissolved oxygen concentrations surrounding BPN during autumn 2013 were of sufficient quality to support a BIP of the type expected for this reservoir, and that they were not affected by thermal effluent from BPN. The most elevated temperatures within the downstream site were observed along the RDB at the upper boundary, just downstream of the BPN discharge, and are consistent with temperatures recorded at similar locations during plume determination (Table 19). The most elevated temperatures within the upstream site were observed at the surface along the lower boundary of the site. This lower boundary is less than one mile upstream of the discharge, and 33 considering the width of the reservoir and the relatively low velocity of the river at this point, these elevated temperatures can be attributed to diffusion of heated water upstream from the discharge. Discussion above indicated th.at a zone of passage for aquatic life existed around BFN. Therefore, overall water quality around BFN was not negatively impacted by the thermal effluent. 34 Literature Cited Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (ADCNR), Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries. 2013. 2013-2014 Regulations Relating to Game, Fish, bearers and other Wildlife. http://www.outdooralabama.com/hunting/regulations EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) and NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1977 (draft). Interagency 316( a) Technical Guidance manual and Guide for Thermal Effects Sections of Nuclear Facilities Environmental Impact Statements. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Enforcement, Permits Division, Industrial Permits Branch, Washington, DC. Etnier, D.A. and W.C. Starnes. 1993. The Fishes of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, 681 pp. Hickman, G.D. and T.A. McDonough. 1996. Assessing the Reservoir Fish Assemblage A potential measure ofreservoir quality. In: D. De Vries (Ed.) Reservoir Multidimensional approaches to reservoir fisheries management. Reservoir Committee, Southern Division, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. pp 85-97. Hubert, W. A. 1996. Passive capture techniques, entanglement gears. Pages 160-165 in B. R. Murphy and D. W. Willis, editors. Fisheries techniques, 2nd edition. American Fisheries Society Bethesda, Maryland, USA. Jennings, M.J., L.S. Fore, and J.R. Karr. 1995. Biological monitoring of fish assemblages in the Tennessee Valley reservoirs. Regulated Rivers 11 :263-274. Levene, H. 1960. tests for equality of variances. Jn: Contributions to probability and statistics: essays in honor of Harold Hotelling. I. Olkin, S. G. Ghurye, W. Hoeffding, W. G. Matlow, and H.B. Mann (eds). pp. 278-292. Stanford University Press. Menlo Park, CA. Mann, H.B. and D.R. Whitney. 1947. On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 18:50-60. McDonough, T.A. and G.D. Hickman. 1999. Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index development: A tool for assessing ecological health in Tennessee Valley Authority impoundments. In: Assessing the sustainability and biological integrity of water resources using fish communities. Simon, T. (Ed.) CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 523-540. Plafkin, J.L., Barbour, M.T., Porter, K.D., Gross, S.K., and Hughes, R.M. (1989). Rapid assessment protocols for use in streams and rivers: benthic macroinvertebrates and fish. EPA/444/4-89-001, Washington DC, USA. 35 Reynolds, J.B. 1996. Electrofishing. Pages 221-251 in B. R. Murphy and D. W. Willis, editors. Fisheries techniques, 2nd edition. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. Shannon, C.E. 1948. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal 27:379-423, 623-656. Shapiro, S.S. and M. B. Wilk. 1965. An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika 52:591-611. Simpson, E.H. 1949. Measurement of diversity. Nature 163:688. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA). 2014. Strategic Plan 2014-2020. Nashville, TN. http://www.state.tn.us/twra/pdfs/businessplan.pdf Wilcoxon, F. 1945. Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biometrics Bulletin 1:80-83. Yoder, C.O., B.J. Armitage, and E.T. Rankin. 2006. Re-evaluation of the Technical Justification for Existing Ohio River Mainstem Temperature Criteria. Midwest Biodiversity Institute, Columbus, Ohio. 36 Figures 37 Figure 1. Location of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant on Wheeler Reservoir. 38 Figure 2. Location of Condenser Cooling Water (CCW) intake and discharge at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. 39 Biomonitoring Zones Upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Electrofishlng Station o Gill Nettng Station Benthic lvlacroinvertebrate Transect Wildlife Observation Transect Figure 3. Locations of biomonitoring sites upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. 40 Biomonltorlng Zones Downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant
• Electrofishing Station <> Gill Netting Station Benthic Macroinvertebrate Transect Figure 4. Locations of biomonitoring sites downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. 41 Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Index (SAHi) Transects Upstream and Downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant SAHi Transect Figure 5. Locations of transects used to characterize shoreline and river bottom habitat upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. 42 Rrver Mile X 293 Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Rv.1 Mil<> 2 6 Tennessee River ('Wheeler Reservoir) 112 0 1000 0 I l 112 1 n lie 1000 2000 3000 4000 feet I I I I -Tennessee River (Wheeler Reservoir) -Original River Channel -Water Temperature Monitoring Station Figure 6. Locations of water temperature monitoring sites used to compare water temperatures upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) intake and downstream of BFN discharge. Site 4 was used for upstream ambient temperatures of the BFN intake and was located at TRM 297.8. Sites 1, 16, and 17 were used for temperatures downstream of BFN discharge and were each located at TRM 293.5. This figure originated in the technical report: Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Module III, Water Temperature Monitoring. 43 N ! TVA -E&T -ES&R GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATIO & ENGINEERING DECEMBER 2010 Figure 7. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted. Of the eight transects established upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, transects 1 and 2 are the closest to the plant. 44 N i TVA -E&T -ES&R GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION & ENGINEERING DECEMBER2010 Figure 8. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted. 45 Substrate Type N I I I l *Depth( ft) of water where sample was taken TVA -E&T -ES&R GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION & ENGi EERING DECEMBER 2010 Figure 9. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted. 46 Substrate Type N 1 I I I I *Depth( ft) of water where sample was taken TVA -E&T -ES&R GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION & ENGINEERING DECEMBER 2010 Figure 10. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted. 47 Substrate Type N 2 I( i lometers *Depth( ft) of water where sample was taken TVA -E&T -ES&R GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION & ENGINEERING JANUARY 2011 Figure 11. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted. Transects 1 and 2 are the farthest downstream of the eight transects established downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. 48 Substrate Type N i 2 Kilometers *Depth( ft) of water where sample was taken TVA -E&T -ES&R GEOGRAPHIC INFORMAT!O & E GI EERING JA UARY2011 Figure 12. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted. 49 Substrate Type 2 Kilometers ----I .. *Depth( ft) of water where sample was taken TVA -E&T -ES&R GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION & ENGi EERING JA UARY2011 Figure 13. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted. 50 Substrate Type N 1 2 Kilometers *Depth(H) of water where *ample was taken TVA -E&T -ES&R GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION & ENGINEERING JA UARY 2011 Figure 14. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River downstream of Browns Ferry uclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted. 51 34 32 "'C 30 0 u Ill QI u l 28 Ill Ill :J 0 c: QI :6 26 c: .... 0 ... QI ..c § 24 z 22 20 I-29 -27 I--24 I-23 I-I-2000 2001 32 30 2828 28 ,___ 26 I-I-I-25 -I-,_ I-I-,_ ,_ I-I-2002 2003 2004 2005 30 2828 27 27 -2626 26 c--I-I-I-I-1--I-I-I-1--2006 2007 2008 2009 Year 31 28 -'---27 '--I-I-I-I-I-I-2010 2011 33 -'---'---'---27 ..._ '--'--'--2013 D TRM 295.9 (Avg=29) D TRM 292.5 (Avg=27) Figure 15. Comparison of observed values for the Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index metric "Number oflndigenous Species", over 13 years of autumn sampling at the sites upstream (TRM 295.9) and downstream (TRM 292.5) of Brown's Ferry Nuclear Plant. 52 VI -0 u:: -FY 2013 Daily Mean Flow 200000 ;----------! -Historical Daily Mean 1976-2012 150000 100000 0 10/1 11/1 12/1 1/1 2/1 3/1 4/1 5/1 Date 6/1 7/1 8/1 9/1 10/1 11/1 Figure 16. Daily mean flows from Guntersville Dam, October 2012 through November 2013, and historic daily flows for the same fiscal year period, averaged over the years 1976-2012. 53 100 90 80 70 u::-0 -; 60 ... ::::i ... Ill ... 50 E QI I-... QI 40 ... Ill :: 30 -Upstream of BFN Intake -Downstream of BFN Discharge 20 0 -$J\"' Figure 17. Daily water temperatures averaged over depth (3, 5, and 7 feet) upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant (BFN) intake and downstream of BFN discharge -October 2012 through November 2013. 54 Tables 55 Table 1. Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Index (SAHi) metrics and scoring criteria. Metric Cover Substrate Erosion Scoring Criteria Stable cover (boulders, rootwads, brush, logs, aquatic vegetation, artificial structures) in 25 to 75% of the drawdown zone Stable cover in 10 to 25% or> 75% of the drawdown zone Stable Cover in< 10% of the drawdown zone Percent of drawdown zone with gravel substrate > 40 Percent of drawdown zone with gravel substrate between 10 and 40 Percent substrate gravel< 10 Little or no evidence of erosion or bank failure. Most bank surfaces stabilized by woody vegetation. Areas of erosion small and infrequent. Potential for increased erosion due to less desirable vegetation cover (grasses) on> 25% of bank surfaces. Areas of erosion extensive, exposed or collapsing banks occur along> 30% of shoreline. Canopy Cover Tree or shrub canopy> 60% along adjacent bank Tree or shrub canopy 30 to 60% along adjacent bank Tree or shrub canopy< 30% along adjacent bank Riparian Zone Width buffered > 18 meters Habitat Gradient Width buffered between 6 and 18 meters Width buffered < 6 meters Habitat diversity optimum. All major habitats (logs, brush, native vegetation, boulders, gravel) present in proportions characteristic of high quality, sufficient to support all life history aspects of target species. Ready access to deeper sanctuary areas present. Habitat diversity less than optimum. Most major habitats present, but proportion of one is less than desirable, reducing species diversity. No ready access to deeper sanctuary areas. Habitat diversity is nearly lacking. One habitat dominates, leading to lower species diversity. No ready access to deeper sanctuary areas. Drawdown zone gradient abrupt (> 1 meter per 10 meters). Less than 10% of shoreline with abrupt gradient due to dredging. Drawdown zone gradient abrupt.(> 1 meter per 10 meters) in 10 to 40% of the shoreline resulting from dredging. Rip-rap used to stabilize bank along> 10% of the shoreline. Drawdown zone gradient abrupt in> 40 % of the shoreline resulting from dredging. Seawalls used to stabilize bank along > 10 % of the shoreline. 56 Score 5 3 1 5 3 1 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 1 5 3 Table 2. Expected trophic guild proportions* and expected numbers of species* in lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoir transition zones, compared to values observed during 2013 monitoring at BFN. Lower Mainstem Tennessee River Transition Zones Proportion(%) Number of species Observed Upstream of Observed Downstream BFN (TRM 295.9) of BFN (TRM 292.5) Trisected range a Average h Trisected range a
• Average h Trophic Guild Expected Expected Proportion Number of Proportion Number of + + (%) S}!ecies (%) S}!ecies Benthic Invertivore < 6.7 6.4 to 13.4 > 13.4 5.5 +/- 1.2 <3 3 to 5 >5 5+/-1 10.7 5 8.3 4 Insectivore <24.6 24.6 to 49.1 >49.1 40.0 +/-4.5 <4 4 to 8 >8 8+/-1 32.5 12 60.0 11 Top Carnivore < 15.1 15.1 to 30.2 > 30.2 18.3 +/-2.2 <4 4 to 8 >8 10+/- 1 14.4 12 7.1 8 Omnivore >38.5 19.3 to 38.5 <19.3 28.7 +/- 3.3 >6 3 to 6 <3 6+/-1 39.2 7 23.3 6 Planktivore < 9.4 9.4 to 18.7 >18.7 6.4 +/-2.6 0 >1 1+/-1 3.2 1.2 1 Parasitic < 0.1 0.1to0.2 > 0.2 0.1+/-0.04 0 >1 1+/-0 Herbivore <1.8 1.8 to 3.6 >3.6 0.6 +/- 0.4 0 >1 1+/-0 Specialized Insectivore 0.1 1 *Expected values were calculated from data collected over 900 electro fishing runs and 600 overnight experimental gill net sets in transition areas of lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs. a Trisected ranges are intended to show below expected (-), expected, and above expected ( +) values for trophic level proportions and species occurring within the transition zones in upper mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs. bAverage expected values are bound by 95% confidence intervals. 57 Table 3. RFAI scoring criteria (2002) for inflow, transition, and forebay sections of lower mainstem reservoirs* in the Tennessee River system. Scoring Criteria Inflow Transition Forebay Metric Gear 1 3 5 1 3 5 1 3 5 1. Total species Combined < 14 14-27 >27 < 16 16-30 >30 < 14 14-27 >27 2. Number of centrarchid species Combined <2 2-4 >4 <2 2-2 >2 <2 2-3 >3 3. Number ofbenthic invertivores Combined <4 4-7 >7 <4 4-7 >7 <4 4-6 >6 4. Number of intolerant species Combined <3 3-6 >6 <3 3-4 >4 <2 2-4 >4 5. Percent tolerant individuals Electro fishing >51% 26-51% <26% >54% 27-54% <27% >61% 30-61% <30% Gill netting >30% 15-30% < 15% >46% 22-46% <22% 6. Percent dominance by one species Electrofishing >47% 24-47% <24% >58% 29-58% <29% >59% 30-59% <30% Gill netting >34% 17-34% < 17% >43% 21-43% <21% 7. Percent non-indigenous species Electro fishing >4% 2-4% <2% >2% 1-2% < 1% >2% 2-2% <2% Gill netting >2% 1-2% <1% >2% 1-2% <1% 8. Number of top carnivore species Combined <4 4-7 >7 <4 4-7 >7 <4 4-7 >7 9. Percent top carnivores Electro fishing < 15% 15-29% >29% <5% 5-10% >10% <6% 6-12% >12% Gill netting <20% 20-39% >39% <25% 25-49% >49% 10. Percent omnivores Electrofishing >48% 24-48% <24% >48% 24-48% <24% >59% 30-59% <30% Gill netting >33% 16-33% < 16% >49% 24-49% <24% 11. Average number per run Electro fishing <68 68-136 >136 <243 243-487 >487 < 170 170-341 >341 Gill netting < 11 11-22 >22 <20. 20-40 >40 12. Percent anomalies Electrofishing >5% 2-5% <2% >5% 2-5% <2% >5% 2-5% <2% Gill netting >5% 2-5% <2% >5% 2-5% <2% *Lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs include Guntersville, Wheeler, Wilson, Pickwick, and Kentucky. Transition scoring criteria were used to score sites upstream and downstream of BFN. 58 Table 4. Scoring criteria for laboratory-processed benthic macroinvertebrate community samples from inflow, transition, and forebay zones of mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs. Scoring Criteria Benthic Community Inflow Transition Forebay Metrics 1 3 5 1 3 5 1 3 5 1. Average number of taxa <4.2 4.2-8.3 >8.3 <3.3 3.3-6.6 >6.6 <2.8 2.8-5.5 >5.5 2. Proportion of samples with long-<0.6 0.6-0.8 >0.8 <0.6 0.6-0.9 >0.9 <0.6 0.6-0.8 >0.8 lived organisms 3. Average number of EPT taxa <0.9 0.9-1.9 >1.9 <0.6 0.6-1.4 >1.4 <0.6 0.6-0.9 >0.9 4. Average proportion of oligochaete >23.9 23.9-12.0 <12.0 >21.9 21.9-11.0 <11.0 >41.9 41.9-21.0 <21.0 individuals 5. Average proportion of total abundance comprised by the two most >86.2 86.2-73.l <73.1 >87.9 87.9-77.8 <77.8 >90.3 90.3-81.7 <81.7 abundant taxa 6. Average density excluding <400.0 400.0-799.9 >799.9 <305.0 305.0-609.9 >609.9 <125.0 125.0-249.9 >249.9 chironomids and oligochaetes 7. Zero Samples: proportion of samples >O 0 >O 0 >O 0 containing no organisms Transition scoring criteria were used to score sites upstream and downstream of BFN 59 Table 5. SAHi scores for shoreline habitat assessments conducted within the RFAI sample reach upstream ofBFN, autumn 2009. Transects Left Descending 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Avg. Bank Latitude 34.68917 34.6832 34.6806 34.67959 34.67709 34.66978 34.67027 34.66841 Longitude -87.13621 -87.13172 -87.12188 -87.1183 -87.10876 -87.10915 -87.10009 -87.09753 Aquatic Macrophytes 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% SAHi Variables Cover 3 3 5 3 3 3 3 Substrate 5 3 3 5 3 Erosion 3 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 4 Canopy Cover 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Riparian Zone 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 4 Habitat 3 3 3 3 2 Slope 5 5 3 5 3 Total 17 29 27 25 21 25 19 19 24 Rating Fair Good Good Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Transects Right Descending 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Avg. Bank Latitude 34.70109 34.'69937 34.69862 34.6986 34.69566 34.69302 34.69062 34.68843 Longitude -87.11896 -87.11535 -87.10973 -87.10061 -87.09157 -87.08836 -87.08452 -87.08094 Aquatic Macrophytes 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% SAHi Variables Cover 3 3 5 5 5 5 4 Substrate 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 Erosion 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Canopy Cover 5 5 5 3 Riparian Zone 5 5 5 3 Habitat 3 3 2 Slope 3 3 2 Total 15 27 25 19 17 19 19 19 23 Rating Poor Good Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Scoring criteria: poor (7-16),fair (17-26), good (27-35) 60 Table 6. SAHi scores for shoreline habitat assessments conducted within the RF AI sample reach downstream ofBFN, autumn 2009. Transects Left Descending 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Avg. Bank Latitude 34.72824 34.72603 34.72398 34.72068 34.71496 34.7128 34.71082 34.70351 Longitude -87.1759 -87.1728 -87.1704 -87.1678 -87.4621 -87.1577 -87.1543 -87.1488 Aquatic Macrophytes 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% SAHi Variables Cover 3 3 2 Substrate 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 Erosion 5 5 5 5 3 Canopy Cover 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 4 Riparian Zone 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 4 Habitat 3 3 2 Slope 3 Total 21 23 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 Rating Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Transects Right Descending 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Avg. Bank Latitude 34.74369 34.74081 34.73891 34.73519 34.73081 34.7266 34.72058 34.71239 Longitude -87.1565 -87.1522 -87.1507 -87.1475 -87.1428 -87.1376 -87.1325 -87.1275 Aquatic Macrophytes 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% SAHi Variables Cover 3 3 3 5 5 5 3 Substrate 5 5 5 5 3 Erosion 5 5 5 5 5 4 Canopy Cover 5 5 5 5 3 3 4 Riparian Zone 3 5 3 5 3 Habitat 3 3 2 Slope Total 21 17 19 19 19 21 15 15 20 Rating Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Poor Poor Fair Scoring criteria: poor (7-16),fair (17-26), good (27-35) 61 Table 7. Substrate percentages and average water depth (ft) per transect upstream and downstream of BFN, autumn 2009. % Substrate per transect upstream ofBFN Substrate Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Avg. Silt 68.5 45.0 25.5 49.0 27.1 79.5 56.0 58.0 51.1 Mollusk Shell 3.5 30.5 45.5 38.5 56.8 13.5 38.0 30.0 32.0 Sand 12.5 0 19.0 0 9.0 0 0 0 5.1 Detritus 4.0 2.0 0.5 2.5 7.5 2.5 5.5 10.0 4.3 Boulder 9.0 9.5 0 10.0 0 0 0 0 3.6 Gravel 0.5 0.5 9.0 0 1.5 0.5 0.5 0 1.6 Cobble 1.0 10.0 0.5 0 0.5 0 0 0 1.5 Clay 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.0 0 0.5 Average Depth (ft) 19.2 17.4 13.3 17.5 16.2 15.0 15.5 15.5 16.2 Actual Depth Range: 6.5 to 36.9 ft % Substrate per transect downstream of BFN Substrate Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Avg. Silt 75.4 80.5 77.0 56.3 69.5 55.5 44.0 62.5 65.1 Mollusk Shell 22.6 12.5 14.5 32.0 7.0 11.5 26.0 29.0 19.4 Sand 0 0 0.0 9.1 9.0 9.0 17.0 0.0 5.5 Detritus 2.0 6.5 8.0 2.5 0.5 1.0 2.5 4.5 3.4 Bedrock 0 0 0.0 0.0 9.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 2.4 Boulder 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 Cobble 0 0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.6 Gravel 0 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.2 Clay 0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Average Depth (ft) 21.0 20.0 20.2 18.7 18.3 18.9 20.6 20.2 19.7 Actual Depth Range: 9.1to31.7 ft 62 Table 8. Individual metric scores and the overall RFAI scores upstream (TRM 295.9) and downstream (TRM 292.5) of Browns Ferry Nuclear plant, autumn 2013. Autumn 2013 TRM 295.9 TRM 292.5 Metric A. Species richness and composition 1. Number of indigenous species (See Tables 9 and 10) 2. Number of centrarchid species (less Micropterus) 3. Number ofbenthic invertivore species 4. Number of intolerant species Combined Combined Combined Combined Obs 33 8 Black crappie Bluegill Green sunfish Longear sunfish Orangespotted sunfish Redear sunfish Warrnouth White crappie 5 Black redhorse Freshwater drum Logperch Northern.hog sucker Spotted sucker 6 Black redhorse Longear sunfish Northern hog sucker Skipjack herring Smallmouth bass Spotted sucker 63 Score 5 5 3 5 Obs 27 Black crappie Bluegill Green sunfish Longear sunfish Redear sunfish Warrnouth 6 4 Black redhorse Freshwater drum Logperch Spotted sucker 5 Black redhorse Longear sunfish Skipjack herring Smallmouth bass Spotted sucker Score 3 5 3 5
• Table 8. (Continued) Autumn 2013 TRM295.9 TRM292.5 Metric Obs Score Obs Score 5. Percent tolerant individuals Electro fishing 49.5% 39.0% Bluegill 10.7% Bluegill 3.3% Common carp 0.9% Common carp 0.2% Gizzard shad 26.6% Gizzard shad 17.% Golden shiner 0.9% Green sunfish 4.7% Green sunfish 1.8% 1.5 Largemouth bass 2.1% 1.5 Largemouth bass 5.3% Redbreast sunfish 0.1% Longnose gar 0.2% Spotfin shiner 11.7% Redbreast sunfish 0.2% Spotfin shiner 2.9% White crappie 0.2% Gill Netting 26.9% 33.3% Gizzard shad 9.6% Bluegill 3.9% Largemouth bass 7.7% 1.5 Common carp 2.0% 0.5 Longnose gar 9.6% Gizzard shad 25.5% Largemouth bass 2.0% 6. Percent dominance by one species Electro fishing 26.6% 2.5 35.1% 1.5 Gizzard shad Mississippi silverside Gill Netting 11.5% 2.5 25.5% 1.5 Channel catfish Gizzard shad 7. Percent non-indigenous species Electrofishing 11.2% 35.4% Common carp 0.9% 0.5 Common carp 0.2% 0.5 Mississippi silverside 10.1% Mississippi silverside 35.1% Redbreast sunfish 0.2% Redbreast sunfish 0.1% Gill Netting NA 2.5 2.0% 1.5 Common carp 64 Table 8. (Continued) Autumn 2013 TRM295.9 TRM292.5 Metric Obs Score Obs Score 8. Number of top carnivore species Combined 12 8 Black crappie Black crappie Flathead catfish Flathead catfish Largemouth bass Largemouth bass Longnose gar Sauger Sauger 5 Skipjack herring 5 Skipjack herring Smallmouth bass Smallmouth bass Spotted gar Spotted bass Yellow bass Spotted gar White bass White crappie Yellow bass B. Trophic composition 9. Percent top carnivores Electro fishing 12.1% 4.8% Black crappie 0.2% Largemouth bass 2.1% Flathead catfish 0.2% Smallmouth bass 2.5% Largemouth bass 5.3% Yellow bass 0.2% Longnose gar 0.2% Smallmouth bass 1.4% 2.5 0.5 Spotted bass 0.2% Spotted gar 0.8% White bass 2.4% White crappie 0.2% Yellow bass 1.5% Gill Netting 44.2% 49.0% Flathead catfish 1.9% Black crappie 2.0% Largemouth bass 7.7% Flathead catfish 7.8% Longnose gar 9.6% 2.5 Largemouth bass 2.0% 2.5 Sauger 7.7% Sauger 5.9% Skipjack herring 11.5% Skipjack herring 23.5% Spotted gar 1.9% Spotted gar 3.9% White bass 3.8% Yellow bass 3.9% 65 Table 8. (Continued) Autumn 2013 TRM295.9 TRM292.5 Metric Obs Score Obs Score 10. Percent omnivores Electrofishing 39.0% 22.4% Black buffalo 0.2% Channel catfish 2.3% Channel catfish 6.2% Common carp 0.2% Common carp 0.9% 1.5 Gizzard shad 17.0% 2.5 Gizzard shad 26.6% Smallmouth buffalo 2.9% Golden shiner 0.9% Smallmouth buffalo 4.2% Gill Netting 42.3% 39.2% Black buffalo 3.8% Black buffalo 2.0% Blue catfish 7.7% Blue catfish 3.9% Channel catfish 11.5% 0.5 Channel catfish 2.0% 0.5 Gizzard shad 9.6% Common carp 2.0% Smallmouth buffalo 9.6% Gizzard shad 25.5% Smallmouth buffalo 3.9% C. Fish abundance and health 11. Average number per run Electrofishing 44.1 0.5 61.2 0.5 Gill Netting 5.2 0.5 5.1 0.5 12. Percent anomalies Electrofishing 3.3% 1.5 1.1% 2.5 Gill Netting 0.0% 2.5 0.0% 2.5 Overall RF AI Score 46 40 Good Fair 66 Table 9. Species collected, ecological and recreational designation and corresponding electrofishing (EF) and gill net (GN) catch per unit effort upstream (TRM 295.9) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant discharge-Autumn 2013. Thermally Comm. Rec. Trophic Native Sensitive Valuable ValuableEF Catch EF Catch Total fish GN Catch Per Total Total fish Percent Common Name Scientific name level Tolerance Per Run Per Hr EF Net Night Fish GN Combined Longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus TC x TOL x 0.07 0.25 1 0.50 5 6 0.8 Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM x TOL x x 11.73 44.67 176 0.50 5 181 25.4 Common carp
• Cyprinus carpio OM TOL x 0.40 1.52 6 6 0.8 Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas OM x TOL x x 0.40 1.52 6 6 0.8 Spotfin shiner Cyprinella spiloptera IN x TOL 1.27 4.82 19 19 2.7 Redbreast sunfish* Lepomis auritus IN TOL x 0.o7 0.25 0.1 Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN x TOL x 0.80 3.05 12 12 1.7 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN x TOL x 4.73 18.02 71 71 9.9 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides TC x TOL x 2.33 8.88 35 0.40 4 39 5.5 White crappie Pomoxis annularis TC x TOL x 0.o7 0.25 1 0.1 Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris TC x INT x 0.60 6 6 0.8 Northern hog sucker Hypentelium nigricans BI x INT 0.o7 0.25 1 0.1 Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI x INT x x 1.13 4.31 17 0.10 18 2.5 Black redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei BI x INT x 0.o7 0.25 1 0.1 Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN x INT x 1.13 4.31 17 17 2.4 Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC x INT x 0.60 2.28 9 9 1.3 Spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatus TC x x 0.33 1.27 5 0.10 6 0.8 Threadfin shad Dorosoma petenense PK x x x 1.53 5.84 23 23 3.2 Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides IN x x O.o7 0.25 1 1 0.1 Bullhead minnow Pimephales vigilax IN x x 0.47 1.78 7 7 1.0 Smallmouth buffalo lctiobus bubalus OM x x 1.87 7.11 28 0.50 5 33 4.6 Black buffalo lctiobus niger OM x x 0.o7 0.25 1 0.20 2 3 0.4 Blue catfish lctalurus farcatus OM x x x 0.40 4 4 0.6 Channel catfish lctalurus punctatus OM x x x 2.73 10.41 41 0.60 6 47 6.6 Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC x x x 0.o7 0.25 1 0.10 1 2 0.3 White bass Marone chrysops TC x x 1.07 4.06 16 0.20 2 18 2.5 Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC x x x 0.67 2.54 10 10 1.4 Warmouth Lepomis gulosus IN x x 0.o7 0.25 0.1 Orangespotted sunfish Lepomis humilis IN x x 0.20 0.76 3 3 0.4 Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN x x 1.73 6.60 26 0.40 4 30 4.2 67 Table 9. (Continued) Common Name Scientific name Hybrid sunfish Hybrid Lepomis sp. Spotted bass Micropterus punctulatus Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus Logperch Percina caprodes Sauger Sander canadensis Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens Mississippi silverside
• Menidia audens Total Number Samples Species Collected Trophic Native level species Tolerance IN TC TC BI TC BI IN x x x x x x 34 Thermally Comm. Rec. Sensitive Valuable Valuable EF Catch EF Catch Total fish GN Catch Per Total Total fish Percent Species Species Species Per Run Per Hr EF Net Night Fish GN Combined Composition 0.20 0.76 3 3 0.4 x 0.07 0.25 1 0.1 x 0.07 0.25 1 0.1 x 2.33 8.88 35 35 4.9 x 0.40 4 4 0.6 x 1.27 4.82 19 0.20 2 21 2.9 x x 4.47 17.01 67 67 9.4 3 17 23 44.16 167.97 662 5.20 52 714 100.0 15 10 34 15 Trophic level: benthic invertivore (BJ), herbivore (HB), insectivore (IN), omnivore (OM), planktivore (PK), parasitic (PS), specialized insectivore (SP), top carnivore (TC); Tolerance: tolerant species (TOL), intolerant species (JNT);Comm.-Commercially, Rec.-Recreationally. *Denotes aquatic nuisance species next to common name. All species are considered representative important species. No species collected have a Federal Threatened or Endangered status. 68 Table 10. Species collected, ecological and recreational designation and corresponding electrofishing (EF) and gill net (GN) catch per unit effort downstream (TRM 292.5) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant discharge-Autumn 2013. Thermally Comm. Rec. Trophic Native Sensitive Valuable Valuable EF Catch EF Catch Total fish GN Catch Per Total Total fish Percent Common Name Scientific name level species Tolerance Species Species Species Per Run Per Hr EF NetNight Fish GN Combined Composition Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM x TOL x x 10.40 40.10 156 1.30 13 169 17.4 Common carp . Cyprinus carpio OM TOL x 0.13 0.51 2 0.10 3 0.3 Spotfin shiner Cyprinella spiloptera IN x TOL 7.13 27.51 107 107 11.0 Redbreast sunfish* Lepomis auritus IN TOL x 0.07 0.26 1 0.1 Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN x TOL x 2.87 11.05 43 43 4.4 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN x TOL x 2.00 7.71 30 0.20 2 32 3.3 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides TC x TOL x 1.27 4.88 19 0.10 1 20 2.1 Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris TC x INT x 1.20 12 12 1.2 Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI x INT x x 0.20 0.77 3 3 0.3 Black redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei_ BI x INT x 0.07 0.26 0.1 Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN x INT x 4.00 15.42 60 60 6.2 Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC x INT x 1.53 5.91 23 23 2.4 Spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatus TC x x 0.20 2 2 0.2 Threadfin shad Dorosoma petenense PK x x x 0.80 3.08 12 12 1.2 Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides IN x x 0.20 0.77 3 3 0.3 Bullhead minnow Pimephales vigilax IN x 0.33 1.29 5 5 0.5 Smallmouth buffalo lctiobus bubalus OM x x 1.80 6.94 27 0.20 2 29 3.0 Black buffalo /ctiobus niger OM x x 0.10 1 0.1 Blue catfish Ictalurus furcatus OM x x x 0.20 2 2 0.2 Channel catfish /ctalurus punctatus OM x x x 1.40 5.40 21 0.10 22 2.3 Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC x x x 0.40 4 4 0.4 Yellow bass Marone mississippiensis TC x x x 0.13 0.51 2 0.20 2 4 0.4 Warmouth Lepomis gulosus IN x x 0.13 0.51 2 2 0.2 Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN x x 0.27 1.03 4 4 0.4 69 Table 10. (Continued) Thermally Comm. Rec. Trophic Native Sensitive Valuable Valuable EF Catch EF Catch Total fish GN Catch Per Total Total fish Percent Common Name Scientific name level species Tolerance Species Species Species Per Run Per Hr EF Net Night Fish GN Combined Composition Hybrid sunfish Hybrid Lepomis sp. IN x 0.13 0.51 2 2 0.2 Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC x x 0.10 0.1 Stripetail darter Etheostoma kennicotti SP x 0.07 0.26 1 0.1 Logperch Percina caprodes BI x x 1.87 7.20 28 28 2.9 Sauger Sander canadensis TC x x 0.30 3 3 0.3 Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI x x 2.93 11.31 44 0.40 4 48 5.0 Mississippi silverside
• Menidia audens IN x x 21.47 82.78 322 322 33.2 Total 28 3 15 17 61.20 235.97 918 5.10 51 969 100 Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected 24 15 Trophic level: benthic invertivore (BJ), herbivore (HB), insectivore (IN), omnivore (OM), planktivore (PK), parasitic (PS), specialized insectivore (SP), top carnivore (TC); Tolerance: tolerant species (TOL), intolerant species (INT);Comm.-Commercially, Rec.-Recreationally. *Denotes aquatic nuisance species next to common name. All species are considered representative important species. No species collected have a Federal Threatened or Endangered status. 70 Table 11. Spatial statistical comparisons of numbers of species, mean electrofishing catch per unit effort values (number/run), tolerance designations, trophic levels, and non-indigenous individuals, including species richness and Simpson and Shannon diversity values, for samples *collected near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, autumn 2013. Mean (Standard Deviation) Parameter Upstream Downstream . Significant Test PValue (TRM295.9) (TRM292.5) Difference Statistic Number of species (per run) Total (Species richness) 11.1 (3.9) 10.3 (2.1) No Z= -1.01 0.31 Benthic invertivores 1.5 (1.0) 1.5 (0.6) No Z=0.52 0.60 Insectivores 3.9 (1.8) 4.8 (1.6) No t= 1.49 0.15 Omnivores 2.9 (1.2) 2.1 (1.1) No t= -1.97 0.06 Top carnivores 2.6 (1.4) 1.5 (0.6) Yes Z= -2.26 0.02 Non-indigenous 1.1 (0.7) 0.9 (0.7) No Z= -0.75 0.46 Tolerant 3.7 (1.5) 4.1 (1.2) No Z=0.65 0.52 Intolerant 1.2 (0.9) 1.6 (0.5) No Z= 1.22 0.22 Thermally sensitive 0.9 (0.7) 0.9 (0.5) No Z= -0.22 0.83 CPUE (per run) Total 2.9 (1.7) 4.1 (2.8) No Z= 0.79 0.43 Benthic invertivores 0.2 (0.2) 0.1 (0.1) No Z= 0.52 0.60 Insectivores 1.0 (0.8) 2.6 (2.4) No Z= 1.42 0.16 Omnivores 1.1 (1.1) 0.9 (0.7) No Z= -0.19 0.85 Top Carnivores 0.4 (0.2) 0.2 (0.1) Yes Z= -2.12 0.03 Non-indigenous 0.3 (0.4) 1.4 (1.8) No Z= 1.11 0.27 Tolerant 1.5 (1.1) 1.6(1.1) No Z=0.60 0.55 Intolerant 0.2 (0.4) 0.4 (0.3) Yes Z=2.70 0.01 Thermally sensitive 0.2 (0.3) 0.2(0.1) No Z= -0.11 0.92 Diversity indices (per run) Simpson 0.8 (0.1) 0.8 (0.1) No Z= -1.12 0.26 Shannon 8.1 (5.2) 7.4 (6.0) No t= -0.46 0.65 71 Table 12. Summary of autumn RF AI scores from sites located directly upstream and downstream of BFN and scores from sampling conducted during 1993-2013 as part of the Vital Signs monitoring program in Wheeler Reservoir. 1993-Site Location 1993 1994 1995 1997 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2013 2013 Avg. Inflow TRM348.0 46 48 42 48 36 36 40 38 42 44 42 32 38 40 40 46 40 42 Transition TRM295.9 45 43 34 40 30 41 37 43 39 43 46 41 39 42 39 43 40 46 41 BFN Upstream Transition BFN TRM292.5 43 40 41 43 43 36 42 42 45 36 38 38 40 41 Downstream Fore bay TRM277.0 52 44 48 45 42 41 45 44 43 45 44 49 46 47 40 46 43 45 Elk River ERM6.0 41 47 36 49 36 49 44 49 47 39 42 43 39 44 Embayment RF AI Scores: 12-21 ("Very Poor"), 22-31 ("Poor"), 32-40 ("Fair"), 41-50 ("Good"), or 51-60 ("Excellent") 72 Table 13. Comparison of RBI metric ratings and total scores for laboratory-processed samples collected upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Wheeler Reservoir, autumn 2013. Downstream Downstream Upstream TRM290.4 TRM293.2 TRM295.9 Metric Obs Rating Obs Rating Obs Rating 1. Average number of taxa 7.8 5 10.6 5 11 5 2. Proportion of samples with long-lived organisms 1.0 5 1.0 5 1.0 5 3. Average number of EPT taxa 1.2 3 1.8 5 1.7 5 4. Average proportion of oligochaete individuals 2.7 5 8.3 5 3.6 5 5. Average proportion of total abundance comprised by the two most abundant taxa 81.1 3 66.7 5 67.3 5 6. Average density excluding chironomids and oligochaetes 1,161.7 5 1,228.3 5 1,111.7 5 7. Zero-samples -proportion of samples containing no organisms 0 5 0 5 0 5 Benthic Index Score 31 35 35 Ecological Health Rating Excellent Excellent Excellent Reservoir Benthic Index Scores: 7-12 ("Very Poor), 13-18 ("Poor), 19-23 ("Fair), 24-29 ("Good), 30-35 ("Excellent) 73 Table 14. Metric scores and overall RBI scores determined from field processing criteria, for sites upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Wheeler Reservoir, autumn 2000-2010. Downstream -TRM 291. 7 Avg No. Taxa % Long-Lived Avg.No.EPT D/o % Dominant Density excl Zero Samples Overall tax a Oligochaetes Taxa chiro and oligo Year Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Score 2000 4 3 1 5 0.8 5 6.4 5 79.6 3 125 0 5 27 2001 5.6 5 5 1.1 5 5.7 5 43 5 230 0 5 31 2002 5.7 5 5 0.8 5 7.4 5 88.1 1 120 0 5 27 2003 6.5 5 5 5 0.3 5 76.1 5 1270 5 0 5 35 2004 6.7 5 1 5 1 5 1.4 5 74.4 5 523.3 3 0 5 33 2005 5.5 5 1 5 0.8 5 3.6 5 80.3 3 508.3 3 0 5 31 2006 6.2 5 5 0.1 5 2.3 5 77.3 5 272.3 0 5 31 2007 6.4 5 5 0.8 5 12.4 5 80.2 3 166.7 0 5 29 2008 6.3 5 0.9 5 1.1 5 7.2 5 81.5 3 181.7 0 5 29 2009 5 5 0.7 3 0.6 3 4.6 5 90.3 83.3 0 5 23 2010 4.6 5 0.7 3 0.6 3 0.3 5 94.8 126.7 1 0 5 23 Mean: 5.7 0.9 0.8 4.7 78.7 327.9 0.0 29 Maximum: 6.7 1.1 12.4 94.8 1270 0 Minimum: 4 0.7 0.1 0.3 43 83.3 0 74 Table 14. (Continued) 295.9 Avg No. Taxa % Long-Lived Avg. No. EPT % Oligochaetes %Dominant Density excl Zero Samples Overall taxa Taxa chiro and oligo Sam2Ie Year Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Score 2000 4.6 5 5 0.8 5 6.6 5 77.6 5 190 0 5 31 2001 5.3 5 1 5 5 2.7 5 79.8 3 188.3 0 5 29 2002 6.5 5 5 0.8 5 7.2 5 75.6 5 266.7 0 5 31 2003 5.1 5 0.8 5 1 5 0.8 5 84.1 3 456.7 3 0 5 31 2004 6.2 5 5 0.9 5 1.1 5 73.7 5 353.6 3 0 5 33 2005 5.6 5 5 1.2 5 2.3 5 85.4 3 490 3 0 5 31 2006 5.9 5 0.8 5 0.7 3 7 5 75 5 348.3 3 0 5 31 2007 6.5 5 0.9 5 0.9 5 1.9 5 74.2 5 353.3 3 0 5 33 2008 5.8 5 0.7 3 0.5 3 7.8 5 85.4 3 220 0 5 25 2009 5.1 5 5 0.4 3 12.2 5 75.2 5 133.3 0 5 29 2010 4.2 3 5 0.8 5 2.1 5 92 108.3 0 5 25 Mean: 5.5 0.9 0.8 4.7 79.8 282.6 0 30 Maximum: 6.5 1.2 12.2 92 490 0 Minimum: 4.2 0.7 0.4 0.8 73.7 108.3 0 75 Table 15. Metric scores and overall RBI scores determined from lab processing criteria, for sites upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Wheeler Reservoir, 2001-2006. TRM 291. 7 Avg No. Taxa % Long-Lived Avg. No.EPT O/o % Dominant Density excl Zero Samples Overall tax a Oligochaetes Taxa chiro and oligo Samele Year Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Score 2001 7.8 5 1 5 1.1 3 7.6 5 71.7 5 315 3 0 5 31 2002 5.4 3 1 5 0.9 3 10.9 5 88.2 106.7 0 5 23 2003 7.3 5 1 5 3 0.4 5 73.2 5 1270 5 0 5 33 2004 7.9 5 1 5 1 3 1.6 5 73.5 5 551.7 3 0 5 31 2006 9.4 5 5 1.6 5 2.3 5 78.1 3 448.2 3 0 5 31 Mean: 7.56 1.12 4.56 76.94 538.32 0 30 Maximum: 9.4 1 1.6 10.9 88.2 1270 0 Minimum: 5.4 0.9 0.4 71.7 106.7 0 Uestream -TRM 295.9 Avg No. Taxa % Long-Lived Avg.No.EPT % % Dominant Density excl Zero Samples Overall tax a Oligochaetes Taxa chiro and oligo Score Samele Year Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score 2001 7.4 5 5 1 3 6.9 5 75.6 5 281.7 0 5 29 2002 6.8 5 5 1.1 3 5 5 74.1 5 281.7 0 5 29 2003 6.3 3 5 0.9 3 0.6 5 82.2 3 583.3 3 0 5 27 2004 6.2 3 5 0.8 3 1.1 5 72.2 5 336.2 3 0 5 29 2006 9.2 5 0.8 3 1.2 3 5.1 5 78.6 3 1273.3 5 0 5 29 2011 8.4 5 0.7 3 3 6.3 5 81.1 3 430 3 0 5 27 Mean: 7.4 0.9 1.0 4.2 77.3 531.0 0 28 Maximum: 9.2 1.2 6.9 82.2 1273.3 0 Minimum: 6.2 0.7 0.8 0.6 72.2 281.7 0 76 Table 16a. Mean density per square meter of benthic taxa collected upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, autumn 2013. All taxa listed contributed to individual RBI metrics and total scores. BFN BFN BFN Downstream Downstream Upstream Taxa TRM290.4 TRM293.2 TRM295.9 ANNELIDA Hirudinea Rhynchobdellida Glossiphoniidae Actinobdella sp. 2 Actinobdella inequiannulata 2 Helobdella elongata 2 Helobdella stagnalis 7 8 8 Oligochaeta Haplotaxida Naididae 2 Tubificinae 30 78 20 Branchiura sowerbyi 3 7 5 Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri 5 7 18 ARTHROPODA Crustacea Malacostraca Amphipoda Corophiidae Apocorophium lacustre 167 38 282 Gammaridae Gammarus sp. 2 5 Hexapoda Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Dubiraphia sp. 2 Diptera Ceratopogonidae 2 Chironomidae Orthocladiinae Chironominae 2 Axarussp. 5 32 45 Chironomus sp. 43 28 70 Cryptochironomus sp. 7 5 77 Table 16a. (Continued). BFN BFN BFN Downstream Downstream Upstream TRM Taxa TRM290.4 TRM293.2 295.9 Dicrotendipes neomodestus 7 Glyptotendipes sp. 3 Harnischia sp. 2 Microchironomus sp. 2 Polypedilum halterale gp. 3 2 Stempellina sp. 2 Xenochironomus xenolabis 5 Epoicocladius jlavens 2 Thienemanniella lobapodema 2 Tanypodinae Ablabesmyia annulata 33 13 32 Ablabesmyia mallochi 2 Coelotanypus sp. 97 263 145 Paramerina sp. 30 Procladius sp. 2 7 Ephemeroptera Ephemeridae Hexagenia sp. <lOmm 262 230 163 Hexageniasp. >lOmm 262 213 100 Trichoptera Leptoceridae 2 Oecetis sp. 2 37 28 Polycentropodidae Cyrnellus fraternus 18 32 MOLLUSCA Gastropoda Architaenioglossa Viviparidae Campeloma decisum 2 2 Lioplax sulculosa 3 3 Viviparus sp. 5 3 12 N eotaenioglossa Hydrobiidae Amnicola limosa 5 113 53 Somatogyrus sp. 3 2 Pleuroceridae Pleurocera canaliculata 3 78 Table 16a. (Continued). BFN BFN BFN Downstream Downstream Upstream TRM Taxa TRM290.4 TRM293.2 295.9 Bivalvia Veneroida Corbiculidae Corbiculafluminea <lOmm 263 312 278 Corbiculafluminea > lOmm 3 40 Sphaeriidae Eupera cubensis 5 Musculium transversum 158 233 85 Pisidium compressum 2 Unionidae Truncilla donaciformis 3 Utterbackia imbecillis 2 22 3 PLATYHELMINTHES Turbellaria Tricladida Planariidae Dug_esia tiwina 3 2 5 Number of samples 10 10 10 Mean-Density per meter2 1,380 1,703 1,482 Taxa Richness 21 29 34 Sum of area {meter} 0.6 0.6 0.6 79 Table 16b. Mean density per square meter of benthic taxa collected but not included in individual RBI metrics or total scores for sites upstream and downstream of BFN, autumn 2013. BFN BFN BFN Downstream Downstream Upstream Taxa TRM290.4 TRM293.2 TRM295.9 ARTHROPODA Crustacea Branchiopoda Cladocera Sididae Diaphanosoma sp. 7 Sida crystallina 5 Maxillopoda Cyclopoida Cyclopidae Macrocyclops albidus 5 5 Mesocyclops edax 7 2 Ostracoda Candoniidae Candonasp. 20 27 3 Hexapoda Insecta Diptera Chaoboridae Chaoborus punctipennis 5 10 Chelicerata Arachnida Acariformes Arrenuridae Arrenurus sp. 3 Unionicolidae Unionicola sp. 2 2 3 CNIDARIA Medusozoa Hydrozoa Hydridae Hy__dras12.. 8 3 5 Number of samples 10 10 10 Mean-Density per meter2 40 57 25 Taxa Richness 5 8 6 Sum of area (meter2) 0.6 0.6 0.6 80 Table 17. RBI scores from sites directly upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant and from sites sampled as part of the Vital Signs monitoring program on Wheeler Reservoir. LT A-Long term average. Site Location 1994 1995 1997 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2013 LTA Inflow *TRM 347 31 21 25 23 21 25 31 31 31 33 33 31 27 31 28 BFN Upstream TRM295.9 33 25 31 31 31 29 31 31 33 31 31 33 25 29 25 27 35 30 (Transition) BFN Downstream TRM291.7 27 31 27 35 33 31 31 29 29 23 23 29 (Transition) BFN Downstream TRM293.2 23 35 NIA (Transition) BFN Downstream TRM290.4 21 31 NIA (Transition) Forebay *TRM277 19 15 23 17 17 15 15 19 15 13 13 15 13 13 17 13 Embayment *ERM6 15 13 15 15 15 15 17 13 13 13 13 13 Reservoir Benthic Index Scores: 7-12 ("Very Poor"), 13-18 ("Poor"}, 19-23 ("Fair), 24-29 ("Good), 30-35 ("Excellent) * = sites with field-processed scores all years. All other sites, 1994 -2010 are field-processed scores and 2011 forward are lab-processed scores. 81 Table 18. Wildlife observed along 2100 m transects parallel to the Tennessee River shoreline, upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, October 2013. Site Birds Obs. Obs. Mammals Obs. TRM 295.9 (US) RDB Blue Jay 5 Map Turtle 37 Eastern Grey Squirrel 2 Great Blue Heron 6 Carolina Chickadee Belted Kingfisher 4 American Crow American Robin Unidentified Songbird I Double-crested Cormorant 2 Brown Thrasher Mockingbird I Mallard 2 LDB Ring-billed Gull I Map Turtle 26 Common Snipe I Turkey Vulture 2 Unidenti tied Songbird 8 Great Blue Heron 2 Mallard 12 Belted Kingfisher I Pileated Woodpecker Killdeer 2 TRM 292.5 (DS) RDB Blue Jay 5 Map Turtle 2 American Robin 2 Downy Woodpecker 2 American Crow I Belted Kingfisher 3 Turkey Vulture 2 American Coot 4 Great Blue Heron 2 Nuthatch Mallard 2 European Starling 10 Unidentified Songbird 2 LDB Belted Kingfisher 2 Map Turtle 69 Great Blue Heron 4 Pied-billed Grebe 2 Least Flycatcher I Unidentified Songbird 3 Blue Jay I Mockingbird 2 RDB -right descending bank; LDB -left descending bank 82 Table 19. Water temperature (°F) depth profiles collected to determine the extent of the thermal plume from BFN during 2013. Transect and Profile Location (width from right descending bank) October 2013 Below Discharge-TRM Ambient-TRM 294.4 BFN Discharge-TRM 294.0 293.8 Mid-plume TRM 291.8 End of Plume-TRM 289.9 Depth (m) 10% 30% 50% 70% 90% 10% 30% 50% 70% 90% 10% 30% 50% 70% 90% 10% 30% 50% 70% 90% 10% 30% 50% 70% 90 % 0.3 74.9 74.1 74.2 74.1 73.8 83.9 82.0 74.0 74.7 74.8 80.2 79.9 79.9 74.0 74.9 77.5 76.6 75.4 75.6 76.4 77.0 76.6 76.5 76.7 76.8 1.5 74.8 74.1 74.2 74.1 73.7 83.2 79.5 74.1 74.7 74.8 81.9 79.8 79.8 74.0 74.8 77.5 76.6 75.4 75.5 76.4 76.8 76.5 76.4 76.7 76.7 2 77.8 3 74.8 74.1 74.2 74.0 74.6 76.3 74.1 74.7 80.8 79.6 74.0 77.5 76.6 75.4 75.5 76.3 76.7 76.5 76.3 76.6 76.3 4 76.5 5 74.1 74.2 74.5 80.2 79.3 75.4 76.2 6 74.5 75.3 7 74.1 73.6 78.7 9 74.1 76.3 Shaded numbers represent temperatures 3.6°F (2°C) or greater above ambient temperature. 83 Table 20. Water quality parameters collected along vertical depth profiles at three transects within the RFAI sample areas upstream and downstream of BFN during 2013. October, 2013 LDB Mid-channel RDB TRM 295.9 oc OF Cond DO oc OF Cond DO oc OF Cond DO Upstream 0.3 22.84 73.11 7.38 173.6 6.92 0.3 22.50 72.50 7.52 167.1 7.89 0.3 22.72 72.90 7.78 162.6 7.98 Boundary 1.5 22.85 73.13 7.38 173.3 6.92 1.5 22.49 72.48 7.50 166.7 7.86 1.5 22.72 72.90 7.76 162.6 7.97 2.5 22.77 72.99 7.38 173.3 6.89 3 22.50 72.50 7.48 166.4 7.85 3 22.61 72.70 7.73 161.9 7.83 Mid-site 0.3 22.45 72.41 7.79 177.7 7.60 0.3 22.94 73.29 7.40 167.0 6.87 0.3 22.94 73.29 7.82 162.3 7.69 1.5 22.47 72.45 7.79 178.1 7.59 1.5 22.89 73.20 7.39 167.2 6.92 1.5 22.92 73.26 7.81 162.2 7.71 3 22.91 73.24 7.79 162.5 7.66 Downstream 0.3 22.15 71.87 7.52 170.4 7.15 0.3 25.77 78.39 7.61 165.7 7.44 0.3 25.16 77.29 7.70 164.4 7.60 Boundary 1.5 23.49 74.28 7.46 166.5 7.07 1.5 23.44 74.19 7.76 162.5 7.64 3 23.14 73.65 7.45 166.7 7.03 3 23.04 73.47 7.80 162.1 7.76 5 23.05 73.49 7.43 167.6 6.99 7 22.97 73.35 7.41 168.0 6.97 TRM 292.5 oc OF Cond DO oc Of Cond DO oc Of Cond DO Upstream 0.3 23.77 74.79 7.79 171.9 7.83 0.3 23.38 74.08 7.46 169.1 6.98 0.3 28.85 83.93 7.82 166.4 7.82 Boundary I 23.76 74.77 7.75 171.9 7.82 1.5 23.38 74.08 7.47 168.4 6.95 1.5 28.46 83.23 7.80 166.1 7.74 3 23.34 74.01 7.40 168.0 6.83 3 23.66 74.59 7.89 164.0 8.12 5 23.6 74.48 7.82 164.5 8.00 6 23.6 74.48 7.83 164.6 8.02 Mid-site 0.3 24.66 76.39 7.60 167.1 7.17 0.3 24.12 75.42 7.62 167.8 7.63 0.3 25.27 77.49 7.90 164.7 8.02 1.5 24.65 76.37 7.61 166.8 7.19 1.5 24.10 75.38 7.62 167.7 7.34 1.5 25.27 77.49 7.91 165.0 8.03 3 24.59 76.26 7.64 166.7 7.20 3 24.JO 75.38 7.62 167.3 7.33 3 25.27 77.49 7.88 165 7.99 5 24.10 75.38 7.62 168.0 7.36 6 24.07 75.33 7.62 169.0 7.35 Downstream 0.3 24.90 76.82 7.72 166.2 7.59 0.3 24.74 76.53 7.70 164.3 7.66 0.3 24.98 76.96 7.81 165.2 7.80 Boundary 1.5 24.85 76.73 7.59 165.5 6.92 1.5 24.69 76.44 7.69 164.3 7.63 1.5 24.91 76.84 7.80 165.4 7.80 3 24.62 76.32 7.52 165.7 6.54 3 24.63 76.33 7.66 164.7 7.56 3 24.85 76.73 7.82 165.2 7.87 5 24.53 76.15 7.62 163.8 7.37 Abbreviations: °C -Temperature in degrees Celsius, °F -Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit, Cond -Conductivity, DO -Dissolved Oxygen 84 ATTACHMENT 12 Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River Near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2015.

Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge Autumn 2015 March 2016 Tennessee Valley Authority River and Reservoir Compliance Monitoring Program Knoxville, Tennessee Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................. i List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ iii List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. v Acronyms and Abbreviations ....................................................................................................... vii Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 2 Plant Description ......................................................................................................................... 3 Methods ........................................................................................................................................... 3 Evaluation of Plant Operating Conditions ................................................................................... 3 Aquatic Habitat in the Vicinity of BFN ...................................................................................... 4 Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Assessment ................................................................................... 4 River Bottom Habitat .............................................................................................................. 5 Fish Community Sampling Methods and Data Analysis for Sites Upstream and Downstream of BFN ............................................................................................................................................. 5 Statistical Analyses ................................................................................................................ 12 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Sampling Methods and Data Analysis for Sites Upstream and Downstream of BFN .......................................................................................... 13 Visual Encounter Survey (Wildlife Observations) .................................................................... 16 Wheeler Reservoir Flow and BFN Temperature ....................................................................... 17 Thermal Plume Characterization ............................................................................................... 18 Water Quality Parameters at Fish Sampling Sites during RF AI Samples ................................. 19 Results and Discussion ................................................................................................................. 19 Evaluation of Plant Operating Conditions ................................................................................. 19 Aquatic Habitat in the Vicinity of BFN .................................................................................... 20 Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Assessment ................................................................................. 20 River Bottom Habitat ............................................................................................................ 21 Fish Community ........................................................................................................................ 21 Statistical Analyses .................................................................................................................... 28 Fish Community Summary ........................................................................................................ 28 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community .................................................................................... 31 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Summary .................................................................... 33 Visual Encounter Survey (Wildlife Observations) .................................................................... 34 Wheeler Reservoir Flow and BFN Water Temperature ............................................................ 35 Thermal Plume Characterization ............................................................................................... 36 Water Quality Parameters at Fish Sampling Sites during RFAI Samples ................................. 36 Literature Cited ......................................................................... : ......................................... -.......... 38 Figures ........................................................................................................................................... 40 Tables ............................................................................................................................................ 60 11 List of Figures Figure 1. Location of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant on Wheeler Reservoir. ................................ 41 Figure 2. Location of Condenser Cooling Water (CCW) intake and discharge at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. ...................................................................................................................... 42 Figure 3. Locations of transects used to characterize shoreline and river bottom habitat upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, and water depths within the two sample reaches ................................................................................................................................. 43 Figure 4. Locations ofbiomonitoring sites upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. ............... 44 Figure 5. Locations ofbiomonitoring sites downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. .......... 45 Figure 6. Locations of water temperature monitoring stations used to compare water temperatures upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) intake and downstream of BFN discharge ..................................................................................................................... 46 Figure 7. Megawatts generated, water temperatures of the intake and discharge and flow through the condenser cooling water (CCW) system at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant during 2015. 47 Figure 8. Megawatts generated, water temperatures of the intake and discharge and flow through the condenser cooling water (CCW) system at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant during the five years prior to the survey (2010-2014) ................................................................................. 48 Figure 9. Composition of substrate samples collected at ten points equally spaced along each of transects 1and2 upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. ............................................... 49 Figure 10. Composition of substrate samples collected at ten points equally spaced along each of transects 3 and 4 upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. ............................................... 50 Figure 11. Composition of substrate samples collected at ten points equally spaced along each of transects 5 and 6 upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. ............................................... 51 Figure 12. Composition of substrate samples collected at ten points equally spaced along each of transects 7 and 8 upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. ............................................... 52 Figure 13. Composition of substrate samples collected at ten points equally spaced along each of transects 1 and 2 downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. .......................................... 53 Figure 14. Composition of substrate samples collected at ten points equally spaced along each of transects 3 and 4 downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. .......................................... 54 Figure 15. Composition of substrate samples collected at ten points equally spaced along each of transects 5 and 6 downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. .......................................... 5 5 Figure 16. Composition of substrate samples collected at ten points equally spaced along each of transects 7 and 8 downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. .......................................... 56 Figure 17. Comparison of observed values for the Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index metric "Number of Indigenous Species", over 14 years of autumn sampling at the sites upstream (TRM 295.9) and downstream (TRM 292.5) of Brown's Ferry Nuclear Plant. .................. 57 Figure 18. Daily mean flows from Guntersville Dam during 2015, and historic daily flows for 111 the same period averaged from 1976 to 2014 .................................................................... 58 Figure 19. Daily water temperatures averaged over depth (3, 5, and 7 feet) upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) intake and downstream ofBFN discharge during 2015 .......... 59 IV List of Tables Table 1. Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Index (SAHI) metrics and scoring criteria .......................... 61 Table 2. Expected trophic guild proportions* and expected numbers of species* in lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoir transition zones, compared to values observed during 2013 monitoring at BFN ............. : ....................................................................................... 62 Table 3. RFAI scoring criteria (2002) for inflow, transition, and forebay sections of lower mainstem reservoirs* in the Tennessee River system ......................................... ................ 63 Table 4. Scoring criteria for laboratory-processed benthic macroinvertebrate community samples from inflow, transition, and forebay zones ofmainstem Tennessee River reservoirs ............................................................................................................................. 64 Table 5. Intake and discharge water temperatures (°F), megawatts generated, and flow* (mgd) of the condenser circulating water ( CCW) system at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant during 2015 ..................................................................................................................................... 65 Table 6. SAHI scores for shoreline habitat assessments conducted within the RF AI sample reach upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear plant, autumn 2015 ..................................................... 67 Table 7. SAHI scores for shoreline habitat assessments conducted within the RF AI sample reach downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear plant, autumn 2015 ................................................ 68 Table 8. Substrate percentages and average water depth (ft) per transect upstream and downstream ofBFN, autumn 2015 ............... * ...................................................................... 69 Table 9. Individual metric scores and the overall RFAI scores upstream (TRM 295.9) and downstream (TRM 292.5) of Browns Ferry Nuclear plant during 2015 ............................ 70 Table 10. Species collected, ecological and recreational designation and corresponding electrofishing (EF) and gill net (GN) catch per unit effort upstream (TRM 295.9) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant discharge-Autumn 2015 ..................................................... 74 Table 11. Species collected, ecological and recreational designation and corresponding electrofishing (EF) and gill net (GN) catch per unit effort downstream (TRM 292.5) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant discharge -Autumn 2015 ..................................................... 76 Table 12. Spatial statistical comparisons of numbers of species, mean electrofishing catch per unit effort values (number/run), tolerance designations, trophic levels, and non-indigenous individuals, including species richness and Simpson and Shannon diversity values, for samples collected near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, autumn 2015 .................................... 78 Table 13. Summary of autumn RF AI scores from sites located directly upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant and scores from sampling conducted during 1993-2015 as part of the Vital Signs monitoring program in Wheeler Reservoir .............. 79 Table 14. Comparison of RBI metric ratings and total scores for laboratory-processed samples collected upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Wheeler Reservoir, autumn 2015_ ........................................................................................................................ 80 Table 15. Metric scores and overall RBI scores determined from field processing criteria, for sites upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Wheeler Reservoir, v autumn 2000-2010 ....................................... ....................................................................... 81 Table 16. Metric scores and overall RBI scores determined from lab processing criteria, for sites upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Wheeler Reservoir, 2001-2006 . ........................................................................................................................................... ;. 83 Table 17a. Mean density per square meter ofbenthic-taxa collected upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, autumn 2015. All taxa listed contributed to individual RBI metrics and total scores ....................................................................................................... 84 Table 17b. Mean density per square meter of other benthic taxa collected but not included in individual RBI metrics or total scores for sites upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, autumn 2015 ................................................................................................ 87 Table 18. Comparison of2015 RBI scores with LTA scores from sites directly upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant and from sites sampled as part of the Vital Signs monitoring program on Wheeler Reservoir. LTA-Long term average, 1994 -2013 . ............................................................................................................................................. 89 Table 19. Wildlife observed during surveys conducted upstream and downstream of TV A's Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, November 2015 .................................................................... 90 Table 20. Wildlife observed during visual surveys conducted upstream and downstream of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, 2011 through 2015 ..................................................................... 91 Table 21. Depth profiles of water temperature (°F) collected to determine the extent of the thermal plume discharged from TV A's Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant during 2015 ............ 93 Table 22. Water quality parameters collected along vertical depth profiles at three transects within the RF AI sample reaches upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant during 2015 ......................................................................................................................... 94 vi ATL BIP BFN ccw CWA NP DES QA RBI RFAI RIS SAHi TRM TVA vs Acronyms and Abbreviations Alternate Thermal Limit Balanced Indigenous Community Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant Condenser Cooling Water Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Quality Assurance Reservoir Benthic Macroinvertebrate Index Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index Representative Important Species Shoreline Assessment Habitat Index Tennessee River Mile Tennessee Valley Authority Vital Signs Vll Executive Summary In 2015, samples of the ecological community upstream and downstream of Brown's Ferry Nuclear Plant were collected, analyzed, and compared to historical data to determine the effects, if any, of the thermal effluent from the plant, in compliance with §316(a) of the Clean Water Act. Shoreline aquatic habitat assessed along both banks received an average rating of "Fair". Assessment of river bottom habitat indicated three dominant substrates upstream: silt, mollusk shell, and clay. Downstream, silt, mollusk shell, and sand were most prominent. The fish communities upstream and downstream ofBFN were analyzed and compared using RF AI methodology. Both communities supported similar numbers of indigenous species; higher diversity evident in the upstream community was due primarily to the presence of hybrids and of non-indigenous species. Due to large collections of two schooling species, the downstream community exhibited greater dominance by a single species, higher percentages of omnivores and of pollution tolerant fishes than that upstream. However, there is no evidence indicating that these differences were due to thermal effluent from BFN. Benthic communities in 2015 for both downstream sites, at TRM 293 .2 within the thermal plume from BFN discharge, and at TRM 290.4 downstream of the thermal plume, were considered similar to the upstream benthic community. All three sites received RBI ratings of "Excellent". A visual wildlife survey was conducted to assess bird, reptile, and mammal populations around BFN. Turtles and a variety of birds were encountered at both locations. Water quality analysis indicated that daily mean flow past BFN was generally similar to historic flows in 2015, and that daily mean temperatures were similar upstream and downstream of the plant. Depth profiles of, conductivity, dissolved oxygen concentration, and acidity (pH) indicated that values of all these parameters were within acceptable levels both upstream and downstream of BFN. Profiles of water temperature indicated some recirculation of thermal effluent from BFN upstream of the discharge along the right descending bank. 1 Introduction Section 316(a) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) authorizes alternate thermal limits (ATL) for the control of the thermal component of a point source discharge so long as the limits will assure the protection of Balanced Indigenous Populations (BIP) of aquatic life. The term "balanced indigenous population," as defined by Environmental Protection Agency regulations, describes a biotic community that is typically characterized by: (1) diversity appropriate to the ecoregion; (2) the capacity to sustain itself through cyclic seasonal changes; (3) the presence of necessary food chain species; and ( 4) the lack of domination by pollution-tolerant species. Prior to 2000, the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) was operating under an A TL that had been continued with each permit renewal based on studies conducted in the mid-l 970s. In 1999, EPA Region IV began requesting additional data in conjunction with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit renewal applications to verify that BIP was being maintained at TV A's thermal plants with ATLs. TVA proposed that its existing Vital Signs (VS) monitoring program, supplemented with additional fish and benthic macroinvertebrate community monitoring upstream and downstream of thermal plants with A TLs, was appropriate for that purpose. The VS monitoring program began in 1990 in the Tennessee River System. This program was implemented to evaluate ecological health conditions in major reservoirs as part ofTVA's stewardship role. One of the 5 indicators used in the VS program to evaluate reservoir health is the Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index (RF AI) methodology which incorporates fish species richness and composition, trophic composition, and fish abundance and health. RF AI has been thoroughly tested on TV A and other reservoirs and published in peer-reviewed literature (Jennings, et al., 1995; Hickman and McDonough, 1996; McDonough and Hickman, 1999). Fish communities are used to evaluate ecological conditions because of their importance in the aquatic food web and because fish life cycles are long enough to integrate conditions over time. Benthic macroinvertebrate populations are assessed using the Reservoir Benthic Index (RBI) methodology. Because benthic macroinvertebrates are relatively 2 immobile, negative impacts to aquatic ecosystems can be detected earlier in benthic macroinvertebrate communities than in fish communities. These data are used to supplement RF AI results to provide a more thorough examination of differences in aquatic communities upstream and downstream of thermal discharges. During 2000 through 2010, TV A initiated a study to evaluate fish and benthic macroinvertebrate communities in areas immediately upstream and downstream of BFN using RF AI and RBI multi-metric evaluation techniques. The study was broadened in 2011 to include additional data for analyses (i.e., shoreline wildlife observations) requested by the EPA. Reported here are the results of biological monitoring and water quality data collected upstream and downstream of BFN during 2015, with appropriate comparisons to data collected at these sites during previous autumn samples. Plant Description BFN is a three-unit nuclear-fueled facility with a total generating capacity of 3,300 megawatts. Unit One, which remained idle for several years, returned to service June 2007. BFN is located on Wheeler Reservoir, approximately 18 miles upstream of Wheeler Dam at Tennessee River Mile (TRM) 294 in Limestone County, Alabama (Figure 1 ). Current operation utilizes a through condenser cooling water (CCW) system, withdrawing water from the Tennessee River through an intake structure at TRM 294.3 and discharging the water through a submerged port diffuser located at TRM 294.0 (Figure 2). Maximum flow rate of the CCW is approximately 3,468 million gallons per day. Methods Evaluation of Plant Operating Conditions Data describing the operation of BFN during the course of biological monitoring-specifically daily averages of power generation, water temperatures at the cooling water system intake and discharge, the intake flow of cooling water and the discharge flow returned to the river-were 3 collected, compiled, analyzed and compared to available historical operational data to assist in the interpretation of thermal plume characteristics and biological community information. Aquatic Habitat in the Vicinity of BFN Shoreline and river bottom habitat data presented in this report were collected during autumn 2015. TVA assumes habitat data to be valid for five years, barring any major changes to the river/reservoir (e.g. major flood event). In the event of a major change to the river/reservoir, habitat would be re-evaluated during the following sample period. Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Assessment An integrative multi-metric index (Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Index or SAHi), including several habitat parameters important to resident fish species, was used to measure existing fish habitat quality in the vicinity ofBFN. Using the general format developed by Plafkin et al. (1989), seven metrics were established to characterize selected physical habitat attributes important to reservoir resident fish populations which rely heavily on the littoral (shoreline) zone for reproductive success, juvenile development, and adult feeding (Table 1 ). Habitat Suitability Indices (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), along with other sources of information on biology and habitat requirements (Etnier and Starnes 1993), were consulted to develop "reference" criteria or "expected" conditions from a high quality environment for each parameter. Some generalizations were necessary in setting up scoring criteria to cover the various requirements of all species within a single index. When possible, the quality of shoreline aquatic habitat was assessed while traveling parallel to the shoreline in a boat and evaluating the habitat within 10 vertical feet of full pool. Transects were established across the width of Wheeler Reservoir within the fish community sampling reaches upstream and downstream ofBFN (Figure 3). At each transect, near-shore aquatic habitat was assessed along sections of shoreline corresponding to the left descending bank (LDB) and right descending bank (RDB). For each shoreline section (16 upstream and 16 downstream of BFN), percentages of aquatic macrophytes in the littoral areas were estimated, then each section was scored by comparing the observed conditions associated with each 4 individual metric to the "reference" conditions and assigning the metric a corresponding value: "Good" -5; "Fair" -3; or "Poor" -1 (Table 1). The scores for each of the seven metrics were summed to obtain the SAHi value for the shoreline section, and this value was assigned a habitat quality descriptor based on trisecting the range of potential SAHi values ("Poor", 7-16; "Fair", 17-26; and "Good", 27-35). River Bottom Habitat Along each transect described above, a b'enthic grab sample was collected with a Ponar sampler at each often points equally spaced from the LDB to the RDB. Substrate material collected with the Ponar was emptied into a screen, and percent composition of each substrate was estimated to determine existing benthic habitat across the width of the river. Water depths (feet) at each sample location were recorded (Figure 3). If no substrate was collected after multiple Ponar drops, it was assumed that the substrate was bedrock. For example, when the Ponar sampler was pulled shut, collectors could feel substrate consistency. If it shut easily and was not embedded in the substrate on numerous drops within the same location, the substrate was recorded as bedrock. Fish Community Sampling Methods and Data Analysis for Sites Upstream and Downstream of BFN Thermal discharge from BFN enters Wheeler Reservoir (Tennessee River) at TRM 294.0 (Figure 2). To evaluate the fish community in the vicinity ofBFN, two sample sites were selected. One site was centered at TRM 295.9, upstream of the plant's intake (Figure 4), and served as a reference site unaffected by the thermal discharge. The second site was centered at TRM 292.5, downstream of the cooling water discharge (Figure 5). Fish sampling methods included boat electrofishing and gill netting (Hubert 1996; Reynolds 1996). Electrofishing methodology consisted of fifteen boat electrofishing runs near the shoreline, each 300 meters long and of approximately 10 minutes duration. The total near-shore area sampled was approximately 4,500 meters (15,000 feet). 5 Experimental gill nets (so called because of their use for research as opposed to commercial fishing) were used as an additional gear type to collect fish from deeper habitats not effectively sampled by electrofishing. Each experimental gill net consists of five 6.1 meter panels for a total length of30.5 meters (100.1 feet).* The distinguishing characteristic of experimental gill nets is mesh size that varies between panels. For this application, each net has panels with mesh sizes of2.5, 5.1, 7.6, 10.2, and 12.7 cm. Experimental gill nets are typically set perpendicular to river flow, extending from near-shore to the main channel of the reservoir. Ten overnight experimental gill net sets were used at each sample site. Fish collected were identified by species, counted, and examined for anomalies (such as disease, deformations, parasites or hybridization). The resulting data were analyzed using RF AI methodology. The RF AI uses 12 fish community metrics from four general categories: Species Richness and Composition; Trophic Composition; Abundance; and Fish Health. Individual species can be utilized for more than one metric, though hybrid species and non-indigenous species are excluded from metrics counting numbers of individual species. Together, these 12 metrics provide a balanced evaluation of fish community integrity. The individual metrics are shown below, grouped by category: Species Richness and Composition (1) Total number of species -Greater numbers of species are considered representative of healthier aquatic ecosystems. As conditions degrade, numbers of species at an area decline. (2) Number of centrarchid species -Sunfish species (excluding black basses) are invertivores and a high diversity of this group is indicative of reduced siltation and suitable sediment quality in littoral areas. 6 (3) Number of benthic invertivore species-Due to the special dietary requirements of this species group and the limitations of their food source in degraded environments, numbers of benthic invertivore species increase with better environmental quality. ( 4) Number of intolerant species -A group made up of species that are particularly intolerant of physical, chemical, and thermal habitat degradation. Higher numbers of intolerant species suggest the presence of fewer environmental stressors. (5) Percentage of tolerant individuals (excluding young-of-year) -An increased proportion of individuals tolerant of degraded conditions signifies poorer water quality. (6) Percent dominance by one species -Ecological quality is considered reduced if one species inordinately dominates the resident fish community. (7) Percentage of non-indigenous species -Based on the assumption that indigenous species reduce the quality of resident fish communities. (8) Number of top carnivore species -Higher diversity ofpiscivores is indicative of the availability of diverse and plentiful forage species and the presence of suitable habitat. Trophic Composition (9) Percent top carnivores -A measure ofthe functional aspect of top carnivores which feed on major planktivore populations. (10) Percent omnivores -Omnivores are less sensitive to environmental stresses due to their ability to vary their diets. As trophic links are disrupted due to 7 Abundance degraded conditions, specialist species such as insectivores decline while opportunistic omnivorous species increase in relative abundance. (11) Average number per run (number of individuals)-Based on the assumption that high quality fish assemblages support large numbers of individuals. Fish Health (12) Percent anomalies -Incidence of diseases, lesions, tumors, external parasites, deformities, blindness, and natural hybridization is noted for all fish collected, with higher incidence indicating less favorable environmental conditions. RF AI methodology addresses all four attributes or characteristics of a "balanced indigenous population" (BIP), defined by the CW A as described below: (1) A biotic community characterized by diversity appropriate to the ecoregion: Diversity is addressed by the metrics in the Species Richness and Composition category, especially metric 1 -Number of species." Determination of reference conditions based on the transition zones oflower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs (as described below) ensures appropriate species expectations for the ecoregion. (2) The capacity for the community to sustain itself through cyclic seasonal change: TV A uses an autumn data collection period for biological indicators, both VS and upstream/downstream monitoring. Autumn monitoring is used to document community condition or health after being subjected to the wide variety of stressors throughout the year. One of the main benefits of using biological indicators is their ability to integrate stressors through time. Examining the condition or health of a community at the end of the "biological year" (i.e., autumn) provides insights into how well the community has dealt with the stresses through an annual seasonal cycle. Likewise, evaluation of the condition of individuals in the 8 community (in this case, individual fish as reflected in Metric 12) provides insights into how well the community can be expected to withstand stressors through winter. Further, multiple sampling years during the permit renewal cycle add to the evidence of whether the autumn monitoring approach has correctly demonstrated the ability of the community to sustain itself through repeated seasonal changes. (3) The presence of necessary food chain species: Integrity of the food chain is measured by the Trophic Composition metrics, with support from the Abundance metric and Species Richness and Composition metrics. A healthy fish community is comprised of species that utilize complex feeding mechanisms extending into multiple levels of the aquatic food web. Three dominant fish trophic levels exist within Tennessee River reservoirs: insectivores, omnivores, and top carnivores. To determine the presence of necessary food chain species, these three groups should be well represented within the overall fish community. Other fish trophic levels include benthic invertivores, planktivores, herbivores, and parasitic species. Insectivores include most sunfish, minnows, and silversides. Omnivores include gizzard shad, common carp, carpsuckers, buffalo, and channel and blue catfish. Top carnivores include bass, gar, skipjack herring, crappie, flathead catfish, sauger, and walleye. Benthic invertivores include freshwater drum, suckers, and darters. Planktivores include alewife, threadfin shad, and paddlefish. Herbivores include largescale stonerollers. Lampreys in the genus Jchthyomyzon are the only parasitic species occurring in Tennessee River reservoirs. To establish expected proportions of each trophic guild and' che expected number of species included in each guild occurring in transition zones in lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs (Kentucky, Pickwick, Wilson, Wheeler, and Guntersville reservoirs), data collected from 1993 to 2010 were analyzed for each reservoir zone (inflow, transition, forebay). Samples collected in the downstream vicinity of thermal discharges were not included in this analysis so that accurate expectations could be calculated with the assumption that these data represent what should occur in lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs absent from point source effects (i.e. power plant discharges). Data from 900 electrofishing runs (a total of 405,000 meters of shoreline sampled) and from 600 overnight experimental gill net sets were included in this analysis for transition areas in lower 9 mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs. From these data, the range of proportional values for each trophic level and the range of the number of species included in each trophic level were trisected. These trisections were intended to show less than expected, expected, and above expected values for trophic level proportions and species occurring within each reservoir zone in lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs. The data were also averaged and bound by confidence intervals (95%) to further evaluate expectations for proportions of each trophic level and the number of species representing each trophic level (Table 2). (4) A lack of domination by pollution-tolerant species: Domination by pollution-tolerant species is determined by metrics 3 ("Number of benthic invertivore species"), 4 ("Number of intolerant species"), 5 ("Percent tolerant individuals"), 6 ("Percent dominance by one species"), and 10 ("Percent omnivores"). Scoring categories are based on "expected" fish community characteristics in the absence of human-induced impacts other than impoundment of the reservoir. These categories were developed from historical fish assemblage data representative of transition zones from lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs (Hickman and McDonough, 1996). Attained values for each of the 12 metrics were compared to the scoring criteria and assigned scores to represent relative degrees of degradation: least degraded (5); intermediately degraded (3); and most degraded (1). Scoring criteria for lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs are shown in Table 3. If a metric was calculated as a percentage (e.g., "Percent tolerant individuals"), the data from electrofishing and gill netting were scored separately and allotted half the total score for that individual metric. Individual metric scores for a sampling area (i.e., upstream or downstream) were summed to obtain the RF AI score for the area. TV A uses RF AI results to determine maintenance of BIP using two approaches. One is "absolute" in that it compares the RF AI scores and individual metrics to predetermined values. The other is "relative" in that it compares RF AI scores attained downstream to the upstream control site. The "absolute" approach is based on Jennings et al. (1995) who suggested that 10 favorable comparisons of the RFAI score attained from the potential impact zone to a predetermined criterion can be used to identify the presence of normal community structure and function and hence existence ofBIP. For multi-metric indices, TVA uses two criteria to ensure a conservative screening ofBIP. First, if an RFAI score reaches 70% of the highest attainable score of 60 (adjusted upward to include sample variability as described below), and second, if fewer than half of RF AI metrics receive a low (1) or moderate (3) score, then community structure and function are considered normal, indicating that BIP had been maintained and further evaluation would be needed. RFAI scores range from 12 to 60. Ecological health ratings (12-21 "Very Poor", 22-31 "Poor, 32-40 "Fair, 41-50 "Good", or 51-60 "Excellent") are then applied to scores. As discussed in detail below, the average variation for RF AI scores in TVA reservoirs is 6 (+/- 3). Therefore, any location that attains a RF AI score of 45 (7 5% of the highest score) or higher would be considered to have BIP. It must be stressed that scores below this threshold do not necessarily reflect an adversely impacted fish community. The threshold is used to serve as a conservative screening level; i.e., any fish community that meets these criteria is obviously not adversely impacted. RFAI scores below this level require a more in-depth look to determine ifBIP exists. An inspection of individual RF AI metric results and species of fish used in each metric are an initial step to help identify if operation of BFN is a contributing factor. This approach is appropriate because a validated multi-metric index is being used and scoring criteria applicable to the zone of study are available. A comparison of RF AI scores from the area downstream of BFN to those from the upstream (control) area is one basis for determining if operation of the plant has had any impacts on the resident fish community. The definition of "similar" is integral to accepting the validity of these interpretations. The Quality Assurance (QA) component of the VS monitoring program deals with how well the RF AI scores can be repeated and is accomplished by collecting a second set of samples at 15%-20% of the areas each year. Comparison of paired-sample QA data collected over seven years shows that the difference in RF AI index scores ranges from 0 to 18 points. The mean difference between these 54 paired scores is 4.6 points with 95% confidence limits of 3.4 and 5.8. The 75th percentile of the sample differences is 6, and the 90th percentile is 12. Based 11 on these results, a difference of 6 points or less in the overall RF AI scores is the value selected for defining "similar" scores between upstream and downstream fish communities. That is, ifthe downstream RFAI score is within 6 points of the upstream score and ifthere are no major differences in overall fish community composition, then the two locations are considered similar. It is important to bear in mind that differences greater than 6 points can be expected simply due to method variation (25% of the QA paired sample sets exceeded that value). An examination of the 12 metrics (with emphases on fish species used for each metric) is conducted to analyze any difference in scores and the potential for the difference to be thermally related. Statistical Analyses In addition to RF AI analyses, data were analyzed using traditional statistical methods. Data from the survey were used to calculate catch per unit effort (CPUE), expressed as number offish per electrofishing run or fish per net night. CPUE values were calculated by pollution tolerance, trophic guilds (e.g., benthic invertivores, top carnivores, etc.), thermal sensitivity (Yoder et al. 2006), and indigenous status. CPUE, diversity, and species richness values were computed for each electrofishing effort (to maximize sample size; n = 30) and compared upstream and downstream to assess potential effects of power plant discharges. Diversity was quantified using two commonly applied indices: Shannon diversity index (Shannon 1948) and Simpson diversity index (Simpson 1949). Both indices account for the number of species present, as well as the relative abundance of each species. Shannon diversity index values were computed using the formula: s , '(ni) (ni) H = -L N ln N i=l where: S = total number of species N = total number of individuals ni = total number of individuals in the i1h species The Simpson diversity index was calculated as follows: 12 where: S = total number of species N = total number of individuals ni =total number of individuals in the ith species An independent two-sample t-test was used to test for differences in CPUE, species richness, and diversity values upstream and downstream ofBFN (a= 0.05). Before statistical tests were performed using this method, data were analyzed for normality using the Shapiro-Wilk test (Shapiro and Wilk, 1965) and homogeneity of variance using Levene's test (Levene 1960). normal data or data with unequal variances were transformed using either square root conversion or the ln(x+ 1) transformation. Transformed data were reanalyzed for normal distribution and equal variances. If transformation normalized the data or resulted in homogeneous variances, transformed data were tested using an independent two-sample t-test. If transformed data were not normally distributed or had unequal variances, statistical analysis was conducted using the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test (Mann and Whitney 1947; Wilcoxon 1945). Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Sampling Methods and Data Analysis for Sites Upstream and Downstream of BFN To assess the benthic macroinvertebrate community in the vicinity ofBFN from 2000 to 2010, data were collected along transects established across the full width of Wheeler reservoir at two sites in the transition zone-one at TRM 295.9 upstream of the intake and one at TRM 291.7 downstream of the BFN discharge. Prior to this time, a sampling site in the fore bay zone of Wheeler Reservoir (TRM 277) was used as the downstream comparison site. Because other factors unrelated to influence from BFN depressed benthic communities at both the forebay site and in the Elk River embayment (Wheeler Reservoir, Elk River Mile [ERM] 6 -between BFN and the forebay site), the downstream site was moved into the transition zone two miles . downstream from the BFN diffuser at TRM 291.7 in 2000. Benthic scores and community 13 composition from this site were used through 2010 for downstream comparisons to the upstream benthic site at TRM 295.9. Beginning in 2011, samples were collected in the reservoir's transition zone along transects established across the full width of the reservoir at three sites. One site upstream of the plant intake was maintained at TRM 295.9 (Figure 4). To more accurately assess any possible effects of the BFN discharge on the benthic communities downstream, two sites were selected: one at TRM 293.2, within the thermal plume from the BFN discharge, and a second at TRM 290.4, downstream of the thermal plume (Figure 5). During autumn 2015, benthic macroinvertebrate data were collected along these three transects. The upstream transect was used as a control site for comparison to the downstream benthic communities potentially affected by the BFN thermal effluent. A Ponar sampler (area per sample 0.06 m2) was used to collect benthic samples at ten points equally spaced along each transect. When heavier substrate was encountered, a Peterson sampler (area per sample OJ 1 m2) was used. Sediments from each sample were washed on a 533 µ screen, and organisms were picked from the screen and from any remaining substrate. Samples were fixed in formalin and sent to an independent consultant who identified each organism collected to the lowest possible taxonomic level. Benthic samples were evaluated using seven metrics that represent characteristics of the benthic community. Results for each metric were assigned a rating of 1, 3, or 5, based on comparison to reference conditions developed for VS reservoir transition sample sites (Table 4). For each sample site, the ratings for the seven metrics were then summed to produce an RBI score. Potential RBI scores ranged from 7 to 35. Ecological health ratings derived from the range of Potential values (7-12 "Very Poor" 13-18 "Poor" 19-23 "Fair" 24-29 "Good" or 30-35 ' ' ' ' "Excellent") were then applied to scores. The individual metrics are described below: (1) Average number of taxa -Calculated by averaging the total number of taxa present in each sample at a site. Greater taxa richness indicates better conditions than lower taxa richness. 14 (2) Proportion of samples with long-lived organisms -A presence/absence metric that is evaluated based on the proportion of samples with at least one long-lived organism (Corbicula, Hexagenia, mussels, or snails) present. The presence oflong-lived taxa is indicative of conditions that allow long-term survival. (3) Average number ofEPT taxa-Calculated by averaging the number of Ephemeroptera (mayfly), Plecoptera (stonefly), and Trichoptera ( caddis fly) taxa present in each sample at a site. Higher diversity of these taxa indicates good water quality and better habitat conditions. ( 4) Percentage of oligochaetes -Calculated by averaging the percentage of oligochaetes in each sample at a site. Oligochaetes are considered tolerant organisms, so a higher proportion indicates poorer water quality. (5) Percentage as dominant taxa -Used as an evenness indicator, this metric is calculated by selecting the two most abundant taxa in a sample, summing the number of individuals in those two taxa, dividing that sum by the total number of animals in the sample, and converting to a percentage for that sample. The percentage is then averaged for the 10 samples at each site. Because the most abundant taxa often differ among the 10 samples at a site, this approach allows more discretion to identify imbalances at a site than developing an average for a single dominant taxon for all samples at a site. Dominance of one or two taxa indicates poor conditions. (6) Average density excluding chironomids and oligochaetes-Calculated by first summing the number of organisms -excluding chironomids and oligochaetes -present in each sample and then averaging these densities for the 10 samples at a site. This metric examines the community, excluding taxa which often dominate under adverse conditions. Higher abundance of taxa other than chironomids and oligochaetes indicates good water quality conditions. 15 (7) Zero-samples: Proportion of samples containing no organisms -For each site, the proportion of samples in which no organisms are present. "Zero-samples" indicate living conditions unsuitable to support aquatic life (i.e. toxicity, unsuitable substrate, etc.). A site with no zero samples was assigned a score of five. Any site with one or more zero samples was assigned a score of one. A similar or higher benthic index score at the downstream sites compared to the upstream site was used as the basis for determining absence of impact on the benthic macroinvertebrate community related to BFN's thermal discharge. The QA component of VS monitoring compared benthic index scores from 49 paired sample sets collected over seven years. Differences between these paired sets ranged from 0 to 14 points; the 75th percentile was four points, the 90th percentile was six points. The mean difference between these 49 paired scores was 3 .1 points with 95% confidence limits of 2.2 and 4.1. Based on these results, a difference of four points or less was the value selected for defining "similar" scores between upstream and downstream benthic communities. That is, ifbenthic scores at the downstream sites are within four points of the upstream score, the communities are considered similar. However, differences greater than four points can be expected simply due to method variation (25% of the QA paired sample sets exceeded that value). Any difference in scores of four points or greater between communities is examined on a metric-by-metric basis to determine what caused the difference in scores and the potential for the difference to be thermally related. Visual Encounter Survey (Wildlife Observations) Permanent survey sites were established on both the right and left descending banks at one location upstream of the BFN thermal discharge, centered at TRM 295.9 (Figure 4), and at a second location downstream of the discharge, centered at TRM 292.5 (Figure 5). Each survey site spanned a distance of 2, 100 m along the shoreline, and the beginning and ending points were marked using GPS for relocation. Surveys were conducted by steadily traversing the site by boat, at approximately 30 m offshore and parallel to the shoreline, and simultaneously recording observations of wildlife. The 16 sampling frame of each survey generally followed the strip or belt transect concept: from the center-line of each transect landward to an area that included the shoreline and riparian zone (i.e., belt width generally averages 60 m where vision is not obscured), all individuals observed were enumerated. Wildlife observed visually or detected audibly was identified to the lowest taxonomic trophic level, and a direct count of individuals observed per trophic level was recorded. If a flock of a species or a mixed flock of a group of species was observed, numbers of individuals present of each species were estimated. Time was recorded at the start and end points of each survey to provide a general measure of effort expended. Variation of observation times among surveys was primarily due to the difficulty of approaching some wildlife species without inadvertently flushing them from basking or perching sites. The principal objective of the surveys was to provide a preliminary set of observations to verify that trophic levels of birds, mammals and reptiles were not affected by thermal effects from the BFN discharge. If expected trophic levels were not represented, further investigation will be used to target particular species and/or species groups (guilds) in an attempt to determine the cause. Wheeler Reservoir Flow and BFN Temperature Total daily average discharge from Guntersville Dam was used to describe the amount of water flowing past BFN and was obtained from TV A's River Operations database. Water temperature data were also obtained from TV A's River Operations database. Locations of water temperature monitoring stations used to compare water temperatures upstream of BFN intake and downstream ofBFN discharge are depicted in Figure 6. Ambient temperatures upstream of the BFN intake were measured at Site 4, located at TRM 297.8. Upstream daily mean temperatures were calculated by averaging temperatures collected at depths of 3, 5, and 7 feet. Temperatures downstream ofBFN discharge were measured at Sites 1, 16, and 17, all located at TRM 293.5. Downstream temperatures were calculated by first averaging temperatures at each site across depths of 3, 5, and 7 feet. The resultant values from each site were then averaged together to obtain overall mean daily water temperatures downstream of BFN. 17 Thermal Plume Characterization Physical measurements to characterize and map the BFN thermal plume were collected concurrent with biological field sampling. The plume was characterized under representative thermal maxima and seasonally-expected low flow conditions. Measurements were collected during periods of normal operation ofBFN, as reasonably practicable, to capture the thermal plume under existing river flow/reservoir elevation conditions. This effort evaluated potential impacts on recreation and water supply uses and allowed general delineation of the "Primary Study Area" -per the EPA (1977) draft guidance defined as the "entire geographic area bounded annually by the locus of the 2°C above ambient surface isotherms as these isotherms are distributed throughout an annual period' -ensuring placement of the biological sampling locations within thermally influenced areas. However, it is important to emphasize that the isopleth boundary is not a bright line; it is dynamic, changing geometrically in response to changes in ambient river flows and temperatures and BFN operations. As such, samples collected outside of, but generally proximate to the Primary Study Area boundary cannot be considered free of thermal influence and thus should not be discounted. Every effort was made to collect biological samples in thermally affected areas as guided by the Primary Study Area definition. Depth profiles of temperature from the river surface to the bottom were collected at points along transects crossing the plume. One transect was located proximate to the thermal discharge point; subsequent downstream transects were concentrated in the near field area of the plume where the change in plume temperature was expected to be most rapid. The distance between transects in the remainder of the Primary Study Area increased with distance downstream (or away from the discharge point). The farthest downstream transect was just outside of the Primary Study Area. A transect upstream of the discharge, in an area not affected by the thermal plume, was included for determining ambient temperature conditions. The total number of transects needed to fully characterize and delineate the plume was determined in the field. Collection of temperature profiles along a given transect began at or near the shoreline from which the discharge originated and continued until the far shore was reached. Measurements across a transect were typically conducted at points 10%, 30%, 50%, 70%, and 90% from the 18 originating shoreline, though the number of measurement points along transects was sometimes increased in proportion to the magnitude of the temperature change across a given transect. The distances between transects, and between points of measurement along each transect, depended on the size of the discharge plume. Temperature data were compiled and analyzed to present the horizontal and vertical dimensions of the BFN thermal plume using spatial analysis fechniques to yield plume cross-sections, which can be used to demonstrate the existence of a zone of passage for fish and other aquatic species under or around the plume. Water Quality Parameters at Fish Sampling Sites during RFAI Samples Water quality conditions were measured using a Hydrolab that provided readings for water temperature (°C), conductivity (µSiem), dissolved oxygen (mg/L), and pH. Within each of the electrofishing sample reaches upstream and downstream ofBFN, transects were established across the river at the most upstream boundary, at mid-reach, and at the most downstream boundary. Along each transect, samples were collected at the RDB, in mid-channel, and at the LDB by recording readings at one-to two-meter intervals along a vertical gradient from just above the bottom of the river to approximately 0.3 meters from the surface. Results and Discussion Evaluation of Plant Operating Conditions Relevant plant operational data-mean daily temperatures at the CCW intake and discharge, mean daily flow through the CCW system, and mean daily power generation by the three nuclear units at BFN-were compiled from 2010 through 2015. Biological monitoring was conducted upstream and downstream of BFN on October 21 and 22 and on November 5. Daily mean generation for these three days was 3,409 MW; 3,401 MW; and 3,390 MW, respectively, from 15 to 17% greater than the historical daily averages. Daily 19 mean intake temperatures for these dates were 66.6, 68.6, and 68.2 °F, respectively, which were between 0 and 15% higher than historical means for these dates (67.8, 66.5, and 59.2 °F). Daily mean discharge temperatures were 71.8, 73.5, and 71.8 °F, respectively, from 1 to 11 % higher than historical means (71.4, 71.1, and 64.9 °F). Daily flow rates were not available, but were assumed to be similar to monthly averages (Table 5, Figure 7). During 2015, daily mean generation ranged from 1995 to 3460 MW, with an annual average of 3201 MW. Through the year, mean daily generation was on average, 8% higher than the historical daily mean. Monthly mean CCW flow ranged from 2428 to 3097 mgd (3,757 to 4,792 cfs). The annual average of2,867 mgd (4,436 cfs) was 7% greater than the historical average. Daily mean intake temperatures ranged from 34.6 to 88.9 °F, with an annual average of 67.7 °F. Daily mean discharge temperatures ranged from 41.2 to 89.1 °F, with an annual average of70.l °F. Both daily mean intake and discharge temperatures were, over the course of the year, an average of 2% higher than historical daily means (Table 5, Figure 8). Aquatic Habitat in the Vicinity of BFN Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Assessment Of the sixteen shoreline transects sampled upstream ofBFN, 12.5% (two transects) scored as good, 75% (12 transects) scored as fair, and 6% (one transect) scored as poor. The average score for transects on the left descending bank was 24 ("Fair"), while scores for transects on the right descending bank averaged 20 ("Fair"). No aquatic macrophytes were observed on either shoreline (Table 6). Of the sixteen shoreline transects sampled downstream of BFN, 31 % (five transects) scored as good, 56% (nine transects) scored as fair, and 12% (two transects) scored as poor. The average score for transects on the left descending bank was 24 ("Fair"), and the average score for transects on the right descending bank was 22 ("Fair"). No aquatic macrophytes were observed on either shoreline (Table 7). 20 River Bottom Habitat Figures 9-12 compare substrate proportions and water depth at each sample point along the eight transects upstream ofBFN. Figures 13-16 compare substrate proportions at each sample point along the eight transects downstream of BFN. Relative locations of all sixteen transects are shown in Figure 3. The three most dominant substrate types encountered along the eight transects upstream ofBFN were silt (59.0%) and mollusk shell (23.0%), and clay (4.1 %). Downstream ofBFN, silt (65.7%), mollusk shell (16.0%), and sand (8.4%) were the most prominent (Table 8). Fish Community The total RF AI score for the fish community upstream of BFN was 49 ("Good"). The score for the community downstream was 44 ("Fair") (Table 9). Because the difference between these scores was within the 6-point range of acceptable variation, the communities were considered similar during autumn 2015. Below, the two communities are compared in further detail, utilizing each of the four characteristics of a BIP. Discussion of this comparison includes the metrics appropriate for each characteristic. (1) A biotic community characterized by diversity appropriate to the ecoregion Total number of species (highest rating requires> 30) Thirty-five indigenous species were collected upstream, compared to 31 species downstream. Both sites earned the highest score (5) (Table 9). Eight species -longnose gar (five specimens), northern hogsucker (two), spotted gar (18), black buffalo (two), blackspotted topminnow (one), orangespotted sunfish (one), spotted bass (one), and snubnose darter (one) -were collected only upstream (It should be noted that, in records since 2003, blackspotted topminnow and snubnose darter have not been collected in any previous sample at either site). Four species -black 21 redhorse (one specimen), bowfin (one), bullhead minnow (two), and black crappie (one)-were collected only downstream (Tables 10 and 11 ). Number of centrarchid species (highest rating requires> 2) Both sites earned the highest score (5), with seven centrarchid species collected in each sample reach. Orangespotted sunfish was collected only upstream; black crappie was collected only downstream (Table 9). Number of benthic invertivore species (highest rating requires> 7) Five benthic invertivore species were collected at both sites, resulting in mid-range scores (3). Spotted sucker, river darter, logperch, and freshwater drum were collected at both sites; northern hogsucker was collected only upstream; black redhorse was collected only downstream (Table 9). Number of intolerant species (highest rating requires> 4) Five intolerant species were collected at both sites, and both earned the highest score (5). Longear sunfish, skipjack herring, smallmouth bass, and spotted sucker were collected at both sites; northern hogsucker was collected only upstream, black redhorse was collected only downstream (Table 9). Percent non-indigenous species (highest rating requires <1 % for electrofishing, <1 % for gill netting) Both sites received the lowest score for the electrofishing portion of the sample, due mostly to unusually large collections of Mississippi silverside (27.3% of the upstream sample, 32.2% of the downstream sample). Two other non-indigenous species were collected at each site in minor proportions: upstream-striped bass (0.3%) and common carp (0.2%); downstream-redbreast sunfish (0.1 % ) and yellow perch (0.1 % ). 22 Both sites received the highest score for the gill netting portion of the sample. Striped bass made up 0.8% of the sample upstream, and no aquatic nuisance species were captured in gill nets downstream. Number of top carnivore species (highest rating requires> 7) Eleven top carnivore species were collected upstream, and ten were collected downstream. Both sites earned the highest score (5). Longnose gar, spotted bass and spotted gar were collected only upstream; black crappie and bowfin were collected only downstream (Table 9). Summary Scorns for the upstream site were identical to thost:'. for the downstream site for all metrics discussed. Both sites earned highest scores for four metrics and for the gill netting portion of "Percent non-indigenous species". Scores for the electrofishing portion of this metric were heavily influenced by large collections of Mississippi silverside at both sites. Both sites earned mid-range scores for "Number ofbenthic invertivore species". (2) The capacity for the community to sustain itself through cyclic seasonal change Maintenance of diversity can often be indicative of the ability of a fish community to withstand the stressors of an annual seasonal cycle. Autumn RF AI sampling has been conducted at the site upstream ofBFN since 1993, except during 1996, 1998, 2012 and 2014. Autumn sampling has been conducted at the site downstream since 2000, except during 2012 and 2014. Average scores calculated over the history of sampling are identical for both sites ( 41, "Good") (Table 13). Figure 17 shows the numbers of indigenous species collected during autumn RF AI samples upstream and downstream ofBFN from 2000 through 2015. Over this period, the numbers collected at the upstream site ranged from 24 to 35, with an average of 29 species. Downstream, numbers collected ranged from 23 to 31, with an average of 27 species. Collections upstream have generally been higher than those downstream: more species were collected upstream during ten sample years, while the same number of species was collected at both sites during 2003, 23 2007, and 2008; more species were collected downstream than upstream during o.nly 2009. The numbers of indigenous species collected during autumn 2015 (35 upstream, 31 downstream) were the highest ever for both sites. Average number per run (highest rating requires> 487 for electrofishing, > 22 for gill netting) For the electrofishing portion of the sample, an average of70.1 fish was collected per effort upstream, and an average of 114.8 fish was collected per effort downstream, resulting in lowest scores for both sites. An average of 13.3 fish was collected per net-night upstream, resulting in a mid-range score. An average of5.4 fish was collected per net-night downstream, resulting in the lowest score. Percentage of anomalies (highest rating requires< 2 %) Anomalies (i.e. visible lesions, bacterial and fungal infections, parasites, muscular and skeletal deformities, and hybridization) observed in a fish community can also be an indicator of the ability of the community to sustain itself over an annual seasonal cycle. The two sites earned highest scores for both the electrofishing and gill net portions of the samples, though slightly greater percentages of anomalies were observed in both portions of the sample at the upstream site (1.1 % EF; 0.8% GN), than at the downstream site (0.3% EF; 0.0 % GN) (Table 9). Summary Average RF AI scores, determined over the history of autumn sampling around BFN, are identical upstream and downstream. Though more indigenous species were collected upstream during most years, the average numbers of species -calculated over the years during which sampling occurred at both sites -were similar upstream and downstream. Average catch per effort was poor at both sites for electrofishing; average gill net catch upstream was moderate, but the downstream average was also poor. The upstream site exhibited a greater percentage of anomalies than that downstream during 2015, but both sites earned the highest score for this metric. 24 (3) The presence of necessary food chain species Estimates of the trophic compositions of the fish communities upstream and downstream of BFN were calculated from the collection data (Tables 10 and 11) as the proportion of the total sample made up by each trophic guild. In direct comparison of the communities upstream and downstream ofBFN, the proportions ofbenthic invertivores, insectivores, and planktivores were generally similar, but the upstream sample contained a greater proportion of top carnivores and a smaller proportion of omnivores. Two additional guilds -herbivore and specialized insectivore -were represented in both samples, though in slightly higher proportions upstream. No parasitic species were collected at either site. The same numbers ofbenthic invertivore species, insectivore, species, and planktivore species were collected upstream and downstream, but more species of top carnivore, omnivore, and specialized insectivore were collected upstream (Table 2). In comparison to expected values for transition zones in lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs (Table 2), both sites exhibited proportions of top carnivores and herbivores that were poorer than expectations, but the proportions of all other guilds were within or better than the expected ranges. Upstream, the numbers of omnivore species were poorer than expected (more species), but the numbers of species representing all other guilds met or exceeded expectations. Downstream, the numbers of species representing all six trophic guilds met or exceeded expectations (Table 2). Percent top carnivores (highest rating requires> 10% for electrofishing, <39% for gill netting) Seven top carnivore species comprised 9.4% of the electrofishing catch upstream, earning a range score. The most abundant species were largemouth bass (5.6%) and smallmouth bass (1.2%). The other five species made up less than I% each. Downstream, eight top carnivore species made up 4.5% of the sample, and the site earned the lowest score. Smallmouth bass (2.9%) and largemouth bass (0.8%) were the most abundant species; the six others comprised less than 0.5% each. Both sites earned the highest score for the gill netting portion of the sample. Nine species made up 59.4% of the sample upstream; white bass (16.5%) and skipjack herring (14.3%) were most 25 abundant. Eight species made up 53.7% of the sample downstream; skipjack herring (25.9%) and largemouth bass (7.4%) were most abundant. Percent omnivores (highest rating requires < 24% for electrofishing, < 16% for gill netting) Both sites earned highest scores for the electrofishing portion of the sample. Seven omnivore. species made up 11.7% of the sample upstream; gizzard shad (5.5%), channel catfish (2.9%), and smallmouth buffalo (2.2%) were most abundant. Five omnivore species made up 22.0% of the sample downstream; gizzard shad (20.2%) was overwhelmingly the most abundant species collected. Both sites earned lowest scores for the gill netting portion of the sample. The same four species-blue catfish, channel catfish, gizzard shad, and smallmouth buffalo-were collected in similar proportions at each site, totaling 35.3% of the catch upstream and 35.2% of the catch downstream. Summary Both sites exhibited relative proportions and diversity (number of species collected) of most trophic guilds that met or exceeded expected values, though the proportion of top carnivores was poorer than expected at both sites. The number of omnivore species collected upstream was poorer (inore species) than expected, but the general trophic compositions of the fish communities at the two sites were considered similar. Electrofishing yielded more individual top carnivores upstream than downstream, but gill netting efforts collected similarly high proportions at both sites. Both sites showed low proportions of omnivores collected by ele.ctrofishing and high proportions collected in gill nets. (4) A lack of domination by pollution-tolerant species Number of benthic invertivore species Five benthic invertivore species were collected at both sites, and both earned mid-range scores of 3 (Table 9). 26 Number of intolerant species (highest rating requires> 4) Five intolerant species were collected at both sites, and both received the highest score (5). Longear sunfish, skipjack herring, smallmouth bass and spotted sucker were collected at both sites; northern hogsucker was collected only upstream; black redhorse was collected only downstream (Table 9). Percentage of tolerant individuals (highest rating requires< 27% electrofishing; < 15% gill net) At the upstream site, eight tolerant species comprised 23.9% of the electrofishing sample, and the site earned the highest partial score (2.5). The gill net sample included 21.1 % tolerant fishes of three species, earning a mid-range partial score (1.5). Downstream, tolerant fishes of eight species made up 3 0.1 % of the electro fishing sample, and four tolerant species made up 29 .6% of the gill net sample. The downstream site earned mid-range scores for both portions (Table 9). Seven tolerant species -bluegill, gizzard shad, golden shiner, green sunfish, largemouth bass, spotfin shiner, and striped shiner -were collected at both sites. Common carp and longnose gar were collected only upstream; redbreast sunfish and white crappie were collected only downstream. Gizzard shad was the most abundant species collected in gill nets at either site, and was collected in similar percentages upstream (16.5%) and downstream (18.5%). It was also the most abundant species collected by electrofishing downstream (20.2%). In the electrofishing catch upstream, bluegill (7.1 %), gizzard shad (5.5%), largemouth bass (5.6%), and green sunfish ( 4.2%) were each collected in similar percentages (Table 9). Percent dominance by one species (highest rating requires < 29% electrofishing; < 17% gill net) The upstream site earned highest scores for both portions of the sample. Mississippi silverside was the most prevalent species in the electrofishing catch (27.3%), and gizzard shad in the gill net catch (16.5%). The downstream site earned mid-range scores for both portions of the sample. Mississippi silverside was most prevalent in the electrofishing sample (32.2%) and skipjack herring was most prevalent in the gill net sample (25.9%) (Table 9). 27 Percentage of omnivores (highest rating requires < 24% electrofishing; < 16% gill net) Both sites earned highest scores for the electrofishing catch. The proportion of om,nivores in the upstream sample was 11. 7%, made up primarily of gizzard shad ( 5 .5% ), channel catfish (2.9% ), and smallmouth buffalo (2.2%). The proportion in the downstream sample was nearly twice that upstream (22.0%) and consisted almost entirely of gizzard shad (20.2%). Gill net samples at both sites contained similar proportions (35.3% upstream; 35.2% downstream) of the same four omnivore species, and both sites earned the lowest partial scores (Table 9). Summary Both sites exhibited moderate diversity ofbenthic invertivore species and relatively high diversity of intolerant species, but the downstream sample was more heavily dominated by single species in both portions of the collection. Mississippi silverside was the most abundant single species collected downstream, but a large collection of gizzard shad (20.1 % of the total catch) resulted in higher proportions of tolerant individuals and omnivores than those observed upstream. Statistical Analyses Both the Simpson and Shannon diversity indices revealed significantly greater diversity per run in the fish community upstream ofBFN compared to that downstream (Table 12). Potential differences in species richness between the two communities were also analyzed by parsing the data into nine species parameters, and statistical tests of each of these revealed no significant differences between the two communities. The same nine parameters were* also tested for differences in abundance (numbers of individuals per run, or CPUE), and results indicated that greater numbers of omnivores and greater numbers of tolerant species were collected per run downstream (Table 12). Fish Community Summary Resident important species (RIS) are defined in EPA guidance as those species which are representative in terms of their biological requirements of a balanced, indigenous community of 28 fish, shellfish, and wildlife in the body of water into which the discharge is made (EPA and NRC, 1977). RIS often include non-indigenous species. Thirty-nine RIS were collected at the site upstream ofBFN, compared to 34 RIS downstream (Tables 10 and 11). Species that experience avoidance behavior or mortality at water temperatures equal to or greater than 32.2°C (90°F) are designated as "thermally sensitive" (Yoder et al., 2006). The same thermally sensitive species -logperch -was collected at both sites. The aquatic nuisance species common carp, striped bass, and Mississippi silverside were collected upstream; redbreast sunfish and Mississippi silverside were collected downstream (Tables 10 and 11 ). Commercially valuable species are defined by the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (2013) as any of the following non-game fish: drum, buffalo, carp, channel catfish, all members of the catfish family, paddlefish (spoonbill), spotted sucker, all members of the sucker family including the species known as redhorse and black horse, bowfin and all members of the gar family, and mullet. Recreationally valuable species are those that are targeted by anglers or are used as bait. Among the RIS collected upstream were 14 commercially valuable species and 22 recreationally valuable species, compared to 12 commercially valuable and 18 recreationally valuable species downstream (Tables 10 and 11 ). Total RF Al scores for the sampling sites upstream and downstream differed by five points, indicating that the two communities exhibited similar ecological structure and balance. As previously discussed, RF AI scores have an intrinsic variability of+/- 3 points (6-point range). This variability comes from several sources, including annual variations in air temperature and stream flow; variations in pollutant loadings from nonpoint sources; changes in habitat, such as extent and density of aquatic vegetation; natural population cycles and movements of the species being measured (TWRC 2006). Another source of variability arises from the fact that nearly any practical measurement, lethal or non-lethal, of a biological community is a sample rather than a measurement of the entire population. The effects of these sources of variability on the sample data could have generated a difference in scores due simply to method variation. Accordingly, a thorough comparison of the fish 29 communities upstream and downstream ofBFN was conducted by examining each of the twelve individual RF AI metrics as a component of the appropriate characteristic of a BIP. Measures of diversity were similarly high for both communities, except diversity ofbenthic invertivores, which was moderate for both sites. Abundance was generally poor (both sites received low scores for the metric "Average number per run"), but both sites exhibited strong sustainability over an annual cycle and similar trophic composition. The downstream community was more heavily dominated by a single species, and included higher proportions of tolerant individuals and of omnivores than were observed upstream. To provide additional information about the health of the fish community throughout Wheeler Reservoir, Table 12 compares RF AI scores for the sites upstream and downstream of BFN with those from additional VS sites in the reservoir. Average RFAI scores of these additional VS sites, determined across all years sampled, are in the "Good" range. However, aquatic communities at these sites are not subject to thermal effects from BFN and are not used in determination ofBIP in relation to the plant. Individual metric scores, overall RF AI scores, species collected, and catch per effort from electrofishing and gill netting conducted upstream and downstream ofBFN during 1999 through 2013 are included in TVA (2011) and TVA (2014). Statistical tests of nine species parameters indicated that no significant differences existed between the upstream and downstream communities in number of species collected per run, but that significantly more omnivores and tolerant fishes were collected per run downstream. These results support similar observations made in the RF AI analysis. The results of both the Simpson and Shannon diversity analyses show significantly greater diversity in the upstream samples. The RF AI metric "Number of indigenous species" indicates similar total numbers collected at both sites. However, review of the total collections shows that eight indigenous species were collected only upstream, while four others were collected only downstream. When indigenous species and hybrids are included, a total of 11 taxa were collected upstream that were not found downstream, compared to six taxa collected only downstream (Tables 10 and 11 ). 30 In conclusion, the community downstream ofBFN was found to be less diverse and more heavily dominated by a single species than that upstream, with higher proportions of omnivores and tolerant fishes. However, large collections of Mississippi silverside and gizzard shad, two species which are known to form large schools, significantly influenced the downstream results. There was no evidence indicating the differences between the communities were caused by thermal effluent from BFN. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community As discussed previously, data to assess the benthic macroinvertebrate community around BFN were collected from three sites in autumn 2015. RBI metrics for all three sites were scored using evaluation criteria for lab-processed samples collected in the transition reservoir zone (Table 4). Data collected at TRM 290.4, downstream of the thermal plume, produced an overall RBI score of 33 ("Excellent") and data from TRM 293.2, within the thermal plume, produced an overall RBI score of 31 ("Excellent"). Data from the upstream site, TRM 295.9, produced an overall RBI score of 33 ("Excellent") (Table 14). The upstream site was considered a control site and a difference of 4 points or less was used to define "similar" conditions between the upstream and downstream sites. Because the RBI scores for the two downstream sites were within 4 points of the RBI score for the upstream site, conditions among the three sites were considered "similar" and BIP was maintained. Results for the autumn 2015 benthic macroinvertebrate sampling can be found in Tables 14 and 17. Results were compared between the downstream (TRM's 290.4 and 293.2) and upstream (TRM 295.9) sites and are briefly discussed below for each RBI metric. Average number oftaxa (highest rating requires> 6.6) In autumn 2015, averages of 9.2 and 10.4 taxa were observed for sites downstream ofBFN. The site upstream of BFN averaged 9.5 taxa per sample. All three sites received the highest score of 5 for this metric (Table 14). 31 Proportion of samples with long-lived organisms (highest rating requires > 0.9) The metric "proportion of samples with long-lived organisms" received the highest score of 5 at both downstream sites with 100% containing long-Hved organisms (proportion of 1.0). The proportion of samples with long-lived organisms was 100% at the upstream site which also received the highest score for the metric (Table 14). Average number of EPT taxa (highest rating requires > 1.4) An average of 1.5 EPT taxa was collected at the most downstream site, TRM 290.4, resulting in the highest score (5). Within the plume at TRM 293.2, an average of 1.3 EPT taxa was collected and upstream ofBFN at TRM 295.9, an average of 1.4 EPT was collected. Both sites received the mid-range score of 3 (Table 14). Average proportion of oligochaete individuals (highest rating requires< 11 %) The two downstream sites, TRM's 290.4 and 293.2, received the mid-range score for the autumn 2015 samples, which included averages of 12.6% and 19.l % oligochaetes, respectively. The average proportion of oligochaetes in upstream samples was lower with 8.1 %, resulting in the highest score for the upstream site, TRM 295.9 (Table 14). Proportion of total abundance comprised by two dominant taxa (highest rating requires <77.8%) The two downstream sites, TRM's 290.4 and 293.2, received the highest score for this metric, with the two dominant taxa making up 67.5% and 66.4% of the samples, respectively. The upstream site also received the highest score and total abundance of the two dominant taxa was 66.8% (Table 14). At the most downstream site, TRM 290.4, chironomid midge Coelotanypus sp. (Chironomidae) and Asiatic clams (Corbiculidae) were the two most abundant taxa. Coelotanypus sp. and the fingernail clam Musculium transversum (Sphaeriidae) were the two most abundant taxa at both the site within the thermal plume, TRM 293.2 and at the upstream site, TRM 295.9 (Table 17a). 32 Average density excluding chironomids and oligochaetes (highest rating requires> 609.9/m2) At the downstream sites, average densities excluding chironomids and oligochaetes were 613.3/m2 and 736.7/m2* Both sites received the highest score. Average density excluding chironomids and oligochaetes at the upstream site was 991. 7 /m2, also resulting in the highest score (Table 14). Proportion of samples containing no organisms (highest rating requires that all samples contain organisms) In autumn 2015, there were no samples at any site which were void of organisms. All sites received the highest score (Table 14). Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Summary Monitoring results for autumn 2015 support the conclusion that a BIP ofbenthic macroinvertebrates was maintained downstream of BFN. The site within the thermal plume, TRM 293.2, and the site downstream of the thermal plume, TRM 290.4, received RBI total scores of 31 and 33, respectively, and both received ecological health ratings of "Excellent". The upstream control site, TRM 295.9, received an RBI total score of 33 and "Excellent" rating also. Benthic communities at the downstream sites were considered similar with one another and with the upstream control site, whose RBI score was within four points when compared with RBI scores for the downstream sites (Table 14). Individual metrics and RBI total scores for benthic community samples from TRM 291. 7 (downstream) and TRM 295.9 (upstream) are provided in Tables 15 and 16 for referencing results from 2000 to 2010. Benthic samples from these two locations were field processed every year monitored through 2010, and during some of the years samples were also laboratory processed. Since 2011, samples have been lab-processed which produces a more accurate depiction of the benthic community. Although the locations presently used as the downstream sites (TRMs 290.4 and 293.2) are proximate to the downstream transect sampled from 2000 to 2010 (TRM 291.7), laboratory-processed RBI scores for 2011 and forward cannot be directly compared to field-processed RBI scores from 2000 to 2010 without inference. 33 To provide additional data on the overall health of the benthic macroinvertebrate community in Wheeler Reservoir, RBI scores for VS monitoring locations-inflow, forebay, and Elk River embayment sites-were included in Table 18. Please note that comparison of these scores to current RBI scores at the sites around BFN is limited for two reasons. First, data from these sites were scored from field-based criteria and cannot be closely compared to lab-based scores. Second, these sites are many river miles away from BFN. The inflow site is 53 river miles upstream, and the forebay sampling site is located 17 river miles downstream. The Elk River embayment site is located 6 river miles upstream of the confluence with the Tennessee River, which in turn is 10 river miles downstream ofBFN. Because of these distances from the plant, poor scores at these sites cannot be considered indicative of thermal effects from BFN. RBI scores for VS monitoring locations in 2015 were considered similar to their respective long term average scores, differing by three points or less. The Wheeler inflow site (TRM 347) has produced RBI scores of"Good" or "Excellent" for 12 of the 15 years sampled. The forebay (TRM 277) and Elk River embayment sites (ERM 6.0) have produced "Poor" scores most years sampled (Table 18). Visual Encounter Survey (Wildlife Observations) During autumn 2015, observations of shoreline wildlife upstream of BFN included 295 birds of . twelve species and 52 turtles of two species. Observations downstream included 217 birds of 15 species and 26 turtles of a single species. No mammals were observed at either location. Six species-of birds -great blue heron, European starling, mallard, blue jay, American robin, and double-crested cormorant-and one species of turtle -map turtle -were observed at both stations. Belted kingfisher, mockingbird, American crow, common flicker, white pelican, Carolina wren and painted turtle were observed only upstream. Golden eagle, bald eagle, Carolina chickadee, common grackle, pileated woodpecker, American coot, red-tailed hawk, pied-billed grebe, and osprey were observed only downstream (Table 19). Table 20 compares the wildlife species observed along the same transects since 2011. Some species-belted kingfisher, blue jay, great blue heron, mallard, map turtle-were recorded along all 34 transects upstream and downstream during each year and can be considered common. Others were observed intermittently, along a single transect or during only one sample year. It is important to note that a Visual Encounter Survey provides a preliminary near shore wildlife assessment to determine if the thermally affected area downstream of a power plant has adversely affected the bird, reptile, or mammal communities. Using the methods described for these surveys, determination of the presence and diversity of small, perching bird species, reptiles and mammals is made difficult by their typical behaviors. Other factors contributing to the limited observations of some taxa include ecological status (e.g. top-level predators-raptors such as red-tailed hawk, osprey, bald eagle, etc.-are less abundant than species at lower trophic levels), and migratory habits. The diversity of bird groups recorded indicates that a healthy ecological community has existed both upstream and downstream ofBFN since 2011 and that the shoreline wildlife community downstream has not been adversely affected by the operation of the plant. If, after any survey an adverse environmental impact is suspected, sampling strategies of a more quantitative nature, such as trapping or netting, active search, investigation of mammal tracks along shoreline areas, long-term observation from blinds, or the use of cameras will be proposed to more accurately estimate the presence and diversity of these groups. Wheeler Reservoir Flow and BFN Water Temperature Daily mean flows from Guntersville Dam during 2015 are compared in Figure 18 to historic daily mean flows averaged from 1976 to 2014 over the same period. From early to mid-January and mid-July through November 2015, flows were similar to historical averages. Flows were generally lower than historical averages from mid-January through February, in early April and from May through July 2015. Flows were slightly higher than historical averages during March, April, and early July and considerably higher during December 2015. Figure 19 compares daily average water temperatures recorded upstream ofBFN intake and downstream of BFN discharge during 2015. Water temperatures were similar at both sites through this period. 35 Thermal Plume Characterization Plume temperatures (water temperatures 3.6°P [2°C] or greater above ambient) were detected at the BPN discharge (TRM 293.5) along the right descending bank, extending approximately 30% across the width of the river and from the surface to 1.5 m depth. The plume continued downstream of the discharge along the right descending bank, and at TRM 291.7 it extended to 3 m depth. At TRM 290.2, downstream of the sample area, the plume extended to 50% of the width of the river and to a maximum depth of 4 m (Table 21). These profiles indicate that, at maximum, the thermal effluent from BPN was confined to the upper half of the water column from the right descending bank to mid-channel, and that a sufficient zone of passage for aquatic wildlife existed around BPN during autumn 2015. Water Quality Parameters at Fish Sampling Sites during RFAI Samples Water temperatures observed at the upstream site centered at TRM 295.9, ranged from 65.8 to 76.2 °P. The highest temperature observed was at the surface on the right descending bank along the downstream boundary of the sample reach. Surface temperatures of all other profiles ranged from 69.7 to 71.2 °P. This indicates that the plume of heated effluent from BPN includes some flow upstream of the discharge along this bank. Water temperatures at the downstream site, centered at TRM 292.5, ranged from 66.7 to 72.8 °P. Temperatures generally increased from the left to the right descending bank, and the highest temperatures occurred at the surface in midchannel and along the RDB of the mid-station transect. This indicated that the plume from BPN dissipated along the RDB downstream of the discharge, but did not extend beyond midchannel (Table 22). Values for pH, conductivity, and dissolved oxygen concentration were similar in both the upstream and downstream sample reaches, falling within narrow ranges: values for pH were from 7.1 to 7.7 upstream and from 7.2 to 7.8 downstream; conductivity was between 207.4 and 218.8 µSiem upstream and between 207.3 and 214.6 µSiem downstream; DO concentrations were between 7.7 and 9.4 mg/L upstream and between 8.1and9.6 mglL downstream (Table 22). 36 The values of these parameters indicate that pH, conductivity, and dissolved oxygen concentrations surrounding BFN during autumn 2015 were of sufficient quality to support a BIP of the type expected for this reservoir, and that they were not affected by thermal effluent from BFN. The most elevated temperatures within the downstream site were observed along the right descending bank at the surface, and are consistent with temperatures recorded at similar locations during plume determination (Table 20). The most elevated temperatures within the upstream site were observed at the surface along the lower boundary of the site. This lower boundary is less than one mile upstream of the discharge, and considering the width of the reservoir, the curvature of the river bed, and the relatively low velocity of the river at this point, these elevated temperatures can be attributed to a recirculation of heated water upstream from the discharge. Discussion above indicated that a zone of passage for aquatic life existed from midchannel to the left descending bank around BFN. Therefore, overall water quality around BFN was not negatively impacted by the thermal effluent. 37 Literature Cited Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (ADCNR), Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries. 2013. 2013-2014 Regulations Relating to Game, Fish, bearers and other Wildlife. http://www.outdooralabama.com/hunting/regulations EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) and NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1977 (draft). Interagency 316(a) Technical Guidance manual and Guide for Thermal Effects Sections of Nuclear Facilities Environmental Impact Statements. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Enforcement, Permits Division, Industrial Permits Branch, Washington, DC. Etnier, D.A. and W.C. Starnes. 1993. The Fishes of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, 681 pp. Hickman, G.D. and T.A. McDonough: 1996. Assessing the Reservoir Fish Assemblage A potential measure ofreservoir quality. Jn: D. De Vries (Ed.) Reservoir Multidimensional approaches to reservoir fisheries management. Reservoir Committee, Southern Division, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. pp 85-97. Hubert, W. A. 1996. Passive capture techniques, entanglement gears. Pages 160-165 in B. R. Murphy and D. W. Willis, editors. Fisheries techniques, 2nd edition. American Fisheries Society Bethesda, Maryland, USA. Jennings, M.J., L.S. Fore, and J.R. Karr. 1995. Biological monitoring of fish assemblages in the Tennessee Valley reservoirs. Regulated Rivers 11 :263-274. Levene, H. 1960. Robust tests for equality of variances. Jn: Contributions to probability and statistics: essays in honor of Harold Hotelling. I. Olkin, S. G. Ghurye, W. Hoeffding, W. G. Matlow, and H.B. Mann (eds). pp. 278-292. Stanford University Press. Menlo Park, CA. Mann, H.B. and D.R. Whitney. 1947. On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 18:50-60. McDonough, T.A. and G.D. Hickman. 1999. Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index development: A tool for assessing ecological health in Tennessee Valley Authority impoundments. In: Assessing the sustainability and biological integrity of water resources using fish communities. Simon, T. (Ed.) CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 523-540. Plafkin, J.L., Barbour, M.T., Porter, K.D., Gross, S.K., and Hughes, R.M. (1989). Rapid assessment protocols for use in streams and rivers: benthic macroinvertebrates and fish. EPA/444/4-89-001, Washington DC, USA. 38 Reynolds, J.B. 1996. Electrofishing. Pages 221-251 in B. R. Murphy and D. W. Willis, editors. Fisheries techniques, 2nd edition. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. Shannon, C.E. 1948. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal 27:379-423, 623-656. Shapiro, S.S. and M. B. Wilk. 1965. An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika 52:591-611. Simpson, E.H. 1949. Measurement of diversity. Nature 163:688. TVA. 2011. Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge during Autumn 2010. Tennessee Valley Authority, Biological and Water Resources, Knoxville, 1N. TVA. 2014. Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge during Autumn 2013. Tennessee Valley Authority, Biological and Water Resources, Knoxville, 1N. TWRC. 2006. Strategic Plan, 2006-2012. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Commission, Nashville, 1N. March 2006. pp 124-125. http://tennessee.gov/twra/pdfs/StratPlan06-12.pdf Wilcoxon, F. 1945. Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biometrics Bulletin 1:80-83. Yoder, C.O., B.J. Armitage, and E.T. Rankin. 2006. Re-evaluation of the Technical Justification for Existing Ohio River Mainstem Temperature Criteria. Midwest Biodiversity Institute, Columbus, Ohio. 39 Figures 40 Figure 1. Location of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant on Wheeler Reservoir. 41 Figure 2. Location of Condenser Cooling Water (CCW) intake and discharge at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. 42 0 X River Mile 1.5 Water Depth (ft) 3 Miles -i o, . u10 "' tJ "I c c:,"' ::: I 0 -" Athens Substrate Composition Sampling Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Vicinity Map Created by TVA GIS & Mapping, March 2016 Figure 3. Locations of transects used to characterize shoreline and river bottom habitat upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, and water depths within the two sample reaches. 43 Biomonitoring Zones Upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Electrofishing Station <> Gill Netting Station Benthic Macroinvertebrate Transect Wildlife Observation Transect Figure 4. Locations of biomonitoring sites upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. 44 Biomonitoring Zones Downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Electrofishing Station <> Gill Netting Station Benthic M acroinvertebrate Transect Wildlife Observation Transect Figure 5. Locations of biomonitoring sites downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. 45 Figure 6. Locations of water temperature monitoring stations used to compare water temperatures upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) intake and downstream of BFN discharge. Station 4 was used for upstream ambient temperatures of the BFN intake. Stations l, 16, and 17 were used for temperatures downstream ofBFN discharge. 46 "' ... .2 ... 100 +-------------Intake Temperature 80 Discharge Temperature -CCWFlow Total Generation Sample Megawatts Date Generated 10/21 3409 10/22 3401 11/5 3390 DlJRJNG SAMPLE PERIOD Units in Intake Discharge Flow Ooeration Temperature Temperature (monthly avg) -3 of3 66.6 71.8 2845 3 of3 68.6 73.5 2845 3 of3 68.2 71.8 2989 60 E ... 20 r------------------------------------------------January August September 0 0 ct ob er I November February March April July May June 2015 6500 6000 5500 5000 ::0-Cl) 4500 s ii: 0 4000 6 = 0 *.c 3500 ... "' = "' "' ---3000 2500 2000 1500 December Figure 7. Megawatts generated, water temperatures of the intake and discharge and flow through the condenser cooling water (CCW) system at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant during 2015. 47 100 90 7350 80 6350 70 ,.-._ "O ,.-._ ... 0 ._, 5350 i:)Jl E ._, Q) 60 .... ::I .... "' .... Q) c. 50 E E <:> --4350 ,.-._ ._, Q) E-.... 40 Q) .... "' = 3350 .... "' .... Q) = Q) 30 Co-' 2350 20 -Intake Temperature Discharge Temperature 1350 10 "-CCW Flow Total Generation 0 350 ..c: .... .... ..c: .... .... "' :; ., ., <.) "' ., ., "' 2 ..0 ..0 "' ::E ::J ..0 ..0 "' ::J "' ....., E E ::J ....., E E ::J c: c: 2 c: E ., "' E ., "' > ....., > ....., ., 0 ., 0 VJ z VJ z .... .... .... .... .... .... ., ., ., ., ., ., ..0 ..0 "' "' ..0 ..0 "' ..0 ..0 E E ::J ::J E E ::J E E E ., c: c: E ., c: E ., "' "' "' > ....., ....., > ....., > ., 0 ., ., 0 ., 0 VJ z VJ VJ z VJ z 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Figure 8. Megawatts generated, water temperatures of the intake and discharge and flow through the condenser cooling water (CCW) system at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant during the five years prior to the survey (2010-2014). 48 Substrate Type Browns FerryNP Substrate Composition Sampling Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Upstream, Transect 1-2 Created by TVAGIS & Mapping, March 2016 Figure 9. Composition of substrate samples collected at ten points equally spaced along each of transects 1 and 2 upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. 49 Substrate Type @:.q Browns FerryNP Substrate Composition Sampling Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Upstream, Transect 3-4 Created by TVA GIS & Mapping, March 2016 Figure 10. Composition of substrate samples collected at ten points equally spaced along each of transects 3 and 4 upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. 50 Substrate Type I Browns FerryNP Substrate Composition Sampling Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Upstream, Transect 5-6 Created byTVAGIS & Mapping, March 2016 Figure 11. Composition of substrate samples collected at ten points equally spaced along each of transects 5 and 6 upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. 51 Substrate Type Browns FerryNP Substrate Composition Sampling Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Upstream, Transect 7-8 Created by TVA GIS & Mapping, March 2016 Figure 12. Composition of substrate samples collected at ten points equally spaced along each of transects 7 and 8 upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. 52 Browns FerryNP Substrate Composition Sampling Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Downstream, Transect 1-2 Created by TVA GIS & Mapping, March 2016 Figure 13. Composition of substrate samples collected at ten points equally spaced along each of transects 1 and 2 downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. 53 Substrate Type I I I t' "2il v' <,{'. & -.-<:!' (3

• Browns FerryNP Substrate Composition Sampling Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Downstream, Transect 3-4 Created by TVA GIS & Mapping, March 2016 Figure 14. Composition of substrate samples collected at ten points equally spaced along each of transects 3 and 4 downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. 54 Substrate Type Browns FerryNP Substrate Composition Sampling Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Downstream, Transect 5-6 Created by TVA GIS & Mapping, March 2016 Figure 15. Composition of substrate samples collected at ten points equally spaced along each of transects 5 and 6 downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. 55 Substrate Type Browns FerryNP Substrate Composition Sampling Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Downstream, Transect 7-8 Created by TVA GIS & Mapping, March 2016 Figure 16. Composition of substrate samples collected at ten points equally spaced along each of transects 7 and 8 downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. 56 36 34 "O 32 Q; ... u 0 u 30 u "ii) c. "' "' g 28 c Q; l:ll) :a .5 'o 26 .... Q; ,Q E ::: z: 24 22 20 29 -27 24 '----23 -I-I-2000 2001 32 30 30 28 28 28 27 27 --26 ---25 ......... I-'----I--I-I-I-I-2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 35 DTRM 295.9 -(Avg=29) 33 -31 31 -....._ ._ 29 -28 28 28 ._ 27 27 27 -'--......... 26 26 26 '----'----'----I-._ -I-I-I-I-I-._ I--I-I-I-I-I-._ 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2013 2015 Year Figure 17. Comparison of observed values for the Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index metric "Number oflndigenous Species", over 14 years of autumn sampling at the sites upstream (TRM 295.9) and downstream (TRM 292.5) of Brown's Ferry Nuclear Plant. 57 250,000 +---1 200,000 ,-._ <.I ._,, 150,000 0 100,000 1/1 -2015 -Historical Daily Average 1976-2014 2/1 3/1 411 511 611 7/1 Date 8/l 911 10/J I 1/ l 12/l Figure 18. Daily mean flows from Guntersville Dam during 2015, and historic daily flows for the same period averaged from 1976 to 2014. 58

,-., ..... 0 ._, :.... :s -C'l :.... Q. E E--< :.... 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 -Upstream ofBFN Intake -Downstream ofBFN Discharge 0 1/1/2015 2/1/2015 3/l/2015 4/1/2015 5/1/2015 6/l/2015 7/1/2015 8/1/2015 911/2015 10/1/2015 11/1/2015 1211/2015 Date Figure 19. Daily water temperatures averaged over depth (3, 5, and 7 feet) upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) intake and downstream of BFN discharge during 2015. 59 Tables 60 Table 1. Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Index (SAHi) metrics and scoring criteria. Metric Cover Substrate Erosion Scoring Criteria Stable cover (boulders, rootwads, brush, logs, aquatic vegetation, artificial structures) in 25 to 75% of the drawdown zone Stable cover in 10 to 25% or> 7 5% of the drawdown zone Stable Cover in< 10% of the drawdown zone Percent of drawdown zone with gravel substrate > 40 Percent of drawdown zone with gravel substrate between 10 and 40 Percent substrate gravel < 10 Little or no evidence of erosion or bank failure. Most bank surfaces stabilized by woody vegetation. Areas of erosion small and infrequent. Potential for increased erosion due to less desirable vegetation cover (grasses) on> 25% of bank surfaces. Areas of erosion extensive, exposed or collapsing banks occur along > 3 0% of shoreline. Canopy Cover Tree or shrub canopy> 60% along adjacent bank Tree or shrub canopy 30 to 60% along adjacent bank Tree or shrub canopy< 30% along adjacent bank Riparian Zone Width buffered > 18 meters Habitat Gradient Width buffered between 6 and 18 meters Width buffered < 6 meters Habitat diversity optimum. All major habitats (logs, brush, native vegetation, boulders, gravel) present in proportions characteristic of high quality, sufficient to support all life history aspects of target species. Ready access to deeper sanctuary areas present. Habitat diversity less than optimum. Most major habitats present, but proportion of one is less than desirable, reducing species diversity. No ready access to deeper sanctuary areas. Habitat diversity is nearly lacking. One habitat dominates, leading to lower species diversity. No ready access to deeper sanctuary areas. Drawdown zone gradient abrupt (> 1 meter per 10 meters). Less than 10% of shoreline with abrupt gradient due to dredging. Drawdown zone gradient abrupt.(> 1 meter per 10 meters) in 10 to 40% of the shoreline resulting from dredging. Rip-rap used to stabilize bank along> 10% of the shoreline. Drawdown zone gradient abrupt in> 40 % of the shoreline resulting from dredging. Seawalls used to stabilize bank along > 10 % of the shoreline. 61 Score 5 3 5 3 1 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 Table 2. Expected trophic guild proportions

• and expected numbers of species* in lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoir transition zones, compared to values observed during 2013 monitoring at BFN. Lower Mainstem Tennessee River Transition Zones 2015 Proportion(%) Number of species Observed Upstream of Observed Downstream BFN (TRM 295.9) of BFN (TRM 292.5) Trisected range a Average b Trisected range a 'Average b Trophic Guild Expected + Expected + Proportion Number of Proportion Number of (%} Seecies (%} Seecies Benthic Invertivore < 6.7 6.4 to 13.4 > 13.4 5.5 +/- 1.2 <3 3 to 5 >5 5+/-1 13.8 5 11.1 5 Insectivore <24.6 24.6 to 49.1 >49.1 40.0 +/-4.5 <4 4 to 8 >8 8+/-1 40.1 10 43.2 10 Top Carnivore < 15.1 15.1to30.2 >30.2 18.3+/-2.2 <4 4 to 8 >8 10+/-1 15.0 12 6.0 10 Omnivore >38.5 19.3 to 38.5 <19.3 28.7 +/-3.3 >6 3 to 6 <3 6+/-1 14.4 8 22.4 6 Planktivore < 9.4 9.4 to 18.7 >18.7 6.4 +/-2.6 0 > 1 1+/-1 16.2 17.2 Parasitic <0.1 0.1to0.2 >0.2 0.1+/-0.04 0 >1 1+/-0 Herbivore <1.8 1.8 to 3.6 >3.6 0.6 +/- 0.4 0 >1 1+/-0 0.3 0.1 1 Specialized Insectivore 0.3 2 0.1 1 *Expected values were calculated from data collected over 900 electro fishing runs and 600 overnight experimental gill net sets in transition areas of lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs. a Trisected ranges are intended to show below expected (-), expected, and above expected ( +) values for trophic level proportions and species occurring within the transition zones in upper mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs. b Average expected values are bound by 9 5% confidence intervals. 62 Table 3. RF AI scoring criteria (2002) for inflow, transition, and fore bay sections of lower mains tern reservoirs* in the Tennessee River system. Scoring Criteria Inflow Transition Forebay Metric Gear 1 3 5 1 3 5 1 3 5 1. Total species Combined < 14 14-27 >27 < 16 16-30 >30 < 14 14-27 >27 2. Number of centrarchid species Combined <2 2-4 >4 <2 2-2 >2 <2 2-3 >3 3. Number ofbenthic invertivores Combined <4 4-7 >7 <4 4-7 >7 <4 4-6 >6 4. Number of intolerant species Combined <3 3-6 >6 <3 3-4 >4 <2 2-4 >4 5. Percent tolerant individuals Electrofishing >51% 26-51% <26% >54% 27-54% <27% >61% 30-61% <30% Gill netting >30% 15-30% < 15% >46% 22-46% <22% 6. Percent dominance by one species Electro fishing >47% 24-47% <24% >58% 29-58% <29% >59% 30-59% <30% Gill netting >34% 17-34% < 17% >43% 21-43% <21% 7. Percent non-indigenous species Electrofishing >4% 2-4% <2% >2% 1-2% < 1% >2% 2-2% <2% Gill netting >2% 1-2% < 1% >2% 1-2% < 1% 8. Number of top carnivore species Combined <4 4-7 >7 <4 4-7. >7 <4 4-7 >7 9. Percent top carnivores Electrofishing < 15% 15-29% >29% <5% 5-10% >10% <6% 6-12% >12% Gill netting <20% 20-39% >39% <25% 25-49% >49% 10. Percent omnivores Electrofishing >48% 24-48% <24% >48% 24-48% <24% >59% 30-59% <30% Gill netting >33% 16-33% < 16% >49% 24-49% <24% 11. Average number per run Electro fishing <68 68-136 >136 <243 243-487 >487 < 170 170-341 >341 Gill netting < 11 11-22 >22 <20 20-40 >40 12. Percent anomalies Electro fishing >5% 2-5% <2% >5% 2-5% <2% >5% 2-5% <2% Gill netting >5% 2-5% <2% >5% 2-5% <2% *Lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs include Guntersville, Wheeler, Wilson, Pickwick, and Kentucky. Transition scoring criteria were used to score sites upstream and downstream of BFN 63 Table 4. Scoring criteria for laboratory-processed benthic macroinvertebrate community samples from inflow, transition, and forebay zones of mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs. Scoring Criteria Benthic Community Inflow Transition Fore bay Metrics 1 3 5 1 3 5 1 3 5 1. Average number of taxa <4.2 4.2-8.3 >8.3 <3.3 3.3-6.6 >6.6 <2.8 2.8-5.5 >5.5 2. Proportion of samples with long-<0.6 0.6-0.8 >0.8 <0.6 0.6-0.9 >0.9 <0.6 0.6-0.8 >0.8 lived organisms 3. Average number of EPT taxa <0.9 0.9-1.9 >1.9 <0.6 0.6-1.4 >1.4 <0.6 0.6-0.9 >0.9 4. Average proportion of oligochaete >23.9 23.9-12.0 <12.0 >21.9 21.9-11.0 <11.0 >41.9 41.9-21.0 <21.0 individuals 5. Average proportion of total abundance comprised by the two most >86.2 86.2-73.l <73.l >87.9 87.9-77.8 <77.8 >90.3 90.3-81.7 <81.7 abundant taxa 6. Average density excluding <400.0 400.0-799.9 >799.9 <305.0 305.0-609.9 >609.9 <125.0 125.0-249.9 >249.9 chironomids and oligochaetes 7. Zero Samples: proportion of samples >O 0 >O 0 >O 0 containing no organisms Transition scoring criteria were used to score sites upstream and downstream of BFN 64 4 Table 5. Intake and discharge water temperatures (°F), megawatts generated, and flow* (mgd) of the condenser circulating water (CCW) system at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant during 2015. Intake Discharge Intake Discharge Intake Discharge Date TemQ TemQ Flow MW Date TemQ Tem2 Flow MW Date TemQ TemQ Flow .MW 11112015 45.02 50.27 3459.3 2/26/2015 39.22 43.24 3411 4/23/2015 66.32 69.48 3430.4 112/2015 45.73 51.09 3459.6 2/27/2015 40.31 44.15 3405.5 4/24/2015 65.84 68.90 3429.5 113/2015 48.00 51.64 3459.7 2/28/2015 41.91 44.82 2895 3395.4 4/25/2015 66.43 69.49 3427.9 114/2015 52.39 53.56 3328.6 3/l/2015 44.64 46.22 3102.2 4/26/2015 67.51 70.51 3423.7 115/2015 49.89 51.84 3454.6 3/2/2015 46.09 47.60 3346.7 4/27/2015 66.92 70.16 3424.6 116/2015 46.85 50.45 3456.8 3/3/2015 47.41 47.75 3384 4/28/2015 66.56 69.06 2806.2 117/2015 45.32 49.08 3401.3 3/4/2015 50.47 49.82 3377.8 4/29/2015 66.54 69.11 2273.7 118/2015 40.43 45.31 3435.5 3/5/2015 49.05 47.37 3372 4/30/2015 . 67.41 70.77 2626 2273.1 119/2015 37.65 46.19 3436.5 3/6/2015 41.58 44.99 3365.4 5/112015 66.95 70.36 2269.5 1110/2015 37.38 45.04 3435.7 317/2015 42.39 46.74 3168 5/2/2015 68.66 71.02 2611.7 111112015 38.10 45.48 3436.2 3/8/2015 45.80 49.14 3359.5 5/3/2015 70.93 73.02 3207.4 1112/2015 41.21 46.54 3396.3 3/9/2015 47.68 49.71 3355.2 5/4/2015 73.70 74.41 3336.8 1113/2015 43.03 46.17 3453.4 3/10/2015 49.12 49.57 3348.7 5/5/2015 74.37 75.04 3289 1114/2015 41.74 45.19 3459.4 3/11/2015 51.69 52.69 3340.2 5/6/2015 75.09 75.80 3379.7 1115/2015 40.24 45.04 3458.8 3/12/2015 53.79 53.79 3329.8 517/2015 76.86 76.61 3375.l 1116/2015 40.08 45.87 3460.3 3/13/2015 54.00 54.44 2851.3 5/8/2015 78.85 77.05 3371.8 111712015 41.99 47.19 3363.6 3/14/2015 2306.3 5/9/2015 79.62 78.22 3368.3 1118/2015 44.69 48.20 3437.2 3/15/2015 54.56 54.35 2305.1 5/10/2015 80.51 79.35 3361.2 1119/2015 46.05 47.96 3436.8 3/16/2015 55.88 55.38 2303.3 5/1112015 82.52 80.78 3350.4 1120/2015 47.44 49.59 3436.5 3/1712015 57.06 56.83 2302.1 5/12/2015 78.87 80.87 3361.3 112112015 47.79 51.74 3436.4 3/18/2015 57.71 57.31 2302.1 5/13/2015 78.28 80.48 3364.5 1122/2015 47.29 51.24 3436.4 3/19/2015 56.99 57.44 2302.7 5/14/2015 80.20 80.89 3358 1123/2015 46.21 50.08 3438.1 3/20/2015 56.71 57.98 2274.6 5/15/2015 82.91 81.51 3324.4 1124/2015 44.83 49.59 3407.4 3/2112015 56.73 57.79 2025.5 5/16/2015 83.03 81.92 3146.7 1125/2015 44.56 50.22 3433.9 3/22/2015 56.71 58.04 2190.6 5/17/2015 82.02 81.27 3346.1 1126/2015 44.70 49.56 3434.4 3/23/2015 56.97 58.53 2286 5/18/2015 80.02 81.39 3364.5 1127/2015 44.90 49.96 3435.4 3/24/2015 58.98 59.69 2298.8 5/19/2015 79.84 81.46 3371.3 1/28/2015 45.22 49.53 3432.3 3/25/2015 60.52 60.89 2298.1 5/20/2015 80.71 81.04 3370.7 1/29/2015 46.35 50.19 3426.8 3/26/2015 61.34 61.61 2297.9 5/21/2015 76.76 79.48 3384.4 l/30/2015 47.16 50.26 3307.4 3/27/2015 59.05 60.55 2300.8 5/22/2015 75.64 79.28 3396.4 1/31/2015 46.56 50.25 2902 3439.5 3/28/2015 56.51 59.42 2303.4 5/23/2015 77.72 79.42 3390.8 2/1/2015 46.43 51.74 3451.4 3/29/2015 54.61 58.76 2304.6 5/24/2015 81.09 81.25 3378.9 2/2/2015 47.33 50.41 3445.3 3/30/2015 57.33 60.28 2302.8 5/25/2015 79.75 81.17 3377.8 2/3/2015 43.98 49.46 3441.8 3/3112015 59.14 62.13 2428 2291.6 5/26/2015 81.65 81.31 3372.5 2/4/2015 43.18 49.38 3438.6 4/1/2015 61.48 62.65 2283.2 5/27/2015 80.31 80.51 3375.8 2/5/2015 44.06 49.24 3431.8 4/2/2015 62.74 64.32 2275.8 5/28/2015 75.56 78.89 3385.1 2/6/2015 43.71 48.82 3419.3 4/3/2015 65.42 66.44 2272.7 5/29/2015 76.40 79.42 3356.4 217/2015 44.42 49.24 3269.5 4/4/2015 61.90 64.74 2286 5/30/2015 77.72 80.36 3301.3 2/8/2015 46.79 51.48 3431.8 4/5/2015 62.43 64.63 2293.9 5/3112015 78.57 81.41 3097 3377 2/9/2015 48.83 52.58 3433.6 4/6/2015 62.01 64.95 2294.3 6/112015 78.02 81.43 3377 2/10/2015 48.21 51.14 3434 417/2015 62.17 64.96 2293.3 6/2/2015 76.82 80.42 3384.5 2/1112015 47.42 51.98 3433.3 4/8/2015 64.11 65.94 2221.9 6/3/2015 76.69 80.63 3386.4 2/12/2015 46.79 50.95 3431.5 4/9/2015 65.80 67.19 1995 6/4/2015 78.43 81.88 3378 2/13/2015 44.25 48.86 3434.3 4/10/2015 66.86 68.53 2415.9 6/5/2015 80.48 82.68 3359.6 2/14/2015 44.14 50.37 3434.2 4/11/2015 65.21 67.89 2594.7 6/6/2015 81.15 83.46 3213.7 2/15/2015 42.39 48.07 3434.9 4/12/2015 65.90 68.38 3053.9 617/2015 84.92 85.03 3339.8 2/16/2015 39.73 46.69 3436 4/13/2015 67.20 69.47 3314.9 6/8/2015 87.20 86.55 3324.l 2/17/2015 39.44 46.76 3437.1 4/14/2015 67.41 69.46 3294.4 6/9/2015 84.30 86.57 3338.3 2/18/2015 38.27 46.08 3438.5 4/15/2015 68.09 70.09 3262.3 6/10/2015 86.17 86.17 3327.1 2/19/2015 36.02 41.99 3439.1 4/16/2015 68.46 70.32 3419.6 6/1112015 85.12 86.90 3326.3 2/20/2015 34.62 41.22 3438.4 4/1712015 66.76 69.66 3420.8 6/12/2015 83.62 86.47 3338.1 2/2112015 35.65 42.18 3437.5 4/18/2015 66.49 69.21 3418.4 6/13/2015 85.76 86.97 3336 2/22/2015 41.10 45.17 3430.1 4/19/2015 67.93 70.23 3423.8 6/14/2015 85.51 87.46 3336.2 2/23/2015 41.81 44.71 3425 4/20/2015 67.73 69.96 3426.2 6/15/2015 85.93 3327.9 2/24/2015 41.19 45.10 3419.4 4/2112015 66.08 68.53 3431.5 6/16/2015 87.84 88.62 3317.2 2/25/2015 40.00 45.08 3415 4/22/2015 66.27 69.27 3430 6/17/2015 88.63 88.43 3302.6 *Flow values are monthly averages 65 Table 5. (Continued). Intake Discharge Intake Discharge Intake Discharge Date Tem12 Tem12 Flow MW Date Tem12 Tem12 Flow MW Date Tem12 Tem12 Flow MW 6/18/2015 87.29 88.12 3299.6 8/23/2015 84.06 86.80 3314.4 10/28/2015 65.88 70.67 3418.4 6/19/2015 87.34 89.11 3297.3 8/24/2015 82.92 86.56 3350.3 10/29/2015 66.72 71.45 3414.4 6/20/2015. 86.29 3311.9 8/25/2015 81.60 85.62 3354.2 10/30/2015 66.27 70.88 3412.9 6/21/2015 86.36 88.09 3314.5 8/26/2015 80.33 84.62 3360.6 10/31/2015 65.46 70.38 2845 3417.4 6/22/2015 86.70 88.04 3310.6 8/27/2015 80.39 84.37 3363.l 1111/2015 65.04 70.33 3418.8 6/23/2015 86.78 88.67 3308.6 8/28/2015 81.70 85.09 3340.3 1112/2015 64.74 69.91 3414.l 6/24/2015 86.76 88.37 3307.1 8/29/2015 81.63 84.88 3119.2 1113/2015 66.34 70.98 3408.1 6/25/2015 87.34 3296.9 8/30/2015 79.33 83.16 2680.2 1114/2015 67.58 71.42 3390.4 6/26/2015 88.39 3283 8/3112015 81.83 84.03 2895 3079.5 1115/2015 68.16 71.79 3390.4 6/27/2015 86.96 89.11 3301 9/112015 81.60 84.56 2625.2 1116/2015 69.67 72.50 3386.9 6/28/2015 85.11 87.34 3318.7 9/2/2015 82.22 85.10 2688.3 1117/2015 68.33 71.64 3357.1 6/29/2015 85.29 86.76 3321 9/3/2015 83.88 86.47 3273.3 1118/2015 65.28 69.57 3404.5 6/30/2015 83.93 86.29 2895 3331.3 9/4/2015 85.29 87.27 3265 1119/2015 62.34 68.83 3411.2 7/112015 82.26 84.68 3343.3 9/5/2015 84.95 88.05 3323.7 11/10/2015 63.18 68.80 3407.9 7/2/2015 80.58 83.90 3352.9 9/6/2015 86.37 88.49 3320.9 1111112015 63.68 69.18 3406 7/3/2015 80.34 84.82 3354.9 917/2015 85.97 88.55 3320.3 11/12/2015 65.08 69.76 3410.9 7/4/2015 79.47 84.70 3361.3 9/8/2015 85.81 88.67 3319.1 11/13/2015 62.24 67.32 3417.5 7/5/2015 80.81 85.07 3353.9 9/9/2015 86.86 88.52 3315.7 11/14/2015 58.96 65.79 3427.1 7/6/2015 81.46 85.39 3345 9/10/2015 85.36 88.17 3322.9 11/15/2015 58.12 65.12 3080.4 717/2015 82.73 85.63 3337.6 9/1112015 84.30 87.47 3289.2 11116/2015 58.07 64.06 2279 7/8/2015 83.54 86.41 3330.6 9/12/2015 81.44 85.88 3009.2 11117/2015 60.17 64.31 2265.4 7/9/2015 83.95 87.00 3325.8 9/13/2015 78.89 83.76 3032.l 11118/2015 62.58 65.60 2257.6 7/10/2015 84.41 87.41 3321.4 9/14/2015 79.91 83.23 3281.5 11119/2015 61.75 64.64 2262.7 7/11/2015 85.16 87.67 3313.1 9/15/2015 79.35 82.64 3377.3 11120/2015 60.07 63.28 2417.4 7/12/2015 86.39 87.88 3304.3 9/16/2015 79.38 82.52 3366.5 1112112015 58.07 62.96 3183 7/13/2015 87.12 88.41 3298.9 9/17/2015 80.38 83.38 3369.4 11122/2015 56.04 61.42 3086.7 7/14/2015 87.39 88.62 3280.l 9/18/2015 80.33 83.94 3352 11123/2015 53.03 59.41 3139.4 7/15/2015 85.74 86.82 3305.3 9/19/2015 81.35 84.26 3359.3 11124/2015 52.67 60.28 3313.4 7/16/2015 86.18 86.96 3297.3 9/20/2015 81.38 85.03 3360 11125/2015 53.32 59.75 3321 7/17/2015 86.72 88.32 3295.1 9/2112015 80.48 84.38 2998 11126/2015 54.83 59.60 3170.7 7/18/2015 87.31 88.11 3293.2 9/22/2015 79.83 83.37 2697.l 11127/2015 60.73 3366.4 7/19/2015 87.88 88.79 3232 9/23/2015 79.23 83.29 2701 11128/2015 61.45 3385.5 7/20/2015 88.86 88.86 3142.2 9/24/2015 80.47 84.05 3140.7 11/29/2015 61.70 3404.4 7/2112015 88.24 89.14 3242.7 9/25/2015 79.51 83.79 3301.1 11130/2015 59.84 61.68 2989 3258.6 7/22/2015 87.62 87.92 3290.1 9/26/2015 80.11 83.70 3296 12/112015 59.58 60.36 3342 7/23/2015 86.88 87.29 3273.2 9/27/2015 82.52 84.46 3364.2 12/2/2015 57.87 58.89 3394.4 7/24/2015 86.50 87.11 3293.3 9/28/2015 80.48 82.52 3372.9 12/3/2015 55.68 56.97 3388.9 7/25/2015 86.98 87.11 3290.2 9/29/2015 76.82 81.25 3382.7 12/4/2015 54.65 56.65 3382.8 7/26/2015 87.48 87.63 3289 9/30/2015 76.60 81.19 2897 3384.6 12/5/2015 56.57 3373.9 7/27/2015 88.18 88.15 3284 10/112015 74.32 78.73 3393.8 12/6/2015 56.18 2938.5 7/28/2015 88.87 88.67 3254.6 10/2/2015 71.18 76.69 3403.4 1217/2015 54.87 56.22 2234.7 7/29/2015 88.44 88.41 3230.6 10/3/2015 68.24 74.45 3412.2 12/8/2015 54.62 56.03 2229.2 7/30/2015 87.77 87.73 3267.6 10/4/2015 67.70 73.83 3413.8 12/9/2015 54.18 55.33 2225.4 7/3112015 86.35 86.19 2895 3292.4 10/5/2015 71.48 74.86 3380.3 12/10/2015 54.25 55.83 2222.7 8/1/2015 85.46 85.69 3302.5 10/6/2015 72.70 76.72 3350.1 12/1112015 55.50 56.82 2215.6 8/2/2015 86.14 85.95 3301 1017/2015 75.20 78.20 3354.9 12/12/2015 57.43 58.17 2207.5 8/3/2015 86.21 86.27 3293.3 10/8/2015 75.61 78.43 3363.4 12/13/2015 58.62 58.36 2426.2 8/4/2015 87.37 87.23 3287.3 10/9/2015 75.46 78.64 3349.3 12/14/2015 59.65 58.75 3127.3 8/5/2015 87.48 87.58 3283 10/10/2015 74.70 77.94 3282.7 12/15/2015 58.55 58.97 3157.4 8/6/2015 86.08 86.61 3296.6 10/11/2015 73.51 77.83 3393.7 12/16/2015 57.61 58.92 3204.8 817/2015 84.07 85.30 3313.5 10/12/2015 72.84 77.33 3396.8 12/17/2015 58.03 59.86 3316.8 8/8/2015 84.89 85.37 3307.7 10/13/2015 72.73 77.41 3396.4 12/18/2015 54.05 57.29 3324.1 8/9/2015 86.55 85.86 3300.3 10/14/2015 72.31 76.94 3396.6 12/19/2015 49.97 55.51 3313.8 8/10/2015 86.66 87.03 3291.3 10/15/2015 71.57 76.69 3397.2 12/20/2015 49.68 55.86 3314.1 8/1112015 85.97 87.36 3293.9 10/16/2015 71.60 76.26 3396.1 12/2112015 50.34 55.18 3313.4 8/12/2015 85.53 87.41 3298 10/17/2015 69.60 74.63 3403.8 12/22/2015 53.43 57.55 3302.1 8/13/2015 84.66 86.43 3304.2 10/18/2015 67.75 73.30 3410.5 12/23/2015 56.75 57.56 3297.2 8/14/2015 84.35 85.99 3286.1 10/19/2015 66.60 72.82 3409.6 12/24/2015 60.30 59.48 3282.9 8/15/2015 83.86 86.31 3187.3 10/20/2015 64.42 71.26 3414.6 12/25/2015 61.30 59.69 3268.8 8/16/2015 84.42 86.65 3329.5 10/2112015 66.62 71.82 3409.2 12/26/2015 62.23 58.91 3237.7 8/17/2015 83.70 86.58 3334.1 10/22/2015 68.62 73.54 3401.1 12/27/2015 61.64 59.58 3237.5 8/18/2015 84.71 87.30 3331.3 10/23/2015 69.93 74.12 3382.3 12/28/2015 61.99 60.71 3232.2 8/19/2015 84.73 87.18 3332.7 10/24/2015 72.05 74.64 3351.4 12/29/2015 60.72 60.22 3214.2 8/20/2015 82.90 86.97 3338.4 10/25/2015 70.56 74.50 3403.6 12/30/2015 59.57 60.61 3230.8 8/2112015 83.06 86.51 3304.2 10/26/2015 68.84 73.07 3407.7 12/3112015 58.29 59.45 3044 3223.4 8/22/2015 83.29 86.33 3120.4 10/27/2015 69.12 70.97 3410.7 66 Table 6. SAHi scores for shoreline habitat assessments conducted within the RF AI sample reach Jipstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear plant, autumn 2015. Transects Left Descending 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Avg. Bank Aquatic Macrophytes 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% SAHi Variables Cover 5 3 3 2 Substrate 3 3 3 3 5 5 3 3 Erosion 5 5 5 3 5 3 Canopy Cover 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Riparian Zone 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 5 Habitat 3 1 Slope 5 5 5 5 3 5 3 5 5 Total 25 25 25 23 21 27 23 23 24 Rating Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Good Fair Fair Fair Transects Right Descending 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Avg. Bank Aquatic Macrophytes 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% SAHi Variables Cover 3 3 3 3 3 5 3 Substrate 5 3 3 3 5 5 5 4 Erosion 5 5 3 5 5 3 Canopy Cover 5 5 5 5 5 4 Riparian Zone 5 5 5 5 3 Habitat 1 Slope 3 5 5 2 Total 15 27 23 19 13 23 17 19 20 Rating Poor Good Fair Fair Poor Fair Fair Fair Fair Scoring criteria: poor (7-16),fair (17-26), good (27-35) 67 Table 7. SAHi scores for shoreline habitat assessments conducted within the RFAI sample reach downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear plant, autumn 2015. Transects Left Descending 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Avg. Bank Aquatic Macrophytes 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% SAID Variables Cover 3 5 3 5 3 Substrate 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 Erosion 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 Canopy Cover 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 4 Riparian Zone 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 4 Habitat 3 3 2 Slope 5 5 5 5 5 4 Total 27 23 25 23 29 23 23 19 24 Rating Good Fair Fair Fair Good Fair Fair Fair Fair Transects Right Descending 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Avg. Bank Aquatic Macrophytes 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% SAID Variables Cover 5 3 5 5 3 3 3 Substrate 5 3 3 3 3 3 Erosion 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 Canopy Cover 5 5 3 5 3 5 4 Riparian Zone 5 5 3 5 3 Habitat 5 3 3 3 2 Slope 5 5 5 5 3 3 4 Total 31 27 19 27 21 15 13 21 22 Rating Good Good Fair Good Fair Poor Poor Fair Fair Scoring criteria: poor (7-16),fair (17-26), good (27-35) 68 Table 8. Substrate percentages and average water depth (ft) per transect upstream and downstream ofBFN, autumn 2015. % Substrate per transect upstream of BFN Substrate Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Avg. Silt 63.5 69.4 65.9 57.0 41.0 64.0 51.3 60.0 59.0 Mollusk Shell 7.9 20.9 25.l 21.2 33.4 11.3 32.9 31.0 23.0 Sand 16.5 6.7 2.9 0.1 2.1 0.5 0.5 0.5 3.7 Detritus 1.9 0.6 0.0 0.7 8.5 0.7 1.3 1.0 1.8 Bedrock 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 Boulder 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 Gravel 0.2 2.4 1.1 4.5 5.1 16.0 0.5 1.5 3.9 Clay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 8.9 7.5 13.5 2.0 4.1 Wood 0.0 0.0 3.9 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 1.1 Average Depth (ft) 12.9 13.0 13.6 10.6 12.5 9.9 13.8 14.3 12.6 Actual Depth Range: 2.2 to 29.1 ft % Substrate per transect downstream of BFN Substrate Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Avg. Silt 64.6 75.9 89.l 79.2 86.4 45.5 37.8 47.4 65.7 Mollusk Shell 19.4 16.3 6.3 8.1 7.6 29.3 21.6 19.3 16.0 Sand 0.0 1.0 0.0 9.0 0.0 14.0 37.0 6.5 8.4 Detritus 2.7 4.8 4.4 3.7 4.8 1.7 3.1 6.3 3.9 Bedrock 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 0.0 8.0 2.5 Boulder 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cobble 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 Gravel 2.0 2.0 0.2 0.0 1.2 2.5 0.5 8.5 2.1 Clay 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.4 Wood 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.1 Average Depth (ft) 14.0 13.0 14.l 13.2 13.2 10.9 11.4 12.8 12.8 Actual Depth Range: 2.0 to 25.3 ft 69 Table 9. Individual metric scores and the overall RFAI scores upstream {TRM 295.9) and downstream (TRM 292.5) of Browns Ferry Nuclear plant during 2015. Autumn 2015 Metric A. Species richness and composition 1. Number of indigenous species (Tables 9 and 10) 2. Number of centrarchid species (less Micropterus) 3. Number ofbenthic invertivore species 4. Number of intolerant species Combined Combined Combined Combined TRM295.9 Obs 35 7 Bluegill Green sunfish Longear sunfish Orangespotted sunfish Redear sunfish Warmouth White crappie 5 Freshwater drum Logperch Northern hog sucker River darter Spotted sucker 5 Longear sunfish Northern hog sucker Skipjack herring Smallmouth bass Spotted sucker 70 Score 5 5 3 5 TRM292.5 Obs Black crappie Bluegill 31 7 Green sunfish Longear sunfish Redear sunfish Warmouth White crappie 5 Black redhorse Freshwater drum Logperch River darter Spotted sucker 5 Black redhorse Longear sunfish Skipjack herring Smallmouth bass Spotted sucker Score 5 5 3 5 Table 9. (Continued). Autumn 2015 TRM295.9 TRM292.5 Metric Obs Score Obs Score 5. Percent tolerant individuals Electrofishing 23.9% 30.1% Bluegill 7.1% Bluegill 2.1% Common carp 0.2% Gizzard shad 20.2% Gizzard shad 5.5% Golden shiner 0.1% Golden shiner 0.5% 2.5 Green sunfish 5.7% 1.5 Green sunfish 4.2% Largemouth bass 0.8% Largemouth bass 5.6% Redbreast sunfish 0.1% Spotfin shiner 0.5% Spotfin shiner 1.0% Striped shiner 0.3% Striped shiner 0.1% Gill Netting 21.1% 29.6% Bluegill 0.8% Bluegill 0.9% Gizzard shad 16.5% 1.5 Gizzard shad 18.5% 1.5 Longnose gar 3.8% Largemouth bass 7.4% White crappie 1.9% 6. Percent dominance by one species Electrofishing 27.3% 2.5 32.2% 1.5 Mississippi silverside Mississippi silverside Gill Netting 16.5% 2.5 25.9% 1.5 Gizzard shad Skipjack herring 7. Percent non-indigenous species Electrofishing 27.8% 32.3% Common carp 0.2% 0.5 Mississippi silverside 32.2% 0.5 Mississippi silverside 27.3% Redbreast sunfish 0.1% Striped bass 0.3% Yellow perch 0.1% Gill Netting 0.8% 2.5 NA 2.5 Striped bass 71 Table 9. (Continued). Autumn 2015 TRM295.9 TRM292.5 Metric Obs Score Obs Score 8. Number of top carnivore species Combined 11 10 Flathead catfish Black crappie Largemouth bass Bow:fin Longnose gar Flathead catfish Sauger Largemouth bass Skipjack herring 5 Sauger 5 Smallmouth bass Skipjack herring Spotted bass Smallmouth bass Spotted gar White bass White bass White crappie White crappie Yellow bass Yellow bass B. Trophic composition 9. Percent top carnivores Electro fishing 9.4% 4.5% Flathead catfish 0.5% Black crappie 0.1% Largemouth bass 5.6% Bowfin 0.1% Smallmouth bass 1.2% Flathead catfish 0.2% Spotted gar 0.9% 1.5 Largemouth *bass 0.8% 0.5 Striped bass 0.3% Skipjack herring 0.1% White bass 0.9% Smallmouth bass 2.9% Yellow bass 0.1% White bass 0.2% Yellow bass 0.1% Gill Netting 59.4% 53.7% Flathead catfish 9.8% Flathead catfish 3.7% Longnose gar 3.8% Largemouth bass 7.4% Sauger 4.5% Sauger 5.6% Skipjack herring 14.3% 2.5 Skipjack herring 25.9% 2.5 Spotted bass 0.8% Smallmouth bass 1.9% Spotted gar 6.8% White bass 3.7% Striped bass 0.8% White crappie 1.9% White bass 16.5% Yellow bass 3.7% Yellow bass 2.3% 72 Table 9. (Continued). Autumn 2015 TRM295.9 TRM292.5 Metric Obs Score Obs Score 10. Percent omnivores Electro fishing 11.7% 22.0% Black buffalo 0.2% Channel catfish 1.0% Channel catfish 2.9% Gizzard shad 20.2% Common carp 0.2% Golden shiner 0.1% Gizzard shad 5.5% 2.5 Smallmouth 2.5 Golden shiner 0.5% buffalo 0.7% Smallmouth Striped shiner 0.1% buffalo 2.2% Striped shiner 0.3% Gill Netting 35.3% 35.2% Blue catfish 6.0% Blue catfish 5.6% Channel catfish 8.3% 0.5 Channel catfish 3.7% 0.5 Gizzard shad 16.5% Gizzard shad 18.5% Smallmouth Smallmouth buffalo 4.5% buffalo 7.4% C. Fish abundance and health 11. Average number per run Electrofishing 70.1 0.5 114.8 0.5 Gill Netting 13.3 1.5 5.4 0.5 12. Percent anomalies Electrofishirig 1.1% 2.5 0.3% 2.5 Gill Netting 0.8% 2.5 0.0% 2.5 Overall RF AI Score 49 44 Good Good 73 Table 10. Species collected, ecological and recreational designation and corresponding electrofishing (EF) and gill net (GN) catch per unit effort upstream (TRM 295.9) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant discharge -Autumn 2015. Thermally Comm. Rec. Trophic Native Sensitive Valuable Valuable EF Catch EF Catch Total fish GN Catch Per Total Total fish Percent Common Name Scientific name level
• Tolerance Per Run Per Hr EF NetNight Fish GN Combined Longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus TC x TOL x 0.5 5 5 0.42 Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM x TOL x x 3.87 17.42 58 2.2 22 80 6.76 Common carp* Cyprinus carpio OM TOL x 0.13 0.6 2 2 0.17 Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas OM x TOL x 0.33 1.5 5 5 0.42 Spotfin shiner Cyprinella spiloptera IN x TOL 0.33 1.5 5 5 0.42 Striped shiner Luxilus chrysocephalus OM x TOL 0.2 0.9 3 3 0.25 Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN x TOL x 2.93 13.21 44 44 3.72 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN x TOL x 5 22.52 75 0.1 76 6.42 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides TC x TOL x 3.93 17.72 59 59 4.98 White crappie Pomoxis annularis TC x TOL x 0 0.00 Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris TC x INT x 1.9 19 19 1.60 Northern hog sucker Hypentelium nigricans BI x INT 0.13 0.6 2 2 0.11 Spotted suckt<r Minytrema melanops BI x INT x 2.07 9.31 31 31 2.62 Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN x INT x 2.4 10.81 36 36 3.04 Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC x INT x 0.87 3.9 13 13 1.10 Spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatus TC x x 0.6 2.7 9 0.9 9 18 1.52 Threadfin shad Dorosoma petenense PK x x x 12.8 57.66 192 192 16.22 Largescale stoneroller Campostoma oligolepis HB x 0.2 0.9 3 3 0.25 Smallmouth buffalo lctiobus bubalus OM x x 1.53 6.91 23 0.6 6 29 2.45 Black buffalo lctiobus niger OM x x 0.13 0.6 2 2 0.17 Blue catfish I ctalurus furcatus OM x x x 0.8 8 8 0.68 Channel catfish lctalurus punctatus OM x x x 2 9.01 30 1.1 11 41 3.46 Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC x x x 0.33 1.5 5 1.3 13 18 1.52 Blackspotted Fundulus olivaceus IN x 0.07 0.3 1 1 0.08 White bass Marone chrysops TC x x 0.6 2.7 9 2.2 22 31 2.62 Yellow bass Marone mississippiensis TC x x 0.07 0.3 1 0.3 3 4 0.34 Striped bass* Marone saxatilis TC x 0.2 0.9 3 0.1 4 0.34 Warmouth Lepomis gulosus IN x x 0.47 2.1 7 7 0.59 Orangespotted sunfish Lepomis humilis IN x x 0.07 0.3 1 1 0.08 Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN x x 0.67 3 10 0.5 5 15 1.27 Hybrid sunfish Lepomis spp. IN x x 0.2 0.9 3 3 0.25 Spotted bass Micropterus punctulatus TC x x 0.1 1 0.08 74 Table 10. (Continued). Common Name Scientific name Stripetail darter Etheostoma kennicotti Snubnose darter Etheostoma simoterum Logperch Percina caprodes River darter Percina shumardi Sauger Sander canadense Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens Mississippi silverside* Menidia audens Total Number Samples Species Collected Trophic Native level species Tolerance SP SP BI BI TC BI IN x x x x x x 36 Thermally Comm. Rec. Sensitive Valuable ValuableEF Catch EF Catch Total fish GN Catch Per Species Species Species Per Run Per Hr EF Net Night 0.13 0.6 2 O.D7 0.3 1 x 7.67 34.53 115 0.07 0.3 1 x 0.6 x 0.87 3.9 13 0.1 x x 19.13 86.19 287 1 14 22 70.07 315.59 1,051 13.3 15 10 33 16 Total Total fish Percent Fish GN Combined Composition 2 0.17 1 0.08 115 9.71 1 0.08 6 6 0.51 14 1.18 287 24.24 133 1,184 100 An asterisk(*) denotes aquatic nuisance species. Trophic level: benthic invertivore (Bl), herbivore (HB), insectivore (IN), omnivore (OM), planktivore (PK), parasitic (PS), specialized insectivore (SP), top carnivore (TC); Tolerance: tolerant species (TOL), intolerant species (INT);Comm.-Commercially, Rec.-Recreationally. All species are considered representative important species. No species collected have a Federal Threatened or Endangered status. 75 Table 11. Species collected, ecological and recreational designation and corresponding electrofishing (EF) and gill net (GN) catch per unit effort downstream (TRM 292.5) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant discharge -Autumn 2015. Thermally Comm. Rec. Trophic Native Sensitive Valuable Valuable EF Catch EF Catch Total fish GN Catch Per Total Total fish Percent Common Name Scientific name level Tolerance Per Run Per Hr EF NetNight Fish GN Combined Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM x TOL x x 23.13 104.52 347 10 357 20.10 Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas OM x TOL O.Q7 0.3 1 0.06 Spotfin shiner Cyprinella spiloptera IN x TOL 1.2 5.42 18 18 1.01 Striped shiner Luxilus chrysocephalus OM x TOL 0.13 0.6 2 2 0.11 Redbreast sunfish* Lepomis auritus. IN TOL x O.Q7 0.3 1 1 0.06 Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN x TOL x 6.6 29.82 99 99 5.57 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN x TOL x 2.4 10.84 36 0.1 37 2.08 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides TC x TOL x 0.93 4.22 14 0.4 4 18 1.01 White crappie Pomoxis annularis TC x TOL x 0.1 0.06 Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris TC x INT x 0.13 0.6 2 1.4 14 16 0.90 Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI x INT x 0.47 2.11 7 0.1 1 8 0.45 Black redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei BI x INT x O.Q7 0.3 0.06 Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN x INT 3.07 13.86 46 46 2.59 Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC x INT 3.33 15.06 50 0.1 51 2.87 Bowfin Amia calva TC x x x O.Q7 0.3 1 1 0.06 Threadfin shad Dorosoma petenense PK x x 20.33 91.87 305 305 17.17 Largescale stoneroller Campostoma oligolepis HB x O.Q7 0.3 1 0.06 Bullhead minnow Pimephales vigilax IN x 0.13 0.6 2 2 0.11 Smallmouth. buffalo Ictiobus bubalus OM x x 0.8 3.61 12 0.4 4 16 0.90 Blue catfish /ctalurus furcatus OM x x x 0.3 3 3 0.17 Channel catfish lctalurus punctatus OM x x x 1.13 5.12 17 0.2 2 19 1.07 Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC x x x 0.27 1.2 4 0.2 2 6 0.34 White bass Marone chrysops TC x x 0.27 1.2 4 0.2 2 6 0.34 Yellow bass Marone mississippiensis TC x x O.Q7 0.3 0.2 2 3 0.17 Warmouth Lepomis gulosus IN x x 0.27 1.2 4 4 0.23 Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN x x 0.27 1.2 4 4 0.23 Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC x x O.Q7 0.3 0.06 Stripetail darter Etheostoma kennicotti SP x 0.13 0.6 2 2 0.11 76 Table 11. (Continued). Thermally Comm. Rec. Trophic Native Sensitive Valuable Valuable EF Catch EF Catch Total fish GN Catch Per Total Total fish Percent Common Name Scientific name level species Tolerance Species Species Species Per Run Per Hr EF Net Night Fish GN Combined Composition Yell ow perch* Perea jlavescens IN x 0.13 0.6 2 2 0.11 Logperch Percina caprodes BI x x 11.4 51.51 171 171 9.63 River darter Percina shumardi BI x 0.13 0.6 2 2 0.11 Sauger Sander canadense TC x x 0.3 3 3 0.17 Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI x x 0.73 3.31 11 0.4 4 15 0.84 Mississippi silverside* Menidia audens IN x x 36.93 166.87 554 554 31.19 Total 31 1 12 18 114.8 518 .. 64 1,722 5.4 54 1,776 100 Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected 31 15 An asterisk(*) denotes aquatic nuisance species. Trophic level: benthic invertivore (Bl), herbivore (HB), insectivore (JN), omnivore (OM), planktivore (PK), parasitic (PS), specialized insectivore (SP), top carnivore (TC); Tolerance: tolerant species (TOL), intolerant species (INT);Comm.-Commercially, Rec.-Recreationally. All species are considered representative important species. No species collected have a Federal Threatened or Endangered status. 77 Table 12. Spatial statistical comparisons of numbers of species, mean electrofishing catch per unit effort values' (number/run), tolerance designations, trophic levels, and non-indigenous individuals, including species richness and Simpson and Shannon diversity values, for samples collected near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, autumn 2015. Mean (Standard Deviation) Parameter Downstream Upstream Significant Test PValue (TRM292.5) (TRM 295.9) Difference Statistic Number of species (per run) Total (Species richness) 11.1 (3.4) 12.7 (5.1) No t= -0.96 0.34 Benthic invertivores 1.9 (1.1) 2.3 (1.3) No Z= -0.94 0.34 Insectivores 4.0 (2.0) 3.9 (1.8) No t= 0.20 0.85 Omnivores 2.6 (1.0) 3.3 (1.8) No Z= -0.95 0.34 Top carnivores 3.2 (1.6) 3.8 (2.4) No t= -0.80 0.43 Non-indigenous 0.9 (0.5) 1.2 (0.4) No Z= -1.58 0.11 Tolerant 3.5 (1.4) 3.6 (2.0) No t= -0.11 0.92 Intolerant 2.3 (0.9) 2.2 (1.3) No Z= 0.26 0.79 Thermally sensitive 1.1 (0.6) 1.4 (0.7) No Z= -1.16 0.25 CPUE (per run) Total 5.6 (2.5) 4.3 (2.6) No t= 1.39 0.17 Benthic invertivores 0.9 (0.8) 0.7 (0.5) No Z= 0.35 0.72 Insectivores 3.4 (3.1) 2.2 (2.4) No Z= 0.58 0.56 Omnivores 1.9 (1.5) 0.9 (0.7) Yes Z=2.28 0.02 Top Carnivores 0.6 (0.3) 1.0 (0.8) No Z= -1.58 0.11 Non-indigenous 2.5 (2.9) 1.3 (1.6) No Z= 0.79 0.43 Tolerant 2.4 (1.4) 1.3 (1.0) Yes Z=2.37 0.02 Intolerant 0.6 (0.4) 0.5 (0.4) No t= 0.67 0.51 Thermally sensitive 0.8 (0.8) 0.6 (0.5) No Z= 0.31 0.76 Diversity indices (per run) Simpson 0.7 (0.1) 0.8 (0.1) Yes Z= -2.98 0.002 Shannon 5.2 (1.8) 7.9 (2.5) Yes t= 3.33 0.003 78 Table 13. Summary of autumn RFAI scores from sites located directly upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant and scores from sampling conducted during 1993-2015 as part of the Vital Signs monitoring program in Wheeler Reservoir. 1993-Site Location 1993 1994 1995 1997 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2013 2015 2015 Avg. Inflow TRM348.0 46 48 42 48 36 36 40 38 42 44 42 32 38 40 40 46 40 44 41 Transition TRM295.9 45 43 34 40 30 41 37 43 39 43 46 41 39 42 39 43 40 46 49 41 BFN Upstream Transition BFN TRM292.5 43 40 41 43 43 36 42 42 45 36 38 38 40 44 41 Downstream Forebay TRM277.0 52 44 48 45 42 41 45 44 43 45 44 49 46 47 40 46 43 46 45 Elk River ERM6.0 41 47 36 49 36 49 44 49 47 39 42 43 39 46 43 Embayment RF AI Scores: 12-21 ("Very Poor"), 22-31 ("Poor"), 32-40 ("Fair"), 41-50 ("Good"), or 51-60 ("Excellent") 79 Table 14. Comparison of RBI metric ratings and total scores for laboratory-processed samples collected upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Wheeler Reservoir, autumn 2015. Downstream Downstream Upstream TRM290.4 TRM293.2 TRM295.9 Metric Obs Rating Obs Rating Obs Rating 1. Average number of taxa 9.2 5 10.4 5 9.5 5 2. Proportion of samples with long-lived organisms 1 5 1 5 1 5 3. Average number of EPT taxa 1.5 5 1.3 3 1.4 3 4. Average proportion of oligochaete individuals 12.6 3 19.1 3 8.1 5 5. Average proportion of total abundance comprised by the two most abundant taxa 67.5 5 66.4 5 66.8 5 6. Average density excluding chironomids and oligochaetes 613.3 5 736.7 5 991.7 5 7. Zero-samples -proportion of samples containing no organisms 0 5 0 5 0 5 Benthic Index Score 33 31 33 Ecological Health Rating Excellent Excellent Excellent Reservoir Benthic Index Scores: 7-12 ("Very Poor), 13-18 ("Poor), 19-23 ("Fair), 24-29 ("Good), 30-35 ("Excellent) 80 Table 15. Metric scores and overall RBI scores determined from field processing criteria, for sites upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Wheeler Reservoir, autumn 2000-2010. Downstream -TRM 291. 7 Avg No. Taxa % Long-Lived Avg.No.EPT % %Dominant Density excl Zero Samples Overall tax a Oligochaetes Taxa chiro and oligo Score Year Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score 2000 4 3 1 5 0.8 5 6.4 5 79.6 3 125 0 5 27 2001 5.6 5 5 1.1 5 5.7 5 43 5 230 0 5 31 2002 5.7 5 5 0.8 5 7.4 5 88.1 1 120 1 0 5 27 2003 6.5 5 5 5 0.3 5 76.1 5 1270 5 0 5 35 2004 6.7 5 5 5 1.4 5 74.4 5 523.3 3 0 5 33 2005 5.5 5 5 0.8 5 3.6 5 80.3 3 508.3 3 0 5 31 2006 6.2 5 5 0.1 5 2.3 5 77.3 5 272.3 0 5 31 2007 6.4 5 5 0.8 5 12.4 5 80.2 3 166.7 0 5 29 2008 6.3 5 0.9 5 1.1 5 7.2 5 81.5 3 181.7 1 0 5 29 2009 5 5 0.7 3 0.6 3 4.6 5 90.3 83.3 0 5 23 2010 4.6 5 0.7 3 0.6 3 0.3 5 94.8 126.7 0 5 23 Mean: 5.7 0.9 0.8 4.7 78.7 327.9 0.0 29 Maximum: 6.7 1.1 12.4 94.8 1270 0 Minimum: 4 0.7 0.1 0.3 43 83.3 0 81 Table 15. (Continued) -TRM 295.9 Avg No. Taxa % Long-Lived Avg.No.EPT % Oligochaetes % Dominant Density excl Zero Samples Overall tax a Taxa chiro and oligo Sam_ele Year Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Score 2000 4.6 5 5 0.8 5 6.6 5 77.6 5 190 0 5 31 2001 5.3 5 5 5 2.7 5 79.8 3 188.3 1 0 5 29 2002 6.5 5 1 5 0.8 5 7.2 5 75.6 5 266.7 0 5 31 2003 5.1 5 0.8 5 5 0.8 5 84.1 3 456.7 3 0 5 31 2004 6.2 5 5 0.9 5 1.1 5 73.7 5 353.6 3 0 5 33 2005 5.6 5 1 5 1.2 5 2.3 5 85.4 3 490 3 0 5 31 2006 5.9 5 0.8 5 0.7 3 7 5 75 5 348.3 3 0 5 31 2007 6.5 5 0.9 5 0.9 5 1.9 5 74.2 5 353.3 3 0 5 33 2008 5.8 5 0.7 3 0.5 3 7.8 5 85.4 3 220 0 5 25 2009 5.1 5 5 0.4 3 12.2 5 75.2 5 133.3 0 5 29 2010 4.2 3 5 0.8 5 2.1 5 92 108.3 0 5 25 Mean: 5.5 0.9 0.8 4.7 79.8 282.6 0 30 Maximum: 6.5 1.2 12.2 92 490 0 Minimum: 4.2 0.7 0.4 0.8 73.7 108.3 0 82 Table 16. Metric scores and overall RBI scores determined from lab processing criteria, for sites upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Wheeler Reservoir, 2001-2006. Downstream -TRM 291. 7 Avg No. Taxa % Long-Lived Avg.No.EPT % % Dominant Density excl Zero Samples Overall tax a Oligochaetes Taxa chiro and oligo Score Year Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score 2001 7.8 5 1 5 1.1 3 7.6 5 71.7 5 315 3 0 5 31 2002 5.4 3 5 0.9 3 10.9 5 88.2 106.7 0 5 23 2003 7.3 5 5 3 0.4 5 73.2 5 1270 5 0 5 33 2004 7.9 5 5 3 1.6 5 73.5 5 551.7 3 0 5 31 2006 9.4 5 5 1.6 5 2.3 5 78.l 3 448.2 3 0 5 31 Mean: 7.56 1.12 4.56 76.94 538.32 0 30 Maximum: 9.4 1.6 10.9 88.2 1270 0 Minimum: 5.4 1 0.9 0.4 71.7 106.7 0 -TRM 295.9 Avg No. Taxa % Long-Lived Avg.No.EPT % % Dominant Density excl Zero Samples Overall tax a Oligochaetes Taxa chiro and oligo Year Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Score 2001 7.4 5 1 5 1 3 6.9 5 75.6 5 281.7 0 5 29 2002 6.8 5 5 1.1 3 5 5 74.l 5 281.7 0 5 29 2003 6.3 3 5 0.9 3 0.6 *5 82.2 3 583.3 3 0 5 27 2004 6.2 3 5 0.8 3 1.1 5 72.2 5 336.2 3 0 5 29 2006 9.2 5* 0.8 3 1.2 3 5.1 5 78.6 3 1273.3 5 0 5 29 2011 8.4 5 0.7 3 3 6.3 5 81.1 3 430 3 0 5 27 Mean: 7.4 0.9 1.0 4.2 77.3 531.0 0 28 Maximum: 9.2 1.2 6.9 82.2 1273.3 0 Minimum: 6.2 0.7 0.8 0.6 72.2 281.7 0 83 Table 17a. Mean density per square meter of benthic taxa collected upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, autumn 2015. All taxa listed contributed to individual RBI metrics and total scores. BFN BFN BFN Downstream Downstream Upstream Taxa TRM290.4 TRM293.2 TRM295.9 ANNELIDA Hirudinea Rhynchobdellida Glossiphoniidae Actinobdella inequiannulata 3 2 Actinobdella sp. 2 2 Helobdella stagnalis 7 13 3 Placobdella montifera 2 2 Oligochaeta Tubificida Naididae Naidinae 2 Derosp. 20 Naissp. 2 3 Pristina leidyi 5 Pristina sp. 10 Slavina appendiculata 8 Sty/aria lacustris 3 Vejdovskyella comata 2 Tubificinae whc 8
• Tubificinae wohc 92 182 88 Aulodrilus limnobius 2 Aulodrilus pigu,eti 12 7 10 Branchiura sowerbyi 5 3 2 Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri 18 3 ARTHROPODA Crustacea Malacostraca Amphipoda Corophiidae Apocorophium lacustre 10 145 260 Gammaridae Gammarus sp. 17 17 12 Talitridae Hyalella azteca 2 84 Table 17a. (Continued) BFN BFN BFN Downstream Downstream Upstream Taxa TRM290.4 TRM293.2 TRM295.9 Hexapoda Insecta Coleoptera Staphylinidae 2 Diptera Ceratopogonidae 2 Chironomidae Ablabesmyia annulata 18 17 7 Ablabesmyia mallochi 2 Ablabesmyia rht;imphe gp. 2 Chironomus sp. 8 7 28 Coelotanypus sp. 293 245 270 Conchapelopia sp. 2 Cryptochironomus sp. 10 Dicrotendipes neomodestus 25 Dicrotendipes simpsoni 2 Dicrotendipes sp. 18 2 17 Glyptotendipes sp. 5 65 Nanocladius distinctus 2 8 Polypedilum halterale gp. 5 Procladius sp. 3 Tanytarsus sp. 3 Ephemeroptera Caenidae Caenis sp. 7 Ephemeridae Hexagenia sp. <1 Omm 75 67 52 Hexagenia sp. > 1 Omm 98 97 100 Trichoptera Hydroptilidae Hydroptila sp. 2 Leptoceridae Oecetis sp. 8 3 5 Polycentropodidae Cyrnellus fraternus 13 10 12 MOLLUSCA Gastropoda 85 Table 17a. (Continued) BFN BFN BFN Downstream Downstream Upstream Taxa TRM290.4 TRM293.2 TRM295.9 Architaenioglossa Viviparidae Lioplax sulculosa 2 Viviparus sp. 5 3 7 Basommatophora Ancylidae Ferrissia rivularis 7 N eotaenioglossa Hydrobiidae Amnicola limosa 3 7 10 Somatogyrus sp. 2 12 30 Pleuroceridae Pleurocera canaliculata 2 Pleurocera canaliculata excuratum 10 Bivalvia Unionoida Unionidae Truncilla donaciformis 7 Veneroida Corbiculidae Corbiculajluminea <lOmm 38 8 40 Corbiculajluminea > lOmm 227 127 112 Dreissenidae Dreissena polymorpha Sphaeriidae 3 Eupera cubensis 2 Musculium transversum 88 183 327 PLATYHELMINTHES Trepaxonemata Neoophora Planariidae Dug_esia tig_rina 13 17 3 Number of samples 10 10 10 Mean-Density per meter2 1090 1305 1497 Taxa Richness 27 38 27 Sum of area {meter) 0.6 0.6 0.6 86 Table l 7b. Mean density per square meter of other benthic taxa collected but not included in individual RBI metrics or total scores for sites upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, autumn 2015. BFN BFN BFN Downstream Downstream Upstream Taxa TRM290.4 TRM293.2 TRM295.9 ARTHROPODA Crustacea Branchiopoda Diplostraca Sididae Sida crystallina 13 Maxillopoda Cyclopoida Cyclopidae Macrocyclops albidus 2 3 Mesocyclops edax 2 10 3 Ostracoda Podocopida Candonidae Candonasp. 15 33 18 Hexapoda Insecta Diptera Chaoboridae Chaoborus punctipennis 10 13 5 Chelicerata Arachnida Acariformes Trombidiformes Arrenuridae Arrenurus sp. 2 3 2 Krendowskiidae Krendowskia sp. 2 Unionicolidae Neumania sp. 2 Unionicola SQ. 8 18 3 87 Table l 7b. (Continued) BFN BFN BFN Downstream Downstream Upstream Taxa TRM290.4 TRM293.2 TRM295.9 CNIDARIA Medusozoa Hydrozoa Hydroida Hydridae Hydra SQ. 8 3 Number of samples 10 10 10 Mean-Density per meter2 47 85 48 Taxa Richness 7 8 7 Sum of area (meter2) 0.6 0.6 0.6 88 Table 18. Comparison of 2015 RBI scores with LTA scores from sites directly upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant and from sites sampled as part of the Vital Signs monitoring program on Wheeler Reservoir. Long term average, 1994 -2013. Site Location 1994 1995 1997 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2013 LTA.2015 Inflow *TRM 347 31 21 25 23 21 25 31 31 31 33 33 31 27 31 28 31 BFN Upstream TRM 295.9 33 25 31 31 31 29 31 31 33 31 31 33 25 29 25 27 35 30 33 (Transition) BFN Downstream TRM291.7 27 31 27 35 33 31 31 29 29 23 23 29 (Transition) BFN Downstream TRM 293.2 23 35 *NIA 31 (Transition) BFN Downstream TRM290.4 21 31 NIA 33 (Transition) Fore bay *TRM277 19 15 23 17 17 15 15 19 15 13 13 15 13 13 17 16 13 Embayment *ERM6 15 13 15 15 15 15 17 13 13 13 13 14 15 Reservoir Bent hie Index Scores: 7-12 ("Very Poor"), 13-18 ("Poor), 19-23 ("Fair), 24-29 ("Good), 30-35 ("Excellent) *=sites with field-processed scores all years. All other sites, 1994-2010 are field-processed scores and 2011 forward are processed scores. 89 Table 19. Wildlife observed during surveys conducted upstream and downstream of TV A's Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, November 2015. Surve;y Site Birds Obs. Obs. Mammals Obs. TRM295 (US) RDB Belted kingfisher 5 Map turtle 22 34.69047 Great blue heron 5 -87.08415 European starling 230 Unspecified perching bird 3 34.69852 Mallard 1 -87.10239 Mockingbird 3 Blue jay 8 American crow 8 American robin 6 Common flicker 2 34.68032 LDB Great blue heron 5 Map uirtle 29 -87.11340 White pelican 11 Painted turtle Carolina wren 1 34.67013 Double-crested cormorant 4 -87.10204 Blue jay 3 TRM292 (DS) RDB Great blue heron 5 34.72314 Blue jay 3 -87.13579 Unspecified perching bird 3 Golden eagle 3 34.73411 Bald eagle 1 -87.14642 Carolina chickadee 2 American robin 5 European starling 30 Common grackle 150 Mallard 2 Pileated woodpecker 1 American coot 1 34.72218 LDB Red-tailed hawk 1 Map turtle 26 -87.16943 Great blue heron 4 Bald eagle 2 34.71100 Pied-billed grebe 2 -87.15496 Double-crested cormorant 1 Osprey RDB -right descending bank; LDB -left descending bank 90 Table 20. Wildlife observed during visual surveys conducted upstream and downstream of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, 2011 through 2015. TRM295RDB TRM295LDB TRM 292.5 RDB TRM 292.5 LDB Observed 2011 2013 2015 2011 2013 2015 2011 2013 2015 2011 2013 2015 Birds American crow 6 8 1 American coot 6 4 1 American robin 6 2 5 Bald eagle 1 2 Belted kingfisher 4 5 2 3 2 Blue jay 5 8 3 5 3 1 Brown thrasher 1 Carolina chickadee 1 2 Carolina wren Common flicker 2 Common grackle 20 150 Common snipe Double-crested cormorant 2 4 Downy Woodpecker 2 European starling 230 10 30 Golden eagle 3 Great blue heron 4 6 5 4 2 5 6 2 5 5 4 4 Least flycatcher 1 Killdeer 2 Mallard 5 2 1 12 7 2 2 8 Mockingbird 1 3 2 Osprey I Pied-billed grebe 2 2 Pileated Woodpecker Red-tailed hawk Ring-billed gull Sanderling 2 Turkey vulture 2 2 Unspecified perching bird 3 8 2 2 3 5 3 White pelican 11 White-breasted nuthatch Wood duck 8 4 91 Table 20. (Continued). Species Observed Reptile/ Amphibian Map Turtle Painted turtle Unspecified turtle Mammals Eastern grey squirrel TRM295RDB 2011 2013 2015 37 22 2 TRM295LDB TRM 292.5 RDB TRM 292.5 LDB 2011 2013 2015 2011 2013 2015 2011 2013 2015 26 29 2 69 26 I 20 92 Table 21. Depth profiles of water temperature (°F) collected to determine the extent of the thermal plume discharged from TV A's Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant during 2015. October Ambient-TRM 295.4 Discharge-TRM 293.5 Mid-plume-TRM 291.7 Below Sample Reach 2015 TRM290.2 Depth 10% 30% 50% 70% 90% 10% 30% 50% 70% 90% 10% 30% 50% 70% 90% 10% 30% 50% 70% 90% m 0.3 68.l 67.2 66.7 66.8 67.5 72.4 72.0 66.9 67.l 67.8 71.9 72.0 69.8 69.7 68.0 7 l.5 7 l.8 7 l.2 69.4 68.4 1.5 68.l 67.2 66.6 66.8 67.4 70.9 70.8 67.0 67.0 7 l.9 72.0 69.7 69.6 67.9 71.3 71.8 7 l.2 69.3 68.2 2 68.l 66.9 3 67.2 66.5 66.8 69.8 68.7 66.9 7 l.9 72.0 69.2 69.5 67.9 7 l.2 71.8 70.9 69.2 67.9 4 69.4 7 l.2 71.8 67.8 5 66.4 68.0 68.1 69.0 69.8 69.l 6 69.0 7 66.4 67.9 67.9 8 66.4 67.9 Shaded numbers represent temperatures 3.6°F (2°C) or greater above ambient temperature. 93 Table 22. Water quality parameters collected along vertical depth profiles at three transects within the RFAI sample reaches upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant during 2015. October, 2015 TRM 295 Upstream Boundary Mid-station Downstream Boundary Depth 0.3 1.5 0.3 1.5 0.3 1.5 LDB Mid-channel oc 21.4 21.4 OF 70.6 70.5 21.0 69.8 21.0 69.8 21.7 71.1 21.1 70.0 pH Cond DO Depth °C °F pH 7.5 210.6 8.6 0.3 21.0 69.7 7.6 7.4 210.6 8.6 1.5 20.7 69.3 7.5 7.4 210.9 8.1 7.4 2 I 1.2 8. I 7.6 210.I 8.6 7.5 209.4 8.5 3 20.7 69.2 7.4 5 20.7 69.2 7.4 6 20.6 69.2 7.4 0.3 1.5 3 4 6 0.3 1.5 3 4 6 8 20.9 69.6 20.6 69.1 20.3 68.6 20.2 68.4 20.1 68.1 21.8 71.2 21.7 71.0 21.7 71.0 21.4 70.6 20.9 69.6 20.4 68.6 7.4 7.4 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.5 7.5 Cond 209.7 209.8 212.5 209.I 208.1 DO 7.8 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 218.8 8.2 210.7 8.0 212.7 8.0 211.8 7.9 210.7 7.8 208.4 8.8 209.3 8.7 210.7 8.7 209.0 8.7 209.1 8.6 208.6 8.5 Depth 0.3 1.5 0.3 1.5 0.3 1.5 3 4 oc 21.7 20.1 20.4 18.8 24.6 22.1 21.3 21.3 RDB OF 71. I 68.2 68.7 65.8 76.2 71.7 70.4 70.3 pH 7.3 7.1 7.6 7.7 7.7 7.6 7.5 7.5 Cond 209.4 207.4 DO 8.5 8.4 207.4 9.2 207.5 9.4 211.5 9.0 211.0 8.7 209.1 8.5 208.6 8.5 TRM 292 Depth oc OF pH Cond DO Depth oc OF pH Cond DO Depth oc OF pH Cond DO Upstream Boundary Mid-station Downstream Boundary 0.3 1.5 3 0.3 1.5 3 0.3 1.5 3 4 20.7 69.2 19.7 67.5 19.4 66.9 21.8 71.3 20.4 68.7 19.7 67.5 20.8 69.4 20.0 68.0 19.4 66.8 19.3 66.7 7.7 211.4 9.6 7.6 211.5 9.5 7.6 210.0 9.4 7.7 213.2 9.0 7.8 209.0 9.2 7.6 213.4 8.5 7.8 210.7 9.4 7.8 211.6 9.6 7.2 210.5 9.4 7.7 209.5 9.3 0.3 1.5 3 5 0.3 1.5 3 4 6 0.3 1.5 3 4 6 21.6 70.8 20.6 69.1 20.0 68.0 19.9 67.8 22.7 72.8 21.3 70.3 20.4 68.7 19.9 67.9 19.8 67.6 21.6 70.9 20.0 67.9 19.7 67.4 19.5 67.1 19.3 66.8 7.5 7.5 7.4 7.2 7.6 7.5 7.5 7.4 7.4 7.8 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 211.9 8.5 211.6 8.3 210.9 8.2 207.8 8.1 213.8 8.9 210.3 8.8 210.6 8.6 209.3 8.4 214.6 8.3 210.5 9.1 210.3 8.9 211.2 8.9 209.7 9.0 211.0 8.9 0.3 1.5 3 0.3 1.5 2 0.3 1.5 3 Abbreviations: °C -Temperature (degrees Celsius), °F -Temperature (degrees Fahrenheit), Cond -Conductivity, DO -Dissolved Oxygen 94 21.8 21.0 20.7 22.5 21.6 21.4 21.6 21.2 20.3 71.3 69.8 69.3 72.5 70.9 70.6 70.9 70.2 68.6 7.6 7.5 7.4 7.7 7.6 7.6 7.7 7.6 7.5 21 1.3 8.9 210.2 8.7 210.1 8.5 211.7 9.2 211.4 9.2 209.8 8.8 210.9 9.2 209.9 8.9 207.3 8.5 Tennessee Valley Authority, 1101 Market Street, Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402 CNL-16-075 April 22, 2016 ATTN: Document Control Desk U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3
• 10 CFR 50.90 Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-33, DPR-52, and DPR-68 NRG Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296

Subject:

Proposed Technical Specifications (TS) Change TS-505 -Request for License Amendments -Extended Power Uprate (EPU) -Supplement 13, Responses to Requests for Additional Information

References:

1. Letter from TVA to NRG, CNL-15-169, "Proposed Technical Specifications (TS) Change TS-505 -Request for License Amendments -Extended Power Uprate (EPU)," dated September 21, 2015(ML15282A152) 2. Letter from NRG to TVA, "Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3 -Request for Additional Information Related to License Amendment Request Regarding Extended Power Uprate (CAC Nos. MF6741, MF6742, and MF6743)," dated April 4, 2016 (ML 16064A286) By the Reference 1 letter, Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) submitted a license amendment request (LAR) for the Extended Power Uprate (EPU) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) Units 1, 2 and 3. The proposed LAR modifies the renewed operating licenses to increase the maximum authorized core thermal power level from the current licensed thermal power of 3458 megawatts to 3952 megawatts. During their technical review of the LAR, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRG) identified the need for additional information. The Reference 2 letter provided NRG Requests for Additional Information (RAI) related to the environmental review of the BFN EPU LAR. The due date for the responses to the NRG RAls provided by the Reference 2 letter is April 22, 2016. The enclosure to this letter provides the responses to the RAls included in the Reference 2 letter, with the exception of the responses to NRG RAls RERP-GE-RAI 2 and r U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission CNL-16-075 Page 2 April 22, 2016 RERP-GE-RAI 4. NRC RAls RERP-GE-RAI 2 and RERP-GE-RAI 4 involve providing environmental information associated with transmission system upgrades. However, due to changes in the modifications associated with these transmission system upgrades, the due date for the responses to NRC RAls RERP-GE-RAI 2 and RERP-GE-RAI 4 was extended to May 27, 2016, per communication with the NRC Project Manager. TVA has reviewed the information supporting a finding of no significant hazards consideration and the environmental consideration provided to the NRC in the Reference 1 letter. The supplemental information provided in this submittal does not affect the bases for concluding that the proposed license amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration. In adqition, the supplemental information in this submittal does not affect the bases for concluding that neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment needs to be prepared in connection with the proposed license amendment. Additionally, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.91(b)(1), TVA is sending a copy of this letter to the Alabama State Department of Public Health. There are no new regulatory commitments associated with this submittal. If there are any questions or if additional information is needed, please contact Mr. Edward D. Schrull at (423) 751-3850. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on the 22nd day of April 2016. V e President, Nuclear Licensing

Enclosure:

Responses to NRC Requests for Additional Information Related to the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Extended Power Uprate Environmental Review cc: NRG Regional Administrator -Region II NRG Senior Resident Inspector -Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant State Health Officer, Alabama Department of Public Health ENCLOSURE Responses to NRC Requests for Additional Information Related to Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Extended Power Uprate Environmental Review Enclosure Contains Responses to the Following Environmental Review RAls General (GE) RERP-GE-RAI 1 RERP-GE-RAI 3 Visual Resources (VR) RERP-VR-RAI 1 Noise (NO) RERP-NO-RAI 1 Surface Water Resources (SW) RERP-SW-RAI 1 (includes Attachment 1) RERP-SW-RAI 2 (includes Attachments 2 and 3) RERP-SW-RAI 3 RERP-SW-RAI 4 RERP-SW-RAI 5 (includes Attachment 4) RERP-SW-RAI 6 (includes Attachments 5 and 6) Aquatic Resources (AQ) RERP-AQ-RAI 1 RERP-AQ-RAI 2 (includes Attachments 7 through 12) Protected Species and Habitats (PS) RERP-PS-RAI 1 ENCLOSURE RERP-GE-RAI 1 The NRG issued a final Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONS/) related to the BFN, Units 1, 2, and 3 previously proposed extended power uprate (EPU) LARs in February 2007 (ADAMS Accession No. ML070190246). Describe any new and significant information regarding an impact on the human environment because of the currently proposed EPU LAR dated September 21, 2015, and its supplements. Also, describe any environmental impact that has arisen since the publication of the final EA and FONS/ in February 2007. TV A Response: New and significant information related to the proposed Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) extended power uprate (EPU) since the NRC publication of the environmental assessment (EA) and finding of no significant impact (FONSI) is described below.

• Hydrothermal conditions: TVA updated the hydrothermal analysis on September 21, 2015, in the BFN EPU License Amendment Request (LAR), _ Attachment 42, Supplemental Environmental Report, Section 7.2.3, Impact on Discharge.
• Cooling Towers: TVA replaced all but two of the original cooling towers, and constructed one additional new cooling tower. As described in the BFN EPU LAR, Attachment 42, Supplemental Environmental Report, Section 2.2, Related Power Uprate Submittals and NEPA Documentation, TVA prepared EAs for the cooling tower replacements and construction of the new cooling tower and issued associated FONSls.
• Transmission System Upgrades: TVA transmission system upgrades will be required for EPU that are not discussed in, or bounded by, the assessment documented in the BFN EPU LAR, Attachment 42, Supplemental Environmental Report. The environmental information associated with these upgrades will be provided in response to RERP-GE-RAl-2. E-1 ENCLOSURE RERP-GE-RAI 3 On page 12 of the Interconnection System Impact Study, TVA estimates that related upgrades and modifications would be completed 7 to 10 years after TVA receives authorization to begin work. Given this timeline and assuming the EPU is approved, would BFN be able to operate at EPU levels prior to the transmission upgrades being completed? If not, please provide revised estimates of when each unit would begin operating at EPU levels, included revisions to the EPU outage schedules, if applicable. TV A Response: a. The interconnection system impact study (SIS) identified six breaker failure relays requiring upgrade. Installation of relay upgrades will not preclude or delay the BFN operating at EPU conditions. All six relays will be replaced prior to the first unit uprate (Unit 3) in the Spring of 2018. Therefore, the relay replacement schedule will not affect the EPU schedule. b. The SIS determined that the TVA transmission system would require incremental installation of 774 mega volt amp reactive (MVAR) capacitor banks in four locations throughout the TVA transmission system. The proposed locations are the Clayton Village Substation located in Oktibbeha County Mississippi, Holly Springs Substation located in Marshall County Mississippi, Corinth Substation located in Alcorn County Mississippi, and the Wilson Substation located in Wilson County Tennessee. The preliminary estimated completion of the final capacitor bank is Spring of 2019. TVA Transmission Operation and Power Supply does not preclude BFN operating at EPU levels during the capacitor bank installations. Therefore, the MVAR capacitor bank installation schedule will not affect the EPU schedule. c. The SIS determined that the TVA transmission system would require a new 500 kV transmission line to support the EPU of all three BFN units. The new line mitigates a transient stability issue that could arise if a 3-phase fault develops while one of the four 500 kV lines specified in the SIS is out of service and BFN is operating at EPU conditions. Until the new transmission line is constructed, TVA will issue a detailed temporary operating guide to eliminate these issues during 500 kV line outages; otherwise, BFN will operate at EPU levels. Therefore, the new transmission line construction schedule will not affect the EPU schedule. E-2 ENCLOSURE RERP-VR-RAI 1 The NRC's 2005 final supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) for license renewal of BFN (ADAMS Accession No. ML051730443) describes the BFN viewshed as the following: "There are no homes within foreground viewing distance to the north and east. Adjacent to the site however, is a small residential development located to the northwest. Another residential development is located across Wheeler Reservoir to the southwest, and the Mallard Creek public use area is directly across the reservoir. These developments have at least partial views of the plant site. A berm, graded during the initial construction of the plant and containing approximately 2. 5 million cubic meter (3.3 million cubic yard) of earth excavated to make cooling water channels, lies adjacent to the cooling tower complex and blocks views of the northern and eastern plant area (TV A 2003a)." Confirm that this description continues to accurately depict the BFN viewshed. TV A Response: This description of the viewshed has changed since the 2005 final supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). The first three sentences remain correct as written, however the remainder of the quote requires some modification. In 2012, a larger but architecturally similar cooling tower (CT 7) was constructed north of the original six CTs. Construction of CT 7, required relocation of part of the berm to the north side of CT 7 where it continues to block views of the northern and eastern plant area. In addition, a portion of Shaw Road near the entrance to the BFN was relocated to facilitate construction of CT 7. Portions of CTs 1 through 6, and CT 7 continue to be visible to motorists traveling on Shaw Road. Construction of CT 7 and relocation of Shaw Road altered the viewscape such that the view on this stretch of road is now dominated by CT 7. Because the viewscape is similar, the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on the viewshed are insignificant. The paragraph from the NRC's 2005 supplemental environmental impact statement should be revised for use in the BFN extended power uprate environmental assessment as follows. "There are no homes within foreground viewing distance to the north and east. Adjacent to the site however, is a small residential development located to the northwest. Another residential development is located across Wheeler Reservoir to the southwest, and the Mallard Creek public use area is directly across the reservoir. These developments have at least partial views of the plant site. Two earthen berms lie adjacent to the cooling tower complex. These berms block views of the northern and eastern plant areas. The berms, as well as portions of the cooling tower complex, are visible to motorists traveling on Shaw Road." E-3 ENCLOSURE RERP-NO-RAI 1 Section 7.1.5 of the Supplemental Environmental Report (ER) summarizes a 2012 environmental sound pressure level assessment that found the ambient noise level in the Paradise Shores community located 1,500 feet from the BFN property boundary to be 59. 7 decibels in the absence of cooling tower operation and 61.9 decibels with six cooling towers in operation. Previously, a 2001 background noise survey (described on page 8 of NRC's 2007 Final EA and page 2-67 (Section 2.2.8.4) of NRC's 2005 license renewal SEIS) found that the noise level in the Paradise Shores community with six cooling towers operating was 52 decibels. Explain the increase in background noise levels between the 2001 and 2011 assessments. TV A Response: A number of factors may account for differences in the background noise levels between the 2001 and the 2012 noise surveys. Background noise surveys were taken in the Paradise Shores residential community in June 2001 without cooling towers operating, and again in July 2001 with three cooling towers in operation. The BFN cooling tower contribution to the background noise was estimated to be 1 to 2 decibels (dBA). Noise surveys were again taken in the Paradise Shores residential community in August 2012 with six cooling towers in service, and again in September 2012 without cooling towers operating. The BFN cooling tower contribution to the background noise was estimated to be 2.2 decibels. The NRC final supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS), June 2005, states that the dominant contributors to the background noise were traffic, lawn mowers, home air conditioners, fauna (insects and frogs), and family activities. It should be noted that the data collection represents a single 24-hour period for each date. The background noise level in these surveys is influenced by several factors that can vary significantly from day to day, season to season, and year to year. Specific differences between the 2001 and 2012 surveys, and the effect of those differences, cannot be quantified. The general differences in local conditions between the 2001 and 2012 surveys are described below.
• The Paradise Shores residential community has undergone some demographic changes. According to 2000 and 2010 census profile information, the number of housing units increased from 56 to 72. The number of households increased from 39 to 46 and the* total population increased from 93 to 101. The change in the demographics results in changes in the number of operating air conditioning units, automobiles, lawn mowers, boats, and other noise generating devices.
• The July 2001 survey was conducted with three cooling towers actually in service. The September 2012 survey was conducted with six cooling towers actually in service.
• There are seasonal variations between the two surveys. The 2001 surveys were conducted entirely in the summer months. The 2012 surveys began in the summer and were concluded in the fall. Fauna, flora, agricultural equipment use, social activities, river activities (recreational and commercial), and traffic patterns are some factors that exhibit seasonal variation. The specific day(s) of the week when the 2001 survey data was collected are not known, however the day of the week also influences traffic patterns, lawn mower use, and river activities.
• Weather factors also influence background noise level. Specifically, wind velocity and rain would affect noise generation while wind direction, wind gradient, air temperature, and relative humidity would affect noise propagation. However, the meteorological conditions on the dates of data collection for either survey year were not documented. E-4 ENCLOSURE RERP-SW-RAI 1 TVA indicates in Sections 7.1.6 and 7.2.3 of the Supplemental ER that the proposed EPU would not increase temperature or flow rates of discharged water beyond permitted National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) limits. Clarify whether implementation of the EPU will change the volume or quality of effluents discharged to the Tennessee River, including usage of cooling water treatment chemicals. If so, quantify the changes in discharge characteristics and specify whether an NPDES permit modification will be required or whether notification to Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) has been made. Additionally, provide relevant documentation of correspondence to/from the State. TV A Response: Most of the water withdrawn at the plant intake is returned to the river. As noted in the BFN EPU license amendment request (LAR), Attachment 42, Supplemental Environmental Report, Section 7.2.3, Impact on Discharge, water losses from evaporation and drift will occur for the condenser circulating water (CCW) system when cooling towers are in operation (helper mode). For other systems, water loss would be comparatively negligible, unquantifiable amounts. Operating at EPU conditions will not change the CCW flow entering and leaving the main condenser. In the open mode of operation, essentially all of the water that enters the forebay is subsequently discharged back to the Tennessee River. Therefore, EPU operation does not affect the volume of water discharged to the Tennessee River in the open mode of operation. Operating at EPU conditions is expected to increase the number of days that the cooling towers are operated in the helper mode by about 22 days per year. Therefore, for an average of 22 additional days per year, BFN discharge volume to the Tennessee River will be reduced due to cooling tower evaporation and drift. No modification is required for the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM), National Pollutant Discharge Elimination (NPDES) permit. Page Att 42-46 of the BFN EPU LAR, Attachment 42, Section 7.2.3, Impact on Discharge, states "For years with warm summers, the number of days of helper mode operation, on the average, is expected to increase by about 13 days at 120 percent [original licensed thermal power (OLTP)] as compared to 105 percent OLTP." Table 7.2-3, Summary of BFN Hydrothermal Impacts for Warm, Summer Meteorology, under Helper Mode Operation, indicates the model predicted average number of days of cooling tower operation per year for 105 percent OL TP and 120 percent OL TP to be 66 days and 89 days respectively. The change from 105 percent OL TP to 120 percent OL TP is given as +13 days. These numbers contain a typographical error and a mathematical error. The actual model predicted average number of days of cooling tower operation at 120 percent OL TP is 88 days resulting in a change of +22 days. See the Attachment 1 mark-up for changes to BFN EPU LAR, Attachment 42, Supplemental Environmental Report, Section 7.2.3, Impact on Discharge, and Table 7.2-3, Summary of BFN Hydrothermal Impacts for Warm, Summer Meteorology. As noted in the BFN EPU LAR, Attachment 42, Supplemental Environmental Report, Table 7.2-3, both the Diffuser Discharge Temperature, Flow-Weighted and the Temperature at Downstream End of Mixing Zone at Compliance Depth will change under EPU conditions. These changes however, remain within the temperature limitations contained in the NPDES Permit for the plant and will not require a modification to the NPDES permit. The types, frequency, and amounts of cooling water treatment chemicals used in the raw water chemical treatment system are not affected by EPU. The hydrothermal impact on water quality is discussed in detail in the BFN EPU LAR, Attachment 42, Section 7.2.3, Impact on Discharge. E-5 ENCLOSURE There will be no change in the volume or quality of effluents discharged to the Tennessee River associated with the EPU. All monitored effluents will remain within current NPDES limits. Operation at EPU will not affect the water quality discharge to the Tennessee River. An NPDES permit modification is not required and notification to the ADEM is not required. Because no changes to the NPDES permit have been identified, there is no applicable correspondence to/from the State of Alabama. E-6 ENCLOSURE RERP-SW-RAI 2 Please provide a copy of BFN's current ADEM-issued NPDES permit and most recent NPDES permit renewal application. TV A Response: The BFN NPDES permit issued by the ADEM, dated July 3, 2012 is included as Attachment 2. The most recent BFN permit renewal application from March 2011 is provided as Attachment 3 of this response. Development of the BFN 2017 NPDES permit renewal application will begin during the summer of 2016. E-7 Supplemental Environmental Report Table 7.2-3: Summary of BFN Hydrothermal Impacts for Warm, Summer Meteorology Change 0% 105% 120% 105%-.120% Parameter (1l OLTP(2l OLTP OLTP OLTP Water Temperature (°F) Average 66.5 66.5 66.5 0 Hourly Max 94.3 94.3 94.3 0 Ambient River Temperature at Hourly Min 37.6 37.6 37.6 0 Compliance Depth 24-hr Avg Max 91.5 91.5 91.5 0 24-hr Avg Min 38.4 38.4 38.4 0 Average NA(4l 86.9 89.5 +2.6 F0 Diffuser Discharge Hourly Max NA 112.5 117.2 +4.7 F0 Temperature, Hourly Min NA 60.3 58.0 -2.3 F0 Flow-Weighted 24-hr Avg Max NA 107.1 110.5 +3.5 F0 24-hr Avg Min NA 60.8 64.3 +3.5 F0 Average 66.5(3) 70.8 71.4 +0.6 F0 Temperature at Downstream Hourly Max 94_3(3) 92.1 92.0 -0.1 F0 End of Mixing Zone at Hourly Min 37_5(3) 39.8 40.3 +0.5 F0 Compliance Depth 24-hr Avg Max 91.5 (3) 89.4 89.3 -0.1 F0 24-hr Avg Min 38.4 (3) 40.4 41.2 +0.8 F0 Helper Mode Operation Max No. days of cooling tower operation per year NA 82 121 +39 Avg No. days of cooling tower operation per year NA 66 88 +8-+22 Hydrothermal Derate Operation Percent of Summers with Derates NA 1 in 6 1 in 6 unchanged Max No. Hours of Derate for Summers with Derate NA 185 207 +28 Max Derate MWH for Summers with Derate NA 81065 101850 +20785 Avg Derate MWe for Summers with Derate NA 438 492 54 Changes in Net Generation (106 MWH) Maximum Annual Net Generation NA 29.6 34.5 +4.9 Minimum Annual Net Generation NA 29.2 34.1 +4.9 Average Annual Net Generation NA 29.4 34.3 +4.9 Notes: 1. Based on simulations with historical hydrology and meteorology for years 2007-2012. 2. 0% OL TP = no withdrawal from or discharge to the river from BFN. 3. Value assumed to be the same as ambient (i.e., neglects any heat exchange between the reservoir and the atmosphere/riverbed in the reach between the ambient measurement at TRM 297.8 and the downstream end of mixing zone at TRM 293.5). NA=not applicable. Att 42-52 Supplemental Environmental Report For the simulations summarized herein, the results at 105 percent OL TP assume the configuration of cooling towers is the same as that summarized in Table 7 .2-1. Results at 120 percent OL TP assume that CTs 1 and 2 are replaced with new cooling towers with design characteristics the same as those for CT 5. Presented in Table 7.2-3 are the results comparing plant operation at 120 percent OL TP with plant operation at 105 percent OL TP. The table includes four sections: the first summarizes impacts on water temperature, the second summarizes impacts on helper mode operation (i.e., cooling tower operation), the third and fourth summarize impacts on plant electrical generation (i.e., derates and net generation). Notable observations include the following:
• For years with warm summers, the temperature of water exiting the diffusers at 120 percent OL TP, on the average, will be about 2.6 F0 warmer than the temperature of water at 105 percent OL TP. For the maximum hourly value, as well as the maximum 24-hour average value, the model results imply a change in the temperature of water exiting the diffusers of 4.7 F0 warmer and 3.4 F0 warmer, respectively.
• For years with warm summers, the temperature of the river at the compliance depth at the downstream end of the mixing zone at 120 percent OL TP, on the average, will be about 0.6 F0 warmer than the temperature at 105 percent OL TP. For the maximum hourly value, as well as the maximum 24-hour average value, the model results imply very subtle changes in the temperature of the river at the compliance depth at the downstream end of the mixing zone (only 0.1 F0 cooler). This primarily is due to additional helper mode operation.
• For years with warm summers, the number of days of helper mode operation, on the average, is expected to increase by about rs-22 days at 120 percent OL TP as compared to 105 percent OL TP. At 120 percent OL TP, the most extreme years are expected to include about 121 days of helper mode operation.
• For years with warm summers the number of summers containing derates is expected to remain at 1 in 6 at EPU conditions. For warm summers containing derates, the maximum number of hours of derate per year is expected to increase by about 28 at 120 percent OL TP with a maximum overall increase in annual hydrothermal derate energy loss of about 20,785 MWh. In derate events, the average amount of derate power loss is expected to increase by about 54 MW at 120 percent OL TP.
• The average annual net generation with the uprate from 105 percent OL TP to 120 percent OL TP is expected to increase by about 4.9x106 MWh. At both 105 percent and 120 percent OL TP, the derate predictions summarized in Table 7 .2-3 occurred only for 2010, the warmest summer of record (see Figure 7.2-1 ). Other notable observations from the hydrothermal simulations include the following:
• In helper mode operation, the model results indicate a water loss due to cooling tower evaporation of about 2.7 percent of the cooling tower flow on average. Berger (1995) suggests that manufacturers strive to limit cooling tower drift to about 0.2 percent of the flow. Thus, during helper mode operation, the combined loss due to evaporation and drift is expected to be roughly 3 percent of the cooling tower flow. If all seven cooling towers Att 42-46 ATTACHMENT 1 Markup of Changes to BFN EPU LAR Attachment 42, Supplemental Environmental Report ENCLOSURE References 1. Letter from United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service to TVA, "Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant -Proposed Extended Power Uprate -Updated list of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project," dated February 1, 2016 (ML 16032A044 ). 2. Ortmann 1925. The American Midland Naturalist, Volume IX, Number 7, The Fauna of the Tennessee River System Below Walden Gorge; dated March 1925. E-20 ENCLOSURE p. Fleshy-fruit gladecress (Leavenworthia crassa): Fleshy-fruit gladecress (Leavenworthia crassa) has a narrow global range and is currently known from seven locations in Lawrence and Morgan County, Alabama. The nearest occurrence is approximately 8 miles southwest of the BFN site. While native habitat for the species consists of limestone glades and other areas with thin soils and limestone outcrops, fleshy-fruit glade cress can also persist in areas of disturbed soil adjacent to suitable native habitat. Limestone glade habitat does not occur on or adjacent to the BFN site and proposed BFN EPU project areas where work would occur do not receive the type of disturbance necessary to support a population of the species. The proposed BFN EPU would have no effect on fleshy-fruit gladecress. q. Kral's water-plantain (Sagittaria secundifolia): Kral's water-plantain (Sagittaria secundifolia) is a diminutive, perennial that grows in cracks of bedrock located in stream channels with shallow water. Extant populations are only known from the Little River drainage of northeast Alabama and northwest Georgia, the Sipsey Fork of the Black Warrior River, and Hatchet Creek. The nearest population of Kral's water-plantain is located in Winston County, Alabama, over 35 miles south -southwest of the BFN site. No suitable habitat occurs on or near the BFN site and the species would not be affected by the proposed BFN EPU project. r. Leafy prairie-clover (Da/ea fo/iosa): Leafy prairie-clover (Da/ea fo/iosa) occurs in high quality barren remnants and in wet, limestone glades. The nearest populations of leafy prairie-clover are more than 20 miles to the south and west of the BFN site. Construction, operation, and maintenance of the BFN has drastically altered the physical landscape on-site. The highly-disturbed, anthropogenic plant communities currently on the BFN site are not capable of supporting leafy clover. The species would not be affected by the proposed BFN EPU project. s. Lyrate bladderpod (Lesquerel/a lvrata): Lyrate bladderpod (Lesquerella /yrata) occurs in association with limestone glades. The species has only been documented south of the Tennessee River. The nearest extant populations of lyrate bladderpod are about 25 miles southwest of the BFN site. Suitable habitat does not occur on or adjacent to the BFN site and lyrate bladderpod would not be affected by the proposed BFN EPU project. t. Price's potato-bean (Apios priceana): Price's potato-bean (Apios priceana) requires plant habitats that are found relatively frequently on the landscape. Rich forested slopes and forest edges underlain by limestone are not uncommon, but those habitats are not found on the BFN site. Price's potato-bean does not occur at the BFN site and would not be affected by the proposed BFN EPU project. u. Flattened musk turtle (Sternotherus depressus): Flattened musk turtles are restricted to the Black Warrior River drainage. They are found above the Fall Line (the juncture of the coastal plain and upland provinces) within the Black Warrior River Basin. This species appears to prefer large creeks or small rivers where vegetation grows in shallow areas. Pools within these bodies of water typically have an abundance of submerged rocks where crevices are plentiful. The BFN site is not located in the Black Warrior River drainage, therefore no habitat for this species would be affected by the proposed BFN EPU project. Flattened musk turtles would not be affected by the proposed BFN EPU project. E-19 ENCLOSURE USFWS final OCH for this species does not overlap with the potential action area of the proposed BFN EPU project. Therefore, the proposed BFN EPU project would not affect OCH for the triangular kidneyshell. I. Alabama streak-sorus fern (The/ypteris pilosa var. alabamensis): The Alabama streak-sorus fern is a rare endemic restricted to semi-shaded crevices of sandstone rock faces along a 4.25 miles section of the Sipsey Fork. The nearest known extant occurrence of Alabama streak-sorus fern is about 35 miles south -southwest of BFN. The highly specialized habitat required by this fern does not occur on or near the BFN site and the proposed BFN EPU would have no effect on the species. m. Boulder darter (Etheostoma wapiti): The boulder darter was federally listed on September 1, 1988, along with a non-essential, experimental population designated between Shoal Creek miles 41.7 and 14. This small fish inhabits streams and medium rivers with moderate to high gradient in areas with boulder/rubble substrate. The closest records of this species to the BFN site are well upstream of the mainstem Tennessee River in the Elk River and Shoal Creek tributaries. Given the lack of evidence that the boulder darter inhabits the Tennessee River, particularly near the BFN site, TVA has concluded that it would not occur at the BFN site and, thus, would not be affected by the proposed BFN EPU project. The USFWS has not published OCH for the boulder darter, therefore, the proposed BFN EPU would not affect OCH for this species. n. Rush darter (Etheostoma phvtophilum): The rush darter was federally listed as endangered on August 9, 2011. The biology of this small fish species is not well-known, but is likely similar to the goldstripe darter. It lives along the benthic (bottom) habitat of springs and spring-fed streams with very shallow depths. This species is known only in Etowah, Jefferson, and Winston Counties in Alabama, which fall within the upper Mobile River basin. Because the rush darter does not occur in the Tennessee River basin, and no habitat for this species occurs in the BFN EPU project area, the proposed BFN EPU project would not affect this species. The USFWS final OCH for this species does not overlap with the potential action area of the proposed BFN EPU project. Therefore, the proposed BFN EPU project would not affect OCH for the rush darter. o. Slackwater darter (Etheostoma boschung1): The slackwater darter was federally listed as threatened on October 11, 1977. It is known only in streams in Lauderdale, Limestone, and Madison Counties within the Alabama portion of its range. This small fish species is a benthic (bottom) dweller in low to moderate grade creeks and small to medium-sized streams, where it utilizes various habitats and aquatic vegetation for spawning habitat. While it is known in Swan Creek, a tributary to the Tennessee River (Wheeler Reservoir), this species has not been found in the mainstem Tennessee River. Given the lack of appropriate habitat and lack of records in the Tennessee River near BFN, TVA has concluded that the slackwater darter would not be found in the BFN EPU project area or affected by the proposed BFN EPU project. The USFWS final OCH for this species does not overlap with the potential action area of the proposed BFN EPU project. Therefore, the proposed BFN EPU project would not affect OCH for the slackwater darter. E-18 ENCLOSURE River basin and is not found near the BFN site. TVA has determined that the proposed BFN EPU project would have no effect on the orangenacre mucket. The USFWS final OCH for this species does not overlap with the potential action area of the proposed BFN EPU project. Therefore, the propose BFN EPU project would not affect OCH for the orangenacre muck et. h. Ovate clubshell (Pleurobema perovatum): The ovate clubshell was federally listed on March 17, 1993. This small to medium sized freshwater mussel inhabits sand/gravel mixtures of shoal and run habitat in large streams and small rivers. Its range falls completely within streams of the Mobile River basin and does not exist within the Tennessee River basin. Therefore, the ovate clubshell is not found near the BFN site and would not be affected by the proposed BFN EPU project. The USFWS final OCH for this species does not overlap with the potential action area of the proposed BFN EPU project. Therefore, the proposed BFN EPU project would not affect OCH for the ovate clubshell. i. Sheepnose mussel (Plethobasus cvphvus): The sheepnose was federally listed as endangered on April 12, 2012. This medium-sized freshwater mussel is typically found in low to moderate gradient reaches of medium and large rivers. It occurs throughout much of the Mississippi River basin, including portions of the Tennessee River. The sheepnose is currently found in the riverine portions of Pickwick Reservoir (i.e., Wilson Dam tailwater) and Wheeler Reservoir (i.e., Guntersville Dam tailwater). Sheepnose records in Wheeler Reservoir closest to the BFN site at TRM 294 occur approximately 15 miles upstream near TRM 309. The closest records of this species downstream of BFN are recorded at TRM 259 (approximately 30 miles away). Given the void of records for sheepnose in the Tennessee River near the BFN site, TVA has determined that this species does not occur within the proposed BFN EPU project area and would not be affected by the proposed BFN EPU project. The USFWS has not published OCH for the sheepnose. j. Snuffbox mussel (Epioblasma triquetra): The snuffbox was federally listed as endangered on March 15, 2012. This small to medium sized, triangular-shaped freshwater mussel is typically found in riffles of medium and large rivers in swift currents. This species is widely distributed throughout the Mississippi River basin and is known to occur in five counties within Alabama, including Lauderdale County. Snuffbox was recorded in the Tennessee River near Wilson Dam (TRM 259) in 1939, recently in the Elk River (a tributary of Wheeler Reservoir) near Elk River Mile (ERM) 34, and recently in the Tennessee River well upstream of the BFN site near TRM 334. Given the vast distances between the BFN site and known records of the snuffbox, in conjunction with the lack of preferable habitat at the site, TVA has determined that this species does not occur near the BFN site and would not be affected by the proposed BRN EPU project. The USFWS has not published OCH for the snuffbox, therefore, the proposed BFN EPU would not affect OCH for this species. k. Triangular kidneyshell (Ptvchobranchus greenil): The triangular kidneyshell was federally listed on March 17, 1993. This freshwater mussel is most commonly found in reaches of creeks and medium-sized to large rivers with moderate current and coarse gravel I sand mixtures of substrate. This species is known from five counties in Alabama, including Lawrence County; however, it is known only from the upper watershed of the Mobile River. Therefore, the triangular kidneyshell does not occur in the Tennessee River basin and would not be affected by the proposed BFN EPU project. The E-17 ENCLOSURE designated critical habitat for the cracking pearlymussel, therefore, the proposed BFN EPU would not affect OCH for this species. d. Dark pigtoe (Pleurobema furvum): The dark pigtoe was federally listed as endangered on March 17, 1993. This freshwater mussel is known to occur in three drainages (Sipsey Fork, Rush Creek, and North River) within the upper Black Warrior River drainage of Alabama, which is part of the Mobile River basin that flows into the Gulf of Mexico. The dark pigtoe does not occur in the Tennessee River basin and therefore would not be affected by the proposed BFN EPU. The USFWS final OCH for this species does not overlap with the potential action area of the proposed BFN EPU project. Therefore, the proposed BFN EPU would not affect the dark pigtoe or its OCH. . e. Fanshell (Cyprogenia stegaria): The fanshell was federally listed as endangered on June 21, 1990 with non-essential, experimental population designation listed for portions of the French Broad and Holston Rivers (which to form the head of the Tennessee River) in 2007. This medium-sized freshwater mussel occurs in gravel substrates of medium to large rivers in locations with moderate to strong current. The fanshell was historically found throughout the Tennessee, Cumberland, and Ohio River systems, but its distribution has been reduced dramatically in recent decades, presumably due to habitat changes caused by impoundment and water quality problems. The fanshell has been recorded from Lauderdale and Colbert Counties in Alabama, but not Limestone or Lawrence Counties adjacent the BFN site. More specifically, records indicate the fanshell occurs in the mainstem Tennessee River throughout much of Pickwick Reservoir and in the upstream-most portion of Wheeler Reservoir (i.e., Guntersville Dam tailwater), where it was found most recently as 1978. Given the closest record of this species relative to the BFN site is approximately 50 miles upstream within Wheeler Reservoir, TVA has determined that this species does not exist within the BFN EPU project area and therefore would not be affected by the proposed BFN EPU project. The USFWS has not designated critical habitat for the fanshell, therefore, the proposed BFN EPU would not affect OCH for this species. f. Littlewing pearlymussel (Pegias tabula): The littlewing pearlymussel was federally listed as endangered on November 14, 1988. This very small freshwater mussel species is most common near the upstream and downstream margins of riffles in sand and gravel substrates, sometimes containing cobble-size particles within creeks and medium-sized rivers. Although the littlewing pearlymussel was historically known in Lauderdale and Limestone Counties in Alabama, the most recently published USFWS five-year review of this species reported that existing populations currently occur only in portions of the Cumberland River drainage and Tennessee River drainage outside of Alabama. This species is presumed extirpated from the state of Alabama. Consequently, TVA has determined that the littlewing pearlymussel does not occur at the BFN site and would not be affected by the proposed BFN EPU project. The USFWS has not published OCH for the littlewing pearlymussel, therefore, the proposed BFN EPU would not affect OCH for this species. g. Orangenacre mucket (Hamiota [formerly LampsilisJ perovalis): The orangenacre mucket was federally listed as threatened on March 17, 1993. This species is a medium sized freshwater mussel typically found in creeks to medium-sized rivers near riffles. The orangenacre mucket inhabits streams of Mississippi and Alabama that are only within the Mobile River system. This species does not occur in the Tennessee E-16 ENCLOSURE would not be relevant to an environmental review of the proposed BFN site action are provided below for each species. In addition, nonessential experimental populations listed in Reference 1 have been discounted from environmental review of the proposed BFN EPU as allowed under Section 1 O of the Endangered Species Act. It should be noted that this examination of species does not include those associated with the proposed transmission system upgrades. Site specific environmental review of transmission system upgrades will occur once the proposed scope of work has been sufficiently defined for upgrade actions. Potential effects to each of the relevant species will be assessed during that review. a. Black warrior waterdog (Necturus a/abamensis): The Black Warrior waterdog is a large, aquatic salamander that permanently retains its external gills throughout its adult life. The Black Warrior waterdog inhabits streams above the Fall Line (the juncture of the coastal plain and upland provinces) within the Black Warrior River Basin. This also includes parts of the North River, Locust Fork, Mulberry Fork, and Sipsey Fork drainages and their tributaries. BFN is not located in these river drainages, nor would this habitat be affected by the proposed BFN EPU project. Therefore, the Black Warrior waterdog would not be affected by the proposed BFN EPU project. b. Alabama moccasinshell (Medionidus acutissimus): The Alabama moccasinshell was federally listed as threatened on March 17, 1993. This species is a small freshwater mussel averaging about one inch in length that is typically found in sand or sand/gravel mixtures in clear streams with moderate flows but also can be found in small and large rivers. This species is restricted to the Mobile River basin, which drains into the Gulf of Mexico adjacent Alabama. The upstream-most reaches of the Mobile River basin includes headwater streams in the southern portion of Lawrence County, Alabama. The Alabama moccasinshell does not occur in the Tennessee River or its watershed and therefore does not occur on or near the BFN site. The USFWS final Designated Critical Habitat (OCH) for this species does not overlap with the potential action area of the proposed BFN EPU project. Therefore, the proposed BFN EPU would not affect the Alabama moccasinshell. c. Cracking pearlymussel (Hemistena lata): The cracking pearlymussel was federally listed as endangered on September 28, 1989 with non-essential, experimental populations designated in the French Broad and Holston Rivers (headwater tributaries of the Tennessee River) in 2007 and in the free-flowing reach of the Tennessee River from Wilson Dam downstream to the .backwaters of Pickwick Reservoir in 2001. This relatively small species of freshwater mussel prefers habitat in sand, gravel, cobble mixtures within swift currents but can be found in mud and sand substrate in slower currents from medium-sized creeks to large rivers. Although this species is reported from the mainstem Tennessee River, records show it occurred downstream of Wheeler Dam in the Wilson Reservoir. The closest historical record of cracking pearlymussel relative to the BFN site, Tennessee River Mile (TRM) 294, is at the mouth of the Elk River, which enters Wheeler Reservoir at TRM 285; however, this collection was reported by Ortmann in 1925 (Reference 2). The cracking pearlymussel is known to currently inhabit the Elk River. Recent surveys by TVA and the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources indicate that there is no reported evidence that this species recently inhabited the Wheeler Reservoir reach of the Tennessee River. Therefore, TVA has concluded that this species would not be affected by the proposed BFN EPU. The USFWS has not E-15 ENCLOSURE RERP-PS-RAI 1 In an Information for Planning and Conservation Report dated February 1, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML 16032A044), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife identified a number of Federally listed species that are not addressed in the Supplemental ER. Provide any available information on potential habitat, occurrence, or sightings of the following species as well as an assessment of impacts of the proposed EPU on each species, as applicable. a. black warrior waterdog (Necturus alabamensis) b. Alabama moccasinshell (Medionidus acutissimus) c. cracking pearlymussel (Hemistena lata) d. dark pigtoe (Pleurobema furvum) e. fanshell (Cyprogenia stegaria) f. /ittlewing pearlymussel (Pegias tabula) g. orangenacre mucket (Lampsilis perovalis) h. ovate clubshel/ (Pleurobema perovatum) i. sheepnose mussel (Plethobasus cyphyus) j. snuffbox mussel (Epioblasma triquetra) k. triangular kidneyshell (Ptychobranchus greenii) I. Alabama streak-sorus fem (Thelypteris pilosa var. alabamensis) m. boulder darter (Etheostoma wapiti) n. rush darter (Etheostoma phytophilum) o. slackwater darter (Etheostoma boschungi) p. fleshy-fruit gladecress (Leavenworthia crassa) q. Kral's water-plantain (Sagittaria secundifolia) r. leafy prairie-clover (Dalea foliosa) s.
• lyrate bladderpod (Lesquerella lyrata) t. Price's potato-bean (Apios priceana) u. flattened musk turtle (Stemotherus depressus) TV A Response: In an Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) Report dated February 1, 2016 (Reference 1 ), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) identified a number of federally listed species that were not addressed in the Supplemental Environmental Report (ER) for the proposed BFN EPU LAR. Discrepancies between the species addressed in the Supplemental ER and those identified in Reference 1 are primarily due to differences in search boundaries for species' records used in development of the list reviewed in the Supplemental ER and those listed in Reference 1. An explanation of why each additional species identified in Reference 1 E-14 ENCLOSURE RERP-AQ-RAI 2 Provide copies of the following references cited in the Supplemental ER. a. TVA. 2010. Fish impingement at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, September 2007 through September 2009. TVA Environmental Stewardship and Policy. b. TVA. 2012a. Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River Near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2011. TVA Biological and Water Resources, Chattanooga, Tennessee. c. TVA. 2012b. Entrainment of lchthyoplankton at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant During 2008-2009. Knoxville, Tennessee: TVA Biological and Water Resources. d. TVA. 2013. Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River Near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2013. e. TVA. 2014. Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River Near Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant Discharge, Autumn 2014. Knoxville, Tennessee: River and Reservoir Compliance Monitoring Program. TVA Response: Copies of the following references cited in the BFN EPU LAR, Attachment 42, Supplemental Environmental Report, are attached to this response. In addition to the requested documents, the report for Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River Near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2015, has become available and is attached to this response. a. TVA. 2010. Fish Impingement at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, September 2007 Through September 2009. TVA Environmental Stewardship and Policy. (Attachment 7 to this response) b. TVA. 2012a. Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River Near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2011. TVA Biological and Water Resources, Chattanooga, Tennessee. (Attachment 8 to this response)
• c. TVA. 2012b. Entrainment of lchthyoplankton at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant During 2008-2009. Knoxville, Tennessee: TVA Biological and Water Resources. (Attachment 9 to this response) d. TVA. 2013. Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River Near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2013. (Attachment 10 to this response) e. TVA. 2014. Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River Near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2013. Knoxville, Tennessee: River and Reservoir Compliance Monitoring Program. (Attachment 11 to this response) f. Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River Near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2015. (Attachment 12 to this response) E-13 ENCLOSURE RERP-AQ-RAI 1 Section 2.1.3 of the NRC's 2005 license renewal SEIS states that when the intake forebay gates are in a full-open position and the plant is operating in either open or helper modes, the average flow velocity through the openings is about 0.2 meters per second (mis) (0.6 feet per second (fps)) for the operation of one unit, 0.34 mis (1.1 fps) for the operation of two units, and 0.52 mis (1. 7 fps) for the operation of all three units. Confirm that these flow rates would continue to describe the inflow of cooling water under EPU conditions. TV A Response: The average flow velocities referenced in the NRC's 2005 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) assumes the BFN total intake water withdrawal of approximately 734,000 gallons per minute (gpm) for each unit. The 2015 average intake water withdrawal was approximately 664,000 gpm for each unit. TVA is making no physical or operational modifications to the circulating water systems, residual heat removal service water system, emergency equipment cooling water system, raw cooling water, or raw water systems for EPU operation. Therefore, no changes are expected in the volume flow rate of water through the intake forebay. The physical parameters of the forebay have not changed. Therefore, the velocities stated in the NRC's 2005 SEIS bound intake flow velocities for the BFN units at EPU conditions. E-12 ENCLOSURE RERP-SW-RAI 6 Provide a copy of BFN's current Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs Water Withdrawal/Use Permit. TVA Response: As a federal agency with statutory authority to manage, control, and use water resources, TVA voluntarily cooperates with the State of Alabama in its water management programs under the Alabama Water Resource Act. The BFN Certificate Of Use (GOU) from the Alaba*ma Department of Economic and Community Affairs (ADECA)/Office of Water Resources (OWR), dated December 1, 2005, is maintained on file with the ADECA/OWR and is provided as Attachment 5 to this response. TVA periodically applies to renew the certificate and updates the OWR of any changes in facility data by submitting a Declaration of Beneficial Use to ADECA/OWR. The most recent application for renewal and Declaration of Beneficial Use, dated September 23, 2015, is provided as Attachment 6 of this response. The ADECA/OWR updates facility data and maintains the GOU but has not reissued the GOU for each renewal application. The ADECA/OWR has received the most recent BFN application for renewal and is processing the application in accordance with ADECA/OWR administrative rules. E-11 ENCLOSURE* RERP-SW-RAI 5 Please provide the volume (in million gallons per day (mgd)) of surface water withdrawn annually by BFN from the Tennessee River (covering the last 5 years). Provide copies of relevant reports submitted to the State. TV A Response: The BFN average annual volume flow rate, in million gallons per day (mgd), for the last five years (2011-2015) is summarized in Table SW-5 below. The BFN average and peak volume of surface water withdrawn, in mgd, from the Tennessee River, by month for the last five years is provided in Attachment 4 to this response. The reports provided in Attachment 4 were previously submitted to the State of Alabama. Table SW-5 2011 Annual 2012 Annual 2013 Annual 2014 Annual 2015 *Annual Average (mgd) Average (mgd) Average (mgd) Average (mgd) Average (mgd) 2567.6 2607.8 2639.3 2621.8 2867.3 E-10 ENCLOSURE RERP-SW-RAI 4 TVA indicates in Section 7.2.2 of the Supplemental ER that the proposed EPU will not impact the current volume of water withdrawn from the Tennessee River. Clarify and confirm whether TVA projects any incremental increase in the volume of water withdrawn from the Tennessee River upon implementation of the EPU. If any increase is projected, quantify the increase. TV A Response: BFN is making no modifications to the circulating water systems, residual heat removal service water system, emergency equipment cooling water system, raw cooling water, or raw water systems for EPU operation. Therefore, no changes are expected in the volume of water withdrawn from the Tennessee River upon implementation of EPU. E-9 ENCLOSURE RERP-SW-RAI 3 In Section 7.2-3 of the Supplemental ER, TVA summarizes modeling results that compare plant operation at the existing 105 percent original licensed thermal power (OL TP) versus 120 percent OL TP that include projected impacts on water temperature, cooling tower (helper mode) operations, and other parameters. To clarify and to provide context for some of the results presented, please provide a summary of the actual hours of cooling tower operation as well as derate hours experienced over the last five years of operations. TV A Response: Operation of the cooling towers (CTs) and unit derate information for the years 2011 through 2015 is summarized in Table SW-3 below. The CT operation data is based upon review of operator logs during the time period. The data represents periods where at least one BFN unit was operating with at least one CT in service. River temperature (inlet temperature or delta between upstream and downstream temperature) is the primary reason for CT operation. Note that the response to NRC request for additional information RERP-SW-RAl-1 describes corrections to the BFN EPU LAR, Attachment 42, Supplemental Environmental Report, Section 7.2.3, Impact on Discharge, and to Table 7.2-3, Summary of BFN Hydrothermal Impacts for Warm, Summer Meteorology. These corrections relate to the model prediction for the average annual number of days of CT operation at 120 percent original licensed thermal power. Table SW-3 Year CT CT Operation Derates (Hrs) Operation (Days) (Hrs) 2011 1889 81 U1=182.51 U2 = 99.4 I U3 = 63.5 2012 1940 84 0 2013 1207 52 0 2014 1865 85 0 2015 1438 65 U1 =O I U2 = 2.7 I U3 = 3.4 E-8 ATTACHMENT 2 Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Issued by the Alabama Department of Environmental Management, dated July 3, 2012 ADEM Alabama Depar1ment of Environmental Management PERMITTEE: FACILITY LOCATION: PERMIT NUMBER: RECEIVING WATERS: NATIONAL POLL UT ANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT 10835 SHAW ROAD ATHENS, AL 35611 AL0022080 DSN001, DSN005, DSN012, DSN013, DSN018, DSN019, DSN024: TENNESSEE RIVER In accordance witli. and su6ject to tli.e provisions of tli.e tf'edera[ 'Water CFo[[ution Contro[ }let, as amended, 33 V.S.C. §§ 1251-13 78 (tli.e tli.e }lfa6ama 'Water <Po[fution Contra[ }let, as amended, Coae of }lfa6ama 1975, §§ 22-22-1 to 22-22-14 (tli.e 'YlMC/l,, tli.e }lfa6ama 'Environmentaf :Management }let, as amended, Coae of }lfa6ama 1975, §§22-22}1-1 to 22-22}1-15, and rufes and regufations adopted tli.ereunder, and su6ject furtli.er to tli.e tenns and conditions set fortli. in tli.is pennit, tli.e <Pennittee is li.ere6y autli.orized to discli.arge into tli.e a6ove-named receiving waters. ISSUANCE DATE: JULY 03,2012 EFFECTIVE DATE: JULY 03,2012 EXPIRATION DATE: JULY 02,2017 Alabama Department of Environmental Management INDUSTRIAL SECTION NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) PERMIT TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS. CONDITIONS, AND REQUIREMENTS ..................................................................................................................... I A. DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS AND MONITORTNG REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................................................ I B. DISCHARGE MONITORING AND RECORD KEEPING REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................................................. !6 I Representative Sampling ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 16 2. Test Procedures ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... l 6 3. Recording of Results ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 16 4. Records Retention and Production ........................................................................................................................................................................... 16 5. Monitoring Equipment and Instrumentation ............................................................................................................................................................ 17 C. DISCllARGE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................................................................................................. 17 I Reporting of Monitoring Requirements ................................................................................................................................................................... I 7 2. Noncompliance Notification .................................................................................................................................................................................... 19 D. OTHER REPORTING AND NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................................................................... 19 I Anticipated Noncompliance .................................................................................................................................................................................... 19 2. Termination of Discharge ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 19 3. Updating Information .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 20 4. Duty to Provide Information ................................................................................................................................................ : ................................... 20 5. Cooling Water and Boiler Water Additives ............................................................................................................................................................. 20 6. Permit Issued Based On Estimated Characteristics .................................................................................................................................................. 20 E. SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 21 PART 11 OTHER REQUIREMENTS. RESPONSIBILITIES, AND DUTIES ............................................................................................................................. 22 A. OPERATIONAL AND MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................................................................ 22 I Facilities Operation and Maintenance ...................................................................................................................................................................... 22 2. 13est Management Practices ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 22 3. Spill Prevention, Control, and Managemcnt ............................................................................................................................................................ 22 a. OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 22 l Duty to Mitigate Adverse Impacts .......................................................................................................................................................................... 22 2. Right of Entry and Inspection ................................................................................................................................................................................. 22 C BYPASS AND UPSET .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 22 I. Bypass ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 22 2. llpset ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 23 D. DUTY TO COMPLY WITH PERMIT. RULES, AND STATUTES .................................................................................................................................. 23 I. Duty to Comply ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 23 2. Removed Substances ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 24 3. Loss or Failure of Treatment Facilities .................................................................................................................................................................... 24 4. Compliance with Statutes and Ruks ........................................................................................................................................................................ 24 E. PERMIT TRANSFER. MODIFICATION, SUSPENSION. REVOCATION. AND REISSUANCE ................................................................................... 24 I Dul} to Reapply or Notify of Intent to Cease Discharge ......................................................................................................................................... 24 2. Change in Discharge .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 24 3. Transfer of Pcrmit... ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 25 4. Permit Modification and Revocation ....................................................................................................................................................................... 25 5. Pennit Termination .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 26 6. Permit Suspension ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 26 7 Request for Permit Action Docs Not Stay Any Permit Rcquirement... .................................................................................................................... 26 F. COMPLIANCE WITH TOXIC POLLUTANT STANDARD OR PROHIBITION ............................................................................................................. 26 G. DISCHARGE OF WASTEWATER GENERATED BY OTHERS ..................................................................................................................................... 26 PART Ill OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 27 A. CIVIL AND CRIMINAL LIABILITY ................................................................................................................................................................................ 27 B. OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE LIABILITY ........................................................................................................................................................ 27 C. PROPERTY AND OTHER RIGHTS ................................................................................................................................................................................... 27 D. AVAILABILITY OF REPORTS .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 28 E. EXPIRATION OF PERMITS FOR NEW OR TNCREASED DISCHARGES ..................................................................................................................... 28 F. COMPLIANCE WITH WATER QUALITY STANDARDS ............................................................................................................................................... 28 G. GROUNDWATER ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 28 H. DEFINITIONS ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 28 I. SEVERABILITY .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 31 PART IV ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS, CONDITIONS, AND LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................. 32 ATTACHMENT: FORM 421 NON-COMPLIANCE NOTIFICATION FORM NPDES PERMIT NUMBER AL0022080 PARTI Pagel of37 PART I DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS, CONDITIONS, AND REQUIREMENTS A. DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting through the expiration date of this permit, the permittee is authorized to discharge from the following point source(s) outfall(s). described more fully in the permittee's application: DSNOOl I :Once-through cooling water from the Condenser Circulating Water (CCW). Raw Cooling Water (RCW), Turbine building station sump effluent, intake building sump eftluent, and Liquid Rad waste System via DSNOO I B through the diffuser outfall to the Tennessee River (Normal River Conditions -See DSNOO 12 for Cooling Anomaly Conditions ill). UJ Such discharge shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below: DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS MONITORING REQUIREMENTS 1/ EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTIC Temperature, Water Deg. Fahrenheit v Temperature, Water Deg. Fahrenheit 10/ Temperature, Water Deg. Fahrenheit pH '}! Temp DiffBetween Up/Down Stream Deg F {!/ Flow, In Conduit or Thru Treatment Plant Daily Maximum REPORT MGD Monthly Daily Daily Average Minimum Maximum REPORT MGD 6.0S.U. REPORTF 93 F '1J 8.5 s.u. REPORTF Daily Average REPORTF REPORTF 90 F §./ IOF Measurement Freguency 2/ Daily Daily Daily Weekly Daily Daily Sam11le Tyl!e Recorder Recorder Recorder Grab Recorder Pump Log Ji THE DISCHARGE SHALL HAVE NO SHEEN, AND THERE SHALL BE NO DISCHARGE OF VISIBLE OIL, FLOATING SOLIDS OR VISIBLE FOAM IN OTHER THAN TRACE AMOUNTS. Seasonal 11 Samples collected to comply with the monitoring requirements specified above shall be collected at the following location: At the nearest accessible location just prior to discharge and after final treatment. Unless otherwise specified, composite samples shall be time composite samples collected using automatic sampling equipment or a minimum of eight (8) equal volume grab samples collected over equal time intervals. Al! composite samples shall be collected for the total period of discharge not to exceed 24 hours. 2/ If only one sampling event occurs during a month. the sample result shall be reported on the discharge monitoring report as both the monthly average and daily maximum value for all parameters with a monthly average limitation. 31 Pump log verified by annual dye testing or diffuser head measurement. 41 The Ambient Upstream River Temperature (Deg F) shall be determined by an upstream monitor located in the main channel at about river mile 297.8. In the event of a failure of this monitor, the five-foot depth temperature at the monitor located at river mile 296.1 will serve as the measured ambient temperature. Measurements shall be every 15 minutes at 3, 5, and 7 foot depths and averaged to obtain a 5 foot depth measurement. The temperatures shall be averaged and reported on a 24-hour calendar day basis. 51 See Part IV.F. for downstream monitoring requirements.

NPDES PERMIT NUMBER AL0022080 PARTI Page2 of37 61 Temp Diff Between Up/Down Stream (Deg F) shall be determined by subtracting the ambient temperature values monitored from the downstream river temperature monitored 7/ The hourly average of the three downstream temperature monitors. See Part IV.F. 8/ When the 24-hour ambient average upstream temperature exceeds 90°F, the downstream temperature may equal but not exceed the upstream value. 91 The pH shall not be less than 6.0 s.u. nor greater than 8.5 s.u. unless ambient river conditions prevent compliance at that range. Upstream monitoring by the permittee within one hour of a non-complying pH value will serve to demonstrate that ambient river conditions are preventing compliance. I 0/ Effluent Temperature (Deg F). 11/ When weather or other events cause cooling of the Ambient Upstream River Temperature (Deg F) at a rate 0.5°F per day (based on a 6-hour trend) a cooling anomaly condition exists and the requirements ofDSN0012 shall apply for that 24 hour calendar day. 12/ When cooling water anomaly (see footnote 1 I/) conditions exist, NODI=9 shall be reported for all parameters associated with DSNOOl l. NPDES PERMIT NUMBER AL0022080 PART I Page 3 of37 During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting through the expiration date of this permit, the permittee is authorized to discharge from the following point source(s) outfall(s), described more fully in the permittee's application: DSNOOl2: Once-through cooling water from the Condenser Circulating Water (CCW), Raw Cooling Water (RCW), Turbine building station sump effluent, intake building sump effluent. and Liquid Rad waste System via DSNOO 1B through the diffuse (Cooling Anomaly ill Such discharge shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below: DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS MONITORING REQUIREMENTS 1/ EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTIC Temperature, Water Deg. Fahrenheit Temperature, Water Deg. Fahrenheit 10/ Temperature, Water Deg. Fahrenheit 'J!W pH,W Temp DiffBetween Up/Down Stream Deg 'JI Flow, In Conduit or Thru Treatment Plant Daily Maximum REPORT MGD Monthly Daily Daily Average Minimum Maximum REPORT MGD 6.0S.U. REPORTF 8.5 S.U. REPORTF Daily Average REPORTF REPORTF 90 F REPORTF Measurement Freguency 2/ Daily Daily Daily Weekly Daily Daily Saml!le Ty(!e Recorder Recorder Recorder Grab Recorder Pump Log'Jj THE DISCHARGE SHALL HA VE NO SHEEN, AND THERE SHALL BE NO DISCHARGE OF VISIBLE OIL, FLOATING SOLIDS OR VISIBLE FOAM IN OTHER THAN TRACE AMOUNTS. Seasonal 11 Samples collected to comply with the monitoring requirements specified above shall be collected at the following location: At the nearest accessible location just prior to discharge and after final treatment. Unless otherwise specified, composite samples shall be time composite samples collected using automatic sampling equipment or a minimum of eight (8) equal volume grab samples collected over equal time intervals. All composite samples shall be collected for the total period of discharge not to exceed 24 hours. 21 If only one sampling event occurs during a month, the sample result shall be reported on the discharge monitoring report as both the monthly average and daily maximum value for all parameters with a monthly average limitation. 31 Pump log verified by annual dye testing or diffuser head measurement. 41 The Ambient Upstream River Temperature (Deg F) shall be determined by an upstream monitor located in the main channel at about river mile 297.8. In the event of a failure of this monitor, the five-foot depth temperature at the monitor located at river mile 296. I will serve as the measured ambient temperature. Measurements shall be every 15 minutes at 3, 5, and 7 foot depths and averaged to obtain a 5 foot depth measurement. The temperatures shall be averaged and reported on a 24-hour calendar day basis. 51 When weather or other events cause cooling of the Ambient Upstream River Temperature (Deg F) at a rate of::::_ 0.5°F per day (based on a 6-hour trend) a cooling anomaly condition exists and the requirements of DSNOO 12 shall apply for that 24 hour calendar day. NPDES PERMIT NUMBER AL0022080 PART I Page 4 of37 6/ See Part IV.F. for downstream monitoring requirements. 71 Temp Diff Between Up/Down Stream (Deg F) shall* be determined by subtracting the ambient temperature values monitored in 'lf from the downstream river temperature monitored in 'j/. 81 The hourly average of the three downstream temperature monitors. See Part IV.F. 91 The pH shall not be less than 6.0 s.u. nor greater than 8.5 s.u. unless ambient river conditions prevent compliance at that range. Upstream monitoring by the permittee within one hour ofa non-complying pH value will serve to demonstrate that ambient river conditions are preventing compliance. IOI Effluent Temperature (Deg F). 11/ When cooling water anomaly (see footnote 5/) conditions do not exist, NODI=9 shall be reported for all parameters associated with DSN0012. NPDES PERMIT NUMBER AL0022080 PART I Page 5 of37 During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting through the expiration date of this permit, the permittee is authorized to discharge from the following point source(s) outfaJl(s), described more fully in the permittee's application: DSNOO IQ: Once-through cooling water from the Condenser Circulating Water (CCW), Raw Cooling Water (RCW), Turbine building station sump effluent, intake building sump effluent, and Liquid Rad waste System via DSNOO I 8 through the diffuser outfall to the Tennessee River. Such discharge shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below: DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS MONITORING REQUIREMENTS 1 / EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTIC Chlorine, Total Residual Monthly Average Daily Maximum Daily Minimum Monthly Average 0.034 mg/1 Daily Maximum 0.044 mg/I Measurement Frequency 2/ Quarterly Sample Type Grab THE DISCHARGE SHALL HA VE NO SHEEN, AND THERE SHALL BE NO DISCHARGE OF VISIBLE OIL, FLOATING SOLIDS OR VISIBLE FOAM IN OTHER THAN TRACE AMOUNTS. Seasonal I/ Samples collected to comply with the monitoring requirements specified above shall be collected at the following location: At the nearest accessible location just prior to discharge and after final treatment. Unless otherwise specified, composite samples shall be time composite samples collected using automatic sampling equipment or a minimum of eight (8) equal volume grab samples collected over equal time intervals. All composite samples shall be collected for the total period of discharge not to exceed 24 hours. 21 If only one sampling event occurs during a month, the sample result shall be reported on the discharge monitoring report as both the monthly average and daily maximum value for all parameters with a monthly average limitation. 31 Total residual chlorine (TRC) and free available chlorine (FAC) may not be discharged from any single generating unit for more than 2 hours per day unless the permittee demonstrates (with records retained on-site) to ADEM that discharge for more than 2 hours is required for macro invertebrate control. NPDES PERMIT NUMBER AL0022080 PART I Page 6 of37 During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting through the expiration date of this permit, the permittee is authorized to discharge from the following point source(s) outfall(s). described more fully in the permittee's application: DSNOOIY: Once-through cooling water from the Condenser Circulating Water (CCW), Raw Cooling Water (RCW). Turbine building station sump effluent, intake building sump effluent, and Liquid Radwaste System via DSNOO IB through the diffuser outfall to the Tennessee River. Such discharge shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below: EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTIC Toxicity, Ceriodaphnia Chronic JJ. Toxicity. Pimephales Chronic JJ. Monthly Average DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS Daily Daily Monthly Maximum Minimum Average 0 pass(O) /fail( I) 0 pass(O) /fail( I) Daily Maximum MONITORING REOUlREMENTS JI Measurement Frequency 2/ Annually Annually Sample Type 24-Hr Composite 24-Hr Composite Seasonal THE DISCHARGE SHALL HA VE NO SHEEN, AND THERE SHALL BE NO DISCHARGE OF VISIBLE OIL, FLOATING SOLIDS OR VISIBLE FOAM IN OTHER THAN TRACE AMOUNTS. I/ Samples collected to comply with the monitoring requirements specified above shall be collected at the following location: At the nearest accessible location just prior to discharge and after final treatment. Unless otherwise specified. composite samples shall be time composite samples collected using automatic sampling equipment or a minimum of eight (8) equal volume grab samples collected over equal time intervals. All composite samples shall be collected for the total period or discharge not to exceed 24 hours. 2/ If only one sampling event occurs during a month, the sample result shall be reported on the discharge monitoring report as both the monthly average and daily maximum value for all parameters with a monthly average limitation. 31 See Part lY.C for Effluent Toxicity Requirements. NPDES PERMIT NUMBER AL0022080 PARTI Page 7 of37 During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting through the expiration date of this permit, the permittee is authorized to discharge from the following point*source(s) oulfall(s). described more fully in the permittee's application: DSNOOS l: Residual Heat Removal Service Water (RHRSW) System Such discharge shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below: DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTIC Temperature, Water Deg. Fahrenheit pH Flow, In Conduit or Thru Treatment Plant Monthly Average REPORT MGD Daily Maximum Daily Minimum 6.0S.U. Monthly Average REPORTF Daily Maximum REPORTF 8.5 S.U. MONITORING REQUIREMENTS 1/ Measurement Frequency 2/ Bi-Weekly Bi-Weekly Bi-Weekly Sample Type Grab Grab Estimate Seasonal THE DISCHARGE SHALL HAVE NO SHEEN, AND THERE SHALL BE NO DISCHARGE OF VISIBLE OIL, FLOATING SOLIDS OR VISIBLE FOAM IN OTHER THAN TRACE AMOUNTS. 1/ Samples collected to comply with the monitoring requirements specified above shall be collected at the following location: At the nearest accessible location just prior to discharge and after final treatment. Unless otherwise specified, composite samples shall be time composite samples collected using automatic sampling equipment or a minimum of eight (8) equal volume grab samples collected over equal time intervals. All composite samples shall be collected for the total period of discharge not to exceed 24 hours. 2/ If only one sampling event occurs during a month, the sample result shall be reported on the discharge monitoring report as both the monthly average and daily maximum value for all parameters with a monthly average limitation. NPDES PERMIT NUMBER AL0022080 PART I Page 8 of37 During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting through the expiration date of this permit. the permittee is authorized to discharge from the following point source(s) outfall(s), described more fully in the permittee's application: DSNO I 3Y: Storm water from the toxicity testing laboratory parking lot. northeast corner of the Training Center's parking lot. storm drain at sedimentation pond. area south of the toxicity testing lab, DSN013A, DSNOI38, and DSNOl3C. Ji. Such discharge shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below: EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTIC pH DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS MQNIIORIISG REOillREMEISIS JL Daily Daily Monthly Daily Measurement Monthly Average Maximum Minimum Average REPORT Maximum Freguency 2/ Solids, Total Suspended Oil & Grease Flow, In Conduit or Thru Treatment Plant REPORT MGD S.U. REPORT Annually s.u. REPORT Annually mg/J 15.0 mg/J Annually Annually THE DISCHARGE SHALL HA VE NO SHEEN, AND THERE SHALL BE NO DISCHARGE OF VISIBLE OIL, FLOATING SOLIDS OR VISIBLE FOAM IN OTHER THAN TRACE AMOUNTS. Grab Grab Grab Estimate Seasonal ll Samples collected to comply with the monitoring requirements specified above shall be collected at the following location: At the nearest accessible location just prior to discharge and after final treatment. Unless otherwise specified, composite samples shall be time composite samples collected using automatic sampling equipment or a minimum of eight (8) equal volume grab samples collected over equal time intervals. All composite samples shall be collected for the total period of discharge not to exceed 24 hours. 2/ If only one sampling event occurs during a month, the sample result shall be reported on the discharge monitoring report as both the monthly average and daily maximum value for all parameters with a monthly average limitation. 31 See Part IV.A for Best Management Practices (BMP) Plan Requirements. 4/ See Part IV.B for Stormwater Measurement and Sampling Requirements. NPDES PERMIT NUMBER AL0022080 PART I Page 9 of37 During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting through the expiration date of this permit, the permittee is authorized to discharge from the following point source(s) outfall(s), described more fully in the permittee's application: DSN018Y: Stormwater from Materials and Procurement Complex parking lot. the firing range parking lot. the Facilities Maintenance area, the vehicle fuel dispensing area. and adjacent grass area. 'Ji. Such discharge shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below: DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS MONITORING REQUIREMENTS ll Daily Daily Month Iv Daily Measurement EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTIC pH Monthly Average Maximum Minimum Average REPORT Maximum Freguency 2/ Solids, Total Suspended Oil & Grease Benzene, Ethylbenzenetoulene, Xylene Combn Naphthalene Flow. In Conduit or Thru Treatment Plant REPORT MGD S.U. REPORT Annually S.U. REPORT Annually mg/I 15.0 mg/I Annually 15.47 ug/l Annually 600.0 ug/I Annually Annually THE DISCHARGE SHALL HAVE NO SHEEN, AND THERE SHALL BE NO DISCHARGE OF VISIBLE OIL, FLOATING SOLIDS OR VISIBLE FOAM IN OTHER THAN TRACE AMOUNTS. Grab Grab Grab Grab Grab Estimate Seasonal 1/ Samples collected to comply with the monitoring requirements specified above shall be collected at the following location: At the nearest accessible location just prior to discharge and after final treatment. Unless otherwise specified. composite samples shall be time composite samples collected using automatic sampling equipment or a minimum of eight (8) equal volume grab samples collected over equal time intervals. All composite samples shall be collected for the total period of discharge not to exceed 24 hours. 2/ If only one sampling event occurs during a month. the sample result shall be reported on the discharge monitoring report as both the monthly average and daily maximum value for all parameters with a monthly average limitation. 31 See Part IV.A for Best Management Practices (BMP) Plan Requirements. 4/ See Part IV.B for Stormwater Measurement and Sampling Requirements. NPDES PERMIT NUMBER AL0022080 PART I Page 10 of37 During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting through the expiration date of this permit, the permittee is authorized to discharge from the following point source(s) outfall(s). described more fully in the permittee's application: DSNO l 9Y: Storm water from the east side of plant which includes the Fire Training area. the Low Level Radwaste storage facility. the inert landfill. and the Hazardous Waste storage area. JL Such discharge shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below: DISCHARGE LJMITATIONS MONITORING REQUIREMENTS 1/ Daily Daily Monthly Measurement .E.EELIJ_ENI CHARACTERISTIC pH Monthly Average Maximum Minimum Average REPORT Daily Maximum REPORT S.U. Freguency 2/ Sam11le TYl!e Solids. Total Suspended Oil & Grease Flow, In Conduit or Thru Treatm.:nt Plant Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) REPORT MGD s.u. REPORT mg/I 15.0 mg/! REPORT mg/I Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually THE DISCHARGE SHALL HAVE NO SHEEN, AND THERE SHALL BE NO DISCHARGE OF VISIBLE OIL, FLOATING SOLIDS OR VISIBLE FOAM IN OTHER THAN TRACE AMOUNTS. Grab Grab Grab Estimate Grab Seasonal II Samples collected to comply with the rnonitoring requirements specified above shall be collect.:d at the following location: At the nearest accessible location just prior to discharge and after final treatment. Unless otherwise specified, composite samples shall be time composite samples eollected using automatic sampling equipment or a minimum of eight t8) equal volume grab samples collected over equal time intervals. All composite samples shall be colkcted for the total period of discharge not to exceed 24 hours. 21 If only one sampling event occurs during a month, the sample result shall be reported on the discharge monitoring report as both the monthly average and daily maximum value for all parameters with a monthly average limitation. 3/ See Part IV.A for Best Management Practices (BMP) Plan Requirements. 41 See Part IV.B for Stormwatcr Measurement and Sampling Requirements. NPDES PERMIT NUMBER AL0022080 PART I Page 11 of37 During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting through the expiration date of this permit, the permittee is authorized to discharge from the following point source(s) outfall(s), described more fully in the permittee's application: DSNOIBI: Liquid Radwaste System (Low Volume Waste Water). Such*discharge shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below: DISCHARGE I.IMITAIIOISS MQJSIIORING REOllIREMENIS 1L Daily Daily Monthtr Daily Measurement EFFLUENT CHARACIERISIIC pH Monthly Average Maximum Minimum Average Maximum Freguencl'. 2/ Sam(!le T}'.(!e Solids, Total Suspended Oil & Grease Flow, In Conduit or Thru Treatment Plant REPORT MGD 6.0 s.u. 30.0 mg/I 15.0mg/l 9.0S.U. Monthly 100.0 mg/I Monthly 20.0 mg/I Monthly Monthly THE DISCHARGE SHALL HAVE NO SHEEN, AND THERE SHALL BE NO DISCHARGE OF VISIBLE OIL, FLOATING SOLIDS OR VISIBLE FOAM IN OTHER THAN TRACE AMOUNTS. Grab Grab Grab Estimate Seasonal I/ Samples collected to comply with the monitoring requirements specified above shall be collected at the following location: At the nearest accessible location just prior to discharge and after final treatment. Unless otherwise specified, composite samples shall be time composite samples collected using automatic sampling equipment or a minimum of eight (8) equal volume grab samples collected over equal time intervals. All composite samples shall be collected for the total period of discharge not to exceed 24 hours. 2/ If only one sampling event occurs during a month, the sample result shall be reported on the discharge monitoring report as both the monthly average and daily maximum value for all parameters with a monthly average limitation. NPDES PERMIT NUMBER AL0022080 PARTI Page 12 of37 During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting through the expiration date of this permit, the permittee is authorized to discharge from the following point source(s) outfall(s). described more fully in the permittee's application: DSN024Y: Storm water from the northeast and east perimeters which include the adjacent farmland, vehicle service shop, and mechanic shop. 'Ji. 11. Such discharge shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below: DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS MONITORING REOI!IREMENIS IL Daily Daily Monthly Daily Measurement EFFUJENT CHARACTERISTIC pH Monthly Average Maximum Minimum Average REPORT Maximum Freguency 2/ SameleTyee Solids, Total Suspended Oil & Grease Flow, In Conduit or Thru Treatment Plant REPORT MGD S.U. REPORT Annually S.U. REPORT Annually mg/I 15.0 mg/J Annually Annually THE DISCHARGE SHALL HAVE NO SHEEN, AND THERE SHALL BENO DISCHARGE OF VISIBLE OIL, FLOATING SOLIDS OR VISIBLE FOAM IN OTHER THAN TRACE AMOUNTS. Grab Grab Grab Estimate Seasonal I/ Samples collected to comply with the monitoring requirements specified above shall be collected at the following location: Al the nearest accessible location just prior to discharge and after final treatment. Unless otherwise specified, composite samples shal I be time composite samples collected using automatic sampling equipment or a minimum of eight (8) equal volume grab samples collected over equal time intervals. All composite samples shall be collected for the total period of discharge not to exceed 24 hours. 2/ If only one sampling event occurs during a month, the sample result shall be reported on the discharge monitoring report as both the monthly average and daily maximum value for all parameters with a monthly average limitation. 31 See Part IV.A for Best Management Practices (BMP) Plan Requirements. 41 See Part IV.B for Stormwater Measurement and Sampling Requirements. NPDES PERMIT NUMBER AL0022080 PART I Page 13 of37 During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting through the expiration date of this permit. the permittee is authorized to discharge from the following point source(s) outfall(s), described more fully in the permittee's application:

• DSN l 3A Y: Storm water runoff from the switchyard drainage ditch (including the 4 kV operator the main plant transformer yard, the switchyard, the east parking lot, and the grassland north of the east parking lot. Ji. 1f. Such discharge shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below: EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTIC pH Solids, Total Suspended Oil & Grease Flow, In Conduit or Thru Treatment Plant Monthly Average DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS Daily Daily Monthly Maximum Minimum Average REPORT REPORT MGD s.u. Daily Maximum REPORT s.u. REPORT mg/I 15.0 mg/I MONITORING REQUIREMENTS 11 Measurement Frequency 2/ Annually Annually Annually Annually Sample Type Grab Grab Grab Estimate Seasonal THE DISCHARGE SHALL HA VE NO SHEEN, AND THERE SHALL BE NO DISCHARGE OF VISIBLE OIL, FLOATING SOLIDS OR VISIBLE FOAM IN OTHER THAN TRACE AMOUNTS. I I Samples collected to comply with the monitoring requirements specified above shall be collected at the following location: At the nearest accessible location just prior to discharge and after final treatment. Unless otherwise specified, composite samples shall be time composite samples collected using automatic sampling equipment or a minimum of eight (8) equal volume grab samples collected over equal time intervals. All composite samples shall be collected for the total period of discharge not to exceed 24 hours. 2/ If only one sampling event occurs during a month, the sample result shall be reported on the discharge monitoring report as both the monthly average and daily maximum value for all parameters with a monthly average limitation. 3/ See Part IV .A for Best Management Practices (BMP) Plan Requirements. 41 See Part IV .B for Storm water Measurement and Sampling Requirements.

NPDES PERMIT NUMBER AL0022080 PART I Page 14 of37 During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting through the expiration date of this permit. the permittee is authorized to discharge from the following point source(s) outfall(s). described more fully in the permittee's application: DSNIJBI: Sedimentation pond discharge. Ji. !!l Such discharge shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below: DISCHARGE I,IMIIAIIQNS MQNIIQRllSG REQIJIREMEISIS lL EFFLUENT Monthll'. Daill'. Daill'. Monthll'. Daill'. Measurement CHARACIERISTIC Average Maximum Minimum Average Maximum Freg uencl'. 2/ Tl'.l!e pH 6.0 S.U. 9.0S.U. Once per batch Grab Solids, Total Suspended 30.0 mg/I 100.0 mg/I Once per batch Grab Oil & Grease 15.0 mg/I 20.0 mg/! Once per batch Grab Flow, In Conduit or Thru Treatment REPORT REPORT Once per batch Measured Plant MGD MGD THE DISCHARGE SHALL HAVE NO SHEEN, AND THERE SHALL BE NO DISCHARGE OF VISIBLE OIL, FLOATING SOLIDS OR VISIBLE FOAM IN OTHER THAN TRACE AMOUNTS. Seasonal II Samples collected to comply with the monitoring requirements specified above shall be collected at the following location: At the nearest accessible location just prior to discharge and after final treatment. Unless otherwise specified, composite samples shall be time composite samples collected using autom.atic sampling equipment or a minimum.of eight (8) equal volume grab samples collected over equal time intervals. All composite samples shall be collected for the total period of discharge not to exceed 24 hours. 21 If only one sampling event occurs during a month, the sample result shall be reported on the discharge monitoring report as both the monthly average and daily maximum value for all parameters with a monthly average limitation. 31 See Part IV.A for Best Management Practices (BMP) Plan Requirements. 41 See Part IV.8 for Stormwater Measurement and Sampling Requirements. NPDES PERMIT NUMBER AL0022080 PART I Page 15 of37 During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting through the expiration date of this permit, the permittee is authorized to discharge from the following point source(s) outfall(s), described more fully in the permittee's application: DSNl3Cl:Treated domestic wastewater, medical lab photo developing waste, blowdown from the Training Center's chiller system, flush water from the stand-by liquid control system, flush water from cooler/air compressor cleaning, filtered waste from insulator showers used by personnel involved in the periodic asbestos stripping and handling operations, and rainwater. Such discharge shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below: DISCHARGE LIMITAIIQNS MQNIIQRING REQUIREMENTS IL EFFLl!ENT CHARACTERISTIC BOD, 5-Day (20 Deg. C) pH Solids, Total Suspended Flow, In Conduit or Thru Treatment Plant Monthly Average REPORT MGD Daily Daily Monthly Maximum Minimum Average REPORT MGD 6.0S.U. 30.0 mg/I 90.0 mg/I Daily Measurement Maximum Freguency 2/ Samule Tyue 45.0 mg/! Bi-Weekly Grab 9.0S.U. Bi-Weekly Grab 135.0 mg/! Bi-Weekly Grab Bi-Weekly Instantaneous THE DISCHARGE SHALL HA VE NO SHEEN, AND THERE SHALL BE NO DISCHARGE OF VISIBLE OIL, FLOATING SOLIDS OR VISIBLE FOAM IN OTHER THAN TRACE AMOUNTS. Seasonal I I Samples collected to comply with the monitoring requirements specified above sh al I be collected at the following location: At the nearest accessible location just prior to discharge and after final treatment. Unless otherwise specified, composite samples shall be time composite samples collected using automatic sampling equipment or a minimum of eight (8) equal volume grab samples collected over equal time intervals. All composite samples shall be collected for the total period of discharge not to exceed 24 hours. 2/ If only one sampling event occurs during a month, the sample result shall be reported on the discharge monitoring report as both the monthly average and daily maximum value for all parameters with a monthly average limitation. 3/ See Part IV.A for Best Management Practices (BMP) Plan Requirements. 41 *Sampling location for BOD, TSS, and pH is at the end ofDSNl3AY and samples must be taken during dry weather with no storm water runoff.

8. DISCHARGE MONITORING AND RECORD KEEPING REQUIREMENTS I. Representative Sampling PART I Page 16 of37 Samples and measurements taken as required herein shall be representative of the volume and nature of the monitored discharge and shall be in accordance with the provisions of this permit. 2. Test Procedures For the purpose of reporting and compliance, permittees shall use one of the following procedures: a. For parameters with an. EPA established Minimum Level (ML). report the measured value if the analytical result is at or above the ML and report "O" for values below the ML. Test procedures for the analysis of pollutants shall conform to 40 CFR Part 136 and guidelines published pursuant to Section 304(h) of the FWPCA, 33 U.S.C. Section 1314(h). If more than one method for analysis of a substance is approved for use, a method having a minimum level lower than the permit limit shall be used. If the minimum level of all methods is higher than the permit limit, the method having the lowest minimum level shall be used and a report of less than the minimum level shall be reported as zero and will constitute compliance; however, should EPA approve a method with a lower minimum level during the term of this permit the permittee shall use the newly approved method. b. For pollutants parameters without an established ML, an interim ML may be utilized. The interim ML shall be calculated as 3.18 times the Method Detection Level (MDL) calculated pursuant to 40 CFR Part 136, Appendix B. Permittees may develop an effluent matrix-specific ML, where an effluent matrix prevents attainment of the established ML. However, a matrix specific ML shall be based upon proper laboratory method and technique. Matrix-specific MLs must be approved by the Department. and may be developed by the permittee during permit issuance. reissuance. modification, or during compliance schedule. In either case the measured value should be reported ifthe analytical result is at or above the ML and --o** reported for values below the ML. c. For parameters without an EPA established ML. interim ML, or matrix-specific ML. a report of less than the detection limit shall constitute compliance if the detection limit of all analytical methods is higher than the permit limit using the most sensitive EPA approved method. For the purpose of calculating a monthly average, "O" shall be used for values . reported less than the detection limit. The Minimum Level utilized for procedures A and B above shall be reported on the permittee's DMR. When an EPA approved test procedure for analysis ofa pollutant does not exist, the Director shall approve the procedure to be used. 3. Recording of Results For each measurement or sample taken pursuant to the requirements of this permit. the permittee shall record the following information: a. The facility name and location. point source number, date, time and exact place of sampling; b. The name(s) ofperson(s) who obtained the samples or measurements; c. The dates and times the analyses were performed: d. The name(s) of the person(s) who performed the analyses: e. The analytical techniques or methods used, including source of method and method number: and f. The results of all required analyses. 4. Records Retention and Production The permittee shall retain records of all monitoring information, including all calibration and maintenance records and all original strip chart recordings for continuous monitoring instrumentation, copies of all reports required by the permit, and records of all data used lo complete the above reports or the application for this permit, for a period of at least three years from the date of the sample measurement, report or application. This period may be extended by request of the Director at any time. If litigation or other enforcement action, under the A WPCA and/or the FWPCA, is ongoing which involves any of the above records, the records shall be kept until the litigation is resolved. Upon the written request of the Director or his designee, the permittee shall provide the Director with a copy of any record required to be retained by this paragraph. Copies of these records shall not be submitted unless requested.

PART I Page 17 of37 All records required to be kept for a period of three years shall be kept at the permitted facility or an alternate location approved by the Department in writing and shall be available for inspection. 5. Monitoring Equipment and Instrumentation All equipment and instrumentation used to determine compliance with the requirements of this permit shall be installed, maintained, and calibrated in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions or. in the absence of manufacturer's instructions. in accordance with accepted practices. The permittee shall develop and maintain quality assurance procedures to ensure proper operation and maintenance of all equipment and instrumentation. The quality assurance procedures shall include the proper use. maintenance, and installation, when appropriate, of monitoring equipment at the plant site. C. DISCHARGE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS l. Reporting of Monitoring Requirements a. The permittee_shall conduct the required monitoring in accorda11ce with the following schedule: MONITORING REQUIRED MORE FREQUENTLY THAN MONTHLY AND MONTHLY shall be conducted during the first full month following the effective date of coverage under this permit and every month thereafter. QUARTERLY MONITORING shall be conducted at least once during each calendar quarter. Calendar quarters are the periods of January through March, April through June. July through September, and October through December. The permittee shall conduct the quarterly monitoring during the first coqiplete calendar quarter following the effective date of this permit and is then required to monitor once during each quarter thereafter. Quarterly monitoring may be done anytime during the quarter, unless restricted elsewhere in this permit, but it should be submitted with the last DMR due for the quarter, i.e. (March. June, September and December DMRs). SEMIANNUAL MONITORING shall be conducted at least once during the period of January through June and at least once during the period of July through December. The permittee shall conduct the semiannual monitoring during the first complete calendar semiannual period following the effective date of this permit and is then required to monitor once during each.semiannual period thereafter. Semiannual monitoring may be done anytime during the semiannual period, unless restricted elsewhere in this permit, but it should be submitted with the last DMR due for the month of the semiannual period, i.e. (June and December DMRs). ANNUAL MONITORING shall be conducted at least once during the period of January through December. The permittee shall conduct the annual monitoring during the first complete calendar annual period following the effective date of this permit and is then required to monitor once during each annual period thereafter. Annual monitoring may be done anytime during the year. unless restricted elsewhere in this permit. but it should be submitted with the *December DMR. b. The permittee shall submit discharge monitoring reports (DMRs) on the forms provided by the Department and in accordance with the following schedule: REPORTS OF MORE FREQUENTLY THAN MONTHLY AND MONTHLY TESTING shall be submitted on a monthly basis. The first report is due on the 28th day of August, 2012. The reports shall be submitted so that they are received by the Department no later than the 28th day of the month following the reporting period. REPORTS OF QUARTERLY TESTrNG shall be submitted on a quarterly basis. The first report is due on the 28th day of 28th day of October, 2012. The reports shall be submitted so that they are received by the Department no later than the 28th day of the month following the reporting period. REPORTS OF SEMIANNUAL TESTING shall be submitted on a semiannual basis. The reports are due on the 28th day of JANUARY and the 28th day of JULY. The reports shall be submitted so that they are received by the Department no later than the 28th day of the month following the reporting period. REPORTS OF ANNUAL TESTING shall be submitted on an annual basis. The first report is due on the 28th day of JANUARY. The reports shall be submitted so that they are received by the Department no later than the 28th day of the month following the reporting period. c. The Department is utilizing a web-based electronic environmental (E2) reporting system for submittal of DMRs. The E2 DMR system allows ADEM to electronically validate, acknowledge receipt, and upload data to the state's central wastewater database. This improves the accuracy of reported compliance data and reduces costs to both the regulated community and ADEM. If the permittee is not already participating in the e-DMR system, within 180 days of coverage under this permit, permittee must apply for participation in the e-DMR system unless the facility submits in writing valid justificatiQn as to why they cannot participate and the Department approves in writing utilization of hard copy DMR submittals. To participate in this program, the Permittee Participation Package may be downloaded online at httos://e2.adem.alabama.gov/npdes. If the electronic environmental (E2) reporting system is down (i.e. electronic submittal of DMR data is unable to be completed due to technical problems originating with the PART I Page 18 of37 Department's system: this could include entry/submittal issues with an entire set of DMRs or individual parameters). permittee is not relieved of their obligation to submit DMR data to the Department by the required submittal date. However, if the E2 system is down on the zgth day of the month or is down for an extended period f time as determined by the Department when a DMR is required to be submitted, the facility may submit the data in an alternate manner and format acceptable to the Department. Preapproved alternate acceptable methods include faxing, e-mailing, mailing, or hand-delivery of data such that they are received by the required reporting date. Within five calendar days of the E2 system resuming operation, the permittee shall enter the data into the E2 reporting system, unless an alternate timeframe is approved by the Department. An attachment should be included with the E2 DMR submittal verifying the original submittal date (date of the fax, copy of dated e-mail. or hand-delivery stamped date). If a permittee is allowed to submit via the US Postal Service, the DMR must be legible and bear an original signature. Photo and electronic copies of the signature are not acceptable and shall not satisfy the reporting requirements of this permit. If the permittee, using approved analytical methods as specified in Provision I.B.2 monitors any discharge from a point source for a limited substance identified in Provision I.A of this permit more frequently than required by this permit, the results of such monitoring shall be included in the calculation and reporting of values on the DMR form and the increased frequency shall be indicated on the DMR form. In the event no discharge from a point source identified in Provision I.A of this permit and described more fully in the permittee's application occurs during a monitoring period. the permittee shall report "No Discharge" for such period on the appropriate DMR form. d. All reports and forms required to be submitted by this permit, the A WPCA and the Department's Rules and Regulations. shall be electronically signed (or, if allowed by the Department, traditionally signed) by a "responsible official" of the permittee as defined in ADEM Administrative Code Rule 335-6-6-.09 or a "duly authorized representative" of such official as defined in ADEM Administrative Code Rule 335-6-6-.09 and shall bear the following certification: "/ certify. under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible/or gathering information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment/or knowing violations." e. The permittee may certify in writing that a discharge will not occur for an extended period of time and after such certification shall not be required to submit monitoring reports. Written notification of a planned resumption of discharge shall be submitted at least 30 days prior to resumption of the discharge. If an unplanned resumption of discharge occurs. written notification shall be submitted within 7 days of the resumption. In any case. all discharges shall comply with all provisions of this permit. f. All Discharge Monitoring Report forms required to be submitted by this permit, the A WPCA, and the Department's Rules shall be addressed to: Alabama Department of Environmental Management Permits and Services Division Environmental Data Section Post Office Box 301463 Montgomery, Alabama 36130-1463 Certified and Registered Mail containing Discharge Monitoring Reports shall be addressed to: Alabama Department of Environmental Management Permits and Services Division Environmental Data Section 1400 Coliseum Boulevard Montgomery, Alabama 36110-2059 g. All other correspondence and reports required to be submitted by this permit, the A WPCA, and the Department's Rules shall be addressed to: Alabama Department of Environmental Management Water Division Post Office Box 301463 Montgomery, Alabama 36130-1463 Certified and Registered Mail shall be addressed to: Alabama Department of Environmental Management Water Division 1400 Coliseum Boulevard Montgomery, Alabama 36110-2059 PARTI Page 19 of37 h. If this permit is a reissuance. then the permittee shall continue to submit DMRs in accordance with the requirements of their previous permit until such time as DMRs are due as discussed in Part LC.Lb. above. 2. Noncompliance Notification a. 24-Hour Noncompliance Reporting The permittee shall report to the Director, within 24-hours of becoming aware of the noncompliance. any noncompliance which may endanger health or the environment. This shall include but is not limited to the following circumstances: (I) does not comply with any daily minimum or maximum discharge limitation for an effluent characteristic specified in Provision I. A. of this permit which is denoted by an "(X)"; (2) threatens human health or welfare, fish or aquatic life, or water quality standards; (3) does not comply with an applicable toxic pollutant effluent standard or prohibition established under Section 307(a) of the FWPCA, 33 U.S.C. Section 1317(a); ( 4) contains a quantity of a hazardous substance which has been determined may be harmful to public health or welfare under Section 31 l(b)(4) of the FWPCA. 33 U.S.C. Section 1321(b)(4); (5) exceeds any discharge limitation for an effluent characteristic as a result of an unanticipated bypass or upset: and (6) is an unpermitted direct or indirect discharge of a pollutant to a water of the state (unpermitted discharges properly reported to the Department under any other requirement are not required to be reported under this provision). The permittee shall orally report the occurrence and circumstances of such discharge to the Director within 24-hours after the permittee becomes aware of the occurrence of such discharge. In addition to the oral report. the permittee shall submit to the Director or Designee a written report as provided in Part l.C.2.c no later than five (5) days after becoming aware of the occurrence of such discharge. b. If for any reason, the permittee's discharge does not comply with any limitation of this permit, the permittee shall submit to the Director or Designee a written report as provided in Part l.C.2.c below, such report shall be submitted with the m:xt Discharge Monitoring Report required to be submitted by Part LC. I of this permit after becoming aware of the occurrence of such noncompliance. c. Any written report'required to be submitted to the Director or Designee by Part I.C.2 a. orb. shall be submitted using a copy of the Noncompliance Notification Form provided with this permit and shall include the following information: (I) A description of the discharge and cause of noncompliance: (2) The period of noncompliance, including exact dates and times or, if not corrected, the anticipated time the noncompliance is expected to continue: and (3) A description of the steps taken and/or being taken to reduce or eliminate the noncomplying discharge and to prevent its recurrence. D. OTHER REPORTING AND NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS I. Anticipated Noncompliance The permittee shall give the Director written advance notice of any planned changes or other circumstances regarding a facility which may result in noncompliance with permit requirements. 2. Termination of Discharge The permittee shall notify the Director, in writing, when all discharges from any point source(s) identified in Provision I. A. of this permit have permanently ceased. This notification shall serve as sufficient cause for instituting procedures for modification or termination of the permit.

3. Updating Information PART I Page20 of37 a. The permittee shall inform the Director of any change in the pennittee's mailing address, telephone number or in the permittee's designation of a facility contact or office having the authority and responsibility to prevent and abate violations of the AWPCA, the Department's Rules, and the terms and conditions of this pennit, in writing, no later than ten (10) days after such change. Upon request of the Director or his designee, the permittee shall furnish the Director with an update of any information provided in the permit application. b. If the permittee becomes aware that it failed to submit any relevant facts in a pennit application, or submitted incorrect information in a permit application or in any report to the Director, it shall promptly submit such facts or information with a written explanation for the mistake and/or omission. 4. Duty to Provide Information The permittee shall furnish to the Director, within a reasonable time, any information which the Director or his designee may request to determine whether cause exists for modifying, revoking and re-issuing, suspending, or tenninating this permit, in whole or in part, or to determine compliance with this permit. 5. Cooling Water and Boiler Water Additives a. The permittee shall notify the Director in writing not later than thirty (30) days prior to instituting the use of any biocide corrosion inhibitor or chemical additive in a cooling or boiler system, not identified in the application for this permit. from which discharge is allowed by this permit. Notification is not required for additives that do not contain a heavy metal(s) as an active ingredient and that pass through a wastewater treatment system prior to discharge nor is notification required for additives that should not reasonably be expected to cause the cooling water or boiler water to exhibit toxicity as determined by analysis of manufacturer's data or testing by the permittee. Such notification shall include: (I) name and general composition ofbiocide or chemical; (2) 96-hour median tolerance limit data for organisms representative of the biota of the waterway into which the discharge will ultimately reach: (2) quantities to be used; (3) frequencies of use; (4) proposed discharge concentrations; and (6) EPA registration number, if applicable. b. The use of a biocide or additive containing tributyl tin, tributyl tin oxide, zinc, chromium or related compounds in cooling or boiler system(s), from which a discharge regulated by this permit occurs. is prohibited except as exempted below. The use of a biocide or additive containing zinc, chromium or related compounds may be used in special circumstances if (I) the permit contains limits for these substances, or (2) the applicant demonstrates during the application process that the use of zinc, chromium or related compounds as a biocide or additive will not pose a reasonable potential to violate the applicable State water quality standards for these substances. The use of any additive, not identified in this pennit or in the application for this pennit or not exempted from notification under this permit is prohibited, prior to a determination by the Department that permit modification to control discharge of the additive is not required or prior to issuance ofa permit modifica.tion controlling discharge of the additive. 6. Permit Issued Based On Estimated Characteristics a. If this pennit was issued based on estimates of the characteristics of a process discharge reported on an EPA NPOES Application Form 20 (EPA Fonn 3510-20), the pennittee shall complete and submit an EPA NPOES Application Form 2C (EPA Form 3510-2C) no later than two years after the date that discharge begins. Sampling required for completion of the Form 2C shall occur when a discharge(s) from the process(s) causing the new or increased discharge is occurring. If this permit was issued based on estimates concerning the composition of a storm water discharge(s), the permittee shall perform the sampling required by EPA NPOES Application Form 2F (EPA Form 3510-2F) no later than one year after the industrial activity generating the stormwater discharge has been fully initiated. b. This permit shall be reopened if required to address any new information resulting from the completion and submittal of the Form 2C and or 2F.

E. SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE PART I Page 21 of37 I. The permittee shall achieve compliance with the discharge limitations specified in Provision I. A. in accordance with the following schedule: COMPLIANCE SHALL BE ATTAINED ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS PERMIT 2. No later than 14 calendar days following a date identified in the above schedule of compliance, the permittee shall submit either a report of progress or, in the case of specific actions being required by identified dates, a written notice of compliance or noncompliance. In the latter case, the notice shall include the cause of noncompliance, any remedial actions taken, and the probability of meeting the next scheduled requirement. PART II OTHER REQUIREMENTS, RESPONSIBILITIES, AND DUTIES A. OPERATIONAL AND MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS I. Facilities Operation and Maintenance PART II Page 22 of37 The permittee shall at all times properly operate and maiqtain all facilities and systems of treatment and control (and related appurtenances) which are installed or used by the permittee to achieve compliance with the conditions of the permit. Proper operation and maintenance includes effective performance, adequate funding, adequate operator staffing and training, and adequate laboratory and process controls, including appropriate quality assurance procedures. This provision requires the operation of backup or auxiliary facilities only when necessary to achieve compliance with the conditions of the pem1it. 2. Best Management Practices a. Dilution water shall not be added to achieve compliance with discharge limitations except when the Director or his designee has granted prior written authorization for dilution to meet water quality requirements. b. The permittee shall prepare, implement. and maintain a Spill Prevention. Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan in accordance with 40 C.F.R. Section 112 if required thereby. c. The permittee shall prepare, submit for approval and implement a Best Management Practices (BMPl Plan for containment of any or all process liquids or solids, in a manner such that these materials do not present a significant potential for discharge. if so required by the Director or his designee. When submitted and approved, the BMP Plan shall become a part of this permit and all requirements of the BMP Plan shall become requirements of this permit. 3. Spill Prevention. Control. and Management The permittee shall provide spill prevention, control. and/or management sufficient to prevent any spills of pollutants from entering a water of the state or a publicly or privately owned treatment works. Any containment system used to implement this requirement shall be constructed of materials compatible with the substance(s) contained and which shall prevent the contamination of groundwater and such containment system shall be capable of retaining a volume equal to 110 percent of the capacity of the largest tank for which containment is provided. B. OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES I. Duty to Mitigate Adverse Impacts The permittee shall promptly take all reasonable steps lo mitigate and minimize or prevent any adverse impact on human health or the environment resulting from noncompliance with any discharge limitation specified in Provision L A. of this permit, including such accelerated or additional monitoring of the discharge and/or the receiving waterbody as necessary to determine the nature and impact of the noncomplying discharge. 2. Right of Entry and Inspection The permittee shall allow the Director, or an authorized representative, upon the presentation of proper credentials and other documents as may be required by [aw to: a. enter upon the permittee's premises where a regulated facility or activity or point source is located or conducted. or where records must be kept under the conditions of the permit; b. have access to and copy, at reasonable times, any records that must be kept under the conditions of the permit; c. inspect any facilities, equipment (including monitoring and control equipment), practices, or operations regulated or required under the permit; and d. sample or monitor. for the purposes of assuring permit compliance or as otherwise authorized by the A WPCA, any substances or parameters at any location. C. BYPASS AND UPSET I. Bypass a. Any bypass is prohibited except as provided in b. and c. below: PART II Page 23 of37 b. A bypass is not prohibited if: (I) It does not cause any discharge limitation specified in Provision I. A. of this permit to be exceeded: (2) It enters the same receiving stream as the permitted outfall; and (3) It is necessary fo,r essential maintenance of a treatment or control facility or system to assure efficient operation of such facility or system. c. A bypass is not prohibited and need not meet the discharge limitations specified in Provision I. A. of this permit if: (I) It is unavoidable to prevent loss of life. personal injury, or severe property damage; (2) There are no feasible alternatives to the bypass, such as the use of auxiliary treatment facilities, retention of untreated wastes, or maintenance during normal periods of equipment downtime (this condition is not satisfied if adequate back-up equipment should have been installed in the exercise of reasonable engineering judgment to prevent a bypass which occurred during normal periods of equipment downtime or preventive maintenance); and (3) The permittee submits a written request for authorization to bypass to the Director at least ten ( l 0) days prior to the anticipated bypass (if possible). the permittee is granted such authorization, and the permittee complies with any conditions imposed by the Director to minimize any adverse impact on human health or the environment resulting from the bypass. d. The permittee has the burden of establishing that each of the conditions of Provision Il.C. l .b. or c. have been met to qualify for an exception to the general prohibition against bypassing contained in a. and an exemption, where applicable. from the discharge limitations specified in Provision I. A. of this permit. 2. Upset a. A discharge which results from an upset need not meet the discharge limitations specified in Provision I. A. of this permit if: (I) No later than 24-hours after becoming aware of the occurrence of upset, the permittee orally n:ports the occurrence and circumstances of the upset to the Director or his designee: and (2) No later than five (S) days after becoming aware of the occurrence of the upset, the permittee furnishes the Director with evidence, including properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs. or other relevant evidence, demonstrating that (i) an upset occurred; (ii) the permittee can identify the specific cause(s) of the upset; (iii) the permittee's facility was being properly operated at the time of the upset; and (iv) the permittee promptly took all reasonable steps to minimize any adverse impact on human health or the environment resulting from the upset. b. The permittee has the burden of establishing that each of the conditions of Provision II. C.2.a. of this permit have been met to qualify for an exemption from the discharge limitations specified in Provision I.A. of this permit. D. DUTY TO COMPLY WITH PERMIT, RULES, AND STATUTES I. Duty to Comply a. The permittee must comply with all conditions of this permit. Any permit noncompliance constitutes a violation of the A WPCA and the FWPCA and is grounds for enforcement action, for permit termination, revocation and reissuance, suspension, modification; or denial of a permit renewal application. b. The necessity to halt or reduce production or other activities in order to maintain compliance with the conditions of the permit shall not be a defense for a permittee in an enforcement action. c. The discharge of a pollutant from a source not specifically identified in the permit application for this permit and not specifically included in the description o_f an outfall in this permit is not authorized and shall constitute noncompliance with this permit. d. The permittee shall take all reasonable steps, including cessation of production or other activities, to minimize or prevent any violation of this permit or to minimize or prevent any adverse impact of any permit violation. e. Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude and negate the permittee's responsibility or liability to apply for, obtain, or comply with other ADEM, Federal, State, or Local Government permits, certifications, licenses, or other approvals.

2. Removed Substances PART II Page 24 of37 Solids, sludges. filter backwash, or any other pollutant or other waste removed in the course of treatment or control of wastewaters shall be disposed of in a manner that complies with all applicable Department Rules. 3. Loss or Failure ofTreatment Facilities Upon the loss or failure of any treatment facilities, including but not limited to the loss or failure of the primary source of power of the treatment facility, the permittee shall, where necessary to maintain compliance with the discharge limitations specified in Provision I. A. of this permit, or any other terms or conditions of this permit, cease, reduce. or otherwise control production and/or all discharges until treatment is restored. 1 f control of discharge during loss or failure of the primary source of power is to be accomplished by means of alternate power sources, standby generators, or retention of inadequately treated effluent. the permittee must furnish to the Director within six months a certification that such control mechanisms have been installed. 4. Compliance with Statutes and Rules a. This permit has been issued under ADEM Administrative Code, Chapter 335-6-6. All provisions of this chapter, that are applicable to this permit, are hereby made a part of this permit. A copy of this chapter may be obtained for a small charge from the Office of General Counsel. Alabama Department of Environmental Management, 1400 Coliseum Blvd .. Montgomery, AL 36130. b. This permit does not authorize the noncompliance with or violation of any Laws of the State of Alabama or the United States of America or any regulations or rules implementing such laws. FWPCA. 33 U.S.C. Section 1319. and Code of Alabama 1975, Section 22-22-14. E. PERMIT TRANSFER, MODIFICATION, SUSPENSION, REVOCATION, AND REISSUANCE I. Duty to Reapply or Notify oflntent to Cease Discharge a. If the permittee intends to continue to discharge beyond the expiration date of this permit. the permittee shall file a complete permit application for reissuance of this permit at least I 80 days prior to its expiration. If the permittee does not intend to continue discharge beyond the expiration of this permit, the permittee shall submit written notification of this intent which shall be signed by an individual meeting the signatory requirements for a permit application as set forth in ADEM Administrative Code Rule 335-6-6-.09. b. Failure of the permittee to apply for reissuance at least 180 days prior to permit expiration will void the automatic continuation of the expiring permit provided by ADEM Administrative Code Rule 335-6-6-.06 and should the permit not be reissued for any reason any discharge after expiration of this permit will be an unpermilted discharge. 2. Change in Discharge a. The permittee shall apply for a permit modification at least 180 days in advance of any facility expansion, production increase, process change, or other action that could result in the discharge of additional pollutants or increase the quantity of a discharged pollutant such that existing permit limitations would be exceeded or that could result in an additional discharge point. This requirement applies to pollutants that are or that are not subject to discharge limitations in this permit. No new or increased discharge may begin until the Director has authorized it by issuance of a permit modification or a reissued permit. b. The permittee shall notify the Director as soon as it is known or there is reason to believe: (I) That any activity has occurred or will occur which would result in the discharge on a routine or frequent basis, of any toxic pollutant which is not limited in this permit, if that discharge will exceed the highest of the following notification levels: (a) one hundred micrograms per liter: (b) two hundred micrograms per liter for acrolein and acrylonitrile; five hundred micrograms per liter for 2,4-dinitrophenol and for 2-methyl-4,6-dini-trophenol; and one milligram per liter for antimony; (c) five times the maximum concentration value reported for that pollutant in the permit application; or (2) That any activity has occurred or will occur which would result in any discharge, on a non-routine or infrequent basis, of a toxic pollutant which is not limited in the permit, if that discharge will exceed the highest of the following notification levels: (a) five hundred micrograms per liter: (b) one milligram per liter for antimony; PART II Page25 of37 (cl ten times the maximum concentration value reported for that pollutant in the permit application. 3. Transfer of Permit This permit may not be transferred or the name of the permittee changed without notice to the Director and subsequent modification or revocation and reissuance of the permit to identify the new permittee and to incorporate any other changes as may be required under the FWPCA or A WPCA. In the case of a change in name, ownership or control of the permittee's premises only, a request for permit modification in a format acceptable to the Director is required at least 30 days prior to the change. In the case of a change in name, ownership or control of the permittee's premises accompanied by a change or proposed change in effluent characteristics, a complete permit application is required to be submitted to the Director at least 180 days prior to the change. Whenever the Director is notified of a change in name, ownership or controL he may decide not to modify the existing permit and require the submission of a new permit application. 4. Permit Modification and Revocation a. This permit may be modified or revoked and reissued, in whole or in part, during its term for cause, including but not limited to, the following: (I) If cause for termination under Provision II. E. 5. of this permit exists. the Director may choose to revoke and reissue this permit instead of terminating the permit; (2) If a request to transfer this permit has been received, the Director may decide to revoke and reissue or to modify the permit; or (3) If modification or revocation and reissuance is requested by the permittee and cause exists, the Director may grant the request. b. This permit may be modified during its term for cause, including but not limited to. the following: (I) If cause for termination under Provision II. E. 5. of this permit exists, the Director may choose to modify this permit instead of terminating this permit; (2) There are material and substantial alterations or additions to the facility or activity generating wastewater which occurred after permit issuance which justify the application of permit conditions that are different or absent in the existing permit: (3) The Director has received new information that was not available at the time of permit issuance and that would have justified the application of different permit conditions at the time of issuance; (4) A new or revised requirement(s) of any applicable standard or limitation is promulgated under Sections 30I(b)(2)(C). (D), (E). and (F). and 307(a)(2) of the FWPCA: (5) Errors in calculation of discharge limitations or typographical or clerical errors were made; (6) To the extent allowed by ADEM Administrative Code, Rule 335-6-6-.17, when the standards or regulations on which the permit was based have been changed by promulgation of amended standards or regulations or by judicial decision after the permit was issued; (7) To the extent allowed by ADEM Administrative Code, Rule 335-6-6-.17, permits may be modified to change compliance schedules; (8) To agree with a granted variance under 30l(c), 30J(g), 301(h), 30l(k), or 3l6(a) of the FWPCA or for fundamentally different factors; (9) To incorporate an applicable 307(a) FWPCA toxic effluent standard or prohibition; (10) When required by the reopener conditions in this permit: ( l I) When required under 40 CFR 403.8(e) (compliance schedule for development of pretreatment program); (12) Upon failure of the state to notify. as required by Section 402(b)(3) of the FWPCA, another state whose waters may be affected by a discharge permitted by this permit; ( 13) When required to correct technical mistakes, such as errors in calculation, or mistaken interpretations of law made in determining permit conditions; or PARTll Page 26 of37 ( 14) When requested by the permittee and the Director determines that the modification has cause and will not result in a violation of federal or state law, regulations or rules. 5. Permit Termination This permit may be terminated during its term for cause, including but not limited to, the following: a. Violation of any term or condition of this permit; b. The permittee's misrepresentation or failure to disclose fully all relevant facts in the permit application or during the permit issuance process or the permittee's misrepresentation of any relevant facts at any time; c. Materially false or inaccurate statements or information in the permit application or the permit: d. A change in any condition that requires either a temporary or permanent reduction or elimination of the permitted discharge; e. The permittee's discharge threatens human life or welfare or the maintenance of water quality standards; f. Permanent closure of the facility generating the wastewater permitted to be discharged by this permit or permanent cessation of wastewater discharge: g. New or revised requirements of any applicable standard or limitation that is promulgated under Sections 301(b)(2)(C), (D). (E), and (F), and 307(a)(2) of the FWPCA that the Director determines cannot be complied with by the permittee; or h. Any other cause allowed by the ADEM Administrative Code. Chapter 335-6-6. 6. Permit Suspension This permit may be suspended during its term for noncompliance until the permittee has taken action(s) necessary to achieve compliance. 7. Request for Permit Action Does No! Stay Any Permit Requirement The filing of a request by the permittee for modification. suspension or revocation of this permit, in whole or in part, does not stay any permit term or condition. F. COMPLIANCE WITH TOXIC POLLUTANT STANDARD OR PROHIBITION If any applicable eilluen! standard or prohibition (including any schedule of compliance specified in such effluent standard or prohibition) is established under Section 307(a) of the FWPCA, 33 V.S.C. Section I 3 l 7(a), for a toxic pollutant discharged by the permittee and such standard or prohibition is more stringent than any discharge limitation on the pollutant specified in Provision I. A. of this permit, or controls a pollutant not limited in Provision l. A. of this permit, this permit shall be modified to conform to the toxic pollutant effluent standard or prohibition and the permittee shall be notified of such modification. If this permit has not been modified to conform to the toxic pollutant effluent standard or prohibition before the effective date of such standard* or prohibition, the permittee shall attain compliance with the requirements of the standard or prohibition within the time period required by the standard or prohibition and shall continue to comply with the standard or prohibition until this permit is modified or reissued. G. DISCHARGE OF WASTEWATER GENERATED BY OTHERS The discharge of wastewater, generated by any process. facility, or by any other means not under the operational control of the permittee or not identified in the application for this permit or not identified specifically in the description of an outfall in this permit is not authorized by this permit PART III A. CIVIL AND CRIMINAL LIABILITY I. Tampering OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS PART III Page27 of37 Any person who falsifies, tampers with, or knowingly renders inaccurate any monitoring device or method required to be maintained or performed under the permit shall. upon conviction. be subject to penalties as provided by the A WPCA. 2. False Statements Any person who knowingly makes any false statement, representation, or certification in any record or other document submitted or required to be maintained under this permit, including monitoring reports or reports of compliance or noncompliance shall, upon conviction, be subject to penalties as provided by the A WPCA. 3. Permit Enforcement a. Any NPDES permit issued or reissued by the Department is a permit for the purpose of the A WPCA and the FWPCA and as such any terms, conditions, or limitations of the permit are enforceable under state and federal law. b. Any person required to have a NPDES permit pursuant to ADEM Administrative Code Chapter 335-6-6 and who discharges pollutants without said permit, who violates the conditions of said permit, who discharges pollutants in a manner not authorized by the permit. or who violates applicable orders of the Department or any applicable rule or standard of the Department. is subject to any one or combination of the following enforcement actions under applicable state statutes. (I) An administrative order requiring abatement. compliance, mitigation, cessation, clean-up. and/or penalties: (2) An action for damages; (3) An action for injunctive relief: or ( 4) An action for penalties. c. If the permittee is not in compliance with the conditions of an expiring or expired permit the Director may choose to do any or all of the following provided the petmittee has made a timely and complete application for reissuance of the permit: ( l) initiate enforcement action based upon the permit which has been continued; (2) issue a notice of intent to deny the permit reissuance. 1f the permit is denied, the owner or operator would then be required to cease the activities authorized by the continued permit or be subject to enforcement action for operating without a permit: (3) reissue the new permit with appropriate conditions: or (4) take other actions authorized by these rules and A WPCA. 4. Relief from Liability Except as provided in Provision 11.C. I (Bypass) and Provision II.C.2 (Upset), nothing in this permit shall be construed to relieve the permittee of civil or criminal liability under the A WPCA or FWPCA for noncompliance with any term or condition of this permit. B. OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE LIABILITY Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the institution of any legal action or relieve the permittee from any responsibilities, liabilities or penalties to which the permittee is or may be subject under Section 311 of the FWPCA, 33 U.S.C. Section 1321. C. PROPERTY AND OTHER RIGHTS This permit does not convey any property right.s in either real or personal property, or any exclusive privileges, nor does it authorize any injury to persons or property or invasion of other private rights, trespass, or any infringement of federal, state, or local laws or regulations, nor does it authorize or approve the construction of any physical structures or facilities or the undertaking of any work in any waters of the state or of the United States.

D. AVAILABILITY OF REPORTS PART III Page 28 of37 Except for data determined to be confidential under Code of Alabama 1975, Section 22-22-9(c), all reports prepared in accordance with the terms of this permit shall be available for public inspection at the offices of the Department. Effluent data shall not be considered confidential. E. EXPIRATION OF PERMITS FOR NEW OR INCREASED DISCHARGES I. If this permit was issued for a new discharger or new source, this permit shall expire eighteen months after the issuance date if construction of the facility has not begun during the eighteen-month period. 2. If this permit was issued or modified to allow the discharge of increased quantities of pollutants to accommodate the modification of an existing facility and if construction of this modification has not begun during the eighteen month period after issuance of this permit or permit modification, this permit shall be modified to reduce the quantities of pollutants allowed to be discharged to those levels that would have been allowed ifthe modification of the facility had not been planned. 3. Construction has begun when the owner or operator has: a begun. or caused to begin as part of a continuous on-site construction program: (I) any placement, assembly, or installation of facilities or equipment; or (2) significant site preparation work including clearing, excavation, or removal of existing buildings. structures, or facilities which is necessary for the placement. assembly, or installation of new source facilities or equipment; or b. entered into a binding contractual obligation for the purpose of placement. assembly. or installation of facilities or equipment which are intended to be used in its operation within a reasonable time. Options to purchase or contracts which can be terminated or modified without substantial loss, and contracts for feasibility. engineering. and design studies do not constitute a contractual obligation under the paragraph. The entering into a lease with the State of Alabama for exploration and production of hydrocarbons shall also be considered beginning construction. F. COMPLIANCE WITH WATER QUALITY STANDARDS I. On the basis of the permittee's application, plans, or other available information. the Department has determined that compliance with the terms and conditions of this permit should assure compliance with the applicable water quality standards. 2. Compliance with permit terms and conditions notwithstanding. if the permittee's discharge(s) from point sources identified in Provision I. A. of this permit cause or contribute to a condition in contravention of state water quality standards. the Department may require abatement action to be taken by the permittee in emergency situations or modify the permit pursuant to the Department's Rules, or both. 3. If the Department determines, on the basis of a notice provided pursuant to this permit or any investigation, inspection or sampling, that a modification of this permit is necessary to assure maintenance of water quality standards or compliance with other provisions of the A WPCA or FWPCA, the Department may require such modification and. in cases of emergency. the Director may prohibit the discharge until the permit has been modified. G. GROUNDWATER Unless specifically authorized by a permit issued by the Department, the discharge of pollutants to groundwater is prohibited. Should a threat of groundwater contamination occur. the Director may require groundwater monitoring to properly assess the degree of the problem and the Director may require that the permittee undertake measures to abate any such discharge and/or contamination. H. DEFINITIONS I. Average monthly discharge limitation -means the highest allowable average of "daily discharges" over a calendar month, calculated as the sum of all "daily discharges" measured during a calendar month divided by the number of "daily discharges" measured during that month (zero discharge days shall not be included in the number of "daily discharges" measured and a less than detectable test result shall be treated as a concentration of zero ifthe most sensitive EPA approved method was used). 2. Average weekly discharge limitation -means the highest allowable average of "daily discharges" over a calendar week, calculated as the sum of all "daily discharges" measured during a calendar week divided by the number of "daily discharges" measured during that week (zero discharge days shall not be included in the number of "daily discharges" measured and a less than detectable test result shall be treated as a concentration of zero ifthe most sensitive EPA approved method was used). PART III Page 29 of37 3. Arithmetic Mean -means the summation of the individual values of any set of values divided by the number of individual values. 4. A WPCA -means the Alabama Water Pollution Control Act. 5. BOD-means the five-day measure of the pollutant parameter biochemical oxygen demand. 6. Bypass -means the intentional diversion of waste streams from any portion ofa treatment facility. 7. CBOD-means the five-day measure of the pollutant parameter carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand. 8. Daily discharge -means the discharge of a pollutant measured during any consecutive 24-hour period in accordance with the sample type and analytical methodology specified by the discharge permit. 9. Daily maximum -means the highest value of any individual sample result obtained during a day. I 0. Daily minimum -means the lowest value of any individual sample result obtained during a day. 11. Day -means any consecutive 24-hour period. 12. Department -means the Alabama Department of Environmental Management. 13. Director -means the Director of the Department. 14. Discharge -means "[t]he addition, introduction, leaking, spilling or emitting of any sewage, industrial waste, pollutant or other wastes into waters of the state". Code of Alabama 1975. Section 22-22-l(b)(S). 15. Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) -means the form approved by the Director to accomplish reporting requirements of an NPDES permit. 16. DO -means dissolved oxygen. 17. 81-IC -means 8-hour composite sample, including any of the following: a. The mixing of at least 5 equal volume samples collected at constant time intervals of not more than 2 hours over a period of not less than 8 hours between the hours qf 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. If the sampling period exceeds 8 hours, sampling may be conducted beyond the 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. period. b. A sample continuously collected at a constant rate over period of not less than 8 hours between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. If the sampling period exceeds 8 hours, sampling may be conducted beyond the 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. period. 18. EPA -means the United States Environmental Protection Agency. 19. FC -means the pollutant parameter fecal coliform. 20. Flow -means the total volume of discharge in a 24-hour period. 21. FWPCA -means the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. 22. Geometric Mean -means the Nth root of the product of the individual values of any set of values where N is equal to the number of individual values. The geometric mean is equivalent to the antilog of the arithmetic mean of the logarithms of the individual values. For purposes of calculating the geometric mean. values of zero (0) shall be considered one (I). 23. Grab Sample -means a single influent or effluent portion which is not a composite sample. *The sample(s) shall be collected at the period(s) most representative of the discharge. 24. Indirect Discharger -means a nondomestic discharger who discharges pollutants to a publicly owned treatment works or a privately owned treatment facility operated by another person. 25. Industrial User -means those industries identified in the Standard Industrial Classification manual, Bureau of the Budget 196 7, as amended and supplemented, under the category *'Division D -Manufacturing" and such other classes of significant waste producers as, by regulation, the Director deems appropriate. 26. MOD -means million gallons per day. 27. Monthly Average -means, other than for fecal coliform bacteria, the arithmetic mean of the entire composite or grab samples taken for the daily discharges collected in one month period. The monthly average for fecal coliform bacteria is the geometric PART III Page 30 of37 mean of daily discharge samples collected in a one month period. The monthly average for flow is the arithmetic mean of all flow measurements taken in a one month period. 28. New Discharger -means a person, owning or operating any building, structure, facility or installation: a. from which there is or may be a discharge of pollutants: b. that did not commence the discharge of pollutants prior to August 13, 1979, and which is not a new source: and c. which has never received a final effective NPDES permit for dischargers at that site. 29. NH3-N -means the pollutant parameter ammonia, measured as nitrogen. 30. Permit application -means forms and additional information that is required by ADEM Administrative Code Rule 335-6-6-.08 and applicable permit fees. 31. Point source -means "any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance, including but not limited to any pipe, channel, ditch. tunnel, conduit. well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding operation, or vessel or other floating craft, ... from which pollutants are or may be discharged." Section 502( 14) of the FWPCA. 33 U.S.C. Section 1362(14). 32. Pollutant -includes for purposes of this permit, but is not limited to, those pollutants specified in Code of Alabama 1975, Section 22-22-l(b)(3) and those effluent characteristics specified in Provision I. A. of this permit. 33. Privately Owned Treatment Works -means any devices or system which is used to treat wastes from any facility whose operator is not the operator of the treatment works, and which is not a *'POTW". 34. Publicly Owned Treatment Works -means a wastewater collection and treatment facility owned by the State, municipality, regional entity composed of two or more municipalities, or another entity created by the State or local authority for the purpose of collecting and treating municipal wastewater. 35. Receiving Stream -means the "waters" receiving a "discharge** from a **point source". 36. Severe property damage -means substantial physical damage to property, damage to the treatment facilities which causes them to become inoperable, or substantial and permanent loss of natural resources which can reasonably be expected to occur in the absence ofa bypass. Severe property damage does not mean economic loss caused by delays in production. 37. Significant Source -means a source which discharges 0.025 MGD or more to a POTW or greater than five percent of the treatment work's capacity, or a source which is a primary industry as defined by the U.S. EPA or which discharges a priority or toxic pollutant. 38. TKN -means the pollutant parameter Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen. 39. TON -means the pollutant parameter Total Organic Nitrogen. 40. TRC -means Total Residual Chlorine. 41. TSS -means the pollutant parameter Total Suspended Solids. 42. 24HC -means 24-hour composite sample. including any of the following: a. the mixing of at least 12 equal volume samples collected at constant time intervals of not more than 2 hours over a period of24 hours; b. a sample collected over a consecutive 24-hour period using an automatic sampler composite to one sample. As a minimum, samples shall be collected hourly and each shall be no more than one twenty-fourth ( 1/24) of the total sample volume collected; or c. a sample collected over a consecutive 24-hour period using an automatic composite sampler composited proportional to flow. 43. Upset -means an exceptional incident in which there is an unintentional and temporary noncompliance with technology-based permit discharge limitations because of factors beyond the reasonable control of the permittee. An upset does not include noncompliance to the extent caused by operational error, improperly designed treatment facilities, inadequate treatment facilities. lack of preventive maintenance, or careless or improper operation. 44. Waters -means "[a]il waters of any river, stream, watercourse. pond, lake, coastal, ground or surface water, wholly or partially within the state, natural or artificial. This does not include waters which are entirely confined and retained completely upon the PART III Page 31of37 property of a single individual. partnership or corporation unless such waters are used in interstate commerce." Code of Alabama 1975, Section 22-22-l(b)(2). Waters "include all navigable waters" as defined in Section 502(7) of the FWPCA. 22 U.S.C. Section 1362(7), which are within the State of Alabama. 45. Week -means the period beginning at twelve midnight Saturday and ending at twelve midnight the following Saturday. 46. Weekly (7-day and calendar week) Average -is the arithmetic mean of all samples collected during a consecutive 7-day period or calendar week. whichever is applicable. The calendar week is defined as beginning on Sunday and ending on Saturday. Weekly averages shall be calculated for all calendar weeks with Saturdays in the month. If a calendar week overlaps two months (i.e .. the Sunday is in one month and the Saturday in the following month). the weekly average calculated for the calendar week shall be included in the data for the month that contains the Saturday. SEVERABILITY The provisions of this permit are severable, and if any provision of this permit or the application of any provision of this permit to any circumstance is held invalid, the application of such provision to other circumstances, and the remainder of this pennit. shall not be affected thereby. PART IV ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS, CONDITIONS, AND LIMITATIONS A. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP) PLAN REQUIREMENTS I. BMP Plan PART IV Page 32 of37 The permittee shall develop and implement a Best Management Practices (BMP) Plan which prevents, or minimizes the potential for, the release of pollutants from ancillary activities, including material storage areas; plant site runoff: in-plant transfer, process and material handling areas; loading and unloading operations, and sludge and waste disposal areas, to the waters of the State through plant site runoff: spillage or leaks; sludge or waste disposal; or drainage from raw material storage. 2. Plan Content The permittee shall prepare and implement a best management practices (BMP) plan, which shall: a. Establish specific objectives for the control of pollutants: ( 1) Each facility component or system shall be examined for its potential for causing a release of significant amounts of pollutants to waters of the State due to equipment failure, improper operation, natural phenomena such as rain or snowfall, etc. (2) Where experience indicates a reasonable potential for equipment failure (e.g., a tank overflow or leakage), natural condition (e.g. precipitation), or circumstances to result in significant amounts of pollutants reaching surface waters, the plan should include a prediction of the direction, rate of flow. and total quantity of pollutants which could be discharged from the facility a result of each condition or circumstance. b. Establish specific best management practices to meet the objectives identified under paragraph a. of this section, addressing each component or system capable of causing a release of significant amounts of pollutants to the waters of the State, and identifying specific preventative or remedial measures to be implemented; c. Establish a program to identify and repair leaking equipment items and damaged containment structures, which may contribute to contaminated stonnwater runoff. This program must include regular visual inspections of equipment, containment structures and of the facility in general to ensure that the BMP is continually implemented and effective: d. Prevent the spillage or loss of fluids, oil, grease. gasoline, etc. from vehicle and equipment maintenance activities and thereby prevent the contamination of stormwater from these substances; e. Prevent or minimize stbrmwater contact with material stored on site; f. Designate by position or name the person or persons responsible for the day to day implementation of the BMP: g. Provide for routine inspections, on days during which the facility is manned, of any structures that function to prevent storm water pollution or to remove pollutants from storm water and of the facility in general to ensure that the BMP is continually implemented and effective; h. Providefor the use and disposal of any material used to absorb spilled fluids that could contaminate stormwater; i. Develop a solvent management plan, if solvents are used on site. The solvent management plan shall include as a minimum lists of the total organic compounds on site; the method of disposal used instead of dumping, such as reclamation, contract hauling; and the procedures for assuring that toxic organics do not routinely spill or leak into the stormwater; j. Provide for the disposal of all used oils, hydraulic fluids, solvent degreasing material, etc. in accordance with good management practices and any applicable state or federal regulations; k. Include a diagram of the facility showing the locations where stormwater exits the facility, the locations of any structure or other mechanisms intended to prevent pollution of storm water or to remove pollutants from storm water, the locations of any collection and handling systems; I. Provide control sufficient to prevent or control p.ollution of stormwater by soil particles to the degree required to maintain compliance with the water quality standard for turbidity applicable to the waterbody(s) receiving discharge(s) under this permit: m. Provide spill prevention. control. and/or management sufficient to prevent or mm1m1ze contaminated stormwater runoff. Any containment system used to implement this requirement shall be constructed of materials compatible with the substance(s) contained and shall prevent the contamination of groundwater. The containment system shall also be PART IV Page 33 of37 capable of retaining a volume equal to I JO percent of the capacity of the largest tank for which containment is provided; n. Provide and maintain curbing, diking or other means of isolating process areas to the extent necessary to allow segregation and collection for treatment of contaminated stormwater from process areas; o. Be reviewed by plant engineering staff and the plant manager; and p. Bear the signature of the plant manager. 3. Compliance Schedule The permittee shall have reviewed (and revised if necessary) and fully implemented the BMP plan as soon as practicable but no later than six months after the effective date of this permit. 4. Department Review a. When requested by the Director or his designee, the permittee shall make the BMP available for Department review. b. The Director or his designee may notify the permittee at any time that the BMP is deficient and require correction of the deficiency. c. The permittee shall correct any BMP deficiency identified by the Director or his designee within 30 days of receipt of notification and shall certify to the Department that the correction has been made and implemented. 5. Administrative Procedures a. A copy of the BMP shall be maintained at the facility and shall be available for inspection by representatives of the Department. b. A log of the routine inspection required above shall be maintained at the facility and shall be available for inspection by representatives of the Department. The log shal I contain records of all inspections performed for the last three years and each entry shall be signed by the person performing the inspection. c. The permittee shall provide training for any personnel required to implement the BMP and shall retain documentation of such training at the facility. This documentation shall be available for inspection by representatives of the Department. Training shall be performed prior to the date that implementation of the BMP is required. d. BMP Plan Modification. The permittee shall amend the BMP plan whenever there is a change in the facility or change in operation of the facility which materially increases the potential for the ancillary activities to result in a discharge of significant amounts of pollutants. e. BMP Plan Review. The permittee shall complete a review and evaluation of the BMP plan at least once every three years from the date of preparation of the BMP plan. Documentation of the BMP Plan review and evaluation shall be signed and dated by the Plant Manager. B. STORMWATER FLOW MEASUREMENT AND SAMPLING REQUIREMENTS I. Stormwater Flow Measurement a. All stormwater samples shall be collected from the discharge resulting from a storm event that is greater than 0.1 inches. b. The total volume of stormwater discharged for the event must be monitored, including the date and duration (in hours) and rainfall (in inches) for storm event(s) sampled. The duration between the storm event sampled and the end of the previous measurable (greater than 0.1 inch rainfall) storm event must be a minimum of 72 hours. This information must be recorded as part of the sampling procedure and records retained according to Part I.B. of this permit. c. The volume may be measured using flow measuring devices, or estimated based on a modification of the Rational Method using total depth of rainfall, the size of the drainage area serving a stormwater outfall, *and an estimate of the runoff coefficient of the drainage area. This information must be recorded as part of the sampling procedure and records retained according to Part l.B. of this permit. 2. Stonnwater Sampling PART IV Page 34 of37 a. A grab sample, if required by this permit, shall be taken during the first thirty minutes of the discharge (or as soon thereafter as practicable); and a flow-weighted composite sample, ifrequired by this permit, shall be taken for the entire event or for the first three hours of the event. b. All test procedures will be in accordance with part 1.8. of this permit. C. EFFLUENT TOXICITY LIMITATIONS AND BIOMONITORING REQUIREMENTS I. The permittee shall perform short-term chronic toxicity tests on the wastewater discharges required to be tested for chronic toxicity by Part I of this permit. a. Test Requirements (Definitive Test) (1) The effluent shall be tested with appropriate replicates of 49% effluent, a control and a minimum of four serial dilutions of 13, 25, 49. 75, and 100% effluent. (2) Any test result that shows a statistically significant reduction in survival, growth or reproduction between the control and the test at the 95% confidence level indicate chronic toxicity and constitute noncompliance with this permit. b. General Test Requirements (I) A minimum of three (3) 24-hour composite samples shall be obtained for use in the above biomonitoring tests and collected every other day so that the laboratory receives water samples on the first. third and fifth day of the seven-day test period. The holding time. for each composite sample shall not exceed 36 hours. The control water shall be a water prepared in the laboratory in accordance with the EPA procedure described in EPA 821-R-02-013 or the most current edition or another control water selected by the permittee and approved by the Department. (2) Effluent toxicity tests in which the control survival is less than 80%, P. promelas dry weight per surviving control organism is less than 0.25 mg. Ceriodaphnia number of young per surviving control organism is less than 15, Ceriodaphnia reproduction where less than 60% of surviving control females produce three broods or in which the other requirements of the EPA Test Procedure are not met shall be unacceptable and the permittee shall rerun the tests as soon as practical within the monitoring period. (3) In the event of an invalid test, upon subsequent completion of a valid test, the results of all tests. valid and invalid, are reported with an explanation of the tests performed and results. c. Reporting Requirements ( 1) The permittee shall notify the Department in writing within 48 hours after toxicity has been demonstrated by the scheduled test(s). (2) Biomonitoring test results obtained during each monitoring period shall be summarized and reported using the appropriate Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) form approved by the Department. In accordance with Section 2. of this part, an effluent toxicity report containing the information in Section 2. shall be included with the DMR. Two copies of the test results must be submitted to the Department no later than 28 days after the month in which the tests were performed. d. Additional Testing Requirements ( 1) If chronic toxicity is indicated (noncompliance with permit limit), the permittee shall perform two additional valid chronic toxicity tests in accordance with these procedures to determine the extent and duration of the toxic condition. The toxicity tests shall run consecutively beginning on the first calendar week following the date on which the permittee became aware of the permit noncompliance and the results of these tests shall be submitted no later than 28 days following the month in which the tests were performed. (2) After evaluation of the results of the follow-up tests, the Department will determine if additional action is appropriate and may require additional testing and/or toxicity reduction measures. The permittee may be required to perform a Toxicity Identification Evaluation (TIE) and/or a Toxicity Reduction Evaluation (TRE). The TIE/TRE shall be performed in accordance with the most recent protocols/guidance outlined by EPA (e.g., EP A/600/2-88/062, EP A/600/R-92/080, EP A/600/R-91-003, EP A/600/R-92/081. EP A/83 3/8-99/022 and/or EP A/600/6-9 l /005F,etc.) e. Test Methods PART IV Page 35 of37 (I) The tests shall be performed in accordance with the latest edition of the EPA Short-Term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms." The Larval Survival and Growth Test, Methods 1000.0, shall be used for the fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) test and the Survival and Reproduction Test, Method 1002.0, shall be used for the cladoceran (Ceriodaphnia dubia) test. 2. EFFLUENT TOXICITY TESTING REPORTS The following information shall be submitted with each discharge monitoring report unless otherwise directed by the Department. The Department may at any times suspend or reinstate this requirement or may decrease or increase the frequency of submittals. a. Introduction (I) Facility name, location and county (2) Permit number (3) Toxicity testing requirements of permit ( 4) Name ofreceiving water body (5) Contract laboratory information (if tests are performed under contract) (a) Name of firm (b) Telephone number (c) Address (6) Objective oftes\ b. Plant Operations (I) Discharge Operating schedule (if other than continuous) (2) Volume of discharge during sample collection to include Mean daily discharge on sample collection dates (MGD, CFS, GPM) (3) Design flow of treatment facility at time of sampling c. Source of Effluent and Dilution Water (I) Effluent samples (a) Sampling point (b) Sample collection dates and times (to include composite sample start and finish times) (c) Sample collection method (d) Physical and chemical data of undiluted effluent samples (water temperature, pH. alkalinity, hardness. specific conductance, total residual chlorine (if applicable), etc.) (e) Lapsed time from sample collection to delivery (t) Lapsed time from sample collection to test initiation (g) Sample temperature when received at the laboratory (2) Dilution Water (a) Source (b) Collection/preparation date(s) and time(s) (cl Pretreatment (if applicable) (d) Physical and chemical characteristics (water temperature, pH, alkalinity. hardness. specific conductance, etc.) d. Test Conditions (I) Toxicity test method utilized (2) End point(s) oftest (3) Deviations from referenced method, if any. and reason(s) ( 4) Date and time test started (5) Date and time test terminated (6) Type and volume oftest chambers (7) Volume of solution per chamber ( 8) Number of organisms per test chamber (9) Number of replicate test chambers per treatment PART IV Page36 of37 (10) Test temperature, pH and dissolved oxygen as recommended by the method (to include ranges) (I I) Specify if aeration was needed (12) Feeding frequency, amount and type of food ( 13) Specify if (and how) pH control measures were implemented (14) Light intensity (mean) e. Test Organisms ( l) Scientific name (2) Life stage and age (3) Source (4) Disease(s) treatment (if applicable) f. Quality Assurance (I) (2) (3) (4) (5) g. Results (I) (2) (3) (4) (5) Reference toxicant utilized and source Date and time of most recent chronic reference toxicant test(s), raw data and current control chart(s). The most recent chronic reference toxicant test shall be conducted within 30 days of the routine. Dilution water utilized in reference toxicant test Results of reference toxicant test(s) (NOEC. IC25, PASS/FAIL, etc.). report concentration-response relationship and evaluate test sensitivity Physical and chemical methods utilized Provide raw toxicity data in tabular form. including daily records of affected organisms in each concentration (including controls) and replicate Provide table of endpoints: NOECs. 1C25s. PASS/FAIL, etc. (as required in the applicable NPDES permit) Indicate statistical methods used to calculate endpoints Provide all physical and chemical data required by method Results oftest(s) (NOEC, IC25, PASS/FAIL. etc.), report concentration-response relationship (ddinitive test only), report percent minimum significant difference (PMSD) calculated for sublethal endpoints determined by hypothesis testing. h. Conclusions and Recommendations (I) Relationship between test endpoints and permit limits (2) Actions to be taken I/ Adapted from *'Short-Term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms"", Fourth Edition, October 2002 (EPA 821-R-02-013). Section 10. Report Preparation D. COOLING WATER INTAKE REQUIREMENTS I. The cooling water intake structure used by the permittee has been evaluated using available information. At this time, the Department has determined that the cooling water intake structure represents the best technology available (BT A) to minimize adverse environmental impact in accordance with Section 316(b) of the federal Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. section 1326). 2. The permittee shall submit the following information at least 180 days prior to permit expiration of this permit:

• design intake flow of the CWIS:
• percentage of intake flow . based on highest monthly average in last 5 years, used for cooling purposes:
• an estimate of the intake flow reduction at the facility based upon the use ofa 100 percent (or some lesser percentage) cycle re-circulating cooling water system compared to a conventional once-through coo ling water system;
• through screen design intake flow velocity;
• any impingement and entrainment data that may have been collected based on the operation of the facility's CWIS, collected since the effective date of this NPDES permit; and, PART IV Page 37 of37
• a detailed description of any changes in the operation of the CWIS, or changes in the type of technologies used at the CWIS such as screens or other technologies affecting the rates of impingement and/or entrainment of fish and shell fish. 3. The permittee is required to operate and maintain the CWIS in a manner that minimizes impingement and entrainment levels. The permittee is required to make advance notification to the Department of any planned changes to facility operation and/or maintenance activities which could have a significant impact on impingement and entrainment levels. E. 316(a) DEMONSTRATION REQUIREMENTS Permit Monitoring Program Re-application Monitoring Program: Should the permittee wish a continuance of its 3 l6(a) request beyond the term of this permit, application for such a continuance shall be submitted in accordance with 40 CFR Part 125.70 Subpart H-Criteria for Determining Alternative Effluent Limitations Under Section 316(a) of the Act and 40 CFR Part 122.21 (m)(6) Subpart B-Permit Application and Special NPDES Program Requirements, Variance Requests by Non-POTWs. Re-application must be received 180 days prior to permit expiration. Re-application shall include necessary technical data and relevant information to include data collected within the life of the permit to support a continuation of the variance. Re-Opener Clause This permit shall be modified, or revoked and re-issued in the event that the Department determines through biological and/or water quality monitoring that more stringent limitations and/or monitoring requirements are necessary to assure the protection and propagation ofa balanced. indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife in and on the Tennessee River. F. DOWNSTREAM MONITORING Compliance with downstream river temperature and temperature rise limitations shall be applicable at the edge of the mixing zone which shall not exceed the following dimensions: "(I) A maximum length of2400 feet downstream of the diffusers. (2) a maximum width of2,000 feet, and (3) a maximum length of 150 f<:et upstream of the diffusers to the top of the diffuser pipes and extends to the bottom downstream of the diffusers. Downstream river temperature measurements shall be made by three monitors located in a line across the reservoir at approximate river mile 293.45. Temperature data shall be measured every 15 minutes at 3, 5, and 7 foot depths and averaged to obtain a 5 foot depth measurement. Temperatures at each monitor will be averaged using a 24-hour calendar day average. The temperatures from the monitors corresponding to the diffusers in operation will then be averaged to representative spatial mean.

PERMITTEE NAME: FACILllY LOCATION: ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT WATER DIVISION -INDUSTRIAL AND MUNICIPAL SECTIONS NONCOMPLIANCE NOTIFICATION FORM PERMIT NO: 1. DESCRIPTION OF DISCHARGE: (Include outfall number (s)) 2. DESCRIPTION OF NON-COMPLIANCE: (Attach additional pages if necessary): LIST EFFLUENT VIOLATIONS (If applicable) NONCOMPLIANCE Result Reported Permit Limit Outfall Number (s) PARAMETERfS) <Include units) (Include units) LIST MONITORING I REPORTING VIOLATIONS (If applicable) NONCOMPLIANCE Monitoring I Reporting Violation Outfall Number (s) PARAMETERfS) (Provide description) 3. CAUSE OF NON-COMPLIANCE (Attach additional pages if necessary): 4. PERIOD OF NONCOMPLIANCE: (Include exact date(s) and time(s) or, if not corrected, the anticipated time the noncompliance is expected to continue): 5. DESCRIPTION OF STEPS TAKEN AND/OR BEING TAKEN TO REDUCE OR ELIMINATE THE NONCOMPLYING DISCHARGE AND TO PREVENT ITS RECURRENCE (attach additional pages if necessary): "I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supeivision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations." NAME AND TITLE OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL (type or print) SIGNATURE OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL I DATE SIGNED ADEM Form 421 09/05 ATTACHMENT 3 Most Recent Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Renewal Application from March 2011 ASO 110225 503 Env. Document Type: NP DES Permit Application March 1, 2011 Mr. Eric Sanderson Alabama Department of Environmental Management 1400 Coliseum Boulevard Montgomery, Alabama 36110-2059

Dear Mr. Sanderson:

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (TVA) -BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT (BFN)-NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPOES) PERMIT NO. AL0022080 -NPDES PERMIT RENEWAL.APPLICATION Enclosed are three copies of an application for re*isst,Jance of the subject permit. The permit renewal application package includes the Alabama Department of Environmental Management Form 187; EPA Form 1 and a site map, EPA Form 2C and a wastewater flow schematic, EPA Form 2E, and EPA Form 2F. Also enclosed is a check in the amount of $8,400.00 for the application fee. For completing the application forms, TVA elected to use a 12-month historical monitoring period July and June 201 O, to bracket renewal sampling TVA requests that the permit requirements for process outfalls be continued from the current requirements, with the exception of the items noted below.

• DSN 001 1. TV A requests continuation of the alternative thermal limitations and associated monitoring requirements contained in the current NP DES permit., A copy of the report discussing the results of monitoring tQ support this request is enclosed. 2. A summary of the reasonable potential evaluation and toxicity test results for DSN 001 the last permit renewal application is enclosed. TVA reque$ts that the current annual frequency for toxicity monitoring be maintained. 3. TV A proposes to incorporate additional chemicals into its Raw Water Treatment Program as described in Attachment 4 to the enclosed AD.EM Form 187. Specifically, TVA proposes the use of Zinc Sulfate/Orthophosphate (FLOWGARD MS6209) and a biodispersant (GE SPECTRUS BD15QO). As discussed in the TVA believes that the proposed use of FLOWGARD MS6209 will not pose a reasonable potential t(J violate the applicable water quality criteria for zinc. TVA requests ADEM's detennination (per Part 1.0;5.b of BFN's current permit} that a permit modification or renewal is not required to allow the use of zinc containing chemicals.

Mr. Eric Sanderson Page2 March 1, 2011 .4. Herbicide Treatments at BFN are* associated with grounds maintenance use and to control aquatic*vegetation In the oold water and warm herbicides potentially could us4!(t to control aquatic Jn the anti *wam; watefbhanners Table 1).depending*on the speOieS. CJ.f'a.quatic time of ,cooling tower usage. All for grounds maintenance in or near ditches have.approved aquatic labels by EPA The herbicides that may be sprayed in or that flow to the Tenne$See River include R6deo alid Aqua Master Herbicides. Herbicides that are for grass anQ weed away fro.m dltchei? *(e.g., an.d -gravel parking tots) may not labels. The niain Herbicides in the switchyard parking GLY-4 OUST Round-Up. Regardless of .. of atl applications are pert9rmec:J. in accordance with: the label instructions. Ms:oSs for alt aquatic. herblciides currently planned for use are .enclosed. * * ' BFN currently has six cooling towei'.S

• MDCT can, .Qnly support approximately 8()% .of needs fr'orn the 9peraVng units; During the hot summer months, this lack of cooling capacity has. resulted in having to make significant derates. During the summer of 2010, derates to below 50% of full pdwer were made to meet NPDES permit r:equirements. As'a TVA is currently an 28-ceH *Jinear MDC.T on the BFN ai')d planning to replace :four of BFN's existing MOCT. The fol.Jr MDCT .(Towers 1. 2, *s, 6) are to be rebyilt afa later No increase. in tt:ie total BFN flow rate is proposed at this time. TVA appreciates the conslc:teration of the ltelTIS. requested with this NPOES renewal If you have any questions or require additional infom'iation,. please contact Stief,I at(423) 7.51-6844 or by email at mbstlefel@tva.gqv. *
• Sincerely; (Qri9,n.a1 signed .t>Y) Lindy P. Johnson, SeniQrSpeciSlist Water Permits and Compliance 50. Lookout..Place cc:. See 3 Mr. Eric Sanderson Page3 March 1, 2011 MBS:SMF Enclosures cc (Enclosures): C. R. Cooper, NAB 1 G-BFN J. G. Doyle, NAB 2A-BFN J. E. Emens, SAB 28-BFN K. M. Hodges (EDMS), LP 2V-C R. M. Krich, LP T. A. Marlow, NAB 1A-BFN D. B. Nida, LP 5U-C K. J. Polson, NAB 2A-BFN (w/o Enclosures) G. R. Signer, WT 6A-K (w/o Enclosures) U:\media files\water\npdes\bfn\bfn 2011 permit renewal applieation\bfn npdes renewal 2011 cover letter.doc Ter.su aee Valley a.---.. 110 ..... , 1 Market Street, Chattanooga. Tennessee 37402-2801 Mareh 1. 2011 Mr. Eric Sanderson Alabama Department of Environmental Management 1400 Coliseum Boulevard MontgomerY, Alabama 36110-2059

Dear Mr. Sanderson:

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (TVA)-BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT (BFN)-NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) PERMIT NO. AL0022080-NPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION Enclosed are three of an application for re-issuance of the subject The permit renewal application package includes the Alabama Deparbnent of Environmental Management Fonn 187; EPA Fonn 1 and a site map, EPA Fonn 2C and a wastewater flow schematic, EPA Form 2E, and EPA Form 2F. Also enclosed is a check in the amount of $8,400.00 for the application fee. For completing the application forms. TV A elected to use a 12-month historical monitoring period between July 2009 and June 2010, to bracket the renewal sampling event TV A requests that the permit requirements for process outfalls be continued from the current raqulrements. With the exception of the items noted below. DSN001 1. TV A requests continuation of the alternative thermal limitations and associated monitoring requirements contained in the current NPDES pennit. A copy of the

• report discussing the results of monitoring to support this request is enclosed. 2. A summary of the reasonable potential evaluation and toxicity test results for DSN 001 since the last permit renewal application is enclosed. TVA requests that the current annual frequency for toxicity monitoring be maintained. 3. TVA proposes to incorporate additional chemicals into its Raw Water Treatment Program as described in Attachment 4 to the enclosed ADEM Fonn 187. Specifically TVA proposes the use of Zinc Sulfate/Orthophosphate (FLOWGARD MS6209) a biodispersant (GE SPECTRUS 801500). As discussed in the enclosure, TVA believes that the proposed use of FLOWGARD_ will not
• pose a reasonable potential to violate the appllcable water quality criteria for zinc. TVA requests ADEM's determination (per Part 1.0.5.b of BFN's current permit) that a permit modification or renewal Is not required to allow the use of zinc containing chemicals. -... --

Mr. Eric Sanderson Page2 March 1, 2011 * . 4. Herbicide Treatments at BFN are associated with grounds maintenance use and to aquatic vegetation in the cold water and warm water channels. Several herb1ades potentially could be used to control aquatic vegetation In the cold and Table 1) depending on the species of aquatic plant and of projected cooling tower usage. All herbicides used for grounds maintenance that are sprayed in or near ditches have approved aquatic labels by EPA. The herbicides that may be sprayed in or near ditches that flow to the Tennessee River include Rodeo and Aqua Master Herbicides. Herbicides that are applied for grass and weed controls away from ditches (e.g., switehyards and gravel parking lots) may not have aquatic labels. The main Herbicides used In the switchyard and parking lot arus are GL Y PLUS, OUST and Round-Up. Regardless of the area of application, all herbicide applications are perfonned in accordance with tile label instructions. MSDSs for all aquatic herbicides currently planned for use are enclosed. BFN currently has slx mechanical draft cooling towers (MDCT). These exiSting MDCT can only support approxil'1!8tely 80% of the heat rejection needs from the three operating units. During the hot summer months, this lack of cooling capacity has resulted in lVA having to make significant derates. During the summer of 2010, derates to below 50% of full power were made to meet NPDES pennit requirements. As a result, TVA is currently constructing an addltlonal 28-cell linear MOCT on the BFN site and is planning to replace four of BFN's existing MDCT. The four replacement MDCT (Towers 1, 2, 5, and 6) are to be rebuilt at a later date. No increase in the total BFN flow rate is proposed at this time. TV A appreciates the consideration of the items requested with this NPDES renewal application. If yau have any questions or require add'dional information, please contact Mike Stiefel in Chattanooga, Tennessee. at (423) 751-6844 or by email at mbstiefel@tva.gov. Enclosures TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (TVA)-BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT NPDES PERMIT NO. AL0022080 *APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL Current Whole Effluent Toxicity <WED Requirements: DSN001

• 7-day Pimepha/es prome/as and 3-brood Ceriodaphnia dubia IC2s = 49% effluent (2.04 TUc) Monitoring Frequency: 1 /year Proposed Whole Effluent <WET) Toxicity Requirements: DSN001
• DSN001: 7 -day Pimepha/es prome/as and 3-brood Ceriodaphnia dubia IC2s = 41 % effluent (2.44 TUc) Monitoring Frequency: 1 /year In accordance with EPA's recommendation (Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control, EPN505/2-90-001 BFN DSN001 would not be required to have a chronic WET limit based on a demonstration of no Reasonable Potential (RP) for excursions above the ambient water quality chronic (CCC) criterion using effluent data for current operating conditions. Following guidance in the Technical Support Document (TSO), where no RP exists, biomonitoring would be conducted at a frequency of only once every 5 years as part of the permit renewal process to document acceptable effluent toxicity, and toxicity at the instream wastewater concentration (IWC) would serve only as a hard trigger for accelerated toxicity biomonitoring. Since, however, BFN might require modification of the chemical program for control of biofouling organisms, TVA requests maintaining the current annual testing schedule to demonstrate continuing comp.liance with WET permit limitations. TVA also requests continuation of testing of intake samples to ider:itify and invalidate test results when effluent toxicity is attributable to toxicity in ambient intake water used for plant operations. The following data summary and RP calculations utilize 20 years (29 studies) of WET biol'T!onitoring data. The 6 most recent studies were conducted in accordance with Part IV of the current NPDES Permit AL0022080. At no time during this monitoring was the permit limit (2.04 TUc) exceeded. Table 1 summarizes BFN biomonitoring results, followed by the RP calculations.

BFN Documentation: of BFN DSN 001 WET Biomonitoring Results Acute Results Chronic {96-h Survival} Results % Survival Study Study Undiluted Toxicity Toxicity Sa mete Units Q:Ual Units iTUcl NOEC: 1. Sep 14-21, 1990 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100 <1.0 <1.0 Pimepha/es prome/as 98 2. Feb 20-27, 1992* Ceriodaphnia dubia 100 <1.0 <1.0 Pimephales prome/as 95 3. Jul 23-30, 1992* Ceriodaphnia dubia 100 <1.0 <1.0 Pimepha/es prome/as 100 4. Oct 28-Nov 4, 1992* Ceriodaphnia dubia 100 <1.0 <1.0 Pimephales prome/as 98 5. May 20-27, 1993* Ceriodaphnia dubia 100 <1.0 <1.0 Pimephales promelas 98 6. Mar 10-17, 1994 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100 <1.0 <1.0 Pimepha/es prome/as 100 7. Jun 22-29, 1994 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100 <1.0 <1.0 Pimephales prome/as 100 8. Dec 6-13, 1995 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100 <1.0 <1.0 Pimepha/es promelas 100 NOEC 9. Jun 11-18, 1996 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100 <1.0 <1.0 Pimephales prome/as 100 10. Nov 15-22, 1996 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100 <1.0 <1.0 Pimepha/es prome/as 100 11. May 14-21, 1997 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100 <1.0 <1.0 Pimepha/es prome/as 100 12. Nov4-11, 1997 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100 <1.0 <1.0 Pimepha/es prome/as 98 13. May 6-13, 1998 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100 <1.0 <1.0 Pimephales promelas 100 14. Oct 27-Nov 3, 1998 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100 <1.0 1.4 Pimepha/es prome/as 98 15. May 18-25, 1999 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100 <1.0 Pimephales promelas 100 1.3 16. Nov 9-17, 1999 Ceriodaphnia dubia 90 <1.0 1.02 Pimephales promelas 100 1.5 17. May 23-30, 2000 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100 <1.0 <1.0 Pimepha/es prome/as 100 18. Nov 14-21, 2000 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100 <1.0 <1.0 Pimepha/es prome/as 100 2 BFN Documentation: Summary of BFN DSN 001 WET Biomonitoring Results-continued Acute Resu Its (96-h Survival) % Survival Study Undiluted Toxicity Sample Units (TUa) 19. Nov 6-13, 2001 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100 <1.0 Pimepha/es prome/as 100 20. Oct 22-29, 2002 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100 <1.0 Pimepha/es promelas 100 21. Oct 7-14, 2003 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100 <1.0 Pimepha/es promelas 100 22. Jul 13-20, 2004 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100 <1.0 Pimephales promelas 100 23. Oct 19-26, 2005 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100 <1.0 Pimepha/es promelas 100 Chronic Results Study Toxicity Units (TUc) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 cepikomutum tes!:ii were .al$o attributable to OSN001 occurred. §Test was invalidated because the COC was not correctly filled in. Data collected under the current permit. 3 Dilution and lnstream Waste Concentration Calculation OSN001: Maximum Discharge Flow= 2895 MGD (based on application schematic) Tennessee River Flow (7010) = 7109 MGD (based on ADEM 1994 rationale) Dilution Factor (OF): DF:;; Qs = 7109 = 2.46 Qw 2895 . Qw 2895 lnstream Waste Concentration (IWC): IWC:;;-xl00=--x100=41% Qs 7109 Reasonable Potential Determination: Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step4 Step 5 Total number of observations "n" for chronic effluent data= 30; maximum value of the sample results is 1.5 TUc The value of the CV is 0.12 (minimum table value of 0.1 used) The value of the ratio for<:!: 20 pieces of data and a CV of 0.1 is 1.2 (99% Confidence Level and 99% Probability Basis) The value that exceeds the 99111 percentile of the distribution (ratio times Xmax) after dilution is calculated as: (1.5 TUc x 1.2 x 0.41] = 0.74 TUc 0.74 TUc is less than the ambient CCC of 1.0 TUc. There is no reasonable potential for this effluent to cause an excursion above the CCC. Based on EPA's recommendation in the Technical Support Document for Water based Toxics Control, toxicity tests for DSN001 should be repeated at a frequency of at least once every 5 years as a part of the permit application. 4 Mr. Eric Sanderson Page2 March 18, 2011 cc (Enclosure -Electronic Distribution): C. M. Ariderson, LP 5D-C W.A Bruss, WCA 1A-STA L. C. Diamond, LP 5U-C

• S. W. Eslinger, LP 2G-C K. M. Hodges (EDMS), LP 2V-C J. D. Mullins, LP 5E-C c. H. Reed, wee 1A-STA T. S. Rudder, WCA 1A-STA G. "R. Signer, WT 6A-K M. G. Tritapoe, LP 50-C U:\ WCF GYPSUM RELEASE\ADEM CONSENT ORDER RESPONSE Plan\WCF\WCF Consent Order Update Mar 2011.doc

............................................ .. A60 110309 500 Env. Document Type: NPDES Correspondence March 18, 2011 ,Mr. Eric Sanderson Water Division Alabama Department of Environmental Management 1400 Coliseum Boulevard Montgomery, Alabama 36110-2059

Dear Mr. Sanderson:

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (TVA) -WIDOWS CREEK FOSSIL PLANT (WCF) -NPDES PERMIT NO AL0003875 -CONSENT ORDER NO. 10-002-CWP -PROGRESS AND UPDATED SCHEDULE FOR OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MODIFICATION REPORT (O&M MODIFICATION PLAN) This letter is to provide you with a formal progress update on the activities listed in the O&M Modification Plan. Enclosed is a revised schedule of activities for the O&M Modification Plan for your information. The revised schedule was prepared in regard to TVA's commitment for a status report on the progress of the items listed in O&M Modification Plan. Some projects were delayed pending ADEM's approval of the O&M Modification Plan, which was provided by letter dated September 30, 2010. Since receiving approval, TVA tias commenced scheduling Phase 1 engineering studies on that portion of the projects that were awaiting approval.

• TV A appreciates the consideration and time ADEM has spent reviewing the O&M Modification Plan. The following summarizes the progress to date: Stormwater Outfall Reroute. TVA has. commenced Phase 1 engineering studies to reroute the stormwater outfalls as proposed in the O&M Modification Plan. TVA has submitted the proposed modifications in an updated NPDES permit renewal application. TVA expects this will facilitate the modification of the permit when construction is complete and the outfalls are removed from the permit.

Mr. Eric Sanderson Page2 March 18, 2011 Cenosphere Management Plan As part of the O&M Modification Plan, TVA implemented a cenospheres management plan. The plan is in place, and implementation is ongoing with successful minimization of cenospheres reaching the discharge to the receiving stream. Red Water Pond Geotechnical Assessment The geotechnical assessment for the Red Water Pond has been completed and submitted to TVA Conclusions presented in the report stated that current stability projects already scheduled for the* Ash Pond Complex will improve the stability factor of safety to satisfactory levels. The risk remediation projects that will improve stability in the Red Water Pond include lowering of the Main Ash Pond pool and the construction of a rock buttress with reverse-graded filter along the Main Ash Pond dike on one side of the Red Water Pond dike. Stability Improvements The first projects initiated for stability improvements include the reverse graded filter and rock buttress along the toe of slope at the Gypsum and Ash Pond dikes. The Gypsum Pond was higher priority for stability improvements as studies showed it having a lower factor of safety in some cross sections of the dike. The Gypsum Pond Buttress is complete with the exception of portions of the dike that abut wetlands; the buttress construction would encroach on the wetlands and was halted until necessary permits were issued. The wetlands permits (ADEM 401 certification and Department of Army Permit No. 2008-0217 4) have been issued as of February 15, and construction will be completed after remobilization. If you have questions regarding this revised schedule or require more information, please contact Anna Brodie in Chattanooga, Tennessee, at (423} 751-3357 or by email at acbrodie@tva.gov Sincerely, (Original signed by) Lindy Johnson, Senior Specialist Water Permits and Compliance Lookout Place 50 ACB:SMF:VMG Enclosure cc: (see Page 3) WCFP ADEM Lvl 1 *Consent Order {TA0-1485) . . :1 I: ! : M \'Ot:f"* 1:lOllU Subnlll Cor\!.f!fll Or<<kii H1:sf1t7*s.t: lt.1 AOLM v, cr.1.iuuo TVI\ NEPA Rt.'V1r.w lnibalr-d Wt:r -1'.iOOO 5ctl<:dulo 1.!Tg /ADEM lo Rcv1c-,\ O&M Mu:M1calu:ins Hp! \'.'CF* 11000 AOEM A.:tptCN:j tt Mtd11ical10t1 Rcqocslt.'(j for O&M Mod Plan \".'Cf021CJ00 TVA Dis.cuss Mad1fc:lfw1t1sw'A!JEMfo Pcr1ml Acltais N1:<:dc<fl *:;t.:F='*22000 Su1Jm11 PtapCIScd Pk.d1f1c.*1tion To NPDES Af)plu:nt1on Wt:f -1:.1110 lVA NIZPI\ f\pptoval Cc1tnplt'te WCF -123!JO NC11fy /\DEM of O&M Mod WCF-12440 Slab1l1ly Improvements EP&C F.P&C EP&C EP&C E'.P&C EPAC E.P&C oP&C .!H-H *:*r :.;.:.*.j.:+ *t-:-r .. \.'i'CF--12400 Sccpagc: lmprovcmcnls 01-Ap1°10A 29-Jun-12 310Cl11 '* ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' * * .. :* ................. . Y.'Cf-42'120 Dallam /"5tl Stack M1hgnt1on 01-Apr-10/\ 28-Scp-12 010CT11 * * , ** ' ** , * * ' , * * ' * * ' ' * ' ' *** 0 ' '.",*Cf'-42410 OrcdgeCel!CapandClosurc-Oes1gn&CCJ'lstruc1 01-Apr*10A 30*Sep-16 010CT11 \",*CF024000 Conlraci:rConduclRad'WatetPCl'ldGootochnica"Asscssmcnl CCPE 21-Jun-10f\ JO-Jun-10f\ 30JUN10 *:*i :*:*:*:*;*:**::*!*!*:*:*:*:*:*:*;*;*::*:*:*: :*:*:*:*:*:*: WCF-42470 Develop CBMPP 22-Jul-10 A :* : j : : . . ; ; : : ! : j \\*CF-42480 22-Jul*10A 15-Fcb-11 : ; iliiiilliiiiO: ; : ; : : : . ; : : i;:;: WCF-20000 Conlrac:lcrSubm1IROOWalC1PmdGoolL'ChnicalAss<$Sn1cntloTVf\ CCf'>E 01-Sap-10A 01SEP10 , * : : . , : : : : . : : : : : : : , , WCF-40010 TVAROVteWRedWuh:rPondRe?Crt CCPEIEP&C 18-0ct-10A 29-0cMDA 310CT10 : : : : ;1:::; * * * *;: * * * .. ............... R iUUI ' '*'. ***. !:' '°i: f i --:::::::::: : ....... . '. '. . : : : j : ! ; ; i .. , l/,'CF-30000 TVA Pha5e II 50"1. (/nltirnnl) Review FPGP 03-0ct-1 t* 03-0ct-11 03NOV10 : : : : '. * : : : : i : ; : : : : : .. WCf-42200 rPGP 01*Ncw*11" 30*Ncw*11 3DAJ"IR11 .. '* ; : : : '.: : : : jQ: * * * * * * * .. : f HIH ;,: I,*-*,:,,! 1,:-,* =,.: :, .. '=.r :,.1 WCF-42100 TVA Issues OCN Packages FPGP 21.fcf>.12' 27-Feb-12 01APR11 . , ; i i wr.r ..f2J10 s1arts CCPOr.t * * :.:-i \SJUNl2 ; ; i) r j 11 WCF-423-tO lVI\ wen Closure FPGP 24-Scp-12 28-Sep-12" . : l ; : ; : : : : : : : : : : : : : i : : : : .... 310EC12 m. ! : ! : ; ! : ! ! ! : : : : ; i::::: j :+::: ! .* §;:: g 1rut-L'!i11:!!ir1:1r11 ::::g1*1111111111 *; .. ;:* .. ** Neas rnt)uinng ind1v1cfunl Corps of C::ng*nl.'crs permit wr.ro deferred until rccc1p\ of permits. -/.,([U.al Wt.lfk PoifJu 1 o11 WCFP ADEM Lvl 1 *Consent Order (TA0-1485) laimlJ Remaining W0tk -Critical Remaining Wcrl: *

• t.tites1one Dal:z Oa1e: 17-Jan-1 I Run Date: I \\'CfP ©Primavera Systems, Inc. < .. n .... "

,/ / Biological of the Tennessee-River Near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge Autumn 2008 ,Jeffrey W. Simmons Dennis S. Baxter May2009 Tennessee Valley Authority Aquatic Monitoring and Management Chattanooga, Tennessee Table of Contents Table of Contents ................................................................................... , ......................................... i List of Tables .......................................................... , ........................................................................ i L. t fF" . .. 1s o

• 1gures ............................................... :* ................................................................................ n Acronyms and Abbreviations ........................................................................................................ iii Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Plant Description .............................................................................. * ........................................... 2 Methods .......................................................................................................................................... 2 Fish and Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sample Locations Upstream and Downstream ofBFN .... 2 Fish Community Sampling Methods and Data Analysis for Sites Upstream and Dowristream of BFN ............................................................................................................................................. 2 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Sampling Methods and Data Analysis for Sites Upstream and Downstream of BFN ............................................................................................ 6 Spring Sport Fish Survey ............................................................................................................. 6 Results and Discussion ................................................................................................................... 7 Fish Community .......................................................................................................................... 7 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community ...................................................................................... 9 Spring Sport Fish Survey ........................................................................................................... 10 Wheeler Reservoir Flow and BFN Temperature ....................................................................... 10 Literature Cited ............................................................................................................................. 12 Appendix 1: Historical RFAI Scores .. _ .......................................................................................... 33 Appendix 2: Historical Fish Species List ..................................................................................... 42 List of Tables Table 1. Scoring criteria (2002) for forebay, transition, and inflow sections of Lower Mainstream reservoirs in the Tennessee River system. Lower Mainstream reservoirs . include Guntersville, Wheeler, Wilson, Pickwick, and Kentucky. Transition scoring criteria were used for sites upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. ************************************************************************************************************************************** 13 Table 2 Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RF AI Scores Downstream (TRM 292.5) and Upstream (TRM 295.9) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2008 .... 14 Table 3. Species Collected, Trophic level, Native and Tolerance Classification, Catch Per Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting at Areas Downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2008 .................................................................................... 18 Table 4. Species Collected, TrophiC level, Native and Tolerance Classification, Catch Per Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting at Areas Upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2008 .................................................................................... 19 1 Table 5. Summary of RF AI Scores from Sites Located Directly Upstream and Downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant as Well as Scores from Sampling Conducted During 1993-2008 as Part of the Vital Signs Monitoring Program in Wheeler Reservoir ...... 20 Table 6. Individual Metric Ratings and the Overall RBI Field Scores for Upstream and Downstream Sampling Sites Near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Wheeler Reservoir, Autumn 2008 ................................................................................................................ 21 Table 7. RBI Field.Scores from Data Collected During 1994-2008 at Wheeler Reservoir Inflow, Transition, Embayment, and Forebay Sampling Sites ................................................. 22 Table 8. Average Mean Density Per Square Meter of Benthic Tax.a Collected at Upstream and Downstream Sites Near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Wheeler Reservoir, Autumn 2008 .............................................................................................................................. 23 Table 9. Electrofishing Catch Rates and Population Characteristics of Black Bass Collected During Spring Sport Fish Surveys on Wheeler Reservoir, 1995-2008 ........................ 24 Table 10. Black Bass Catch Per Hour Compared to Habitat Types by Location During Spring Sport Fish Surveys on Wheeler Reservoir, 2008 ........ : ................................................ 24 List of Figures Figure 1. Browns Ferry Nuclear Power *Plant is located on the north shore of Wheeler Reservoir at Tennessee River Mile 294 ......................................................................................... 25 Figure 2. Location of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant and Condenser Cooling Water (CCW) intake and discharge ................................................................................................................ 26 Figure 3. RF AI electro fishing and gill net locations downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. Black squares represent electrofishing locations; red diamonds represent gill net locations ................................................................ ; ...................................................... 27 Figure 4. RFAI electrofishing and gill net locations upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. 28 Figure 5. Length frequency distribution for largemouth bass collected from Wheeler Reservoir (all sites) during Spring Sport Fish Surveys, 2008 ...................................................... 29 Figure 6. Relative stock density values for Tennessee River reservoirs calculated from 2008 Spring Sport Fish Survey samples ............................................................................... 29 Figure 7. Proportional stock density values for Tennessee River reservoirs calculated from 2008 Spring Sport Fish Survey samples ................................................... * ............................ 30 Figure 8. Wheeler Reservoir mean relative weights (Wr) for largemouth bass, calculated from 2008 Spring Sport Fish Survey samples .................................. : ................................... 30 Figure 9. Daily average flows from Guntersville Dam, October 2007 through November 2008, and historic daily flows, averaged for the period 1976-2007 ...................................... 31 Figure 10. Daily average water temperatures at a depth of five feet, recorded upstream ofBFN intake and downstream ofBFN discharge, October 2007 through November 2008 ... 32 ii ADEM BIP BFN ERM NP DES PSD QA RBI RFAI RSD RSDM RSDP RSDT SAHi SSS TRM TVA USFWS vs Wr Acronyms and Abbreviations Alabama Department of Environmental Management Balanced Indigenous Population Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Elk River Mile National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Proportional Stock Density Quality Assurance Reservoir Benthic Macroinvertebrate Index Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index Relative Stock Density Relative Stock Density of Memorable-sized Relative Stock Density of Preferred-sized Relative Stock Density of Trophy-sized Shoreline Assessment Habitat Index Spring Sport Fish Survey Tennessee River Mile Tennessee Valley Authority U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Vital Signs Relative weight iii Introduction Section 316(a) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) authorizes alternative thermal limits (ATL) for the control of the thermal component of a discharge from a point source so long as the limits will assure the protection of Balanced Indigenous Populations (BIP) of aquatic life. The term "balanced indigenous population," as defined in EPA's regulations implementing Section 316(a), means a biotic community that is typically characterized by: (1) diversity appropriate to ecoregion; (2) the capacity to sustain itself through cyclic seasonal changes; (3) the presence of necessary food chain species; and ( 4) lack of domination by pollution-tolerant species. Prior to 2000, the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TV A) Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) was operating under a 3 l 6(a) ATL that had been continued with each permit renewal based on studies conducted in the mid-l 970s. In 1999, EPA Region IV began requesting additional data in conjunction with NPDES permit renewal applications to verify that BIP was being maintained at TV A's thermal plan.ts with ATLs. TVA proposed that its existing Vital Signs (VS) monitoring program, supplemented with additional fish and benthic macroinvertebrate community monitoring upstream and downstream of thermal plants with ATLs, was appropriate for that purpose. The VS monitoring program began in 1990 in the Tennessee River System. This program was implemented to evaluate ecological health conditions in major reservoirs as part of TV A's stewardship role. One of the 5 *indicators used in the VS program to evaluate reservoir health is the Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index (RF AI) methodology. RF AI has been thoroughly tested on TVA and other reservoirs and published in peer-reviewed literature (Jennings, et al., 1995; Hickman and McDonough, 1996; McDonough and Hickman, 1999). Fish communities are used to evaluate ecolOgical conditions because of their importance in the aquatic food web and because fish life cycles are long enough to integrate conditions over time. Benthic macroinvertebrate populations are assessed using the Reservoir Benthic Index (RBI) methodology. Because benthic macroinvertebrates are relatively immobile, negative impacts to aquatic ecosystems can be detected earlier in benthic macroinvertebrate communities than in fish communities. These data are used to supplement RF AI results to provide a more thorough examination of differences in aquatic communities upstream and downstream of thermal discharges. TV A initiated a study to evaluate fish and benthic macroinvertebrate communities in areas immediately upstream and downstream of BFN during 2000-2008 using RF AI and RBI metric evaluation techniques. This report presents the results of autumn 2008 RF AI and RBI data collected upstream and downstream of BFN with comparisons to RF AI and RBI data collected at these sites during autumn 2000-2007. TV A's Spring Sport Fish Survey (SSS) data from 2008 is also included as supplemental information on the overall health of sport fisheries in Wheeler Reservoir. The TV A SSS is conducted to evaluate the sport fish population of TV A Reservoirs. The t¥SUlts of the survey are used by state agencies to protect, improve and assess the quality of sport fisheries. Predominant habitat types in the reservoir are surveyed to determine sport fish abundance. In addition to 1 accommodating TV A and state databases, this surveying method aligns with TV A Watershed Team and TV A's Reservoir Operations Study objectives. Sample sites are selected using the shoreline habitat characteristics employed by the Watershed Teams. The survey predominantly targets three species of black bass (largemouth, smallmouth, and spotted bass) and black and white crappie. These species are the predominant sport fish sought after by fishermen. Plant Description BFN is a three-unit nuclear-fueled facility and as of June, 2007, all three units are operating. BFN is located on Wheeler Reservoir at Tennessee River Mile (TRM) 294 in Limestone County, Alabama (Figure 1 ). Current operation utilizes a once-through condenser cooling water (CCW) system, withdrawing water from the Tennessee River through an intake structure at TRM 294.3 and discharging the water through diffuser pipes located downstream from the plant at TRM 293.6 (Figure 2). Maximum flow rate of the CCW is about 3,468 million gallons per day. Methods Fish and Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sample Locations Upstream and Downstream of BFN Two sample locations, one upstream and one downstream of the .Plant discharge channel, were selected in Wheeler Reservoir. The BFN discharge enters the Tennessee River TRM 293.6. For the fish community, the downstream site was centered at TRM 292.5 (Figure 3) and upstream sample site was centered at TRM 295.9 (Figure 4). For the benthic macroinvertebrate community, transects across the full width of the reservoir were established at TRM 291. 7 (downstream) and TRM 295.9 (upstream). Fish Community Sampling Methods and Data Analysis for Sites Upstream and Downstream of BFN Fish sampling methods included boat electro-fishing and gill netting (Hubert, 1996; Reynolds, 1996). Electro-fishing methodology consisted of fifteen electro-fishing boat runs near the shoreline, each 300 meters long with a duration of approximately 10 minutes each. The total near-shore area sampled is approximately 4,500 meters (15,000 feet). Experimental gill nets (so called because of their use for research as opposed to commercial fishing) are used as an additional gear type to collect fish from deeper habitats not effectively sampled by electro-fishing. Each experimental gill net consists offive-6.l meter panels for a total length of30.5 meters (100.1 feet). The distinguishing characteristic of experimental gill nets is mesh size that varies between panels. For this application, each net has panels with mesh sizes of 2.5, 5.1, 7.6, 10.2, and 12.7 cm. Experimental gill nets are typically set perpendicular to river flow extending from near-shore to the main channel of the reservoir. Ten overnight experimental gill net sets were used at each area. Fish collected were identified by species, counted, and examined for anomalies (such as disease, deformations, or hybridization). The resulting data were analyzed using RFAI methodology. The RF AI uses 12 fish community metrics from four general categories: Richness and Composition; Trophic Composition; Abundance; and Fish Health. Individual species can be 2 utilized for more than one metric. Together, these 12 metrics provide a balanced evaluation of fish community integrity. The individual metrics are shown befow, grouped by category: Species Richness and Composition I. Total number of species --Greater numbers of species are considered representative of healthier aquatic ecosystems. As conditions degrade, numbers of species at an area decline. 2. Number of centrarchid species --Sunfish species (excluding black basses) are invertivores and a high diversity of this group is indicative of reduced siltation and suitable sediment quality in littoral areas. 3. Number of benthic invertivore species --Due to the special dietary requirements of this species group and the limitations of their food source in degraded environments, numbers of benthic invertivore species increase with better environmental quality. 4. Number of intolerant species --This group is made up of species that are particularly intolerant of physical, chemical, and thermal habitat degradation. Higher numbers of intolerant species suggest the presence of fewer environmental stressors. 5. Percentage of tolerant individuals (excluding Young-of-Year) --This metric signifies poorer water quality with increasing proportions of individuals tolerant of degraded conditions. 6. Percentage dominance by one species --Ecological quality is considered reduced if one species inordinately dominates the resident fish community. 7. Percentage of non-native species --Based on the assumption that native species reduce the quality of resident fish communities. 8. Number of top carnivore species --Higher diversity ofpiscivores is indicative of the availability of diverse and plentiful forage species and the presence of suitable habitat. Trophic Composition 9. Percent of individuals as top carnivores --A measure of the functional aspect of top parnivores which feed on major planktivore populations. 10. Percentage of individuals as omnivores --Omnivores are less sensitive to environmental stresses due to their ability to vary their diets. As trophic links are disrupted due to degraded conditions, specialist species such as insectivores decline while opportunistic omnivorous species increase in relative abundance. Abundance . 11. Average number per run --(number of individuals) --This metric is based upon the assumption that high quality fish assemblages support large numbers of individuals. Fish Health 12. Percentage individuals with anomalies --Incidence of diseases, lesions, tumors, external parasites, deformities, blindness, and natural hybridization 3 are noted for all fish measured, with higher incidence indicating less favorable environmental conditions. RF AI methodology addresses all four attributes or characteristics of a "balanced indigenous population" defined by the CW A, as described below: (1) A biotic community characterized by diversity appropriate to the ecoregion: Diversity is addressed by the metrics in the Species Richness and Composition category, especially metric 1 -Total number of species. Detennination of reference conditions based on the inflow zones of lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs (as described below) ensures appropriate species expectations for the ecoregion. (2) The capacity for the community to sustain itself through cyclic seasonal change: TV A uses an autumn data collection period for biological indicators, both VS and upstream/downstream monitoring. Autumn monitoring is used to document condition or health after being subjected to the wide variety of stressors throughout the year. One of the main benefits of using biological indicators is their ability to integrate stressors through time. Examining the condition or health of a community at the end of the "biological year (i.e., autumn) provides insights into how well the community has dealt with the stresses through an annual seasonal cycle. Likewise, evaluation of the condition of individuals in the community (in this case, individual fish as reflected in Metric 12) insights into bow well the community can be expected to withstand stressors through winter. Further, multiple sampling years during the permit renewal cycle adds to the evidence of whether or not the autumn monitoring approach has correctly demonstrated the ability of the community to sustain itself through repeated seasonal changes. * (3) The presence of necessary food chain species: Integrity of the food chain is measured by the Trophic Composition metrics, with support from the Ab1,mdance metric and Species Richness and Composition metrics. Existence of a healthy fish community indicates presence of necessary food chain species because the fish community is comprised of species that utilize multiple feeding mechanisms that transcend various levels in the aquatic food web. Basing evaluations on a sound multi-metric system such as the RF AI enhances the ability to discern alterations in the aquatic food chain. (4) A lack of domination by pollution-tolerant species: Dmni.Qation by pollution-tolerant species is measured by metrics*3 (Number ofbenthic invertivore species), 4 (Number of intolerant species), 5 (Percentage of tolerant individuals), 6 (Percentage dominance by one species), and 10 (Percentage of individuals as omnivores). Scoring categories are based on "expected" fish community characteristics in the absence of human-induced impacts other than impoundment of the reservoir. These categories were developed from historical fish assemblage data representative of transition zones from lower mainstemTennessee River reservoirs (Hickman and McDonough, 1996). Attained values for each of the 12 metrics were compared to the scoring criteria and assigned scores to represent relative degrees of degradation: least degraded (5); intermediate degraded (3); and greatest degraded (1 ). Scoring criteria for lower mainstem Tennessee River .reservoirs is shown in Table I. 4 If a metric was calculated as a percentage (e.g., Percent tolerance individuals), the data from electro-fishing and gill netting were scored separately and allotted half the total score for that individual metric. Individual metric scores for a sampling area (i.e., upstream or downstream) are summed to obtain the RF AI score for the area. TV A uses RF AI results to determine maintenance of BIP using 2 approaches. One is "absolute" in that it compares the RF AI scores and individual metrics to predetermined values. The other is "relative" in that it compares RF AI scores attained downstream to the upstream control site. The "absolute" approach is based on Jennings et al. (1995) who suggested that favorable comparisons of the attained RF AI score from the potential impact zone to a predetermined criterion can be used to identify the presence of normal community structure and function *and hence existence of BIP. For multi-metric indices, TVA uses two criteria to ensure a conservative screening ofBIP. First, if an RF AI score reaches 70% of the highest attainable score of 60 (adjusted upward to include sample variability as described below), and second, if fewer than half of RF AI metrics receive a low (1) or moderate (3) score, then normal community structure and function would be present indicating that BIP had been maintained, thus no further evaluation would be needed. RFAI scores range from 12 to 60. Ecological health ratings (12-21 ["Very Poor"], 22-31 ["Poor"], 32-40 ["Fair"], 41-50 ["Good"], or 51-60 ["Excellent"]) are then applied to scores. As discussed in detail below, the average .variation for RF AI scores in TVA reservoirs is 6 (+/- 3). Therefore, any location that attains an RF AI score of 45 ( 42 plus the upward sample variation of 3) or higher would be considered to have BIP. It must be stressed that scores below this threshold do not necessarily reflect an adversely impacted fish community. The threshold is used to serve as a conservative screening level; i.e., any fish community that meets* these criteria is obviously not adversely impacted. RF AI scores below this level would require a more in-= depth look to detemiine if BIP exists. An inspection of individual RF AI metric results and species of fish used in each metric would be an initial step to help identify if operation of BFN is a contributing factor. This approach is appropriate because a validated multi-metric index is being used and scoring criteria applicable to the zone of study are available. A difference in RF AI scores attained at the downstream area compared to the upstream (control) area is used as one basis for determining presence or absence of impacts on the resident fish community from BFN's operations. The definition of "similar" is integral to accepting the validity of these interpretations. The Quality Assurance (QA) component of the Vital Signs monitoring program deals with how well the RF AI scores can be repeated and is accomplished by collecting a second set of samples at 15%-20% of the areas each year. Comparison sample QA data collected over seven years shows that the difference in RF AI index scores ranges from 0 to 18 points. The mean difference between these 54 paired scores is 4.6 points with 95% confidence limits of 3.4 and 5.8. The 75th percentile of the sample differences is 6, and the 90th percentile is 12. Based on these results, a difference of 6 points or less in the overall RF AI scores is the value selected for defining "similar" scores between upstream and downstream fish communities. That is, if the downstream RF AI score is within 6 points of.the upstream score and ifthere are no major differences in overall fish community composition, then the two locations are considered similar. It is important to bear in mind that differences greater than 6 points can be expected simply due to method variation (i.e., 25% of the QA paired sample sets exceeded a difference of 6). An examination of the 12 metrics (with emphases on fish 5 species used for each metric) is conducted'to determine any difference in scores and the potential for the difference to be thermally related. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Sampling Methods and Data Analysis for Sites Upstream and Downstream of BFN. Ten benthic grab samples were collected at equally spaced points along the upstream and downstream transects. A Ponar sampler was used for most samples but a Peterson sampler was used when heavier substrate was encountered. Collection and processing techniques followed standard VS procedures. Bottom sediments were washed on a 533µ screen; organisms were then picked from the screen and remaining substrate and identified in the field to Order or Family level without magnification. Benthic community results were evaluated using seven coinmunity characteristics or metrics. Results for each metric were assigned a rating of 1, 3, or 5 depending upon how they scored based on reference conditions developed for VS reservoir inflow sample sites. The ratings for the seven metrics were summed to produce a benthic score for each sample site. Potential scores ranged from 7 to 35. Ecological health ratings (7-12 "Very Poor", 13-18 "Poor", 19-23 "Fair, 24-29 "Good", or 30-35 "Excellent") are then applied to scores. A similar or higher benthic index score at the downstream site compared to the upstream site is used as basis for determining absence of impact on the benthic macroinvertebrate community related to BFN's thermal discharge. The QA component of VS monitoring shows that the comparison ofbenthic index scores from 49 paired sample sets collected over the past seven years range from 0 to 14 points, the 75th percentile is 4, the 901hpercentile is 6. The mean difference between these 49 paired scores is 3.1points'with95% confidence limits of2.2 and 4.1. Based on these results, a difference of 4 points or less is the value selected for defining "similar" scores between upstream and downstream benthic communities. That is, if the downstream benthic score is within 4 points of the upstream score, the communities will be considered similar and it will be concluded that BFN has had no effect. Once again, it is important to bear in mind that differeD:ces greater than 4 points can be expected simply due to method variation (25% of the QA paired sample sets exceeded that value). When such occurs, a metric-by-metric examination will be conducted to determine what caused the difference in scores and the potential for the difference to be thermally related. Prior to 2001, a sampling site in the forebay zone of Wheeler Reservoir (TRM 277) was used as the downstream comparison site. Other factors unrelated to influence from BFN have kept benthic communities depressed, both at the forebay site and in the Elk River embayment (Wheeler Reservoir, Elk River Mile [ERM] 6 -between BFN and the forebay site). In order to more accurately assess the effects from BFN, a second transition zone site two miles downstream from the BFN diffuser at TRM 291. 7 was created in 2000. Benthic scores and community composition from this site have been used since 2000 for downstream comparisons. Spring Sport Fish Survey Spring Sport Fish Surveys were conducted on Wheeler Reservoir during spring 2008. Sampling was conducted using boat mounted electro fishing gear at tWelve sites in the Elk River, Second Creek, and First Creek. Sampling effort at each site consisted of thirty minutes of continuous electrofishing in the littoral zones of prominent habitat types present. After being stunned, fish were collected with dip nets, counted, weighed, measured, and then released upharmed. 6 Results of the SSS monitoring were calculated using Shoreline Assessment Habitat Index (SAHi), Relative Stock Density (RSD), Proportional Stock Density (PSD), and Relative Weight . (Wr). Habitat type is evaluated using the SAHi metric and is a critical component incorporated into the SSS. The resultant habitat designations ("Good", *'Fair, and "Poor") are correlated to black bass abundance (numbers/hour). RSD is the number offish greater than a minimum preferred length in a stock divided by the number of fish greater than or equal to a minimum stock size. PSD is the number of fish greater than or equal to a minimum quality length in a sample divided by the number of fish greater than or equal to a minimum stock length. Wr is an index that quantifies fish condition and the preferred range value is 90%-105% for moderate density bass populations such as th<?se found in the Tennessee Valley latitudes. Results and Discussion Fish Community In 2008, fish community RF AI scores of 45 ("Godd") and 42 ("Good") were observed at the downstream and upstream stations, respectively (Table 2). Both sites met BIP screening criteria, were within the 6 point range of acceptable variation, and are considered similar. An examination of the autumn 2008 RF AI showed that portions of three metrics (gill net portion of percent tolerant individuals, gill net portion of percent non-native species, and the electrofishing and gill net portions of percent omnivores) scored lower at the upstream site while the downstream site scored lower for a portion of one metric ( electrofishing portion of percent top carnivores) (Table 2). A discussion of the individual metric scores follows (refer to Tables 2, 3, and 4): 1. Total number of Species: At both the downstream and upstream sampling areas, 28 native species were collected. Five native species (black red.horse, largescale stoneroller, black buffalo, golden red.horse, sauger) were collected at the downstream area that were not encountered at the upstream area, while five native species (longnose gar, golden shiner, white crappie, northern hogsucker, and bullhead minnow) and two non-native species (striped bass and Atlantic needlefish) were collected at the upstream area that were not encountered at the site downstream of BFN. Both sites received the mid-range score for this metric. 2. Number of Centrarchid Species (less Micropterus): Six centrarchid species were collected at the downstream site while seven centrarchid species were collected at the upstream site (3 white crappie were collected upstream but not downstream). Both sites received the highest score for this metric.
• 3. Number ofbenthic invertivore species: Five benthic invertivore species were collected downstream of BFN, while four benthic invertivore species were collected upstream. Black and golden red.horse were collected upstream but were not encountered downstream ofBFN, while northern hogsucker was collected downstream but not encountered upstream of BFN. Both sites received the mid-range score for this metric. 7

4. Number of intolerant species: Five intolerant species were encountered at both the upstream and downstream sites and both sites received the highest score for this metric.* 5. Percent tolerant individuals: The downstream site received a mid-range score for both the electrofishing and gill net portions of this metric. The upstream site had a considerably higher percentage of tolerant individuals in the electrofishing and gill net samples due to collection of more tolerant species. The upstream site received a mid-range score for the electrofishing portion and the lowest score for the gill net portion of this metric. 6. Percent dominance by one species: Inland silverside (non-native) was the dominant species in the electro fishing portion of the sample at the downstream site while gizzard shad was the dominant species at the upstream site. Both sites received the mid-range score for this portion of the metric. White bass was the dominant species at the downstream site for the gill net portion of this metric while channel catfish was the dominant species at the upstream site. Both sites received a mid-range score for the gill net portion of this metric. 7. Percent non-native fish: Both the upstream and downstream sites received the lowest score for the electrofishing portion of this metric due to a high percentage of inland silversides (52.7% of downstream sample, 29% of upstream sample). The downstream site received the highest score for the gillnet portion of this metric due to collection of 1 common carp while the upstream site received the mid-range score due to collection of 1 common carp and 2 striped bass. 8. Number of top carnivores: Eleven species of top carnivores were collected upstream ofBFN while ten species were collected at the downstream site (white crappie and longnose gar were not collected downstream while sauger were not collected upstream). Both sites received the highest score for this metric. 9. Percent top carnivores: Electrofishing samples collected upstream ofBFN resulted in a higher percentage of top carnivores compared to downstream samples. Conversely, gill net samples collected downstream ofBFN had a much higher percentage of top carnivores than those collected upstream. Both sites received the highest score for the gill net portion of this metric, while the downstream site received a mid-range score for the electro fishing portion of this metric. 10. Percent of omnivore species: The downstream site had a much lower percentage of omnivores in both the electrofishing and gill net samples. The upstream site scored 1 point lower for each portion of this metric, predominately due to higher percentages of gizzard shad in the electrofishing portion and channel catfish in the gill net portion. 11. Overall fish abundance: This metric is measured by the average number of fish caught for each electro-fishing and gill net effort. Average catch per unit effort was low at both sites for the electrofishing portion of this metric; both received the lowest score. Gill net catch rates were similar; both sites received the mid-range score for this portion of the metric. 12. Percent anomalies: Both the upstream and downstream sites received the highest score for this metric due to a low percentage of observed anomalies (i.e. visible lesions, bacterial and 8 fungal infections parasites, muscular and skeletal deformities, and hybridization). As discussed above, RF AI scores have an intrinsic variability of +/-3 points. This variability . comes from various sources, including annual variations in air temperature and stream flow; variations in pollutant loadings from nonpoint sources; changes in habitat, such as extent and density of aquatic vegetation; natural population cycles and movements of the species being measured (TWRC, 2006). Another source of variability arises from the fact that nearly any practical measurement, lethal or non-lethal, of a biological community is a sample rather than a measurement of the entire population. As long as the score is within the 6-point range, there is no certainty that any real change has taken place beyond method variability. Over the nine sample years, both sites have averaged a score of 42 ("Good"). Both sites have been within the 6 point range of accepted variability each year, with the exception of 2005 when the upstream site.scored IO points higher, indicating the sites were similar annually and that the BFN heated effluent is not adversely affecting the fish community in the vicinity of the plant (Table 5). The "Fair" 2005 score at the downstream site was a result of a high percentage of tolerant individuals in the gill net samples and dominance by one species in both gill net and electrofishing samples (Appendices 1-C, 2-E). Individual metric scores arid overall RF AI scores for the upstream and downstream sampling sites of BFN for sample years 2000-i007 are listed in Appendix I (A-H). Species collected and catch per effort during electrofishing at the upstream and downstream sampling sites ofBFN for sample years 2000-2007 are listed in Appendix 2 P). RFAI scores are presented for the Wheeler Reservoir inflow site (TRM 348.0), the forebay site (TRM 277 .0), and the Elk River embayment site (ERM 6.0) to provide additional information of the health of the fish community throughout the reservoir; however, aquatic communities at these sites are not affected by BFN temperature effects and are not used to determine BIP h1. relation to BFN (Table 5). The average RF AI scores at these three sites over all sampling years have remained in the "Good" range. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Benthic macroinvertebrate data collected during autumn 2008 from TRM 295.9 upstream from BFN and from TRM 291.7 downstream ofBFN resulted in a RBI scores of25 ("Good") and 29 ("Good")," respectively (Table 6). Both sites have scored in the "Good" to "Excellent" ecological health range for all sampling years (Table 7). A difference of 4 points or less between upstream and downstream stations is used to define "similar" conditions between the two sites. Scores for these two sites have not exceeded a difference of 4 points during any sampling year. Table 8 provides density by taxon from the 2008 samples .at these sites. These data indicate that a healthy benthic macroinvertebrate community exists in both the upstream and downstream . vicinity of BFN and that the plant is not adversely impacting this fauna. RBI scores for the inflow, forebay, and Elk River embayment sites are included to provide additional data on the overall health of the benthic macro in vertebrate corhmunity in Wheeler Reservoir (Table 7). RBI scores in the "Good" to "Excellent" range have been observed 8 of the 11 sample years at the inflow site. Data collected in Wheeler Reservoir forebay_(TRM 277) and the Elk River embayment (ERM 6.0) have consistently resulted in "Poor RBI scores. The 9 forebay sampling site is located 17 river miles downstream ofBFN. The Elk River embayment sampling site is located 6 river miles upstream of the confluence with the Tennessee River. The confluence of the Elk River is 10 river miles downstream of BFN. Because these sites are located considerable distances from BFN, poor sampling results should not be indicative of temperature effects from the plant. Furthermore, the benthic macroinvertebrate community closest to the discharge should be most affected by BFN thermal effocts and sampling at this site has not indicated negative effects . . Spring Sport Fish Survey A total of 18 hours of electrofishing effort resulted in 1,390 largemouth bass, 30 spotted and 57 smallmouth bass; of these, 66.7% were harvestable 10 inches). Overall catch rate (82.0 fish/hour) was slightly higher than the previous year (76.1 fish/hour) (Table 9). The average weight ofharvestable sized black bass was 1.5 pounds. The largest black bass collected was a 5.9 pound largemouth bass collected from First Creek. Large bass were well represented with 53 bass greater than three pounds, 14 greater than four pounds, and 5 over five pounds. All size classes up to 20 inches were represented in the population. Length frequency histograms illustrated a bimodal distribution with the 8 and 13 inch groups being the dominant size classes (Figure 5). Habitat type is derived from the SARI which was developed by TV A's Resource Stewardship Program. The resultant habitat designations (Good, Fair, and Poor) are correlated to black bass abundance (numbers/hour). Among the three areas sampled during 2008, individual sites showed a lot of variation in abundance to habitat types on Wheeler Reservoir with the exception of First Creek (Table 10). Overall reservoir catch rates were 101, 81, and 66 fish/hour at the Good, Fair, and Poor habitat types, respectively exhibiting a classic positive correlation of black bass density to habitat types. The following results describe the quality and condition of black bass collected in Wheeler Reservoir during spring 2008: The RSD value (12) was within the desirable range (10-25) (Figure 6). The PSD value (55) was also within the preferred range (40-70) (Figure 7). Wr values shown in Figure 8 are designated by inch groups which reflect the classical categories, i.e., 0-7 = substock, 8-11 =stock, 12-14 =quality, 15-19 =preferred, 20-24 =memorable and 25+ = trophy. All categories, except trophy, fell within the desired range, which indicates a balanced population structure. Largemouth bass length frequency histograms illustrated a bimodal distribution with the 8-inch size class (age-2) and 12 and 13-inch class (age-3) being the dominant size classes (Figure 5). A total of 34 crappie, 29 white and 5 black, were also collected during the survey. According to angler accounts, Wheeler Reservoir *has a good crappie population; however, they were not in the shallow areas that coincided with our littoral zone sampling efforts. Wheeler Reservoir Flow and BFN Temperature A comparison of daily average flows from Guntersville Dam, October 2007 through November 2008, and historic daily flows from 1976-2007 are shown in Figure 9. Daily average flows were approximately 50% less than the historical daily average flows from 1976 through 2007. Figure 10 illustrates the comparison of daily average water temperatures recorded upstream of IO BFN intake and downstream ofBFN discharge during October 2007 through November 2008. Despite 50% daily average flow past the plant, BFN operated within their NPDES permit limit and a Balanced Indigenous Population was maintained. 11 Literature Cited Hickman, G.D. and T. A. McDonough. 1996. Assessing the Reservoir Fish Assemblage A potential measure ofreservoir quality. In: D. De Vries (Ed.) Reservoir Multidimensional approaches to reservoir fisheries management. Reservoir Committee, Southern Division, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. pp 85-97. Hubert, W. A., 1996. Passive capture techniques, entanglement gears. Pages 160-165 in B. R. Murphy and D. W. Willis, editors. Fisheries techniques, 2nd edition. American Fisheries Society Bethesda, Maryland, USA. Jennings, M. J., L. S. Fore, and J. R. Karr. 1995. Biological monitoring of fish assemblages in the Tennessee Valley reservoirs .. Regulated Rivers 11 :263-274. McDonough, T.A. and G.D. Hickman. 1999. Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index development: A tool for assessing ecological health in Tennessee Valley Authority impoundments. In: Assessing the sustainability and biological integrity of water resources using fish communities. Simon, T. (Ed.) CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 523-540. Reynolds, J.B., 1996. Electrofishing. Pages 221-251 in B. R. Murphy and D. W. Willis, editors. Fisheries techniques, 2nd edition. American Fisheries Society Bethesda, Maryland, USA. . TWRC 2006. Strategic Plan, 2006-2012. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Commission, Nashville, TN. March 2006. pp 124-125. http://tennessee.gov/twra/pdfs/StratPlan06-12.pdf 12 Table 1. Scoring criteria {2002) for forebay, transition, and inflow sections of Lower Mainstream reservoirs in the Tennessee River system. Lower Mainstream reservoirs include Guntersville, Wheeler, Wilson, Pickwick, and Kentucky. Transition scoring criteria were used for sites upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. Scoring Criteria Forebay Transition Inflow Metric Gear 1 3 5 3 5 3 5 1. Total species Combined <14 14-27 >27 <16 16-30 >30 <14 14-27 >27 2. Total Centrarchid species Combined <2 2-3 >3 <2 2-2 >2 <2 2-4 >4 3. Total benthic invertivores Combined <4 4-6 >6 <4 4-7 >7 <4 4-7 >7 4. Total intolerant species Combined <2 2-4 >4 <3 3-4 >4 <3 3-6 >6 5. Percent tolerant individuals Electrofishing >61% 30-61% <30% >54% 27-54% <27% >51% 26-51% <26% Gill netting >46% 22-46% <22% >30% 15-30% <15% 6. Percent dominance by 1 species Electro fishing >59%1 30-59% <30% >58% 29-58% <29% >47% 24-47% <24% Gill netting >43% 21-43% <21% >34% 17-34% <17% 7. Percent non-native species Electrofishing >2% 2-2% <2% >2% 1-2% <1% >4% 2-4% <2% Gill netting >2% 1-2% <1% >2% 1-2% <1% 8. Total top carnivore species Combined <4 4-7 >7 <4 4-7 >7 <4 4-7 >7 9. Percent top carnivores Electrofishing <6% 6-12% >12% <5% 5-10% >10% <15% 15-29% >29% Gill netting <25% 25-49% >49% <20% 20-39% >39% 10. Percent omnivores Electro fishing >59% 30-59% <30% >48% 24-48% <24% >48% 24-48% <24% Gill netting >49% 24-49% <24% >33% 16-33% <16% 11. Average number per run Electrofishing <170 170-341 >341 <243 243-487 >487 <68 68-136 >136 Gill netting <20 20-40 >40 <11 11-22 >22 12. Percent anomalies Electro fishing >5% 2-5% <2% >5% 2-5% <2% >5% 2-5% <2% Gill netting >5% 2-5% <2% >5% 2-5% <2% 13 Table 2 Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RFAI Scores Downstream (TRM 292.S) and Upstream (TRM 295.9) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2008. Autumn2008 TRM292.5 TRM295.9 Metric Obs Score Obs Score A. Species richness and composition 1. Number of species (Tables 3 and 4) 28 species 3 28 species 3 2. Number of centrarchid species 6 species 7 species (less Micropterus) Green sunfish Green sunfish Bluegill Longear sunfish 5 Longear sunfish 5 Warmouth Wannouth Black crappie Redear sunfish Redear sunfish White crappie Black crappie 3. Number ofbenthic inve,rtivore species S species 4 species Spotted sucker Spotted sucker Black redhorse 3 Northern hog sucker 3 Golden redhorse Freshwater drum Freshwater drum Logperch Logperch 4. Number of intolerant species 5 species 5 species Spotted sucker Spotted sucker Skipjack herring Northern hog sucker Black redhorse 5 Skipjack herring 5 Longear sunfish Longear sunfish Smallmouth bass Smallmouth bass 14 Table 2. (Continued) Autumn2008 TRM292.5* TRM295.9 Metric Obs Score Obs Score 5. Percent tolerant individuals Electrofishing 37.4% 50.6% Bluegill 10.3% Bluegill 8.2% Gizzard shad 31. 7% Gizzard shad 19 .3 % Common carp 0.3% Largemouth bass 7 .2% 1.5 Largemouth bass 9.4% 1.5 Spotfin shiner 0.2% Spotfin shiner 0.2% Green sunfish 0.3% Golden shiner 0.2% Green sunfish 0.4% Gill Netting 32.1% 23.6% Gizzard shad 12.3% Gizzard shad 14.1% Common carp 0.5% Common carp 0.5% 1.5 Bluegill 3.2% 0.5 Largemouth bass 7 .0% Bluegill 1.0% Longnose gar 4.8% Largemouth bass 8.0% Golden shiner 2.7% White crappie 1.6% 6. Percent dominance by one species Electrofishing 52.7% 1.5 31.7% 1.5 Inland silverside Gizzard shad Gill Netting 28.6% 1.5 19.8% 1.5 White bass Channel catfish 7. Percent non-native species Electro fishing 29.5% 52.7% 0.5 Inland silverside 29.0% 0.5 Inland silverside 52. 7% Atlantic needlefish 0.1 % Common carp 0.3% Gill Netting 0.5% 1.6% . Common carp 0.5% 2.5 Common carp 0.5% 1.5 Striped bass 1.1 % 15 Table 2. (Continued) Autumn 2008 TRM292.5 TRM295.9 Metric Obs Score Obs Score 8. Number of top carnivore species 10 species 11 species Spotted gar Longnose gar Largemouth bass Spotted gar Spotted bass Largemouth bass Smallmouth bass Spotted bass Skipjack herring 5 Smallmouth bass 5 Flathead catfish Skipjack herring White bass Flathead catfish Yellow bass White bass Black crappie Yellow bass Sauger Black crappie White crappie B. Trophic composition 9. Percent top carnivores Electro fishing 8.5% 12.6% Largemouth bass 7.2% Largemouth bass 9.4% Spotted bass 0.2% Spotted bass 0.7% Smallmouth bass 1.0% Smallmouth bass 0. 7% Flathead catfish 0.06% Flathead catfish 0.3% 2.5 White bass 0.2% Yellow bass 1.0% Spotted gar 0.2% Gill Netting 61.3% 39.6% Spotted gar 0.5% Longnose gar 4.8% Largemouth bass 8.0% Largemouth bass 7.0% Spotted bass 1.0% Spotted bass 1.6% Skipjack herring 15.6% 2.5 Skipjack herring 1.6% 2.5 Flathead catfish 4.5% Flathead catfish 2J % White bass 28.6% White bass 14.0% Yellow bass 1.5% Yellow bass 5.3% Black crappie 0.5% White crappie 1.6% Sauger 1.0% Black crappie 0.5% 16 Table 2. (Continued) Autumn2008 TRM292.5 TRM295.9 Metric Obs Score Obs Score 10. Percent omnivores Electro fishing 20.7% 38.5% Gizzard shad 19 .3% Gizzard shad 31. 7% Channel catfish 1.2% 2.5 Channel catfish 5.8% 1.5 Blue catfish 0.2% Smallmouth buffalo 0.4% Common carp 0.3% Golden shiner 0.2% Gill Netting 26.6% 44.4% Gizzard shad 14.1% Gizzard shad 12.3% Blue catfish 6.0% 1.5 Blue catfish 5.3% 0.5 Channel catfish 3.5% Channel catfish 19.8% Smallmouth buffalo 2.0% Golden shiner 2.7% Black buffalo 0.5% Smallmouth buffalo 3. 7% Common carp 0.5% Common carp 0.5% C. Fish abundance and health 11. Average number per run Electro fishing 112.2 0.5 59.9 0.5 Gill Netting 19.9 1.5 18.7 1.5 12. Percent anomalies Electro fishing 0.4% 2.5 1% 2.5 Gill Netting 0.5% 2.5 0.5% 2.5 Overall RFAI Score 45 42 Good Good 17 Table 3. Species Collected, Trophic level, Native and Tolerance Classification, Catch Per Effort During ElectrofisJling and Gill Netting at Areas Downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2008. Trophic Sunfish Native Electro fishing Electro fishing Total fish Gill Netting Total Gill Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per Common Name Scientific name level species species Run Hour EF Net Night net fish Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM x TOL 21.67 103.83 325 2.80 28 Common carp Cyprinus carpio OM TOL 0.10 l Spotfin shiner Cyprinella spiloptera IN x TOL 0.20 0.96 3 Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN x x TOL 0.33 l.60 5 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN x x TOL l l.60 55.59 174 0.20 2 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides TC x TOL 8.13 38.98 122 l.60 16 Skipjack herring Alosa chrysoch/oris TC x INT 3.10 31 31 Spotted sucker Minytrema me/anops BI x INT 0.07 0.32 0.30 3 4 Black redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei BI x INT 0.07 0.32 l Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN x x INT 5.60 26.84 84 84 Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC x INT 1.13 5.43 17 17 Spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatus TC x 0.10 l Threadfin shad Dorosoma petenense PK x 0.07 0.32 Largescale stoneroller Campostoma oligolepis HB x 0.07 0.32 Smallmouth buffalo /ctiobus bubalus OM x 0.40 4 4 Black buffalo lctiobus niger OM x 0.10 l l Golden redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum BI x 0.13 0.64 2 0.10 3 Blue catfish Ictalurus jurcatus OM x 0.20 0.96 3 l.20 12 15 Channel catfish lctalurus punctatus OM x 1.33 6.39 20 0.70 7 27 Flathead catfish Pylodictis ofivaris TC x 0.07 0.32 0.90 9 10 White bass Morone chrysops TC x 5.70 57 51 Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC x 0.30 3 3 Warmouth Lepomis gu/osus IN x x 0.07 0.32 I Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN x x 1.40 6.7.l 21 l.10 11 32 Spotted bass Micropterus punctulatus TC x 0.20 0.96 3 0.20 2 5 Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC x x 0.10 l l Logperch Percina caprodes BI x 0.20 0.96 3 3 Sauger Sander canadensis TC x 0.20 2 2 Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI x 0.53 2.56 8 0.70 7 15 Inland silverside Menidia beryllina IN 59.13 283.39 887 887 Total 112.2p 537.72 1,683 93.90 19.90 199 Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected 21 20 18 Table4. Species Collected, Trophic level, Native and Tolerance Classification, Catch Per Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting at Areas Upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2008. Trophic Sunfish Native Electro fishing Electrofishing *Total fish Gill Netting Total Gill Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per EF Catch Rate Per Common Name Scientific name level species species Run Hour NetNight net fish Longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus TC x TOL 0.90 9 9 Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM x TOL 19.00 96.28 285 2.30 23 308 Common carp Cyprinus carpio OM TOL 0.20 1.01 3 0.10 1 4 Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas OM x TOL 0.13 0.68 2 0.50 5 7 Spotfin shiner Cyprinella spiloptera IN x TOL 0.13 0.68 2 2 Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN x x TOL 0.27 1.35 4 4 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN x x TOL 4.93 25.00 74 0.60 6 80 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides TC x TOL 5.60 28.38 84 1.30 13 97 White crappie Pomoxis annularis TC x x TOL 0.30 3 3 Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris TC x INT 0.30 3 3 Northern hog sucker Hypentelium nigricans BI x INT 0.13 0.68 2 2 Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI x INT 0.60 3.04 9 9 Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN x x INT 1.53 7.77 23 23 Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC x INT 0.40 2.03 6 6 Spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatus TC x 0.13 0.68 2 2 Threadfin shad Dorosoma petenense PK x 0.27 1.35 4 4 Bullhead minnow Pimephales vigilax IN x O.Q7 0.34 Smallmouth buffalo Ictiobus bubalus OM x 0.27 1.35 4 0.70 7 11 Blue catfish lctalurus farcatus OM x 1.00 10 10 Channel catfish Ictalurus punc/atus OM x 3.47 17.57 52 3.70 37 89 Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC x 0.20 1.01 3 0.40 4 7 White bass Morone chrysops TC x 0.13 0.68 2 2.60 26 28 Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC x 0.60 3.04 9 1.00 10 19 Striped bass Morone saxatilis TC 0.20 2 2 Wannouth Lepomis gulosus IN x x O.Q7 0.34 1 Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN x x 2.67 13.51 40 0._60 6 46 Spotted bass Micropterus punctulatus TC x 0.40 2.03 6 0.30 3 9 Black crappie Pomoxis nigromacu/atus TC x x 0.10 1 1 Logperch Percina caprodes BI x 0.33 1.69 5 5 Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI x 0.87 4.39 13 1.80 18 31 Inland sil verside Menidia beryllina IN 17.40 88.18 261 261 Atlantic needlefish Strongylura marina TC 0.07 0.34 l 1 Total 59.87 303.4 898 18.7 187 1085 Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected 26 19 19 Table 5. Summary ofRFAI Scores from Sites Located Directly Upstream and Downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant as Well as Scores from Sampling Conducted During 1993-2008 as Part of the Vital Signs Monitoring Program in Wheeler Reservoir. Location 1993 1994 1995 1997 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 TRM 348.0 46 48 42 48 36 38 46 40 44 46 46 38 38 TRM 295.9 43 43 35 42 30 41 37 43 39 43 46 45 39 42 TRM292.5 43 40 41 43 43 36 44 42 45 TRM 277.0 52 44 49 44 42 43 47 46 45 45 48 49 46 ERM 6.0 43 46 36 49 51 44 51 47 39 Note: No data were collected for 1996 and 1998. RFAI Scores: 12-21 ("Very Poor"), 22-31("Poor"),32-40 ("Fair"), 41-50 ("Good"), or 51-60 ("Excellent"). 20 Table 6. Individual Metric Ratings and the Overall RBI Field Scores for Upstream and Downstream Sampling Sites Near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Wheeler Reservoir, Autumn 2008. Downstream Upstream TRM291.7 TRM295.9 Metric Obs Rating Obs Rating 1. Average number of taxa 6.3 5 5.8 5 2. Proportion of samples with long-lived organisms 0.9 5 0.7 3 3. Average number of EPT taxa 1.1 5 0.5 3 4. Average proportion of oligochaete individuals 7.2 5 7.8 5 5. Average proportion of total abundance comprised by the 81.5 3 84.5 3 two most abundant taxa 6. Average density excluding chironomids and 181.7 I 220 1 oligochaetes 7. Zero-samples -proportion of samples containing no 0 5 0 5 organisms Benthic Index Score 29 25 Good Good *TRM 295.9 and TRM 291.7 scored with transition criteria. Reservoir Benthic Index Scores: 7-12 ("Very Poor"), 13-18 ("Poor"), 19-23 ("Fair), 24-29 ("Good"), 30-35 ("Excellent) 21 Table 7. RBI Field Scores from Data Collected During 1994-2008 at Wheeler Reservoir Inflow, Transition, Embayment, and \ Forebay Sampling Sites. Station Location 1994 1995 1997 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Inflow TRM 31 21 25 23 21 25 31 31 31 33 33 347.0 Transition TRM 33 25 31 31 31 29 31 31 33 31 31 33 25 BFN Upstream 295.9 Transition TRM 27 31 27 35 33 31 31 29 29 BFN Downstream 291.7 Forebay TRM 19 15 23 17 17 15 15 19 15 13 13 15 277.0 Elk River ERM 15 13 15 15 15 15 17 13 Embayment 6.0 Note: No data were collected for 1996 and 1998. Reservoir Benthic Index Scores: 7-12 ("Very Poor), 13-18 ("Poor), 19-23 ("Fair), *24-29 ("Good"), 30-35 ("Excellenn 22 Table 8. *Average Mean Density Per Square Meter ofBenthic Taxa at Upstream and Downstream Sites Near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Wheeler Reservoir, Autumn 2008. Taxa Tubellaria Tricladida Planariidae Oligocheata Oligochaetes Hirudinea Crustacea Amphipoda* lsopoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Mayflies other than Hexagenia Ephemeridae Hexagenia (:SIO mm) Hexagenia (> 10 mm) Odonata Trichoptera Caddisflies Plecotera Stoneflies Coeleoptera Diptera Ceratopogonidae Chironomidae Chironomids Gastropoda Snails . Basommatophora Ancylidae Bivalvia Unionoida Unionidae Mussels Veneroida Corbiculidae Corhicula (:SlOmm) Corbicula (>I Omm) Sphaeriidae Fingernail clams Dreissenidae Dreissena palymarpha Density of organisms per meter Number of samples Total area sampled (meter) 23 Downstream TRM291.7 27 5 57 3 40 7 298 8 2, 3 7 50 507 10 0.6 Upstream TRM295.9 57 2 12 27 17 12 432 13 12. 55 72 711 10 0.6

/ Table 9. ElectrofIShing Catch Rates and Population Characteristics of Black Bass Collected During Spring Sport Fish Surveys on Wheeler Reservoir, 1995-2008. EF Catch Mean Bass Bass Largest Year Rate Weight % Harvestable >4 lbs. >5 lbs. bass (no./hr.} (lbs.} (lbs.} 2008 82.0 1.5 55.5 14 5 5.9 2007. 76.1 1.6 53.8 31 7 6.5 2006 37.9 1.3 75.4 15 5 6.2 2005 60.7 1.7 69.9 36 11 6.8 2004 71.8 1.3 76.2 54 23 6.0 2003 55.7 1.3 51.4 20 7 6.4 2002 59.5 1.3 49.4 23 11 6.1 2001 62.7 1.2 41.0 1 0 4.2 2000 73.0 1.2 66.0 5 1 5.6 1999 33.2 1.2 58.3 0 0 4.7 1998 55.5 1.1 38.0 2 0 4.4 1997 47.8 1.0 69.2 5 2 6.1 1996 70.3 1.5 42.8 9 5 6.2 1995 36.8 1.2 68.0 12 5 6.3 Table 10. Black Bass Catch Per Hour Compared to Habitat Types by Location During Spring Sport Fish Surveys on Wheeler Reservoir, 2008. Habitat Designation Wheeler Reservoir Site Good Elk River 45(1) First Creek 126(2) Second Creek 133(2) Catch per hour = number of fish collected per hour ( ) = number of transects sampled at each location 24 Fair

• 94(8) 100(8) 50(8) Poor 47(3) 65(2) 85(2)

I 0 3 N + I e I 12 Miles Tennessee Alabama Athens

• Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant Huntsville
• Figure 1. Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant is located on the north shore of Wheeler Reservoir at Tennessee River Mile 294. 25 \ \

Figure 2. Location of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant and Condenser Cooling Water (CCW) intake and discharge. 26 Electrofishing locations Gill net locations P028 N3442.701 W8708.909 N34 42.723 W8708.858 P029 N34 42.785 W87 08.458 N34 42.816 W87 08.543 P030 N3442.857 W8708.076 N3442.861 W8708.021 P031 N34 42.522 W87 07.533 N3442.977 W87 07.814 P032 N34 42.703 W87 09.375 N34 43.271 W8707.998 P033 N34 43.310 W8708.006 N34 43.776 W8708.650 P034 N3443.030 W8707.728 N34 43.478 W87 08.568 P035 N3443.290 W87 10.130 N3443.247 W87 09.062 P036 N34 43.709 W87 08.377 N3443.052 W87 08.843 P037 N34 44.012 W8708.709 N3442.896 W8709.l ll P038 N34 43.688 W87 10.498 N3443.049 W87 09.256 P039 N34 42.903 W8709.727 N34 43.176 W87 09.331 P040 N3442.250 W8708.981 P041 N34 44.387 W87 09.062 P042 N34 43.843 W8710.763 Figure 3. RFAI electrofishing and gill net locations downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. Black squares represent electrofishing locations; red diamonds represent gill net locations. 27 1596 1597 1598 1599 1600 1601 1602 1603 1604 1605 1606 1607 1608 1609 1610 / ..,.,.. l ,/'.,.,.... ""'*:._ \. r . ...,.,_ \ ............ Electrofishinll locations N34 41.336 W8704.933 N34 41.513 W8705.l62 N34 41.683 W87 05.447 N34 41.887 W87 05.997 N3442.092 W87 06.198 N34 41.917 W87 06.127 N34 41.935 W87 06.365 N34 41.926 W8706.604 N34 41.953 W87 06.840 N34 42.060 W87 07.142 N34 40.770 W8706.793 N3440.610 W8706.515 N3440.278 W8706.503 N34 40.237 W87 06.083 N34 40.097 W8705.930 Si*. Gill net locations N34 47.083 W87 20.788 N3447.250 W8720.972 N34 47.350 W87 21.448 N3447.480 W87 21.912 N3447.723 W87 22.407 N3449.002 W8722.067 N3449.l07 W8722.028 N3448.927 W87 21.533 N3448.910 W87 21.080 N3448.740 W8720.860 N3448.887 W87 20.585 N3448.682 W87 20.458 Figure 4. RF AI electrofishing and gill net locations upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. Black squares represent electrofishing locations; red circles represent gill net locations. 28 207 g1so ! g" I * , 100 100 j: @ -* 48 50 12 I* fu. * > : rt 1* 11 9 5 I 0 ......... ......... 3 5 7 9 11 . 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 Total Length (inches) Figure 5. Length frequency distribution for largemouth bass collected from Wheeler Reservoir (all sites) during Spring Sport Fish Surveys, 2008. 50 45 40 g 35 :! 30 5i 25 e l. 20 15 *,, .,_ --*. -------.. ------------___ ___ ------.. ::.--23* *-.,. __ .* : OesiableRSD15Range ------.*fi 10 --.. -----. -----.... fe. -----. ------------. ------------. ------------. -----. -----.. -----. -----. ------. -----. --5 n "Tl Q ,.. z ::s' -c CD a lU ::s' n r-::I ::J i = i 0 .. .. l 0 CD c O> ; c ;;; n iS' :i a. n Ill 0 :s. . .f a. Ill ... m c c :i iii' ca m Reservoir Figure 6. Relative stock density values for Tennessee River reservoirs calculated from 2008 Spring Sport Fish Survey samples. 29 100 90 80 GI 70 CJI 60 J! c 50 GI 40 GI II. 30 20 10 0 PSD VALUES MAINSTEM RESERVOIRS SPRING 2008 ,.,Q4 / ,, ......... / -..... .. o _,,, -----..-ss (') :l! G> ,; z ,, i :§ ::r c Ill n ii' n ,.... ::s ::s ... I if .. ii' ... 0 &' 2' .!!!. .. 0 c .. Cl, il n .. n ID iii ::s a 0 a ... .. .. .. c ... .. c ::s ca Ill Reservoir Figure 7. Proportional stock density values for Tennessee River reservoirs calculated from 2008 Spring Sport Fish Survey samples. I* Percent --# of Fish I 120 600 100 500 s::. w M ..... -60 l 40 20 0 ---+300 GI .a ---201) E :i ----;-100 z 0 0-7 8-11 12-14 15-19 20-24 25 + Relative Stock Size by Inch Group Figure 8. Wheeler Reservoir mean relative weights (Wr) for largemouth bass, calculated from 2008 Spring Sport Fish Survey samples. 30 80000 70000 -FY 2008 daily average 60000 -Historic daily average, 1976-2007 50000 ! 40000 u:: 30000 20000 10000 A,r;ff A,<::Jco 'fO ,{:>co _\<::1'0 'fO ....,r:S-<::J ....,....,'f' <::Jrpi::,v <:f'<::f-....,r:S-&-Date . Figure 9. Daily average flows from Guntersville Dam, October 2007 through November 2008, and historic daily flows, averaged for the period 1976-2C,07. 31 80 u. 0 t 70 t -Downstream of BFN --Upstream of BFN E 60 50. 30 /::; /::; & & & & & & & & & & ;s ;s & & & i t @ @ i§ §? §i? i ""' i§ ;s & @ & § & c:5 .... 0 0 0 .... Date Figure 10. Daily average water temperatures at a depth of five feet, recorded upstream of BFN intake and downstream of BFN discharge, October 2007 through November 2008. 32 Appendix 1: Historical RF AI Scores Historical Metric Scores and the Overall RF AI Scores for Areas Upstream and Downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, 2000-2007. 33 / Appendix 1-A. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RFAI Scores for Sites Upstream and Downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2007. Autumn2007 Downstream Upstream TRM292.S TRM29S.9 Metric Obs Score Obs Score A. Species richness and composition 1. Number of species 26 3 26 3 2. _Number of centrarchid species 5 5 7 5 3. Number ofbenthic invertivores 5 3 3 1 4. Number of intolerant species 5 5 5 5 5. Percent tolerant individuals Electro fishing 48.l 1.5 64.7 0.5 Gill Netting 23.5 1.5 30.9 0.5 6. Percent dominance by 1 species Electrofishing 37.8 1.5 31.8 1.5 Gill Netting 23.5 1.5 23.6 1.5 7. Percent non-native species Electrofishing 34.2 0.5 16.9 0.5 Gill Netting 0 2.5 0 2.5 8. Number of top carnivore species 9 5 8 5 B. Trophic composition 9. Percent top carnivores Electro fishing 4.8 0.5 16 2.5 Gill Netting 56.3 2.5 54.5 2.5 10. Percent omnivores Electrofi shing 42.5 1.5 36.8 1.5 Gill Netting 38.7 0.5 38.2 0.5 C. Fish abundance and health 11. Average number per run Electrofishing 60.3 0.5 36.3 0.5 Gill Netting 11.9 1.5 5.5 0.5 12. Percent anomalies Electro fishing 1.2 2.5 0.9 2.5 Gill Netting 0 2.5 0 2.5 Overall RFAI Score 42 39 Good Fair 34 Appendix 1-B. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RF AI Scores for Sites Upstream and Downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2006. Autumn 2006 Downstream Upstream TRM292.S TRM295.9. Metric Obs Score Obs Score A. Species richness and composition 1. Number of species 28 3 31 5 2. Number of centrarchid species 6 5 6 5 3. Number of benthic invertivores 4 3 4 3 4. Number of intolerant species 5 5 5 5 5. Percent tolerant individuals Electro fishing 13.9 2.5 35.5 1.5 Gill Netting 32.6 0.5 33 0.5 6. Percent dominance by 1 species Electro fishing 67.4 0.5 47.5 1.5 Gill Netting 25.3 1.5 30 1.5 7. Percent non-native species Electro fishing 0.1 2.5 0.1 2.5 Gill Netting 0 2.5 1 1.5 8. Number of top carnivore species 9 5 11 5 B. Trophic composition 9. Percent top carnivores Electro fishing 12.5 2.5 14.2 2.5 43.2 2.5 45 2.5 10. Percent omnivores Electro fishing 10.2 2.5 21.8 2.5 Gill Netting 53.7 0.5 47 0.5 C. Fish abundance and health 11. Average number per run Electro fishing 119.7 0.5 63.5 0.5 Gill Netting 9.5 0.5 10 0.5 12. Percent anomalies Electro fishing 0.3 2.5 0.6 2.5 Gill Netting 2.1 1.5 2 1.5 Overall RF Al Score 44 45 Good Good 35 .. Appendix 1-C. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RFAI Scores for Sites Upstream and Downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2005. Autumn2005 Downstream Upstream TRM292.5 TRM295.9 Metric Obs Score Obs Score A. Species richness and composition 1. Number of species 27 3 32 5 2. Number of centrarchid species 6 s 6 5

• 3. Number ofbenthic invertivores 5 3 7 3 4. Number of intolerant species 4 3 6 5 5. Percent tolerant individuals Electro fishing 18.2 2.5 37.1 1.5 Gill Netting 39 0.5 10 2.5 6. Percent dominance by 1 species Electro fishing 64.1 0.5 49.1 1.5 Gill Netting 36.4 0.5 20 1.5 7. Percent non-native species Electro fishing 2.3 0.5 0.3 2.5 Gill Netting 0 2.5 0 2.5 8. Number of top carnivore species 7 3 11 5 B. Trophic composition 9. Percent top carnivores Electro fishing 5.5 1.5 3 0.5 Gill Netting 20.8 1.5 53.3 2.5 10. Percent omnivores Electrofishing 16 2.5 33 1.5 Gill Netting 59.7 0.5 35 0.5 C. Fish abundance and health 11. Average number per run Electro fishing 82.2 0.5 118.7 0.5 Gill Netting 7.7 0.5 6 0.5 12. Percent anomalies Electro fishing 0.2 2.5 0.1 2.5 Gill Netting 0 2.5 0 2.5
• Overall RF AI Score 36 46 Fair Good 36 Appendix 1-D. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RFAI Scores for Sites Upstream and Downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2004. Autumn 2004 Downstream Upstream TRM292.S TRM29S.9 *Metric Obs Score Obs Score A. Species richness and composition 1. Number of species 28 3 30 3 2. Number of centrarchid species 5 5 7 5 3. Number of benthic invertivores 6 3 7 3 4. Number of intolerant species 5 5 7 5 5. Percent tolerant individuals Electro fishing 26 2.5 54.6 0.5 Gill Netting 0 2.5 12.6 2.5 6. Percent dominance by 1 species Electro fishing 36 1.5 23.6 2.5 Gill Netting 64.1 0.5 19.3 1.5 7. Percent non-native species Electro fishing 20 0.5 8.8 0.5 Gill Netting 2.6 0.5 7.6 0.5 8. Number of top carnivore species 8 5 11 5 B. Trophic composition 9. Percent top carnivores Electrofishing 9.3 1.5 19.1 2.5 Gill Netting 84.6 2.5 61.3 2.5 10. Percent omnivores Electro fishing 15.1 2.5 36 1.5 Gill Netting 15.4 2.5 29.4 1.5 C. Fish abundance and health 11. Average number per run Electro fishing 65.7 0.5 31.1 0.5 Gill Netting 3.9 0.5 11.9 1.5 12. Percent anomalies Electro fishing 2 1.5 1.5 2.5 Gill Netting 0 2.5 2.5 1.5 Overall RF AI Score 43 43 Good Good 37 Appendix 1-E. Indivjdual Metric Scores and the .Overall RFAI Scores for Sites Upstream and Downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2003. Autumn 2003 Downstream Upstream TRM292.S TRM29S.9 Metric Obs Score Obs Score A. Species richness and composition 1. Number of species 28 3 28 3 2. Number of centrarchid species 7 5 6 5 3. Number ofbenthic invertivores 4 3 4 3 4. Number of intolerant species 4 3 5 5 5. Percent tolerant individuals Electrofishing 48.7 1.5 66.8 0.5 Gill Netting 6.3 2.5 16.9 1.5 6. Percent dominance by 1 species Electrofishing 28.l 2.5 41.8 1.5 Gill Netting . 25.4 1.5 27.7 1.5 7. Percent non-native species Electrofishing 7.1 0.5 8 0.5 Gill Netting 0 2.5 0 2.5 8. Number of top carnivore species 10 5 10 5 B. Trophic composition 9. Percent top carnivores Electro fishing 12.4 2.5 9.7 1.5 Gill Netting 63.5 2.5 36.9 1.5 10. Percent omnivores Electro fishing 38.1 1.5 51.l 0.5 Gill Netting 27 1.5 56.9 0.5 C. Fish abundance and health 11. Average number per run Electro fishing 40.4 0.5 23.5 0.5 Gill Netting 6.3 0.5 6.5 0.5 12. Percent anomalies Electro fishing 3 1.5 0.9 2.5 Gill Netting 0 2.5 0 2.5 Overall RFAI Score 43 39 Good Fair 38 Appendix 1-F. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RF AI Scores for Sites Upstream and Downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2002. Autumn2002 Downstream Upstream. TRM292.5 TRM295.9 Metric Obs Score Obs Score A. Species richness and composition 1. Number of species 25 3 26 3 2. Number of centrarchid species 4 5 4 5 3. Number of benthic invertivores 5 3 4 3 4. Number of intolerant species 5 5 6 5 5. Percent tolerant individuals Electro fishing 54.1 0.5 38.1 1.5 Gill Netting 7.8 2.5 8.4 2.5 6. Percent dominance by 1 species Electrofishing 25.7 2.5 . 30.3 1.5 Gill Netting 36.1 0.5 25.3 1.5 7. Percent non-native species Electro fishing 24.9 0.5 13.3 0.5 Gill Netting 5.6 0.5 7.2 0.5 8. Number of top carnivore species 8 5 8 5 B. Trophic composition 9. Percent top carnivores Electro fishing 9.7 1.5 10.6 2.5 Gill N e_tting 63.3 2.5 74.7 2.5 I 0. Percent omnivores Electrofishing 28.6 1.5 19.2 2.5 Gill Netting 26.7 1.5 21.7 1.5 C. Fish and health 11. Average number per run Electro fishing 68.8 0.5 38.5 0.5 Gill Netting 9 0.5 8.3 0.5 12. Percent anomalies Electro fishing 1.3 2.5 2.1 1.5 Gill Netting 0 2.5 1.2 2.5 Overall RF AI Score 41 43 Good Good 39 Appendix 1-G. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RFAI Scores for Sites Upstream and Downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2001. Autumn2001 Downstream . Upstream TRM292.5 TRM295.9 Metric Obs Score Obs Score A. Species richness and composition 1. Number of species 27 3 29 3 2. Number of centrarchid species 5 5 7 5 3. Number of benthic invertivores 5 3 3 1 4. Number of intolerant species 5 5 6 5 5. Percent tolerant individuals Electrofishing 46 1.5 60.2 0.5 Gill Netting 39.2 0.5 29.7 1.5 6. Percent dominance by 1 species Electro fishing 25.8 2.5 49.2 1.5 Gill Netting 29.4 1.5 28.1 1.5 7. Percent non-native species Electro.fishing 6.8 0.5 7.5 0.5
• Gill Netting 2 1.5 4.7 0.5 8. Number of top carnivore species 8 5 11 5 B. Trophic composition 9. Percent top carnivores Electro fishing 16.2 2.5 10.2 2.5 Gill Netting 35.3 1.5 45.3 2.5 10. Percent omnivores Electrofishing 31.6 1.5 55.7 0.5 Gill Netting 54.9 0.5 46.9 0.5 ., C. Fish abundance and health 11. Average number per run Electrofishing 25.5 0.5 34 0.5 Gill Netting 5.1 0.5 12.8 1.5 12. Percent anomalies Electro fishing 1 2.5 1.4 2.5 Gill Netting 3.9 1.5 3.1 1.5 Overall RF AI Score 40 37 Fair Fair 40 Appendix 1-H. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RFAI Scores for Sites Upstream and Downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2000. Autumn 2000 Downstream Upstream TRM292.S TRM29S.9 Metric Obs Score Obs Score A. Species richness and composition 1. Number of species 24 3 24 3 2. Number of centrarchid species 3 5 3 5 3. Number of benthic invertivores 6 3* 6 3 4. Number of intolerant species 8 5 5 5 5. Percent tolerant individuals Electrofishing 34.4 1.5 64.3 0.5 Gill Netting 17 1.5 9.5 2.5 6. Percent dominance by 1 species Electrofishing 30.9 1.5 48.2 1.5 Gill Netting 56 0.5 55.8 0.5 7. Percent non-native species Electro fishing 0 2.5 2.9 0.5 Gill Netting . 1 1.5 6.3 0.5 8. Number of top carnivore species 8 5 9 5 B. Trophic composition 9. Percent top carnivores Electrofishing 6.9 1.5 14.1 2.5 Gill Netting 68 2.5 82.1 2.5 10. Percent omnivores Electro fishing 37.1 1.5 52.1 0.5 Gill Netting 27 1.5 14.7 2.5 C. Fish abundance and health 11. Average number per run Electrofishing 17.3 0.5 20.7 0.5 Gill Netting 10 0.5 9.5 0.5 12. Percent anomalies Electrofishing 0 2.5 0 2.5 Gill Netting 0 2.5 0 2.5 Overall RFAI Score 43 41 Good Good 41 Appendix 2: Historical Fish Species List Species Collected and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing at Areas Upstream and Downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, 2000-2007. 42 Appendix 2-A. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Native and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Downstream (TRM 292.5) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2007. Trophic Sunfish Native Electro fishing Electrofishing Total fish Gill Netting Total Gill Total fish level species species Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per EF Catch Rate Per net fish Combined Common Name Scientific name Run Hour Net Night Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM x TOL 22.80 119.58 342 2.50 25 367 Common carp Cyprinus carpio OM TOL 0.07 0.35 . I Golden shiner Notemigonus cryso/eucas OM x TOL 0.07 0.35 Spotfin shiner Cyprinella spi/optera IN x TOL 0.40 2.10 6 6 Green sunfish Lepomis cyane/lus IN x x TOL 0.40 2.10 6 6 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN x x TOL 4.00 20.98 60 60 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides TC x TOL 1.27 6.64 19 0.30 3 22 Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris TC x INT 2.80 28 28 Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI x INT 0.27 1.40 4 0.10 5 Black redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei BI x INT 0.07 0.35 I I Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN x x INT 2.00 10.49 30 30 Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC x INT 0.93 4.90 14 14 Spotted gar Lepisosteus ocu/a/us TC x Q.40 4 4 Threadfin shad Dorosoma petenense PK x 0.13 0.70 2 0.10 I 3 Smallmouth buffalo Ictiobus bubo/us OM x 0.53 2.80 8 0.90 9 17 Golden redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum BI x 0.07 0.35 I Blue catfish Ictalurus furcalus OM x 0.70 7 7 Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus OM x 2.13 11.19 32 0.50 5 37 Flathead catfish Py/odiclis o/ivaris TC x 0.13 0.70 2 0.60 6 8 White bass Marone chrysops TC x 0.10 I Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC x 0.33 1.75 5 2.30 23 28 Wannouth Lepomis gulosus IN x x 0.13 0.70 2 2 Redear sunfish Lepomis micro/ophus IN x x 1.27 6.64 19 19 Spotted bass Microplerus punctu/alus TC x 0.20 1.05 3 0.10 4 Logperch Percina caprodes BI x 0.07 0.35 Sauger Sander canadensis TC x 0.10 Freshwater drum Aplodinolus grunniens BI x 2.47 12.94 37 0.40 4 41 Inland silverside Menidia bery/lina IN 20.53 107.69 308 308 Total 60.27 316.10 904 11.90 119 1,023 Number Samples IS 10 Species Collected 23 15 43 Appendix 2-B. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Native and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Upstream (TRM 295.9) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2007. Trophic Sunfish Native Electro fishing Electrofishing Total fish Gill Netting Total Gill Total fish level species species Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per EF Catch Rate Per net fish Combined Common Name Scientific name Run Hour Net Night Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM x TOL 11.53 57.86 173 1.30 13 186 Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas OM x TOL 0.93 4.68 14 14 Spotfin shiner Cyprinella spi/optera IN x TOL 0.13 0.67 2 2 Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus IN x x TOL 0.20 1.00 3 3 Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN x x TOL 0.20 1.00 3 3 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN x x TOL 5.60 28.09 84 84 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides TC x TOL 4.87 24.41 73 0.40 4 77 Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris TC x INT 1.10 II II Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI x INT 0.53 2.68 8 8 . Black redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei BI x INT 0.07 0.33 1 Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN x x INT 1.53 7.69 23 23
• Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC x INT 0.13 0.67 2 2 Spotted.gar Lepisosteus oculatus TC x 0.30 3 3 Threadfin shad Dorosoma petenense PK x 0.07 0.33 I I Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides IN x 0.13 0.67 2 2 Bullhead minnow Pimephales vigilax IN x 0.07 0.33 1 Smallmouth buffalo Ictiobus bubalus OM x 0.40 2.01 6 0.20 2 8 Blue catfish Jctalurus furcatus OM x 0.20 2 2 Channel catfish Icialurus punctatus OM x 0.47 2.34 7 0.40 4 II Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC x 0.07 0.33 I 0.20 2 3 Yellow bass Marone mississippiensis TC x 0.47 2.34 7 0.80 8 15 Wannouth Lepomis gulosus IN x x 0.07 0.33 Redear stlllfish Lepomis microlophus IN x x 1.20 6.02 18 0.10 19 Spotted bass Micropterus punctulatus TC x 0.20 1.00 3 0.10 4 Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC x x o.<n 0.33 I 0.10 2 Yellow perch Perea flavescens IN 0.13 0.67 2 2 Freshwater drum Ap/odinotus grunniens BI x 1.20 6.02 18 0.30 3 21 Inland si!verside Menidia beryllina IN 6.00 30.10 90 90 Total 36.27 181.90 544 5.50 55 599 Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected 25 13 44 Appendix 2-C. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Native and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Downstream (TRM 292.5) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2006. Trophic Sunfish Native Electrofishing Electrofishing Total fish Gill Netting Total Gill Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per Common Name Scientific name level species species Run Hour EF NetNight net fish Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM x TOL 7.13 30.14 107 2.40 24 Common carp Cyprinus carpio OM TOL 0.07 0.28 Spotfin shiner Cyprine/la spi/optera IN x TOL 0.93 3.94 14 Striped shiner Luxilus chrysocepha/us OM x TOL 0.o7 0.28 1 Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN x x TOL 0.87 3.66 13 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN x x TOL 2.87 12.11 43 0.10 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides TC x TOL 4.73 20.00 71 0.50 5 White crappie Pomoxis annularis TC x x TOL 0.10 I Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris TC x INT 1.60 16 16 Spotted sucker Minytrema me/anops BI x INT 0.47 1:97 7 7 Black redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei BI x INT 0.13 0.56 2 2 Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN x x INT 3.80 16.06 51 51 Smallmouth bass Micropterus do/omieu TC x INT 3.93 16.62 59 59 Threadfin shad Dorosoma petenense PK x 0.07 0.28 Emerald shiner No/ropis atherinoides IN x 0.33 1.41 5 5 Bullhead minnow Pimephales vigilax IN x 0.13 0.56 2 2 Smallmouth buffalo Ictiobus buba/us OM x 0.40 I.69 6 0.20 2 8 Blue catfish lcta/urus furcatus OM x 1.50 15 15 Channel catfish /ctalurus punctatus OM x 4.53 19.15 68 1.00 10 78 Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC x 0.53 2.25 8 o.40 4 12 White bass Morone chrysops TC x 2.80 11.83 42 0.20 2 44 Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC x 0.33 1.41 5 0.20 2 7 Striped bass Morone saxatilis TC 0 Hybrid striped x white bass Hybrid morone (chrysops x sax) TC 0.07 0.28 Wannouth Lepomis gulosus IN x x 0.07 0.28 I Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN x x 0.40 1.69 6 6 Spotted bass Micropterus punctu/atus TC x 2.53 10.70 38 0.10 39 Logperch Percina caprodes BI x 0.60 2.54 9 9 Sauger Sander canadensis TC x 0.o7 0.28 1.00 10 11 Freshwater drum Ap/odinotus grunniens BI x 1.13 4.79 17 0.20 2 19 Inland silverside Menidia bery/lina IN 80.67 340.85 1210 1,210 Total 119.66 505.61 1,795 9.50 95 1,890 Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected 27 14 45 Appendix 2-D. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Native and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Upstream (TRM 295.9) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2006. Trophic Sunfish Native Electrofishing Electrofishing Total fish Gill Netting Total Gill level species species Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per EF Catch Rate Per net fish Common Name Scientific name Run Hour Net Night Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM x TOL 11.47 50.59 172 3.00 30 Golden shiner Notemigonus cryso/eucas OM x TOL 0.80 3.53 12 . Spotfin shiner Cyprinel/a spiloptera IN x TOL 0.20 0.88 3 Green sunfish Lepomis cyane/lus IN x x TOL 0.27 1.18 4 4 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN x x TOL 2.93 12.94 44 0.20 2 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides TC x TOL 6.87 30.29 103 0.10 Skipjack herring Alosa chrysoch/oris TC x INT 2.40 24 24 Spotted sucker Minytrema me/anops BI x INT 1.80 7.94 27 27 Black redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei BI x INT 0.27 1.18 4 4 Longear sunfish Lepomis mega/otis IN x x INT 0.60 2.65 9 9 Smallmouth bass Micropterus do/omleu TC x INT 0.07 0.29 1 Spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatus. TC x 0.20 0.88 3 o.so s 8 Bow fin Amia calva TC x O.Q7 0.29 Threadfin shad Dorosoma petenense PK x O.Q7 0.29 Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides IN x 1.13 5.00 17 17 Bullhead minnow Pimepha/es vigi/ax IN x 0.20 0.88 3 3 Smallmouth buffalo /ctiobus buba/us OM x 0.53 2.35 8 0.50 5 13 Bigmouth buffalo /ctiobus cyprinellus PK x 0.07 0.29 1 Blue catfish /ctalurus farcatus OM x 0.20 2 2 Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus OM x 1.07 4.71 16 1.00 10 26 Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC x 0.13 0.59 2 0.20 2 4 Yellow bass Marone mississlppiensls TC x 0.53 2.35 8 0.70 7 15 Hybrid striped x white bass Hybrid morone (chrysops x sax) TC 0.10 1 Warmouth Lepomis gu/osus* IN x x 0.13 0.59 2 2 Redear sunfish Lepomis micro/ophus IN x x 1.27 5.59 19 0.40 4 23 Spotted bass Micropterus punctu/a/us TC x 0.87 3.82 13 0.20 2 IS Hybrid bass Hybrid micropterus sp. TC x O.Q7 0.29 Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC x x O.Q7 0.29 I 0.10 2 Yellow perch Perea jlavescens IN O.Q7 0.29 1 1 Logperch Percina caprodes BI x 0.53 2.35 8 8 Sauger Sander canadensis TC x 0.13 0.59 2 0.10 3 Walleye Stizostedion vilreum TC x 0.10 1 I Freshwater drum Ap/odinotus grunniens BI x 0.93 4.12 14 0.20 2 16 Inland silverside Menidia beryllina IN 30.20 133.24 . 453 453 Total 63.55 280.27 953 10.00 100 1,053 Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected 30 17 46 Appendix 2-.E. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Native and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Downstream (TRM 292.5) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2005. Trophic Sunfish Native Electrofishing Electro fishing Total fish Gill Netting Total Gill Total fish level species species Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per EF Catch Rate Per net fish Combined Common Nam_e Scientific name Run Hour Net Night Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM x TOL .9.60 54.75 144 2.80 28 172 Spotfin shiner Cyprinel/a spi/optera IN x TOL 0.80 4.56 12 12 Bluntnose minnow Pimepha/es notatus OM x TOL 0.13 0.76 2 2 Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus IN x x TOL 0.07 0.38 Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN x x TOL 1.20 6.84 18 18 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN x x TOL 1.93 11.03 29 29 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides TC x TOL 1.27 7.22 19 0.20 2 21 Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris TC x INT 0.40 4 4 Spotted sucker Minytrema me/anops BI x INT 0.53 3.04 8 0.10 .I 9 Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN x x INT 1.20 6.84 18 18 Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC x INT 0.80 4.56 12 12 Threadfin sharl Dorosoma pelenense PK x 52.67 300.38 790 0.20 2 792 Largescale. stonero lier Camposloma o/igolepis HB x 0.13 0.76 2 2 Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides IN x 0.73 4.18 11 11 Smallmouth buffalo Jctiobus buba/us OM x 0.80 4.56 12 0.50 5 17 Silver redhorse Maxostoma anisurum Bl x 0.10 Golden redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum BI x 0.40 4 4 Blue catfish /clalurus farcatus OM x 0.60 6 6 Channel catfish lctalurus punclatus OM x 2.60 14.83 39 0.70 7 46 Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC x 0.60 6 6 White bass Morone chrysops TC x 2.13 12.17 32 32 Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC x 0.20 2 2 Warmouth Lepomis gulosus IN *X x 0.20 1.14 l 3 Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN x x 0.60 3.42 9 0.40 4 13 Spotted bass Micropterus punctulatus TC x 0.33 1.90 s 0.20 2 7 Logperch Percina caprodes BI x 0.40 2.28 6 6 Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI x 2.20 12.55 33 0.30 3 36 Inland silverside Menidia bery/lina IN 1.87 10.65 28 28 Total 82.19 468.80 1,233 7.70 77 1,310 Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected 22 15 47 Appendix 2-F. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Native and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Upstream (TRM 295.9) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2005. Trophic Sunfish Native Electro fishing Electro fishing Total fish Gill Netting Total Gill Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per Common Name Scientific name level species species Run Hour EF Net Night net fish Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM x TOL 38.53 228.46 578 0.30 3* 581 Golden shiner Notemigonus cryso/eucas OM x TOL O.IO 1 1 Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN x x TOL 0.07 0.40 1 1 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN x x TOL 4.40 26.09 66 66 Largemouth bass Microplerus sa/moides TC x TOL 1.00 5.93 15 .0.10 16 White crappie Pomoxis annularis TC x x TOL O.o7 0.40 1 0.1() 2 Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris TC x INT 0.07 0.40 0.70 7 8 Northern hog sucker Hypen/e/ium nigricans BI x INT 0.27 1.58 4 4 Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI x INT 1.53 9.09 23 0.10 24 Black redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei BI x INT 0.10 1 Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN x x INT 1.13 6.72 17 0.10 18 Smallmouth bass Micropterus do/omieu TC x INT 0.20 1.19 3 3 Spotted gar Lepisos/eus oculatus TC x 0.20 1.19 3 3 Threadfin shad Dorosoma pelenense PK x 58.27 345.45 874 874 Largescale stoneroller Campostoma o/igo/epis HB x 0.13 0.79 2 2 Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides IN x 6.93 41.11 104 104 Bullhead minnow Pimephales vigilax IN x O.Q7 0.40 1 Smallmouth buffalo lcliobus bubalus OM x 0.07 0.40 Silver redhorse Moxos/oma anisurum BI x 0.10 Golden redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum er x 0.10 Blue catfish lctalurus furcatus OM x 0.50 5 5 Channel catfish lctalurus punctatus OM x 0.53 3.16 8 1.20 12 20 Flathead catfish Pylodiclis olivaris TC x 0.20 1.19 3 0.20 2 5 White bass Morone chrysops TC x 0.33 1.98 5 O.IO 1 6. Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC x 1.33 7.91 20 0.10 21 Warmouth Lepomis gu/osus IN x x 0.20 1.19 3 3 Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN x x 1.07 6.32 16 0.10 17 Spotted bass Microplerus punctulatus TC x 0.13 0.79 2 1.00 IO 12 Yellow perch Percajlavescens I'N 0.13 0.79 2 2 Logperch Percina caprodes BI x 0.27 1.58 4 4 Sauger Sander canadensis TC x 0.07 0.40 0.80 8 9 Walleye Sander vitreus TC x 0.10 1 1 Freshwater drum Ap/odinotus grunniens BI x 1.27 7.51 19 0.10 20 Inland silverside Menidla bery/lina IN 0.20 1.19 3 3 Total 118.67 703.61 1,780 6.00 60 1,840 Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected 28 20 48 Appendix 2-G. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Native and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Downstream (TRM 292.5) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2004. Trophic Sunfish Native Electrofishing Electro fishing Total fish Gill Netting Total Gill Total fish Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per Catch Rate ]?er Common Name Scientific name level species species Run Hour EF Net Night net fish Combined Giu.ard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM x TOL 7.27 42.91 109 109 Spotfin shiner Cyprinella spi/optera IN x TOL 1.27 7.48 19 19 Redbrei,ist sunfish Lepomis auritus IN x x TOL 0.07 0.39 1 1 Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN x x TOL 0.27 1.57 4 4 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN x x TOL 5.20 30.71 78 78 Largemouth bass Micropterus sa/moides TC x TOL 3.00 17.72 45 45 Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris TC x INT 2.50 25 25 Spotted sucker Minylrema melanops BI x INT 0.o7 0.39 1 Black redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei BI x INT 0.13 0.79 2 2 Longear sunfish Lepomis mega/otis IN x x INT 2.60 15.35 39 39 Smallmouth bass Micropterus do/omieu TC x INT 1.40 8.27 21 21 Threadfin shad Dorosoma petenense PK x 0.07 0.39 Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides IN x 23.67 139.76 355 355 Smallmouth buffalo lctiobus buba/us OM x 0.13 0.79 2 2 Black buffalo Ictiobus niger OM x 0.07 0.39 Silver redhorse Moxostoma anisurum BI x 0.07 0.39 Golden redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum BI x 0.13 0.79 2 2 Blue catfish lcta/urus furcatus OM x 0.50 5 5 Channel catfish Icta/urus punctatus OM x 2.47 14.57 37 0.10 38 Flathead catfish Py/odictis olivaris* TC x 0.13 0.79 2 2 White bass Morone chrysops TC x 0.07 0.39 1 Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC x 0.20 2 2 Striped bass Morone saxatilis TC 0.10 Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN x x 0.20 1.18 3 3 Spotted bass Micropterus punctulatus TC x 1.53 9.06 23 0.20 2 25 r.Ogperch Percina caprodes BI x 1.07 6.30 16 16 Sauger Sander canadensis TC x 0.30 3 3 Freshwater drum Ap/odinotus grunniens BI x 1.67 9.84 25 25 Inland silverside Menidia beryl/ina IN 13.13 77.56 197 197 Chestnut lamprey lchthyomyzon caslaneus PS x 0.07 0.39 Total 65.76 388.17 986 3.90 39 1,025 Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected 25 7 49 Appendix 2-H. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Native and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Upstream (TRM 295.9) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2004. Trophic Sunfish Native Electrofishing . Electrofishing Total fish Gill Netting Total Gill Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per EF Catch Rate Per Common Name Scientific name level species species Run .Hour *Net Night net fish Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM x TOL 7.33 40.59 110 0.80 8 118 Common carp Cyprinus carpio OM TOL 0.07 0.37 I I Golden shiner Notemigonus cryso/eucas OM x TOL 0.53 2.95 8 0.10 9 Bluntnose minnow Pimephales notatus OM x TOL 0.13 0.74 2 2 Green sunfish Lepomis cyane//us IN x x TOL 0.13 0.74 2 2 Bluegill lepomis macrochirus IN x x TOL 4.20 23.25 63 0.10 64 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides TC x TOL 4.60 25.46 69 0.30 3 72 White crappie Pomoxis annu/aris TC x x TOL 0.20 2 2 Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris TC x INT 0.40 4 4 Silver chub Macrhybopsis storeriana BI x INT 0.07 0.37 Northern hog sucker Hypente/ium nigricans BI x INT O.G7 0.37 Spotted sucker Minytrema me/anops BI x INT *2.73 15.13 41 41 Black redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei BI x INT 0.20 2 2 Longear sunfish Lepomis mega/otis IN x x INT 0.60 3.32 9 9 Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC x INT 0.27 1.48 4 4 Spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatus TC x 0.13 0.74 2 0.10 3 Emerald shiner Notropis alherinoides IN x 1.87 10.33 28 28 Smallmouth buffalo Ictiobus buba/us OM x 0.47 2.58 1 0.10 8 Golden redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum BI x 0.13 0.74 2 0.10 3 Blue catfish Ictalurus farcalus OM x 1.90 19 19 Channel catfish Jctalurus punctatus OM x 2.67 14.76 40 0.60 6 46 Flathead catfish Pylodlctls o/ivaris TC x 0.07 0.37 0.20 2 3
• Whitebass Morone chrysops TC x 0.90 9 9 Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis
• TC x 0.33 1.85 s 1.80 18 23 Striped bass Morone saxati/is TC 0.90 9 9 Warmouth Lepomis gulosus IN x x 0.07 0.37 I. Redear sunfish Lepomis micro/ophus IN x x 1.27 7.01 19 0.20 2 21 Spotted bass Microplerus punctulatus TC x 0.47 2.58 7 0.10 8 Black crappie Pomoxis nigromacu/atus TC x x O.o7 0.37 1 0.10 2 Yellow perch Perea flavescens IN 0.13 0.74 2 2 Logperch Percina caprodes BI x 0.13 0.74 2 2 Sauger Sander canadensis TC x 2.30 23 23 Freshwater drum Ap/odinotus grunniens BI x 0.07 0.37 1 0.50 s 6 Inland silverside Menidia beryllina IN 2.53 14.02 38 38 Total 31.14 172.34 467 11.90 119 586 Number Samples IS 10 Species Collected 27 21 50 Appendix 2-1. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Native and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Downstream (TRM 292.5) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2003. Trophic Sunfish Native Electrofishing Electrofishing Total fish Gill Netting Total Gill Total fish Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per EF Catch Rate Per Common Name Scientific name level species species Run Hour Net Night net fish Combined Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM x :roL l l.33 67.73 170 0.30 3 173 Common carp Cyprinus carpio OM TOL 0.13 0.80 2 2 Spotfin shiner Cyprinella spiloptera IN x TOL 0.13 0.80 2 2 Bluntnose minnow Pimephales notatus OM x TOL 0.13 0.80 2 2 Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN x x TOL 0.20 l.20 3 3 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN x x TOL S.80 34.66 87 87 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides TC x TOL 1.87 11.16 28 0.10 29 White crappie Pomoxis annularis TC. x x TOL 0.07 0.40 I Skipjack herring Alosa chrysoch/oris . TC x INT 1.67 . 9.96 25 1.50 15 40 Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI x INT 0.67 3.98 10 0.10 I II Longear sunfish Lepomis mega/otis IN x x INT 2.47 14.74 37 37 Smallmouth bass Mlcropterus dolomteu TC x INT 1.07 6.37 16 16 Threadfin shad Dorosoma petenense PK x 0.07 0.40 I Largescale stoneroller Campostoma oligolepis HB x 0.07 0.40 I Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides IN x 6.33 37.85 95 95 Bullhead minnow Pimephales vigilax IN x 0.07 0.40 Golden redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum BI x 0.10 Blue catfish /ctalurus furcatus OM x 0.20 l.20 3 0.20 2 5 Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus OM x 3.60 21.51 54 1.20 12 66 Flathead catfish Pylodictis o/ivaris TC x 0.07 0.40 0.10 2 White bass Morone chrysops TC x 0.20 2 2 Yellow bass Marone mississippiensis TC x 0,07 o.40 0.30 3 4 Warmouth Lepomis gu/osus IN x x 0.07 0.40 I I Redear sunfish Lepomis micro/ophus IN x x 0.33 l.99 s 0.10 I 6 Spotted bass Micropterus punctulatus TC x 0.07 0.40 0.20 2 3 Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC x x 0.07 0.40 1 Logperch Percina caprodes BI x 0.27 . 1.59 4 4 Sauger Sander canadensis TC x 0.o7 0.40 l 1.60 16 17 Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI x 0.80 4.78 12 0.30 3 15 Inland silverside Menidia beryl/ina IN 2.73 16.33 41 41 Total 40.43 241.45 606 6.30 63 669 Number Samples IS 10 Species Collected 28 14 51 Appendix 2-J. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Native and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Upstream (TRM 295.9) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2003. Trophic Sunfish Native Electrofishing Electrofishing Total fish Gill Netting Total Gill Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per Common Name Scientific name level species species Run Hour EF* Net Night net fish Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM x TOL 9.80 54.65 147 1.00 10 157 Common carp Cyprinus carpio OM TOL 0.20 1.12 3 3 Green sunfish Lepomis cyane//us IN x x TOL 0.20 1.12 3 3 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN x x TOL 3.87 21.56 58 58 Largemouth bass Microplerus sa/moides TC x TOL l.53 8.55 23 0.10 24 White crappie Pomoxis annu/aris :re x x TOL 0.07 0.37 I I Skipjack herring Alosa chrysoch/oris TC x INT 0.13 0.74 2 0.50 5 7 Silver chub Macrhybopsis storeriana BI x INT 0.07 0.37 Spotted sucker Minylrema me/anops BI x INT 0.80 4.46 12 12 Longear sunfish Lepomis megalolis IN x x INT 0.20 1.12 3 3 Smallmouth bass Microplerus do/omieu TC x INT 0.20 1.12 3 3 Spotted gar Lepisosleus oculatus TC x 0.07 0.37 Threadfin shad Dorosoma pelenense PK x 0.07 0.37 l 1 Emerald shiner Nolropis alherinoldes IN x 0.60 3.35 9 9 Bullhead minnow Pimephales vigi/ax 'IN x 0.13 0.74 2 2 Quill back Carpiodes cyprinus OM x 0.10 1 Smallmouth buffalo Jctiobus buba/us OM x 0.07 0.37 Bigmouth buffalo Jctiobus cyprinel/us PK x 0.07 0.37 Golden redhorse Moxosloma erythrurum BI x 0.10 Blue catfish lctalurus /urea/Us OM x 1.80 18 18 Channel catfish Jctalurus punc/a/us OM x 1.93 10.78 29 0.80 8 3g Flathead catfish Pylodictis o/ivaris TC x 0.13 0.74 2 2 White bass Morone chrysops TC x 0.07 0.37. 0.10 2 Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC x 0.07 0.37 0.40 4 5 Warmouth Lepomis gu/osus IN x x 0.20 1.12 3 3 Redear sunfish Lepomis micro/ophus IN x x 0.93 5.20 14 0.20 2 16 Spotted bass Microplerus punctu/a/us TC x 0.60 6 6 Yellow perch Perea j/ovescens IN 0.07 0.37 Sauger Sander canadensis TC x 0.70 7 7 Freshwater drum Ap/odinotus grunniens BI x 0.40 2.23 6 0.10 I 7 Inland silverside Menidia bery//ina IN 1.60 8.92 24 24 Total 23.48 130.85 352 6.50 65 417 Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected 26 13 52 Appendix 2-K. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Native and Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Downstream (TRM 292.5) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2002. Trophic Sunfish Native Electro fishing . Electrofishing Total fish Gill Netting Total Gill Total fish level species species Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per . EF Catch Rate Per net fish Combined Common Name Scientific name Run Hour Net Night Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM x TOL 17.67 104.33 265 0.20 2 267 Golden shiner Notemigonus cryso/eucas OM x TOL O.o7 0.39 1 1 Spotfin shiner Cyprine//a spi/optera IN x TOL 0.60 3.54 9 9 . Green sunfish Lepomis cyane//us IN x x TOL 0.13 0.79 2 2 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN x x TOL 15.87 93.70 238 0.10 1 239 Largemouth bass Micropterus sa/moides TC x TOL 2.87 . 16.93 43 0.40 4 47 Skipjack herring Alosa chrysoch/oris TC x INT 0.07 0.39 1 3.30 33 34 Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops Bl x INT 0.13 0.79 2 2 Black redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei Bl x INT 0.13 0.79 2 2 Longear sunfish Lepomis mega/olis IN x x INT 3.20 18.90 48 48 Smallmouth bass Microplerus do/omieu TC x INT 2.60 15.35 39 39 Threadfin shad Dorosoma petenense PK x 2.87 16.93 43 43 Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides IN x 0.20 1.18 3 3 Quillback Carpiodes cyprinus OM x 0.10 Silver redhorse Moxostoma an/surum BI x 0.o7 0.39 Blue catfish /cta/urus furcatus OM x 1.10 11 11 Channel catfish /ctalurus punctatus OM x 1.93 11.42 29 l.00 10 39 Flathead catfish Py/odictis olivaris TC x 0.o7 0.39 1 0.20 2 3 White bass Morone chrysops TC x 0.20 2 2 Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC x 0.07 0.39 0.10 1 2 . Striped bass Morone saxatilis TC 0.50 5 5 Redear sunfish Lepomis micro/ophus IN x x 1.07 6.30 16 0.30 3 19 Spotted bass Micropterus punctulatus TC x 0.93 5.51 14 o.40 4 18 Hybrid bass Hybrid micropterus sp. TC x 0.07 0.39 1 1 Logperch Percina caprqdes BI x 0.60 3.54 9 9 *Sauger Sander canadensis TC x 0.60 6 6 Freshwater drum Ap/odinotus gnmniens Bl x 0.47 2.76 7 0,50 5 12 Inland silverside Menidia bery//ina IN 17.13 101.18 257 257 Total 68.82 406.28 1,032 9.00 90 1,122 Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected 23 15 53 Appendix 2-L. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Native and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Upstream (TRM 295.9) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2002. Trophic Sunfish Native Electrofishing Electrofishing Total fish Gill Netting Total Gill Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per Common Name Scientific name level species species Run Hour EF NetNight net fish Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM x TOL 3.73 23.14 56 0.60 6 62 Common carp Cyprinus carpio OM TOL 0.13 0.83 2 2 Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas OM x TOL 0.73 4.55 11 11 Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN x x TOL 0.13 0.83 2 2 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN x x TOL 6.60 40:91 99 0.10 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides TC x TOL 3.33 20.66 50 50 Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris TC x INT 2.10 21 21 Northern hog sucker Hypentelium nigricans BI x INT 0.07 0.41 I I Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI x INT 0.73 4.55 11 11 Black redhorse Moxostoma.duquesnei BI. x INT 0.20 1.24 3 3 Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN x x INT 0.27 1.65 4 4 Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC x INT 0.07 0.41 Threadfin shad Dorosoma petenense PK x 11.67 72.31 175 175 Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides IN x 0.13 0.83 2 2 Bullhead minnow Pimephale$ vigilax IN x 0.13 0.83 2 2 Smallmouth buffalo lctiobus bubalus OM x 0.07 0.41 Bigmouth buffalo Ictiobus cyprinellus PK x 0.07 0.41 Black buffalo Ictiobus niger OM x 0.13 0.83 2 2 Blue catfish Jctalurus furcatus OM x 0.80 8 8 Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus OM x 2.60 16.12 39 0.40 4 43 Flathead catfish Pylodictis. o/ivaris TC x 0.20 2 2 White bass Morone chrysops TC x 0.50 5 5 Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC x 0.40 4 4 Striped bass Marone saxatilis TC 0.07 0.41 0.10 1 2 Hybrid striped x white bass Hybrid morone (chrysops x sax) TC 0.50 5 5 Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN x x 1.87 11.57 28 28 Spotted bass Micropterus punctulatus TC x 0.53 3.31 8 1.80 18 26 Sauger Sander canadensis TC x 0.o7 0.41 0.60 6 7 Freshwater drum Ap/odinoius grunniens BI x 0.20 1.24 3 0.20 2 5 Inland silverside Menidia beryllina IN 4.93 30.58 74 74 Total 38.46 238.44 577 8.30 83 660 Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected 24 13 54 I I i Appendix 2-M. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Native and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Downstream (TRM 292.5) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2001. Trophic Sunfish Native Electrofishing Electro fishing Total fish Gill Netting Total Gill Total fish Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per EF Catch Rate Per Common Name Scientific name level species species Run Hour Net Night net fish Combined Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM x TOL 6.60 39.76 99 1.50 15 114 Central stoneroller Campostoma anomalum HB x TOL 0.o7 0.40 I Common carp Cyprinus carpio OM TOL 0.13 0.80 2 2 Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas OM x TOL 0.o7 0.40 1 Spotfin shiner Cyprine//a spiloptera IN x TOL 0.27 1.61 4 4 Green sunfish Lepomis cyane/lus IN x x TOL 0.07 0.40 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN x x TOL 2.80 16.87 42 0.30 3 45 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides TC x TOL 1.73 10.44 26 0.10 27 White crappie Pomoxis. annu/aris TC x x TOL 0.10 I I Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris TC x INT 0.13 0.80 2 0.20 2 4 Spotted sucker Minytrema me/anops BI x INT 0.20 1.20 3 0.10 4 Black redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei BI x INT 0.13 0.80 2 2 Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN x x INT 2.60 15.66 39 39 Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC x INT 0.87 5.22 13 13 Threadfin shad Dorosoma petenense PK x 0.13 0.80 2 2 Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides IN x 2.13 12.85 32 32 Bullhead minnow . Pimepha/es vigilax IN x 0.o7 0.40 I Smallmouth buffalo lctiobus bubalus OM x 0.33 2.01 5 5 Golden redhorse Moxosloma erythrurum BI x 0.13 0.80 2 2 Blue catfish lctalurus furcatus OM x 0.30 3 3 Channel catfish lctalurus punctatus OM x 0.93 5.62 14 1.00 10 24 Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC x 0.27 1.61 4 0.10 I 5 Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC x 0.60 6 6 Striped bass Morone saxatilis TC 0.10 1 Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN x x 0.40 2.41 6 6 Hybrid sunfish Hybrid /epomis spp. IN x x 0.o7 0.40 I Spotted bass Micropterus punctulatus TC x 1.07 6.43 16 0.20 2 18 Logperch Percina caprodes BI x 1.60 9.64 24 24 Sauger . Sander canadensis TC x 0.o7 0.40 I 0.40 4 5 Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI x 1.07 6.43 16 0.10 17 Inland silverside Menidia bery//ina IN 1.60 9.64 24 24 Total 25.54 153.80 383 5.10 51 434 Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected 27 14 55 Appendix 2-N. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Native and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Upstream (TRM 295.9) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 200L Trophic Sunfish Native Electro fishing Electro fishing Total fish Gill Netting Total Gill level species species Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per EF Catch Rate Per net fish Common Name Scientific name Run Hour Net Night Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM x TOL 16.73 99.60 251 3.60 36 Common carp Cyprinus carpio OM TOL 0.33 1.98 5 Golden shiner Notemigonus cryso/eucas OM x TOL 0.80 4.76 12 Bluntnose minnow Pimephales notatus OM x TOL 0.07 0.40
• Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN x x TOL 0.o7 0.40 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN x x TOL 1.53 9.13 23 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides TC x TOL 0.93 5.56 14 0.10 15 White crappie Pomoxis annularis TC x x TOL 0.10 1 I Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris TC x INT I.SO 15 IS Mooneye Hiodon tergisus IN x INT 0.10 Mimic shiner Notropis voluce/lus SP x INT O.o7 0.40 1 Spotted sucker Minytrema me/anops BI x INT 1.87 1 I.I I 28 0.20 2 30 Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN x x INT 0.27 1.59 4 4 Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC x INT 0.07 0.40 1 Spotted gar Lepisosteus ocu/atus TC x 1.20 7.14 18 0.10 19 Threadfin shad Dorosoma petenense PK x 0.73 4.37 11 0.20 2 13 Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides IN x 3.20 19.05 48 48 Smallmouth buffillo Ictiobus bubalus . OM x 0.53 3.17 8 0.40 4 1i Blue catfish Ictalurus furcatus OM x 1.20 12 12 Channel catfish -Ictalurus punctatus OM x . 0.47 2.78 7 0.80 8 15 Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC x 0.13 0.79 2 0.20 2 4 White bass Marone chrysops TC x 0.13 0.79 2 0.30 3 5 Yellow bass Marone mississippiensis TC x 0.20 1.19 3 2.00 20 23 Striped bass Morone saxatilis TC 0.30 3 3 Hybrid striped x white bass Hybrid morone (chrysops x sax) TC 0.30 3 3 Warmouth Lepomis gu/osus IN x x 0.07 0.40 I Redear swifish Lepomis microlophus IN x x 0.33 1.98 5 0.20 2 7 Spotted bass Micropterus punctulatus TC x 0.53 3.17 8 0.50 5 13 Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC x x 0.07 0.40 Logperch Percina caprodes BI x 0.87 5.16 13 13 Sauger Sander canadensis TC x 0.13 0.79 2 0.40 4 6 Hybrid walleye x sauger Hybrid Sander TC 0.07 0.40 Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens _ Bl x 0.47 2.78 7 0.30 3 10 Inland-silverside Menidia beryllina IN 2.13 12.70 32 32 Total 34.00 202.39 510 12.80 128 638 Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected 28 20 56 Appendix 2-0. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Native and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Downstream (TRM 292.5) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2000. Trophic Sunfish Native Electrofishing
• Electrofishing Total fish Gill Netting Total Gill Total fish Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per Common Name Scientific name level species species Run Hour EF Net Night net fish Combined Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM x TOL 5.33 33.61 80 1.60 16 96 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN x x TOL 0.13 0.84 2 0.10 3 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides TC x TOL 0.47 2.94 7 7 Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris TC x INT 5.60 56 56 Northern hog sucker Hypentelium nigricans BI x INT 0.07 0.42 Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI x INT 0.47 2.94 7 7 River redborse Moxostoma carinatum BI x INT 0.20 1.26 3 3 Black redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei BI x INT 0.10 Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN x x INT 0.67 4.20 10 10 Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC x INT 0.53 3.36 8 8 Brook silverside Labidesthes sicculus IN x INT 3.80 23.95 57 57 Threadfin shad Dorosoma petenense PK x 0 Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides IN x 3.40 21.43 51 51 Smallmouth buffalo lctiobus bubo/us OM x 0.53 3.36 8 0.10 9 Blue catfish lctalunis furcaius OM x 0.50 5 5 Channel catfish Ictalunis punctatus OM x 0.53 3.36 8 0.50 5 13 Flathead catfish Py/odictis o/ivaris TC x 0.10 I 1 White bass Morone chrysops TC x 0.60 6 6 Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC x 0.20 2 2 Striped bass Morone sOJCatilis TC 0.10 Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN x x 0.27 1.68 4 0.10 5 Spotted bass Microplerus punctu/atus TC x 0.13 0.84 2 2 Logperch Percina caprodes BI x 0.20 1.26 3 3 Sauger Sander canadensis TC x 0.07 0.42 0.20 2 3 Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI x 0.47 2.94 7 0.20 2 9 Total 17.27 108.81 25.9 10.00 100 359 Number Samples .15 10 Species Collected 17 14 57 Appendix 2-P. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Native and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Upstream (TRM 295.9) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2000. Trophic Sunfish Native Electrofishing Electrofishing Total fish Gill Netting Total Gill Total fish level species species Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per EF Catch Rate Per net fish Combined Common Name Scientific name Run Hour Net Night Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM x TOL 10.00 60.48 150 0.10 151 Common carp Cyprinus carpio-OM TOL 0.47 2.82 7 7 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN x x TOL 0.80 4.84 12 O.lO 13 Largemouth bass Micropterus sa/moides TC x TOL 2.07 12.50 31 0.70 7 38 Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris TC x INT 5.30 53 53 Northern hog sucker Hypentelium nigricans BI x INT 0.o7 0.40 1 Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI x INT 0.33 2.02 5 5 River redhorse Moxostoma carinatum BI x INT 0,07 0.40 I Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC x INT 0.20 1.21 3 3 Spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatus TC x 0.27 1.61 4 0.10 5 Threadtin shad Dorosoma petenense PK x 0 Emerald shiner Notropfs atherinoides IN x 4.33 26.21 65 65 Grass carp Ctenopharyngodon idella HB 0.07 0.40 1 I Smallmouth buffalo Ictiobus bubalus OM x 0.07 0.40 0.10 2 Golden redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum BI x 0.07 0.40 Blue catfish lctalurus furcatus OM x 0.50 5 5 Channel catfish lctalurus punctatus OM x 0.27 1.61 4 0.70 7 11 Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC x 0,07 0.40 I 0.20 2 3 White bass Marone chrysops TC x 0.00 0.00 0 -OAO 4 4 Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC x 0.10 1 I Hybrid striped x: white bass Hybrid morone (chrysops x sax) TC 0.60 6 6 Warmouth Lepomis gulosus IN x x 0,07 0.40 1 Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN x x 0.80 4.84 12 0.20 2 14 Spotted bass Micropterus punctu/atus TC x 0,07 0.40 0.20 2 3 Yellow perch l'ercajlavescens IN O.o7 0.40 Logperch Percina caprodes BI x 0.07 0.40 Sauger Sander canadensis TC x 0.27 1.61 4 0.20 2 6 Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens -BI x 0.27 1.61 4 4 Total 20.78 125.36 311 9.50 95 406 Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected 22 15 58 Table 1. -List of Herbicides for Potential Use in the Brown's Ferry Cooling Channels Brand Name Typical Degradation Active lngredient1 Examples2 Classification3 Type PlantType4 Half-life5 Notes Copper (chelated) -ethanolamines Cutrine Plus Contact Liquid Sub.mersed Hours to 1+ day Can be used for algal control Copper (chelated) -ethanolamines Cutrine Plus Contact Granule Submersed Hours to 1+ day Can be used for algal control Often mixed with diquat to Copper (chelated) -enhance control of vascular ethylene diamine Komeen, Current Contact Liquid Submersed Hours to 1+ day plants; also provides algal control Some deactivation if used in muddy water; commonly used with Komeen in TVA reservoirs to control several species of Diquat Reward Contact Liquid Submersed 0.5 to 7 days vascular plants With a few day contact time, Endothall -provides control of several Potassium salt Aquathol K. Contact Liquid Submersed 2 to 14+ days vascular plants With a few day contact time, Endothall -provides control of several Potassium salt Aquathol Super K Contact Granule Submersed 2 to 14+ days vascular plants High fish toxicity if used at high Endothall -Amine label rates; controls various salt Hydrothol Contact Liquid Submersed 2to14+ days vascular species Water Recently approved by EPA; not dispersable deactivated in muddy water; Flumioxazin Clipper Contact granule Submersed l+day controls various species Page 1 Table 1. -List of Herbicides for Potential Use in the Brown's Ferry Cooling Channels (continued) Active lngredient1 Brand Name Classification 2 Type PlantType3 Fluridone Sonar AS Systemic Liquid Submersed Fluridone SonarQ Systemic Granule Submersed Rodeo, Aqua Glyphosate Master Systemic Liquid Emergent lmazapyr Habitat Systemic Liquid Emergent Sodium carbonate PAK 27 Algaecide, peroxyhyd rate Green Clean Pro Contact Granule Submersed Submersed/ 2,4-D -amine Weedar 64 Systemic Liquid Emergent 2,4-D -butoxy-ethyl ester Navigate Systemic Granule Submersed Active lngredient1 -the chemical that has the herbicidal acitivity for controlling a plant Page 2 -footnotes continued on page 3 Typical Degradation Half-life4 Notes Controls a wide range of vascular plants; previously used in BFN 7 to 30+ days cooling channels Controls a wide range of vascular plants; previously used in BFN 7 to 30+ days cooling channels Controls herbaceous and woody Hours to 1+ day species along shoreline Controls herbaceous and woody 7to14+ days species along shoreline Hours Controls some species of algae Primarily used to control milfoil in reservoirs; ineffective on naiads 4 to 21+ days & pondweeds Used primarily for milfoil control 4 to 21+ days and a few other species Table 1. -List of Herbicides for Potential Use in the Brown's Ferry Cooling Channels (continued) Brand Name Examples2 -herbicide active ingredients are often marketed under several brand names by different companies; brand names listed in this table are examples and other brand names may be used in treatments at Brown's Ferry Nuclear Plant Classification3 -Contact -a herbicide that is not translocated by vascular tissues of a plant; Systemic -a that is translocated or moved to other parts of the plant by its vascular tissues Plant Type4 -Submersed -an aquatic plant whose vegetative parts are primarily below the surface of the water, used here to also include plants with floating leaves; Emergent -an aquatic or wetland plant that has most of its vegetative parts (i.e., stems and leaves) above the surface of the water Typical Degradation Half-life5 -typical time required for the concentration of a chemical to be reduced by one ... half; information in this chart taken primarily from Getty et al., Biology and Control of Aquatic Plants -A Best Management Handbook (2009) DHW/TVA-2/2011 Page3 Material Safety Data Sheet !clipperŽ Herbicide PRODUCT NAME: VC NUMBER(S): . PRODUCT CODE: EPA REGISTRATION NUMBER: PRODUCT DESCRIPTION: ClipperŽ Herbicide 1420 Not Established. 59639-161 Herbicide MANUFACTURER/DISTRIBUTOR VALENT U.S.A. CORPORATION P.O. Box 8025 1600 Riviera Avenue, Suite 200 Walnut Creek, CA 94596-8025. EMERGENCY TELEPHONE NUMBERS HEAL TH EMERGENCY OR. SPILL (24 hr): (800) 892-0099 TRANSPORTATION (24 hr.): CHEMTREC {800) 424-9300 or (202) 483-7616. PRO.DUCT INFORMATION PROFESSIONAL PRODUCTS: 800 898-2536 . The current MSDS is available through our website (www.valent.com), or by calling the product information numbers listed above. EMERGENCY OVERVIEW. CAUTION
• Harmful if inhaled or absorbed through skin.
• Avoid breathing dust or spray mist
• Avoid contact with eyes, skin and clothing
• May cause moderate eye irritation
• Keep out of reach of children POTENTIAL HEAL TH EFFECTS Acute Toxicity (Primary Routes of Exposure): None known. Acute Eye Contact: Based on an evaluation of the ingredients and/or similar products, this product may cause brief and/or minor eye irritation. The expected adverse health effects resulting from an exposure may include redness and possible swelling. Acute Skin Contact: Based on an evaluation of the ingredients and/or similar products, this product may cause brief and/or minor skin irritation. The expected adverse health effects resulting from an exposure may include redness and possibly some minor swelling. This product may be slightly toxic when absorbed through the skin. This product is not expected to cause allergic skin reactions. Acute Ingestion: Based on an evaluation of the ingredients and/or similar products, this product may be minimally toxic when ingested.
• Acute Inhalation: Based on an evaluation of the ingredients and/or similar products, this product is expected to be slightly toxic when inhaled. Exposure to high concentrations of dust may result in respiratory irritation. Signs and symptoms may include, but not be limited to, nasal discharge, sore throat, coughing and difficulty in breathing. Emergency Telephone: REVISION NUMBER: (800) 892-0099. 3 MSDSNO.: REVISION DATE: 0381 11/1112010 ClipperTM Herbicide Page 2 of8 Chronic Toxicity (including cancer): Repeated exposures to Flumioxazin Technical in animals have produced anemia and other blood formation changes, organ weight changes and changes in blood chemistry. Flumioxazin Technical did not produce cancer in life-time feeding studies in laboratory animals. Developmental Toxicity (birth defects): Birth defects were produced in the offspring of female rats exposed to Flumioxazin Technical. No effects were observed in rabbits. Reproductive Toxicity; Reproductive effects were observed in rats exposed to Flumioxazin Technical. . Signs and Symptoms of Systemic Effects: No signs or symptoms occured in animals exposed to high oral or dermal doses of Flumioxazin Technical. Exposure to very high concentrations of Flumioxazin Technical in the air resulted in breathing difficulties, decreased activity and some changes in the tissues of the respiratory system. Potentially Aggravated Medical Conditions: Individuals with anemia or preexisting diseases of the blood may have increased susceptibility to the toxicity of excessive exposures. For complete discussion of the toxicology data from which this evaluation was made, refer to Section 11. For Ecotox/Environmental Information, refer to Section 12. For Regulatory Information, refer to Section 15. Chemical Name CASNumber Welaht/ Percent Purpose Flumioxazin 103361-09-7 45-55 Active Ingredient benzoxazin-6-vll-4,5,6, 7-tetrahvdro-1 H-isoindole-1,3(2Hl-dione). Kaolin clav. 1332-58-7 11-21 Carrier Others (includini:i particulates not otherwise classified). NoCAS# 24-40 -Other ingredients, which are maintained as trade secrets, are any substances other than an active ingredient contained in this product. Some of these may be hazardous, but their identities are withheld because they are considered trade secrets. The hazards associated with the other ingredients are addressed in this document. Specific information on other ingredients for the management of exposures, spills, or safety assessments can be obtained by a treating physician or nurse by calling (800) 892-0099 at any time. EMERGENCY NUMBER (800) 892-0099 Have the product container or label with you when calling a poison control center or doctor, or going for treatment. You may also contact 1-800-892-0099 for emergency medical treatment information. EYE CONTACT: Hold eye open and rinse slowly and gently with water for 15-20 minutes. Remove contact lenses, if present, after the first 5 minutes, then continue rinsing eye. Call a poison control center or doctor for treatment advice. SKIN CONTACT: Take off contaminated clothing. Rinse skin immediately with plenty of water for 15-20 minutes. Call a poison control center or doctor for treatment advice. INGESTION: Call a poison control center or doctor immediately for treatment advice. Have person sip a glass of water if able to swallow. DO NOT induce vomiting unless told to do so by the poison control center or doctor. Do not give anything by mouth to an unconscious person. INHALATION: Move person to fresh air. If person is not breathing, call 911 or an ambulance, then give artificial respiration, if possible. Call a poison control center or doctor for further treatment advice. Emergency Telephone: REVISION NUMBER: (800) 892-0099. 3 MSDSNO.: REVISION DATE: 0381 11/11f201f ,

ClipperŽ Herbicide NOTES TO PHYSICIAN: None . ... * *' FLASH POINT: Not applicable. AUTOIGNITION: No data available EXTINGUISHING MEDIA: Water fog, carbon dioxide, foam, dry.chemical FLAMMABLE LIMITS IN AIR

• LOWER (%): FLAMMABLE LIMITS IN AIR
• UPPER (%): NFPA RA TING: Health: Flammability: Reactivity: Special: 1 1 0 None Page 3 ofB Not applicable Not applicable (Least-0, Slight-1, Moderate-2, High-3, Extreme-4). These values are obtained using professional judgement. Values were not available in the guidelines or published evaluations prepared by the National Fire Protection Association, NFPA. FIRE FIGHTING INSTRUCTIONS: Products of combustion from fires involving this material may be toxic. Avoid breathing smoke and mists. Avoid personnel and equipment contact with fallout and runoff. Minimize the amount of water used for fire fighting. Do not enter any enclosed area without full protective equipment, including self-contained breathing equipment. Contain and isolate runoff and debris for proper disposal. Decontaminate personal protective equipment and fire fighting equipment before reuse. HAZARDOUS DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS: Normal combustion forms carbon dioxide, water vapor and may produce: Oxides of nitrogen . Combustion may produce toxic gases of: Nitrogen compounds, Fluorine compounds. Incomplete combustion can produce carbon monoxide.
• 6. 8ELEASE , , *., VALENT EMERGENCY PHONE NUMBER: (800) 892-0099 CHEMTREC EMERGENCY PHONE NUMBER: (800) 424-9300 OBSERVE PRECAUTIONS IN SECTION 8: PERSONAL PROTECTION Stop the source of the spill if safe to do so. Contain the spill to prevent further contamination of the soil, surface water, or qround water. For additional spill response information refer to the North American Emerqencv Response Guidebook. UN/NA NUMBER: Not applicable.
• EMERGENCY RESPONSE GUIDEBOOK NO.: Not applicable. FOR SPILLS ON LAND: CONTAINMENT: Reduce airborne dust. Avoid runoff into storm sewers or other bodies of water. CLEANUP: Clean up spill immediately. Vacuum or sweep up material and place in a chemical waste container. Wash area with soap and water. Pick up wash liquid with additional absorbent and place in a chemical waste container. FOR SPILLS IN WATER: CONTAINMENT: This material will disperse or dissolve in water. Stop the source of the release. Contain and isolate to prevent further release into soil, surface water and ground water. CLEANUP: Clean up spill immediately. Absorb spill with inert material. Remove contaminated water for treatment or disposal. Emergency Telephone: REVISION NUMBER: (800) 892-0099. 3 MSDS NO.: REVISION DATE: 0381 11/11/2010 ClipperŽ Herbicide END USER MUST READ AND OBSERVE ALL PRECAUTIONS ON PRODUCT LABEL. HANDLING: Page4 of8 Users should wash hands before eating, drinking, chewing gum, using tobacco or using the toilet. Remove contaminated clothing and shoes immediately. Then wash thoroughly and put on clean clothing. STORAGE: Do not contaminate water, food or feed by storage, disposal or cleaning of equipment. Keep pesticide in original container only. Store in a cool, dry place. Do not put formulation or dilute spray solution into food or drink containers. Do not store or transport near food or feed. Do not contaminate food or foodstuffs. Not for use or storage in or around the home. END USER MUST READ AND OBSERVE ALL PRECAUTIONS ON PRODUCT LABEL. EYES & FACE: Do not get this material in your eyes. Eye contact can be avoided by wearing protective eyewear. RESPIRATORY PROTECTION: Use this material only in well ventilated areas. Unless ventilation is adequate to keep airborne concentrations below recommended exposure standards, approved respiratory protection should be worn. This material may be a respiratory irritant and, unless ventilation is adequate, the use of approved respiratory protection is recommended. Use this material only in well ventilated areas. SKIN & HAND PROTECTION: Avoid contact with skin or clothing. Skin contact should be minimized by wearing protective clothing including gloves. EXPOSURE LIMITS Chemical Name i::1umioxazin (2-[7-fluoro-3,4-dihydro-3-oxo-4-(2-propynyl)-2H-1,4-benzoxazin-6-yl]-4,5,6, 7-tetrahydro-1 H-isoindole-1,3(2H)-dionel. Kaolin clay. Others (Including particulates not otherwise classified). PHYSICAL FORM: COLOR: ODOR: FLASH POINT: MELTING POINT: BULK DENSITY: pH: CORROSION CHARACTERISTICS: SOLUBILITY: CHEMICAL STABILITY: INCOMPATIBILITY: Emergency,Telephone: REVISION NUMBER: (800) 892-0099. 3 ACGIH Exposure Limits OSHA Exposure Limits Manufacturer's Exposure None. 2 mg!m* TWA (respirable fraction) None. Granule Light brown Slight Not applicable. Not applicable None. 15mg/m3TWA 5mo/m3TWA None. 0.49 glee (30.8 lb./cu. ft.) 5.4 @ 25°C (1 % suspension) Not corrosive to containers. Dispersible in water Limits None. None None. . :;**.: This material is considered chemically and thermally stable. May react with strong oxidizing agents, such as chlorates, nitrates, peroxides, etc. MSDS NO.: REVISION DATE: 038' 11/11/20' I ClipperTM Herbicide Page5of8 I *** -*-***--... I OXIDATION/REDUCTION PROPERTIES: Not an oxidizing or reducing agent. EXPLODABILITY: Not expected to be explosive. HAZARDOUS DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS: Normal combustion fonns carbon dioxide, water vapor and may produce: Oxides of nitrogen . Combustion may produce toxic gases of: Nitrogen compounds, Fluorine compounds. Incomplete combustion can produce carbon monoxide. ACUTE TOXICITY: Oral Toxicity LDso (rats). Dermal Toxicity LDso (rabbits). Inhalation Toxicity LGso (rats). Eye Irritation (rabbits). Skin Irritation (rabbits). Skin Sensitization (guinea pigs). CARCINOGEN CLASSIFICATION > 5,000 mg/kg > 2,000 mg/kg 0.969 mg/L Brief and/or minor irritation Brief and/or minor irritation Non-sensitizer TOXICITY OF FLUMIOXAZIN TECHNICAL EPA Tax Category EPA Tax Category EPA Tax Category EPA Tox Category EPA Tox Category EPA Tax Category IV Ill Ill Ill IV Not applicable SUBCHRONIC: Compound related effects of Flumioxazin Technical noted in rats following subchronic exposures at high dose levels were hematotoxicity including anemia, and increases in liver, spleen, heart, kidney and thyroid weights. In dogs, the effects produced at high dose levels included a slight prolongation in activated partial thromboplastin time, increased cholesterol and phospholipid, elevated alkaline phosphatase, increased liver weights and histological changes in the liver. The lowest no-observable-effect-level (NOEL) in subchronic studies was 30 ppm in the three-month toxicity study in rats. CHRONIC/CARCINOGENICITY: In a one year dog feeding study, Flumioxazin Technical produced treatment-related changes in blood chemistry and increased liver weights at 100 and 1000 mg/kg/day. Minimal treatment-related histological changes were noted in the livers of animals in the 1000 mg/kg/day group. Based on these data the NOEL is 10 mg/kg/day. Dietary administration of Flumioxazin Technical for 18 months produced liver changes in mice of the 3000 and 7000 ppm groups. There was no evidence of any treatment-related oncogenic effect. The NOEL for this study is 300 ppm. Dietary administration of Flumioxazin Technical for 24 months produced anemia and chronic nephropathy in rats of the 500 and 1000 ppm groups. The anemia lasted throughout the treatment period, however, it was not progressive nor aplastic in nature. No evidence of an oncogenic effect was observed. The NOEL for this study is 50 ppm. DEVELOPMENTAL TOXICITY: Flumioxazin Technical produces developmental toxicity in rats in the absence of maternal toxicity at doses of 30 mg/kg/day by the oral route and 300 mg/kg/day by the dennal route. The developmental effects noted consisted primarily of decreased number of live fetuses and fetal weights, cardiovascular abnormalities, wavy ribs and decreased number of ossified sacrococcygeal vertebral bodies. The developmental NOEL in the rat oral and dermal developmental toxicity studies were 10 and 100 mg/kg/day, respectively. The response in rabbits was very different from that in rats. No developmental toxicity was noted in rabbits at doses up to 3000 mg/kg/day, a dose well above the maternal NOEL of 1000 mg/kg/day. REPRODUCTION: Reproductive toxicity was observed in F1 males, P1 females and F1 females at 300 ppm Flumioxazin Technical, the highest dose tested and a dose that also produced signs of systemic toxicity. Toxicity was also observed in the F1 and F2 offspring at doses of 200 ppm and greater. . Emergency Telephone: REVISION NUMBER: (800) 892-0099. 3 MSDSNO.: REVISION DATE: 0381 11/11/2010 ClipperTM Herbicide Page 6 of 8 MUTAGENICITY: Flumioxazin Technical was not mutagenic in most in vitro assays: gene mutation and a chromosome aberration assay in the absence of metabolic activation. In three in vivo assays, chromosome aberration, unscheduled DNA synthesis and micronucleus assay, Flumioxazin Technical was not mutagenic. The only positive response was observed in the in vitro chromosome aberration assay in the presence of metabolic activation. Overall, Flumioxazin Technical does not present a genetic hazard. For a summary of the potential for adverse health effects from exposure to this product, refer to Section 2. For information regarding regulations pertaining to this product, refer to Section 15. AVIAN TOXICITY: Based upon EPA designation, Flumioxazin Technical is practically non-toxic to avian species. The following results were obtained from studies with Flumioxazin Technical: Oral LDso bobwhite quail: greater than 2250 mg/kg Dietary LCso bobwhite quail: greater than 5620 ppm Dietary LCso mallard duck: greater than 5620 ppm. Flumioxazin Technical in the diet. In mallard ducks, a slight, but not statistically significant reduction in hatchlings and 14-day old survivors was observed. Based on a possible, slight effect on egg production at 500 ppm, the NOEL for this study was 250 ppm. No reproductive effects were observed in bobwhite quail exposed to 500 ppm of Flumioxazin technical in the diet. AQUATIC ORGANISM TOXICITY: Based upon EPA designation, Flumioxazin Technical is slightly to moderately toxic to freshwater fish; moderately toxic to freshwater invertebrates; moderately toxic to estuarine/marine fish and moderately to highly toxic estuarine/marine invertebrates, based on the following tests: OTHER NON-TARGET ORGANISM TOXICITY: Emergency Telephone: REVISION NUMBER: 96-hour rainbow trout: 2.3 mg/L 96-hour LCso bluegill sunfish: greater than 21 mg/L 48-hour LCso Daphnia magna: 5.5 mg/L 96-hour LCso sheepshead minnow: greater than 4. 7 mg/L 96-hour (shell deposition) ECsoeastem oyster: 2.8 mg/L 96-hour LCsomysid shrimp: 0.23 mg/L Fish early life-stage (rainbow trout): NOEC >7.7 µg/L, <16 µg/L Chronic toxicity (mysid shrimp): NOEC >15 µg/L, <27 µg/L Chronic toxicity (Daphnia magna): NOEC >52 µg/L, <99 µg/L. Flumioxazin Technical is practically non-toxic to bees. The acute contact LC50 in bees was greater than 105 µg/bee. (800) 892-0099. 3 MSDSNO.: REVISION DATE: 0381 11111/2010 ClipperŽ Herbicide Page 7 of8 :-*. . ;*.* .. END USERS MUST DISPOSE OF ANY UNUSED PRODUCT AS PER THE LABEL RECOMMENDATIONS. PRODUCT DISPOSAL: Wastes resulting from the use of this product may be disposed of on site or at an approved waste disposal facility. CONTAINER DISPOSAL: Non-refillable container. Do not reuse or refill this container. Offer for recycling if available. Triple rinse as follows: Empty the remaining contents into mix tank. Fill the container 1/4 full with water. Replace and tighten closures. Tip container on its side and roll it back and forth, ensuring at least one complete revolution for 30 seconds. Stand the container on its end and tip it back and forth several times. Empty the rinsate into application equipment or a mix tank or store rinsate for later use or disposal. Repeat this procedure two more times. DISPOSAL METHODS: Check government regulations and local authorities for approved disposal of this material. Dispose in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. I. ** ... . :,:: :, *' . '. . . ' . UN/NA NUMBER: DOT (ground) SHIPPING NAME: TECHNICAL NAME {hazardous material): HAZARD CLASS: PACKING GROUP: DOT REPORTABLE QUANTITY (RQ): REMARKS: EXEMPTION REQUIREMENT: EMERGENCY RESPONSE GUIDEBOOK NO.: MARINE POLLUTANT: Not applicable. Herbicide, solid, non-regulated Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. None None None. Not applicable. Not applicable. PESTICIDE REGULATIONS: All pesticides are governed under FIFRA {Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act). Therefore, the regulations presented below are pertinent only when handled outside of the normal use and applications of pesticides. This includes waste streams resulting from manufacturing/formulation facilities, spills or misuse of products, and storage of large quantities of products containing hazardous or extremely hazardous substances. U.S. FEDERAL REGULATIONS: Ingredients in this product are reviewed against an inclusive list of federal regulations. Therefore, the user should consult appropriate authorities. The federal regulations reviewed include: Clean Water Act, SARA, CERCLA, RCRA, DOT, TSCA and OSHA. If no components or information is listed in the space below this paragraph, then none of the regulations reviewed are applicable. SARA (311, 312): Immediate Health: Chronic Health: Fire: Sudden Pressure: Reactivity: Emergency Telephone: REVISION NUMBER: Yes. Yes. No No No (800) 892-0099. 3 MSDS NO.: REVISION DATE: 0381 11/11/2010 ClipperŽ Herbicide Page 8 of8 STATE REGULATIONS: Each state may promulgate standards more stringent than the federal government. This section cannot encompass an inclusive list of all state regulations. Therefore, the user should consult state or local authorities. The state regulations reviewed include: California Proposition 65, California Directors List of Hazardous Substances, Massachusetts Right to Know, Michigan Critical Materials List, New Jersey Right to Know, Pennsylvania Right to Know, Rhode Island Right to Know and the Minnesota Hazardous Substance list. For Washington State Right to Know, see Section 8 for Exposure Limit information. For Louisiana Right to Know refer to SARA information listed under U.S. Regulations above. If no components or information is listed in the space below this paragraph, then none of the regulations reviewed are applicable. Flumioxazin (2-[7-fluoro-3,4-dihydro-3-oxo-4-(2-propynyl)-2H-1,4-benzoxazin-6-yl]-4,5,6, 7-tetrahydro-1 isoindole-1,3(2H)-dione). California Proposition 65 NJ Right To Know Kaolin clay. MA Right To Know PA Right To Know RI Right To Know Not Listed Listed Listed Listed Listed MN Hazardous Substance Listed
• For information regarding potential adverse health effects from exposure to this product, refer to Sections 2 and 11. REASON FOR ISSUE: MSDSNO.: EPA REGISTRATION NUMBER: REVISION NUMBER: REVISION DATE: SUPERCEDES DATE: RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S): Added the EPA registration number. Added container disposal information. 0381 59639-161 3 11111/2010 March 4, 2009 Valent U.S.A. Corporation, Corporate EH&S, (925) 256-2803. This Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) serves different purposes than and DOES NOT REPLACE OR MODIFY THE EPA-APPROVED PRODUCT LABELING (attached to and accompanying the product container). This MSDS provides important health, safety, and environmental information for employers, employees, emergency responders and others handling large quantities of the product in activities generally other than product use, while the labeling provides that information specifically for product use in the ordinary course. Use, storage and disposal of pesticide products is regulated by the EPA under the authority of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodent_icide Act (FIFRA) through the product labeling. All necessary and appropriate precautionary, use, storage, and disposal information is set forth on that labeling. It is a violation offederal law to use a pesticide product in any manner not prescribed on the EPA-approved label. The information in this MSDS is based on data available to us as of the revision date given herein, and believed to be correct. Contact Valent U.S.A. Corporaton to confirm if you have the most current MSDS. Judgements as to the suitability of information herein for the individual's own use or purposes are necessarily the individual's own responsibility. Although reasonable care has been taken in the preparation of such information, Valent extends no warranties, makes no representations, and assumes no responsibility as to the accuracy or suitability of such information for application to the individual's purposes or the consequences of its use. 2010 Valent U.S.A. Corporation Emergency Telephone: REVISION NUMBER: (800) 892-0099. 3 MSDSNO.: REVISION DATE: 0381 11/11/201(

MONSANTO COMPANY AguaMaster Herbicide Version: 2.0 MONSANTO COMPANY Material Safety Data Sheet Commercial Product 1. PRODUCT AND COMPANY IDENTIFICATION Product name AquaMaster Herbicide EPA Reg.No. 524-343 Produ,ct.use Herbicide. Chemical name Not applicable. Synonyms None. Company . . .. MONSANTO COMPANY, SOON. Lindbergh Blvd., St. Louis, MO, 63167 Telephone: 800-332-3111, Fax: 314-694-5557 Emergency numbers , .... Page: 1/8 Effective date: 02/03/2005 ** *."I' .; *. -"tl.,-ft" .... . . . FOR CHEMICAL EMERGENCY, SPILL LEAK, FIRE, EXPOSURE, OR ACCIDENT Call CHEMTREC -Day or Night: 1-800-424-9300 toll free in the continental U.S., Puerto Rico, Canada, or Virgin Islands. For calls originating elsewhere: 703-527-3887 (collect calls accepted). FOR MEDICAL EMERGENCY -Day or Night:+ 1 (314) 694-4000 (collect calls accepted). 2. COMPOSITION/INFORMATION ON INGREDIENTS Active ingredient Isopropylamine salt of N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine; {lsopropylamine salt of glyphosate} c 'f omoos1100 COMPONENT CASNo. % by weil!ht (approximate) lsoproovlamine salt of glyphosate 38641-94-0 53.8 Water 7732-18-5 46.2 OSHA Status This product is not hazardous according to the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard, 29 CFR 1910.1200. 3. HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION Emergency overview Appearance and odour (colour/form/odour): Colourless -Amber I Liquid, (viscous) I Odourless CAUTION! Potential health effects Likely routes of exposure Skin contact, eye contact, inhalation Eye contact, short term Not expected to produce significant adverse effects when recommended use instructions are followed. Skin contact, short term Not expected to produce significant adverse effects when recommended use instructions are followed. Inhalation, short term MONSANTO COMPANY AquaMasteI Herbicide Version: 2.0 Page: 2 /8 Effective date: 02/03/2005 Not expected to produce significant adverSe effects when recommended use instructions are followed .. Refer to section 11 for toxicological and section 12 for environmental information. 4. FIRST AID MEASURES Eye contact Immediately flush with plenty of water. If easy to do, remove contact lenses. Skin contact Take off contaminated clothing, wristwatch, jewellery. Wash affected skin with plenty of water. Wash clothes and clean shoes before re-use. Inhalation Remove to fresh air. Ingestion Immediately offer water to drink. Do NOT induce vomiting unless directed by medical personnel. If symptoms occur, get medical attention. Advice to doctors This product is not an inhibitor of cholinesterase. Antidote Treatment with atropine and oximes is not indicated. 5. FIRE-FIGHTING MEASURES Flash point none Extinguishing media Recommended: Water, foam, dry chemical, carbon dioxide (C02) Unusual fue and explosion hazards None. Environmental precautions: see section 6. Hazardous products of combustion Carbon monoxide (CO), phosphorus oxides (PxOy), nitrogen oxides (NOx)

• Fire fighting equipment Self-contained breathing apparatus. Equipment should be thoroughly decontaminated after use. 6. ACCIDENTAL RELEASE MEASURES Personal precautions Use personal protection recommended in section 8. Environmental precautions SMALL QUANTITIES: Low environmental hazard.

MONSANTO COMPANY AquaMaster Herbicide LARGE QUANTITIES: Minimise spread. Keep out of drains, sewers, ditches and water ways. Notify authorities. Methods for cleaning up SMALL QUANTITIES: Flush spill area with water. LARGE QUANTITIES: Absorb in earth, sand or absorbent material. Dig up heavily contaminated soil. Collect in containers for disposal. Refer to section 7 for types of containers. Flush residues with small quantities of water. Version: 2.0 Minimise use of water to prevent environmental contamination. Refer to section 13 for disposal of spilled material. 7. HANDLING AND STORAGE Good industrial practice in housekeeping and personal hygiene should be followed. Handling Avoid contact with skin and eyes. When using do not eat, drink or smoke. Wash hands thoroughly after handling or contact. Thoroughly clean equipment after use. Page: 3 I 8 Effective date: 02/03/2005 Do not contaminate drains, sewers and water ways when disposing of equipment rinse water. Refer to section 13 for disposal of rinse water. Emptied containers retain vapour and product residue. Storage Minimum storage temperature: -15 °C Maximum storage temperature: 50 °C Compatible materials for storage: stainless steel, aluminium, fibreglass, plastic, glass lining Incompatible materials for storage: galvanised steel, unlined mild steel, see section I 0. Keep out of reach of children. Keep away from food, drink and animal feed. Keep only in the original container. Partial crystallization may occur on prolonged storage below the minimum storage temperature. If frozen, place in warm room and shake frequently to put back into solution. Minimum shelf life: 5 years. 8. EXPOSURE CONTROLS/PERSONAL PROTECTION A" b 1r orne exposure limits Components Exposure Guidelines Isopropylamine salt of glyphosate No specific occupational exposure limit has been established. Water No specific occupational exposure limit has been established. Engineering controls No special requirement when used as recommended. Eye protection MONSANTO COMPANY AquaMaster Herbicide No special requirement when used as recommended. Skin protection No special requirement when used as recommended. Respiratory protection No special requirement when used as recommended. Version: 2.0 Page: 4/ 8 Effective date: 02/03/2005 When recommended, consult manufacturer of personal protective equipment for the appropriate type of equipment for a given application. 9. PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES These physical data are typical values based on material tested but may vary from sample to sample. Typical values should not be construed as a guaranteed analysis of any specific lot or as specifications for the product. Colour/colour range: Colourless -Amber Form: Liquid, (viscous) Odour: Odourless Flash noint: none Specific gravity: 1.206 <@ 20 °C I 15.6 °c Solubility: Water: Completely miscible. oH: 4.6 -4.8 (a) 63 g/l Partition coefficient (log Pow): < 0.000 (active ingredient) 10. STABILITY AND REACTMTY Stability Stable under normal conditions of handling and storage. Hazardous decomposition Thennal decomposition: Hazardous products of combustion: see section 5. Materials to avoid/Reactivity Reacts with galvanised steel or unlined mild steel to produce hydrogen, a highly flammable gas that could explode. 11. TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION This section is intended for use by toxicologists and other health professionals. Data obtained on product, similar products and on components are summarized below. Mutagenicity Micronucleus test(s): Not mutagenic. Ames test(s): Not mutagenic with and without metabolic activation. Isopropylamine salt ofglvnbosate '62%) Acute oral toxicity Rat, LDSO (limit test): > 5,000 mg/kg body weight Practically non-toxic. FIFRA category IV. No mortality. MONSANTO COMPANY AquaMaster Herbicide Mouse, LDSO (limit test): > 5,000 mg/kg body weight Practically non-toxic. FIFRA category IV. No mortality. Acute dermal toxicity Rabbit, LDSO Qimit test):> 5,000 mg/kg body weight Practically non-toxic. FIFRA category IV. No mortality. Skin irritation Rabbit, 6 animals, Draize test: Days to heal: 3 Primary Irritation Index (PU): 0.0/8.0 Essentially non irritating. FIFRA category IV. Acute inhalation toxicity Rat, 1..CSO, 4 hours, aerosol: > 4.24 mg/L Practically non-toxic. FIFRA category IV. No mortality. Maximum attainable concentration. *Skin sensitization Guinea pig, Buehler test: Positive incidence: 0 % N-fphosphonmnetbyl)g!ycine; folyphosate} Mu tagenicity In vitro and in vivo mutagenicity test(s): Not mutagenic. Repeated dose toxicity Rabbit, dermal, 21 days: NOAEL toxicity: > 5,000 mg/kg body weight/day Target organs/systems: none Other effects: none Rat, oral, 3 months: NOAEL toxicity: > 20,000 mg/kg diet Target organs/systems: none Other effects: none Chronic effects/carcinogenicity Mouse, oral, 24 months: NOEL tumour:> 30,000 mg/kg diet NOAEL toxicity: -5,000 mg/kg diet Tumours: none Target organs/systems: liver Version: 2.0 Other effects: decrease of body weight gain, histopathologic effects Rat, oral, 24 months: NOEL tumour:> 20,000 mg/kg diet NOAEL toxicity: -8,000 mg/kg diet Tumours: none Target organs/systems: eyes Other effects: decrease of body weight gain, histopathologic effects Toxicity to reproduction/fertility Rat, oral, 3 generations: NOAEL toxicity:> 30 mg/kg body weight NOAEL reproduction: > 30 mg/kg body weight Target organs/systems in parents: none Other effects in parents: none Page: 5 I 8 Effective date: 02/03/2005 MONSANTO COMPANY AguaMaster Herbicide Target organs/systems in pups: none Other effects in pups: none Develoomental toxicity/teratogenicity Rat, oral, 6 -19 days of gestation: NOAEL toxicity: 1,000 mg/kg body weight NOAEL development: 1,000 mg/kg body weight Version: 2.0 Other effects in mother animal: decrease of body weight gain, decrease of survival Developmental effects: weight loss, post-implantation loss, delayed ossification Effects on offspring only observed with maternal toxicity. Rabbit, oral, 6 -27 days of gestation: NOAEL toxicity: 175 mg/kg body weight NOAEL development: 175 mg/kg body weight Target organs/systems in mother animal: none Other effects in mother animal: decrease of survival Developmental effects: none 12. ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION This section is intended for use by ecotoxicologists and other environmental specialists. Data obtained on components are summarized below. lsonroovlamjne salt ofglvnbosate (62%) Aquatic toxicity. fish Bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrocbirus): Acute toxicity, 96 hours, static, LC50: > 1,000 mg/L Practically non-toxic. Rainbow trout (Oncorbyncbus mykiss): Acute toxicity, 96 hours, static, LC50: > 1,000 mg/L Practically non-toxic. Aquatic toxicity. invertebrates Water flea (Dapbnia magna): Acute toxicity, 48 hours, static, EC50: 930 mg/L Practically non-toxic. Aquatic toxicity, algae/aquatic plants Green algae (Scenedesmus subspicatus): Acute toxicity, 72 hours, static, ErC50 (growth rate): 166 mg/L Practically non-toxic. Soil organism toxicity, invertebrates Earthworm (Eisenia foetida): Acute toxicity, 14 days, LC50: > 5,000 mg/kg dry soil Practically non-toxic. N-<ohosphonometbyl>glycine; {glvnhosate} Avian toxicity Bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus): Dietary toxicity, 5 days, LC50: > 4,640 mg/kg diet No more than slightly toxic. Mallard duck (Anas platyrhynchos): Dietary toxicity, 5 days, LC50: > 4,640 mg/kg diet No more than slightly toxic. Bobwhite quail (Colinus virgioianus): Acute oral toxicity, single dose, LD50: > 3,851 mg/kg body weight Practically non-toxic. Page: 6 /8 Effective date: 02/03/2005 MONSANTO COMPANY AquaMaster Herbicide Arthropod toxicity Honey bee (Apis mellifera): Oral, 48 hours, LD50: 100 µg/bee Honey bee (Apis mellifera): Contact, 48 hours, LDSO: > 100 µg/bee Practically non-toxic. Bioaccnmnlation Bluegill snnfish (Lepomis macrochirus): Whole fish: BCF: < 1 No significant bioaccumulation is expected. Dissipation Soil, field: Halflife: 2 -174 days Koc: 884 -60,000 L/kg Adsorbs strongly to soil. *Water, ae.robic: Halflife: < 7 days 13. DISPOSAL CONSIDERATIONS Product Version: 2.0 Page: 7 I 8 Effective date: 02/03/2005 Not classified as hazardous waste by the Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 40 CFR 261. Recycle if appropriate facilities/equipment available.

• Burn in special,* controlled high temperature incinerator. Keep out of drains, sewers, ditches and water ways. Follow all local/regional/national/international regulations. Consult your attorney or appropriate regulatory officials for infonnation on disposal. Container Triple or pressure rinse empty containers. Pour rinse water into spray tank. Store for collection by approved waste disposal service. Dispose of as non hazardous industrial waste .. Do NOT re-use containers. Follow all local/regional/national/international regulations. 14. TRANSPORT INFORMATION The data provided in this section is for infonnation only. Please apply the appropriate regulations to properly classify your shipment for transportation. Not hazardous under the applicable DOT, ICAO/IATA, IMO, TDG and Mexican regulations. 15. REGULATORY INFORMATION TSCA Inventory All components are on the US EPA's TSCA Inventory SARA Title III Rnles Section 311/312 Hazard Categories Not applicable. . Section 302 Extremely Hazardous Substances Not applicable. Section 313 Toxic Chemical(s) Not applicable. -*

MONSANTO COMPANY AguaMaster Herbicide Version: 2.0 Page: 8/ 8 Effective date: 02/03/2005 CERCLA Reportable quantity Not applicable. 16. OTHER INFORMATION The information given here is not necessarily exhaustive but is representative ofrelevant, reliable data. Follow all local/regional/national/international regulations. Please consult supplier iffurther infonnation is needed. For more infonnation refer to product label. Please consult Monsanto if further information is needed. In this document the British spelling was applied. Registered trademark of Monsanto Company or its subsidiaries. NFPA Health 0 Flammability 1 Instability 1 Additional Markings 0 =Minimal hazard, I = Slight ha7.ard, 2 =Moderate hazard, 3 =Severe hazard, 4 = Extreme hazard Full denomination of most frequently used acronyms. BCF (Bioconcentration Factor), BOD (Biochemical Oxygen Demand), COD (Chemical Oxygen Demand), EC50 (50% effect concentration), ED50 (50% effect dose), I.M. (intramuscular), I.P. (intraperitoneal), I. V. (intravenous), Koc (Soil adsorption coefficient), LC50 (50% lethality concentration), LD50 (50% lethality dose), LDLo (Lower limit of lethal dosage), LEL (Lower Explosion Limit), LOAEC (Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Concentration), LOAEL (Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level), LOEC (Lowest Observed Effect Concentration), LOEL (Lowest Observed Effect Level), MEL (Maximum Exposure limit), MTD (Maximum Tolerated Dose), NOAEC (No Observed Adverse Effect Concentration), NOAEL (No Observed Adverse Effect Level), NOEC (No Observed Effect Concentration), NOEL (No Observed Effect Level), OEL (Occupational Exposure Limit), PEL (Permissible Exposure Limit), PII (Primary Irritation Index), Pow (Partition coefficient n--0ctanol/water), S.C. (subcutaneous), STEL (Short-Term Exposure Limit), TLV-C (Threshold Limit Value-Ceiling), TLV-TWA (Threshold Limit Value-Time Weighted Average), UEL (Upper Explosion Limit) This Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) serves different purposes than and DOES NOT REPLACE OR MODIFY THE EPA-APPROVED PRODUCT LABELING (attached to and accompanying the product container). This MSDS provides important health, safety, and environmental information for employers, employees, emergency responders and others handling large quantities of the product in activities generally other than product use, while the labeling provides that infonnation specifically for product use in the ordinary course. Use, storage and disposal of pesticide products are regulated by the EPA under the authority of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) through the product labeling, and all necessary and appropriate precautionary, use, storage, and disposal information is set forth on that labeling. It is a violation of federal law to use a pesticide product in anv manner not prescribed on the EP A-annroved label. Although the information and recommendations set forth herein (hereinafter "Information") are presented in good faith and believed to be correct as of the date hereof, MONSANTO Company makes no representations as to the completeness or accuracy thereo( Information is supplied upon the condition that the persons receiving same will make their own determination as to its suitability for the purposes prior to use. In no event will MONSANTO Company be responsible for damages of any nature whatsoever resulting from the use of or reliance upon infonnation. NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR OF ANY OTHER NATURE ARE MADE HEREUNDER WITH RESPECT TO INFORMATION OR TO THE PRODUCT TO WHICH INFORMATION REFERS. 000000006108 c<1rcxagri AQUATHOL K Aquatic Herbicide Material Safety Data Sheet Cerexagri, Inc. 1 PRODUCT AND COMPANY IDENTIFICATION EMERGENCY PHONE NUMBERS: Agrichemicals Group Cerexagri, Inc. 630 Freedom Business Center, Suite 402 King of Prussia, PA 19406 Chemtrec: (800) 424-9300 (24hrs) or (703) 527-3887 Medical: Rocky Mountain Poison Control Center (866) 767-5089 (24Hrs) Information Telephone Numbers Phone Number -------**----. --* --* .. --*--. -. R&D Technical Service Customer Service Product Name Product Synonym(s) Chemical Family Chemical Formula Chemical Name EPA Reg Num Product Use 610-878-6100 1-800-438-6071 AQUA THOL K Aquatic Herbicide Dicarboxylic Acid C8H805K2 Dipotassium Endothall 4581-204 Contact killer for submerged aquatic weeds 2 COMPOSITION/ INFORMATION ON INGREDIENTS Ingredient Name Endothal-potassium 2164-07-0 Available Hrs ----------8:00am to 5:00pm EST 8:00am -5:00 pm EST 40.3 y The substance(s) marked with a "Y" in the OSHA column, are identified as hazardous chemicals according to the criteria of the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard (29 CFR 1910.1200) 3 HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION Emergency Overview Yellow brown liquid, very faint chlorine odor. KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN. DANGER! Causes irreversible eye damage MAY BE FATAL IF SWALLOWED. MAY BE FATAL IF INHALED. HARMFUL IF ABSORBED THROUGH SKIN. Do not get in eyes, on skin or on clothing. Do not breathe vapor. Potential Health Effects Inhalation and skin contact are expected to be the primary routes of occupational exposure to this material. Based on single exposure animal tests, this material is considered to be moderately toxic if swallowed, slightly toxic if absorbed through skin or inhaled, non-irritating to skin and causes irreversible eye damage. ___ .__ .. ___ Product Code: 12-204 Revision: 7 lssued:28 JUL 2003 Page 1 of 7 4 FIRST AID MEASURES IF IN EYES, AQUATHOL K Aquatic Herbicide Material Safety Data Sheet Cerexagri, Inc. -Hold eye open and rinse slowly and gently with water for 15-20 minutes. Remove contact lenses, if present, after the first 5 minutes, then continue rinsing eye. -Call a poison control center or doctor for treatment advice. IF ON SKIN, immediately wash with cool/cold water. If irritation develops, immediately obtain medical attention. IF SWALLOWED, -Call a poison control center or doctor immediately for treatment advice. -Have person sip a glass of water if able to swallow. -Do not induce vomiting unless told to do so by a poison control center or doctor. -Do not give anything by mouth to an unconscious person. IF INHALED, -Move person to fresh air. -If person is not breathing, call 911 or an ambulance, then give artificial respiration, preferably mouth-to-mouth if possible. -Call a poison control center or doctor for further treatment advice. NOTE TO PHYSICIANS, Measures against circulatory shock, respiratory depression, and convulsion may be needed. 5 FIRE FIGHTING MEASURES Fire and Explosive Properties Auto-Ignition Temperature Flash Point Flammable Limits-Upper Lower Extinguishing Media N/A N/A NIA N/A Use water spray, carbon dioxide, foam or dry chemical. Fire Fighting Instructions Flash Point Method Fire fighters and others who may be exposed to products of combustion should wear full fire fighting turn out gear (full Bunker Gear) and self-contained breathing apparatus (pressure demand NIOSH approved or equivalent). Fire fighting equipment should be thoroughly decontaminated after use. Fire and Explosion Hazards None known. ==--*--*-----Product Code: 12-204 Revision: 7 lssued:28 JUL 2003 Page 2 of 7 COl'"Oltll8rl *1 6 ACCIDENTAL RELEASE MEASURES In Case of Spill or Leak AQUATHOL K Aquatic Herbicide Material Safety Data Sheet Cerexagri, Inc. Stop the leak, if possible. Shut off or remove all ignition sources. Ventilate the space involved. Avoid generation of vapors. Prevent waterway contamination. Construct a dike to prevent spreading. Use non-sparking equipment to clean up spill. Absorb, sweep up, place in appropriate containers for recovery or disposal. Collect run-off water and transfer to drums or tanks for later disposal. After removal, clean area with soap and water, collect rinsate. Remove from spill location. Consult a regulatory specialist to determine appropriate state or local reporting requirements, for assistance in waste characterization and/or hazardous waste disposal and other requirements listed in pertinent environmental permits. 7 HANDLING AND STORAGE Handling Do not breathe vapor. Do not breathe mist. Wash thoroughly after handling. Keep container closed. Empty container may contain hazardous residues. KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN. Use only with adequate ventilation. Storage Do not store in a manner where cross-contamination with pesticidest fertilizers, food or feed could occur. 8 EXPOSURE CONTROLS I PERSONAL PROTECTION Engineering Controls Investigate engineering techniques to reduce exposures. Provide ventilation if necessary to minimize exposure. Dilution ventilation is acceptable, but local mechanical exhaust ventilation preferred, if practical, at sources of air contamination such as open process equipment. Consult ACGIH ventilation manual or NFPA Standard 91 for design of exhaust systems. Eye I Face Protection Where there is potential for eye contact, wear chemical goggles and have eye flushing equipment immediately available. Skin Protection Minimize skin contamination by following good industrial hygiene practice. Wearing rubber gloves is recommended. Wash hands and contaminated skin thoroughly after handling. Respiratory Protection Where airborne exposure is likely, use NIOSH approved respiratory protection equipment appropriate to the material and/or its components. If exposures cannot be kept at a minimum with engineering controls, consult respirator manufacturer to determine appropriate type equipment for a given application. Observe respirator use limitations specified by NIOSH or the manufacturer. For emergency and other conditions where there may be a potential for significant exposure, use an approved full face positive-pressure, self-contained breathing apparatus or positive-pressure airline with auxiliary self-contained air supply. Respiratory protection programs must comply with 29 CFR § 1910.1*34.

• Airborne Exposure Guidelines for Ingredients Product Code: 12-204 Revision: 7 lssued:28 JUL 2003 Page 3 of 7 AQUATHOL K Aquatic Herbicide Material Safety Data Sheet Cerexagri, Inc. The components of this product have no established Airborne Exposure Guidelines -Only those components with exposure limits are printed in this section. -Skin contact limits designated with a "Y above have skin contact effect. Air sampling alone is insufficient to accurately quantitate exposure. Measures to prevent significant cutaneous absorption may be required. -ACGIH Sensitizer designator with a value of "Y" above means that exposure to this material may cause allergic reactions. -WEEL-AIHA Sensitizer designator with a value of "Y" above means that exposure to this material may cause allergic skin reactions. 9 PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES Appearance/Odor pH Specific Gravity Vapor Pressure Vapor Density Melting Point Freezing Point Boiling Point Solubility In Water Percent Volatile .1 10 STABILITY AND REACTIVITY .. . . . --' . . c" Stability Yellow brown liquid, very faint chlorine odor. 7.4 (nominal) 1.285 ( H20=1 ) negligible NE NA NA >100 deg C Miscible 59.7 This material is chemically stable under normal and anticipated storage and handling conditions. Hazardous Polymerization Does not occur. Incompatibility Materials that react with water. Hazardous Decomposition Products Elevated temperatures may convert endothall to anhydride, a strong vesicant, causing blistering of eyes, mucous membranes, and skin.(*See section 16) 11 TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION Toxicological Information Data on this material and/or its components are summarized below. Endothal-potassium Although no allergic skin reactions were observed in guinea pigs following exposure to this material in water, allergic skin reactions were observed following exposure to this material in ethanol. Repeated application to the *skin of rats produced severe skin irritation, liver and kidney effects considered to be secondary to irritation, and increased mortality. Long-term dietary administration produced no adverse effects in rats. Product Code: 12-204 Revision: 7 lssued:28 JUL 2003 Page 4 of 7 11 TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION Single exposure (acute) studies indicate; AQUATHOL K Aquatic Herbicide Material Safety Data Sheet Cerexagri, Inc. Oral -Moderately Toxic to Rats (LD50 99.5 mg/kg (Category 11)] Dermal -Slightly Toxic to Rabbits [LD50 2,000 mg/kg (Category Ill)} Inhalation -Slightly Toxic to Rats (4-hr LC50 0.83 mg/I; aerosol (Category II)] .Eye Irritation -Causes irreversible eye damage in rabbits (Category I) Skin Irritation -Non-irritating to Rabbits (Category IV) 7-0xabicyclo[2.2.1 ]heptane-2,3-dicarboxylic acid Intentional swallowing of 40 ml of endothall led to death within 12-hours. Skin allergy was observed in guinea pigs following repeated exposure. Repeated dietary administration (via gelatin capsules) produced vomiting, diarrhea, sluggish movements, and liver, kidney and blood effects in dogs. Long-term dietary administration to rats and mice produced effects in the glandular stomach. High mortality rates and intestinal tumors considered to be secondary to the effects in the stomach were observed in mice. Long-term application to the skin of mice produced no tumors. No birth defects were observed in the offspring of rats given endothall orally during pregnancy, even at dosages which produced adverse effects on the mothers. Skeletal anomalies were observed in the offspring of rabbits and mice given endothall orally during pregnancy, but only a dosages which produced adverse effects in the mothers. Endothall produced no genetic changes in standard tests using bacterial and animal cells or animals. 12 ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION Ecotoxicological Information Data on this material and/or its components are summarized below. Endothal-potassium I This material is practically non-toxic to bluegill sunfish (LC50 316-501.2 mg/I), rainbow trout (LC50 107-528. 7 mg/I), eastern oysters (LC50 117 mg/I), largemouth bass (LC50 130 mg/I), fiddler crab (LC50 752.4 mg/I) antj sheepshead minnow (LC50 340 mg/I), and slightly toxic to mysid shrimp (LC50 79 mg/I) and smallmouth bass (LC50 47 mg/I). lt is practically non-toxic to slightly toxic to Daphnia magna (EC50 72-319.5 mg/I) and no more than moderately toxic to freshwater blue-green algae (LC50 >4.8 mg/I). freshwater diatoms (LC50 >3.6 mg/I), freshwater green algae (LC50 >4.8 mg/I) and marine diatoms (LC50 >9.0 mg/I). The 8-day LC50 for bobwhite quail and mallard ducklings is >5,000 ppm, the 21-day LD50 for mallard ducks is 344 mg/kg, the 14-day EC50 for duckweed is 0.84 mg/I and the 14-day LC50 for juvenile chinook salmon is 62.5 ppm. Chemical Fate Information Data on this material and/or its components are summarized below. Endothal-potassium This material is rapidly degraded in aqeuous systems by the indigenous microbial population to C02 and other non-toxic natural products. . ... ----****--* -Product Code: 12-204 Revision: 7 lssued:28 Jl)L 2003 Page 5 of 7 13 DISPOSAL CONSIDERATIONS Waste Disposal AQUATHOL K Aquatic Herbicide Material Safety Data Sheet Cerexagri, Inc. Pesticide wastes are acutely hazardous. Improper disposal of excess pesticide or rinsate is a violation of Federal law. If these wastes cannot be disposed of by use according to label instructions, contact your State Pesticide or Environmental Control Agency, or the Hazardous Waste representative at the nearest EPA Regional Office for guidance. 14 TRANSPORT INFORMATION DOT Name DOT Technical Name DOT Hazard Class UN Number DOT Packing Group RQ DOT Special Information Pesticides, liquid, toxic, n.o.s. Endothall 6.1 2902 PG Ill 1000 lbs. DOTHM215C= The Keep Away From Foodstuffs (KAFF) label is authorized until October 2003. During the transition period the KAFF or the Toxic label may be used. After October 2003 only the Toxic label is authorized. 15 REGULATORY INFORMATION Hazard Categories Under Criteria of SARA Title Ill Rules (40 CFR Part 370) Immediate (Acute) Health Y Fire N Delayed (Chronic) Health N Reactive N Sudden Release of Pressure N Ingredient Related Regulatory Information: SARA Reportable Quantities Endothal-potassium SARA Title Ill, Section 313 CERCLA RQ NE SARA TPQ This product does contain chemical(s) which are defined as toxic chemicals under and subject to the reporting requirements of, Section 313 ofTitle Ill of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 and 40 CFR Part 372. See Section 2 Endothal-potassium 16 OTHER INFORMATION Revision Information Revision Date 28 JUL 2003 Supercedes Revision Dated 08-JUL-2002 Revision Summary Update section 4 add skin statement Key Revision Number 7 Product Code: 12-204 Revision: 7 lssued:28 JUL 2003 Page 6 of 7 AQUATHOL K Aquatic Herbicide Material Safety Data Sheet Cerexagri, Inc. NE= Not Established NA= Not Applicable (R) = Registered Trademark Miscellaneous Proper PPE and vetnilation should be used when using high heat, such as welding or oxy-acetylene torch cutting, on machinery that may have endothal residue. Cerexagri, Inc. believes that the information and recommendations contained herein (including data and statements) are accurate as of the date hereof. NO WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY, OR ANY OTHER WARRANTY, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE CONCERNING THE INFORMATION PROVIDED HEREIN. The information provided herein relates only to the specific product designated and may not be valid where such product is used in combination with any other materials or in any process. Further, since the conditions and methods of use are beyond the control of Cerexagri, Inc., Cerexagri, Inc. expressly disclaims any and all liability as to any results obtained or arising from any use of the product or reliance on such information. Cerexagri, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of ATOFINA Chemicals, Inc. Product Code: 12-204 Revision: 7 lssued:28 JUL 2003 Page 7 of 7 AQUATHOL (R) SUPER K Material Safety Data Sheet Cerexagri-Nisso LLC I 1 PRODUCT AND COMPANY IDENTIFICATION EMERGENCY PHONE NUMBERS: Pre-Harvest Division Cerexagri-Nisso LLC 630 Freedom Business Center, Suite 402 King of Prussia, PA 19406 Chemtrec: (800) 424-9300 (24hrs) or (703) 527-3887 Medical: Rocky Mountain Poison Control Center Information Telephone Numbers -----*-*------. --R&D Technical Service Customer Service Product Name Product Synonym(s) Chemical Family Chemical Formula Chemical Name EPA Reg Num Product Use AQUATHOL (R) SUPER K Dicarboxylic acid *c8H805K2 Dipotassium endothall 4581-388-82695 Aquatic herbicide (866) 767-5089 (24Hrs) Phone Number 610-878-6100 1-800-438-6071 Available Hrs 8:00am to 5:00pm EST 8:00am -5:00 pm EST 2 COMPOSITION/ INFORMATION ON INGREDIENTS Ingredient Name Endothal-potassium 2-Propenamide, polymer with potassium CAS RegistryNumber ------*-2164-07-0 31212-13-2 Typical Wt. % 63.0% 27.5% OSHA y y The substance(s) marked with a "Y" in the OSHA column, are identified as hazardous chemicals according to the criteria of the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard (29 CFR 1910.1200) 3 HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION Emergency. Overview Beige granular material, odorless. KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN. DANGER! Causes irreversible eye damage MAY BE FATAL IF SWALLOWED. HARMFUL IF ABSORBED THROUGH SKIN. Do not get in eyes, on skin or on clothing. Avoid breathing dust. Potential Health Effects Inhalation and skin contact are expected to be the primary routes of occupational exposure to this material. Based on single exposure animal tests, it is considered to be moderately toxic if swallowed, no more than slightly toxic if absorbed through skin, severely irritating to eyes and slightly irritating to skin . .... --------------------Product Code: 12-388 Revision: 11 Issued: 05 JAN 2006 Page 1 of 6

@ Coo Niuo llC AQUATHOL (R) SUPER K Material Safety Data Sheet Cerexagri-Nisso LLC I 4 FIRST AID MEASURES IF IN EYES, -Hold eye open and rinse slowly and gently with water for 15-20 minutes. Remove contact lenses, if present, after the first 5 minutes, then continue rinsing eye. -Call a poison control center or doctor for treatment advice. IF ON SKIN, immediately wash with cool/cold water. If irritation develops, immediately obtain medical attention. IF SWALLOWED, -Call a poison control center or doctor immediately for treatment advice. -Have person sip a glass of water if able to swallow. -Do not induce vomiting unless told to do so by a poison control center or doctor. -Do not give anything by mouth to an unconscious person. IF INHALED, -Move person to fresh air. -If person is not breathing, call 911 or an ambulance, then give artificial respiration, preferably mouth-to-mouth if possible. -Call a poison control center or doctor' for further treatment advice. 5 FIRE FIGHTING MEASURES Fire and Explosive Properties Auto-Ignition Temperature Flash Point Flammable Limits-Upper Lower Extinguishing Media NE NE NE NE Use water spray, carbon dioxide, foam or dry chemical. Fire Fighting Instructions Flash Point Method Fire fighters and others who may be exposed to products of combustion should wear full fire fighting turn out gear (full Bunker Gear) and self-contained breathing apparatus (pressure demand NIOSH approved or equivalent). Fire fighting equipment should be thoroughly decontaminated after use. Fire and Explosion Hazards None known. 6 ACCIDENTAL RELEASE MEASURES In Case of Spill or Leak Contain spill. Sweep or scoop up and remove to suitable container. Flush with water. Prevent spilled product from entering sewers or natural water. Consult a regulatory specialist to determine appropriate state or local reporting requirements, for assistance in waste characterization and/or hazardous waste disposal and other requirements listed in pertinent environmental permits. 7 HANDLING AND STORAGE Product Code: 12-388 Revision: 11 lssued:05 JAN 2006 Page 2 of 6 AQUATHOL (R) SUPER K Material Safety Data Sheet Cerexagri-Nisso LLC I 7 HANDLING AND STORAGE Handling Do not breathe dust. Avoid contact with eyes, skin and clothing. Wash thoroughly after handling. Keep container closed. Empty container may contain hazardous residues. KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN. Storage Do not store in a manner where cross-contamination with pesticides, fertilizers, food or feed could occur. 8 EXPOSURE CONTROLS I PERSONAL PROTECTION Engineering Controls Investigate engineering techniques to reduce exposures. Provide ventilation if necessary to minimize exposure. Dilution ventilation is acceptable, but local mechanical exhaust ventilation preferred, if practical, at sources of air contamination such as open process equipment. Consult ACGIH ventilation manual or NFPA Standard 91 for design of exhaust systems. Eye I Face Protection Where there is potential for eye contact, wear chemical goggles and have eye flushing equipment immediately available. Skin Protection Minimize skin contamination by following good industrial hygiene practice. Wearing rubber gloves is recommended. Wash hands and contaminated skin thoroughly after handling. Respiratory Protection Where airborne exposure is likely, use NIOSH approved respiratory protection equipment appropriate to the material and/or its components. If exposures cannot be kept at a minimum with engineering controls, consult respirator manufacturer to determine appropriate type equipment for a given application. Observe respirator use limitations specified by NIOSH or the manufacturer. For emergency and other conditions where there may be a potential for significant exposure, use an approved full face positive-pressure, self-contained breathing apparatus or positive-pressure airline with auxiliary self-contained air supply. Respiratory protection programs must comply with 29 CFR § 1910.134. Airborne Exposure Guidelines for Ingredients The components of this product have no established Airborne Exposure Guidelines -Only those components with exposure limits are printed in this section. -Skin contact limits designated with a "Y" above have skin contact effect. Air sampling alone is insufficient to accurately quantitate exposure. Measures to prevent significant cutaneous absorption may be required. -ACGIH Sensitizer designator with a value of "Y" above means that exposure to this material may cause allergic reactions. -WEEL-AIHA Sensitizer designator with a value of "Y" above means that exposure to this IT]aterial may cause allergic skin reactions . . ** --***--*-,.**----------*****-.... Product Code: 12-388 Revision: 11 lssued:05 JAN 2006 Page 3 of 6 ( :.>' I AQUATHOL (R) SUPER K Material Safety Data Sheet AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES Cerexagri-Nisso LLC Appearance!Odor pH Specific Gravity Vapor Pressure Vapor Density Melting Point Freezing Point Boiling Point Solubility In Water Evaporation Rate Percent Volatile 10 STABILITY AND REACTIVITY Stability Beige granular material, odorless. 6.9 (1% aqueous soln) 0.607 gfcm3 Negligible NIA N/A N/A N/A >65 gf100ml N/A N/A This material is chemically stable under normal and anticipated storage and handling conditions. Hazardous Polymerization Does not occur. Incompatibility None known. Hazardous Decomposition Products Elevated temperatures convert endothall to anhydride, a strong vessicant, causing blisters of eyes, mucous membranes, and skin. 11 TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION Toxicological Information Data on this material and/or its components are summarized below. Single exposure (acute) studies indicate: Oral -Moderately Toxic to Rats (LD50 98 mg/kg) Dermal -No More than Slightly Toxic to Rabbits (LD50 >2,000 mg/kg) Eye Irritation -Severely Irritating to Rabbits Skin Irritation -Slightly Irritating to Rabbits No skin allergy was observed in guinea pigs following repeated exposure. Endothal-potassium (technical active ingredient) Although no allergic skin reactions were observed in guinea pigs following exposure to this material in water, allergic skin reactions were observed following exposure to this material in ethanol. Repeated application to the skin of rats produced severe skin irritation, liver and kidney effects considered to be secondary to irritation, and increased mortality. Long-term dietary administration produced no adverse effects in rats. 12 ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION ---------Product Code: 12-388 Revision: 11 Issued: OS JAN 2006 Page 4 of 6 AQUATHOL (R) SUPER K Material Safety Data Sheet Cerexagri-Nisso LLC I 12 ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION Ecotoxicological Information Data on this material and/or its components are summarized below. Endothal-potassium (technical active ingredient) . This material is practically non-toxic to bluegill sunfish (LC50 316-501.2 mg/I), rainbow trout (LC50 107-528. 7 mg/I), eastern oysters (LC50 117 mg/I), largemouth bass (LC50 130 mg/I), fiddler crab (LC50 752.4 mg/I) and sheepshead minnow (LC50 340 mg/I), and slightly toxic to mysid shrimp (LC50 79 mg/I) and smallmouth bass (LC50 47 mg/I). It is practically non-toxic to slightly toxic to Daphnia magna (EC50 72-319.5 mg/I) and no more than moderately toxic to freshwater blue-green algae (LC50 >4.8 mg/I), freshwater diatoms (LC50 >3.6 mg/I), freshwater green algae (LC50 >4.8 mg/I) and marine diatoms (LC50 >9.0 mg/I) . . The 8-day LC50 for bobwhite quail and mallard ducklings is >5,000 ppm, the 21-day LD50 for mallard ducks is 344 mg/kg, the 14-day EC50 for duckweed is 0.84 mg/I and the 14-day LC50 for juvenile chinook salmon is 62.5 ppm. Endothall This material is slightly toxic to bluegill sunfish (96-hr LC50 77 mg/I), rainbow trout (96-hr LCSO 49 mg/I), Daphnia magna (48-hr LCSO 92 mg/I), eastern oysters (96-hr LC50 54 mg/I), mysid shrimp (96-hr LCSO 39 mg/I) and fiddler crab (96-hr LCSO 85.1 mg/I). It is practically non-toxic to sheepshead minnow (96-hr LC50 110 mg/I) and common mummichog (96-hr LC50 213.9 mg/I). This material has an 8-day LC50 of >5,000 ppm (bobwhite quail and mallard ducklings), a 21-day LOSO of 111 mg/kg {mallard ducks), a 30-day MATC of 19 mg/I (fathead minnows) and a 21-day MATC of 6.7 mg/I (Daphnia magna). No adverse effects were observed in mallard ducks and bobwhite quail following repeated (20-weeks) administration in the diet. Chemical Fate Information Data on this material and/or its components are summarized below. Endothal-potassium (technical active ingredient) This material is rapidly degraded in aqeuous systems by the indigenous microbial population to C02 and other non-toxic natural products. 13 DISPOSAL CONSIDERATIONS Waste Disposal Pesticide wastes are acutely hazardous. Improper disposal of excess pesticide or rinsate is a violation of Federal law. If these wastes cannot be disposed of by use according to label instructions, contact your State Pesticide or Environmental Control Agency, or the Hazardous Waste representative at the nearest EPA Regional Office for guidance. 14 TRANSPORT INFORMATION DOT Name DOT Technical Name DOT Hazard Class UN Number DOT Packing Group RQ Pesticides, solid, toxic, n.o.s. Endothall 6.1 2588 PG Ill 1,000 POUNDS 15 REGULATORY INFORMATION Product Code: 12-388 Revision: 11 lssued:05 JAN 2006 Page 5 of 6 AQUATHOL (R) SUPER K Material Safety Data Sheet Cerexagri-Nisso LLC Hazard Categories Under Criteria of SARA Title Ill Rules (40 CFR Part 370) Immediate (Acute) Health Y Fire N belayed'(Chronic) Health N Reactive N Sudden Release of Pressure N Ingredient Related Regulatory Information: SARA Reportable Quantities Endothal-potassium 2-Propenamide, polymer with potassium SARA Title Ill, Section 313 CERCLA RQ NE NE SARA TPQ This product does contain chemical(s) which are defined as toxic chemicals under and subject to the reporting requirements of, Section 313 of Title Ill of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 and 40 CFR Part 372. See Section 2 Endothal-potassium 16 OTHER INFORMATION Revision Information Revision Date 05 JAN 2006 Revision Number 11 Supercedes Revision Dated 03-JAN-2006 Revision Summary Update section 1 Key NE= Not Established NA= Not Applicable (R) = Registered Trademark Miscellaneous Aquathol (R) is a registered trademark of Cerexagri, Inc. Cerexagri-Nisso LLC believes that the information and recommendations contained herein (including data and statements) are accurate as of the date hereof. NO WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY, OR ANY OTHER WARRANTY, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE CONCERNING THE INFORMATION PROVIDED HEREIN. The information provided herein relates only to the specific product designated and may not be valid w_here such product is used in combination with any other materials or in any process. Further, since the conditions and methods of use are beyond the control of Cerexagri-Nisso LLC,Cerexagri-Nisso LLC expressly disclaims any and all liability as to any results obtained or arising from any use of the product or reliance on such information. Product Code: 12-388 Revision: 11 lssued:05 JAN 2006 Page 6 of 6 MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET AB Cutrine Plus Granular 1. Product And Compa11y Identification Supplier Manufacturer Applied Biochemists (WI) Advantis Technologies, Inc. A division of Advantis Technologies, Inc. 1400 Bluegrass Lakes Parkway W175 N11163 Stonewood Drive, Suite 234 Alpharetta, GA 30004 United States Germantown, WI 53022 Telephone Number: (262) 255-4449 Telephone Number: (770) 521-5999 FAX Number: (262) 255-4268 FAX Number: (770) 521-5959 Web Site: www.appliedbiochemists.com Web Site: www.poolspacare.com Supplier Emergencl£ Contacts & Phone Number Manufacturer Emergency: Contacts & Phone Number CHEMTREC

• DAY OR NIGHT: (800) 424-9300 CHEMTREC *DAY OR NIGHT: (800) 424-9300 Issue Date: 02/15/2007 Product Name: AB Cutrine Plus Granular Chemical Name: Chelated Elemental Copper GAS Number: Not Established Chemical Family: Granular Copper Algaecide Chemical Formula: Proprietary Mixture MSDS Number: 377 2. Composition/Information On Ingredients Ingredient CAS Percent Of Name Number TotalWeiaht COPPERCARBONATE 12069-69-1 CRYSTALLINE SILICA . 141!08*60-7 MONOETHANOLAMINE 141-43-5 Ingredients listed in this section have been determined to be hazardous as defined in 29CFR 1910.1200. Materials determined to be health hazards are listed if they comprise 1 % or more of the composition. Materials identified as carcinogens are listed if they comprise 0.1 % or more of the composition. Information on proprietary materials is available in 29CFR 1910.1200(i)(1). 3. Hazards Identification Primary: Routes(s) Of Entiy Eye Contact, Skin Contact Elle Hazards Can cause eye irritation. Skin Hazards May be irritating to skin. Ingestion Hazards May be harmful if swalloy.ied. Inhalation Hazards Inhaled dust may be irritating to mucous membranes. ChroniclCarcinogenicity Effects This product contains clay. IARC has classified crystalline silica (a component of clay) as a probable human carcinogen. Prolonged contact may cause liver damage, kidney damage, and/or chronic muscle damage. Page 1 of5 MATERIAL SA*FETY DA TA AB Cutrine Plus Granular 3. Hazards Identification -Continued Signs And Symptoms Contact with skin and eyes may be irritating. Conditions Aggravated By Exposure May cause skin sensitization. IR.st AJd !Plctcqramsl ";] 4. First Aid Measures Eye SHEET Call a physician or a poison control center immediately. In case of contact, hold eyelids apart and immediately flush eyes with plenty of water for at least 15 minutes. DO NOT let the victim rub his eye(s). Skin In case of contact, immediately flush skin with plenty of water for at least 15 minutes. Remove contaminated clothing and shoes. Thoroughly clean shoes before reuse. Wash clothing before reuse. Ingestion Get medical attention immediately. Inhalation Get medical attention immediately. If breathing is difficult, give oxygen. If inhaled, remove to fresh air. 5. Fire fighting Measures Flammability Class: Not flammable Fire And Explosion Hazards Decomposition of wet chemical may cause auto-ignition above 150F. Extinguishing Media Use C02 (Carbon Dioxide), dry chemical, water fog, or foam. Fire Fighting Instructions Avoid breathing vapors, gases and fumes. Firefighters should wear self-contained breathing apparatus and full protective gear. Water can be used to cool and protect exposed material. 6. Accidental Release Measures Clean up spill immediately. Sweep up and remove immediately. Avoid rinsing into sewer. Use appropriate containers to avoid environmental contamination. Handling & Storage CPictograms) IJ = 7. Handling And Storaae Handling And Storage Precautions Keep out of reach of children. Use only with adequate ventilation. Wash thoroughly after handling. Handling Precautions Avoid contact with eyes. Avoid contact with skin and clothing. Avoid contact with strong acids and nitrates Page2of5 I MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET AB Cutrine Plus Granular 7. Handling And Storage -Continued §torage Precautions Keep out of reach of children. Store in a cool, dry place. Do not stack wet material. Practices Wash thoroughly with soap and water after handling. Use safe chemical handling procedures suitable for the hazards presented by this material. 8. Exposure Controls/Personal Protection Engineering Controls Local exhaust recommended. Protection Safety glasses with side shields or goggles. Skin Protection Chemical-resistant gloves (rubber or plastic). ResgiratoO£ Pr2tection None normally required. lf needed, use NIOSH approved respirator for dusts. lngredient{s} -ExQosure Limits COPPER CARBONATE PEL= 1 mg/m3 (as copper dusts and mists -GAS# 7440-50-8) TLV = 1 mg/m3 (as copper dusts and mists -GAS# 7440-50-8) CRYSTALLINE SILICA PEL= 0.1 mg/m3 TLV = 0.05 mg/m3 MONOETHANOLAMINE PEL= 3ppm TLV = 3 ppm 9. Phvsical And Chemical Prooerties AQQearance Blue/Green granules Odor Amine, slight Chemical Type: Mixture Physical State: Solid Melting Point: N/A °F Boiling Point: Not Determined °F Percent Volitales: Not Determined Packing Density: 1.2-1.3 Vapor Pressure: Not Determined Solubility: Granules are insoluble; Chemical soluble Evaporation Rate: Not Determined 10. Stabilitv And Reactivitv Stability: Stable Hazardous Polymerization: Will not occur To Avoid {StabiliM Temperatures above 150F, especially if the material is damp. Page 3of5 MATERIAL SAFETY DATA AB Cutrine Plus Granular 10. Stability And Reactivity -Continued lncomgatjble Materials Strong acids and nitrates. Hazardous Decomgositjon Products Oxides of Nitrogen and Carbon. 11. Toxicological Information Acute Inhalation Acute Inhalation LC50 > 2.59 mg/L (Male and female rats) 12. Ecoloqical Information Ecotoxicological Information 13. Disposal Considerations Dispose in accordance with applicable federal, state and local government regulations. 14. Transport Information Shigging Name Not regulated Hazard Class Not regulated DOT Identification Number NONE 15. Reaulatorv Information No Data Available ... NFPA HMIS HEALTH 1 IIR ... :: _Q_ . __ , REACTIVITY 0 PERSONAL PROTECTION 16. Other Information Information MSDS Preparer: JHW This MSDS Superceeds A Previous MSDS Dated: 11/15/2006 Disclaimer SHEET Although reasonable care has been taken in the preparation of this document, we extend no warranties and make no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of the information contained therein, and assume no responsibility regarding the suitablility of this information for the user's intended purposes or for the consequences of its use. Each individual should make a determination as to the suitability of the information for their particular purposes(s). Page 4 of5 MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET AB Cutrine Plus Granular Disclaimer -Continued Applied Biochemists (WI) Pnnled Using MSDS Geoeratorno 2000 Page 5 of5 MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET Page 1of5 AB Cutrine Plus 1. Product And Company Identification Supplier Manufacturer Applied Biochemists (WI) Advantis Technologies A division of Advantis Technologies, Inc. 1400 Bluegrass Lakes Parkway W175 N11163 Stonewood Drive, Suite 234 Alpharetta, GA 30004 United States Germantown, WI 53022 Telephone Number: (262) 255-4449 Telephone Number: (770) 521-5999 FAX Number: (262) 255-4268 FAX Number: (770) 521-5959 Web Site: www.appliedbiochemists.com Web Site: www.poolspacare.com SupQlier Emergency Contacts & Phone Number Manufacturer Emergency Contacts & Phone Number CHEMTREC
• DAY OR NIGHT: (800) 424-9300 CHEMTREC -DAY OR NIGHT: (800) 424-9300 ACEAN
• DAY OR NIGHT: (800) 654-6911 ACEAN
• DAY OR NIGHT: (800) 654-6911 Issue Date: 02/19/2010 Product Name: AB Cutrine Plus Chemical Name: Chelated Elemental Copper Chemical Family: Copper Algaecide Chemical Formula: Proprietary Mixture MSDS Number: 366 2. Compositionflnformation On Ingredients Ingredient GAS Percent Of Name Number Total Weight COPPER CARBONATE 12069-69-1 MONOETHANOLAMINE 141-43-5 TRIETHANOLAMINE 102-71-6 Ingredients listed in this section have been determined to be hazardous as defined in 29CFR 1910.1200. Materials determined to be health hazards are listed if they comprise 1 % or more of the composition. Materials identified as carcinogens are listed if they comprise 0.1 % or more of the composition. Information on proprietary materials is available in 29CFR 1910.1200(i)( 1 ). 3. Hazards Identification Primary Routes(s) Of Entry Eye Contact, Skin Contact Eye Hazards Corrosive to eyes. Skin Hazards May be corrosive to skin. Ingestion Hazards Harmful if swallowed. May cause burning of the mouth, throat and stomach. Inhalation Hazards Inhalation may cause dizziness, drowsiness, euphoria, loss of coordination, headache and nausea. Signs And Symptoms Contact with skin and eyes may be irritating. Conditions Aggravated By Exposure May cause skin sensitization.

MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET I :rst Aid (Pictograms) :f:l .... t.J 4. First Aid Measures Eye AB Cutrine Plus Page 2of5 Call a physician or a poison control center immediately.In case of contact, hold eyelids apart and immediately flush eyes with plenty of water for at least 15 minutes.DO NOT let the victim rub his eye(s). Skin In case of contact, immediately flush skin with plenty of water for at least 15 minutes. Remove contaminated clothing and shoes. Thoroughly clean shoes before reuse. Wash clothing before reuse. Ingestion Give two glasses of water. Never give anything by mouth to an unconscious victim. DO NOT INDUCE VOMITING, unless directed to do so by medical personnel. Get medical attention immediately. Inhalation Get medical attention immediately. If breathing is difficult, give oxygen. If inhaled, remove to fresh air. 5. Fire Fighting Measures Flash Point: ND °F Extinguishing Media Use C02 (Carbon Dioxide), dry chemical, or foam. Fire Fighting Instructions Avoid breathing vapors, gases and fumes. Firefighters should wear self-contained breathing apparatus and full protective gear. Water can be used to cool and protect exposed material. 6. Accidental Release Measures Clean up spill immediately. Contain and/or absorb spill with ground corn cob. Avoid rinsing into sewer. Use appropriate containers to avoid environmental contamination. I =r 1P*c**u**m*1 7. Handling And Storage Handling And Storage Precautions Keep out of reach of children. Use only with adequate ventilation. Wash thoroughly after handling. Handling Precautions Avoid contact with eyes. Avoid contact with skin and clothing. Avoid contact with strong acids and nitrates Storage Precautions Keep out of reach of children. Work/Hygienic Practices Wash thoroughly with soap and water after handling. Use safe chemical handling procedures suitable for the hazards presented by this material. 8. Exposure Controls/Personal Protection No Data Available ... MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET Page 3 of5 AB Cutrine Plus 8. Exposure Controls/Personal Protection -Continued Engineering Controls Local exhaust recommended. Eye/Face Protection Safety glasses with side shields or goggles. Skin Protection Chemical-resistant gloves. Respiratory Protection None normally required. If needed, use NIOSH approved respirator for organic vapors and mists. 9. Physical And Chemical Properties Appearance Blue viscous liquid Odor Slight Chemical Type: Mixture Physical State: Liquid Melting Point: N/A °F Boiling Point: Not Determined °F Specific Gravity: 1.220-1.230@ 24 deg C Percent Volitales: Not Determined Vapor Pressure: Not Determined Vapor Density: >1 (air= 1) pH Factor: 10.3-10.5 Solubility: Miscible in water Evaporation Rate: Not Determined 10. Stability And Reactivity Stability: Stable Hazardous Polymerization: Will not occur Conditions To Avoid (Stability) Excessive heat. Thermal decomposition may cause oxides of carbon/nitrogen. Incompatible Materials Strong acids and nitrates. Hazardous Decomposition Products Oxides of Nitrogen and Carbon. 11. Toxicological Information Acute Studies Oral LOSO = 650-2420 mg/kg Rat* Subacute Dietary LC50 = >2,500 ppm Leghorn Chicken* Subacute Dietary LC50 = >1,000 ppm Ring-necked Pheasant** Subacute Dietary LC50 = >1,000 ppm Mallard Duck0 *Data from 9% copper mixed ethanolamine complexes (Cutrine Plus). **Data from 7.1 % copper triethanolamine complexes (Cutrine). 12. Ecological Information No Data Available ... MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET Page 4 of 5 12. Ecological Information -Continued Ecotoxicoloqical Information AB Cutrine Plus 96 Hour LC50 = <3.0 mg/ Rainbow Trout (44ppm Total Hardness)** 96 Hour LC50 = 56 mg/I Rainbow Trout (290 ppm Total Hardness)** 96 Hour LC50 = 13.3 mg/I Bluegill (48 ppm Total Hardness)* 96 Hour LC50 = 83 mg/I Bluegill (200 ppm Total Hardness)* 96 Hour LC50 = 67 mg/I Channel Catfish** 96 Hour LC50 = 211 mg/I Blue Shrimp (Juvenile)* 96 Hour LC50 = 68 mg/I Grass Shrimp** 96 Hour LC50 = 2,200 mg/I Fiddler Crab** *Data from 9% copper mixed ethanolamine complexes (Cutrine Plus). **Data from 7.1 % copper triethanolamine complexes (Cutrine). 13. Disposal Considerations Dispose in accordance with applicable federal, state and local government regulations. !14. Transport Information Proper Shipping Name CORROSIVE LIQUID, NOS (Copper Triethanolamine Complexes) Hazard Class 8,PG Ill (<4L Consumer Commodity ORM-D) DOT Identification Number UN1760 DOT (Pictograms)

• 15. Regulatory Information No Data Available ... PERSONAL PROTECTION 16. Other Information Revision/Preparer Information MSDS Preparer: JHW3 MSDS Preparer Phone Number: 770-521-5999 This MSDS Superceeds A Previous MSDS Dated: 10/21/2004 Disclaimer Although reasonable care has been taken in the preparation of this document, we extend no warranties and make no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of the information contained therein, and assume no responsibility regarding the suitablility of this information for the user's intended -/

MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET Page 5 of 5 AB Cutrine Plus Disclaimer -Continued purposes or for the consequences of its use. Each individual should make a determination as to the suitability of the information for their particular purposes(s). Applied Biochemists (WI) Printed Using MSOS Generator"' 2000 o Algaecide ACTIVE INGREDIENT: Sodium Carbonate Peroxyhydrate* . . . 85% OTHER INGREDIENTS ............ 15% TOTAL ......................... 100%

• Contains 27.6% Hydrogen Dioxide by weight. KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN DANGER -PELIGRO Si usted no entiende la etiqueta, busque a alguien para que se la explique a usted en detalle. (If you do not understand this label, find someone to explain it to you in detail.) EPA Registrati,on No.: 70299-6 EPA Establishment No.: 68660-TX-001 FIRST AID If in eyes
• Hold eye open and rinse slowly and gently with water for 15 -20 minutes.
• Remove contact lenses, if present, after ihe first 5 minutes, then continue rinsing eye.
• Call a poison control center or doctor for treatment advice. If on skin or clothing
• Take off contaminated clothing.
• Rinse skin immediately with plenty of water for 15 -20 minutes. ° Call a poison control center or doctor for treatment advice.
• If swallowed ° Call poison control center or doctor immediately for treatment advice.
• Hav2 person sip a glass of water if able to swallow.
• Do not induce vomiting unless told to do so by the poison control center or doctor. 0 Do not give anything by mouth to an unconscious person. If inhaled
• Move person to fresh air.
• If person is not breathing, call 911 or an ambulance, then give artificial respiration, preferably by mouth-to-mouth, if possible. Call a poison control center or doctor for treatment advice. Have the product container or label with you when calling a poison control center *or doctor, or going for treatment. You may also contact 1-800-858-7378 for emergency medical treatment information. NOTETO PHYSICIAN Probable mucosal damage may contraindicate the use of gastric lavage. PRECAUTIONARY STATEMENTS: HAZARDS TO HUMAN AND DOMESTIC ANIMALS -DANGER: Corrosive. Causes irreversible eye damage. Harmful if swallowed, inhaled or absorbed through skin. Do not get in eyes, on skin or on clothing. Wash thoroughly with soap and water after handling. PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT (PPE): When handling wear protective eyewear (goggles or face shield) and chemical resistant gloves. Applicators and handlers must wear coveralls over longsleeved shirt, long pants, and chemical resistant footwear plus socks. Follow manufacturer's instructions for cleaning/main-. taining PPE. If no such instructions exist for washables, use detergent and hot water. Keep and wash PPE separately from other laundry. USER SAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS: Users should wash hands thoroughly with soap and water before eating, drinking, chewing gum, using tobacco or using the toilet. Users should remove clothing immediately if pesticide gets inside. Then wash thoroughly and put on clean clothing. Remove PPE immediately after handling this product. Wash the outside of gloves before removing. As soon as possible, wash thoroughly and change into clean clothing. ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS: This pesticide is toxic to birds. Do not inate water when cleaning equipment or disposing of equipment washwaters. Do not apply to treated, finished drinking water reservoirs or drinking water receptacles. This product is highly toxic to bees and other beneficial insects exposed to direct contact on blooming crops or weeds. Do not apply this product or allow it*to drift to blooming crops or weeds while bees are actively visiting the treatment area. Do not apply this product or allow it to drift to crops where beneficials are part of an integrated pest management strategy. PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL HAZARDS: Strong oxidizing agent. Corrosive. Do not bring in contact with other pesticides, cleaners or oxidative agents. DIRECTIONS FOR USE: It is a violation of Federal la,;., to use this product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling. For any requirements specific to your State or Tribe, consult the agency responsible for pesticide regulation. Do not apply this product in a way that will contact workers or other persons, either directly or through drift. Only protected handlers . may be in the area during application. Agricultural Use Requirements Use this product only in accordance with its labeling and with the Worker Protection Standard, 40 CFR Part 1 70. This standard contains requirements for the protection of agricultural workers on farms, forests, nurseries and greenhouses, and handlers of agricultural pesticides. It contains requirements for training, decontamination, notification, and emergency assistance. It also contains specific instructions and exceptions pertaining to the statements on this label about personal protective equipment (PPE), notification to workers, and restricted entry intervals (REI). The requirements in this box apply to uses of this product that are covered by the. Worker Protection Standard. For' enclosed environments: There is a restricted entry of one (1 l hour for this product when applied via spraying or foaming on hard surfaces in enclosed environments. PPE requirement for early entry to treated areas that is permitted under the Worker Protection Standard and that involves contact with anything that has been treated, such as plants, soil or water, is coveralls, waterproof gloves and shoes plus socks. There is a restricted entry of zero (0) hours for spreading, broadcasting.. spot treatment, injection or other non-spraying or non-foaming application methods when used in enclosed environments. For water treatment and applications in non-enclosed environments: Keep unprotected persons out of treated areas until sprays have dried or dusts have settled. Non-Agricultural Use Requirements The requirements in this box ;ipply to uses of this product that are not within the scope of the Worker Protection Standard for agricultural pesticides (40 CFR Part 170). The WPS applies when this product is used to produce tural plants on farms, forests, nurseries or greenhouses. Keep unprotected persons out of treated areas until sprays have dried or dusts have settled.

WATER APPLICATION RATES Granular: Large Volume For example: Lakes, Ponds, Lagoons. Granular: Small Volume For example: water gardens, fountains, ornamental waterfalls. Granular: Ground/Surface: For use on non-painted surfaces to control algae, moss, slime molds and their spores. Liquid Applications: For Ground/Surface or Water applications. Foam Applications: For Ground/Surface applications. 20-90 pounds of GreenClean Pro Granular Algaecide per acre-foot of water -or-50-250 pounds of GreenClean Pro Granular Algaecide per million gallons of water. 2-10 Tablespoons of G reenClean Pro Granular Algaecide per 1000 gallons of water. 1-2 pounds of GreenClean Pro Granular Algaecide per 1000 square feet of area. Make granular applications over a wet surface or activate with water immediately following application. 1 lb= 2 Cups 2-9 pounds of GreenClean Pro Granular Algaecide per acre-foot of water -or-5-25 pounds of GreenClean Pro Granular Algaecide per million gallons of water. 1-3 teaspoons of GreenClean Pro Granular Algaecide per 1000 gallons of water. 0.5-1 pounds of GreenClean Pro Granular Algaecide per 1 000 square feet of area. Make granular applications over a wet surface or activate with water immediately following application. Solution Preparation: Due to solubility limitations, use at least 1 gallon of water to fully dissolve each 0.5 pounds of GreenClean Pro Granular Algaecide. Dissolution in cold water takes approximately 5 minutes. Treatment Rates: Use same rates at the granular application above. Solution Preparation: Follow the liquid solution preparation instructions above. Add 2.0 -5.0 fluid ounces of an alkaline-based foam, such as BioSafe Systems "BioFoaming Agent, per gallon of finished solution. Apply GreenClean Pro Granular Algaecide to any listed non-food water or surface sites treated, finished drinking water reservoirs or drinking water receptacles. Standing Water, Bilge Water, Non-Potable Water Reservoirs, Waterways, Canals, Laterals, Conveyance Ditches, Drainage Systems, Catch Basins, Flooded Areas, Sewage Systems, Drain Fields, Fire Ponds, Watering Tanks (Non-Potable Water), Storage Tanks, Water Collectors and DomestidCommercial Non-Potable Waters. (bubbling, bleaching/discoloration of algae). Waters treated with GreenClean Pro Granular Algaecide are permissible to be used without interruption. Application sites include: Sod Farms, Greenhouses, Nurseries, Golf Courses, Amusement Parks, Water Parks, Aquariums, Zoos, Botanical Gardens, Parks, Recreational Areas, Non-Chlorinated Swimming Areas, Raceways, Sports Facilities, Business Parks, Residential Developments, Indoor/Interiors, Malls, Hotels, Kennels, Cemeteries, Carwashes, Marinas, Boats, Docks, Garden Centers, Power Washing, Water Gardens, Landscapes, Municipalities, Waterways, Storm Waters, Drainage Systems, Impounded Waters, and Wastewater. Application surfaces include: WATER SURFACES Ponds, Lakes, Lagoons, Golf Course Ponds, Impounded Waters, Industrial/Commercial Ponds, NON-PAINTED SURFACES Floors, Walkways, Storage Areas, Patios, Decks, Railings, Roofs, Asphalt Shingles, Siding, Fiberglass, Boats, Piers, Docks, Stairs, Ramps, Ground Cover Mats, Weed Control Mats, Concrete, Brick, Tile, Slate, Granite, Outdoor Furniture, Statues/Monuments, Tennis Courts (non-grass), Nursery Yards, Shorelines, Gravel, Dirt Floors, Under Benches, and Other Non-Painted Surfaces. WATER TREATMENT Use GreenClean Pro Granular Algaecide to treat, control, and prevent a broad spectrum of algae. Effects of treatment are immediately apparent SURFACETREATMENT Use GreenClean Pro Granular Algaecide on all listed non-painted surfaces, to prevent and control algae, moss, slime molds and their spores, and the odors and conditions that these organisms cause (such as the breeding grounds for pests such as shore flies and fungus gnats). APPLICATION METHODS

• SPREADING I BROADCASTIN(i: Broadcast GreenClean Pro Granular Algaecide with a mechanical spreader or by hand, directly on the surface. A lawn spreader or any othe* applicator that will ensure uniform coveraf is acceptable.
• SPOT TREATMENT: Apply GreenClean Granular Algaecide directly over the ini area. Re-treatment is required when heavy growth occurs.
• LIQUID: Make a solution with GreenClean Pro Granular Algaecide (refer to I iquid application rates). Spray this solution on the desired treatment surface. If using a slurry, agitate constantly.
• FOAM: Make a solution with GreenClean Pro Granular Algaecide (refer to foam tion rates). Spray this solution on the desired treatment surface. Use a foamer, such as the BioSafe BioFoamer"', to apply.
• INJECTION: Make a solution with GreenClean Pro Granular Algaecide (refer to liquid application rates). Inject this solution into the water via a piping system.
• SUBSURFACE: Place GreenClean Pro Granular Algaecide in burlap bags and drag through the water by means of a boat. Use granular application rates. Begin treatment along the shoreline, and proceed outward. The path of the boat shall ensure an even tion. Continue dragging until all GreenClean Pro Granular Algaecide is dissolved. DETERMINING WATER VOLUME Measure length (L), width (W), and average depth (D) in feet (ft) or meters (m) and calculate volume using one of the following formulas: 1 acre-foot of water = 208.7 ft long x 208.7 ft. wide x 1 ft. deep 43,560 ft.' = 325,851 gal.= 2,780,000 lbs. Avg. L (ft) x Avg. W (ft) x Avg. D (ft) = 43,560 GENERAL TREATMENT NOTES acre-feet of water
• Control is most easily achieved when algae are not yet well established. Treat when growth first begins to appear.
• GreenClean Granular is water activated.
• When applying GreenClean Granular to soil, gravel or other similar media, incorporate the product into the first inch of substrate for optimum effectiveness.
• Apply early in the day under calm, sunny conditions, and when water temperatures are warm. Sunlight and higher temperatures both enhance GreenClean activity. 0 Apply in a manner that will ensure even clistrilJL1tion of GreenClean Granular within the treatment area.
• Break up any_ heavy algae before or during application. to the water's surface after treatment. Allowing dead organics to sink and decay will provide a food source and additional nutrients that stimulate algae re-growth and further blooms.
• If using in conjunction with other water additives (such as bacteria or enzymes), always apply GreenClean Granular first and wait several hours before adding other products.
• Re-treat areas if re-growth begins to appear. Allow 48 hours between consecutive treatments.
• Maintain with maintenance rates at a quency appropriate for your environmental conditions.
• In regions where water freezes in the winter, *treatment with GreenClean Granular (including skimming) 6-8 weeks before expected freeze will help prevent masses of decaying algae under the ice cover.
• After application, do not allow undiluted granules to remain in an area where humans or animals are exposed.
• Non-target plants will suffer contact burn if undiluted granules are accidentally spilled on them. Do not apply in such a way that the concentrated product comes in contact with grass, ornamentals and other foliage.
• Do not tank mix with aquatic herbicides or algaecides containing copper or bromides. EFFECTIVENESS FACTORS
• Effects of GreenClean Pro Granular Algaecide treatment are immediately apparent (bubbling, bleaching/discoloration of algae).
• GreenClean Pro Granular Algaecide treatments are successful when contact of the pesticide is made with the algae.
• Liquid applications will not sink through the water column as readily as a granular application.
• When treating surface mats and blooms, it is possible that GreenClean Pro Granular Algaecide will not penetrate the water umn below the infested area, and a second application is then required for treating any bottom growing algae.
• Apply more frequently during the summer months when water consumption and temperatures are high. STORAGE AND DISPOSAL Do not contaminate water, food, or feed by storage or disposal. PESTICIDE STORAGE:
• Skim dead algae and organic matter that rises Store in original containers in a cool, well-vented area, away from direct sunlight. Do not allow product to become overheated ih storage. This may cause increased degradation of the product, which will decrease product effectiveness. In case of spill, flood area with large quantities* of water. Do not store in a manner where tamination with other pesticides or fertilizers could occur. PESTICIDE DISPOSAL: Wastes resulting from the use of this product may be disposed of on site or at an approved waste disposal facility. Open dumping is hibited. If wastes cannot be disposed of according to label directions, contact your State Pesticide or Environmental Control Agency, or the Hazardous Waste Representative at the nearest EPA Regional Office for guidance. CONTAINER DISPOSAL: Triple rinse (or equivalent). Then offer for recycling or dispose of in a sanitary landfill, or incineration, or if allowed by state and local authorities by burning. If burned, stay out of smoke. WARRANTY This material conforms to the description on the label and is reasonably fit for the purposes referred to in the directions for use. liming, unfavorable temperatures, water conditions, presence of other materials, method of application, weather, watering practices, nature of soil, disease problem, condition of crop, incompatibility with other chemicals, pre-existing conditions and other conditions influencing the use of this product are beyond the control of the seller. Buyer assumes all risks associated with the use, storage, or handling of this material not in strict accordance with directions given herewith. NO OTHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTY OF FITNESS OR MERCHANTIBlLITY IS MADE. A Product of: BiQSafe SystemSuc Glastonbury, CT 06033 888.273.3088 www.biosafesystems.com 3000-7 612004 f5BASF The Chemical Company Safety Data Sheet HABITAT HERBICIDE Revision date: 2010/01/28 Version: 1.0 1. Product and Company Identification Page: 1/8 (30235835/SDS CPA US/EN) Company . BASF CORPORATION 100 Campus Drive 24 Hour Emergency Response Information CHEMTREC: 1-800-424-9300 Florham Park, NJ 07932, USA Substance number: Molecular formula: Chemical family: Synonyms: 2. Hazards Identification Emergency overview CAUTION: BASF HOTLINE: 1-800-832-HELP 000000063383 C(13) H(15) N(3) 0(3). C(3) H(9) N imidazole derivative lsopropylamine salt of imazapyr KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN. Avoid contact with the skin, eyes and clothing. Avoid inhalation of mists/vapours. See Product Label for additional precautionary statements. State of matter: liquid Colour: blue, clear Odour: ammonia-like Potential health effects Primary routes of exposure: Routes of entry for solids and liquids include eye and skin contact, ingestion and inhalation. Routes of entry for gases include inhalation and eye contact. Skin contact may.be a route cif entry for liquified gases. Acute toxicity: Relatively nontoxic after single ingestion. Slightly toxic after shorMerm skin contact. Relatively nontoxic after short-term inhalation. Irritation I corrosion: May cause slight but temporary irritation to the eyes. May cause slight irritation to the skin. Sensitization: Skin sensitizing effects were not observed in animal studies. Chronic toxicity: Repeated dose toxicity: No other known chronic effects.

Safety _Data Sheet HABITAT HERBICIDE Revision date : 2010/01 /28 Version: 1.0 Potential environmental effects Aquatic toxicity: Page: 2/8 (30235835/SDS CPA US/EN) There is a high probability that the product is not acutely harmful to fish. There is a high probability that the product is not acutely harmful to aquatic invertebrates. Acutely hannful for aquatic plants. Terrestrial toxicity: With high probability not acutely hannful to terrestrial organisms. 3. Composition / Information on Ingredients CASNumber 81510-83-0 4. First-Aid Measures General advice: Content IW/W) 28.7% 71.3% Chemical name lsopropylamine salt of imazapyr Proprietary ingredients First aid providers should wear personal protective equipment to prevent exposure. Remove contaminated clothing. Move person to fresh air. If person is not breathing, call 911 or ambulance, then give artificial respiration, preferably mouth-to-mouth if possible. Call a poison control center or physician for treatment advice. Have the product container or label with you when calling a poison control center or doctor or going for treatment. If inhaled: Remove the affected individual into fresh air and keep the person calm. Assist in breathing if necessary. lfon skin: Rinse skin immediately with plenty of water for 15 -20 minutes. lfln eyes: Hold eyes open and rinse slowly and gently with water for 15 to 20 minutes. Remove contact lenses, if present, after first 5 minutes, then continue rinsing. If swallowed: Have person sip a glass of water if able to swallow. Do not induce vomiting unless told to by a poison control center or doctor. Never induce vomiting or give anything by mouth If the victim is unconscious or having convulsions. Note to physician Antidote: Treatment: No known specific antidote. Treat symptomatically. 5. Fire-Fighting Measures Flash point: Self-ignition temperature: Suitable extinguishing media: Non-flammable. not self-igniting foam, dry extinguishing media, carbon dioxide, water spray Hazards during fire-fighting: carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide, nitrogen dioxide, Hydrocarbons, If product is heated above decomposition temperature, toxic vapours will be released. The substances/groups of substances mentioned can be released if the product is involved in a fire. Protective equipment for fire-fighting: Firefighters should be equipped with self-contained breathing apparatus and tum-out gear. Safety Data Sheet HABITAT HERBICIDE Revision date: 2010/01/28 Version: 1.0 Further information: Page: 3/8 (30235835/SDS CPA US/EN) Evacuate area of all unnecessary personnel. Contain contaminated water/firefighting water. Do not allow to enter drains or waterways. 6. Accidental release measures Personal precautions: Take appropriate protective measures. Clear area. Shut off source of leak only under safe conditions. Extinguish sources of ignition nearby and downwind. Ensure adequate ventilation. Wear suitable personal protective clothing and equipment. Environmental precautions: . Do not discharge into the subsoil/soil. Do not discharge into drains/surface waters/groundwater. Contain contaminated water/firelighting water. Cleanup: Dike spillage. Pick up with suitable absorbent material. Place into suitable containers for reuse or disposal in a licensed facility. Spilled substance/product should be recovered and applied according to label rates whenever possible. If application of spilled substance/product is not possible, then spills should be contained, solidified, and placed in suitable containers for disposal. After decontamination, spill area can be washed with water. Collect wash water for approved disposal. 7. Handling and Storage Handling General advice: RECOMMENDATIONS ARE FOR MANUFACTURING, COMMERCIAL BLENDING, AND PACKAGING WORKERS. PESTICIDE APPLICATORS & WORKERS must refer to the Product Label and Directions for Use attached to the product for Agricultural Use Requirements in accordance with the EPA Worker Protection Standard 40 CFR part 170. Ensure adequate ventilation. Provide good ventilation of working area (local exhaust ventilation if necessary). Keep away from sources of ignition -No smoking. Keep container tightly sealed. Protect contents from the effects of light. Protect against heat. Protect from air. Handle and open container with care. Do not open until ready to use. Once container is opened, content should be used as soon as possible. Avoid aerosol formation. Avoid dust formation. Provide means for controlling leaks and spills. Do not return residues to the storage containers. Follow label warnings even after container is emptied. The substance/ product may be handled only by appropriately trained personnel. Avoid all direct contact with the substance/product. Avoid contact with the skin, eyes and clothing. Avoid inhalation of dusts/mists/vapours. Wear suitable personal protective clothing and equipment. Protection against fire and explosion: The relevant fire protection measures should be noted. Fire extinguishers should be kept handy. Avoid all sources of ignition: heat, sparks, open flame. Sources of ignition should be kept well clear. Avoid extreme heat. Keep away from oxidizable substances. Electrical equipment should confonn to national electric code. Ground all transfer equipment properly to prevent electrostatic discharge. Electrostatic discharge may cause ignition. Storage General advice: Keep only in the original container in a cool, dry, well-ventilated place away from ignition sources, heat or flame. Protect containers from physical damage. Protect against contamination. The authority permits and storage regulations must be observed. Storage incompatibility: General advice: Segregate from incompatible substances. Segregate from foods and animal feeds. Segregate from textiles and similar materials. Temperature tolerance Protect from temperatures below: 0 *c Safety Data Sheet HABITAT HERBICIDE Revision date: 2010/01/28 Version: 1.0 Page: 4/8 (30235835/SDS CPA US/EN) Changes in the properties of the product may occur lf substance/product is stored below indicated temperature for extended periods of time. Protect from temperatures above: 40 *c Changes in the properties of the product may occur if substance/product is stored above indicated temperature for extended periods of time. 8. Exposure Controls and Personal Protection Users of a pestlcldal product should refer to the product label for personal protective equipment requirements. Advice on system design: Whenever possible, engineering controls should be used to minimize the need for personal protective equipment. Personal protective equipment RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MANUFACTURING, COMMERCIAL BLENDING, AND PACKAGING WORKERS: Respiratory protection: Wear respiratory protection if ventilation is Inadequate. Wear a NIOSH-certified (or equivalent) TC23C Chemical/Mechanical type filter system to remove a combination of particles, gas and vapours. For situations where the airborne concentrations may exceed the level for which an air purifying respirator is effective, or where the levels are unknown or Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health (IDLH), use NIOSH-certified full facepiece pressure demand self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) or a full facepiece pressure demand supplied-air respirator (SAR) with escape provisions. Hand protection: Chemical resistant protective gloves, Protective glove selection must be based on the user's assessment of the workplace hazards. Eye protection: Safety glasses with side-shields. Tightly fitting safety goggles (chemical goggles). Wear face shield if splashing hazard exists. Body protection: Body protection must be chosen depending on activity and possible exposure, e.g. head protection, apron, protective boots, chemical-protection suit. General safety and hygiene measures: Wear long sleeved work shirt and long work pants in addition to other stated personal protective equipment. Work place should be equipped with a shower and an eye wash. Handle in accordance with good industrial hygiene and safety practice. Personal protective equipment should be decontaminated prior to reuse. Gloves must be inspected regularly and prior to each use. Replace if necessary (e.g. pinhole leaks). Take off immediately all contaminated clothing. Store work clothing separately. Hands and/or face should be washed before breaks and at the end of the shift. No eating, drinking, smoking or tobacco use at the place of work. Keep away from food, drink and animal feeding stuffs. 9. Physical and Chemical Properties Form: Odour: Colour: pH value: Freezing point: Boiling point: Vapour pressure: Density: liquid ammonia-like, faint odour blue, clear 6.6-7.2 approx. o *c approx. 100 *c approx. 23.3 hPa 1.04 -1.09 g/ml ( 1,013.3 hPa) Information applies to the solvent. ( 1,013.3 hPa) Information applies to the solvent. ( 20 °C) Information applies to the solvent. Safety Data Sheet HABIT AT HERBICIDE Revision date: 2010/01/28 Version: 1.0 Bulk density: Viscosity, dynamic: Solubility in water: Molar mass: 1 O. Stability and Reactivity Conditions to avoid: approx. > 1 mPa.s 320.4 g/mol Page: 5/8 (30235835/SDS CPA US/EN) not applicable < 20 °c) miscible Avoid all sources of ignition: heat, sparks, open flame. Avoid extreme temperatures. Avoid prolonged exposure to extreme heat. Avoid contamination. Avoid electro-static discharge. Avoid prolonged storage. Substances to avoid: oxidizing agents, reducing agents Hazardous reactions: The product is chemically stable. Decomposition products: Hazardous decomposition products: No hazardous decomposition products if stored and handled as prescribed/indicated., Prolonged thermal loading can result in products of degradation being given off. Thermal decomposition:

• Possible thermal decomposition products: carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide Stable at ambient temperature. If product is heated above decomposition temperature toxic vapours may be released. If product is heated above decomposition temperature hazardous fumes may be released. Corrosion to metals: Corrosive effect on: mild steel brass Oxidizing properties: not fire-propagating Not an oxidizer. 11. Toxicological information Acute toxicity Oral: Type of value: LDSO Species: rat (male/female) Value: > 5,000 mg/kg Inhalation: Type of value: LC50 Species: rat (male/female) Value: > 5.3 mg/I (OECD Guideline 403) Exposure time: 4 h An aerosol was tested. Dermal: Type of value: LDSO Species: rabbit (male/female) Value: > 2,000 mg/kg Irritation I corrosion Skin: Species: rabbit Result: mildly irritating Safety Data Sheet HABITAT HERBICIDE Revision date: 2010/01/28 Version: 1.0 Method: Primary skin irritation test Eye: Species: rabbit Result: non-irritant Sensitization: Skin sensitization test Species: guinea pig Result: Skin sensitizing effects were not observed in animal studies. Genetic toxicity Information on: imazapyr Page: 6/8 (30235835/SDS CPA US/EN) No mutagenic effect was found in various tests with microorganisms and mammals. Carcinogenicity Information on: imazapyr In long-term studies in rats and mice in which the substance was given by feed, a carcinogenic effect was not obseFVed. Reproductive toxicity Information on: imazapyr The results of animal studies gave no indication of a fertility impairing effect. Development: Information on: imazapyr No indications of a developmental toxic I teratogenic effect were seen in animal studies. 12. Ecological Information Fish Information on: imazapyr Acute: Oncorhynchus mykiss/LC50 (96 h): > 100 mg/I Aquatic invertebrates Information on: imazapyr Acute: Daphnia magna!EC50 (48 h): > 100 mg/I Aquatic plants Toxicity to aquatic plants: other swollen duckweed/EC50 (14 d): 0.0228 mg/I The product has not been tested. The statement has been derived from products of a similar structure and composition. Non-Mammals Information on: imazapyr Safety Data Sheet HABITAT HERBICIDE Revision date : 2010/01/28 Version: 1.0 Other terrestrial non-mammals: maflard duck/LC50: > 5,000 ppm With high probability not acutely harmful to terrestrial organisms. Honey bee/LOSO: > 100 uglbee With high probability not acutely harmful to terrestrial organisms. Degradability I Persistence Biological I Ablologlcal Degradation Page: 7/8 (30235835/SDS CPA US/EN) Evaluation: Not readily biodegradable (by OECD criteria). Other adverse effects: The ecological data given are those of the active ingredient. Do not release untreated into natural waters. 13. Disposal considerations Waste disposal of substance: . Pesticide wastes are regulated. Improper disposal of excess pesticide, spray mix or rinsate is a violation of federal law. If pesticide wastes cannot be disposed of according to label instructions, contact the State Pesticide or Environmental Control Agency or the Hazardous Waste representative at the nearest EPA Regional Office for guidance. Container disposal: Rinse thoroughly at least three times (triple rinse) in accordance with EPA recommendations. Consult state or local disposal authorities for approved alternative procedures such as container recycling. Recommend crushing, puncturing or other means to prevent unauthorized use of used containers. RCRA: This product is not regulated by RCRA. 14. Transport Information Reference Bill of Lading 15. Regulatory Information Federal Regulations Registration status: Crop P,rotection TSCA, US released I exempt Chemical TSCA, US blocked I not listed EPCRA 3111312 (Hazard categories): Acute; State regulations CAProp.65: There are no listed chemicals in this product.

Safety Data Sheet HABITAT HERBICIDE Revision date: 2010/01/28 Version: 1.0 16. Other Information Refer to product label for EPA registration number. Recommended use: herbicide Page: 8/8 (30235835/SDS CPA US/EN) BASF supports worldwide Responsible Care initiatives. We value the health and safety of our employees, customers, suppliers and neighbors, and the protection of the environment. Our commitment to Responsible Care is integral to conducting our business and operating our facilities in a safe and environmentally responsible fashion, supporting our customers and suppliers in ensuring the safe and environmentally sound handling of our products, and minimizing the impact of our operations on society and the environment during production, storage, transport, use and disposal of our products. Local Contact Information Product Stewardship 919 547-2000 IMPORTANT: WHILE THE DESCRIPTIONS, DESIGNS, DATA AND INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN ARE PRESENTED IN GOOD FAITH AND BELIEVED TO BE ACCURATE, IT IS PROVIDED FOR YOUR GUIDANCE ONLY. BECAUSE MANY FACTORS MAY AFFECT PROCESSING OR APPLICATION/USE, WE RECOMMEND THAT YOU MAKE TESTS TO DETERMINE THE SUITABILITY OF A PRODUCT FOR YOUR PARTICULAR PURPOSE PRIOR TO USE. NO WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, ARE MADE REGARDING PRODUCTS DESCRIBED OR DESIGNS, DATA OR INFORMATION SET FORTH, OR THAT THE PRODUCTS, DESIGNS, DATA OR INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT INFRINGING THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS OF OTHERS. IN NO CASE SHALL THE DESCRIPTIONS, INFORMATION, DATA OR DESIGNS PROVIDED BE CONSIDERED A PART OF OUR TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SALE. FURTHER, YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE DESCRIPTIONS, DESIGNS, DATA, AND INFORMATION FURNISHED BY BASF HEREUNDER ARE GIVEN GRATIS AND BASF ASSUMES NO OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY FOR THE DESCRIPTION, DESIGNS, DATA AND INFORMATION GIVEN OR RESULTS OBTAINED, ALL SUCH BEING GIVEN AND ACCEPTED AT YOUR RISK. END OF DATA SHEET HYDROTHOL (R) 191 Aquatic algicide and herbicide Material Safety Data Sheet Cerexagri-Nisso LLC 1 PRODUCT AND COMPANY IDENTIFICATION Pre-Harvest Division Cerexagri-Nisso LLC EMERGENCY PHONE NUMBERS: 630 Freedom Business Center, Suite 402 King of .Prussia, PA 19406 Chemtrec: (800) 424-9300 (24hrs) or (703) 527-3887 Medical: Rocky Mountain Poison Control Center (866) 767-5089 (24Hrs) Information Telephone Numbers Phone Number 610-878-6100 1-800-438-6071 --.. ----*. ---R&D Technical Service Customer Service Product Name Product Synonym(s) Chemical Family Chemical Formula Chemical Name EPA Reg Num Product Use HYDROTHOL (R} 191 Aquatic algicide and herbicide Dicarboxylic Acid-Monoamine Salt C8H905 + HN(CH3)2 R, (where R is C8-C18) Endothall Mono ( N, N-Dimethylalkylamine ) Salt 4581-174-82695 Aquatic herbicide and algicide 2 COMPOSITION / INFORMATION ON INGREDIENTS Ingredient Name CAS RegistryNumber Available Hrs 8:00am to 5:00pm EST 8:00am -5:00 pm EST Typical Wt. % OSHA ----**--* ----. -* --*-----**--*-* ---------Mono(N,N-dimethylalkylamine) salt of endothall 66330-88-9 53.0 y The substance(s) marked with a "Y in the OSHA column, are identified as hazardous chemicals according to the criteria or the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard (29 CFR 1910.1200) 3 HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION Emergency Overview Yellowish brown liquid with very faint chlorine odor. KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN. DANGER! Causes irreversible eye damage MAY BE FATAL IF ABSORBED THROUGH SKIN. MAY BE FATAL IF SWALLOWED. CAUSES SKIN BURNS. HARMFUL IF INHALED. Do not get in eyes, on skin or on clothing. Potential Health Effects Inhalation and skin contact are expected to be the primary routes of occupational exposure to this material. Based on single exposure animal tests, it is considered to be moderately toxic if swallowed or absorbed through skin, slightly toxic if inhaled and severely irritating to eyes and skin. *' ----,. --* --*--* --------Product Code; 12-174 Revision: 13 Issued: 05 JAN 2006 Page 1 of 6 HYDROTHOL (R) 191 Aquatic algicide and herbicide Material Safety Data Sheet L\.C Cerexagri-Nisso LLC I 4 FIRST AID MEASURES IF IN EYES, -Hold eye open and rinse slowly and gently with water for 15-20 minutes. Remove contact lenses, if present, after the first 5 minutes, then continue rinsing eye. -Call a poison control center or doctor for treatment advice. IF ON SKIN, immediately wash with cool/cold water. If irritation develops, immediately obtain medical attention. IF SWALLOWED, -Call a poison control center or doctor immediately for treatment advice. -Have person sip a glass of water if able to swallow. -Do not induce vomiting unless told to do so by a poison control center or doctor. -Do not give anything by mouth to an unconscious person. IF INHALED, -Move person to fresh air. -If person is not breathing, call 911 or an ambulance, then give artificial respiration, preferably mouth-to-mouth if possible. -Call a poison control center or doctor for further treatment advice. 5 FIRE FIGHTING MEASURES Fire and Explosive Properties Auto-Ignition Temperature Flash Point Flammable Limits-Upper Lower Extinguishing Media NE >100 deg C N/A N/A Use water spray, carbon dioxide, foam or dry chemical. Fire Fighting Instructions Flash Point Method Fire fighters and others who may be exposed to products of combustion should wear full fire fighting turn out gear (full Bunker Gear) and self-contained breathing apparatus (pressure demand NIOSH approved or equivalent). Fire fighting equipment should be thoroughly decontaminated after use. Fire and Explosion Hazards None known. 6 ACCIDENTAL RELEASE MEASURES In Case of Spill or Leak Small spills: soak up with an inert absorbent. Scoop up and place in a clean, dry container. Consult with environmental engineer or professional to determine if neutralization is appropriate and for handling procedures for residual materials. Large spills: Pump into marked containers for disposal or reclamation. Consult a regulatory specialist to determine appropriate state or local reporting requirements, for assistance in waste characterization and/or hazardous waste disposal and other requirements listed in pertinent environmental permits. 7 HANDLING AND STORAGE Product Code: 12-17 4 Revision: 13 Issued: 05 JAN 2006 Page 2 of 6 HYDROTHOL (R} 191 Aquatic algicide and herbicide Material Safety Data Sheet llC: Cerexagri-Nisso LLC I 7 HANDLING AND STORAGE Handling Use only with adequate ventilation. Do not get in eyes, on skin or on clothing. Do not breathe mist. Empty container may contain hazardous residues. Keep container closed. Wash thoroughly after handling. Storage Keep from freezing; material may coagulate. 8 EXPOSURE CONTROLS I PERSONAL PROTECTION Engineering Controls Investigate engineering techniques to reduce exposures. Provide ventilation if necessary to minimize exposure. Dilution ventilation is acceptable, but local mechanical exhaust ventilation preferred, if practical, at sources of air contamination such as open process equipment. Consult ACGIH ventilation manual or NFPA Standard 91 for design of exhaust systems. Eye I Face Protection Where there is potential for eye contact, wear chemical goggles and have eye flushing equipment immediately available. Skin Protection Minimize skin contamination by following good industrial hygiene practice. Wearing rubber gloves is recommended. Wash hands and contaminated skin thoroughly after handling. Respiratory Protection Avoid breathing vapor or mist. Where airborne exposure is likely, use NIOSH approved respirator with a N 95 particulate filter. If exposures cannot be kept at a minimum with engineering controls, use NIOSH approved respiratory protection equipment as noted above. Observe respirator use limitations specified by NIOSH or the manufacturer. For emergency and other conditions where there may be a potential for significant exposure, use an approved full face positive-pressure, self-contained breathing apparatus or positive-pressure airline with auxiliary self-contained air supply. Respiratory protection programs must comply with 29 CFR § 1910.134. Airborne Exposure Guidelines for Ingredients The components of this product have no established Airborne Exposure Guidelines -Only those components with exposure limits are printed in this section. -Skin contact limits desigi:iated with a "Y" above have skin contact effect. Air sampling alone is insufficient to accurately quantitate exposure. Measures to prevent significant cutaneous absorption may be required. -ACGIH Sensitizer designator with a value of "Y" above means that exposure to this material may cause allergic reactions. -WEEL.*AIHA Sensitizer designator with a value of "Y" above means that exposure to this material may cause allergic skin reactions. -----. .. -. _ _,,.. _____ .......... .. --,... Product Code: 12-174 -*-*--** ......... _,_, -*--**-.... ---*---Revision: 13 lssued:05 JAN 2006 Page 3 of 6 ---( "! HYDROTHOL (R) 191 Aquatic algicide and herbicide Material Safety Data Sheet :: Nr**o 1.L.C Cere:<agri-Nisso LLC 9 PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES Appearance/Odor pH Specific Gravity Vapor Pressure Vapor Density Melting Point Freezing Point Boiling Point Solubility In Water Percent Volatile Viscosity 10 STABILITY AND REACTIVITY Stability Yellowish brown liquid with very faint chlorine odor. NA 1.044 @2S deg c 9.45 X 10-6 Torr (endothal amine salt) NA N/A <O deg C 100 deg C >SO g/100ml (amine salt) 47.0 100 cps@2S C This material is chemically stable under normal and anticipated storage and handling conditions. Hazardous Polymerization Does not occur. Incompatibility Materials that react with water. Hazardous Decomposition Products Extreme temperatures may convert endothall product to endothall anhydride, a strong vesiccant, causing blistering of eyes, mucous membranes, and skin. (See Section 16) 11 TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION Toxicological Information Data on this material and/or its components are summarized below. Hydrot11ol 191 Single exposure (acute) studies indicate that this material is moderately toxic if swallowed (rat LOSO 233.4 or absorbed through skin (rabbit LOSO 480.9 mg/kg), slightly toxic if inhaled (rat 4-hr LCSO 0.7 mg/I) and severely irritating to rabbit eyes and skin. No skin allergy was observed in guinea pigs following repeated exposure. 7-0xabicyclo[2.2.1]heptane-2.3-dicarboxylic acid (technical active ingredient) Intentional swallowing of 40 ml led to death within 12-hours. Skin allergy was observed in guinea pigs following repeated exposure. Repeated dietary administration (via gelatin capsules) produced vomiting, diarrhea, sluggish movements, and liver, kidney and blood effects in dogs. Long-term dietary administration to rats and mice produced effects in the glandular stomach. High mortality rates and intestinal tumors considered to be secondary to the effects in the stomach were observed in mice. Long-term application to the skin of mice produced no tumors. No birth defects were observed in the offspring of rats exposed orally during pregnancy, even at dosages that produced adverse effects on the mothers. Skeletal anomalies were observed in the offspring of rabbits and mice exposed orally during pregnancy, but only at dosages that produced adverse effects in the mothers. No genetic changes were observed in tests using bacteria, animal cells or animals. Product Code: 12-174 Revision: 13 Issued: OS JAN 2006 Page 4 of 6 HYDROTHOL (R) 191 Aquatic algicide and herbicide Material Safety Data Sheet Cerexagri-Nisso LLC I 12 ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION Ecotoxicological Information Hydrothol 191 This material is highly toxic to Daphnia magna (48-hr LC50 0.36 mg/I), fathead minnow (96-hr LC50 0.94 mg/I), golden shiner (120-hr LC50 0.32 mg/I) and scud (96-hr TL50 0.48 mg/I). It is moderately toxic to mussels {48-hr LC50 4.85 mg/I) and rainbow trout (96-hr LC50 1.7 mg/I). The 7-day LC50 for Ceriodaphnia was 0.18-0.19 mg/I and 0.304 mg/I for fathead minnow. 7-0xabicyclo[2.2.1Jheptane-2,3-dicarboxylic acid (technical active ingredient) This material is slightly toxic to bluegill sunfish (96-hr LC50 77 mg/I), rainbow trout (96-hr LC50 49 mg/I}, Daphnia magna (48-hr LC50 92 mg/I), eastern oysters (96-hr LC50 54 mg/I}, mysid shrimp (96-hr LC50 39 mg/I) and fiddler crab (96-hr LC50 85.1 mg/I). It is practically non-toxic to sheepshead minnow (96-hr*LC50 110 mg/I) and common mummichog (96-hi' LC50 213.9 mg/I). This material has an 8-day LC50 of >5,000 ppm (bobwhite quail and mallard ducklings), a 21-day LD50 of 111 mg/kg (mallard ducks}, a 30-day MATC of 19 mg/I (fathead minnows) and a 21-day MATC of 6. 7 mg/I (Daphnia magna). No adverse effects were observed in mallard ducks and bobwhite quail following repeated (20-weeks) administration in the diet. Chemical Fate Information 7-0xabicyclo[2.2.1Jheptane-2,3-dicarboxylic acid (technical active ingredient) No degradation was observed in irradiated or dark water during a 30-day test period at pH 7 or 9. Rapid degradation was observed in irradiated, but not dark, water at pH 5 (half-life <24 hours). This material adsorbed readily from aqueous solution on to Crosby silt loam. It is not expected to bioccumulate with bioaccumulation factors (BCF) of 10 for mosquito fish and 0.003-0.008 for bluegills. r 13 DISPOSAL CONSIDERATIONS Waste Disposal Pesticide wastes are acutely hazardous. Improper disposal of excess pesticide or rinsate is a violation of Federal law. If these wastes cannot be disposed of by use according to label instructions, contact your State Pesticide or Environmental Control Agency, or the Hazardous Waste representative at the nearest EPA Regional Office for guidance. 14 TRANSPORT INFORMATION DOT Name DOT Technical Name DOT Hazard Class UN Number DOT Packing Group RQ DOT Special Information Pesticides, liquid, toxic,n.o.s. Endothall 6.1 2902 PG Ill 1000lbs. DOT HM215C =The Keep away from foodstuffs (KAFF) label is authorized *until October .2003. During this transition period the KAFF or Toxic label may be used. After October 2003, all 6.1-PG Ill materials must carry the Toxic label. 15 REGULATORY INFORMATION Product Code: 12-174 Revision: 13 Issued: 05 JAN 2006 Page 5 of 6 HYDROTHOL (R) 191 Aquatic algicide and herbicide Material Safety Data Sheet t.l: Cerexagri-Nisso LLC Hazard Categories Under Criteria of SARA Title Ill Rules (40 CFR Part 370) Immediate (Acute) Health Y Fire N Delayed (Chronic) Health N Reactive N Sudden Release of Pressure N Ingredient Related Regulatory Information: SARA Reportable Quantities Mono(N,N-dimethylalkylamine) salt of endothall 16 OTHER INFORMATION Revision Information Revision Date 05 JAN 2006 Supercedes Revision Dated 03-JAN-2006 Revision Summary Update section 1 Key CERCLA RQ NE Revision Number 13 NE= Not Established NA= Not Applicable (R) = Registered Trademark Miscellaneous SARA TPQ NE Proper PPE and ventilation should be used when suing high heat, such as welding or oxy-acetylene torch cutting, on machinery that may have endothal residue. Hydrothol (R) is a registered trademark of Cerexagri, Inc. Cerexagri-Nisso LLC believes that the inforr'nation and recommendations contained herein (including data and statements) are accurate as of lhe date hereof. NO WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WARRANTY OF MERCHANT ABILITY, OR ANY OTHER WARRANTY, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE CONCERNING. THE INFORMATION PROVIDED HEREIN. The information provided herein relates only to the specific product designated and may not be valid where such product is used in combination with any other materials or in any process. Further, since the conditions and methods of use are beyond the control of Cerexagri-Nisso LLC,Cerexagri-Nisso LLC expressly disclaims any and all liability as to any results obtained or arising from any use of the product or reliance on such information . ... Product Code: 12-17 4 Revision: 13 lssued:05 JAN 2006 Page 6 of 6 Conforms to ANSI Z400.5*2004 Standard (United States). Material Safety Datu Sheet f.SePA©I Komeen 1 . Product and company identification Product name EPA Registration Number Material uses Supplier/Manufacturer Responsible name In case of emergency Komeen 67690-25 Aquatic herbicide. SePRO Corporation 11550 North Meridian Street Suite 600 Carmel, IN 46032 U.S.A. Tel: 317-580-8282 Toll free: 1-800-419-7779 Fax: 317-428-4577 Monday -Friday, Barn to 5pm E.S.T. www.sepro.com Atrion Regulatory Services, Inc. INFOTRAC

• 24-hour service 1-800-535-5053 2 . Hazards identification Physical stato Odor OSHA/HCS status Emergency overview Liquid. None This material is considered hazardous by the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard (29 CFR 1910.1200). DANGER! CAUSES RESPIRATORY TRACT, EYE AND SKIN BURNS. MAY CAUSE SEVERE ALLERGIC RESPIRATORY AND SKIN REACTION *. HARMFUL IF SWALLOWED. CONTAINS MATERIAL THAT CAN CAUSE TARGET ORGAN DAMAGE. CANCER HAZARD -CONTAINS MATERIAL WHICH CAN CAUSE CANCER. Harmful if swallowed. Corrosive to the eyes, skin and respiratory system. Causes burns. May cause sensitization by inhalation and skin contact. Avoid exposure -obtain special instructions before use. Do not breathe vapor or mist. Do not ingest. Do not get in eyes or.on skin or clothing. Contains material that can cause target organ damage. Contains material which can cause cancer. Risk of cancer depends on duration and level of exposure. Use only with adequate ventilation. Keep container tightly closed and sealed until ready for use. Wash thoroughly after handling. Routes of entry Dermal contact. Eye contact. Inhalation. Ingestion. Potential acute health effects Inhalation Corrosive to the respiratory system. May cause sensitization by inhalation. Exposure to decomposition products may cause a health hazard. Serious effects may be delayed following exposure. Ingestion Toxic if swallowed. May cause burns to mouth, throat and stomach. Skin Corrosive to the skin. Causes burns. May cause sensitization by skin contact. Eyes Corrosive to eyes. Causes burns. Potential chronic health effects Chronic effects Carcinogenicity Mutagenicity Teratogenlcity Developmental effects Fertility effects Target organs Over-exposure signs/symptoms
• indicates trademark of SaPRO Corporation. Contains material that can cause target organ damage. Once sensitized, a severe allergic reaction may occur when subsequently exposed to very low levels. Contains material which can cause cancer. Risk of cancer depends on duration and level of exposure. No known significant effects or critical hazards. No known significant effects or critical hazards. No known significant effects or critical hazards. No known significant effects or critical hazards. Contains material which causes damage to the following organs: kidneys, liver, upper respiratory tract, skin, eye, lens or cornea. Page: 1/8 Date of Issue 03/15/2009 1'uR1nn Komeen Inhalation Ingestion Skin Eyes Adverse symptoms may include the following: respiratory tract irritation coughing wheezing and breathing difficulties asthma Adverse symptoms may include the following: stomach pains Adverse symptoms may include the following: pain or irritation redness blistering may occur Adverse symptoms may include the following: pain watering redness ISePR©I Medical conditions Pre-existing respiratory and skin disorders and disorders involving any other target organs aggravated by over-mentioned in this MSDS as being at risk may be aggravated by over-exposure to this exposure product. See toxicological information (section 11) 3 . Composition/information on ingredients Name Active ingredient: Copper sulphate pentahydrate Inert ingredient: Proprietary Amine United States CAS number % 7758-98-7 30 -60 Proprietary 10 -30 There are no additional ingredients present which, within the current knowledge of the supplier and in the concentrations applicable, are classified as hazardous to health or the environment and hence require reporting in this section. 4 . First aid measures Eye contact Skin contact Inhalation Ingestion Protection of first-aiders Notes to physician Check for and remove any contact lenses. In case of contact, immediately flush eyes with plenty of water for at least 20 minutes. Get medical attention immediately. In case of contact, immediately flush skin with plenty of water for at least 20 minutes. Get medical attention immediately. If inhaled, remove to fresh air. If not breathing, give artificial respiration. If breathing is difficult, give oxygen. Get medical attention immediately. Do not induce vomiting. Never give anything by mouth to an unconscious person. Get medical attention immediately. No action shall be taken involving any personal risk or without suitable training. If it is suspected that fumes are still present, the rescuer should wear an appropriate mask or self-contained breathing apparatus. It may be dangerous to the person providing aid to give mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. Wash contaminated clothing thoroughly with water before removing it, or wear gloves. In case of inhalation of decomposition products in a fire. symptoms may be delayed. The exposed person may need to be kept under medical surveillance for 48 hours. 5 . Fire-fighting measures Flammability of the product Extinguishing media Suitable Not suitable Special exposure hazards
• Indicates trademark of SePRO Corporation. May be combustible at high temperature. Use an extinguishing agent suitable for the surrounding fire. None known. Promptly isolate the scene by removing all persons from the vicinity of the incident if there is a fire. No action shall be taken involving any personal risk or without suitable training Fire water contaminated with this material must be contained and prevented from being discharged to any waterway, sewer or drain. Page: 2/8 Date of issue 03/15/2009 Komeen Hazardous thermal decomposition products Special protective equipment for fire-fighters Decomposition products may include the following materials: carbon dioxide carbon monoxide nitrogen oxides sulfur oxides metal oxide/oxides Decomposes above 200°C. lsePA©I Fire-fighters should wear appropriate protective equipment and self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) with a full face-piece operated in positive pressure mode. 6 . Accidental release measures Personal precautions Environmental precautions Methods for cleaning up Small spill Large spill No action shall be taken involving any personal risk or without suitable training. Evacuate surrounding areas. Keep unnecessary and unprotected personnel from entering. Do not touch or walk through spilled material. Do not breathe vapor or mist. Provide adequate ventilation. Wear appropriate respirator when ventilation is inadequate. Put on appropriate personal protective equipment (see section 8). May be harmful to the environment if released in large quantities. Stop leak if without risk. Move containers from spill area. Dilute with water and mop up if water-soluble or absorb with an inert dry material and place in an appropriate waste disposal container. Dispose of via a licensed waste disposal contractor. Stop leak if without risk. Move containers from spill area. Approach release from upwind. Prevent entry into sewers, water courses, basements or confined areas. Wash spillages into an effluent treatment plant or proceed as follows. Contain and collect spillage with non-combustible, absorbent material e.g. sand, earth, vermiculite or diatomaceous earth and place in container for disposal according to local regulations (see section 13). Dispose of via a licensed waste disposal contractor. Contaminated absorbent material may pose the same hazard as the spilled product. Note: see section 1 for emergency contact information and section 13 for waste disposal. 7 . Handling and storage Handling Storage Put on appropriate personal protective equipment (see section 8). Eating, drinking and smoking should be prohibited in areas where this material is handled, stored and processed. Workers should wash hands and face before eating, drinking and smoking. Persons with a history of skin sensitization problems or asthma, allergies or chronic or recurrent respiratory disease should not be employed in any process in which this product is used. Do not get in eyes or on skin or clothing. Do not breathe vapor or mist. Do not ingest. Avoid release to the environment. Use only with adequate ventilation. Wear appropriate respirator when ventilation is inadequate. Keep in the original container or an approved alternative made from a compatible material, kept tightly closed when not in use. Empty containers retain product residue and can be hazardous. Do not reuse container. Store in accordance with local regulations. Store in original container protected from direct sunlight in a dry, cool and well-ventilated area, away from incompatible materials (see section 10) and food and drink. Keep container tightly closed and sealed until ready for use. Containers that have been opened must be carefully resealed and kept upright to prevent leakage. Do not store in unlabeled containers. Use appropriate containment to avoid environmental contamination. 8 . Exposure controls/personal protection
• indicatH trademark of SePRO Corporation. Product name Copper sulphate pentahydrate Proprietary Amine Page: 3/8 l'\tHtUM United States Exposure limits ACGIH TLV (United States). TWA: 1 mg/ml 8 hour(s). Form: Copper dust. OSHA PEL (United States). TWA: 1 mg/ml 8 hour(s). Form: Copper dust. ACGIH TLV (United States, 1/2008). Absorbed through skin. TWA: 25 mg/ml 8 hour(s). TWA: 10 ppm 8 hour(s). NIOSH REL (United States, 12/2001). TWA: 25 mg/ml 10 hour(s). TWA: 10 ppm 10 hour(s). Date of Issue 03/15/2009 Komeen OSHA PEL (United States, 11 /2006). TWA: 25 mg/m' 8 hour(s). TWA: 10 ppm 8 hour(s). lsePA©I Consult local authorities for acceptable exposure limits. Recommended monitoring procedures Engineering measures Hygiene measures Personal protection Eyes Skin Respiratory Hands Personal protective equipment (Pictograms) HMIS Code/Personal protective equipment Environmental exposure controls If this product contains ingredients with exposure limits, personal, atmosphere or biological monitoring may be required to determine the effectiveness of the ventilation or other control measures and/or the necessity to use respiratory protective equipment. Applicators should refer to the product label for personal protective clothing and equipment. Use only with adequate ventilation. If user operations generate dust, fumes, gas, vapor or mist, use process enclosures, local exhaust ventilation or other engineering controls to keep exposure to airborne contaminants below any recommended or statutory limits. Wash hands, forearms and face thoroughly after handling chemical products, before eating, smoking and using the lavatory and at the end of the working period. Appropriate techniques should be used to remove potentially contaminated clothing. Wash contaminated clothing before reusing. Ensure that eyewash stations and safety showers are close to the workstation location. Splash goggles. Lab coat. Vapor respirator. Rubber gloves. G Emissions from ventilation or work process equipment should be checked to ensure they comply with the requirements of environmental protection legislation. In some cases, fume scrubbers, filters or engineering modifications to the process equipment will be necessary to reduce emissions to acceptable levels. 9 . Physical and chemical properties Physical state Color Odor pH Relative density Vapor pressure Solubility Liquid. Purple. [Dark] None 9.62 1.22 g/cm' (20°C). No appreciable vapor pressure. Open containers can lose small amounts of water by volatilization. Soluble in water and alcohols. 10 . Stability and reactivity Stability Hazardous polymerization Conditions to avoid Materials to avoid Hazardous decomposition products
• Indicates trademark of SePRO Corporation The product is stable. Under normal conditions of storage and use, hazardous polymerization will not occur. Avoid exposure -obtain special instructions before use. Reactive or incompatible with the following materials: oxidizing materials and acids. (Specific materials to avoid) Do not use where water is below 6. Copper chelate may dissociate and release copper ions which could subsequently be precipitated as insoluble copper salts. Should not be applied when water temperature is below 60°F. Under normal conditions of storage and use, hazardous decomposition products should not be produced. Page: 4/8 A *'1 ICtf lt't Date of Issue 03/15/2009 Komeen ISePA©\ Highly flammable in the presence of the following materials or conditions: open flames, sparks and static discharge. Flammable in the presence of the following materials or conditions: heat. 11 . Toxicological information Acute toxicity Product/ingredient name Copper sulphate pentahydrate Proprietary Amine Inhalation Ingestion Skin Eyes Carcinogenicity Classification Product/Ingredient namo Proprietary Amine Species Dose Result Exposure Rat 20 mg/kg LOSO lntraperitoneal Rat 48900 ug/kg LOSO Intravenous Rat-300 mg/kg LOSO Oral Female Rat 960 mg/kg LOSO Oral Rabbit 730 ul/kg LOSO Dermal Rat 1200 mg/kg LOSO Oral Corrosive to the respiratory system. May cause sensitization by inhalation. Exposure to decomposition products may cause a health hazard. Serious effects may be delayed following exposure. Toxic if swallowed. May cause burns to mouth, throat and stomach. Corrosive to the skin. Causes burns. May cause sensitization by skin contact. Corrosive to eyes. Causes burns. ACGIH A4 IARC EPA NIOSH NTP OSHA 12 . Ecological information Environmental effects Aquatic ecotoxlcity Product/ingredient name Proprietary Amine May be harmful to the environment if released in large quantities. Test 13 . Disposal considerations Species Fish Daphnia Exposure 96 hours 48 hours Result Acute LCSO 11 S700 to 131600 ug/L Acute LCSO 26SOO to 34400 ug/L Waste disposal The generation of waste should be avoided or minimized wherever possible. Empty containers or liners may retain some product residues. This material and its container must be disposed of in a safe way. Dispose of surplus and non-recyclable products via a licensed waste disposal contractor. Disposal of this product, solutions and any products should at all times comply with the requirements of environmental protection and waste disposal legislation and any regional local authority requirements. Avoid dispersal spilled material and runoff and contact with soft, waterways, drains and sewers. Disposal should be in accordance with applicable regional, national and local laws and regulations. Refer to Section 7: HANDLING AND STORAGE and Section 8: EXPOSURE CONTROLS/PERSONAL PROTECTION for additional handling information and protection of employees. 14 . Transport information AERG : 1S1 Regulatory UN number information DOT Classification UN3010 *indicates trademark of SePRO Corpor41tion. Proper shipping Classes name COPPER BASED 6.1 PESTICIDES, LIQUID, TOXIC Page: 5/8 "Hit-,.,., PG* Label Additional information Ill Date of Issue 03/15/2009 Komeen ISePR@I IMDG Class UN3010 COPPER BASED 6 1 Ill . f' PESTICIDES, LIQUID, TOXIC \ -------IATA-DGR Class UN3010 COPPER BASED 6.1 Ill -PESTICIDES, LIQUID. TOXIC PG* : Packing group 15 . Regulatory information United States HCS Classification U.S. Federal regulations SARA 313 Form R -Reporting requirements Toxic material Corrosive material Sensitizing material Carcinogen Target organ effects United States inventory (TSCA Sb): All components are listed or exempted. SARA 302/304/311/312 extremely hazardous substances: Proprietary Amine SARA 302/304 emergency planning and notification : Proprietary Amine SARA 302/304/311/312 hazardous chemicals: Copper sulphate pentahydrate; Proprietary Amine SARA 311/312 MSDS distribution -chemical inventory -hazard identification: Copper sulphate pentahydrate: Immediate (acute) health hazard. Delayed (chronic) health hazard; Proprietary Amine: Fire hazard, Immediate (acute) health hazard, Delayed (chronic) health hazard Clean Water Act (CWA) 307: Copper sulphate pentahydrate Clean Water Act (CWA) 311: Copper sulphate pentahydrate; Proprietary Amine; Proprietary Acid Clean Air Act (CAA) 112 accidental release prevention: Proprietary Amine Clean Air Act (CAA) 112 regulated flammable substances: No products were found. Clean Air Act (CAA) 112 regulated toxic substances: Proprietary Amine Product name Copper sulphate pentahydrate CAS number 7758-98-7 Concentration 30 -60 Supplier notification Copper sulphate pentahydrate 7758-98-7 30 -60 SARA 313 notifications must not be detached from the MSDS and any copying and redistribution of the MSDS shall include copying and redistribution of the notice attached to copies of the MSDS subsequently redistributed. State regulations Connecticut Carcinogen Reporting: None of the components are listed. Connecticut Hazardous Material Survey: None of the components are listed. Florida substances: None of the components are listed. Illinois Chemical Safety Act: None of the components are listed. Illinois Toxic Substances Disclosure to Employee Act: None of the components are listed. Louisiana Reporting: None of the components are listed. Louisiana Spill: None of the components are listed. Massachusetts Spill: None of the components are listed. Massachusetts Substances: The following components are listed: Copper sulphate pentahydrate; Proprietary Amine Michigan Critical Material: None of the components are listed. Minnesota Hazardous Substances: None of the components are listed. New Jersey Hazardous Substances: The following components are listed: Copper sulphate pentahydrate; Proprietary Amine; Proprietary Acid New Jersey Spill: None of the components are listed. New Jersey Toxic Catastrophe Prevention Act: None of the components are listed. New York Acutely Hazardous Substances: The following components are listed: Copper sulphate pentahydrate; Proprietary Amine; Proprietary Acid New York Toxic Chemical Release Reporting: None of the components are listed. Pennsylvania RTK Hazardous Substances: The following components are listed: Copper sulphate pentahydrate; Proprietary Amine; Proprietary Acid Rhode Island Hazardous Substances: None of the components are listed. I
• lndlcatn trademark of SePRO Corporation. Page: 6/8 A Date of issue 03/15/2009 '\.tl11*U1 Komeen California Prop. 65 Ingredient name Sulfuric acid lntern:itional regulations International lists lsePA©I WARNING: This product contains a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer. Cancer Reproductive Yes. No. No significant risk level No. Maximum acceptable dosage level No. This product, (and its ingredients) is (are) listed on national inventories, or is (are) exempted from being listed, in Australia (AICS), in Europe {EINECS/ELINCS), in Korea (TCCL), in Japan (METI), in the Philippines (RA6969). 16 . Other information Label requirements Hazardous Material Information System (U.S.A.) CAUSES RESPIRATORY TRACT, EYE AND SKIN BURNS. MAY CAUSE SEVERE ALLERGIC RESPIRATORY AND SKIN REACTION. HARMFUL IF SWALLOWED. CONTAINS MATERIAL THAT CAN CAUSE TARGET ORGAN DAMAGE. CANCER HAZARD -CONTAINS MATERIAL WHICH CAN CAUSE CANCER. 3 0 0 G HAZARD RATINGS 4-Extreme 3-Serious 2-Moderate 1-Slight 0-Minlmal See section 8 for more detailed information on personal protection. The customer is responsible for determining the PPE code for this material. National Fire Protection Association (U.S.A.) References Date of Issue Version Notice to reader Flammability Health Instability Special ANSI Z400.1, MSDS Standard, 2004. -Manufacturer's Material Safety Data Sheet. -29CFR Part1910.1200 OSHA MSOS Requirements. -49CFR Table List of Hazardous Materials, UN#, Proper Shipping Names, PG. 03/15/2009 To the best of our knowledge, the information contained herein is accurate. However, neither the above named supplier nor any of its subsidiaries assumes any liability whatsoever for the accuracy or completeness of the information contained herein. Final determination of suitability of any material is the sole responsibility of the user. All materials may present unknown hazards and should be used with caution. Although certain hazards are described herein, we cannot guarantee that these are the only hazards that exist. The data in this MSDS relates only to the specific material designated herein. Possible adverse effects (see Section 2, 11and12) may occur if this material is not handled in the recommended manner.
• indicates trademark of SePRO Corporoallon. Page: 7/8 .. _ . ., "' HU>>n Date of Issue 03/15/2009 Komeen *Indicates trademark ol SePRO Corpor.ation. This page has been intentionally left blank Page: 8/8 A "1 ""'" ISePA©I Date of Issue : 03/15/2009 MATERIAL SAFETY DATA AB Navigate SHEET 1. Product And Company Identification Manufacturer Applied Biochemists (WI) Advantis Technologies, Inc. A division of Advantis Technologies, Inc. 1400 Bluegrass Lakes Parkway W175 N11163 Stonewood Drive, Suite 234 Alpharetta, GA 30004 United States Germantown, WI 53022 Telephone Number: (262) 255-4449 Telephone Number: (770) 521-5999 FAX Number: (262) 255-4268 FAX Number: (770) 521-5959 Web Site: www.appliedbiochemists.com Web Site: www.poolspacare.com Emergency Contacts & Phone Number Manufacturer Emergency Contacts & Phone Number CHEMTREC -DAY OR NIGHT: (800) 424-9300 CHEMTREC -DAY OR NIGHT: (800) 424-9300 Issue Date: 02/15/2007 Product Name: AB Navigate Chemical Name: 2,4-0: 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid, Butoxyethyl Ester CAS Number: Not Established Chemical Family: Aquatic Herbicide MSDS Number: 379 2. Comoosition/lnformation On lnaredients Ingredient CAS Percent Of Name Number TotalWel11ht 2-BUTOXYETHYL-2,4-DICHLOROPHENOXY AC ETA TE 1929-73-3 CRYSTALLINE SILICA 14808-60-7 Ingredients listed in this section have been determined to be hazardous as defined in 29CFR 1910.1200. Materials determined to be health hazards are listed if they comprise 1 % or more of the composition. Materials identified as carcinogens are listed if they comprise 0.1% or more of the composition. Information on proprietary materials is available in 29CFR 1910.1200(i)( 1 ). EMERGENCY OVERVIEW Harmful if swallowed, inhaled, or absorbed throught the skin. It is anticipated to be slightly to moderately toxic if swallowed and slightly toxic if inhaled. 3. Hazards Identification Eye Hazards Causes eye irritation. Skin Hazardl! May be irritating to skin. Ingestion Hazards It is anticipated to be slightly to moderately toxic if swallowed. Inhalation Hazardl! It is anticipated to be slightly toxic if inhaled. Chronii;/Caci;inogenii;itll Effects This product contains clay. IARC has classified cystalline silica (a component of clay) as a probably human carcinogen. Prolonged contact may cause lover damage, kidney damage, and/or chronic muscle damage. Signs And Repeated and prolonged inhalation of this material may cause a form of disabling lung disease (commonly known as Page 1 of4 MATERIAL SAFETY DATA AB Navigate 3. Hazards Identification -Continued Signs And S:tmgtoms -Continued SHEET silicosis). Clinical signs and symptoms fo silicosis include cough, shortness of breath, wheezing and impairment of lung function. Impairment of lung function may be progressive. In the usual case of silicosis, there is a slow deterioration of capacity for physical effort, decreased chest expansion, and an increased susceptibility to tuberculosis and other respiratory infections. Short term, extrememly heavy exposure to dust of this material (particularly small sized particles) can result in acute silicosis. Individuals with acute silicosis may suffer an abrupt onset of violent coughing, labored breathing, and weight loss; death has been known to occu within one to two years Conditions Aggravated B:t None known. First Aid {Pictograms) ';] 4. First Aid Measures Eye In case of contact, hold eyelids apart and immediately flush eyes with plenty of water for at least 15 minutes. Get medical attention immediately if irritation develops and persists. Skin In case of contact, immediately flush skin with soap and plenty of water. Get medical attention immediately if irritation (redness, rash, blistering) develops and persists. Ingestion Call a physician or a poison control center immediately. Drink 1 or 2 glasses of water and induce vomiting. Never give anything by mouth to an unconscious victim. Inhalation If inhaled. remove to fresh air. If not breathing, give artificial respiration. Fire Fighting (Pictograms} 5. Fire FiQhtina Measures Flammability Class: Not flammable Fire And Hazards Thermal decomposition products include oxides of carbon, sulfur dioxides and hydrochloric acid. Extinguishing Media Water fog, carbon dioxide, dry chemical, or foam. Fire Fighting Instructions Firefighters should wear self-contained breathing apparatus and full protective gear. Dike to prevent contamination of water sources. 6. Accidental Release Measures Clean up spill immediately. Use appropriate containers to avoid environmental contamination. Prevent release to the environment. Do not flush area with water as it can cause contamination of sewer system. Page 2 of4 MATERIAL SAFETY DATA AB Navigate 7. Handling And Storage Handling And Storage Precautions SHEET Do not swallow, breath dust, store near food, contaminate water, food, or feed, apply to waters used for irrigation, agricultural sprays, watering dairy animals or domestic water supplies. Keep out of reach of children. Handling Precautions Wash hands before eating, drinking, or smoking. 8. Exoosure Controls/Personal Protection Engineering Controls Not normally required. Eye/Face Protection Safety glasses or splash goggles. Skin Protection Wear protective clothing to minimize contact. Wear chemical resistant gloves. Respiratory Protection Not normally required. If needed, use NIOSH approved respirator for dusts. Other/General Protection Use safe chemical handling procedures suitable for the hazards presented by this material. 9. Physical And Chemical Properties Aol::!earance Grayffan granules. Odor Mild, phenolic odor. Chemical Type: Mixture Physical State: Solid Percent Volitales: Not Determined Packing Density: Not Determined Solubility: Insoluble Evaporation Rate: Not Determined 10. Stabilitv And Reactivitv Stability: Stable Hazardous Polymerization: Will not occur Conditions To Avoid None known. Page 3 of4 I I MATERIAL SAFETY DATA AB Navigate 10. Stability And Reactivity -Continued lncomi;iatible Materials Acids. bases. and oxidizers. Hazardous Products SHEET Thermal decomposition products include oxides of carbon, sulfur dioxides and hydrochloric acid. 11. Toxicological Information Acute Studies None available. 12. Information Ecotoxicological Information None available. 13. Disposal Considerations Dispose in accordance with applicable federal, state and local government regulations. RQ for 2-Butoxyethy 2,4-dichlorophenoxy acetate (CAS# 1929-73-3) is 100 lbs. 14. Transport Information Pr2ger Shigging Name Not regulated Hazard Class Not regulated DOT Identification Number NONE 15. Reaulatorv Information No Data Available ... NFPA HMIS HEALTH 2 ',.. *v.. -2 0 . " _<L REACTIVITY [QJ PERSONAL PROTECTION C£J 16. Other Information RevisiQn/Pregarer Information MSDS Preparer: JHW Disclaimer Although reasonable care has been taken in the preparation of this document, we extend no warranties and make no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of the information contained therein, and assume no responsibility regarding the suitablility of this information for the user's intended purposes or for the consequences of its use. Each individual should make a determination as to the suitability of the information for their particular purposes(s). Applied Biochemists (WI) ot.ro1g.n VSOS Ganetiilnf' .. 1000 Page 4 of4 MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET North American Version PAK rM 27 Algaecide It is a violation of State and Federal law to use this product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling. The labeling must be in possession of the user at the time of pesticide use or application. 1. PRODUCT AND COMPANY IDENTIFICATION 1.1. Identification of the substance/preparation Product Name PAKTM27 Algaecide Chemical Name Sodium carbonate peroxyhydrate Synonyms Sodium Percarbonate, PCS, Sodium Carbonate Chemical Formula Molecular Weight CAS Number Grades/Trade Names 1.2. Use of the Substance/Preparation Recommended use 1.3. Company/Undertaking Identification Address 1.4. Emergency telephone numbers Peroxide, PAKŽ27 2Na2C03*3H202 314.06 g/mol 15630-89-4 PAKŽ27 Algaecide End-use Algaecide (pesticide) Use in accordance with label instructions EPA Reg.# 68660-9 Solvay Chemicals, Inc. PO BOX 27328 Houston, TX 77227-7328 3333 Richmond Ave. Houston, Texas 77098 General: 1-800-765-8292 (Solvay Chemicals, Inc.,) All Emergencies (USA): 1-800-424-9300 (CHEMTREC*) Transportation Emergencies (INTERNATIONAUMARITIME): 1-703-527-3887 (CHEMTREC*) Transportation Emergencies (CANADA): 1-613-996-6666 (CANUTEC) Transportation Emergencies (MEXICO-SETIQ): 01-800-00-214-00 (MEX. REPUBLIC) 525-559-1588 (Mexico City and metro area) 2. HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION 2.1. Emergency Overview: General Information Appearance Color Odor Main effects Granular solid White Odorless/odorless Irritating to mucous membranes, eyes and skin. Risk of serious damage to eyes. 2.2. Potential Health Effects: Inhalation MSDS PAK27-020712116120011usMssuing date 0211s12001 FOS I P17607tuk/Report ver.;ion1 .1/31.05 .. 2006 Copyright 2007, Solvay Chemicals Inc., All rights reserved. 1/9 Solvay Chemicals ({) SOLVAY Nose and throat irritation. At high concentrations, cough. In case of repeated or prolonged exposure: risk of sore throat, nose bl_eeds, chronic bronchitis. Eye contact Severe eye irritation, watering and redness. Risk of serious or permanent eye lesions. Skin contact Slight irritation In case of repeated contact: risk of dermatitis. Ingestion Severe irritation of the mouth, throat, esophagus and stomach. Bloating of stomach, belching. Nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. Other toxicity effects See section 11: Toxicological Information 2.3. Environmental Effects: See .section 12: Ecological Information 3. COMPOSITION OF/INFORMATION ON INGREDIENTS Sodium Carbonate Peroxyhydrate CAS-No. Concentration Sodium Carbonate CAS-No. Concentration Sodium Metasilicate CAS-No. Concentration Sodium Chloride CAS-No. Concentration 15630-89-4 > 85.0 % 497-19-8 ca. 13 % 6843-92-0 ca.1.5% 7647-14-5 ca.1 % Note: Oxyper 8141 and 8142 may contain up to 0.5% Boron. 4. FIRST AID MEASURES 4.1. Inhalation Remove the subject from dusty environment and let him blow his nose. Consult with a physician in case of respiratory symptoms. 4.2. Eye contact Flush eyes as soon as possible with running water for 15 minutes, while keeping the eyelids wide open. In the case of difficulty of opening the lids, administer and analgesic eye wash (oxyburprocaine). Consult with an ophthalmologist immediately in all cases. 4.3. Skin contact Wash the affected skin with running water. Clean clothing Consult with a physician in case of persistent pain or redness. 4.4. Ingestion The following actions are recommended: Consult with a physician in all cases. MSCS PAK27*0207i 2116/2007/USN1ssuing date 0211512007 FDS I P17607iuk1Report versionl.1/31.05 .. 2006 Copyright 2007, SolvayChemlcals Inc., All rights reserved 2/9 Solvay Chemicals -* .. .-i. 's' \.:.::." SOLVAY If victim is conscious: Rinse mouth and administer fresh water. Do not induce vomiting. If victim is unconscious but breathing: Not applicable 5. FIRE-FIGHTING MEASURES 5.1. Suitable extinguishing media Large quantities of water, water spray. In case of fire in close proximity, all means of extinguishing are acceptable (subject to section below). 5.2. Extinguishing media which must not be used for safety reasons No restrictions. 5.3. Special exposure hazards in a fire Oxidizer (see section 9). Oxygen released on exothermic decomposition may support combustion in case of surrounding fire. Pressure burst may occur due to decomposition in confined spaces/containers. Do not spray the dry product with water, except in case of fire. Wet product decomposes exothermically and may cause combustion of organic materials. 5.4. Special protective equipment for fire-fighters When intervention in close proximity, wear acid resistant over suit. 5.5. Other Information If safe to do so, remove the exposed containers. [ 6. ACCIDENTAL RELEASE MEASURES 6.1. Personal precautions Follow the protective measures given in sections 5 and 8. Keep away materials and products which are incompatible with the product (see section 10). Avoid direct contact-of the product with water. 6.2. Environmental precautions -Prevent discharges into the environment (sewers, rivers, soils, etc.). -l_mmediately notify the appropriate authorities in case of significant discharge. 6.3. Methods for cleaning up Collect the product with suitable means avoiding dust formation. All receiving equipment should be clean, vented, dry, labeled and made of material that is compatible with the product. Because of the contamination risk, the collected material should be isolated in a safe place. Clean the area with large quantities of water. For disposal methods, refer to section 13. 7. HANDLING AND STORAGE 7.1. Handling Clean and dry piping circuits and equipment before any operations. Never return unused product to storage container. Keep away from incompatible products. Containers and equipment used to handle the product should be used exclusively for that product.
• Avoid any contact with water of humidity. MSDS PAK27-02071211612007tuSA/lssuing date 0211512001 FDS I P176071uk/Report version1.1/31.05 . .2006 Copyright 2007, Solvay Chemicals Inc., All rights reserved. 3/9 Solvay Chemicals 0:\ SOLVAY Storage For more information, consult the supplier. Keep in a dry place. Keep away from direct sunlight. Keep away from heat. Keep away from incompatible products Keep in container fitted with safety valve or vent. The container must be used exclusively for the product. Keep only in the original container at temperature not exceeding 40°C (104°F). 7.2. Packaging material Stainless steel Polyethylene Paper+ PE coating. Glass Passivated aluminum 8. EXPOSURE CONTROLS I PERSONAL PROTECTION .. 8.1 Exeosure Limit Values TLVACGIH OSHA PEL USA Sodium Carbonate Peroxyhydrate Particles not otherwise classified 3 mg/m" resp. dust 5 resp. dust (PNOC) 10mg/m3 15 mg/m3 inhalable inhalable dust dust ACGIH.and TL Ve are registered trademarks of the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists SAEL is Solvay Acceptable Exposure Limit. Time Weighted Average for 8 hour workdays. No specific TLV-STEL (Short Term Exposure Level) has been set. Excursions in exposure level may exceed 3 times the TLV-TWA for no SAEL 5 maim" more than a total of 30 minutes during a workday and under no circumstances should they exceed 5 times the TLV-TWA. 8.2. Engineering controls Ensure adequate ventilation. Provide appropriate local ventilation for the emission risk. Refer to protective measures listed in section 7. 8.3. Personal protective equipment 8.3.1. Respiratory protection In case of dust clouds/fog/fumes, face mask with appropriate cartridge. 8.3.2. Hand protection Wear protective.gloves. Recommended materials: PVC, neoprene, rubber 8.3.3. Eye protection Dust proof goggles, if very dusty. 8.3.4. Skin and body protection Wear suitable protective clothing. 8.3.5. Hygiene measures Shower and eye wash stations. Handle in accordance with good industrial hygiene and safety practice. Consult the industrial hygienist or the safety manager for the selection of personal protective equipment suitable for the working conditions. MSDS PAK27-02071211612007tUSNlssulng dalo 0211 s12007 FDS I P17607/uk/Report veralon1 .1131.05 .. 2006 Copyright 200T, Solvay Chemicals Inc., AU rights reserved 4/9 Solvay Chemicals /*!\ s \. .. SOLVAY

9. PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES 9.1. General Information Appearance Color Odor Granular solid White Odorless 9.2. Important Health Safety and Environmental Information pH Boiling point/range Flash point Flammability*(solid, gas) Explosive properties Oxidizing properties Vapor pressure Relative density I Density Partition coefficient (n-. octanol/water) Viscosity Vapor density Bulk density Solubility 9.3 Other information Melting point/range From 10.4-10.6 Concentration: 1 % solution Remarks: Not applicable Remarks: Not applicable Lower explosion limit: Remarks: Not applicable Remarks: Non-explosive Remarks: Oxidizer Remarks: Not applicable Remarks: No data Remarks: Not applicable Remarks: Not applicable Remarks: Not applicable 0.95-1.2 kg/m3 Water: 150 g/I Temperature: 20°C (68°F) Water: 175 g/I Temperature: 30°C (86°F) Remarks: Not applicable (before melting) Decomposition temperature Remarks: Self-accelerating decomposition with oxygen release starting from 50°C (122°F) 10. STABILITY AND REACTIVITY 10.1. Stability Potential for exothermic hazard. Stable under certain conditions with slow gas release. 10.2. Conditions to avoid Heat. Exposure to moisture. 10.3. Materials to avoid Water MSDS PAK27-02071211612007/USA/lssuing date 0211512001 FDS I versionl.1131.05 .. 2006 Copyright 2007, Solvay Chemicals Inc., All rights reserved. 5/9 Solvay Chemicals @ SOLVAY Acids Bases Heavy metal salts Reducing agents Organic materials Flammable materials 10.4. Hazardous decomposition products Oxygen 11. TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION 11.1 Toxicological data Acute oral toxicity LD50, rat, 1,034 mg/kg Acute inhalation toxicity LCO, 1 h, rat, > 4,580 mg/m3 Acute dermal irritation/corrosion LD lo, rabbit, > 2,000 mg/kg Skin irritation rabbit, slightly irritant (skin) Eye irritation rabbit, Risk of serious damage to eyes. Sensitization No data Chronic toxicity No data available Remarks Harmful if swallowed. Risk of serious damage to eyes. 11.2 Chronic toxicity/ Carcinogenic Designation: None .------------------*----*----*------------*--*-----.------12. ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION 12.1. Ecotoxicity effects Acute toxicity Fishes, Pimephales promelas, LC50, 71 mg/I Fishes, Pimephales promelas, NOEC, 96 h, 7.4 mg/I Crustaceans, Daphnia pulex, EC50, 4.9 mg/I Crustaceans, Daphnia pulex, NOEC, 48 h, 2 mg/I 12.2. Mobility Air Remarks: not applicable Water Remarks: considerable solubility and mobility Soil/sediments, landfill leachate Remarks: non-significant adsorption 12.3. Persistence and degradability Abiotic degradation Air Result: not applicable MSDS PAK27-020712116/2007/USA11ssulllfl date 0211s12001 FDS I P17607/uk/Reporl version1.1/31 05 .2006 Copyright 2007, Solvoy Chemicals Inc., All rfghb raserved. 6/9 Solvay Chemicals ;**?\ S1 \,;:,,.,.,. SOLVAY Soil, Hydrolysis Water Result: significant hydrolysis Degradation products: Sodium carbonate./ carbonic acid/bicarbonate/carbonate I hydrogen peroxide (bio)degradable Biodegradation Aerobic/anaerobic Remarks: no data available 12.4. Bioaccumulative potential Result: Does not bioaccumulate. 12.5. Remarks Toxic to aquatic organisms. Hazard for the aquatic environment is limited due to product properties: Does not bioaccumulate. abiotic degradability. low toxicity of degradation products. 13. DISPOSAL CONSIDERATIONS 13.1 Waste treatment: Sodium Percarbonate (sodium carbonate peroxyhydrate) is not a listed hazardous waste under 40 CFR 261. However, state and local regulations for waste disposal may be more restrictive. Spilled product should be disposed of in an EPA approved disposal facility in accordance with applicable national, state and local environmental laws and regulations. 13.2 Packaging treatment: To avoid treatment, use dedicated containers where possible. Rinse the empty containers and treat'the effluent in the same way as waste. Consult current federal, state and local regulations regarding the proper disposal of emptied containers. 13.3 RCRA Hazardous Waste: D001 (ignitable) 14. TRANSPORT INFORMATION Mode QQ.! IMDG IATA UN Number 3378 3378 3378 Class 5.1 5.1 5.1 (Subsidiary) Proper Sodium Carbonate Sodium Carbonate Sodium Carbonate Shipping Name peroxyhydrate peroxyhydrate Packing Group Ill Ill Marine No No Pollutant Hazard Label Oxidizer (5.1) Oxidizing Agent Placard Oxidizer (5.1) 3378 Emergency ERG Ems Information 140 F-A; S-P Other Consult with manufacturer before transoortinq in bulk MSOS PAK27.Q207/ 2116/2007/USA/lssuing dale 02/15/2007 FDS I P17607/uk/Report version1 .1/31.05 .. 2006 Copyright 2007, Solvay Chemicals Inc., All rights reserved. 7/9 Solvay Chemicals peroxyhydrate Ill No Oxidizer Oxidizer ERG Code SL {Tu\ \!) SOLVAY

15. REGULATORY INFORMATION 15.1 National Regulations (US) TSCA Inventory 8(b): Yes SARA Title Ill Sec. 302/303 Extremely Hazardous Substances (40 CFR355): No SARA Title Ill Sec. 311/312 (40 CFR 370): Yes Hazard Category:

• Fire hazard *Threshold planning quantity-10,000 lbs. SARA Title III Sec. 313 Toxic Chemical Emissions Reporting (40 CFR 372): No CERCLA Hazardous Substance (40CFR Part 302) Listed: No Unlisted Substance: Yes, Reportable quantity 100 lbs. Characteristic: 0001 (lgnitability) State Component Listing: State List NJ Right to Know Substance List 15.2 National Regulations (Canada): Canadian NSN Registration: DSL WHMIS Classification: C Oxidizing Material 028 Poisonous and infectious material -other toxic effects. This product has been classified in accordance with the hazard criteria of the Controlled Products Regulations and the MSDS contains all lhe information required by the Controlled Products Regulations. 15.3 National Regulations (Europe) EINECS I ELINCS # : Labeling according to Directive 67/548/EEC. Name of dangerous products-Symbol(s) 0 Xi R8 22 41 53 8 17 24/25 26 Oxidizing Irritant. Contact with combustible material may cause fire. Irritating to skin. Risk of serious damage to eyes. Keep in a cool place. Keep container dry. Keep away from combustible material. Avoid contact with skin and eyes. In case of contact with eyes, rinse immediately with plenty of water and seek medical advice. -'<\ :,s I Vj MSDS PAK27--02071211e120011usA1lssulng date 0211512007 FDS I P176071uk/Report verslon1 1131 05 2006 Copyright 2007, Solvay Chemicals Inc , All rights reserved. Solvay Chemicals SOLVAY 8/9

16. OTHER INFORMATION 16.1 Ratings: NFPA (NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION) Health = 2 Fire = 0 Instability = 1 Special = OX HMIS (HAZARDOUS MATERIAL INFORMATION SYSTEM) Health = 2 Fire = 0 Reactivity = 1 PPE = Supplied by User; dependent on local conditions 16.2 Other Information: To our actual knowledge, the information contained herein is accurate as of the date of this document. However, neither Solvay Chemicals, Inc., nor any of its affiliates makes any warranty, express or implied, or accepts any liability in connection with this information or its use. This information is for use by technically skilled persons at their own discretion and risk and does not relate to the use of this product in combination with any other substance or any other process. This is not a license under any patent or other proprietary right. The user alone must finally determine suitability of any information or material for any contemplated use, the manner of use and whether any patents are infringed. This information gives typical properties only and is not to be used for specification purposes. Solvay Chemicals, Inc. reserves the right to make additions, deletions or modifications to the information at any time without prior notification. Material Safety Data Sheets contain country specific regulatory information; therefore, this MSDS is for use only by customers of Solvay Chemicals Inc. in the United States of America and, if specifically indicated, Canada and Mexico. If the user is located in a country other than the United States, please contact the Solvay Company serving your country for MSDS information applicable to your region. The previous information is based upon our current knowledge and experience of our product and is not exhaustive. It applies to the product as defined by the specifications. In case of combinations of mixtures, one must confirm that no new hazards are likely to exist. In any case, the user is not exempt from observing all legal, administrative and regulatory procedures relating to the product, personal hygiene, and integrity of the work environment. (Unless noted to the contrary, the technical information applies only to pure product). TRADEMARKS: All trade name of products referenced herein are either trademarks or registered trademarks of Solvay Chemicals, Inc. or its affiliates, unless otherwise identified. 16.3 Reason for revision: Supersedes edition: Solvay Chemicals. Inc. MSDS PAK27-0105 dated: 03-10-05 Purpose of revision: Periodic review and update MSDS PAK27..()2071 211612007/USA/lssuing dale 0211s12001 FDS I P17607iuk/Report version1 1/31 05 2006 Copyright 2007, Solvay Chemicals Inc , All rights reserved 919 Solvay Chemicals SOLVAY synlenta MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. Post Office Box 18300 In Case of Emergency, Call 1-800-888-83 72 Greensboro, NC 27419 *---------*-*---**-*------**----*---* -----1. PRODUCT IDENTIFICATION --* -----*--.. ------------------* --*-. -* -*--------** -------Product Name: REW ARD LANDSCAPE AND AQUATIC Product No.: AI2872A EPA Signal Word: Active Ingredient(%): Chemical Name: Chemical Class: HERBICIDE Warning Diquat dibromide (37.3%) CAS No.: [ 6, 7-dihydrodipyrido(l ,2-a:2 ', l '-c )pyrazinediium dibromide] Bipyridilium ( dipyridilium) contact herbicide 85-00-7 EPA Registration Number(s): 100-1091 (formerly 10182-404) Section(s) Revised: All sections 2. COMPOSITION/INFORMATION ON INGREDIENTS OSHA PEL ACGIH TLV NTP/IARC/OSHA Material Other Carcinogen Diquat dibromide (37.3%) Not Established 0.5 mglm' TWA (total 0.5 mglm' TWA** No dust); 0.08 mg/m' TWA (respirable dust) ** recommended by NIOSH Ingredients not precisely identified are proprietary or non-hazardous. Values are not product specifications. 3. HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION Symptoms of Acute Exposure Harmful if inhaled or swallowed. Dust, mist or vapor irritating to eyes and respiratory tract. May cause skin irritation. Hazardous Decomposition Products Can decompose at high temperatures forming toxic gases. Flammable hydrogen gas may be formed on contact with aluminum. See "Conditions to Avoid", Section 10. Physical Properties Appearance: Odor: Dark brown liquid Odorless Unusual Fire. Explosion and Reactivity Hazards This product may form flammable and explosive hydrogen gas when in contact with aluminum. 4. FIRST AID MEASURES Have the product container, label or Material Safety Data Sheet with you when calling Syngenta (800-888-8372), a poison canto! center or doctor, or going for treatment. Ingestion: If swallowed: Call Syngenta (800-888-8372), a poison control center or doctor immediately for treatment advice. Have the person sip a glass of water if able to swallow. Do not induce vomiting unless told to do so after calling 800-888-8372 or by a poison control center or doctor. Do not give anything by mouth to an unconscious person. Product Name: REW ARD LANDSCAPE AND AQUATIC HERBICIDE Page: l Eye Contact: If in eyes: Hold eye open and rinse slowly and gently with water for 15-20 minutes. Remove contact lenses, if present, after 5 minutes, then continue rinsing eye. Call Syngenta (800-888-8372), a poison control center or doctor for treatment advice. Skin Contact: If on skin or clothing: Take off contaminated clothing. Rinse skin immediately with plenty of water for 15-20 minutes. Call Syngenta (800-888-8372), a poison control center or doctor for treatment advice. Inhalation: If inhaled: Move person to fresh air. If person is not breathing, call 911 or an ambulance, then give artificial respiration, preferably mouth-to-mouth if possible. Call Syngenta (800-888-8372), a poison control center or doctor for further treatment advice. Notes to Phvsician There is no specific antidote if this product is ingested. Treat symptomatically. Medical Condition Likely to be Aggravated by Exposure None known. r-----**-***--------*---*-*-----*-**** -----------*--*-*--***-**-*----* -----* ***--**---*-------------, : 5. FIRE FIGHTING MEASURES L. _______ . -----------**-----*---**---* -*--*--* *-**--*-*-**-*---Fire and Explosion Flash Point (Test Method): Flammable Limits(% in Air): Autoignition Temperature: Flammability: Not Applicable Lower: % Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Unusual Fire. Explosion and Reactivity Hazards Upper: % Not Applicable This product may form flammable and explosive hydrogen gas when in contact with aluminum. In Case of Fire Use dry chemical, foam or C02 extinguishing media. Wear full protective clothing and self-contained breathing apparatus. Evacuate nonessential personnel from the area to prevent human exposure to fire, smoke, fumes or products of combustion. Prevent use of contaminated buildings, area, and equipment until decontaminated. Water runoff can cause environmental damage. If water is used to fight fire, dike and collect runoff. [i RELEASE MEASURES -------**------*. --------****-** ---__ j In Case of Spill or Leak Control the spill at its source. Contain the spill to prevent it from spreading, contaminating soil, or entering sewage and drainage systems or any body of water. Clean up spills immediately, observing precautions outlined in Section 8. If a solid, sweep up material and place in a compatible disposal container. If a liquid, cover entire spill with absorbing material and place into compatible disposal container. Scrub area with hard water detergent (e.g. commercial products such as Tide, Joy, Spic and Span). Pick up wash liquid with additional absorbent and place into compatible disposal container. Once all material is cleaned up and placed in a disposal container, seal container and arrange for disposition. I ---***---*---*------------* __ 7._ HANDLING AND STORAGE -------------This product reacts with aluminum to produce flammable hydrogen gas. Do not mix or store in containers or systems made of aluminum or having aluminum fittings. Store the material in a well-ventilated, secure area out ofreach of children and domestic animals. Do not store food, beverages or tobacco products in the storage area. Prevent eating, drinking, tobacco use, and cosmetic application in areas where there is a potential for exposure to the material. Wash thoroughly with soap and water after handling. r*--** ------***-* ---------**--------* ---.. -*****-----**---**--*---------*---------*--*-*--*-*---**1 1 8. EXPOSURE CONTROLS/PERSONAL PROTECTION 1 THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EXPOSURE CONTROLS/PERSONAL PROTECTION ARE INTENDED FOR THE MANUFACTURE, FORMULATION AND PACKAGING OF THE PRODUCT. FOR COMMERCIAL APPLICATIONS AND ON-FARM APPLICATIONS CONSULT THE PRODUCT LABEL Ingestion: Prevent eating, drinking, tobacco usage and cosmetic application in areas where there is a potential for exposure to the material. Wash thoroughly with soap and water after handling. Product Name: REW ARD LANDSCAPE AND AQUATIC HERBICIDE Page: 2 Eye Contact: Where eye contact is likely, use chemical splash goggles. Facilities storing or utilizing this material should be equipped with an eyewash facility and a safety shower. Skin Contact: Where contact is likely, wear chemical-resistant (such as nitrile or butyl) gloves, coveralls, socks and chemical-resistant footwear. For overhead exposure, wear chemical-resistant headgear. Inhalation: Use process enclosures, local exhaust ventilation, or other engineering controls to keep airborne levels below exposure limits. A NIOSH-certified combination air-purifying respirator with an N, P or R 95 or HE class filter and an organic vapor cartridge may be permissible under certain circumstances where airborne concentrations are expected to exceed exposure limits. Protection provided by air-purifying respirators is limited. Use a pressure deinand atmosphere-supplying respirator if there is any potential for uncontrolled release, exposure levels are not known, or under any other circumstances where air-purifying respirators may not provide adequate protection. 9. PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES Appearance: Odor: Melting Point: Boiling Point: Specific Gravity/Density: pH: Solubility in H20 Diquat dibromide: Vapor Pressure Dark brown liquid Odorless Not Available Not Available l.20 *g/mL@ 68°F (20°C) 4-6 718,000 mg/L @ 68°F (20°C) and pH 7 .2 Diquat dibromide: <10(-8) mmHg@ 77°F (25°C) r . ._.. *---*-*----*--*** *-**-**--***--* ----**--*---*------10. ST ABILITY AND REACTIVITY -. *---------------------* .. -----***-------Stability: Hazardous Polymerization: Stable under normal use and storage conditions. Will not occur. Conditions to Avoid: Concentrate should not be stored in aluminum containers. Spray solutions should not be mixed, stored or applied in containers other than plastic, plastic-lined steel, stainless steel or fiberglass. Materials to Avoid: Strong alkalis and anionic wetting agents (e.g., alkyl and alkylaryl sulfonates). Corrosive to aluminum. Hazardous Decomposition Products: Can decompose at high temperatures forming toxic gases. Flammable hydrogen gas may be formed on contact with aluminum. See "Conditions to Avoid", Section 10. 11. TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION Acute Toxicity/Irritation Studies <Finished Product) Ingestion: Slightly Toxic Oral (LD50 Rat) : Dermal: Inhalation: Eye Contact: Skin Con tact: Skin Sensitization: Neurotoxicity Moderately Toxic Dermal (LD50 Rabbit) Moderately Toxic Inhalation (LC50 Rat) Irritant Not Available Not Available ---*-******--= 600 mg/kg body weight = 260 mg/kg body weight = 0.121 mg/I air -4 hours Diquat dibromide: No evidence for neurotoxic effects in rats dosed up to 400 ppm ion in the diet for 13 weeks. Reproductive Effects Diquat dibromide: Mutagenicity: No evidence in in vivo assays. Product Name: REWARD LANDSCAPE AND AQUATIC HERBICIDE Page: 3 Development Toxicity: In rabbit studies a small percentage offetuses had minor defects at 3 and 10 mg ionlkg/d. Chronic/Subchronic Toxicity Studies Diquat dibromide: Kidney weight decreases and cataracts seen in dogs at 12.5 mg ion/kg/d. Carcinogenicity Diquat dibromide: No evidence of carcinogenicity in rat and mouse studies. Other Toxicity Information None. Toxicity of Other Components Not Applicable Target Organs Active Ingredients Diquat dibromide: Inert Ingredients Eye, kidney Not Applicable 1-12-:-:EcoLoGICAL INFORMATION _________ ---**-**---**-------*-*----*** I_. **--* -*-----*------------. Summary of Effects Diquat dibromide: This material is toxic to fish and wildlife. Eco-Acute Toxicity ----*---*---**-* *--------*-------*---*---**.' Diquat dibromide: Rainbow Trout 96-hour LC50 21 mg/L Mirror Carp 96 hours LC50 67 mg/L Eco-Chronic Toxicity Diquat dibromide: Not Available Environmental Fate Diquat dibromide: No data available for the formulation. The information presented here is for the active ingredient, diquat debromide. Sorption: Extremely tightly adsorbed to (negatively-charged) soil particles due to its dicationic nature. Diquat is primarily adsorbed to clay, less so to OM. Diquat bound to soil is unavailable for plant uptake and is largely unavailable to soil microbes. Koc: Average is 1,000,000 mL/g (estimated). Photodegradation: Losses probably occur on sprayed leaf surfaces and on dead and decaying vegetation. Photochemical decomposition of diquat has been measured in the lab by irradiating thin layers of soil, but has not been unequivocally demonstrated under field conditions. Other degradation: Certain microbe species in soil-less culture media decompose diquat. However, they degrade diquat bound to soil slowly or not at all. Persistence: Typical half-life is l 000 d. Diquat is highly persistent due to strong binding to clay and unavailability to microbes. Diquat in soil is not taken up by plants, so any crop can be seeded at any time after application. Mobility: Immobile in soil. Volatilization: No losses. -----------------*--------------.*.. --**-*-------------------------------------*-----* ' : 13. DISPOSAL CONSIDERATIONS *--. *****--------*-*-----*---**--------------! Disposal Do not reuse product containers. Dispose of product containers, waste containers, and residues according to local, state, and federal health and environmental regulations. Characteristic Waste: Not Applicable Listed Waste: Not Applicable Product Name: REW ARD LANDSCAPE AND AQUATIC HERBICIDE Page: 4

, 14. TRANSPORT INFORMATION DOT Classification Corrosive Liquid, N.O.S. (diquat dibromide, 37.3%), 8, UNI 760, PGIII BIL Freight Classification Herbicides, NOIBN Comments International Transportation Corrosive Liquid, N.0.S. (diquat dibromide, 37.3%), Class 8, UNI 760, PGIII *---*---*-** ----**-*-*-** *****--*--------***---*--*****-------*-***--*-**** -** -**--****--**-----*----------*-*----*-* .. *--*1 I ; 15. REGULATORY INFORMATION -----.. *-* *-*--**--*----** . --**---*** _____ .! EPCRA SARA Title Ill Classification Section 311/312 Hazard Classes: Acute Health Hazard Chronic Health Hazard Section 313 Toxic Chemicals: California Proposition 65 None Not Applicable CERCLA/SARA 302 Re.portable Quantity (RQ) None RCRA Hazardous Waste Classification (40 CFR 261) Not Applicable TSCA Status Exempt from TSCA, subject to FIFRA . 16. OTHER INFORMATION ***---* .. **-** ****-* **--**-*------*--*--*-1 --******* ------*-*----------------*---**-----*** -.. --------.. ---**** -*---****----*-I NFPA Hazard Ratings HMIS Hazard Ratings Health: 2 Health: 2 io .. Minimal !I Slight Flammability: I Flammability: Instability: 0 Reactivity: 0 /2 Moderate 13 Serious ; __ I For non-emergency questions about this product call: 1-800-334-9481 Original Issued Date: 04/11/2002 Revision Date: Replaces: -**--------**----... --*** --*--------*---****---*-*-**--*--------*--1 i The information and recommendations contained herein are based upon data believed to be correct.: i However, no guarantee or warranty of any kind, expressed or implied, is made with respect to the ! j information contained herein. ! ---------*------------*-*----**-*-**---*-* . *--*-**-**-**----*-*-**-*--**-' RSVP# : SCP-955-00349A EndofMSDS Product Name: REW ARD LANDSCAPE AND AQUATIC HERBICIDE Page: 5 MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET .ŽDow AgroSciences RODEO* HERBICIDE Emergency Phone: 800-992-5994 Dow AgroSciences LLC Indianapolis, IN 46268 Effective Date: 3/23/04 Product Code: 84825 MSDS: 006694 L...11_. _PR_O_D_U_C_T_AN_D_C_O_M_P_AN_Y_ID_E ....... ---- EXTINGUISHING MEDIA: Foam, C02, Dry Chemical PRODUCT: Rodeo* Herbicide COMPANY IDENTIFICATION:* Dow AgroSciences LLC 9330 Zionsville Road FIRE AND EXPLOSION HAZARDS: Foam fire extinguishing system is preferred because uncontrolled water can spread possible contamination. Toxic irritating gases may be formed under fire conditions. Indianapolis, IN 46268-1189 FIRE-FIGHTING EQUIPMENT: Use positive-pressure, self* 12. COMPOSITION/INFORMATION ON INGREDIENTS: J apparatus and full protective Glyphosate IPA: CAS # 038641-94-0 53.8% ..-1 ---------------------, N-(phosphono-methyl) 6. ACCIDENTAL RELEASE MEASURES: glycine, lsopropylamine ACTION TO TAKE FOR SPILLS: Absorb small spills with Salt an inert absorbent material such as Hazorb, Zorball, sand, Balance, Total 46.2% or dirt. Report large spills to Dow AgroSciences on 800-.... , 3-. -H-AZA--R-DO_U_S-ID-E-NT-l-Fl-C-AT_l_O_N-S:------....1992-5994. ================= 11. HANDLING AND STORAGE: EMERGENCY OVERVIEW

• Clear, pale yellow liquid. May cause eye irritation. Slightly toxic to aquatic organisms. EMERGENCY PHONE NUMBl;:R: 800-992-5994 PRECAUTIONS TO BE TAKEN IN HANDLING AND STORAGE: Keep out of reach of children. Do not swallow. Avoid contact with eyes, skin, and clothing. Avoid breathing vapors and spray mist. Handle concentrate in .-F-IR_S_T_A-ID_: ______________ __,I area. Wash thoroughly with soap and water after handling L. ---------------------' and before eating, chewing gum, using tobacco, using the EYE: Flush eyes thoroughly with water for several minutes. toilet or smoking. Keep away from food, feedstuffs, and Remove contact lenses after initial 1-2 minutes and water supplies. Store in original container with the lid tightly continue flushing for several additional minutes. If effects closed. Store above 10°F (-12°C) to keep from crystallizing. occur, consult a physician, preferably an ophthalmologist. Is. EXPOSURE CONTROLS/PERSONAL PROTECTION: j SKIN: Wash skin with plenty of water. These precautions are suggested for conditions where the potential for exposure exists. Emergency conditions may INGESTION: No emergency medical treatment necessary. require additional precautions. INHALATION: Remove person to fresh air; if effects occur, EXPOSURE GUIDELINES: None established consult a physician.
• NOTE TO PHYSICIAN: No specific antidote. Treatment of exposure should be directed at the control of symptoms and the clinical condition of the patient. ENGINEERING CONTROLS: Good general ventilation should be sufficient for most conditions. Local exhaust ventilation may be necessary for some operations. Is. FIRE FIGHTING MEASURES: I RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MANUFACTURING, '-* -----------------.....J. COMMERCIAL BLENDING, AND PACKAGING FLASH POINT: >214°F (>101°C) WORKERS: METHOD USED: Setaflash FLAMMABLE LIMITS: LFL: Not applicable UFL: Not applicable "Trademark of Dow AgroSciences LLC 1 EYE/FACE PROTECTION: Use safety.glasses. SKIN PROTECTION: No precautions other than clean body-covering clothing should be needed.

MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET RODEO* HERBICIDE RESPIRATORY PROTECTION: For most conditions, no respiratory protection should be needed; however, if discomfort is experienced, use a NIOSH approved purifying respirator. APPLICATIONS AND ALL OTHER HANDLERS: Please refer to the product label for personal protective clothing Emergency Phone: 800-992-5994 Dow AgroSclences LLC Indianapolis, IN 46268 Effective Date: 3/23/04 Product Code: 84825 MSDS: 006694 SYSTEMIC (OTHER TARGET ORGAN) EFFECTS: For a similar material, glyphosate, in animals, effects have been reported on the following organ: liver. CANCER INFORMATION: A similar material, glyphosate, did not cause cancer in laboratory animals. and equipment. TERATOLOGY (BIRTH DEFECTS): For glyphosate IPA, 19. PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES: I available data are inadequate for evaluation of potential to i.... ---------------------'* cause-birth defects. APPEARANCE: Clear, pale yellow liquid DENSITY: 10.0 -10.5 lbs/gal pH: 4.B-5.0 ODOR: None REPRODUCTIVE EFFECTS: For glyphosate IPA, available data are inadequate to determine effects on reproduction.* SOLUBILITY IN WATER: Miscible SPECIFIC GRAVITY: 1.21 gm/L MUTAGENICITY: For a similar material, glyphosate, in-FREEZING POINT: -7°F __ 10oF (-21oc __ 25oc) vitro and animal genetic toxicity studies were negative . .._I 1_0._S_T_A_B_IL_ITY_AN_D_R_EA_C_T_IV_ITY_: ______ _,1112. ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION: STABILITY: (CONDITIONS TO AVOID) Stable under ENVIRONMENTAL DATA: normal storage conditions. ECOTOXICOLOGY: INCOMPATIBILITY: (SPECIFIC MATERIALS TO AVOID) Galvanized or unlined steel (except stainless steel) containers or spray tanks may produce hydrogen gas which may form a highly combustible gas mixture. HAZARDOUS DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS: None known. Material is practically non-toxic to aquatic organisms on an acute basis (LC50 or EC50 is >100 mg/Lin most sensitive species tested). Acute LC50 for rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) is >2500 mg/L. Acute immobilization EC50 in water flea (Daphnia maqnaJ is 918 mg/L. Material is practically non-toxic to birds on an acute basis HAZARDOUS POLYMERIZATION: Not known to occur. (LD50 is >2000 mg/kg). Acute oral LD50 in bobwhite (Colinus virqinianus) is >2000 111. TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION: I mg/kg. i...----------------------The LC50 in earthworm Eisenia foetida is >1000 mg/kg. EYE: May cause slight temporary eye irritation. Corneal Acute contact LD50 in honey bee (Apis mel/ifera) is >100 injury is unlikely. µg/bee. SKIN: Essentially non-irritating to skin. Prolonged skin contact is unlikely to result in absorption of harmful amounts. The LD50 for skin absorption in rabbits is >5000 mg/kg. Did not cause allergic skin reactions when tested in guinea pigs. Acute oral LD50 in honey bee (Apis mellifera) is >100 µg/bee. Growth inhibition EC50 in green alga (Se/enastrum caoricornutum) is 127 mg/L. Growth inhibition EC50 in duckweed (Lemna sp.J is 24.4 mg/L. INGESTION: Very low toxicity if swallowed. Harmful effects I 13. DISPOSAL CONSIDERATIONS: not anticipated from swallowing small amounts. The oral LDso for rats is >5000 mg/kg. INHALATION: Brief exposure (minutes) is not likely to cause adverse effects. The aerosol LC50 for rats is >6.37 mg/L for 4 hours. *Trademark of Dow AgroSciences LLC ? DISPOSAL METHOD: If wastes and/or containers cannot be disposed of according to the product label directions, disposal of this material must be in accordance with your local or area regulatory authorities. MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET .ŽDow AgroSciences RODEO* HERBICIDE This information presented below only applies to the material as supplied. The identification based on characteristic(s} or listing may not apply if the material has been used or otherwise contaminated. It is the responsibility of the waste generator to determine the toxicity and physical properties of the material generated to determine the proper waste identification and disposal methods in compliance with applicable regulations. If the material as supplied becomes a waste, follow all applicable regional, national and local laws and regulations. Emergency Phone: 800-992-5994 Dow AgroSciences LLC Indianapolis, IN 46268 Effective Date: 3/23/04 ProductCode:84825 MSDS: 006694 STATE RIGHT-TO-KNOW: This product is not known to contain any substances subject to the disclosure requirements of New Jersey Pennsylvania OSHA HAZARD COMMUNICATION STANDARD: This product is a "Hazardous Chemical" as defined by the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard, 29 CFR 1910.1200. l 14 TRANSPORT INFORMATION* I COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE * * . . COMPENSATION AND LIABILITY ACT (CERCLA, or U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (DOT) SUPERFUND): To the best of our knowledge, this product INFORMATION: contains no chemical subject to reporting under CERCLA. For all package sizes and modes of transportation: This material is not regulated for transport. l1s. REGULATORY INFORMATION: NOTICE: The information herein is presented in good faith and believed to be accurate as of the effective date shown above. However, no warranty, express or implied, is given. Regulatory requirements are subject to change and may differ from one location to another; it is the buyer's responsibility to ensure that its activities comply with federal, state or provincial, and local laws. The following specific information is made for the purpose of complying with numerous federal, state or provincial, and local laws and regulations. U.S. REGULATIONS SARA 313 INFORMATION: To the best of our knowledge, this product contains no chemical subject to SARA Title Ill Section 313 supplier notification requirements. SARA HAZARD CATEGORY: This product has been reviewed according to the EPA "Hazard Categories" promulgated under Sections 311 and 312 of the Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA Title Ill} and is considered, under applicable definitions, to meet the following categories: Not to have met any hazard category TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT (TSCA): All ingredients are on the TSCA inventory or are not required to be listed on the TSCA inventory. *Trademark of Dow AgroSciences LLC NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION (NFPA) RATINGS: CATEGORY RATING Health 1 Flammability 1 Reactivity O I 16. OTHER INFORMATION: MSDS STATUS: Revised Sections: 3,4, 11, 12, 13, 14 & 15

Reference:

DR-0361-8028 Replaces MSDS Dated: 1/12/00 Document Code: D03-148-002 Replaces Document Code: DOJ-148-001 The Information Herein Is Given In Good Faith, But No Warranty, Express Or Implied, Is Made. Consult Dow AgroSciences For Further Information. Conforms to ANSI Z400.5-2004 Standard (United States). Mater!al Safety Datj Sheet fSePA©f Sonar A.S. 1 . Product and company identification Product name EPA Registration Number Material uses Supplier/Manufacturer Responsible name In caso of emergency Sonar A.S. 67690-4 Herbicide. SePRO Corporation 11550 North Meridian Street Suite 600 Carmel, IN 46032 U.S.A. Tel: 317-580-8282 Toll free: 1-800-419-7779 Fax: 317-428-4577 Monday -Friday, Sam to 5pm E.S.T. www.sepro.com Atrion Regulatory Services, Inc. INFOTRAC hour service 1-800-535-5053 2 . Hazards identification Physical state Odor OSHA/HCS status Emergency overview Routes of entry Potential acute health effects Inhalation Ingestion Skin Eyes Potential chronic health effects Chronic effects Carcinogenicity Mutageniclty Teratogenlclty Developmental effects Liquid. [Opaque.] Faint sweetness. This material is considered hazardous by the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard (29 CFR 1910.1200). WARNING! MAY CAUSE ALLERGIC SKIN REACTION. MAY BE HARMFUL IF SWALLOWED. MAY CAUSE EYE AND SKIN IRRITATION. May be harmful if swallowed. Slightly irritating to the eyes and skin. May cause sensitization by skin contact. Do not breathe vapor or mist. Do not ingest. Do not get on skin or clothing. Avoid contact with eyes. Wash thoroughly after handling. Dermal contact. Eye contact. Inhalation. Ingestion. Exposure to decomposition products may cause a health hazard. Serious effects may be delayed following exposure. May be harmful if swallowed. Slightly irritating to the skin. May cause sensitization by skin contact. Slightly irritating to the eyes. Once sensitized, a severe allergic reaction may occur when subsequently exposed to very low levels. No known significant effects or critical hazards. No known significant effects or critical hazards. No known significant effects or critical hazards. No known significant effects or critical hazards. Fertility effects No known significant effects or critical hazards. Over-exposure signs/symptoms Inhalation Ingestion Skin Eyes

• Indicates trademark of S*PRO Corporation. No specific data. No specific data. Adverse symptoms may include the following: irritation redness Adverse symptoms may include the following: irritation watering redness Page: 1/6 ._ .. '\lt1UJn Date of issue 01/15/2009 Sonar A.S. Medical conditions aggravated by exposure Pre-existing skin disorders may be aggravated by over-exposure to this product See toxicological information (section 11) 3 . Composition/information on ingredients United States Name CAS number Active ingredient: 4( 1 h )-pyridinone, 1-methyl-3-phenyl-5-[3-(trifl uoromethyl )phenyl]-597 56-60-4 Inert Ingredient: Proprietary Alcohol Proprietary Alcohol 2 Proprietary Proprietary % 41.7 5 -10 1 -5 There are no additional ingredients present which, within the current knowledge of the supplier and in the concentrations applicable, are classified as hazardous to health or the environment and hence require reporting in this section. 4 . First aid measures Eye contact Skin contact Inhalation Ingestion Protection of first-aiders Notes to physician Check for and remove any contact lenses. In case of contact with eyes, rinse immediately with plenty of water. Get medical attention if symptoms occur. Wash with soap and water. Get medical attention if symptoms occur. If inhaled, remove to fresh air. If not breathing, give artificial respiration. Get medical attention if symptoms appear. Do not induce vomiting. Never give anything by mouth to an unconscious person. Get medical attention if symptoms appear. No action shall be taken involving any personal risk or without suitable training. It may be dangerous to the person providing aid to give mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. Wash contaminated clothing thoroughly with water before removing it, or wear gloves. In case of inhalation of decomposition products in a fire, symptoms may be delayed. The exposed person may need to be kept under medical surveillance for 48 hours. 5 . Fire-fighting measures Flammability of the product Extinguishing media Suitable Not suitable Hazardous thermal decomposition products Special protective equipment for fire-fighters May be combustible at high temperature. In case of fire, use water spray (fog), foam, dry chemical or C02 None known. Decomposition products may include the following materials: carbon dioxide carbon monoxide nitrogen oxides halogenated compounds Fire-fighters should wear appropriate protective equipment and self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) with a full face-piece operated in positive pressure mode. 6 . Accidental release measures Personal precautions Environmental precautions Methods for cleaning up Small spill
• Indicates trademark of SePRO Corpor.ation No action shall be taken involving any personal risk or without suitable training. Evacuate surrounding areas. Keep unnecessary and unprotected personnel from entering. Do not touch or walk through spilled material. Avoid breathing vapor or mist. Provide adequate ventilation. Wear appropriate respirator when ventilation is inadequate. Put on appropriate personal protective equipment (see section 8). Avoid dispersal of spilled material and runoff and contact with soil, waterways, drains and sewers. Inform the relevant authorities if the product has caused environmental pollution (sewers, waterways, soil or air). Stop leak if without risk. Move containers from spill area. Dilute with water and mop up if water-soluble or absorb with an inert dry material and place in an appropriate waste disposal container. Dispose of via a licensed waste disposal contractor. Page: 216 A *'\T ltlON Date of issue 01/15/2009 Sonar A.S. Large spill ISePA©I Stop leak if without risk. Move containers from spill area. Approach release from upwind. Prevent entry into sewers. water courses, basements or confined areas. Wash spillages into an effluent treatment plant or proceed as follows. Contain and collect spillage with non-combustible, absorbent material e.g. sand, earth, vermiculite or diatomaceous earth and place in container for disposal according to local regulations (see section 13). Dispose of via a licensed waste disposal contractor. Contaminated absorbent material may pose the same hazard as the spilled product. Note: see section 1 for emergency contact information and section 13 for waste disposal. 7 . Handling and storage Handling Storage Put on appropriate personal protective equipment (see section 8). Eating, drinking and smoking should be prohibited in areas where this material is handled, stored and processed. Workers should wash hands and face before eating, drinking and smoking. Persons with a history of skin sensitization problems should not be employed in any process in which this product is used. Do not get in eyes or on skin or clothing. Do not ingest. Avoid breathing vapor or mist. Keep in the original container or an approved alternative made from a compatible material, kept tightly closed when not in use. Empty containers retain product residue and can be hazardous. Do not reuse container. Avoid freezing. Store in accordance with local regulations. Store in original container protected from direct sunlight in a dry, cool and well-ventilated area, away from incompatible materials (see section 10) and food and drink. Keep container tightly closed and sealed until ready for use. Containers that have been opened must be carefully resealed and kept upright to prevent leakage. Do not store in unlabeled containers. Use appropriate containment to avoid environmental contamination. 8 . Exposure controls/personal protection Product name Proprietary Alcohol United States Exposure limits AIHA WEEL (United States, 1/2008). TWA: 10 mg/m3 8 hour(s). Consult local authorities for acceptable exposure limits. Recommended monitoring procedures Engineering moasurns Hygiene measures Personal protection Eyes Skin Respiratory Hands Personal protective equipment (Pictograms) HMIS Code/Personal protective equipment
• Indicates tradem;i,rk of SePRO COl'J)Oriltion. If this product contains ingredients with exposure limits, personal, workplace atmosphere or biological monitoring may be required to determine the effectiveness of the ventilation or other control measures and/or the necessity to use respiratory protective equipment. Applicators should refer to the product label for personal protective clothing and equipment. No special ventilation requirements. Good general ventilation should be sufficient to control worker exposure to airborne contaminants. If this product contains ingredients with exposure limits, use process enclosures, local exhaust ventilation or other engineering controls to keep worker exposure below any recommended or statutory limits. Wash hands, forearms and face thoroughly after handling chemical products. before eating, smoking and using the lavatory and at the end of the working period. Appropriate techniques should be used to remove potentially contaminated clothing. Wash contaminated clothing before reusing. Ensure that eyewash stations and safety showers are close to the workstation location. Safety glasses. Lab coat. A respirator is not needed under normal and intended conditions of product use. Nitrile gloves. B Page: 3/6 Date of Issue 01 /15/2009 Sonar A.S. Environmental exposure controls lsePR<DI Emissions from ventilation or work process equipment should e checked to ensure they comply with the requirements of enviro I protection leg1 lation. In some cases, fume scrubbers. filters or engineering modifi" s o the process equipment will be necessary to reduce emissions to acceptable levels 9 . Physical and chemical properties
• Physical state Color Odor Flash point pH Boiling/condensation point Relative density Vapor pressure Solubility Liquid. [Opaque.] Off-white to tannish-gray. Faint sweetness. Closed cup: >93.333°C (>200°F) S.6 to 7.6 1oo*c (212°F) 1.1S 0.31 kPa (2.3 mm Hg) Partially soluble in the following materials: cold water and hot water. 10 . Stability and reactivity Stability Hazardous polymerization Conditions to avoid Materials to avoid Hazardous decomposition products The product is stable. Under normal conditions of storage and use, hazardous polymerization will not occur. Avoid freezing. Reactive or incompatible with the following materials: oxidizing materials and acids. If water evaporates, residues may product harmful vapors under fire conditions. Slightly flammable in the presence of the following materials or conditions: open flames, sparks and static discharge. Non-flammable in the presence of the following materials or conditions: heat. 11 . Toxicological information Acute toxicity Product/ingredient name Exposure 4( 1 h)-pyridinone, 1-methyl-3-phenyl-S-[3-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]-Species Rat Dose >10 g/kg Result LOSO Oral Proprietary Alcohol Sonar A.S. Inhalation Ingestion Skin Eyes Rabbit Rat Rabbit Rat 20800 mg/kg 20 g/kg >2000 mg/kg >500 mg/kg LOSO Dermal LOSO Oral LOSO Dermal LOSO Oral Exposure to decomposition products may cause a health hazard. Serious effects may be delayed following exposure. May be harmful if swallowed. Slightly irritating to the skin. May cause sensitization by skin contact. Slightly irritating to the eyes. 12 . Ecological information Environmental effects Aquatic ecotoxicity Product/ingredient name Proprietary Alcohol *indicates trademark or SePRO Corpor1tlon. No known significant effects or critical hazards. Test Species Page: 416 . A .,, 1411 ", Daphnia Fish Daphnia Fish Daphnia Exposure 48 hours 96 hours 48 hours 96 hours 48 hours Result Acute EC50 >10000000 ug/L Acute LC50 710000 ug/L Acute LC50 4919 mg/L Chronic NOEC 600000 ug/L Chronic NOEC 660000 ug/L Date of Issue 01/1Sl2009 Sonar A.S. !SePA©I 13 . Disposal considerations Waste disposal The generation of waste should be avoided or minimized wherever possible. Empty containers or liners may retain some product residues. This material and its container must be disposed of in a safe way. Dispose of surplus and non-recyclable products via a licensed waste disposal contractor. Disposal of this product. solutions and any byproducts should at all times comply with the requirements of environmental protection and waste disposal legislation and any regional local authority requirements. Avoid dispersal spilled material and runoff and contad with soil, waterways, drains and sewers. Disposal should be in accordance with applicable regional, national and local laws and regulations. Refer to Section 7: HANDLING AND STORAGE and Section 8: EXPOSURE CONTROLS/PERSONAL PROTECTION for additional handling information and protection of employees. 14 . Transport information AERG Regulatory information DOT/ IMDG/ IATA Not applicable. Not regulated. 15 . Regulatory information United States HCS Classification U.S. Federal regulations State regulations California Prop. 65 United States inventory (TSCA Sb) International regulations International lists *indicates trademark of S1t?RO Corporation. Sensitizing material United States inventory (TSCA 8b): All components are listed or exempted. SARA 302/304/311/312 extremely hazardous substances: No products were found. SARA 302/304 emergency planning and notification: No products were found. SARA 302/304/311 /312 hazardous chemicals : Proprietary Alcohol SARA 311/312 MSDS distribution -chemical inventory -hazard identification: Proprietary Alcohol: Immediate (acute) health hazard, Delayed (chronic) health hazard Clean Water Act (CWA) 307: No products were found. Clean Water Act (CWA) 311: No products were found. Clean Air Act (CAA) 112 accidental release prevention: No products were found. Clean Air Act (CAA) 112 regulated flammable substances: No products were found. Clean Air Act (CAA) 112 regulated toxic substances: No products were found. Connecticut Carcinogen Reporting: None of the components are listed. Connecticut Hazardous Material Survey: None of the components are listed. Florida substances: None of the components are listed. Illinois Chemical Safety Act: None of the components are listed. Illinois Toxic Substances Disclosure to Employee Act: None of the components are listed. Louisiana Reporting: None of the components are listed. Louisiana Spill: None of the components are listed. Massachusetts Spill: None of the components are listed. Massachusetts Substances: None of the components are listed. Michigan Critical Material: None of the components are listed. Minnesota Hazardous Substances: None of the components are listed. New Jersey Hazardous Substances: None of the components are listed. New Jersey Spill: None of the components are listed. New Jersey Toxic Catastrophe Prevention Act: None of the components are listed. New York Acutely Hazardous Substances: None of the components are listed. New York Toxic Chemical Release Reporting: None of the components are listed. Pennsylvania RTK Hazardous Substances: The following components are listed: Proprietary Alcohol Rhode Island Hazardous Substances: None of the components are listed. No products were found. All components are listed or exempted. This product, (and its ingredients) is (are) listed on national inventories, or is (are) exempted from being listed, in Australia (AICS), in Europe (EINECS/ELINCS), in Korea (TCCL), in Japan (MET!). in the Philippines (RA6969). Page: 5/6 Date of issue 01/15/2009 , _ _,.,A "'"'")"

Sonar A.S. 16 . Other information Label requirements Hazardous Material Information System (U.S.A.) MAY CAUSE ALLERGIC SKIN REACTION. MAY BE HARMFUL IF SWALLOWED. MAY CAUSE EYE AND SKIN IRRITATION. Personal protection 0 B HAZARD RATINGS 4-Extreme 3-Serious 2-Moderate 1-Slight 0-Minimal See section 8 for more detailed infonnation on personal protection. The customer is responsible for determining the PPE code for this material. National Fire Protection Association (U.S.A.) References Date of issue Version Notice to reader Flammability Health Instability Special ANSI Z400.1, MSDS Standard, 2004. -Manufacturer's Material Safety Data Sheet. -29CFR Part1910.1200 OSHA MSDS Requirements. -49CFR Table List of Hazardous Materials, UN#, Proper Shipping Names, PG. 01/15/2009 To the best of our knowledge, the information contained herein is accurate. However, neither the above named supplier nor any of its subsidiaries assumes any liability whatsoever for the accuracy or completeness of the information contained herein. Final determination of suitability of any material is the sole responsibility of the user. All materials may present unknown hazards and should be used with caution. Although certain hazards are described herein, we cannot guarantee that these are the only hazards that exist. The data in this MSDS relates only to the specific material designated herein. Possible adverse effects (see Section 2, 11 and 12) may occur if this material is not handled in the recommended manner.

• lndla:os lndemark of SePRO Corpor tJot1 Page: 6/6 , __ ,. l'\tM:Utn Date of issue 01/15/2009 Conforms to ANSI Z400.5-2004 Standard (United States). Safety Dat _ Sheet Sonar Q Aquatic Herbicide (SePA©I 1 . Product and company identification Product name EPA Registration Number Material uses Supplier/Manufacturer Responsible name in case of emergency Sonar Q Aquatic Herbicide 67690-3 Aquatic herbicide. SePRO Corporation 11550 North Meridian Street Suite 600 Carmel, IN 46032 U.S.A. Tel: 317-580-8282 Toll free: 1-800-419-7779 Fax: 317-428-4577 Monday -Friday, Barn to 5pm E.S.T. www.sepro.com Atrion Regulatory Services, Inc.
• INFOTRAC
• 24-hour service 1-800-535-5053 2 . Hazards identification Physical state Odor OSHA/HCS status Emergency overview Routes of entry Potential acute health effects lnhalntion Ingestion Skin Eyes Potential chronic health effects Chronic effects Carcinogenicity Mutagenicity Teratogenicity Developmental effects Fertility effects Target organs Over-exposure signs/symptoms Inhalation Ingestion Skin
• Indicates trademark of StPRO Corpotarion. Solid. [Pellets.] Faint earthy/musty. This material is considered hazardous by the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard (29 CFR 1910.1200). CAUTION! MAY CAUSE RESPIRATORY TRACT AND EYE IRRITATION. CONTAINS MATERIAL THAT CAN CAUSE TARGET ORGAN DAMAGE. CANCER HAZARD* CONTAINS MATERIAL WHICH CAN CAUSE CANCER. Slightly irritating to the eyes and respiratory system. Avoid exposure -obtain special instructions before use. Avoid contact with eyes. Contains material that can cause target organ damage. Contains material which can cause cancer. Risk of cancer depends on duration and level of exposure. Use only with adequate ventilation. Keep container tightly closed and sealed until ready for use. Wash thoroughly after handling. Dermal contact. Eye contact. Inhalation. Ingestion. Slightly irritating to the respiratory system. Exposure to decomposition products may cause a health hazard. Serious effects may be delayed following exposure. No known significant effects or critical hazards. No known significant effects or critical hazards. Slightly irritating to the eyes. Contains material that can cause target organ damage. Contains material which can cause cancer. Risk of cancer depends on duration and level of exposure. No known significant effects or critical hazards. No known significant effects or critical hazards. No known significant effects or critical hazards. No known significant effects or critical hazards. Contains material which causes damage to the following organs: lungs, upper respiratory tract, eye, lens or cornea. Adverse symptoms may include the following: respiratory tract irritation coughing No specific data. No specific data. Page: 1/6 **-*"'A '\1Htun Date of issue 01/15/2009 Sonar Q Aquatic Herbicide lsePR<DI Eyes Medical conditions aggravated by over-exposure Adverse symptoms may include the following: irritation watering redness Pre-existing disorders involving any target organs mentioned in this MSDS as being at risk may be aggravated by over-exposure to this product. See toxicological information (section 11) 3 . Composition/information on ingredients United States Name CAS number % Active Ingredient: 4(1h)-pyridinone, 1-methyl-3-phenyl-5-[3-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]-59756-60-4 5 -10 Inert Ingredient: Silica, Crystalline -Quartz 14808-60-7 1 -5 There are no additional ingredients present which, within the current knowledge of the supplier and in the concentrations applicable, are classified as hazardous to health or the environment and hence require reporting in this section. 4 . First aid measures Eye contact Skin contact Inhalation Ingestion Protection of first-aiders Notes to physician Check for and remove any contact lenses. In case of contact with eyes, rinse immediately with plenty of water. Get medical attention if symptoms occur. Wash with soap and water. Get medical attention if symptoms occur. If inhaled, remove to fresh air. If not breathing, give artificial respiration. Get medical attention if symptoms appear. Do not induce vomiting. Never give anything by mouth to an unconscious person. Get medical attention if symptoms appear. No action shall be taken involving any personal risk or without suitable training. If it is suspected that fumes are still present, the rescuer should wear an appropriate mask or self-contained breathing apparatus. It may be dangerous to the person providing aid to give mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. Wash contaminated clothing thoroughly with water before removing it, or wear gloves. In case of inhalation of decomposition products in a fire, symptoms may be delayed. The exposed person may need to be kept under medical surveillance for 48 hours. 5 . Fire-fighting measures Flammability of the product Extinguishing media Suitable Not suitable Hazardous thermal decomposition products Special protective equipment for fire-fighters * !ndleatH tnldemark of S*PRO Corpor:atlon Non-flammable. Use an extinguishing agent suitable for the surrounding fire. None known. Decomposition products may include the following materials: carbon dioxide carbon monoxide nitrogen oxides halogenated compounds metal oxide/oxides Fire-fighters should wear appropriate protective equipment and self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) with a full face-piece operated in positive pressure mode. Page: 2/6 A *"\I 1Uftf1 Date of issue 01 /15/2009 Sonar Q Aquatic Herbicide ISePA©I 6 . Accidental release measures Personnl precautions Environmental precautions Methods for cleaning up Small spill Lnrgo spill No action shall be taken involving any personal risk or without suitable training. Evacuate surrounding areas. Keep unnecessary and unprotected personnel from entering. Do not touch or walk through spilled material. Provide adequate ventilation. Wear appropriate respirator when ventilation is inadequate. Put on appropriate personal protective equipment (see section 8). Avoid dispersal of spilled material and runoff and contact with soil, waterways, drains and sewers. Inform the relevant authorities if the product has caused environmental pollution (sewers, waterways, soil or air). Move containers from spill area. Vacuum or sweep up material and place in a designated, labeled waste container. Dispose of via a licensed waste disposal contractor. Move containers from spill area. Approach release from upwind. Prevent entry into sewers, water courses, basements or confined areas. Vacuum or sweep up material and place in a designated, labeled waste container. Dispose of via a licensed waste disposal contractor. Note: see section 1 for emergency contact information and section 13 for waste disposal. 7 . Handling and storage Handling Storage Put on appropriate personal protective equipment (see section 8). Eating, drinking and smoking should be prohibited in areas where this material is handled, stored and processed. Workers should wash hands and face before eating, drinking and smoking. Do not get in eyes or on skin or clothing. Do not ingest. Use only with adequate ventilation. Wear appropriate respirator when ventilation is inadequate. Keep in the original container or an approved alternative made from a compatible material, kept tightly closed when not in use. Empty containers retain product residue and can be hazardous. Do not reuse container. Store in accordance with local regulations. Store in original container protected from direct sunlight in a dry, cool and well-ventilated area, away from incompatible materials (see section 10) and food and drink. Keep container tightly closed and sealed until ready for use. Containers that have been opened must be carefully resealed and kept upright to prevent leakage. Do not store in unlabeled containers. Use appropriate containment to avoid environmental contamination. 8 . Exposure controls/personal protection Product nnmo Silica, Crystalline -Quartz United States Exposure limits ACGIH TLV (United States, 1/2006). TWA: 0.025 mg/m' 8 hour(s). Form: Respirable fraction NIOSH REL (United States, 12/2001). TWA: 0.05 mg/m' 10 hour(s). OSHA PEL Z3 (United States, 9/2005). TWA: 10 mg/m3 8 hour(s). Form: Respirable Consult local authorities for acceptable exposure limits. Recommended monitoring procedures Engineering measures Hygiene measures Personal protection
• indicates trademark of SePRO Corporation. If this product contains ingredients with exposure limits, personal, workplace atmosphere or biological monitoring may be required to determine the effectiveness of the ventilation or other control measures and/or the necessity to use respiratory protective equipment. Applicators should refer to the product label for personal protective clothing and equipment. Use only with adequate ventilation. If user operations generate dust, fumes, gas, vapor or mist, use process enclosures, local exhaust ventilation or other engineering controls to keep worker exposure to airborne contaminants below any recommended or statutory limits. Wash hands, forearms and face thoroughly after handling chemical products, before eating, smoking and using the lavatory and at the end of the working period. Appropriate techniques should be used to remove potentially contaminated clothing. Wash contaminated clothing before reusing. Ensure that eyewash stations and safety showers are close to the workstation location. Page: 3/6 ._.., l'\t *uun Date of issue 01/15/2009 Sonar Q Aquatic Herbicide lsePR@J Eyes Skin Respiratory Hands Personal protective equipment (Pictograms) HMIS Code/Personal protective equipment Environmental exposure controls Safety glasses. Lab coat. A respirator is not needed under normal and intended conditions of product use Disposable vinyl gloves. A Emissions from ventilation or work process equipment should be checked to ensure they comply with the requirements of environmental protection legislation. In some cases, fume scrubbers, filters or engineering modifications to the process equipment will be necessary to reduce emissions to acceptable levels. 9 . Physical and chemical properties Physical state Color Odor pH Relative density Solubility Solid. [Pellets.] Brown to gray. [Dark] Faint earthy/musty. 8.2 [Cone.(% w/w): 31%] 62 to 84 lbs/cu. Ft.(20C). Insoluble; pellets disintegrates in water 10 . Stability and reactivity Stability Hazardous polymerization Conditions to avoid Materials to avoid Hazardous decomposition products The product is stable. Under normal conditions of storage and use, hazardous polymerization will not occur. Avoid exposure -obtain special instructions before use. Reactive or incompatible with the following materials: oxidizing materials. Under normal conditions of storage and use, hazardous decomposition products should not be produced. 11 . Toxicological information Acute toxicity Product/ingredient name 4(1 h)-pyridinone, 1-methyl-3-phenyl-5-[3-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]-Sonar Q Aquatic Herbicide Species Rat Rabbit Rat Dose >10 g/kg >2000 mg/kg >5000 mg/kg Result LD50 Oral LD50 Dermal LDSO Oral Exposure Inhalation Slightly irritating to the respiratory system. Exposure to decomposition products may cause a health hazard. Serious effects may be delayed following exposure. Ingestion Skin Eyes Carcinogenicity Classification Product/ingredient name Silica, Crystalline -Quartz
• indicatas trademark of SaPRO Corporation No known significant effects or critical hazards. No known significant effects or critical hazards. Slightly irritating to the eyes. ACGIH A2 IARC 2A Page: 4/6 /-4 "\l ltlflN EPA NIOSH + NTP Proven. OSHA Date of issue 01/15/2009 Sonar Q Aquatic Herbicide ISePA©I 12 . Ecological information Environmental effects Aquatic ecotoxiclty No known significant effects or critical hazards. ProducUingrcdlcnt nl!mc Test Species Exposure Result 4(1 h)-pyridinone, 1-methyl-3-phenyl-5-(3-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]-Daphnia 48 hours Acute EC50 3.9 mg/L Daphnia 48 hours Acute EC50 3.6 mg/L Fish 96 hours Acute LC50 4.5 mg/L Fish 96 hours Acute LC50 4.25 mg/L Fish 96 hours Acute LC50 4.2 mg/L 13 . Disposal considerations Waste disposal The generation of waste should be avoided or minimized wherever possible. Empty containers or liners may retain some product residues. This material and its container must be disposed of in a safe way. Dispose of surplus and non-recyclable products via a licensed waste disposal contractor. Disposal of this product, solutions and any byproducts should at all times comply with the requirements of environmental protection and waste disposal legislation and any regional local authority requirements. Avoid dispersal spilled material and runoff and contact with soil, waterways, drains and sewers. Disposal should be in accordance with applicable regional, national and local laws and regulations. Refer to Section 7: HANDLING AND STORAGE and Section 8: EXPOSURE CONTROLS/PERSONAL PROTECTION for additional handling information and protection of employees. 14 . Transport information AERG Regulatory Information DOTI IMDG/ IATA Not applicable. Not regulated. 15 . Regulatory information United States HCS Classification U.S. Federal regulations State regulations
• indicatu tradem&rk of SePRO Corporation. Carcinogen Target organ effects United States inventory (TSCA Sb): All components are listed or exempted. SARA 302/304/311/312 extremely hazardous substances: No products were found. SARA 302/304 emergency planning and notification: No products were found. SARA 302/304/311/312 hazardous chemicals: Silica, Crystalline -Quartz SARA 311/312 MSDS distribution -chemical inventory -hazard identification: Silica, Crystalline -Quartz: Immediate (acute) health hazard, Delayed (chronic) health hazard Clean Water Act (CWA) 307: No products were found. Clean Water Act (CWA) 311: No products were found. Clean Air Act (CAA) 112 accidental release prevention: No products were found. Clean Air Act (CAA) 112 regulated flammable substances: No products were found. Clean Air Act (CAA) 112 regulated toxic substances: No products were found. Connecticut Carcinogen Reporting: None of the components are listed. Connecticut Hazardous Material Survey: None of the components are listed. Florida substances: None of the components are listed. Illinois Chemical.Safety Act: None of the components are listed. Illinois Toxic Substances Disclosure to Employee Act: None of the components are listed. Louisiana Reporting: None of the components are listed. Louisiana Spill: None of the components are listed. Massachusetts Spill: None of the components are listed. Massachusetts Substances: The following components are listed: Silica, Crystalline -Quartz Michigan Critical Material: None of the components are listed. Minnesota Hazardous Substances: None of the components are listed. New Jersey Hazardous Substances: The following components are listed: Silica, Crystalline -Quartz Page: 5/6 ,._ .. .,A l"\ffUl>t, Date of issue 01/15/2009 Sonar Q Aquatic Herbicide lsePA©I California Prop. 65 United States inventory (TSCA Sb) International regulations International lists New Jersey Spill: None of the components are listed. New Jersey Toxic Catastrophe Prevention Act: None of the components are listed. New York Acutely Hazardous Substances: None of the components are listed. New York Toxic Chemical Release Reporting: None of the components are listed. Pennsylvania RTK Hazardous Substances: The following components are listed: Silica, Crystalline -Quartz Rhode Island Hazardous Substances: None of the components are listed WARNING: This product contains a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer. United States inventory (TSCA Sb): All components are listed or exempted This product, (and its ingredients) is (are) listed on national inventories, or is (are) exempted from being listed, in Australia (AICS), in Europe (EINECS/ELINCS), in Korea (TCCL). in Japan (METI), in the Philippines (RA6969). 16 . Other information Label requirement Hazardous Material Information System (U.S.A.) MAY CAUSE RESPIRATORY TRACT AND EYE IRRITATION. CONTAINS MATERIAL THAT CAN CAUSE TARGET ORGAN DAMAGE. CANCER HAZARD -CONTAINS MATERIAL WHICH CAN CAUSE CANCER. 0 Personal protection 0 A HAZARD RA TINGS 4-Extreme 3-Serious 2-Moderate 1-Slight O* Minimal See section 8 for more detailed infonnation on personal protection. The customer is responsible for determining the PPE code for this material. National Fire Protection Association (U.S.A.) References Date of issue Date of previous issue Version Notice to reader Health Flammability Instability Special ANSI Z400.1, MSDS Standard, 2004. -Manufacturer's Material Safety Data Sheet. -29CFR Part1910.1200 OSHA MSDS Requirements. -49CFR Table List of Hazardous Materials, UN#, Proper Shipping Names, PG. 01/15/2009 12/15/2008 2 To the best of our knowledge, the information contained herein is accurate. However, neither the above named supplier nor any of its subsidiaries assumes any liability whatsoever for the accuracy or completeness of the information contained herein. Final determination of suitability of any material is the sole responsibility of the user. All materials may present unknown hazards and should be used with caution. Although certain hazards are described herein, we cannot guarantee that these are the only hazards that exist. The data in this MSDS relates only to the specific material designated herein. Possible adverse effects (see Section 2, 11and12) may occur if this material is not handled in the recommended manner.
• indicates b'"adem*A: of S*PRO Corporation. Page: 6/6 A *'\1JHCU1 Date of issue 01/15/2009 MSDS: Nufann Weedar 64 BroadleafHerbicide Page I of7 18' Mufarm WEEDAR 64 BROADLEAF HERBICIDE MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET I. CHEMICAL PRODUCT AND COMPANY DESCRIYI10N Product Name: Nufann Weedar 64 BroadleafHerbicide Synonyms: 2,4-D DMA; 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, dimethylamine salt. EPA Reg. No.: 71368-1 Company Name: Nufann Americas, Inc. Burr Ridge, IL 60521 Phone Numbers: For Chemical Emergency, Spill, Leak, Fire, Exposure, Or Accident, Call CHEMTREC Day or Night: 1-800-424-9300. For Medical Emergencies Only, Call 877-325-1840. J?or additional non-emergency information, call: 1-800-852-5234. Date: March 12, 2002 Revisions: New or updated information in all sections. Reasons for Revisions: General revision utilizing more specific data. Supersedes: March I, 2000 2. COMPOSffiON/INFORMA TION ON INGREI)IENTS COMPONENT Acetic acid, (2,4-dichlorophenoxy)-, dimethylamine salt** Inert ingredients (trade secret)** Note: The other major ingredient in.this product is water. *OSHA hazard **Not OSHA hazard 3. HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION Emergency Overview: Appearance and Odor: Reddish brown liquid, phenolic-amine odor. CASREG.NO. 2008-39-1 %BYWEIGHT 53.2 Warning Statements: DANGER. Keep out of reach of children. Corrosive. Causes irreversible eye damage. Harmful if swallowed. May be fatal if absorbed through the skin. Avoid breathing vapors or spray mist. Do not get in eyes, on skin or on clothing. Potential Adverse Health Effects:

MSDS: Nufarm Weedar 64 BroadleafHerbicide Page2of7 Likely Routes of Exposure: Inhalation, eye and skin contact. Eye Contact: Causes corneal opacity, irreversible eye damage. Vapors and mist can cause irritation. Skin Contact: May cause slight transient irritation. Overexposure by skin absorption may cause nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, decreased blood pressure, muscle weakness, muscle spasms. Inhalation: Harmful if inhaled. May cause upper respiratory tract irritation and symptoms similar to those from ingestion. Ingestion: Harmful if swallowed. May cause nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, decreased blood pressure, muscle weakness, muscle spasms. Medical Conditions Possibly Aggravated By Exposure: Inhalation of product may aggravate existing chronic respiratory problems such as asthma, emphysema or bronchitis. Skin contact may aggravate existing skin disease. Subchronic (Target Organ) Effects: (An adverse effect with symptoms that develop slowly over a long period of time): Repeated overexposure may cause effects to liver, kidneys, blood chemistry, and gross motor function. Rare cases of peripheraf nerve damage have been reported, but extensive animal studies have failed to substantiate these observations, even at high doses for prolonged periods. Chronic Effects/Carcinogenicity: Prolonged overexposure can cause liver, kidney and muscle damage. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) lists exposure to chlorophenoxy herbicides as a class 2B carcinogen, the category for limited evidence for carcinogenicity in humans. However, more current 2,4-D lifetime feeding studies in rats and mice did not show carcinogenic potential. The USEPA has given a class D classification (not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity). Reproductive Toxicity: No impairment of reproductive function attributable to 2,4-D has been noted in laboratory animal studies. Developmental Toxicity: Studies in laboratory animals with 2,4-D have shown decreased fetal body weights and delayed development in the offspring at doses toxic to mother animals. Genotoxicity: There have been some positive and some negative studies, but the weight of evidence is that 2,4-D is not mutagenic. 4. F1RSf AID MEASURES If swallowed: If patient is conscious and alert, give 2 to 3 glasses of water or milk to drink. If available, give one tablespoon of Syrup of Ipecac .to induce vomiting. Alternatively, induce vomiting by touching back of throat with finger. Do not make an unconscious person vomit. Get medical attention. If on skin: Wash skin with plenty of soap and water. Remove contaminated clothing. Get medical attention. If in eyes: Flush with water for at least 15 minutes. Get medical attention, PREFERABLY AN OPITTHALMOLOGIST. If inhaled: Move to an uncontaminated area. Get medical attention. Note to Physician: This product contains a phenoxy herbicidal chemical. There is no specific antidote. All treatments should be based on observed signs and symptoms of distress in the patient. Overexposure to materials other than this product may have occurred. Myotonic effects may include muscle fibrillations, myotonia, and muscular weakness. Ingestion of massive doses may result in persistent fall of blood pressure. Myoglobin and hemoglobin may be found in urine. Elevations in lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), SOOT, SGPT and aldolase indicate the extent of muscle damage. It has been suggested that overexposure in humans may affect both the central and peripheral nerv.ous systems. The acute effects on the central nervous system resemble those produced by alcohol or sedative drugs. In isolated cases, peripheral neuropathy and reduced nerve conduction velocities have been reported although these observations may be related to other factors. Gas-liquid chromatography for detecting and measuring chlorophenoxy compounds in blood and urine may be useful in confirming and assessing the magnitude of chlorophenoxy absorption. 5. FIRE FIGHTING MEASURES Flash Point: >212° F (HX)° C) by Pensky-Martens closed cup method. Autoignition Temperature: Not determined. Flammability Limits: Not determined. Extinguishing Media: Recommended (large fire): foam, water spray. Recommended (small fires): dry chemical, carbon dioxide. I MSDS: Nufann Weedar64 BroadleafHerbicide Page3 of7 Special Fire Fighting Procedures: Firefighters should wear NIOSH/MSHA approved self-contained breathing apparatus and full protective clothing. Dike area to prevent runoff and contamination of water Dispose of fire control water later. Unusual Fire and Explosion hazards: Under fire conditions, toxic, corrosive fumes are emitted. Containers will burst from internal pressure under extreme fire conditions. Hazardous Decomposition Materials (Under Fire Conditions): Hydrogen chloride, oxides of nitrogen, and oxides of carbon. 6. ACCIDENTAL RELEASE MEASURES Evacuation Procedures and Safety: Wear appropriate protective gear for the situation. See Personal Protection information in Section 8. Containment of Spill: Dike *spill using absorbent or impervious materials such as earth, sand or clay. Collect and contain contaminated absorbent and dike material for disposal. Cleanup and Disposal of Spill: Pump any free liquid into an appropriate closed container. Collect washings for disposal. Decontaminate tools and equipment following cleanup. (See Section 13.) Environmental and Regulatory Reporting: Prevent material from entering public sewer system or any waterways. Do not flush to drain, Large spills to soil or similar surfaces may necessitate removal of top soil. The affected area should be removed and placed in an appropriate container for disposal. Spills may be reportable to the National Response Center (800-424-8802) and to state and/or local agencies. 7. HANDLING AND STORAGE Handling: Handle containers carefully to avoid damage and spills. Storage: Store in original container in a dry secured storage area. Do not contaminate wafer, food or feed by storage or disposal. Avoid storage in close proximity to insecticides, fungicides, fertilizers and seeds. Keep container tightly closed when not in use. 8. EXPOSURE CONTROLS/PERSONAL PROTECTION General: These recommendations provide* general guidance for handling this product. Because specific work environments and material handling practices vary, safety procedures should be developed for each intended usage, including maintenance and repair of equipment. Contact personal protective equipment manufacturers for assistance with selection, use and maintenance of such equipment. Personal Protective Equipment: Respiratory Protection: When respirators are required, select NIOSH/MSHA approved equipment based on actual or potential airborne concentrations and in accordance with the appropriate regulatory standards and/or industrial recommendations. Under normal conditions, in the absence of other airborne contaminants, the following devices should provide protection from this material up to the conditions specified by the appropriate OSHA or ANSI standard(s): Air-purifying (half-mask/full-face) respirator with cartridges/canister approved for use against pesticides. Under conditions immediately dangerous to life or health, or emergency conditions with unknown concentrations, use a full-face positive pressure air-supplied respirator equipped with an emergency escape air supply unit or use a self-contained breathing apparatus unit. Eye/Face Protection: Eye and face protection requirements will vary dependent upon work environment conditions and material handling practices. Appropriate ANSI Z87 approved equipment should be selected for the particular use intended for this material. Eye contact should be prevented through use of protective eyewear such as chemical MSDS: Nufann Weedar 64 BroadleafHerbicide Page4of7 safety glasses with side shields or splash proof goggles. An emergency eye wash should be readily accessible to the work area. Skin Protection: Skin contact should be avoided through the use of permeation resistant clothing, gloves and footwear, selected with regard for use conditions and exposure potential. An emergency shower should be readily accessible to the work area. Consider both durability and permeation resistance of clothing. Work Practice Controls: Personal hygiene is an important work practice exposure control measure and the following general measures should be taken when working with or handling this material: (l) Do not store, use, and/or consume foods, beverages, tobacco products, or cosmetics in areas where this material is stored. (2) Wash hands and face carefully before eating, drinking, using tobacco, applying cosmetics, or using the toilet. Exoosure Guidelines: EYDosure Limits: Acetic acid, (2,4-Dichlorophenoxy)-, dimethylamine salt *8-hour TWA unless otherwise noted. **Based on adopted limit for 2,4-D. Ventilation: OSHA PEL* 10** ACGillTLV* STEL Units 10** ND mg/rrf Where engineering controls are indicated by specific use conditions or a potential for excessive exposure, use local exhaust ventilation at the point of generation. 9. PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES NOTE: Physical data are typical values, but may vary from sample to sample. A typical value should not be construed as a guaranteed analysis or as a specification. Physical Appearance: Odor: pH: Specific Gravity: Water Solubility: Melting Point Range: Boiling Point Range: Vapor Pressure: Molecular Weight: Reddish brown to dark brown liquid. Characteristic organic amine and phenolic. Approximately 7 to 9 Approximately 1.155@20°C Soluble. Not Available. Not Available. Expected to be similar to water:> 100°C <l x w-1 mm Hg @26°C (data on 2,4-D dimethylamine salt) 266.1 (data on 2,4-D dimethylamine salt) 10. STABILITY AND REACI1Vl1Y Chemical Stability: This material is stable under normal handling and storage conditions described in Section 7. Conditions To Be Avoided: None known Incompatibility With Other Materials: Strong oxidizing agents: bases, acids. Hazardous Decomposition Products: Decomposition Type:

• Thermal Decomposition Products: Hydrogen chloride, oxides of carbon, nitrogen and sulfur. Hazardous Polymerization: Does not occur. 11. TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION Toxicololdcal Data: Except as noted, data from laboratory studies conducted on this product are summarized below.

Eye Irritation: Severely irritating (Rabbit). Skin Irritation: Minimally irritating (Rabbit). Dermal: Slightly toxic. (Rabbit LD50 1544 mg/kg). MSDS: Nufann Weedar 64 BroadleafHerbicide Inhalation: Slightly toxic. (Rat 4-hr LC50: > 3.5 mg/L) (Data on similar product) Oral: Slightly toxic. (Rat LD50 1161 mg/kg). Page 5 of7 This product contains substances that a:re considered to be probable or suspected human carcinogens as follows: Chiaro (Also see Section 3.) Agua tic Toxicity: Data on 2,4-D dimethylamine*salt: 96-hr LCso Bluegill: 96-hr LC50 Rainbow Trout: 48-hr EC50 Daphnia: Avian Toxicity: Data on 2,4-D dimethylamine salt: Bobwhite Quail Oral LD5o: Mallard Duck 8-day Dietary LC50: Environmental Fate: OSHA No 12. ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION 524 mg/I 250 mg/I 184mg/I 500mg/kg >5620ppm ACGIH In laboratory and field studies, 2,4-D DMA salt rapidly dissociated to parent acid in the environment. The typical half-life of the resultant 2,4-D acid rang*ed from a few days to a few weeks. 13. DISPOSAL CONSIDERATIONS Waste Disposal Method: Pesticide wastes are acutely hazardous. Improper disposal of excess pesticide is a violation of Federal Law and may contaminate ground water. If these wastes cannot be disposed of by use according to label instructions, contact your State Pesticide or Environmental Control Agency, or the Hazardous Waste representative at the nearest EPA Regional Office for guidance. Container Handling and Disposal: Do not reuse empty container. Triple rinse (or equivalent) adding rinsate to application equipment. Then offer empty container for recycling or reconditioning, or puncture and dispose of in a sanitary landfill or by incineration, or, if allowed by State and local authorities, by burning. If burned, stay out ofsmoke. 14. TRANSPORTATION INFORMATION NOTE: Information is for surface transportation of package sizes generally offered and does not address regulatory variations due to changes in package size, mode-of shipment or other conditions. Packages containing less than 26.3 gallons of this product are generally not regulated. For packages containing 26.3 gallons or higher: MSDS: Nufann Weedar 64 BroadleafHerbicide Page6of7 DOT Proper Shipping Name: ENVIRONMENTALLY HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE, LIQUID, N.0.S. (2,4-D SALTS), RQ (2,4-D SALTS) DOT Hazard Class /l.D. No.: 9/UN3082 DOT Label: Class 9 U.S. Surface Freight Classification: Weed killing compound, N.0.1.B.N. 15. REGULATORY INFORMATION Federal Regulations: TSCA Inventory: This product is excepted from TSCA because it is solely for FIFRA regulated use. SARA Hazard Notification: Hazard Cate ories Under Criteria of SARA Title ill Rules 40 CFR Part 3 70 : Fire: Reactive: Release of Pressure: Acute Health: Chronic Health: No No No Yes Yes Section 313 Toxic Chemical(s): ACETIC ACID, (2,4-DICHLOROPHENOXY)-, CAS NO. 94-75-7 (38.9% equivalent by weight in product) RQ 100 lbs a roximatel 26.3 allons of this roduct Selected State Regulations: lated under California Pro osition 65: Ingredient Name Cancer List Reproductive Risk Level List California Not A Iicable Not A licable Not A licable Not A Iicable 16. OTHER INFORMATION National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Hazard Ratings: Ratinl!S for This Product Kev to Ratin2s 2 Health Hazard 0 Minimal I Flammability I Slight 0 Instability 2 Moderate* 3 Serious 4 Severe Abbreviations and Acronyms Not Defined Elsewhere: ACGIH American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists ANSI American National Standards Institute CERClA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act DOT Department of Transportation FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act IARC International Agency for Research on Cancer MSHA Mine Safety and Health Administration NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health NTP National Toxicology Program OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration PEL SARA STEL TLV TSCA TWA USEPA MSDS: Nufann Weedar 64 Broadleaf Herbicide Permissible Exposure Limit Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 Short Term Exposure Limit Threshold Limit Value Toxic Substances Control Act Time Weighted Average U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Page7of7 This Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) serves different purposes than and DOES NOT REPLACE OR MODIFY THE EPA-ACCEPTED PRODUCT LABELING (attached to and accompanying the product container). This MSDS provides important health, safety and environmental information for employers, employees, emergency responders and others handling large quantities of the product in activities generally other than product use, while the labeling provides that information specifically for product use in the ordinary course. Use, storage and disposal of pesticide products are regulated by the EPA under the authority of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) through the product labeling, and all necessary and appropriate precautionary, use, storage, and disposal information is set forth on that labeling. It is a violation offederal law to use a pesticide product in any manner not prescribed on the EPA-accepted label. Although the information and recommendations set forth herein (hereinafter "Information") are presented in good faith and believed to be correct as of the date hereof, Nufarm, Inc. makes no representations as to the completeness or accuracy thereof. Information is supplied upon the condition that the persons receiving same will make their own determination as to its suitability for their purposes prior to use. In no event will Nufarm, Inc. be responsible for damages of any nature whatsoever resulting from the use or of reliance upon Information. NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR OF ANY OTIIER NATURE ARE MADE HEREUNDER WI1H RESPECT TO INFORMATION OR TIIE PRODUCT TO WHICH INFORMATION REFERS. WEEDAR is a registered trademark ofNufann, Inc. NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCt!ARGE ELIMINAi:tON $YSTEM (NPDES) PERMIT APPLICATION SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION *, . . .. . ALAEIAMA OEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT WATER OIViSION-*INOUSTRIAL J MINING PERMIT SECTION . . . . . PQST OFFICE BOX 301463 MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA INSTRUCTIONS: APPLICATIONS SHOULD BE TYPED OR PRINTED IN INK:AND SU$M1mo TO DEP,ART:MENT IN DUPLICATE. IF* INSUFFICIENT SPACE IS AVAILABLE TO ADDRESS ANY ITEM. PLEASE CONTINUE ON AN SHEET OF PAPER.* PLEASE t-liA IN THE APPROPR(ATE BQX WHEN AN l'T;EM TO THE APPLICANT. . . . PURPOSE OF THIS APPLICAnON 0 INITIAL PERMIT NEW FACIJ.JTY . ..0 MODIFICATION OF EXISTING PERMIT Q INITIAL PERMIT APP.UCAnON FOR EXISTiNG FACiLITY JZl .OF .!:1 REVOCATION.& REISSUANCE dF EXiSTtNGPERMti 1. Facility Name: TVA Ferry N\l&:<Sear P1an1 a.. *Operator Name: Tennessee Valley Authority b. Is the opetator identified In 1.a., tt\e owner of the faqility? Yes J.:Il No.D . If '10, provide the name and address of lhe 6peralor and submit information ind'icating the operator's scope of responslbifity 'fcir the facility. *

• 2. NPDE$ AL 2._ .2.._ L _2 _ .L .L L SIO Pef:!'l'.lit (if i;ipptic::able): IU __. _ -__. _ -___ -. __ _ 4. NPOES General Perm.it Number (if ALG _____ _ 5. f aciuty Physical Locatiort (Attach a map with location rrra,tkedi Street. r91Jte flQ, or other specific Jdeolffier) .Street! 16835 Shaw Road City: County; Limestone State: . Aiaban:ta )Zip: Facility (Front Gate) 42' 2s.35M North 81* 06' so.02* west 6. Facility Mai.ling Address (Street or Post Office-Box): ..::.P.::::.O::.:* Bolt::::.:* 2:::000.:::::* -------------State: Allit>ama Zip: 35609 AOEM Form 187.01/10m3 Page 1of14 t_ ResponsJbre (as on ,page 13 of *this application): Name and TiUe: K-J. Pols0n, Sita Vic.a-President P ,o'. 2QOO. NAEJ 2A City: State: _A1_a .... 1>a._.(lla_____ Zip: . 35600 Phone Number: 256*729"3975 EMAIL Address: . 8. Designaied Faciill:y Contact: Narne and Title: c1,1rra11 A. (Rusty) Cooper. ?.e. Phone Number:,___25_a._* ___________________________ _ EMAIL Address* $.. .Designated Dis¢1iarge Monitoring Repc>rt Contact: : .. . Name and Title: R. (fb.lstyJ ______ EMAIL,Address:
• 10. TypeJ>fBusioess Ehtityt LJ. Cprporatlon
• W General Partnership 0 Limited Partnership 0 Sole 0 Other'(Ptease*spec;i.fy) ._.F_ede_ra .... '--------11 ., Complete this. section if the Applfcanfs business eritify is a Corporyition :a) Location of lncq_rpora_tlon: Cio/: ---------*County: --------State: ___ _ Zip: _____ .... b) Parent Corporation'of' AJ?pUcant ____ ..;...--------Addre$s:...._ ________________________________ _ Ctty: ___________________ _____________ ADEMF.onn 18701/TOrn3

¢) Subsidiary COrporatlon(s} of Applicant: NtA _______________ --...;. __________________ Address.!.._ ___ ,__ _____________________________ ,..... City:------------'Slate:._* ________ __..... Zip: ------------'d). corporate Officers; Addre$S:* ...... ---------------State: __________ .Zlp: ---------City; -----------.state:,_. __________ *:Zip: -----'------e)

• Agefif designateQ. by tiJe co.f'PQratie>n for purposes pf service: Name: NIA Cify: ------------$tate:,_. ------,------Zip: --------*Narne:_w_A_-___________ _... _________ ...,.. __ ;..... ____ *Cify: .... ------------State; .... ----------Zip: --------Name: ____________________________ ...... ______ _.._ __ .....;.. _____________________ _ City: ---------------------'---------Zip: --------,----page3of14

13. If the busines$ entity is a.Proprietorship, please* the information; Name: NIA Add Ci\y: -------------------State: __________ Zip.: _ __. _____ _ 14. Permit numbers for Applicant's preyioµsly issued NPDES Permits and, Identification of. any other State of Et.tvironme_ntal Permits presen*IY *heid by _Applicant, its Cll' subsidiary cofp:otations tf)e State of Alabama: * *

• Pe!'l}Jit N.ame *Pem;it Numtiei 15. Identify all Admihisti'$tive N9tice,s of. Vlolatipn, *Directives, Mministtative Orders. or litigation* .water pollution; if any, against il$. parent corporation pr subsidif:lry eprpQrations within the State of Alabama within* the past five years Facility Name Penpit Numtier :TYPil. of Actlo(\ See:attacilment 2 SECTION* B -BUSINESS ACTIVITY *1.
• tn:dicate:ar:ipiicaQkfStaoiiard .JJldt1stiia1 C:lassitJCatlon tor 811 (If mpre than Of)e in .order ofi.mportanCe** a, 4911 b. c. d. e. AO'EN) Form 1870.l/1Qm3 Date ofAClloq Page_4p04

,2. lfy'our facility (lfWill t>t;t, of-the processes beli>'i.; (regard1E$ of lhey_ gent)fate waste* sludge,. or hazardous waste), place a check beside the* cateQbry of business *acttvity {ehiaCk.. all apply): *

• lndustriaj Cat69riries [ ] Aluminum Forming [ J AsbeStos*Manut'acturiog [ ] Battery Manufactuiing .[ J can Making [ ] Canned end. Preserved Fruit and Vegetables l J Canned. and Preserved seafood
• l J Manufacturing r J r J car.n [ J Coal [ 1 can Cciati.rig f J Forming [ l Efeclric* .an,d El"ectro'nie .Compenerits Manufacturing [ }.
• f ] Maoufaciuiihg ( ] * ( l [ l FertiliZEir Manufacturing { ] Foundries (Metal Molding Cikld. O;tstin_g} [( ] 'Gla!)S ME!nufacturing * * ] Grain . * [ 1. Gum Chei'riicals Manufacturing [ l Chemlcais
• c J iron and: steel r *1 .Leaiher Ta_nr.iin9 al'.ld. Fin.ishing* f l Metal .Filiishi!'19 [ l ** Meat Products ( J [ 1 [ 1 [ ] ( ] r 1 f l [ ] [ ) ( J [ ] [ l [ J C I [ l f 1 [ . I [ "] (*I J { l [ J ( J l. l [. 'J Metal Moldil'19 and Casting Metal Products
• Nonferrous Matals forming NQnferrous Metals ManUfacturilig Oil and Organic :chem!cais. Manufaduring Ink Paving and Roofing Manufacturing Pesticides Manufacturing** Retroleui'n Refining P.hQSphate Manufacturing , . PharmaceutlCal .PJastio & Pl8stics Por.oelaln
• Enamet PUip; Paper, and Fiberooal'd Manufacturing Rubber
• anQ Manufacti.iriog Stearn ,sugar Pi'Qciessing Timber .Pi'Oduers: Tran&Portatlon.-c1eanin9 Waste COmbusticin *
• oitt,,,,. (specify)....__ ___ _ . A. facility with pre><;esse$ inctusrve, in bu"siness areas may be cover'ed by Environmental (EPA) standards. These*facllities are termed users" ancfShould'Skip*to que'stion 2 C; a. Give a brief C,f all at this facility incl!Jding primary* or services _(attach additional sheets If necessary): "'!VA Bl'9Wi!S Plant operate$ rtiree bOlling waler r.e&CJoi:s l)Urpose ADEMForrtfl87 Ot/10 m3 page5of14 SECTION C WA$TEWATER.DISCHARGE INFORMATION Facilities jn question 2 of Sedioh.Band are*eoR$idered Categorical Industrial. U$etS.shOuld skip to question 2 of tnis section. * * ** * * * * * * ** * * * *
• 1, .Pro_vide flows for each. of* the prooesses or proposed pro¢esses .. the pro.cess 1 ** pg 1:4)_. enter the description that .corresponds to each process. [New shOuld _provide estimates fQf eaG,h c;!ischatgeJ
• Process Description* NIA Last* 12 .Mbnths (galsiday) . H!gHest Menlf\ AVg; Fkiw Highest of Last 5 * . .
• Moitthty Avg. Flow :if occ:vrs or wili <<cur, indieate: [New facilities may estjrnate.]. a. N1,1rnbet Of _______ perday b. -Average batCh: . (GPO) c: Time.of batchdisch"rges ___ __, __ _ .. of week) d, ----------gailonslmitntte. e. .Percent of -----------*
• Last 12 Months H§lhest"MOt:lth FlOW HlgheSt. FIOw year of Last 5 . (galSfday) . No,,_;Process Dlscilarge$ (e.g. nmw:ontact coo&tJ9*waterr
• MOlithlY Avg; Flow 2; complete secti.:m OJJW if you ctre Sl.lbJect to Categorical Standards and. plan to directly discharge the a.water of the*Stata. :If Categoric81 discnargEid exclusivelyviaan indirect to*a public or wotk.s, qtieck."Yas" -in the appropriate .. below and direcuY,. to part *
• T }Yes .FQr Users: Pmige the wastewater discharge floWs or (Whichever is by the f<>.r-eac,h processes. µsi)'l9 :th.a 1 t pg *14). *enter .d*scriptlon tMt to. facililies .. shol.fld prQvide for* each
• ADEMForm*1a101110 tri3

',2a. Regulated Process . -Applicable Category Appiicable Subpart T.YJle. of Oiscltarge F.low . continuous. intermittent) See attachment 3 Process Descr:iption See attachment 3 last 12 Months . Highest Month Average* Highest Flo'N Vear of Last 5

• csarsrdayJ MonthlyA11era9e .. DisCharge Type* (bate!), nti11uous.
• intermittent) "' Reported v.alues should* in of applJcabfe Feder.ii productian-based standard * .FQr flow (MGO), day); *tc. * . . ..... . .. . If batch. occurs or will oceur; .Indicate: [New fat!lities may.estirriate.J
• a. Number.of batCtl dischafge$:-------P.er day p. Average discharge per batch:.. (GPO) c. i1rne of _________ at (days of week) d. Flow. rate:,_* _,..-----------* .ga.lfonstminute of total discharge: (hours of day) Non Prcices*s Description lilghest Flow (gals/day) Monthly Avij. Ftow If batch discharge Qr rnay estimate.} Numqer *per day b. Average discharge pefl;iatch; -----'------* ((3,PQ) .. . ... . ... c. Time of batch discharges ________ week) o( day) d. Ffow rate:"" _____ ..,.....,..._ _ __,.__,, Pi1!tc.ent orsctiarge T,ype (batcll, conti(lllt>US. Intermittent) 7oft4

.Zd. (e_g_ non*contact cootln9' water). *

• La;rt 12 liigbest Month Ayg. Flow Ffm'! 5 . Monthly Avg. Flow Ail AppJicantS complete questions 3 -s * . 3. Po you have, or plan to have, autorpatic samplhig eq!Jipment Qr i:on.tinuo1.1s WS$tewater fiow metering equipment at *th1$ facility?
• _Flow Metering SampllnQ Equipment Yes Yes No ..f_ No L NIA -* NIA If so. ptease the ,present or 0,; this *on the sewer sehematic and describe :the equil)ment below; ' 4.
• Are ariy or expansions during the next lh.ree yeannJ'tat '0 . No c:z:J .. (lf-no,skij>:Questl0n5) Bimfly these changes arid -Q.n s, LiSt the trade name Qf az:td corrosipn inhibitors used: Traci&: Name Chemrcal composition. See attaehmenl 4 For each biocide-and/or corrosion inhibitor* used, pteas-e include lriformatibn: (1) (2) (3). (4) AOEM-Form 187 Ol/10m3 9$-hour data for organisms representative of the biQfa of tht:i* water\vay into Which. file Cll$Charge/wiH reacli; be frequenCies * . and' *epA registration number. ifappffcable

$ECTION* 0 -WATER SUPPLY \l\fater .(Ch&<'.k as inany as are [ 1 P.rhtate Well [ J' 1 Water Utility (Specify City);, [ ./ J Surface Water [ .] Olh1;1r IFM(./RE THAN ONE WE(..L, OR SURFACE INTAKEj PROVIDE QA.TA FOR EA(;ffON ATTACHMI;_NT City: . o.2J)Q3 W!!lf;_ *MGD Well DepthL......-Ft* Latitude*_----. ..... -------Surface Intake Volumei,._.289_5 __ In.take Eie.vation in ReiaUon to Bott0m* _*1.0 Ft. Intake .51a.o Ft. Lo11gitt,ide: :at*ot04'W Name,of Wt;iter Soui'Ce:-_r_*en.._nessee........,.., ..... Rlve...,. ,_r ________ ......,. __ _ ** MGD -Milflon Gallons 1>9i' i>ay Cooling* Water rntake .Structure Jnfonnatlal:J 'i*and i If by an,outsi<le squrce and no.t by an*Qosite s'rµqture? indu$try, municipality, ete **. } 1.

• of your wate.r a su$ce water intake? Yes O No q (If yes! canUm.Je;, 110\ gc>'to. E.) * * *a)Name of-Providet'_Nt.._'A ..... ___ _..,.. ____ _ ...,...----Lon$Jitude: ____ _ 2. Is *tJle prov_ider a, pubfic wfifqh pt<Mdes:?Natet to t!Je public tor human ¢9nslimpti(Jri .of wnidt P.n.>Vicf es .notl'iiJW water)? .Yes-(tj]. No* [Cl . '(ff xes, go to 'Section e. ifno;, . -Only :to..bQ c.ompreted,if yQu .. have a.* cooling watedntake or yC>ur .s1,1ppfy us." an ln411(e does not treat the rawwater. . Is anyWC:lfer wittrc;frawn so.urea. fo(.COQlfng? Yes ClJ *NoJ::l . 4. Usirig the .nmntflly peri()Cf *. apprpxlmateiy. ofwater withdrawn is used fpt .ec>>Brig % .
• 5, Ooes the coolirtg:water'corisistof treated otliefWiSfi be dfst;harged? Ye$ [C::I). Nq ttU (if.yes,. go section E, 'if no,.complete-questions:e..; 't7.) .. : Is ti'!e GPQjing in. a once.-UlrQugh ortJosed cycle cooflng system? No-p 7. When was 'the il'ltake Installed? COmmel'Cl&IOiiertltiari *bega'ri lo 1gt4 (Uillt t), 1915 (iJnit 2J; and 1971 (Umt3} prov ids. fcir rn"'Jot of inlake comp0n_elits. incl1.1C',fin9 l a. What is the maximum Intake volume? -MGD {maximum pumping capacity in:'gallons per* day_) 'W.oat ti')e intake._volume'? 2.-MGD .. .. puinp in pefio<l) AOEM.FoFl1!_ 187'01/JO m3

10. J-iow the (e;g,, continuouslyt intermitt.;i'ntly, Contil'llJous.IY 11. What is the l'ne$h of tne scrf;len on:)*our intake? 318 in*cti 12; What *is: the intake flo.w-:tl'irciugh 1,455 . . .Whal i$Jtie screen.design ihtak.e flOW 14, is fot clec;inlng the screen? (e,g., does it rotate for cfeanittg) Rolilt!n9 & . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . 15. Do. you *have any fl.sh ifetraction teclinoiogy on your' intake? Yes lDJ No LGl:) 16. Have there baen any studies to determJoe the impact of the i_ntaJte on aquatic* organisms? Yes UllJ No*[J, (If yes please provide.) *

• 17. a map .the location-of the water mtake in retatk>n to the.facility, shotetii}a. wi:tter depth. etc. SECTION E-STOAAqE *#Jl) QISPO$AL INFORMATION Provide a description of ,of $11 si{9$ in .*the. of SQiid1>-or Ulat .eot.!Jd be accidentaliy * ,discharged to* a wafer* of ttie s.uch *. wastew'ater systenis, etc., whfCh ate**1ocated 'af U,e. for whieh is being r'nad,e. the should be noted on and *
• Oeserlption of Waste starase Lo<:ation Provide a description of the location of the ultimate dlspQ,sal sites of solid or liquid waste by'"Pf'oducts (sueh /r:Qm r;1ny-IOJ:atect the facility.
• Description of Waste Quantity (lbs/day) '"Indicate whi.ch wasitl$ identified above* CllspCtSed. WtiiCh-* .of If l!RY. wa.t8$ to* off11ite facility,.-the the ADEM F.oi'h'i J87,*.01/l0 ni3 SECTION F -COASTAL INFORMATION ls. the discharge(s) focated within 10-foot erevation of Mobile or 'j:jalcJwjn County? Yes ll:::;j] No ft:.:j] If yes, then complete items A through M below: A D.oes the pr9ject require.new construction? B. Will the be a .Qf new .air erril$$ions? c. Daes the project rnvolva tilling? Has "the Corps of Engineers* (COE) .!lfll'itiitbeeo Project Number D. the .project involve wetlands and/or submersed grtissbeds? e, .Are Qyster reef$; l9C1ited nE1ar project $ite? *(Include.a .map showing and dis¢11'11r9' IQcatiQn respecOo oyster reefs) F. Does the project il'1VQl¥f! the siting, construction and operation of a.n energy taciUty in* ADEM Adrriin. Code G, Does project. involve shoCE1fine ero$ion. mitigaUon? H. Does the.project involve constrUctionon cjµnes? I. Wiil the project interfere with public aecess to J. Q()e$ the projact lie within ttie 1b£Y,j-yearfloodplaln? K. 0955 the. registration, or epplication* of pesticides? L. Does the project a-new an**tlng wel,Uo pump: more ,thar'l 50 GPO? M. obtained? 8':CTIOt.f G ANTt*PEGRADATION EVALUATION YE$ Q CJ *c:r D. 0 ,__.. r:1 D Q Q 0. Q D. CJ .0 NO *a 'LJ _.,.. a D D. .D. . CJ .L
• r .bl 0 D-. .D. 0 t,:1 ltj ac¢.Qrqan. CFR.1.31.12 and of AdministratiVE! 1"0-.04 for the rollpwing information pl'QVidedi if *.appficable. It. is the responslbility to demonstrate sQCial and lmPQrtance 'Of the If ftlrther iofo.rmation JS: to U:tls altfich tt) .thr:J apptication. '1 * *t$ this .a new or increased discharge that began after N>d! 3, ? tf .question.2 If no;:go to Section*H. Ye*D N()m submlttedtq, tile the new or in question 1? 0. _ . .!l NQ fCJJ ff yes, do not complete' this section. A.DEM l?orm l$7 01/10 mJ
• If no, find the tq n :'e'Jaterbody as defined in AOEM Adrnii'i, Code. r. F below arid ADEPMonns $.11and313 (attached}. Forni 31.3 must be alternative considered technieany * * *
• lnfqrmati9n for-new or increased <fl$charges to high Ql;!ality A. Whal environmental or probl_em will the be corre<:Hrtg? B. How much will the employment (at its exiSting.facilityor as the result of new f!'lcility)'? C. How much reduction in Will dlSchf.ugertie avoii:llng7 O. How mqch a<Jclitional local taxes will the be paying? E, What 'f)ublic $E!rv!ce to-the will. the discharger be prQviding? i=. What economic or sociar"benefit will Ute be providJr;ig to the commµnilY? SEC,TION H -EPA Application Form.s All APPRtant!!l-must submi*t EPA Mor,$ tttan pne application form may be required from a 'ac;mty <f.ependir:tQ 1fie and fypes* of di$.:harges or found Tpe EPA applicatiQn forms .are found on. 'the http:/Jwww;ai;fem.state;al .... us/. T.he *ef>Aappfication forms ml.1st be submitted irHf.upticate asfolloW$: 1. AU applicants mi.Jst.Sllbmit Fol'iT11. 2, Applic.ant$ matiufacturing facilities,:. commercial facilities, and aQtiviti8$) which submit Form 2C. 3. forri!ll'!N _wbich Pr.PPO$' tp prpcess.wastewater musts:upmit Form.20 . . 4. APPiicants for .tJeWiJlhtj extsting on.ly cantact and/ot*Sariitary .Fo$. -5. ApPJlcantsfo.r new and 8'dsting facilities whose discharge-is*oomposed entirely of stoi:tn water associated with. in(lu$lrial aciivily must Stibniit' Form 2F; unless exempted.by*§ t22:26(c)(1)(1i), lflhe dlsq-iat9e is composed of storm non,.storm water, the applicant must a1$o submit. Forms 2.C, 20, and/or 2E.as apprQPrlate' (in tQ Form 2F).. * * * -SECTION I-ENGINEERING REPORT/BMP PLAN REQUIREMENTS AOEM & *o> J\DEM 181 0111(,l m3 SECTl,ON J,-RECE.IVINGWATERS R&ceMng,Water{$) Segment? lncludedJri TMDL ?* lY IN\. i'ON\ Tennei>see River No NIA . TMC)L. $che(lufe; Is requested, the following shoµldJ>e *(1) fQr eornpDance Scliedu!e (e,g" f6i' design and.installation i>f eon1i'Ol Moriitoring'if*ii.llts for. the of f!avl! prevlousiy to ,!he: D-8partment collecilon resull!! (jiiass and melhi:>dS Utiliied, elc,. be submitted as av$ltable): (3) limitations..if-liPP.fic;able; * * * ** * * * * (4) Date the and, {5)'(\ny.other to;*supPQri requested compliance schedure. i< THE INFORMATION CO.NTAtNEO:IN THIS FORM MUST BE CERTIFIED SY A RESPONSfBLE OFFICIAL AS DEFINED IN ADEM . RULE "SIGNATORIE$TO APPLICAT!ONSANO.REPORTS" (SE!: BELOW). <;E:RTiFY PENAz.iy'oF LAW THAT WIS LJ,f.JD£?/j. MY Q(RECTION QtfSUPERViS10/.i IN ACGOROANOE WftHA S.Y$TEM DESJGN#;D TO. ASSUR/:"'THAT OVA.LIFIEQ PIERSON/'!$. GATHER AND EVALUATJ(fHE Si.JBMITTED. BASED *OJ.J MY /Nt;),UIRY OF tf1E.P$$QN O.B PERSONS . WHo MANAGE THE SYS'rJEM, Off THOSE. PERSONS DIRECTLY REsPQNSJBLE FOR t3ATHERIN/3: /NFO/:?MAT.IPN. THE lf.!F6"itMATION /$. *ra. BEST OF ,MY KNOWLIEPG.E'AND BEL.Jez. .. ACGf./RAt.e!: AN.D .QOMPl$TE. I AM AWARE "ffll,T. Tljt;Rt; SIGNIFJCANT PENAL TIES EOR .SUBMITTING 'FAL..SE INFORMATIO#: INCLUbJNG THE OF FINE ;4.ND /MPRISONJ..ii:f.JfFQR l(f<JOW/1'/(lviOlA Tf.ONS. * . .. "'l FUFfffllER CERrli=Y'iJNbER-TY OF LAW THA.T ALL ANAL YSIES REPGRTED AS LESS THAN DETECTABLE IN THIS ;,.ffi..ICATTDN OR ATTACHMENrS.THERETO WERE: PERFORMED USING 'THE TEST METHOD H4.YIN_G *TH..1$ PET_ECiloN LIMIT fpR THI; TESTED.* . . . . . . . .. . . OA'.TE -ti . 1/ . SJGNED: _, .,. (TVPF,:*OR K.J.P.oiS<in NAMEOF'RESPONSIBl;.EOFfJCIA!;.: --------------------------.....--TITLE.OF RESpQNSIBLE OFFIC.IAL! _s_ite_* VM_1e&_._Prilsid_. _**_an_*!---------------.--...... -........ MAILlNG ADDRESS: P;o, Bow 209q; NA,a2A . . . . . *. . . ,CITY,STATE, ZtP: ... _o_eca_. _tu_r;A_L_,356_.09 ____ ----------(25l?) 129-3675 . ..;_..;.;._ _________ _ SIGNATORIES TO PERMIT APPLICATIONS AND REPORTS. (1) .f(lr.an NP't>ES petm!tsbatl a resp9nsibie,!)fficial, as: _below: (a) qf a Qf
• at leiztst of a .. in witf) .... wiiji ff
• r'ql!fted byth$ Department. who. is l'e$pchSible for production. :9". is authonzed to de.Cisions (b) tn.'ffie 'case.or a partnerahip, by a* gene*ra1
• In the case o( a* sore J)n)Prietorshlf), by the proprietor; or . . , . . . . . .* , .. , .. rn Qf a muriieipalj state,. or other public entity, bY.either a principal exe-eutive or ranldng . eJep(eq -Ofrtciaj. . AllEM Form 1S7 0-1 no m3 RAW MA)l;RiALS FIGURE1 BLOERIVER i .90;00Q .GPO . 45;000 GPO 45.ooo $j::ID ------t5,000 ,.... __ .....__..., 20.000 ------.t..:* FIBER r.cn ,....., PREPARATION
• r *10,00Q.GPD 40.0Q9,GPD SOLIOWASTE MUNICIPAL S0.000 CPD 40,000 GPO Bi..UE.RIVSR 1o;OOOGPD 1{),000 GPO . C,Q9i.liil<l WATER I 'l'OPRODUCT * '5,000.GPO GRIT lllt:UlRALtzATtON LOSS. TANK * ""6.0QtGPo STORa.\WATER
• GPO 34.00CIGPO ! 0\JTFALL 002' GpD . ** TREATMENT .ouTP:At.L 001 ,..........,.._,_ _____ ....,.. ______ . MAX: 20,000 GPO' SCl1eMATIC'OFWATER FLOW ATI: ADEM FOrfTl 187' 01110 m3 ATTACHMENT 1 TOADEM FORM 187 NPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION TVA BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT -NPDES PERMIT NO. AL0022080 Permit Name Permit Number Held bv NPDES Permit i-------AL0024635 Bellefonte Nuclear Plant RCRAID @l#_L ________ plaQ.t ____ ----*-*-----**--*-----*----:---*---*-Synthetic Minor Operating Permit Bellefonte Nuclear Plant NPDES Permit AL0022080 Ferry Nuclear Plant -RCRAID AL8640015410 <ID#) Browns Ferrv Nuclear Plant PSD Permit 708-0003-Z001 ----*------*-*----------*-----------------*-.. ----**-*--* PSD Permit 708-0003-Z003 Browns Ferry Nuclear ------*----*---**------* ---------------Inert Landfill Permit 42-02 Browns Ferrv Nuclear Plant Permits Cltl:!J8 h!.i:bine§)_ __ ]'.9_1 _-ZD_Q!t _ Colbert Fossil Plant --------*------*-Air Permits (U1-U5 boilers) 701-001 O-Z009 throuoh -Z013 Colbert Fossil Plant . NP DES Permit r----.:. Colbert Fossil Plant NPDES Construction Storm Water Permit ALHA00777 Colbert Fossil Plant ,______ __________ ,____ -RCRA ID AL7640006675 (ID#) Colbert Fossil Plant Environmental Research NPDES Permit AL0003891 Center General NPDES Permit ALG360011 Guntersville Hvdro Plant M. S. Heavy Equipment RCRAID ALD982083461 (ID#) Deoartment General NPDES Pennit ALG140643 M. S. Power Service Center RCRA (Ooeratina Permit) AL2640 090 005 M. S. Power Service Center General NPDES Permit ALG340195 Scottsboro Power Svs. Ctr. General NPDES Permit ALG 36-0009 Wheeler Hydro Plant NPDES Construction Storm WaJ_er PerrQit ALHA025flj _______ *-*---W_kiows Fossil Plant __ NPDES Permit AL0003S75 Widows Creek Fossil Plant RCRA ID ______ Pla_nt __ Solid Waste Disposal Permit 36-07 Widows Creek Fossil Plant -Title V Air Permit 705-0008 Widows Creek Fossil Plant General NPDES Permit ALG360012 Wilson Hvdro Plant Various TVA Transmission Line & Substation General NPDES Permit ALG610000 Construction Proiects ATTACHMENT 2 TO ADEM FORM 187 NPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION TVA BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT -NPDES PERMIT NO. AL0022080 Facility Name Date of Issuance Description of Action and Resolution Date of Final Resolution Consent Order 10-002-CWP was issued by ADEM in regard to a release of gypsum to Widows Creek Fossil Widows Creek (and other NPDES Permit Plant -NPDES issues which are described in the Order). Permit No. 10/13/2009 TVA has submitted Engineering Reports Pending AL0003875 and O&M Modification Plans which have been conceptually approved* by ADEM. Also, TVA paid a civil penalty in the amount of $25,000 .. Bellefonte Nuclear ADEM issued an NOV for late submittal of Plant -NPDES 07/31/2009 the NPDES permit renewal application. The 11/24/2009 Permit AL0024635 permit was reissued prior to expiration. EPA issued an NOV (settlement offer} for alleged failure to update the Risk Management Plan. Also, a civil penalty of Widows Creek Fossil $7,700 was paid. TVA submitted the 10/17/2008 Plant 10/01/2008 revalidation of the plan and generated (submittal to EPA} automatic notifications which are issued 6-months prior to the RMP re-validation anniversary date. In addition, RMP traini_ng is being conducted.

DSN 001 .,__, ____ 001b 005 L..-*-*-------___ 9j_;!_I?_ DSN 013a(1\ '-* DSN _Qg __ L--------ATIACHMENT 3 TO ADEM FORM 187 NPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION TVA BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT -NPDES PERMIT NO. AL0022080 Type of Last 12 Highest Flow Applicable Category and Discharge Months (MGD) Year of Last 5 Regulated Process Subpart Flow (batch, Process Description Highest Month (MGD) Monthly continuous, Average Average lntennlttent) Once-through 40 CFR Part 423.13 Continuous Removal of waste heat from process 2925.4 2820.8 -egui2ment Low Part _ Liauid rad-waste internal monitoring__ 0.037 0.032 --**---Once-through 40 CFR Part 423.13 Intermittent Residual heat removal system 6.72 4.96 *---*----*----*------***--------wasteL_ 40 CFR Part 423.13 ___ plant 0.282 Last 12 Months Highest Flow Non-Categorical Process Description (MGD) Highest Year of Last 5 Type of Discharge Flow (batch, (MGD) Monthly continuous, Intermittent) Month Average Averaae Sanita!Y_ wastewater treatment system 0.264 0.199 ___________ **------------*----------------------*-Last 12 Months Highest Flow Non-Process Discharge Description (MGD) Highest Year of Last 5 Type of Discharge Flow (batch, (MGD) Monthly. continuous, Intermittent) Month Average Averaae .. *-----*----*---*-*----_t:M_ _____ N/A _________________ -------*-* -----*----------.. 1---*-* ---*---*--*-------------*---------------* PRODUCTS ACTIVE INGRED. Depositrol Co-polymer PY5200 Flogard Zinc& MS6209 OrthophoSllhate Flogard Poly phosphate MS6235 Flogard Poly phosphate MS6201 (ovro) Spectrus Biodispersant BD1500 Spectrus NaBr OX1201 NaOCI NaOCI Inhibitor Tolytriazole AZ8100 (TIA) EVAC Amine Spectrus QUAT CTl300'21 Bentonite Bentonite Clay Cl av AITACHMENT 4 TO ADEM FORM 187 BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT RAW WATER TREATMENT PROGRAM MAXIMUM PROJECTED USAGE RA TES EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT COOLING WATER lEECW) SYSTEM (8000 GPM A VERA GE FLm V)* % PRODUCT ACTIVE FREQUENCY DISCHARGE ACTIVE FEED FEED CONC. !NORED. RATE RATE PRODUCT (PPM) (PPM) (PPM) (ATDSNOO!) 30 3.3 1.0 Continuous 0.02 12 8.3 1.0 Continuous 0.046 52.3 4.4 29 10 2.9 Continuous 0.05 34.2 11.7 4.0 Continuous 0.06 15 20 3 4/week 0.11 40 17 6.8 28"56 NA hrsfwk(IJ 10 51 5.1 28-56 NA hrs/wkl 50 2 I Continuous O.oI 29.6 25 7.4 4/yr 0.14 (72 hrs each) 50 5 2.5 4/yr (3) (72 hrs each) (l) lJ) ll) (3) NA DISCHARGE CONC. ACTIVE (PPM) (ATDSNOOI) 0.006 0.006 O.OL6 0.022 O.OL7 <0.1 <0.1 0.006 0.04 (3) NA

• EECW empties to the intake forebay through DSN 15a, 15b, and 15c, mixes with the forebay water and the condenser circulating water (CCW) flow (2106.1-3026.2 mgd dilution) and discharges to the Tennessee River through DSNOOl. The CCW flow of 3026.2 is typical with 3 Unit operation with all CCW pumps in service and would be considered normal operation. During outages the flow for CCW would be 2106.1 MGD. The discharge concentration is calculated based on what is considered to be two Unit CCW flow (2106.1). The following molluscicide treatment regime and options should be in accordance with SPP-9.7/CHTP-108 and BFN Raw Water Team concurrence. (I) 28-56 hours/week is normal operation for MIC control. Treatment time required varies due to seasoµal demand. Continuous treatment (or some variation) may be used as an alternative to or in conjunction with non-oxidizing treatments, as required, for macrofouling (invertebrate) control. (2) Treatment with Spectrus CT1300 is an alternative treatment plan (non-oxidizing biocide) in place of EVAC. (3) Bentonite Clay is used to detoxify the Spectrus CTI 300. It is applied at a 5: 1 ratio of clay to CTI 300 and is fed a minimum of2 hours after CT1300 ll:rjection is completed.

PRODUCTS ACTIVE INGRED. Depositrol Co-polymer PY5200 Flogard Zinc& MS6209 Orthoohosohate Flogard Poly phosphate MS6235 Flogard Poly phosphate MS6201 fnvm\ Spectrus Biodispersant 801500 Spectrus NaBr OXI201 NaOCl NaOCl Spectrus QUAT CT1300 Bentonite Bentonite Clay Clay RAW COOLING WATER/RAW SERVICE WATER HIGH PRESSURE FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS (58,000 GPM TOTAL AVERAGE FLOW)* % PRODUCT ACTIVE FREQUENCY DISCHARGE ACTIVE FEED FEED CONC. INGRED. RATE RATE PRODUCT (PPM) (PPM) (PPM) (ATDSNOOI) 30 3.3 1.0 Continuous 0.13 12 8.3 1.0 Continuous 0.33 523 4.4 29 10 2.9 Continuous 0.40 34.2 11.7 4.0 Continuous 0.47 15 20 3 4/week 0.8 40 17 6.8 28-56 NA lus/wklll 10 51 5.1 28-56 NA lus/wk111 50 5 2.5 4/yr ,,, (72 hrs each) (2) (*J (lJ l2) NA DISCHARGE CONC. ACTIVE (PPM) (ATDSNOOI) 0.04 0.04 0.12 0.16 0.12 <0.1 <0.1 (2) NA *Portions of these systems empty to the intake forebay through DSN15 and 15d where they mix with forebay water and CCW before discharge to the Tennessee River through DSNOOl. The remainder discharges directly into the CCW and is discharged through DSNOOl (2106.1-3026.2 mgd dilution). The CCW flow of 3026.2 is typical with 3 Unit operation with all CCW pumps in service and would be considered nonnal operation. During outages the flow for CCW would be 2106.1 MGD. The discharge concentration is calculated based on what is*considered to be two Unit CCW flow (2106.1). The following molluscicide treatment regime and options should be in accordance with SPP-9.7/RCTP-108 and BFN Raw Water Team concurrence. (1) 28-56 hours/week is normal operation for MIC control. Treatment time required varies due to seasonal demand. Continuous treatment (or some variation) may be used as an alternative to or in conjunction with non-oxidizing treatments, as required, for macrofouling (invertebrate) control. (2) Bentonite Clay is used to detoxify the Spectrus CT1300 not diluted by CCW (where dilution is acceptable). It is applied at a 5:1 ratio of clay to Spectrus CT1300. It is fed a minimum of 2 hours after Spectrus CTI 300 injection is completed. RHRSW SYSTEM-STAGNANT TREATMENT MODE (2000 GPM AVERAGE FLOW)* PRODUCTS ACTIVE % PRODUCT ACTIVE FREQUENCY DISCHARGE DISCHARGE INGRED. ACTIVE FEED FEED CONC. CONC. !NOR.ED. RATE RATE PRODUCT ACTIVE (PPM) <PPM\ <PP Ml fPPMl Depositrol Co-polymer 28.5 66.S 20 2/Quarter 66.5 20 PY5200 Flogard Zinc& "12 8.3 1.0 2/Quarter 8.3 1.0 MS6209 Orthoohosohate 52.3 4.4 4.4 Flogard Poly phosphate 29 106 30 2/Quarter 106 30 MS6235 Spectrus Biodispersant IS 20 3 2/Quarter 20 3 BDlSOO Spectrus Gluteraldehyde 45 200 90 2/Quarter 200 90 NXllOS

• In the stagnant treatment mode, amounts are based on flushes twice per quarter for each of I 0 heat exchangers (80 flushes per year). Each flush consists of 20 minutes at < 2000 gpm. Discharge is through DSN005. RHRSW SYSTEM-NORMAL TREATMENT MODE (4500 GPM AVERAGE FLOW)* PRODUCTS ACTIVE % PRODUCT. ACTIVE FREQUENCY DISCHARGE DISCHARGE INGRED. ACTIVE FEED FEED CONC. CONC. !NOR.ED. RATE RATE PRODUCT ACTIVE (PPM) <PPM) <PPM) CPPMl Depositrol Co-polymer 30 3,3 1.0 Weekly21 3.3 1.0 PY5200 Flogard Zinc& 12 8.3 1.0 Weekly21 8.3 1.0 MS6209 Orthoohosohate 52.3 4.4 4.4 Flogard Poly phosphate 29 10 2.9 Weekly21 10 2.9 MS6235 Flogard Poly phosphate 34.2 11.7 4.0 Weekly21 11.7 4 MS6201 fovrol Spectrus Biodispersant 15 20 3 Weekly21 20 3 BDlSOO Spectrus NaBr 40 17 6.8 WeekJyl2> NA <2.0 OX!201 NaOCI NaOCI 10 51 5.1 WeeklV21 NA <2.0 Inhibitor Tolytriazole 50 2 I Weeldy21 2.0. 1.0 AZ8100°1 (TT Al EVACll Amine 29.6 25 7.4 Weekly21 25 7.4 Spectrus QUAT 50 5 2.S Weeldy2> 5 2.5 CTl300l'>
• Discharge is through DSN 005. The 4500 gpm flow rate is typical; however, other flow rates may be used, if necessary or desired, as long as the discharge concentrations are not exceeded. (1) These chemicals are not intended for treatment of this system, but may as a part of normal Plant operation (intennittent use ofRHRSW pumps), be observed at the indicated concentrations. Reference use of these chemicals in previous Tables. . (2) The intended treatment schedule is weekly for approximately 30 minutes per heat exchanger, but as indicated in footnote l, the system may receive treatment due to intermittent use ofRHRSW pumps. Intermittent *use is considered to be normal Plant operation of RHRSW pumps. During Unit Refueling Outages (-30 days average), RHRSW pumps are utilized in extended intervals for shutdown cooling and reactor coolant temperature control. Such outages typically occur every two years per unit with Units I and 3 scheduled during even numbered years and Unit 2 scheduled during odd numbered years. GE Betz.doc Evaluation of Proposed Zinc Addition: It is proposed to treat the listed systems with a product containing zinc to be maintained at maximum total zinc concentration of 1.0 ppm . TV A plans to monitor at established internal points to ensure this maximum level is not exceeded. The 7Ql0 flow for the Tennessee River in the vicinity ofBFN is 7,109 MGD per the 1994 NPDES permit rationale. Based on TV A's NPDES pennitrenewal monitoring, the background concentration of total zinc is <0.010 mg/L. Since the background concentration is less than the minimum detection limit (MDL), an actual ambient zinc concentration of 1/2 of MDL or 0.005 mg/L is assumed. Also, a total hardness of 100 mg/L for the receiving stream is assumed. At an assumed hardness of 100 mg/L, the acute and chronic water quality criteria for zinc are both approximately 0.12 mg/L. At the 7Ql0 river flow, the zinc load in the river could be {0.12 x 8.34 x 7,109) pounds per day or 7,115 pounds per day as dissolved zinc. Based on the background zinc concentration of <0.010 mg/L, the assimilative capacity of the receiving stream at the 7Ql0 flow :::::7,115 pounds per day-(0.010 x 8.34 x 7,109) or 6,522 pounds per day. The proposed zinc additions are: Emergency Eguipment Cooling Water: (8,000 x 1440 x 10-6 x 8.34 x 1.0) lb/day or approximately 100 pounds per day as total zinc Raw Cooling Water/Raw Service Water/High Pressure Fire Protection: (58,000 x 1440 x 10-6 x 8.34 x 1.0) lb/day or approximately700 pounds per day as total zinc Residual Heat Removal System: (4,500 x 1440 x 10-6 x 8.34 x 1.0) lb/day or approximately 54 pounds per day as total zinc Total Proposed Zinc Addition: (100 + 700 + 54) lb/day or 854pounds per day which is significantly less than the assimilative capacity of the receiving stream
• ATIACHMENT 5 TO ADEM FORM 187 NPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT -NPDES PERMIT NO.AL0022080 PAGE 1OF2 L c ATIACHMENT 5 TO ADEM FORM 187 NPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT-NPDES PERMIT NO.AL0022080 PAGE 2 OF 2 SOURCE DRAWING 0-31E201 RO TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT NPDES PERMIT NO. AL0022080 316(b) MONITORING PROGRAM FISH IMPINGEMENT AT BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT SEPTEMBER 2007 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 2009 ENVIRONMENT AL STEWARDSHIP AND POLICY APRIL 2010 Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................. i List of Tables ................................................................................................................................... i List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. ii List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ...... : ....................................................................................... ii Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 3 Plant Description ......................................................................................................................... 3 Methods ........................................................................................................................................... 4 Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 4 Fish Community Assessment ...................................................................................................... 5 Results and Discussion ................................................................................................................... 5 Fish Community Assessment -RF AI .......................................................................................... 6 Summary and Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 6 References ....................................................................................................................................... 8 List of Tables Table 1. List of Fish Species by Family, Scientific, and Common Name Including Numbers Collected in Impingement Samples During September 12, 2007 through September 3, 2008 and September 10, 2008 and September 9, 2009 at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. ............................................................................................................ 9 Table 2. Number of fish impinged by month and percent of annual total during September, 2007 through September, 2009 ...................................................................... 11 Table 3. Comparison of estimated weekly fish impingement at TV A's Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant during 2007 and 2008 ................................................................................ 12 Table 4. Annual extrapolated estimates of numbers and biomass of fish impinged by species and year at Watts Bar Nuclear Plant during September 2007 through September 2009 ................................................................................................................. 13 Table 5. Extrapolated annual numbers of fish impinged at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant September 2007 through August 2008 and September 2008 through August 2009. Also included are numbers of fish for which TV A is liable after EA and PF reduction ........................................................................................................................... 15 Table 6. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RF AI Scores Downstream (TRM 292.5) and Upstream (TRM 295.9) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2008 .................................................................................................................... 16 Table 7. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RFAI Scores Downstream (TRM 292.5) and Upstream (TRM 295.9) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2009 .................................................................................................................... 20 Table 8. Summary of RF AI Scores from Sites Located Directly Upstream and Downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant as Well as Scores from Sampling Conducted During 1993-2009 as Part of the Vital Signs Monitoring Program in Wheeler Reservoir ............................................................................................................ 25 List of Figures Figure 1. Location of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant and Condenser Cooling Water (CCW) intake and discharge. Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant is located on the north shore of Wheeler Reservoir at Tennessee River Mile 294 ............................................... 26 Figure 2. Weekly estimate of total fish impinged at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, September 2007 through August 2008 "(Year 1) and September 2008 through August 2009 (Year 2) ........................................................................................................ 27 AM&M BFN ccw CWA EA EPA EPRI GPM MSL MW PF List of Acronyms and Abbreviations Aquatic Monitoring and Management Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Condenser Cooling Water Clean Water Act Equivalent Adult Environmental Protection Agency Formerly the Electric Power Research Institute Gallons Per Minute Mean Sea Level Megawatt Production Foregone ii Introduction Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) is a three unit nuclear-fueled facility located on Wheeler Reservoir in Limestone County, Alabama. Currently, all three units are in operation. Unit 1 was shutdown in 1985 and was returned to service in June 2007. Three condenser cooling water (CCW) pumps associated with Unit 1 are now in operation in addition to the CCW pumps used for Units 2 and 3. BFN's current operation utilizes a once-through CCW system, withdrawing water from the Tennessee River through an intake structure and discharging the water through diffuser pipes located downstream from the plant. This process is regulated by BFN's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit, AL0022080, and is subject to compliance with the federal Clean Water Act (CW A). Section 3 l 6(b) of the CW A requires the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures to reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impacts. A potential impact associated with cooling water intake structures is impingement of aquatic organisms. Impingement occurs when fish and shellfish are trapped against intake screens by the force of cooling water withdrawal. Impingement data related to the operation of Units 2 and 3 were collected during 2003 and 2004 to update baseline data so that potential impingement impacts from increased CCW demand after the restart of Unit 1 could be more accurately assessed (Baxter et al., 2006). Additional impingement data was collected to assess impingement rates associated with the CCW withdrawal for the operation of three units. Impingement monitoring began in September 2007 and continued weekly for two years. This report presents impingement data collected from the CCW intake screens during September 2007 through September 2009. Plant Description BFN is located at Tennessee River Kilometer 473 (Tennessee River Mile 294) on the north shore (right descending bank) of Wheeler Reservoir (Figure 1). The three units (boiling water reactors) each have a nameplate rating of 1,100 megawatts (MW). Units Two and Three were uprated in 1997 and 1998 and Unit One in 2007, resulting in an increase of 1280MW for each unit. The uprate was accomplished without additional increase in CCW demand. Six mechanical draft cooling towers enable BFN to operate in either open or helper mode. The CCW intake channel extends approximately 152 m (500 ft) from the intake structure to the skimmer wall. The skimmer wall is a 66 m (218 ft) long concrete and steel structure positioned across the entrance of the intake channel. Water is drawn into the intake channel through the lower portion of the wall through three 12 m (40 ft) wide sections, enabling BFN to withdraw cooler water from the lower stratum. The three open sections have movable gates with bottom elevations that can vary between 161 m (527 ft) mean sea level (msl) and 167 m (547 ft) msl. Actual water depth in the channel varies based on reservoir elevations: the normal minimum pool elevation is 168 m (550 ft) msl and normal maximum pool elevation is 169 m (556 ft) msl. The CCW pumping station is comprised of a concrete pumping structure 71 m (232 ft) long by 36 m (117 ft) wide and 14 m (47 ft) high. The bottom elevation of the pumping station is 158 m (517 ft) msl. Each unit has three CCW pumps. Each pump has a design flow rate of 220,000 gallons per minute (gpm), giving a design intake flow of 660,000 gpm per unit. The pumps are installed in separate pump bays that are each covered by two trashracks and two traveling screens. The screens are each 2.3 m (7.5 ft) wide with mesh openings of 9.5 mm (318 in). The design through screen velocity is 2.0 feet per second at normal minimum pool and 1.64 feet per second at normal high pool. The CCW pumps can operate in parallel for each unit. However, if one pump is out of service, the two remaining pumps will deliver sufficient flow for full-load operation but with a higher turbine backpressure. The traveling screens and screen wash system can be operated automatically or manually. Differential pressure across each pair of traveling screens for a given CCW pump is monitored. When operating the system in the automatic mode, the screen wash pump is started when a preset differential pressure of water is reached across any of the three pairs of screens. When a preset pressure is established at the screen wash nozzles, the screen motors are automatically started and the screens are washed. In either manual or automatic mode, the pump and screens run until manually stopped. Methods Impingement data presented in this report is from weekly samples collected from September 12, 2007 through September 9, 2009. At BFN, a continuous backwash is utilized to remove fish and debris from the traveling screens. This backwash sends fish and debris back to Wheeler Reservoir through a sluice pipe. A catch basket constructed of9.5 mm (3/8-in) mesh is located at the end of the sluice pipe and is moved into place to catch fish during sampling periods. Weekly, impingement sampling is conducted in six hour intervals during a twenty-four hour period to ensure that any diel variations in fish impingement could be detected. After the Aquatic Monitoring and Management (AM&M) crew removes the sample from the basket during each sampling period, fish are sorted from debris, identified, separated into 25 mm (1 in) length classes, enumerated, and weighed. Any fish collected alive are returned to the reservoir after processing. Incidental numbers offish which appeared to have been dead for more than 24 hours (i.e., exhibiting pale gills, cloudy eyes, fungus, or partial decomposition) are not included in the sample. Data recorded by one member of the AM&M crew is checked and verified (signed) by the other for quality control. Quality Assurance/Quality Control procedures for impingement sampling (TVA 2004) are followed to ensure samples compare with historical impingement mortality data. Data Analysis Estimated annual impingement was calculated by extrapolating impingement rates from weekly samples (24-hr sample x 7 x 52). To facilitate the implementation of and compliance with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations for Section 316(b) of the CWA (Federal Register Vol. 69, No. 131; July 9, 2004), prior to its suspension by EPA, fish lost to impingement were evaluated by extrapolating the losses to equivalent reductions of adult fish, or of biomass production available to predators . in the case of forage species. EPRI (formerly the Electric Power Research Institute) has identified two models for extrapolating losses of juvenile fish at intake structures to numbers or production of older fish (Barnthouse 2004). The Equivalent Adult (EA) model quantifies impingement losses in terms of the number of fish that would have survived to a given future age. The Production Foregone (PF) model was applied to forage fish species to quantify the loss
• from impingement in terms of potential forage available for consumption by predators. These models were used to determine the "biological liability" of the CCW intake structure based on the EPA guidance developed under the suspended rule. Fish Community Assessment Prior to 2000, the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) was operating under a 316( a) Alternative Thermal Limit (A TL) that had been continued with each permit renewal based on studies conducted in the mid-1970s. In 1999, EPA Region IV began requesting additional data in conjunction with NPDES permit renewal applications to verify that BIP was being maintained at TV A's thermal plants with ATLs. TV A proposed that its existing Vital Signs (VS) monitoring program, supplemented with additional fish and benthic macroinvertebrate community monitoring upstream and downstream of thermal plants with ATLs, was appropriate for that purpose. The VS monitoring program began in 1990 in the Tennessee River System. This program was implemented to evaluate ecological health conditions in major reservoirs as part of TV A's stewardship role. One of the 5 indicators used in the VS program to evaluate reservoir health is the Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index (RF AI) methodology. RF AI has been thoroughly tested on TV A and other reservoirs and published in peer-reviewed literature (Jennings, et al., 1995; Hickman and McDonough, 1996; McDonough and Hickman, 1999). TV A initiated a study to evaluate fish communities in areas immediately upstream and downstream of BFN during 2000-2009 using RF AI and RBI multi-metric evaluation techniques. This report presents the results and comparisons of autumn RF AI data collected upstream and downstream ofBFN during autumn 2000-2009 (Shaffer et al. 2010). Results. and Discussion Weekly impingement sampling at BFN from September 12, 2007 through September 9, 2009, resulted in collection of3,983,438 fish, comprising 46 species (Table 1). During Year One of the study (September 2007 through September 2008), 2,810, 778 fish representing 46 species were collected. Of these, 2,731,184 threadfin shad were impinged representing 97% of the total fish collected. During Year Two (September 2008 through September 2009), samples included 1,172,660 fish (43 species) were collected and included 92% (l,074,676) threadfin shad. Threadfin shad were predominant in the samples (96%) for both years combined, followed by gizzard shad (2%), yellow bass, freshwater drum and bluegill (0.1 % each). All other species contributed less than 1 % of the total number of fish impinged. The rate of impingement was highest during November through January (87%) both years (Table 2, Figure 2). The sample collected on January 2 and 3, 2008 contained 1,684,003 fish (99 .1 % threadfin shad) and comprised 60% of the total fish collected during Year One. Low ambient water temperatures caused by a cold front during this period caused the high numbers of threadfin shad upstream of BFN to become lethargic from thermal shoclc to be drawn into the intake and impinged on the traveling screens. This extensive impingement resulted in damage to several traveling screens and a power reduction event which was documented in TV A's Performance Evaluation Report (PER) #135963. The second highest number impinged during Year One was 391,375 on week four of November 2007 (Table 3, Figure 2). Peak impingement during Year Two was recorded during week three of November (208,051) and week two of December (206,874), 2007. Annual extrapolated estimates of numbers impinged and corresponding biomass including the average for both years are compared by species and year in Table 4. Estimated impingement (numbers and biomass) during Year One (19,675,446 fish) was over twice that recorded for Year Two (8,208,620). The impingement of thermally shocked threadfin shad observed on January 2 and 3, 2008 was the primary reason for this difference between years. Relatively similar numbers of gizzard shad and freshwater drum were impinged both years. Application of the EA and PF models to the estimated number impinged annually resulted in reduced numbers of fish (520,309 during Year One and 318,226 during Year Two) which would have been expected to survive to either harvestable size/age or to provide forage (Table 5). This reduced number is considered the biological liability" resulting from plant CCW impingement mortality based on the guidance developed for the now suspended 316(b) regulations. Historical impingement monitoring at BFN conducted during 2003 and 2004 with two units operating estimated an annual impingement of 8.1 million fish. Fish Community Assessment -RFAI In 2008, fish community RF Al scores of 45 ("Good") and 42 ("Good") were observed at the stations downstream and upstream of BFN respectively (Table 6). Both sites met BIP screening criteria, were within the 6 point range of acceptable variation and were therefore, considered similar. In 2009, fish community RF AI scores of 36 ("Fair") and 39 ("Fair") were observed at the downstream and upstream stations, respectively (Table 7). However, both sites were within the 6-point range of acceptable variation and were considered similar. Average scores for 2000-2009 were 41 for both the upstream and downstream sites (Table 8). Summary and Conclusions Impingement monitoring conducted at BFN during September 2007 through September 2009 collected 3,983,438 fish representing 46 species. Threadfin shad dominated the samples comprising 96% during the two years, combined. Gizzard shad (two percent) were next in abundance followed by yellow bass, freshwater drum and bluegill. Seasonal impingement was highest (87%) during November through January both years. Higher impingement during this period is attributed to large numbers of threadfin shad drawn into the plant CCW intake as a result of cold or thermal shock. Extrapolated estimates of numbers impinged were over twice as high (19,675,446) during the first year than estimated for Year Two (8,208,620). This difference was primarily the result of one sample in January, 2008 containing 1,684,003 fish (99.l % threadfin shad). Equivalent Adult and Production Foregone models were applied to the numbers impinged and resulted in reduced numbers of fish or "biological liability" of 520,309 during Year One and 318,226 during Year Two. When the models were applied a second time using an average number of threadfin shad impinged for the anomalous January 2008 sample, the resulting losses to impingement were reduced to 254,509 for Year One. The numbers of fish impinged at BFN are not considered detrimental to the fish community in Wheeler Reservoir.

Fish community or RF AI monitoring during autumn 2008 and 2009 upstream and downstream of BFN resulted in scores rated "Good" in 2008 and "Fair" during 2009. Scores between sites both years were within the acceptable range of variation and were therefore considered similar which suggests no effect from the operation ofBFN to the downstream fish community. References Barnthouse, L. W. 2004. Extrapolating Impingement and Entrainment Losses to Equivalent Adults and Production Foregone. EPRI Report 1008471, July 2004. Baxter, D.S., J.P. Buchanan, and L.K. Kay. 2006. Effects of condenser cooling water withdrawal on the fish community near the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant intake. Tennessee Valley Authority, Aquatic Monitoring and Management, Knoxville, Tennessee. 46 pp. BP A. 2004. NPDES -Final Regulations to Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures at Phase II Existing Facilities; Final Rule. 69 FR No. 131, July 9, 2004. Federal Register Vol. 69, No. 131; July 9, 2004 McDonough, T.A. and G.D. Hickman. 1999. Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index development: A tool for assessing ecological health in Tennessee Valley Authority impoundments. In: Assessing the sustainability and biological integrity of water resources using fish communities. Simon, T. (Ed.) CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 523-540. Shaffer, G.P., J.W. Simmons, and D.S. Baxter. 2010. Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River Near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge Autumn and Spring 2009. Tennessee Valley Authority, Aquatic Monitoring and Management, Knoxville, Tennessee. 78 pp. Tennessee Valley Authority. 1978. Biological Effects of Intake Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. Volume 4: Effects of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Cooling Water Intake on the Fish Populations of Wheeler Reservoir. Division of Forestry, Fisheries, and Wildlife Development, Fisheries and Waterfowl Resources Branch. January, 1978 Tennessee Valley Authority. 2004. Impingement Counts. Quality Assurance Procedure No. RSO&E-BR-23.11, Rev 1. TVA River Systems Operation and Environment, Aquatic Monitoring and Management Knoxville TN. 11 pp. Tennessee Valley Authority. 2009. Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River Near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge. Table 1. List of Fish Species by Family, Scientific, and Common Name Including Numbers Collected in Impingement Samples During September 12, 2007 through September 3, 2008 and September 10, 2008 and September 9, 2009 at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. Total Number Impinged Family Scientific Name Common Name Year One Year Two Petromyzontidae lchthyomyzan castaneus Chestnut lamprey 4 2 Lepisosteidae Lepisosteus osseus Longnose gar 0 3 Lepisosteus aculatus Spotted gar 16 36 Hiodontidae Hiodon tergisus Moon eye 4 0 Clupeidae Dorosoma cepedianum Gizzard shad 34,015 54,678 Alosa chrysochloris Skipjack herring 54 21 Dorosoma petenense Threadfin shad 2,731,184 1,074,676 Alosa pseudoharengus Alewife 122 1,622 Cyprinidae Pimepha/es vigi/ax Bullhead minnow 1,622 197 Pimephales notatus Bluntnose minnow 10 0 Norropis atherinoides Emerald shiner 21 2 Notemigonus cryso/eucas Golden Shiner 25 65 Cyprinella spiloptera Spotfin shiner 5 0 Luxilus chrysocepha/us _ Striped shiner 5 2 Cyprinus carpio Common carp 23 74 Catostomidae Jctiobus b11ba/11s Smallmouth buffalo 2 2 lctiob11s niger Black buffalo 4 0 Moxostoma erythrurom Golden redhorse 0 Hypentelium nigricans Northern hogsucker 6 23 Carpiodes cyprinus Quillback 0 3 Minytrema melanops Spotted sucker 516 735 lctaluridae lctalunrs furcatus Blue catfish 516 735 Jcta/11n1s punctatus Channel catfish 2,907 2,565 Pylodictis olivaris Flathead catfish 46 23 Ameiurns nebulosus Brown bullhead 0 13 Ameiur11s me/as Black bullhead 3 0 Atherinopsidae Labidesthes sicc11/us Brook silverside 13 0 Menidia bery//ina Inland Silverside 40 1,798 Belonidae Strongylura marina Atlantic needlefish 38 11 Moronidae Marone chrysops White bass 535 255 Marone mississippiensis Yellow bass 9,280 15,657 Morone saxatilis Striped bass 7 8 Marone saxatilis x M chrysops Hybrid striped bass 13 5 Centrarchidae Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill 15, 132 5,565 Table 1. (continued) Total Number Impinged Family Scientific Name Common Name Year One Year Two Centrarchidae Lepomis auritus Redbreast sunfish 0 58 Lepomis microlophus Redear sunfish 4,160 534 Lepomis gulosus Warrnouth 14 106 Lepomis humilis Orangespotted sunfish 370 959 lepomis cyanellus Green sunfish 35 270 lepomis mega/otis Longear sunfish 132 174 Hybrid sunfish 0 Micropterus dolomieu Smallmouth bass 2 4 Micropterus sa/moides Largemouth bass 78 73 Micropterus punctu/atus Spotted bass 79 72 Pomoxis annularis White crappie 197 693 Pomoxis nigromaculatus Black crappie 20 2 Percidae Sander canadense Sauger 14 5 Perea jlavescens Yellow perch 512 212 Percina caprodes Logperch 523 211 Percina shumardi River darter 0 3 Sciaenidae Aplodinotus grunniens Freshwater drwn 9,483 11,426 Total Number of Fish 2,810,778 1,172,660 Total Number of Fish Species 46 43 Number of Sample Days 52 53 Table 2. Number of fish impinged by month and percent of annual total during September, 2007 through September, 2009. Total Number of Fish Number of Fish Impinged 2007-2008 Percent of Impinged 2008-2009 Percent of Years 1 and Percent of Two-Month (Year 1) Annual Total (Year 2) Annual Total 2 Combined Year Total Jan 12,051,564 61 1,166,907 14 13,218,471 47 Feb 556,7.03 3 142,702 2 699,405 3 Mar 220,136 1 211,918 3 432,054 2 Apr 274,302 1 91,021 1 365,323 1 May 183,197 1 4,438 0 187,635 1 Jun 23,912 0 7,399 0 31,311 0 Jul 24,570 0 25,186 0 49,756 0 Aug 279,706 1 4,256 0 283,962 1 Sep 127,169 1 58,695 1 185,864 1 Oct 664,783 3 556,395 7 1,221,178 4 Nov 3,025,932 15 2,040,311 25 5,066,243 18 Dec 2,243,472 11 3,899,392 48 6,142,864 22 Total 19,675,446 8,208,620 27,884,066 Table 3. Comparison of estimated weekly fish impingement at TV A's Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant during 2007 and 2008. Sept Oct Nov Dec Year 1 Year2 Year 1 Year2 Year 1 Year2 Year 1 Year2 Week 1 9120 3881 4648 4304 72693 17S411 Week2 lOSO 2494 7900 34764 13330 6119 116023 206874 Week3 2218 4012 2321S S892 *.22923 20SOS1 84264 77367 Week4 6144 180S 23334 3834 391375 72999 47S16 97404 WeekS 31400 31114 Jan Feb March April Year 1 Year2 Year 1 Year2 Year 1 Year2 Year 1 Year2 Week 1 1684003 4S658 4162 7478 5820. . 4121 786S 9810 Week2 . 11410 89Sl2 2Sl96 S439 6506 S274 14337 1309 Week3 12693 16101 26393 S216 7904 1S571 S136 1718 Week4 399S S716 23778 22S3 11218 S308. 290S 166 Weeks 9S51 9714 8943 0 May* June July Aug Year 1 Year2 Year 1 Year2 Year 1

• Year2 Year 1 Year2 Week 1 19708 141 1019 92 861 616 1824 23 Week2 4006 34S. 807 280 612 0 1937 10 Week3 1469 128 747 206 400 1322 1468 148 Week4 988 20 843 479 *s19 47S 34729 427 Weeks 1118 . 118S.

Table 4. Annual extrapolated estimates of numbers and biomass offish impinged by species and year at Watts Bar Nuclear Plant during September 2007 through September 2009. Estimated Number Estimated Biomass (g) 9/12/2007 -9/10/2008 -9/12/2007 -9/10/2008 -Percent Composition SEecies 9/03/2008 9/09/2009 Average 9/03/2008 9/09/2009 Average Threadfin Shad 19,118,288 7,522,732 13,320,510 52,372,460 25,157,615 38,765,038 96 Gizzard Shad 238,105 382,746 310,426 8,348,508 7,366,639 7,857,574 2 Yellow Bass 64,960 109,599 87,280 1,528,870 2,181,942 1,855,406 1 Freshwater Drum 66,381 79,982 73,182 4,842,915 5,830,720 5,336,818 1 Bluegill 105,924 38,955 72,440 580,223 435,358 507,791 1 Channel Catfish 20,349 17,955 . 19,152 948,367 1,082,508 1,015,438 T Redear Sunfish 29,120 3,738 16,429 183,232 140,707 161,970 T Inland Silverside 280 12,586 6,433 1,218 66,010 33,6t4 T Bullhead Minnow 11,354 1,379 6,367 67,130 5,369 36,250 T Alewife 854 11,354 6,104 6,748 116,095 61,422 T Orangespotted Sunfish 2,590 6,713 4,652 12,509 16,506 14,508 T Blue Catfish 3,612 5,145 4,379 321,951 267,337 294,644 T White Crappie 1,379 4,851 3,115 75,775 149,205 112,490 T White Bass 3,745 1,785 2,765 713,489 462,112 587,801 T Logperch 3,661 1,477 2,569 21,280 14,203 17,742 T Longear Sunfish 924 1,218 1,071 8,834 ll,004 9,919 T Green Sunfish 245 1,890 1,068 3,570 7,630 5,600 T Largemouth Bass 546 511 529 68,054 92,491 80,273 T Spotted Bass .553 504 529 50,918 43,491 47,205 T Wannouth 98 742 420 1,799 9,184 5,492 T Common Carp 161 518 340 770 5,068 2,919 T Golden Shiner 175 455 315 1,960 6,503 4,232 T Skipjack Herring 378 147 263 183,015 30,254 106,635 T Flathead Catfish 322 161 242 80,227 22,876 51,552 T Redbreast Sunfish 0 406 203 0 2,513 1,257 T Spotted Gar 112 252 182 215,719 354,508 285,114 T Atlantic Needlefish 266 77 172 23,737 4,501 14,119 T Northern Hog Sucker 42 161 102 441 4,879 2z660 T Table 4. (continued) Estimated Number Estimated Biomass {g} 9/12/2007 -9/10/2008 -9/12/2007 -9/10/2008 -Percent Composition S2ecies 9/03/2008 910912009 Average 9/03/2008 9/09/2009 Average Yellow Perch 84 84 84 728 1,323 1,026 T Emerald Shiner 147 14 81 1,211 168 690 T Black Crappie 140 14 77 8,834 252 4,543 T Sauger 98 35 67 46,858 16,114 31,486 T Hybrid Striped Bass 91 35 63 58,023 371 29,197 T Spotted Sucker *O 126 63 0 41,503 20,752 T Striped Bass 49 56 53 26,523 399 13,461 T Brook Silverside 91 0 46 308 0 154 T Brown Bullhead 0 91 46 0 525 263 T Bluntnose Minnow 70 0 35 252 0 126 T River Darter 35 14 25 35 56 46 T Striped Shiner 35 14 25 294 56 175 T Chestnut Lamprey 28 14 21 1,365 532 949 T Smallmouth Bass 14 28 21 6,986 119 3,553 T Spotfin Shiner 35 0 18 259 0 130 T Black Buffalo 28 0 14 11,550 0 5,775 T Mooneye 28 0 14 9,702 0 4,851 T Smallmouth Buffalo 14 14 14 4,774 7,588 6,181 T Black Bullhead 0 11 203 0 102 T Longnose Gar 0 21 11 0 60,214 30,107 T Quill back 0 21 11 0 27,727 13,864 T Golden Redhorse 7 0 4 4,900 0 2,450 T Hybrid Sunfish 7 0 4 7 0 4 T Table 5. Extrapolated annual numbers of fish impinged at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant September 2007 through August 2008 and September 2008 through August 2009. Also included are numbers of fish for which TV A is liable after EA and PF reduction. Extrapolated Annual Number offish Impinged Number Liable for after EA & PF Reduction Year 1 2007-2008 19,675,446 520,309 Year2 2008-2009 8,208,620 318,226 Table 6. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RFAI Scores Downstream (TRM 292.5) and Upstream (TRM 295.9) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2008. Autumn 2008 TRM 292.5 TRM 295.9 Metric A. Species richness and composition 1. Number of indigenous species 2. Number of centrarchid species (less Micropterus) 3. Number ofbenthic invertivore species 4. Number of intolerant species Obs 28 species 6 species Green sunfish Bluegill Longear sunfish Warmouth Black crappie Redear sunfish 5 species Spotted sucker Black redhorse Golden redhorse Freshwater drum Logperch 5 species Spotted sucker Skipj ack herring Black redhorse Longear sunfish Sroallmouth bass Score 3 5 3 5 Obs 28 species 7 species Green sunfish Bluegill Longear sunfish Warmouth Redear sunfish White crappie Black crappie 4 species Spotted sucker Northern hog sucker Freshwater drum Logperch 5 species Spotted sucker Northern hog sucker Skipjack herring Longear sunfish Sroallmouth bass Score 3 5 3 5 Table 6. (Continued) Autumn 2008 TRM292.5 TRM295.9 Metric Obs Score Obs Score 5. Percent tolerant individuals Electrofishing 37.4% 50.6% Bluegill 10.3% Bluegill 8.2% Gizzard shad 3 1. 7% Gizzard shad 19.3% Common carp 0.3% Largemouth bass 7.2% 1.5 I.5 Spotfin shiner 0:2% Largemouth bass 9.4% Green sunfish 0.3% Spotfin shiner 0.2% Golden shiner 0.2% Green sunfish 0.4% Gill Netting 32.1% 23.6% Gizzard shad 12.3% Gizzard shad 14.1% Common carp 0.5% Common carp 0.5% 1.5 Bluegill 3.2% 0.5 Bluegill 1.0% Largemouth bass 7.0% Largemouth bass 8.0% Longnose gar 4.8% Golden shiner 2. 7% White crappie 1.6% 6. Percent dominance by one species Electrofishing 52.7% 31.7% Inland silvcrside 1.5 Gizzard shad 1.5 Gill Netting 28.6% 19.8% White bass 1.5 Channel catfish 1.5 7. Percent non-indigenous species Electrofishing 29.5% 52.7% 0.5 Inland silverside 29.0% 0.5 Inland silvcrside 52.7% Atlantic needlefish 0.1 % Common carp 0.3% Gill Netting 0.5% 1.6% Common carp 0.5% 2.5 Common carp 0.5% 1.5 Striped bass 1.1 % Table 6. (Continued) Autumn 2008 TRM292.5 TRM295.9 Metric Obs Score Obs Score 8. Number of top carnivore species IO species 11 species Spotted gar Longnose gar Largemouth bass Spotted gar Spotted bass Largemouth bass Smallmouth bass Spotted bass Skipjack herring 5 Smallmouth bass 5 Flathead catfish Skipjack herring White bass Flathead catfish Yellow bass White bass Black crappie Yellow bass Sauger Black crappie White crappie B. Trophic composition 9. Percent top carnivores Electrofishing 8.5% 12.6% Largemouth bass 7 .2% Largemouth bass 9.4% Spotted bass 0.2% Spotted bass 0.7% Smallmouth bass 1.0% Smallmouth bass 0. 7% Flathead catfish 0.06% 1.5 Flathead catfish 0.3% 2.5 White bass 0.2% Yellow bass 1.0% Spotted gar 0.2% Gill Netting 61.3% 39.6% Spotted gar 0.5% Longnose gar 4.8% Largemouth bass 8.0% Largemouth bass 7.0% Spotted bass 1.0% Spotted bass 1.6% Skipjack herring 15.6% 2.5 Skipjack herring 1.6% 2.5 Flathead catfish 4.5% Flathead catfish 2.1 % White bass 28.6% White bass 14.0% Yellow bass 1.5% Yellow bass 5.3% Black crappie 0.5% White crappie 1.6% Sauger 1.0% Black crappie 0.5% Table 6. (Continued) Autumn 2008 TRM292.5 TRM295.9 Metric Obs Score Obs Score I 0. Percent omnivores Electro fishing 20.7% 38.5% Gizzard shad 19.3% Gizzard shad 31. 7% 2.5 Channel catfish 5.8% 1.5 Channel catfish 1.2% Smallmouth buffalo 0.4% Blue catfish 0.2% Common carp 0.3% Golden shiner 0.2% Gill Netting 26.6% 44.4% Gizzard shad 14.1 % Gizzard shad 12.3% Blue catfish 6.0% 1.5 Blue catfish 5.3% 0.5 Channel catfish 3.5% Channel catfish 19.8% Smallmouth buffalo 2.0% Golden shiner 2. 7% Black buffalo 0.5% Smallmouth buffalo 3.7% Common carp 0.5% Common carp 0.5% C. Fish abundance and health 11. Average number per run Electro fishing 112.2 0.5 59.9 0.5 Gill Netting 19.9 1.5 18.7 1.5 12. Percent anomalies Electrofishing 0.4% 2.5 1% 2.5 Gill Netting 0.5% 2.5 0.5% 2.5 Overall RF AI Score 45 42 Good Good Table 7. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RFAI Scores Downstream (TRM 292.5) and Upstream (TRM 295.9) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2009. Autumn2009 Metric A. Species richness and composition 1. Number of indigenous species (Tables 7 and 8) 2. Number of centrarchid species (less Micropterus) 3. Number ofbenthic invertivore species 4. Number of intolerant species TRM 292.5 Obs 27 7 Black crappie Bluegill Green sunfish Longear sunfish Redbreast sunfish Redear sunfish Warmouth 3 Freshwater drum Golden redhorse Logperch 3 Longear sunfish Skipjack herring Smallmouth bass TRM295.9 Score Obs Score 3 26 6 Black crappie Bluegill Green sunfish 5 Longear sunfish Redear sunfish Warmouth 4 Black redhorse Freshwater drum Golden redhorse Spotted sucker 5 Black redhorse 3 Longear sunfish Skipjack herring Smallmouth bass Spotted sucker 3 5 3 5 Table 7. (Continued) Autumn 2009 TRM292.5 TRM295.9 Metric Obs Score Obs Score 5. Percent tolerant individuals Electrofishing 40.9% 43.1% Bluegill 5.67% Bluegill 5.30% Bluntnose minnow 0.07% Common carp 0.18% Common carp 0.07% Gizzard shad 26.97% Gizzard shad 24.93% Golden shiner 0.46% Golden shiner 0.07% 1.5 Green sunfish 0.73% 1.5 Green sunfish 1.00% Largemouth bass 9.05.% Largemouth bass 7.07% Spotfin shiner 0.46% Redbreast sunfish 0.07% Spotfin shiner 1.93% Gill Netting 45.7% 30.5% Bluegill 4.35% Common carp 3.39% Gizzard shad 39.13% 0.5 Gizzard shad 23.73% 0.5 Largemouth bass 2.17% White sucker 3.39% 6. Percent dominance by one species Electro fishing 42.6% 35.6% Inland silverside 1.5 Inland silverside 1.5 Gill Netting 39.1% 23.7% Gizzard shad 0.5 Gizzard shad 1.5 Table 7. (Continued) Autumn2009 TRM292.5 TRM295.9 Metric Obs Score Obs Score 7. Percent non-indigenous species Electrofishing 42.7% 35.8% Common carp 0.07% Common carp 0.18% Inland silverside 42.60% 0.5 Inland silverside 35.56% 0.5 Striped bass 0.09% Gill Netting 0.0% 3.4% 2.5 Common carp 3.39% 0.5 8. Number of top carnivore species 9 9 . Black crappie Black crappie Flathead catfish Flathead catfish Largemouth bass Largemouth bass Skipjack herring 5 Skipjack herring 5 Smallmouth bass Smallmouth bass Spotted bass Spotted bass Spotted gar Spotted gar White bass White bass Yellow bass Yellow bass B. Trophic composition 9. Percent top carnivores Electro fishing 11.5% 14.4% Black crappie 0.07% Black crappie 0.09% Flathead catfish 0.27% Flathead catfish 1.28% Largemouth bass 7 .07% Largemouth bass 9.05% Smallmouth bass 3.73% 2.5 Smallmouth bass 0.18% 2.5 White bass 0.07% Spotted bass 0.46% Yellow bass 0.27% Spotted gar 0.46% Striped bass 0.09% Yellow bass 2.83% Table 7. (Continued) Autumn2009 TRM292.5 TRM295.9 Metric Obs Score Obs Score Gill Netting 32.6% 30.5% Flathead catfish 6.52% Black crappie 1.69% Largemouth bass 2.17% Flathead catfish I .69% Skipjack herring 2. I 7% Skipjack herring 8.47% Spotted bass 6.52% 1.5 Spotted bass 1.69% 1.5 Spotted gar 8.70% Spotted gar 1.69% White bass 4.35% White bass 6. 78% Yellow bass 2.1 7% Yellow bass 8.47% 10. Percent omnivores Elcctrofishing 29.5% 36.8% Bluntnose minnow 0.07% Blue catfish 0.18% Channel catfish 4.20% Channel catfish 8.96% Common carp 0.07% l.5 Common carp 0.18% 1.5 Gizzard shad 24.93% Gizzard shad 26.97% Golden shiner 0.07% Golden shiner 0.46% Smallmouth buffalo 0.20% Smallmouth buffalo 0.09% Gill Netting 56.5% 54.2% Blue catfish 4.35% Blue catfish 3.39% Channel catfish 6.52% 0.5 Channel catfish 20.34% 0.5 Gizzard shad 39. 13% Common carp 3.39% Smallmouth buffalo 6.52% Gizzard shad 23.73% White sucker 3.39% Table 8. Summary of RF AI Scores from Sites Located Directly Upstream and Downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant as Well as Scores from Sampling Conducted During 1993-2009 as Part of the Vital Signs Monitoring Program in Wheeler Reservoir. Station Location 1993 1994 1995 1997 1999 1993-1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2000-2009 Average Average Inflow TRM348.0 46 48 42 48 36 44 38 42 38 44 44 42 38 38 40 40 Transition TRM295.9 43 43 35 40 30 38 41 37 43 39 43 46 41 39 42 39 41 BFN Upstream Transition BFN TRM292.5 NIA 43 40 41 43 43 36 42 42 45 36 41 Downstream Forebay TRM277.0 52 44 49 45 42 46 41 45 44 43 45 46 49 46 47 45 Elk River ERM6.0 43 46 36 49 36 42 49 44 49 47 39 42 45 Embayment Note: No data were collected for 1996 and 1998. RFAI Scores: 12-21 ("Very Poor), 22-31("Poor"),32-40 ("Fair"), 41-50 ("Good"), or 51-60 ("Excellent"). Table 8. Summary of RFAI Scores from Sites Located Directly Upstream and Downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant as Well as Scores from Sampling Conducted During 1993-2009 as Part of the Vital Monitoring Program in Wheeler Reservoir. Station Location 1993 1994 1995 1997 1999 1993-1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 . 2006 2007 2008 2009 2000-2009 Average Average Inflow TRM 348.0 46 48 42 48 36 44 38 42 38 44 44 42 38 38 40 40 Transition TRM295.9 43 43 35 40 30 38 41 37 43 39 43 46 41 39 42 39 41 BFN Upstream Transition BFN TRM292.5 NIA 43 40 41 43 43 36 42 42 45 36 41 Downstream Fore bay TRM277.0 52 44 49 45 42 46 41 45 44 43 45 46 49 46 47 45 Elk River ERM6.0 43 46 36 49 36 42 49 44 49 47 39 42 45 Embayment. Note: No data were collected for 1996 and 1998. RF AI Scores: 12-21 ("Very Poor"), 22-31 ("Poor"), 32-40 ("Fair"), 41-50 ("Good"), or 51-60 ("Excellent"). / ,,----I ,\11*,1.i J "*r

• t't,; '111 .. J .. mon1tora \ \ .* Stn 17 (L) , 3.&?; St. 1 (Ml * . 1;' Stil 6(R) ?/ Otffu r<; 29*1 0 __/ Ove nk ... IHUOt'tt.w&ll nhHllhJr Sta 19(03mtu-., / Ov *rban
• Up tr nm moni oc r<* ackup) 1' IA ,.., (1 8 mt u/a) ' ' UJl"I* .1m Sin.\ p R m1111'<) -... --....... ... Figure 1. Location of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant and Condenser Cooling Water (CCW) intake and discharge. Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant is located on the north shore of Wheeler Reservoir at Tennessee River Mile 294.

""C Q) b.O r:: a. E 12,000,000 10,000,000 -'07-08 -'08-09 8,000,000 r** ----. -------------* -----*-*-***--**--. *----6,000,000 -r------*-***-------*---** -*-**---* I ! .. -**--**--** ------**-**-*--*----------*----*--I 1* ... -*******--*----------4,000,000 ! I 2,000,000 i 0 ;,J,l*"l'i'!*i'i':;1,1:q,);[:i;i,/,l*isfil2l,I* 'i'!'l*I' 'i'l*1'l'i'I' * '1' '.,,'I'* 'i'l'i'i+ 'i Week Week I Week I Week I Week Week Week ! Week I Week Week Week I Week INee* Sept \ Oct I Nov ! Dec I Jan Feb ; Mar I Apr May June July ! Aug isept; Sample Week Figure 2. Weekly estimate of total fish impinged at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, September 2007 through August 2008 (Year 1) and September 2008 through August 2009 (Year 2). Biological Assessment: Effects of Condenser Cooling Water Withdrawal on the Fish Community Near the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Intake by Dennis S. Baxter Johnny P. Buchanan Larry K. Kay June 2006 Aquatic Monitoring and Management Knoxville, Tennessee TABLE OF CONTENTS Page List of Tables................................................................................ 111 List of Figures................................................................................ 1v Executive Summary.......................................................................... v1 Introduction .................................................................................. . Background and Scope ........................................................... . Reservoir and Plant Operation during 2003 and 2004.................... .. .. .. . . . . . . ... 2 Wheeler Reservoir Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 BFN Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Methods........................................................................................ 2 Entrainment........................................................................ 2 Sample Collection.......................................................... 2 Sample Processing......................................................... 3 Data Analysis............................................................... 3 Impingement *........................................................................ 3 Sample Collection.......................................................... 3 Data Analysis............................................................... 3 Results ................... , .............................................. .'....................... 4 Entrainment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Fish Eggs.................................................................... 4 Larval and Juvenile Fish................................................. 4 Hydraulic Entrainment Estimates...................................... 5 Fish Entrainment Estimates............................................ 6 Impingement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Historical Comparisons . .. . . .. . .. .. .. .. . . . .. .. . .. . . .. . . .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. 7 Entrainment......................................................................... 7 Impingement................................................................ . . . . . . . . . 7 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Literature Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . ..... 10 Literature Reviewed.......................................................................... 11 II LIST OF TABLES Page Table I.* Total Volume of Water Filtered by Sample Period during 2003 and 2004 to Estimate Entrainment of Fish Eggs and Larvae. 14 Table 2. List of Fish Eggs by Family Collected in 2003 and 2004 Entrainment Samples and Lowest Level of Taxonomic Resolution for each Family. 14 Table 3. List of Fish by Family collected in 2003 and 2004 Entrainment Samples and Lowest Level of Taxonomic Resolution for each Family. 15 Table 4. Percent Composition of Fish Eggs and Larvae by Family in Entrainment Samples during 2003 and 2004. 16 Table 5. Average Seasonal Density of Fish Eggs and Larvae in Entrainment Samples during 2003 and 2004. 17 Table 6. Estimated Daily Hydraulic Entrainment at BFN by Sample Period during 2003 and 2004. 18 Table 7. Seasonal Entrainment Estimates for Numerically Significant Fish Taxa Collected during 2003 and 2004. 19 Table 8. List of Fish Species Collected in Impingement Samples during 2003 and2004. 20 Table 9. Fish Species Impinged at an Average Rate of One or More Per Day during 2003 and 2004. 21 Table 10. Fish Species Impinged at an Average Rate of One or More Kilogram Per Day during 2003 and 2004. 21 Table 11. Species Composition Expressed as Percentage of Total Number of Fish Collected in Impingement Samples during 2003 and 2004. 22 Table 12. Species Composition Expressed as Percentage of Total Biomass of Fish Collected in Impingement Samples during 2003 and 2004. 23 Table 13. Historical and Current Entrainment Estimates at BFN. 24 Table 14. Historical and Current Entrainment Estimates for Numerically Significant Taxa. 25 iii LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure I. Average daily surface elevation (meters above mean sea level) of Wheeler Reservoir during 2003 and 2004. 26 Figure 2. Average daily rate of flow in Wheeler Reservoir near BFN during 2003 and 2004. 27 Figure 3. Average daily rate of generation at BFN during 2003 and 2004. 28 Figure4. Average daily rate of hydraulic entrainment at BFN during 2003 and 2004. 29 Figure 5. Densities of drum eggs collected in entrainment samples during 2003 and 2004. 30 Figure 6. Densities of clupeid eggs collected in entrainment samples during 2003 and 2004. 31 Figure 7. Densities of larval and juvenile fish collected in entrainment samples during 2003 and 2004. 32 Figure 8. Densities of clupeids collected in entrainment samples during 2003 . and2004 33 Figure 9. Densities of temperate bass collected in entrainment samples during 2003 and 2004. 34 Figure 10. Densities of sunfishes collected in entrainment samples during 2003 and 2004. 35 Figure 11. Densities of freshwater dmm collected in entrainment samples during 2003 and 2004. 36 Figure 12. Densities of silversides collected in entrainment samples during 2003 and 2004. 37 Figure 13. Densities of total fish eggs collected at each station-in 2003 entrainment samples. 38 Figure 14. Densities of total fish eggs collected at each station in 2004 entrainment samples. 39 Figure 15. Densities of total fish collected at each station in 2003 entrainment samples. 40 iv' Figure 16. Densities of fish collected at each station in 2004 entrainment samples. 41 Figure 17. Estimated number of fish impinged daily at BFN during 2003 and2004. 42 Figure 18. Estimated daily biomass of fish impinged at BFN during 2003 and2004. 43 Figure 19. Estimated daily impingement rates ofthreadfin shad during 2003 and2004. 44 Figure 20. Estimated biomass of gizzard shad impinged during 2003 and 2004. 45 Figure 21. Estimated biomass of freshwater drwn impinged during 2003 and2004. 46 v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is pursuing the renewal of the operating license . for the three-unit Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN). To meet future TVA power demands, the new license would extend the life of each unit twenty years and increase the generating capacity by twenty percent. Currently, Units 2 and 3 are in operation and recovery of Unit 1 is scheduled for completion in 2007. A consequence of the increased generation capacity is an increase in the quantity of condenser cooling water (CCW) required during normal operation. Prior to 1980, extensive biological and hydrological studies were conducted to assess the effects of CCW withdrawal on the aquatic community in Wheeler Reservoir. The historical studies demonstrated CCW demand for BFN had no significant effect on the aquatic community. TV A conducted a two year study in 2003 and 2004 to evaluate effects of the current two unit operation on the aquatic fish community and update baseline data prior to the restart of Unit 1.

• CCW withdrawn from Wheeler Reservoir potentially effects the fish community by entrainment (small fish and eggs drawn through the intake screens) and impingement (fish trapped against screens by the intake water velocity). Densities of fish in the reservoir near the intake and daily volume of water transported past the BFN were
• compared to daily CCW demand and densities of fish at the intake skimmer wall to estimate percent entrainment. Fish were collected from the backwash process used in cleaning the traveling screens to estimate impingement rates. *Clupeids were the dominant fish taxon in both entrainment and impingement sampling. Expressed as percent composition, ninety-four percent of the fish eggs and ninety-five percent of the larvae collected in the entrainment samples were clupeids. Clupeids, primarily threadfin and gizzard shad, and freshwater drum were the dominant fish impinged; representing ninety-six percent of the total number of fish collected in the impingement samples. Composition in fish collected in the 2003 and 2004 study was similar to BFN historical baseline data. Fish entrainment estimates were higher in 2004 (eggs -18.8% and larvae -18.7%) than observed in 2003 (eggs-1.3% and larvae-4.5%). The higher estimate in 2004 was attributed to the low flow conditions in Wheeler Reservoir near BFN. Average entrainment rate for the two year study was 7 .6% for fish eggs and 10.8% for larvae, within the range found in the historical studies (2.3-8.2% for eggs and 4.5-11.7% for larvae). The annual impingement rate, based on 2003 and 2004 data, was 8.1 x 105 fish weighing 1.18 x I 04 kg. This is lower than observed historically, however, the 2003 and 2004 estimate was based on twenty-three samples and the historical estimates were based on data collected weekly for three years. Trends observed in the 2003 and 2004 data were similar to the historical assessments with highest numbers of fish impinged in winter and lower numbers impinged in summer. VI Fluctuations in entrainment and impingement rates for BFN are common. Reservoir flow near BFN and the normal movement and cycles in year-class strength of the dominant fish tax.a are factors contributing to these fluctuations. Although fluctuations in annual estimates do occur, the 2003 and 2004 3 l 6(b) assessment and recent Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index evaluations demonstrate Wheeler Reservoir near BFN supports a stable diverse indigenous fish community with no significant impacts from current plant operations. vii INTRODUCTION Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) is a three-unit nuclear fueled facility located on Wheeler Reservoir in Limestone County, Alabama. At present, Units 2 and 3 are in operation and Unit 1 recovery is proceeding as scheduled. BFN's current operation utilizes a once-through condenser cooling water (CCW) system, withdrawing water from the Tennessee River through an intake structure and discharging the water through diffuser pipes located downstream from the plant. The procedure is regulated by BFN's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, AL0022080. This document provides current fishery data associated with the withdrawal of CCW, provides historical comparisons, and updates baseline data prior to the Unit 1 restart. Background and Scope The Tennessee Valley Authority (TV A) initiated an Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) in 1994 to assess the most cost effective approach to meeting future power demands. In response to the IRP, TV A is pursuing the renewal of the operating license for BFN' s Units 1, 2, and 3. The scope of the renewal is to extend the operational license of each unit an additional twenty years beyond the current license and to uprate the units to 120 percent of their original licensed generating levels. After an extended shutdown, Unit 2 returned to service in 1991, Unit 3 in 1995; and restart of Unit 1 is scheduled for 2007. _TV A prepared a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) assessing the
• environmental impacts from the proposed license renewal. However, to more accurately assess potential entrainment and impingement impacts from increased CCW demand after the restart of Unit 1, TV A conducted studies in 2003 and 2004 to update baseline
• data. Section 3 l 6(b) regulation of the Clean Water Act (CW A) provides standards for cooling water intake structures and procedures for assessing impacts. Compliance requires permittee to characterize the aquatic community in the vicinity of the intake structure prior to operation; monitoring during normal operation to assess impacts; and periodically review current operational demands, reservoir operation, and condition of the aquatic community to ensure no significant changes have occurred. Two potential impacts associated with cooling water intake structures are impingement and entrainment of fish eggs and larvae. Impingement occurs when aquatic organisms are trapped against the intake structure.(traveling screens) by the force of cooling water withdrawal and entrainment occurs when small organisms are drawn through the intake structure into the plant cooling system. BFN's preoperational baseline data include 18 years of standing stock surveys (1949-1961and1969-1973), gill and trap net surveys (1970-1973), and ichthyoplankton investigations (1971-1973). Aquatic monitoring continued until 1980 as part of BFN Technical Specifications issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). In 1980, the NRC eliminated the aquatic monitoring requirement from the BFN's Technical Specifications. Since 1980, annual standing stock surveys (1980-1997) and Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index (RF AI) ratings (1993-2005) provide a minimum data base on the fish community in the vicinity of BFN.

RESERVOIR AND PLANT OPERATION DURING 2003 AND 2004 Wheeler Reservoir Operation Surface elevation of Wheeler Reservoir and river flow past BFN is dependent on the rate water is released through Guntersville and Wheeler Dams. TV A's integrated approach to Wheeler Reservoir operation includes winter drawdown for flood control, minimum summer pools, and hydroelectric power generation. In 2003 and 2004, average daily surface elevation of Wheeler forebay ranged from 167.8 m above mean sea level (AMSL) to 169 .5 m AMSL (Figure 1 ). Daily river flow past BFN ranged from 159 m3 /s to 2634 m3 /s in 2003 and 28 m3 Is to 2817 m3 /s in 2004 (Figure 2). BFN Operation BFN Units 2 and 3 were both in operation during the study period (Figure 3). The combined generation rate for Units 2 and 3 averaged 2096 megawatts (MW) in 2003 and 2191 MW in 2004. The average daily withdrawal rate ofCCW from Wheeler Reservoir during the two year study was 87 m3/s. In late February and March, a decrease in the demand for CCW was observed in both 2003 and 2004 as scheduled outages were performed on units (Figure 4). However, CCW demand during entrainment sampling (late March through early July) reflected normal operation, averaging 91 m3/s in 2003 and 89 m3 /s in 2004. METHODS Entrainment Sample Collection To estimate BFN's plant entrainment rate, ichthyoplankton (fish eggs and larvae) samples were collected upstream at TRM 294.5 to estimate densities of fish eggs and larvae in the water column flowing past the plant and in the intake basin near the skimmer wall. Twenty samples were collected weekly from late March through early July in 2003 and 2004. -Eight reservoir samples (four day and night) were collected at three stations; a full stratum sample on both left and right over banks; and two mid-channel stratified samples, surface to mid-depth and mid-depth to near bottom. Twelve* samples (six day and night) were collected in the intake basin near the skimmer wall. Samples were collected with a beam net 0.5 m square, 1.8 m long, with 505 micron "nitex" mesh netting. Nets were equipped with a large-vaned General Oceanics flowmeter used to measure sample volume. Reservoir samples were ten-minute upstream oblique tows with a boat speed of 1 mis, filtering approximately 150 m3 of water. Intake samples were passive, collected in the inflow of the CCW under the skimmer wall gates, and volume filtered during the ten-minute sample was dependent on intake velocity. -2 Sample Processing In the laboratory, all fish eggs and larvae were removed from each sample, identified to the lowest practical taxon, and enumerated. Taxonomic decisions were based on TV A's "Preliminary Guide to the Identification of Larval Fishes in the Tennessee River" (Hogue et al, 1976) and other pertinent literature. The term "unspecified" preceding a taxon indicates taxonomic resolution is not practical beyond this level and "unidentifiable" indicates the specimen(s) were mutilated. A minimum of 100 specimens of each taxon were measured to the nearest millimeter to obtain length frequency data. Data Analysis Data were summarized by type (eggs or larvae), family, number, composition, and relative abundance. Relative abundance of fish eggs and larvae is presented as numbers per 1000 m3 of water sampled. Estimated entrainment is derived from the formula: E= 100 D&i Dr Qr Where Di =mean density (N/1000 m3) of eggs or larvae in intake samples Dr = mean density (N/1000 m3 ) of eggs or larvae in river . Q1 =plant intake water demands (m3/day) Qr =river flow (m3/day) Temporal occurrence and relative abundance were evaluated for each significant taxon. Impingement Sample Collection Historically, fish impingement rates at BFN were lowest in late spring (May-June) and peaked in winter. Weekly impingement samples were collected in the summer 2003 (July-early and winter 2003 and 2004 (December-March) to provide current impingement estimates. At BFN, a continuous backwash is utilized to clean the traveling scn;ens. Fish trapped against the traveling screens were collected from the backwash, identified, separated into 25 mm TL size classes, enumerated, and weighed. In summer, fish were collected in twenty-four hour periods and winter samples in twelve hour intervals. However, winter samples were staggered weekly (i.e., 12 noon to 12 midnight or 12 midnight to 12 noon) to ensure any diel variations in fish impingement would be recorded. Data Analysis Annual and daily impingement rates are expressed in total numbers and biomass (kg) for each species collected in samples. 3 RESULTS Entrainment Densities offish and larvae are expressed as numbers per volume of water sampled. Average volume (m) of water filtered in each intake sample was consistently less the volume filtered in reservoir samples; however, more samples were collected each sampling period in the intake. To evaluate volume filtered per sampling period in the intake and reservoir, the total volume of water filtered in the twelve intake samples was compared to the total volume filtered in the eight reservoir samples (Table 1 ). In 2003, an average of 1, 13 7 m3 of water was filtered per sampling period in the intake and 1,218 m3 in the reservoir. Total water filtered in the 2004 intake sampling averaged 1,087 m3 per sampling period and 1,277 m3 in the reservoir. Therefore, densities offish and eggs in the intake and reservoir were calculated based on similar sample volumes. Tables 2 and 3 present scientific and common names of taxa collected in the 2003 and 2004 study and the taxonomic resolution used in processing samples. Although identification to subfamily, genus, or species was possible for some individuals, results are presented by family for comparative analysis. Fish Eggs A total of 25,364 fish eggs representing four families was collected during the two year project. Freshwater drum eggs comprised 94% of the eggs collected (Table 4). The only other taxon collected in significant numbers were clupeids, comprising 5.5% of total eggs collected. Drum egg densities were higher in 2004, 577/1000 m3 in the intake basin and 693/1000 m3 in the reservoir, than observed in 2003, 76/1000 m3 and 376/1000 m3, respectively (Table 5). In 2003, drum eggs were collected May 1 through July 3 and April 23 through July 8 in 2004 (Figure 5). Peak density occurred on May 29 in 2003, 76311000 m3, and on May 20 in 2004, 3,77111000 m3* Densities of shad eggs were similar in 2003 and 2004, 28/1000 m3 and 26/1000 m3, respectively. Although densities were similar, spatial distribution differed with abundance greater in the intake in 2003 and the reservoir in 2004 (Table 5). Shad eggs were collected April 17 through June 26 in 2003 with a peak density (124/1000 m3) occurring May 1 (Figure 6). In 2004, shad* eggs were collected from April 22 through July 8; however, 93% of the season total were collected on May 13, with a density of 880/1000 m3. Larval and Juvenile Fish A total of 476,434 fish representing twelve families was collected in 2003 and 2004 entrainment sampling. In the reservoir samples, fish densities averaged 3,857/1000 m3 and intake samples averaged 2,836/1000 m (Table 5). Fish densities were higher in 2004 than observed in 2003, primarily a result of the high numbers of shad (Figure 7). Ninety-4 fiye percent of the total number offish collected were shad; other families contributing at least 1 % of total composition were temperate basses 1.8%, sunfishes 1.0%, drum 1.1 %, and silversides 1.0% (Table 4). Shad densities were significantly higher in 2004, 3,656/1000 m3, than observed in 2003, 2,671/1000 m3* Shad were collected from early April to early July in both 2003 and 2004; however, peak densities occurred earlier in the season in 2004-(Figure 8). In 2003, densities on June 12, 13,319/1000 m3, and on May 13 in 2004, 35,282/1000 m3* Temperate basses in Wheeler Reservoir include three Morone species: striped bass, yellow bass, and white bass. Morone were collected during all sampling periods in both 2003 and 2004 averaging 122/1000 m3* During the two year evaluation, densities ranged from 170/l 000 m3 in 2003 79/1000 rn3 in 2004. Typically, Morone are among the earlier spawners in Wheeler Reservoir; a trend reflected in this study. Densities were greater in April and early May in both 2003 and 2004 with peak density of 1,350/I 000 m3 occurring April 3, 2003 (Figure 9). Centrarchids (sunfishes) averaged 22/1000 m3 in 2003 and 100/1000 m3 in 2004. In 2003, peak centrarchid densities occurred in June and in 2004 the peak occurred in May (Figure 10). Composition of the three genera of centrarchids collected in entrainment samples was crappie (5 %), black basses (4%), and lepomids (91%). Average freshwater drum density was significantly higher in 2003 (138/1000 m3) than observed in 2004 (14/1000 m3). Freshwater drum larvae were collected late April through early July with peak density occurring on June 19 in 2003 (77111000 m3) and on May 27 in 2004 (70/l 000 in3) (Figure 11 ). Silversides averaged 1111000 m3 in 2003 entrainment samples and 120/1000 m3 in 2004. Silversides were collected early April through early July with peak densities occurring June 19 in 2003 (20/1000 m3) and May 13 in 2004 (706/1000 m3) (Figure 12). Both . brook and inland silverside occur in Wheeler Reservoir; however, all late po.st yolk-sac larvae and juveniles collected were inland silversides. Hydraulic Entrainment Estimates The hydraulic entrainment estimate for all sampling periods, 2003 and 2004 combined, averaged 8.4%. In 2003, hydraulic entrainment estimate averaged 6.2% (range 4 to 27.6%) and in 2004 averaged 12.7% (range 5.9 to 42%) (Table 6). A decrease in river flow past BFN during most of the 2004 sampling season was the most significant contributing factor to the higher entrainment in 2004. Estimated daily CCW intake was consistent during entrainment sampling in 2003 and 2004; however, average daily volume transported past BFN was 1.3 x 108 m3 in 2003 and decreased to 6.0 x 10 7 m3 in 2004. 5 Fish Entrainment Estimates Entrainment estimates for all numerically significant tax.a of fish eggs and larvae were higher in 2004 (Table 7). The entrainment rate for fish eggs was 1.3% in 2003 and 18.8% in 2004. An estimated 4.5% offish larvae transported past BFN were entrained in 2003 compared to 18.7% in 2004. The overall entrainment estimate based on the two year study averaged 7 .6% for fish eggs and I 0.8% for larval fish. Spatial-temporal distribution varied significantly between sampling periods and stations for both fish eggs (Figures 13 and 14) and larvae (Figures 15 and 16), demonstrating the heterogeneous distribution of individuals both vertically and horizontally in the water column. The unrealistically high entrainment estimate (18.8%) for shad eggs in 2004 is an example of this distribution pattern. In 2004, a total of922 shad eggs was collected during the sampling season and 859 of these were collected May 13. The majority qfthese were found in intake samples and only two in samples collected in the reservoir immediately upstream from BFN intake structure. Similar events may have contributed to the fluctuations in entrainment estimates for other taxa. Impingement Thirty-seven species of fish representing eleven families were collected in the 2003 and 2004 impingement study (Table 8). The estimated daily impingement rate during the study was 2,218 fish per day weighing 32.2 kilograms (kg). Peak numbers offish ( 12, 125) were observed on December 11, 2003, and greatest biomass ( 141.1 kg) occurred on January 7, 2004 (Figures 17 and 18). Average impingement rates were higher in winter (2,581 fish, 41.7 kg) than observed in summer {l,388 fish with biomass of 10.3 kg). Seventeen species were impinged an average of at least one per day in either the summer or winter sampling (Table 9) and seven species contributed an average of one or more kilograms per day to the total biomass (Table I 0). Threadfin shad was the dominant species in numbers, 61 % of total, and freshwater drum contributed the most biomass, 38% of total weight (Tables 11 and 12). Other species occurring in significant numbers were freshwater drum (21.2%), gizzard shad (7.8%), skipjack herring (4.8%), channel catfish (1.4%), and yellow bass (1.3%). In terms of biomass, other important species were gizzard shad (23.1%), threadfin shad (18.3%), channel catfish (6.4%), yellow bass (2.6%), and blue catfish (1.6%). Three species were the primary drivers in the fluctuations in daily estimates observed in the 2003 and 2004 impingement study. The abundance ofthteadfin shad had the most significant affect on total numbers impinged (Figure 19) and was a major contributor to the total biomass. Gizzard shad and freshwater drum were also significant contributors to total biomass (Figure 20 and 21). 6 HISTORiCAL COMPARISONS Entrainment The methodology used to estimate entrainment at BFN was changed in 1977. Prior-to 1977, reservoir ichthyoplankton populations were estimated based on data collected at three transects in Wheeler Reservoir. Entrainment estimates were calculated by comparing reservoir populations with data collected in the BFN intake. Beginning in 1977, reservoir sampling was designed to estimate transport offish eggs and larvae past BFN. Data collected across a single plant transect, located immediately upstream from BFN intake at TRM 294.5, provided estimates offish transport past BFN and was compared to data collected in the intake to estimate entrainment. The 2003 and 2004 assessment used data collected at TRM 294.5 to estimate transport past BFN; therefore, historical comparisons were limited to baseline data collected in 1977 through 1979. Hydraulic entrainment e.stimates in 2003 and 2004 were within the range observed in the historical evaluations; the 6.2% in 2003 was near historical lows and the 12.7% in 2004 near the historical high (Table 13). The 2003 and 2004 data demonstrate the significant effect of river (low on the entrainment estimates. The daily rate of entrainment for fish eggs and larvae was similar in 2003 and 2004; however, a significantly higher percentage of the total volume of water moving past BFN was entrained during the low flow conditions in 2004. Based on historical and 2003 and 2004 data, fluctuations in the annual entrainment estimates at BFN are common. Impingement Impingement at BFN was evaluated for a three-year period from 1974 through 1977 during various modes of operation; no units operating and minimal pump operation, one, two, or three units in operation. As expected, an increase in the number units in operation increases CCW demand and, conse2uently, increases the impingement rate. Estimated annual impingement was 2 .69 x 1 O fish with no units in operation, 5 .26 x 106 with 1-2 units, and 6.67 x 106 with three units operating. Estimated total annual biomass impinged with three units operating was 6.3 x 104 kg. Historically, impingement was usually lowest in May and June and highest in winter. The 2003 and 2004 impingement study was conducted during two time periods, July through September and December through March. Two units were usually in operation during sample collection. Trends observed in the 2003 and 2004 assessment paralleled historical results; peak numbers of fish were impinged in winter (average 2,581 fish/day) and lower number in summer (average 1,388 fish/day). Based on the 2003 and 2004 data with two units operating, an estimated 8.1 x 105 fish having a biomass of 1.18 x 104 kg are impinged annually at BFN. These estimates are lower than reported in the 1974-1977 assessment with two units operating; however, the current estimates are based on twenty-three weekly samples and the historical data were collected weekly for three years. 7 Composition of fish impinged was similar in 2003 and 2004 to the historical data. In the 1974-1977 study, 95% of the total number of fish impinged were clupeids or freshwater drum and no other species contributed more than 1 % of the total composition. Clupeids and freshwater drum represented 96% of the fish impinged in the 2003 and 2004 assessment. Other species contributing more than 1 % in 2003 and 2004 were channel catfish (1.4%) and yellow bass (l.3%). CONCLUSIONS Both historical data and the 2003 and 2004 study demonstrate the variability in the occurrence and spatial-temporal distribution of fish in Wheeler Reservoir near BFN. This variability translates into significant fluctuation in the entrainment and impingement rates associated with plant operation. Factors contributing to these fluctuations include year-class strength of individual species, life history of selected species, and the physical parameters of Wheeler Reservoir in the vicinity ofBFN. Cyclic variation in the year-class strength of the fish species found in Wheeler Reservoir is well documented. In calculating entrainment and impingement estimates, these variations are exacerbated in scenarios where one or two species represent a high percentage of the total composition, as is the case with clupeids and freshwater drum in the vicinity ofBFN. Spawning habitat, fecundity, and spatial distribution of these two species are significant in the fluctuations observed in the entrainment rates at BFN. Freshwater drum spawn in open water while shad spawn near shore and each female produces thousands of eggs, creating areas in the reservoir with high densities of fish eggs and early larvae. As these areas of high density eggs or larvae drift downstream, their occurrence within a sampling area (either intake or reservoir) may significantly affect the entrainment estimate. Juvenile and adult clupeids move in large schools throughout the reservoir; consequently, a large school occurring within a sampling area will significantly affect both entrainment and impingement rates. The location of BFN is probably a contributing factor to the fluctuations in the annual entrainment estimates. Reservoirs are characterized by three zones; the inflow having characteristics more riverine, the forebay is a more lacustrine area immediately upstream from a dam, and the transition zone provides a buffer in the middle of the reservoir. As water flows downstream from the inflow, velocity as the cross-sectional area of the reservoir increases. Areas within the transition zone may exhibit high flow, low flow, or even negative flows depending on the rate water is released through the upstream and downstream dams. The area of Wheeler Reservoir near BFN is characterized as a transition zone where the velocity of water flowing past BFN depends on the rate water released through Guntersville and Wheeler Dams. The rate of water flow past BFN increases and the reservoir surface elevation decreases when the rate of water released through Wheeler Dam exceeds the release through Guntersville Dam. Inversely, the surface elevation increases and rate of flow decreases near BFN when rate of water released through Guntersville Dam exceeds the release in Wheeler Reservoir. CCW 8 demand for BFN remains fairly constant during normal two unit operation, therefore, hydraulic and fish entrainment estimates will increase as reservoir flow past BFN decreases. Entrainment at BFN is significantly influenced by the large overbank located immediately upstream from the intake structure. Historical hydrodynamic studies show 53 to 63 percent of the CCW used by BFN is drawn from this overbank and the quantity of flow along the overbank varies with reservoir stage and flow. Based on the spatial distribution of larval fish collected in 2003 and 2004, this overbank is highly productive and may provide a spawning area and nursery for several species of fish. Densities and composition of fish collected in the 2004 intake sampling suggest a higher percentage of the CCW is drawn from the overbank .during low flow thus, elevating the entrainment estimate for these fish species. TV A's valley-wide vital signs monitoring program is an additional tool used to evaluate the condition of the fish community near BFN. The Reservoir Fish Assemblage Ind.ex (RF Al), a component of the vital signs program, is used to evaluate reservoir health by . rating the system based on community structure and function. A RF Al sampling station was established upstream from BFN at TRM 295.5 in 1992 and a second transition zone . station was added downstream at TRM 292.5 in 2000. Based on RF Al scoring criteria from reservoirs throughout the.Tennessee Valley, scores of 51-60 were classified as excellent, 41-50 as good, 21-40 as fair, and 22-31 as poor. As observed in the BFN 316(b) studies, annual RF Al scores in Wheeler Reservoir near BFN vary; scores range from 30 to 47 at TRM 292.5 and 42 to 45 at TRM 292.5 (2000-2004). Based on the average RF AI scores for all years sampled, the fish community near BFN is classified as "Good," averaging 41 at TRM 295.5 and 43 at TRM 292.5.

• The 2003 and 2004 316(b) data and recent fish community assessments in Wheeler Reservoir near BFN show no significant impacts from current operation of BFN on the fish community near the plant. Furthermore, current 316(b) data support conclusions presented in the 1977-1979 historical assessments. Results demonstrate annual variations in the relative abundance and spatial-temporal distribution of fish and fluctuations in reservoir flow are common in the vicinity ofBFN. Life cycles of the dominant fish species and fluctuation in reservoir flow past BFN are significant factors influencing variations observed in the annual entrainment estimates. These variations in fish density and reservoir flow in the Wheeler transition zone has had little affect on the fish community. Based on the 2003 and 2004 3 l 6(b) evaluation and the annual RF AI scores for Wheeler Reservoir, a viable balanced indigenous aquatic community is present in Wheeler Reservoir in the vicinity of BFN. 9 LITERATURE CITED Hogue, Jacob J., Jr., R. Wallus, and L. K. Kay. 1976. Preliminary Guide to the Identification of Larval Fishes in the Tennessee River. TV A Tech. Note Bl9. 67pp. IO LITERATURE REVIEWED Baxter, D.S. and J.P. Buchanan. 1998a. Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Thermal Variance Monitoring Program-Final Report. Tennessee Valley Authority, Water Management, Environmental Compliance Norris Tennessee. 54pp. __ . 1998b. Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Thermal Variance Monitoring Program Including Statistical Analysis-Final Report. Tennessee Valley Authority, Water Management, Environmental Compliance, Norris Tennessee. 53pp. Baxter, D. S., K. D. Gardner, and D.R. Lowery. 2004. Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River Near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge 2003. Tennessee
• Valley Authority, Resource Stewardship, Norris, Tennessee. 35pp. Baxter, D.S. and D.R. Lowery. 2006. Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River Near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge 2005. Tennessee Valley Authority, Aquatic Monitoring and Management, Knoxville, Tennessee. 27pp. Buchanan, J.P. and W. C. Barr. 1980. Fish Entrainment and Impingement at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Wheeler Reservoir, Alabama, foryears 1978and1979. Supplement to: Effects of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Cooling Water Intake on the Fish populations of Wheeler Reservoir.*Volume 4 of Biological Effects of Intake, Browns Ferry Nuclear plant, January 1978. Division of Water Resources, Water Quality and Ecology, Branch, Norris, TN. Etnier, David A. and Wayne E. Starnes. 1993. The Fishes of Tennessee. The University of Tennessee Press/Knoxville. 681 pp. Dycus, D. L. and D. L. Meinert. 1993. Reservoir monitoring, monitoring and evaluation of aquatic resource health and use suitability in Tennessee Valley Authority reservoirs. Tennessee Valley Authority, Water Resources, Chattanooga, Tennessee, TV NWM-93/15. Hickman, G.D. and T. A. McDonough. 1996. Assessing the Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index -A Potential Measure of Reservoir Quality. Publication in Proceeding of Third National Reservoir Symposium, June 1995, American Fisheries Association. D. DeVries, Editor Kay, L. K. 1995. Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Thermal Variance Monitoring Assessment of Fish Standing Stock in Wheeler Reservoir from 1993 and 1994 Cove Rotenone Data. Tennessee Valley Authority, Water Management, Environmental Compliance, Norris Tennessee. 34pp. 11 Tennessee Valley Authority. 1974. Water quality and biological conditions in Wheeler Reservoir during operation of Browns Ferry (Unit 1 and 2), February 18, 1974 -June 30, 1974. Division of Environmental Planning, Water Quality Branch, Chattanooga, 1N. 86pp. __ . l 975a. Water quality and biological conditions in Wheeler Reservoir during operation of Browns Ferry (Unit 1and2), July 1, 1974-December 31, 1974. Division of Environmental Planning, Water Quality Branch, Chattanooga, TN. 59pp. . l 975b. Water quality and biological conditions in Wheeler Reservoir during operation of Browns Ferry (Unit 1 and 2), January 1, 1975 -June 30, 1975. Division of Environmental Planning, Water Quality Branch, Chattanooga, TN. 74pp. __ . 1976. Water quality and biological conditions in Wheeler Reservoir during operation of Browns Ferry (Unit 1and2), July 1, 1975 -December 31, 1975. Division of Environmental Planning, Water Quality Branch, Chattanooga, TN. 71pp. __ . 1977. Water quality and biological conditions in Wheeler Reservoir during operation of Browns Ferry (Unit 1and2), January 1, 1976 -December 31, 1976. Division of Environmental Planning, Environmental Assessment and Compliance Staff, Chattanooga, TN. 132pp. __ . l 978a. Biological effects of the intake, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Volume 1: Summary of the evaluation of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Intake Structure. Division of Environmental Planning, Environmental Assessment and Compliance Staff, Chattanooga, TN. 29pp. __ . 1978b. Water quality and biological conditions in Wheeler Reservoir during operation of Browns Ferry (Unit 1 and 2), January 1, 1977 ':'December 31, 1977. Division of Environmental Planning, Environmental Assessment and Compliance Staff, Chattanooga, TN. 141pp.
• __ . 1979. Water quality and biological conditions in Wheeler Reservoir during operation of Browns Ferry (Unit 1and2), January 1, 1978 -December 31, 1978. Division of Water Resources, Water Quality and Ecology, Branch. Muscle Shoals, AL. 133pp. __ . 1980a. Evaluation of predicted and observed effects for a 90 ° F mixed temperature limit, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. Tennessee Valley Authority, Chattanooga, TN. March 1980. l 73pp. 12

__ . l 980b. Water quality and biological conditions in Wheeler Reservoir during operation of Browns Ferry (Unit 1and2), January 1, 1979 -December 31, 1979. Division of Water Resources, Western Area Office, Muscle Shoals, AL. 133pp. __ . 1983. Field operations biological resources procedures manual. Division of Natural Resource Operations. __ . 2000. Aquatic ecological health determinations for TVA Reservoirs -1999. An informal summary of 1999 vital signs monitoring results and ecological health determination methods. __ . 2001. Draft supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) for operating license renewal of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant in Athens, Alabama. Tennessee Valley Authority, Chattanooga, TN. December 2001. Wallus, R., T. P. Simon, and B. L. Yeager. 1990. Reproductive biology and early life history of fishes in the Ohio River drainage. Volume 1: Acipenseridae through Esocidae. Tennessee Valley Authority, Chattanooga, TN. 13 Table 1. Total Volume of Water Filtered by Sample Period during 2003 and 2004 to Estimate Entrainment of Fish Eggs and Larvae. Mar28 598 456 1054 Mar25 1334 1336 2670 Apr3 1170 1280 2450 Apr 1 1392 1353 2745 Apr 10 1204 1287 2491 Apr7 1259 1381 2640 Apr 17 1209 1317 2526 Apr 15 1282 1324 2605 Apr24 Apr22 555 540 1095 May 1 1185 1291 2476 Apr29 1222 1275 2497 May8 1219 1212 2431 May6 1106 1404 2510 May15 1262 1294 2556 May13 974 1266 2239 May22 1141 1273 2414 May20 1112 1436 2548 May29 1181 1287 2468 May27 1074 1261 2335 Jun5 1205 1284 2489 Jun3 917 1356 2273 Jun 12 1160 1252 3412 Jun 10 995 1351 2347 Jun 19 1259 1231 2490 Jun 17 1108 1329 2436 Jun26 933 1310 2243 Jun24 937 1270 2207 Jul 3 1188 1273 2461 Jul 1 1042 1276 2318 Jul 7 1048 1282 2330 Total 15915 17046 32961 17356 20439 37795 Average 1137 1218 2354 1087 1277 2364 Table2. List of Fish Eggs by Family Collected in 2003 and 2004 Entrainment Samples and Lowest Level of Taxonomic Resolution for each Family. * * * * ** SCientific' ...... .. Clupeidae Catostomidae Percidae Sciaenidae * :: :' *.. :.* ...... ,.:*_ .".* .. *.*c. ... m3 .. ..... :*.**.*.'.*: ... * * ... . * * .* * / . . <.::Jdentifica601( * * , ; Unspecified Shad Suckers Perches *Drums 14 Identification to family was not possible: Limiting factors were size, stage of development, and season when egg was collected. Family. Family. Family. S ecies. freshwater drum Table 3. List of Fish by Family Collected in 2003 and 2004 Entrainment Samples and Lowest Level of Taxonomic Resolution for each Family. Lepisosteidae Clupeidae Hiodontidae Cyprinidae Catostomidae Ictaluridae Poeciliidae Moronidae Centrarchidae Percidae Sciaenidae Atherinopsidae . ;,,,: Cominoii < .... *. _;-.-._:*X'..:Nahi.e *_,-. * ,_ , . "*. *:..-*Identification ; Gars Shad Mooneyes Minnows and Carps Suckers Catfishes Livebearers Temperate basses Sunfishes Perches Drum Silversides Species -spotted gar. Family -all larvae < 20 mm TL. Genus or species -larger individuals to Alosa spp.-alewife, skipjack, Dorosoma spp. -gizzard and threadfin shad. Species -mooneye. Family -most minnows, shiners, chubs, *dace. Genus or species -common carp, golden shiner, and larger individuals to emerald shiner, mimic shiner, Pimephales spp. Subfamily -ictiobines (buffalo, carpsuckers, and redhorse). Genus -Larger individual to buffalo. Species -Spotted sucker Species -Blue, channel, and flathead catfish. Species -Western mosquitofish Genus -most larval life phases Species -yolk-sac larvae;::: 5 mm TL (striped bass), larger individuals to white, yellow, and striped bass. Genus -crappie, lepomids (sunfishes), and black bass. Species -larger individuals to largemouth and smallmouth bass. Family -darters (Percina or Etheostoma), no yellow perch or sauger were collected. Genus or species -larger individuals to logperch and Percina sp. Species. freshwater drum Family -most larvae (either brook or inland si 1 versicle). Species -larger individuals to inland silverside. 15 Table 4. Eggs Unspecified Clupeidae Catostomidae Percidae Sciaenidae Larvae Lepisosteidae Clupeidae Hiodontidae Cyprinidae Catostomidae lctaluridae Poeciliidae Moronidae Centrarchidae Percidae Sciaenidae Atherinopsidae Percent Composition of Fish Eggs and Larvae by Family in Entrainment Samples during 2003 and 2004. 4.7 T 0.6 0.1 T T 16.5 8.2 9.3 9.5 0.3 3.4 T T T T T T T T T T T T 78.7 91.8 90.1 90.3 99.7 96.5 T T T T T T 91.8 95.0 94.2 88.1 97.3 94.7 T T T T T T 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 1.3 T 0.4 . 0.8 T 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 T T T T T T T T T 1.8 1.0 1.2 6.3 0.7 2.3 0.8 1.7 1.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.2 T 0.1 0.1 T 0.1 3.2 0.1 0.9 3.8 0.2 1.2 0.5 1.8 1.5 0.1 1.0 0.7 T -Taxon was collected in samples but composition was less than 0.1 %. 16 0.2 5.5 T T 94.3 T 94.5 T 0.2 0.3 T T 1.8 1.0 0.1 1.1 1.0 Table 5. . . * . ****** : ...... ,. . :'_.:** *.* . . : .. \ Average Seasonal Density of Fish Eggs and Larvae in Entrainment Samples during 2003 and 2004. * .** .i.,-:;::;. -: : .. ::.;: ::; /.*: ... \>> .::; ,;:. *,Res*ervoir Samples* -.-;; ... All: . *. * : .. ... .: i6ri.t. * '* .. . *.*"'.:. Samples *. . . ;:i 6doirt(/:10001r{; .::: '*tooofii3 > . : * .. 1000m3 .:< *.* . *, 1000m3 .. * .. ,*' ' ... Eggs Unspecified 5 T 1 T T T Clupeidae 15 56 17 40 4 11 Catostomidae T T T T T T Percidae T T T T T T Sciaenidae 76 577 152 376 693 294 Totals 96 633 170 416 697 305 Larvae Lepisosteidae T T T T T T Clupeidae 2943 8354 2671 3877 9241 3656 Hiodontidae T T T T T T Cyprinidae 8 18 6 11 14 7 Catostomidae 43 3 11 34 3 9 lctaluridae 4 6 2 I I I Poeciliidae T T T T T T Moronidae 56 90 35 275 72 87 Centrarchidae 24 157 42 20 55 21 Percidae 8 3 3 6 3 2 Sciaenidae 104 8 25 170 19 47 Atherinopsidae 16 160 41 6 90 28 Totals 3205 8800 2836 4399 9497 3857 T -Taxon was collected in samples but density averaged less than 1 individual per 1000m3* 17 1ooom3 1 27 T T 447 475 T 6327 T 13 19 3 T 122 64 5 72 69 6693 Table 6. 2003 Mar28 Apr3 Apr 10 Apr 17 Apr24 May 1 May8 May 15 May22 May29 Jun5 Jun 12 Jun 19 Jun26 Jul 3 Estimated Daily Hydraulic Entrainment at BFN by Sample Period during 2003 and 2004. 8.0E+06 8.0E+06 8.0E+06 8.0E+06 8.0E+06 8.0E+06 7.9E+06 8.0E+06 8.0E+06 8.0E+06 8.0E+06 8.0E+06 8.0E+o6 5.4E+06 8.0E+06 5.3E+07 2.9E+07 8.4E+07 1.3E+08 1.2E+08 l.OE+08 1.9E+08 2.0E+08 2.0E+08 l.1E+08 1.2E+08 1.1E+08 l.3E+08 l.3E+08 1.8E+08 15.1% 27.6% 9.5% 6.3% 6.7% 7.6% 4.1% 4.0% 4.1% 7.1% 6.8% 7.4% 6.1% 4.2% 4.4% 2004 Mar25 Aprl. Apr7 Apr15 Apr22 Apr29 May6 May 13 May20 May27 Jun3 Jun 10 Jun 17 Jun24 Jul 1 Jul 7 4.0E+06 5.3E+07 7.5% 6.9E+06 6.9E+07 10.0% 8.0E+06 l.9E+07 42.0% 8.0E+06 3.0E+07 27.0% 8.0E+06 4.3E+07 18.6% 8.0E+06 4.1E+07 19.5% 8.0E+06 4.4E+o7 17.9% 8.0E+06 3.5E+07 22.9% 8.0E+06 3.9E+07 20.6% 8.0E+06 3.0E+07 26.6% 7.9E+06 7.2E+o7 33.0% 8.0E+06 5.3E+07 15.1% 8.0E+06 7.0E+07 11.4% 8.0E+o6 l.1E+08 7.2% 8.0E+06 1.4E+08 5.9% 8.0E+06 1.2E+08 6.7% Average 7.8E+o6 l.3E+08 6.2% Average 7.7E+o6 6.0E+07 12.7% 18 Table 7. Seasonal Entrainment Estimates for Numerically Significant Fish Taxa Collected during 2003 and 2004. Taxa Eggs Clupeidae Sciaenidae Total Eggs Larvae Clupeidae Hiodontidae Cyprinidae Catostomidae lctaluridae Moronidae Centrarchidae Percidae Sciaenidac Atherinopsidae Total Larvae Intake Number Entrained PerDay * .Q,XD; l.2E+08 5.8E+08 7.4E+08 2.3E+10 4.5E+05 5.9E+07 3.4E+08 2.8E+07 4.4E+08 l.9E+08 6.1E+07 7.7E+08 l.3E+08 2.5E+10 * -Not Collected 2003 *. 2004 Reservoir Intake Resertoir

• Intake Reserv"oir* ** Total . . Number Total . . Number *Total . . Number*
• Entrainment *Entrained.* Number *Entrainment
• E"ntrained * -Number *. Entrainment Per Daf*.: .. : >'.Per::Dat . , )>er.Day _Estimate ... -.-. .. Per.Day. . .. ::Per.*,:oa:y'.::, Estimate<** . Q_XD;;:*'.* .% . **.-.; ***Q.XD. :.' '"* .. * .... *;,.,* .. :*.:.*:Q:;x*n* ... *:rQ;X:;D']/.: -.-.:::.%. :::/.;, 6.2E+09 4.9E+10 5.5E+10 5.0E+ll 2.2E+07 l.5E+09 2.7E+09 l.2E+08 1.5E+l0 2.9E+09 5.5E+08 2.4E+l0 8.2E+08 5.4E+ll 2.0% 1.2% 1.3% 4.6% 2.0% 3.9% 13.0% 23.4% 3.0% 6.6% 10.9% 3.2% 15.4% 4.5% 4.5E+08 4.6E+09 5.0E+09 6.7E+10
• 1.5E+08 2.3E+07 4.8E+07 7.2E+08 1.2E+09 l.6E+07 6.3E+07 1.3E+09 7.0E+lO 19 2.0E+08 2.7E+l0 2.7E+10 3.6E+ll
• 8.5E+08 1.3E+08 l.3E+08 2.9E+09 2.4E+09 1.4E+08 8.5E+08 3.7E+09 3.8E+11 225.7% 17.3% 18.8% 18.3%
• 17.1% 17.4% 37.1% 24.8% 51.8% 11.8% 7.4% 34.5% 18.7% 3.0E+08 2.7E+09 3.0E+09 4.6E+10 2.1E+05 1.1E+08 1.7E+08 3.9E+07 5.9E+08 7.4E+08 3.7E+07 3.9E+08 7.4E+08 4.9E+10 3.0E+09 3.7E+10 4.0E+lO 4.3E+l 1 1.0E+07 1.2E+09 1.3E+09 l.3E+08 8.4E+09 3.3E+08 3.3E+08 l.2E+10 2.3E+09 4.5E+ll 9.9% 7.3% 7.6% 10.8% 2.0% 9.0% 13.2% 31.0% 7.0% 28.5% 11.1% 3.3% 31.4% 10.8%

Table 8. . . *-* . .. . : *,* Lepisosteidae Clupeidae Hiodontidae Cyprinidae Catostomidae lctaluridae Moronidae Centrarchidae Percidae Sciaenidae Atherinidae List of Fish Species Collected in Impingement Samples during 2003 and 2004

• Lepisosteus Alosa Dorosoma Hiodon Cyprinus Machrybopsis Notemigonus Pimephales Semotilus Hypentelium Ictiobus Minytrema Moxostoma Amerieuru Ictalurus Pylodictis Morone Lepomis Micropterus Pomoxis Percina Sander Aplodinotus Menidia Labidesthes 20 oculatus chrysochloris pseudoharengus cepedianum petenense tergisus carpio storeriana crysoleucas vigilax atromaculatus nigricans bubalus melanops duquesnei erythrurum me las natalis furcatus punctatus olivaris chrysops mississippiensis saxatilis cyanellus gulosus humilis macrochirus megalotis microlophus
• salmoides annularis nigromaculatus cap rodes canadense grunniens beryllina sicculus Spotted gar Skipjack herring Alewife Gizzard shad Threadfin shad Mooneye Common Carp Silver chub Golden shiner Bullhead minnow Creek chub Northern hog sucker Smallmouth buffalo Spotted sucker Black redhorse Golden redhorse Black bullhead Yellow bullhead Blue catfish Channel catfish Flathead catfish White bass Yellow bass Striped bass Green sunfish Warmouth Orangespotted sunfish Bluegill Longear sunfish Redear sunfish Largemouth bass White crappie Black crappie Logperch Sauger Freshwater drum Inland silverside Brook silverside Table 9. Fish Species Impinged at an Average Rate of One or More Per Day during 2003 and 2004 . . **.:.\ (.:;.,g\, . '.*. .. " .. : .. , .. : . .'; :?;. . ..... .. :-,,; .. .,,< .. * ! . . . * : ... *.;.Jul 2+sep.4 . * .. 2003_;2004 '. > .All "* .. 29 Samples** *common Name Number/Day Number/Day Number/Day
• Skipjack herring 5 151 107 Alewife 14 IO Gizzard shad 39 232 173 Threadfin shad 1060 1489 1358 Silver chub I 3 2 Spotted sucker I I Blue catfish 5 5 5 Channel catfish 10 39 30 White bass 7 I 2 Yellow bass 11 37 29 Striped bass I 2 2 Green sunfish I Bluegill 12 IO 10 Redear sunfish 33 1 11 White crappie I 2 2 Black crappie 1 Freshwater drum 199 589 471 Table 10. Fish Species Impinged at an Average Rate of One or More Kilogram Per Day during 2003 and 2004. .. :_. . ' " . 2003 . 2003-2004 .. All ... : ;," .... *.:._. .... ., ... ;. * *: .. Dec it-Mar 29 Samples.* .. Name* . Kilograms/Day Kilograms/Day Skipjack herring 0 2* 1 Gizzard shad 0 11 7 Threadfin shad 2 8 6 Blue catfish 1* I I Channel catfish 1 3 2 Yellow bass 0 I I Freshwater drum 5 15 12 21 Table 11. Species Composition Expressed as Percentage of Total Number of Fish Collected in Impingement Samples during 2003 and 2004 * .. : .* __ < .. ):*_;*\.* >*. .. '.' .. ' ... .. *:* .. ....... * .**".' .. _.-.* .. :: * *. '.':Jul'24-Sep*4* .De*c:U;;;Mat-29?>;:,:-":.;,,;-..Samples :-'->"; . ' .... * ... * *:' Spotted gar T T T Skipjack herring 0.4 5.9 4.8 Alewife NC 0.6 0.5 Gizzard shad 2.8 9.0 7.8 Threadfin shad 76.4 57.7 61.3 Mooneye NC T T Common Carp NC T T Silver chub 0.1 0.1 0.1 Golden shiner T T T Bullhead minnow T T T Creek chub NC T T Northern hog sucker NC T T Smallmouth buffalo NC T T Spotted sucker NC T T Black redhorse NC T T Golden redhorse NC T T Black bullhead NC T T Yellow bullhead NC T T Blue catfish 0.4 0.2 0.2 Channel catfish 0.7 1.5 1.4 Flathead catfish T T T White bass 0.5 T 0.1 Yellow bass 0.8 1.4 1.3 Striped bass 0.1 0.1 0.1 Green sunfish T T T W armouth T T T Orangespotted sunfish NC T T Bluegill 0.9 0.4 0.5 Longear sunfish T T T Redear sunfish 2.4 0.1 0.5 Largemouth bass T T T White crappie 0.1 0.9 0.1 Black crappie T T T Logperch T T T Sauger T T T Freshwater drum 14.4 22.8 21.2 Inland silverside NC T T NC -Species not collected. T -Percent composition for species is < 0.1 %. 22 Table 12. Species Composition Expressed as Percentage of Total Biomass of Fish Collected in Impingement Samples during 2003 and 2004. All 1; ;% Spotted gar 2.3 0.6 0.7 Skipjack herring 1.4 3.9 3.7 Alewife NC 0.5 0.4 Gizzard shad 4.2 25.l 23.1 Threadfin shad 19.3 18.2 18.3 Mooneye NC T T Common Carp NC 0.8 0.1 Silver chub T 0.1 0.1 Golden shiner 0.1 T 0.1 Bullhead minnow T T T Creek chub NC T T Northern hog sucker NC
• T T Smallmouth buffalo NC 0.4 0.4 Spotted sucker NC 0.8 0.7 Black redhorse NC 0.1 0.1 Golden redhorse NC 1.0 0.9 Black bullhead NC T T Yellow bullhead NC 0.1 0.1 Blue catfish 6.1 1.1 1.6 Channel catfish 5.5 6.5 6.4 Flathead catfish T 0.4 0.3 White bass 2.4 0.2 0.5 Yell ow bass 3. 7 2.4 2.6 Striped bass 0.6 0.1 0.1 Green sunfish T T T Warmouth T T T Orangespotted sunfish NC T T Bluegill 0.7 0.7 0.7 Longear sunfish 0.1 T T Redear sunfish 1.2 0.2 0.3 Largemouth bass 0.3 T T White crappie 0.9 0.1 0.1 Black crappie T T T Logperch T T T Sauger 2.0 0.1 0.3 Freshwater drum 49.2 36.4 37.7 Inland silverside NC T T NC -Species not collected. T -Percent composition for species is < 0.1 %. 23 Table 13. Historical and Current Entrainment Estimates* at BFN. *, -,; ... :;.* j::t -*> *. __ : J' <:::, *-* : * : _.: * * :_ ;:}*t: *: :::.': <: *. . _ * : Hydraulic Me*an -* * .. <*Mean.*:* :* * .. : > ,_,>, , .. ,,.,., * * ._.-. *
• _: .* -* *l*; Historical Baseline 1977 12.0 6.4E+09 l.5E+08 2.3 3.2E+IO 3.7E+09 11.7 1978 13.3 l.3E+09 5.0E+07 3.7 5.4E+IO 2.9E+09 5.3 1979 9.0 2.3E+09 l.9E+08 8.2 3.0E+IO 1.3E+09 4.5 Current Evaluation 2003 6.2 5.5E+IO 7.4E+08 1.3 5.4E+ll 2.5E+IO 4.5 2004 12.7 2.7E+IO 5.0E+09 18.8 3.8E+ll 7.0E+IO 18.7 2003-2004 Totals 8.4 4.0E+lO 3.0E+09 7.6 4.SE+ll 4.9E+10 10.8 24 Table 14. Historical and Current Entrainment Estimates for Numerically Significant Taxa. Historical Baseline Current Eyaluation . .
• 1977 . *** 1978 . 1979 2003 **_.'.': :.:'.*>:' /'::: .. :2004 Mean *.** Mean *:.-*Mean Daily. ; .. ,Rate . <. Rate. '.-"-.D"aily *Rate_* rulte Taxa Number %: Number* %*;* * ; *Nuliiber % * .. :% Clupeidae 3.6E+09 12.1 2.8E+09 5.2 1.2E+09 4.4 2.3E+10 4.6 6.7E+10 18.3 Hiodontidae 2.7E+05 1.2 3.9E+04 2.5 2.6E+05 4.6 4.5E+05 2.0 *
• Cyprinidae l.OE+06 4.8 3.IE+06 2.5 2.2E+07 7.9 5.9E+07 3.9 1.5E+08 17.1 Catostomidae 4.4E+07 4.5 1.8E+07 17.0 l.7E+07 3.1 3.4E+08 13.0 2.3E+07 17.4 Ictaluridae 6.IE+05 29.0 6.6E+06 16.2 1.1E+06 6.4 2.8E+07 23.4 4.8E+08 37.4 Moronidae 3.9E+07 15.6 8.4E+07 11.9 5.IE+07 5.3 4.4E+08 3.0 7.2E+08 24.8 Centrarchidae 8.7E+06 4.8 I.6E+07 2.5 7.7E+06 3.7 1.9E+08 6.6 1.2E+09 51.8 Percidae 4.2E+06 14.6 4.0E+06 12.4 5.6E+06 13.9 6.1E+07 10.9 1.6E+07 11.8 Sciaenidae 4.4E+07 6.1 2.5E+07 3.8 5.7E+07 8.6 7.7E+08 3.2 6.3E+07 7.4 Ath erinopsidae * * *
• 1.1E+04 T l.3E+08 15.4 1.3E+09 34.5 * -Not collected. T -Taxon was entrained at a rate of less than 0.1 %. 25 170 169 168.5 168 167.5 167 166.5 -----c: .c ... ... >. c: 3 Cl c. -> u c: .c ... ... >. c: 3 Cl c. -> u n:J Ql n:J c. n:J :I :I Ql u 0 Ql n:J Ql n:J c. n:J :I :I Ql u 0 Ql 7 LL < 7 7 < "} q z c 7 LL < 7 7 < "} q z c I I I .... I I I I I I I .... I I I .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... 2003 2004 Date Figure l. Average daily surface elevation (meters above mean sea level) of Wheeler Reservoir during 2003 and 2004. 26 3000 2500 2000 "'C c 0 (.) Q) Cf') --I/) 1500 ..... OJ . .0 :::i u 1000 500 11 f I -I -.. -... -11 , ij' c *! 4 . 1 .t i! . I *1 *l !
• L * \; 1! . J i :j .. . ! .: :) '1 v r;,i J * . :i 11 L t: '* '. *i* '1' ij r:1 ,! " , ii " ;i i q * \ L . tj , ;*1 r. '!' !J ;** 'I :1 11 i : *I . ' j "*I !: ij ' ' :7:,;t; 11 l:iii *, ;'. ;1 ;1 J "r ;.\ ;,: . ' u d '1 p:J 911 ;: ". , .y*:\ i, . . * '.;'I.
• f . ' , *, t unm I , *"' ¥ ., L... w*' '< *t I :"ii Pl II I l.I I ( I
• 1 0 c: .0 ... ... >. c: :; Cl a. lll Q) co a. Cll ::J :J <II ..., LL. :.?. <( 7 7 <( en I . . . . ..... I I ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... 2003 i i rr*1 .... > 0 0 0 z I . ..... ..... 0 <II c * ..... j I ., ' " foti * *': L; t!
• 1 ;.i ; I ti llJ ;) f*J :"! !. " *1 r' :l p 13 ll :i* . c: .0 ... tll Q) ro ..., LL. :B I I . ..... ..... ..... Date *-*---*--*-**-----*-*---, Q, \'*; t ' . k ,* .... >. c: :; a. ro ::J <( ::!! ..., 7 . I . ..... ...... ..... ..... 2004 " ;: il :' n# : :! t ; ' ' jj,i'* f*: 4 *:. -.' I :j :J V ".. '."! ': ** . :. N g ji 1 £51 l (; i
• ii r;,t' .H " l <.;;.;!: t.k " .*i. ! \i i1 1 tt H + Cl a. ..... > ::J QI 0 0 en 0 z . . I ..... ..... ..... ..... 0 <II 0 . ..... Figure 2. Average dnily rate of flow in Wheeler Reservoir near BFN during 2003 and 2004. 27 , 11 I I 2500
• Unit 2 Iii Unit 3 2000 1500 1000 500 0 c: .c ... ... >. c: :; Cl c. .. > u c: .c ... ... >. c: '3 Cl c. .. > u Ill Q) Ill c. IQ :I :I Q) u 0 GI I'll GI I'll c. I'll :I :I GI u 0 GI :::E < .., 0 :::E 1 7 0 .., LL :::E 7 * < UJ z 0 7 LL 'f 7 < Cl} z 0 * . . . * .... . I . . * * . .... . * . . .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... .... ..... .... ..... .... .... ..... .... ..... .... ..... .... 2003 Date 2004 Figure 3. Average daily rate of generation at BFN during 2003 and 2004. 28 "C c:: 0 (.) Q) en -I/) .... Q) .... Q) :E (.) ..c ::s (..) ..... **-*****---**----**--*------*--**** .. ,. .. --. i i I -.. I ' 70 I . I ' t i ii I I ;L'i-;i 60 I 7 cl I 50 I I I 40 I i I 30 20 I **----**-* .. *-*----*----*-*-----------*---**-* *--**"' --------*-*--* -*-..... ---------.. -----._, **---------------10 0 .... Ill 4= ,.... ... c. <i: ..... >. Ill :¥! I .,.... c: :; Cl ::J ::s 7 7 <i: ..... ..... .... 2003 a. ..... > u c: .0 Q) u 0 Q) Ill Q) '1 q z 't 7 u. I I ..... ..,.... ...... ..... ..... ..... Date ... .... >. c: O'l a. ..... > (.) Ill a. Ill ::s ::s ::i Q) (.) 0 Q) <i: ::!: 7 7 < I/) q z c I ..... I I I I ..... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... 2004 Figure 4. Average daily rate of hydraulic entrainment at BFN during 2003 and 2004. 29 Number/1000 m 3 rjQ" -N l'"" .:... = 'Jo 'Jo 0 g g '"'I g 0 0 -("> ; -0 (JI t:i 28 Mar rl> ::s 3 Apr o-. rl> 10 Apr "' 0 ..... 17 Apr 0.. '"'I I I = 24 Apr 8 I rl> 1 May D aci IJQ D "' 5 May (') 0 "' -0 15 May D -rl> 0 (') w ..... I rl> 22 May 0.. .... ::s 29 May I rl> ::s I ..... 5 Jun '"'I 0 s* 12 Jun c=J 3 rl> 19 Jun I = ..... "' 26Jun p 3 't:i 3 Jul 0 (;' "' 0 w 0.. 0 = .... rl> '"'I s* N 25 Mar Q Q 1 Apr = 7 Apr 0.. N Q 15Apr Q 22 Apr 29 Apr 6May b I N 13 May 0 0 A. 20May 27 May 3 Jun CJ 10 Jun D 17 Jun C:J 24 Jun D 1 Jul I 7 Jul D 3 GQ = 0\ t::j rt> :::s =-* rt> "' 0 ...... n ;=--0 rt> -* 0. rt> GQ (fQ "' N n 0 0 0 w n;-!"') -rt> 0. s* rt> :::s -.... :::s 3 rt> :::s -"' !:) 3 "O w n;-"' II;) -0. r;> = ::r II'Q N 0 0 w t.) :::s 0. N 0 0 A "' 0 0 .::. 0 '.JI 0 8 ! 2 Mar 1 I 3 Apr I ::::: 24 Apr J No Sample 0 0 1 May 5May 15 May 22 May 29May 5 Jun 12 Jun 19 Jun 26 Jun a 3 Jul I I 25 Mar I I I Apr [] . 7 Apr I 15 Apr I I ., 22 Apr -1 29 Apr I 6May 13 May 20 May 27 May 3 Jun IO Jun 17 Jun I 24 Jun I Jul L 7 Jul 'JI 0 Number/1000 m3 N ,o 0 N '.JI 0 0 0 (.;.) lJI 0 0 0 Number/1000 m 3 .... Q'tl -N t..> *.,; *-= g V\ 0 'JI *.11 .., 0 0 g g :;:> It> 0 0 --J 0 0 0 0 0 0 c c =-0 28 Mar I It> = D 3 Apr ..... ;;* 10 Apr 0 0 ...., r ;-17 Apr .., < 24 Apr ampl . 0 1 May I = c.. tJ ..... SMay = < "' p It> 0 IS May = 0 .... (,.) ;;' 22 May L:J =-i b :r 29 May n 0 I = 5 Jun ri> n -12 Jun ri> Q. .... 19 Jun I = ri> = 26 Jun l ..... .., .... 3 Jul D = w 3 0 tv ri> 1:1:1 = .... ..... It> 9 25 Mar I "O ;;' l Apr I Q. = J "" 7 Apr :;* lSApr D N Q l Q 22 Apr w c::s 29 Apr Q. N 6May Q Q .,. 13 May N 0 0 20 May 27 May 3 Jun lOJun 17 Jun I 24 Jun 0 l Jul 7 Jul a "2 '"'I t'O o:i 0 n> ::s ..... ..... t1> "' 0 ....... !!.. i:: 'O 8. Q.. "' (") 2. ii)' n ..... n> Q. -* ::s n> .... ... ..... ..., a* s (!) ::s ..... "' ::>:I s "d ;;-"' r:i. w :::: *J) ..., :::;* IJQ N 0 0 w = Q. N 0 0 J:>,. 'Jl 0 ::: --**-------*---28 Mar 3 Apr 10 Apr 17 Apr 24 Apr No Sample 1 May I 5 May N 0 15 May 0 w 22 May 29 May 5 Jun 12 Jun 19 Jun 26 Jun 3 Jul t:i :.:i ..... n> 25 Mar 1 Apr 7 Apr 6May N 13 May 0 0 .::. 20 May 27 May 3 Jun 10 Jun .0 17 Jun 24 Jun a. l Jul n 7Jul L _____ _ Number/1000 m3 N N ..,,. (,,> ""' 0 0 'Jl 0 '.Jl 0 Ul 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Number/1000 m3 rjQ" = '" .... O'I 00 ,.., .., Q Q Q Q ('!> = 0 0 Q Q ---\C 0 28 Mar ('!> = 3 Apr t:IJ ,_ . ..... ;;* IO Apr t:IJ 0 ...., 17 Apr ..... ('!> 3 24 Apr lHllf le "C ('!> I .., 1 May ll:> ..... ('!> 5May D 1:1' 1:1) "' t:IJ 0 15 May t:IJ 0 (") (;) g, 22 May ;;-(") ..... 29 May ('!> Q. -* 5Jun = ('!> b = 12 Jun ..... ., ll:> 19 Jun I ..... = 3 26 Jun I ('!> = ..... I t:IJ 3 Jul 1:1) (.;.) 3 0 .J::>, "C 1:1) tD' ..... ('!> t:IJ Q. = .., 25 Mar ,.... = (JQ 1 Apr N Q b Q 7 Apr 1:1) = 15 Apr ! Q. N 22 Apr b Q Q I 29Apr I 6May I I I N 13 May 0 0 20May 0 27 May 3 Jun 10 Jun I 17 Jun I 24Jun I 1 Jul I 7 Jul I Number/1000 m3 t-.J '.;J .&>.. Ul Q'\ -l 00 0 0 :::> 0 0 0 0 0 ..; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 Mar C) 3 Apr r:> ::s 10 Apr ::=: ('!> "' 17 Apr 0 ...... "' 24 Apr = Sample = :=i 1 May "' :r ('!> 5May "' n N 0 0 ('!> 0 15 May n w ..... 22 May ('!> 0.. :;* 29 May ('!> = 5 Jun ..... '"1 :::> = 12 Jun 3 ('!> 19 Jun ::s "' 26 Jun :::> 3 't:I 3 Jul ('!> io "' w 0.. ::>:l Vi ..... c: ('!> -* ::s (JQ N 25 Mar Q 0 w I Apr l:j ::s 7 Apr 0.. N 0 15 Apr 0 22 Apr 29 Apr 6May N 13 May 0 0 20 May 27 May * . .r,* .) . 3 Jun 10 Jun 17 Jun ' 24 Jun L 1 Jul 7 Jul .

Number/1000 m3 .... IJQ ...... N (;; tll a-, -..) QO "° = 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ., 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 tD ..... 28 Mar !;::) 3 Apr tD = "' 10 Apr ..... ...,. ;* "' 17 Apr 0 ....., :::;> 24 Apr :'\o ample tD "' 0 :r 1 May D ..... SMay tD ., N b c:i. 0 lSMay ., 0 = w = 22 May ,., ::.. 29 May ;" ,., ..... 5 Jun tD c:i. s* 12 Jun tD = 19 Jun ..... ., s* 26 Jun 9 tD 3 Jul = ..... 5? w "' °' = "O ;" "' 25 Mar c:i. = ., 1 Apr s* IJQ 7 Apr N 0 0 lSApr i:...i = 22 Apr c:i. N 0 29 Apr 0 """ 0 6May N 13 May g 0 0 20 May 27 May CJ 3 Jun 10 Jun D 17 Jun 24 Jun 1 Jul I 7 Jul a ".tl Number/1000 m3 *Tel N ._. .,. Ul °' -:a 00 :::: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 re 0 c 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 28 Mar 0 3 Apr ('!) ::: 10 Apr :-. (II "' 17 Apr 0 ...... "' 24 Apr Sample < ('O 1 May '1 "' 5: 5May r ('!> "' fl.) (') 0 15 May 0 0 --(.J ('!> I (') 22 May .... ('!> 0. 29 May 5* ('!> 5 Jun ::::: .... '1 12 Jun ::I 3 19 Jun (II ::I .... 26 Jun 3 3 Jul "tj ('!> 0 \.;.) "' ::.:> -..) 0. ...... I':> c:: '1 5* cr'Q 25 Mar N 0 0 l Apr w ::.:> 7 Apr = 0.. N 15 Apr 0 0 -!'-22 Apr 29 Apr 6 May fl.) 13 May 0 0 .::.. :f. .\0(10 0 Intake l!I Left Descending Overbank 0 Channel Ueep 0 Channel Surface D Right Descending Overbank -*-'--2000 .., E 0 0 0 ..... 1500 --... Cl) .J:J E :J z: -IOllO * -soo QI a. -E -ro IJ) O* z 0 r n h r rl n D=n ... ... ... ... ... ;.-, ;.-, ;.-, ;.-, o:I Q. Q. Q. Q. o:I o:I o:I o:I <1'. <1'. 00 ff) =-r-"<!' IT) Ill N N N N = = = :; = = = N Q', \Q ff) N Date Figure 13. Densities of total fish eggs collected at each station in 2003 entrainment samples. 38 ,.."' I 18000 I

• 16000 ..... --. .. ---****----------. --* .... -*--*-* . -.. -------**-*-*-... -**-* -.. -:*** *--0 Intake *Left Descending Overbank 0 Channel Deep 0 Channel Surface 0 Right Descending Overbank ----* .... ***--------*---*--**-**---*-*-***** --* *******---** ----14000 -*************-** *--*-******-***--***-****-**-*--**--**-***---* **------**--*-----***--****-* -----***--*--**-**-*---*---**----** .... 12000 0 0 0 ..... I:; 10000 CJ .a s ;::l z 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 ... c.. ..i: l/'l **--------*-**------0 II ... i5. c.. -<i: -<!( N a-N N Date Figure 14. Densities of total fish eggs collected at each station in 2004 entrainment samples. 39 C Intake D Left Descending Overbank D Channel Deep D Channel Surface 0 Right Descending Overbank .rnooo 30000 ,., s c:> 25000 0 0 -,----i... <1> ..0 s 20000 ::I z ,-15000 10000 -,--,--..! 5000 a. E __ ldJ] Ill t/J 0 :z 0 ---,--rfh--r n-GJ]i ... ... .. .... ... ..... ..... ..... ..... Cll Q, Q, Q, Q, Cll Cll Cll Cll ::; < < < < :; :; ::; :; 00 t'l Q r--"" .,., .,., N M M N Date Figure 15. Densities of total fish collected at each station in 2003 entrainment samples. 40 80000 70000 60000 50000 .., a 0 0 0 40000 --i.. ..0 a ::s % 30000 20000 10000 () r. ----*. *-*-_,, ___ .... _ .. -.. ------* __ .,,, _______ *-----.-_,, __ _ 0 Intake *Left Descending Overbank If) N ... a. -... a. < r--,... ,. ; :l=J ri t\ ... ... a. a. < < l/') N N --) ... 1: * " t. 1 f < ... c. < Cl\ N ... --";' 'i !i. ... >.. ;of -t ... r :f. :.!: G " ' \ i [ ;>, ;>, <, <, < 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -....J t'!".l 24 Jul "' ..... 31 Jul D = ..... It> Q. = 7 Aug = 3 D -r::r 14 Aug It> .., 0 D ..... 21 Aug = "' I\,) =-0 D ..... 0 28Aug 3 (,..) "'O s* 4Sep (IQ It> Q. Q. e:. = 11 Dec ..... = 18 Dec '.Z Q. c 29 Dec .., ..... = (JQ N N 7 Jan Q c Q Q) w ..+ D = C'D 15 Jan = Q. N 22 Jan Q Q D 29 Jan 5 Feb tJ 11 Feb I I\,) 0 20 Feb D 0 25 Feb D 3 Mar I 10 Mar I 18 Mar b 23 Mar D 29 Mar D

"=l c: '"I r:i O:> t!i "' e. 3 %1 ,.... 0... 0... )::; '<"° a ;:;* a %1 "' "' N o* 0 ..... 0 w "' :::' .... s "d :;* (fQ ('!> 0.. .... O;l 2 0. c: "'I _.,.. ;* w (JQ N 0 0 0 Q) -(!) ::>:> ::s 0. N 0 0 ,i:... N 0 0 24 Jul 31 Jul 7 Aug 14Aug 21 Aug 28 Aug 4 Sep 11 Dec 18 Dec 29 Dec 7 Jan 15 Jan 22Jan 29 Jan 5 Feb 11 Feb 20 Feb 25 Feb 3 Mar 10 Mar 18 Mar 23 Mar 29 Mar 0 ll , N 0 .. Ol 0 Kilograms co 0 ...... 0 0 ..... N 0 ...... .i:.. 0 ...... m 0 Number _. c: N 01 co 0 N "'I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ...... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 \C trl 24 Jul I "' -§" 31 Jul D "' -0. I 0. 7 Aug 14Aug D 3* "C =* 21 Aug (JCl "' 9 0 0 28Aug (,.) ::::: -"'I "' 4 Sep -rt> "' i:> ..... -=-"'I rt> 11 Dec "' 0. ::; ::::: 18 Dec "' =-"' 0. 29 Dec 0. .j:>. c: .j:>. "'I 7 Jan =* c (JCl QI N -Q CD 15 Jan Q w 22 Jan ::::: 0. N Q 29 Jan Q 5 Feb I 11 Feb p N 0 D 0 20 Feb 25 Feb D 3 Mar D 10 Mar I 18 Mar D 23 Mar 29 Mar Kilograms 11-:i = _,. N N w w .::.. .::.. 0 t,)'l 0 (J't 0 (J't 0 (J't 0 (J't ,..; . N 0 24 Jul 17-l "' :::.'; 31 Jul 3 ;;-0... 7 Aug 0-c;* 3 14 Aug fl) "' "' 0 _, (1Q i:i. N '"I 21 Aug N 0 28 Aug 0 (,) 0. "' 4 Sep I. 0.. 3 "Cl = 11 Dec (fQ 0... Q. 18 Dec s:: '"I ::s ()'Cl 29 Dec N 0 0 Vl w 7 Jan 0 i:.:i Col ::s 0. r+-('!) 15 Jan N 0 0 .::>. 22Jan 29 Jan 5 Feb 11 Feb N 0 20 Feb 0 .i:i. 25 Feb 3 Mar 10 Mar 18 Mar 23 Mar 29 Mar "!':l Kilograms N (,.) "' (JI (j) ....., = 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 '"! ('t> N 24 Jul 0 -t_'r'.l "' 31 Jul I I ..... ....... 8 I I ..... 7 Aug ('t> Q. D c;* 14Aug 3 r.:i "' I "' 21 Aug 0 .... N =1' 0 D ('t> 0 28Aug "' (,.) C" :.e 4Sep D :.:> ..... rt> '"! Q. '"! = 3 ....... 11 Dec 3 "' ....... = 18 Dec ('t> Q. Q. 29 Dec = '"! .;::.. ..... = 0\ 7 Jan N c 0 QI 0 .... D w ct> 15 Jan = Q. 22 Jan g N 0 0 29Jan 5 Feb I 11 Feb N 20 Feb D 0 0 "' 25 Feb D 3 Mar I 10 Mar I 18 Mar l 23 Mar I 29 Mar I

FISH ENTRAINMENT AT BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT, WHEELER RESERVOIR, ALABAMA, Tim YEARS 1978 and 1979 March 1980 Prepared by J. J:>. Buchanan Division of Water Resources E'isberies and Aquatic Ecology Branch Norris, Tennessee ., IN'l'RODUCl'ION Fish* .eggs and larvae entrained in cooling water may suffer mortality from one or more physical effects of passage through the plant. As a consequence, in conjunction with the construction of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFNP)1 rvA the preoperational characteristics and dynamics of the annual ichthyoplankton populations in Wheeler Reservoir (1971-1973) (reported fo Chapter 7 in BFNP Preoperational Fisheries Resources Report, TVA 197.Sa). This investigation was continued through initiation of commercial operation in 1974, and six years of monitoring data have been collected. The 1971-1977 data are available in Volume 4: Effects of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Cooling Water. Intake on the Fish Populations of Wheeler Reservoir (197Bb). This report augments this data base with the results of the 1978 and 1979 tions and provides a reassessment of the _1977 entrainment estimates. Specific objectives as presented in the previous description of larval fish entrainment at 'BFNP (1978b) were: 1. To define the annual patterns and fluctuations in density of the ichthyoplankton community near and/or transported past the plant. 2. To determine the species composition and relative abundance of the various taxa comprising the ichthyoplankton. 3. To define temporal distribution of fish eggs and larvae in order to determine periods of greatest plant entrainment. 4. To describe spatial distribution of ichthyoplankton near the plant in relation to the normal zo.ne of influence of 2 the cooling water intake and relative vulnerabili,ty of the various taxa to entrainment. 5. To estimate numbers and relative abundance of the various taxa entrained during plant operation. 6. To relate periodic densities and relative abundance of ichthyoplankton estimated to be with those in the reservoir in order to determine. and assess the impact of this entrainment on the fish community of Wheeler 'Reservo,ir. MATERIALS AND METHODS Reservoir Sampling Ichthyoplankton sampling was incorporated in the overall Browns Ferry fisheries monitoring program in 1971. San1pling gear and technique for estimating the abundance of ichthyoplankton modified in 1978 to better sample deeper strata. Concurrently, the primary transect sampled to measure seasonal transport of ichthyoplankton past BFNP was relocated at TRH 294.5 (Figure 1). The transect at TRM 293.0, referred to as the plant transect, and utilized since 1971, was maintained for comparison with TRM 294 .5. 'Each year samples were collected weekly during both day and night. Sample periods and corresponding dates for each year of full (three-unit) plant operation are listed in Table 1. Sample gea.r used in 1978 and 1979 consisted of a square 0.5 m (flow meter equipped) side-towed net (0.505. mm mesh). This net was capable of sampling the water column (except the lowest m) in a stair-step, oblique fashion. At a towing speed of l m/sec, 10-minute samples filtered . 3 approximately 150 m of water. This net replaced the 1 m diameter stern-towed net (0.79 mm mesh) used from 1971-1977 because it increased the effectiveness in sampling more than one or two discrete strata and boat _propwash could be avoided. Transport Estimation Techniques The method of estimating total numbers of eggs and larvae annually transported past BFNP from 1974-1977 utilized a cross-sectional. depth profile of the river at Tfill 293. The profile was subdivided into compartments to determine the ra ti.o of overbank 3 m depth) area to open water (> 3 m depth) area. Compartment *weighting factors (0.22-shore-linet 0.78-channel) were multiplied by corresponding larval fish densities BROWNS ISLAND Figure l :* 4 I I Larval Fish Sampling Stations BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT

• e * ** I * ........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . ........ . . ..... . .. . ...... . . . .* . . . . . ' ....
• Ill * * * * * .. * .f
• 41 ** . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . ... . . . .. . . . . ' e
• I I I * * ....... . . . ..... . . . . .. . . .. . . . ... . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * -= **** . .. . . . . ... . . . . . ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . tocatioo of larval fish sample stations (reservoir and intake) at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant in 1978 and 1979.

Table 1. Larval fish sample dates for reservoir and plant intake stations at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant during 1977-1979. Sam£_le Date Sample Period 1977 1978 -1979 l 3-16 3-27 3-13 2 3-23 4-03 3-19 3 3-30 4-10 3-27 4 4-06 4-20 4-02 5 4-13 4-24 4-10 6 4-19 5-01 4-17* 1 4-27 5-08 4-26 8 5-04 5-16 4-30 9 5-11 5-22 5-07 10 5-18 5-30 5-14 11 5-26 6-05 5-21 12 6-02 6-12 5-31 13 6-09 6-19 6-04 14 6-15 6-26 6-12 15 6-22 7-03 6-19 16 6-29* *-7-10 6-27 17 7-07* 7-17 7-02 18 7-13 7-24 7-10 19 7-20 7-31 7-16 20 7-27 8-07 7-25 21 8-03 8-14 7-30 22 8-10 8-21 8-13 23 8-17 8-28 8-06 24 8-24 8-20 25 8-27 intake samples takei1 to obtain a weighted mean transect density for each period. Data from both channel strata {surface and 5 m) were combined to calculate the weighted density for the channel or open water station. initial assumption ,of uniform water velocities across both main channel and overbank areas was in error according to estimates of flow in the transect colllJ>attments at both TRM 293.0 and 294.5 supplied by the TVA Water Systems Development Branch. VelQcity measurements on which these estimates are based were taken by the TVA Hydraulic Data Branch on August 1, 1969, at TRM 291.8 and 294.0 when the average river flow was 391000 *Cfs. '.rhe flows in eaclr trailsec.t compartment (TRM.'293.0 and 294.5) were calculated by multiplying the average velocity in each sample ment by its cross-sectional :area. Flow volWries were calculated for total overbank area and upper and lower strata of the channel or open water area 'Cortesponding to the sections sampled for ichthyoplankton. I<'igure 2 shows the depth profiles of the two sample transects with the proportionate river flow for. each sample compartment. These flow estimates were used as weighting factors to calculate the total number of fish eggs and larvae transp9rted past BFNP du.ring 1978 and 1979. This was an improvement over .the previous method was. based on the simple assumption of uniform transect velocity. Intake Samples densities in the intake basin at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant were sampled from 1974-1977 with a 3 x 3 array of 0 .5 m diameter (0.79 mm mesh) stationary nets. ln accordance with the change to 0.5 'm square nets in the reservoir in 1978, intake nets were also qhanged to 0.5 square with 0.505 llllll mesh; the 3 3 array was retained. The three rows of nets were fished at 0. 5 Ill t middepth, and D Browns Ferry Larval Sampling Stations 1978-1979 TRM TAM 293.0 294.5 ......... ............. Trar.sect Flow* Distribution(%) -E!11 Ci-.an;iel lower stratum El Left & Right overbank [3 Channel upper 5fratum Left 13 56 <>o 32 '° Channel lower stratum 23 Channel 1.q:iper stratum 41 Right overbank 04 % Figure 2: Cross-section profiles of reservoir transects at TRJ.1 293.0 and 294.5 including locations of samp.le compartments and percentages of river flow c:alculatecl for each stratum sampled. 8 approximately I m* f:rom the bottom. Nets were fished for two hours eJ<cept when high intake velocities owing to three-unit operatfon necessitated reduction in sampling duration to one hour. Flowmeters were mounted in intake nets to estimate the volume of water filtered during each sample. of Data Catch data from both reservoir transects and the intake basip 3 were converted to numbers per 1000 M of water filtered. Weekly densities were thus estimated for e-ach of three strata at the two reservoir transects, as well as in the intake basin. Calculation of total fish eggs and larvae transported past the plant utilizing the weighting factors for flow in each sample compartment was accomplished as follows: Observed density x flow weighting factor = weighted density (for each compattment); 1 weighted densities (all compartments in transect) = transect weighted density (includes day and night samples); J weighted density x daily average. flow (m ) past plant = total number ti'ansported/24 hours. Total annual transport can be estimated by determining the area under a graph of numbers transported by sample period. Transported ichthyoplankton and pro.portion entrained by the plan.t by sample pe:rlod were both estimated in th.is maoner for each family collected, as well as total eggs and larvae. Individual intake samples were averaged ,,.. .r 9 to provide overall intake densities for each sample period. Plant ment rate was estimated by the following equation: Di where Di 3 = mean density (No./1,000 m ) x 100 Dr Qr of eggs or larvae in intake samples; Dr = weighted density (No./1,000 m ) of eggs or larvae in the reservoir Qi (transect); 3 = intake water (m /day); Qr = reservoir flow (m /day). Reservoir flows past the plant for each sample period were estimated based on the upstream and downstream hydroelectric releases and tributary inflow (provided by TVA Hydraulic Data Intake water demand was calculated from known rating (833 m3/mi11ule each) of condenser circulating pumps. The number of pumps operating during each sample period was recGrded. Table 2 lists 24-hour reservoir (Qr) and intake (Qi) flows (m3 x 106) and proportion hydraulic plant entrainment (Qi/Qr) for 1977-1979 by sample period. Table 2. Reservoir (Q ) and intake (Q.) flows (m3 x io6) at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, 1977-1979. Flows are 24-hour totafs. (Q./Q ) = hydraul;ic entrainment. 1 r Sampling 1977 1'978 1979 Period Qr Qi Qi/Qr Qr (li Qi/Qr Qr Q. Q/Qr 1 l 296,06 7.19 0.024 86.12 7.19 0.083 303.37 10. 79 o*.035 2 95,91 8.39 0.087 64. l-0 7.19 0.112 139.21 10.79 o.on 3 87.10 10. 79 o.u3 64.59 7.19 lL 111 128.44 10.79 0.0&4 4 511.88. 10.79 0.021 39.15 7.19 0,.1$4 Hl.56 10.79 0.096 5 189.-87 9.59 0.050 45.51 7 .19 0.158 100.30 10.79 o . .io7 6 119 .65 8.39 0.010 6Q.92 7 .19 0.118 224.84 10.79 0.047 7 118. 76 9 *. 59 o. 08*1 143.37 7.19 0.050 92.48 10.79 0.116 8 9&.85 9.59 0.097 103.49 9.59 0.093 98.84 9.59 0.097 9 95.91 10. 79 0.112 77.80 7.19 0.092 79.51 9.59 0.120 10 77.56 10.79 0.139 47.95 9.59 0.200 80.73 9.59 O. ll8 11 82.54 10. 79 0.130 57.25 8.99 0.157 75.35 7.19 0 .. 095 12 76.83 10.79 0.140 100.80 9.59 0.095 179.08 9.59 0.053 13 73.65 10.79 0.146 56.52 8.99 0.159 213.09 10.79 0.050 14 92.98 9.59 0 .103 76.09 8.39 .0.110 106. 91 10.79 0.10.0 15 88.08 7119 0.081 92.97 8.39 0.090 83.67 10.79 0.128 16 66.06 1 70.46 8.39 0.119 83.18 10. 79 0.129 17 78.05 -63.37 8.39 0.132 85.87 10.79 0.125 18 60.68 7.19 Q.118 96.40 8.39 0.087 87.09 10.79 0.12.3 19 70. 71 9.59 o*.135 33.52 8.39 0.250 108.38 10.79 0.099 20 73.40 9 .59 0.130 43.67 8.39 0 .192 221.65 10.79 0.0'48 21 48.93 10.79 0.220 59.33 8.39 0.141 185.69 10. 79 0.058 22 48.44 9.S9 0.197 57.98 8.39 0.145 l l7 .43 10.79 0.09*1 23 6.2.39 9.59 o.153 50.89 9.59 0.18.8 110. 82. lO. 79 0.097 24 39 .15 10. 79 0.275 94.92 9.59 O. lOl 2.5 119.39 7.79 0.065 Mean Seasonal hyd. ent. 0.12 0.133 0.09 --*-.. *-------------------1. Data are not available due to plant operational characteristics. ..... 0 .. / 11 RESULTS Seasonal occurrence and relative abundance of major taxa of fish eggs and larvae colfected in 1978 and 1979 were determined for the reservoir transects (TRM 293.0 and 294.5) and basin. Temporal distribution of larval populations in relation to seasonal transport and entrainment was also determined. Because this report serves to update the results of larval entrairunent at Browns Ferry from 1974-1977 (TVA 1978b), results were compared with those reported for 1977, the first year of full (three-unit) plant operation. In addition to use for estimating egg larval entrainment in 1978 and 1979, the modified weighting factors (based on flow) for TID-1 293.0 were applied to the .1977 data, and the results compared to the earlier estimate. Occurrence and Relative Abundance of Eggs and Larvae 1978 .Planktonic fish eggs were most abundant at Tfil'I 293.0 in 1978 (Appendix Bl) and were virtually all (drum) eggs (Appendix Al). Highest densities of eggs at all three transects (Appendix Bl) occurred on May 22. This was similar to the period of greatest egg density (31500/1,000 m3) in 1977, which was May 18 (TVA 1978b). 1979 Egg densities in 1979 were again greater (7 times) at TRM 293.0 than at TRM 294.5. The peak density in 1979 (5,500/1,000 m3) was similar to the peak in 1978, (61500/1,000 m3) but occurred four weeks later on 12 June 19 (Appendix B2). Greatest densities observed at both TRM 294.S and in the intake basin were approximately 700/1,000 on May 21 and June 12, respectively. Larvae 1978 Larval fish from 14 families were collected in 1978 (Appendix Al); two of th.ese (Lepisostiidae and Poeciliidae) had not been collected in earlier years. Five families were represented by only one specimen each (Appendix Al). As in previous years, the family Clupeidae was the most abundant, composing a high of 95 .5 percent of all larvae collected at TRM 294.5 and a low of. 93.8 percent at the TRM 293.0 transect (Appendix Al). Intake samples .94. 7 percent clupeids. Percicht.hyi.dae and Centrar-chidae were second and third in abundance at the reservoir transects. Temporal of total larval fish by transect for each sample period during 1978 and 1979 are shown in Appendix B. Larval densities in the reservoir and intake highest duri.ng the month of May (Appendix B3). The greatest density (36,400/1,000 m3) was observed at TRM 2!}4.5 on May*22. Larval density in the plant intake was highest (16,800/I,OOO m3) a week earlier (Hay 16). Downstream, at TR.11 293.0, a peak larval density of 3 17 ,700/1,000 m was recorded on May 30. Appendix C contains densities by sample period and transect for the major families of larval fish collected in 1978 and 1979. Twelve families of fish larvae were collected in the 1979 samples, including one fqmily (one specimen) Pet.romyzontidae (lampreys), not !!>>" 13 previously observed in BFNP larval samples. Relative abl!ndance of was lower at all transects than in previous years, ranging from 87.8 percent in the intake to 91. 7 percent at TRH 294.5 (Appendix A2). Pel:'cichthyids (white and yellow bass) and sciaenids (drum) were second and third in abundance, respectively, and each comp.osed from two to four percent of the catch at all three transects. As observed in 1978, greatest larval densities occurred during May (Appendix B4). Intake larval densities were highest on May 7 and 14 at 3,100/1,000 m3. Reservoir densities of 10,100 and 7,700/1,000 rn3 were observed 294.5 (May 14) and TRl1 293.0 (May 7), respectively.' Entrainment 1977 The previous (TVA 1978b) estimate for entrairunent of fish eggs by BFNP was 2.3 percent. This estimate {as described in methods section) was derived by weighting egg densities by only the cross-sectional area in each compartment sampled. Application of the weighting factors based on volume flow in each compartment (Figure 2) to the 1977 data resulted in an increase in estimated egg entrainment to 2.7 percent. This resulted from a lower estimate (4. 76 x 109) of transported eggs than was estimated by the previous method (6.44 x 109). Table 3 shows egg and larval ment by year (1977-1979) both by family and for total eggs and larvae. For 1977, the previous entrainment estimates (TVA 1978b)*are given in paren-theses for comparison with current estimates. 14 Table 3. Annual entrainment (percent) of fish eggs and larvae by family at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant from 1977-1979. Estimated Entrainment (Eercent) Family 1977* 1979** eggs ().7 (0. 3) 5 .* 9 114 .9t Clupeidae eggs I NC NC Sciaenidae eggs 2.7 (2.3) 3.6 8.0 Unidentifiable eggs 12.1 (10.3) 5.9 5.5 Petromyzontidae NC NC I Lepisosteidae NC I NC Clupeidae 9.1 (12. 1) 5.3 4.3 Hiodontidae 1.2 (1.2) 2. l 4.5 Cyprinidae 2.9 (4.8) 2.3 7 .8 Catostomidae 4.1 (4.5) 19.2 3.1 Ictaluridae 31.5 (29.0) 16.4 6.4 NC I 25.9 Poeciiiidae NC I NC Percichthyidae 11.8 (15.6) 14.7 S.3 Centrarchidae 3.5 (4.8) 2.2 3.6 Percidae 12.7 (14. 6) 14.7 13.8 Sciaenidae 6.3 (6.1) 4.4 8.5 Atherinidae R R I Total eggs 2.7 (2.3) 3.6 8. l Total fish 9.0 (11. 7) 5.4 4.5 Mean hydraulic entrainment 12.0 13.3 9.0 (see Table 2) *Based on densities and weighting factors from TRM 293.0 -values in parentheses are previous entrainment estimates weighted by cross-sectional area only. ()n densities *and weighting factors from TRtf 294.5. tseventy-six spec;ime.rts collected in intake bR.sin, six collected in reservoir sampling; thus high entrainment estimate. 1 -Collected in intake samples but not in reservoir (TRM 293.0-1977; TRM 294.5-1978.-1979) sample!J, entrairunent estimate not possible. B -Collected in reservoir samples but not in intake samples, *estimates effectively zero. NC -None collected in either reservoir or intake samples. 15 Mean hydraulic: entrainment (percent of river flo*w by the plant) is shown in Table 3 and was calculated by averaging the 24-hour hydraulic entrainment estimat.es from recorded plant-intake volumes during each sample period. During the period of March 16-August 24, 1977, 12 percent of the flow past BFNP was entrained. This was an increase of 3.6 over entrainment in 1976 (TVA 1978b) due to initial three-unit plant operation in 1977. 1978 .Samples from the transect at TRM 294.5 in *1978 contained.iower densities of fish eggs than observed at TRM 293.0 (Appendix Bl). Calcula-ted total eggs transported (using densities TRH 294.5) in 1978 were 1.37 :x 109. Estimated entrainment of fish eggs was 5.00 x 107, yielding an estimate of 3. 6 percent (Table 3). Mean pydraulic ment in 1978 was 13.3 percent, again higher than the previous year. 1979 Due to increased river flow in 1979 (Table 2), mean hydraulic entrainment was 9.0 percent, a de-crease of 4.3 percent from 1978. Total egg transport for 1979 was 2.30 x 109; total egg by the plant was 1.88 x 108, resulting in an entrainment estimate of 8.1 percent. Larvae 1977 Total larval entrainment for 1977, based on cross-sectional transect weighting factors was estimated to be 11.7 percent (TVA I978b). Utilizing the same densities from the plant transect (TRM 293.0), the 16 weighting factors based on flow were applied, and the est.imate for iarv_,1 entrainutent in 1977 was 9.0 percent (Table 3). Entrainment of the most abundant family, Clupeidae, decreased from 12.1 to 9.4 percent using thl,s method. Conversely, entrainment of Ictaluridae increased from 29.0 tp 32.9 percent. Estimates for Percichthyidae and Percida.e decreased from 15.t;j and to 11.7 and 12..6 percent, respecti'1'ely (Table 3). Entrainment of drum larvae (Sciaenidae) increased from 6.1 to 6.6 percent based on the estimates weighted by compartmental volumes. 1978 In 1978, an estimated 5.35 x 1010 fish larvae were transported past the plant with 2.92 x 109 of these entrained, yielding an annual estimated entrainment of 5.4 percent {Table 3). Again, total entrainment paralleled that oJ the domin<ctnt clt.1pei<fs (5. 3 percent). The two families with the highes.t estimated entrainment were Catostomidae and Ictaluridae at 19; 2 and 16 .5 percent,, r;es'pectively, Two other families, Percichthyidae and Percidae, were estimated to be entrained at rates of 14.8 and 14.5 percent. respectively. 10 Total larval transport in 1979 was estimated to be 2.97 x 10 , lower than for either of the two previous years. Larval entrainment in 1979 was estimated to be 1. 34 x 109, less than one-half the estimated number$ entrained in 1978 .. Entrainment for total fisb larvae transported in 1979 was es*timated to be 4.5 percent. Entrainment of clupeids was 4.4 percent. Cyprinodontidae (topminilow) showed the highest entrainment rate (26.0 percent), but this was based on only two specimens (one each 17 from TRM 294.5 and the intake). Percidae, at 13.9 percent, was the only other family with estimated entrainment greater than 10 percent. Larval drum (Sciaenidae) at 8.6 percent, ranked highest of the remaining families.(Table 3). 18 DISCUSSION entrainment at BFNP during ichthyoplankton sample periods for the first three years of operation, has been 12.0, 13.3, and 9.0 percent for 1977, 1978, and 1979, respectively (Table 3). Entrainment estimates for fish eggs and larvae prior

• to 1978 were derived from reservoir density measurements immediately downstream of the plant at TRM 293.0 (Figure 1). Beginning in 1978, ichthyoplankton transport was calculated from samples collected at TRM 294.5, immediately upstream of the BFNP intake. This transect should more accurately depict egg and larval populations subjected to entrainment. The addition of the sampling station on the south overbank or left line (Figure 1) at TRM 294.5 should further improve estimates of plankton transported past the plant. The availability of velocity profile data from both transects (Figure 2) has rectified the overly simplistic assumption of uniform velocities in both the channel and overbank areas. The horizontal and vertical compartments of the transect were found to have varying water velocities (Figure 2), which required a new estimate for transported eggs and larvae. The refined weighting factors derived from this data resulted in an estimated increase of 0.4 percent for entrainment of fish eggs in 1977; estimated larval entrainment, however, decreased 2.7 percent (Table 3). These variations are due to nonuniform distribution of eggs and larvae between overbank and channel as well as between the upper and lower strata of the channel.

19 Entrainment estimates of 3.6 and 8.1 percent for fish eggs in 1918 and 1979 respectively, represe.p.t a progressive increase over the estimate for 1977.. This increase is attdbuted to the ob$erved difference in abundance of (drum) eggs 'between the two reservoir transects (Appendix Al .an<;! A2). Densities more than an order of magnitude lower at TRM 294.5 than at TRM 293.0 (Appendix Bl and B2) resulted in a significantly lower esti1n.ate of numbers transported and, thus, a greater proportion entrained. It appears th.at in 1978 and 1979, intensive spawning by drum occurred adjacent to or immediately belowBFNP. Since large numbers of drum eggs appear to be spawned below the plant,. it is concluded that estimated. entraiDDient of 8.1 pereent of eggs (highest of three years diScussed) transported past BFNP in 1979 is not a significant adverse impact to the Wheeler Reservoir fish community. In support of this hypothesis, if 1978 data from the TlU1 293.0 transect are employed to estimate egg entrairunent, only 0.5 percent of the total transported eggs are estimated to be entrained. Entratnment of fish larvae, µnl.ike that observed for eggs, showed a decreasing trend for the three years of full (three-unit) operation at BFNP. Even though the highest hydraulic entrairunent (13.3 percent) occurred. ,in 1978, larval entrainment (5.4 percent) showed a decrease of 60 percent f.tom th.e highest obsetved entrainment of 9.0 percent (in 1977). For parison, since entrainment was estimated from a different t.ransect (TRM 294.5) beginning in 1978, data from TRM 293.0 analyzed by the same method yielded an of 6.1 percent entrainment for transported fish larvae. IP.. 1979, hydraulic entrdnment (9. 0 percent) as well as larval entrainment (4.5 percent) decreased from levels observed in 1978. The four families with e$timated entrainment of greater than 10 percent i.n 1978 all had lower entrainment estimates in 1979 (Table 3). A!llon,g the four, 1:mly Percidae (logpE?rch and sauger) continued to be 20 entrained at greater than 10 (13.8) percent. Percids frequently were collected in greater densities in the BFNP intake than at either of the two' reservoir transects (Appendix C 13 and 14), which accounts for entrainment estimates ranging from 12. i to* 14. 7 percent during These data suggest that some percid spawning (probably logperch) may be occurring in or near the intake basin. Ictalurids (catfishes) were similarly collected in the intake in densities often greater than those observed in the reservoir and are also suspected to spawn in the basin. Catostomids (buffalo and suckers) were estimated to be entrained at rates (Table 3) lower than for total larvae in 1977 (4.1 Vs 9.0) ana 1979 (3.1 vs 4.5). Irt 1978, entrainment of catostomids was a sing 19.2 percent. However, on April 20 when catostomids were at peak density (Appendix CS) in both intake and reservoir samples, hydraulic _entrainment by BFNP was 18.4 percent. Percichthyid (white and yellow bass) entrainment in 1977 (11.8 percent) and 1978 (14.7 percent) closely leled hydraulic entrainment (Table 3), but was considerably lower (5.3 percent) in 1979. Percichthyids are the only family of the four discussed above which consistently compose greater than 1 percent of total larvae collected in EFNP larval samples. In 1978 and 1979t percichthyids ranked second only to clupeids in relative abundance at all transects and prised a larger percentage of larvae collected in intake samples (1977-1979) than at either reservoir transect (Appendix A). 21 SUMMARY In sWlmlary, entrainment'estimates for total larvae in 1978 (5.4 percent) and 1979 (4.5 percent) were considerably lower than those calculated for 1977 (9.0 percent), the initial year of full plant operation. Sampling procedures and weighting factors for estimating of f isb eggs and larvae transported past the plant have both improved since the earlier report on entrainment at BFNP (TVA 1978b). Samples from the t*ransect added at TRM 294 .5 should more accurately reflect those eggs a*nd larvae most susceptible to plant entrairunent. Since ichthyoplankton in Wheeler Reservoir are produced above and below BFNP, it can be concluded that estimated plant entraininent, as given here, would not add significantly to expected natural mortality of fiS'h eggs and larvae in the reservoir. 22 REFt:RENCES Tennessee Valley Authority. 1978a. Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Preopera tional Fisheries Res.ources Report. Norris, Tennessee: Division of.forestry, Fisheries, and Wildlife Development, Fisheries and Waterfowl Resources Branch. 1978. 130-157. 1978b. Effects of the Ferry Nuclear Plant Cooling Water Intake, on the Fish Populations of Wheeler Reservoir. Norris, Tennessee: Division of Forestry, Fisheries, and Wildlife Development. 1978. (Biological Effects of Intake Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant; Volume _4.)

• APPENDIX A TOTAL NUMBERS COLLECTED AND RELATIVE ABUNDANCE OF FISH/EGGS AND LARVAE . BY FAMILY AND TRANSECT IN 1978_AND 1979 Key to conunon names of families Family Name PetrQmyzontidae Polyodontidae Lepisosteidae Clupeidae Hiodontidae Cyprinidae Ictaluridae Cyprinodontidae Poeciliidae Percichthyidae Centrarchidae Percidae Sciaenidae Atherinidae Common Name* lampreys paddle fish gar shad and skipjack mooneye minnows and carp buffalo and suckers catfishes topminnows mosquito fish white and yellow bass crappie and sunfishes sauger and logperch freshwater drum broQk silversides *Most common taxa of family occurring Wheeler Reservoir fish. larvae samples.

Al. Total number and relative abundance (percent) of fish egp;s and larvae collected at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant in 1978. TRM 294.5 Intake Basin Plant Transect (TRM 293) Tbtal Relative Total Relative Total Relative Fish Eggs and Larvae Collected Abundance Collected Abundance Collected Abundance Sciaenid eggs (drum) 2,601 92.93 4,087 98.55 18,658 99.97 Unidentifiable fish eggs 198 7.07 60 1.45 5 0.03 Family Clupeidae -155, 702 95.52 213,043 94.70 83,894 93.76 Percichthyidae 2,404 1.47 6,581 2.93 2,527 2 *. 82 Centrarchidae 2,192 1.34 1,283 0.57 1.20 Sciaenidae 1,191 0.73 2,147 0.95 865 0.97 Catostomidae 746 0.46 1,152 0.51 662 o. 74 Cyprinidae 564 0.35 249 0.11 366 0.41 Percidae 117 0.07 289 0.13 62 0.07 Unidentifiable fish larvae 67 0.04 167 0.07 13 0.01 Ictaluridae 12 0.01 56 0.02 18 0.02 Hiodontidae J <0.01 3 < o. 01 4 <0.0i Atherinidae 1 <0.01 0 0.00 0 o.oo Lepisosteidae 0 o.oo. 1 < O. Ol 0 0.00 Cyprinodontidae 0 o.oo 1 < o. 01 0 o.oo Poeciliidae 0 0.00 l* < O.Ol 0 0.00 Polyodontidae 0 o.oo 0 o.oo 1 < 0.01 A2. Total number and relative abundance (percent) of fish eggs and larvae collected at Browns Fer:ry Muclear Plant in 1979. TRM 29.4.5 Intake Basin Plant Transect 293) Total ReJ.etive Total Relative Tot<!ll Relative Fisq Eggs and Larvae Collected Abundance Collected Abundance Collected Abundance Sciaenld Eggs (drum) 2,883 99.93 9,589 99.21 12,128 99.97 Unid'entifiable fish eggs 2 0.07 76 0.79 4 0.()3 *Family Clupeidae 46,068 91.70 62,206 87.76 37,828 90.39 Percichtbyidae 1,721 3.43 3,022 4.26 1,560 Sciaenidae 963 1.92 2,823 3.98 981 2.34 Cyprinidae 468 0.93 1.64 818 1.95 Catostom!C!ae 525 1.04 8*64 1.22 340 0.81 Centrarchidae 303 0.60 396 0.56 167 0.40 .Percidae 104 0.21 255 0.36 63 0.15 Vnidentifiable fish larvae 63 0.13 84 0.12 66 0.16 Ictalm:idae 16 0.03 54 0.08 19 0.05 Hiodontidae 8 0.02 11 0.02 9 0.02 Pett'omyzontidae 0 o.oo 1 0.00 0 o.oo Cyprinodont:idae 1 0.00 l o.oo 0 o.oo . Ather!nidae. 0 o.oo l o.oo 0 o.oo APPENDIX B TEMPORAL DISTRIBUTION OF EGGS AND LARVAE BY TRANSECT IN 1978 AND 1979 Ordinate values are given in logaritluns, i.e., 0 = 1, +1 = 10, etc. OBS HIDDEN -indicates values plotted on top of another by computer due to approximate densities at two or three transects h G G E D N y T I E s NOTES p p T l I 3 oas 111001:.N Bl. DENSITIES OF LARVAL COLLECTED IN LARVAL FISH AT BROWNS NUCLEAR PLANT, 1Q78 TAXATYPEzFlSH EGGS p T p T I I PLUT OF LOGOEN*PERIOO p p p T T I I T I p T I p T I p I T p I p T I I T SVMBOL IS VALUE OF TRANSECT p p p 1 T p T I I J p T 1 p I *1 -P -Plant Transect (TRM 293) T -TIUI 294.,5 p T SAMPLE (WEEKLY) 'I>; L 0 G G E 0 D E N s I T I E 8 B A. s E T E Ill I f 5 + I I I I I I 4 t I I I I I I 3 ... I ' t ' I I 2 ... ' I I I f I l

• I I I I I ' 0 + p I ' I I I I *1 ... I B2. OtNS(T[ES UF LARVAL FISHES COLLECTlD IN LAHVAL FISH AT NUCLEAR PLANT, 197Q TAXATYPE:FJSH EGGS YEAR:1Q79 PLOT OF LOGVEN*PERIOD SYMROL IS VALUE OF TRANSECT I -Intake P -Plant Transect (TRM 293) [ p l I J p p T T t I p T I p I I f> T p I T p I T p J T T I p T -1'RM 29/i .5 p p p T T p T I p T I p T T p t 1 2 3 q 5 6 1 8 g to 11 12 t3 1q 15 *1& 17 ta lQ 20 21 22 23 24 l5 SAMPLE Pf RIOD (WEEKLY) t.JOTE I 2 HIODt"1 h G G E 0 N s l l s B A s 5 E 1 l. N 0 NOTEI I I + I ' I
• t I p T + p I f I . l ' I I + I ' I T I I p I
• I I I
• l I I + f T I p I p I I T I I + I I l ' I I + f B3. OF LARVAL FIShES COLLECTED LARVAL FISH MONITORING.AT BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR 1978 TAXATYPE=FISH YlAR:t97a PLOT OF LOGOEN*-ERIOD SYMBOL IS VALUE OF T p p J I p p I -Intake P -Plant Transect (tBM 293) T l T p l T -TRM 294 .'5 l I p T I I l ,,. T p p T T l T p p l T T T p p I p p p I l I I I 1 I -----+--+**+**+**+**+**+**+**+--+**+**+**+**+**+--+--+--+-*+**+**+**+**+**+--+--+-*+--+--+--*--+--** 1 Z 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 tS tb 17 18 1Q 20 21 22 23 24 2S 28 29 3-0 31 SAMPLE PERIOD CwEEKLY) 8 065 HIOOE.N .,,,

5 " l 0 G G E 0 3 D E N s I T I i:: 2 s a A s E *t T E N 0 -1 JOTE: I I + I I ' I I I + I I I I I I + I I l I I f + I I I I I I + I I I I I I + I I I I I I ... I p T p I T p I B4. 0£1-iSJllE.S OF !..ARV.AL f-TSHES .COLLECTl:.D IN LARVAL FISH MONITORING AT BROWNS FERRY NtJCLE.AR PLANT, f979 TAXATYPE:FISH LARVAE Y£AR:t979 PLOT OF SYMBOL rs VALUE OF TRANSECT I -Intake T P -Plant Transect p p p p T T p I l p I T l I p p T I I p p T 1 p 1 p I r I p I T -TRM 2%.5 T I p I p T I p T I (TRM 293)

• p T I T p I I p 1 1 2 3 ti o 7 B q I 0 11 t Z. 13 1 i.l .15 1 b 1 7 18 1 q 20 21 22
• 23 2<<a 25 SA'-'PLE PF.RlPO Civf.:EKLY) 15 OBS HJODl:'N APPENDIX C LARVAL FISJt DEN'.SITIES FOR MAJOR FAMILIES .BY TRANSECT AND SAMPLE PERIOD IN 1978 AND 1979 Ordinate values are given in logarithms, :i.. e. , -0 = 1, +1 = 10, etc. OBS HIDDEN -indicates values plutted on top of another by computer due to approximate densities at two or three transects Cl. OF LARVAL FISHES COLLECTED JN LARVAL FISH AT FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT, 1Q78 YE.AR:1cna PLOT OF LOGDEN*PERIOD SYMHOL IS VALUt OF TRANSECT I I 5 + I I I T I I I T 1 p I -Intake T p I T jJ T p u + L I *a I G I G I E I 0 I 1 p p P -Plant Transect (TR.."I 293) T I T p T T -TRM 294.S I I p T l 3 .. 0 I E t N I I I l T s I l I I I 2 + r E I s I I M I T p fJ I I T T p T T p l T I p A I s I E l + I T I p T p I J p 1 I p f I I N I T I p I l 0 ... f I 1 I I I I I *1 + i -----t--+--+--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*-*+**+**+*-*--**-*--*--+--+--*--+--+--+--+-*+**+**+*-*--*--** 1 2 3 5 & 7 8 9 10 11 12 ll 15 16 17 18 1Q 20 21* 22 23 2" 25 2b 27 28 29 30 31 SAMPLE PERIOD (WEEKLY) 5 HlOOEN *'

Ii 4 L 0 G G E 0 l D E N s 1 T I 2 E s ij fl. s E 1 T E N 0 *-1 NDH.: I I + ( I I I I I *+ I I I I I I + t I I . f I I + I I I I I I + I I I I I I

• I I I I ' I + I p T p T I T p 1 r il l T fl t C2. Ot..NSJTlES UF LA.RVAL FISHES COLLECTl:l'I AT NLlCLEAR PLANT, 1q79 FAITL'r::lllb f>lSH_\IAfvl:CLIJPE.JOAI-. YEAf.l:1q7q PLOT OF IS Of I -Intake P -Plant Transect T -TRM 294.5 T p p p p T p l p p t I l p T l I T T p T T I p I I l 1 T I p p p I I T p I (TRM 293) p T T p t T I I p r 1 3 q 5 b 7 A q 10 tt tZ 13 14 15 lb 17 tQ 20 2\ 22 23 24 25 Pf PJOO (WEEKLY)

L 0 G G E. 0 0 E "' $ I T I E s 8 A s E T E N I I s + I I I I I I q + I I I I I I 3 + I I I I t I 2 + t I I I I I . l + I I I I t t {) + I I t I I I -1 + I p T I I CJ. Ll\f.lVAL f' I T p T I DtNSITitS Of LARVAL COLLtCTtD FISH MONlTl)klNG AT AROWNS FERRY PLANT, 1Q76 FAMlLY=111 VEAR:tq78 PLOT OF LLJGDEN*PERIOD SYMBOL IS VALUE OF TRANSE.CT p T I p p p I 1 I T . I T p T p p T I I p p I p T 1 T p I T p 1 I -Intake P -Plant Transect (TRM 293) T -TRM 294.5 T p p I I -----+--+--+--+--+--+-*+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+-*+**+**+*-+-*+**+**+**+**+**+**+**+**+**-* t ?. 3 U 5 b 7 B Q 10 lt 12 13 14 15 1& 17 18 1Q 20 21 22 23 2U 25 26 27 28 2Q 30 31 SAMPLE PERIOD (WEEKLY) NO Tf:. I b OBS HlDDf.N , 5 q L 0 G G E D 3 0 f .N s r T I 2 E s 8 A s E 1 T E N 0 -1 NOTf:.: l ' + I I I I I I + I I I I I I + I I I f f I + I I I I I I + I

• t I I I + I T I I I I I + I C4. Otf*;SlfHS OF LARVAL F-!S"1ES Cl1LLfCTf:O AT HROWNS FfRRV NUCLEAR \Q7Q YEAR=tQ79 PLOl OF LOGDEN*PERIOD SVM8UL IS VALUE OF TRANSECT I -Intake P -Plant.Transect (TRM 293) T -TRM 294.5 p p p p p T p T p I p I I p I T T I T I p p l l I T p T p I p p r I l t T p l p l ., T T r I I T I p I l 1 ! a 5 h 7 K q 10 tt 12 ll 14 15 1b 17 18 tQ 20 21 22 23 2a 25 SAMPLf PERtno h OHS H!Ol)f M CS. DENSlJIES OF LARVAL FISHES COLLECTED IN LaRVAL FISH MONITOP!NG AT FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT, 1q1R FAMILY:1t2 FlSH-NAM:CATrlSTOMIOAE YEAP:t978 PLOT OF LOGDEN*PERIDO SYMBOL JS VALUE OF TRANSECT I I 5 + I I I I ' I -Intake I a + L I P -Plant Transect (TRM 293) 0 I G I T -TRM 294.5 G I E I 0 I 3 ... 0 I E , p "' I. s I I T I t T T I T l 2 + p I s I I I p 6 I T A I r s I p I E 1 + I I p T I I .I E r N ' I r 0 + p I I t ' I I 1 *1 + I -----+--+--+*-+--+--+--+--+--+-*+**+--+--+--+--+--+--+-*+--+--+--+--+-*+**+**+**+--+--+--+--+**+**** 1 2 3 S b 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 IS lb 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 26 27 28 2Q 30 31 SAMPLE PE::RlllD (WEEKLY) NOTE: 2 OBS HJDOEM

.1 b G G .£ D D E N s I T I I 5 + I I I I I I q .. i I I I I *

• I I I I I I I 2 + § B A s E 1 T E N 0 *1 I I t ' I I + I I I J I t ... I I I I I ' t I p p p T I I C6. OfllSIT IES OF LARVAL f JSHES COLLFCTE() AT HROWNS f lRWY PLANT 1q7q FAkTLY=tl? FJSH_NAM:CATOSTOMJDAF YEAR:t979 PLOT flF LOGOEN*PERIOfl SYMHOl IS *vALIJf OF TRA111SECT I -Intake P -Plant (TRM 293) T -TRM 294.5 p 1 *t p f I T J T l p T T T 1 2 3 4 S h 1 8 9 l 0 1 1 1 ?. 1 .J I 4 1 5 1 n 1 7 t 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 Q 25 SAMPLE PfRino (WEEKLY) NOTE:

b G G 0 E s I T I E s B A. s E T E I I 5 + r I I I t 4 + I I I I I 3 + I I ' I I I 2 + I I I I I I l + I I t I I I 0 + ' I I I I . *1 + I Cl. OF LARVAL FISHES COLLECTED IN LANVAL FISH MONITORING AT HHOWNS FtRRY PLANT, J97R FAMILY=113 PLOT OF-LUGDENtrPfHIOO SYMBOL IS VALUE:. flF TRANSECT I -Intake P -Plant Transect (TRM 293) T -TRM 294.5 p T p I T p p I T I I p I T I T T l I I ***--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+-*+--+-*+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+-*+**+**+**+**-* 1 2 3 u 5 o 7 8 q 10 11 12 13 14 15 lb 17 18 1q 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 Z8 29 30 31 SAt.1PLE PER It)D C WE'El<L Y) NOTfz 2 OBS HIDDEN i i I. I I I I \ I t 5 ... I I f ' I' I 4 + L f 0 t G ' G I E I D I l + D

• E I N I s I I I T J l 2 + E I s I I 8 t A I s t E 1 + I T 1 E I N I
• I p 0 ... l p I T T I I I ' I *t + ' CB. OF*'<ISrilf:S l)F LARVAL flSHt.S COLLF.CTE:D A"l FERRY NUCLfAH PLANT, 1q79 FAt-'lLY::113 t-lSH_raiv.:JCTALtlRll)AF YEAR=l'Hq PLOT Uf SYMBOL IS VALUE OF TRANSECT I -Intake P -Plant Transect (TRM 293) T -TRM 294.5 r p p p T T T I T p 1 p p p l T p p p l I I I I I I J I 2 l.I 5 fl l 8 Q 10 lt 12 13 1" 15 th 1"1 18 lq 20 2t 22. 23 ?.4 25 SAMPLf PfRJnn NOTE:

&.. 0 G ,.. QI E 0 0 E s I T l E s a f4 r -., 5 + I I I I I I " + I I I I I 3 + I I p ., p I ' . T T ' p l l + T I ' I t I I I .1 + I I I ' I I I 0 + I I ' ' I I -1 + ' C9. DENSITltS OF LARVAL FlSHfS COLLECTED IN LARVAL FISH AT BROWNS NUCLEAR PLANT, 1978 VEAU:t978 PLOT Of SYMHOL IS VALUE OF I -Intake P -Plant Transect (TRM 293) T -TRM 294.5 p I T T I p T I T I T l I I p p p p T I l I I *--*-**-+-*+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+**+--+--+--+--+--+--+-*+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+*-+**+*---1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 q 10 11 12 13 1U 15 tb 17 18 lQ 20 21 22.23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30. 31 SAMPLE PERIOD OTE1 3 HIDDEN .&

• I 5 + I ' I f I ' 4 ... l ' 0 I G I G I E I 0 t l .. 0 I e I p N I s I T I I T I I 2 + E ' s I 8 I t .0, I s I e 1 ... r I p T I E I N '
• I 0 ... I 1 I I I I ' *l + I ClO, lifiJS[TU'.:S LlF LARVAL FlSl-IF.S ClJLLECTH\ AT bWfJiHNS FERRY NUCLl-.AR PHq rAMtLV=1t:12 FlSH-NAM::PfRCJClHt1\'IOAF PLOT OF LOGOtN*PERlOO IS VALUE OF I -Intake P -Plant Transect (TRM293) T -TRM 294.5 r p p p p T I I I I I T T p p r I I p p p I p T T T --+ ..... -+ .... + ---+ ..... -+-,. ..... ---t--*--+--....... ... --+---+---+ *-*+---*---+ *--+-**--*---*---+***+***+***+***+*-*+* 1 ? .5 lJ 5 f> I A q 1 0 tt 12 13 l ii 1 5 1"6 1 7 1 1 9 20 21 22 23 2.tf 25 PER[OD NOH s l 0 G G E 0 0 E N s l I E s B A 8 E T E N I I 5 + I I I I I I 4 + I I I I I I 3 + I I I I I I z + I ' I I I I 1 + I I I I I I 0 + I I I I I ' -1 + I p T p I I p l Cll. DENSITIES OF LARVAL COLLECTED IN LARVAL FISH MONITORING AT FERRY lq78 FAMILY=12J PLOT OF LOGDEN*PERIOD IS VALUE Of TRANSECT I -Intake P -Plant Transect (TRM 293) T -TRM 294.5 r T p T p p T p T T p t T p T T I T I 1 T p p p T T T p I p p I I p p T µ I 1 T l p l I I 1 I I I p I -----+--+--+--+--+--+--+*-+--+--+--+--+-*+**+--+--+--*--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--*----1 2 3 4 5 b 7 8 Q 10 11 12 13 1a 15 16 17 18 .tQ 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 SAMPLE PERIOD CwEEKLY) NOTES 4 OBS HIDDEN L 0 G G E 0 N s I T r E s 8 A s e T E N I I s ... *1 I .f .I I I q + I I I I I 3 + ' I I I I ' 2 ... ., I I I I 1 ! ' ' t I I I 0 + I I I I ' * ... 1 + I T T p " I Cl2. l>tNSlT!F.S OF LARVAL f'.lSHF.S COLU::CTE.11 "l KROwNS FEPHY NUCLEAR PL4Nl, tQ79 . PUH llF LUGOEN-PfMlOO SYf'4HOL IS VALUE Of TRANSECT I -Intake P -Plant Transect (TRM 2.93) T -TRM 294.5 p T T I T p T p T p T I T T p p t T I T I l I p r r p p l T p I l p p p p T r I I p p I I --*---*---*---*---*---*--*+--**-*-*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---+---*---*---*---*---**--+*--*---*-l 2 <' fl b 1 R q 1 0 1 l 12 l 3 t 4 t 5
• 1 b 1 7 1 A 19 2 0 21 2 2 2 3 214 25 PERIOD NOH.: l '

L 0 G G E 0 0 E N s I .T l s B A s 5 3 2 E 1 T E "' 0 -1 NOTE: *-_ .... --Cl3. DENSITIES Of LARVAL FISHES COLLECTEO lN FISH MONITORING AT 6ROwNS FERRY NUCLEAR lq7R YEAR:Jq7a PLOT UF LOGOEN*PERIOD SYMBOL rs VALUE OF TRANSECT

• I I I I I I -Intake I + I P -Plant Transect (TRM 293) I I I T -TRM 294.5 I I + I I I ..
• I I I + I
• I I T I I p p I I I T T + p I T p I p I I r T I I p p I p r I I l + I p T p I I T T I I I I I I I I I + I 1 2 3 4 5 b 7 6 q 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1q 20 21 22 23 24 25 2& l7 28 29 30 31 SAMPLE PERIOD <WEEKLY) 2 OBS HtDDf.111 L 0 G G E D 0 E N s I T I E s 8 A s E T E hi I I 5 + I I I I ' I Q + f. I
• I ' 3 + ' I I I l 2 l f ' I I I T I I l ... ,. p
• T p T I p T I I I l t 0 + I ' I I I I l -1 + f I .p r Cl4. 1>El-JSJTTES OF FISHt-.S CrJLL£CTF.0 Al HRllWNS FERHY NUCLEAR PLANT, lq7f.J PLOT OF SYMBOL IS VALUE *of TRANSECT I -Intake P -Plant Transect (TRM 293) T -TRM 2.94 .5 T p T r p 1 p I I T T p T p 1 I I p I 1. l 2 J b 7 8 Q \0 11 12 t\ lU 15 16 17 tQ 20 21 22 23 2q 25 L 0 G G E D D E s I T I E s 8 A s E T E s + I I I I I I 4 + I I I I I I 3 + I I I I I I 2 + I ' I I I I 1 + . I. I I I ' I 0 + I I I I I I *l + I p I Cl5. DENSITilS OF LARVAL FISHES IN LARVAL FIS" MONITORING AT BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT, 1978 FAMILY=l25 flSH_NAM:SCIAENIOAf YEAR;1q75 PLOT OF LOGDEN*PERlOD SYMBOL IS VALUE OF TRANSECT I -Intake P -Plant Transect (TRM 293) T. -TRM 294.5 T p p T I p p p I p T 1 I T p p p I I p p T I T µ p T p p T p l I I I T I T I T I T I T I I 1 2 3 q 5 b 7 R q 10 11 12 13 1q 15 lb 17 JH IQ 20 21 22 23 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 PfRIOO NOTES 5 OBS HIDDEN 't. .

L 0 G G E D 0 E N s l T I e: s a A s

• T E N ' 1 5 + I ' I I ' I " 't I t I I I l + I t I I ' I 2 + I I I I I I 1 + I I I I I t 0 t I I I I I t
• l -t I T 1 OF LARVAL f:-JSH[S COLLfCTfO AT . PLANT, 1Q7Q YfAR:tQ7q PLIJT (Jf LUGOEN*PERIOO SYMHOL rs VALUE OF" TRANSECT I -Intake P -Plant Transect (TRM T -T;RM 294.5 I p 1 T T p T fol p T p p T p I T 1 I p p J T T I p p p T T I r T t p p l p I t I T l p T I T t p --*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---**--*-*-*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---+---*---*-*-*---*-1 ? 3 4 5 b 7 8 q 10 lt 12 13 14 lS tb 17 18 tQ 20 21 22 23 2a 25 (WEEKLY)

FISH IMPINGEMENT AT BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT, WHEELER RESERVOIR: SUPPLEMENT March 1980 Prepared by William C. Barr Division of Water Resources Fisheries and Aquatic Ecology_ Branch Norris, Tennessee INTRODUCTION The nine BFNP cooling water circulators pump 124.9 m3 sec-I (1. 98 million gpm) of water at full capacity. Fish are impinged as this water passes through 18 vertical traveling screens (9.5 mm mesh) -1 . ' at a velocity of 61.0 cm sec (2.0 fps). Using procedures established as part of the requirements: for the (NRC) and i;lescribed in environmental technical specifications for Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, .impingement monitoring studie& commenced in February 1974 and have con-tinued uninterrupted. Some observed deficiencies in the .sample method .required modification of sample design (BFNP Environmental Technical Specifications September 1976) to include a direct count of fish weekly from each screen during one 24-hour period, Data have been regularly summarized in preoperational and semi-annual and annual operatio-nal reports (TVA 1974a, 1974, 1975a, 1975b, 1976, 1978a l978b, l978c, 1979) and have been examined in detail (February 1974-August 1977) in Biological Effects of Intake, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Volume January 1978. Th.ese documents indicate fish impingement at BFNP has little, if any, environmental impact on the fish community in Wheeler Reservoir. This report serves to supplement and update this earlier information. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION D'ata collected during operation of BFNP show similarities in species composition1 relative -abundance, and cycles of impingement susceptibility throughout the 1974-1979 operational period (Figure 1). Consistent increases and decreases in numbers of fish impinged annually,

• 1974 IU. 0111111 'llWI --,....1. /' I / \ I I I \ 1 I . ,, I \ / I v \ I ,,,...,,,,., __ ! I I I I f I I I I I II \/\ I "' 'I I -.; I I I I /\ ('J \ ,.., I _,; \ I \ \ l *f!IU. uNlt OJ'l&U IDW ,, .. , tllf'*"°'l V.U:IAJilCI D II D *
• D '7& . .,. 'T1 "19 '711 11sure 1. E.atima.ted impingelDf>!nt at Browns Ferr.y Nuclear. by for clupeida (&had) and nll other tnxa combined dur:IJIB the period March 1, 1974 th'C'ough Decellbe'C' Jl. 1979. A gcomecric scale vas used to ahov the large range l.n monthly values. * .. II I I I both clupeids and all other taxa combined show little, if any, effect of either changes in plant operating regime or increases in rnaximwn mixed river temperatures (3o0c to 32.2°C) to the fish community. With the exception of sauger, the three "cpol water" species are impinged in low at BFNP. During 1974-1979 only five walleye were identified in the catch (two in 1977 and three in 1978). Sauger are regularly impinged at BFNP and since habitat requirements of walleye and sauger are generally similar (Pflieger 1975), the paucity of impinged walleye further eorroborates the rarity of this species in Wheeler Rese.rvoir and the low potential to be affected by operation of BFNP: Smallmouth bass were impinged at an average rate of less than one fish per day throughout the operat;ional period. This low rate of ment suggests the BFNP intake area is not an attractive habitat for this species. Table 1 shows standing stock biomass for smallrnoutb bass well distributed between young-of-year, intermediate, and harvestable size classes. A healthy smallmouth bass population in Wheeler Reservoir indicates BFNP does not adversely affect this species. The sauger population in Wheeler Reservoir shows fluctuations in estimated reproductive success (Table 2) and numbers (Table 3) that do not seem to be related to operation of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. Comparison of the total number of s*auger impinged by BFNP with .annual estimated standing stock in Wheeler Reservoir (Table 4) shows large fluctuations bµt an impingement rate of less than one percent. Ichthyoplankton monitoring during plan operation also shows large fluctuations in larval sauger densities (Table 2). lnte*restingly, larval . 2 sauger densities are highly correlated (r = 0.840) with total numbers of young-of-yeai sauger impinged during the same year (Figure 2). *.-*'*

Table 1. Number and biomass 0£ smallmouth bass per hectare ta.ken in cove-rotene $amples, Wheeler Reservoir. YOY =young of year (<:125 mm*TL); I= intermediate (125-200 mm); H = harvestable (>200 DUii)

• Coves at TRM 275, 286, and ERM (Elk River) 2.7 are preoperation.al and operational monitoring sites for .BFNP. YOY I H. Location Year N N !I !& TRM 275 1970 95 0.36 19 1.02 12 4.66 1971 85 0.86 32 1.35 32 18.69 1972 80 0.64 3! 2.56 17 3.39 1973 36 0.41 . 7 0.57 8 1.34 1974 146 0.87 11 0.69 6 0.85 1975 84 o.68 11 0.67 3 0.87 1976 108 1.46 19 . 0.91 24 3.35 1977 7i 0.29 25 1.26 23 4. 77 1978 153 0.12 39 0.97 9 1.24 1979 48 0.31 40 1.03 14 2.37 TRM 286 1970 86 0.15 l3 0.55 2 0.3EJ 1971 135 1.13 83 2.36 5 o. 7l 1972 8 0.05 1 0.09 1 0.18 1973 1 0.01 0 0 1974 l 0.01 0 0 1975 3 0.04 0 0 1976 7 0.10 1 0.03 7 1.13 1977 40 0.15 11 0.51 11 0.47 1978 45 0.23 5 0.11 0 1979 26 0.18 6 0.10 l 0.14 ERM 27 1970 20 0.21 2 0.23 0 (Elk River) 1971 141 1.31 38 LOI 6 0.99 1972 9 0.10 9 0.75 11 1.61 1973 0 0 0 1974 16 0.13 0 0 1975 9 0.10 3 0.18 3 0.35 1976 0 0 0 1977 2 0.01 10 0.23 5 1.18 1978 9 0.()6 s 0.11 5 1.11 1979 0 0 0 1' 400 -c co Q: ... co I ..! 3001 (,) :J Y= ax+b z b= -5.494 Lf "' a= 85.874 c 0.84 e cc .. "C d) C) c 200 *a *74 E -... g :J co en *75 ta ,. I -0
• 100 :J
• 79 0 1.0 2.0 3.0 Estimated Larval Sauger Density [Number./ 1000m3J. Figure 2. Relationships of young-of-year sauger impinged at Browns Ferry Plant to the density of larval sauger (numbers/ 1000 m') in Wheeler Reservoir for the years 1974-1979.

Table 1. Number and biomass of smallmouth bass per hectare taken in co've-rotene samples, Wheeler Reservoir. YOY = young of year (<125 m TL); I = intermedia*te (125-200 mm); H = harvestable (>200 1111J1), Coves-at TRM 275, 286, and ERM (Elk River) 2.7 are preoperational and operational monitoring sites for BFNP * . YOY I 11 Location Year .N !a N N' !& TRM 275 1970 95 0.36 19 1.02 12 4.66 1971 85 0.86 32 1.35 32' 18.69 1972 80 0.64 31 2.56 17 3.39 1973 36 0.41 1 0.57 8 1.34 1974 146 0.87 11 0.69 6 0.85 1975 84 0.68 1.1 o.67 3 0.87 1976' 108 1.46 19 0.91 24 3.35 1'977 71 0 .* 2.9 25 1.26 23 4. 77' 1978 153 0.72 39 0.97 9 1.24 1979 48 o.31 40 1.03 14 2.37 TRM 286 1970 86 0.15 13 0.55 2 0.38 1971 135 1.13 83 *2.36 5 0. 71 1972 8 0.05 1 '0.09 1 0.18 1973 1 0.01 0 0 1974 1 0.01 0 0 1975 3 0.04 0 0 1976 7 0.10 1 0.03 7 1.13 1977 40 0.15 11 0.51 11 0.47 1978 45 0.23 5 O. ll 0 1979 26 0.18 6 0.10 1 0.14 ERM 27 1970 20 0.21 2 0.23 0 (Elk River) 1971 141 1.31 38 LOl 6 0.99 ' 1972 9 0.10 9 o. 75 11 1.61 1973 0 0 0 1974 16 0.13 0 0 1975 '9 0.10 3 0.18 3 0.35 1976 0 0 0 1977 2 0.01 10 0.23 5 1.18 1978 9 0.06 5 0.11 5 1.11 1979 0 0 0 " 4 HF *f!tt *m -* ._,,...,,. . ' Table 2. Total numbers, density, latest occurrence, and temperature data for Stizostedion .spp. (probably sauger) larvae collected from Wheeler Reservoir. 1971-1979. Density Latest Mean Year Total Number (No./100.0 m3) Occurrence Temperature 1971*"*1( 0 0 0 0 1973 93 2.14 Hay 15 19.3 1974 107 1.60 May 15 21.0 1975 112 2.09 21 22.0 1976 13 0.22 May 6 19.7 1977 225 2.96 May 11 21. 9 1978 2 0.07 May 8 19 .9 1979 25 0.85 April 30 20.9

• During period of occurrence. ,"* Mean of day-night water.temperature on date of latest occurrence. Sampling not begun until after the period of larval stizostedion spp! occurrence. (C) 1\i:"

Table 3. Numbers and biomass of sauger per hec,tare taken in cove-rotene samples, Wheeler Reservoir. Location TRM 275 TRM 286 ERM 2. J. YOY = young of year ( <200 mm TL),; I = intermediate (200-300 mm); H = harvestable (>300 mm)

• Coves at nut: 275, 286, and ERM (Elk River) 2. 7 are preoperational and op,erational monitoring sites for BFNP. Sauger -YOY I H Year N !& N g_ N g_ 19.70 5 0.13 0 0 1971 {) I 0.29 0 1972 5 0.35 0 0 1973 16 0.60 0 0 1974 5 0.15 0 1 o*.21 1975' 14 0.37 5 0.62 1 0.11 197"6 6 0.31 5 0.88 0 1977 86 1.85 I 0.14 4 0.87 1978 7 0.21 16 l.80 3 0.81 1979 1 0-.. 03 0 3 0.60 1970 18 0.69 0 0 1971 0 0 0 1972 I 1 o.*05 0 1973 9 0.30 0 1 0.17 1974 8 0.16 1 0.12 1 0.28 1975 27 0.74 10 1.56 0 1976 21 0.99 24 2.48 7 2.45 1977 124 2.76 0 14 4.38 1978 4 0.07 8 0.66 1 0.29 1979 9 0.21 6 0.60 0 1974 5 0.17 0 0 1975 3 0.06 5 . 0.59 1976 0 8 0.77 2 0.60 1977 3 0.09 0 0 1978 0 0.00 0 2 0.23 1979 0 0.00 0 0 Table 4. Estimated standing stock numbers (based on cove rotenone samples) for sauger in Wheeler Resetvoir1 compared with estimated total impingement of sauger during the period March 1, 1974, through December 31, 1979. Estimated Total Estimated Standing Stock Number Impinged (No/ha) in Wheeler Percent impinged 1979 453 516,000 0.088 1978 2,985 1,113,000 0.268* 1977 12' 158 .6,300,000 0.193 1976 837 2,009,000 0.042 1975 2,099 1,788,000 0.117 19742 4,132 578,000 0.715 1973 None 715 ,000 1972 None 193,000 1. Based on a reservoir surface area of 27,154 hectares. 2. Impingement studies began March 1, 1974.

These data suggest the sauger populat.ion in. Wheeler Reservoir is highly variable, but responds to factors unrelated to either the intake structure or thermal e£fluent from BFNP. numbers impinged were low compared to estimated reservoir standing were highly coorelated with l'.lUllibers of larvae present in the reservoir. Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant seems to be consistently sampling, but not adversely affecting, the sauger in Wheeler Reservoir. Literature Cited Pflieger, W. L., 1975. The Fishes of Missouri. Missouri Department of Conservation. 342 pp. Tennessee Valley Authority. 1974a. Water Quality and Biological Conditions in Wheeler Reservoir During Operation of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (Unit 1), August 17, 1973-February 17, 1974. Chattanooga, Tenn.es see: Division of Environmental Planning, Water Quality Branch. 1974b. Water Quality and Biological Conditions in Wheeler Reservoir During Operation of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (Unit 1), February 18, 1974-June 30, 1974. nooga, Tennessee: Division of EnYironmental Planning, Water Quality Branch. 1975a. Water Quality and Biological Conditions in Wheeler Reservoir During Operation of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (Unit 1 and 2), July 1, 1974-December 31, 1974. Chattanooga, Tennessee: Division of Environmental Planning, Water Quality Branch. 1975b. Water Quality and Biological Conditions in Wheeler Reservoir During Operation of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (Units 1 and 2), January 1, 1975-June 30, 1975. Chattanooga, Tennessee: Division of Environmental Planning, Water Quality B.ranch.

• 1976. Water Quality and Biological Conditions in Wheeler Reservoir During Operation of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (Units 1 and 2), July 1, 1975-December 31, 1975. Chattanooga, Tennessee: Division of Environmental Planning, Water Quality Branch. 1977. Water Quality and Biological Conditions in Wheeler Reservoir During Operation of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, January 1, 1976-December 31, 1976. Chattanooga, Tennessee: Division of Env.ironmental Planning, Water Quality Branch. 1978a. Water Quality and Biological Conditions in Wheeler Reservoir During Operation of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, January 1, 1977-December 31, 1977. Chattanooga, Tennessee: Division of Environmental Planning, Water Quality Branch. 1978b. Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant operational Fisheries Resources Report. Norris, Tennessee: Division of Forestry, Fisheries, and Wildlife Development, Fisheries and Waterfowl Resources Branch. 197Bc. Effects of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Cooling Water Intake on the Fish Populations of Wheeler Reservoir. Norris, Tennessee: Division of forestry, Fisheries, and Wildlife Development. (Biological Effects of Intake, Browns Ferry Nuclear* Plant; Volume 4).
• 1919. Water Quality and Biological Conditions in Wheeler Reservoir During of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, January 1, 1978-])ecember 31, 1978. Muscle Shoals, Alabama: Division of Water Resources, Water Quality Ecology Branch.

GE Water & Process Technologies Material Safety Data Sheet DEPOSITROL PY5200 Issue Date: 05-FEB-2009 . Supercedes: 02-0CT-2008 1 Identification Identification of substance or preparation DEPOSITROL PY5200 Product Application Area Water-based deposit control agent. Company/Undertaking Identification GE Betz, Inc. 4636 Somerton Road Trevose, PA 19053 T 21 5 355-3300, F 215 953 5524 Emergency Telephone (800) 877-1940 Prepared by Product Stewardship Group: T 215-355-3300 Prepared on: 05-FEB-2009 2 Hazard(s) identification ******************************************************************************** EMERGENCY OVERVIEW CAUTION .May cause slight irritation to the skin. May cause slight irritation to the eyes. Mists/aerosols may cause irritation to upper respiratory tract. DOT hazard is not applicable Odor: Slight; Appearance: Yellow, Liquid Fire fighters should wear positive pressure self-contained breathing apparatus(full face-piece type). Proper fire-extinguishing media: dry chemical, carbon dioxide, foam or water ******************************************************************************** POTENTIAL BEALTB EFFECTS ACUTE SKIN EFFECTS: Primary route of exposure; May cause slight ir.ritation to the skin. ACUTE EYE EFFECTS: May cause slight irritation to the eyes. ACUTE RESPIRATORY EFFECTS: Mists/aerosols may cause irritation to upper respiratory tract. Substance or Preparation: DEPOSITROL PY5200 Page 1 INGESTION EFFECTS: May cause slight gastrointestinal irritation, TARGET ORGANS: No evidence of potential chronic effects. MEDICAL CONDITIONS AGGRAVATED: Not known. SYMPTOMS OF EXPOSURE: May cause redness or itching of skin. 3 Composition I information on ingredients Information for specific product ingredients as required by the U.S. OSHA HAZARD COMMUNICATION STANDARD is listed. Refer to additional sections of this MSDS for our assessment of the potential hazards of this formulation. HAZARDOUS INGREDIENTS: This product is not hazardous as defined by OSHA regulations. No component is considered to be a carcinogen by the National Toxicology Program, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, or the Occupational Safety and Health Administration at OSHA thresholds for carcinogens. 4 First-aid measures SKIN CONTACT: Wash thoroughly with soap and water. Remove contaminated clothing. Get medical attention if irritation deve:ops or -EYE CONTACT: Remove contact lenses. Hold eyelids apart. Immediately flush eyes with plenty of low-pressure water for at least 15 minutes. Get medical attention if irritation persists after flushing. INHALATION: If nasal, throat or lung irritation develops -remove -to fresh air and get medical attention. INGESTION: Do not feed anything by mouth to an or convulsive victim. Do not induce vomiting. Immediately contact physician. Dilute contents of stomach using 2-B fluid ounces (60-240 mL) of milk or water. NOTES TO PHYSIC_IANS : No special instructions 5 Fire-fighting measures Substance or Preparation: DEPOSITROL PY5200 Page 2 FIRE FIGHTING INSTRUCTIONS: Fire fighters should wear positive pressure self-contained breathing apparatus (full face-piece type). EXTINGUISHING MEDIA: dry chemical, carbon dioxide, foam or water HAZARDOUS DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS: oxides of carbon and sulfur FLASH POINT: > 210F > 99C P-M(CC) 6 Accidental release measures PROTECTION AND SPILL CONTAINMENT: Ventilate area. Use specified protective equipment. Contain and absorb on absorbent material. Place in waste disposal container. Flush area with water. Wet area may be slippery. Spread sand/grit. DISPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS: Water contaminated with this product may be sent to a sanitary sewer treatment facility,in accordance with any local agreement,a permitted waste treatment facility or discharged under a permit. Product as is -Incinerate or land dispose in an approved landfill. 7 Handling and storage HANDLING: Normal chemical handling. STORAGE: Keep containers closed when not in use. Protect from freezing. If frozen, thaw and mix completely prior to use. Shelf life 360 days. 8 Exposure controls I personal protection EXPOSURE LIMITS This product is not hazardous as defined by OSHA regulations. ENGINEERING CONTROLS: adequate ventilation PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT: Use protective equipment in accordance with 29CFR 1910 Subpart I RESPIRATORY PROTECTION: A RESPIRATORY PROTECTION PROGRAM THAT MEETS OSHA'S 29 CFR 1910.134 AND ANSI Z88.2 REQUIREMENTS MUST BE FOLLOWED WHENEVER WORKPLACE CONDITIONS WARRANT A RESPIRATOR'S USE. USE AIR PURIFYING RESPIRATORS WITHIN USE LIMITATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE EQUIPMENT OR ELSE USE SUPPLIED AIR-RESPIRATORS. If air-purifying respirator use is appropriate, use any of the following particulate respirators: N95, N99, NlOO, R95, R99; RlOO, P95, P99 or PlOO. SKIN PROTECTION: rubber, butyl, viton or neoprene gloves --Wash off after each use. Replace as necessary. EYE PROTECTION: splash proof chemical goggles Substance or Preparation: DEPOSITROL PY5200 Page 3 9 Physical and chemical properties Specific Grav.(70F,21C) Freeze Point (FJ 1.169 25 Freeze Point -4 Viscosity(cps 70F,21Cl 42 Odor Jl.ppearance Physical State Flash Point P-M(CC) pH As Is (approx.) Evaporation Rate (Ether=l) Percent VOC: Vapor Pressure (mrnHGJ Vapor Density (air=l) % Solubility (water) Slight Yellow Liquid > 210F > 98C 5.2 < 1.00 0.0 NA = not applicable ND not determined 1 O Stability and reactivity CHEMICAL STABILITY: Stable under normal storage conditions. POSSIBILITY OF HAZARDOUS REACTIONS: INCOMPATIBILITIES: May react with strong m:idizers. DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS: oxides of carbon and sulfur .11 Toxicological information Oral LD50 RAT: Dermal LD50 RABBIT: Inhalation LC50 RAT: Skin Irritation Score RABBIT: Eye Irritation Score RABBIT: 12 Ecological information AQUATIC TOXICOLOGY >5,000 mg/kg >2,000 mgikg >5 mg/L/4hr 1 1.67 Ceriodaphnia 48 Hour Static Renewal Bioassay LC50= 1265 mg/L Ceriodaphnia 7 Day Static Renewal Bioassay IC25 = 538 mg/L -18.0 < 1.00 100.0 Daphnia magna 48 Hour Static Renewal Bioassay (pH adjusted) LC50= 1767; No Effect Level= 1250 mg/L Fathead.Minnow 7 Day Static Renewal Bioassay LC50 Greater Than= 2000; IC25 = 2000 mg/L Fathead Minnow 96 Hour Static Renewal Bioassay (pH adjusted) LC50= 1960; No Effect Level= 313 mg/L Mysid Shrimp 48 Hour Static Renewal Bioassay (pH adjusted) 10% Mortality= 16000; 0% Mortality= 8000 mg/L Sheepshead 96 Hour Static Renewal Bioassay (pH adjusted) 0% Mortality= 16000 mg/L BIODEGRADATION Substance or Preparation: DEPOSITROL PY5200 Page4 BOD-28 (mg/g); 32 BOD-5 (mg/g): 10 COD (mg/g) : 368 TOC (mg/g) : 144 13 Disposal considerations If this undiluted product is discarded as a waste, the US RCRA hazardous waste identification number is : Not applicable. Please be advised; however, that state and local requirements for waste disposal may be more restrictive or otherwise different from federal regulations. Consult state and local regulations regarding the proper disposal of this material. 14 Transport information DOT HAZARD: Not Applicable PROPER SHIPPING NAME: DOT EMERGENCY RESPONSE GUIDE #: Not applicable Note: Some containers may be DOT exempt, please check BOL for exact container classification 15 Regulatory information TSCA: All components of this product are included on or are in compliance with the U.S. TSCA regulations. CERCLA AND/OR SARA REPORTABLE QUANTITY (RQ): No regulated constituent present at OSHA thresholds FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION: FDA APPROVED FOR MILL SUPPLY WATER NSF Registered and/or meets USDA (according to 1998 Guidelines): Registration number: Not Registered This product contains ingredients that have been determined as safe for use in boilers, steamlines and cooling systems where there is no food contact. (G7) SARA SECTION 312 HAZARD CLASS: Product is non-hazardous under Section 311/312 SARA SECTION 302 CHEMICALS: No regulated constituent present at OSHA thresholds SARA SECTION 313 CHEMICALS: No regulated constituent present at OSHA thresholds CALIFORNIA REGULATORY INFORMATION CALIFORNIA SAFE DRINKING WATER AND TOXIC ENFORCEMENT ACT (PROPOSITION 65) : No regulated constituents present MICHIGAN REGULATORY INFORMATION No regulated constituent present at OSHA thresholds 16 Other information Substance or Preparation: DEPOSITROL PY5200 Page5 mas vrI Health Fire Reactivity Special (1) Protective Equipment 1 1 0 NONE B CODE TRANSLATION Slight Hazard Slight Hazard Minimal Hazard No special Hazard Goggles, Gloves (1) refer to section 8 of MSDS for additional protective equipment recommendations. CHANGE LOG EFFECTIVE DATE REVISIONS TO SECTION: SUPERCEDES ----------------------------------------MSDS status: 29-JAN-1997 ** NEW ** 10-SEP-1997 3,8,10,ll,16;EDIT:4 29-JAN-1997 06-FEB-1998 12 10-SEP-1997 18-JAN-2001 15 06-FEB-1998 31-AUG-2001 15 18-JAN-2001 30-0CT-2001 4 31-AUG-2001 17-APR-2006 7,8 30-0CT-2001 02-0CT-2008 4,5,8,10 17-APR-2006 05-FEB-2009 12 02-0CT-2008 Substance or Preparation: DEPOSITROL PY5200 Pages V\10T er S. Proc. Tech no log ies eposiTrolŽ PV5200 Cooling Water Polymeric Dispersant * *

• Patented calcium phosphate scale inhibitor Advanced polymer technology Permits proper phosphate concentration for rosion inhibition of mild steel Provides excellent dispersion of suspended solids Description and Use PY_5200 is a unique deposit control agent for use 1n cooling water systems. It incorporates a polymeric agent. GE Infrastructure Water & Process Technologies HPS I, a third generation cooling water polymer. Typical Applications l(': ppr:*1 iffig/U S pprn (mg/L! 10 pp111 irr'!9/L: Figure 1: Clay Dispersion DeposiTrol PY5200 controls calcium phosphate and general deposition such as silt (see Figure 1), and suspended solids. It is particularly effective in the presence of certain contaminants, such as sults from cationic carryover from clarifiers, or in the case where boiler blowdown is added to the cooling system for discharge or water conservation purposes. DeposiTrol PY5200 is designed to be applied as one component of a Dianodic PlusŽ program. With posiTrol PY5200. phosphate concentrations in a -'"( Dianodic Plus treatment can be maintained at a high enough level to promote the formation of a ing film on mild steel, thereby attaining the desired corrosion protection. Treatment and Feeding Requirement Dosage -The proper treatment levels of DeposiTrol PY5200 depend on the specific needs of your system. The product should be fed in accordance with control procedures that GE establishes for a particular cation. For consistent protection. continuous feed is recommended. Feed point -DeposiTrol PY5200 should be fed to a point in the system where it will be rapidly mixed with the bulk cooling water. Dilution -DeposiTrol PY5200 can be diluted with good quality water to convenient feeding strengths. Feed Equipment -Tanks, pumps, piping, and valves should be made of stainless steel. polyethylene. propylene, PVC, Hypalon, or Teflon. Mild steel should not be used. Physical Properties Physical properties of DeposiTrol PY5200 are shown on the Material Safety Data Sheet, a copy of which is available on request. Packaging Information DeposiTrol PY5200 is a liquid blend available in a wide variety of customized containers and delivery ods. Contact your GE representative for details. Safety Precautions A Material Safety Data Sheet containing detailed formation about this product is available upon quest. ;)JfJ\ . ,.. ..,,., ) ,, 'rd;tW.J Visit us online at www gewatercom ©2004, General Electric Company All rights reserved Global Headquarters Trevose, PA 215-355-3300 North America Minnetonka. MN 952-933-2277-Europe/Middle East/Africa Heverlee. Belgium 32-16-40-20-00 Asia/Pacific Shanghai. China 86-21-5298-4573 Products mentioned ore Lrodemorks of trie General Electric Company and moy be registered in one or more countries PFC756EN0410 GE
• Water & Process Technologies Material Safety Data Sheet Issue Date: 24-JUN-2009 Supercedes: 05-FEB-2009 FLOGARD MS6209 1 Identification Identification of substance or preparation FLOGARD MS6209 Product Application Area Water-based corrosion inhibitor. Company/Undertaking Identification GE Betz, Inc. 4636 Somerton Road Trevose, PA 19053 T 215 355-3300 I F 215 953 5524 Emergency Telephone (800) 877-1940 Prepared by Product Stewardship Group: T 215-355-3300 Prepared on: 24-JUN-2009 2 Hazard(s) identification ******************************************************************************** DANGER EMERGENCY OVERVIEW Corrosive to skin. Corrosive to the eyes. Mists/aerosols cause irritation to the upper respiratory tract. DOT hazard: Corrosive to skin/steel Odor: Slight; Appearance: Colorless To Yellow, Liquid Fire fighters should wear positive pressure self-contained breathing apparatus(full face-piece type). Proper fire-extinguishing media: dry chemical/C02/foam or water--slippery condition; use sand/grit. ******************************************************************************** POTENTIAL HEALTH EFFECTS ACUTE SKIN EFFECTS: Primary route of exposure; Corrosive to skin. ACUTE EYE EFFECTS: Corrosive to the eyes. ACUTE RESPIRATORY EFFECTS: Mists/aerosols cause irritation to the upper respiratory tract. INGESTION EFFECTS: Substance or Preparation: FLOGARD MS6209 Page 1 May cause severe irritation or burning of mouth, throat, and gastrointestinal tract with severe chest and abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, lethargy and collapse. Possible death when ingested in very large doses. TARGET ORGANS: Prolonged or repeated exposures may cause tissue necrosis. MEDICAL CONDITIONS AGGRAVATED: Not known. SYMPTOMS OF EXPOSURE: Causes severe irritation, burns or tissue ulceration with subsequent scarring. 3 Composition I information on ingredients Information for specific product ingredients as required by the U.S. OSHA HAZARD COMMUNICATION STANDARD is listed. Refer to additional sections of this MSDS for our assessment of the potential hazards of this formulation. HAZARDOUS INGREDIENTS: Cas# 13598-37-3 7664-38-2 Chemical Name PHOSPHORIC ACID, ZINC SALT (2:1) Irrit_ant PHOSPHORIC ACID Corrosive 4 First-aid measures SKIN CONTACT: Range(w/w%) 40-70 15-40 URGENT! Wash thoroughly with soap and water. Remove contaminated clothing. Get immediate medical attention. Thoroughly wash clothing before reuse. EYE CONTACT: URGENT! Immediately flush eyes with plenty of low-pressure water for at least 20 minutes while removing contact lenses .. Hold eyelids apart. Get immediate medical attention. INHALATION: Remove to fresh air. If breathing is difficult, give oxygen. If breathing has stopped, give artificial respiration. Get immediate medical attention. INGESTION: Do not feed anything by mouth to an unconscious or convulsive victim. Do not induce vomiting. Immediately contact physician. Rinse mouth with plenty of water. Dilute contents of stomach using 4-10 fluid ounces (120-300 mL) of milk or water. NOTES TO PHYSICIANS: Material is corrosive. It may not be advisable to induce vomiting. Possible mucosal damage may contraindicate the use of gastric lavage. Substance or Preparation: FLOGARD MS6209 Page 2 5 Fire-fighting measures FIRE FIGHTING.INSTRUCTIONS: Fire fighters should wear positive pressure self-contained apparatus (full face-piece type). EXTINGUISHING MEDIA: dry chemical/C02/foam or water--slippery condition; use sand/grit. HAZARDOUS DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS: oxides of phosphorus FLASH POINT: > 200F > 93C P-M(CC) MISCELLANEOUS: Corrosive to skin/steel UN 1805;Emergency Response Guide #154 6 Accidental release measures PROTECT.ION AND SPILL CONTAINMENT: Ventilate area. Use specified protective equipment. Contain and absorb on absorbent material. Place in waste disposal container. Flush area with water. Wet area may be slippery. Spread sand/grit. DISPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS: Water contaminated with this product may be sent to a sanitary sewer treatment facility,in accordance with any local agreement,a permitted waste treatment facility or discharged under a permit. Product as is -Incinerate or land dispose in an approved landfill. 7 Handling and storage HANDLING: Acidic. Corrosive(Skin/eyes). Do not mix with alkaline material. STORAGE: Keep containers closed when not in use. Preferably stored between. 40-lOOF (5-38C). 8 Exposure controls I personal protection CHEMICAL NAME PHOSPHORIC ACID, ZINC SALT (2:1) PEL (OSHA): NOT DETERMINED TLV (ACGIH) : NOT DETERMINED PHOSPHORIC ACID PEL (OSHA) : 1 MG/M3 TLV (ACGIH) : 1 MG/M3 ENGINEERING CONTROLS: EXPOSURE LIMITS Adequate ventilation to maintain air contaminants below exposure limits. PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT: Use protective equipment in accordance with 29CFR 1910 Subpart I RESPIRATORY PROTECTION: A RESPIRATORY PROTECTION PROGRAM THAT MEETS OSHA'S 29 CFR Substance or Preparation: FLOGARD MS6209 Page 3 1910.134 AND ANSI Z88.2 REQUIREMENTS MUST BE FOLLOWED WHENEVER WORKPLACE CONDITIONS WARRANT A RESPIRATOR'S USE. USE AIR PURIFYING RESPIRATORS WITHIN USE LIMITATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE EQUIPMENT OR ELSE USE SUPPLIED AIR-RESPIRATORS. If air-purifying respirator use is appropriate, use any of the following particulate respirators: N95, N99, NlOO, R95, R99, RlOO, P95, P99 or PlOO. SKIN PROTECTION: gauntlet-type rubber, butyl or neoprene gloves, chemical resistant apron --Wash off after each use. Replace as necessary. EYE PROTECTION: splash proof chemical goggles, face shield 9 Physical and chemical properties Spec. Grav. (70F,21C) 1. 711 Freeze Point (F) < -30 Freeze Point (C) < -34 Viscosity(cps 70F,21CJ 70 Odor Appearance Physical State Flash Point P-M(CC) pH As Is (approx.) Evaporation Rate (Ether=l) Percent VOC: Vapor Pressure (mmHG) Vapor Density (air=l) % Solubility (water) Slight Colorless To Yellow Liquid > 200F > 93C < 1. 0 < 1.00 0.0 NA = not applicable ND not determined 1 O Stability and reactivity CHEMICAL STABILITY: Stable under normal storage conditions. POSSIBILITY OF HAZARDOUS REACTIONS: -15.0 < 1. OD 100.0 Contact with strong bases may cause a violent reaction releasing heat. INCOMPATIBILITIES: May react with bases or strong oxidizers. DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS: oxides of phosphorus 11 Toxicological information Oral LDSO RAT: NOTE -Estimated value Dermal LDSO RABBIT: NOTE -Estimated value Inhalation LCSO RAT: NOTE -Estimated value Skin Irritation Score RABBIT: NOTE -EPA Category I Eye Irritation Score RABBIT: NOTE -Estimated value Substance or Preparation: FLOGARD MS6209 >2,500 mg/kg >5,000 mg/kg >20 mg/L/hr CORROSIVE CORROSIVE Page4 12 Ecological information AQUATIC TOXICOLOGY Ceriodaphnia 48 Hour Static Renewal Bioassay LCSO= 1.5; No Effect Level= .63 mg/L Ceriodaphnia 7 Day Static Renewal Bioassay IC25 = 1.9 mg/L Daphnia magna 48 Hour Static Renewal Bioassay LCSO= 12; No Effect Level= 1.5 mg/L Fathead Minnow 7 Day Static Renewal Bioassay IC25 = 5 mg/L Fathead Minnow 96 Hour Static Renewal Bioassay LCSO= 14; No Effect Level= 2.5 mg/L Rainbow Trout 96 Hour Static Renewal Bioassay LC50= 4.9; No Effect Level= 1.6 mg/L BIODEGRADATION Product contains only inorganics that are not subject to typical biological degradation. Ass.irnilation by microbes may occur in waste treatment or the environment. 13 Disposal considerations If this undiluted product is discarded as a waste, the US RCRA hazardous waste identification number is D002=Corrosive (pH,steel); D006=Cadmium; D008=Lead. Please be advised; however, that state and local waste disposal may be more restrictive or otherwise different from federal regulations. Consult state and local regulations regarding the proper disposal of this material. 14 Transport information DOT HAZARD: PROPER SHIPPING NAME: Corrosive to skin/steel PHOSPHORIC ACID SOLUTION 8, UN 1805, PG III, RQ DOT EMERGENCY RESPONSE GUIDE #: 154 Note: Some containers may be DOT exempt, please check BOL for exact container classification 15 Regulatory information TSCA: All components of this product are included on or are in compliance with the U.S. TSCA regulations. CERCLA AND/OR SARA REPORTABLE QUA.i. .... TITY (RQ): 1,962 gallons due to PHOSPHORIC ACID; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION: 21 CFR 176 .170 (components. of pape!" and paperboard in contact with aqueous and fatty foods) NSF Registered and/or meets USDA (according to 1998 Guidelines) : Registration number: 140901 Substance or Preparation: FLOGARD MS6209
• Pages Category Code(s): SARA SECTION 312 HAZARD CLASS: Immediate(acute);Delayed(Chronic) SARA SECTION 302 CBEMICALS: No regulated constituent present at OSHA thresholds SARA SECTION 313 CHEMICALS: CAS# CHEMICAL NAME RANGE 41.0-50.0% 13598-37-3 PHOSPHORIC ACID, ZINC SALT (2:1) CALIFORNIA REGULA'l'ORY INFORMATION CALIFORNIA SAFE DRINKING WATER AND TOXIC ENFORCEMENT ACT (PROPOSITION 65): This product contains one or more ingredients at trace levels known to the state of California to cause cancer and reproductive toxicity. MICHIGAN REGULATORY INFORMJ\.TION No regulated constituent present at OSHA thresholds 16 Other information BMIS VII Health Fire Reactivity Special (1) Protective Equipment 3 0 0 CORR D CODE TRANSLATION Serious Hazard Minimal Hazard Minimal Hazard DOT corrosive Goggles,Face Shield,Gloves,Apron (1) refer to section 8 of MSDS for additional protective equipment recommendations. CHANGE LOG EFFECTIVE DATE REVISIONS TO SECTION: SUPERCEDES ---------------------------------------MSDS status: 29-JAN-1997 ** NEW ** 05-JAN-1999 10 29-JAN-1997 25-JUN-1999 11 05-JAN-1999 23-AUG-1999 12 25-JUN-1999 13-JUL-2000 15 23-AUG-1999 03-JAN-2001 15 13-JUL-2000 01-MAY-2001 12 03-JAN-2001 01-MAY-2007 4,5,8,10,15 01-MAY-2001 29-JAN-2008 4,8,13 01-MAY-2007 29-JAN-2009 3,4,8,10,15 29-JAN-2008 05-FEB-2009 12 29-JAN-2009 24-JUN-2009 15 05-FEB-2009 Substance or Preparation: FLOGARD MS6209 Pages GE BETZ I INC. MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET EFFECTIVE DATE: PRINTED DATE: 02-MAR-2009 SUPERCEDES: 1) Identification Identification of substance or preparation FLOGARD MS6235 Product Application Area ONCE-THROUGH SYSTEM TREATMENT Company/Undertaking Identification GE Betz, Inc. 4636 Somerton Road, Trevose, Pa. 19053 T 215 355 3300 F 215 953 5524 Emergency Telephone 1 800 877 1940 Prepared by Product Stewardship Group: 215 355-3300 2) HAZARD(S) IDENTIFICATION ***************************.**************************************************** EMERGENCY OVERVIEW CAUTION May caLlse slight irritation the skin. May cause moderate irritation to the eyes. Mists/aerosols may cause irritation to upper respiratory tract. DOT hazard: Corrosive to steel Odor: None; Appearance: Colorless, Liquid Fire fighters should wear positive pressure self-contained breathing apparatus(full face-piece type). Proper fire-extinguishing media: dry chemical, carbon dioxide, foam or water POTENTIAL HEALTH EFFECTS ACUTE SKIN EFFECTS: Primary route of exposure; May slight irritation to the skin. ACUTE EYE EFFECTS: May cause moderate irritation to the eyes . . ACUTE RESPIRATORY EFFECTS: Mists/aerosols may cause irritation to upper respiratory tract. PAGE 1 Identification of substance or preparation EFFECTIVE DATE: CONTINUED FLOGARD MS6235 INGESTION EFFECTS: May cause gastrointestinal irritation. TARGET ORGANS: No evidence of potential chronic effects. MEDICAL CONDITIONS AGGRAVATED: Not known. SYMPTOMS OF EXPOSURE: May cause redness or itching of skin. 3) COMPOSITION I INFORMATION ON INGREDIENTS Information for specific product ingredients as required by the U.S. OSHA HAZARD COMMUNICATION STANDARD is listed. Refer to additional sections of this MSDS for our assessment of the potential hazards of this formulation. HAZARDOUS INGREDIENTS: Cas# 7758-29-4 Chemical Name SODIUM TRIPOLYPHOSPHATE Potential irritant 4) FIRST-AID MEASURES SKIN CONTACT: Range(w/w%) 10-29 Wash thoroughly with soap and water. Remove contaminated clothing. Get medical attention if irritation develops or persists. EYE CONTACT: Remove contact lenses. Hold eyelids apart. Immediately flush eyes with plenty of low-pressure water for at least 15 minutes. Get immediate medical attention. INHALATION: If nasal, throat or lung irritation develops -remove to fresh air and get medical attention. INGESTION: Do not feed anything by mouth to an unconscious or convulsive victim. Do not induce vomiting. Immediately contact physician. Dilute contents of stomach using 2-8 fluid ounces (60-249 ml) of milk or water. NOTES TO PHYSICIANS: No special instructions PAGE 2 Identification of substance or preparation EFFECTIVE DATE: CONTINUED FLOGARD MS6235

5) FIRE-FIGHTING MEASURES FIRE FIGHTING INSTRUCTIONS: Ffre fighters should wear positive pressure self-contained breathing apparatus (full face-piece type). EXTINGUISHING MEDIA: dry chemical, carbon dioxide, foam or water HAZARDOUS DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS: oxides of phosphorus FLASH POINT: > 213F > 101C P-M(CC) 6) ACCIDENTAL RELEASE MEASURES PROTECTION AND SPILL CONTAINMENT: Ventilate area. Use specified protective equipment. Contain and absorb on absorbent material. Place in waste disposal container. Flush area with water. Wet area may be slippery. Spread sand/grit. DISPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS: Water contaminated with this product may be sent to a sanitary sewer treatment facility.in accordance with any local agreement.a permitted waste treatment facility or discharged under a permit. Product as is -Incinerate.or land dispose in an approved landfill. 7) HANDLING AND STORAGE HANDLING: Normal chemical handling. STORAGE: Keep containers closed when not in use. Protect from freezing. If frozen, thaw and mix completely prior to use. Store below 100F (38C). Shelf life 90 days. 8) EXPOSURE CONTROLS/PERSONAL PROTECTION CHEMICAL NAME SODIUM TRIPOLYPHOSPHATE PEL (OSHA): NOT DETERMINED TLV (ACGIH): NOT DETERMINED ENGINEERING CONTROLS: adequate ventilation PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT: EXPOSURE LIMITS Use protective equipment in accordance with 29CFR 1910 Subpart I PAGE 3 RESPIRATORY PROTECTION: A RESPIRATORY PROTECTION PROGRAM THAT MEETS OSHA'S 29 CFR 1910.134 AND ANSI Z88.2 REQUIREMENTS MUST BE FOLLOWED WHENEVER WORKPLACE CONDITIONS WARRANT A RESPIRATOR'S USE. Identification of substance or preparation EFFECTIVE DATE: CONTINUED : FLOGARD MS6235 USE AIR PURIFYING RESPIRATORS WITHIN USE LIMITATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE EQUIPMENT OR ELSE USE SUPPLIED AIR-RESPIRATORS.

If air-purifying respirator use is appropriate, use any of the following particulate respirators: N95, N99, N100, R95, R99, R100, P95, P99 or P100. SKIN PROTECTION: rubber, butyl, viton or neoprene gloves --Wash off after each use. Replace as necessary. EYE PROTECTION: splash proof chemical goggles 9) PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES Specific Grav. (70F,21C) 1 .336 Freeze Point (F) -27 Freeze Point (C) * --3 Viscosity(cps 70F,21C) 29 Odor Appearance Physical State Flash Point P-M(CC) pH As Is (approx.) Evaporation Rate (Ether=1) Percent VOC: Vapor Pressure (mmHG) Vapor Density (air=1) % Solubility (water) None Colorless Liquid > 213F > 100C 7.5 < 1.00 e.0 NA= not applicable ND = not determined 10) STABILITY AND REACTIVITY CHEMICAL STABILITY: Stable under normal storage conditions. POSSIBILITY OF HAZARDOUS REACTIONS: No known hazardous reactions. INCOMPATIBILITIES: May react with strong oxidizers. DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS: oxides of phosphorus 11) TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION No Data Available. 12) ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION AQUATIC TOXICOLOGY Ceriodaphnia 48 Hour Static Renewal Bioassay LC50= 759; No Effect Level= 480 mg/L Ceriodaphnia 7 Day Chronic Bioassay IC25 = 623; LC50= 759 mg/L -18.0 < 1.00 100.0 PAGE 4 Identification of substance or preparation EFFECTIVE DATE: CONTINUED FLOGARD MS6235 Fathead Minnow 7 Day Chronic Bioassay LC50= 1441; IC25 = 605 mglL Fathead Minnow 96 Hour Static Renewal Bioassay LC50= 1654; No Effect Level= 480 mg/L B IODEGRADA TI ON No Data Available. 13) DISPOSAL CONSIDERATIONS If this undiluted product is discarded as a waste, the US RCRA hazardous waste identification number is : D002=Corrosive(steel). Please be advised; however, that state and local requirements for waste disposal may be more restrictive or otherwise different from federal regulations. Consult state and local regulations regarding the proper disposal of this material. 14) TRANSPORT INFORMATION DOT HAZARD: Corrosive to steel PROPER SHIPPING NAME: CORROSIVE LIQUID, N.O.S.(SODIUM TRIPOLYPHOSPHATE) 8, UN1760, PG III, RQ DOT EMERGENCY RESPONSE GUIDE #: 154 Note: Some containers may be DOT exempt, please check BOL for exact container classification 15) REGULATORY INFORMATION TSCA: All components of this product are included on or are in compliance with the U.S. TSCA regulations. CERCLA AND/OR SARA REPORTABLE QUANTITY (RQ): 4,321 gallons due to SODIUM TRIPOLYPHOSPHATE; NSF Registered and/or meets USDA (according to 1998 Guidelines): Registration number: Not Registered SARA SECTION 312 HAZARD CLASS: Immediate(acute) SARA SECTION 302 CHEMICALS: No regulated constituent present at OSHA thresholds SARA SECTION 313 CHEMICALS: No regulated constituent present at OSHA thresholds PAGE 5 Identification of substance or preparation EFFECTIVE DA TE : CALIFORNIA REGULATORY INFORMATION CALIFORNIA SAFE DRINKING WATER AND TOXIC ENFORCEMENT ACT (PROPOSITION 65): No regulated constituents present CONTINUED FLOGARD MS6235 MICHIGAN REGULATORY INFORMATION No regulated constituent present at OSHA thresholds 16) OTHER INFORMATION HMIS vII Health Fire Reactivity Special (1) Protective Equipment 1 e 0 CORR B CODE TRANSLATION Slight Hazard Minimal Hazard Minimal Hazard DOT corrosive Goggles,Gloves (1) refer to section 8 of MSDS for additional protective equipment recommendations. CHANGE LOG MSDS status: PAGE 6 EFFECTIVE DATE REVISIONS TO SECTION: SUPERCEDES ** NEW ** GE

• Water & Process Technologies Material Safety Data Sheet FLOGARD MS6201 Issue Date: 29-FEB-2008 Supercedes: 23-JAN-2007 1 Identification of Product and Company Identification of substance or preparation FLOGARD MS6201 Product Application Area Water-based corrosion inhibitor. Company/Undertaking Identification GE Betz, Inc. 4636 Somerton Road Trevose, PA 19053 T 215 355-3300, F 215 953 5524 Emergency Telephone (800) 877-1940 Prepared by Product Stewardship Group: 215 355-3300 2 Composition I Information On Ingredients Information for specific product ingredients as required by the U.S. OSHA HAZARD COMMUNICATION STANDARD is listed. Refer to additional sections of this MSDS for our assessment of the potential hazards of this formulation. HAZARDOUS INGREDIENTS: Cas# 7320-34-5 Chemical Name TETRAPOTASSIUM PYROPHOSPHATE Corrosive to aluminum; severe eye irritant; skin irritant 3 Hazards Identification Range(wiw%) 40-70 ******************************************************************************** EMERGENCY OVERVIEW WARNING May cause moderate irritation to the skin. Severe irritant to the eyes. Mists/aerosols may cause irritation to upper respiratory tract. DOT hazard: Corrosive to aluminum Odor: Slight; Appearance: Colorless To Yellow, Liquid Substance or Preparation: FLOGARD MS6201 Page 1 Fire fighters should wear positive pressure self-contained breathing apparatus(full face-piece type). Proper fire-extinguishing media: dry chemical, carbon dioxide, foam or water ******************************************************************************** POTENTIAL HEALTH EFFECTS ACOTE SKIN EFFECTS: Primary route of exposure; May cause moderate irritation to the skin. ACOTE EYE EFFECTS: Severe irritant to the eyes. ACOTE RESPIRATORY EFFECTS: Mists/aerosols may cause irritation to upper respiratory tract. INGESTION EFFECTS: May cause slight gastrointestinal irritation. TARGET ORGANS: No evidence of potential chronic effects. MEDICAL CONDITIONS AGGRAVATED: Not known. SYMPTOMS OF EXPOSURE: May cause redness or itching of skin. 4 First Aid Measures SKIN CONTACT: Wash thoroughly with soap and water. Remove contaminated clothing. Thoroughly wash clothing before reuse. Get medical attention if irritation develops or persists. EYE CONTACT: Remove contact lenses. Hold eyelids apart. Immediately flush eyes with plenty of low-pressure water for at least 15 minutes. Get immediate medical attention. INHALATION: If nasal, throat or lung irritation develops -remove to fresh air and get medical attention. INGESTION: Do not feed anything by mouth to an unconscious or convulsive victim. Do not induce vomiting. Immediately contact physician. Dilute contents of stomach using 2-8 fluid ounces (60-240 mL) of milk or water. NOTES TO PHYSICIANS: No special instructions 5 Fire Fighting Measures Substance or Preparation: FLOGARD MS6201 Page2 FIRE FIGHTING INSTRUCTIONS: Fire fighters should wear positive pressure self-contained breathing apparatus (full face-piece type). EXTINGUISHING MEDIA: dry chemical, carbon dioxide, foam or water HAZARDOUS DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS: oxides of phosphorus FLASH POINT: > 200F > 93C SETA(CC) 6 Accidental Release Measures PROTECTION AND. SPILL CONTAINMENT: Ventilate area. Use specified protective equipment. Contain and absorb on absorbent material. Place in waste disposal container. Contaminated area may be washed down with water. DISPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS: Water contaminated with this "product may be sent to a sanitary sewer treatment facility, in accordance with any local agreement,a permitted waste treatment facility or discharged under a permit. Product as is -Incinerate or land dispose in an approved landfill. 7 Handling & Storage HANDLING: Alkaline. Do not mix with acidic material. STORAGE: Keep containers closed when not in use. Reasonable and safe chemical storage. 8 Exposure Controls I Personal Protection CHEMICAL NAME TETRAPOTASSIUM PYROPHOSPHATE PEL (OSHA): NOT DETERMINED TLV (ACGIH) : NOT DETERMINED ENGINEERING CONTROLS: adequate ventilation PERSONAL PROTECTIVE*EQUIPMENT: EXPOSURE LIMITS Use protective equipment in accordance with 29CFR 1910 Subpart I RESPIRATORY PROTECTION: A RESPIRATORY PROTECTION PROGRAM THAT MEETS OSP.A'S 29 CFR 1910.134 AND ANSI Z88.2 REQUIREMENTS MUST BE FOLLOWED WHENEVER WORKPLACE CONDITIONS WARRANT A RESPIRATOR'S USE. USE AIR PURIFYING WITHIN USE LIMITATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE EQUIPMENT OR ELSE USE SUPPLIED AIR-RESPIRATORS. If air-purifying respirator use is appropriate, use any of the following particulate respirators: N95, N99, NlOO, R95, R99, RlOO, P95, P99 or PlOO. SKIN PROTECTION: rubber, viton or neoprene gloves Wash off eact use. Replace as necessary. EYE PROTECTION: splash proof chemical goggles Substance or Preparation: FLOGARD MS6201 Page3 9 Physical & Chemical Properties Specific Grav. ( 70F, 21C) 1. 729 Freeze Point (F) < -30 Freeze Point (C) < -34 Viscosity(cps 70F,21C) 78 Odor Appearance Physical State Flash Point SETA(CC) pH As Is (approx.) Evaporation Rate (Ether=l) Percent VOC: Vapor Pressure (mmHG) Vapor Density (air=l) % Solubility (water) Slight Colorless To Yellow Liquid > 200F > 93C 13.0 < 1.00 0.0 NA = not applicable ND not determined 1 O Stability & Reactivity STABILITY: Stable under normal storage conditions. HAZARDOUS POLYMERIZATION: Will not occur. INCOMPATIBILITIES: May react with strong oxides. DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS: oxides of phosphorus INTERNAL PUMPOUT/CLEANOUT CATEGORIES: "A 11 Toxicological Information Oral LDSO RAT: Dermal LDSO RABBIT: Skin Irritation Score RABBIT: 12 Ecological Information AQUATIC TOXICOLOGY 2,980 mg/kg >7,940 mg/kg o.s Bluegill Sunfish 48 Hour Static Screen 0% Mortality= 500 mg/L -15.0 < 1.00 100.0 Daphnia magna 48 Hour Static Renewal Bioassay "(pH adjusted) LCSO= 660; No Effect Level= 268 mg/L Fathead Minnow 96 Hour Static Renewal Bioassay (pH adjusted) LC50= 785; No Effect Level= 423 mg/L BIODEGRADATION Product contains only inorganics that are not subject to typical biological degradation. Assimilation by microbes may occur in waste treatment or the environment. 13 Disposal Considerations Substance or Preparation: FLOGARD MS6201 Page 4 If this undiluted product is discarded as a waste, the US RCRA hazardous waste identification number is : D002=Corrosive(pH). Please be advised; however, that state and local requirements for waste disposal may be more restrictive or otherwise different'from federal regulations. Consult state and local regulations regarding the proper disposal of this material. 14 Transport Information DOT HAZARD: Corrosive to aluminum PROPER SHIPPING NAME: CORROSIVE LIQUID, BASIC, INORGANIC, N.0.S. (POTASSIUM HYDROXIDE) 8, UN 3266, PG III DOT EMERGENCY RESPONSE GUIDE #: 154 Note: Some containers may be DOT exempt, please check BOL for exact container classification 15 Regulatory Information TSCA: All components of this product are included on or are in compliance with the U.S. TSCA regulations. CERCLA AND/OR SARA REPORTABLE QUANTITY (RQ) : No regulated constituent present at OSHA thresholds FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION: 21 CFR 176.170 (components of paper and paperboard in contact with aqueous and fatty foods) USDA FOOD PLANT APPROVALS: SEC.G2,G5,G7 SARA SECTION 312 HAZARD CLASS: Immediate(acute) SARA SECTION 302 CHEMICALS: No regulated constituent present at OSHA thresholds SARA SECTION 313 CHEMICALS: No regulated constituent present at OSHA thresholds CALIFORNIA REGULATORY INFORMATION CALIFORNIA SAFE DRINKING WATER AND TOXIC ENFORCEMENT ACT {PROPOSITION 65) : No regulated constituents present MICHIGAN REGULATORY INFORMATION No regulated constituent present at OSHA thresholds 16 Other Information NFPA/HMIS Health Fire Reactivity Special (1) Equipment 2 0 0 CORR B Substance or Preparation: FLOGARD MS6201 CODE TRANSLATION Moderate Hazard Minimal Hazard Minimal Hazard DOT co!'rosive Goggles, Gloves Page 5 (1) refer to section 8 of MSDS for additional protective equipment recommendations. CHANGE LOG EFFECTIVE DATE REVISIONS TO SECTION: SUPERCEDES ----------------------------------------MSDS status: 28-JAN-1997 ** NEW ** 12-MAY-1997 15 28-JAN-1997 29-MAY-1998 15 12-MAY-1997 15-JUN-1998 15 29-MAY-1998 31-MAY-2001 15 15-JUN-1998 15-JAN-2002 4 31-MAY-2001 29-NOV-2006 4 15-JAN-2002 23-JAN-2007 3,5,14 29-NOV-2006 29-FEB-2008 2,3,4,8,16 23-JAN-2007 Substance or Preparation: FLOGARD MS6201 Page6

. ' . . . . Water & Process Technologies Shee!: FloGardŽ MS6201 General Corrosion Inhibitor & Chelant * *

• Mild steel corrosion inhibitor for once-thorough and recirculating cooling systems Effective iron, manganese and calcium chelant for once-through cooling systems FDA approved for paper mill supply applications Description and Use FloGardŽ MS6201 is a liquid polyphosphate product designed to inhibit corrosion and deposition in once-through and recirculating cooling water systems. Once-through Systems -At typical use levels, the polyphosphate in FloGard MS6201 combines with calcium and/or zinc to form a barrier film as a cathodic inhibitor. FloGard MS6201 also functions as a deposit control agent. Uncontrolled deposition in a water system can cause numerous problems including reduced heat transfer, restricted water flow and deposit corrosion. FloGard MS6201 effectively controls deposition of iron, manganese and calcium to minimize these operating problems.
• Recirculating Cooling Systems -FloGard MS6201 is often used in combination with other corrosion inhibitors to minimize corrosion of mild steel surfaces. Treatment and Feeding Requirements Proper treatment levels for FloGard MS6201 depend on many factors, such as the cal-cium tion and pH of the water, and other conditions ticular to a given installation. This product should be used in accordance with control procedures GE In-frastructure Water & Process Technologies lishes for a specific application. FloGard MS6201 may be fed directly from the ping container or diluted to a convenient strength. For best results, this product should be fed ously. A photometric procedure can be used to monitor the total inorganic phosphate level in the treated water. General Properties Physical properties of FloGard MS6201 are shown on the Material Safety Data Sheet, a copy of which is available upon request. Packaging Information FloGard MS6201 is a liquid blend. supplied in 55-gallon (208-liter). bung-type, nonreturnable steel drums. In addition, it is also available under the GE Semi-Bulk ControlŽ and Point Of FeedŽ Service Programs for contracted quantities in certain graphic areas. Storage Protect from freezing. If this product is frozen during shipment or storage. slight mixing may be required to ensure homogeneity. Safety Precautions A Material Safety Data Sheet containing detailed information about this product is available upon request. Visit us online at www.gewoter.com ©2004, General Electric Campany. All rights reserved. Global Headquarters Trevose. PA 215-355-3300 North America Minnetonka. l>l,N 952-933-2277 Europe/Middle East/Africa Belgiurr' 32-16-40-20-00 Asia/Pacific Shanghai, Chino 86-21-5298-4573 Products mentioned are tradiemorks of the General Eiectnc Company and me:,. be registered cne er more GE Water & Process Technologies Material Safety Data Sheet Issue Date: 24-JUN-2009 Supercedes: 05-FEB-2009 SPECTRUS 801500 1 Identification Identification of substance or preparation SPECTRUS 801500 Product Application Area Water-based deposit control agent. Company/Undertaking Identification GE Betz, Inc. 4636 Somerton Road Trevose, PA 19053 T 215 355-3300, F 215 953 5524 Emergency Telephone (800) 877-1940 Prepared by Product Stewardship Group: T 215-355-3300 Prepared on: 24-JUN-2009 2 Hazard(s) identification ******************************************************************************** EMERGENCY OVERVIEW CAUTION May cause slight irritation to the skin. May cause moderate irritation to the eyes. Mists/aerosols may cause irritation to upper respiratory tract. DOT hazard is not applicable Odor: Slight; Appearance: Colorless, Liquid Fire fighters should wear positive pressure self-contained breathing apparatus(full face-piece type). Proper fire-extinguishing media: dry chemical, carbon dioxide, foam or water ********************************************************************************* POTENTIAL HEALTH EFFECTS ACUTE SKIN EFFECTS: Primary route of exposure; May cause slight irritation to the skin. ACUTE EYE EFFECTS: May cause moderate irritation to the eyes. ACUTE RESPIRATORY EFFECTS: Mists/aerosols may cause irritation to upper respiratory tract. Substance or Preparation: SPECTRUS 801500 Page 1 INGESTION EFFECTS: May cause slight gastrointestinal irritation. TARGET ORGANS: No evidence of potential chronic effects. MEDICAL CONDITIONS AGGRAVATED: Not known. SYMPTOMS OF EXPOSURE: May cause redness or itching of skin. 3 Composition I information on ingredients Information for specific product* ingredients as required by the U.S. OSHA HAZARD COMMUNICATION STANDARD is listed. Refer to additional sections of this MSDS for our assessment of the potential hazards of this formulation. HAZARDOUS INGREDIENTS: This product is not hazardous as defined by OSHA regulations. No component is considered to be a carcinogen by the National Toxicology Program, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, or the Occupational Safety and Health Administration at OSHA thresholds for carcinogens. 4 First-aid measures SKIN CONTACT: Wash thoroughly with soap and water. Remove contaminated clothing. Get medical attention if irritation develops or persists. EYE CONTACT: Remove contact lenses. Hold eyelids apart. Immediately flush eyes with plenty of low-pressure water for at least 15 minutes. Get immediate medical attention. INHALATION: If nasal, throat or lung irritation develops -remove to fresh air and get medical attention. INGE.STION: Do not feed anything by mouth to an unconscious or convulsive victim. Do not induce vomiting. Immediately physician .
• Dilute contents of stomach using 2-8 fluid ounces (60-240 mL) of milk or water. NOTES TO PHYSICIANS: No special instructions 5 Fire-fighting measures Substance or Preparation: SPECTRUS 801500 Page 2 FIRE FIGHTING INSTRUCTIONS: Fire fighters should wear positive pressure self-contained breathing apparatus (full face-piece type). EXTINGUISHING MEDIA: dry chemical, carbon dioxide, foam or water HAZARDOUS DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS: oxides of carbon FLASH POINT: > 200F > 93C SETA(CC) 6 Accidental release measures PROTECTION AND SPILL CONTAINMENT: Ventilate area. Use specified protective equipment. Contain and absorb on absorbent material. Place in waste disposal container. Flush area with water. Wet area may be slippery. Spread sand/grit. DISPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS: Water contaminated with this product may be sent to a sanitary sewer treatment facility,in accordance with any local agreement,a permitted waste treatment facility or discharged under a permit. Product as is -Incinerate or land dispose in an approved landfill. 7 Handling and storage HANDLING: Alkaline. Do not mix with acidic material. STORAGE: Keep containers closed when not in use. Reasonable and safe chemical storage. 8 Exposure controls I personal protection EXPOSURE LIMITS This product is not hazardous as defined by OSHA regulations. ENGINEERING CONTROLS: adequate ventilation PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT: Use protective equipment in accordance with 29CFR 1910 Subpart I RESPIRATORY PROTECTION: A RESPIRATORY PROTECTION PROGRAM THAT MEETS OSHA'S 29 CFR 1910.134 AND ANSI Z88.2 REQUIREMENTS MUST BE FOLLOWED WHENEVER WORKPLACE CONDITIONS WARRANT A RESPIRATOR'S USE. USE AIR PURIFYING RESPIRATORS WITHIN USE LIMITATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE EQUIPMENT OR ELSE USE SUPPLIED AIR-RESPIRATORS. If air-purifying respirator use is appropriate, use any of the following particulate respirators: N95, N99, NlOO, R95, R99, RlOO, P95, P99 or PlOO. SKIN PROTECTION: rubber, butyl or viton gloves --Wash off after each use. Replace as necessary. EYE PROTECTION: splash proof chemical goggles Substance or Preparation: SPECTRUS 801500 Page3 9 Physical and chemical properties Spec. Freeze Point (F) Freeze Point (C) Viscosity(cps 70F,21C) 1.020 31 Odor Appearance Physical State -1 30 Flash Point SETA(CC) pH As Is {approx.) Evaporation Rate (Ether=l) Percent VOC: Vapor Pressure (mrnHG) Vapor Density (air=l) % Solubility (water) Slight Colorless Liquid > 200F > 93C 12.5 < 1.00 o.o NA = not applicable ND not determined 1 O Stability and reactivity CHEMICAL STABILITY: Stable under normal storage conditions. POSSIBILITY OF .HAZARDOUS REACTIONS: -18.0 < 1. 00 100.0 Contact with strong acids may cause a violent reaction releasing heat. INCOMPATIBILITIES: May react with strong oxidizers. DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS: oxides of carbon 11 Toxicological information Oral LD50 RAT: NOTE -Estimated value Dermal LD50 RABBIT: NOTE -Estimated value 12 Ecological information AQUATIC TOXICOLOGY >4,600 mg/kg >2,000 mg/kg Ceriodaphnia 48 Hour Static Renewal Bioassay LC50 Greater Than= 3000 mg/L Ceriodaphnia 7 Day Static Renewal Bioassay .IC25 = 652 mg/L Daphnia magna 48 Hour Static Acute Bioassay 0% Mortality= 2000 mg/L Fathead Minnow 7 Day Static Renewal Bioassay IC25 = 3000; LC50 Greater Than= 3000 mg/L Fathead Minnow 96 Hour Static Bioassay with 48-Hour Renewal 0% Mortality= 2000 mg/L Menidia beryllina (Silversides) 96 Hour Static Acute Bioassay 0% Mortality= 5000 mg/L Mysid Shrimp 96 Hour Static Acute Bioassay 25% Mortality= 5000; No Effect Level= 2500 mg/L Rainbow Trout 96 Hour Static Renewal Bioassay No Effect Level= 3000 mg/L Substance or Preparation: SPECTR!JS 801500 Page 4 No Data Available. BIODEGRADATION BOD-28 (mg/g): 5 BOD-5 (mg/g): 4 COD (mg/g): 341 TOC (mg/g) : 80 13 Disposal considerations If this undiluted product is discarded as a waste, the US RCRA hazardous waste identification number is : D002=Corrosive(pH). Please be advised; however, that state and local requirements for waste disposal may be more restrictive or otherwise different from federal regulations. Consult state and local regulations regarding the proper disposal of this material. 14 Transport information DOT HAZARD: Not Applicable PROPER SHIPPING NAME: DOT EMERGENCY RESPONSE GUIDE i: Not applicable Note: Some containers may be DOT exempt, please check BOL for exact container classification 15 Regulatory information TSCA: All components of this product are included on or are in compliance with the U.S. TSCA regulations. CERCLA AND/OR SARA REPORTABLE QUANTITY (RQ): No regulated constituent present at OSHA thresholds FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION: 21 CFR 176.170 (components of paper and paperboard in contact with aqueous and fatty foods) NSF Registered and/or meets USDA (according to 1998 Guidelines) : Registration number: 141059 Category Code(s): GS Cooling and retort water treatment products -all food processing areas G7 Boiler treatment products -all food areas/nonfood contact SARA SECTION 312 HAZARD CLASS: Product is non-hazardous under Section 311/312 SARA SECTION 302 CHEMICALS: No regulated constituent present at OSHA thresholds SARA SECTION 313 CHEMICALS: No regulated constituent present at OSHA thresholds CALIFORNIA REGULATORY INFORMATION CALIFORNIA SAFE DRINKING WATER AND TOXIC ENFORCEMENT ACT (PROPOSITION 65) : This product contains one or more ingredients at trace levels known Substance or Preparation: SPECTRUS 801500 Page 5 to the state of California to cause cancer and reproductive toxicity. MICHIGAN REGULATORY INFORMATION No regulated constituent present at OSHA thresholds 16 Other information HMIS vII Health Fire Reactivity Special (1) Protective Equipment 1 0 0 ALK B CODE TRANSLATION Slight Hazard Minimal Hazard Minimal Hazard pH above 12.0 Goggles, Gloves (1) refer to section 8 of MSDS for additional protective equipment recommendations. CHANGE LOG EFFECTIVE DATE REVISIONS TO SECTION: SUPERCEDES -----------------------------------------MSDS status: 14-JUL-1997 ** NEW ** 09-SEP-1998 15 14-JUL-1997 15-SEP-1998 15 09-SEP-1998 25-JUN-1999 11 15-SEP-1998 02-APR-2001 12 25-JUN-1999 25-JUN-2001 15 02-APR-2001 05-0CT-2001 4,16 25-JUN-2001 10-JAN-2002 15 05-0CT-2001 18-JAN-2002 15 10-JAN-2002 07-FEB-2006 12 18-JAN-2002 10-JUL-2008 4, 8, 11, 15 07-FEB-2006 31-0CT-2008 11 10-JUL-2008 05-FEB-2009 12 31-0CT-2008 24-JUN-2009 10,15 05-FEB-2009 Substance or Preparation: SPECTRUS 801500 Page 6 GE Water & Process Technologies Material Safety Data Sheet Issue Date: 28-JAN-2009 Supercedes: 16-0CT-2006 SPECTRUS OX1201 1 Identification Identification of substance or preparation SPECTRUS OX1201 Product Application Area Water-based microbial control agent. Company/Undertaking Identification GE Betz, Inc. 4636 Somerton Road Trevose, PA 19053 T 215 355-3300, F 215 953 5524 Emergency Telephone (800) 877-1940 Prepared by Product Stewardship Group: T 215-355-3300 Prepared on: 28-JAN-2009 2 Hazard(s) identification ******************************************************************************** EMERGENCY OVERVIEW CAUTION Non-hazardous to skin. May cause moderate irritation to the eyes. Mists/aerosols may cause irritation to upper respiratory tract. DOT hazard is not applicable Odor: Slight; Appearance: Colorless, Liquid Fire fighters should wear positive pressure self-contained breathing apparatus(full face-piece type). Proper fire-extinguishing media: dry chemical, carbon dioxide, foam or water ******************************************************************************** POTENTIAL HEALTH EFFECTS ACUTE SKIN EFFECTS: Primary route of exposure; Non-hazardous to skin. ACUTE EYE EFFECTS: May cause moderate irritation to the eyes. ACUTE RESPIRATORY EFFECTS: Mists/aerosols may cause irritation to upper respiratory tract. INGESTION EFFECTS: Substance or Preparation: SPECTRUS OX1201 Page 1 May cause gastrointestinal irritation. TARGET ORGANS: No evidence of potential chronic effects. MEDICAL CONDITIONS AGGRAVATED: Not known. SYMPTOMS OF EXPOSURE: May cause redness or itching of skin. 3 Composition I information on ingredients Information for specific product ingredients as required by the U.S. OSHA HAZARD COMMUNICATION STANDARD is listed. Refer to sections of this MSDS for our assessment of the potential hazards of this formulation. HAZARDOUS INGREDIENTS: Casll Chemical Name Range(w/w%) 7647-15-6 SODIUM BROMIDE Irritant 4 First-aid measures SKIN CONTACT: 30-60 Wash thoroughly with soap and water. Remove contaminated clothing. Get medical attention if irritation develops or persists. EYE CONTACT: Remove contact lenses. Hold eyelids apart. Immediately flush eyes with plenty of low-pressure water for at least 15 minutes. Get immediate medical attention. INHALATION: If nasal, throat or lung irritation develops -remove to frest air and get medical attention. INGESTION: Do not feed anything by mouth to an unconscious or convulsive victim. Do not induce vomiting. Immediately contact physician. Dilute contents of stomach using 2-8 fluid ounces (60-240 mL) of milk or water. NOTES TO PHYSICIANS: Probable mucosa! damage may contraindicate the use of gastric lavage. 5 Fire .. fighting measures Substance or Preparation: SPECTRUS OX1201 Page 2 FIRE FIGHTING INSTRUCTIONS: Fire fighters should wear positive pressure self-contained breathing apparatus (full face-piece type) . EXTINGUISHING MEDIA: dry chemical, carbon foam or water HAZARDOUS DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS: hydrogen bromide FLASH pOINT: > 200F > 93C P-M(CC) 6 Accidental release measures PROTECTION AND SPILL CONTAINMENT: Ventilate area. Use specified protective equipment. Contain and absorb on absorbent material. Place in waste disposal container. Contaminated area may be washed down with water. DISPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS: Water contaminated with this product may be sent to a sanitary sewer treatment facility,in accordance with any local agreement,a permitted waste treatment facility or discharged under a permit. Product as is -Dispose of in approved pesticide facility or according to label instructions. 7 Handling and storage HANDLING: Normal chemical handling. STORAGE: Keep containers closed when not in use. Protect from freezing. Do not store at elevated temperatures. Shelf life 360 days. 8 Exposure controls I personal protection CHEMICAL NAME SODIUM BROMIDE PEL (OSHA): NOT DETERMINED TLV (ACGIH) : NOT DETERMINED ENGINEERING CONTROLS: adequate ventilation PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT: EXPOSURE LIMITS Use protective equipment in accordance with 29CFR 1910 Subpart I RESPIRATORY PROTECTION: A RESPIRATORY PROTECTION PROGRAM THAT MEETS OSHA'S 29 CFR 1910.134 AND ANSI Z88.2 REQUIREMENTS MUST BE FOLLOWED WHENEVER WORKPLACE CONDITIONS WARRANT A RESPIRATOR'S USE. USE AIR PURIFYING RESPIRATORS WITHIN USE LIMITATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE EQUIPMENT OR ELSE USE SUPPLIED AIR-RESPIRATORS. If air-purifying respirator use is appropriate, use any of the following particulate respirators: N95, N99, NlOO, R95, R99, RlOO, P95, P99 or PlOO. SKIN PROTECTION: rubber, butyl, viton or neoprene gloves --Wash off after Substance or Preparation: SPECTRUS OX1201 Page3 each use. Replace as necessary. EYE PROTECTION: splash proof chemical goggles 9 Physical and chemical properties Specific Grav.(70F,21C) 1.403 Freeze Point (F) < -30 Freeze Point {C) < -34 Viscosity(cps 70F,21C) 12 Odor Appearance Physical State Flash Point P-M(CC) pH As Is (approx.) Evaporation Rate (Ether=l) Percent voe: Vapor Pressure (mmHG) Vapor Density (air=l) % Solubility (water) Slight Colorless Liquid > 200F > 93C 7.5 < 1.00 0.0 NA = not applicable ND = not determined 1 O Stability and reactivity CHEMICAL STABILITY: Stable under normal storage conditions. POSSIBILITY OF HAZARDOUS REACTIONS: No known hazardous reactions. INCOMPATIBILITIES: -18.0 < 1.00 100.0 Solid sodium bromide may react with easily oxidizable materials. DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS: hydrogen bromide 11 Toxicological information Oral LD50 RAT: Reproductive Toxicity RAT: NOTE Generation: decreased Der.mal LD50 RABBIT: Skin Irritation Score RABBIT: Eye *rrritation Score RABBIT: 12 Ecological information AQUATIC TOXICOLOGY >5,000 mg/kg 4, so.a mg/kg/day fertility* >2,000 mg/kg 0 16 Bluegill Sunfish 96 Hour Static Acute Bioassay (As Bromine) LC50= .* 52; No Effect Level= .3 mg/L Bluegill Sunfish 96 Hour Static Acute Bioassay (Product as is) LCSO Greater Than= 1000 mg/L Daphnia magna 48 Hour Static Acute Bioassay (As Bromine) LCSO= .71; No Effect Level= .41. mg/L Daphnia magna 48 Hour Static Acute Bioassay (Product as is) LCSO= 27500 mg/L Substance or Preparation: SPECTRUS OX1201 Page 4 Mysid Shrimp 96 Hour Flow-Thru Bioassay (As Bromine) LCSO= .17 mg/L Rainbow Trout 96 Hour Static Acute Bioassay (As Bromine) LCSO= .23 mg/L Rainbow Trout 96 Hour Static Acute Bioassay (Product as is) LCSO Greater Than= 1000 mg/L Sheepshead Minnow 96 Hour Flow-Thru Bioassay (As Bromine) LCSO= .19; No Effect Level= .11 mg/L No Data Available. BIODEGRADATION Product contains only inorganics that. are not subject to typical biological degradation. Assimilation by microbes may occur in waste treatment or the environment. 13 Disposal considerations If this undiluted product is discarded as a waste, the US RCRA hazardous waste identification number is : Not applicable. Please be advised; however, that state and local requirements for waste disposal may be more restrictive or otherwise different from federal regulations. Consult state and local regulations regarding the proper disposal of this material. 14 Transport information DOT HAZARD: Not Applicable PROPER SHIPPING NAME: DOT EMERGENCY RESPONSE GUIDE #: Not applicable Note: Some containers may be DOT exempt, please check BOL for exact container classification 15 Regulatory information TSCA: This is an EPA registered biocide and is exempt from TSCA inventory requirements. CERCLA AND/OR SARA REPORTABLE QUANTITY (RQ) : No regulated constituent present at OSHA thresholds FIFRA REGISTRATION NUMBER: 5185-451-3876 FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION: The ingredients in this product are approved by FDA under 21 CFR 176.300. NSF Registered and/or meets USDA (according to 1998 Guidelines) : Registration number: 141071 Category Code(s): SARA SECTION 312 HAZARD CLASS: Immediate(acute) SECTION 302 CHEMICALS: No regulated constituent present at OSHA thresholds SECTION 313 CHEMICALS: No regulated constituent present at OSHA thresholds Substance or Preparation: SPECTRUS OX1201 Page 5 CALIFORNIA REGULATORY INFORMATION CALIFORNIA SAFE DRINKING WATER AND TOXIC ENFORCEMENT ACT (PROPOSITION 65) : *No regulated constituents present MICHIGAN REGULATORY INFORMATION No regulated constituent present at OSHA thresholds 16 Other information HMIS vII Healt.h Fire Reactivity Special (1) Protective Equipment 1 0 0 NONE A CODE TRANSLATION . Slight Hazard Minimal Hazard Minimal Hazard No special Hazard Safety Glasses (1) refer to section 8 of MSDS for additional protective equipment recommendations. CHANGE LOG EFFECTIVE DATE REVISIONS TO SECTION: SUPERCEDES ----------------------------------------MSDS status: 20-0CT-1997 ** NEW ** 02-DEC-1997 15 20-0CT-1997 09-SEP-1998 15 02-DEC-1997 05-NOV-2001 3,4,8,10 09-SEP-1998 27-JAN-2003 7 05-NOV-2001 02-SEP-2005 16 27-JAN-2003 16-0CT-2006 16 02-SEP-2005 28-JAN-2009 4,5,7,8,10 16-0CT-2006 Substance or Preparation: SPECTRUS OX1201 Page6 Microbiological Control Agent
• Stable, safe, economical source of bromine
• Liquid. easy to feed
• Very effective in NH3 contaminated and alkaline waters
• Use to reduce chlorine corrosivity
• FDA Approved (176.300) o USDA Approved (G-5, G-7) a Approved for sale in California Description and Use SpectrusrM OX1201 (40% sodium bromine by weight) is a safe. easy-to-use source of bromine in liquid form. The bromine in this product is present as inactive bromide ion (31% Br). It must be dized to Br+ in order to exert a toxic effect on organisms. Conversion of Br to Br+ is usually achieved by co-feeding Spectrus OX1201 with rine (either gas or liquid bleach). In water, oxidation of Br* to Br+ results in the formation of mous acid (HOBr). which is superior to hypochlorous acid (HOCI) for control of microbes in ammonia taminated. high pH, and/or once-through waters. Process leaks frequently require high rates of chlorination, from gas or liquid bleach, to maintain microbiological control. These high rates impose a penalty in the form of increased corrosion, ever. Experience has shown "topping off" chlorine programs with Spectrus OX1201 can reduce sion rates and enhance microbiological control. Spectrus OX1201 is approved by the EPA for use in once-through and recirculating cooling systems, influent and wastewater systems. as well as based scrubbers, brewery pasteurizers. and trial air washers equipped with mist eliminators. Control of microbiological populations in industrial water systems is essential to prevent biofouling. In cooling systems, biofouling of heat exchange equipment and tower fill reduces heat transfer ciency and can force unscheduled shutdowns and extended turnarounds, leading to lost production. Biofouling can also damage equipment through microbiologically influenced corrosion (MIC). As a result of these effects, biofouling must be prevented in order for operating units to achieve profitability goals. Treatment and Feeding Requirements Activate bromide and generate HOBr by co-feeding Spectrus OX1201 with a source of chlorine. The ratio of chlorine to Spectrus OX1201 can be adjusted to produce an all HOBr stream or a mix of HOBr and HOC!. For example, to generate 100% HOBr, feed 3.6 pounds (1.6 kg) of Spectrus OX1201 per 1 pound (0.45 kg) of chlorine gas. To generate a 50:50 mix of HOBr and HOC!, feed 1.8 pounds (0.82 kg) of Spectrus OX1201 per 1 pound (0.45 kg) of chlorine gas. To ensure efficient bromide activation, mix Spectrus OX1201 with bleach or gas chlorinator discharge solution prior to application to the tower basin or recirculating cooling water lines. Use an in-line static mixer to ensure adequate contact. Consult your GE representative for further information on feed system design. In some systems, conversion from an all chlorine program to a chlorine/bromide program will allow a reduction in daily chlorine usage. A 50% reduction in chlorine consumption is not unusual when Spectrus OX1201 is applied at 1.8 pounds (0.82 kg) per 1 pound (0.45 kg) of chlorine. Further reductions Visit us online at wWN.gewater.com ©2004. General Electric Company All rights reserved Global Headquarters Trevose. PA 215-355-3300 Americas Minnetonka. MN 952-933-2277 Europe/Middle East/Amca Heverlee. Belgium 32-16-40-20-00 Asia/Pacific Shanghai. China 86-21-5298-4573 Products mentioned ore trcdemorks of the General Electrrc Company and may be registered in one or more countries PFC740EN 0410 in chlorine usage may be possible. Your GE representative can assist in optimizing the chlorine/Spectrus OX1201 program. Correct treatment levels and frequency of Spectrus OX1201 addition depend on many factors. These include, but are not limited to, system cleanliness, types of microbes. nutrient concentrations. temperature, pH. retention time, and other system operating characteristics. Consult the product label for general dosage guidelines. Microbiological monitoring is recommended to evaluate product requirements. Consult your GE representative for technical advice on your specific application. In all cases. this product must be applied in accordance with use instructions on the Spectrus OX1201 label. Compatible Materials -Spectrus OX1201 is compatible with the following materials of construction: High Density Cross-linked Polyethylene; Teflon; PVC; PVDF (Kynar); Litharge Viton: Ethylene Propylene Resin: Hypalon; Neoprene: Buna N; and Buna S Rubber. (Teflon is a registered trademark of DuPont. Kynar is a registered trademark of Autofina, Viton is a registered trademark of DuPont Dow Elastomers.J Avoid: mild steel and stainless steel. Genera I Properties Physical properties of Spectrus OX1201 are shown on the Material Safety Data Sheet. a copy of which is available on request. Packaging Information Spectrus OX1201 is supplied as a liquid and is able in a variety of containers and delivery ods. Consult your GE representative for details. Storage Keep the container closed when product not in use. Do not freeze. If frozen, thaw and mix completely prior to use. Safety Precautions A Material Safety Data Sheet containing detailed information about this product is available on re-Page 2 quest. Use splash-proof chemical goggles and gauntlet-type rubber gloves when handling this product. See Section 7 of the MSDS for additional inf9rmation on recommended personal protective equipment. General Information EPA Registration Number ............. .5785-81-3876 Spectrus ox1201 Fact Sheet L8 Name: SOD HYPOCHLORITE 10% (OLIN) Desc: . !AG MID-SOUTII INC. To: Friday, February 25, 2011 Material Safety Data Sheet MSDS Revision Date: 8/20/09 Page 1of6 PRODUCT: Sodium Hypochlorite Solution 1. Product and Company Identification ... ._, Produ.ct Identity: Sodium Hypochlorite Chemical Formula: NaOCI Solution Molecular Weight: 74.45 Synonyms: Sodium Hypochlorite Solution (10-15.6%); Hypochlorite Solution; Bleach Solution, Hypochlorous acid .* sodium salt, &/or AB Bleach; sodium hypochlorite/de-ionized Wclter, Sodium Hypochlorite Solution 10%; Sno-glo Bleach; Hypochlorous acid, sodium salt
• Brenntag Mid-South Inc. 1405Hwy136 W Henderson, KY 42420 2. Hazards Identification *Technical Information: 270-830-1200 Emergency Number: 800-424-9300 .(CHEMTREC) Emergency Number: 703-5273887 (International) PRECAUTIONARY STATEMENTS (Hazards to humans and domestic animals): Danger! Corrosive! May cause severe skin and eye irritation or chemical burns to broken skin. Cause5 eye damage. Exposure to skin may cause sensitization or other allergic responses. *
• INHALATION: Corrosive! Product may cause severe irritation of the nose, throat and respiratory tract. Repeated and/or prolonged exposures may cause productive cough, runny nose, bronchopneumonia, pulmonary edema (fluid build-up in lungs), and reduction of pulmonary function. Repeated inhalation exposure may cause impairment of lung function and permanent lung damage. EYE CONT ACT: Extremely corrosive! This product causes corneal scarring and clouding. Glaucoma, cataracts and permanent blindness may occur. SKIN CONT ACT: Corrosive! Concentrated solutions may cause pain and deep and severe burns to the skin. Prolonged and repeated exposure to diluted solutions often causes irritation, redness, pain and drying and cracking of the skin. Human evidence has indicated that an ingredient in this product can cause skin sensitization. INGESTION: Corrosive! Will immediately cause severe corrosion of and damage to the gastrointestinal tract Exposure characterized by nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, bleeding, and/or tissue ulceration. PRIMARY ROUTES OF ENTRY: Inhalation and contact. 3. Composition/Information on Ingredients CAS NUMBER CHEMICAL NAME(S) *WT% 7681-52-9 Sodium hypochlorite** 10-15.6 1310-73-2 Sodium hydroxide 0.3-1.8 7647-14-5 Sodium Chloride 9-14.9 497-19-8 Sodium carbonate 7732-18-5 Water Balance -----****-*--------**-----*-*----------*.------*..,---* *----------------------. -**-****-* ..

Product#: 987928 Name: SOD HYPOCHLORITE 10% (OLIN) Dcsc: From: BRENNTAG MID-SOUTH INC. To: Friday, February 25, 2011 Material Safety Data Sheet MSDS *Revision Date: 8/20/09 Page2 of6 PRODUCT: Sodium Hypochlorite Solution 4. First Aid Measures BRENNTAG ... '. .., INHALATION: Remove victim to fresh air. Give artificial respiration if not breathing. Get medical attention. EYE CONTACT: Wash eyes with plenty of water for at least 15 minutes while holding eyelids open. Consult an eye specialist immediately. SKIN CONTACT: Flush skin with plenty of water while removing contaminated clothing. Get medical attention for persistent irritation. Clean clothing before reuse. INGESTION:* 1r swallowed drink large quantities of water. Do NOT induce vomiting. Call a poison control cente( or doctor immediately for treatment advice. If spontaneous vomiting occurs, have victim lean forward with* head down to avoid breathing in of vomitus, rinse mouth and administer more water. 5. Fire Fighting Measures FLASH POINT (METHOD USED): Non -flammable . FLAMMABLE LIMITS (% BY VOLUME): n.a. EXTINGUISHING MEDIA: Use water spray, fog, foam, dry chemicals, or carbon dioxide. SPECIAL FIRE .FIGHTING PROCEDURES: Firefighters should wear protective equipment including self contained breathing apparatus. Avoid fumes. Dilute spill with copius amounts of water, ventilate. Be prepared to use respirator. UNUSUAL FIRE AND EXPLOSION HAZARDS: Possible vigorous reaction upon contamination with organics or oxidizing agents. Bleach decomposes when heated, decomposition products may cause containers to rupture or explode. Many reactions can cause fire and explosion. This material will react with some metals which may cause liberation of oxygen. Toxic fumes can be liberated by contact with acid or heat. Vigorous reactions can occur with oxidizable materials and organics. Keep material cool using a water spray from a safe distance. Keep all unnecessary people away. Stay up wind and stay out of low-lying areas. 6. Accidental Release Measures STEPS TO BE TAKEN IN CASE MATERIAL IS RELEASED OR SPILLED: Personnel with proper protective equipment should contain spill. Flush area with large amounts of water. Use reducing agents such as bisulfites or ferrous salt solutions to neutralize. ,_----------*-*----Y---------------*-----******-----**- ./28 Name: SOD HYPOCHLORITE 10% (OLIN) Desc: .ff AG MID-SOUIBINC. To: Friday, February 25, 2011 Material Safety Data Sheet MSDS Revision Date: 8/20/09 Page3 of6 PRODUCTt Sodium Bypochlorite Solution 7. Handling and Storage . SRENNTAG..,_ ... : .... PRECAUTIONS TO BE TAKEN IN HANDLING AND STORAGE: Store this product in a cool dry area; away form direct sunlight and heat to avoid deterioration. In case of spill, flood areas with large quantities of water. Product or rinsates that cannot be used should be diluted with water before disposal in a sanitary sewer. Do not reuse container. Do not contaminate food or feed by storage, disposal or cleaning of equipment. Most metals and metal alloys are NOT suitable for use in contact with sodium hypochlorite solutions including aluminum, brass, bronze, copper, cast iron, galvanized steel, mild steel, nickel, or stainless steel, since these metals act as a catalyst which will cause rapid decomposition of the sodium hypochlorite solution through the release of oxY:gen. *

• Sodium hypochlorite solutions are basically unstable, and on exposure to heat and/or light, will slowly decompose, becoming less concentrated with time. Sodium hypochlorite solutions should never be allowed to contact or mix with acids or other low pH compounds, due to the release of chlorine gas. Do not allow sodium hypochlorite to mix with ammonia, since chloroamines may be formed.
• Decomposition of sodium hypochlorite takes place within a few seconds with following salts: ammonium acetate, ammonium carbonate, ammonium nitrate, ammonium oxalate, and ammonium phosphate. Hypochlorites react with urea to form nitrogen trichloride, which explodes spontaneously in air. Solutions of sodium hypochlorite are corrosive to the skin, eyes, and mucous membranes.* Proper safety equipment should be used when working with or in close proximity of sodium hypochlorlte. OTHER PRECAUTIONS: Use with adequate ventilation. Wash thoroughly after handling. Do not get In eyes, on skin or clothing. Do NOT breathe fumes or mist. Mixing this product with chemicals (e.g. common household cleaners, ammonia, acids, detergents, etc.) or organic matter will release chlorine gas, which is irritating to eyes, lungs, and mucous membranes. STRONG OXIDIZING AGENT: Mix only with water according to label directions. Mixing this product with chemicals (e.g. common household cleaners, ammonia, acids, detergents, etc.} or organic matter (e.g. urine, feces, etc.) will release chlorine gas, which is irritating to eyes, lungs and mucous membranes. 8. Exposure Controls/Persona/ Protection THRESHOLD LIMIT VALUES (UNITS) CAS OSHA: I ACGIH: NUMBER CHEMICAL NAME(S) "WT% PEL I STEL I TLV I STEL 7681-52-9 Sodium hypochlorite** 10-15.6 -NONE ESTABLISHED -1310-73-2 Sodium hydroxide 0.3-1.8 2 mg/m3 Ceiling I -I 2 mg/m3Ceillng 7647-14-5 Sodium Chloride 9-14.9 -NONE ESTABLISH.ED -497-19-8 Sodium carbonate s0.5 -NONE ESTABLISHED -7732-18-5 Water Balance -NONE ESTABLISHED -*" %(w/w) as Cl2 9.5 to 14.9% TLVfTWA (ACGIH) 0.5ppm Cb; TLV/STEL (ACGIH) 1ppm Cl2 & PEL (OSHA) 1ppm Cl2 RESPIRATORY PROTECTION: When fumes present, use NIOSH approved respirator with acid type canister. VENTILATION: Local exhaust preferable as required to control fumes. PROTECTIVE GLOVES: Rubber or plastic. EYE PROTECTION: Chemical goggles. OTHER PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT: Clothing to protect skin. Safety shower and eye wash fountain. I -***-. --* -------*--*---***-**--**---*--* *********-----------*--**----. ***-* -*---*-----*-*--**-------. --------------------------* -*

I 1 q ] ., *; *' Product#: 987928 Name: SOD HYPOCHLORITE 10% (OLIN) Desc: From: BRENNTAG To: Friday, February 25, 2011 Material Safety Data Sheet MSDS Revision Date: 8/20/09 Page4of6 PRODUCT: Sodium Hypochlorite Solution 9. Physical and Chemical Properties BOILING POINT °F * (°Cl: 110 °c for 15% NaOCI VAPOR DENSllY (AIR =11: n.a. VAPOR PRESSURE (mmHg): Vapor pressure of water plus decomposition products. SOLUBILITY IN WATER: Complete 10. Stability and Reactivity ... SPECIAC li*f20=1}: 1.08 -127 EVAPORATION RATE: n.a. PERCENT VOLATILE BY VOLUME (%\:Water vapor plus

• decomposition products. APPEARANCE AND ODOR: Light, yellow-green liquid STABILIIT: Unstable {Contingent upon temperature, contamination (metals), and pH.) HAZARDOUS POLYMERIZATION: Will not occur. CONDITIONS TO AVOID: Heat, light exposure, decrease in pH, and contamination with heavy metals, such as nickel, cobalt, copper and iron. INCOMPATIBILIIT (MATERIALS TO AVOID): Heavy metals, reducing agents, organics, ether, ammonia, ammonium acetate, ammonium carbonate, ammonium nitrate, ammonium oxalate, ammonium phosphate, urea and acids. HAZARDOUS DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS: Hypochlorous acid, chlorine, hydrochloric acid, sodium chloride, .sodium chlorate, and oxygen. Decomposition of sodium hypochlorite takes place within a few seconds with following salts: ammonium acetate, ammonium carbonate, ammonium nitrate, ammonium oxalate, and ammonium phosphate. Hypochlorites react with urea to form nitrogen lrichloride, which explodes spontaneously in air. 11. Toxicological Information TOXICITY DATA: Oral LD50: 8,910 mg/kg. (Rats) Dermal LO 50: > 10,000mg/kg. (Rabbits) Inhalation 0.25-hour LC 50: >10.5 mg/l'{Rats) Acute oral toxicity: IV; LD50, 192 mg/kg Acute dermal toxicity: Ill; LOSO,> 3,000 mg/kg Primary eye Irritation: I; Corrosive Primary skin irritation: I; Corrosive SUMMARY: The concentrated solution is corrosive to skin, and a 5% solution is a severe eye irritant. Solutions containing more than 5% available chlorine are classified by DOT corrosive. Toxicity described in animals from single exposures by ingestion includes muscular weakness, and hyperactivity. Repeated ingestion exposure in animals caused an increase in the relative weight of adrenal glands In one study, but no pathological change were observed in two other studies. Long-term administration of compound in drinking water of rats caused depression of the immune system. No adverse changes were observed in an eight-week dermal study of a 1% solution in guinea pigs. Tests in animals demonstrate no carcinogenic activity by either the oral or dermal routes. Tests in bacterial and mammalian cell cultures demonstrate mutagenic activity. ----*---* -*-*---.. --.*--*--*-**----**---*-_,_ -*-*** -----*****-***---------------*---*--*-*--. -* ----**-------* -------------

I I I l I .l8 Name: SOD HYPOCHLORITE 10% (OLIN) Desc: .fAG MID-SOUTH INC. To: Friday, February 25, 2011 Material Safety Data Sheet MSDS Revision Date: 8/20/09 Page 5 of6 PRODUCT: Hypochlorite Solution 12. Ecological Information BRENNTAG.._ ... ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS: This pesticide is toxic to fish and aquatic organisms. Do not discharge effluents containing this product into lakes, streams, ponds, estuaries, oceans.or other waters unless in accordance with the requirements of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the permitting authority has been notified in writing prior to discharge. Do not discharge effluent containing this to s.ewer s}istemswitholit

• previously notifying the sewage treatment plant authority. For guidance, contact you State Water Board or Regional Office of the EPA. *
• Acute oral-bobwhite quail: LD50, > 2510 mg/kg Acute dietary-mallard duck: LC50; > 5220 ppm Acute dietary-bobwhite quail: LC50, > 5620 ppm Acute fish-rainbow trout: LC50, 0.18-0.22 mg/I A.cute fish-bluegill sunfish: LC50, 0.44-0.79 mgll 13. Disposal Considerations Acute LC50, 0.033-0.048 mg/I .Fathead minnows: 96-hour LC50, 5.9 mg/LO Rainbow Trout: 96-hour LC50, 0.2mg11iter Bluegill sunfish: 96-hour LC50, 0.58mg/liter WASTE DISPOSAL METHOD: Disposal to be in accordance with all Federal, State, and.Local regulations. 14. Transport Information PROPER SHIPPING NAME: Hypochlorite Solutions UN/NA: UN 1791 PACKING GROUP: Ill HAZARD CLASS: 8 (Corrosive) D.0.T. LABEL REQUIRED: Corrosive REPORTABLE QUANTITY OF PRODUCT: 800 to 2,000 15. Regulatory Information TSCA (Toxic Substance Control Act}: All components of this product are listed on the TSCA inventory. CERCLA AND SARA REGULATIONS, 40 CFR §300-373: Super fund Reportable Discharge = 100 pounds (100% NaOCI) CERCLA Hazardous Material: yes SARA Extremely Hazardous substance: No SARA Toxic Chemical: No Title Ill Hazard Classifications: Acute: yes Chronic: yes Fire: no Reactivity: yes Pressure: No EPA "CLEAN AIR ACT": This product does not contain nor is it manufactured with ozone depleting substances. OTHER REGULATIONS/LEGISLATION THAT APPLY TO THIS PRODUCT: Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey Right-to Know Laws. J _______________ **--*-***---*-,*----------"-------. -*

Product#: 987928 Name: SOD HYPOCHLORITE 10% (OLIN) Desc: From: BRENNTAG MID-SOUffi INC. To: Friday, February 25, 2011 Material Safety Data Sheet MSDS Revision Date: 8/20/09 Page6 of6 PRODUCT: Sodium-Hypocblorite Solution 16. Other Information HMIS HAZARD RA TING: Health 3 VOC CONTENT (lbs/gal): n.a. . Flammability o Reactivity 2 This MSDS is provided as an information resource only. It should not be taken as a warranty or representation for which Brenntag assumes legal !!ability. While Brenntag believes the information contained herein is accurate and compiled from sources believed to be reliable, it is the responsibility of the user to investigate and verify its identity. The buyer assumes all responsibility for.using and handling the product in accordance with applicable intern;;ttional, federal, state, and local regulations.

• Brenntag Mid-South Inc. 1405Hwy136 W Henderson, KY 42420 APPROVED BY: lt-4-#f GE Water & Process Technologies Material Safety Data Sheet Issue Date: 05-FEB-2009 Supercedes: 03-MAY-2000 INHIBITOR AZ8100 1 Identification Identification of substance or preparation INHIBITOR AZ8100 Product Application Area Water-based corrosion inhibitor. Company/Undertaking Identification GE Betz, Inc. 4636 Somerton Road Trevose, PA 19053 T 215 355-3300, F 215 953 5524 Emergency Telephone (800) 877-1940 Prepared by Product Stewardship Group: T 215-355-3300 Prepared on: 05-FEB-2009 2 Hazard(s) identification ******************************************************************************** EMERGENCY OVERVIEW DANGER Corrosive to skin. Corrosive to the eyes. Mists/aerosols cause irritation to the upper respiratory tract. DOT hazard: Corrosive to skin Odor: Mild; Appearance: Yellow To Brown, Liquid Fire fighters should we_ar positive pressure self-contained breathing apparatus(full face-piece type). Proper fire-extinguishing media: dry chemical, carbon dioxide, foam or water ******************************************************************************** POTENTIAL HEALTH EFFECTS ACUTE SKIN EFFECTS; Primary route of exposure; Corrosive to skin. ACUTE EYE EFFECTS: Corrosive to the eyes. ACUTE RESPIRATORY EFFECTS: Mists/aerosols cause irritation to the upper respiratory tract. INGESTION EFFECTS: Substance or Preparation: INHIBITOR AZ8100 Page 1 May cause severe irritation or burning of the gastrointestinal tract. TARGET ORGANS: Prolonged or repeated exposures may cause tissue necrosis. MEDICAL CONDITIONS AGGRAVATED: Not known. SYMPTOMS OF EXPOSURE: Causes redness or itching of skin, possibly leading to burns (dependent on the length of exposure) . 3 Composition I information on ingredients Information for specific product ingredients as required by the U.S. OSHA HAZARD COMMUNICATION STANDARD is listed. Refer to additional sections of this MSDS for our assessment of the potential hazards of this formulation. HAZARDOUS INGREDIENTS: Casil Chemical Name Range(w/w%) 64665-57-2 BENZOTRIAZOLE,METHYL,SODIUM SALT (SODIUM TOLYLTRIAZOLE), (TTA) Corrosive (eyes and skin); toxic (by ingestion) 4 First-aid measures SKIN CONTACT: 40-70 Remove clothing. Wash area with large amounts of soap solution or water for 15 min. Immediately contact physician. EYE CONTACT: Remove contact lenses. Hold eyelids apart. Immediately flush eyes with plenty of low-pressure water for at least 15 minutes. Get immediate medical attention. INHALATION: Remove to fresh air. Apply necessary first aid treatment. Immediately contact a physician. INGESTION: Do not feed anything by mouth to an unconscious oi convulsive victim. Do not induce vomiting. Immediately contact physician. Dilute contents of stomach using 2-8 fluid ounces (60-240 mL) of milk or water. NOTES TO PHYSICIANS: No special instructions 5 Fire-fighting measures FIRE FIGHTING INSTRUCTIONS: Fire fighters should wear positive pressure self-contained breathing (full face-piece type). EXTINGUISHING MEDIA: dry chemical, carbon dioxide, foam or water HAZARDOUS DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS: Substance or Preparation: INHIBITOR AZ8100 Page 2 elemental oxides FLASH POINT: > 200F > 93C SETA(CC) MISCELLANEOUS: Corrosive to skin UN 1719;Emergency Response Guide #154 6 Accidental release measures PROTECTION AND SPILL CONTAINMENT: Ventilate area. Use specified protective equipment. Contain and absorb on absorbent material. Place in waste disposal container. Flush area with water. Wet area may be slippery. Spread sand/grit. DISPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS: Water contaminated with this product may be sent to a* sanitary sewer treatment facility,in accordance with any local agreement,a permitted waste treatment facility or discharged under a permit. Product as is -Incinerace or land dispose in an approved landfill. 7 Handling and storage HANDLING: Alkaline. Corrosive(Skin/eyes). Do not mix with acidic material. STORAGE: Keep containers closed when not in use. Store in cool ventilated location. Store away from oxidizers. 8 Exposure controls I personal protection EXPOSURE LIMITS CHEMICAL NAME BENZOTRIAZOLE,METHYL,SODIUM SALT (SODIUM TOLYLTRIAZOLE), (TTA) PEL (OSHA): NOT DETERMINED TLV (ACGIH) : NOT DETERMINED ENGINEERING CONTROLS: adequate ventilation PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT: Use protective equipment in accordance with 29CFR 1910 Subpart I RESPIRATORY PROTECTION: A RESPIRATORY PROTECTION PROGRAM THAT MEETS OSHA'S 29 CFR 1910.134 AND ANSI Z88.2 REQUIREMENTS MUST BE FOLLOWED WHENEVER WORKPLACE CONDITIONS WARRANT A RESPIRATOR'S USE. USE AIR PURIFYING RESPIRATORS WITHIN USE LIMITATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE EQUIPMENT OR ELSE USE SUPPLIED AIR-RESPIRATORS. If air-purifying respirator use is appropriate, use any of the following particulate respirators: N95, N99, NlOO, R95, R99, RlOO, P95, P99 or PlOO. SKIN PROTECTION: gauntlet-type neoprene gloves, chemical resistant Wash off after each use. Replace as necessary. EYE PROTECTION: splash proof chemical goggles, face shield Substance or Preparation: INHIBITOR AZ8100 Page 3 9 Physical and chemical properties Specific Grav.(70F,21C) 1.215 Freeze Point (F) -25 Freeze Point (CJ -32 Viscosity(cps 70F,21C) 190 Odor Appearance Physical State Flash Point SETA(CC) pH 10% Sol. (approx.) Evaporation Rate (Ether=l) Percent voe: Vapor Pressure (rnmHG) Vapor Density (air=l) % Solubility (water) Mild Yellow To Brown Liquid > .200F > 93C -11. 7 < 1.00 o.o NA = not applicable ND = not determined 10 Stability and reactivity CHEMICAL STABILITY: Stable under normal storage conditions. POSSIBILITY OF HAZARDOUS REACTIONS: INCOMPATIBILITIES: May react with acids. DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS: elemental oxides 11 Toxicological information Oral LDSO RAT: Dermal LDSO RABBIT: NOTE -Estimated value 12 Ecological information AQUATIC TOXICOLOGY 1,150 mg/kg >2,000 mg/kg Bluegill. Sunfish 96 Hour Static Acute Bioassay LC50= 109.3; No Effect Level= 42 mg/L Ceriodaphnia 48 Hour Static Renewal Bioassay LC50= 147; No Effect Level= 37 mg/L Ceriodaphnia 7 Day Static Renewal Bioassay IC25 = 20 mg/L -18.0 < 1. 00 lOC. 0 Daphnia magna 48 Hour Static Renewal Bioassay (pn adjusted) LCSO= 243; No Effect Level= 75 mg/L Fathead Minnow 7 Day Static Renewal Bioassay IC25 = 56 mg/L Fathead Minnow 96 Hour Static Renewal Bioassay (pE adjusted) LCSO= 105; No Effect Level= 75 mg/L Mysid Shrimp 48 Hour Static Acute Bioassay LC50= 166; No Effect Level= 10 mg/L Rainbow 96 Hour Static Renewal Bioassay LC50= 34; No Effect Level= 15 mg/L Sheepshead Minnow 48 Hour Static Acute Bioassay Substance or Preparation: INHIBITOR AZ8100 Page 4 LCSO= 475; No Effect Level= 370 mg/L BIODEGRADATION BOD-28 (mg/g) : 22 BOD-5 (mg/g): 4 COD (mg/g): 810 TOC (mg/g): 280 13 Disposal considerations If this undiluted product is discarded as a waste, the US RCRA hazardous waste identification number is : Not applicable. Please be advised; however, that state and local requirements for waste disposal may be more restrictive or otherwise different from federal regulations. Consult state and local regulations regarding the proper disposal of this material. 14 Transport information DOT HAZARD: Corrosive to skin PROPER SHIPPING NAME: CAUSTIC ALKALI LIQUIDS, N.O.S. (SODIUM TOLYLTRIAZOLE) 8, UN 1719, PG II DOT EMERGENCY RESPONSE GUIDE #: 154 Note: Some containers may be DOT exempt, please check BOL for exact container classification 15 Regulatory information TSCA: All components of this product are included on or are in compliance with the U.S. TSCA regulations. CERCLA AND/OR SARA REPORTABLE QUANTITY (RQ) : No regulated constituent present at OSHA thresholds NSF Registered and/or meets USDA (according to 1998 Guidelines): Registration number: Not Registered SARA SECTION 312 HAZARD CLASS: Immediate(acute);Delayed(Chronic) SARA SECTION 302 CHEMICALS: No regulated constituent present at OSHA thresholds SARA SECTION 313 CHEMICALS: No regulated constituent present at OSHA thresholds CALIFORNIA REGULATORY INFORMATION CALIFORNIA SAFE DRINKING WATER AND TOXIC ENFORCEMENT ACT (PROPOSITION 65) : No regulated constituents present MICHIGAN REGULATORY INFORMATION No regulated constituent present at OSHA thresholds 16 Other information Substance or Preparation: INHIBITOR AZ8100 Pages BMIS vII Health Fire Reactivity Special (1) Protective Equipment 3 1 0 CORR D CODE TRANSLATION Serious Hazard Slight Hazard Minimal Hazard DOT corrosive Goggles,Face Shield,Gloves,Apron (1) refer to section 8 of MSDS for additional protective equipment recommendations. CHANGE LOG EFFECTIVE DATE REVISIONS TO SECTION: SUPERCEDES ----------------------------------------MSDS status: 28-JAN-1997 ** NEW ** 19-FEB-1997 12 28-JAN-1997 03-0CT-1997 8 19-FEB-1997 29-MAY-1998 12 03-0CT-1997 OB-FEB-1999 3,5,14 29-MAY-1998 15-JUN-1999 12 OB-FEB-1999 30-AUG-1999 4;EDIT:9 15-JUN-1999 03-MAY-2000 12 30-AUG-1999 05-FEB-2009 12;EDIT:Rebranding 03-MAY-2000 Substance or Preparation: INHIBITOR AZ8100 Page 6

\/veter &. Process Technologies Copper Corrosion Inhibitor

• Inhibits corrosion of copper alloys o Reduces tube failures
• Extends condenser service life o Minimizes mild steel corrosion caused by galvanic reaction Description and Use Inhibitor AZ8100 is a specially-formulated corrosion inhibitor which establishes a protective film on copper alloy condensers. Inhibitor AZ8100 effectively inhibits the corrosion of copper alloy surfaces. Indirectly, it also reduces the corrosion of steel surfaces when the corrosion is the result of a galvanic reaction between the steel surface and the products of copper corrosion which have been deposited on the steel. Figure 1 shows the reduction in corrosion rate for both ralty brass and mild steel in a West Coast power plant through use of Inhibitor AZ8100. 7 -' ::n Cl. E nI +-' I 0 c:r: 2 I / c: 0 I *v; 2 ..... '-::?a:c ""'" 0 u ', 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Time, Months since Start ofTreotment Figure 1: Effect of Inhibitor AZ8100 on the corrosion rates of admiralty brass and of mild steel. !The latter is caused by galvanic reaction between admiralty corrosion products and the mild steel surface.) Treatment and Feeding Requirement The normal treatment level for Inhibitor AZ8100 is 4-30 ppm(mg/LJ. The amount required will depend on many factors, such as operating characteristics of the system and severity of the problem. Therefore, this product should be used in accordance with control parameters GE establishes for a specific application. Inhibitor AZ8100 should be fed to a point in the ing system where turbulence and flow patterns will ensure adequate mixing of the product with the ing water. In recirculating cooling systems the product should be fed continuously to maintain constant siduals in the cooling water. Intermittent product feed is applicable in certain cooling systems. .Inhibitor AZ8100 may be fed directly from the ping container or diluted with water to any convenient feeding strength. Mild steel tanks, pumps, and piping are satisfactory for use with Inhibitor AZ8100. General Properties Physical properties of Inhibitor AZ8100 are shown on the Material Safety Data Sheet. a copy of which is available on request. Packaging Information Inhibitor AZ8100 is available in a variety of containers and delivery methods. Contact your GE sales sentative for details. Safety Precautions A Material Safety Dato Sheet containing detailed formation about this product is available upon quest. Visit us online at www.gewater.com Global Headquarters Americas Minnetonka. MN 952-933-2277 Europe/Middle East/Africa Heverlee, Belgium 32-16-40-20-00 Asia/Pacific Shanghai, China 86-21-5298-4573 ©2004. General Electric Company Trevase. PA All rights reserved. 215-355-3300 Products mentioned are trademarks of the General Electric Company and may be registered m one or more countries CPFCSBEN 0410 NNALCO SAFETY DATA SHEET I PRODUCT EVAC Biocide EMERGENCY TELEPHONE NUMBER(S) (800) 424-9300 (24 Hours) CHEMTREC l 1. j CHEMICAL PRODUCT AND COMPANY IDENTIFICATION PRODUCT NAME : APPLICATION : COMPANY IDENTIFICATION: EMERGENCY TELEPHONE NUMBER(S): NFPA 704M/HMIS RATING EVAC Biocide BIOCIDE Nalco Company 1601 W. Diehl Road Naperville, Illinois 60563-1198 (800) 424-9300 (24 Hours) CHEMTREC HEALTH : 3 / 3 FLAMMABILITY: 1 / 1 INSTABILITY: 0 I 0 OTHER: 0 = Insignificant 1 = Slight 2 = Moderate 3 = High 4 = Extreme * = Chronic Health Hazard I 2. \COMPOSITION/INFORMATION ON INGREDIENTS ] Our hazard evaluation has identified the following chemical substance(s) as hazardous. Consult Section 15 for the nature of the hazard(s).
• Hazardous Substance(s) Endothall, mono(N,N-dimethylcocoamine) salt I 3. I HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION **EMERGENCY OVERVIEW** DANGER CASNO 66330-88-9 % (w/w) 53.0 CORROSIVE. CAUSES IRREVERSIBLE EYE DAMAGE AND SKIN BURNS. MAY BE FATAL IF SWALLOWED OR ABSORBED THROUGH SKIN. HARMFUL IF INHALED. Do not get in eyes, on skin, on clothing. Do not take internally. Avoid breathing vapor. Use with adequate ventilation. Protect product from freezing. Keep container tightly closed and in a well-ventilated place. ln case of contact with eyes, rinse immediately with plenty of water and seek medical advice. After c_ontact with skin, wash immediatefy with plenty of water. Use a mild soap if available. Wear a face shield. Wear chemical resistant apron, chemical splash goggles, impervious gloves and boots. Not flammabfe or combustible. May evolve oxides of carbon (COx) under fire conditions. May evolve oxides of nitrogen (NOx) under fire conditions. PRIMARY ROUTES OF EXPOSURE : Eye, Skin HUMAN HEAL TH HAZARDS -ACUTE : EYE CONTACT : Corrosive. Will cause eye burns and permanent tissue damage. Nalco Company 1601 W. Diehl Road* Naperville, Illinois 60563-1198 * (630)305-1000 For additional copies of an MSDS visit www.nalco.com and request access 1 I 11 SAFETY DATA SHEET I PRODUCT
• EVAC B iocide EMERGENCY TELEPHONE NUMBER(S) (800) 424-9300 (24 Hours) CHEMTREC SKIN CONTACT: Severely irritating; may cause permanent skin damage. Harmful if absorbed through skin. INGESTION: Not a likely route of exposure. May cause burns to mouth and gastro-intestinal tract. May be fatal if swallowed. INHALATION: Not a likely route of exposure. Elevated temperatures or mechanical action may form vapors, mists or fumes which may be irritating to the eyes, nose, throat and lungs. Harmful if inhaled.
• AGGRAVATION OF EXISTING CONDITIONS: A review of available data does not identify any worsening of existing conditions. 14. I FIRST AID MEASURES IF IN EYES: Hold eyelids open and rinse slowly and gently with water for 15-20 mi.nutes. Remove contact lenses, if present, after the first 5 minutes, then continue rinsing. Call poison control center or doctor for treatment advice. IF ON SKIN: Take off contaminated clothing. Rinse skin immediately with plenty of water for 15-20 minutes. Call a poison control center or doctor for treatment advice. IF INHALED: Move person to fresh air. If person is not breathing, call 911 or ambulances, then give artificial respiration, preferably mouth-to-mouth, if possible. Call a poison control center or doctor for treatment advice IF SWALLOWED: Call a Poison Control Center or doctor immediately for treatment advice. Have person sip a glass of water if able to swallow. Do not induce vomiting unless told to by a poison control center or doctor. NOTE TO PHYSICIAN : Probable mucosa! damage may contraindicate the use of gastric lavage. Based on the individual reactions of the patient, the physician's judgement should be used to control symptoms and clinical condition. f 5. *1 FIRE FIGHTING MEASURES FLASH POINT : > 230 °F I> 110 °C ( TCC ) EXTINGUISHING MEDIA: Carbon dioxide, Foam, Dry powder, Other extinguishing agent suitable for Class B fires, For large fires, use water spray or fog, thoroughly drenching the burning material. Water mist may be used to cool closed containers. FIRE AND EXPLOSION HAZARD : Not flammable or combustible. May evolve oxides of carbon (COx) under fire conditions. May evolve oxides of nitrogen (NOx) under fire conditions. SPECIAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT FOR FIRE FIGHTING : In case of fire, wear a full face positive-pressure self contained breathing apparatus and protective suit. Nalco Company 1601 W. Diehl Road* Naperville. Illinois 60563-1198 * (630)305-1000 For additional copies of an MSDS visit www.nalco.com and request access 2 I 11 I NNALCO SAFETY DATA SHEET l EMERGENCY TELEPHONE NUMBER(S) (800) 424-9300 (24 Hours) CHEMTREC j 6. I ACCIDENTAL RELEASE MEASURES PERSONAL PRECAUTIONS : Restrict access to area as appropriate until clean-up operations are complete. Use personal protective equipment recommended in Section 8 (Exposure Controls/Personal Protection). Stop or reduce any leaks if it is safe to do so. Keep people away from and upwind of spill/leak. Ventilate spill area if possible. Ensure clean-up is conducted by trained personnel only. Do not touch spilled material. Have emergency equipment (for fires, spills, leaks, etc.) readily available. Notify appropriate government, occupational health and safety and environmental authorities. METHODS FOR CLEANING UP: SMALL SPILLS: Soak up spill with absorbent material. Place residues in a suitable, covered, properly labeled container. Wash affected area. LARGE SPILLS: Contain liquid using absorbent material, by digging trenches or by diking. Reclaim into recovery or salvage drums or tank truck for proper disposal. Wash site of spillage thoroughly with water. Contact an approved waste hauler for disposal of contaminated recovered material. Dispose of material in compliance with regulations indicated in Section 13 (Disposal Considerations). ENVIRONMENTAL PRECAUTIONS : This product is toxic to fish. Do not discharge effluent containing this active ingredient into lakes, streams, ponds, estuaries, oceans or other waters, unless in accordance with the requirements of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and the permitting authority has been notified in writing prior to discharge. Do not discharge effluent containing this product to sewer systems without previously notifying the local sewage treatment plarit authority. For guidance contact your State Water Board or Regional Office of the EPA. 11. I HANDLING AND STORAGE HANDLING: Do not get in eyes, on skin, on clothing. Do not take internally. Use with adequate ventilation. Avoid generating aerosols and mists. Keep the containers closed when not in use. Have emergency equipment (for fires, spills, leaks, etc.) readily available. STORAGE CONDITIONS : Store the containers tightly closed. Store separately from oxidizers. Store in suitable labeled containers. Protect product from freezing. SUITABLE CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL: Shipping and long term storage compatibility with construction materials can vary; we therefore recommend that compatibility is tested prior to use. I 8. I EXPOSURE CONTROLS/PERSONAL PROTECTION OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE LIMITS: This product does not contain any substance that has an established exposure limit. ENGINEERING MEASURES : General ventilation is recommended. Use local exhaust ventilat'lon if necessary to control airborne mist and vapor. Nalco Company 1601 W. Diehl Road* Naperville, Illinois 60563-1198 * (630)305-1000 For additional copies of an MSDS visit www.nalco.com and request access 3 / 11 SAFETY DATA SHEET [RODUCT Biocide EMERGENCY TELEPHONE NUMBER(S) (800) 424-9300 (24 Hours) CHEMTREC RESPIRATORY PROTECTION : If significant mists, vapors or aerosols are generated an approved respirator is recommended. A dust, mist, fume cartridge may be used. In event of emergency or planned entry into unknown concentrations a positive pressure, full-facepiece SCBA should be used. If respiratory protection is required, institute a complete respiratory protection program including selection, fit testing, training, maintenance and inspection. HAND PROTECTION : NEOPRENE, NITRILE, OR BUTYL GLOVES SKIN PROTECTION : J When handling this product, the use of overalls, a chemical resistant apron and rubber boots is recommended. A full slicker suit is recommended if gross exposure is possible. EYE PROTECTION : Wear a face shield with chemical splash goggles. HYGIENE RECOMMENDATIONS: Use good work and personal hygiene practices to avoid exposure. Eye wash station and safety shower are necessary. If clothing is contaminated, remove clothing and thoroughly wash the affected area. Launder contaminated clothing before reuse. Always wash thoroughly after handling chemicals. When handling this product never eat, drink or smoke. I 9. I PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES PHYSICAL STATE Liquid APPEARANCE Light brown ODOR SPECIFIC GRAVITY DENSITY SOLUBILITY JN WATER FREEZING POINT voe CONTENT Slight 1.044 @ 77°F125 *c 8.7 lb/gal Complete < 5 °F I< -15 °C 0.00% Note: These physical properties are typical values for this product and are to change. I 10. I STABILITY AND REACTIVITY STABILITY: Stable under normal conditions. HAZARDOUS POLYMERIZATION : Hazardous polymerization will not occur. CONDITIONS TO AVOID: Freezing temperatures. Nalco Company 1601 W. Diehl Road* Naperville, Illinois 60563-1198 * (630)305-1000 For additional copies of an MSDS visit www.nalco.com and request access 4 / 11 NNALCO MATERIALS TO AVOID: SAFETY DAT A SHEET PRODUCT EVAC Biocide EMERGENCY TELEPHONE NUMBER(S) (BOO) 424-9300 (24 Hours) CHEMTREC Contact with strong oxidizers (e.g. chlorine, peroxides, chromates, nitric acid, perchlorate, concentrated oxygen, permanganate) may generate heat, fires, explosions and/or toxic vapors. HAZARDOUS DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS : Under fire conditions: Oxides of carbon, Oxides of nitrogen j 11. I TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION The following results are for the product. ACUTE ORAL TOXICITY : Species: Rat LD50: 233.4 mg/kg Test Descriptor: Product ACUTE DERMAL TOXICITY : Species: Rabbit LOSO: 480.9 mg/kg Test Descriptor: ACUTE INHALATION TOXICITY: Species: LC50: Test Descriptor: 0.7 mg/I (4 hrs) Product PRIMARY SKIN IRRITATION: Species: Rabbit Draize Score: 8 /8.0 Test Descriptor: Product PRIMARY EYE IRRITATION : Species: Rabbit Draize Score: 110 /110.0 Test Descriptor: Product SENSITIZATION : This product is not expected to be a sensitizer. CARCINOGENICITY : None of the substances in this product are listed as carcinogens by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the National Toxicology Program (NTP) or the American Confe;ence of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH). Nalco Company 1601 W. Diehl Road* Naperville, Illinois 60563-1198 * (630)305-1000 For additional copies of an MSDS visit www.nalco.com and request access 0 / 11 .

SAFETY DATA SHEET I PRODUCT EVAC Biocide EMERGENCY TELEPHONE NUMBER(S) (800) 424-9300 (24 Hours) CHEMTREC HUMAN HAZJ\RD CHARACTERIZATION: Based on our hazard characterization, the potential human hazard is: High l 12. ) ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION ECOTOXICOLOGICAL EFFECTS : The following results are for the product. ACUTE FISH RESULTS : Species Exposure LC50 Test Descriptor Rainbow Trout 96 hrs 0.29 mg/I Product Fathead Minnow 96 hrs 0.25 mg/I Product Bluegill Sunfish 96 hrs 0.5 mg/I Product Channel Catfish 96 hrs 0.58 mg/I Product ACUTE INVERTEBRATE RESULTS : Species Exposure LC50 EC50 Test Descriptor Daphnia magna 48 hrs 0.09 mg/I Product Mayfly (Ephemeroptera) 96 hrs 0.15 mg/I .Product Hyalella I 96 hrs 0.22 mg/I Product Rotifer 24 hrs 0.47 mg/I Product Worm (Oligochaeta) 96 hrs 0.53 mg/I Product Crayfish 96 hrs 1.96 mg/I Product Midges (Diotera) 96 hrs 0.64 mg/I Product ENVIRONMENTAL HAZJ\RD AND EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION Based on our hazard characterization, the potential environmental hazard is: High If released into the environment, see CERCLA/SUPERFUND in Section 15. j 13. I DISPOSAL CONSIDERATIONS If this product becomes a waste, it is not a hazardous waste as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 40 CFR 261, since it does not have the characteristics of Subpart C, nor is it listed under Subpart D. Pesticide wastes are acutely hazardous. Improper disposal of excess pesticide, spray mixture, or rinsate is a violation of Federal law. If these wastes cannot be disposed of by use according to label instructions, contact your State Pesticide or Environmental Control Agency, or the Hazardous Waste Representative at the nearest EPA Regional Office for guidance. As a pesticide waste, consult the FIFRA label for any additional handling, treatment, or disposal requirements. For disposal, contact a properly licensed waste treatment, storage, disposal or recycling facility. Nalco Company 1601 W. Diehl Road

• Naperville, Illinois 60563-1198 * (630)305-1000 For additional copies of an MSDS visit www.nalco.com and request access 6 / 11 l NNALCO j 14. I TRANSPORT INFORMATION SAFETY DATA SHEET I PRODUCT EVAC Bioclde EMERGENCY TELEPHONE NUMBER(S) (800) 424-9300 (24 Hours) CHEMTREC =1 The information in this section is for reference only and should not take the place of a shipping paper (bill of lading) specific to an order. Please note that the proper Shipping Name I Hazard Class may vary by packaging, properties, and mode of transportation. Typical Proper Shipping Names for this are as follows.
• The presence of an RQ component (Reportable Quantity for U.S. EPA and DOT) in this product causes it to be regulated with an additional description of RQ for road, or as a class 9 for road and air, ONLY when the net weight in the package exceeds the calculated RQ for the product. LAND TRANSPORT : Proper Shipping Name : Technical Name(s) : UN/ID No: Hazard Class -Primary : Packing Group : Flash Point : Reportable Quantity (per package): RQ Component : *AIR TRANSPORT (ICAO/IATA): PESTICIDE, LIQUID, TOXIC, N.O.S. Endothall, mono(N,N-dimethylcocoamine) salt UN 2902 6.1 Ill > 110 °C/> 230 °F 4,280 lbs ENDOTHALL The presence of an RQ component (Reportable Quantity for U.S. EPA and DOT) in this product causes it to be regulated with an additional description of RQ for road, or as a class 9 for road and air, ONLY when the net weight in the package exceeds the calculated RQ for the product. Proper Shipping Name : Technical Name(s) : UN/ID No: Hazard Class -Primary : Packing Group : Reportable Quantity (per package): RQ Component : MARINE TRANSPORT (IMDG/IMO): Proper Shipping Name : Technical Name(s) : UN/ID No: Hazard Class -Primary : Packing Group : *Marine Pollutant : . PESTICIDE, LIQUID, TOXIC, N.O.S. Endothall, mono(N,N-dimethylcocoamine) salt UN 2902 6.1 Ill 4,280 lbs ENDO THALL PESTICIDE, LIQUID, TOXIC, N.O.S. Endothall, mono(N,N-dimethylcocoamine) UN 2902 6.1 Ill Endothall, mono(N,N-dimethylcocoamine) salt *Note: This product is regulated as a Marine Pollutant when shipped by Rail, Highway (in bulk quantities), or Air (if no other hazard class applies), and when shipped by water in all quantities. Nalco Company 1601 W. Diehl Road* Naperville, Illinois 60563-1198 * (630)305-1000 For additional copies of an MSDS visit www.nalco.com and request access 7 / 11 SAFETY DATA SHEET Biocide EM ERG ENCY TELEPHONE NUMBER(S) (800) 424-9300 (24 Hours) CHEMTREC j 1s. I REGULATORY INFORMATION This section contains additional information that may have relevance to regulatory compliance. The information in this section is for reference only. It is not exhaustive, and should not be relied upon to take the place of an individualized compliance or hazard assessment. Nalco accepts no liability for the use of this information. NATIONAL REGULATIONS, USA: OSHA HAZARD COMMUNICATION RULE, 29CFR1910.1200: Based on our hazard evaluation, the following substance(s) in this product is/are hazardous and the reason(s) is/are shown below. Endothall, mono(N,N-dirnethylcocoamine) salt: Corrosive to eyes, Skin irritant CERCLA/SUPERFUND, 40 CFR 302 : This product contains the following Reportable Quantity (RQ) Substance. Also listed is the RO for the product. If a reportable quantity of product is released, it requires notification to the NATIONAL RESPONSE CENTER, WASHINGTON, D.C. (1-800-424-8802). RO Substance Endothall, mono{N,N-dimethylcocoamine) salt RQ 4,280 lbs SARA/SUPERFUND AMENDMENTS AND REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1986 (TITLE Ill) -SECTIONS 302, 311, 312, AND 313: SECTION 302 -EXTREMELY HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES (40 CFR 355): This product does not contain substances listed in Appendix A and Bas an Extremely Hazardous Substance. SECTIONS 311 AND 312 -MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET REQUIREMENTS (40 CFR 370): Our hazard evaluation has found this product to be hazardous. The product should be reported under the following indicated EPA hazard categories: x Immediate (Acute) Health Hazard Delayed (Chronic) Health Hazard Fire Hazard Sudden Release of Pressure Hazard Reactive Hazard Under SARA 311 and 312, the EPA has established threshold quantities for the reporting of hazardous chemicals. The current thresholds are: 500 pounds or the threshold planning quantity (TPQ), whichever is lower, for extremely hazardous substances and 10,000 pounds for all other hazardous chemicals. SECTION 313 -LIST OF TOXIC CHEMICALS (40 CFR 372): This product does not contain substances on the List of Toxic Chemicals. TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT (TSCA): This product is exempted under TSCA and regulated under FIFRA. The inerts are on the Inventory List. Nalco Company 1601 W. Diehl Road* Naperville, Illinois 60563-1198 * (630)305-1000 For additional copies of an MSDS visit www.nalco.com and request access 8 I 11 NNALCO SAFETY DATA SHEET I PRODUCT EVAC Biocide EMERGENCY TELEPHONE NUMBER(S) (800) 424-9300 (24 Hours) CHEMTREC FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE AND RODENTICIDE ACT (FIFRA) : EPA Reg. No. 70506-189-1706 In all cases follow instructions on the product label. FEDERAL WATER POlLUTION CONTROL ACT, CLEAN WATER ACT, 40 CFR401.15 /formerlySec-. 307, 40 CFR 116.4 /formerly Sec. 311 : Substances listed under this regulation are not intentionally added or expected to be present in this product. Listed components may be present at trace levels. CLEAN AIR ACT, Sec. 112 (Hazardous Air Pollutants, as amended by 40 CFR 63), Sec. 602 (40 CFR 82, Class I and II Ozone Depleting Substances) :
• Substances listed under this regulation are not intentionally added or expected to be present in this product. Listed components may be present at trace levels. CALIFORNIA PROPOSITION 65: Substances listed under California Proposition 65 are not intentionally added or expected to be present in this product. MICHIGAN CRITICAL MATERIALS: Substances listed under this regulation are not intentionally added or expected to be present in this product. Listed components may be present at trace levels. STATE RIGHT TO KNOW LAWS: This product is a registered biocide and is exempt from State Right to Know Labelling Laws. INTERNATIONAL CHEMICAL CONTROL LAWS: AUSTRALIA This product contains substance(s) which are not in compliance with the National Industrial Chemicals Notification & Assessment Scheme (NICNAS) and may require additional review. CHINA This product contains substance(s) which are not in compliance with the Provisions on the Environmental Administration of New Chemical Substances and may require additional review. EUROPE This product contains substance(s) which are not in compliance with the European Commission Directive 67/548/EEC and may require additional review. JAPAN This product contains substance(s) which are not in compliance with the Law Regulating the Manufacture and Importation Of Chemical Substances and are not listed on the Existing and New Chemical Substances list (ENCS). Nalco Company 1601 W. Diehl Road* Naperville, Illinois 60563-1198 * (630)305-1000 For additional copies of an MSDS visit www.nalco.com and request access 9 I 11 KOREA SAFETY DATA SHEET I PRODUCT EVAC B iocide EMERGENCY TELEPHONE MUMBER(S) (800) 424-9300 (24 Hours) CHEMTREC This product contains substance(s) which are not in compliance with the Toxic Chemical Control Law (TCCL) and may require additional review. PHILIPPINES This product contains substance(s) which are not in compliance with the Republic Act 6969 (RA 6969) and may require additional review. j *is. I OTHER INFORMATION This product material safety data sheet provides health and safety information. The product is to be used in applications consistent with our product literature. Individuals handling this product should be informed of the recommended safety precautions and should have access to this information. For any other uses, exposures should be evaluated so that appropriate handling practices and training programs can be established to insure safe workplace operations. Please consult your local sales representative for any further information. REFERENCES Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents and Biological Exposure Indices, American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, OH., (Ariel InsightŽ CD-ROM Version), Ariel Research Corp., Bethesda, MD. Hazardous Substances Data Bank, National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, Maryland (TOMES CPSŽ CD-ROM Version), Micromedex, Inc .. Englewood, CO. !ARC Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man, Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer. Integrated Risk Information System, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. (TOMES CPSŽ CD-ROM Version), Micromedex, Inc., Englewood, CO. Annual Report on Carcinogens, National Toxicology Program, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health SerVice. Title 29 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1910, Subpart Z, Toxic and Hazardous Substances, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), (Ariel InsightŽ Cb-ROM Version), Ariel Research Corp., Bethesda, MD. Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, OH, (TOMES CPSŽ CD-ROM Version), Micromedex, Inc., Englewood, CO. Ariel InsightŽ (An integrated guide to industrial chemicals covered under major regulatory and advisory programs), North American Module, Western European Module, Chemical Inventories Module and the Generics Module (Ariel InsightŽ CD-ROM Version), Ariel Research Corp., Bethesda, MD. The Teratogen Information System, University of Washington, Seattle, WA (TOMES CPSŽ CD-ROM Version), Micromedex, Inc., Englewood, CO. Nalco Company 1601 W. Diehl Road* Naperville Illinois 60563-1198 * (630)305-1000 For additional copies of an MSDS visit www.nalco.com and request access 10 I 11 NNALCO Prepared By : Product Safety Department Date issued : 02/09/2011 Version Number : 1.12 SAFETY DATA SHEET EMERGENCY TELEPHONE NUMBER(S) (800) 424-9300 (24 Hours) CHEMTREC Nalco Company 1601 W. Diehl Road* Naperville, Illinois 60563-1198 * (630)305-1000 For additional copies of an MSDS visit www.nalco.com and request access 11 / 11 GE \Nater & Process Technologies Material Safety Data Sheet SPECTRUS CT1300 Issue Date: 12-FEB-2009 Supercedes: 1 O-DEC-2007 1 Identification Identification of substance or preparation SPECTRUS CT1300 Product Application Area Water-based microbial control agent. Company/Undertaking Identification GE Betz, Inc. 4636 Somerton Road Trevose, PA 19053 T 215 355-3300, F 215 953 5524 Emergency Telephone (800) 877-1940 Prepared by Product Stewardship Group: T 215-355-3300 Prepared on: 12-FEB-2009 2 Hazard(s) identification ******************************************************************************** EMERGENCY OVERVIEW DANGER Corrosive to skin. Potential skin sensitizer. Corrosive to the eyes. Vapors, gases, mists and/or aerosols may cause irritation to upper respiratory tract. DOT hazard: Corrosive to skin, Flammable Odor: Mild; Appearance: Colorless To Yellow, Liquid Fire fighters should wear positive pressure self-contained breathing apparatus(full face-piece type). Proper fire-extinguishing media: dry chemical, carbon dioxide or foam--Avoid water if possible. ******************************************************************************** POTENTIAL HEALTH EFFECTS ACUTE SKZN EFFECTS: Primary route of exposure; Corrosive to skin. Potential skin sensitizer. ACUTE EYE EFFECTS: Corrosive to the eyes. ACUTE RESPIRATORY EFFECTS: Vapors, gases, mists and/or aerosols may cause irritation to upper Substance or Preparation: SPECTRUS CT1300 Page 1 respiratory tract. INGESTION EFFECTS: Toxic; May cause severe irritation or burning of mouth, throat, and gastrointestinal tract with severe chest and abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, lethargy and collapse. Possible d<Jath when ingested in very large doses. TARGET ORGANS: Prolonged or repeated exposures may cause CNS depression, tissue narcoses, skin sensitization, and/or toxicity to the liver and kidney. MEDICAL CONDITIONS AGGRAVATED: Not' known. SYMPTOMS OF EXPOSURE: Inhalation of vapors/mists/aerosols may cause eye; nose, throat and lung irritation. Skin contact may cause severe irritation or burns. 3 Composition I information on ingredients Information for specific product ii;igredients as required by the U.S. OSHA HAZARD COMMUNICATION STANDARD is listed. Refer to additional sections of this MSDS for our assessment of the potential hazards of this formulation. HAZARDOUS INGREDIENTS: Caslt Chemical Name Range(w/w%) 68424-85-1 (Cl2-16)ALKYL DIMETHYL BENZYL AMMONIUM CHLORIDE 40-70 64-17-5 Corrosive (eyes and skin);toxic (by*ingestion) ETHYL ALCOHOL Flammable liquid; irritant (eyes); may cause CNS depression; potential liver, kidney, brain, heart and male reproductive toxin; produced mutagenic effects in germ cells and somatic cells (in vivo) 4 First-aid measures SKIN CONTACT: 7-13 URGENT! Wash thoroughly with.soap and water. Remove contaminated clothing. Get immediate medical attention. Thoroughly clothing before reuse. EYE CONTACT: URGENT! Immediately flush eyes with plenty of low-pressure water for at least 20 minutes while removing contact lenses. Hold eyelids apart. Get immediate medical attention. INHALATION: Remove to fresh air. If breathing is difficult, oxygen. If breathing has stopped, give artificial respiration. Get immediate medical attention. INGESTION: Do not feed anything by mouth to an ur.conscious or cor:*.*ulsive Substance or Preparation: SPECTRUS CT1300 Page 2 victim. DiluLe contenLs of stomach. Induce vomiting by one of the standard methods. Immediately contact a physician. NOTES TO PHYSICIANS: Material is corrosive. It may not be advisable to induce vomiting. Possible mucosal damage may contraindicate the use of gastric lavage. 5 Fire-fighting measures FIRE FIGHTING INSTRUCTIONS: Fire fighters should wear positive pressure self-contained breathing apparatus (full face-piece type). EXTINGUISHING MEDIA: dry chemical, carbon dioxide or foam--Avoid water if possible. HAZARDOUS DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS: oxides of carbon and nitrogen, hydrogen chloride FLASH POINT: 130F 54C P-M(CC) MISCELLANEOUS: Corrosive to skin, Flammable UN 2920;Emergency Response Guide #132 6 Accidental release measures PROTECTION AND SPILL CONTAINMENT: Ventilate area. Use specified protective equipment. Contain and absorb on absorbent material. Place in waste disposal container. Remove ignition sources. Flush area with water. Spread sand/grit. DISPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS: Water contaminated with this product may be sent to a sanitary sewer treaLment facility,in accordance with any local agreement,a permitted waste treatment facility or discharged under a permit. Product as is -Dispose of in approved pesticide facility or according to label instructions. 7 Handling and storage HANDLING: Combustible. Corrosive to skin and/or eyes. STORAGE: Keep containers closed when not in use. Keep away from flames or sparks. Bond containers during filling or discharge when performed at temperatures* at or above the product flash point. Shelf life 360 days. 8 Exposure controls I personal protection EXPOSURE LIMITS CHEMICAL NAME (Cl2-16)ALKYL DIMETHYL BENZYL AMMONIUM CHLORIDE PEL (OSHA) : NOT DETERMINED TLV (ACGIH) : NOT DETERMINED ETHYL ALCOHOL Substance or Preparation: SPECTRUS CT1300 Page3 PEL (OSHA): 1,000 PPM TLV (ACGIH): 1,000 PPM ENGINEERING CONTROLS: Adequate ventilation to maintain air contaminants below exposure limits. PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT: Use protective equipment in accordance with 29CFR 1910 Subpart I RESPIRATORY PROTECTION: A RESPIRATORY PROTECTION PROGRAM THAT MEETS OSHA'S 29 CFR 1910.134 AND ANSI ZBB.2 REQUIREMENTS MUST BE FOLLOWED WORKPLACE CONDITIONS WARRANT A RESPIRATOR'S USE. USE AIR PURIFYING RESPIRATORS WITHIN USE LIMITATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE EQUIPMENT OR ELSE USE SUPPLIED AIR-RESPIRATORS. If air-purifying respirator use is appropriate, use organic vapor cartridges and any of the following particulate respirators: N95, N99, NlOO, R95, R99, RlOO, P95, P99 or PlOO. SKIN PROTECTION: gauntlet-type rubber, butyl or neoprene gloves, chemical resistant apron --Wash* off after each use. Replace as necessary. EYE PROTECTION: splash proof chemical goggles, face shield 9 Physical and chemical properties Specific Grav.(70F,21C) 0.965 Freeze Point (F) -7 Freeze Point (C) -22 Viscosity(cps 70F,21C) 73 Odor Appearance Physical State Flash Point P-M(CC) pH As Is (approx.) Evaporation Rate (Ether=l) Percent VOC: Vapor Pressure (mmHG) Vapor Density (air=l) % Solubility (water) Mild Colorless To Yellow Liquid 130F 54C 8.9 < 1. 00 ND NA = not applicable ND not determined 1 O Stability and reactivity CHEMICAL STABILITY: Stable under normal storage conditions. POSSIBILITY OF HAZARDOUS REACTIONS: INCOMPATIBILITIES: May react with strong oxidizers. DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS: oxides of carbon and nitrogen, hydrogen chloride 11 Toxicological information Substance or Preparation: SPECTRUS CT1300 44.0 < 1.00 100.0 Pf;lge 4 Oral LD50 RAT: 445 mg/kg Dermal LD50 RABBIT: >1,800 mg/kg Skin Sensitization G.PIG: NEGATIVE NOTE -Active component' was neither a photoallergen nor a skin sensitizer 12 Ecological information AQUATIC TOXICOLOGY Annelida (Lumbriculus variegatus) 96 Hour Ac.ute Toxicity LC50= 1.47; LClO= .37 mg/L Benthic Crustacean(Gammerus pseutolimnaeus) 96 Hour Acute Toxicity LC50= .07 mg/L Ceriodaphnia 48 Hour Static Renewal Bioassay LC50= .35; No Effect Level= .15 mg/L Ceriodaphnia 7 Day Chronic Bioassay IC25 = .098 mg/L Channel Catfish 96 Hour Acute Toxicity LC50= .86; No Effect Level= .54 mg/L Daphnia magna 48 Hour Flow-Thru Bioassay LC50= .04; No Effect Level= .026 mg/L Daphnia magna 48 Hour Static Acute Bioassay LCSO= .11; No Effect Level= .06 mg/L Daphnia pulex 48 Hour Static Renewal Bioassay LC50= .05; No Effect Level= .031 mg/L Fathead Minnow 7 Day Chronic Bioassay IC25 = .259 mg/L Fathead Minnow 96 Hour Flow-Thru Bioassay LC50= .72; No Effect Level= .41 mg/L Freshwater Snail(Physa sp.) 96 Hour Acute Toxicity LC50= .46; No Effect Level= .36 mg/L Menidia beryllina (Silversides) 96 Hour Flow-Thru Bioassay LC50= .62; No Effect Level= .35 mg/L Midge larvae (Chironomus tentans) 96 Hour Acute Toxicity LC50= .5; No Effect Level= .13 mg/L Mysid Shrimp 96 Hour Flow-Thru Bioassay LCSO= .16; No Effect Level= .03 mg/L Rainbow Trout 96 Hour Flow-Thru Bioassay LC50= 2; No Effect Level= 1.2 mg/L Sheepshead Minnow 96 Hour Flow-Thru Bioassay LC50= 1.76; No Effect Level= 1 mg/L No Data Available. BIODEGRADATION BOD-28 (mg/g) : 156 BOD-5 (mg/g): 43 COD (mg/g): 1470 TOC (mg/g) : 380 13 Disposal considerations Substance or Preparation: SPECTRUS CT1300 Page5 If this undiluted product is discarded as a waste, the US hazardous waste identification number is : Exempt 0001 per 40 CFR 261. 21 (a) ( 1) . Please be advised; however, that state and local requirements for waste disposal may be mo*re restrictive or otherwise different from federal regulations. Consult state and local regulations regarding the proper disposal of this material. 14 Transport information DOT HAZARD: Corrosive to skin, Flammable PROPER SHIPPING NAME: CORROSIVE LIQUIDS, FLAMMABLE, N. 0. S. (QUATERNARY AMMONIUM COMPOUNDS, ETHYL ALCOHOL) 8(3), UN 2920, PG II DOT EMERGENCY RESPONSE GUIDE #: 132 Note: Some containers may be DOT exempt, please check BOL for exact container classification 15 Regulatory information TSCA: This is an EPA registered biocide and is exempt from TSCA inventory requirements. CERCLA AND/OR SARA REPORTABLE QUANTITY {RQ): No regulated constituent present at OSHA thresholds FIFRA REGISTRATION NUMBER: 3876-149 FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION: 21 CFR 176.300 (slimicides for wet end use) When used in this specified application, all ingredients comprising this product are authorized by FDA for the manufacture of paper and paperboard that may contact aqueous and fatty foods as per 21 CFR 176:170(a) (4). NSF Registered and/or meets USDA {according to 1998 Guidelines): Registration number: Not Registered GS, G7 SARA SECTION 312 HAZARD CLASS: Irnmediate(acute);Delayed(Chronic);Fire SARA SECTION 302 CHEMICALS: No regulated constituent present at OSHA.thresholds SARA SECTION 313 CHEMICALS: No regulated constituent present at OSHA thresholds CALIFORNIA REGULATORY INFORMATION CALIFORNIA SAFE DRINKING WATER AND TOXIC ENFORCEMENT ACT {PROPOSITION 65) : No regulated constituents present MICHIGAN REGULATORY INFORMATION No regulated constituent present at OSHA thresholds 16 Other information Substance or Preparation: SPECTRUS CT1300 Page6 HMIS vII Health Fire Reactivity Special (1) Protective Equipment 3 2 0 CORR D CODE TRANSLATION Serious Hazard Moderate Hazard Minimal Hazard DOT corrosive Goggles,Face Shield,Gloves,Apron (1) refer to section 8 of MSDS for additionai protective equipment recommendations. CHANGE LOG EFFECTIVE DATE REVISIONS TO SECTION: SUPERCEDES ----------------------------------------MSDS status: 18-NOV-1997 ** NEW ** 27-FEB-1998 15 18-NOV-1997 15-MAY-1998 2 27-FEB-1998 20-MAY-1998 11 15-MAY-1998 17-AUG-1998 15 20-MAY-1998 27-0C'.r-1998 ;EDIT:9 17-AUG-1998 12-NOV-1998 ;EDIT:9 27-0CT-1998 03-MAY-2000 12 12-NOV-1998 05-JUL-2001 12 03-MAY-2000 24-SEP-2001 3,4,5,7,8,14,16 05-JUL-2001 16-NOV-2001 12 24-SEP-2001 30-DEC-2005 13;EDIT:15 16-NOV-2001 19-DEC-2006 13;EDIT:l5 30-DEC-2005 05-APR-2007 2 19-DEC-2006 10-DEC-2007 5,7,8,10 05-APR-2007 12-FEB-2009 12 10-DEC-2007 Substance or Preparation: SPECTRUS CT1300 Page?

Lot Number: 'HEALTH .s,--_.._ ... . -l 1(:*; **{*-'fl *,*I /!1 f\ Hi**" /u1 * *; !'-' :to;'1**t Material ID: 6020665 FLAMMABILITY REACTIVITY PERSONAL PROTECTION Net Weight: Lbs. Packaging Date: 07/12/00 Wash: Made In USA SPECTRUS CT1* 300 FOR CONTROL OF ALGAE AND ALGAL SLIME GROWTH IN WATER COOLING SYSTEMS PRECAUTIONARY STATEMENTS HAZARDS TO HUMANS AND DOMESTIC ANIMALS DANGER CORROSIVE. CAUSES SEVERE EYE & SKIN DAMAGE. Do not get in eyes, on skin or on clothing. Wear goggles or face shield & rubber gloves when handling. HARMFUL OR FATAL IF SWALLOWED. Avoid contamination of food. Wash thoroughly with soap and water after handling. Remove contaminated clothing and wash before reuse. ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS This product is toxic to fish. Do not discharge effluent containing this product into lakes, streams, ponds, estuaries, oceans or other waters unless in accordance with the requirements of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and the permitting authority has been notified in writing prior to discharge. Do not discharge effluent containing this product to sewer systems without previously notifying the local sewage treatment plant authority. For guidance, contact your State Water Board or Regional Office of the* EPA. PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL HAZARDS Do not use or store near heat or open flame. ACTIVE INGREDIENT: N-Alkyl (50% C14, 40% C12, 10% C16) dimethylbenzyl ammonium chloride INERT INGREDIENTS TOTAL CONTENTS; LIQUID *POUNDS PER GALLON: 8.0 EPA REGISTRATION NUMBER: 3876-149 EPA ESTABLISHMENT NUMBER: 50% 50% 100.0% KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN DANGER For Industrial Use. Technical advice regarding specific site problems Is avallable from Betz

Dearborn,

a Division of Hercules Incorporated. A Material Safety Data Sheet containing mor' detailed information relative to this product Is available upon request. For product use see Panel 2. DIRECTIONS FOR USE: It Is a violation of Federal law to use this product In a manner inconsistent with its labeling. STORAGE AND DISPOSAL PROHIBITIONS: Do not contaminate water, food or feed by storage or disposal. Open dumping Is prohibited. Do not reuse amply container. STORAGE INSTRUCTIONS: Store in original conlainer. Keep from freezing. SPILL OR LEAK PROCEDURE: Small spills may be mopped up or flushed away with water or absorbed on some absorbent material and incinerated. PESTICIDE DISPOSAL Pesticide wastes are acutely hazardous. Improper disposal of excess pesticide, spray mixture or dnsate is a violation of Federal Law. If these wastes cannot be disposed of by use according to label instructions, contact your State Pesticide or Environmental Control Agency, or the Hazardous Waste Represenlallve at the nearest EPA Regional Office for guidance. CONTAINER DISPOSAL ,' STATEMENT OF PRACTICAL TREATMENT In case of contact, immediately flush eyes or skin with plenty of water for at least 15 minutes. For eyes, call a physician. and wash contaminated clothing before reuse. If swallowed, drink promptly a large quantity of milk, egg whites, gelatin solution: or if these are not available, drink large quantities of water. Avoid alcohol. Call a physician immediately. NOTE TO PHYSICIAN: Probable mucosa! damage may contraindicate the use of gastric lavage. Triple rinse (or equivalent). Then offer for recycling or reconditioning, or puncture and dispose of In a sanitary landfill, or by other procedures approved by state and local authorities. Betz

Dearborn Inc.,

Water Management Group, 4636 Somerton Road, Trevose, PA, 19053 Business Phone: 215-355-3300 a Emergency Phone: 800-877-1940 GEN 9905 -7/-12/00. Made in USA GEN 9905-7/12/00 HEALTH :; FLAMMABILITY REACTIVITY PERSONAL PROTECTION SPECTRUS CT1300 FOR CONTROL OF ALGAE AND ALGAL SLIME GROWTH IN WATER COOLING SYSTEMS DIRECTIONS FOR USE: It is a violation of Federal law to use this product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling. _L 0 B INDUSTRIAL Al-JD/OR COMMERCIAL RECIRCUL/\TING COOLING WATER SYSTEMS This product aids in the control of rnollusca, barnacles,. hydrozoa, bryozoa and of bacterial, fungal and algal slimes 111 evaporative condensers, heat exchangi:, waler systems, commercial and Industrial cooling towers, influent systems such as flow-through fillers and lagoons. industrial watot Sl'f'Ublllng systems and br'"wery pasleurlzors. Do not use water containing resfdues from use (Jf lllis product to Irrigate crops used for food or feed_ Use of lhis product Jn either public/municipal or s111gte or multiple family prlvate/resldentlal potable/drinking waler systems ls strictly prohibited. Use of this product in any cooling water system that discharges effluent Within 1/4 mile or either a puhlic/rnu1m::lpal or single or rnulllple family private/residential pota\)le/drh1klnu water lntaka Is stricliy prohllllted. This product may be added to the systems as needed. The frequency of fcedlny and dumllon or the lreatment will depend upon !ho sevem}' of tho problem. BADL \' SYSTEMS must be c:laaned.before lrealment is begun. FOR THE CONTROL OF ALGAE INITIAL DOSE: When the system is noticeably fouled, add this product at the rate of 0.15 to 0.65 pound (18 to 78 ppm) per 1000 gallons of water in the system. Repeat until control is achieved SUBSEQUENT DOSE: When control is evident, add this product at the rate of 0.1to0.45 pound (12 to 36 ppm) per 1000 gallons of water in the system. FOR CONTROL OF BACTERIA AND FUNGI INITIAL DOSE: When Ille system 1s noticeably fouled, add this product at the rate of 0.1 to 0.45 pound (12 to 36 ppm) per 1000 gallons of water in the system. Repeat until control ls achieved. SUBSEQUENT DOSE: When control is evident, add this product at the rate of 0.05 to 0.15 pound (6 to 18 ppm) per 1000 gallons of water in the system. FOR CONTROL OF MOLLUSCA, BARNACLES, HYDROZOA AND BRYOZOA Add this product at the rate of 0.016 to 0.166 pound (2 to 20 ppm) per 1000 gallons of water In the system. Maintain this concentration for 3 to 48 hours. ONCE-THROUGH COOLING WATER SYSTEMS This product aids m the control of n1011usca, barnacles, hydrozoa, bryozoa and of algal, bacterial and fungal slimes in once-through fresh and sea water cooling systems, cooling ponds, canals and lagoons. Tl1is product may he added to the system inlet water or before any contaminated area in the system. BADLY FOULED SYSTEMS must be cleaned before treatment is begun. FOR THE CONTROL OF ALGAE, BACTERIA AND FUNGI INITIAL DOSE: When the system is noticeably fouled, add this product at the rate of 0.15 to 0.65 pound (1 B to 78 ppm) per 1000 gallons of water based on the flow rate through the system. Minimum treatment intervals should be 15 minutes. Repeat until control is achieved. SUBSEQUENT DOSE: When control is evident, add this product at the rate of0.1to0.45 pound (12 to 36 ppm) per 1000 gallons of water based on the flow rate through the system. FOR THE CONTROL OF MOLLUSCA, BARNACLES, HYDROZOA AND BRYOZOA Add this product at the rate of 0.016 to 0.166 pound (2 to 20 ppm) per 1000 gallons of water based on the flow rate through the system. Maintain this concentration for 3 to 48 hours. AUXILIARY WATER/SERVICE WATER AND WASTE WATER SYSTEMS This produGt is effective fo" lha control of rnol!usca, barnacles, hydrozoa, bryozoa and of odor-forming and sllme-formlng bacteria. lung! and algae In auxiliary water syslams sur:h as flre protection systems and pump or screen bays, waste water and waste material disposal, holding or recovery systems such as storage tanks, storage piles, associated piping, settling ponds or lagoons, transpoti spillways or canals and disposal wells. This pr-oduct may be added to the system waler or by spraying onto a was!e pile as needed. The frequency of feed or spray ano the duratlon of treatmen1 will depend upon the severity of the contamination. Additions to vvater systems should be made during the pumping operation and as close to t11e pump as possible to ensure adequate mtxinQ. tNTERMlnENT OR SLUG METHOD-Wt1en treatment Is required, add lliis product at tile rate.of 0.3 to 1.3 pounds (36 to 156 ppm) per 1000 gallons of water already in lhe system. or belng added to lhe system. for 4 to B hours, 1 to 4 limes per week or as needed to achieve the desired level of control. When control Is obtained, add this product at the rate of O.i5 ta 0.65 pound (11.l to 7R ppm) per 1000 gallons of water in the system. Lot Number: Material ID: 6020665 Packaging Date: 07 /12/00 Net Weight: Betz

Dearborn Inc.,

Water Management Group, 4636 Somerton Road, Trevose, PA, 19053 Business Phone: 215-355-3300 -Emergency Phone: 800-877-1940 Lbs. .. ' Water & Process Technologies Fact *Sheet< J ....... ' * .,. ' Spectrus* CT1300 Mollusk Control Agent

• Controls common fouling mollusks at all life stages using brief (6 to 24 hr) seasonal tions
• Effective on all types of fresh and salt water clams, mussels, and oysters
• Can be rapidly detoxified and is readily gradable
• Field test methods available for determining product concentrations Description and Use Spectrus* CT1300 is an environmentally friendly, bio-contral agent that can be used to control lusks in a variety of industrial. water-based systems. Spectrus CT1300 can also be used for control of algae, bacteria. and fungal slimes in these same water systems. Spectrus CT1300 is concentrated. It contains 50% of quaternary ammonium ride (Quot) as active ingredient. Spectrus CT1300, applied in brief (6 to 24 hr) sonal applications, is effective against all mollusks at all life stages. Spectrus CT1300 is effective against adult organisms and will prevent immature forms from growing to a fouling size. Spectrus CT1300 is EPA-approved for use in lating cooling systems. heat exchange systems. and evaporative condensers. This product is also proved for use in once-through cooling systems. service water. auxiliary water, and fire protection systems. as well as influent and wastewater terns. See the Spectrus CT1300 product label for a complete listing of approved end-uses. / ... -: Figure 1: Zebra Mussel Accumulation after 3 Months in a 6-in. (15.2 cm) Diameter Discharge Line. Control of macrofouling organisms such as lusks is needed to prevent blocked water lines and damaged equipment. Uncontrolled growth of rofouling organisms can lead to higher nance and production costs. reduced plant safety, and even plant outages. Therefore. an effective macrofouling control is necessary for operating units to achieve profitability goals. More tantly, effective macrofouling control is essential to ensure availability of fire protection systems and other safety-related equipment. Environmental Benefits The active ingredient in Spectrus CT1300 (Quot) is short-lived in the environment. Quats are cationic qnd rapidly adsorbed by natural,. anionic substrates and sediments. Adsorption effectively detoxifies Quats and renders them harmless to aquatic and benthic organisms as well as microbes. Find a contact near you by visiting www.ge.com/woter or e-mailing custhelp@ge.com. Global Headquarters Trevose. PA +1-215-355-3300 Americas Watertown, MA +l-617-926-2500 Europe/Middle East/Africa Asia/Paci;ic Heverlee, Belgium Shanghai. China +32-16-40-20-00 * +86101411-8366-6489 ©2008. General Electric Company. All rights reserved. pfc72S.ucc Apr-08 *Trademark of General Electric Company; ma:1 be registered in one or more countries.

Spectrus CT1300 can be deliberately detoxified by use of highly adsorbent. anionic materials such as those found in Spectrus DT1400 or DT1401. These products may be used where natural adsorption is not adequate to comply with water quality criteria. Once adsorbed, Quats are readily biodegraded to carbon dioxide and water. Because Spectrus CT1300 provides macrofouling control in just a few hours, it reduces chemical sumption, environmental impact and treatment costs compared to halogen-based macrofouling treatments. When halogens are used for mollusk control. they must be applied continuously for eral weeks if they are to be effective. and they must be dehalogenated. In addition, continuous feed of halogens promotes formation of undesirable products such as trihalomethanes (THMsl. total ganic halides (TOX). and adsorbable halogenated organics (AOX). Since Spectrus CT1300 is not an dizer, it does not produce these compounds. Treatment and Feeding Requirements Correct treatment levels and frequency of Spectrus CT1300 addition depend on many factors. These include, but are not limited to, degree of infestation, type of mollusk, temperature, system retention time, and discharge environment. Heavy infestations of mollusks should be physically removed by ing, dredging, or scraping prior to treatment. sult your GE representative for technical advice on your specific application. Feed point -Apply Spectrus CT1300 to a point in the system where turbulence and flow patterns assure good mixing with the water being treated. Dilution -This product is best fed neat (undiluted) from the storage container. Feed Equipment -Spectrus CT1300 is compatible with the following materials of construction: loy 825; High Density Cross-linked Polyethylene; lon; PVC; Neoprene; Buno N; Buno S: Litharge Viton; Ethylene Propylene Resin; Hypolon. (Teflon and ton are registered trademarks of DuPont.) Avoid use of: 304 and 316 Stainless Steels cially in thin walled feed lines); High Density propylene; Linear High Density Polyethylene; Nylon. This product may be fed using the Pacesetter* trol system. Page 2 General Properties Physical properties of Spectrus CT1300 are shown on the Material Safety Data Sheet, a copy of which is available on request. Packaging Information Spectrus CT1300 is a liquid and is available in a wide. variety of containers and delivery methods, including GE's ChemSure* Drumless Delivery vices Storage Protect from extreme temperatures. Protect from freezing. Keep containers closed when not in use. Keep away from flames or sparks. Safety Precautions Use of eye protection (goggles and face shield) and gauntlet-type neoprene gloves is required when handling this product. See section 7 of the MSDS for additional information on recommended personal protective equipment. General Information EPA Registration Number .............. 3876-149 Purchase of Spectrus CT1300 from GE includes a license to practice the process covered by U.S. ent 4,857,209. Spectrus CT1300 Fact Sheet BENTONITE PERFORMANCE MINERALS MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET NATIONAL Beotonite Revision Date: February 25, 2002 PRODUCT COMPANY AND IDENJ'IFICATION Product Trade Name: Generic

Description:

Supplier: Telephone: Fax Number: Chemtrec Emergency Number: NATIONAL Bentonite Wyoming Bentonite, Sodium montmorillonite Bentonite Performance Minerals 410 17th Street, Suite 405 Denver, Colorado 80202-4447 (303) 571-8240 (303) 571-8280 (800) 424-9300 COMPOSIDON/INFORMATION ON THE COMPONENI'S MATERIAL OR COMPONENT Wyoming Bentonite, Sodium Montmorillonite Crystalline Silica Quartz Cristobalite Tridymite (60-100%) CAS # 1302-78-9 (l-5%) (0-1%) (0-1%) CAS# 14808-60-7 CAS# 14464-46-1 CAS#l5468-32-3 ACGffi-TLV-1WA not applicable 0.05 mglrr? 0.05 mglrr? 0.05 mglrr? CAS# 1302-78-9 OSHA PEL-1WA not applicable (1 omgtm)/(%Si02+2) l/2x( I Omglm)/(%Si02+ 2) t/2x(l 0mg1rr?)t('YoSi02+2) More restrictive exposure limits may be enforced by some states, agencies, or other authorities. HAZARD IDENTIFlCATION Ha7.ard Overview: CAlITION! -ACUTE HEALTH HAZARD May cause eye and respiratory irritation DANGER! -CHRONIC HEALTH HAZARD I I ] Breathing crystalline sjlica can cause lung disease, including and lung cancer. Crystalline silica has also been associated with scleroderma and kidney disease. This product contains quartz, cristobalite and tridymite which may become airborne without a visible cloud. Avoid breathing dust. Avoid creating dusty conditions. Use only with adequate ventilation to keep exposures below recommended exposure limits. Wear a NIOSH specified, European Standard EN 149, or equivalent respirator when using this product. Review the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for this product, which has been provided to your employer. FIRSr AID MEASURES 1 Inhalation

• If inhaled, remove from area to fresh air. Get medical attention if respiratory irritation develops or if breathing becomes difficult. MSDS NATIONAL 2-25-02 PAGE I OF 7 PREPARED BY: Bentonite Perfonnance Minerals; Denver, Colorado BENTONITE PERFORMANCE MINERALS MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET NA TI ON AL Bentonite Revision Date: February 25, 2002 Skin Wash with soap and water. Get medical attention if irritation persists. Eyes In case of contact, immediately flush eyes with plenty of water for at least 15 minutes and get medical attention if irritation persists. Ingestion Under normal conditions, first aid procedures are not required. Notes to Physicians Treat symptomatically. I s. FlRE FJGHDNG MEASURES Flash PointlRange (F): Flash PointlRange (C): Flash Point Method: Autoignition Temperature (F): Autoignition Temperature (C): Flammability Limits in Air-Lower(%): Flammability Limits in Air-Upper(%): Fire Extinguishing Media Special Exposure Hazards Special Protective Equipment for Fire-Fighters NFP A Ratings: HMIS Ratings: lj. ACCIDENTAL RELEASE MEASURES Personal Precautionary Measures: Environmental Precautionary Measures: Procedure for Cleaning/Absorption HANDLING AND STORAGE Not determined Not determined Not detennined Not detennined Not detennined Not detennined Not detennined All standard firefighting media. Not applicable. Not applicable Health 0, Flammability 0, Reactivity 0 Flammability 0, Reactivity 0, Health O* Use appropriate protective equipment. Avoid creating and breathing dust. None known. Collect using dustless method and hold for appropriate disposal. Consider possible toxic or fire hazards associated with contaminating substances and use appropriate methods for collection, storage and disposal. Handling Precautions This product contains quartz, cristobalite and tridymite, which may become airborne without a visible dust cloud. Avoid breathing dust. Avoid creating dusty conditions. Use only with adequate ventilation to keep exposure below recommended exposure limits. Wear a NIOSH specified, European Standard EN 149, or equivalent respirator when using this product. Material is slippery when wet. I I I MSDS NATIONAL 2-25-02 PAGE 2 OF 7 PREPARED BY: Bentonite Perfonnance Minerals; Denver, Colorado BENTONITE PERFORMANCE MINERALS MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET NATIONAL Bentonite Revision Date: February 25, 2002 Storage Information Use good housekeeping in storage and work areas to prevent accumulation of dust. Close container when n*ot in use. Do not reuse empty container.
• I s. EXPOSURE CONTROLS/PERSONAL PROTECTION Engineering Controls Use approved industrial ventilation and local exhaust as required to maintain exposures below applicable exposure limits listed in Section 2.
• Respiratory Protection Wear a NIOSH specified, European Standard EN 149, or equivalent respirator when using this product. Hand Protection Normal work gloves. Skin Protection Wear clothing appropriate for the work environment. Dusty clothing should be laundered before reuse. Use precautionary measures to avoid creating dust when removing or laundering clothes. Eye Protection Wear safety glasses or goggles to protect against exposure. Other Precautions None known PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES Physical State Color Odor pH Specific Gravity (HiO = 1) Density at i.oc Ob/gallon) Bulk Density at 20 C Ob/gal)(uncompacted) Boiling Point/Range (F):
• Boiling Point/Range (C): Freezing Point/Range (F): Freezing Point/Range (C): Vapor Pressure at 20C (mm Hg) Vapor Density (Air= 1) Percent Volatiles: Evaporation Rate (Butyl Acetate=l) Solubility in Water (g/iOOml) Solubility in Solvents (g/ml) Solubility is Sea Water (g/ml) voes Ob/gallon) Viscosity, Dynamic at 20C (centipoise) Viscosity, Kinematic at 20C (centistoke) Partition Coefficient/n-Octanol/water Molecular weight (g/mole) Solid various Odorless 8 to IO in 6% slurry 2.65 Not determined 50-70 lb/ft3 Not determined Not determined Not determined Not determined Not determined Not determined Not determined Not determined Insoluble Not determined Insoluble Not determined Not determined Not determined Not determined Not determined I I MSDS NATIONAL 2-25-02 PAGE 3 OF 7 PREPARED BY: Bentonite Perfonnance Minerals; Denver, Colorado BENTONITE PERFORMANCE MINERALS MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET NATIONAL Bentonite Revision Date: February 25, 2002 I 10. STABILTIY AND REACTIVITY Stability Data: Stable Hazardous Polymerization Will not occur. Conditions to Avoid None anticipated Incompatibility (Materials to Avoid) Hydrofluoric acid Hazardous Decomposition Products Amorphous silica may transform at elevated temperatures to crystallize to tridymite (870C) orcristobalite (1470C). Additional Guidelines Not applicable [11. TOXICOLOGICALINFORMATION Principle Route of Exposure Inhalation Skin Contact Eye Contact Ingestion Aggravated medical Conditions Chronic Effects/Carcinogenicity Eye or skin contact, inhalation. Inhaled crystalline silica in the form of quartz or cristobalite from occupational sources is carcinogenic to humans (IARC Group 1 ). There is sufficient evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity oftridymite (!ARC, Gr011p 2A). Breathing silica dust may cause irritation of the nose, throat, and respiratory passages. Breathing silica dust may not cause noticeable injury or illness even though permanent lung damage may be occurring. Inhalation of dust may also have serious' chronic health effects (See "Chronic Effects/Carcinogenicity subsection below). May cause mechanical skin irritation. May cause eye irritation. None known. Individuals with respiratory disease, including but not limited to asthma and bronchitis, or subject to eye irritation, should not be exposed to quartz dust. Silicosis: Excessive inhalation of respirable crystalline silica dust may cause a progressive, disabling and sometimes-fatal lung disease called silicosis. Symptoms include cough, shortness of breath, wheezing, non-specific chest illness and reduced pulmonary function. This disease is exacerbated by smoking. Individuals with silicosis are predisposed to develop tuberculosis. I I MSDS NATIONAL 2-25-02 PAGE4 OF7 PREPARED BY: Bentonite Performance Minerals; Denver, Colorado BENTONITE PERFORMANCE MINERALS NATIONAL Bentonite Revision Date: February 25, 2002 MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET Cancer Status: The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has determined that crystalline silica inhaled in the fonn of quartz or cristobalite from occupational sources can cause Jung cancer in humans (Group 1 -carcinogenic to humans) and has determined that there is sufficient evidence in experimental-animals for the carcinogenicity oftridymite (Group 2A-possible carcinogen to humans). Refer to IARC Monograph 68. Silica. Some Silicates and Organic Fibres (June 1997) in conjunction with the use of these minerals. The National Toxicology Program classifies respirable crystalline silica as "Known to be a human carcinogen". Refer to the 9th Report on Carcinogens (2000). The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) classifies crystalline silica, quartz, as a . suspected human carcinogen (A2). There is some evidence that breathing respirable crystalline silica or the disease silicosis is associated with an increased incidence of significant disease endpoints such as scleroderma (an immune system disorder manifested by scarring of the lungs, skin and other internal organs) and kidney disease. Other Information: For further infonnation consult "Adverse Effects of Crystalline Silica Exposure" published by the American Thoracic Society Medical Section of the American Lung Association, American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Volume 155,pp 761-768 (1997). Toxicity Tests Oral Toxicity: Dermal Toxicity: Inhalation Toxicity: Primary Irritation Effect: Carcinogenicity Genotoxicity: Reproductive/Developmental Toxicity I 12. ECC)LOGICALINFORMATION Mobility (Water/Air/Soil) Persistence/Degradability Bio-accumulation Not determined Not determined Not determined Not determined International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Group 1 Carcinogen (Carcinogenic to Humans) Not determined Not detennined Not determined Not determined Not determined I MSDS NATIONAL 2-25-02 PAGE 5 OF7 PREPARED BY: Bentonite Performance Minerals: Denver, Colorado BENTONITE PERFORMANCE MINERALS MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET NATIONAL Bentonite Revision Date: February 25, 2002 Ecotoxicological Information Acute Fish Toxicity: Acute Crustaceans Toxicity: 1LM96: 10000 ppm (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Not determined Acute Algae Toxicity: Not determined Chemical Fate Information Not determined Other Information Not applicable . I 13. DISPOSAL Disposal Method Bury in a licensed landfill according to federal, state and local regulations. Contaminated Packaging Follow all applicable national or local regulations. I 14. TRANSPORTATION INFORMATION Land Transportation DOT Canadian TDG ADR Air Transportation ICAO/IATA Sea Transportation IMDG Other Shipping Information Labels: Not restricted Not restricted Not restricted Not restricted Not restricted None I 1s. REGULATORY lNFORMATION US Regulations US TSCA Inventory EPA SARA Title ID Extremely Hazardous Substances EPA SARA (3ll/312) Hazard Class All components are listed on inventory. Not applicable Acute Health Hazard Chronic Health Hazard I I I EPA SARA( 313) Chemicals This product does not contain a toxic chemical for routine annual "Toxic Chemical Release Reporting" under Section 313 ( 40 CFR 3 72). EPA CERCLA/Superfund Reportable Spill Quantity For This Product EPA RCRA Hazardous Waste Classification MSDS NATIONAL 2-25-02 PREPARED BY: Bentonite Performance Minerals; Denver, Colorado Not applicable If product becomes a waste, it does NOT meet the criteria ofa hazardous waste as defined by the US EPA. PAGE60F7 BENTONITE PERFORMANCE MINERALS MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET NATIONAL Bentonite Revision Date: February 25, 2002 California Proposition 65 MA Right-To-Know Law NJ Right-To-Know Law PA Right-To-Know Law Canadian Regulations Canadian DSL Inventory WHMIS Hazard Class The California Proposition 65 regulations apply to this product. One or more components listed. One or more components listed. One or more components listed. All components listed on inventory. D2A Very Toxic Materials (crystalline silica) I 16.. 011IER INFORMATION Abbreviations : Registered Trademark of Halliburton Energy Services Inc. Ž: Trademark of Halliburton Energy Services Inc. NIA: Denotes no applicable infonnation found or available CAS#: Chemical Abstracts Service Number ACGIH: American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists OSHA: Occupational Safety and Health Administration TL V: Threshold Limit Value PEL: Permissible Exposure Limit STEL: Short Term Exposure Limit NTP: National Toxicology Program IARC: International Agency for Research on Cancer R: Risk S: Safety LC50: Lethal Concel)tration 50% LDSO: Lethal Dose 50% BOD: Biological Oxygen Demand KoC: Soil Organic Carbon Partition Coefficient I This information is furnished without warranty, expressed or implied, as to accuracy or completeness. The information is obtained from various sources including the manufacturer and third party sources. This information may not be valid under all conditions nor if this material is used in combination with other materials or in any process. Final determination of suitability of any material is the sole responsibility of the user. MSDS Data Revised: February 25, 2002 MSDS NATIONAL 2-25-02 BENTONITE PERFORMANCE MINERALS 410 17th Street, Suite 405 Denver, CO 80202-4447 Telephone (303) 571-8240 Facsimile (303) 571-8280 PREPARED BY: Bentonite Perfonnance Minerals; Denver, Colorado PAGE 7 OF7 TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHEET WYO-BEN, INC. 550 South 24th Street West, Suite 201 P. 0. Box 1979 Billings, Montana 59103 USA Tel: 406--652-6351 I Fax: 406--656-0748

SUBJECT:

BIG HORN FS 200 BENTONITE Specially sized pure sodium bentonite for animal feed and other industry applications. COLOR: TYPICAL CHEMICAL ANALYSIS: j Si02 Al203 Fe203 Na20 Ti Oz Cao MgO KzO Other H20 L.O.L I E.P. TOXICITY ANALYSIS:

• RPA. Arsenic Barium Cadmium Chromium Lead Mercury Selenium Silver SPECIFIC GRAVITY: Re' 6/99 Standard 5.0 100.0 1.0 5.0 5.0 0.2 1.0 5.0 Light Gray % 60.34 19.28 3.48 2.34 .22 .38 1.67 .IO .07 7.75 4.37 Typical Analysis lWl1 < 0.1 0.5 <0.05 < 0.1 <0.1 <0.02 < 0.05 < 0.1 2.55 +/- 0.1 SURFACE AREA (m2/gIU): External Surface All Surfaces 82 800 BULK DENSITY (lbslft\ 52 +/- 3 TYPICAL PARTICLE SIZE: U.S. Std. Sieve Size % Passing 100 mesh (15m) 96 200 mesh (75m) 80 325 mesh ( 45m) 52 TYPICAL CHARACTERISTICS: Wet Screen Analysis Residue on U.S. Sieve No. 200 Ph Moisture Content -% Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC meq(IOO gm) Swell (cc/2 gm) USES: Binder for animal feed pelletizing. 3.0+/- 0.5 9.1+/-0.4 6-10 70-90 20+/-3 Free choice feed additive for direct feeding. Industrial binding, sealing and gelling.

...

• tDrefife 1Yoe. 111 .* . EPA MARK'X'
• l?PECIFJC QUESTIONS YES NO FQRM ATTACHED x 16 17 18 x x 22 :?a 24 x 28 29 30 x 34 35 38 J. x 40 4f -.2 MA
• If a pn!plfnted label has been ptevided, affix In tlie Clesiglialed Review Ille inforrnailon fully: if 8"'f of It is ineomicl, c:tOss thieugn .it ai1d entiar Ille correct data Iii lhe >llPPfOP.rli.te"fill-ln area beloW. Als0, if any of the preprinted dam ls absent (lhe lilea to Iha lhe lsbeNzpace /(sis tti.e lf!/OmlalJOll .lllat SllOUIC1 SppearJ. please pro1t1ae*it. 1n Ille proper lllJ.il! area(.:J) 11 \he*t.abel is and eorreet. yali need not <:amPJeill llems l, UI, V, and Vt {except vl-B wf/il:ll must tie completed tegardleUJ. complete al! items lrno labei has been to the llisyuctlons: fat d&talled itl!IJI and .ror the legal lWlhorizatlons under \'Whicn this dala ls collected. MARK' SPCCIFIC QUESTIONS YES NO FOR('.r A'ITACHED x 19 20* '21 x 25 26. XT x 31 32:. 33 x 3'1 38 39 ,. a ...
• I iS NOT . of'ih . listed In Ille
• miru:ns a,: P.OienllanY emit 250 roils )( pj!ryeat of ;my air pollutant under tile Cie$1l *Ait Ad ana may altect or be IOl#aled in an. attalmnent. : atea7 !FPRM !>)" 43 44 45 *'p L A N t NAG E.R TENNESSEE s. 15 16 F = FEDERAL M = PUBLIC (ofhfJr' (/Ian fedeni/ 91' sla/9) S = STATE 0 = OTHER P =PRIVATE e. STREET OR P.O. BOX P.,0 ,B b X, 2 0 0 0, NAB 26 F. C.ITY OR TOWN C T I (specify} C T I (specify) ttac:n to 'his appllcatiOn a to>>ogr8P/lie map of the ai'eli to at least one mile beyond boundaries. The map must show the 'line 01.lhe radlity, the location, of each of its existing Pf9posed Intake and each of its waste lteatment; slC!f'S(le, diSPQ$,81 and it iniet;ls fluidS ln<;lude 811 rlvl'irs and Ol.liel' Surface..wiitet In the map ate!!* See mstrudiQns for reel se s. . *
• I S *m Browns Ferry Nudear Plant (BFN) operates !hree boiling water reactors rCr ihe generating electric power. KJ. Polson Site Vice 1 25 o ..... -------0:1s;Mi 'Q -'l()Q(i,*F,1; TVA BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT NPDES PERMIT NO. AL0022080 Athens, Limestone Co., Alabama Jones Crossroads & Hillsboro, Alabama 7.5-minute Quadrangles December 2010 OOib 34 . 42 15 87 0()5. 34 42 15 87 013a 'I 34 42 30. 81 Q13b 34 43 00 87 Diffuser Ois(:harge ineludes:. 001 (1) Treated Raw Cooling Water (RCW) (2) Tuibii'le Buildli'ig station sumps (4) Liquid Radwaste System (DSNOOtb) (.S) C_ondenser Cooiing Water System Residual Heat Remoiial Seivlee Water <RHR$ S stem 005 blOWdown from the Tralni!)g,Ce"ter chil!et sy,stem (includes. stale, blofouling waste from Insulator showers used by personnel with asbestos abatement activities; & raln\liater. 15 07 1.5 ()7 00 07 00 (33.2490 MGD} (0. 1339 MGD) MGD) (0.03MGDJ (2841.7 "1GO) 0.5924MGD 0.0268MGD Tenne$See* River Form Approved OMB No. 2040-0086 Tennessee River Via DSNob1 (internal oionitPtinQ ppijitj River Tennessee River via DSN013a-and River via OSN013 Dis(;harge tQ surface water 4 A Mixing 1 Q Oischarge to sutfaee water 4 A Gnnding i L StiibiliZation Ponds 3 G tecl t:agoon& 3 B Discharge to surface.water 4 A COnUn!ll' on Page ?

013p AL8640015410 (0,0554. MGD) .io surface water (0. 07MGO) (0.0042 MGD) Fotm Approved OMB No. 2040-0086. Re!;ldUal.Heat Removal SSritice 3dayslwk; 3.93 19.60 3.93MG .126 Waler (inc/lldes operational 3-4wks/mo (on avg.} diSChafQes and (OJ'! avg.) 013a(t) wastewater Lagoons 10mos./yr 0.22 0,28 0.22MG 0.28MG. 128 (cin avg;) (on avg.) 013b Sedimentation Ponds 5dyas/wk.; . 1-2 mos.lyr 0.49 0.'23MG. 0.49MG 60 1 wk.Imo (on a\lg.) (on avg.) EPA FOrin 351o.;2c {llev *. 2-llS) PaQe20f4 (2).Xylene EPA .f:aim 35111-2C (8-90) Alaf3400l54.1o (1) The discharge frorn the WasteW;tter Lagoons, DSfli 013a(1), ha!> the potential to cantliin asbeS!ds. Water from provicf!!'J ror

• involved m as!>estos stripping and handling opetatiOns are filtered through 0.03 micron mters prior to being diScharged fo the Wastewater U1go0ns. (2) The dilleharge from DSN 01 $. (9t0rm water _In. F,Qt111 has tile potential to: c6ntain $ne .due to :the presence <if a gesoftne fueJ pump for within the 01*a area.
• Cdntiniie on Page 4 WET BiomooitoringdC;ita hC!s been on prace$S (OSN 001) over the past five years in accordance with Part IV .. Effluent Toxic;i.ty L'mitaiions and Biomonitoring: Requireinent$, ofthe cllrrent NPDES. Permit AL00222080 (si:ie attached Resonable Potential * *
• E:nvirpomenta! Science Corporation Mercury One, L TO GEL LLC 1206'5 Lebanon* Road Mt. Juliet! TN 37122 2241 PinnacleParkway SuiteB . . Ofi 44087 2040 Road Charleston, Sb 29407 . N,WE & (type '"Pr,/ntl PolSt;>n, $ite Vice C; SIGNATURE (B.:S0} Page4of4 800-707-5859 331).,963"'()843 843-556-8.171 All pollutants except field: parameters {pH, temp, TRC, and LUig) were anaiy2ec1: by esc: with the of O$N(l01Q, Low level mercury All OSN Q01b pollutants except fieJd *parameters (pH, ternp, TRC) a. PHONE NO. (area code*& tiO.} (256) 729-3&75 D. DATE SIGNED

... <S,.0 <24. JZ mgJL <1:0. r 2.4 2 :n,gll. (7* 1 1-0. 2:* mgll 4.9 1 2 M!JIL <D .. 10 1 .2843* 2985,5 VAl:.01! 3{!5 MGD VALUE 74;2 "F .. F. <1;0 -Xt I <0.05 I I I I I I e I I *<o.o.s I I. 1 1Q, I I I .1 I 5:0 xi X I : <Q.10 I I I I I 121 I I <MO .1 I I -X I I <Q.10 I I J I I t 2 I rrig(L I I . <0.10 I I 1 &PA FODJI IB*lll!J .PagaV*1 r.ntitrWt n: " .. " *" '2 rt"!91L Oi46 1' x 2 mQIL <5.2 1 x <0.10 mg/L, c;Q.10 1 x x x x x 11. 1 *x .x x x .p;35 2. mgtL. 0.20* 1. o;o3l *'2 <m91t. 0.026 1 x <0;20 2 *mg/L. <;Q.20 1 x <'Q;001Q 2 mgtL <0;,Q019 1 x 0:2a 2 mgJL O;f4 1 x 5.0 :2 mgiL 4.6 1 <0.;0.050 *2 l'r:ISJIL 1 x o;oss 2. mg/L 0.045 1 x <0.0019 2 mg/L <o.0*0.10 1 x <0.010 2 <0.010 1* EPA.Form:3&10-2C Pagev*2 1 x <0;001() 2 'i)lg/l. <0.0010 1 x <0;(>010 2. inQIL <0,0010 1 x, <0.00050. 2 mglL 1 x <0.<;1010 2 ll)g/L <OJJ010 1 x 0;0013 2 mg/L 0;0020 1 x <0;0010 2 .. mgJL 1 .x 2.21 2; ogJL 1..82" 1 x 0;0013* 2 mgll.. 0.0020 1 x <0.0010 2. mgtl <();0010 *1 x <0.00050 2* ll)g/l <0.00050 1 x <O.Q01.Q 2 mgtL <0.0010 1. x <O.P10 2 mg/L. <0'.010 1 x 2 mglL <0.005() f x .;0.040 2 mg/L 1 X. OESCl'{l.BE R!:;SUlTS <0;050 x < mgJL <0.010 1 x <. ci.0.010 2 <0.0010 t .X x <0:0010 2 mg/L <0;0010 1 x <0.0010 2. mgll < 0.0010 1 x 2 mgll *.::* o. 1 x <-0.00.10 tng/L <0.0010 1 x <0,0050. .2 mg/L < :0.0050 *1 x <0-.050 2 mg/L; < O;OS.0 1 x <0;0050. :2 . mg/L <0.0050 1 <O.OOlO 2 rng'L <0.0010 1 x "'0.0050 *2 mg/L <0 .. 0050: *1 x <.0.0010 .2 mglt, <0.0010* .1 x < 0.0010 *2 < 0.0010 1 :X < 0.0010 2' <O.Q010 1 x < 0,0()10 2 mg/l :<b.0010 1 x <il.0020 :z mg/l .. <.0.0020: 1 x <0;0010 ,2 rrig/L <0.0010 1 x <0:0050 2 n.1g1L <o;oo5o. 1 x 2 mg/L < 0"00:25 1 EPA .3610-2C (8-$0)

• PugeVo.4

x x K x x x. x x x x x: x x X: x x x x x < 0.0010 2 i'ng/l. ..:,0.00.10 1 <0.0010 2 JTig/l:. 1 . . . . .* A.:t:SS4QP.1.?410. ** ** ** x x x x x x x x x x x x )( x x x x x :X x EPA*l'orm (8'90) Pao-Y*'t CQN11N\JEl Of,I PAGl!V.;fl

1 mg/L 1 Jrlg/L .1 1 lilg/L VALUE: *19.6 .3.93 27 MGD VA E 103;8 $9.5 13 OF VALUE 18 OF MINIMl.IM EP.A f'onn 3510*2C (8*901 x <5.0 1 rilgll. x 1 mg1.L x x x x x *mQJL* x x x x -OAS 1 mg/L X. 0.029 1 *mgll. )( <0 .. 20 1 tngl!,. x <0.Q010 1 .mgn.. x 0;49 '1 *mg/L x 4.6 1 *mg/L x 1 mg!L x 0.10 t mg/L x <0.001,0 *1* mg!L x <0.910

• t mglL *Pa.a.aV*2. CONtlNlm,'1NPAr.i:

x <0.0010 1 . mg/(. x 1: x <0.0Q050 1 rilQIL * *x l .mglL x .<0.()010 1 mg/L x <0.0010* 1. mg/L x 0.001 1. l'riO/L <o.00:10 1 mg/l X:* <q;09050 .1 mg/l x <0.0010 .1 mg/Lr x. <0.010* 1 mg/l .x <OJloSO 1 n}Q/L 1 x I I I <0 .. 010 I I I I . I I 1 I mgll. x I I I <O.W I I I I I I 1 I X I I x <0.10 . . : : 1 . -X I I I < o,ooto 1 mg/L ... X I I I < 0;0910 1 . *mg/L x I r I < o .. 001n *1 mglL X I I I <*0;0050 1 *mgll -x I I I < (>;050 I I I I I I l I mg/L -x 0.012 :1 mg/l., >C 0;0023. 1 mg/l.,, x < 0;0050 1 n:igtt. X I I I 1 X I r I <<ct0010 1 mg!L -x I I I < o.op10 I I I I I I 1 I m9'1--x I I I < I I I I I 11 I X I I I <0.0020 1 mgll x I t I < O.Qo1o 1 ing/L x I I I <0.0050 I I I I I I 1 I mgiL -* x I I I < o .. 002s I I I I I J 1 I mgll llPAf.onn Page,V-4 CONf1.NllS: it;" <p,oo5Q x <0.0010 1 I mgJL ..._ x <-0;001°0 1 J: t:nW.l -x <0.0050 1 1* mg/l -x <0:0010 1 I nigi.i.. -x <0.0010 I 1 irigrL -x x. <0.0010 <0.0050 . g -* x <0.0010 *1 I .mg/L .. .. .;;.;.:-;..,:. . ..; .... ... .x. <0.040 .. 1 . *jt\gl,L x <0.040 *( mg/l x <Q-,04Q '1 mg/L x <0.040 "1 *mg/L .x <0.Q40. *nig/L x <0.040 f ff!g/L x <.0;040 .1 ,mg(l x <.0.040 1 "1QIL x <0.040 t .X: *<<0.040 , mgtL .x <0,040 tng/L !!PA.Form PagoV-6 *"GlfTlNI IF (lr,I VA x x x >.C *X x x x x x x x x .,)( x :x .x x x < 0.0()10 1 mgll _){ 1 mgJL < 0;0010 x* x: x ,.X: .X x x x :x x x x x x .x x x x x x

Pag&V.S 350 1 mg/L 4.9. 1 mQll 9* n,g/l-t -:fl'IQ/l VAWE -0.21487 12 MGD "C. oc 20. l .rtlg/L x if) 4 l 117 o .. .1 x 1 mgll .PaaeY-1

• x x x x 10. 1' mQIL x x .x X: 0.49 1 rtig/L i 0;(>22 1 X:. <0;20 *1 m9JL x <0.0010 1 n}glt.;; x (}.51 1 mg/.L ),< 4.9. 1 mg/L x 0.0.081 1 m.g/J., x 0;05 '1° rrtg/L x <0 .. 0010 1 mgll x 0.012 *1 mg!L x 1 mg/L x <O,d0.10 1 mg/L x <0.00050 1 *mgll x <0;0010 mlJIL x <0,00.10 1 mg/L x <0.0010 *1 mg/L x* <0.0002Q 1 (ngJL x 0.0013 1 mg IL x <0.0010 1 mgll x-<0,00050 1 mg/J. .X <0.0010 1 mgll x <0,().1() 1 mg/L x <o.OO!SO 1 ingn_ x <0;04Q 1 nlg/t. EPA Fonn 3S10*2C (B-!!j)) CONTINllF.l'.lfliPAnPV.,.t x <0.010 1 mglL }(, <.O.Q01.0 1 !'119ll x x <,.0.0010 l .mgJL x <0.0010 1 mg/L x <O.Q010 1 mgll x <0:0010 1 x <0;0050 1 mg/L x <0.050 1 mgJ.L *X <0.0050 1 mg/L x <0.0010 1 mgli.. x <0.0050 f mg fl x <0.0010 1 mg/L. K <*0.0010 f mgll x <0.0010 1 mg/t. x <().0010 1 ing/L x < 0;0020 1 1Tl91L x < t;>.OOlO 1 mgll x <0.0050 1 mgll x <.Q.0025 1 mg IL Page.1(-4

. .::o;OQ10 1 *mg/L x <0;0010 1 mgiL x *1 mg/l 1. mgtl .. X <0.0010 1 mg/L <0.0010 1 <*O.d010 1 mgt.L <0.0010 <0.040 mgll x <0,()40 1 mgll x <0;040 1 x <:,0.040 1 <.0.040 1 x* <0.040 1 mglL x mg/L *<0.040 1 1 <0:040 1 ing/L x. <0.040 1 i!PA F.omi 3510.zc x x x x X. x x. x x x x x. x <0.00.10 1 x < _0;0010'* . 1 mgit.

EPA fom .:is10.2c (8*9QJ

• CDNTiNiU: ON 1,'Alti:o EPA Form (B-scil

<5.0 180. 1 mg/L. 1 1.1;30 23. 1' VAL E 0.49 96 MGO V:AlUE 5;0. 1 mgll. x .x x x x x x x x x .0.94 *1 *mg/L .X 0,062 1 '<0.20 1 x '<0.00.10 1 'mg/L x x 6;!). ' li"IQ/l x 0.011 1 ITllJIL x d;06.a 1 mglL x. <Q;00.10 1 mfi/L x 1 i:ng/L x p.op11 JnWL x <0;0010 mglL x <0.00050 '1 mgll x <;0;0010 t mQ/L x <0.0010 1 mgll x <0,0010 1' mg/L x x <0.0010 } mg/L x. 0.0016 1 mg/L x. <O.OOOSo 1 mg/L . .X <0.0010 1 mgll x <0.010 1' MglL x <0.0050 1 mg/L x <0.040 1 mg4. x 0£i$0Rl8E.RESULTS: t0'1ITINll£ ON PA(U: V.4 <<1.050 .*x. < 0.010 '1 mQIL x .,<0.0010 1 ll)g/L x x. *<;0;0010 1 moll. x <<*.'0J)010 1 mg/L <0;0010 1 mg/L x <*0.0010 1 mpil .X <OJ.)050 1 !'rigll. x <.0.050 1 mgll X* <.0.0050 1 mgl x < 0;0(>>10 1 mgll x <.0.00.50 , mg1L. x <0,0010 1 mgiL x < 1 mg/L x <Q,0010 1 mg/L x <: 0.00.10 1 ni9/L x 1 rrigtl. x < 0'.001Q. mglL

• x <*O;Q050 1 mg/L x <0.0026 1 mgll

<"0.0010 1 mWL <0;001.0 1 .mgiL <:0;005o 1 mg1L '<0.001(l *1 1 mt/4 < 0.()()10: *t 'rnQIL <0,0010 1 mgfl,. 1 mgtL <.Q;0010 *1 rngl(. <:0.040 :1 !1J91L <:o.04p. , mg/L <0.04() .1 'ing/L <'0;040 f hJg/L <0;040 1 mg1L. <0:040 1. mgi( <*.0.040 1 mgiL <0:040 1 tnWL <.0.040 1 mglt <0.()40 1 n'ig/L 1 mg/l .t:ONTINliF pant: Wi* x x x .. x x x 'X' .x. x x x x x x x x x x <: Q,001.0 1 mg IL x <0,0010 rrigfl. .EPA IlMIO) x X. x x x x x x x x x x x X. x

EPA Form 3510.zc (8*110) Sil Sl 0 0 "' "' z z z z 0 0 0 0 ... ... ..... "' OD ..... p p p t: 0 0 ..... ..... gi "' ..... INTAKE FOREBAV t i : Yard Drain Maintenance Drawdown& Misc. Leakage p "' ..... ..... 0 "' z 0 ..... "' .. ?<-!" BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT-DISCHARGE FLOW SCHEMATIC NPDES PERMIT AL0022080 Schematic Revised Feb 2011 Sanitary sewage, photo development waste, chiller blowdown, & cooler/air com ressor flushes DSND13a Filtered Asbestos TENNESSEE RIVER DSN 012 3.8880 Intake Screen Back s PLANT INTAKE PUMPING STATION r-**----J Abatement Intake Bldg. Residual Heat Removal Service Water DI Makeup Water Storage Tank Washes DI Water Filtration Sys. Backwash Sum I I I I :p *8 I Cf I I I I I I .(0.2880) Unit 3 Control Bldg.Air Handling Units and Drains Emergency Equipment Cooling Water System (9.77S6) .----*-, l Nalco (53.2800) I Treatment L.-----*-Turbine Building MOOE) :. COLDWATER 1 CHANNEL I I I I

• I Sil z 8 .... "' UI .9 z m lg m "' m .!2 Cooling Towers tr 0 IBlowdown ..;;;, 1 z dbchoraeine; 1 m usedantylh I 0 ,. ..... Is I S:: "°'""""fandoll I 0 opetatl,.unltl J 0 areonc.oolifll : towen) I DSNOOlb: (0.03) Liquid Radwaste System p DSN013b ............... io.'0'666)""'"'"" Sedimentation Ponds Condenser Cooling . Water S stem Raw Cooling Water & Fire Protection Systems* OSNOXX Permitted Outfall EECW Primary Pathway 0 Precipitation +Standby diesel engine coolers Alternate Pathway +Core spray pump room coolers ------+RHR pump room coolers __ ... ,_ ..... Intermittent Flow 0 Evaporation +Electric board on ACU condensers +RHR pump seal coolers RCW/FP +Shutdown board on ACU condensers +Turbine lube oil coolers +Shutdown board on Chillers +Gen. stator water & hydrogen coolers +Control Bay chillers +Reactor feed pump turbine oil coolers +H202 analyzers +Svs. & control air compressors +Backup for several RCW components +Steam jet air ejector precoolers Condensate Storage Tank +Gen. alternator coolers +Air conditioning +Recirc. Pump M-!5 sel coolers. +RBCCW heat exchangers +Gen. breakers t Ternoerafute IW'lhterl Value *If noncontac:t eotillng water iS .discharged .... Th8 current pennit requires no monitoring of thfs outfall; this, n0 sarnP1e was colleded for tile EPA Form "3S10-2E fonn seasonal? NONE NIA II. CQ ... C. IQnatute

. ,, or type in the unshaded areas only rorm 2F NPDES EPA EPA ID Number (copy from Item 1 of Form 1) AL8640015410 Form Approved. OMB No. 2040-0085 Approval Expires 5-31-92 United States Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC 20460 Application for Permit to Discharge Storm Water Paperwork Reduction Act Notice Public reporting burden for this application is estimated to average 28.6 hours per application, including times for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding the burden estimate, any other aspect of this collection of information, or suggestions for improving this form, including suggestions which may Increase or reduce this burden to: Chief, Information Policy Branch, PM-223, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW, Washington, DC 20460, or Director, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503 I all Locat B. Latitude c. Longitude 013 34 43 00 87 07 00 Tennessee River 013a 34 42 00 87 07 00 Tennessee River via outfall 013 014* 34 43 00 87 07 30 Tennessee River 017* 34 42 00 87 07 00 Tennessee River 018 34 42 00 87 06 45 Tennessee River 019 34 42 00 87 06 15 Tennessee River 024 34 42 30 87 06 30 Tennessee River via offsite ditch and farmland A. Are you now required by any Federal, State, or local authority to meet any implementation schedule for the construction, upgrading or operation of wastewater treatment equipment or practices of any other environmental programs which may affect the discharges described in this application? This includes, but is not limited to, permit conditions, administrative or enforcement orders, enforcement compliance schedule letters, stipulations, court orders, and grant or loan conditions. NO 1. Identification of Conditions, 2. Affected Outfalls Agreements, Etc. number source of discha e 3. Brief Description of Project NIA 4. Final Com liance Date a. req. b. proj. B. You may attach additional sheets describing any additional water pollution (or other environmental projects which may affect your discharges) you now have under way or which you plan. Indicate whether each program is now under way or planned, and indicate your actual or planned schedules for construction. Ill. Site Draina e Ma

• Attach a site map showing topography (for indicating the outline of drainage areas served by the outfall(s) covered in the application if a topographic map is unavailable) depicting the facility including: each of its intake and discharge structures; the drainage area of each storm water outfall; paved areas and buildings within the drainage area of each storm water outfall, each known past or present areas used for outdoor storage or disposal of significant materials, each existing structural control measure to reduce pollutants in storm water runoff, materials loading and access areas, areas where pesticides, herbicides, soil conditioners and fertilizers are applied; each of its hazardous waste treatment, storage or disposal units (including each area not required to have a RCRA permit which is used for accumulating hazardous waste under 40 CFR 262 .34 ); each well where fluids from the faciflty are Injected underground; springs, and other surface water bodies which receive storm water discharges from the facility. EPA Form 3510-2F (Rev.1-92) Page 1of3 Continue on Page 2

, tion of Pollutant.Sources. . . ,.,ch an of jhji!' fllidlJ.!fe. units} *or.ifnpeniioi.iS $uit.lees l>llYerf and _building f90fs) .. dtafhed to ** s outfall *. anti an estimate of the total surface area drained b the* oulfaU* *

• _013
• 5;0 acres u acres 01e 18.8.aert?$ 013a 40,5 94.5 .019 48.0 acres 014 SJ) acres 202 acres 024 e:it' e1cr$s Oj 7 3..0 acres 6.0 acres Drained (provide units) :M.2'acres 156.7 acres &Uacres B .. Provide a narratiile dascriPtian of significanl materials ¥Uri'itnU;y or in the past lhtee yeara* h8ve bean tteated, or ih a manner to alloW to stonn water. methOd of treatment. past anif tnaterlals management practices
• ernp(Qyed to C:Qntact by the8e .materials with storm runoff; IQadlng i!ncl access areas: .and the *rocatiOn; manner anc:J ffeq1,1en . in Pesticide$. herbicides, $0!1.condiliOners, and feitilizers are a lied. See EPA Form'2F Attachment 1
• c. F.;ir eaeh outfall, provide the location and a deScript1011 of stru91ur$I and ne>nstructural control fo fE!duce in storm water runQff: d&setjption of the treatment the storm water receives; lnclud.il'.19 tile and.type of (qr and treatment measures and the qttintale disp0sal of an . solid or fluld wasteS oih&r.ttian
• Outfal.l liSt Codes from Number . Treatment
• Table 2f'-1* See EPA Form 2F Attachment 1
• v. Nonstormwater Oischal'I *es A. I under peitarty ()f law that .tlie cOver'ed by this application haite beel! tEISted for !fie presence of nonstormwatet discharges, .and th\'Jt all nOll!>tOl'ritWl!ter dlschlirges*frorn !hes& outfall(&) at* tdentificld Iii either 8n aecornpanying Fenn 2C oi' Form 21: . IJPPlicGtion.for ttie:outralL . Date. Sin __ ned N.aine and Official Title (type_*or print) S"tgnalure * ., I<. J. Vice President
• ot>seived durin
• a -test These Outfalls eyr;iluate<f thtQugh field and through.inte,f.VieWS*With plant perspnnel., Vt Si nificant LeakS ot S ill$ . Provide extstirtg infoririation regarding the hlStory of significant reaks or spills *Of toxic or hazardoil$ p0tlutanfs at tile fa'st. three
• ears. the approx/J:nalJf date and recatkin <if.the s m and ihe i>e and amount Of:maferilil reteased. Thet&'have been no significant leaks or at toick: or hazatdous pbilutants at ihe:tacint; during the last three. Y9rs. EPA.Forro ;!St0-2F (Rev. 1-92) Page.2.of3 Continue 01' Page.l
• rt:eil'l'I Page.2 EPA ID 1 pf Fo11ft 1) AL864001s410 &Jisehar e IJ'iformatiori E ..
• Po:lial discharges analysis* liSted In table 2J=..2, 2F-3 or*2 .-4, a ora cpmpontinf Qfa sutstance .Wh!. . Y c;un-ently use or manufacture as an or final prod11ct or No (go to SeCtipn D<) Do you have any knowtedge or reason to believe fhat,any *t fat tit ctironrc.ttOOcity has been milde on any of Y<>lir or on:a receivk)g water Jn relation to yo.ut disctuuge within the*last 3_yeaf!I? . . .. . x .es sliCh p:ooutants below) No {go to IXJ No* biotoglcal test for chronic texlclty has-bael) .on .anv wer Biomonitdri!i9 data has beeri collected on process {PSN 0Q1) th!! past fi11e bl accorclance IV;. Emuerit Toliicity limilalions and Blomoriltorlng Requlreinelits; NPDES P.<!.l'.rilit (l;e* Potenti<il evalUatian). . .. IX. contract Ana
• is Information Were 'any Of lhe ailalySi:s reporte(f In item VII by a :Of fJrrn?* D. (iist:ttie a,ryc1"1el8pbone numtier Of, and i)olrutants ana .
• I>.
• each .sueti lab<itatei or film beloW .. c. Atea,Code & Pttooe No. X Certification O. PoHutants*Ana I certify under penalty of law that this document aiid al! attacflments Went prepared uhder my diif:lefi.on qi superviSion in wltf1 a sy$tem that per$Qnnel properly and sµf)m.itteg; on my inquiry_ of the. person orperson$ who. the system or those pef$Qll$ directly responsible forgathering the infdrmation, /he informatkm 8ubmitted is; to the best of my know/ec/g!J a,nd .. belief, true, accurate, and complete.. 1 am aware tJ1atthere are significant penalfie.$. 'ror sulµnittil?g fa,(se fnc/tlrJ;h
• the ossibilit of fine antJ.im risrininen(toi khOwin violations .. B. Area Code Phqne No. K J. Pols6h, Site Vice c1 EPA ID Number (copy from Item 1 of Form 1) Fonn Approved. OMB No. 2040-0085 AL8640015410 Approval Expires 5-31-92 ... charge Information (Continued from paae 3 of Form 2F) art A* You must provide the results of at least one analysis for every pollutant in this table. Complete one table for each outfall. See instructions for additional details. DSN 013 Maximum Values Average Values Pollutant (include units) (include units) Number and Grab Sample Sample of CASNumber Taken During Taken During Stonn First 20 Flow-weighted First20 Flow-weighted Events (if available) Minutes Composite Minutes Composite Sampled Sources of Pollutants Oil and Grease <5.6 mg/L N/A 1 Biological Oxygen Demand <5.0 mg/L <5.0 mg/L 1 (BOD) Chemical Oxygen Demand 12. mg/L 16. mg/L 1 (COD) Total Suspended Solids 14. mg/L 18. mg/L 1 (TSS) Total Nitrogen 1.30 mg/L 0.62 mg/L 1 Total <0.10 mg/L <0.10 mg/L 1 Phosphorus pH Minimum 7.38 s.u. Maximum 7.38 s.u. Minimum Maximum 1 Part B
• List each pollutant that is limited in an effluent guideline which the facility is subject to or any pollutant listed in the facility's NPDES permit for its process wastewater (if the facility is operating under an existing NPDES pennit). Complete one table for each outfall. See the instructions for additional details and requirements. Maximum Values Average Values Pollutant (include units) (include units) Number and Grab Sample Grab Sample of CAS Number Taken During During Storm First 20 Flow-weighted First 20 Flow-weighted Events (if available) Minutes Composite Minutes Composite Sampled Sources of Pollutants 721 Fecal Coliforms (coloniesl100 ml) NIA 1 Temperature 10.7°C NIA 1 TRC <0.05 mglL Cl NIA 1 Ammonia Nitrogen NIA 0.20 mglL 1 Color 10. pcu 10. pcu 1 Nitrate-Nitrite 0.74 ma/L 0.62 mall 1 TKN 0.58 malL <0.10 mall 1 Antimony <0.0010 mQ/L <0.0010 malL 1 Arsenic <0.0010 mQ/l <0.001 o mall 1 Barium 0.0180 mall 0.0150 mall 1 Beryllium <0.0010 mQ/l <0.0010 ma/L 1 Cadmium <0.00050 mall <0.00050 mall 1 Chromium 0.0013 mglL 0.0026 mall 1 Cobalt <0.0010 mglL * <0.0010 mg/L 1 Copper 0.0025 mglL 0.0039mglL 1 Lead 0.0011 mg/l 0.0016 mglL 1 Nickel 0.0016 ma/L 0.0026 rna/L 1 Selenium <0.0010 mgll <0.0010 mall 1 Silver <0.00050 mall <0.00050 mall 1 Thallium <0.001 O mall * <0.001 O ma/L 1 Tin <0.0010 mall <0.0010 mg/L 1 Zinc 0.016 mall 0.018 mgll 1 Mercurv <0.00020 ma/L <0.00020 mall 1 Naphthalene <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mg/L 1 EPA Fann 3510*2F (Rev. 1-92) Page Vll-1 Continue on Reverse
• .:n pollutant shown in Tables 2F-2, 2F*3, and 2F-4, that you know or have reason to believe is present. See the instructions for details and requirements. Complete one table for each outfall. DSN 013 Maximum Values Average Values Pollutant (include units) (include units) Number and Grab Sample Grab Sample of CAS Number Taken During Taken During Storm First20 Flow-weighted First 20 Flow-weighted Events (if available) Minutes Composite Minutes Composite Sampled Sources of Pollutants Acrolein <0.050 mg/L <0.050 mall 1 Acrvlonitrile <0.010 mgll <0.010mall 1 Benzene . <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mall 1 Bromodichloromethane 0.0020 mg/L <0.0010 mg/L 1 Bromoform <0.0010 mg/l <0.0010 mall 1 Bromomethane <0.0050 mall <0.0050 moll 1 Carbon tetrachloride <0.0010 mall <0.0010 mall 1 Chlorobenzene <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mall 1 Chlorodibromomethane <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mg/L 1 Chloroethane <0.0050 mg/L <0.0050 mg/L 1 2-Chloroethvl vinvl ether <0.050 mg/L <0.050 mall 1 Chloroform 0.0150 mgll 0.0075 mall 1 Ch loromethane <0.0025 mg/L <0.0025 mg/L 1 1,2-Dichlorobenzene <0.0010 mg/l <0.0010 mall 1 1,3-Dichlorobenzene <0.0010 mQ/L <0.0010 mg/L 1 1,4-Dichlorobenzene <0.0010 mall <0.0010 mg/l 1 Dichlorodifluoromethane <0.0050 mg/L <0.0050 mQ/l 1 1, 1-Dichloroethane <0.0010 mgll <0.0010 mQ/l 1 1,2-Dichloroethane <0.0010 mall <0.0010 mall 1 1, 1 <0.0010 mgll <0.0010 mall 1 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mall 1 1,2-Dichloropropane <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mg/l 1 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene <0.0010 mg/l <0.0010 mwl 1 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene <0.0010 mall <0.0010 mall 1 Ethyl benzene <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mall 1 Methylene Chloride <0.0050 mg!L <0.0050 mQ/L 1 1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane <0.0010 mall <0.0010 mg/L 1 Tetrachloroethene <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mQ/L 1 Toluene <0.0050 m11/L <0.0050 mg/L 1 1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mg/L 1 1 , 1,2-Trichloroethane <0.0010 moll <0.0010 mg/l 1 Trichloroethane <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mall 1 Trichlorofluoromethane <0.0050 mg/L <0.0050 mg/L 1 Vinvl chloride <O .0010 mall <0.0010 mall 1 Total Xylenes <0.0030 mg/L <0.0030 mall 1 Toluene-dB 92.4% Rec 103.% Rec 1 Dibromofluoromethane 90.7% Rec 104.% Rec 1 4-Bromofluorobenzene 90.4%Rec 112.% Rec 1 Part D -Provide data for the storm event(s) which resulted in the maximum values for the flow weighted composite sample. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Date of Duration Total rainfall Number of hours between Maximum flow rate during Total flow from Storm of Storm Event during storm event beginning of storm meas-rain event rain event Event (in minutes) (In inches) ured and end of previous (gallons/minute or (gallons or specify units) measurable rain event specify units) 03/21/2010 780 0.82 213 0.931 MGD 73,765 gallons 7. Provide a of the method of flow measurement or estimate. The flow was estimated using Manning's Equation and depth of the flow in the pipe. EPA Form 3510-wF (Rev. 1-92) PageVll-2 EPA ID Number (copy from Item 1 of Form 1) Form Approved. OMB No. 2040-0085
• AL8640015410 Approval Expires 5-31-92 .. charne Information (Continued from oaae 3 of Form 2F) .-art A -You must provide the results of at least one analysis for every pollutant in this table. Complete one table for each outfall. See instructions for additional details. DSN 013a Maximum Values Average Values Pollutant (include units) (include units) Number \ and Grab Sample Grab Sample of CASNumber Taken During Taken During Storm First 20 Flow-weighted First20 Flow-weighted Events (if available) Minutes Composite Minutes Composite Samiiled Sources of Pollutants Oil and Grease <5.3 mg/L N/A 1 Biological Oxygen Demand < 5.0 mg/L <5.0 mg/L 1 (BOD) Chemical Oxygen Demand 10. mg/L 11. mg/L 1 (COD) Total Suspended Solids 32. mg/L 32. mg/L 1 Total Nitrogen 1.4 mg/L 1.1 mg/L 1 Total 0.18 mg/L 0.14 mg/L 1 Phosphorus pH Minimum 7.63 s.u. Maximum 7.63 s.u. Minimum Maximum 1 Part B -List each pollutant that is limited in an effluent guideline which the facility is subject to or any pollutant listed in the facility's NPDES permit for its process wastewater (if the facility is operating under an existing NPDES permit). Complete one table for each outfall. See the instructions for additional details and requirements. Maximum Values Average Values Pollutant (Include units) (include units) Number and Grab Sample Grab Sample of CASNumber Taken During Taken During Storm First20 Flow-weighted First 20 Flow-weighted Events (if available) Minutes Composite Minutes Composite Sampled Sources of Pollutants 181 Fecal Coliforms (coloniesl100 ml) NIA 1 Temperature 14.2°C NIA 1 TRC <0.05 mglL Cl NIA 1 Ammonia Nitrogen 0.14malL 0.20 mall 1 Color 5.0 PCU 5.0i:>cu 1 Nitrate-Nitrite 0.77 mall 0.58 mall 1 TKN 0.66 ma/L 0.53 mall 1 Antimony <0.001 O mg/L <0.0010 mg/L 1 Arsenic 0.0012 mg/L 0.0012 mglL 1 Barium 0.021mg/L 0.021mg/L 1 Beryllium <0.0010 mgll <0.0010 mg/L 1 Cadmium <0.00050 mi:i/L <0.00050 mall 1 Chromium 0.0027 ma/L 0.0028 mQIL 1 Cobalt <0.0010 mall <0.001 o mo/L 1 Coooer 0.0013 ma/L 0.0013 ma/L 1 Lead 0.0023 ma/L 0.0024mg/L 1 Nickel 0.0016 mgll 0.0026 mg/L 1. Selenium 0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mgll 1 Silver <0.00050 mg/L <0.00050 mg/L 1 Thallium <0.0010 mall <0.0010 mall 1 Tin <0.0010 moll <0.0010 moll 1 Zinc 0.014 mg/L 0.015 mall 1 Mercurv <0.00020 mg/L <0.00020 mall 1 Naphthalene <0.0010ma/L <0.0010 ma/L 1 Aluminum 2.2 ma/L 2.0 mall 1 Boron <0.20 mall <0.20 mall 1 Iron 1.4 mall 1.5 mall 1 Magnesium 4.0 mglL 3.9 mall 1 Manganese 0.070 mg/L 0.072 mglL 1 Molybdenum <0.0050 ma/L 0.0052 mgll 1 Titanium 0.046 ma/L 0.039 mg/L 1 EPA Form 3510-2F (Rev.1-92) PageVll-1 Continue on Reverse

. ..on pollutant shown in Tables 2F-2, 2F-3, and 2F-4, that you know or have reason to believe is present. See the instructions for .uitlonal details and requirements. Complete one table for each outfall. DSN 013a Maximum Values Average Values Pollutant (include units} (include units) Number and Grab Sample Grab Sample of CAS Number Taken During Taken During Storm First 20 Flow-weighted First 20 Flow-y.reighted Events (if available) Minutes Composite Minutes Composite Sampled Sources of Pollutants Acrolein <0.050 mg/l <0.050 mg/L 1 Acrylonitrile <0.010 mgJL <0.010 m_a/L 1 Benzene <0.0010 mgfl <0.0010 mgJL 1 Bromodichloromethane <0.0010 moll <0.0010 mall 1 Bromoform <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mall 1 Bromomethane <0.0050 mg/l <0.0050 mall 1 Carbon tetrachloride <0.0010 mgtl <0.0010 mg/l 1 Chlorobenzene <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mg/L 1 Chlorodibromomethane <0.0010 mg/l <0.0010 mall 1 Chloroethane <0.0050 mg/l <0.0050 mg/l 1 2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether <0.050 mall <0.050 mg/l 1 Chloroform <0.0050 mg/L <0.0050 mg/L 1 Chloromethane <0.0025 mg/l <0.0025 mall 1 1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene <0.0010 mgJL <0.0010 mall 1 1,3-Dichlorobenzene <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mg/L 1 1,4-Dichlorobenzene <0.0010 mg/l <0.0010 mall 1 Dichlorodifluoromethane <0.0050 mg/L <0.0050 mg/L 1 1, 1-Dichloroethane <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mg/l 1 1,2-Dichloroethane <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mg/l 1 1, 1-Dichloroethane <0.0010 mall <0.0010 mg/L 1 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene <0.0010 mg/l <0.0010 mg/L 1 1,2-Dichloroorooane <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mg/l 1 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene <0.0010 mg/l <0.0010 ma/L 1 trans-1,3-Dichloroorooene <0.0010 mall <0.0010 mg/L 1 Ethylbenzene <0.0010 mg/l <0.0010 rng/l 1 Methylene Chloride <0.0050 mg/L <0.0050 mall 1 1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane <0.0010 mall. <0.0010 mall 1 Tetrachloroethene <0.0010 mg/l <0.0010 mall 1 Toluene <0.0050 mgll <0.0050 mg/l 1 1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mall 1 1, 1,2-Trichloroethane <0.0010 mgfL <0.0010 mg/L 1 Trichloroethane <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mall 1 T nchlorofluoromethane <0.0050 mg/l <0.0050 mall 1 Vinyl chloride <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mruL 1 Total Xvlenes <0.0030 mg/L <0.0030 mall 1 Toluene-dB ' 92.6%Rec 103.% Rec 1 Dibromofluoromethane 89.1% Rec 103.% Rec 1 4-Bromofluorobenzene 94.2% Rec 113.% Rec 1 Part D -Provide data for the storm event(s) which resulted in the maximum values for the flow weighted composite sample. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Date of Duration Total rainfall Number of hours between Maximum flow rate during Total flow from Storm of Storm Event during storm event beginning of storm meas-rain event rain event* Event (in minutes) (in inches) ured and end of previous. (gallons/minute or (gaflons or specify units) measurable rain event specify units) 03/21/2010 780 0.82 213 0.156MGD 813,418 gallons 7. Provide a description of the method of flow measurement or estimate. The flow was measured using the existing weir. EPA Form 3510-wF (Rev. 1-92) PageVll-2 EPA ID Number (copy from Item 1 of Form 1) Fann Approved. OMB No. 2040-0085 AL8640015410 Approval Expires 5-31-92 .. .:harae Information (Continued from paae 3 of Form 2FJ ,, * -art A -You must provide the results of at least one analysis fqr every pollutant in this table. Complete one table for each outfall. See instructions for additional details. DSN 018 Maximum Values Average Values Pollutant (include unitsJ (Include units) Number and Grab Sample Grab Sample of CAS Number Taken During Taken During Storm First20 Flow-weighted First20 Flow-weighted *Events (if available} Minutes Composite Minutes Composite Sampled Sources of Pollutants Oil and Grease <5.3 mg/L NIA 1 Biological Oxygen Demand <5.0 mg/L . <5.0mg/L 1 (BOD) Chemical Oxygen Demand <10. mg/L <10. mg/L 1 (COD) Total Suspended Solids 4.6 mg/L 5.2 mg/L 1 (TSS) Total Nitrogen 0.40 mg/L 1.3 mg/L 1 Total <0.10mglL <0.10 mg/L 1 Phosphorus pH Minimum 8.30 s.u. Maximum 8.30 s.u. Minimum Maximum 1 Part B -List each pollutant that is limited in an effluent guideline which the facility is subject to or any pollutant listed in the facility's NPDES permit for its process wastewater (if the facility is operating under an existing NPDES permit). Complete one table for each outfall. See the instructions for additional details and requirements. Maximum Values Average Values *Pollutant (include units) (include units) Number and Grab Sample Grab Sample of CAS Number Taken During Taken During stonn First20 Flow-weighted First 20 Flow-weighted Events (if avallable) Minutes Composite Minutes Composite Sampled Sources of Pollutants 181 Fecal Coliforms (colonies/100 ml) NIA 1 Temoerature 11.5°C NIA 1 TRC <0.05 mall Cl NIA 1 Ammonia Nitroaen 0.26 mg/l 0.34 mg/L 1 Color 10.pcu 15.pcu 1 Nitrate-Nitrite 0.40 ma/L 0.72 mg/L 1 TKN <0.10 mglL 0.58 mg/L 1 Antimony <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mg/L 1 Arsenic 0.0011 mg/L 0.0012 mgJL 1 Barium 0.0070 mg/L 0.0089 mg/L 1 Bervflium <0.0010 ma/L <0.0010 mg/L 1 Cadmium <0.00050 ma/L <0.00050 mQ/L 1 Chromium 0.0011 ma/L 0.0015 ma/L 1 Cobalt <0.0010 mall <0.0010 ma/L 1 Conner 0.0036 mg/L 0.0044 mg/L 1 Lead 0.0020 ma/L 0.0019 mg/L 1 Nickel <0.0010 mQ/L 0.0066 mg/L 1 Selenium 0.0032 mglL <0.0010 mg/L 1 Silver <0.00050 ma/L <0.00050 mg/L 1 Thallium <0.0010 mall <0.0010 mg/L 1 Tin <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mall 1 Zinc 0.041 mg/L 0.084 mg/L 1 Mercurv <0.00020 mg/L <0.00020 mg/L 1 Naphthalene <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mg/L *1 EPA Form 3510-2F (Rev. 1-92) PageVIJ-1 Continl!e on Reverse . ..;n pollutant shown in Tables 2F-2, 2F-3, and 2F-4, that you know or have reason to believe is present. See the instructions for A<litional details and requirements. Complete one table for each outfall . . / DSN018 Maximum Values Average Values / Pollutant (Include units) (include units) Number and Grab Sample Grab Sample of CAS Number Taken During Taken During Storm First 20 Flow-weighted First 20 Flow-weighted Events {if available) Minutes Composite Minutes Composite Sampled Sources of Pollutants Acrolein <0.050 mg/l <0.050 mgll 1 Acrylonitrife <0.010 mg/L <0.010 mgll 1 Benzene <0.0010 mgll <0.0010 mall 1 8 romodichloromethane <0.0010 ma/L <0.0010 mgll 1 Bromoform <0.0010 mall <0.0010 mQ/L 1 Bromomethane <0.0050 mg/l <0.0050 mall 1 Carbon tetrachloride <0.0010 mall <0.0010 mg/l 1 Chlorobenzene <0.0010 mglL <0.0010 mg/L 1 Chlorodibromomethane <0.0010 mg/l <0.0010 mg/l 1 Chloroethane <0.0050 mg/l <0.0050 mgll 1 2-Chloroethyf vinyl ether <0.050 mall <0.050 mall 1 Chloroform <0.0050 mg/l <0 .. 0050 mg/l 1 Chforomethane <0.0025 mgll <O;OQ25 mall 1 1,2-Dichlorobenzene <0.0010 mg/l <0.0010 mall 1 1,3-Dichlorobenzene <0.0010 mg/l <0.0010 mg/l 1 1,4-Dichlorobenzene <0.0010 mall <0.0010 mg/L 1 Dichlorodifluoromethane <0.0050 moll <0.0050 mg/l 1 1, 1-Dichloroethane <0.0010 mg/l <0.0010 mall 1 1 ,2-Dichloroethane <0.0010 ma/L <0.0010 ma/l 1 1, 1-Dichloroethane <O .0010 mg/l <0.0010 mg/L 1 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene <0.0010 mg/l <0.0010 mg/l 1 1,2-Dichloropropane <0.0010 mg/l <0.0010 mg/l 1 cis-1,3-Dichlorooropene <0.0010 mgll <0.0010 mgll 1 <0.0010 mgll <0.0010 mglL 1 Ethylbenzene <0.0010 mgll <0.0010 mall 1 Methvlene Chloride <0.0050 mall <0.0050 mQ/L 1 1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane <0.0010 mQ/l <0.0010 mall 1 Tetrachloroethene <0.0010 mgfl <0.0010 mall 1 Toluene <0.0050 mg/L <0.0050 mQ/L 1 1,1, 1-Trichloroethane <0.0010 mg/l <0.0010 mall 1 1, 1,2-Trichloroethane <0.0010 mgll <0.0010 mg/L 1 Trichloroethane <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mg/L 1 Trichlorofluoromethane <0.0050 mg/l <0.0050 mg/l 1 Vinvl chloride <0.0010 mi;ill <0.0010 mQ/l 1 Total Xylenes <0.0030 mg/l <0.0030 mall 1 Toluene-dB 92.7 % Rec 104.% Rec 1 Dibromofluoromethane 93.3% Rec 105.% Rec 1 4-Brornofluorobenzene 93.2% Rec 112.% Rec 1 Part D -Provide data for the storm event{s) which resulted in the maximum values for the flow weighted composite sample. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Date of Duration Total rainfall Number of hours between Maximum flow rate during Total flow from Storm of Storm Event during storm event beginning of storm meas-rain event rain event Event (in minutes) (In inches) ured and end of previous (gallons/minute or (gallons or specify units) measurable rain event specify units) 03/2112010 780 0.82 213 0.8897 324,637 gallons 7. Provide a description of the method of flow measurement or estimate. The flow rate was estimated using the rational method. EPA Form 3510-wF {Rev. 1-92) PageVll-2 EPA ID Number (copy from Item 1 of Form 1) Form Approved. OMB No. 2040-0085 AL8640015410 Approval Expires 5-31-92 ....st:harge Information (Continued from oaoe 3 of Form 2F) art A -You must provide the results of at least one analysis for every pollutant in this table. Complete one table for each outfall. See ./ instructions for additional details . DSN019 Maximum Values Average Values Pollutant (include units) (include unitsJ Number and Grab Sample Grab Sample of CAS Number Taken During Taken During Storm First 20 Flow-weighted First 20 Flow-weighted Events (if available) Minutes Composite Minutes Composite Sampled Sources of Pollutants Oil and Grease <5.0 mg/L NIA 1 Biological Oxygen Demand <5.0 mg/L <5.0 mg/L 1 (BOD) Chemical Oxygen Demand <10. mg/L <10. mg/L 1 (CQD) Total Suspended Solids 8.1 mg/L 10. mg/L 1 (TSS) Total Nitrogen 0.88 mg/L 0.95 mg/L 1 Total <0.10 mg/L <0.10 mg/L 1 Phosphorus pH Minimum 6.52 s.u. Maximum 6.52 s.u. Minimum Maximum 1 Part B -List each pollutant that is limited in an effluent guideline .which the facility is subject to or any pollutant listed in the facility's NPDES permit for its process wastewater (if the facility is operating under an existing NPDES permit). Complete one table for each outfall. See the instructions for additional details and requirements. Maximum Values Average Values Pollutant (include units) (include unitsJ Number and Grab Sample Grab Sample of CAS Number Taken During Taken During Storm First 20 Flow-weighted First 20 Flow-weighted Events (if available) Minutes Composite Minutes Comoosite Sampled Sources of Pollutants <100 Fecal Coliforms (colonies/100 ml) N/A 1 Temoerature 11.6°C N/A 1 TRC <0.05 mg/L Cl N/A 1 Ammonia Nitroaen 0.17 mg/l 0.14 mg/l 1 Color 5.0 pcu 10.pcu 1 Nitrate-Nitrite 0.40 mall 0.72 mg/l 1 TKN 0.33 mall 0.38 mg/l 1 Antimonv 0.0014 m!llL <0.0010 ma/L 1 Arsenic <0.0010 mall <0.0010 ma/L 1 Barium 0.030 mg/L 0.029 mg/L 1 Bervllium <0.0010 mall <0.0010 ma/L 1 Cadmium <0.00050 m!l/L <0.00050 mall 1 Chromium 0.0012 mglL 0.0016 mg/l 1 Cobalt 0.0013 mglL 0.0012 mg/L 1 Coooer 0.0020 mglL 0.0048 mg/L 1 Lead <0.0010 mg/l 0.0012 mg/l 1 Nickel 0.0013 mglL 0.0066mg/L 1 Selenium <0.0010 mg/l <0.001 o ma/L 1 *Silver <O .00050 ma/L 0.00900 mg/L 1 Thallium <0.0010 mg/l <0.0010 mg/L 1 Tin <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mg/L 1 Zinc <0.010 m!:!IL 0.019 mgll 1 Mercury <0.00020 mall <0.00020 mg/L 1 Naphthalene <0.0010 mall <0.0010 m!:l/L 1 Aluminum 0.91 mall 1.3 mgtL 1 Boron <0.20 mg/l <0.20 mglL 1 Iron 0.77 mall 0.91 mg/L 1 Magnesium 2.8 ma/L 2.6 mo/L 1 Man!:lanese 0.33 mall 0.30 mall 1 Molvbdenum <0.0050 mall <0.0050 ma/L 1 Titanium 0.025 mall 0.036 mall 1 EPA Form 3510-2F (Rev. 1-92) PageVll-1 Continue on Reverse ""ch pollutant shown in Tables 2F-2, 2F-3, and 2F-4, that you know or have reason to believe is present. See the instructions for ,....rditional details and requirements. Complete one table for each outfall. DSN 019 Maximum Values Average Values Pollutant (include units) (include units) Number / and Grab Sample Grab Sample of GAS Number Taken During Taken During Storm First 20 Flow-weighted First 20 Flow-weighted Events (if available) Minutes Compos°ite Mlnute5 Composite Sampled Sources of Pollutants Acrolein <O .050 l1lQ/L <0.050mgll 1 Acrylonitrile <0.010 mgll <0.010 mg/L 1 Benzene <0.0010 mQ/L <0.0010 mQ/L 1 Bromodichloromethane <0.0010 mQ/L <0.0010 mg/L 1 Bromoform <0.0010 mo/L <0.0010 mg/L 1 Bromomethane <0.0050 mg/L <0.0050 mQ/L 1 Carbon tetrachloride <0.0010 mQ/L <0.0010 mall 1 Chlorobenzene <0.0010 mgll <0.0010 mglL 1 Chlorodibromomethane <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mg/L 1 Chloroethane <0.0050 mg/l <0.0050 mg/L 1 2-Chloroethyl vinvl ether <0.050 mg/L <Q.050 mg/L 1 Chloroform <0.0050 mQ/L <0.0050 mg/l 1 Chloromethane <0.0025 mg/l <0.0025 mg/l 1 1,2-Dichlorobenzene <0.0010 mQ/l <0.0010 mall 1 1,3-Dichlorobenzene <0.0010 mall <0.0010 mall 1 <0.0010 moll <0.0010 mall 1 Dichlorodifluoromethan.e <0.0050 mQ/L <0.0050 mg/L 1 1, 1-Dichloroethane <0;0010 mgll <0.0010 mg/L 1 1,2-Dichloroethane <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mall 1 1 , 1-Dichloroethane <0.0010 mall <0.0010 mall 1 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene <0.0010 mgfl. <0.0010 mg/L 1 1,2-Dichlorooropane <0.0010 mafl. <0.0010 mg/l 1 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene <0.0010 mg/l <0.0010 mg/l 1 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene <0.0010 mQ/l <0.0010 mg/l 1 Eth vi benzene <0.0010 mall <0.0010 mall 1 Methylene Chloride <0.0050 mg/L <0.0050 mg/l 1 1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane <0.0010 moll <0.0010 mall 1 Tetrachloroethene <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mQ/L 1 Toluene <0.0050 mg/L <0.0050 mg/L 1 1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane <0.0010 mQ/L <0.0010 mall 1 1, 1,2-Trichloroethane <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mgll 1 Trichloroethane 0.023 mg/L 0.023 mall 1 Trichlorofluoromethane <0.0050 mg/L <0.0050 mgll 1 Vinyl chloride <0.0010 moll <0.0010 mall 1 Total Xylenes <0.0030 mall <0.0030 mall 1 Toluene-dB 103.% Rec 103.o/o Rec 1 Dibromofluoromethane 108.% Rec 108.% Rec 1 4-Bromofluorobenzerie 106.% Rec 111.% Rec 1 Part D -Provide data for the storm event(s) which resulted in the maximum values for tile flow weighted composite sample. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Date of Duration Total rainfall Number of hours between Maximum flow rate during Total flow from Stomn of Storm Event during stonn event beginning of storm meas-rain event rain event Event (in minutes) (in Inches) ured and end of previous (gallons/minute or (gallons or specify units) measurable rain event specify units) 03/21/2010 780 0.82 213 0.094MGD 1,208,898 gallons 7. Provide a description of the method of flow measurement or estimate. The flow rate was measured using the existing weir. EPA Form 3510-wF (Rev.1-92) PageVll-2 EPA ID Number (copy from Item 1 of Form 1) Form Approved. OMB No. 2040-0085 AL8640015410 Approval Expires 5-31-92 ..dtharge Information (Continued from page 3 of Form 2F) rt A -You must provide the results of at one analysis for every pollutant in this table. Complete one table for each outfall. See / instructions for additional details. DSN024 Maximum Values Average Values Pollutant (include units) (include units) Number and Grab Sample Grab Sample of CAS Number Taken During Taken During Storm First20 Flow-weighted First 20 Flow-weighted Events (if available) Minutes Composite Minutes Composite Sampled Sources of Pollutants Oil and Grease <5.6 mg/L NIA 1 Biological Oxygen Demand <5.0 mg/L <5.0 mg/L 1 (BOD) Chemical Oxygen Demand 23. mg/L 23. mg/L 1 (COD) Total Suspended Solids 190 mg/L 32. mg/L 1 (TSS) Total Nitrogen 1.6 mg/L 1.2 mg/L 1

• Total 0.29 mg/L 0.13 mg/L 1 Phosphorus pH Minimum 8.58 s.u. Maximum 8.58 s.u. Minimum Maximum 1 Part B -Lisfeach pollutant that is limited in an effluent guideline which the facility Is subject to or any pollutant listed in the facility's NPDES permit for its process wastewater (if the facility is operating under an existing NPOES permit). Complete one table for each outfall. See the instructions for additional details and requirements. Maximum Values Average Values Pollutant (include units) (include units) Number and Grab Sample Grab Sample of CAS Number Taken During Taken During Stqrm Rrst20 Flow-weighted First20 Flow-weighted Events (if available) Minutes Composite Minutes Composite Sampled Sources of Pollutants <100 Fecal Coliforms (colonies/100 ml) NIA 1 Temoerature 11.s0c NIA 1 TRC <0.05 mall Cl NIA 1 Ammonia Nitrogen 0.26 mg/l. 0.19 mg/L 1 Color 100 pcu 75.pcu 1 Nitrate-Nitrite 0.60 mg/L 0.39 mg/L 1 TKN 1.0 mg/L 0.81 mg/L 1 Antimony <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mglL 1 Arsenic 0.0025 mall 0.0012 r'nall 1 Barium 0.0033 ma/L 0.0019ma/L 1 Beryllium* <0.0010 ma/L <0.0010 ma/L 1 Cadmium <0.00050 ma/L <0.00050 ma/L 1 Chromium 0.010 mglL 0.003 mg/L 1 Cobalt 0.0015 mg/L <0.0010 mglL 1 Copper 0.0061 mg/L 0.0027 mall 1 Lead 0.0062 mg/L 0.0019 ma/L 1 Nickel 0.0064 moll 0.0024 mall 1 Selenium 0.0014 ma/L <0.0010 ma/L 1 Silver <O .00050 ma/L <0.00050 mall 1 Thallium <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mg/L 1 Tin <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mg/L 1 Zinc 0.056 m11/L 0.019 mg/L 1 Mercury <0.00020 ma/L <0.00020 mg/L 1 Naphthalene <0.0010 ma/L <0.0010 mQ/L 1 Aluminum 8.4 mg/L 3.7 mall 1 Boron <0.20 mg/L <0.20 mg/L 1 Iron 5.6 mg/L 2.0 mg/L 1 Ma1:mesium 1.8 ma/L 0.89 01g/L 1 Manganese 0.20 ma/L 0.057 ma/L 1 Molvbdenum <0.0050 mo/L <0.0050 ma/L 1 Titanium 0.13 mQ/L 0.089 ma/L 1 EPA Form 3510-2F (Rev. 1-92) PageVll-1 Continue on Reverse

-dCh pollutant shown in Tables 2F*2, 2F-3, and 2F-4, that you know or have reason to believe is present. See the instructions for .Additional details and requirements. Complete one table for each outfall. DSN 024 Maximum Values Average Values / Pollutant (include units) (include units) Number and Gral;>Sample Grab Sample of CAS Number Taken During Taken During Storm First 20 Flow-weighted First 20 Flow-weighted Events (if available) Minutes Composite Minutes Composite Sampled Sources of Pollutants Acrolein <0.050 mall <0.050 mgll 1 Acrylonitrile <0.010 mall <0.010 mg/L 1 Benzene <0.0010 mgll <0.0010 mg}L 1 Bromodichloromethane <0.0010 mQ/L <0.0010 mg/L 1 Bromoform <0.0010 mall <0.0010 mgll 1 Bromomethane <0.0050 mg/L <0.0050 moll 1 Carbon tetrachloride <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mall 1 Chlorobenzene <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mg/L 1 Chlorodibromomethane <O .0010 mg/L <0.0010 moll 1 Chloroethane <0.0050 mg/L <0.0050 mgll 1 2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether <0.050 mgll <0.050 mall 1 Chloroform <0.0050 mg/L <0 .0050 mg/L 1 Chloromethane <0.0025 mgll <0.0025 mgll 1 1,2-Dichlorobenzeme <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mg/L 1 1,3-Dichlorobenzene <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mg/L 1 1,4-Dichlorobenzene <0.0010 mgll <0.0010 mglL 1 Dichlorodifluoromethane <0.0050 mQ/L <0.0050 mg}L 1 1, 1-Dichloroethane <0.0010 mQ/L <0.0010 mgJL 1 1,2-Dichloroethane <0.0010 mall <0.0010 mgJL 1 1, 1-Dichloroethane <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mg/L 1 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene <Q.0010 mQ/L <0.0010 mall 1 1 ,2-Dichloropropane <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mg/L 1 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mall 1 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene <0:0010 mg/L <0.0010 mg/l 1 Ethyl benzene <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mgll 1 Methylene Chloride <0.0050 mall <0.0050 mall 1 1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 nig/L 1 Tetrachloroethene <0.0010 ma/L <0.0010 mall 1 Toluene <0.0050 mgl <0.0050 moll 1 1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane <0.0010 mg'l <0.0010 mg/L 1 1 , 1,2-Trichloroethane <0.0010 mg/l <0.0010 mall 1 Trichloroethane <0.0010 mg/L <0.0010 mgll 1 Trichlorofluoromethane <0.0050 mg/l <0.0050 mall 1 Vinvl chloride <0.0010 ma/L <0.0010 mg/L 1 Total Xylenes <0.0030 mg/l <0.0030 mall 1 Toluene-dB 93.0 % Rec 103.% Rec 1 Dibromofluoromethane 91.4% Rec 105.% Rec 1 4-Bromofluorobenzene 92.1% Rec 110.% Rec 1 Part D. Provide data for the storm event(s) which resulted in the maximum values for the flow weiahted composite sample. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Date of Duration Total rainfall Number of hours between Maximum flow rate during Total flow from Storm of Storm Event during storm evel')t beginning of stonn meas-rain event rain event Event (in minutes) (in inches) ured and end of previous (gallons/minute or (gallons or specify units) measurable rain event specify units) 03/2112010 780 0.82 213 4.479MGD 523,107 gallons 7. Provide a description of the method of flow measurement or estimate. The flow rate was estimated using Manning's Equation and the measured depth of flow in the pipe. EPA Form 3510-wF (Rev. 1-92) PageVll-2 TVA Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant NPDES Permit No. AL0022080 Renewal Application . EPA Form 2F -ATTACHMENT 1 IV. Narrative Description of Pollutant Sources, B-C BFN's Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan is the basic non-structural control for reducing pollutants in storm water runoff. It incorporates best management practices into daily activities conducted on site and is available for review at all times. BFN has instituted a Chemical Traffic Control Plan for the purpose of ensuring that all chemicals brought on site are reviewed are reviewed to prevent the usage of hazardous materials when a non-hazardous material substitute is available. The plan also ensures the proper use, storage, and disposal of all chemicals used at the facility.

• DSN 013 DSN 013 storm water from the Environmental and Meteorology offices parking lot, the northeast corner of the Training Center parking lot, a storm drain located between the two sedimentation ponds, and from a gravel parking lot and grassy area located south of the Environmental and Meteorology offices (i.e., approximately 1.8 acres of grassed area.and 5.0 acres of impervious surfaces). DSN 013 also receives storm water drainage from DSN 013a and process water discharges from DSN 013b prior to discharging to the Tennessee River. DSNs 013a and 013b were sampled at their respective discharge points in accordance with the . requirements of the renewal application. DSN 013a DSN 013a receives storm water from the 4kV Capacitor Yard, the main plant transformer yard, the switchyard, the parking lot east of and part of the parking lot west of the Wastewater Lagoons, and the grassland north of the east parking lot (i.e., approximately 40.5 acres of impervious area and 54 acres of grassed area). The capacitor yard, the transformer yard, and the switchyard contain only non-PCB, oil-filled equipment. The transformer yard contains two 37,000-gallon mineral oil tanks (abandoned in place) and one 1,500-gallon above-ground diesel storage tank. DSN 013a is provided with secondary containment to prevent oil spills from reaching the river by the presence of a concrete oil skimmer and weir. DSN 013a also receives wastewater discharged from DSN 013a(1 ), the Wastewater Lagoons which includes treated sanitary waste, waste from a photo-processing lab, a metal-processing lab, a medical lab, blowdown from the Training Center's chiller system, flush water from the standby liquid control system and from various cooler and air compressor cleanings, waste from insulator showers used by personnel involved with periodic asbestos stripping and handling operations, and rain water. DSN 013a discharges to DSN 013 which in tum discharges to the Tennessee River. *
• DSN 014 DSN 014 is located northwest of the cooling towers, and receives drainage from two roads (approximately 5 acres), grassland (approximately 197 acres), and offsite farmland located on the north and northwest sides of the facility. OSN 014 discharges directly to the Tennessee River. Beeause monitoring is not required for this outfall in the current NPDES permit and because it receives drainage from areas with no industrial _activity as defined in 40 CFR122.26(b)(14), it was not monitored for the permit renewal application . . 1of2 TVA Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant NPDES Permit No. AL0022080 Renewal.Application EPA Form 2F -AITACHMENT 1 DSN 017 DSN 017 receives storm water runoff from an approximately 6-acre area (approximately 3 acres of which is impervious area) which includes the Training Center and the Live Well Center parking lots, the Training Center roof, and grassed/wooded land. DSN 017 discharges directly into the Tennessee River. Because monitoring is not required for this outfall in the current NPDES permit and because it receives drainage from areas with no industrial activity as defined in 40 it was not monitored for the permit renewal application. DSN 018 OSN 018 receives storm water from the Materials and Procurement Complex (MPC) parking lot, the firing range parking lot, the Facilities Maintenance area, the vehicle fuel dispensing area, part of the parking lot southwest of the MPC, and from adjacent grassed area (approximately 18.8 acres of impervious drainage and 15.4 acres of grassed land). The MPC includes several enclosed chemical staging areas (e.g., for paints, solvents, oil, and lubricants). DSN 018 discharges directly to the Tennessee River. DSN 019 FON 019 receives storm water drainage from the east site drainage area (i.e., 101.1 acres of grassed land, 48 acres of impervious area including a small borrow pit, the Fire Training Area, the Low Level Radwaste Storage Facility, the inert landfill, and the 180-day Hazardous Waste Storage Area. These areas contain kerosene, gasoline, and diesel tanks; a flammable storage area; Facilities Satellite Storage area; a diesel fire pump and fuel tank; oil and used drum storage areas; and hazardous and mixed waste storage area. DSN 019 discharges to the Tennessee River. DSN 024 DSN 024 is located along the facility's east property boundary and discharges to an adjacent farmland. This outfall receives storm water drainage from offsite grassland, offsite farmland located north of the facility, and from a vehicle servicing and mechanic shop located just south ofthe northeast comer of the site (approximately 75.9 acres of grassland and 8.4 acres of impervious surfaces). The shop includes a covered storage area for solvents, oils, and lubricants. 2of2 Review/Concurrence Sheet

Subject:

NPDES Renewal Originating Oraanization Document Prepared By EDMS No.(Optional) Correspond No. Name Carroll R. Cooper/Environmental Mgr. Robert Pitcock/Chemistry Mgr. James Emens/ Licensing Mgr. John Cornelius Gannon, General Mgr. concur.doc Application Environmental l Chemistry Mike Stiefel I Date: 12/23/11 DUE DATE: 2/25/11 CONCURRENCES Signature -Comment Date Worktlow :Status Page 1 of2

• E& T Review & Concurrence Environment & Technology SharePoint Site > E&T Review & Concurrence > NPG > Workflow Status Workflow Status: Approval rw;rkfto;
• I ......................................... ,_ .. , ............... -....................................... -...................................................... _ .. ,., __ , ......... -**-***********************--*** .. *******-***** ............................................... --***-*****-............... ----*******""""-"'***********************--*********-********** .. ***********-****"""""-******--******** .. J Initiator: Gould, Vicki M Started: 2/25/2011 3:57 PM Last run: 2/28/2011 4:44 PM Document: BFN NPDES Renewal 2011 Cover Letter final for approval Status: Rejected r'-*-*---*--------' .. ***-*-*******--* .. --.. ---*----*-**-**--*-.. --.... ---****-.. *-**-***--**-*-.--.. ---* .... *----*-"*** .. -.. -*-.. *------... --... -... *-*-*--.. --.. *--------*-*---"**--*-* ................ -...... _ ..... J The following tasks have been assigned to the participants in this.work.flow. Click a task to edit it. You can also view these tasks in the list Tasks. litle Due Date Status Outcome *Johnson, Linden Printz Please approve BFN NPDES Renewal 2011 Cover Letter final for approval 2/28/2011
• Complet.ed Approved by Johnson, Linden Printz Brickhouse, Brenda Please approve BFN NPDES Renewal 2011 Cover Letter final Etheridge for approval ! HEW Completed Approved by Brickhouse, Brenda Etheridge r ............... ----****-**-*-"***-****---*-.. --*-**---... -.... .-.. -*-*------*--*------*-------*--***-1 ................................. -............................. _ ............... ,.. ______ , ____ ... _ .......... _ ..... ....... , ........................... _ ................... _ .... , ......... _ ... _ ....... ; ... _ ..................................... ,_ ........................................................................ -................ -*-*-***H'"'J a V!ew workflow reports The following events have occurred in this workflow. Date Occurred Event Type @ User ID Description 2/25/2011 3:57 PM Workflow
• e Gould, Vicki M Approval was started. Participants: Johnson, Linden Initiated Printz, Cooper, canoll R, Anderson, Cynthia M, Brickhouse, Brenda Etheridge 2/25/2011 3:57 PM Task I' Gould, Vicki M Task created for Johnson, Linden Printz. Due by: None Created 2/28/2011 8:44 AM Comment 2/28/2011 9:58 AM Task Complet.ed 2/28/2011 9:58 AM Task Created .Stiefel, Michael B Tasks for Approval on BFN NPDES Renewal 2011 Cover Letter final for approval were updated by Stiefel, Michael B. Due by: 2/28/2011 12:00:00 AM Task instructions: Vicki, please review\revise as necessary. Please workflow to Lindy Johnson, carron Cooper, c *Johnson, Task assigned to Johnson, Linden Printz was approved Linden Printz by Johnson, linden Printz. Comments: ok e Gould, Vicki M Task created for Cooper, carroll R. Due by: None 2/28/2011 12:39 PM Task Rolled I) Gould, Vicki M Task update by Stiefel, Michael B was rejected. Back 2/28/2011 12:44 PM Task Deleted *Stiefel, Task assigned to Cooper, carroll R was deleted by Michael B Stiefel, Mlchael B. 2/28/201112:44 PM Task .Stiefel, Task assigned to Cooper, carroll R was automatically Completed Michael B rejected because It was deleted by Stiefel, Michael .B 2/28/2011 12:44 PM Task *Gould, Vicki M Task created for Anderson, Cynthia M. Due by: None Created 2/28/2011 12:44 PM Task Deleted
• Stiefel, Task assigned to Anderson, Cynthia M was deleted by Michael B Stiefel, Michael B. 2/28/2011 12:44 PM Task .Stiefel, Task assigned to Anderson, Cynthia M was automatically Completed
• Michael B rejected because it was deleted by Stiefel, Michael B 2/28/2011 12:44 PM Task e Gould, Vicki M Task aeated for Brickhouse, Brenda Etheridge. Due by: Created None Outcome Approved by Johnson, Linden Printz Reason: The user who attempted to complete the task Is not the user to whom the task is assigned. Rejected by Stiefel, Michael B Rejected by Stiefel, Michael B http://sharepoint.tva.gov/sites/oer/ET. _ReviewConcurrence/ _.Iayouts/WrkStat.aspx?List=% 7b922BFE09... 0310112011 Workflow Status 2/28/2011 4:44 PM 2/28/2011 4:44 PM Task Completed Workflow Completed Brickhouse, Brenda Etheridge e Gould, Vicki M Task assigned to Brickhouse, Brenda Etheridge was approved by Brickhouse, Etheridge. Comments: I conrur. Thanks, B Approval was completed. Page 2 of2 Approved by Brickhouse, Brenda Etheridge Approval on BFN NPDES Renewal 2011 Cover Letter final for approval has successfully completed. All participants have completed their tasks. http://sharepoint.tva.gov/sites/oer!ET .... ReviewConcurrence/ . .Jayouts/WrkStat.aspx?List=% 7b922BFE09 ... 03/0112011 ATTACHMENT 4 Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Annual Water Use Reports 2011 -2015 Owner:. Annual Watel' Use Report for 2015 Alabama Water Use Reporting Program Certificate Number: 1058 TVA..,Browns Ferry Nuclear Withdrawal Name: Browns Ferry Nuclear Status: Active Calendar Year 2015 Average Withdrawal (mgd) Peak Withdrawal (mgd) January 2902.088 2902.088 February 2894.675 2894.675 March 2428.095 2894.895 April 2626.149 2903.149 May 3097.46$ 2894.798 June 2895.076 2895.076 July 2895.154 2895.154 August 2894.502 2894.502 September. 2896.862 2896.862 October 2844.745 2894-.445 November 2989.333 3044.026 December 3043.930 3043.930 Comments: CERTIFICATION: To the best of my knowledge and beli f, the information contained in this report is true, accurat
• d complete. Certified by: Date: 2/12/2016 completed fom1s to t\DECA of Water Resources ADECA -Office of Water Resources -P.O. Box 5690-401 Adams Avenue, Montgomery, AL 36103-5690-Fax 2.;2..0776 Owner: Annual Water Use Report for 2014 Alabama Water Use Reporting Program Certificate Number: 1058 TVA-Urowns Ferry Nuclear Plant Withdrawal Name; Browns Ferry Nuclear Status: Active Calendar Year 2014 Average Withdrawal (mgd) Peak Withdrawal (mgd) January 2509.840 2509.840 February 2035.457 2510.357 March 2178.260 2702.560 April 2509.923 2509.923 May 2758.134 2895.034 June 2894.993 2894.9.93 July 2895.090 2895.090 August 2870.083 2894.883* September 2844.623 2895.923 October 2174.:B9 2902.139 November 2895.323 2895.323 December 2895.831 2895.831 Comments: CERTIF1CATION:-To the;best of my know*tedge and l?elief, the information contained in this report is true, accurate and complete. Certified by: Date: Please. rct\lm comp luted forms to ADECA
• Office oi Water A DE'CA -Office of Water Resources -P.O. Bpx 5690 --IOI Adams Avenue-Mootgommy, Al 36103-5690 -Fax {334) 242-0776 Owner: Annual Water Use Report for 2013 Alabama Water TJse Reporting Program Certificate Number. ioss TV A-Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Withdi:awal Name: Browns Ferry Nuclear Status:* Active Calendar Year 2013 Average Withdrawal (mgd)' Peak Withdrawal (mgd) JantW}' 2701.800 2894.300 February 2576.900 2894.301) Marth 2390.200 2894.300 April 1941.900 2298.500 May 2776.100 2894.300 June 2894.300 2894.300* July 2894.300 2894.300 August 2894.300 284.300 2894.300 284.SOO October 2801.200 2894;.300 No"Vember 2390.400 2701.800 December 2515.800 2701.800 Comments: (Insert. any appropiate comments.) CERTIFICATION: To the best of my knowledge and;. belief, information contained in this report is true, acCUl'ate and complete. Cl'.!J:tified by: Please retum completed.!oims to ADE.CA-Office o£ Water Resouro!S ADECA-Otfice of Water Resolil'Cl?s* P.O. Box 5690-401 Avenue -Montgomety, ALS6103-56'!0 *Fax (334} 242.:o776 Owner: Annual Water Use. Report for 2012 Alabama. Water Use P.rogram Number.1058 TV A-Bri;>wns :Ferry Nuclear Plant Withdrawal Name: Btown:; Feny Status: Active Calendar Year 2012 Average Withdrawal (ingd) Peak Withdrawal (D;1gd) January 2534.100 2701.800 February 2559.800 2894.300 March 2S21.600 2701.800 Aril p 2077.100 2509.200 May 2392.800 2894.300 June 2887.900 2894,300 . July 2894.300 2894.300 August 2894.300 2894.300 September 2894.300 October 2464.500 2894.300 November 2315.700 2701.BOO December 2857.000 2894.300 (Insert any comments.) To the best of my knowledge. d belief, the information contained in this repon is true, accurate at)d complete. Certified by: Date: Pll!llSe-rctlil'n forms to ADECA -0.ffiee ofWater Resources . . ADECA -Office of Water Resources-P.Q. Box 5690-4Ql Adams Avenue-Montgomery, AL36103-5690 -Fax (334) 242-0776 Owner: Water Use Report for 2011 Alabama Wa.terUse Reporting Program Certificate Number: lOSS TV A -Browns Ferry-Nuclear Pl.;i.nt Withdrawal Name: Browns Ferry Pliint Status: Active Calendar Year 2011 Average Withdrawal {mgd) J?eak Withdrawal (mgd) January 2698.1000 2722.5000 February 2770.4000 2894.3000 March 2014;.0000 2701.8000 April 2751;8000 2894.3000 May 967.9000 2894.3000 June 2894.3000 2894.3000 July 2894.3000 2894.3000 August 2875.7000 2894.3000 September 2894.3000 2894.3000 October 2720:4000 2894.3000. November 2733.9000 2894.3000 December 2595.6000 2701.8000 Comments: CERTIFICATION: To the best of my knowledge and belief, the information contained, in this report is true, accurate and complete. Certified by: Date: Plea.seretum comp!etect fprms to ADECA -Office of Water Resources ADECA -Qffice or Water Resotir.:es -P.O. Box5690' -401 Adams Avenue -Montgomei:y, AL -'Fax (3;34) 242-0776 ATTACHMENT 5 Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Certificate Of Use (COU) from the Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs (ADECA)/Office of Water Resources (OWR), dated December 1, 2005 OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR BOB RILEY GOVERNOR ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS Bill JOHNSON DIRECTOR STATE OF ALABAMA Mr. Carroll Cooper Environmental Supervisor TVA -Browns Feny Nuclear Plant P.O. Box 2000 WSP IA Decatur, AL 35609-2000 Re: Renewal Certificate of Use No. 1058.0

Dear Mr. Cooper:

December l, 2005 Enclosed is the Certificate of Use, which has been renewed, based on data provided in the updated Declaration of Beneficial Use you filed with the Office of Water Resources (OWR). The infonnation you provide is vital to maintaining a database that will enable the long term planning and coordination of water resources in Alabama. Each entity filing a Declaration of Beneficial Use is required to provide this office with annual water use reports. Each year, you will continue to receive the forms to complete and submit to OWR. Each entity is also responsible for notifying the OWR of any changes in the data contained in the Declaration of Beneficial Use. If you need to amend your Declaration of Beneficial Use, please contact us to secure the appropriate forms. We look forward to working with you. If we can answer any questions or be of further assistance, please call Tom Littlepage at (334) 242-5697. Enclosures Sincerely, E. Davis, Office of Water Resources 401 ADAMS AVENUE. SUITE 580. P.O. Box 5690

• MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36103-5690 * (334) 242-51 Off STATE OF ALABAMA CERTIFICATE OF USE Alabama Water Use Reporting Program Certificate Number: 1058.0 jTVA -Brown11 Ferry Nuclear Plant Owner 1400 West Summit Hill Drive Address !Knoxville ITN 137902-1499 City State Zip Code Classification N_o_nP_n_b_li_c ___ Estimated System Withdrawal Capacity: Estimated System Annual Withdrawal: 2074.300 Million Gallons /Day (MGD) 746748.00 Million Gallons !Year {MGY) 0 Water Use Reporting Requirements: . As a condition of this Certificate of Use, water use reports shall be submitted to the Office of Water Resources no later than March 31st of each year. The annual water use reporting form(s) shall contain water withdrawn, diverted, or consumed, in gallons, and tabulated for average daily use per month and peak day for the previous calendar year, and other data as deemed appropriate by the Office of Water Resources. The reporting forms shall be provided by the Office of Water Resources to the holder (or representative) of this Certificate of Use. Alternate reporting options must be reviewed and approved by the Office of Water Resources for appropriateness prior to submittal Issued by the Office of Water Resources in accordance with the Alabama Water Resources Act, Code of Alabama 1975, Section 9-lOB-19 and the Administrative Rules implementing the Alabama Water Use Reporting Program. E ward E. Davis, Acting Division Director Office of Water Resources Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs Issued on: Last Revised on: Certificate ofUse EXPIRATION DATE: ' December 01, 2005 January 01, 2011 THE ISSUANCE OF THIS CERTIFICATE OF USE SHALL NOT CONFER OR MODIFY ANY PERMANENT INTERESTS OR RIGHTS IN THE HOLDER THEREOF TO THE CONTINUED USE OF THE WATERS OF THE STATE OF ALABAMA. ADECA
• Office of Water Resources + P.O. Box 5690 + 401 Adams Avenue + Montgomery, AL 36103-5690 + (334) 242-5499
• Fax (334) 242-0776 Owner: TVA -Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Withdrawal Ground Water Surface Water Facility Name Description Location Browns Ferry Nuclear 34° 42' 15" / -87° 7' 15" Totals for: TVA-Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Water Withdrawal Information Source (Stream, Aquifer, etc) Ground Water Summary Wheeler Lake Surface Water Summary Certificate No. 1058.0 Maximum Capacity (MGD) 0 Average Use (MGY) 0 2074.300 746748.000 2074.300 746748.000 2074.300 746748.000 ADECA + Office of Water Resources
• P.O. Box 5690
• 401 Adams Avenue
• Montgomery, AL 36103-5690 * (334) 242-5499
• Fax (334) 242-0776 ATTACHMENT-6 Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Most Recent Application for Renewal and Declaration of Beneficial Use, dated September 23, 2015 Page I or4 Ccr1ilicntl! No. 1058 Declaration of Use Water Use Program (AN APPLICATION IS REQUIRED li'OR E1\Cll WITHDRAWAL OR =owR ----=::** Contpm1y Name TVA
• Brqwns Ferry Nucli?ar Pinnt Opcrntor/Contact Pl!rson Mr. hht1l) Gesroo ! c.:;y11YJ Title Em*ironmcntal Scientist Mailing Address P.O. Box 2000, \VSP l A Moiling Address P.O. Box \YSP I A City Dccall!r State AL Zip 35609 City Dccntur State AL Zip Phonc (2ae) 1 Zf Fa;-; (25.G) 729-3 lO I Phone (256);1.J9 3231 n_9.7!:(j'Z. (256) 729-3101_ Email ke..!.#lt.wYt Gj .f.vo;...i oV Email APPLICATION FOR: Primary Purpose of Water Usl? (check one): 0 Public 5J Non-Public 0 lITiga1ion Purposc(s) ofwntcr use (chcck)i Counties in Service Arca Municipnlilil?S iit Ser-vice Arca No. of Residential Connections Wntcr Trcatnicnt F'm::iiitics (ifapplicable) Purposc(s) of water usc (check}: Purposc(s) of water use (check): PUBLIC WATER USl'i: ONLY D D B Commcrcinl 0 Govcrnmcnt:ll/Jnst itutio1ml ---No. of Non-Residential Conni?clions NON-PUBLIC WATER USE ONLY DI ndustrial/Processing D Commercial @cooli.ng 00thcr IRRIGATION WATER USE ONLY BAgriculture Fish Production BTurf Golt' Courses BNul'Series Other Attnclmu:nts included as part orthls submittal ALL WATER !)SERS (Public, Non-Public, and lrrigntion) D Water Conservation Plan LJOther 0 Drought Plan/Ordinance 0 Withdrawal Calculalion Worksheets BASIS FOR LEGAL USE OF WATER This lkchmniun uf al ;i n1ini111111n, ubn fnclm.lc lhc aum:lnncnls lu 111:11 11\e 11rupmctl water use 1:"ons1i111tc5 n lawf11I, n:asunnbli: am.I bcili:fkfal u.'c uf:.uch w;ncr. is with lhc public nnd doi:s*nOI interfere whh any lc:i;al usag.:: of waler c.'<bling at !he lime i;>fthc submillal nnikornplics with 1hc Ah1bama Water ltusnurccs ;\ct aml the tlf the 1\ l>P.C A Office 11f W;Ucr ltC$OUrc.:s and the Ah1banm Water Rcsoun:cs Conunission (§§ 30S* 7.1) 305-7-12). fann .should be accompanictl by ;i rnup shuwins thu localion ufthc water so11rcc and il.S lo 11Jc nciual use, in cas11 of:i su'l!um. ri\*cr. ar lnkc indicah: whctllcr the :rnun:i: is ar-non*nuvigablc. and bricllr how lhc wi1hdr:iw:il'diwr:linntcons11mp1io11 docs 1101 i11t1:rfon: wilh any JINMmtlyknawn lcgal use at'wnu:r. Ccrtllication Dale 09/tg/fJ...oJ:S To the best ur my knuwlcLl1_tc aml belie I: *niun pmvidcd by this lkclnr,11ion of Ucm:ficfal Use is true. accurJIC :111d-complc1c. ynf:J Title CJ,e,,""."slry/ bfv*'>'"'1P'le.rJ/.e/ ADECA
• Oflicc l,}[°\Valcr.Rcsourccs * [>.0. Bo:-1 5690 *-IOI Achm1s Avenue* Montgomery, ,\L 36103-5690 +* (33.i) 2.iz.5499
• Fax {33-IJ 2-12-0176 Page 4 of4 Certiticale No. l.05S If thll Application includes DlSCllARGES TO SURFi\CE WATER, c11mplctc this sccti11n: Disclmrge ID *DSN 86j. oos 1 Rcceivil1gStream Tennessee Lat it \Ide nnd Longilude 34 ° 42' 15" 1-87° 7' 15" River Basin 06030()02400 -Round lslnnd Creek Average Discharge .Maximum Dischnrgc Cnpacity Stntus Active 18 fO million gallons per year 141 million gallons [ll!fday If the Application includes DISCHARGESTO SURFACE WATEH., complete this sc.e_tion: Disi;hnrge ID
• BSN ea1 PSN DO I\ 1 DO\ Q 1 'D5N DO I Y Receiving Stream Tennessee River Average Discharge Latitude and Longitude-34° 42' 15" /-87° 7' 15" Maximum Discharge Capacity River Bm1in 0603000.2400
• Ro.und Island Creek Stnllls Active I 029592 million gallons per year 2709 million gallons per day If the Application lncludc!S DISCHARGES TO SURFACE WATER, complete tl1is section: Discharge ID 8SN 013,s osN l3C.\ Receiving:Strcam Tcnm:isscc River Latitude and Longitude 34° 42; 30" /-87° 7' O" River Basin 0603000240Q -Rourtd Island Creek Average Maximurn Discharge Capacity Status 72.6 million gallons per year 0.383 million ,gallon:; per dny If the Applic:tlion includes DISCHARGES TO SURFACE WATER, complete (his scction: Discharge ID _ .P.5N \ Receiving Stream LutilUdc and Longi1ucle 34° 43' O" /-87° 7' O" .. _ . River Basin 06030002400 -Round lskmd Creek Average Disclmrnc Maximum Discharge Capacity Status Active 94_.54 million gallons per year 0.778 million gallons per day Uthe Application includes DISCHARGES TO SURFACE WATER, complete this section: Dischargl!' rD Inactive (Old DSN 00 I A) ReceMng Stremn Latitude and Lo11gi1ude 0"' O' 0" /0° O'O" River Basin Average Discharge Muxinmm Discharge Capacity Status Im1c1ive 0 million gallons per year o million gallons per day ADBCA + Ri;soitrccs + P.,O. Box 5690 + 401 A\*c11w + Monlgomucy, AL 36103-5690 t (33-l)*:!.-t:!-5-199 + F.:1x (334) 242-0776 Pnge 3 of4 Ccrlificntc No. Jr'the Application is for SURFACE WATER, complete this section: Withdrawn! ID Browns Ferry Nuclenr Dale of Pump lns1allntio11 06-26-1973 Critical ln1ake Elevation 13 Watt:r Source Wheeler Lake County Latitude and Longitude .34° 15" feet Average Withdrawal 1031563 Maximum \Vithdrn\val Capacity 2$51.l Pumping Capacity 1980000 Estimation Method D Melered 0 Worksheet E] Other bas:d .on pump-calibration Riv1:r Basin 06()30002400 -Round Island Creek lRRIGAflON WATER USE ONLY Status Aciive / -87" 7' 1511 -. *-milli<;m gallons year. million gallons per day gallons pi:r minute Acres irrigated from this source ___ Estimnted numberot' inchc..'i Of waler applied per year 'lype Osl!nsonal Ocontinuous LJVaries Monthly 001hcr _____ .. lfscai;onnble, nppro:-:imatl!' number ofmomhs you irrigate If variable by ntonth, number of days pi:r nt(}nth BASIS FOR LEGAL USE GUIDELINES All Water Users (Public, Non-Public, und Irrigation) Lcgnl Attachments/Documents Attnched (Must at least one) §Property Deed B Le;ise Agreement. Pem1irsfLicenscs o_ pinion ofCounscl Other-(on ......... . Geographk Locntion or the Fncility/Propcrty nnd Proximity to Water Source Please provide a locaiion map and as many delails as possible. See map 011 lile. Stntclncrtt of Legnl Right to Use Wnter Briefly describe the basis of your legal right ro use wa1er to be divened, including how Ute wilhdrnwalldiversion/consumption does not interfere with any presently known existing legal use ofwaier. TVA operates the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant pursuant to the authority granted by Congress under lhe TVA Act of 1933, as amended. The plant is operated in m;cord&1nce with the tern1s and conditions of the operating lccnsc issued by the Nuclear Rcgulntory Commission, Further, discharges of water to the Tennessee River incident to lhe withdrawal are madc in nccordnncc with lhe terms and conditions of the Nnrlonnl Pollutant Discharge Elcmination System (NPDES) pennit issued by the State of Alnbamn for the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. The wa\l!r l1Sl? (334) 24:!.*0776 Page 2:of 4 Ccrtilicale No. If the Application is for SURFACE WATER, com1>lctc tllis section: Withdrawal ID lm1ctivc Facility 4 Date of Pump lnstallalion 01-01-1900 Latitude and Longitude 34° 42' 1.5" Critical Intake Elevation 0 ft.ict Average Withdrawal 0 Water Source _ Maximum Witlldrawal Capacity 0 County Pumping Capacity 0 Estinrntion Method Q:vtctered Oworksluiiit Oothc( River Basin 06030002400 -Round Island Cteck IRRIGATION \VATER USE ONLY 1058 Stntus lnacti\*c I -87° 7' 15" million gallons per year million gallons per day gidlons per minute Acres irrigated from this source Estimated averaue number of inches of wntcr npplicd 1icr year Type of Use Qseasonal Ocontinuous Ovarici; Monthly Ooihcr If seasonable, nppro:<imnrc number of months you irrigate If variable by month, nppro=-.imatc nuuibcr Of days per 11101ith Property Deetl Pcm1 ils/Licenscs Other BASIS FOR LEGAL USE GUIDELINES All Water Users (Public, Non-Public:, and AttachmcntslDocumcnts Att11chcd (Must include ut least one) D Lcnse Agreement Oopinion ot'Counscl Gc9graphic Locution of the Fncilityf Propcrty and Proximit)' "to Watar Sou re:" Please provide a location map and as many details as possible. Statement of Lcgnl to Use \Yater Briefly describe the basis of your legal right 10 use wa1cr to be diverted, including how the wilhdrnwnl/divcrsion/consumption does not inrerfere \vith an)' presently known existing legal use ofwater. Statc111cnt of Nnvig;ibility Water Source Is this source navigable? False ff so, what information was used to nm!ce this detennination'? 0 A DEC A + Officll ot'WaM t P.O. Box 3690 + 401 Admns 1\\'c1mc t Montgomi:ry. AL 36103*5690 t (334) 242-5499 t Fm.: (334) 242*0776 ATTACHMENT 7 Reference TV A. 2010. Fish Impingement at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, September 2007 through September 2009. TVA Environmental Stewardship and Policy.

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT NPDES PERMIT NO. AL0022080 316(b) MONITORING PROGRAM FISH IMPINGEMENT AT BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT SEPTEMBER 2007 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 2009 ENVIRONMENT AL STEWARDSHIP AND POLICY APRIL 2010 Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................. i List of Tables ................................................................................................................................... i List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. ii List of Acronyms and Abbreviations .............................................................................................. ii Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 3 Plant Description ......................................................................................................................... 3 Methods ........................................................................................................................................... 4 Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 4 Fish Community Assessment ...................................................................................................... 5 Results and Discussion ................................................................................................................... 5 Fish Community Assessment -RF AI .......................................................................................... 6 Summary and Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 6 References ....................................................................................................................................... 8 List of Tables Table 1. List of Fish Species by Family, Scientific, and Common Name Including Numbers Collected in Impingement Samples During September 12, 2007 through September 3, 2008 and September 10, 2008 and September 9, 2009 at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. ............................................................................................................ 9 Table 2. Number of fish impinged by month and percent of annual total during September, 2007 through September, 2009 ...................................................................... 11 Table 3. Comparison of estimated weekly fish impingement at TY A's Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant during 2007 and 2008 ................................................................................ 12 Table 4. Annual extrapolated estimates of numbers and biomass of fish impinged by species and year at Watts Bar Nuclear Plant during September 2007 through September 2009 ................................................................................................................ 13 Table 5. Extrapolated annual numbers of fish impinged at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant September 2007 through August 2008 and September 2008 through August 2009. Also included are numbers of fish for which TV A is liable after EA and PF reduction ........................................................................................................................... 15 Table 6. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RF AI Scores Downstream (TRM 292.5) and Upstream (TRM 295.9) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2008 .................................................................................................................... 16 Table 7. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RF AI Scores Downstream (TRM 292.5) and Upstream (TRM 295.9) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2009 .................................................................................................................... 20 Table 8. Summary of RF AI Scores from Sites Located Directly Upstream and Downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant as Well as Scores from Sampling Conducted During 1993-2009 as Part of the Vital Signs Monitoring Program in Wheeler Reservoir ............................................................................................................ 25 List of Figures Figure 1. Location of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant and Condenser Cooling Water (CCW) intake and discharge. Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant is located on the north shore of Wheeler Reservoir at Tennessee River Mile 294 ............................................... 26 Figure 2. Weekly estimate of total fish impinged at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, September 2007 through August 2008 (Year 1) and September 2008 through August 2009 (Year 2) ........................................................................................................ 27 AM&M BFN ccw CWA EA EPA EPRI GPM MSL MW PF List of Acronyms and Abbreviations Aquatic Monitoring and Management Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Condenser Cooling Water Clean Water Act Equivalent Adult Environmental Protection Agency Formerly the Electric Power Research Institute Gallons Per Minute Mean Sea Level Megawatt Production Foregone ii Introduction Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) is a three unit nuclear-fueled facility located on Wheeler Reservoir in Limestone County, Alabama. Currently, all three units are in operation. Unit 1 was shutdown in 1985 and was returned to service in June 2007. Three condenser cooling water (CCW) pumps associated with Unit 1 are now in operation in addition to the CCW pumps used for Units 2 and 3. BFN's current operation utilizes a once-through CCW system, withdrawing water from the Tennessee River through an intake structure and discharging the water through diffuser pipes located downstream from the plant. This process is regulated by BFN's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit, AL0022080, and is subject to compliance with the federal Clean Water Act (CWA). Section 316(b) of the CWA requires the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures to reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impacts. A potential impact associated with cooling water intake structures is impingement of aquatic organisms. Impingement occurs when fish and shellfish are trapped against intake screens by the force of cooling water withdrawal. Impingement data related to the operation of Units 2 and 3 were collected during 2003 and 2004 to update baseline data so that potential impingement impacts from increased CCW demand after the restart of Unit 1 could be more accurately assessed (Baxter et al., 2006). Additional impingement data was collected to assess impingement rates associated with the CCW withdrawal for the operation of three units. Impingement monitoring began in September 2007 and continued weekly for two years. This report presents impingement data collected from the CCW intake screens during September 2007 through September 2009. Plant Description BFN is located at Tennessee River Kilometer 473 (Tennessee River Mile 294) on the north shore (right descending bank) of Wheeler Reservoir (Figure 1). The three units (boiling water reactors) each have a nameplate rating of 1,100 megawatts (MW). Units Two and Three were uprated in 1997 and 1998 and Unit One in 2007, resulting in an increase of 1280MW for each unit. The uprate was accomplished without additional increase in CCW demand. Six mechanical draft cooling towers enable BFN to operate in either open or helper mode. The CCW intake channel extends approximately 152 m (500 ft) from the intake structure to the skimmer wall. The skimmer wall is a 66 m (218 ft) long concrete and steel structure positioned across the entrance of the intake channel. Water is drawn into the intake channel through the lower portion of the wall through three 12 m (40 ft) wide sections, enabling BFN to withdraw cooler water from the lower stratum. The three open sections have movable gates with bottom elevations that can vary between 161 m (527 ft) mean sea level (msl) and 167 m (547 ft) msl. Actual water depth in the channel varies based on reservoir elevations: the normal minimum pool elevation is 168 m (550 ft) msl and normal maximum pool elevation is 169 m (556 ft) msl. The CCW pumping station is comprised of a concrete pumping structure 71 m (232 ft) long by 36 m (117 ft) wide and 14 m (47 ft) high. The bottom elevation of the pumping station is 158 m (517 ft) msl. Each unit has three CCW pumps. Each pump has a design flow rate of220,000 gallons per minute (gpm), giving a design intake flow of 660,000 gpm per unit. The pumps are installed in separate pump bays that are each covered by two trashracks and two traveling screens. The screens are each 2.3 m (7.5 ft) wide with mesh openings of 9.5 mm (3/8 in). The design through screen velocity is 2.0 feet per second at normal minimum pool and 1.64 feet per second at normal high pool. The CCW pumps can operate in parallel for each unit. However, if one pump is out of service, the two remaining pumps will deliver sufficient flow for full-load operation but with a higher turbine backpressure. The traveling screens and screen wash system can be operated automatically or manually. Differential pressure across each pair of traveling screens for a given CCW pump is monitored. When operating the system in the automatic mode, the screen wash pump is started when a preset differential pressure of water is reached across any of the three pairs of screens. When a preset pressure is established at the screen wash nozzles, the screen motors are automatically started and the screens are washed. In either manual or automatic mode, the pump and screens run until manually stopped. Methods Impingement data presented in this report is from weekly samples collected from September 12, 2007 through September 9, 2009. At BFN, a continuous backwash is utilized to remove fish and debris from the traveling screens. This backwash sends fish and debris back to Wheeler Reservoir through a sluice pipe. A catch basket constructed of 9.5 mm (3/8-in) mesh is located at the end of the sluice pipe and is moved into place to catch fish during sampling periods. Weekly, impingement sampling is conducted in six hour intervals during a twenty-four hour period to ensure that any diel variations in fish impingement could be detected. After the Aquatic Monitoring and Management (AM&M) crew removes the sample from the basket during each sampling period, fish are sorted from debris, identified, separated into 25 mm (1 in) length classes, enumerated, and weighed. Any fish collected alive are returned to the reservoir after processing. Incidental numbers of fish which appeared to have been dead for more than 24 hours (i.e., exhibiting pale gills, cloudy eyes, fungus, or partial decomposition) are not included in the sample. Data recorded by one member of the AM&M crew is checked and verified (signed) by the other for quality control. Quality Assurance/Quality Control procedures for impingement sampling (TV A 2004) are followed to ensure samples compare with historical impingement mortality data. Data Analysis Estimated annual impingement was calculated by extrapolating impingement rates from weekly samples (24-hr sample x 7 x 52). To facilitate the implementation of and compliance with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations for Section 316(b) of the CWA (Federal Register Vol. 69, No. 131; July 9, 2004), prior to its suspension by EPA, fish lost to impingement were evaluated by extrapolating the losses to equivalent reductions of adult fish, or of biomass production available to predators in the case of forage species. EPRI (formerly the Electric Power Research Institute) has identified two models for extrapolating losses of juvenile fish at intake structures to numbers or production of older fish (Barnthouse 2004). The Equivalent Adult (EA) model quantifies impingement losses in terms of the number of fish that would have survived to a given future age. The Production Foregone (PF) model was applied to forage fish species to quantify the loss from impingement in terms of potential forage available for consumption by predators. These models were used to determine the "biological liability" of the CCW intake structure based on the EPA guidance developed under the suspended rule. Fish Community Assessment Prior to 2000, the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) was operating under a 316(a) Alternative Thermal Limit (ATL) that had been continued with each permit renewal based on studies conducted in the mid-1970s. In 1999, EPA Region IV began requesting additional data in conjunction with NPDES permit renewal applications to verify that BIP was being maintained at TV A's thermal plants with A TLs. TV A proposed that its existing Vital Signs (VS) monitoring program, supplemented with additional fish and benthic macroinvertebrate community monitoring upstream and downstream of thermal plants with ATLs, was appropriate for that purpose. The VS monitoring program began in 1990 in the Tennessee River System. This program was implemented to evaluate ecological health conditions in major reservoirs as part of TV A's stewardship role. One of the 5 indicators used in the VS program to evaluate reservoir health is the Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index (RF AI) methodology. RF AI has been thoroughly tested on TV A and other reservoirs and published in peer-reviewed literature (Jennings, et al., 1995; Hickman and McDonough, 1996; McDonough and Hickman, 1999). TV A initiated a study to evaluate fish communities in areas immediately upstream and downstream ofBFN during 2000-2009 using RFAI and RBI multi-metric evaluation techniques. This report presents the results and comparisons of autumn RF AI data collected upstream and downstream ofBFN during autumn 2000-2009 (Shaffer et al. 2010). Results and Discussion Weekly impingement sampling at BFN from September 12, 2007 through September 9, 2009, resulted in collection of 3,983,438 fish, comprising 46 species (Table 1). During Year One of the study (September 2007 through September 2008), 2,810,778 fish representing 46 species were collected. Of these, 2,731,184 threadfin shad were impinged representing 97% of the total fish collected. During Year Two (September 2008 through September 2009), samples included 1,172,660 fish (43 species) were collected and included 92% (1,074,676) threadfin shad. Threadfin shad were predominant in the samples (96%) for both years combined, followed by gizzard shad (2%), yellow bass, freshwater drum and bluegill (0.1 % each). All other species contributed less than 1 % of the total number of fish impinged. The rate of impingement was highest during November through January (87%) both years (Table 2, Figure 2). The sample collected on January 2 and 3, 2008 contained 1,684,003 fish (99.1 % threadfin shad) and comprised 60% of the total fish collected during Year One. Low ambient water temperatures caused by a cold front during this period caused the high numbers of threadfin shad upstream of BFN to become lethargic from thermal shock to be drawn into the intake and impinged on the traveling screens. This extensive impingement resulted in damage to several traveling screens and a power reduction event which was documented in TV A's Performance Evaluation Report (PER) #135963. The second highest number impinged during Year One was 391,375 on week four of November 2007 (Table 3, Figure 2). Peak impingement during Year Two was recorded during week three of November (208,051) and week two of December (206,874), 2007. Annual extrapolated estimates of numbers impinged and corresponding biomass including the average for both years are compared by species and year in Table 4. Estimated impingement (numbers and biomass) during Year One (19,675,446 fish) was over twice that recorded for Year Two (8,208,620). The impingement of thermally shocked threadfin shad observed on January 2 and 3, 2008 was the primary reason for this difference between years. Relatively similar numbers of gizzard shad and freshwater drum were impinged both years. Application of the EA and PF models to the estimated number impinged annually resulted in reduced numbers offish (520,309 during Year One and 318,226 during Year Two) which would have been expected to survive to either harvestable size/age or to provide forage (Table 5). This reduced number is considered the "biological liability" resulting from plant CCW impingement mortality based on the guidance developed for the now suspended 316(b) regulations. Historical impingement monitoring at BFN conducted during 2003 and 2004 with two units operating estimated an annual impingement of 8.1 million fish. Fish Community Assessment-RFAI In 2008, fish community RF AI scores of 45 ("Good") and 42 ("Good") were observed at the stations downstream and upstream ofBFN respectively (Table 6). Both sites met BIP screening criteria, were within the 6 point range of acceptable variation and were therefore, considered similar. In 2009, fish community RFAI scores of36 ("Fair") and 39 ("Fair") were observed at the downstream and upstream stations, respectively (Table 7). However, both sites were within the 6-point range of acceptable variation and were considered similar. Average scores for 2000-2009 were 41 for both the upstream and downstream sites (Table 8). Summary and Conclusions Impingement monitoring conducted at BFN during September 2007 through September 2009 collected 3,983,438 fish representing 46 species. Threadfin shad dominated the samples comprising 96% during the two years, combined. Gizzard shad (two percent) were next in abundance followed by yellow bass, freshwater drum and bluegill. Seasonal impingement was highest (87%) during "November through January both years. Higher impingement during this period is attributed to large numbers of threadfin shad drawn into the plant CCW intake as a result of cold or thermal shock. Extrapolated estimates of numbers impinged were over twice as high (19,675,446) during the first year than estimated for Year Two (8,208,620). This difference was primarily the result of one sample in January, 2008 containing 1,684,003 fish (99.1 % threadfin shad). Equivalent Adult and Production Foregone models were applied to the numbers impinged and resulted in reduced numbers of fish or "biological liability" of 520,309 during Year One and 318,226 during Year Two. When the models were applied a second time using an average number of threadfin shad impinged for the anomalous January 2008 sample, the resulting losses to impingement were reduced to 254,509 for Year One. The numbers of fish impinged at BFN are not considered detrimental to the fish community in Wheeler Reservoir. Fish community or RF AI monitoring during autumn 2008 and 2009 upstream and downstream of BFN resulted in scores rated "Good" in 2008 and "Fair" during 2009. Scores between sites both years were within the acceptable range of variation and were therefore considered similar which suggests no effect from the operation of BFN to the downstream fish community. References Barnthouse, L. W. 2004. Extrapolating Impingement and Entrainment Losses to Equivalent Adults and Production Foregone. EPRI Report 1008471, July 2004. Baxter, D.S., J.P. Buchanan, and L.K. Kay. 2006. Effects of condenser cooling water withdrawal on the fish community near the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant intake. Tennessee Valley Authority, Aquatic Monitoring and Management, Knoxville, Tennessee. 46 pp. EPA. 2004. NP DES -Final Regulations to Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures at Phase II Existing Facilities; Final Rule. 69 FR No. 131, July 9, 2004. Federal Register Vol. 69, No. 131; July 9, 2004 McDonough, T.A. and G.D. Hickman. 1999. Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index development: A tool for assessing ecological health in Tennessee Valley Authority impoundments. In: Assessing the sustainability and biological integrity of water resources using fish communities. Simon, T. (Ed.) CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 523-540. Shaffer, G.P., J.W. Simmons, and D.S. Baxter. 2010. Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River Near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge Autumn and Spring 2009. Tennessee Valley Authority, Aquatic Monitoring and Management, Knoxville, Tennessee. 78 pp. Tennessee Valley Authority. 1978. Biological Effects oflntake Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. Volume 4: Effects of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Cooling Water Intake on the Fish Populations of Wheeler Reservoir. Division of Forestry, Fisheries, and Wildlife Development, Fisheries and Waterfowl Resources Branch. January, 1978 Tennessee Valley Authority. 2004. Impingement Counts. Quality Assurance Procedure No. RSO&E-BR-23.11, Rev 1. TVA River Systems Operation and Environment, Aquatic Monitoring and Management Knoxville TN. 11 pp.

• Tennessee Valley Authority. 2009. Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River Near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge.

Table 1. List of Fish Species by Family, Scientific, and Common Name Including Numbers Collected in Impingement Samples During September 12, 2007 through September 3, 2008 and September 10, 2008 and September 9, 2009 at Browns Ferr! Nuclear Plant. Total Number Impinged Family Scientific Name Common Name Year One Year Two Petromyzontidae /chthyomyzon castaneus Chestnut lamprey 4 2 Lepisosteidae Lepisosteus osseus Longnose gar 0 3 Lepisosteus oculatus Spotted gar 16 36 Hiodontidae Hiodon tergisus Moon eye 4 0 Clupeidae Dorosoma cepedianum Gizzard shad 34,015 54,678 Alosa chrysochloris Skipjack herring 54 21 Dorosoma petenense Threadfin shad 2,731,184 1,074,676 Alosa pseudoharengus Alewife 122 1,622 Cyprinidae Pimephales vigilax Bullhead minnow 1,622 197 Pimephales notatus Bluntnose minnow 10 0 Notropis atherinoides Emerald shiner 21 2 Notemigonus cryso/eucas Golden Shiner 25 65 Cyprinella spiloptera Spotfin shiner 5 0 Luxilus chrysocephalus Striped shiner 5 2 Cyprinus carpio Common carp 23 74 Catostomidae /ctiobus bubalus Smallmouth buffalo 2 2 /ctiobus niger Black buffalo 4 0 Moxostoma erythrurum Golden redhorse 1 0 Hypentelium nigricans Northern hogsucker 6 23 Carpiodes cyprinus Quill back 0 3 Minytrema melanops Spotted sucker 516 735 Ictaluridae /ctalurus farcatus Blue catfish 516 735 /ctalurus punctatus Channel catfish 2,907 2,565 Pylodictis olivaris Flathead catfish 46 23 Ameiurus nebulosus Brown bullhead 0 13 Ameiurus me/as Black bullhead 3 0 ,, Atherinopsidae Labidesthes siccu/us Brook silverside 13 0 Menidia beryl/ina Inland Silverside 40 1,798 Belonidae Strongylura marina Atlantic needlefish 38 11 Moronidae Marone chrysops White bass 535 255 Marone mississippiensis Yellow bass 9,280 15,657 Marone saxatilis Striped bass 7 8 Marone saxatilis x M chrysops Hybrid striped bass 13 5 Centrarchidae Leeomis macrochirus Bluegill 15,132 5,565 Table 1. (continued) Total Number Impinged Family Scientific Name Common Name Year One Year Two Centrarchidae Lepomis auritus Redbreast sunfish 0 58 Lepomis microlophus Redear sunfish 4,160 534 Lepomis gulosus Warmouth 14 106 Lepomis humilis Orangespotted sunfish 370 959 Lepomis cyanellus Green sunfish 35 270 Lepomis megalotis Longear sunfish 132 174 Hybrid sunfish 1 0 Micropterus dolomieu Smallmouth bass 2 4 Micropterus salmoides Largemouth bass 78 73 Micropterus punctulatus Spotted bass 79 72 Pomoxis annularis White crappie 197 693 Pomoxis nigromaculatus Black crappie 20 2 Percidae Sander canadense Sauger 14 5 Perea flavescens Yellow perch 512 212 Percina caprodes Logperch 523 211 Percina shumardi River darter 0 3 Sciaenidae Aplodinotus grunniens Freshwater drum 9,483 11,426 Total Number of Fish 2,810,778 1,172,660 Total Number of Fish Species 46 43 Number of Sample Days 52 53 Table 2. Number of fish impinged by month and percent of annual total during September, 2007 through September, 2009. Total Number of Fish Number of Fish Impinged 2007-2008 Percent of Impinged 2008-2009 Percent of Years 1 and Percent of Two-Month (Year 1) Annual Total (Year 2) Annual Total 2 Combined Year Total Jan 12,051,564 61 1,166,907 14 13,218,471 47 Feb 556,703 3 142,702 2 699,405 3 Mar 220,136 1 211,918 3 432,054 2 Apr 274,302 1 91,021 1 365,323 1 May 183,197 1 4,438 0 187,635 1 Jun 23,912 0 7,399 0 31,311 0 Jul 24,570 0 25,186 0 49,756 0 Aug 279,706 1 4,256 0 283,962 1 Sep 127,169 1 58,695 1 185,864 1 Oct 664,783 3 556,395 7 1,221,178 4 Nov 3,025,932 15 2,040,311 25 5,066,243 18 Dec 2,243,472 11 3,899,392 48 6,142,864 22 Total 19,675,446 8,208,620 27,884,066 Table 3. Comparison of estimated weekly fish impingement at TV A's Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant during 2007 and 2008. Sept Oct Nov Dec Year 1 Year2 Year 1 Year2 Year 1 Year2 Year 1 Year2 Week 1 9120 3881 4648 4304 72693 17S411 Week2 lOSO 2494 7900 34764 13330 6119 116023 206874 Week3 2218 4012 2321S S892 22923 208051 84264 77367 Week4 6144 180S 23334 3834 . 39137S 72999 47S16 97404 Weeks 31400 31114 Jan Feb March* April Year 1 Year2 Year 1 Year2 Year 1 Year2 Year 1 Year2 Week 1 1684003 4S6S8 4162 7478 S820 4121 786S 9810 Week2 11410 89S12 2S196 S439 . 6506 5274 14337 1309 Week3 12693 16101 26393 S216 7904 1SS71. Sl36 1718 Week4 399S S716 23778 22S3 11218 S308 290S 166 Weeks 95Sl 9714 8943 0 Ma}'. June July Aug Year 1 'Year 2 Year 1 Year2 Year 1 Year2 Year 1 Year2 Week 1 19708 141 1019 92 861 616 1824 23 Week2 4006 34S 807 280 612 0 1937 10 Week3 1469 128 747 206 400 1322 1468 148 Week4 988 20 843 479 S19 47S 34729 427 Weeks 1118 118S Table 4. Annual extrapolated estimates of numbers and biomass of fish impinged by species and year at Watts Bar Nuclear Plant during September 2007 through September 2009. Estimated Number Estimated Biomass {g) 9/12/2007 -9/10/2008 -9/12/2007 -9/10/2008 -Percent Composition Srecies 9/03/2008 9/09/2009 Average 9/03/2008 910912009 Average Threadfin Shad 19,118,288 7,522,732 13,320,510 52,372,460 25,157,615 38,765,038 96 Gizzard Shad 238,105 382,746 310,426 8,348,508 7,366,639 7,857,574 2 Yellow Bass 64,960 109,599 87,280 1,528,870 2,181,942 1,855,406 1 Freshwater Drum 66,381 79,982 73,182 4,842,915 5,830,720 5,336,818 1 Bluegill 105,924 38,955 72,440 580,223 435,358 507,791 1 Channel Catfish 20,349 17,955 19,152 948,367 1,082,508 1,015,438 T Redear Sunfish 29,120 3,738 16,429 183,232 140,707 161,970 T Inland Silverside 280 12,586 6,433 1,218 66,010 33,614 T Bullhead Minnow 11,354 1,379 6,367 67,130 5,369 36,250 T Alewife 854 11,354 6,104 6,748 116,095 61,422 T Orangespotted Sunfish 2,590 6,713 4,652 12,509 16,506 14,508 T Blue Catfish 3,612 5,145 4,379 321,951 267,337 294,644 T White Crappie 1,379 4,851 3,115 75,775 149,205 112,490 T White Bass 3,745 1,785 2,765 713,489 462,112 587,801 T Logperch 3,661 1,477 2,569 21,280 14,203 17,742 T Longear Sunfish 924 1,218 1,071 8,834 11,004 9,919 T Green Sunfish 245 1,890 1,068 3,570 7,630 5,600 T Largemouth Bass 546 511 529 68,054 92,491 80,273 T Spotted Bass 553 504 529 50,918 43,491 47,205 T Warmouth 98 742 420 1,799 9,184 5,492 T Common Carp 161 518 340 770 5,068 2,919 T Golden Shiner 175 455 315 1,960 6,503 4,232 T Skipjack Herring 378 147 263 183,015 30,254 106,635 T Flathead Catfish 322 161 242 80,227 22,876 51,552 T Redbreast Sunfish 0 406 203 0 2,513 1,257 T Spotted Gar 112 252 182 215,719 354,508 285,114 T Atlantic Needlefish 266 77 172 23,737 4,501 14,119 T Northern Hog Sucker 42 161 102 441 4,879 2,660 T Table 4. (continued) Estimated Number Estimated Biomass {g) 9/1212007 -9/10/2008 -9/12/2007 -9/10/2008 -Percent Composition 9/03/2008 910912009 Average 9/03/2008 910912009 Average b:yNumber Yellow Perch 84 84 84 728 1,323 1,026 T Emerald Shiner 147 14 81 1,211 168 690 T Black Crappie 140 14 77 8,834 252 4,543 T Sauger 98 35 67 46,858 16,114 31,486 T Hybrid Striped Bass 91 35 63 58,023 371 29,197 T Spotted Sucker 0 126 63 0 41,503 20,752 T Striped Bass 49 56 53 26,523 399 13,461 T Brook Silverside 91 0 46 308 0 154 T Brown Bullhead 0 91 46 0 525 263 T Bluntnose Minnow 70 0 35 252 0 126 T River Darter 35 14 25 35 56 46 T Striped Shiner 35 14 25 294 56 175 T Chestnut Lamprey 28 14 21 1,365 532 949 T Smallmouth Bass 14 28 21 6,986 119 3,553 T Spotfin Shiner 35 0 18 259 0 130 T Black Buffalo 28 0 14 11,550 0 5,775 T Mooneye 28 0 14 9,702 0 4,851 T Smallmouth Buffalo 14 14 14 4,774 7,588 6,181 T Black Bullhead 21 0 11 203 0 102 T Longnose Gar 0 21 11 0 60,214 30,107 T Quill back 0 21 11 0 27,727 13,864 T Golden Redhorse 7 0 4 4,900 0 2,450 T Hybrid Sunfish 7 0 4 7 0 4 T Table 5. Extrapolated annual numbers of fish impinged at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant September 2007 through August 2008 and September 2008 through August 2009. Also included are numbers of fish for which TV A is liable after EA and PF reduction. Extrapolated Annual Number of fish Impinged Number Liable for after EA & PF Reduction Year 1 2007-2008 19,675,446 520,309 Year2 2008-2009 8,208,620 318,226 Table 6. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RFAI Scores Downstream (TRM 292.5) and Upstream (TRM 295.9) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2008. Autumn 2008 TRM 292.5 TRM 295.9 Metric A. Species richness and composition 1. Number of indigenous species 2. Number of centrarchid species (less Micropterus) 3. Number ofbenthic invertivore species 4. Number of intolerant species Obs 28 species 6 species Green sunfish Bluegill Longear sunfish Warmouth Black crappie Redear sunfish 5 species Spotted sucker Black redhorse Golden redhorse Freshwater drum Logperch 5 species Spotted sucker Skipjack herring Black redhorse Longear sunfish Smallmouth bass Score 3 5 3 5 Obs 28 species 7 species Green sunfish Bluegill Longear sunfish Warmouth Redear sunfish White crappie Black crappie 4 species Spotted sucker Northern hog sucker Freshwater drum Logperch 5 species Spotted sucker Northern hog sucker Skipjack herring Longear sunfish Smallmouth bass Score 3 5 3 5 Table 6. (Continued) Autumn 2008 TRM292.5 TRM295.9 Metric Obs Score Obs Score 5. Percent tolerant individuals Electro fishing 37.4% 50.6% Bluegill 10.3% Bluegill 8.2% Gizzard shad 31. 7% Gizzard shad 19.3% Common carp 0.3% Largemouth bass 7.2% 1.5 Largemouth bass 9.4% 1.5 Spotfin shiner 0.2% Spotfin shiner 0.2% Green sunfish 0.3% Golden shiner 0.2% Green sunfish 0.4% Gill Netting 32.1% 23.6% Gizzard shad 12.3% Gizzard shad 14.1% Common carp 0.5% Common carp 0.5% 1.5 Bluegill 3.2% 0.5 Largemouth bass 7.0% Bluegill 1.0% Longnose gar 4.8% Largemouth bass 8.0% Golden shiner 2. 7% White crappie 1.6% 6. Percent dominance by one species Electro fishing 52.7% 31.7% Inland silver.side 1.5 Gizzard shad 1.5 Gill Netting 28.6% 19.8% White bass 1.5 Channel catfish 1.5 7. Percent non-indigenous species Electro fishing 29.5% 52.7% 0.5 Inland silverside 29.0% 0.5 Inland silverside 52.7% Atlantic needlefish 0.1 % Common carp 0 .3 % Gill Netting 0.5% 1.6% Common carp 0.5% 2.5 Common carp 0.5% 1.5 Striped bass 1.1 % Table 6. (Continued) Autumn 2008 TRM292.5 TRM295.9 Metric Obs Score Obs Score 8. Number of top carnivore species 10 species 11 species Spotted gar Longnose gar Largemouth bass Spotted gar Spotted bass Largemouth bass Smallmouth bass Spotted bass Skipjack herring 5 Smallmouth bass 5 Flathead catfish Skipjack herring White bass Flathead catfish Yellow bass White bass Black crappie Yellow bass Sauger Black crappie White crappie B. Trophic composition 9. Percent top carnivores Electro fishing 8.5% 12.6% Largemouth bass 7.2% Largemouth bass 9.4% Spotted bass 0.2% Spotted bass 0. 7% Smallmouth bass 1.0% Smallmouth bass 0.7% Flathead catfish.0.06% 1.5 Flathead catfish 0.3% 2.5 White bass 0.2% Yellow bass 1.0% Spotted gar 0.2% Gill Netting 61.3% 39.6% Spotted gar 0.5% Longnose gar 4.8% Largemouth bass 8.0% Largemouth bass 7.0% Spotted bass 1.0% Spotted bass 1.6% Skipjack herring 15.6% 2.5 Skipjack herring 1.6% 2.5 Flathead catfish 4.5% Flathead catfish 2.1 % White bass 28.6% White bass 14.0% Yellow bass 1.5% Yellow bass 5.3% Black crappie 0.5% White crappie 1.6% Sauger 1.0% Black crappie 0.5% Table 6. (Continued) Autumn 2008 TRM292.5 TRM295.9 Metric Obs Score Obs Score 10. Percent omnivores Electrofishing 20.7% 38.5% Gizzard shad 19 .3 % Gizzard shad 31. 7% 2.5 Channel catfish 5.8% 1.5 Channel catfish 1.2% Smallmouth buffalo 0.4% Blue catfish 0.2% Common carp 0.3% Golden shiner 0.2% Gill Netting 26.6% 44.4% Gizzard shad 14.1 % Gizzard shad 12.3% Blue catfish 6.0% 1.5 Blue catfish 5.3% 0.5 Channel catfish 3 .5% Channel catfish 19.8% Smallmouth buffalo 2.0% Golden shiner 2.7% Black buffalo 0.5% Smallmouth buffalo 3. 7% Common carp 0.5% Common carp 0.5% C. Fish abundance and health 11. Average number per run Electro fishing 112.2 0.5 59.9 0.5 Gill Netting 19.9 1.5 18.7 1.5 12. Percent anomalies Electrofishing 0.4% 2.5 1% 2.5 Gill Netting 0.5% 2.5 0.5% 2.5 Overall RFAI Score 45 42 Good Good Table 7. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RFAI Scores Downstream (TRM 292.5) and Upstream (TRM 295.9) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2009. Autumn 2009 Metric A. Species richness and composition 1. Number of indigenous species (Tables 7 and 8) 2. Number of centrarchid species (less Micropterus) 3. Number of benthic invertivore species 4. Number of intolerant species TRM292.5 Obs 27 7 Black crappie Bluegill Green sunfish Longear sunfish Redbreast sunfish Redear sunfish Warmouth 3 Freshwater drum Golden redhorse Logperch 3 Longear sunfish Skipjack herring Smallmouth bass TRM295.9 Score Obs Score 3 26 6 Black crappie Bluegill Green sunfish 5 Longear sunfish Redear sunfish Warmouth 4 Black redhorse 1 Freshwater drum Golden redhorse Spotted sucker 5 Black redhorse 3 Longear sunfish Skipjack herring Smallmouth bass Spotted sucker 3 5 3 5 Table 7. (Continued) Autumn 2009 TRM292.5 TRM295.9 Metric Obs Score Obs Score 5. Percent tolerant individuals Electro fishing 40.9% 43.1% Bluegill 5.67% Bluegill 5.30% Bluntnose minnow 0.07% Common carp 0.18% Common carp 0.07% Gizzard shad 26.97% Gizzard shad 24.93% Golden shiner 0.46% Golden shiner 0.07% 1.5 Green sunfish 0.73% 1.5 Green sunfish 1.00% Largemouth bass 9.05% Largemouth bass 7.07% Spotfin shiner 0.46% Redbreast sunfish 0.07% Spotfin shiner 1.93% Gill Netting 45.7% 30.5% Bluegill 4.35% Common carp 3.39% Gizzard shad 39.13% 0.5 Gizzard shad 23.73% 0.5 Largemouth bass 2.1 7% White sucker 3.39% 6. Percent dominance by one species Electro fishing 42.6% 35.6% Inland silverside 1.5 Inland silverside 1.5 Gill Netting 39.1% 23.7% Gizzard shad 0.5 Gizzard shad 1.5 Table 7. (Continued) Autumn 2009 TRM292.5 TRM295.9 Metric Obs Score Obs Score 7. Percent non-indigenous species Electro fishing 42.7% 35.8% Common carp 0.07% Common carp 0.18% Inland silverside 42.60% 0.5 Inland silverside 35.56% 0.5 Striped bass 0.09% Gill Netting 0.0% 3.4% 2.5 Common carp 3.39% 0.5 8. Number of top carnivore species 9 9 Black crappie Black crappie Flathead catfish Flathead catfish Largemouth bass Largemouth bass Skipjack herring 5 Skipjack herring 5 Smallmouth bass Smallmouth bass Spotted bass Spotted bass Spotted gar Spotted gar White bass White bass Yellow bass Yellow bass B. Trophic composition 9. Percent top carnivores Electrofishing 11.5% 14.4% Black crappie 0.07% Black crappie 0.09% Flathead catfish 0.27% Flathead catfish 1.28% Largemouth bass 7 .07% Largemouth bass 9.05% Smallmouth bass 3.73% 2.5 Smallmouth bass 0.18% 2.5 White bass 0.07% Spotted bass 0.46% Yellow bass 0.27% Spotted gar 0.46% Striped bass 0.09% Yellow bass 2.83% Table 7. (Continued) Autumn 2009 TRM292.5 TRM295.9 Metric Obs Score Obs Score Gill Netting 32.6% 30.5% Flathead catfish 6.52% Black crappie 1.69% Largemouth bass 2.17% Flathead catfish 1.69% Skipjack herring 2.17% Skipjack herring 8.47% Spotted bass 6.52% 1.5 Spotted bass 1.69% 1.5 Spotted gar 8.70% Spotted gar 1.69% White bass 4.35% White bass 6.78% Yellow bass 2.17% Yellow bass 8.47% 10. Percent omnivores Electro fishing 29.5% 36.8% Bluntnose minnow 0.07% Blue catfish 0.18% Channel catfish 4.20% Channel catfish 8.96% Common carp 0.07% 1.5 Common carp 0.18% 1.5 Gizzard shad 24.93% Gizzard shad 26.97% Golden shiner 0.07% Golden shiner 0.46% Smallmouth buffalo 0.20% Smallmouth buffalo 0.09% Gill Netting 56.5% 54.2% Blue catfish 4.35% Blue catfish 3.39% Channel catfish 6.52% 0.5 Channel catfish 20.34% 0.5 Gizzard shad 3 9 .13 % Common carp 3.39% Smallmouth buffalo 6.52% Gizzard shad 23.73% White sucker 3.39% Table 7. (Continued) Autumn 2009 Metric C. Fish abundance and health 11. Average number per run 12. Percent anomalies Overall RF AI Score TRM292.5 Obs Electro fishing 100.0 Gill Netting 4.6 Electro fishing 0.5% Gill Netting 0.0% TRM295.9 Score Obs Score 0.5 72.9 0.5 0.5 5.9 0.5 2.5 0.6% 2.5 2.5 0.0% 2.5 36 39 Fair Fair Table 8. Summary ofRFAI Scores from Sites Located Directly Upstream and Downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant as Well as Scores from Sampling Conducted During 1993-2009 as Part of the Vital Signs Monitoring Program in Wheeler Reservoir. Station Location 1993 1994 1995 1997 1999 1993-1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2000-2009 Average Average Inflow TRM348.0 46 48 42 48 36 44 38 42 38 44 44 42 38 38 40 40 Transition TRM295.9 43 43 35 40 30 38 41 37 43 39 43 46 41 39 42 39 41 BFN Upstream Transition BFN TRM292.5 NIA 43 40 41 43 43 36 42 42 45 36 41 Downstream Fore bay TRM277.0 52 44 49 45 42 46 41 45 44 43 45 46 49 46 47 45 Elk River ERM6.0 43 46 36 49 36 42 49 44 49 47 39 42 45 Embayment Note: No data were collected for 1996 and 1998. RFAI Scores: 12-21 ("Very Poor"), 22-31("Poor"),32-40 ("Fair"), 41-50 ("Good"), or 51-60 ("Excellent").

---

..... ............ ... X,, I \ \ ' ' \ ' ' I I ' ' ',,I \ ' ' ' BFN Downstream monitors * , /;--Intake pumping station St.a 17 (L) _/, ' Sta 1 (M) ' 1 , --Sta 16 (R) 2 , 'Ill . ./ r wa I monitor _/ ', , Sta 19(0.3 ml ) Diffusers. TRM 294.0 ' , o:.. ', ,./ . .A ' / q.v. ' ,.I(.. -' 6.r: ...... , '............ q.9&'>.',K"' ./ Overbank .... , ve51,.. >{"' Upstream moniio Overt>ank X's-' r (backup) .......... '-..., Sta 14 (LB ml u/s) ..... . ' / ' ' ,, ', ' "" ', ' ',, Main channel ' ,.. .... ' .... 'K,.. ', Upstream monitor ' ....... , ',/_ ....... __ ------....... _ -...... --..... ----.............. ..... ..... .... .... ' ' ' ' ' Figure 1. Location of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant and Condenser Cooling Water (CCW) intake and discharge. Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant is located on the north shore of Wheeler Reservoir at Tennessee River Mile 294.

12,000,000 .---------------------------------------------10,000,000 +--------------ff-----------------1 -'07-08 -'08-09 "C 8,000,000 aJ b.O c: c. E 6,000,000 +-------------.._.,__ ___________________________ _ Ill u. ro 4,000,000 +--0 aJ 2,000,000 +---------++----+-----------------------------+' ro E 2 3 4 Week Week Sept Oct Week Week Week Nov Dec Jan 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 Week Week Week Week Week Week Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Sample Week Figure 2. Weekly estimate of total fish impinged at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, September 2007 through August 2008 (Year 1) and September 2008 through August 2009 (Year 2). ATTACHMENT 8 Reference TVA. 2012a. Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River Near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2011. TVA Biological and Water Resources, Chattanooga, Tennessee. Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River Near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge Autumn 2011 July 2012 Tennessee Valley Authority Biological and Water Resources Chattanooga, Tennessee Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................. i List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. ii List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ iv Acronyms and Abbreviations ........................................................................................................ vi Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 2 Plant Description ......................................................................................................................... 3 Methods ........................................................................................................................................... 3 Fish and Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sample Locations Upstream and Downstream of BFN .... 3 Aquatic Habitat in the Vicinity of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant ................................................. 3 Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Assessment. ................................................................................... 3 River Bottom Habitat. .............................................................................................................. 4 Fish Community Sampling Methods and Data Analysis for Sites Upstream and Downstream of BFN ............................................................................................................................................. 4 Traditional Analyses ................................................................................................................ 8 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Sampling Methods and Data Analysis for Sites Upstream and Downstream of BFN .................................................................................... : ....... 9 Visual Encounter Survey (Wildlife Observations) .................................................................... 11 Thermal Plume Characterization ............................................................................................... 12 Wheeler Reservoir Flow and BFN Temperature ....................................................................... 13 Water Quality Parameters at Fish Sampling Stations during RF AI Samples ........................... 13 Results and Discussion ................................................................................................................. 13 Aquatic Habitat in the Vicinity of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant ............................................... 13 Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Assessment. ................................................................................. 13 River Bottom Habitat ............................................................................................................. 14 Aquatic Habitat Summary ..................................................................................................... 14 Fish Community ........................................................................................................................ 14 Traditional Analyses .............................................................................................................. 17 Fish Community Summary ........................................................................................................ 18 Benthic Macro invertebrate Community .................................................................................... 19 Visual Encounter Survey (Wildlife Observations) .................................................................... 24 Thermal Plume Characterization ............................................................................................... 24 Wheeler Reservoir Flow and BFN Water Temperature ............................................................ 24 Water Quality Parameters at Fish Sampling Stations during RF AI Samples ........................... 25 Literature Cited ............................................................................................................................. 27 List of Tables Table 1. Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Index (SAHI) metrics and scoring criteria .......................... 29 Table 2. Expected values for lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoir transition zone calculated from data collected from 900 electrofishing runs and 600 overnight experimental gill net sets in transition areas of lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs. This trisection is intended to show below expected(-), expected (Avg), and above expected ( +) values for trophic level proportions and species occurring within the transition zone in lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs ........................................ 30 Table 3. Average trophic guild proportions and average number of species, bound by confidence intervals (95 %), expected in lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoir transition zones. These values were calculated from data collected from 900 electrofishing runs and 600 overnight experimental gill net sets in transition areas oflower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs ................................................................................................................. 31 Table 4. RF AI scoring criteria (2002) for fish community samples in forebay, transition, and inflow sections oflower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs, which include Guntersville, Wheeler, Wilson, Pickwick, and Kentucky. Transition criteria were used to score the sites upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant.. ..................... 32 Table 5. Scoring criteria for RBI analysis ofbenthic macroinvertebrate samples, compared for the different zones of mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs and for two different sample processing strategies (lab-processing and field-processing) ............................................. 33 Table 6. SAHi scores for 16 sections of shoreline assessed within the RF AI fish community sample area upstream ofBFN, autumn 2009 .................................................................... 34 Table 7. SAHi scores for 16 sections of shoreline assessed within the RF AI fish community sample area downstream ofBFN, autumn 2009 ............................................................... 35 Table 8. Substrate percentages and average water depth (ft) per transect upstream and downstream of BFN, autumn 2009 ................................................................................... 3 6 Table 9. Individual metric scores and the overall RF AI scores downstream (TRM 292.5) and upstream (TRM 295.9) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Autumn 2011. .......................... 37 Table 10. Species collected, ecological and recreational designations, and corresponding electrofishing (EF) and gill net (GN) catch per unit effort downstream (TRM 292.5) of the BFN discharge -Autumn 2011 .................................................................................. 40 Table 11. Species collected, ecological and recreational designations, and corresponding electrofishing (EF) and gill net (GN) catch per unit effort upstream (TRM 295.9) of the BFN Plant discharge-Autumn 2011. ............ : ................................................................. 41 Table 12. Summary of RF AI scores from sites located directly upstream and downstream of BFN and scores from sampling conducted during 1993 through 2011 as part of the Vital Signs monitoring program in Wheeler Reservoir ............................................................. 42 Table 13. Spatial statistical comparisons of numbers of fish species, mean electrofishing catch per unit effort values (number/run), tolerance designations, trophic levels, and indigenous individuals, along with species richness and Simpson and Shannon diversity values, collected downstream and upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, autumn 2011 . ........................................................................................................................................... 43 11 Table 14. Individual metric ratings and the overall RBI scores (laboratory-processed) for downstream and upstream sampling sites near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Wheeler Reservoir, Autumn 2011 ................................................................................................... 44 Table 15. Metric scores and the overall RBI scores determined from field-processed criteria, for sites upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Wheeler Reservoir, Autumn 2000-2010 ........................................................................................................... 45 Table 16. Metric scores and the overall RBI scores determined from lab-processed criteria, for sites upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Wheeler Reservoir, 2001-2006 ................................................................................................................................... 47 Table 17. Mean densities ( organisms/m2) of benthic taxa collected by dredge sample along transects upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, 2011. Estimates of total mean density per sample are included ...................................................................... 48. Table 18. Field estimates of substrate composition in benthic dredge samples collected around Brown's Ferry Nuclear Plant, October 2011 .................................................................... 51 Table 19. RBI scores from data collected from 1994 through 2011 at Wheeler Reservoir inflow, transition, embayment, and fore bay sampling sites .......................................................... 52 Table 20. Wildlife observed along 2100 m transects parallel to the shoreline, upstream and downstream ofBFN, autumn 2011 ................................................................................... 53 Table 21. Water temperature (°F) profiles measured at five locations (10%, 30%, 50%, 70%, 90%) from right descending bank along transects located at TRM 296.5, TRM 294, TRM 292.4, TRM 291.2, and TRM 289.l during autumn 2011 to characterize the BFN thermal plume .............................................................................. : .................................................. 54 Table 22. Water quality parameters collected along vertical depth profiles at the downstream, midpoint, and upstream end of the RF AI sample reach downstream (TRM 292.5) and upstream (TRM 295.9) of BFN, autumn 2011. ................................................................ 55 iii List of Figures Figure 1. Location of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant on Wheeler Reservoir ................................. 56 Figure 2. Location of Condenser Cooling Water (CCW) intake and discharge at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. .................................................................................................................... 57 Figure 3. Locations ofbiomonitoring sites downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, including thermal plume resulting from BFN discharge .................................................. 5 8 Figure 4. Locations ofbiomonitoring sites upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. ............... 59 Figure 5. Locations of transects used to characterize shoreline and river bottom habitat upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. ............................................................. 60 Figure 6. Locations of water temperature monitoring stations used to compare water temperatures upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) intake and downstream of BFN discharge during October 2009 through November 2010. Station 4 was used for upstream ambient temperatures of the BFN intake and was located at TRM 297.8. Stations 1, 16, and 17 were used for temperatures downstream ofBFN discharge and were each located at TRM 293.5. This figure originated in the technical report: Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Module III, Water Temperature Monitoring ................ * .................... 61 Figure 7. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted. Transects 1 and 2 are the farthest downstream of the eight transects established downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant.. ................................................................... 62 Figure 8. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted .............................................................................................................................. 63 Figure 9. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted .............................................................................................................................. 64 Figure 10. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted .............................................................................................................................. 65 Figure 11. Substrate composition at ten spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted. Of the eight transects established upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, transects 1 and 2 are the closest to the plant. .................................................................... 66 Figure 12. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted .............................................................................................................................. 67 Figure 13. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted .............................................................................................................................. 68 Figure 14. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted .............................................................................................................................. 69 IV Figure 15. Comparison of observed values for the Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index metric "Number oflndigenous Species", over twelve years of autumn sampling at the stations upstream and downstream of Brown's Ferry Nuclear Plant. ............................................ 70 Figure 16. Percent composition, by trophic level, of fish community sampled upstream and downstream of Brown's Ferry Nuclear Plant-Autumn, 2011. ........................................ 71 Figure 17. Daily average flows from Guntersville Dam, October 2010 through November 2011, and historic daily flows for the same fiscal year period, averaged o.ver the years 1976-2010 ................................ , .................................................................................................. 72 Figure 18. Daily water temperatures averaged over depth (3, 5, and 7 feet) upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant (BFN) intake and downstream ofBFN discharge-October 2010 through November 2011 .......................................................................................... 73 Figure 19. Water temperature along vertical depth profiles at nine locations within the sampling station centered at TRM 292.5, downstream of Brown's Ferry Nuclear Power Plant, October 2011 ..................................................................................................................... 74 Figure 20. Water temperature along vertical depth profiles at nine locations within the sampling station centered at TRM 295.9, upstream of Brown's Ferry Nuclear Power Plant, October 2011 ................................................................................................................................... 75 Figure 21. Conductivity along vertical depth profiles at nine locations within the sampling station centered at TRM 292.5, downstream of Brown's Ferry Nuclear Power Plant, October 2011 ..................................................................................................................... 76 Figure 22. Conductivity along vertical depth profiles at nine locations within the sampling station centered at TRM 295.9, upstream of Brown's Ferry Nuclear Power Plant, October 2011 ................................................................................................................................... 77 Figure 23. Dissolved oxygen concentration along vertical depth profiles at nine locations within the sampling station centered at TRM 292.5, downstream of Brown's Ferry Nuclear Power Plant, October 2011 ............................................................................................... 78 Figure 24. Dissolved oxygen concentration along vertical depth profiles at nine locations within the sampling station centered at TRM 295.9, upstream of Brown's Ferry Nuclear Power Plant, October 2011 .......................................................................................................... 79 Figure 25. Level of acidity (pH) along vertical depth profiles at nine locations within the sampling station centered at TRM 292.5, downstream of Brown's Ferry Nuclear Power Plant, October 2011 .......................................................................................................... 80 Figure 26. Level of acidity (pH) along vertical depth profiles at nine locations within the sampling station centered at TRM 295.9, upstream of Brown's Ferry Nuclear Power Plant, October 2011 .......................................................................................................... 81 v ATL BIP BFN ccw CWA EPA LD NP DES QA RBI RD RFAI SAHI TRM TVA vs Acronyms and Abbreviations Alternate Thermal Limit Balanced Indigenous Population Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant Condenser Cooling Water Clean Water Act Environmental Protection Agency Left Descending (Bank) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Quality Assurance Reservoir Benthic Macroinvertebrate Index Right Descending (Bank) Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index Shoreline Assessment Habitat Index Tennessee River Mile Tennessee Valley Authority Vital Signs vi Executive Summary As required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Number AL0022080 for operation of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN), this report is an evaluation of operational aquatic monitoring at BFN conducted during autumn 2011. The primary objective of the aquatic monitoring in the vicinity ofBFN was to determine if thermal variances established for control of the thermal component of the discharges assured protection of a Balanced Indigenous Populations (BIP) of aquatic life. Biological and chemical components monitored to detect and evaluate significant effects, if any, ofBFN's thermal discharge included: fish, benthic macroinvertebrate and wildlife communities; thermal plume characterization; and various water quality parameters. Both the upstream and downstream fish communities were found to be similar and met EPA's criteria for a Balanced Indigenous Population (BIP), therefore it was concluded that the BIP was not adversely affected by thermal effluent from BFN. Sampling locations of the benthic macroinvertebrate community were modified in 2011 compared to previous years. Samples were collected upstream at the same site, but were collected at two new sites downstream ofBFN: within the thermal plume and downstream and outside of thermal plume's influence. The three sites were different in diversity and abundance oftaxa, and the most downstream site was deemed "Fair", compared to a rating of "Good" at the upstream site. It was determined that these differences were due to differences in substrate composition and not the BFN thermal effluent. A visual wildlife survey was conducted for the first time in 2011 to assess bird, reptile, and mammal populations upstream and downstream ofBFN. Turtles and a variety of birds were encountered. Based on observations, shoreline wildlife communities appeared to be similar upstream and downstream ofBFN. During the autumn 2011 monitoring period, the thermal plume extended from the discharge (TRM 294) downstream to TRM 291.2. The entire biomonitoring zone downstream of the BFN discharge was not containedwithin the 3.6°F (2°C) isopleth of the thermal plume on the sample date. Depth profiles of water temperature, conductivity, dissolved oxygen concentration, and acidity (pH) indicated that values of all these parameters were within acceptable levels both upstream and downstream ofBFN. It appears that relatively healthy fish, benthic, and wildlife communities existed downstream of the BFN thermal discharge and that the heated BFN effluent has not adversely impacted these communities. 1 Introduction Section 316(a) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) authorizes thermal variances for the control of the thermal component of a point source discharge so long as the limits will assure the protection of Balanced Indigenous Populations (BIP) of aquatic life. The term "balanced indigenous population," as defined by EPA, describes a biotic community that is typically characterized by: (1) diversity appropriate to the ecoregion; (2) the capacity to sustain itself through cyclic seasonal changes; (3) the presence of necessary food chain species; and ( 4) lack of domination by pollution-tolerant species Prior to 2000, the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) was operating under a 316(a) ATL that had been continued with each permit renewal based on studies conducted in the mid-1970s. In 1999, EPA.Region IV requested additional data in conjunction with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit renewal applications to verify that BIP was being maintained at TV A's thermal plants with thermal variances. TV A proposed that its existing Vital Signs (VS) monitoring program, supplemented with additional fish and benthic macroinvertebrate community monitoring upstream and downstream of thermal plants with thermal variances, was appropriate for that purpose. The VS monitoring program began in 1990 in the Tennessee River System. This program was implemented to evaluate ecological health conditions in major reservoirs as part of TV A's stewardship role. One of the 5 indicators used in the VS program to evaluate reservoir health is the Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index (RF Al) methodology which incorporates fish species richness and composition, trophic composition, and fish abundance and health. RF AI has been thoroughly tested on TVA and other reservoirs and published in peer-reviewed literature (Jennings et al., 1995; Hickman and McDonough, 1996; McDonough and Hickman, 1999). Fish communities are used to evaluate ecological conditions because of their importance in the aquatic food web and because fish life cycles are long enough to integrate conditions over time. Benthic macroinvertebrate populations are assessed using the Reservoir Macroinvertebrate Benthic Index (RBI) methodology. Because benthic macroinvertebrates are relatively immobile, negative impacts to aquatic ecosystems can be detected earlier in benthic macroinvertebrate communities than in fish communities. These data are used to supplement RF AI results to provide a more thorough examination of differences in aquatic communities upstream and downstream of thermal discharges. During 2000-2010, TVA conducted monitoring to evaluate fish and benthic macroinvertebrate communities in areas immediately upstream and downstream of BFN using RF AI and RBI multi-metric evaluation techniques. Monitoring was continued in 2011 and broadened to include additional data for analyses requested by the EPA. Reported here are the results of RF Al, RBI, visual wildlife observations, shoreline and river bottom habitat/substrate characterization, and water quality data collected upstream and downstream ofBFN during 2011, with comparisons to RFAI and RBI data collected at these sites during autumn 2000 through 2010. 2 Plant Description BFN is located on Wheeler Reservoir, approximately 18 miles upstream of Wheeler Dam at Tennessee River Mile (TRM) 294 in Limestone County, Alabama (Figure 1). BFN is a unit nuclear-fueled facility. Unit One, which remained idle for several years, returned to service June 2007. Current operation utilizes a once-through condenser cooling water (CCW) system, withdrawing water from the Tennessee River through an intake structure at TRM 294.3 and discharging the water through a multi-port diffuser located downstream froni the plant at TRM 293.6 (Figure 2). Maximum flow rate of the CCW is approximately 3,468 million gallons per day. Methods Fish and Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sample Locations Upstream and Downstream of BFN Thermal discharge from BFN enters the Tennessee River at TRM 293.6 in Wheeler Reservoir (Figure 2). The fish community was sampled at a station centered at TRM 292.5, downstream of the cooling water discharge (Figure 3) and at a station centered at TRM 295.9, upstream of the plant's intake (Figure 4). In previous years, benthic macroinvertebrate community data were collected along transects at two sites: TRM 291.7, downstream of the BFN discharge and TRM 295.9, upstream of the BFN intake. In 2011, samples were collected along transects at three sites. Two sites were selected downstream: one below the thermal plume at TRM 290.4, and a second at TRM 293.2, within the thermal plume from the BFN discharge (Figure 3). The third site, upstream of the plant intake, was maintained at TRM 295.9 (Figure 4). Aquatic Habitat in the Vicinity of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Shoreline and river bottom habitat data presented in this report were collected during autumn 2009; habitat will be sampled again during autumn 2012. TVA assumes habitat data to be valid for three years, barring any major changes to the river/reservoir (e.g., flood). In the event of a major change to the river/ reservoir, habitat would be re-sampled the following autumn. Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Assessment The Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Index (SAHI), which incorporates several habitat parameters important to resident fish species, was used to measure existing fish habitat quality in the vicinity of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant during autumn 2009. Using the general format developed by Plafkin et al. (1989), seven metrics were established to characterize selected physical habitat attributes important to resident fish populations, which rely heavily on the littoral (shoreline) zone for reproduction, recruitment, and prey availability (Table 1 ). Habitat Suitability Indices (US Fish and Wildlife Service), along with other sources of information on biology and habitat requirements (e.g. Etnier and Starnes 1993), were consulted to develop "reference" criteria or "expected" conditions from a high quality environment for each parameter. Some generalizations were necessary in setting up scoring criteria to cover the various requirements of all species into one index. Individual metrics were scored through comparison of observed conditions with these "reference" conditions and assigned a corresponding value: good-5; fair-3; 3 or poor-1 (Table 1 ). The scores for each metric were summed to obtain the SAHi value. The range of potential SAHi values (7-35) was trisected to provide some descriptor of habitat quality (poor 7-16, fair 17-26, and good 27-35). The quality of shoreline aquatic habitat was assessed while traveling parallel to the shoreline in a boat. Eight line-of-sight transects were established across the width of Wheeler reservoir within the BFN downstream (TRMs 290.3 to 293.7) and upstream (TRMs 294.4 to 296.8) fish community sampling stations (Figure 4). Near-shore aquatic habitat was assessed along sections of shoreline corresponding to the left descending (LDB) and right descending bank (RDB) locations for each of the eight line-of-sight transects. These individual sections (8 on the LDB and 8 on the RDB for a total of 16 shoreline assessments) were then scored using SAHi criteria. Percentages of aquatic macrophytes in the littoral areas of the 8 LDB and 8 RDB shoreline sections were also estimated. River Bottom Habitat Along each of the 8 line-of-sight transects described above (8 transects below BFN thermal discharge, 8 transects at upstream reference site; Figure 5), 10 benthic grab samples were collected with a Ponar sa)Jlpler at equally spaced points from the LDB to the RDB. Substrate material collected with the Ponar was emptied into a screen and substrate percentages were estimated to determine existing benthic habitat across the width of the river. Water depths (feet) at each sample location were recorded. If no substrate was collected after multiple Ponar drops, it was assumed that the substrate was bedrock. For example, when the Ponar sampler was pulled shut, collectors could feel substrate consistency. If it shut easily and was not embedded in the substrate on numerous drops within the same location, collectors recorded the substrate as bedrock. Fish Community Sampling Methods and Data Analysis for Sites Upstream and Downstream of BFN Fish sampling methods included boat electrofishing and gill netting (Hubert 1996; Reynolds 1996). Electrofishing methodology consisted of fifteen electrofishing boat runs near the shoreline, each 300 meters long and of approximately 15 minutes duration (Figures 2 and 3). The total near-shore area sampled was approximately 4,500 meters (15,000 feet). Experimental gill nets (so called because of their use for research as opposed to commercial fishing) were used as an additional gear type to collect fish from deeper habitats not effectively sampled by electrofishing. Each experimental gill net consists of five panels, each 6.1 meters in length, for a total length of 30.5 meters (100.l feet). The distinguishing characteristic of experimental gill nets is mesh size that varies between panels. For this application, each net has panels with mesh sizes of2.5, 5.1, 7.6, 10.2, and 12.7 cm. Experimental gill nets are typically set perpendicular to river flow, extending from near-shore toward the main channel of the reservoir. Ten overnight experimental gill net sets were used at each sampling station (Figures 2 and 3). Fish collected were identified by species, counted, and examined for anomalies (such as disease, deformations, parasites, or hybridization). The resulting data were analyzed using RF AI methodology. 4 The RF AI uses 12 fish community metrics from four general categories: Species Richness and Composition; Trophic Composition; Abundance; and Fish Health. Individual species can be utilized for more than one metric. Together, these 12 metrics provide a balanced evaluation of fish community integrity. The individual metrics are described below, grouped by category: Species Richness and Composition (1) Total number of species --Greater numbers of species are considered to be representative of healthier aquatic ecosystems. As conditions degrade, numbers of species at an area decline. (2) Number of centrarchid species --Sunfish species (excluding black basses) are invertivores and a high diversity of this group is indicative of reduced siltation and suitable sediment quality in littoral areas. (3) Number of benthic invertivore species --Due to the special dietary requirements of this species group and the limitations of their food source in degraded environments, numbers of benthic invertivore species increase with better environmental quality. (4) Number of intolerant species --A group comprised of species that are particularly intolerant of physical, chemical, and thermal habitat degradation. Higher numbers of intolerant species suggest the presence of fewer environmental stressors. (5) Percentage of tolerant individuals (excluding young-of-year) --A metric that signifies poorer water quality with increasing proportions of individuals tolerant of degraded conditions. (6) Percent dominance by one species --Ecological quality is considered reduced if one species inordinately dominates the resident fish community. (7) Percentage of non-indigenous species --Based on the assumption that non-indigenous species reduce the quality of resident fish communities. (8) Number of top carnivore species --Higher diversity of piscivores is indicative of the availability of diverse and plentiful forage species and the presence of suitable habitat. Trophic Composition (9) Percentage of individuals as top carnivores --A measure of the functional aspect of top carnivores which feed on major planktivore populations. (10) Percentage of individuals as omnivores --. Omnivores are less sensitive to environmental stresses due to their ability to vary their diets. As trophic links are disrupted due to degraded conditions, specialist species such as insectivores decline while opportunistic omnivorous species increase in relative abundance. 5 Abundance (11) Average number per run --(number of individuals) --A metric based on the assumption that high quality fish assemblages support large numbers of individuals. Fish Health (12) Percentage of individuals with anomalies --Occurrence of diseases, lesions, tumors, external parasites, deformities, blindness, and natural hybridization is noted. A higher proportion of individuals exhibiting such conditions is representative of poor environmental conditions. RF AI methodology addresses all four attributes or characteristics of a "balanced indigenous population" (BIP) defined by the CWA, as described below: (1) A biotic community characterized by diversity appropriate to the ecoregion: Diversity is addressed by the metrics in the Species Richness and Composition category, especially metric 1 -"Number of indigenous species." Determination of reference conditions based on the transition zones of lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs (as described below) ensures appropriate species expectations for the ecoregion. (2) The capacity for the community to sustain itself through cyclic seasonal change: TV A uses an autumn data collection period for biological indicators, both VS and upstream/downstream monitoring. Autumn monitoring is used to document community condition or health after being subjected to the wide variety of stressors throughout the year. One of the main benefits of using biological indicators is their ability to integrate stressors through time. Examining the condition or health of a community at the end of the "biological year" (i.e., autumn) provides insight into how well the community has dealt with the stresses through an annual seasonal cycle. Likewise, evaluation of the condition of individuals in the community (in this case, individual fish as reflected in Metric 12) provides insight into how well the community can be expected to withstand stressors through winter. Further, multiple sampling years during the permit renewal cycle add to the evidence of whether or not the autumn monitoring approach has correctly demonstrated the ability of the community to sustain itself through repeated seasonal changes. (3) The presence of necessary food chain species: Three dominant fish trophic levels exist within Tennessee River reservoirs: insectivores; omnivores, and top carnivores. To determine the presence of necessary food chain species, these three groups should be well represented within the overall fish community. Other fish trophic levels include benthic invertivores, planktivores, herbivores, and parasitic species. Insectivores include most sunfish, minnows, and silversides. Omnivores include gizzard shad, common carp, carpsuckers, buffalo, and channel and blue catfish. Top carnivores include black and temperate bass, gar, skipjack herring, crappie, flathead catfish, sauger, and walleye. Benthic invertivores include drum, suckers, and darters. Planktivores include alewife, threadfin shad, and paddlefish. Herbivores include largescale stonerollers. Lampreys in the genus Ichthyomyzon are the only parasitic species occurring in Tennessee River reservoirs. 6 To establish expected proportions of each trophic guild and the expected number of species included in each guild occurring in lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs (Kentucky, Pickwick, Wilson, Wheeler, and Guntersville reservoirs), data collected from 1993 through 2010 were analyzed for each reservoir zone (forebay, transitiop, inflow). Samples collected in the downstream: vicinity of thermal discharges were not included in this analysis so that accurate expectations could be calculated with the assumption that these data represent what should occur in lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs absent from point source effects (i.e. power plant discharges). Data from 900 electrofishing runs (a total of 405,000 meters of shoreline sampled) and from 600 overnight experimental gill net sets were included in this analysis for transition areas in lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs. From these data, the range of proportional values for each trophic level and the range of the number of species included in each trophic level were trisected. This trisection is intended to show less than expected, expected or average, and above expected or average values for trophic level proportions and species occurring within each reservoir zone in lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs (Table 2). These data were also averaged and bound by confidence intervals (95 % ) to further evaluate expected values for proportions of each trophic level and the number of species expected for each trophic level by reservoir zone (Table 3). (4) A lack of domination by pollution-tolerant species: Domination by pollution-tolerant species is determined by metrics 3 ("Number ofbenthic invertivore species"), 4 ("Number of intolerant species"), 5 ("Percentage of tolerant individuals"), 6 ("Percent dominance by one species"), and 10 ("Percentage of individuals as omnivores"). Scoring categories are based on "expected" fish community characteristics in the absence of human-induced impacts other than impoundment of the reservoir. These categories were developed from historical fish assemblage data representative of transition zones from lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs (Hickman and McDonough, 1996). Attained values for each of the 12 metrics were compared to the scoring criteria and assigned scores to represent relative degrees of degradation: least degraded (5); intermediate degraded (3); and greatest degraded (1). For both the upstream (TRM 295.9) and the downstream (TRM 292.5) stations, RF AI metrics were scored using evaluation criteria for the "transition" reservoir zone (Table 4). If a metric was calculated as a percentage (e.g., "Percentage of tolerant individuals"), the data from electro fishing and gill netting were scored separately and allotted half the total score for that individual metric. Individual metric scores for a sampling area (i.e., upstream or downstream) are summed to obtain the RF AI score for the area. TV A uses RF AI results to determine maintenance of BIP using two approaches. One is "absolute" in that it compares the RF AI scores and individual metrics to predetermined values. The other is "relative" in that it compares RF AI scores attained downstream to the upstream control site. The "absolute" approach is based on Jennings et al. (1995) who suggested that favorable comparisons of the attained RF AI score from the potential impact zone to a predetermined criterion can be used to identify the presence of normal community structure and function and hence existence ofBIP. For multi-metric indices, TVA uses two criteria to ensure a conservative screening ofBIP. First, if an RF AI score reaches 70% of the highest attainable score of 60 (adjusted upward to include sample variability as described below), and second, if 7 fewer than half of RF Al metrics receive a low (1) or moderate (3) score, then normal community structure and function would be present indicating that BIP had been maintained, thus no further evaluation would be needed. RF AI scores range from 12 to 60. Ecological health ratings (12-21 ["Very Poor"], 22-31 ["Poor"], 32-40 ["Fair"], 41-50 ["Good"], or 51-60 ["Excellent"]) are then applied to scores. As discussed in detail below, the average variation for RF AI scores in TV A reservoirs is 6 (+/- 3). Therefore, any location that attains an RF AI score of 45 ( 42 plus the upward sample variation of 3) or higher would be considered to have BIP. It must be stressed that scores below this threshold do not necessarily reflect an adversely impacted fish community. The threshold is used to serve as a conservative screening level; i.e., any fish community that meets these criteria is obviously not adversely impacted. RF AI scores below this level would require a more depth look to determine if BIP exists. An inspection of individual RF AI metric results and species of fish used in each metric would be an initial step tO help identify if operation of BFN is a contributing factor. This approach is appropriate because a validated multi-metric index is being used and scoring criteria applicable to the zone of study are available. A difference in RF AI scores attained at the downstream area compared to the upstream (control) area is used as one basis for determining presence or absence of impacts on the resident fish community from BFN' s operations. The definition of "similar" is integral to accepting the validity of these interpretations. The Quality Assurance (QA) component of the Vital Signs monitoring program deals with how well the RF AI scores can be repeated and is accomplished by collecting a second set of samples at 15%-20% of the areas each year. Comparison sample QA data collected over seven years shows that the difference in RF AI index scores ranges from 0 to 18 points, The mean difference between these 54 paired scores is 4.6 points with 95% confidence limits of3.4 and 5.8. The 75thpercentile of the sample differences is 6, and the 901h percentile is 12. Based on these results, a difference of 6 points or less in the overall RF AI scores is the value selected for defining "similar" scores between upstream and downstream fish communities. That is, if the downstream RF AI score is within 6 points of the upstream score and ifthere are no major differences in overall fish community composition, then the two locations are considered similar. It is important to bear in mind that differences greater than 6 points can be expected simply due to method variation (i.e., 25% of the QA paired sample sets exceeded a difference of 6), An examination of the 12 metrics (with emphases on fish species used for each metric) is conducted to determine any difference in scores and the potential for the difference to be thermally related. Traditional Analyses In addition to RF AI analyses, data were analyzed using traditional statistical methods. Data from the survey were used to calculate catch per unit effort (CPUE), which was expressed as number of fish per electrofishing run. CPUE values were calculated by pollution tolerance, trophic guilds (e.g., benthic invertivores, top carnivores, etc.), thermal sensitivity (Yoder et al. 2006), and indigenousness. CPUE, species richness, and diversity values were computed for each electrofishing effort (to maximize sample size; n = 30) and compared upstream and downstream to assess potential effects of power plant discharges. 8 Diversity was quantified using two commonly used diversity indices: Shannon diversity index (Shannon 1948) and Simpson diversity index (Simpson 1949). Both indices account for the number of species present, as well as the relative abundance of each species. Shannon diversity index values were computed using the formula: s , (ni) (ni) H = -L N ln N i=l where: S = total number of species N = total number of individuals ni = total number of individuals in the ith species The Simpson diversity index was calculated as follows: where: S = total number of species N = total number of individuals ni = total number of individuals in the i1h species An independent two-sample t-test was used to test for differences in CPUE, species richness, and diversity values upstream and downstream ofBFN (a= 0.05). Before statistical tests were performed using this method, data were analyzed for normality using the Shapiro-Wilk test (Shapiro and Wilk, 1965) and homogeneity of variance using Levene's test (Levene, 1960). Non-normal data or data with unequal variances were transformed using square root conversion or the ln(x+ 1) transformation. Transformed data were reanalyzed for normal distribution and equal variances. If transformation normalized the data and/ or resulted in homogeneous variances, transformed data were tested using an independent two-sample t-test. If transformed data were not normally distributed or had unequal variances, statistical analysis was conducted using the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test (Mann and Whitney, 1947; Wilcoxon, 1945). Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Sampling Methods and Data Analysis for Sites Upstream and Downstream of BFN Along each of the three transects described above, a benthic grab sample was collected at each of ten points, equally-spaced from the LDB to the RDB. A Ponar sampler (area per sample 0.06 m2) was used for most samples. When heavier substrate was encountered, a Peterson sampler (area per sample 0.11 m2) was used. Each sample was washed on a 533µ screen, and organisms were picked from the screen and from any remaining substrate. For each sample, organisms and substrate were placed in a sample jar and fixed in formalin. In most previous sample years, samples were processed in the field, which limited the accuracy of taxa identification and 9 abundance. In 2011, samples were lab-processed by an independent consultant who identified each organism to the lowest possible taxonomic level. The samples were evaluated using seven community characteristics, or "metrics". Results for each metric were compared to reference conditions developed for VS reservoir inflow sample sites, and based on this comparison, were then assigned a score of 1, 3, or 5. The increased accuracy oflab-processed samples requires that they be scored using different criteria than those for field-processed samples. Scoring criteria for both processing methods of samples collected from lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs are shown in Table 5. To produce an overall benthic score for each sample site, the scores for the seven metrics were summed: potential scores ranged from 7 to 35. Ecological health ratings (7-12 "Very Poor", 13-18 "Poor", 19-23 "Fair, 24-29 "Good, or 30-35 "Excellent") were then applied to scores. The individual metrics are shown below: (1) Average number of taxa-calculated by averaging the total number oftaxa present in each sample at a site. Greater taxa richness indicates better conditions than lower taxa richness. (2) Proportion of samples with long-lived organisms-a presence/absence metric which is evaluated based on the proportion of samples with at least one long-lived organism (Corbicula, Hexagenia, mussels, or snails) present. The presence of long-lived taxa is indicative of conditions which allow long-term survival. (3) Average number of EPT taxa-calculated by averaging the number of Ephemeroptera (mayfly), Plecoptera (stonefly), and Trichoptera ( caddis fly) taxa present in each sample at a site. Higher diversity of these taxa indicates good water quality and better habitat conditions. ( 4) Average proportion of Oligochaete individuals-calculated by averaging the percentage of oligochaetes in each sample at a site. Oligochaetes are considered tolerant organisms so a higher proportion indicates poorer water quality. (5) Average proportion of total abundance comprised by the two most abundant calculated by selecting the two most abundant taxa in a sample, summing the number of individuals in those two taxa, dividing that sum by the total number of animals in the sample, and converting to a percentage for that sample. The percentage is then averaged for the 10 samples at each site. Often, the most abundant taxa differed among the 10 samples at a site. This allows more discretion to identify imbalances at a site than developing an average for a single dominant taxon for all samples at a site. This metric is used as an evenness indicator. Dominance of one or two taxa indicates poor conditions. (6) Average density excluding Chironomids and Oligochaetes-calculated by first summing the number of organisms, excluding chironomids and oligochaetes, present in each sample and then averaging these densities for the 10 samples at a site. This metric examines the community, excluding taxa which often dominate under adverse conditions. A higher abundance of non-chironomids and non-oligochaetes indicates good water quality conditions. 10 (7) Zero-samples: Proportion of samples containing no organisms-the proportion of samples at a site which have no organisms present. "Zero-samples" indicate living conditions unsuitable to support aquatic life (i.e. toxicity, unsuitable substrate, etc.). Any site having one empty sample was assigned a score of three, and any site with two or more empty samples received a score of one. Sites with no empty samples were assigned a score of five. A similar or higher benthic index score at the downstream site compared to the upstream site is used as basis for determining absence of impact on the benthic macroinvertebrate community related to BFN's thermal discharge. The QA component of VS monitoring shows that the comparison ofbenthic index scores from 49 paired sample sets collected over the past seven years range from 0 to 14 points, the 75th percentile is 4, the 90th percentile is 6. The mean difference between these 49 paired scores is 3.1 points with 95% confidence limits of2.2 and 4.1. Based on these results, a difference of 4 points or less is the value selected for defining "similar" scores between upstream and downstream benthic communities. That is, if the downstream benthic score is within 4 points of the upstream score, the communities will be considered similar and it will be concluded that BFN has had no effect. Once again, it is important to bear in mind that differences greater than 4 points can be expected simply due to method variation (25% of the QA paired sample sets exceeded that value). When such occurs, a _ metric-by-metric examination will be conducted to determine what caused the difference in and the potential for the difference to be thermally related. Prior to 2000, a sampling site in the forebay zone of Wheeler Reservoir (TRM 277) was used as the downstream comparison site. Other factors unrelated to influence from BFN have kept benthic communities depressed, both at the forebay site and in the Elk River embayment (Wheeler Reservoir, Elk River Mile [ERM] 6 -between BFN and the forebay site). In order to more accurately assess the effects from BFN, a second transition zone site two miles downstream from the BFN diffuser at TRM 291.7 was created in 2000. Benthic scores and community composition from this site have been used since 2000 for downstream comparisons. Visual Encounter Survey (Wildlife Observations) Two permanent transects were established both upstream and downstream of the BFN effluent. The midpoint of the upstream transect was positioned at the RF AI upstream study area and spanned a distance of2,100 m within this transect (Figure 4). The downstream transect was directly below the power plant and likewise spanned a distance 2,100 m (Figure 3). The beginning and ending point of each transect was marked with GPS for relocation. Transects were positioned approximately 30 m offshore and parallel to the shoreline occurring on both right and left descending banks. Basic inventories were conducted to provide a representative sampling of wildlife present in autumn. Each transect was surveyed by steadily traversing the length by boat and simultaneously recording observations of wildlife. Sampling frame of each transect generally followed the strip or belt transect concept with all individuals enumerated that crossed the center-line of each transect landward to an area that included the shoreline and riparian zone (i.e., belt width generally averages 60 m where vision is not obscured). Information recorded included wildlife identification (to the lowest taxonomic trophic level) that was observed visually and/or detected audibly and a direct count of individuals observed per trophic level. If flocks of a species or 11 mixed flock of a group of species were observed, an estimate of the number of individuals present was generated. Time was recorded at the start and end points of each transect to provide a general measure of effort expended. However, times may vary among transects primarily due to the difficulty in approaching some wildlife species without inadvertently flushing them from basking or perching sites. To compensate for the variation of effort expended per transect, observations were standardized to numbers per minute or numbers per hectare in preparation for analysis. The principal objective and purpose behind the surveys were to provide a preliminary set of observations to verify trophic levels of birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles have not been affected by thermal effects from the BFN discharge. If trophic levels were not represented, further investigations will be used to target specific species and/or species groups (guilds) in an attempt to determine the cause. Thermal Plume Characterization Physical measurements were taken to characterize and map the BFN thermal plume concurrent with biological field sampling. Measurements were collected during periods of low to no power production from BFN. This effort allowed general delineation of the "Primacy Study Area" per the EPA (1977) draft guidance defined as the "entire geographic area bounded annually by the locus of the 2°C above ambient surface isotherms as these isotherms are distributed throughout an annual period', ensuring placement of the biological sampling locations within thermally influenced areas. However, it is important to emphasize that the 2:2°C isopleth boundary is not a bright line; it is dynamic, changing geometrically in response to changes in ambient river flows and temperatures and BFN operations. As such, samples collected outside of, but generally proximate to the Primary Study Area boundary should not be discounted as non-thermally influenced. Every effort was made to collect biological samples in thermally affected areas as guided by the Primary Study Area definition. Field activities included measurement of surface to bottom temperature profiles along transects across the plume. One transect was located proximate to the thermal discharge point; subsequent downstream transects were concentrated in the near field area of the plume where the change in plume temperature was expected to be most rapid. The distance between transects in the remainder of the Primary Study Area increased with distance downstream or away from the discharge point. The farthest downstream transect was just outside of the Primary Study Area. A transect upstream of the discharge that is not affected by the thermal plume was included for determining ambient temperature conditions. The total number of transects needed to fully characterize and delineate the plume were determined in the field. Temperature profile measurement (surface to bottom) points along a given transect were spaced equally across the river channel. Points began at or near the shoreline from which the discharge originates and continued across the plume [based on surface (0.1mor0.3 ft) depth measurements] until the far shore was reached. Measurements along transects were conducted at points 10%, 30%, 50%, 70%, and 90% from the originating shoreline. The distances between transects and measurement points depended on the size of the discharge plume. 12 The temperature measurement instrument (Hydrolab) was calibrated to a thermometer whose calibration is traceable to the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Temperature data were compiled and analyzed to present the horizontal and vertical dimensions of the BFN thermal plume, which was used to demonstrate the existence of a zone of passage under and/ or around the plume. Wheeler Reservoir Flow and BFN Temperature Total daily average discharge from Guntersville Dam was used to describe the volume of water flowing past BFN and was obtained from TV A's River Operations database. Water temperature data were obtained from TV A's River Operations database. Locations of water temperature monitoring stations used to measure water temperatures upstream of BFN intake and downstream ofBFN discharge are depicted in Figure 6. Ambient temperatures upstream of the BFN intake were measured at Station 4, located at TRM 297.8. Upstream daily mean temperatures were calculated by averaging temperatures collected at depths of 3-, 5-, and 7-feet. Temperatures downstream ofBFN discharge were measured at Stations 1, 16, and 17, all located at TRM 293.5. Downstream temperatures were calculated by first averaging temperatures at each station across depths of 3, 5, and 7 feet. The resultant values from each station were then averaged together to obtain overall mean daily water temperatures downstream ofBFN. Water Quality Parameters at Fish Sampling Stations during RFAI Samples Water quality conditions were measured each season at both the upstream (TRM 295.9) and downstream (TRM 292.5) stations using a hydrolab that provided readings for water temperature (°C), conductivity (µS/cin), dissolved oxygen (ppm), and pH. Three samples-one at the left descending bank, one at mid-channel, and one at the right descending bank-were collected at three locations within each sample station-the most downstream boundary, the mid-point, and the most upstream boundary-for a total of nine samples per station. For each sample, readings were recorded at 1 to 2 meter intervals along a vertical gradient from just above the bottom of the river to approximately 0.3 meters from the surface. Results and Discussion Aquatic Habitat in the Vicinity of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Assessment Of the sixteen shoreline transects sampled upstream ofBFN, 19% (3 transects) rated "Good," 8% (12 transects) "Fair," and 6% (1 transect) "Poor." The average score for transects on the left descending bank was 24 ("Fair"), while scores for transects on the right descending bank averaged 23 ("Fair"). The average SARI score for both shorelines was 23 .5 ("Fair"). The average percentage of macrophytes was 0% on each shoreline (Table 6). 13 Of the sixteen shoreline transects sampled downstream ofBFN, 0% scored as good, 88% (14 transects) scored as fair, and 12% (2 transects) scored as poor. The average scores for transects on the LDB were equal to those on the RDB (20 "Fair"). The average percentage of macrophytes was 0% on each shoreline (Table 7). River Bottom Habitat Figures 7-10 compare substrate proportions at each sample point along each of the 8 transects downstream of BFN during autumn 2009. Figures 11-14 compare substrate proportions at each sample point along each of the 8 transects upstream ofBFN (Figure 5). The three most dominant substrate types encountered along the 8 transects downstream of BFN were silt (65.1%), mollusk shell (19.4%), and sand (5.4%). Silt (51.1%), mollusk shell (32.0%), and sand (5.1 % ) were also the dominant substrate types observed along the 8 transects upstream ofBFN (Table 8). Aquatic Habitat Summary In summary, shoreline habitat was similar between the BFN downstream and upstream sites, as average scores were 23.5 and 20, respectively, both ratings of"Fair." Silt, mollusk shell, and sand were the three dominant substrate types at both upstream and downstream sites; therefore, river bottom habitat was similar between sites. Fish Community In autumn 2011, fish community RFAI scores of38 ("Fair") and 40 ("Fair") were observed at the downstream and upstream stations, respectively. A comparison of each RF AI metric score between sites is shown in Table 9. Fish species collected upstream and downstream ofBFN and corresponding catch rates are shown in Tables 10 and 11. RF AI scores from previous years at these and other monitoring stations in Wheeler Reservoir are shown in Table 12. Results for each metric, as they apply to the characteristics ofBIP, are discussed below. (l)_A biotic community characterized by diversity appropriate to the ecoregion Number ofindigenous species (> 30 required for highest score) Twenty-eight indigenous species were collected downstream and 29 upstream, resulting in range (3) metric scores for both stations. Four species, black redhorse, chestnut lamprey, redbreast sunfish, and silver redhorse, were collected in numbers (four individuals or less) downstream ofBFN but were not collected upstream. Five species (largescale stoneroller, logperch, longnose gar, northern hogsucker, and yellow bass) were collected at the upstream site only. Largescale stoneroller, logperch, and northern hogsucker were represented by only one individual each. Number ofcentrarchid species(> 2 required for highest score) Eight centrarchid species were collected downstream and 7 upstream, resulting in the highest metric score (5) for both stations. Redbreast sunfish (2 individuals collected downstream) was the only species not collected at both sites. 14 Number ofbenthic invertivore species(> 7 required for highest score) Four benthic invertivore species were collected at each station, resulting in mid-range scores at both sites. Freshwater drum and spotted sucker were collected at both stations, black redhorse and silver redhorse were collected at the downstream site only, and logperch and northern hogsucker were collected at the upstream site only. Number ofintolerant species (> 4 required for highest score) Five intolerant species were collected at both upstream and downstream sites, resulting in the highest metric score at both sites. Longear sunfish, skipjack herring, smallmouth bass, and spotted sucker were collected at both stations. Black redhorse was collected at the downstream site only and northern hogsucker was collected only at the upstream site. Number of top carnivore species (> 7 required for highest score) Nine top carnivore species were collected at the downstream site and eleven at the upstream site, which resulted in scores of 5 for both sites. In addition to the top carnivore species encountered at the downstream station (black crappie, flathead catfish, largemouth bass, skipjack herring, smallmouth bass, spotted bass, spotted gar, white bass, and white crappie), longnose gar and yellow bass were collected upstream ofBFN. Both sites received the same scores for each of the metrics discussed above. These results demonstrate the presence of diverse fish communities upstream and downstream of BFN. (2) The capacity for the community to sustain itself through cyclic seasonal change Number of indigenous species(> 30 required for highest score) The species composition of the autumn sample should be indicative of the ability of the fish community to withstand the stressors of an annual seasonal cycle. During autumn 2011, 28 indigenous species were collected downstream ofBFN and 29 upstream; total numbers of species at both sites were within the range of variability observed at each site from autumn 2000 through 2011. Numbers of indigenous species collected from autumn 2000 through 2011 ranged from 23 to 28 at the downstream site and 24 to 32 at the upstream site (Figure 15). Percentage of anomalies(< 2% required for highest score) The percentage of anomalies (i.e. visible lesions, bacterial and fungal infections, parasites, muscular and skeletal deformities, and hybridization) observed in samples is an indicator of the ability of the fish community to withstand the stressors of an annual seasonal cycle. Percentages of anomalies at both sampling sites were low, resulting in the highest score (5) for this metric at both sites. During autumn 2011, species diversity was similar and percentages of anomalies were low at both sites, indicating that fish communities were able to sustain themselves through cyclic seasonal change. 15 (3) The presence of necessary food chain species The trophic composition of the fish community upstream and downstream ofBFN was similar during autumn 2011. At both sites, insectivores and omnivores were dominant trophic guilds (Table 2; Figure 16). Mississippi silversides and bluegill were abundant in samples and accounted for the majority of insectivores at each site. Gizzard shad constituted approximately 90% of omnivores collected at each site. Twice the total number of top carnivores were collected upstream ofBFN than downstream, but proportions of top carnivores were lower than expected at both sites (Tables 2 and 3). Percentages of planktivores (threadfin shad was only planktivore species collected) were similar between sites, but the percentages of benthic invertivores were low at both sites. One parasitic species (one chestnut lamprey) was collected downstream and none were collected upstream. One herbivore (one largescale stoneroller) was collected upstream and none downstream. Proportions of insectivores and planktivores were within the expected range for lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoir transition zones for both sampling sites (Tables 2 and 3; Figure 16). Proportions ofbenthic invertivores and top carnivores were below expected values at both sites. Omnivores were above expected values at both stations which could be an indicator of water quality impairment at both stations. Parasitic and herbivore species are infrequently collected, and when collected, are typically present in low numbers as was the case at both stations. Overall, the number of species collected met or exceeded expectations at both downstream and upstream sites during autumn 2011 (Tables 2 and 3). At the downstream site six trophic levels were represented, which included four benthic invertivore, eight insectivore, seven omnivore, one planktivore, one parasitic, and nine top carnivore species. At the upstream site, six trophic levels were represented and included four benthic invertivore, seven invertivore, seven omnivore, one planktivore, 11 top carnivore, and one herbivore species. Proportions and numbers of species of each trophic guild were similar between sites; therefore, it was determined that the downstream site was similar to the upstream site during autumn 2011 with respect to the presence of necessary food chain species. ( 4) A lack of domination by pollution-tolerant species Number ofintolerant species (> 4 required for highest score) In autumn 2011, five pollution intolerant species were collected at both upstream and downstream sites. Both sites received the highest score of 5 for this metric. Longear sunfish, skipjack herring, smallmouth bass, and spotted sucker were collected at both stations. Black redhorse was collected at the downstream site only and northern hogsucker at the upstream site only (Table 9). Percentage of tolerant individuals (for highest score,< 27% required in electrofishing sample and< 15% required in gill netting sample) At the downstream site, nine pollution tolerant species were collected which consisted of 59.6% of the electrofishing sample and 40.0% of the gill netting sample. Similarly, nine pollution tolerant species were collected upstream composing 54.6% of the electrofishing sample and 16 36.0% of the gill netting sample. Both sites received the lowest score (1) for this metric (Tables 9, 10, and 11). Eight tolerant species, bluegill, common carp, gizzard shad, golden shiner, green sunfish, largemouth bass, spotfin shiner, and white crappie, were collected at both sites. Redbreast sunfish was collected at the downstream site only and longnose gar at the upstream site only. Gizzard shad was the most abundant species collected by both electrofishing and gill netting methods at both sites (34.6% -electrofishing downstream, 32.2% -gill netting downstream; 36.8% -electrofishing upstream, 15.1 % -gill netting upstream). Percentage of omnivores (for highest score,< 24% required in electrofishing sample;< 16% required in gill netting sample) During autumn of 2011, seven omnivore species (channel catfish, common carp, gizzard shad, golden shiner, smallmouth buffalo, black buffalo, and blue catfish) were collected at both sites. At the downstream site, omnivores constituted 37.8% of the electrofishing sample and 52.9% of the gill netting sample. At the upstream site, omnivores made up 41.0% of the electrofishing sample and 33.7% of the gill netting sample. Both sites received scores of 2 for this metric. Percent dominance by one species (for highest score,< 29% required in electrofishing sample;< 17% required in gill netting sample) Gizzard shad were dominant in both electrofishing and gill net samples at the downstream site. Gizzard shad dominated the electrofishing sample and white bass dominated the gill net sample at the upstream site. Both sites received a mid-range score for this metric. The downstream and upstream sites scored equally in the 4 pollution tolerance metrics. Fish communities at both sites showed relatively low abundance and consisted of relatively high percentages of non-indigenous and pollution-tolerant individuals. It was, therefore, determined that the downstream site was similar to the upstream site during autumn 2011 with respect to the lack of domination by pollution-tolerant species. Traditional Analyses Two species richness parameters (benthic invertivore and intolerant species) were statistically (P<0.05) higher at the downstream site than upstream site. Although the differences were not significant, 3 species richness parameters (total number of species and insectivore and planktivore species) were higher at the downstream site and 3 (omnivore, top carnivore, and tolerant species) were higher at the upstream site (Table 13). Of the parameters comparing CPUE, one (CPUE of top carnivore individuals) was statistically significant, being higher at the upstream site than downstream. Two CPUE parameters (CPUEs of omnivores and planktivores) were higher upstream of BFN than downstream, but the differences were not significant. Total CPUE and CPUEs ofbenthic invertivores, insectivores, tolerant, and intolerant individuals were higher at the downstream site, but differences were not significant. Both diversity values were similar between sites (Table 13). 17 Fish Community Summary Overall RF AI scores were similar between the downstream (3 8 -"Fair") and upstream ( 40 -"Fair") sampling sites. The score at the downstream site was within the 6-point range of acceptable variation when compared the upstream site. Therefore, the downstream site met BIP screening criteria and was considered similar to the upstream site. As previously discussed, RF AI scores have an intrinsic variability of+/- 3 points. This variability comes from various sources, including annual variations in air temperature and stream flow; variations in pollutant loadings from nonpoint sources; changes in habitat, such as extent and density of aquatic vegetation; natural population cycles and movements of the species being measured. Another source of variability arises from the fact that nearly any practical measurement, lethal or non-lethal, of a biological community is a sample rather than a measurement of the entire population. As long as the score is within the 6-point range, there is no certainty that any real difference exists beyond method variability. This variability due to methods must be considered when comparing scores between sampling sites. In summary, diversity was similar between downstream and upstream sites. Numbers of both omnivore and top carnivore species exceeded expected values at both sites, while numbers of species collected were lower than expected for only one trophic guild at each site (herbivores downstream and parasitic species upstream). Numbers of all other trophic guilds were within expected ranges (Tables 2, 10 and 11 ). Proportions observed were within or above the expected ranges for four trophic guilds downstream and for three trophic guilds upstream (Table 2; Figure 16). It was therefore concluded that necessary food chain species were present in at both sites. Both sites received identical combined scores for 11 of the twelve RF AI metrics in 2011. The downstream station earned scores of 3 or 5 for eight RF AI metrics, but earned the lowest score (1) for the metrics "Percent tolerant individuals," "Average number per run," the electrofishing portion of "Percent top carnivores," and the gill netting portion of "Percent omnivores." The upstream site earned scores of 3 or 5 for nine of the twelve RFAI metrics, but earned the lowest score (1; 0.5 for metrics portioned by gear) for metrics "Percent tolerant individuals," "Average number per run," and the gill netting portion of "Percent omnivores." Two thermally sensitive species were collected at the upstream site and one downstream (Tables 10 and 11 ). Thermally sensitive species are defined as those having an upper lethal limit for water temperatures less than 90°F, as determined by Yoder et al. (2006). Nine commercially valuable species were collected at the downstream site and seven at the upstream site (Table 10 and 11 ). Commercially valuable species include freshwater drum, buffalo, and all members of the catfish and sucker families (ALDCNR, 2012). Twenty-one recreationally valuable species were collected both sites (Tables 10 and 11 ). Recreationally valuable species are those species that are commonly sought by anglers, bowfishers, or used for bait. All fish species collected were considered Representative Important Species because all species were used to obtain overall RF AI scores. Representative important species are defined in EPA guidance as those species which are representative, in terms of their biological requirements, of a balanced, indigenous community of fish, shellfish, and wildlife in the body of water into which a discharge is released (EPA and NRC 1977). 18 Autumn RF AI sampling was conducted upstream and downstream of BFN from 2000 through 2011. RF AI scores during this period averaged 41 for both upstream and downstream sites (Table 12), resulting in an ecological health rating of"Good" for both sites. Both sites were within the 6-point range of accepted variability each year-with the exception of 2005 when the upstream station scored 10 points higher-indicating the stations were similar annually and that the BFN heated effluent has not adversely affected the fish community in the vicinity of BFN (Table 12). RF AI scores are presented for the Wheeler Reservoir inflow site (TRM 348.0), the forebay site (TRM 277 .0), and the Elk River ernbayment site (ERM 6.0) to provide additional information about the health of the fish community throughout the reservoir. However, aquatic communities at these sites are not subjected to the effects of thermal effluent from Brown's Ferry Nuclear Plant and are not used to determine the status of a BIP in relation to BFN. Average RF AI scores at these three sites among all sampling years have remained in the "Good" range (Table 12). Given the comparison of RF AI scores and analysis of the four characteristics of BIP and their respective metrics discussed above, it can be concluded that during autumn 2011 the fish community at the site downstream of BFN was similar to that at the control site upstream. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Data used to evaluate the benthic macroinvertebrate community near BFN were collected from three sites during autumn 2011. RBI metrics for all three sites were scored using evaluation criteria for laboratory-processed samples collected in the "transition" reservoir zone (Table 5). Data collected at TRM 290.4 downstream of the thermal plume earned an overall RBI score of 21 ("Fair"), and from TRM 293.2, within the thermal plume, a score of23 ("Fair"). Data from the upstream site, TRM 295.9, earned an overall RBI score of27 ("Good") (Table 13). Conditions among sites are considered "similar" ifRBI scores for the sites differ by four points or less. The two sites downstream differed by two points and were considered similar based on the definition above. The upstream site, TRM 295.9, and the site within the thermal plume, TRM 293.2, differed by four points and were also considered similar. The score at TRM 295.9 (upstream) was six points higher than that at TRM 290.4 (farthest downstream), and these two sites were not deemed similar. Based on these comparisons, it was concluded that conditions for the benthic macroinvertebrate community were somewhat degraded between the upstream and the most downstream sampling sites. In order to help determine the causes of the differences in scores from upstream to downstream, the discussion below compares each individual metric among the three sites sampled. To aid in this discussion, historic data from sites upstream and downstream ofBFN were referenced. However, it is important to note that comparisons of these data to those collected in 2011 are limited for several reasons. Firstly, in previous years a single downstream site was established at TRM 291. 7, while in 2011 data were collected at two sites downstream of BFN: one within the thermal plume at TRM 293.2 and one downstream of the plume at TRM 290.4. Secondly, data collected in 2011 were processed in a laboratory. Most samples collected for RBI analysis during the years 2000 through 2010 were field-processed and scored using different criteria than those used for laboratory-processed samples. Metric values and the resultant scores based on 19 field-processed criteria for the years 2000 through 2010 are presented in Table 15. However, some samples collected during this period were processed in a laboratory. The metric values and the resultant scores based on lab-processed criteria are included for comparison in Table 16. Average number oftaxa (> 6.6 required for highest score) The former downstream site (TRM 291. 7) earned a field-based score of 3 for the year 2000, but earned the highest score (5) for each year from 2001through2010. The mean value over the period.from 2000 through 2010 is 5.7 taxa per sample. The site upstream (TRM 295.9) earned a field-based score of 5 for each year from 2000 through 2009, and earned a score of 3 for 2010. The mean value over the period from 2000 through 2010 is 5.5 taxa per sample (Table 15). Lab-based scoring at the downstream site generated the highest score (5) for four of the five years sampled, and a score of 3 for 2002. The mean value over the five years of lab-processed data is 7 .6 taxa per sample. The upstream site earned lab-based scores of 3 for two (2003, 2004) of the six years sampled and 5 for the other four years. The mean value over six years of processed data is 7.4 taxa per sample (Table 16). In 2011, an average of 6.2 taxa per sample was collected at the newly established site further downstream at TRM 290.4, resulting in a score of3. At the upstream site, an average of 8.4 taxa per sample was collected, resulting in a score of 5. The average value at the site within the plume (TRM 293 .2) was 11. 7 taxa per sample, which earned the site a score of 5 (Table 14). This value was appreciably higher than any lab-or field-based scores previously observed either downstream or upstream of this site over the history of sampling at BFN. Proportion of samples with long-lived organisms(> 0.9 required for highest score) The downstream site (TRM 291.7) earned field-based scores of 5 for each year from2000 to 2008 and midrange scores of 3 for 2009 and 2010. The proportion of samples with long-lived organisms was 1.0 from 2000 through 2007, but decreased to 0.9 in 2008 and again to 0.7 in 2009 and 2010. The upstream site earned the highest score of 5 for all years sampled except 2008, when the score was 3 (Table 15). For all years in which samples were lab-processed, the downstream site earned the highest score of 5. The upstream site earned lab-based scores of 5 from 2001through2004, but earned scores of 3 for 2006 and 2011(Table16). In 2011, at the most downstream site (TRM 290.4) the proportion was 0.6. Within the plume (TRM 293.2), 0.8 of samples contained long-lived organisms, compared with 0.7 of the samples upstream. All three sites earned midrange scores (3) (Table 14). Average number o(EPT taxa (> 1.4 required for highest score) The site at TRM 291.7 earned field-based scores of 5 for each year from 2000 through 2008, but scores dropped to 3 in 2009 and 2010. The upstream site (TRM 295.9) earned field-processed mid-range scores or higher (3 or 5) for all years during this period with no discernible trend (Table 15). 20 The downstream site earned lab-based scores of 3 from 2001 through 2004, but the highest score of 5 for 2006. The mean value over this period was 1.12 EPT taxa per sample. The upstream site earned lab-based scores of 3 for all years sampled, with a mean value over these years of 1.0 EPT taxa per sample (Table 16). In 2011, an average of 0. 7 EPT taxa per sample was recorded at the most downstream site. Within the plume, an average of 1.2 EPT taxa per sample was recorded, compared to 1.0 EPT taxa per sample upstream. All three sites earned mid-range scores (3) (Table 14). Average proportion ofoligochaete individuals(< 11 % required for highest score) Both downstream and the upstream sites earned field-based scores of 5 for all years from 2000 through 2010 (Table 15).

• The downstream site earned scores of 5 for each year of lab-processed samples. The mean percentage of oligochaetes for the five years sampled was 4.6%. The upstream site also earned lab-based scores of 5 for each year of sampling. The mean percentage of oligochaetes for the six years sampled was 4.2% (Table 16). In 2011, 5% of the average sample downstream at TRM 290.4 was oligochaete organisms, compared with 6.3% upstream at TRM 295.9. Both these sites earned the highest score of 5, based on lab processing. Within the plume however, at TRM 293.2, the average percentage of oligochaete organisms per sample was 35.4%, resulting in the lowest score (1) (Table 14). Proportion of total abundance comprised by two dominant taxa (< 77.8% required for highest score) The site downstream earned field-based midrange scores or higher (3 or 5) for eight of the eleven years sampled and scores of 1 for three years (2002, 2009 and 2010). The mean proportion downstream over the years 2000 through 2010 was 78. 7%, the criteria limit for a mean score of 5 (Table 5). The site upstream earned mid-range scores or higher for ten of the eleven years sampled, and it earned the lowest score for only one year (2010). The mean proportion upstream for the years 2000 through 2010 was 79.8% (Table 15). For years with lab-scored samples, the downstream site earned the lowest score for only one year (2002). The mean value downstream over the five years sampled was 76.9% for an average score of 5. In 2011, the same two taxa -the chironomid species Coelotanypus tricolor and the fingernail clam Musculium transversum -were the most abundant at all three sites. At the most downstream site, these two taxa made up 89.2% of the average sample, resulting in the lowest score (1). Within the thermal plume, these two taxa constituted 80.6% of the average sample, resulting in a mid-range score (3 ). Upstream, these two taxa composed 81. l % of the average sample, also resulting in a score of 3 (Tables 14 and 16). Average density excluding chironomids and oligochaetes (> 609.9/m2 required for highest score) Based on field-processing criteria, the downstream site at TRM 291.7 earned the lowest score (1) for eight of the eleven years from 2000 through 2010, mid-range scores (3) for 2004 and 2005 21 and the highest score ( 5) for 2003. The upstream site also showed poor results for this metric, earning mid-range scores for five years (2003 through 2007) and the lowest scores for the other six years during this period (Table 15). Lab-based scores were generally the same as field-based scores. The downstream site earned higher lab-based scores of 3 in 2001 and 2006. For all other years sampled, the lab-based scores were the same as the field-based scores: 1 (2002), 5 (2003), 3 (2004). Upstream, lab-based scores were the same as field-based for all years except 2006, when the lab score was higher (5) (Table 16). In 2011, the site further downstream at TRM 290.4 earned the lowest score (1), with an average density oftaxa other than chironomids and oligochaetes of 193.3 organisms per m2. The densities of these organisms increased progressively from downstream to upstream: for the site within the plume, the density was 321.7 organisms per m2, which earned a midrange score (3); for the site farthest upstream, the density was 430 organisms per meter2, also earning a midrange score (3) (Table 14). Proportion of samples containing no organisms (all samples must contain organisms for highest score) No "zero" samples have been collected at any of the sites since 2000. All sites sampled earned the highest rating (5) for each year from 2000 through 2011 (Tables 14, 15, and 16). Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Summary During autumn 2011, the overall score of2f ("Fair") for the most downstream site (TRM 290.4) was due primarily to low scores for the metrics "Proportion of total abundance comprised by two dominant taxa" and "Average density excluding chironomids and oligochaetes." Additionally, the site received a lower score than the other sites for the metric "Average number of taxa" (Table 14). The total mean density at this site was 578 organisms per m2, compared to 1,077 organisms per m2 within the plume and 1, 197 organisms per m2 upstream (Table 17). These values indicate that the benthic macroinvertebrate community at the most downstream site was less diverse and was more heavily dominated (89.2%) by the two most abundant taxa than either of the other two sites upstream (Table 14). At the site within the thermal plume (TRM 293.2), 50 different taxa were collected in 2011, compared with 42 upstream and 31 downstream (Table 17). Both the average number of taxa per sample (11.7 organisms/m2) and the percentage of oligochaetes per sample (35.4%) were greater than any values previously recorded at any of the sites around BFN (Table 14). Excluding chironomids and oligochaetes, the average density of the remaining taxa was still fairly high (321. 7 organisms/m2), which suggests that the high percentage of oligochaetes at this site was made up ofrelatively few species collected in high numbers (Table 14). Silt was the primary component in substrate dredge samples collected upstream; seven samples contained 75% or more silt, while two samples contained mollusk shell in proportions of 85% or more. The second most abundant component was mollusk shell, ranging from 5% to 45% in five samples. Clay constituted 50% of one sample and gravel 15% of another. At the most downstream site, silt was even more abundant in dredge samples as nine often samples 22 contained 80% or more silt, five of which contained 98% silt. The second most abundant component was mollusk shell, ranging from 1% to 20% in six often samples. No clay, sand, or gravel was observed in significant amounts in any sample (Table 18). At the site within the plume, mollusk shell was the most abundant component, ranging from 50 to 100% in five samples; these samples contained sand or gravel as the secondary component. Silt was the primary component in only three samples ranging from 50 to 95%, with detritus as the secondary component (Table 18). Based on these observations, it was concluded that differences in diversity and abundance of benthic macroinvertebrates, and thus the difference in the overall RBI scores between the upstream and the most downstream sites, were due primarily to the differences in substrate composition. Silt, compared to larger particle substrates such as sand, gravel, and cobble, leaves little space for macroinvertebrate colonization and can quickly become anoxic. The large proportion of silt and the particular lack of sand or gravel at the downstream sites indicate that less suitable habitat was available for benthic macroinvertebrates compared to upstream. Similarly, the greater comparative abundance of sand, gravel, mollusk shell, and detritus at the site within the thermal plume helps to explain the "spikes" in the number and density of taxa that were observed at this point between the upstream and downstream sites. To provide additional data on the overall health of the benthic macroinvertebrate community in Wheeler Reservoir, RBI scores for the inflow, forebay, and Elk River embayment sites are presented in Table 19. Comparison of these scores to current RBI scores at the sites near BFN is limited for two reasons. First, as discussed previously the data from these sites were scored from field-based criteria and cannot be directly compared to lab-based scores. Second, these sites are many river miles away from BFN. The inflow site is 53 river miles upstream, and the forebay site located 17 river miles downstream. The Elk River embayment site is located 10 river miles downstream of BFN. Because of these distances from the plant, poor scores at these sites cannot be considered indicative of thermal effects from BFN. The inflow site (TRM 347) earned RBI ratings of "Good" or "Excellent" for 10 of the 13 years sampled, while the Wheeler Reservoir forebay site (TRM 277) and the Elk River embayment site (ERM 6.0) both consistently earned "Poor" scores for all years sampled (Table 19). Based on the correlation of RBI scores to benthic substrate discussed above, it is hypothesized that these scores fit the same pattern: relatively high flow within the inflow reservoir zone keeps silt suspended in the water column and results in higher quality habitat for benthic macroinvertebrates, while as flow slows through the transition zone and into the forebay and embayment areas, silt settles to the bottom, resulting in lower quality habitat within these areas. Overall, it was concluded that the health of the benthic macroinvertebrate community around BFN was relative to the composition of the substrate on the river bottom, and that the health of the community was better in areas with higher proportions of large particle substrates, such as sand, gravel, and mollusk shell. In addition, it was further concluded that the benthic macroinvertebrate community downstream of BFN was not affected by thermal effluent from the plant in 2011. 23 Visµal Encounter Survey (Wildlife Observations) Numbers and categories of wildlife observed during autumn of2011 survey are presented in Table 20. Observations recorded were almost entirely birds commonly associated with riparian or shoreline habitat: kingfishers, sandpipers, blackbirds, herons, and ducks. Other bird species observed included American crow and unidentifiable species of songbirds. The only reptiles recorded were turtles, observed on the left descending bank of the upstream station. No amphibians or mammals were observed.
• The observations recorded indicate fair diversity of common waterfowl and shoreline birds and both sites were similar. However, the lack of observations of other groups targeted by this survey limits what we can conclude about the health of the wildlife community upstream and downstream ofBFN. Limited observations ofreptiles and mammals in this survey were due primarily to the fact that wildlife species are not easily observed by passing visual observation, being cryptically patterned and secretive in behavior. The Visual Encounter Survey provides a preliminary near shore wildlife assessment to determine ifthe thermally affected area downstream of a power plant has adversely affected the bird, reptile, amphibian and mammal communities. If such adverse environmental impact is suspected, more semi-quantitative sampling strategies, such as trapping or netting, active search, investigation of mammal tracks along shoreline areas, long-term observation from blinds, or the use of cameras will be proposed to accurately estimate the presence and diversity of these groups. Thermal Plume Characterization On the date of the autumn sample, the BFN thermal plume extended downstream approximately 2.8 miles to TRM 291.2. The average ambient surface water temperature (0.3 m and 1 m depths) measured upstream at TRM 296.5 on the date of the survey was 76.3°F. The thermal plume (water 3.6°F or 2.0°C above ambient) was detected at all sampling locations (10, 30, 50, and 70% ofRDB) across the river channel at TRM 294, except the one nearest the left descending bank (90% from RDB). The thermal plume was detected only to the mid-channel sampling location (50% from RDB) at TRM 292.4 and only at the sampling location nearest the RDB (10% from RDB) at TRM 291.2 (Table 21; Figure 3). TRM 291.2 was considered the downstream limit of the thermal plume. In summary, the entire biomonitoring zone downstream ofBFN was not contained within the thermal plume when measured in autumn 2011. Wheeler Reservoir Flow and BFN Water Temperature Daily mean flows from Guntersville Dam over the fiscal year 2011(October2010 through November 2011) are compared in Figure 17 to historic daily mean flows over the same fiscal year period, averaged from 1976 through 2010. Figure 18 compares daily average water temperatures recorded upstream ofBFN intake (TRM 294.4) and downstream ofBFN discharge (TRM 293.6) during October 2010 through November 2011. Water temperatures were similar at both stations through this period. 24 Water Quality Parameters at Fish Sampling Stations during RFAI Samples Values of water quality parameters (water temperature, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, and pH) collected along vertical depth profiles at nine locations within each RF AI sample station are presented in Table 22. Depth profiles of water temperature at the sites downstream (TRM 292.5) and upstream (TRM 295.9) ofBFN are presented for comparison in Figures 19 and 20, respectively. Water temperatures collected downstream ranged from 71° to 78°F and 68° to 75°F upstream. With one exception, all profiles generally indicate a decrease in temperature as depth increased. At the upstream station, temperatures were collected at only the surface and at 1.5 m depth for the profile at the left descending bank of the upstream boundary, and within this limited range temperature increased slightly (Table 22).
• Depth profiles of conductivity at the downstream and upstream sites are presented for comparison in Figures 21 and 22, respectively. Conductivity at the downstream site ranged from 176.5 to 181.5 µSiem and 178 to 190 µSiem upstream, with the exception of the profile for the left descending bank of the upper boundary that ranged from 198 to 202 µSiem. Conductivity measurements presented in this profile were collected only at the surface and at 1.5 m depth (Table 22). Depth profiles of dissolved oxygen (DO) concentration at the downstream and upstream sites are presented for comparison in Figures 23 and 24, respectively. Downstream, DO concentrations ranged from 7.7 to 11.8 ppm, and upstream from 6.9 to 10.6 ppm. Profiles collected at the downstream site generally indicated that DO concentrations decreased with increasing depth, while the profiles collected upstream indicated no relationship between DO concentration and water depth (Table 22). Depth profiles of acidity (pH level) for the downstream and upstream stations are presented for comparison in Figures 25 and 26, respectively. Downstream, pH level ranged from 7.39 to 8.58, and profiles generally showed pH level decreased as depth increased. Upstream, pH level ranged from 7.15 to 8.41, but the profiles collected generally showed little change in pH level as depth increased (Table 22). Water Quality Summary Water temperatures at both RF AI stations were in the range expected for lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs in autumn, and the profiles indicated little to no thermal stratification, which is typical during autumn. Conductivity values observed at both RF AI stations were within a range of 14 units and indicated stable concentrations of dissolved ions. Concentrations of dissolved oxygen at both RF AI sites were within the range expected for lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs in autumn, and profiles indicated little difference in concentrations as depth increased from surface to bottom. Values of pH at both RF AI stations were slightly alkaline, but within the range of expected values. Based on these results, it was concluded that water temperatures, conductivity, dissolved oxygen concentrations and pH levels were similar at all stations sampled around BFN during October 25 2011. We further conclude that the values of these parameters indicate that the water around BFN during autumn 2011 was of a quality capable of supporting, in fair ecological health, a* balanced indigenous population of the type expected for this reservoir, and that water quality was not affected by thermal effluent from BFN. 26 Literature Cited Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (ALDCNR). 2012. 2011-2012 game, fish, and fur-bearing animal regulations. http://www.outdooralabama.com/images/file/2011-12%20WFF/2011-12%20Complete%20Reg%20Book%20-3%20Proofll/o20final.pdf EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) and NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1977 (draft). Interagency 316(a) Technical Guidance manual and Guide for Thermal Effects Sections of Nuclear Facilities Environmental Impact Statements. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Enforcement, Permits Division, Industrial Permits Branch, Washington, DC. Etnier, D.A. & Starnes, W.C. 1993. The Fishes of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, Tennessee, 681 pp. Hickman, G.D. and T.A. McDonough. 1996. Assessing the Reservoir Fish Assemblage A potential measure ofreservoir quality. In: D. De Vries (Ed.) Reservoir Multidimensional approaches to reservoir fisheries management. Reservoir Committee, Southern Division, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. pp 85-97. Hubert, W. A. 1996. Passive capture techniques, entanglement gears. Pages 160-165 in B. R. Murphy and D. W. Willis, editors. Fisheries techniques, 2nd edition. American Fisheries Society Bethesda, Maryland, USA. Jennings, M.J., L.S. Fore, and J.R. Karr. 1995. Biological monitoring of fish assemblages in the Tennessee Valley reservoirs. Regulated Rivers 11 :263-274. Jennings, M. J., L. S. Fore, and J. R. Karr. 1995. Biological monitoring offish assemblages in the Tennessee Valley reservoirs. Regulated Rivers 11:263-274. Levene, Howard. 1960. Robust tests for equality of variances. In Ingram Olkin, Harold Hotelling, et alia. Stanford University Press. pp. 278-292. Mann, H.B.; Whitney, D.R. 1947. On a Test of Whether one of Two Random Variables is Stochastically Larger than the Other. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 18 (1): 50-60. McDonough, T.A. and G.D. Hickman. 1999. Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index development: A tool for assessing ecological health in Tennessee Valley Authority impoundments. In: c Assessing the sustainability and biological integrity of water resources using fish communities. Simon, T. (Ed.) CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 523-540. Plafkin, J.L., Barbour, M.T., Porter, K.D., Gross, S.K., and Hughes, R.M. (1989). Rapid assessment protocols for use in streams and rivers: benthic macroinvertebrates and fish. EPA/444/4-89-001, Washington DC, USA. Reynolds, J.B. 1996. Electrofishing. Pages 221-251 in B. R. Murphy and D. W. Willis, editors. Fisheries techniques, 2nd edition. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. 27 Shannon, C.E. 1948. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal 27:379-423, 623-656. Shapiro, S.S. and M. B. Wilk. 1965. An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika 52 (3-4): 591-611 Simpson, E.H. 1949. Measurement of diversity. Nature 163:688. Wilcoxon, F. 1945. Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biometrics Bulletin 1 (6): 80-83 Yoqer, C.O., B.J. Armitage, and E.T. Rankin. 2006. Re-evaluation of the Technical Justification for Existing Ohio River Mainstem Temperature Criteria. Midwest Biodiversity Institute, Columbus, Ohio. 28 Table 1. Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Index (SAHi) metrics and scoring criteria. Metric Cover Substrate Erosion Scoring Criteria Stable cover (boulders, rootwads, brush, logs, aquatic vegetation, artificial structures) in 25 to 75% of the drawdown zone Stable cover in 10 to 25% or> 75% of the drawdown zone Stable Cover in< 10% of the drawdown zone Percent of drawdown zone with gravel substrate > 40 Percent of drawdown zone with gravel substrate between 10 and 40 Percent substrate gravel < 10 Little or no evidence of erosion or bank failure. Most bank surfaces stabilized by woody vegetation. Areas of erosion small and infrequent. Potential for increased erosion due to less desirable vegetation cover (grasses) on> 25% of bank surfaces. Areas of erosion extensive, exposed or collapsing banks occur along> 30% of shoreline. Canopy Cover Tree or shrub canopy> 60% along adjacent bank Tree or shrub canopy 30 to 60% along adjacent bank Tree or shrub canopy< 30% along adjacent bank Riparian Zone Width buffered> 18 meters Habitat Gradient Width buffered between 6 and 18 meters Width buffered < 6 meters Habitat diversity optimum. All major habitats (logs, brush, native vegetation, boulders, gravel) present in proportions characteristic of high quality, sufficient to support all life history aspects of target species. Ready access to deeper sanctuary areas present. Habitat diversity less than optimum. Most major habitats present, but proportion of one is less than desirable, reducing species diversity. No ready access to deeper sanctuary areas. Habitat diversity is nearly lacking. One habitat dominates, leading to lower species diversity. No ready access to deeper sanctuary areas. Drawdown zone gradient abrupt (> 1 meter per 10 meters). Less than 10% of shoreline with abrupt gradient due to dredging. Drawdown zone gradient abrupt. (> 1 meter per 10 meters) in 10 to 40% of the shoreline resulting from dredging. Rip-rap used to stabilize bank along> 10% of the shoreline. Drawdown zone gradient abrupt in> 40 % of the shoreline resulting from dredging. Seawalls used to stabilize bank along> 10 % of the shoreline. 29 Score 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 Table 2. Expected values for lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoir transition zone calculated from data collected from 900 electrofishing runs and 600 overnight experimental gill net sets in transition areas of lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs. This trisection is intended to show below expected(-), expected (Avg), and above expected(+) values for trophic level proportions and species occurring within the transition zone in lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs. Observed Downstream Observed Upstream Lower Mainstem Tennessee River Transition ofBFN ofBFN {TRM292.5} {TRM295.9) Proportion (%) Number of species Trophic Guild Avg + Avg + Proportion Number Proportion Number (%} of Species {%} of Species Benthic In.vertivore < 6.7 6.4 to 13.4 > 13.4 <3 3 to 5 >5 2.5 4 1.5 4 Insectivore <24.6 24.6 to 49.1 >49.1 <4 4 to 8 >8 40.9 8 31.2 7 Top Carnivore < 15.1 15.1to30.2 > 30.2 <4 4 to 8 >8 5.2 9 10.6 11 Omnivore > 38.5 19.3 to 38.5 < 19.3 >6 3 to 6 <3 38.5 7 40.7 7 Planktivore > 18.7 9.4 to 18.7 < 9.4 0 I >1 12.8 1 16.0 I Parasitic < 0.1 0.1 to 0.2 > 0.2 0 1 >1 0.1 1 Herbivore <1.8 1.8 to 3.6 >3.6 0 1 >1 0.1 1 30 Table 3. Average trophic guild proportions and average number of species, bound by confidence intervals (95 %), expected in lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoir transition zones. These values were calculated from data collected from 900 electrofishing runs and 600 overnight experimental gill net sets in transition areas of lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs. Lower Mainstem TN River Reservoir Trophic Guild Transition Zones Average Average Number Proportion of Species (%) Benthic Invertivore 5.5 +/- 1.2 5+/-1 Insectivore 40.0 +/-4.5 8+/-1 Top Carnivore 18.3 +/-2.2 10+/-1 Omnivore 28.7 +/- 3.3 6+/-1 Planktivore 6.4 +/- 2.6 1+/-1 Parasitic 0.1+/-0.04 1+/-0 Herbivore 0.6 +/- 0.4 1+/-0 31 Table 4. RFAI scoring criteria (2002) for fish community samples in forebay, transition, and inflow sections oflower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs, which include Guntersville, Wheeler, Wilson, Pickwick, and Kentucky. Transition criteria were used to score the sites upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. Scoring Criteria Forebay Transition Inflow Metric Gear 1 3 5 1 3 5 1 3 5 1. Total species Combined <14 14-27 >27 <16 16-30 >30 <14 14-27 >27 2. Total Centrarchid species Combined <2 2-3 >3 <2 2-2 >2 <2 2-4 >4 3. Total benthic invertivores Combined <4 4-6 >6 <4 4-7 >7 <4 4-7 >7 4. Total intolerant species Combined <2 2-4 >4 <3 3-4 >4 <3 3-6 >6 5. Percent tolerant individuals Electrofishing >61% 30-61% <30% >54% 27-54% <27% >51% 26-51% <26% Gill netting >46% 22-46% <22% >30% 15-30% <15% 6. Percent dominance by 1 species Electrofishing >59% 30-59% <30% >58% 29-58% <29% >47% 24-47% <24% Gill netting >43% 21-43% <21% >34% 17-34% <17% 7. Percent non-indigenous species Electro fishing >2% 2-2% <2% >2% 1-2% <1% >4% 2-4% <2% Gill netting >2% 1-2% <1% >2% 1-2% <1% 8. Total top carnivore species Combined <4 4-7 >7 <4 4-7 >7 <4 4-7 >7 9. Percent top carnivores Electro fishing <6% 6-12% >12% <5% 5-10% >10% <15% 15-29% >29% Gill netting <25% 25-49% >49% <20% 20-39% >39% 10. Percent omnivores Electrofishing >59% 30-59% <30% >48% 24-48% <24% >48% 24-48% <24% Gill netting >49% 24-49% <24% >33% 16-33% <16% 11. Average number per run Electrofishing <170 170-341 >341 <243 243-487 >487 <68 68-136 >136 Gill netting <20 20-40 >40 <11 11-22 >22 12. Percent anomalies Electro fishing >5% 2-5% <2% >5% 2-5% <2% >5% 2-5% <2% Gill netting >5% 2-5% <2% >5% 2-5% <2% 32 Table 5. Scoring criteria for RBI analysis of benthic macroinvertebrate samples, compared for the different zones of mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs and for two different sample processing strategies (lab-processing and field-processing). Field-processing Criteria Benthic Community Forebay Transition Inflow Metrics 1 3 5 1 3 5 1 3 5 Average number oftaxa ::;2.4 2.5-4.7 ::;2.1 2.2-4.3 ::;2.8 2.9-5.7 Proportion of samples with long-lived ::;0.3 0.4-0.7 ::;0.3 0.4-0.7 ::;o.3 0.4-0.7 organisms Average number ofEPT (Ephemeroptera, ::;0.4 0.5-0.7 ::;0.3 0.4-0.7 ::;o.3 0.4-0.7 Plecoptera, Trichoptera) Average proportion of 14.9-14.0-20.1-::;20.0 oligochaete individuals 29.6 ::;14.8 27.9 ::;13_9 39.9 Average proportion of total abundance 81.4-::;81.3 78.8-::;78.7 78.8-::;78.7 comprised by the two 90.6 87.7 84.9 most abundant taxa Average density 119-292-569-excluding chironomids ::;us 235 ::;291 580 ::;568 1152 and oligochaetes Zero-samples -proportion of samples 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 containing no organisms Lab-processing Criteria Benthic Community Fore bay Transition Inflow Metrics 1 3 5 1 3 5 1 3 5 Average number of taxa <2.8 2.8-5.5 > 5.5 <3.3 3.3-6.6 > 6.6 < 4.2 4.2-8.3 > 8.3 Proportion of samples with long-lived <0.6 0.6-0.8 > 0.8 <0.6 0.6-0.9 > 0.9 < 0.6 0.6-0.8 >0.8 organisms Average numl;Jer ofEPT (Ephemeroptera, <0.6 0.6-0.9 > 0.9 < 0.6 0.6-1.4 > 1.4 <0.9 0.9-1.9 > 1.9 Plecoptera, Trichoptera) Average proportion of > 41.9 41.9-< 21.0 > 21.9 21.9-< 11.0 >23.9 23.9-< 12.0 oligochaete individuals 21.0 11.0 12.0 Average proportion of total abundance > 90.3 90.3-< 81.7 > 87.9 87.9-<77.8 > 86.2 86.2-< 73.l comprised by the two 81.7 77.8 73.l most abundant taxa Average density 125.0-305.0-400.0-excluding chironomids < 125.0 249.9 > 249.9 < 305.0 609.9 > 609.9 < 400.0 799.9 > 799.9 and oligochaetes Zero-samples -proportion of samples >O 0 >O 0 >O 0 containing no organisms 33 Table 6. SAHi scores for 16 sections of shoreline assessed within the RF Al fish community sample area upstream of BFN, autumn 2009. Left Descending 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Avg. Bank Latitude 34.68917 34.6832 34.6806 34.67959 34.67709 34.66978 34.67027 34.66841 Longitude -87.13621 -87.13172 -87.12188 -87.1183 -87.10876 -87.10915 -87.10009 -87.09753 Aquatic Macrophytes 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% SAHi Variables Cover 3 3 5 3 3 3 3 Substrate 5 3 3 5 3 Erosion 3 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 4 Canopy Cover 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Riparian Zone 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 4 Habitat 3 3 3 3 2 Slope 5 5 3 5 3 Total 17 29 27 25 21 25 19 19 24 Rating Fair Good Good Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Right Descending 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Avg. Bank Latitude 34.70109 34.69937 34.69862 34.6986 34.69566 34.69302 34.69062 34.68843 Longitude -87.11896 -87.11535 -87.10973 -87.10061 -87.09157 -87.08836 -87.08452 -87.08094 Aquatic Macrophytes 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% SAHi Variables Cover 3 3 5 5 5 *5 4 Substrate 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 Erosion 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Canopy Cover 5 5 5 3 Riparian Zone 5 5 5 3 Habitat 3 3 2 Slope 3 3 2 Total 15 27 25 19 17 19 19 19 23 Rating Poor Good Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Scoring criteria: poor (7-16); fair (17-26); and good (27-35). 34 Table 7. SAHi scores for 16 sections of shoreline assessed within the RFAI fish community sample area downstream ofBFN, autumn 2009. Left Descending 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Avg. Bank Latitude 34.72824 34.72603 34.72398 34.72068 34.71496 34.7128 34.71082 34.70351 Longitude -87.1759 -87.1728 -87.1704 -87.1678 -87.4621 -87.1577 -87.1543 -87.1488 Aquatic Macrophytes 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% SAHi Variables Cover 3 3 2 Substrate 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 Erosion 5 5 5 5 3 Canopy Cover 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 4 Riparian Zone 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 4 Habitat 3 3 2 Slope 3 Total 21 23 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 Rating Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Right Descending 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Avg. Bank Latitude 34.74369 34.74081 34.73891 34.73519 34.73081 34.7266 34.72058 34.71239 Longitude -87.1565 -87.1522 -87.1507 -87.1475 -87.1428 -87.1376 -87.1325 -87.1275 Aquatic Macrophytes 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% SAHi Variables Cover 3 3 3 5 5 5 3 Substrate 5 5 5 5 3 Erosion 5 5 5 5 5 4 Canopy Cover 5 5 5 5 3 3 4 Riparian Zone 3 5 3 5 3 Habitat 3 3 2 Slope Total 21 17 19 19 19 21 15 15 20 Rating Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Poor Poor Fair Scoring criteria: poor (7-16); fair (17-26); and good (27-35). 35 Table 8. Substrate percentages and average water depth (ft) per transect upstream and downstream ofBFN, autumn 2009. Upstream ofBFN % Substrate per transect Substrate Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 AVG Silt 68.5 45.0 25.5 49.0 27.1 79.5 56.0 58.0 51.1 Mollusk Shell 3.5 30.5 45.5 38.5 56.8 13.5 38.0 30.0 32.0 Sand 12.5 0 19.0 0 9.0 0 0 0 5.1 Detritus 4.0 2.0 0.5 2.5 7.5 2.5 5.5 10.0 4.3 Boulder 9.0 9.5 0 10.0 0 0 0 0 3.6 Gravel 0.5 0.5 9.0 0 1.5 0.5 0.5 0 1.6 Cobble 1.0 10.0 0.5 0 0.5 0 0 0 1.5 Clay 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.0 0 0.5 Average Depth (ft) 19.2 17.4 13.3 17.5 16.2 15.0 15.5 15.5 16.2 Actual Depth Range: 6.5 to 36.9 ft Downstream of BFN % Substrate per transect Substrate Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 AVG Silt 75.4 80.5 77.0 56.3 69.5 55.5 44.0 62.5 65.1 Mollusk Shell 22.6 12.5 14.5 32.0 7.0 11.5 26.0 29.0 19.4 Sand 0 0 0.0 9.1 9.0 9.0 17.0 0.0 5.5 Detritus 2.0 6.5 8.0 2.5 0.5 1.0 2.5 4.5 3.4 Bedrock 0 0 0.0 0.0 9.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 2.4 Boulder 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 Cobble 0 0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.6 Gravel 0 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.2 Clay 0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Average Depth (ft) 21.0 20.0 20.2 18.7 18.3 18.9 20.6 20.2 19.7 Actual Depth Range: 9.1to31.7 ft 36 Table 9. Individual metric scores and the overall RFAI scores downstream (TRM 292.5) and upstream (TRM 295.9) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Autumn 2011. Autumn 2011 TRM292.5 TRM295.9 Metric Gear Obs Score Obs Score Species richness and composition 1. Number of indigenous 28 3 29 3 species 2. Number of 8 7 Centrarchid species Black crappie Black crappie (less Micropterus) Bluegill Bluegill Green sunfish Green sunfish Longear sunfish 5 Longear sunfish 5 Redbreast sunfish Redear sunfish Redear sunfish Warmouth Warmouth White crappie White crappie 3. Number ofbenthic 4 4 invertivore species Black redhorse Freshwater drum Freshwater drum 3 Logperch 3 Silver redhorse Northern hog sucker Spotted sucker Spotted sucker 4. Number of intolerant species 5 5 Black redhorse Longear sunfish Longear sunfish 5 N orthem hog sucker 5 Skipjack herring Skipjack herring Smallmouth bass Smallmouth bass Spotted sucker Spotted sucker 5. Percent tolerant individuals 59.6% 54.6% Gizzard shad 34.6% Gizzard shad 36.8% Bluegill 13.3 % Bluegill 6.7% Spotfin shiner 6.1 % Largemouth bass 5.9% BF Green sunfish 3.7% 0.5 Green sunfish 2.6% 0.5 Largemouth bass 1.6 % Golden shiner 1.4 % Common carp 0.1 % Spotfin shiner 0.8% Golden shiner 0.1 % Common carp 0.3 % Redbreast sunfish 0.1 % White crappie 0.1 % GN 40.2 % 36.0% Gizzard shad 32.2 % Gizzard shad 15.l % White crappie 4.6% Longnose gar 14.0% Largemouth bass 3.4 % 0.5 Largemouth bass 3.5 % 0.5 Bluegill 1.2 % Golden shiner 1.2 % White crappie 1.2 % 37 Table 9. (Continued) Autumn 2011 TRM292.5 TRM295.9 Metric Gear Obs Score Obs Score 6. Percent dominance by 34.6% 36.8% one species EF Gizzard shad 1.5 Gizzard shad 1.5 32.2% 20.9% GN Gizzard shad 1.5 White bass 1.5 7. Percent non-indigenous 15.7% 19.8 % species EF Mississippi silverside 15.6 % 0.5 Mississippi silverside 19.4 % 0.5 Common carp 0.1 % Common carp 0.3 % GN 0% 2.5 0% 2.5 8. Number oftop carnivore 9 11 species Black crappie Black crappie Flathead catfish Flathead catfish Largemouth bass Largemouth bass Skipjack herring Longnose gar Smallmouth bass 5 Skipjack herring 5 Spotted bass Smallmouth bass Spotted gar Spotted bass White bass Spotted gar White crappie White bass White crappie Yellow bass Trophic composition 9. Percent top carnivores 3.8% 8.4% Largemouth bass 1.6 % Largemouth bass 5.9% Smallmouth bass 1.6 % Smallmouth bass 1.0 % Flathead catfish 0.2% Flathead catfish 0.5 % Spotted gar 0.2% Spotted gar 0.5 % EF Black crappie 0.1 % 0.5 Spotted bass 0.2 % 1.5 Spotted bass 0.1 % Black crappie 0.1 % White crappie 0.1 % Yellow bass 0.1% 35.6% 57.0% Flathead catfish 11.5 % White bass 20.9% White bass 9.2% Longnose gar 14.0 % Skipjack herring 4.6% Yellow bass 11.6 % GN White crappie 4.6% 1.5 Largemouth bass 3.5% 2.5 Largemouth bass 3.4 % Flathead catfish 2.3% Spotted gar 2.3% Skipjack herring 2.3 % Smallmouth bass 1.2 % White era ie 1.2 % 38 Table 9. (Continued) Autumn 2011 Metric 10. Percent omnivores Fish abundance and health 11. Average number per run 12. Percent anomalies Overall RF AI Score Gear EF GN EF GN EF GN TRM292.5 Obs 37.8% Gizzard shad 34.6 % Channel catfish 2.6 % Smallmouth buffalo 0.5 % Common carp 0.1 % Golden shiner 0.1 % 52.9% Gizzard shad 32.2% Channel catfish 10.3 % Black buffalo 4.6% Blue catfish 4.6% Smallmouth buffalo 1.1% 118.9 8.7 0.3% 0% TRM295.9 Score Obs 41.0 % Gizzard shad 36.8 % Channel catfish 2.2% 1.5 Golden shiner 1.4% Common carp 0.3 % Smallmouth buffalo 0.3 % 33.7% Gizzard shad 15.1 % Channel catfish 11.6 % 0.5 Black buffalo 2.3 % Blue catfish 2.3 % Golden shiner 1.2 % Smallmouth buffalo 1.2 % 0.5 120.7 0.5 8.6 2.5 0.4 % 2.5 0% 38 Fair RF AI Scores: 12-21 ("Very Poor"), 22-31 ("Poor"), 32-40 ("Fair"), 41-50 ("Good"), or 51-60 ("Excellent"). 39 Score 1.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 2.5 2.5 40 Fair Table 10. Species collected, ecological and recreational designations, and corresponding electrofishing (EF) and gill net (GN) catch per unit effort downstream {TRM 292.5) of the BFN discharge -Autumn 2011. Thermally Comm. Rec. EF EF GN Trophic Indigenous Sensitive Valuable Valuable Species Species Species Catch Catch Total Catch Total Total Fish Percent Common Name Scientific name level species Tolerance Per Run Per Hour Fish EF Per Net Fish GN Combined Compositfon Gizzard shad Common carp* Golden shiner Spotfin shiner Redbreast sunfish Green sunfish Bluegill Largemouth bass White crappie Skipjack herring Spotted sucker Black redhorse Longear sunfish Smallmouth bass Spotted gar Threadfin shad Smallmouth buffalo Black buffalo Silver redhorse Blue catfish Channel catfish Flathead catfish White bass Warmouth Dorosoma cepedianum Cyprinus carpio Notemigonus crysoleucas Cyprinella spiloptera Lepomis auritus OM X TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL INT INT INT INT INT x x x 41.13 188.69 617 2.80 28 645 34.5% Lepomis cyanellus Lepomis macrochirus Micropterus salmoides Pomoxis annularis Alosa chrysochloris Minytrema melanops Moxostoma duquesnei Lepomis megalotis Micropterus dolomieu Lepisosteus oculatus Dorosoma petenense Jctiobus bubalus Ictiobus niger Moxostoma anisurum lctalurus furcatus Jctalurus punctatus Pylodictis olivaris Marone chrysops Lepomis gulosus OM OM X IN X IN X IN X IN X TC X TC X TC X BI X BI X IN X TC X TC X PK X OM X OM X BI OM OM TC TC IN x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 0.07 0.07 7.27 0.13 4.40 15.87 1.93 0.47 0.53 3.67 1.93 0.20 16.00 0.60 0,07 3.07 0.27 0.13 0.31 0.31 33.33 0.61 20.18 72.78 8.87 2.14 2.45 16.82 8.87 0.92 73.39 2.75 0.31 14.07 1.22 0.61 109 2 66 238 29 7 8 55 29 3 240 9 46 4 2 0.30 0.40 0.40 0.10 0.20 0.10 0.40 0.40 0.90 1.00 0.80 3 4 4 2 4 4 9 10 8 109 2 66 238 32 4 4 7 8 56 29 5 240 10 4 1 4 55 14 8 2 Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN X X 0.93 4.28 14 14 Spotted bass Micropterus punctulatus TC X X 0.07 0.31 1 Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC X X 0.07 0.31 Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI X X X 1.40 6.42 21 0.90 9 30 Mississippi silverside* Menidia audens IN 18.60 85.32 279 279 Chestnut lamprey Jchthyomyzon castaneus PS X 0.07 0.31 1 1 Total 118.95 545.58 1,784 8.70 87 1,871 Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected 30 28 1 9 21 25 13 Trophic level: benthic invertivore (BI), insectivore (IN), omnivore (OM), top carnivore (TC); planktivore (PK), parasitic (PS). Tolerance: tolerant species (TOL), intolerant species (INT); Comm.-Commercially, Rec.-Recreationally. *Denotes aquatic nuisance species next to common name. All species are considered representative important species. No species collected have a Federal Threatened or Endangered status. 40 0.1% 0.1% 5.8% 0.1% 3.5% 12.7% 1.7% 0.2% 0.2% 0.4% 0.4% 3.0% 1.5% 0.3% 12.8% 0.5% 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% 2.9% 0.7% 0.4% 0.1% 0.7% 0.1% 0.1% 1.6% 14.9% 0.1% 100.0%

Table 11. Species collected, ecological and recreational designations, and corresponding electrofishing (EF) and gill net (GN) catch per unit effort upstream (TRM 295.9) of the BFN Plant discharge -Autumn 2011. Thermally Comm. Rec. EF EF GN Trophic level Indigenous species Sensitive Valuable Valuable Tolerance Species Species Species Catch Catch Total Catch Total Total Fish Percent Common Name Scientific name Per Run Per Hour Fish EF Per Net Fish GN Combined Composition Longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus Dorosoma cepedianum Cyprinus carpio Notemigonus crysoleucas Cyprinella spiloptera Lepomis cyanellus Lepomis macrochirus Micropterus salmoides Pomoxis annularis TC OM OM OM IN IN IN TC TC TC BI BI IN TC TC PK HB OM OM OM OM TC TC TC IN x x TOL 1.20 12 12 0.6% Gizzard shad Common carp* Golden shiner TOL X 44.40 0.40 1.67 0.93 3.13 8.13 7.13 0.13 197.63 1.78 7.42 4.15 13.95 36.20 31.75 0.59 666 6 25 14 47 122 107 1.30 13 679 35.8% TOL X 6 0.3% TOL X 0.10 26 1.4% Spotfin shiner x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x TOL 14 0.7% Green sunfish Bluegill Largemouth bass White crappie Skipjack herring Northern hog sucker Spotted sucker Longear sunfish Smallmouth bass Spotted gar Threadfin shad Largescale stoneroller Smallmouth buffalo Black buffalo Blue catfish Channel catfish Flathead catfish White bass Yellow bass Warmouth Alosa chrysochloris Hypentelium nigricans Minytrema melanops Lepomis megalotis Micropterus dolomieu Lepisosteus oculatus Dorosoma petenense Campostoma oligolepis Ictiobus bubalus Ictiobus niger Ictalurus furcatus Ictalurus punctatus Pylodictis olivaris Marone chrysops Marone mississippiensis Lepomis gulosus TOL TOL TOL TOL INT INT INT INT INT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 0.07 0.93 1.80 1.27 0.60 20.20 0.07 0.33 2.67 0.60 0.07 0.07 0.30 4.15 8.01 5.64 2.67 89.91 0.30 1.48 11.87 2.67 0.30 0.30 2 14 27 19 9 303 1 5 40 9 0.10 0.30 0.10 0.20 0.10 0.10 0.20 0.20 1.00 0.20 1.80 1.00 3 1 2 2 2 10 2 18 10 47 123 110 3 2 1 14 27 20 9 303 1 6 2 2 50 11 18 11 Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN X X 1.73 7.72 26 0.20 2 28 Spotted bass Micropterus punctulatus TC X X 0.20 0.89 3 3 Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC X X 0.13 0.59 2 2 Logperch Percina caprodes BI X X 0.07 0.30 1 Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI X X X 0.47 2.08 7 0.50 5 12 Mississippi silverside* Menidia audens IN 23.47 104.45 352 352 Total 120.67 537.10 1,810 8.60 86 1,896 Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected 31 29 2 7 21 26 17 Trophic level: benthic invertivore (BI), herbivore (HB), insectivore (IN), omnivore (OM), top carnivore (TC); planktivore (PK). Tolerance: tolerant species (TOL), intolerant species (INT); Comm.-Commercially, Rec.-Recreationally. *Denotes aquatic nuisance species next to common name. All species are considered representative important species. No species collected have a Federal Threatened or Endangered status. 41 2.5% 6.5% 5.8% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.7% 1.4% 1.1% 0.5% 16.0% 0.1% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1% 2.6% 0.6% 0.9% 0.6% 0.1% 1.5% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.6% 18.6% 100.0% Table 12. Summary of RF AI scores from sites located directly upstream and downstream of BFN and scores from sampling conducted during 1993 through 2011 as part of the Vital Signs monitoring program in Wheeler Reservoir. Station Location 1993 1994 1995 1997 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Inflow TRM348.0 46 48 42 48 36 38 42 38 44 44 42 38 38 40 40 46 Transition TRM295.9 45 45 34 40 30 41 37 43 39 43 46 41 39 42 39 44 40 BFN Upstream Transition TRM292.5 43 40 41 43 43 36 42 42 45 36 38 38 BFN Downstream Fore bay TRM277.0 52 44 48 45 42 41 45 44 43 45 46 49 46 47 40 46 Elk River ERM6.0 43 47 36 49 36 49 44 49 47 39 42 43 Embayment Note: No data were collected for 1996 and 1998. RFAI Scores: 12-21 ("Very Poor"), 22-31 ("Poor"), 32-40 ("Fair"), 41-50 ("Good"), or 51-60 ("Excellent") 42 Avg. 42 41 41 45 44 Table 13. Spatial statistical comparisons of numbers of fish species, mean electrofishing catch per unit effort values (number/run), tolerance designations, trophic levels, and non-indigenous individuals, along with species richness and Simpson and Shannon diversity values, collected downstream and upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, autumn 2011. -Mean (Standard Deviation) Parameter Downstream Upstream Significant Test P Value Difference Statistic(a) Number of species (per run) Total (species richness) 16.5 (4.5) 14.7 (5.3) No t = 1.0 0.31 Benthic Invertivores 1.5 (0.7) 0.8 (0.9) Yes z = -2.2 0.01 Insectivores 4.5 (1.7) 3.6 (1.6) No t = 1.5 0.12 Omnivores 2.1 (1.0) 2.7 (1.1) No t = 1.4 0.15 Plank:tivores 0.3 (0.5) 0.2 (0.4) No t = 0.4 0.67 Top Carnivores 1.9 (1.1) 2.1 (1.3) No t=0.5 0.64 Tolerant 4.0 (1.3) 4.1 (1.6) No t= 0.3 0.80 Intolerant 2.1 (0.8) 1.1 (1.1) Yes Z=2.2 0.01 CPUE (per run) Total 13.0 (6.9) 12.7 (9.1) No t = 0.1 0.92 Benthic Invertivores 0.2 (0.1) 0.1 (0.2) No t = 1.0 0.30 Insectivores . 3.4 (2.1) 2.6 (2.5) No t= 0.9 0.35 Omnivores 2.9 (2.3) 3.3 (2.1) No t= 0.5 0.65 Plank:tivores 1.1 (3.1) 1.4 (4.3) No t= 0.2 0.84 Top Carnivores 0.3 (0.3) 0.7 (0.6) Yes Z=2.l 0.02 Tolerant 4.7 (2.3) 4.4 (3.2) No t= 0.3 0.74 Intolerant 0.4 (0.3) 0.3 (0.4) No t = 1.1 0.27 Diversity Indices (per run) Simpson 0.7 (0.1) 0.7 (0.1) No t= 0.7 0.51 Shannon 1.6 (0.3) 1.5 (0.39) No t= 0.6 0.55 a) t-Value indicates results of independent two-sample t-test (a=0.05). Z-Value indicates results of Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Z-test (a=0.05) used when raw data could not be normalized using transformation. 43 Table 14. Individual metric ratings and the overall RBI scores (laboratory-processed) for downstream and upstream sampling sites near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Wheeler Reservoir, Autumn 2011. Downstream Upstream TRM290.4 TRM293.2 TRM295.9 Metric Obs Ra tine: Obs Ra tine: Obs Ra tine: 1. Average number of taxa 6.2 3 11.7 5 8.4 5 2. Proportion of samples with long-lived organisms 0.6 3 0.8 3 0.7 3 3. Average number of EPT taxa 0.7 3 1.2 3 1.0 3 4. Average proportion of oligochaete individuals 5.0 5 35.4 1 6.3 5 5. Average proportion of total abundance comprised by the 89.2 1 80.6 3 81.1 3 two most abundant taxa 6. Average density excluding chironomids and oligochaetes 193.3 1 321.7 3 430 3 7. Zero-samples -proportion of samples containing no 0 5 0 5 0 5 organisms Benthic Index Score 21 23 27 Ecological Health Rating Fair Fair Good Reservoir Benthic Index Scores: 7-12 ("Very Poor"), 13-18 ("Poor"), 19-23 ("Fair"), 24-29 ("Good"), 30-35 ("Excellent") 44 Table 15. Metric scores and the overall RBI scores determined from field-processed criteria, for sites upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Wheeler Reservoir, Autumn 2000-2010. Downstream -TRM 291. 7 Avg No. Taxa % Long-Lived Avg.No.EPT % % Dominant Density excl Zero Samples tax a Oligochaetes Taxa chiro and oligo Sample Year Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score 2000 4 3 1 5 0.8 5 6.4 5 79.6 3 125 1 0 5 2001 5.6 5 1 5 1.1 5 5.7 5 43 5 230 1 0 5 2002 5.7 5 1 5 0.8 5 7.4 5 88.1 1 120 1 0 5 2003 6.5 5 1 5 1 5 0.3 5 76.1 5 1270 5 0 5 2004 6.7 5 1 5 1 5 1.4 5 74.4 5 523.3 3 0 5 2005 5.5 5 1 5 0.8 5 3.6 5 80.3 3 508.3 3 0 5 2006 6.2 5 1 5 0.1 5 2.3 5 77.3 5 272.3 1 0 5 2007 6.4 5 1 5 0.8 5 12.4 5 80.2 3 166.7 1 0 5 2008 6.3 5 0.9 5 1.1 5 7.2 5 81.5 3 181.7 1 0 5 2009 5 5 0.7 3 0.6 3 4.6 5 90.3 1 83.3 1 0 5 2010 4.6 5 0.7 3 0.6 3 0.3 5 94.8 1 126.7 1 0 5 Mean: 5.7 0.9 0.8 4.7 78.7 327.9 0.0 Maximum: 6.7 1 1.1 12.4 94.8 1270 0 -Minimum: 4 0.7 0.1 0.3 43 83.3 0 45 Overall Score 27 31 27 35 33 31 31 29 29 23 23 29 Table 15. (Continued) Upstream -TRM 295.9 Avg No. Taxa % Long-Lived Avg.No.EPT % Oligochaetes % Dominant Density excl Zero Samples tax a Taxa chiro and oligo Overall Sample Year Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Score 2000 4.6 5 1 5 0.8 5 6.6 5 77.6 5 190 1 0 5 31 2001 5.3 5 1 5 1 5 2.7 5 79.8 3 188.3 1 0 5 29 2002 6.5 5 1 5 0.8 5 7.2 5 75.6 5 266.7 1 0 5 31 2003 5.1 5 0.8 5 1 5 0.8 5 84.1 3 456.7 3 0 5 31 2004 6.2 5 1 5 0.9 5 1.1 5 73.7 5 353.6 3 0 5 33 2005 5.6 5 1 5 1.2 5 2.3 5 85.4 3 490 3 0 5 31 2006 5.9 5 0.8 5 0.7 3 7 5 75 5 348.3 3 0 5 31 2007 6.5 5 0.9 5 0.9 5 1.9 5 74.2 5 353.3 3 0 5 33 2008 5.8 5 0.7 3 0.5 3 7.8 5 85.4 3 220 1 0 5 25 2009 5.1 5 1 5 0.4 3 12.2 5 75.2 5 133.3 1 0 5 29 2010 4.2 3 1 5 0.8 5 2.1 5 92 1 108.3 1 0 5 25 Mean: 5.5 0.9 0.8 4.7 79.8 282.6 0 30 Maximum: 6.5 1 1.2 12.2 92 490 0 Minimum: 4.2 0.7 0.4 0.8 73.7 108.3 0 46 Table 16. Metric scores and the overall RBI scores determined from lab-processed criteria, for sites upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Wheeler Reservoir, 2001-2006. Downstream -TRM 291.7 Avg No. Taxa % Long-Lived Avg.No.EPT O/o %Dominant Density excl

• Zero Samples tax a Oligochaetes Taxa chiro and oligo Sample Year Obs Score Obs Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score 2001 7.8 5 1 5 1.1 3 7.6 5 71.7 5 3i5 3 0 5 2002 5.4 3 1 5 0.9 3 10.9 5 88.2 1 106.7 1 0 5 2003 7.3 5 1 5 1 3 0.4 5 73.2 5 1,270.0 5 0 5 2004 7.9 5 1 5 1 3 1.6 5 73.5 5 551.7 3 0 5 2006 9.4 5 1 5 1.6 5 2.3 5 78.1 3 448.2 3 0 5 Mean: 7.56 1 1.12 4.56 76.94 538.32 0 Maximum: 9.4 1 1.6 10.9 88.2 1,270.0 0 Minimum: 5.4 1 0.9 0.4 71.7 106.7 0 U t TRM2959 1ps ream-Avg No. Taxa % Avg.No.EPT % %Dominant Density excl Zero Samples tax a Oligochaetes Taxa chiro and oligo Sample Year Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score 2001 7.4 5 1 5 1 3 6.9 5 75.6 5 281.7 1 0 5 2002 6.8 5 1 5 1.1 3 5 5 74.l 5 281.7 1 0 5 2003 6.3 3 1 5 0.9 3 0.6 5 82.2 3 583.3 3 0 5 2004 6.2 3 1 5 0.8 3 1.1 5 72.2 5 336.2 3 0 5 2006 9.2 5 0.8 3 1.2 3 5.1 5 78.6 3 1,273.3 5 0 5 2011 8.4 5 0.7 3 1 3 6.3 5 81.1 3 430 3 0 5 Mean: 7.4 0.9 1.0 4.2 77.3 531.0 0 Maximum: 9.2 1 1.2 6.9 82.2 1,273.3 0 Minimum: 6.2 0.7 0.8 0.6 72.2 281.7 0 47 Overall Score 31 23 33 31 31 30 Overall Score 29 29 27 29 29 27 28 Table 17. Mean densities ( organisms/m2) of benthic taxa collected by dredge sample along transects upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, 2011. Estimates of total mean density per sample are included.
• Taxon Cnidaria Hydrozoa Hydroida Hydridae Hydrasp. Nematoda Platyhelminthes Turbellaria Tricladida Planariidae Dugesia tigrina Annelida Oligochaeta Haplotaxida Naididae Bratis unidentata Dero trifida Derosp. Nais pardalis Pristina aequiseta Pristina sp. Pristinel!a jenkinae Slavina appendiculata Tubificidae Aulodrilus piqueti Branchiura sowerbyi Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri Quistadrilus multisetosus Hirudinea Rhyncho bdellida Glossiphoniidae Actinobdella inequiannulata Helobdella stagnalis Helobdella sp. Placobde!la montifera Arthropoda Arachnomorpha Arachnida Trombidiformes Unionicolidae Unionicola s . Downstream TRM 290.4 TRM 293.2 48 2 15 5 8 2 7 2 2 3 45 10 2 60 23 2 2 5 5 83 20 13 40 5 3 2 Upstream TRM295.9 5 2 15 32 13 2 25 2 17 2 2 Table (Continued) Downstream Upstream Taxon 290.4 293.2 295.9 Crustacea Brachiopoda Cladocera Sididae Sida crystallina 122 3 Malacostraca Amphipoda Corophiidae Apocorophium lacustre 3 Isopoda Gammaridae Gammarus sp. 2 Maxillopoda Copepoda Cyclopoida 7 Ostracoda 2 Podocopa Candoniidae Candonasp. 13 8 5 Insecta Diptera Chaoboridae Chaoborus punctipennis 2 5 3 Chironomidae Ablabesmyia annulata 5 25 18 Ablabesmyia mallochi 3 Ablabesmyia rhamphe gp. 2 Axarussp. 2 Chironomus crassicaudatus 8 15 18 Chironomus decorus gp. 5 2 Chironomus major 40 10 Chironomus sp. 7 27 Cladotanytarsus sp. 5 8 Coelotanypus tricolor 250 122 228 Coelotanypus sp. 8 30 38 Cryptochironomus sp. 2 5 5 Dicrotendipes lucifer 8 28 Dicrotendipes modestus 3 18 98 Dicrotendipes neomodestus 2 2 Dicrotendipes simpsoni 2 53 Glyptotendipes sp. 3 25 103 Microchironomus sp. 7 Nanocladius alternantherae 2 7 Nanocladius distinctus 3 18 Parachironomus sp. 2 Polypedilum halterale gp 5 3 Procladius sp. 3 5 3 Tanypodinae Tanytarsus sp. 2 Thienemanniella loba odema 2 49 Table 17. (Continued) Downstream Upstream Tax on 290.4 293.2 295.9 Ephemeroptera Caenidae Caenis sp. 3 Ephemeridae Hexagenia limbata <lOmm 3 20 10 Hexagenia limbata >lOmm 12 17 17 Trichoptera Hydroptilidae Orthotrichia sp 2 Polycentropodidae Cyrnellus fraternus 2 23 107 Leptoceridae Oecetis sp. 2 5 Mollusca Gastropoda Mesogastropoda Hydrobiidae Amnicola limosa 2 3 17 Somatogyrus sp. 3 Pleuroceridae Pleurocera canaliculata 3 Viviparidae Campeloma decisum 2 Lioplax sulculosa 3 Viviparus sp. 2 2 Bivalvia Veneroida Corbiculidae Corbiculafluminea <lOmm 7 18 18 Corbicula fluminea > 1 Omm 2 15 77 Sphaeriidae Eupera cubensis 5 2 Musculium transversum 147 177 153 Unionoida Unionidae Megalonaias nervosa 2 Obliquaria reflexa 3 Truncilla donaciformis <1 Omm 2 Number of samples 10 10 10 Total Mean Density per meter2 578 1,077 1,197 Taxa Richness 31 50 42 Sum of area sampled (meter2) 0.6 0.6 0.6 50 Table 18. Field estimates of substrate composition in benthic dredge samples collected around Brown's Ferry Nuclear Plant, October 2011. Sample# % Distance Depth (ft) Primary Component Secondary Component River Mile fromLDB TRM290.4 5 12.4 Silt 85% Mollusk shell 15% 2 15 17.4 Silt 95% Detritus 5% 3 25 21.2 Silt 98% Mollusk shell 1% 4 35 25.5 Silt 90% Mollusk shell 10% 5 45 23.4 Silt 98% Detritus 2% 6 55 10.8 Silt 80% Mollusk shell 20% 7 65 11.8 Mollusk shell 80% Silt 20% 8 75 23.5 Silt 98% Mollusk shell 2% 9 85 12.7 Silt 98% Mollusk shell 2% 10 95 11.5 Silt 98% Boulder 1% TRM293.2 1 5 6.5 Mollusk shell 80% Gravel 15% 2 15 7.8 Mollusk shell 50% Sand 50% 3 25 11.8 Mollusk shell 50% Gravel 50% 4 35 12.7 Mollusk shell 100% --5 45 14.2 Clay 60% Mollusk shell 30% 6 55 12 Clay 60% Mollusk shell 30% 7 65 24 Silt 90% Detritus 8% 8 75 22 Silt 50% Detritus 30% 9 85 20 Silt 95% Detritus 4% 10 95 8.3 Mollusk shell 60% Gravel 38% TRM295.9 1 5 8.9 Silt 88% Detritus 10% 2 15 9.4 Mollusk shell 90% Silt 10% 3 25 9.6 Silt 90% Mollusk shell 8% 4 35 6.1 Mollusk shell 88% Silt 8% 5 45 22.0 Silt 75% Detritus 15% 6 55 26.0 Silt 75% Gravel 15% 7 65 8.0 Clay 50% Mollusk shell 45% 8 75 13.9 Silt 90% Mollusk shell 5% 9 85 11.8 Silt 90% Mollusk shell 8% 10 95 9.1 Silt 75% Mollusk shell 15% 51 Table 19. RBI scores from data collected from 1994 through 2011 at Wheeler Reservoir inflow, transition, embayment, and forebay sampling sites. BFN Downstream BFN Downstream BFN Upstream, 1994-2010 BFNThermal 2011 Elk River Inflow Transition Transition Plume Transition Transition Forebay, Embayment, Sample Year TRM347 TRM295.9 TRM291.7 TRM293.2 TRM290.4 TRM277 ERM6 1994 31 33 19 15 1995 21 25 15 13 1997 25 31 23 15 1999 23 31 17 15 Average: 25 30 NIA NIA NIA 19 15 1994-1999 2000 31 27 2001 21 29 31 17 15 2002 25 31 27 15 2003 31 31 35 15 15 2004 31 33 33 19 2005 31 31 31 15 17 2006 33 31 31 13 2007 33 33 29 13 13 2008 25 29 15 2009 31 29 23 13 13 2010 25 23 2011 27 27 23 21 13 13 Average: 29 30 29 23 21 15 14 2000-2011 Average: 28 30 29 23 21 16 14 1994-2011 Note: No data were collected for 1996 and 1998. Reservoir Benthic Index Scores: 7-12 ("Very Poor"), 13-18 ("Poor"), 19-23 ("Fair"), 24-29 ("Good"), 30-35 ("Excellent") 52 Table 20. Wildlife observed along 2100 m transects parallel to the shoreline, upstream and downstream ofBFN, autumn 2011. RDB = Right descending bank LDB = Left descending bank Transect Birds Obs. Reptiles Obs. Upstream RDB American Crow 6 Belted Kingfisher Songbird sp. Great Blue Heron 4 Double-crested Cormorant 1 Mallard 5 LDB Sandpiper sp. 2 Turtle sp. 20 Belted Kingfisher 2 Great Blue Heron 4 Downstream RDB Blackbird 20 Songbird sp. 2 Belted Kingfisher 1 Great Blue Heron 6 American Coot 6 Wood Duck 8 Mallard 7 LDB Songbird sp. 5 Great Blue Heron 5 Mallard 8 Wood Duck 4 53 Depth 10% (m) 0.3 77.3 77.3 2 77.2 3 77.2 4 5 6 7 8 9 Table 21. Water temperature (°F) profiles measured at five locations (10%, 30%, 50%, 70%, 90%) from right descending bank along transects located at TRM 296.5, TRM 294, TRM 292.4, TRM 291.2, and TRM 289.1 during autumn 2011 to characterize the BFN thermal plume. Ambient (TRM 296.5) TRM 294 (at Discharge) TRM 292.4 (Middle of plume) TRM 291.2 (Downstream limit of TRM 289.1 (Outside of plume) 30% 50% 70% 90% 10% 30% 50% 70% 90% 10% 30% 50% 70% 90% 10% 30% 50% 70% 90% 10% 30% 50% 70% 90% 76.2 76.2 76.2 75.3 82.7 82.5 81.2: 81.9 ' 76.6 81.0 81.1 81.4 79.7 76.4 80.1 79.7 78.1 77.4 76.9 79.6 78.9 78.4 78.1 76.8 76.2 76.2 76.2 75.3 82.6 82.5 81:.1. 81:9 76.7 81:0 81.,1 81.3 79.1 76.4 80.1 79.6 78.1 77.4 76.9 79.6 78.9 78.4 78.1 76.8 76.2 76.2 76.2 75.3 ; 82.4 82.5 78.9 81.8 76.6 81.0 80.9 80.1 76.9 76.4 , 80.1. 79.3 78.1 77.4 76.9 79.6 78.9 78.4 78.1 76.8 76.2 76.2 75.3 82.2 82.4 78.8 77.7 76.4 80.1 79.9 79.5 76.7 76.4 : 80.0 79.1 78.1 77.4 76.9 79.6 78.8 78.4 78.1 76.8 76.3 82.0 79,9 77.9 76.4 . 80.0 ' 78.1 77.4 76.9 79.6 78.7 78.4 78.1 76.8 76.2 81.4 79.8 77.7 77.4 76.9 76.8 76.3 81.2 79.8 77.6 77.4 76.7 76.2 80.9 79.8 77.6 76.2 80.8 ' 80.0 *Shaded numbers represent temperatures 3.6°F (2°C) or greater above ambient temperature 54 Table 22. Water quality parameters collected along vertical depth profiles at the downstream, midpoint, and upstream end of the RFAI sample reach downstream (TRM 292.5) and upstream (TRM 295.9) of BFN, autumn 2011. TRM LOB Mid-channel ROB 292.5 Depth oc OF Cond DO pH Depth oc OF Cond DO pH Depth oc OF Cond DO Downstream 0.3 22.86 73.15 177.6 9.78 8.16 0.3 23.14 73.65 176.9 11.78 8.02 0.3 23.24 73.83 177.3 9.09 Boundary 1.0 22.29 72.12 178.6 8.11 7.52 1.5 22.43 72.37 178.8 9.98 8.03 1.5 22.76 72.97 177.5 9.29 3 22.26 72.07 178.5 7.93 7.43 3 22.41 72.34 177.9 8.68 7.73 3 22.66 72.79 177.9 9.12 4 22.22 72.00 179 7.90 7.39 4 22.41 72.34 178.0 8.64 7.70 6 22.25 72.05 178.0 8.40 7.63 8 22.24 72.03 178.2 8.24 7.59 Midpoint 0.3 23.10 73.58 177.3 10.9 8.40 0.3 24.18 75.52 178.4 9.62 8.18 0.3 24.01 75.22 178.3 9.44 1.5 22.79 73.02 177.1 9.21 7.85 1.5 23.58 74.44 178.1 8.64 7.82 1.5 23.44 74.19 178.1 8.39 3 22.58 72.64 177.0 9.49 7.67 3 23.02 73.44 177.9 8.47 7.61 3 22.98 73.36 178.I 8.33 4 22.68 72.82 177.5 8.36 7.63 6 22.46 72.43 178.5 8.18 7.58 Upstream 0.3 24.91 76.84 180.8 8.62 7.70 0.3 25.23 77.41 180.0 8.84 7.77 0.3 23.15 73.67 181.2 11.58 Boundary 1.5 24.48 76.06 180.7 8.43 7.67 1.5 24.37 75.86 180.1 8.67 7.70 1.5 22.38 72.28 179.7 10.51 3 23.00 73.40 180.4 8.31 7.60 3 23.51 74.32 180.7 8.44 7.62 3 21.69 71.04 179.7 9.80 4 22.84 73.11 179.5 8.20 7.57 4 23.06 73.51 180.8 8.36 7.58 6 22.21 71.98 179.1 7.87 7.48 6 22.48 72.46 181.1 8.18 7.52 8 21.95 71.51 180.0 7.99 7.43 8 22.17 71.91 180.5 8.11 7.46 TRM LOB Mid-channel ROB 295.9 Depth oc OF Cond DO pH Depth oc OF Cond DO pH Depth oc OF Cond DO Downstream 0.3 22.42 72.36 185.0 9.81 7.86 0.3 23.81 74.86 184.4 8.82 7.80 0.3 23.87 74.97 185.0 8.83 Boundary 1.0 21.75 71.15 184.2 9.24 7.82 1.5 22.94 73.29 184.6 8.63 7.78 1.5 23.48 74.26 184.5 8.79 3 21.55 70.79 185.5 9.35 7.8 3 22.67 72.81 184.3 8.68 7.66 3 22.85 73.13 184.2 8.55 4 22.26 72.07 184.1 8.53 7.63 4 22.39 72.30 184.3 8.45 6 21.76 71.17 183.8 8.66 7.62 6 21.92 7 l.46 183.2 8.58 8 21.64 70.95 184.4 8.80 7.62 8 21.36 70.45 185.6 9.01 Midpoint 0.3 21.88 71.38 188.3 7.74 7.28 0.3 21.96 71.53 186.8 7.29 7.32 0.3 20.59 69.06 183.9 8.6 1.5 22.20 71.96 187.4 7.75 7.19 1.5 21.48 70.66 185.6 7.46 7.35 1.5 20.08 68.14 179.4 10.30 3 21.64 70.95 190.0 7.80 7.15 3 21.27 70.29 181.5 7.84 7.40 2 20.04 68.07 179.7 9.98 5 21.23 70.21 180.8 8.11 7.41 7 21.05 69.89 180.3 8.18 7.37 Upstream 0.3 21.18 70.12 199.6 8.38 7.60 0.3 21.77 71.19 187.8 6.95 7.33 0.3 21.46 70.63 182.9 9.36 Boundary 1.5 21.50 70.70 202.2 8.62 7.57 1.5 21.75 71.15 183.5 6.97 7.33 1.5 20.91 69.64 179.9 10.51 3 21.65 70.97 182.5 7.18 7.35 2 20.59 69.06 178.8 10.58 5 21.52 70.74 181.5 7.69 7.42 7 21.36 70.45 180.7 7.85 7.42 55 pH 8.37 8.11 7.87 7.97 7.73 7.61 8.58 8.45 8.09 pH 7.86 7.81 7.73 7.85 7.75 7.83 8.07 8.33 8.27 7.89 8.30 8.41 Figure 1. Location of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant on Wheeler Reservoir. 56 Figure 2. Location of Condenser Cooling Water (CCW) intake and discharge at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. 57 Biomonitoring Zones Downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Electrofishing Station <> Gill Netting Station Benthic Macroinvertebrate Transect Wildlife Observation Transect Thermal Plume Figure 3. Locations of biomonitoring sites downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, including thermal plume resulting from BFN discharge. 58 Biomonitoring Zones Upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Electrofishing Station <> Gill Netting Station Benthic Macrainvertebrate Transect \\flldlife Observation Transect Figure 4. Locations of biomonitoring sites upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. 59 Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Index (SAHi) Transects Upstream and Downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant SAHi Transect Figure 5. Locations of transects used to characterize shoreline and river bottom habitat upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. 60
• River Mlle X :!93 @ Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant RI var 296 Tennessee River (Wheeler Reservoir) 112 a 1000 0 t I 1/2 1 I lie 1000 2fl00 3000 4 0 feet I I I I f'i:1* _r Aile ;x '2117 -Tennessee River (Wheeler Reservoir) -Original River Channel -Water Temperature Monitoring Station Figure 6. Locations of water temperature monitoring stations used to compare water temperatures upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) intake and downstream of BFN discharge during October 2009 through November 2010. *Station 4 was used for upstream ambient temperatures of the BFN intake and was located at TRM 297.8. Stations 1, 16, and 17 were used for temperatures downstream ofBFN discharge and were each located at TRM 293.5. This figure originated in the technical report: Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Module III, Water Temperature Monitoring. 61 Substrate Type N i 2 Kilometers *Depth( ft) of water where sample was taken TVA -E&T -ES&R GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION & ENG! EERING JA UARY2011 Figure 7. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River downstream of Browns Ferry uclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted. Transects 1 and 2 are the farthest downstream of the eight transects established downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. 62 Substrate Type N I I I i 2 Kilometers *Depth( ft) of water where sample was taken TVA -E&T -ES&R GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION & ENGINEERING JANUARY 2011 Figure 8. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted. 63 Substrate Type N i
• 2 Kilometers *Depth( ft) ofwarer where sample was taken TVA -E&T -ES&R GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION & ENGi EERING JANUARY 2011 Figure 9. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted. 64 Substrate Type N l 2 Kilometers
• Depth(ti} of water where sample was taken TVA -E&T -ES&R GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION & ENGINEERING JANUARY 2011 Figure 10. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted. 65 N ! TVA -E&T-ES&R GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION & ENGINEERING DECEMBER 2010 Figure 11. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted. Of the eight transects established upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, transects 1 and 2 are the closest to the plant. 66 N ! TVA -E&T -ES&R GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION & ENGINEERING DECEMBER 2010 Figure 12. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted. 67 Substrate Type N I I I i *Depth( Ii) of water where sample was taken TVA -E&T -ES&R GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION & ENGINEERING DECEMBER 2010 Figure 13. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted. 68 I I I I Substrate Type N t "Depth( ft) of water where sample wa taken TVA -E&T -ES&R GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATIO & ENGINEERING DECEMBER 2010 Figure 14. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted. 69 32 "t:I 30 QJ ..... u J:! 0 u "' QJ *;::; QJ 29 28 -+------"' ::J 0 s:: QJ ti.I) :c s:: .... 27 26 +------1 QJ .0 E ::J z 24 24 23 22 2000 2001 28 28 2002 2003 32 30 30 28 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year 31 28 28 2008 2009 2010 29 28 2011 *TRM 292.5 *TRM 295.9 Figure 15. Comparison of observed values for the Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index metric "Number of Indigenous Species", over twelve years of autumn sampling at the stations upstream and downstream of Brown's Ferry Nuclear Plant. 70
• TRM 292.5 TRM 295.9 45.0 40.9 40.7 40.0 38.S 35.0 31.2 30.0 QI a. E RI Vl 25.0 iii .... 0 I--0 .... 20.0 c: QI u ..... 16.0 QI Q. 15.0 I 12.8 10.6 10.0 5.2 5.0 2.5 1.5 0.0 Benthic lnvertivore Insectivore Omnivore Planktivore Top Carnivore Trophic Level by Sampling Station Figure 16. Percent composition, by trophic level, of fish community sampled upstream and downstream of Brown's Ferry Nuclear Plant-Autumn, 2011. 71 200,000 -FY 2011 Daily Average Historical Daily Average 1976-2010 150,000 +---------------------------------------------::: 0 u:: 100,000 +----------------+-+-----1--------------___,-_______ _ 0 Date Figure 17. Daily average flows from Guntersville Dam, October 2010 through November 2011, and historic daily flows for the same fiscal year period, averaged over the years 1976-2010. 72 u:-QI .... ::I .... ru .... QI c.. E QI .... .... QI .... ru 3: 70 60 so 40 30 Date Downstream of BFN discharge (average of three stations) -Upstream of BFN intake Figure 18. Daily water temperatures averaged over depth (3, 5, and 7 feet) upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant (BFN) intake and downstream of BFN discharge---October 2010 through November 2011. 73 78 77 u:-75 !.-QJ .... :::J .... ru .... QJ 74 Q. E QJ I-.... QJ .... ru 73 72 71 70 0 1 2 3 4 Depth (m) -Downstream Boundary, Left Descending Bank -Downstream Boundary, Mid-channel Downstream Boundary, Right Descending Bank -Midpoint, Left Descending Bank -Midpoint, Mid-channel Midpoint, Right Descending Bank -Upstream Boundary, Left Descending Bank -Upstream Boundary, Mid-channel Upstream Boundary, Right Descending Bank 5 6 7 8 9 Figure 19. Water temperature along vertical depth profiles at nine locations within the sampling station centered at TRM 292.5, downstream of Brown's Ferry Nuclear Power Plant, October 2011. 74 75 73 u:-QJ ... :I 72 .... Ill ... QJ Cl. E QJ I-71 ... QJ .... Ill 70 69 68 67 0 1 2 3 4 5 Depth (m) -Downstream Boundary, Left Descending Bank -Downstream Boundary, Mid-channel Downstream Boundary, Right Descending Bank -Midpoint, Left Descending Bank -Midpoint, Mid-channel Midpoint, Right Descending Bank -Upstream Boundary, Left Descending Bank -Upstream Boundary, Mid-channel Upstream Boundary, Right Descending Bank 6 7 8 9 Figure 20. Water temperature along vertical depth profiles at nine locations within the sampling station centered at TRM 295.9, upstream of Brown's Ferry Nuclear Power Plant, October 2011. 75 181.5 181 -180.5 180 E u ....... 179.5 Vl :i > ... 179 *:;: *z; u ::J 178.5 "C c: 0 u 178 177.5 177 176.5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Depth (m) -Downstream Boundary, Left Descending Bank -Downstream Boundary, Mid-channel Downstream Boundary, Right Descending Bank-Midpoint, Left Descending Bank -Midpoint, Mid-channel -Upstream Boundary, Left Descending Bank Upstream Boundary, Right Descending Bank Midpoint, Right Descending Bank -Upstream Boundary, Mid-channel 7 8 9 Figure 21. Conductivity along vertical depth profiles at nine locations within the sampling station centered at TRM 292.5, downstream of Brown's Ferry Nuclear Power Plant, October 2011. 76 E u ........ VI > ..... *;;; *.;; u :l "C c 0 u 205 200 195 190 185 -Downstream Boundary, Left Descending Bank -Downstream Boundary, Mid-channel Downstream Boundary, Right Descending Bank -Midpoint, Left Descending Bank -Midpoint, Mid-channel Midpoint, Right Descending Bank -Upstream Boundary, Left Descending Bank -Upstream Boundary, Mid-channel Upstream Boundary, Right Descending Bank 180 __ _ -175 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Depth (m) Figure 22. Conductivity along vertical depth profiles at nine locations within the sampling station centered at TRM 295.9, upstream of Brown's Ferry Nuclear Power Plant, October 2011. 77 E c. c. 13 12 11 -10 c Cll g2 )( 0 "'C Cll 9 "' "' c 8 0 1 2 3 4 Depth (m) -Downstream Boundary, Left Descending Bank -Downstream Boundary, Mid-channel Downstream Boundary, Right Descending Bank -Midpoint, Left Descending Bank -Midpoint, Mid-channel -Midpoint, Right Descending Bank -Upstream Boundary, Left Descending Bank -Upstream Boundary, Mid-channel Upstream Boundary, Right Descending Bank 5 6 7 8 9 Figure 23. Dissolved oxygen concentration along vertical depth profiles at nine locations within the sampling station centered at TRM 292.5, downstream of Brown's Ferry Nuclear Power Plant, October 2011. 78 11 10.5 10 9.5 E I Cl. 9 Cl. c QJ a.o > 8.5 )( 0 "'C QJ > 0 8 "' "' 0 7.5 7 6.5 6 0 1 2 3 4 -Downstream Boundary, Left Descending Bank -Downstream Boundary, Mid-channel Downstream Boundary, Right Descending Bank -Midpoint, Left Descending Bank -Midpoint, Mid-channel Midpoint, Right Descending Bank -Upstream Boundary, Left Descending Bank -Upstream Boundary, Mid-channel Upstream Boundary, Right Descending Bank 5 6 7 8 Depth (m) 9 Figure 24. Dissolved oxygen concentration along vertical depth profiles at nine locations within the sampling station centered at TRM 295.9, upstream of Brown's Ferry Nuclear Power Plant, October 2011. 79 8.8 8.4 +-----..---------------------------! 8.2 -Downstream Boundary, Left Descending Bank -Downstream Boundary, Mid-channel Downstream Boundary, Right Descending Bank -Midpoint, Left Descending Bank -Midpoint, Mid-channel Midpoint, Right Descending Bank -Upstream Boundary, Left Descending Bank -Upstream Boundary, Mid-channel Qi > Upstream Boundary, Right Descending Bank 8 Qj ..... :I: c. 7.8 7.6 7.4 7.2 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Depth (m) Figure 25. Level of acidity (pH) along vertical depth profiles at nine locations within the sampling station centered at TRM 292.5, downstream of Brown's Ferry Nuclear Power Plant, October 2011. 80 8.6 -Downstream Boundary, Left Descending Bank -Downstream Boundary, Mid-channel 8.4 +-----Downstream Boundary, Right Descending Bank / -Midpoint, Left Descending Bank -Midpoint, Mid-channel -Midpoint, Right Descending Bank -Upstream Boundary, Left Descending Bank -Upstream Boundary, Mid-channel 8.2 7 8 Upstream Boundary, Right Descending Bank Qi > Cll 7.8 ..... -:I: c.. 7.6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Depth (m) Figure 26. Level of acidity (pH) along vertical depth profiles at nine locations within the sampling station centered at TRM 295.9, upstream of Brown's Ferry Nuclear Power Plant, October 2011. 81 ATTACHMENT 9 Reference TVA. 2012b. Entrainment of lchthyoplankton at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant During 2008-2009. Knoxville, Tennessee: TVA Biological and Water Resources.

ENTRAINMENT OF ICHTHYOPLANKTON AT BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT DURING 2008-2009 2012 ENVIRONMENT AND TECHNOLOGY BIOLOGICAL AND WATER RESOURCES Knoxville, Tennessee TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................... i LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................. ii LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ ii ABB RE VIA TIO NS AND ACRONYMS .......................................................................... iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 1 INTRODUCTIO .............................................................................................................. 2 Background and Scope ................................................................................................... 2 RESERVOIR AND PLANT OPERATION DURING 2008 AND 2009 ........................... 3 Wheeler Reservoir Operation ......................................................................................... 3 BFN Operation ................................................................................................................ 3 METHODS ......................................................................................................................... 3 Sample Collection ........................................................................................................... 3 Sample Processing .......................................................................................................... 4 Data Analysis .................................................................................................................. 4 RESULTS ........................................................................................................... , ............... 4 Fish Eggs ......................................................................................................................... 5 Larval and Juvenile Fish ................................................................................................. 5 Hydraulic Entrainment Estimates ................................................................................... 6 Entrainment Estimates for Eggs and Larvae ................................................................... 6 HISTORICAL COMPARISONS ....................................................................................... 6 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................. 7 LITERATURE CITED ....................................................................................................... 9 LITERATURE REVIEWED ............................................................................................ 10 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Total Volume of Water Filtered by Sample Period at BFN during 2008 and 2009 to Estimate Entrainment of Fish Eggs and Larvae ................................................... 13 Table 2. List of Fish Eggs and Larvae by Family Collected at BFN in 2008 and 2009 Entrainment Samples and Lowest Level of Taxonomic Resolution for each Family . .................................................................................................................................. 14 Table 3. Percent Composition of Fish Eggs and Larvae by Family Collected in Entrainment Samples at BFN during 2008 and 2009 ............................................... 15 Table 4. Number, Average Seasonal and Peak Density, and Percent Composition by Family of Fish Eggs and Larvae Collected at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant during 2008 and 2009 .......................................................................................................... 16 Table 5. Estimated Daily Hydraulic Entrainment at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant by Sample Period during 2008 and 2009 ....................................................................... 18 Table 6. Entrainment Estimates for Fish Eggs and Larvae Collected at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant during 2008 and 2009 ........................................................................ 19 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Location of Condenser Cooling Water (CCW) Intake, Skimmer Wall, and Discharge at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (TRM 294) ............................................. 20 Figure 2. Actual daily releases during 2008 and 2009 and historical (1976-2009) daily average releases from Guntersville Dam (TRM 349) .............................................. 21 Figure 3. Weekly Densities of Fish Eggs Collected in Reservoir and Intake Samples Combined at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (TRM 294) During 2008 and 2009 ....... 22 Figure 4. Weekly Densities of Fish Larvae Collected in Reservoir Samples at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (TRM 294) During 2008 and 2009 .......................................... 23 Figure 5. Weekly Densities of Fish Larvae Collected in Intake Samples at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (TRM 294) During 2008 and 2009 .................................................... 24 Figure 6. Weekly Densities of Clupeidae Larvae Collected in Reservoir and Intake Samples at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (TRM 294) During 2008 and 2009 .......... 25 Figure 7. Weekly Densities ofMoronidae Larvae Collected in Reservoir and Intake Samples at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (TRM 294) During 2008 and 2009 .......... 26 Figure 8. Weekly Densities of Centrarchidae Larvae Collected in Reservoir and Intake Samples at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (TRM 294) During 2008 and*2009 .......... 27 Figure 9. Weekly Densities of Sciaenidae Larvae Collected in Reservoir and Intake Samples at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (TRM 294) During 2008 and 2009 .......... 28 Figure 10. Weekly Densities of Atherinopsidae Larvae Collected in Reservoir and Intake Samples at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (TRM 294) During 2008 and 2009 .......... 29 ii BFN ccw CWA IRP NP DES NRC RFAI SEIS TVA ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Condensed cooling water Clean Water Act Integrated Resource Plan National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Nuclear Regulatory Commission Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Tennessee Valley Authority iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The BFN Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for Power Up-Rate committed to evaluate effects of the 21.5% increase in condenser cooling water (CCW) flow on rate of entrainment of fish eggs and larvae. Unit 1 was returned to service in 2007. A consequence of the increased generation capacity is an increase in the quantity of CCW required during normal operation. Prior to 1980, extensive biological and hydrological studies were conducted to assess the effects of CCW withdrawal on the aquatic community in Wheeler Reservoir. These studies demonstrated CCW withdrawal at BFN had no significant impact on the aquatic community. TV A conducted a two-year entrainment and impingement study in 2003 and 2004 to evaluate effects of two-unit operation on the aquatic fish community and update baseline data prior to the restart of Unit 1. To evaluate the effect of the return of Unit 1 and the Power Up-Rate to 110%, TV A conducted additional entrainment monitoring during 2008 and 2009. Results of that monitoring and comparisons with historical monitoring results are presented in this report. Condenser Cooling Water withdrawn from Wheeler Reservoir potentially affects the fish community by entrainment (small fish and eggs drawn through the intake screens). Densities of fish eggs and larvae in the reservoir near the intake and daily volume of water transported past BFN were compared to daily CCW demand and densities of fish eggs and larvae at the intake skimmer wall to estimate percent entrainment. Sciaenid (freshwater drum) eggs were the dominant egg taxon and clupeids (skipjack herring, gizzard and threadfin shad) the dominant fish taxon collected in entrainment sampling. Expressed as percent composition, 87 percent of the fish eggs were freshwater drum and 95 percent of the larvae collected in the entrainment samples were clupeids. Species composition of fish collected during the 2008 and 2009 monitoring was similar to results recorded during 2003 and 2004. The average larval entrainment rate* of 9% estimated during 2008 and 2009 was within the range ( 4.5-11. 7%) estimated during 2003 and 2004 for larvae. Entrainment estimates were higher in 2008 (eggs-18%; larvae-13%) and 2009 (eggs-7%; larvae-9%) than observed in 2003 and 2004 (eggs-1.3%; larvae-4.5%). Fluctuations in entrainment rates of fish eggs and larvae at BFN are common. Variation in seasonal reservoir flow and the normal cycles in year-class strength of the dominant fish taxa are factors contributing to these fluctuations. Although fluctuations in annual entrainment estimates do occur, the 2008 and 2009 monitoring and recent (2011) Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index (RF Al) evaluations demonstrate Wheeler Reservoir near BFN supports a stable and diverse indigenous fish community with no significant effects from current plant operations. 1 INTRODUCTION Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) is a three-unit nuclear fueled facility capable of producing 3,440 MW of electricity. BFN is located on 840 acres beside Wheeler Reservoir in Limestone County, Athens, Alabama. BFN's current operation utilizes a once-through condenser cooling water (CCW) system, withdrawing water from the Tennessee River through an intake structure and discharging the water through diffuser pipes located downstream from the plant (Figure 1 ). The procedure is regulated by BFN's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, #AL0022080. This document provides current ichthyoplankton (fish eggs and larvae) entrainment estimates associated with the withdrawal of CCW, provides historical comparisons, and updates baseline data collected prior to the Unit 1 restart. Background and Scope The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) initiated an Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) in 1994 to assess the most cost effective approach to meeting future power demands. In response to the IRP, the current BFN operating license extends the life of each unit an additional twenty years and uprates the units to 120 percent of their original licensed generating levels. After an extended shutdown, Unit 2 returned to service in 1991, Unit 3 in 1995, and Unit 1in2007. TVA prepared a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) (TVA 2001) assessing the potential environmental impacts from the proposed license renewal. However, to more accurately assess potential entrainment impacts from increased CCW demand after the restart of Unit 1, TVA conducted studies in 2003 and 2004 (TVA 2006) to update baseline data. Current monitoring conducted during 2008 and 2009 estimates entrainment of fish eggs and larvae at BFN under full three-unit uprated operation. Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) provides standards for cooling water intake structures and procedures for assessing impacts. Compliance requires the permittee to characterize the aquatic community in the vicinity of the intake structure prior to operation, monitor during normal operation to assess impacts, and periodically review current operational demands, reservoir operation, and condition of the aquatic community to ensure no significant changes have occurred. One potential impact associated with cooling water intake structures is entrainment of fish eggs and larvae. Entrainment occurs when small organisms are drawn through the intake structure into the plant cooling system. The BFN' s preoperational baseline data include 18 years of reservoir fish standing stock surveys (1949-1961and1969-1973), gill and trap net surveys (1970-1973), and ichthyoplankton investigations (1971-1973). Aquatic monitoring continued until 1980 as part ofBFN Technical Specifications issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). In 1980, the NRC eliminated the aquatic monitoring requirement from the BFN Technical Specifications. Since 1980, annual fish standing stock surveys (1980-1997) and Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index (RFAI) ratings (1993-2011) provide a minimum data base on condition of the reservoir fish community in the vicinity ofBFN. 2 RESERVOIR AND PLANT OPERATION DURING 2008 AND 2009 Wheeler Reservoir Operation River flow past BFN is dependent on the rate water released through Guntersville and Wheeler Dams. TV A's integrated approach to Wheeler Reservoir operation includes winter drawdown for flood control, minimum summer pools, and hydroelectric power generation. Since 1976, average daily release through Guntersville Dam was 40,093 cubic feet per second ( cfs ). Average daily releases from Guntersville Dam during 2008 and 2009 were 21,760 cfs and 46,259 cfs, respectively (Figure 2). BFN Operation BFN Units 1, 2 and 3 were in operation during the study period and combined generation rate for three Units averaged 2,949 megawatts (MW) in 2008 and 3,030 MW in 2009. The avera9e daily withdrawal rate of CCW from Wheeler Reservoir during the two-year study was 121.8 m Is. However, CCW demand during entrainment sampling (February through early July) averaged 114.4 m3/s in 2008 and 112.7 m3/s in 2009. METHODS Sample Collection Ichthyoplankton samples were collected upstream ofBFN at TRM 294.5 to estimate densities of fish eggs and larvae in the water column drifting past the plant and in the intake basin near the skimmer wall. Twenty samples were collected weekly from February 7, 2008 through June 30, 2008 and February 4 through June 25, 2009. Eight reservoir samples (four day and night) were collected at three stations: a full stratum sample on both left and right overbanks and two channel stratified samples (surface to mid-depth and mid-depth to near bottom). Twelve samples (six day and night) were collected in front of the intake basin at the skimmer wall. Samples were collected with a 0.5 m square beam net, 1.8 m long, with 505 micron "nitex" mesh netting. Nets were equipped with a large-vaned General Oceanics flowmeter used to measure sample volume. Intake samples were collected in the inflow of the CCW under the skimmer wall gates by lowering the net to the bottom of the skimmer wall opening and retrieving it for ten minutes to the top of the opening equally sampling all strata. Volume filtered during each minute sample was dependent on and varied with intake demand and velocity. Ichthyoplankton samples during 2008 and 2009 monitoring were collected using the same methods, diel schedule (day and night), and at the same sample locations as those used in 2003 and 2004. Standard procedures for ichthyoplankton sampling are described in TV A (2009), Appendix A. 3 Sample Processing In the laboratory, all fish eggs and larvae were removed from each sample, identified to the lowest practical taxon, and enumerated. Taxonomic decisions were based on TV A's "Preliminary Guide to the Identification of Larval Fishes in the Tennessee River" (Hogue et al, 1976, Wallus et al., 1990; Kay et al., 1994; Simon and Wallus, 2003; Simon and 2006; Wallus and Simon, 2006; and Wallus and Simon, 2008). Standard procedures for processing ichthyoplankton samples are described in TV A (2009), Appendix B. Data Analysis Data were presented and analyzed by type (eggs or larvae), family (taxon), number and relative abundance. Density offish eggs and larvae was presented as numbers per 1,000 m3 of water sampled. Estimated entrainment was derived from the formula: Where Di was the mean density (number/1000 m3) of eggs or larvae in intake samples; Dr was the mean density (number/1000 m3) of eggs or larvae in the reservoir samples; Qi was the plant intake water demand (m3/d); and Qr was the river flow (m3/d) based on 24-hour daily average release from Guntersville Dam. Temporal occurrence, relative abundance, average seasonal densities and peak densities were discussed for each significant (constituting > 1 % of total) taxon. Average seasonal densities were calculated using the formula: 1,000(Total number fish eggs or larvae collected) D= , Total volume of water sampled RESULTS Densities offish eggs and larvae were expressed as number per volume of water sampled. To evaluate volume filtered per sample period in the intake and reservoir, the total volume of water filtered in the twelve intake samples was compared to the total volume :filtered in the eight reservoir samples. In 2008, an average of 473.9 m3 of water was filtered per sample period in the intake and 594.1 m3 in the reservoir. Total water filtered during 2009 intake sampling averaged 451.2 m3 per sample period and 541.6 m3 in the reservoir (Table 1). Table 2 presents scientific and common names of families of fish eggs and larvae collected during 2008 and 2009 and the taxonomic resolution used in identification. Although identification to subfamily, genus, or species was possible for some individuals, results are presented by family for comparative analysis. Table 3 presents percent composition by family collected during 2008 and 2009 and for the two years combined. 4 Fish Eggs Total fish eggs collected during 2008 was 2,043 and 1,377 in reservoir and intake samples, respectively, and in 2009 was 2,537 in reservoir samples and 2,033 in intake samples (Table 4). Sciaenid (:freshwater drum) eggs constituted 86.7% of the total eggs collected during the two years combined (Table 3). The only other fish eggs collected in significant numbers were those of clupeids at 13.3% during 2008 and 2009 combined (Table 3). During 2009, five catostomid eggs were also collected (Table 4). Fish eggs were collected from late April through June both years. During both years, peak density of eggs occurred during the first week of June, with a smaller peak occurring the first week of May (Figure 3). Greater numbers of drum and shad eggs were collected in reservoir samples than in intake samples in 2008; however, in 2009 numbers were similar in both intake and reservoir samples (Table 4). Average seasonal densities were slightly lower in 2008 (138/1,000 m3 in the intake basin and 164/1,000 m3 in the reservoir) than observed in 2009 (204/1,000 m3 and 234/1,000 m3, in the intake and reservoir, respectively) (Table 4). Larval and Juvenile Fish A total of 50, 179 and 26,567 larval fish representing eleven families was collected during 2008 in reservoir and intake samples, respectively. During 2009, 24,207 and 20,237 larvae representing nine families were collected in reservoir and intake samples, respectively. The two families not collected during 2009 were Belonidae (Atlantic needlefish) and Poeciliidae (Mosquitofish). During 2008, clupeids (shad) represented 96.3% oflarvae collected in reservoir samples and 94.1 % in intake samples. In 2009, clupeid larvae were 93.0% and 92.8% of those collected in reservoir and intake samples, respectively. Other families contributing at least 1 % of the total (2008 and 2009 combined) collected were Moronidae (temperate basses) at 2.3% in intake samples and 2.6% in reservoir samples and Centrarchidae (sunfishes) at 1.5% in intake samples and 1.0% in reservoir samples (Table 3). In both years, larvae were first collected the third week of March. Peak densities (reservoir) were observed during the first week of May through the first week of June during 2008 and an early peak the fifth week of April and second peak the fourth week of May during 2009 (Figure 4). In reservoir samples, average seasonal densities of all larvae averaged 4,022/1,000 m3 in 2008 and 2,235/1,000 m3 in 2009. Average seasonal densities in intake samples were 2,670/1,000 m3 and 2,039/1,000 m3 during 2008 and 2009, respectively (Table 4). Clupeid larvae were collected from mid-April through June in both 2008 and 2009. In 2008 densities peaked on June 12 at 16,128/1,000 m3 in intake samples and 12,725/1,000 m3 in reservoir samples. In 2009, peak densities of 8,454/1,000 m3 in intake samples and 9,556/1,000 m3 in reservoir samples occurred during the second and fourth week of May, respectively (Table 4, Figure 6). Temperate basses (Marone) in Wheeler Reservoir include three Marone species: striped bass, yellow bass, and white bass. Marone were collected during late March or early April through early June in both 2008 and 2009. Typically, Marone are among the earlier spawners in Wheeler Reservoir. Densities were greater in April and early May in both 2008 and 2009 with a peak 5 density of 465/1,000 m3 occurring in reservoir samples the first week in April, 2008 and 439/1,000 m3 in intake samples the first week of May, 2009 (Table 4, Figure 7). In 2008, centrarchid larvae (sunfishes, crappie, and black basses) averaged 37 and 36/1,000 m3 in intake and reservoir samples and 32 and 30/1,000 m3 in 2009, respectively. Peak centrarchid densities in 2008 occurred the second week of June in intake (342/1,000 m3) and reservoir (473/1,000 m3) samples. In 2009, peak densities were recorded the fourth week of June in both intake (283/1,000 m3) and reservoir (298/1,000 m3) samples (Table 4, Figure 8). Freshwater drum (sciaep.id) larvae were collected from late April through June with unusually low numbers (16) collected in 2008 in intake and reservoir samples combined. In 2009, 285 larvae were collected in reservoir samples and 124 in intake samples with peak density (128/1,000 m3) occurring in intake samples the fourth week of June (Table 4, Figure 9). In 2008, silversides larvae averaged 55 and 6/1,000 m3 in intake and reservoir samples, respectively. In 2009, silversides averaged 16 and 9/1,000 m3 in intake and reservoir samples, respectively. Silversides were collected from mid-April through June with a peak density of 503/1,000 m3 occurring the first week of June in intake samples in 2008 and 141/1,000 m3 in intake samples in 2009 (Table 4, Figure 10). Both brook and Mississippi silversides occur in Wheeler Reservoir; however, all late post-yolk sac larvae and juveniles collected were Mississippi silversides. Mississippi silversides are not native to the Tennessee River but have invaded from the Mississippi River drainage and are out-competing the native brook silversides. Hydraulic Entrainment Estimates The hydraulic entrainment estimate for all sample periods, 2008 and 2009 combined, averaged 13.0%. In 2008, hydraulic entrainment averaged 15.7% (range 6.1to63.9%) and in 2009 averaged 11.0% (range 2.2 to 26.5% ). Estimated daily CCW intake volumes were consistent during sampling in 2008 and 2009. Likewise, average daily volume transported past BFN was 1.34 x 109 m3 /day in 2008 and 1.96 x 109 m3 /day in 2009 (Table 5). Entrainment Estimates for Eggs and Larvae The entrainment rate for fish eggs was 18% in 2008 and 7% in 2009. The average entrainment for both years averaged 10% for fish eggs. The high entrainment estimate (15,898%) for shad eggs in 2008 was a result of 597 shad eggs collected in intake samples and only one in reservoir samples (Tables 4 and 6). Whenever numbers of eggs or larvae collected in intake samples are higher than those in reservoir samples, entrainment estimates can be artificially elevated. Usually such events are attributed to actual spawning by taxa which are either resident in the intake basin or migrate there to spawn. An estimated 13% offish larvae transported past BFN was entrained in 2008 compared to 7% in 2009 and averaged 9% for both years (Table 6). HISTORICAL COMPARISONS Hydraulic entrainment estimates in 2008 (15.7%) and 2009 (11 %) were higher than that observed in 2003 (6.2%) and similar to that observed in 2004 (12.7%) (TVA 2006) (Table 5). 6 The 2008 and 2009 average entrainment estimate for larvae (9.0%) was similar to the average (10.8%) for 2003 and 2004 (TVA 2006). Domination by clupeid larvae was almost identical during 2003 and 2004 (94.5%) to that observed during 2008 and 2009 (94.6%). Based on historical and 2008 and 2009 data, fluctuations in the annual entrainment estimates, particularly for specific taxa at BFN, are common and often the result of annual variation in spawning success, variable reservoir flow past the plant, and rate of CCW hydraulic entrainment. CONCLUSIONS Both historical data and the 2008 and 2009 monitoring results demonstrate the variability in the occurrence, abundance and temporal distribution of ichthyoplankton in Wheeler Reservoir near BFN. This variability translates into significant fluctuation in the entrainment rates for individual families or species. Factors contributing to these fluctuations include spawning habits and success, life history variables of individual species, and the physical parameters of Wheeler Reservoir in the vicinity ofBFN. The location ofBFN is probably a contributing factor to the fluctuations in the annual entrainment estimates. Reservoirs are characterized by three zones; the inflow having characteristics more riverine, the forebay is a more lacustrine area immediately upstream from a dam, and the transition zone provides a buffer in the middle of the reservoir. As water flows downstream from the inflow, velocity decreases as the cross-sectional area of the reservoir increases. Areas within the transition zone may exhibit high flow, low flow, or even negative flow depending on the rate water is released through the upstream and downstream dams. The area of Wheeler Reservoir near BFN is characterized as a transition zone where the velocity of water flowing past BFN depends on the rate water is released through Guntersville and Wheeler Dams. The rate of water flow past BFN increases and the reservoir surface elevation decreases when the rate of water released through Wheeler Dam exceeds the release through Guntersville Dam. Inversely, the surface elevation increases and rate of flow decreases near BFN when rate of water released through Guntersville Dam exceeds the release in Wheeler Reservoir. CCW demand for BFN remains fairly constant during normal three-unit operation; therefore, hydraulic and fish entrainment estimates will increase as reservoir flow past BFN decreases. Entrainment at BFN is also influenced by the large overbank area located immediately upstream from the intake structure. Historical hydrodynamic studies show 53 to 63 percent of the CCW used by BFN is drawn from this overbank and the quantity of flow along the overbank varies with reservoir stage and flow (TVA, 2001). TV A's valley-wide Vital Signs monitoring program is an additional tool used to evaluate the condition of the fish community near BFN. The RFAI, a component of TV A's Vital Signs monitoring program, is used to evaluate reservoir health by rating the fish community structure and function. A RF AI sampling station was established upstream from BFN at TRM 295.9 in 1992 and a second transition zone station added downstream at TRM 292.5 in 2000. Based on RFAI scoring criteria from reservoirs throughout the Tennessee Valley, scores of 51-60 are classified as excellent, 41-50 as good, 21-40 as fair, and 22-31 as poor. Annual RF AI scores for 7 the fish community near BFN in the last ten years (2000-2010) have averaged a score of 41 ("Good") (TVA, 2011). The 2008 and 2009 entrainment estimates and recent fish community assessments (TVA, 2011) in Wheeler Reservoir near BFN show no significant impacts from current operation of BFN on the fish community near the plant. Both estimated ichthyoplankton entrainment percentages and RF AI fish community scores were comparable to historical levels. Results demonstrate annual variations in the relative abundance and temporal distribution of fish and fluctuations in reservoir flow are common in the vicinity ofBFN. Life cycles of the dominant fish species and fluctuation in reservoir flow past BFN are significant factors influencing variations observed in the annual entrainment estimates. Based on the annual RF AI scores for Wheeler Reservoir, a viable and balanced indigenous fish community is present in Wheeler Reservoir in the vicinity of BFN. 8 LITERATURE CITED Boschung, Herbert T. and Richard L. Mayden. 2004. Fishes of Alabama. Smithsonian Books/ . Washington. 736 pp. Hogue, Jacob J., Jr., R. Wallus, and L. K. Kay. 1976. Preliminary Guide to the Identification of Larval Fishes in the Tennessee River. TV A Tech. Note B19. 67 pp. Kay, L. K., R. Wallus and B. L. Yeager. 1994. Reproductive biology and early life history of fishes in the Ohio River drainage. Volume 2: Catostomidae. Tennessee Valley Authority, Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA; Simon T. P. and R. Wallus. 2004. Reproductive biology and early life history of fishes in the Ohio River drainage. Volume 3. Ictaluridae. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA. __ . 2006. Reproductive biology and early life history of fishes in the Ohio River drainage. Volume 4. Percidae. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA. Tennessee Valley Authority 1977. Report on Larval Fish Entrainment for the Years 1975-1976. Bellefonte Nuclear Plant Units land 2. Division of Water Management, Knoxville, Tennessee 105 pp. __ . 1985. Preoperational Assessment of Water Quality and Biological Resources of Guntersville Reservoir in the Vicinity of Bellefonte Nuclear Plant, 1974 through 1984. Office of Natural Resources and Economic Development, Division of Air and Water Resources. 489 pp. __ . 2001. Draft supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) for operating license renewal of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant in Athens, Alabama. Tennessee Valley Authority, Chattanooga, TN. December 2001. __ . 2006. Biological Assessment: Effects of Condenser Cooling Water Withdrawal on the Fish Community Near the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Intake. Aquatic Monitoring and Management. Knoxville, TN. June 2006. __ . 2011. Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River Near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2010. Tennessee Valley Authority. Knoxville, TN. Wallus, R., T. P. Simon, and B. L. Yeager. 1990. Reproductive biology and early life history of fishes in the Ohio River drainage. Volume 1: Acipenseridae through Esocidae. Tennessee Valley Authority, Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA. Wallus, R. and T. P. Simon. 2006. Reproductive biology and early life history of fishes in the Ohio River drainage. Volume 5: Percopsidae through Cottidae, Morone, and Sciaenidae. Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, Florida, USA. __ . 2008. Reproductive biology and early life history of fishes in the Ohio River drainage. Volume 6: Elassomatidae and Centrarchidae. Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, Florida, USA. 9 LITERATURE REVIEWED Baxter, D.S. and J.P. Buchanan. 1998a. Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Thermal Variance Monitoring Program-Final Report. Tennessee Valley Authority, Water Management, Environmental Compliance Norris Tennessee. 54pp. Wallus, R., T. P. Simon, and B. L. Yeager. 1990. Reproductive biology and early life history of fishes in the Ohio River drainage. Volume 1: Acipenseridae through Esocidae. Tennessee Valley Authority, Chattanooga, TN. Baxter, D.S., K. D. Gardner, and D.R. Lowery. 2009. Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River Near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge 2008. Tennessee Valley Authority, Resource Stewardship, Norris, Tennessee. 35pp. Baxter, D. S. and D.R. Lowery. 2006. Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River Near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge 2005. Tennessee Valley Authority, Aquatic Monitoring and Management, Knoxville, Tennessee. 27pp. Buchanan, J.P. and W. C. Barr. 1980. Fish Entrainment and Impingement at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Wheeler Reservoir, Alabama, for years 1978 and 1979. Supplement to: Effects of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Cooling Water Intake on the Fish populations of Wheeler Reservoir. Volume 4 of Biological Effects of Intake, Browns Ferry Nuclear plant, January 1978. Division of Water Resources, Water Quality and Ecology, Branch, Norris, TN. Etnier, David A. and Wayne E. Starnes. 1993. The Fishes of Tennessee. The University of Tennessee Press/Knoxville. 681 pp. Dycus, D. L. and D. L. Meinert. 1993. Reservoir monitoring, monitoring and evaluation of aquatic resource health and use suitability in Tennessee Valley Authority reservoirs. Tennessee Valley Authority, Water Resources, Chattanooga, Tennessee, TV A/WM-93/15. Hickman, G.D. and T. A. McDonough. 1996. Assessing the Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index -A Potential Measure of Reservoir Quality. Publication in Proceeding of Third National Reservoir Symposium, June 1995, American Fisheries Association. D. DeVries, Editor Kay, L. K. 1995. Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Thermal Variance Monitoring Assessment of Fish Standing Stock in Wheeler Reservoir from 1993 and 1994 Cove Rotenone Data. Tennessee Valley Authority, Water Management, Environmental Compliance, Norris Tennessee. 34pp. Tennessee Valley Authority. 1974. Water quality and biological conditions in Wheeler Reservoir during operation of Browns Ferry (Unit 1and2), February 18, 1974 -June 30, 1974. Division of Environmental Planning, Water Quality Branch, Chattanooga, TN. 86pp. 10 . 1975a. Water quality and biological conditions in Wheeler Reservoir during operation of Browns Ferry (Unit 1and2), July 1, 1974-December 31, 1974. Division of Environmental Planning, Water Quality Branch, Chattanooga, TN. 59pp. __ . 1975b. Water quality and biological conditions in Wheeler Reservoir during operation of Browns Ferry (Unit 1and2), January 1, 1975 -June 30, 1975. Division of Environmental Planning, Water Quality Branch, Chattanooga, TN. 74pp. __ . 1976. Water quality and biological conditions in Wheeler Reservoir during operation of Browns Ferry (Unit 1 and 2), July 1, 1975 -December 31, 1975. Division of Environmental Planning, Water Quality Branch, Chattanooga, TN. 71pp. __ . 1977. Water quality and biological conditions in Wheeler Reservoir during operation of Browns Ferry (Unit 1 and 2), January 1, 1976 -December 31, 1976. Division of Environmental Planning, Environmental Assessment and Compliance Staff, Chattanooga, TN. 132pp. __ . 1978a. Biological effects of the intake, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Volume 1: Summary of the evaluation of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Intake Structure. Division of Environmental Planning, Environmental Assessment and Compliance Staff, Chattanooga, TN. 29pp. __ . 1978b. Water quality and biological conditions in Wheeler Reservoir during operation of Browns Ferry (Unit 1and2), January 1, 1977 -December 31, 1977. Division of Environmental Planning, Environmental Assessment and Compliance Staff, Chattanooga, TN. 141pp. __ . 1979. Water quality and biological conditions in Wheeler Reservoir during operation of Browns Ferry (Unit 1and2), January 1, 1978 -December 31, 1978. Division of Water Resources, Water Quality and Ecology, Branch. Muscle Shoals, AL. 133pp. __ . 1980a. Evaluation of predicted and observed effects for a 90 ° F mixed temperature limit, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. Tennessee Valley Authority, Chattanooga, TN. March 1980. 173pp. __ . 1980b. Water quality and biological conditions in Wheeler Reservoir during operation of Browns Ferry (Unit 1 and 2), January 1, 1979 -December 31, 1979. Division of Water Resources, Western Area Office, Muscle Shoals, AL. 133pp. __ . 1983. Field operations biological resources procedures manual. Division of Natural Resource Operations. __ . 2000. Aquatic ecological health determinations for TVA Reservoirs-1999. An informal summary of 1999 vital signs monitoring results and ecological health determination methods. 11 __ . 1998b. Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Thermal Variance Monitoring Program Including Statistical Analysis-Final Report. Tennessee Valley Authority, Water Management, Environmental Compliance, Norris Tennessee. 53pp. 12 Table 1. Total Volume of Water Filtered by Sample Period at BFN during 2008 and 2009 to Estimate Entrainment of Fish Eggs and Larvae. 2008 2009 Intake Reservofr Total Intake Reservoir* Total Week .m 3 m3. m3. m 3 . m3 m 3* 1 867.7 573.3 1,441.0 222.3 317.3 539.6 2

• 596.3 596.3 484.6 362.5 847.1 3 446.8 580.l 1,026.9 489.1 299.l 788.3 4 450.4
• 450.4 461.6 602.4 1,064.0 5 489.0 598.0 1,087.0 545.5 609.5 1,154.9 6 453.9 625.6 1,079.5 489.4 583.1 1,072.5 7 453.0 302.7 755.8 484.2 604.6 1,088.8 8 459.5 592.7 1,052.2 493.2
• 493.2 9 459.7 604.l 1,063.8 399.4 631.1 1,030.4 10 462.3 595.6 1,057.9 459.9 535.0 994.9 11 461.0 612.8 1,073.8 448.l 622.4 1,070.6 12 446.6 609.0 1,055.7 445.1 628.0 1,073.1 13 451.2 608.5 1,059.6 431.3 590.2 1,021.5 14 444.4 621.1 1,065.5 436.9 402.5 839.5 15 429.l 611.3 1,040.4 450.9
• 450.9 16 442.9 672.l 1,115.0 449.3 604.l 1,053.4 17 444.3 630.0 1,074.2 440.2 604.7 1,044.9 18 469.6 605.4 1,074.9 467.4 603.0 1,070.3 19 452.9 610.5 1,063.4 462.4 625.7 1,088.1 20 477.9 601.3 1,079.2 449.3 664.7 1,114.0 21 444.4 605.6 1,050.0 459.9 623.6 1,083.5 22 445.2 621.1 1,066.3 456.4 318.9 775.3 TOTAL 9,951.8 12,477.0 22,428.8 9,926.2 10,832.4 20,758.7 AVERAGE 473.9 594.1 1,019.5 451.2 541.6 943.6 *-no sample 13 Table 2. List of Fish Eggs and Larvae by Family Collected at BFN in 2008 and 2009 Entrainment Samples and Lowest Level of Taxonomic Resolution for each Family. Scientific Common Lowest t*evel of Taxonomic Name Name Identification Eggs Catostomidae Suckers Family -Catostomid eggs Clupeidae Shad Family -all Clupeid eggs Sciaenidae Drums Species -Freshwater Drum e!r!!S Larvae Atherinopsidae Silversides Family -silverside Species -Mississippi silverside Belonidae Atlantic Needlefish Species -Atlantic needlefish Catostomidae Suckers Subfamily -ictiobines (buffalo and carpsuckers) Genus -larger individual to buffalo or spotted sucker Centrarchidae Sunfishes Genus -crappie, lepomids (sunfishes), and black bass (not smallmouth bass) Species -larger individuals to bluegill Clupeidae Shad Family -all larvae <20 mm TL Species -larger individuals to gizzard and threadfin shad Cyprinidae Minnows and Carps Family -most minnows, shiners, and chubs Genus or Species -Pimephales spp., bullhead minnow Ictaluridae Catfishes Family -catfish Species -blue catfish Moronidae Temperate Basses Genus -Marone spp. or Marone type, but not saxatilis Species-white and yellow bass Percidae Darters Genus -P.caprodes type, notP. caprodes type Species -logperch Poeciliidae Live bearers Species -western mosquitofish Sciaenidae Drums Species -freshwater drum 14 Table 3. Percent Composition of Fish Eggs and Larvae by Family Collected in Entrainment Samples at BFN during 2008 and 2009. Intake Samples Reservoir Samples Combined* . Combined* All 2008 2009 2008-2009 2008 2009 2008-2009 Samples % % % *O/o % % O/o Eggs Catostomidae 0.0 T T 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 Clupeidae 43.4 10.0 23.5 T 10.2 5.7 13.3 Sciaenidae 56.6 90.0 76.5 99.9 89.6 94.2 86.7 Larvae Atherinopsidae 2.1 0.8 1.5 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.7 Belonidae T 0.0 T T 0.0 T T Catostomidae 0.2 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.7 0.4 0.4 Centrarchidae 1.4 1.6 1.5 . 0.9 1.3 1.0 1.2 Clupeidae 94.1 92.8 93.5 96.3 93.0 95.2 94.6 Cyprinidae T 0.1 0.1 T 0.1 T 0.1 Ictaluridae T 0.1 T T T T T Moronidae 1.9 2.9 2.3 2.3 3.2 2.6 2.5 Percidae 0.2 0.3 0.2 T 0.1 0.1 0.1 Poeciliidae T 0.0 T 0.0 0.0 0.0 T Sciaenidae T 0.6 0.3 T 1.2 0.4 0.4 T -Taxon was collected in samples but composition was less than 0.1 %. 15 Table 4. Number, Average Seasonal and Peak Density, and Percent Composition by Family of Fish Eggs and Larvae Collected at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant during 2008 and 2009. ,. '* .. .. .. *. 2'008 . . .. \. .. " ,. *-\ " .::; ; .. Average. Seasonal \ :.NUMB.ER " -:DENSITY
• Peak D'$NSTTY . ; -... " ,; '_., No./1000in3 . N * .. .. ' * -in taiuf I ' ' ' . . ' * .. _< .I . " J
• Reser.vQlr . Family.) .. *' Eggs ... Clupeidae 597 1 60 0.1 1,177 2 ; Sciaenidae 780 2,042 78 164 " 1,252 651 TOTAL 1,377 2,043 ' 138 164 Larvae .. Atherinopsidae 551 76 55 6 .* 503 34 .. " Belonidae 2 1 0.2 0.1 2 2 Catostomidae 59 140 6 11 104 235 Centrarchidae 372 453 37 36 342 473 Clupeidae 24,989 48,312 ; 2,511 3,872 16,128 12,725 Cyprinidae 9 11 1 1 6 5 Ictaluridae 9 9 ' 1 1 11 6 Moronidae 515 1,154 52 92 . ' 291 465 Percidae 49 14 5 1 '. 45 8 Poeciliidae 5 0 1 0 ,, ... 11 0 Sciaenidae 7 9 1 1 7 8 . " TOTAL 26,567 50,179 .. 2,670 4,022 16 Table 4. (continued) , . .. 2009' Average Seasonal NUMBER .. DENSITY Peak DENSITY No./1,000m3 No./1,00Qm3 Fa milt , l"°take "I * * *. I,itake I -8.eservoir Intake I 1,lese;rvoir ' Eggs Catostomidae 1 4 T 1 2 10 Clupeidae 203 259 20 24 457 457 Sciaenidae 1,829 2,274 184 210 1,767 1,068 TOTAL 2,033 2,537 204 234 Larvae Atherinopsidae 154 101 16 9 141 66 Belonidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 Catostomidae 165 158 17 15 250 132 Centrarchidae 322 325 32 30 283 298 Clupeidae 18,787 22,507 1,893 2,078 8,454 9,556 Cyprinidae 30 16 3 1 33 10 Ictaluridae 11 7 1 1 11 6 .. Moronidae 579 778 58 72 439 295 Percidae 65 30 7 3 45 13 Poeciliidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sciaenidae 124 285 12 26 128 107 ' TOTAL 20,237 24,207 2,039 2,235 T-Taxon was collected in samples but density averaged less than 1 individual per 1,000m3 17 Table 5. Estimated Daily Hydraulic Entrainment at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant by Sample Period during 2008 and 2009. 2008 2009 . 2008-2009 Intake Reservoir Intake Reservoir Intake Reservoir "(m3/day) '. (m3/day) (m3/day)* Entrained (m3/day) Entrained (m3/day) (m3/day) Entrained Week Q; Qr. .% Q; Qr . % ..Q1 Qr % 1 1.06E+07 l.10E+08 9.6 l.15E+07 8.74E+07 13.1 1.09E+07 1.02E+08 10.6 2 1.11E+07 l.10E+08 10.1 l.15E+07 6.27E+07 18.3 1.13E+07 8.63E+07 13.1 3 l.06E+07 9.46E+07 11.2 1.06E+07 5.74E+07 18.5 '. 1.06E+07 7.23E+07 14.6 4 1.07E+07 8.93E+07 12.0 9.78E+06 7.75E+07 12.6 1.03E+07 8.46E+07 12.2 5 l.14E+07 8.19E+07 13.9 1.05E+07 8.70E+07 12.0 1.10E+07 8.39E+07 13.1 6 l.03E+07 1.14E+08 9.0 .. 1.05E+07 6.27E+07 16.7 1.04E+07 8.84E+07 11.7 7 8.94E+06 1.19E+08 7.5 1.05E+07 9.19E+07 11.4 9.70E+06 1.06E+08 9.2 8 6.22E+06 1.03E+08 6.1 l.05E+07 9.91E+07 10.6 8.36E+06 1.01E+08 8.3 9 7.64E+06 4.10E+07 18.6 1.05E+07 7.82E+07 13.4 9.05E+06 5.96E+07 15.2 10 7.64E+06 7.16E+07 10.7 9.99E+06 6.90E+07 14.5 8.81E+06 7.03E+07 12.5 .. 11 7.64E+06 3.77E+07 20.2 9.63E+06 6.74E+07 14.3 8.96E+06 5.75E+07 15.6 12 7.64E+06 3.53E+07 21.6 9.88E+06 6.64E+07 14.9 8.76E+06 5.08E+07 17.2 13 7.64E+06 3.02E+07 25.3 7.54E+06 3.05E+07 24.7 7.59E+06 3.03E+07 25.0 14 7.64E+06 3.49E+07 21.9 . 6.71E+06 3.02E+08 2.2 7.17E+06 l.69E+08 4.3 15 7.64E+06 3.55E+07 21.5 6.85E+06 l.11E+08 6.2 7.25E+06 7.34E+07 9.9 16 7.61E+06 2.46E+07 30.9 6.86E+06 1.48E+08 4.6 7.31E+06 7.38E+07 9.9 17 1.15E+07 1.79E+07 63.9 8.27E+06 8.52E+07 9.7 9.86E+06 5.16E+07 19.l 18 l.15E+07 4.46E+07 25.7 1.03E+07 9.28E+07 11.1 1.10E+07 6.39E+07 17.2 19 1.15E+07 3.38E+07 33.9 1.05E+07 7.97E+07 13.1 1.10E+07 5.67E+07 19.3 20 1.15E+07 3.69E+07 31.0 1.05E+07 7.63E+07 13.7 1.10E+07 5.66E+07 19.4 21 1.15E+07 3.31E+07 34.6 l.13E+07 8.51E+07 13.3 1.14E+07 5.91E+07 19.3 22 1.15E+07 3.98E+07 28.8 l.13E+07 4.27E+07 26.5 1.14E+07 4.12E+07 27.6 Totals 2.10E+08 1.34E+09 15.7 2.15E+08 1.96E+09 11.0 2.13E+08 1.64E+09 13.0 18 Table 6. Entrainment Estimates for Fish Eggs and Larvae Collected at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant during 2008 and 2009. 2008 2009 2008-2009 Intake Reservoir Intake Reservoir Intake Reservoir Number Total Number Total Number Total Entrained Number Entrainment Entrained Number Entrainment Entrained Number Entrainment per day per day Estimate per day per day Estimate per day per day Estimate Tax a QixDi Qrx Dr O/o QixDi Qrx Dr O/o QixDi Qrx Dr O/o Eggs Catostomidae * *
• 1.2E+06 5.3E+07 2 2.5E+06 7.7E+07 3 Clupeidae 7.73E+08 4.86E+06 15,898 2.4E+08 3.4E+09 7 2.0E+09 5.0E+09 39 Sciaenidae l.01E+09 9.92E+09 10 2.1E+09 3.0E+ 10 7 6.4E+09 7.5E+ 10 9 Totals: 1.8E+09 9.9E+09 18 2.4E+09 3.4E+10 7 8.4E+09 8.lE+lO 10 Larvae Atherinopsidae 4.9E+08 2.7E+08 179 l .2E+08 9.2E+08 13 3.9E+07 7.5E+07 53 Belonidae 1.8E+06 3.6E+06 49 *
• 0 l.1E+05 3.9E+05 0 Catostomidae 5.2E+07 5.0E+08 10 l.3E+08 1.4E+09 9 l.2E+07 l.2E+08 10 Centrarchidae 3.3E+08 l.6E+09 20 2.5E+08 3.0E+09 9 3.9E+07 3.2E+08 12 Clupeidae 2.2E+ 10 l.7E+ 11 13 I.SE+ 10 2.0E+l 1 7 2.4E+09 2.9E+ 10 8 Cyprinidae 7.9E+06 3.9E+07 20 2.4E+07 1.5E+08 16 2.2E+06 1.1E+07 19 Ictaluridae 7.9E+06 3.2E+07 25 8.7E+06 6.4E+07 14 l .1E+06 6.6E+06 17 Moronidae 4.5E+08 4.1E+09 11 4.6E+08 7.1E+09 6 6.1E+07 7.9E+08 8 Percidae 4.3E+07 5.0E+07 86 5.1E+07 2.7E+08 19 6.4E+06 1.9E+07 34 Poeciliidae 4.4E+06
• 0 *
• 0 2.8E+05
• 0 Sciaenidae 6.2E+06 3.2E+07 19 9.8E+07 2.6E+09 4 7.3E+06 l.3E+08 6 Totals: 2.3E+10 1.8E+ll 13 1.6E+10 2.2E+ll 7 2.6E+09 3.0E+lO 9 *-Not collected. 19 Figure 1. Location of Condenser Cooling Water (CCW) Intake, Skimmer Wall, and Discharge at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (TRM 294). 20 180,000 160,000 140,000 120,000 z LL. al -:;; 100,000 111 c. iii -80,000 == 0 u::: 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 12/1 1/1 2/1 3/1 4/1 5/1 6/1 Date n 7/1 2008 (Avg: 21, 760 cfs) 2009 (Avg: 46,529 cfs) -Historical Daily Average 1976-2009 (Avg: 40,093 cfs) 8/1 9/1 10/1 11/1 Figure 2. Actual daily releases during 2008 and 2009 and historical (1976-2009) daily average releases from Guntersville Dam (TRM 349). 21

-+-Total Eggs-2008 1200 Total Eggs-2009 1000 -m E 0 0 0 800 ........ .... QJ ..c E ::I c: > 600 ... *u; c: QJ 0 400 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 Week Week Week Week Week Feb Mar Apr May June Figure 3. Weekly Densities of Fish Eggs Collected in Reservoir and Intake Samples Combined at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (TRM 294) During 2008 and 2009. 22 8000 Larvae-Reservoir 2008 7000 Total Larvae-Reservoir 2009 5000 0 0 ......... ..... Qj e 4000 ::s ..:. > .... *;;; 1ij 3000 c 2000 1000 0 Week Feb 2 Week Week Week Week Mar Apr May June Figure 4. Weekly Densities of Fish Larvae Collected in Reservoir Samples at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (TRM 294) During 2008 and 2009. 23 9000 -+-Total Larvae-Intake 2008 8000 Total Larvae-Intake 2009 7000 6000 "' E 0 0 0 5000 ........ ... Qj ..c E :::s c: 4000 > ..... 'iii c: Qj c 3000 2000 1000 0 Week Week Week Week Week Feb Mar Apr May June Figure 5. Weekly Densities of Fish Larvae Collected in Intake Samples at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (TRM 294) During 2008 and 2009. 24 18000 16000 Reservoir 2008 14000 Clupeidae Reservoir 2009 Clupeidae Intake 2008 12000 '""*-Clupeidae Intake 2009 "' E 0 0 0 .-1 10000 ........ .... QJ .c E ::J c: 8000 > .... *v; c: QJ 0 6000 4000 2000 0 Week Week Week Week Week Feb Mar Apr May June Figure 6. Weekly Densities of Clupeidae Larvae Collected in Reservoir and Intake Samples at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (TRM 294) During 2008 and 2009. 25 500 450 -+-Moronidae Reservoir 2008 Moronidae Reservoir 2009 400 Moronidae Intake 2008 Intake 2009 350 "' E 0 300 0 0 ........ ... QI ..c 250 E ::J ..s > .... 200 *v; c QI c 150 100 50 0 1 2 3 4 5 Week Week Week Week Week Feb Mar Apr May June Figure 7. Weekly Densities of Moronidae Larvae Collected in Reservoir and Intake Samples at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (TRM 294) During 2008 and 2009. 26 500 450 -+-Centrarchidae Reservoir 2008 400 Centrarchidae Reservoir 2009 Centrarchidae Intake 2008 350 Intake 2009 "' E 0 300 0 0 .-i ........ .... (1J ..0 250 E :I c: > .... 200 *;;; c: (1J 0 150 100 50 0 Week Week Week Week Week Feb Mar Apr May June Figure 8. Weekly Densities of Centrarchidae Larvae Collected in Reservoir and Intake Samples at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (TRM 294) During 2008 and 2009. 27 140 -.-sciaenidae Reservoir 2008 120 Sciaenidae Reservoir 2009 Intake 2008 100 Intake 2009 "' E 0 0 0 80 .-i ........ ... QI ..c E :l c: > 60 .... *;;; c: QI 0 40 Week Week Week Week Week Feb Mar Apr May June Figure 9. Weekly Densities of Sciaenidae Larvae Collected in Reservoir and Intake Samples at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (TRM 294) During 2008 and 2009. 28 600 Reservoir 2008 500 Atherinopsidae Reservoir 2009 Atherinopsidae Intake 2008 400 I "' Intake 2009 E 0 0 0 ..... ......... .... cu ..c 300 E ::I c: > .... 'iii c: cu c 200 100 0 Week Week Week Week Week Feb Mar Apr May June Figure 10. Weekly Densities of Atherinopsidae Larvae Collected in Reservoir and Intake Samples at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (TRM 294) During 2008 and 2009. 29 ATTACHMENT10 Reference TVA. 2013. Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River Near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2013. Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River Near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge Autumn 2013 May 2014 Tennessee Valley Authority River and Reservoir Compliance Monitoring Program Knoxville, Tennessee Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................. i List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ iii List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. v Acronyms and Abbreviations ....................................................................................................... vii Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 2 Plant Description ......................................................................................................................... 3 Methods ........................................................................................................................................... 3 Fish and Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sample Locations Upstream and Downstream of BFN .... 3 Aquatic Habitat in the Vicinity of BFN ...................................................................................... 4 Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Assessment ................................................................................... 4 River Bottom Habitat .............................................................................................................. 5 Fish Community Sampling Methods and Data Analysis for Sites Upstream and Downstream of BFN ............................................................................................................................................. 6 Statistical Analyses ................................................................................................................ 12 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Sampling Methods and Data Analysis for Sites Upstream and Downstream of BFN .......................................................... : ............................... 14 Visual Encounter Survey (Wildlife Observations) .................................................................... 16 Wheeler Reservoir Flow and BFN Temperature ....................................................................... 17 Thermal Plume Characterization ............................................................................................... 18 Water Quality Parameters at Fish Sampling Sites during RF AI Samples ................................. 19 Results and Discussion ................................................................................................................. 19 Aquatic Habitat in the Vicinity of BF .................................................................................... 19 Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Assessment ................................................................................. 19 River Bottom Habitat ............................................................................................................ 20 Fish Community ........................................................................................................................ 20 Statistical Analyses .................................................................................................................... 26 Fish Community Summary ........................................................................................................ 26 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community .................................................................................... 28 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Summary .................................................................... 30 Visual Encounter Survey (Wi Id life Observations) .................................................................... 32 Wheeler Reservoir Flow and BFN Water Temperature ............................................................ 32 Thermal Plume Characterization ................... , ........................................................................... 33 Water Quality Parameters at Fish Sampling Sites during RFAI Samples ................................. 33 Literature Cited ............................................................................................................................. 35 Figures ........................................................................................................................................... 37 Tables ............................................................................................................................................ 55 11 List of Figures Figure 1. Location of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant on Wheeler Reservoir ................................. 38 Figure 2. Location of Condenser Cooling Water (CCW) intake and discharge at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. ...................................................................................................................... 39 Figure 3. Locations of biomonitoring sites upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. ............... 40 Figure 4. Locations ofbiomonitoring sites downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. .......... 41 Figure 5. Locations of transects used to characterize shoreline and river bottom habitat upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. ............................................................... 42 Figure 6. Locations of water temperature monitoring sites used to compare water temperatures upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) intake and downstream ofBFN discharge . ............................................................................................................................................. 43 Figure 7. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted. Of the eight transects established upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, transects 1 and 2 are the closest to the plant. .................................................. : ............................................ 44 Figure 8. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is

• denoted ............................................................ : ................................................................. 45 Figure 9. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted ................................................................................................................................ 46 Figure 10. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted . ............................................................................................................................................. 47 Figure 11. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted. Transects 1 and 2 are the farthest downstream of the eight transects established downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. ...................................................................... 48 Figure 12. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted ................................................................................................................................ 49 Figure 13. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted ........................................................... .................................................................... 50 Figure 14. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across theTennessee River downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted .............................. ,,, ............................................................................................... 51 Figure 15. Comparison of observed values for the Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index metric "Number of Indigenous Species", over 13 years of autumn sampling at the sites upstream iii (TRM 295.9) and downstream (TRM 292.5) of Brown's Ferry Nuclear Plant. .................. 52 Figure 16. Daily mean flows from Guntersville Dam, October 2012 through November 2013, and historic daily flows for the same fiscal year period, averaged over the years 1976-2012 . ........................................................................................................................ * ..................... 53 Figure 17. Daily water temperatures averaged over depth (3, 5, and 7 feet) upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant (BFN) intake and downstream of BFN discharge -October 2012 through November 2013 ............................................................................................. 54 IV List of Tables Table 1. Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Index (SARI) metrics and scoring criteria .......................... 56 Table 2. Expected trophic guild proportions* and expected numbers of species* in lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoir transition zones, compared to values observed during 2013 monitoring at BFN ..................................................................................................... 57 Table 3. RFAI scoring criteria (2002) for inflow, transition, and forebay sections oflower mainstem reservoirs* in the Tennessee River system .......................................................... 58 Table 4. Scoring criteria for laboratory-processed benthic macroinvertebrate community samples from inflow, transition, and forebay zones of mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs ............................................................................................................................. 59 Table 5. SARI scores for shoreline habitat assessments conducted within the RFAI sample reach upstream ofBFN, autumn 2009 .......................................................................................... 60 Table 6. SARI scores for shoreline habitat assessments conducted within the RF AI sample reach downstream ofBFN, autumn 2009 ..................................................................................... 61 Table 7. Substrate percentages and average water depth (ft) per transect upstream and downstream ofBFN, autumn 2009 ..................................................................................... 62 Table 8. Individual metric scores and the overall RFAI scores upstream (TRM 295.9) and downstream (TRM 292.5) of Browns Ferry Nuclear plant, autumn 2013 .......................... 63 Table 9. Species collected, ecological and recreational designation and corresponding electrofishing (EF) and gill net (GN) catch per unit effort upstream (TRM 295.9) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant discharge-Autumn 2013 ..................................................... 67 Table 10. Species collected, ecological and recreational designation and corresponding electrofishing (EF) and gill net (GN) catch per unit effort downstream (TRM 292.5) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant discharge -Autumn 2013 ..................................................... 69 Table 11. Spatial statistical comparisons of numbers of species, mean electrofishing catch per unit effort values (number/run), tolerance designations, trophic levels, and non-indigenous individuals, including species richness and Simpson and Shannon diversity values, for samples collected near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, autumn 2013 .................................... 71 Table 12. Summary of autumn RF AI scores from sites located directly upstream and downstream ofBFN and scores from sampling conducted during 1993-2013* as part of the Vital Signs monitoring program in Wheeler Reservoir ...................................................... 72 Table 13. Comparison of RBI metric ratings and total scores for laboratory-processed samples collected upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Wheeler Reservoir, autumn 2013 ........................................................................................................................ 73 Table 14. Metric scores and overall RBI scores determined from field processing criteria, for sites upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Wheeler Reservoir, autumn 2000-2010 ............................................................................................................... 74 Table 15. Metric scores and overall RBI scores determined from lab processing criteria, for sites upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Wheeler Reservoir, 2001-2006. v
  • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 76 Table 16a. Mean density per square meter ofbenthic taxa collected upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, autumn 2013. All taxa listed contributed to individual RBI metrics and total scores ....................................................................................................... 77 Table 16b. Mean density per square meter ofbenthic taxa collected but not included in individual RBI metrics or total scores for sites upstream and downstream of BFN, autumn 2013 ..................................................................................................................................... 80 Table 17. RBI scores from sites directly upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant and from sites sampled as part of the Vital Signs monitoring program on Wheeler Reservoir. LTA-Long term average ................................................................................... 81 *=sites with field-processed scores all years. All other sites, 1994-2010 are field-processed scores and 2011 forward are lab-processed scores .............................................................. 81 Table 18. Wildlife observed along 2100 m transects parallel to the Tennessee River shoreline, upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, October 2013 ......................... 82 Table 19. Water temperature (°F) depth profiles collected to determine the extent of the thermal plume from BFN during 2013 .. .' .......................................................................................... 83 Table 20. Water quality parameters collected along vertical depth profiles at three transects within the RFAI sample areas upstream and downstream ofBFN during 2013 ................. 84 Vl ATL BIP BFN ccw CWA LDB NP DES QA RBI RDB RFAI RIS SAHI TRM TVA vs Acronyms and Abbreviations Alternate Thermal Limit Balanced Indigenous Community Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant Condenser Cooling Water Clean Water Act Left Descending Bank National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Quality Assurance Reservoir Benthic Macroinvertebrate Index Right Descending Bank Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index Representative Important Species Shoreline Assessment Habitat Index Tennessee River Mile Tennessee Valley Authority Vital Signs vii Executive Summary In 2013, samples of the ecological community upstream and downstream of Brown's Ferry Nuclear Plant were collected, analyzed, and compared to historical data to determine the effects, if any, of the thermal effluent from the plant, in compliance with §316(a) of the Clean Water Act. Shoreline aquatic habitat assessed along both banks was rated "Fair". Assessment of river bottom habitat indicated that three dominant substrates observed at both sites were silt, mollusk shell, and sand. The fish communities upstream and downstream ofBFN, analyzed using RFAI methodology, both showed fair diversity of species and moderate percentages of pollution tolerant individuals. The downstream community supported lower diversity of top carnivore species, but otherwise, was generally similar to that upstream and was not adversely affected by thermal effluent from BFN. Benthic communities for both downstream sites, at TRM 293.2 within the thermal plume from BFN discharge, and at TRM 290.4 downstream of the thermal plume, were considered similar to the upstream benthic community. All three sites received RBI ratings of "Excellent". A visual wildlife survey was conducted to assess bird, reptile, and mammal populations around BFN. Turtles and a variety of birds were encountered at both locations. Water quality analysis indicated that daily mean flow past BFN was noticeably higher in 2013 than historic values, but that daily mean temperatures were similar upstream and downstream of the plant. Depth profiles of water temperature, conductivity, dissolved oxygen concentration, and acidity (pH) indicated that values of all these parameters were within acceptable levels both upstream and downstream ofBFN. 1 Introduction Section 316(a) of the Clean Water Act (CW A) authorizes alternate thermal limits (ATL) for the control of the thermal component of a point source discharge so long as the limits will assure the protection of Balanced Indigenous Populations (BIP) of aquatic life. The term "balanced indigenous population," as defined by Environmental Protection Agency regulations, describes a biotic community that is typically characterized by: (1) diversity appropriate to the ecoregion; (2) the capacity to sustain itself through cyclic seasonal changes; (3) the presence of necessary food chain species; and ( 4) the lack of domination by pollution-tolerant species. Prior to 2000, the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) was operating under an A TL that had been continued with each permit renewal based on studies conducted in the mid-1970s. In 1999, EPA Region IV began requesting additional data in conjunction with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit renewal applications to verify that BIP was being maintained at TV A's thermal plants with A TLs. TV A proposed that its existing Vital Signs (VS) monitoring program, supplemented with additional fish and benthic macro invertebrate community monitoring upstream and downstream of thermal plants with A TLs, was appropriate for that purpose. The VS monitoring program began in 1990 in the Tennessee River System. This program was implemented to evaluate ecological health conditions in major reservoirs as part of TV A's stewardship role. One of the 5 indicators used in the VS program to evaluate reservoir health is the Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index (RF AI) methodology which incorporates fish species richness and composition, trophic composition, and fish abundance and health. RF AI has been thoroughly tested on TV A and other reservoirs and published in peer-reviewed literature (Jennings, et al., 1995; Hickman and McDonough, 1996; McDonough and Hickman, 1999). Fish communities are used to evaluate ecological conditions because of their importance in the aquatic food web and because fish life cycles are long enough to integrate conditions over time. Benthic macroinvertebrate populations are assessed using the Reservoir Benthic Index (RBI) methodology. Because benthic macroinvertebrates are relatively 2

........ immobile, negative impacts to aquatic ecosystems can be detected earlier in benthic macroinvertebrate communities than in fish communities. These data are used to supplement RF AI results to provide a more thorough examination of differences in aquatic communities upstream and downstream of thermal discharges. During 2000-2010, TVA initiated a study to evaluate fish and benthic macroinvertebrate communities in areas immediately upstream and downstream of BFN using RF AI and RBI multi-metric evaluation techniques. The study was continued in 2011 and broadened to include additional data for analyses requested by the EPA. Reported here are the results of biological monitoring and water quality data collected upstream and downstream ofBFN during 2013, with appropriate comparisons to data collected at these sites during previous autumn samples. Plant Description BFN is a three-unit nuclear-fueled facility with a total generating capacity of 3,300 megawatts. Unit One, which remained idle for several years, returned to service June 2007. BFN is located on Wheeler Reservoir, approximately 18 miles upstream of Wheeler Dam at Tennessee River Mile (TRM) 294 in Limestone County, Alabama (Figure 1). Current operation utilizes a through condenser cooling water (CCW) system, withdrawing water from the Tennessee River through an intake structure at TRM 294.3 and discharging the water through a multi-port diffuser located downstream from the plant at TRM 293.6 (Figure 2). Maximum flow rate of the CCW is approximately 3,468 million gallons per day. Methods Fish and Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sample Locations Upstream and Downstream ofBFN Thermal discharge from BFN enters the Tennessee River at TRM 293.6 in Wheeler Reservoir (Figure 2). Two reaches were selected to sample the fish community: one centered at TRM 295.9, upstream of the plant's intake (Figure 3), and one centered at TRM 292.5, downstream of the cooling water discharge (Figure 4). 3 From 2000 to 2010, to assess the benthic macroinvertebrate community in the vicinity ofBFN data was collected along transects established across the full width of Wheeler reservoir at two sites in the transition zone, one at TRM 295.9, upstream of the intake, and one at TRM 291.7, downstream of the BFN discharge. Prior to this time, a sampling site in the forebay zone of Wheeler Reservoir (TRM 277) was used as the downstream comparison site. Because other factors, unrelated to influence from BFN, kept benthic communities depressed, both at the forebay site and in the Elk River embayment (Wheeler Reservoir, Elk River Mile [ERM] 6 -between BFN and the forebay site), the downstream site was moved into the transition zone two miles downstream from the BFN diffuser at TRM 291.7 in 2000. Benthic scores and community composition from this site were used through 2010 for downstream comparisons to the upstream benthic site at TRM 295.9. Beginning in 2011, samples were collected in the reservoir's transition zone along transects established at three sites. One site, upstream of the plant intake, was maintained at TRM 295.9 (Figure 3). Two sites were selected downstream to more accurately assess possible effects of BFN discharge on the downstream benthic communities: one at TRM 293.2, within the thermal plume from the BFN discharge, and a second at TRM 290.4 downstream of the thermal plume (Figure.4). Aquatic Habitat in the Vicinity of BFN Shoreline and river bottom habitat data presented in this report were collected during autumn 2009. TVA assumes habitat data to be valid for five years, barring any major changes to the river/reservoir (e.g. major flood event). No significant changes have occurred in the river system from the initial characterization, but in the event of a major change to the river/reservoir, habitat would be re-evaluated during the following sample period. Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Assessment An integrative multi-metric index (Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Index or SAHi), including several habitat parameters important to resident fish species, was used to measure existing fish habitat quality in the vicinity ofBFN. Using the general format developed by Pla:tkin et al. (1989), 4 seven metrics were established to characterize selected physical habitat attributes important to reservoir resident fish populations which rely heavily on the littoral (shoreline) zone for reproductive success, juvenile development, and adult feeding (Table 1). Habitat Suitability Indices (US Fish and Wildlife Service), along with other sources of information on biology and habitat requirements (Etnier and Starnes 1993), were consulted to develop "reference" criteria or "expected" _conditions from a high quality environment for each parameter. Some generalizations were necessary in setting up scoring criteria to cover the various requirements of all species within a single index. When possible, the quality of shoreline aquatic habitat was assessed while traveling parallel to the shoreline in a boat and evaluating the habitat within 10 vertical feet of full pool. Transects were established across the width of Wheeler reservoir within the fish community sampling reaches upstream and downstream of BFN (Figure 5). At each transect, near-shore aquatic habitat was assessed along sections of shoreline corresponding to the left descending bank (LDB) and right descending bank (RDB). For each shoreline section (16 upstream and 16 downstream of BFN), percentages of aquatic macrophytes in the littoral areas were estimated, then each section was scored by comparing the observed conditions associated with each individual metric to the "reference" conditions and assigning the metric a corresponding value: "Good" 5; "Fair" 3; or "Poor" 1 (Table 1). These scores for each of the seven metrics were summed to obtain the SARI value for the shoreline section, and this value was assigned a habitat quality descriptor based on trisecting the range of potential SARI values ("Poor" 7-16, "Fair" 17-26, and "Good" 27-35). River Bottom Habitat Along each transect described above, 10 benthic grab samples were collected with a Ponar sampler at points equally spaced from the LDB to the RDB. Substrate material collected with the Ponar was emptied into a screen, and percent composition of each substrate was estimated to determine existing benthic habitat across the width of the river. Water depths (feet) at each sample location were recorded. If no substrate was collected after multiple Ponar drops, it was assumed that the substrate was bedrock. For example, when the Ponar sampler was pulled shut, 5 collectors could feel substrate consistency. If it shut easily and was not embedded in the substrate on numerous drops within the same location, the substrate was recorded as bedrock. Fish Community Sampling Methods and Data Analysis for Sites Upstream and Downstream of BFN Fish sampling methods included boat electrofishing and gill netting (Hubert 1996; Reynolds 1996). Electrofishing methodology consisted of fifteen boat electrofishing runs near the shoreline, each 300 meters long and of approximately 10 minutes duration. The total near-shore area sampled was approximately 4,500 meters (15,000 feet). Experimental gill nets (so called because of their use for research as opposed to commercial fishing) were used as an additional gear type to collect fish from deeper habitats not effectively sampled by electrofishing. Each experimental gill net consists of five 6.1 meter panels for a total length of 30.5 meters (100.1 feet). The distinguishing characteristic of experimental gill nets is mesh size that varies between panels. For this application, each net has panels with mesh sizes of2.5, 5.1, 7.6, 10.2, and 12.7 cm. Experimental gill nets are typically set perpendicular to river flow, extending from near-shore to the main channel of the reservoir. Ten overnight

• experimental gill net sets were used at each area. Fish collected were identified by species, counted, and examined for anomalies (such as disease, deformations, parasites or hybridization). The resulting data were analyzed using RF AI methodology. The RF AI uses 12 fish community metrics from four general categories: Species Richness and Composition; Trophic Composition; Abundance; and Fish Health. Individual species can be utilized for more than one metric, though hybrid species and non-indigenous species are excluded from metrics counting numbers of individual species. Together, these 12 metrics provide a balanced evaluation of fish community integrity. The individual metrics are shown below, grouped by category: 6 Species Richness and Composition (1) Total number of species -Greater numbers of species are considered representative of healthier aquatic ecosystems. As conditions degrade, numbers of species at an area decline. (2) Number of centrarchid species -Sunfish species (excluding black basses) are invertivores and a high diversity of this group is indicative of reduced siltation and suitable sediment quality in littoral .areas. (3) Number of benthic invertivore species -Due to the special dietary requirements of this species group and the limitations of their food source in degraded environments, numbers of benthic invertivore species increase with better environmental quality. ( 4) Number of intolerant species -A group made up of species that are particularly intolerant of physical, chemical, and thermal habitat degradation. Higher numbers of intolerant species suggest the presence of fewer environmental stressors. (5) Percentage of tolerant individuals (excluding young-of-year) -An increased proportion of individuals tolerant of degraded conditions signifies poorer water quality. (6) Percent dominance by one species -Ecological quality is considered reduced if one species inordinately dominates the resident fish community. (7) Percentage of non-indigenous species -Based on the assumption that indigenous species reduce the quality of resident fish communities. 7 (8) Number of top carnivore species -Higher diversity of piscivores is indicative of the availability of diverse and plentiful forage species and the presence of suitable habitat. Trophic Composition (9) Percent top carnivores -A measure of the functional aspect of top carnivores which feed on major planktivore populations. (10) Percent omnivores -Omnivores are less sensitive to environmental stresses due to their ability to vary their diets. As trophic links are disrupted due to degraded conditions, specialist species such as insectivores decline while opportunistic omnivorous species increase in relative abundance. Abundance (11) Average number per run (number of individuals)-Based on the assumption that high quality fish assemblages support large numbers of individuals. Fish Health (12) Percent anomalies -Incidence of diseases, lesions, tumors, external parasites, deformities, blindness, and natural hybridization is noted for all fish collected, with higher incidence indicating less favorable environmental conditions. RF AI methodology addresses all four attributes or characteristics of a "balanced indigenous population" (BIP), defined by the CW A as described below: (1) A biotic community characterized by diversity appropriate to the ecoregion: Diversity is addressed by the metrics in the Species Richness and Composition category, especially metric 1 -"Number of species." Determination ofreference conditions based on the 8 transition zones oflower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs (as described below) ensures appropriate species expectations for the ecoregion. (2) The capacity for the community to sustain itself through cyclic seasonal change: TV A uses an autumn data collection period for biological indicators, both VS and upstream/downstream monitoring. Autumn monitoring is used to document community condition or health after being subjected to the wide variety of stressors throughout the year. One of the main benefits of using biological indicators is their ability to integrate stressors through time. Examining the condition or health of a community at the end of the "biological year" (i.e., autumn) provides insights into how well the community has dealt with the stresses through an annual seasonal cycle. Likewise, evaluation of the condition of individuals in the community (in this case, individual fish as reflected in Metric 12) provides insights into how well the community can be expected to withstand stressors through winter. Further, multiple sampling years during the permit renewal cycle add to the evidence of whether the autumn monitoring approach has correctly demonstrated the ability of the community to sustain itself through repeated seasonal changes. (3) The presence of necessary food chain species: Integrity of the food chain is measured by the Trophic Composition metrics, with support from the Abundance metric and Species Richness and Composition metrics. A healthy fish community is comprised of species that utilize complex feeding mechanisms extending into multiple levels of the aquatic food web. Three dominant fish trophic levels exist within Tennessee River reservoirs: insectivores, omnivores, and top carnivores. To determine the presence of necessary food chain species, these three groups should be well represented within the overall fish community. Other fish trophic levels include benthic invertivores, planktivores, herbivores, and parasitic species. Insectivores include most sunfish, minnows, and silversides. Omnivores include gizzard shad, common carp, carpsuckers, buffalo, and channel and blue catfish. Top carnivores include bass, gar, skipjack herring, crappie, flathead catfish, sauger, and walleye. Benthic invertivores include freshwater drum, suckers, and darters. Planktivores include alewife, 9 threadfin shad, and paddlefish. Herbivores include largescale stonerollers. Lampreys in the genus Jchthyomyzon are the only parasitic species occurring in Tennessee River reservoirs. To establish expected proportions of each trophic guild and the expected number of species included in each guild occurring in transition zones in lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs (Kentucky, Pickwick, Wilson, Wheeler, and Guntersville reservoirs), data collected from 1993 to 2010 were analyzed for each reservoir zone (inflow, transition, forebay). Samples collected in the downstream vicinity of thermal discharges were not included in this analysis so that accurate expectations could be calculated with the assumption that these data represent what should occur in lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs absent from point source effects (i.e. power plant discharges). Data from 900 electrofishing runs (a total of 405,000 meters of shoreline sampled) and from 600 overnight experimental gill net sets were included in this analysis for transition areas in lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs. From these data, the range of proportional values for each trophic level and the range of the number of species included in each trophic level were trisected. These trisections were intended to show less than expected, expected, and above expected values for trophic level proportions and species occurring within transition reservoir zones in lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs. The data were also averaged and bound by confidence intervals (95%) to further evaluate expectations for proportions of each trophic level and the number of species representing each trophic level (Table 2). (4) A lack of domination by pollution-tolerant species: Domination by pollution-tolerant species is determined by metrics 3 ("Number ofbenthic invertivore species"), 4 ("Number of intolerant species"), 5 ("Percent tolerant individuals"), 6 ("Percent dominance by one species"), and 10 ("Percent omnivores"). Scoring categories are based on "expected" fish community characteristics in the absence of human-induced impacts other than impoundment of the reservoir. These categories were developed from historical fish assemblage data representative of transition zones from lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs (Hickman and McDonough, 1996). Attained values for each of the 12 metrics were compared to the scoring criteria and assigned scores to represent 10 relative degrees of degradation: least degraded (5); intermediately degraded (3); and most degraded (1). Scoring criteria for lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs are shown in Table 3. If a metric was calculated as a percentage (e.g., "Percent tolerant individuals"), the data from electrofishing and gill netting were scored separately and allotted half the total score for that individual metric. Individual metric scores for a sampling area (i.e., upstream or downstream) were summed to obtain the RF AI score for the area. TV A uses RF AI results to determine maintenance of BIP using two approaches. One is "absolute" in that it compares the RF AI scores and individual metrics to predetermined values. The other is "relative" in that it compares RF AI scores attained downstream to the upstream control site. The "absolute" approach is based on Jennings et al. (1995) who suggested that favorable comparisons of the RF AI score attained from the potential impact zone to a predetermined criterion can be used to identify the presence of normal community structure and function, and hence existence ofBIP. For multi-metric indices, TVA uses two criteria to ensure a conservative screening of BIP. First, if an RF AI score reaches 70% of the highest attainable score of 60 (adjusted upward to include sample variability as described below), and second, if fewer than half of RF AI metrics receive a low (1) or moderate (3) score, then community structure and function are considered normal, indicating that BIP had been maintained and no further evaluation would be needed. RFAI scores range from 12 to 60. Ecological health ratings (12-21 "Very Poor", 22-31 "Poor, 32-40 "Fair", 41-50 "Good", or 51-60 "Excellent") are then applied to scores. As discussed in detail below, the average variation for RF AI scores in TVA reservoirs is 6 (+/- 3). Therefore, any location that attains a RF AI score of 45 (7 5% of the highest score) or higher would be considered to have BIP. It must be stressed that scores below this threshold do not necessarily reflect an adversely impacted fish community. The threshold is used to serve as a conservative screening level; i.e., any fish community that meets these criteria is obviously not adversely impacted. RF AI scores below this level require a more in-depth look to determine if BIP exists. An inspection of individual RF AI metric results and species of fish used in each metric are an initial 11 step to help identify if operation ofBFN is a contributing factor. This approach is appropriate because a validated multi-metric index is being used and scoring criteria applicable to the zone of study are available. A comparison of RF AI scores from the area downstream of BFN to those from the upstream (control) area is one basis for determining if operation of the plant has had any impacts on the resident fish community. The definition of"similar" is integral to accepting the validity of these interpretations. The Quality Assurance (QA) component of the VS monitoring program deals with how well the RF AI scores can be repeated and is accomplished by collecting a second set of samples at 15%-20% of the areas each year. Comparison of paired-sample QA data collected over seven years shows that the difference in RF AI index scores ranges from 0 to 18 points. The mean difference between these 54 paired scores is 4.6 points with 95% confidence limits of 3 .4 and 5.8. The 75th percentile of the sample differences is 6, and the 90th percentile is 12. Based on these results, a difference of 6 points or less in the overall RF AI scores is the value selected for defining "similar" scores between upstream and downstream fish communities. That is, if the downstream RFAI score is within 6 points of the upstream score and ifthere are no major differences in overall fish community composition, then the two locations are considered similar. It is important to bear in mind that differences greater than 6 points can be expected simply due to method variation (25% of the QA paired sample sets exceeded that value). An examination of the 12 metrics (with emphases on fish species used for each metric) is conducted to analyze any difference in scores and the potential for the difference to be thermally related. Statistical Analyses In addition to RF AI analyses, data were analyzed using traditional statistical methods. Data from the survey were used to calculate catch per unit effort (CPUE), expressed as number of fish per electrofishing run or fish per net night. CPUE values were calculated by pollution tolerance, trophic guilds (e.g., benthic invertivores, top carnivores, etc.), thermal sensitivity (Yoder et al. 2006), and indigenous status. CPUE, diversity, and species richness values were computed for each electrofishing effort (to maximize sample size; n = 30) and compared upstream and downstream to assess potential effects of power plant discharges. 12 Diversity was quantified using two commonly applied indices: Shannon diversity index (Shannon 1948) and Simpson diversity index (Simpson 1949). Both indices account for the number of species present, as well as the relative abundance of each species. Shannon diversity index values were computed using the formula: s , (ni) (ni) H = -L N ln N i=1 where: S = total number of species N = total number of individuals ni = total number of individuals in the ith species The Simpson diversity index was calculated as follows: where: S = total number of species N =total number of individuals ni =total number of individuals in the ith species An independent two-sample t-test was used to test for differences in CPUE, species richness, and diversity values upstream and downstream ofBFN (a= 0.05). Before statistical tests were performed using this method, data were analyzed for normality using the Shapiro-Wilk test (Shapiro and Wilk, 1965) and homogeneity of variance using Levene's test (Levene 1960). normal data or data with unequal variances were transformed using either square root conversion or the ln(x+ 1) transformation. Transformed data were reanalyzed for normal distribution and equal variances. If transformation normalized the data or resulted in homogeneous variances, transformed data were tested using an independent two-sample t-test. If transformed data were 13 not normally distributed or had unequal variances, statistical analysis was conducted using the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test (Mann and Whitney 1947; Wilcoxon 1945). Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Sampling Methods and Data Analysis for Sites Upstream and Downstream ofBFN During autumn 2013, benthic macroinvertebrate data were collected in the transition zone of Wheeler Reservoir along three transects established across the reservoir's width as described above. The upstream transect (TRM 295 .9) was used as a control site to compare to benthic community composition potentially affected by the BFN thermal effluent. One downstream transect (TRM 293.2) was within the thermal plume and one transect (TRM 290.4) was located just below the downstream extent of the plume. A Ponar sampler (area per sample 0.06 m2) was used to collect benthic samples at ten points equally spaced along each transect. When heavier substrate was encountered, a Peterson sampler (area per sample 0.11 m2) was used. Sediments from each sample were washed on a 533µ screen, and organisms were picked from the screen and from any remaining substrate. Samples were fixed in formalin and sent to an independent consultant who identified each organism collected to the lowest possible taxonomic level. Benthic samples were evaluated using seven metrics that represented characteristics of the benthic community. Results for each metric were assigned a rating of 1, 3, or 5, based upon comparison to reference conditions developed for VS reservoir inflow sample sites (Table 4). For each sample site, the ratings for the seven metrics were then summed to produce an RBI score. Potential RBI scores ranged from 7 to 35. Ecological health ratings derived from the range of potential values (7-12 "Very Poor, 13-18 "Poor, 19-23 "Fair", 24-29 "Good", or 30-35 "Excellent") were then applied to scores. The individual metrics are described below: (1) Average number of taxa-Calculated by averaging the total number oftaxa present in each sample at a site. Greater taxa richness indicates better conditions than lower taxa richness. 14 (2) Proportion of samples with long-lived organisms -A presence/absence metric that is evaluated based on the proportion of samples with at least one long-lived organism (Corbicula, Hexagenia, mussels, or snails) present. The presence oflong-lived taxa is indicative of conditions that allow long-term survival. (3) Average number of EPT taxa-Calculated by averaging the number of Ephemeroptera (mayfly), Plecoptera (stonefly), and Trichoptera ( caddis fly) taxa present in each sample at a site. Higher diversity of these taxa indicates good water quality and better habitat conditions. (4) Percentage of oligochaetes -. Calculated by averaging the percentage of oligochaetes in each sample at a site. Oligochaetes are considered tolerant organisms, so a higher proportion indicates poorer water quality. (5) Percentage as dominant taxa -Used as an evenness indicator, this metric is calculated by selecting the two most abundanttaxa in a sample, summing the number of individuals in those two taxa, dividing that sum by the total number of animals in the sample, and converting to a percentage for that sample. The percentage is then averaged for the 10 samples at each site. Because the most abundant taxa often differ among the 10 samples at a site, this approach allows more discretion to identify imbalances at a site than developing an average for a single dominant taxon for all samples at a site. Dominance of one or two taxa indicates poor conditions. (6) Average density excluding chironomids and oligochaetes-Calculated by first summing the number of organisms -excluding chironomids and oligochaetes -present in each sample and then averaging these densities for the 10 samples at a site. This metric examines the community, excluding taxa which often dominate under adverse conditions. Higher abundance of taxa other than chironomids and oligochaetes indicates good water quality conditions. (7) Zero-samples: Proportion of samples containing no organisms -For each site, the proportion of samples which have no organisms present. "Zero-samples" indicate living 15 conditions unsuitable to support aquatic life (i.e. toxicity, unsuitable substrate, etc.). A site with no zero samples was assigned a score of five. Any site with one or more zero samples was assigned a score of one. A similar or higher benthic index score at the downstream sites compared to the upstream site was used as the basis for determining absence of impact on the benthic macroinvertebrate community related to BFN's thermal discharge. The QA component of VS monitoring compared benthic index scores from 49 paired sample sets collected over seven years. Differences between these paired sets ranged from 0 to 14 points; the 75th percentile was four, the 901h percentile was six. The mean difference between these 49 paired scores was 3 .1 points with 95% confidence limits of2.2 and 4.1. Based on these results, a difference of four points or less was the value selected for defining "similar" scores between upstream and downstream benthic communities. That is, ifbenthic scores at the downstream sites are within four points of the upstream score, the communities are considered similar. However, differences greater than four points can be expected simply due to method variation (25% of the QA paired sample sets exceeded that value). Any difference in scores of greater than four points between communities is examined on a metric-by-metric basis to determine what caused the difference and the potential for the difference to be thermally related . . Visual Encounter Survey (Wildlife Observations) Permanent survey sites were established on both the right and left descending banks at one location upstream of the BFN thermal discharge, centered at TRM 295.9 (Figure 3), and at a second location downstream of the discharge, centered at TRM 292.5 (Figure 4). Each survey site spanned a distance of 2, 100 m along the shoreline, and the beginning and ending points were marked using GPS for relocation. Surveys were conducted by steadily traversing the site by boat, at approximately 30 m offshore and parallel to the shoreline, and simultaneously recording observations of wildlife. The sampling frame of each survey generally followed the strip or belt transect concept: from the center-line of each transect landward to an area that included the shoreline and riparian zone (i.e., 16 belt width generally averages 60 m where vision is not obscured), all individuals observed were enumerated. Wildlife observed visually or detected audibly was identified to the lowest taxonomic trophic level, and a direct count of individuals observed per trophic level was recorded. If a flock of a species or a mixed flock of a group of species was observed, numbers of individuals present of each species were estimated. Time was recorded at the start and end points of each survey to provide a general measure of effort expended. Variation of observation times among surveys was primarily due to the difficulty of approaching some wildlife species without inadvertently flushing them from basking or perching sites. The principal objective of the surveys was to provide a preliminary set of observations to verify that trophic levels of birds, mammals and reptiles were not affected by thermal effects from the BFN discharge. If expected trophic levels were not represented, further investigation will be used to target particular species and/or species groups (guilds) in an attempt to determine the cause. Wheeler Reservoir Flow and BFN Temperature Total discharge from Guntersville Dam was used to describe the amount of water flowing past BFN and was obtained from TV A's River Operations database. Water temperature data were also obtained from TV A's River Operations database. Locations of water temperature monitoring sites used to measure water temperatures upstream of BFN intake and downstream ofBFN discharge are depicted in Figure 6. Ambient temperatures upstream of the BFN intake were measured at Site 4, located at TRM 297.8. Upstream daily mean temperatures were calculated by averaging temperatures collected at depths of 3, 5, and 7 feet. Temperatures downstream ofBFN discharge were measured at Sites 1, 16, and 17, all located at TRM 293.5. Downstream temperatures were calculated by first averaging temperatures at each site across depths of3, 5, and 7 feet. The resultant values from each site were then averaged together to obtain overall mean daily water temperatures downstream ofBFN. 17 Thermal Plume Characterization Physical measurements to characterize and map the BFN thermal plume were collected concurrent with biological field sampling. The plume was characterized under representative thermal maxima and seasonally-expected low flow conditions. Measurements were collected during periods of normal operation ofBFN, as reasonably practicable, to capture the thermal plume under existing river flow/reservoir elevation conditions. This effort evaluated potential impacts on recreation water supply uses and allowed general delineation of the "Primary Study Area" -per the EPA (1977) draft guidance defined as tlie "entire geographic area bounded annually by the locus of the 2°C above ambient surface isotherms as these isotherms are distributed throughout an annual periocf' -ensuring placement of the biological sampling locations within thermally influenced areas. However, it is important to emphasize that the isopleth boundary is not a bright line; it is dynamic, changing geometrically in response to changes in ambient river flows and temperatures and BFN operations. As such, samples collected outside of, but generally proximate to the Primary Study Area boundary cannot be considered free of thermal influence and thus should not be discounted. Every effort was made to collect biological samples in thermally affected areas as guided by the Primary Study Area definition. Depth profiles of temperature from the river surface to the bottom were collected at points along transects crossing the plume. One transect was located proximate to the thermal discharge point; subsequent downstream transects were concentrated in the near field area of the plume where the change in plume temperature was expected to be most rapid. The distance between transects in the remainder of the Primary Study Area increased with distance downstream (or away from the discharge point). The farthest downstream transect was just outside of the Primary Study Area. A transect upstream of the discharge, in an area not affected by the thermal plume, was included for determining ambient temperature conditions. The total number of transects needed to fully characterize and delineate the plume was determined in the field. Collection of temperature profiles along a given transect began at or near the shoreline from which the discharge originated and continued until the far shore was reached. Measurements across a transect were typically conducted at points 10%, 30%, 50%, 70%, and 90% from the 18 originating shoreline, though the number of measurement points along transects was sometimes increased in proportion to the magnitude of the temperature change across a given transect. The distances between transects, and between measurement points along each transect, depended on the size of the discharge plume. Temperature data were compiled and analyzed to present the horizontal and vertical dimensions of the BFN thermal plume using spatial analysis techniques to yield plume cross-sections, which can be used to demonstrate the existence of a zone of passage for fish and other aquatic species under or around the plume. Water Quality Parameters at Fish Sampling Sites during RFAI Samples Water quality conditions were measured using a Hydrolab that provided readings for water temperature (°C), conductivity (µSiem), dissolved oxygen (mg/L), and pH. Within each of the electrofishing sample reaches upstream and downstream of BFN, transects were established across the river at the most upstream boundary, at mid-reach, and at the most downstream boundary. Along each transect, samples were collected at the RDB, in mid-channel, and at the LDB by recording readings along a vertical gradient from just above the bottom of the river to approximately 0.3 meters from the surface at one-to two-meter intervals. Results and Discussion Aquatic Habitat in the Vicinity of BFN Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Assessment SARI methodology was used to evaluate shoreline habitat for eight transects located within each of the RFAI sample reaches upstream and downstream ofBFN. Shoreline transects were sampled on each bank (Figure 5). Of the sixteen shoreline transects sampled upstream of BFN, 19% (3 transects) scored as good, 8% (12 transects) scored as fair, and 6% (1 transect) scored as poor. The average score for 19 transects on the left descending bank was 24 ("Fair"), while scores for transects on the right descending bank averaged 23 ("Fair"). No aquatic macrophytes were observed on either shoreline (Table 5). Of the sixteen shoreline transects sampled downstream ofBFN, 0% scored as good, 88% (14 transects) scored as fair, and 12% (2 transects) scored as poor. The average scores for transects on the left bank descending were equal to those on the right bank descending (20, "Fair"). No aquatic macrophytes were observed on either shoreline (Table 6). River Bottom Habitat Figures 7-10 compare substrate proportions at each sample point along each of the eight transects upstream ofBFN during autumn 2009. Figures 11-14 compare substrate proportions at each sample point along each of the eight transects downstream ofBFN during autumn 2009 (Figure 5). Transects in Figures 7-14 are depicted at an exaggerated slant from bank to bank, in order to fit all of the data on the figure. Actual river bottom habitat sampling upstream and downstream ofBFN was conducted in a straight line from the left descending bank to the right descending bank. The three most dominant substrate types encountered along the eight transects upstream of BFN were silt (51.l %), mollusk shell (32.0%), and sand (5.1 %). Though in slightly different proportions-silt (65.1 %), mollusk shell (19.4%), and sand (5.4%)-these three substrates were also the most prominent downstream ofBFN. Fish Community The total RF AI score for the fish community upstream of BFN was 46 ("Good"). The score for the community downstream was 40 ("Fair"). Because the difference between these scores was within the 6-point range of acceptable variation, the communities were considered similar during autumn 2013. 20 Below, the two communities are compared in further detail, utilizing the four characteristics of a BIP. Discussion of this comparison includes the metrics appropriate for each characteristic. (1) A biotic community characterized by diversity appropriate to the ecoregion Total number of species (highest rating requires> 30) Thirty-three indigenous species were collected upstream, earning the highest score (5). Downstream, 27 indigenous species were collected earning a mid-range score (3) (Table 8). Seven species-longnose gar (six specimens), golden shiner (six), white crappie (one), northern hogsucker (one), white bass (two), orangespotted sunfish (three), and spotted bass (one) -were collected only upstream. One individual of stripetail darter was collected only downstream (Tables 9, 10). Number of centrarchid species (highest rating requires > 2) Eight centrarchid species were collected upstream and six were collected downstream, resulting in the highest score (5) for both sites (Table 8). White crappie and orangespotted sunfish were collected only upstream (Tables 9, 10). Number ofbenthic invertivore species (highest rating requires> 7) Five benthic invertivore species were collected upstream and four downstream, resulting in range scores (3) for both sites (Table 8). Spotted sucker, black redhorse, logperch, and freshwater drum were collected at both sites; northern hogsucker was collected only upstream (Tables 9, 10). Number of intolerant species (highest rating requires> 4) Six intolerant species were collected upstream and five collected downstream. Both sites earned the highest score (5) (Table 8). Skipjack herring, spotted sucker, black redhorse, longear sunfish, and smallmouth bass were collected at both sites; northern hogsucker was collected only upstream (Tables 9, 10). 21 Number of top carnivore species (highest rating requires> 7) Twelve top carnivore species were collected upstream, and eight were collected downstream. Both sites earned the highest score (5) (Table 8). Longnose gar, white crappie, white bass and spotted bass were collected only upstream (Tables 9, 10). Summary Both the upstream control site and the site downstream of the BFN discharge earned identical scores for four of the five metrics discussed. The upstream site earned a higher score for only metric 1, "Total number of species". (2) The capacity for the community to sustain itself through cyclic seasonal change Maintenance of diversity can often be indicative of the ability of a fish community to withstand the stressors of an annual seasonal cycle. Autumn RF AI sampling has been conducted at the site upstream ofBFN since 1993, except during 1996, 1998, and 2012. Autumn sampling has been conducted at the site downstream since 2000, except during 2012. Average scores calculated over the history of sampling are identical for both sites ( 41, "Good") (Table 11 ). Figure 15 shows the numbers of indigenous species collected during autumn RFAI samples upstream and downstream of BFN from 2000 through 2013. Over this time period, the numbers collected at the upstream site ranged from 24 to 33, with an average of29 species. Downstream, numbers collected ranged from 23 to 28, with an average of 27 species. Collections upstream have generally been higher than those downstream: more species were collected upstream during nine years, while the same number of species was collected at both sites during 2003, 2007, and 2008, and more species were collected downstream than upstream during only 2009. The numbers of indigenous species collected during autumn 2013 (33 upstream, 27 downstream) showed the greatest difference between the sites over the history of sampling. Percentage of anomalies (highest rating requires < 2 % ) Anomalies (i.e. visible lesions, bacterial and fungal infections, parasites, muscular and skeletal deformities, and hybridization) observed in a fish community can also be an indicator of the 22 ability of the community to sustain itself over an annual seasonal cycle. A greater percentage of anomalies (3.3%) was observed in the electrofishing sample at the upstream site, and the site earned a lower partial score than the downstream site, which exhibited only 1.1 % anomalies. No anomalies were observed in the gill net portion of the sample at either site, and both earned the highest partial score for this portion of the metric (Table 8). Summary Average RF AI scores, determined over the history of autumn sampling around BFN, were identical upstream and downstream. Though more indigenous species were collected upstream during most years, the average numbers of species -calculated over the years during which sampling occurred at both sites -were similar upstream and downstream. The electrofishing catch upstream exhibited a greater percentage of anomalies than that downstream, but no anomalies were observed in the gill net catch at either site. (3) The presence of necessary food chain species Estimates of the trophic compositions of the fish communities upstream and downstream ofBFN were calculated from the collection data (Tables 9, 10) as the proportion of the total sample made up by each trophic guild. In direct comparison of the communities upstream and downstream of BFN, the proportions ofbenthic invertivores and planktivores were somewhat similar. The proportions of other trophic guilds were notably different. However, omnivores and top carnivores were collected in greater proportion upstream, while insectivores were collected in greater proportion downstream. One additional guild -specialized insectivore -was represented downstream but not upstream. No parasitic or herbivore species were collected at either site. The numbers of species collected of four guilds were similar upstream and downstream, but notably more top carnivore species were collected upstream, and one species of specialized insectivore was collected only downstream (Table 2). In comparison to expected values for transition zones in lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs (Table 2), upstream proportions of benthic invertivores and insectivores were within the range of expected values, while the proportions of top carnivores, omnivores, and planktivores were poorer than expected. Downstream, insectivores comprised an unusually high 23 proportion of the sample (60.0%), primarily due to the collection of large numbers of two species: Mississippi silverside comprised more than 33% of the total catch, and spotfin shiner comprised more than 11 % (Table 9, 10). The proportions ofbenthic invertivores and omnivores were within the expected ranges, while the proportions of top carnivores and planktivores were below expectations. The collection_ downstream also included one specimen of "Specialized Insectivore" -the stripetail darter (Table 10) -representing the guild as 0.1 % of the sample. Upstream, the numbers ofbenthic invertivore, insectivore, top carnivore and planktivore species met or exceeded expectations, while the number of omnivore species was poorer (more species) than expected. Downstream, the numbers of species representing all six trophic guilds met or exceeded expectations (Table 2). Summary Trophic composition of the fish community upstream was not similar to that downstream. Proportions of insectivores, top carnivores, omnivores, and specialized insectivores were different between the sites. Although proportions were different between sites, further analysis revealed that numbers collected were similar for all trophic guilds except insectivore and top carnivore. The difference of insectivore proportions between sites was due to larger numbers of Mississippi silverside collected at the downstream site; this species schools, and therefore can be collected in large numbers. (4) A lack of domination by pollution-tolerant species Number of benthic invertivore species Five benthic invertivore species were collected upstream, and four were collected downstream. Both sites earned highest scores (5). Number of intolerant species (highest rating requires> 4) Six intolerant species were collected upstream, and five were collected downstream. Both sites received the highest score (5). Skipjack herring, spotted sucker, black redhorse, longear sunfish, and smallmouth bass were collected at both sites; northern hogsucker was collected only upstream (Tables 8-10). 24 Percentage of tolerant individuals (highest rating requires< 27 % electrofishing; < 15 % gill net) The upstream site earned mid-range scores for both portions of the sample: 49.5% of the electrofishing sample and 26.9% of the gill net sample were tolerant individuals. Downstream, 39.0% of the electrofishing sample-a mid-range partial score-and 33.3% of the gill net sample -the lowest partial score -were tolerant individuals (Table 8). Seven tolerant species -gizzard shad, common carp, spotfin shiner, redbreast sunfish, green sunfish, bluegill, and largemouth bass -were collected at both sites. Longnose gar, golden shiner, white crappie, and northern hogsucker were collected only upstream. Gizzard shad and longnose gar were caught in equal percentages (9.6%) in gill nets upstream1 but gizzard shad was clearly the most abundant species collected by electrofishing upstream (26.6%) and by either method downstream (17.0% of the electrofishirtg catch, 25.5% of the gill net catch) (Table 8). Percent dominance by one species (highest rating requires < 29 % electrofishing; < 17 % gill net) The upstream site earned the highest score for both portions of the sample. Gizzard shad was the most prevalent species in the electrofishing catch (26.6%) and channel catfish was most prevalent in the gill net catch (11.5%). The downstream site earned mid-range scores for both portions of the sample, with Mississippi silverside most prevalent in the electrofishing sample (3 5 .1 % ) and gizzard shad most prevalent in the gill net sample (25 .5%) (Table 8). Percentage of omnivores (highest rating.requires< 24 % electrofishing; < 16 % gill net) The electrofishing catch upstream consisted of a higher percentage of omnivores (39.0%) and earned a lower partial score (1.5) than that downstream, which consisted of 22.4% omnivores and earned the highest partial score (2.5). Gill net portions of the samples at both sites contained high percentages of omnivores (42.3% upstream, 39.2% downstream), and both earned lowest partial scores (Table 8). Six omnivore species -common carp, gizzard shad, smallmouth buffalo, black buffalo, blue catfish, and channel catfish -were collected at both sites. Golden shiner was collected only upstream (Tables 9, 10). 25 Summary Based on RF AI metric scores, the sites upstream and downstream of BFN both exhibited similarly moderate diversity of benthic invertivore species and similarly high diversity of intolerant species. Electrofishing samples at both sites exhibited moderate percentages of tolerant individuals, and gill net samples at both sites exhibited high percentages of omnivores. The community downstream was more heavily dominated by a single species than that upstream, though the most prevalent species collected upstream were different for both gear types than those collected downstream. The gill net sample downstream contained.a greater percentage of tolerant individuals, but the electrofishing sample contained a lower percentage of omnivores. Statistical Analyses Statistical comparison of the fish communities upstream and downstream of BFN showed no significant differences in overall species diversity per run, based on either the Simpson or the Shannon diversity indices. Potential differences in diversity between the two communities were also analyzed by parsing the data into nine species parameters. These tests indicated that significantly more top carnivore sp.ecies were collected per run upstream than downstream, but numbers of species for the other eight parameters were not significantly different between the communities (Table 11 ). The same nine parameters were also tested for differences in richness (numbers of individuals per run, or CPUE) between the two communities. Greater numbers of individual top carnivores were collected per run upstream; greater numbers of intolerant species were collected per run downstream (Table 11 ). Fish Community Summary Thirty-seven representative important species (RIS) were collected at the site upstream of BFN, compared to 31 RIS downstream (Tables 9, 10). RIS are defined in EPA guidance as those species which are representative in terms of their biological requirements of a balanced, indigenous community of fish, shellfish, and wildlife in the body of water into which the discharge is made (EPA and NRC, 1977). RIS often include non-indigenous species. A species 26 is designated as "thermally sensitive" if specimens exhibit avoidance behavior or are subject to mortality at water temperatures equal to or greater than 32.2°C (90°F) (Yoder et al., 2006). The same three thermally sensitive species -emerald shiner, spotted sucker, and logperch -were collected at both sites. Two aquatic nuisance species, common carp and Mississippi silverside, were also collected at both sites (Tables 9, 10). Commercially valuable species are defined by the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (2013) as any of the following non-game fish: drum, buffalo, carp, channel catfish, all members of the catfish family, paddlefish (spoonbill), spotted sucker, all members of the sucker family including the species known as redhorse and black horse, bowfin and all members of the gar family, and mullet. Recreationally valuable species are those that are targeted by anglers or are used as bait. Among the RIS collected upstream were 17 commercially valuable species and 23 recreationally valuable species, compared to 15 commercially valuable and 17 recreationally valuable species downstream (Tables 9, 10). Total RF AI scores for the sampling sites upstream and downstream differed by six points, indicating no substantial differences in ecological structure or balance between the two communities. As previously discussed, RF AI scores have an intrinsic variability of+/- 3 points. This variability comes from several sources, including annual variations in air temperature and stream flow; variations in pollutant loadings from nonpoint sources; changes in habitat, such as extent and density of aquatic vegetation; natural population cycles and movements of the species being measured (TWRC, 2006). Another source of variability arises from the fact that nearly any practical measurement, lethal or non-lethal, of a biological community is a sample rather than a measurement of the entire population. Accordingly, a thorough comparison of the fish communities upstream and downstream ofBFN was conducted by examining each of the twelve individual RFAI metrics as a component of the appropriate characteristic of a BIP. This analysis indicated that the two communities were both poor in abundance (both received low scores for the metric "Average number per run"), but similar in diversity and in their sustainability over an annual cycle. The numbers of species representing the major trophic guilds were generally similar, but distinct differences in 27 proportional trophic composition between the sites were evident. The two sites showed similarly moderate dominance by pollution tolerant species, but the downstream community was more heavily dominated by a single species. This was at least partially due to the collection downstream of an especially large number (33.2% of the total sample) of Mississippi silverside, a species that is often collected in large schools (Table 10). It is also noted that the species of dominance was different upstream and downstream for each type of collection gear (Table 8). To provide additional information about the health of the fish community throughout Wheeler reservoir, Table 12 compares RF AI scores for the sites upstream and downstream of BFN with those from additional VS sites in the reservoir. However, aquatic communities at these sites are not subject to thermal effects from BFN and are not used in determination ofBIP in relation to the plant. Average RF AI scores of these additional VS sites were all in the range of a "Good" rating. Statistical tests indicated that, within the upstream site, more top carnivore species were collected per run and greater numbers of individual top carnivores were collected per run, supporting the observations that this group was both more diverse and comprised a greater proportion of the total sample upstream. Greater numbers of intolerant individuals were collected per run downstream, indicating that conditions below BFN discharge were suitable for sensitive species. In conclusion, though this discussion revealed some differences between the fish communities upstream and downstream ofBFN during autumn 2013, there was no indication that these differences were related to thermal effluent from BFN. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community As discussed previously, data to assess the benthic macroinvertebrate community around BFN were collected from three sites in autumn 2013. RBI metrics for all three sites were scored using evaluation criteria for lab-processed samples collected in the transition reservoir zone (Table 4). Data collected at TRM 290.4, downstream of the thermal plume, produced an overall RBI score of 31 ("Excellent") and data from TRM 293 .2, within the thermal plume, produced an overall 28 RBI score of 35 ("Excellent"). Data from the upstream site, TRM 295.9, produced an overall RBI score of 35 ("Excellent") (Table 13). The upstream site was considered a control site and a difference of 4 points or less was used to define "similar" conditions between the upstream and downstream sites. Because the RBI scores for the two downstream sites were within 4 points of the RBI score for the upstream site, conditions among the three sites were considered "similar" and BIP was maintained. Results for the autumn 2013 benthic macroinvertebrate sampling can be found in Tables 13 and 16. Results were compared between the downstream (TRM's 290.4 and 293.2) and upstream (TRM 295.9) sites and are briefly discussed below for each RBI metric. Average number oftaxa (highest rating requires> 6.6) In autumn 2013, averages of 7.8 and 10.6 taxa were observed for sites downstream ofBFN. The site upstream of BFN averaged 11 taxa per sample. All three sites received the highest score of 5 for this metric (Table 13). Proportion of samples with long-lived organisms (highest rating requires> 0.9) The metric "proportion of samples with long-lived organisms" received the highest score of 5 at both _downstream sites with 100% containing long-lived organisms (proportion of 1.0). The proportion of samples with long-lived organisms was 100% at the upstream site which also received the highest score for the metric (Table 13). Average number of EPT taxa (highest rating requires> 1.4) An average of 1.2 EPT taxa was collected at the most downstream site, TRM 290.4, resulting in the mid-range score of 3. Within the plume at TRM 293.2, an average of 1.8 EPT taxa was collected and upstream of BFN at TRM 295 .9, an average of 1. 7 EPT was collected. Both sites received the highest score (Table 13). 29 Average proportion of oligochaete individuals (highest rating requires< 11 %) Oligochaetes are considered tolerant of poor water quality conditions; therefore a low proportion of oligochaetes in the samples is an indication of good water quality condition. All three sites had low proportions of oligochaetes and received the highest score (5) for the autumn 2013 samples, which included averages of2.7 % and 8.3 % oligochaetes for the two downstream sites and an average of 3.6 % oligochaetes for the upstream site (Table 13). Proportion of total abundance comprised by two dominant taxa (highest rating requires < 77.8%) The two dominant taxa made up 81.1 % of the samples at the most downstream site, TRM 290.4, which received the mid-range score (3) for this metric (Table 13). Total abundance of the two dominant taxa was 66.7 % for the site within the plume, TRM 293.2, and was 67.3 % upstream ofBFN at TRM 295.9 resulting in the highest score for both sites. Hexagenia mayflies (Ephemeridae) and Asiatic clams (Corbiculidae) were the two most abundant taxa at all three sites (Table 16a). Average density excluding chironomids and oligochaetes (highest rating requires> 609.9/m2) At the downstream sites, average densities excluding chironomids and oligochaetes were 1,161.7/m2 and l,228.3/m2* Both sites received the highest score (5). Average density excluding chironomids and oligochaetes at the upstream site was 1,11 l.7/m2, also resulting in the highest score (Table 13). Proportion of samples containing no organisms (highest rating requires that all samples contain organisms) In autumn 2013, there were no samples at any site which were void of organisms. All sites received the highest score (Table 13). Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Summary Monitoring results for autumn 2013 support the conclusion that a BIP ofbenthic macroinvertebrates was maintained downstream ofBFN (Table 13). The site within the thermal 30 plume, TRM 293.2, received the same RBI total score of 35 as the site upstream ofBFN and both rated "Excellent". The downstream site below the plume, TRM 290.4, received a slightly lower RBI total score of 31. However, this score also rated "Excellent" and was within four points when compared with the scores for the other two sites. Thus, the benthic community at the most downstream site was also considered similar to the upstream benthic community. Individual metrics and RBI total scores for benthic community samples from TRM 291.7 (downstream) and TRM 295.9 (upstream) are provided in Tables 14 and 15 for referencing results from 2000 to 2010. Benthic samples from these two locations were field processed every year monitored through 2010, and during some of the years samples were also laboratory processed. Since 2011, samples have been lab processed which produces a more accurate depiction of the benthic community. Although the locations presently used as the downstream sites (TRMs 290.4 and 293.2) are proximate to the downstream transect sampled from 2000 to 2010 (TRM 291.7), RBI laboratory-processed scores for 2011 and 2013 cannot be directly compared to RBI field processed scores from 2000 to 2010 without inference. To provide additional data on the overall health of the benthic macroinvertebrate community in Wheeler Reservoir, RBI scores for VS monitoring locations -inflow, forebay, and Elk River embayment sites -were included in Table 17. Please note that comparison of these scores to current RBI scores at the sites around BFN is limited for two reasons. First, data from these sites were scored from field-based criteria and cannot be closely compared to lab-based scores. Second, these sites are many river miles away from BFN. The inflow site is 53 river miles upstream, and the forebay sampling site is located 17 river miles downstream. The Elk River embayment site is located 6 river miles upstream of the confluence with the Tennessee River, which in tum is 10 river miles downstream ofBFN. Because of these distances from the plant, poor scores at these sites cannot be considered indicative of thermal effects from BFN. The Wheeler inflow site (TRM 347) has produced RBI scores of "Good" or "Excellent" for 11 of the 14 years sampled (Table 17). The forebay (TRM 277) and Elk River embayment sites (ERM 6.0) have produced "Poor" scores most years sampled. 31 Visual Encounter Survey (Wildlife Observations) Wildlife observed from linear shoreline surveys conducted upstream and downstream of BFN during autumn 2013 are presented in Table 18. Observations along the upstream survey site consisted of a variety of birds commonly associated with riparian habitat, map turtles, and one Eastern grey squirrel seen along the right descending bank. Observations downstream consisted of a similar variety of birds and map turtles. No mammals were observed downstream. It is important to note that a Visual Encounter Survey provides a preliminary near shore wildlife assessment to determine if the thermally affected area downstream of a power plant has adversely affected the bird, reptile, or mammal communities. The diversity of bird groups recorded indicated that a healthy ecological community existed both upstream and downstream ofWBN during 2013. However, because determination of the presence and diversity of reptiles and mammals using these methods is made difficult by their typical behaviors, observations of these taxa were limited. If an adverse environmental impact is suspected, sampling strategies of a more quantitative nature, such as trapping or netting, active search, investigation of mammal tracks along shoreline areas, long-term observation from blinds, or the use of cameras will be proposed to more accurately estimate the presence and diversity of these groups. Wheeler Reservoir Flow and BFN Water Temperature Daily mean flows from Guntersville Dam over the fiscal year 2013 (October 2012 through November 2013) are compared in Figure 16 to historic daily mean flows over the same fiscal year period, averaged from 1976 to 2012. From October to November 2012 and August to November 2013, flows were similar to historical averages. During December 2012, flows remained lower than historical. Flows were generally higher than historical from January to July 2013. Figure 17 compares daily average water temperatures recorded upstream of BFN intake and downstream ofBFN discharge during October 2012 through November 2013. Water temperatures were similar at both sites through this period. 32 Thermal Plume Characterization Plume temperatures (water temperatures 3.6°P or greater above ambient) began at the BPN discharge (TRM 294.0) and continued downstream to TRM291.8. At the discharge, the plume extended from the RDB to 30% of the width of the river and from the surface to 1.5 m depth. Downstream (TRM 293.8), the plume extended to a maximum depth of7 m but did not extend farther than 50% of the width of the river from the RDB. At TRM 291.8, plume temperatures were observed only along the RDB, from the surface to 3 m depth. No plume temperatures were detected downstream of this point (Table 19). These profiles indicate that, at maximum, the thermal effluent from BPN was confined to the upper two-thirds of the water column from mid-channel to the RDB, and that a sufficient zone of passage for aquatic wildlife existed around BPN during autumn 2013. Water Quality Parameters at Fish Sampling Sites during RFAI Samples Water temperatures observed at the upstream site, centered around TRM 295 .9, ranged from 71.9 to 78.4 °P, with the highest temperatures occurring in mid-channel at the surface, along the downstream boundary of the sample reach. Water temperatures at the downstream site, centered around TRM 292.5, ranged from 74.0 to 83.9 °P, with the highest temperatures occurring at the surface along the RDB at the upstream boundary of the sample reach. Values for pH, conductivity, and dissolved oxygen concentration fell within narrow and similar ranges upstream and downstream (Table 20). The values of these parameters indicate that pH, conductivity, and dissolved oxygen concentrations surrounding BPN during autumn 2013 were of sufficient quality to support a BIP of the type expected for this reservoir, and that they were not affected by thermal effluent from BPN. The most elevated temperatures within the downstream site were observed along the RDB at the upper boundary, just downstream of the BPN discharge, and are consistent with temperatures recorded at similar locations during plume determination (Table 19). The most elevated temperatures within the upstream site were observed at the surface along the lower boundary of the site. This lower boundary is less than one mile upstream of the discharge, and 33 considering the width of the reservoir and the relatively low velocity of the river at this point, these elevated temperatures can be attributed to diffusion of heated water upstream from the discharge. Discussion above indicated that a zone of passage for aquatic life existed around BFN. Therefore, overall water quality around BFN was not negatively impacted by the thermal effluent. 34 Literature Cited Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (ADCNR), Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries. 2013. 2013-2014 Regulations Relating to Game, Fish, bearers and other Wildlife. http://www.outdooralabama.com/hunting/regulations EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) and NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1977 (draft). Interagency 316(a) Technical Guidance manual and Guide for Thermal Effects Sections of Nuclear Facilities Environmental Impact Statements. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Enforcement, Permits Division, Industrial Permits Branch, Washington, DC. Etnier, D.A. and W.C. Starnes. 1993. The Fishes of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, 681 pp. Hickman, G.D. and T.A. McDonough. 1996. Assessing the Reservoir Fish Assemblage A potential measure ofreservoir quality. In: D. De Vries (Ed.) Reservoir Multidimensional approaches to reservoir fisheries management. Reservoir Committee, Southern Division, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. pp 85-97. Hubert, W. A. 1996. Passive capture techniques, entanglement gears. Pages 160-165 in B. R. Murphy and D. W .. Willis, editors. Fisheries techniques, 2nd edition. American Fisheries Society Bethesda, Maryland, USA. Jennings, M.J., L.S. Fore, and J.R. Karr. 1995. Biological monitoring of fish assemblages in the Tennessee Valley reservoirs. Regulated Rivers 11 :263-274. Levene, H. 1960. Robust tests for equality of variances. In: Contributions to probability and statistics: essays in honor of Harold Hotelling. I. Olkin, S. G. Ghtirye, W. Hoeffding, W. G. Matlow, and H. B. Mann (eds). pp. 278-292. Stanford University Press. Menlo Park, CA. 35 Mann, H.B. and D.R. Whitney. 1947. On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 18:50-60. McDonough, T.A. and G.D. Hickman. 1999. Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index development: A tool for assessing ecological health in Tennessee Valley Authority impoundments. In: Assessing the sustainability and biological integrity of water resources using fish communities. Simon, T. (Ed.) CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 523-540. Plafkin, J.L., Barbour, M.T., Porter, K.D., Gross, S.K., and Hughes, R.M. (1989). Rapid assessment protocols for use in streams and rivers: benthic macroinvertebrates and fish. EPA/444/4-89-001, Washington DC, USA. Reynolds, J.B. 1996. Electrofishing. Pages 221-251 in B. R. Murphy and D. W. Willis, editors. Fisheries techniques, 2nd edition. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. Shannon, C.E. 1948. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal 27:379-423, 623-656. Shapiro, S.S. and M. B. Wilk. 1965. An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika 52:591-611. Simpson, E.H. 1949. Measurement of diversity. Nature 163:688. TWRC. 2006. Strategic Plan, 2006-2012. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Commission, Nashville, TN. March 2006. pp 124-125. http://tennessee.gov/twra/pdfs/StratPlan06-12.pdf Wilcoxon, F. 1945. Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biometrics Bulletin 1:80-83. Yoder, C.O., B.J. Armitage, and E.T. Rankin. 2006. Re-evaluation of the Technical Justification for Existing Ohio River Mainstem Temperature Criteria. Midwest Biodiversity Institute, Columbus, Ohio. 36 Figure 1. Location of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant on Wheeler Reservoir. 38 Figure 2. Location of Condenser Cooling Water (CCW) intake and discharge at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. 39 Biomonitoring Zones Upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Electrofishing Station <> Gill Netting Station Benthic Macroinvertebrate Transect V\Jildlife Observation Transect Figure 3. Locations of biomonitoring sites upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. 40 Biomonitoring Zones Downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Electrofishing Station <> Gill Netting Station Benthic Macroinvertebrate Transect Wildlife Observation Transect Figure 4. Locations of biomonitoring sites downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. 41 Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Index (SAHi) Transects Upstream and Downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant SAHi Transect Figure 5. Locations of transects used to characterize shoreline and river bottom habitat upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. 42 Rn, er Mile X :?93 112 0 112 1 rr lie 1000 O 1000 2000 3000 4 O feet  ? . Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant RJ.,,a1 Mifj,, 296 Tennessee River (Wheeler Reservoir) t ! I I I I. 0 Rm:>r @ Jl.J,*/fl 29 " 14 -Tennessee River (Wheeler Reservoir) River Channel -Water Temperature Monitoring Station Figure 6. Locations of water temperature monitoring sites used to compare water temperatures upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) intake and downstream of BFN discharge. Site 4 was used for upstream ambient temperatures of the BFN intake and was located at TRM 297.8. Sites 1, 16, and L 7 were used for temperatures downstream of BFN discharge and were each located at TRM 293.5. This figure originated in the technical report: Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Module III, Water Temperature Monitoring. 43 N i TVA -E&T -ES&R GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION&. ENGINEERING DECEMBER 2010 Figure 7. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted. Of the eight transects established upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, transects 1 and 2 are the closest to the plant. 44 N 1 TVA -E&T -ES&R GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION & ENGINEERING DECEMBER 2010 Figure 8. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted. 45 N i TVA-E&T-E &R GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATIO & ENGINEERING DECEMBER 2010 Figure 9. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted. 46 I I I I Substrate Type N Depth( ft) of water where sample was taken TVA -E&T-ES&R GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION & ENGINEERING DECEMBER 2010 Figure 10. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted. 47 Substrate Type N i 2 Kilometers *Depth( ft) of water where sample was taken TVA -E&T -ES&R GEOGRAPHIC I FORMATION & ENGINEERING JA UARY2011 Figure 11. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted. Transects 1 and 2 are the farthest downstream of the eight transects established downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. 48 Substrate Type N l 2 Kilometers *Depth( ft) of\\*ater where sample was taken TVA -E&T-ES&R GEOGRAPHIC I FORMATION & ENGINEERING JA UARY2011 Figure 12. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted. 49 Substrate Type N 2 Kilometers *Depth( ft) of water where sample was taken TVA -E&T -ES&R GEOGRAPHIC I FORMATION & ENGINEER! G JANUARY 2011 Figure 13. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River downstream of Browns Ferry uclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted. 50 Substrate Type I I I N l 2 Kilometers *Depth( ft) of water where sample was taken TVA -E&T -ES&R GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION & ENGINEERING JA UARY 2011 Figure 14. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River downstream of Browns Ferry uclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted. 51 34 32 "C .2l 30 u ..9:1 0 u "' QJ u 28 "' "' ::I 0 c: QJ tlJ) :c 26 c: -0 .... QJ ..c § 24 z 22 20 32 30 30 -29 29 --2828 28 2828 28 --f---f------27 27 27 27 27 27 ->-->--->-----26 2626 26 --------,___ 25 >--24 -----------,___ 23 ------------,___ 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2013 Year D TRM 295.9 (Avg=29) D TRM 292.5 (Avg=27) Figure 15. Comparison of observed values for the Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index metric "Number oflndigenous Species", over 13 years of autumn sampling at the sites upstream (TRM 295.9) and downstream (TRM 292.5) of Brown's Ferry Nuclear Plant. 52

-;;;--3 0 u:: 200000 150000 100000 50000 0 10/1 11/1 12/1 1/1 -FY 2013 Daily Mean Flow -Historical Daily Mean 1976-2012 2/1 3/1 4/1 5/1 6/1 7/1 8/1 9/1 10/1 11/1 Date Figure 16. Daily mean flows from Guntersville Dam, October 2012 through November 2013, and historic daily flows for the same fiscal year period, averaged over the years 1976-2012. 53 100 90 80 70 0 -; 60 .... ;j .... 111 .... 50 E Ill .... Ill 40 .... 111 30 -Upstream of BFN Intake -Downstream of BFN Discharge 20 10 0 ">.""'\,, ..... Figure 17. Daily water temperatures averaged over depth (3, 5, and 7 feet) upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant (BFN) intake and downstream of BFN discharge -October 2012 through November 2013. 54 Table 1. Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Index (SAHi) metrics and scoring criteria. Metric Cover Substrate Erosion Scoring Criteria Stable cover (boulders, rootwads, brush, logs, aquatic vegetation, artificial structures) in 25 to 75% of the drawdown zone Stable cover in 10 to 25% or> 75% of the drawdown zone Stable Cover in< 10% of the drawdown zone Percent of drawdown zone with gravel substrate > 40 Percent of drawdown zone with gravel substrate between 10 and 40 Percent substrate gravel < 10 Little or no evidence of erosion or bank failure. Most bank surfaces stabilized by woody vegetation. Areas of erosion small and infrequent. Potential for increased erosion due to less desirable vegetation cover (grasses) on> 25% of bank surfaces. Areas of erosion extensive, exposed or collapsing banks occur along> 30% of shoreline. Canopy Cover Tree or shrub canopy> 60% along adjacent bank Tree or shrub canopy 30 to 60% along adjacent bank Tree or shrub canopy< 30% along adjacent bank Riparian Zone Width buffered > 18 meters Habitat Gradient Width buffered between 6 and 18 meters Width buffered < 6 meters Habitat diversity optimum. All major habitats (logs, brush, native vegetation, boulders, gravel) present in proportions characteristic of high quality, sufficient to support all life history aspects of target species. Ready access to deeper sanctuary areas present. Habitat diversity less than optimum. Most major habitats present, but proportion of one is less than desirable, reducing species diversity. No ready access to deeper sanctuary areas. Habitat diversity is nearly lacking. One habitat dominates, leading to lower species diversity. No ready access to deeper sanctuary areas. Drawdown zone gradient abrupt (> 1 meter per 10 meters). Less than 10% of shoreline with abrupt gradient due to dredging. Drawdown zone gradient abrupt. (> 1 meter per 10 meters) in 10 to 40% of the shoreline resulting from dredging. Rip-rap used to stabilize bank along> 10% of the shoreline. Drawdown zone gradient abrupt in> 40 % of the shoreline resulting from dredging. Seawalls used to stabilize bank along > 10 % of the shoreline. 56 Score 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 Table 2. Expected trophic guild proportions* and expected numbers of species* in lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoir transltion zones, compared to values observed during 2013 monitoring at BFN. Lower Mainstem Tennessee River Transition Zones Proportion(%) Number of species Observed Upstream of Observed Downstream BFN (TRM 295.9) of BFN (TRM 292.5) Trisected range a Average b Trisected range

• Average b Trophic Guild Expected + Expected + Proportion Number of Proportion Number of (%) Species (%) Species Benthic Invertivore <6.7 6.4 to 13.4 > 13.4 5.5 +/- 1.2 <3 3 to 5 >5 5+/-1 10.7 5 8.3 4 Insectivore <24.6 24.6 to 49.1 >49.1 40.0 +/-4.5 <4 4 to 8 >8 8+/-1 32.5 12 60.0 11 Top Carnivore < 15.1 15.1 to 30.2 >30.2 18.3 +/- 2.2 <4 4 to 8 >8 10+/-1 14.4 12 7.1 8 Omnivore >38.5 19.3 to 38.5 <19.3 28.7 +/- 3.3 >6 3 to 6 <3 6+/-1 39.2 7 23.3 6 Planktivore <9.4 9.4 to 18.7 >18.7 6.4 +/-2.6 0 > 1 1+/-1 3.2 1.2 1 Parasitic < 0.1 0.1to0.2 > 0.2 0.1+/-0.04 0 > 1 1+/-0 Herbivore <1.8 1.8 to 3.6 >3.6 0.6 +/- 0.4 0 >1 1+/-0 Specialized Insectivore 0.1 1 *Expected values were calculated from data collected over 900 electrofishing runs and 600 overnight experimental gill net sets in transition areas of lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs. a Trisected ranges are intended to show below expected(-), expected, and above expected(+) values for trophic level proportions and species occurring within the transition zones in upper mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs. bAverage expected values are bound by 95% corifidence intervals. 57 Table 3. RFAI scoring criteria (2002) for inflow, transition, and forebay sections of lower mainstem reservoirs* in the Tennessee River system. Scoring Criteria Inflow Transition Fore bay Metric Gear 1 3 5 1 3 5 1 3 5 1. Total species Combined < 14 14-27 >27 < 16 16-30 >30 < 14 14-27 >27 2. Number of centrarchid species Combined <2 2-4 >4 <2 2-2 >2 <2 2-3 >3 3. Number ofbenthic invertivores Combined <4 4-7 >7 <4 4-7 >7 <4 4-6 >6 4. Number of intolerant species Combined <3 3-6 >6 <3 3-4 >4 <2 2-4 >4 5. Percent tolerant individuals Electro fishing >51% 26-51% <26% >54% 27-54% <27% >61% 30-61% <30% Gill netting >30% 15-30% < 15% >46% 22-46% <22% 6. Percent dominance by one species Electrofishing >47% 24-47% <24% >58% 29-58% <29% >59% 30-59% <30% Gill netting >34% 17-34% < 17% >43% 21-43% <21% 7. Percent non-indigenous species Electro fishing >4% 2-4% <2% >2% 1-2% <1% >2% 2-2% <2% Gill netting >2% 1-2% <1% >2% 1-2% < 1% 8. Number of top carnivore species Combined <4 4-7 >7 <4 4-7 >7 <4 4-7 >7 9. Percent top carnivores Electro fishing < 15% 15-29% >29% <5% 5-10% >10% <6% 6-12% >12% Gill netting <20% 20-39% >39% <25% 25-49% >49% 10. Percent omnivores Electrofishing >48% 24-48% <24% >48% 24-48% <24% >59% 30-59% <30% Gill netting >33% 16-33% < 16% >49% 24-49% <24% 11. Average number per run Electro fishing <68 68-136 >136 <243 243-487 >487 < 170 170-341 >341 Gill netting < 11 11-22 >22 <20 20-40 >40 12. Percent anomalies Electrofishing >5% 2-5% <2% >5% 2-5% <2% >5% 2-5% <2% Gill netting >5% 2-5% <2% >5% 2-5% <2% *Lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs include Guntersville, Wheeler, Wilson, Pickwick, and Kentucky. Transition scoring criteria were used to score sites upstream and downstream of BFN. 58 Table 4. Scoring criteria for laboratory-processed benthic macroinvertebrate community samples from inflow, transition, and forebay zones of mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs. Scoring Criteria Benthic Community Inflow Transition Forebay Metrics 1 3 5 1 3 5 1 3 5 1. Average number of taxa <4.2 4.2-8.3 >8.3 <3.3 3.3-6.6 >6.6 <2.8 2.8-5.5 >5.5 2. Proportion of samples with long-<0.6 0.6-0.8 >0.8 <0.6 0.6-0.9 >0.9 <0.6 0.6-0.8 >0.8 lived organisms 3. Average number of EPT taxa <0.9 0.9-1.9 >1.9 <0.6 0.6-1.4 >1.4 <0.6 0.6-0.9 >0.9 4. Average proportion of oligochaete >23.9 23.9-12.0 <12.0 >21.9 21.9-11.0 <11.0 >41.9 41.9-21.0 <21.0 individuals 5. Average proportion of total abundance comprised by the two most >86.2 86.2-73.l <73.l >87.9 87.9-77.8 <77.8 >90.3 90.3-81.7 <81.7 abundant taxa 6. Average density excluding <400.0 400.0-799.9 >799.9 <305.0 305.0-609.9 >609.9 <125.0 125.0-249.9 >249.9 chironomids and oligochaetes 7. Zero Samples: proportion of samples >O 0 >O 0 >O 0 containing no organisms Transition scoring criteria were used to score sites upstream and downstream of BFN. 59 Table 5. SAHi scores for shoreline habitat assessments conducted within the RFAI sample reach upstream of BFN, autumn 2009. Transects Left Descending 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Avg. Bank Latitude 34.68917 34.6832 34.6806 34.67959 34.67709 34.66978 34.67027 34.66841 Longitude -87.13621 -87.13172 -87.12188 -87.1183 -87.10876 -87.10915 -87.10009 -87.09753 Aquatic Macrophytes 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% SAHi Variables Cover 3 3 5 3 3 3 3 Substrate 5 3 3 5 3 Erosion 3 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 4 Canopy Cover 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Riparian Zone 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 4 Habitat 3 3 3 3 2 Slope 5 5 3 5 3 Total 17 29 27 25 21 25 19 19 24 Rating Fair Good Good Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Transects Right Descending 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Avg. Bank Latitude 34.70109 34.69937 34.69862 34.6986 34.69566 34.69302 34.69062 34.68843 Longitude -87.11896 -87.11535 -87.10973 -87.10061 -87.09157 -87.08836 -87.08452 -87.08094 Aquatic Macrophytes 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% SAHi Variables Cover 3 3 5 5 5 5 4 Substrate 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 Erosion 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Canopy Cover 5 5 5 3 Riparian Zone 5 5 5 3 Habitat 3 3 2 Slope 3 3 2 Total 15 27 25 19 17 19 19 19 23 Rating Poor Good Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Scoring criteria: poor (7-16),fair (17-26), good (27-35) 60 Table 6. SAHi scores for shoreline habitat assessments conducted within the RFAI sample reach downstream ofBFN, autumn 2009. Transects Left Descending 1 .2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Avg. Bank Latitude 34.72824 34.72603 34.72398 34.72068 34.71496 34.7128 34.71082 34.70351 Longitude -87.1759 -87.1728 -87.1704 -87.1678 -87.4621 -87.1577 -87.1543 -87.1488 Aquatic Macrophytes 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% SAHi Variables Cover 3 3 2 Substrate 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 Erosion 5 5 5 5 3 Canopy Cover 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 4 Riparian Zone 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 4 Habitat 3 3 2 Slope 3 Total 21 23 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 Rating Fair Fair Fair Fair. Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Transects Right Descending 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Avg. Bank Latitude 34.74369 34.74081 34.73891 34.73519 34.73081 34.7266 34.72058 34.71239 Longitude -87.1565 -87.1522 -87.1507 -87.1475 -87.1428 -87.1376 -87.1325 -87.1275 Aquatic Macrophytes 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% SAHi Variables Cover 3 3 3 5 5 5 3 Substrate 5 5 5 5 3 Erosion 5 5 5 5 5 4 Canopy Cover 5 5 5 5 3 3 4 Riparian Zone 3 5 3 5 3 Habitat 3 3 2 Slope Total 21 17 19 19 19 21 15 15 20 Rating Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Poor Poor Fair Scoring criteria: poor (7-16),fair (17-26), good (27-35) 61
• Table 7. Substrate percentages and average water depth (ft) per transect upstream and downstream of BFN, autumn 2009. % Substrate per transect upstream of BFN Substrate Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Avg. Silt 68.5 45.0 25.5 49.0 27.1 79.5 56.0 58.0 51.1 Mollusk Shell 3.5 30.5 45.5 38.5 56.8 13.5 38.0 30.0 32.0 Sand 12.5 0 19.0 0 9.0 0 0 0 5.1 Detritus 4.0 2.0 0.5 2.5 7.5 2.5 5.5 10.0 4.3 Boulder 9.0 9.5 0 10.0 0 0 0 0 3.6 Gravel 0.5 0.5 9.0 0 1.5 0.5 0.5 0 1.6 Cobble 1.0 10.0 0.5 0 0.5 0 0 0 1.5 Clay 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.0 0 0.5 Average Depth (ft) 19.2 17.4 13.3 17.5 16.2 15.0 15.5 15.5 16.2 Actual Depth Range: 6.5 to 36.9 ft % Substrate per transect downstream of BFN Substrate Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Avg. Silt 75.4 80.5 77.0 56.3 69.5 55.5 44.0 62.5 65.l Mollusk Shell 22.6 12.5 14.5 32.0 7.0 11.5 26.0 29.0 19.4 Sand 0 0 0.0 9.1 9.0 9.0 17.0 0.0 5.5 Detritus 2.0 6.5 8.0 2.5 0.5 1.0 2.5 4.5 3.4 Bedrock 0 0 0.0 0.0 9.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 2.4 Boulder 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 Cobble 0 0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.6 Gravel 0 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.2 Clay 0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Average Depth (ft) 21.0 20.0 20.2 18.7 18.3 18.9 20.6 20.2 19.7 Actual Depth Range: 9.1to31.7 ft 62 Table 8. Individual metric scores and the overall RFAI scores upstream (TRM 295.9) and downstream (TRM 292.5) of Browns Ferry Nuclear plant, autumn 2013. Autumn 2013 TRM 295.9 TRM 292.5 Metric A. Species richness and composition 1. Number of indigenous species (See Tables 9 and 10) 2. Number of centrarchid species (less Micropterus) 3. Number ofbenthic invertivore species 4. Number of intolerant species Combined Combined Combined Combined Obs 33 8 Black crappie Bluegill Green sunfish Longear sunfish Orangespotted sunfish Redear sunfish Warmouth White crappie 5 Black redhorse Freshwater drum Logperch Northern hog sucker Spotted sucker 6 Black redhorse Longear sunfish Northern hog sucker Skipjack herring Smallmouth bass Spotted sucker 63 Score 5 5 3 5 Obs 27 Black crappie Bluegill Green sunfish Longear sunfish Redear sunfish Warmouth 6 4 Black redhorse Freshwater drum Logperch Spotted sucker 5 Black redhorse Longear sunfish Skipjack herring Smallmouth bass Spotted sucker Score 3 5 3 5 Table 8. (Continued) Autumn 2013 TRM295.9 TRM292.5 Metric Obs Score Obs Score 5. Percent tolerant individuals Electrofishing 49.5% 39.0% Bluegill 10.7% Bluegill 3.3% Common carp 0.9% Common carp 0.2% Gizzard shad 26.6% Gizzard shad 17.% Golden shiner 0.9% Green sunfish 4.7% Green sunfish 1.8% 1.5 Largemouth bass 2.1% 1.5 Largemouth bass 5.3% Redbreast sunfish 0.1% Longnose gar 0.2% Spotfin shiner 11.7% Redbreast sunfish 0.2% Spotfin shiner 2.9% White crappie 0.2% Gill Netting 26.9% 33.3% Gizzard shad 9.6% Bluegill 3.9% Largemouth bass 7.7% 1.5 Common carp 2.0% 0.5 Longnose gar 9.6% Gizzard shad 25.5% Largemouth bass 2.0% 6. Percent dominance by one species Electro fishing 26.6% 2.5 35.1% 1.5 Gizzard shad Mississippi silverside Gill Netting 11.5% 2.5 25.5% 1.5 Channel catfish Gizzard shad 7. Percent non-indigenous species Electrofishing 11.2% 35.4% Common carp 0.9% 0.5 Common carp 0.2% 0.5 Mississippi silverside 10.1% Mississippi silverside 35.1% Redbreast sunfish 0.2% Redbreast sunfish 0.1% Gill Netting NA 2.5 2.0% 1.5 Common carp 64 Table 8. (Continued) Autumn 2013 TRM295.9 TRM292.5 Metric Obs Score Obs Score 8. Number of top carnivore species Combined 12 8 Black crappie Black crappie Flathead catfish Flathead catfish Largemouth bass Largemouth bass Longnose gar Sauger Sauger 5 Skipjack herring 5 Skipjack herring Smallmouth bass Smallmouth bass Spotted gar Spotted bass Yellow bass Spotted gar White bass White crappie Yellow bass B. Trophic composition 9. Percent top carnivores Electrofishing 12.1% 4.8% Black crappie 0.2% Largemouth bass 2.1% Flathead catfish 0.2% Smallmouth bass 2.5% Largemouth bass 5.3% Yellow bass 0.2% Longnose gar 0.2% Smallmouth bass 1.4% 2.5 0.5 Spotted bass 0.2% Spotted gar 0.8% White bass 2.4% White crappie 0.2% Yellow bass 1.5% Gill Netting 44.2% 49.0% Flathead catfish 1.9% Black crappie 2.0% Largemouth bass 7.7% Flathead catfish 7.8% Longnose gar 9.6% 2.5 Largemouth bass 2.0% 2.5 Sauger 7.7% Sauger 5.9% Skipjack herring 11.5% Skipjack herring 23.5% Spotted gar 1.9% Spotted gar 3.9% White bass 3.8% Yellow bass 3.9% 65 Table 8. (Continued) Autumn 2013 TRM295.9 TRM292.5 Metric Obs Score Obs Score 10. Percent omnivores Electro fishing 39.0% 22.4% Black buffalo 0.2% Channel catfish 2.3% Channel catfish 6.2% Common carp 0.2% Common carp 0.9% 1.5 Gizzard shad 17.0% 2.5 Gizzard shad 26.6% Smallmouth buffalo 2.9% Golden shiner 0.9% Smallmouth buffalo 4.2% Gill Netting 42.3% 39.2% Black buffalo 3.8% Black buffalo 2.0% Blue catfish 7.7% Blue catfish 3.9% Channel catfish 11.5% 0.5 Channel catfish 2.0% 0.5 Gizzard shad 9.6% Common carp 2.0% Smallmouth buffalo 9.6% Gizzard shad 25.5% Smallmouth buffalo 3.9% C. Fish abundance and health 11. Average number per run Electrofishing 44.1 0.5 61.2 0.5 Gill Netting 5.2 0.5 5.1 0.5 12. Percent anomalies Electrofishing 3.3% 1.5 1.1% 2.5 Gill Netting 0.0% 2.5 0.0% 2.5 Overall RF AI Score 46 40 Good Fair 66 Table 9. Species collected, ecological and recreational designation and corresponding electrofishing (EF) and gill net (GN) catch per unit effort upstream (TRM 295.9) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant discharge -Autumn 2013. Thermally Comm. Rec. Trophic Native Sensitive Valuable Valuable EF Catch EF Catch Total fish GN Catch Per Total Total fish Percent Common Name Scientific name level Tolerance Per Run Per Hr EF NetNight Fish GN Combined Longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus TC x TOL x O.G7 0.25 1 0.50 5 6 0.8 Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM x TOL x x 11.73 44.67 176 0.50 5 181 25.4 Common carp . Cyprinus carpio OM TOL x 0.40 1.52 6 6 0.8 Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas OM x TOL x x 0.40 1.52 6 6 0.8 Spotfin shiner Cyprinella spiloptera IN x TOL 1.27 4.82 19 19 2.7 Redbreast sunfish* Lepomis auritus IN TOL x O.Q7 0.25 1 0.1 Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN x TOL x 0.80 3.05 12 12 1.7 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN x TOL x 4.73 18.02 71 71 9.9 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides TC x TOL x 2.33 8.88 35 0.40 4 39 5.5 White crappie Pomoxis annularis TC x TOL x O.Q7 0.25 1 1 0.1 Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris TC x INT x 0.60 6 6 0.8 Northern hog sucker Hypentelium nigricans BI x INT 0.07 0.25 1 0.1 Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI x INT x x 1.13 4.31 17 0.10 18 2.5 Black redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei BI x INT x O.Q7 0.25 1 1 0.1 Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN x INT x 1.13 4.31 17 17 2.4 Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC x INT x 0.60 2.28 9 9 1.3 Spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatus TC x x 0.33 1.27 5 0.10 6 0.8 Threadfin shad Dorosoma petenense PK x x x 1.53 5.84 23 23 3.2 Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides IN x x 0.07 0.25 1 1 0.1 Bullhead minnow Pimephales vigilax IN x x 0.47 1.78 7 7 1.0 Smallmouth buffalo /ctiobus bubalus OM x x 1.87 7.11 28 0.50 5 33 4.6 Black buffalo /ctiobus niger OM x x O.Q7 0.25 1 0.20 2 3 0.4 Blue catfish /ctalurus furcatus OM x x x 0.40 4 4 0.6 Channel catfish lctalurus punctatus OM x x x 2.73 10.41 41 0.60 6 47 6.6 Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC x x x 0.07 0.25 1 0.10 1 2 0.3 White bass Marone chrysops TC x x 1.07 4.06 16 0.20 2 18 2.5 Yellow bass Marone mississippiensis TC x x x 0.67 2.54 10 10 1.4 Warmouth Lepomis gulosus IN x x O.Q7 0.25 1 1 0.1 Orangespotted sunfish Lepomis humilis IN x x 0.20 0.76 3 3 0.4 Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN x x 1.73 6.60 26 0.40 4 30 4.2 67 Table 9. (Continued) Thermally Comm. Rec. Trophic Native Sensitive Valuable Valuable EF Catch EF Catch Total fish GN Catch Per Total Total fish Percent Common Name Scientific name level species Tolerance Species Species Species Per Run Per Hr EF Net Night Fish GN Combined Composition Hybrid sunfish Hybrid Lepomis spp. IN x 0.20 0.76 3 3 0.4 Spotted bass Micropterus punctulatus TC x x 0.07 0.25 1 1 0.1 Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC x x 0.07 0.25 1 0.1 Logperch Percina caprodes BI x x 2.33 8.88 35 35 4.9 Sauger Sander canadensis TC x x 0.40 4 4 0.6 Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI x x 1.27 4.82 19 0.20 2 21 2.9 Mississippi silverside
• Menidia audens IN x x 4.47 17.01 67 67 9.4 Total 34 3 17 23 44.16 167.97 662 5.20 52 714 100.0 Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected 34 15 Trophic level: benthic invertivore (BJ), herbivore (HB), insectivore (JN), omnivore (OM), planktivore (PK), parasitic (PS), specialized insectivore (SP), top carnivore (TC); Tolerance: tolerant species (TOL), intolerant species (JNT);Comm.-Commercially, Rec.-Recreationally. *Denotes aquatic nuisance species next to common name. All species are considered representative important species. No species collected have a Federal Threatened or Endangered status. 68 Table 10. Species collected, ecological and recreational designation and corresponding electrofishing (EF) and gill net (GN) catch per unit effort downstream (TRM 292.5) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant discharge -Autumn 2013. Thermally Comm. Rec. Trophic Native Sensitive Valuable Valuable EF Catch EF Catch Total fish GN Catch Per Total Total fish Percent Common Name Scientific name level species Tolerance Species Species Species Per Run Per Hr EF NetNight Fish GN Combined Composition Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM x TOL x x 10.40 40.10 156 1.30 13 169 17.4 Common carp . Cyprinus carpio OM TOL x 0.13 0.51 2 0.10 1 3 0.3 Spotfin shiner Cyprinella spiloptera IN x TOL 7.13 27.51 107 107 11.0 Redbreast sunfish* Lepomis auritus IN TOL x 0.07 0.26 0.1 Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN x TOL x 2.87 11.05 43 43 4.4 Bluegill Lepomis macroqhirus IN x TOL x 2.00 7.71 30 0.20 2 32 3.3 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides TC x TOL x 1.27 4.88 19 0.10 20 2.1 Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris TC x INT x 1.20 12 12 1.2 Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI x INT x x 0.20 0.77 3 3 0.3 Black redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei BI x INT x 0.07 0.26 1 1 0.1 Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN x INT x 4.00 15.42 60 60 6.2 Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC x INT x 1.53 5.91 23 23 2.4 Spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatus TC x x 0.20 2 2 0.2 Threadfin shad Dorosoma petenense PK x x x 0.80 3.08 12 12 1.2 Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides IN x x 0.20 0.77 3 3 0.3 Bullhead minnow Pimephales vigilax IN x 0.33 1.29 5 5 0.5 Smallmouth buffalo Ictiobus bubalus OM x x 1.80 6.94 27 0.20 2 29 3.0 Black buffalo Ictiobus niger OM x x 0.10 0.1 Blue catfish lctalurus farcatus OM x x x 0.20 2 2 0.2 Channel catfish lctalurus punctatus OM x x x 1.40 5.40 21 0.10 1 22 2.3 Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC x x x 0.40 4 4 0.4 Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC x x x 0.13 0.51 2 0.20 2 4 0.4 Warmouth Lepomis gulosus IN x x 0.13 0.51 2 2 0.2 Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN x x 0.27 1.03 4 4 0.4 69 Table 10. (Continued) Thermally Comm. Rec. Trophic Native Sensitive Valuable Valuable EF Catch EF Catch Total fish GN Catch Per Total Total fish Percent Common Name Scientific name level species Tolerance Species Species Species Per Run Per Hr EF Net Night Fish GN Combined Composition Hybrid sunfish Hybrid Lepomis spp. IN x 0.13 0.51 2 2 0.2 Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC x x 0.10 1 0.1 Stripetail darter Etheostoma kennicotti SP x O.D7 0.26 0.1 Logperch Percina caprodes BI x x 1.87 7.20 28 28 2.9 Sauger Sander canadensis TC x x 0.30 3 3 0.3 Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens Bl x x 2.93 11.31 44 0.40 4 48 5.0 Mississippi silverside* Menidia audens IN x x 21.47 82.78 322 322 33.2 Total 28 3 15 17 61.20
• 235.97 918 5.10 51 969 100 Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected 24 15 Trophic level: benthic invertivore (Bl), herbivore (HB), insectivore (IN}, omnivore (OM), planktivore (PK), parasitic (PS}, specialized insectivore (SP), top carnivore (TC); Tolerance: tolerant species (TOL}, intolerant species (INT);Comm.-Commercially, Rec.-Recreationally. *Denotes aquatic nuisance species next to common name. All species are considered representative important species. No species collected have a Federal Threatened or Endangered status. 70 Table 11. Spatial statistical comparisons of numbers of species, mean electrofishing catch per unit effort values (number/run), tolerance designations, trophic levels, and non-indigenous individuals, including species richness and Simpson and Shannon diversity values, for samples collected near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, autumn 2013. Mean (Standard Deviation) Parameter Upstream Downstream Significant Test PValue {TRM295.9) (TRM292.5) Difference Statistic Number of species (per run) Total (Species richness) 11.1 (3.9) 10.3 (2.1) No Z= -1.01 0.31 Benthic invertivores 1.5 (1.0) 1.5 (0.6) No Z= 0.52 0.60 Insectivores 3.9 (1.8) 4.8 (1.6) No t= 1.49 0.15 Omnivores 2.9 (1.2) 2.1 (1.1) No t= -1.97 0.06 Top carnivores 2.6 (1.4) 1.5 (0.6) Yes Z= -2.26 0.02 Non-indigenous 1.1 (0.7) 0.9 (0.7) No Z= -0.75 0.46 Tolerant 3.7 (1.5) 4.1 (1.2) No Z= 0.65 0.52 Intolerant 1.2 (0.9) 1.6 (0.5) No Z= 1.22 0.22 Thermally sensitive 0.9 (0.7) 0.9 (0.5) No Z= -0.22 0.83 CPUE (per run) Total 2.9 (1.7) 4.1 (2.8) No Z= 0.79 0.43 Benthic invertivores 0.2 (0.2) 0.1 (0.1) No Z= 0.52 0.60 Insectivores 1.0 (0.8) 2.6 (2.4) No Z= 1.42 0.16 Omnivores 1.1 (1.1) 0.9 (0.7) No Z= -0.19 0.85 Top Carnivores 0.4 (0.2) 0.2 (0.1) Yes Z= -2.12 0.03 Non-indigenous 0.3 (0.4) 1.4(1.8) No Z= 1.11 0.27 Tolerant 1.5 (1.1) 1.6 (1.1) No Z= 0.60 0.55 Intolerant 0.2 (0.4) 0.4 (0.3) Yes Z= 2.70 0.01 Thermally sensitive 0.2 (0.3) 0.2 (0.1) No Z= -0.11 0.92 Diversity indices (per run) Simpson 0.8 (0.1) 0.8 (0.1) No Z= -1.12 0.26 Shannon 8.1 (5.2) 7.4 (6.0) No t= -0.46 0.65 71 Table 12. Summary of autumn RFAI scores from sites located directly upstream and downstream of BFN and scores from sampling conducted during 1993-2013* as part of the Vital Signs monitoring program in Wheeler Reservoir. Site Location 1993 1994 1995 1997 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2013 Inflow TRM348.0 46 48 42 48 36 38 42 38 44 44 42 38 38 40 40 46 40 Transition TRM295.9 45 45 34 40 30 41 37 43 39 43 46 41 39 42 39 44 42 46 BFN Upstream Transition BFN TRM292.5 43 40 41 43 43 36 42 42 45 36 38 38 40 Downstream Forebay TRM277.0 52 44 48 45 42 41 45 44 43 45 46 49 46 47 40 46 43 Elk River ERM6.0 43 47 36 49 36 49 44 49 47 39 42 43 39 Embayment No data were collected at BFN (TRMs 295.9 and 292.5) during 1996, 1998, or 2012. *Some scores have changed when compared to previous reports. Redbreast sunfish was changed to non-indigenous which may have affected scores for metrics 1 and 7. RFAI Scores: 12-21 ("Very Poor"), 22-31("Poor"),32-40 ("Fair"), 41-50 ("Good"), or 51-60 ("Excellent") 72 1993-2011 Avg. 42 41 41 45 44 Table 13. Comparison of RBI metric ratings and total scores for laboratory-processed samples collected upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Wheeler Reservoir, autumn 2013. Downstream Downstream Upstream TRM290.4 TRM293.2 TRM295.9 Metric Obs Rating Obs Rating Obs Rating 1. Average number of taxa 7.8 5 10.6 5 11 5 2. Proportion of samples with long-lived organisms 1.0 5 1.0 5 1.0 5 3. Average number of EPT taxa 1.2 3 1.8 5 1.7 5 4. Average proportion of oligochaete individuals 2.7 5 8.3 5 3.6 5 5. Average proportion of total abundance comprised by the two most abundant taxa 81.1 3 66.7 5 67.3 5 6. Average density excluding chironomids and oligochaetes 1,161.7 5 1,228.3 5 1,111.7 5 7. Zero-samples -proportion of samples containing no organisms 0 5 0 5 0 5 Benthic Index Score 31 35 35 Ecological Health Rating Excellent Excellent Excellent Reservoir Benthic Index Scores: 7-12 ("Very Poor), 13-18 ("Poor), 19-23 ("Fair"), 24-29 ("Good), 30-35 ("Excellent) 73 Table 14. Metric scores and overall RBI scores determined from field processing criteria, for sites upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Wheeler Reservoir, autumn 2000-2010. Downstream -TRM 291. 7 Avg No. Taxa % Long-Lived Avg.No.EPT % % Dominant Density excl Zero Samples Overall taxa Oligochaetes Taxa chiro and oligo Score Year Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score 2000 4 3 5 0.8 5 6.4 5 79.6 3 125 0 5 27 2001 5.6 5 5 1.1 5 5.7 5 43 5 230 1 0 5 31 2002 5.7 5 5 0.8 5 7.4 5 88.1 120 0 5 27 2003 6.5 5 1 5 1 5 0.3 5 76.1 5 1270 5 0 5 35 2004 6.7 5 5 5 1.4 5 74.4 5 523.3 3 0 5 33 2005 5.5 5 1 5 0.8 5 3.6 5 80.3 3 508.3 3 0 5 31 2006 6.2 5 5 0.1 5 2.3 5 77.3 5 272.3 0 5 31 2007 6.4 5 1 5 0.8 5 12.4 5 80.2 3 166.7 0 5 29 2008 6.3 5 0.9 5 1.1 5 7.2 5 81.5 3 181.7 1 0 5 29 2009 5 5 0.7 3 0.6 3 4.6 5 90.3 1 83.3 0 5 23 2010 4.6 5 0.7 3 0.6 3 0.3 5 94.8 126.7 1 0 5 23 Mean: 5.7 0.9 0.8 4.7 78.7 327.9 0.0 29 Maximum: 6.7 1.1 12.4 94.8 1270 0 Minimum: 4 0.7 0.1 0.3 43 83.3 0 74 Table 14. (Continued) Uestream -TRM 295.9 Avg No. Taxa % Long-Lived Avg.No.EPT % Oligochaetes %Dominant Density excl Zero Samples Overall taxa Taxa chiro and oligo Year Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Score 2000 4.6 5 5 0.8 5 6.6 5 77.6 5 190 0 5 31 2001 5.3 5 5 1 5 2.7 5 79.8 3 188.3 0 5 29 2002 6.5 5 5 0.8 5 7.2 5 75.6 5 266.7 0 5 31 2003 5.1 5 0.8 5 5 0.8 5 84.1 3 456.7 3 0 5 31 2004 6.2 5 1 5 0.9 5 1.1 5 73.7 5 353.6 3 0 5 33 2005 5.6 5 5 1.2 5 2.3 5 85.4 3 490 3 0 5 31 2006 5.9 5 0.8 5 0.7 3 7 5 75 5 348.3 3 0 5 31 2007 6.5 5 0.9 5 0.9 5 1.9 5 74.2 5 353.3 3 0 5 33 2008 5.8 5 0.7 3 0.5 3 7.8 5 85.4 3 220 0 5 25 2009 5.1 5 5 0.4 3 12.2 5 75.2 5 133.3 0 5 29 2010 4.2 3 5 0.8 5 2.1 5 92 108.3 0 5 25 Mean: 5.5 0.9 0.8 4.7 79.8 282.6 0 30 Maximum: 6.5 1 1.2 12.2 92 490 0 Minimum: 4.2 0.7 0.4 0.8 73.7 108.3 0 75 Table 15. Metric scores and overall RBI scores determined from lab processing criteria, for sites upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Wheeler Reservoir, 2001-2006. Downstream -TRM 291. 7 Avg No. Taxa % Long-Lived Avg.No.EPT % % Dominant Density excl Zero Samples Overall tax a Oligochaetes Taxa chiro and oligo Score Year Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score 2001 7.8 5 1 5 1.1 3 7.6 5 71.7 5 315 3 0 5 31 2002 5.4 3 5 0.9 3 10.9 5 88.2 106.7 1 0 5 23 2003 7.3 5 5 3 0.4 5 73.2 5 1270 5 0 5 33 2004 7.9 5 1 5 3 1.6 5 73.5 5 551.7 3 0 5 31 2006 9.4 5 5 1.6 5 2.3 5 78.1 3 448.2 3 0 5 31 Mean: 7.56 1.12 4.56 76.94 538.32 0 30 Maximum: 9.4 1.6 10.9 88.2 1270 0 Minimum: 5.4 1 0.9 0.4 71.7 106.7 0 -TRM 295.9 Avg No. Taxa % Long-Lived Avg.No.EPT % % Dominant Density excl Zero Samples Overall tax a Oligochaetes Taxa chiro and oligo Score Year Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score 2001 7.4 5 1 5 1 3 6.9 5 75.6 5 281.7 0 5 29 2002 6.8 5 5 1.1 3 5 5 74.l 5 281.7 1 0 5 29 2003 6.3 3 5 0.9 3 0.6 5 82.2 3 583.3 3 0 5 27 2004 6.2 3 1 5 0.8 3 1.1 5 72.2 5 336.2 3 0 5 29 2006 9.2 5 0.8 3 1.2 3 5.1 5 78.6 3 1273.3 5 0 5 29 2011 8.4 5 0.7 *3 3 6.3 5 81.1 3 430 3 0 5 27 Mean: 7.4 0.9 1.0 4.2 77.3 531.0 0 28 Maximum: 9.2 1.2 6.9 82.2 1273.3 0 Minimum: 6.2 0.7 0.8 0.6 72.2 281.7 0 76 Table 16a. Mean density per square meter of benthic taxa collected upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, autumn 2013. All taxa listed contributed to individual RBI metrics and total scores. BFN BFN BFN Downstream . Downstream Upstream TRM *Taxa TRM290.4 TRM293.2 295.9 ANNELIDA Hirudinea Rhynchobdellida Glossiphoniidae Actinobdella sp. 2 Actinobdella inequiannulata 2 Helobdella elongata 2 Helobdella stagnalis 7 8 8 Oligochaeta Haplotaxida Naididae 2 Tubificinae 30 78 20 Branchiura sowerbyi 3 7 5 Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri 5 7 18 ARTHROPODA Crustacea Malacostraca Amphipoda Corophiidae Apocorophium lacustre 167 38 282 Gammaridae Gammarus sp. 2 5 Hexapoda Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Dubiraphia sp. 2 Diptera Ceratopogonidae 2 Chironomidae Orthocladiinae Chironominae 2 Axarus sp. 5 32 45 Chironomus sp. 43 28 70 Cryf!.tochironomus Sf!.: 7 5 77 Table 16a. (Continued). BFN BFN BFN Downstream Downstream Upstream TRM Taxa TRM290.4 TRM293.2 295.9 Dicrotendipes neomodestus 7 Glyptotendipes sp. 3 Harnischia sp. 2 Microchironomus sp. 2 Polypedilum halterale gp. 3 2 Stempellina sp. 2 Xenochironomus xenolabis 5 Epoicocladius jlavens 2 Thienemanniella lobapodema 2 Tanypodinae Ablabesmyia annulata 33 13 32 Ablabesmyia mallochi 2 Coelotanypus sp. 97 263 145 Paramerina sp. 30 Procladius sp. 2 7 Ephemeroptera Ephemeridae Hexagenia sp. <l Omm 262 230 163 Hexagenia sp. > 1 Omm 262 213 100 Trichoptera Leptoceridae 2 Oecetis sp. 2 37 28 Polycentropodidae Cyrnellus fraternus 18 32 MOLLUSCA Gastropoda Architaenioglossa Viviparidae Campeloma decisum 2 2 Lioplax sulculosa 3 3 Viviparus sp. 5 3 12 N eotaenioglossa Hydrobiidae Amnicola limosa 5 113 53 Somatogyrus sp. 3 2 Pleuroceridae Pleurocera canaliculata 3 78 Table 16a. (Continued). BFN BFN BFN Downstream Downstream Upstream TRM Taxa TRM290.4 TRM293.2 295.9 Bivalvia Veneroida Corbiculidae Corbiculafluminea <lOmm 263 312 278 Corbicula fluminea > 1 Omm 3 40 Sphaeriidae Eupera cubensis 5 Musculium transversum 158 233 85 Pisidium compressum 2 Unionidae Truncilla donaciformis 3 Utterbackia imbecillis 2 NEMATODA 22 3 PLATYHELMINTHES Turbellaria Tricladida Planariidae Dug_esia tigrina 3 2 5 Number of samples 10 10 10 Mean-Density per meter2 1,380 1,703 1,482 Taxa Richness 21 29 34 Sum of area samEled {meter} 0.6 0.6 0.6 79 Table 16b. Mean density per square meter of benthic taxa collected but not included in individual RBI metrics or total scores for sites upstream and downstream of BFN, autumn 2013. BFN BFN BFN Downstream Downstream Upstream Taxa TRM290.4 TRM293.2 TRM295.9 ARTHROPODA Crustacea Branchiopoda Cladocera Sididae Diaphanosoma sp. 7 Sida crystallina 5 Maxillopoda Cyclopoida Cyclopidae Macrocyclops albidus 5 5 Mesocyclops edax 7 2 Ostracoda Candoniidae Candonasp. 20 27 3 Hexapoda Insecta Diptera Chaoboridae Chaoborus punctipennis 5 10 Chelicerata Arachnida Acariforrnes Arrenuridae Arrenurus sp. 3 Unionicolidae Unionicola sp. 2 2 3 CNIDARIA Medusozoa Hydrozoa Hydridae HJ!..drasp_. 8 3 5 Number of samples 10 10 10 Mean-Density per meter2 40 57 25 Taxa Richness 5 8 6 Sum of area sameled {meter2} 0.6 0.6 0.6 80 Table 17. RBI scores from sites directly upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant and from sites sampled as part of the Vital Signs monitoring program on Wheeler Reservoir. L TA-Long term average. Site Location 1994 1995 1997 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Autumn 2013 LTA Inflow *TRM 347 31 21 25 23 21 25 31 31 31 33 33 31 27 28 BFN Upstream TRM 295.9 33 25 31 31 31 29 31 31 33 31 31 33 25 29 25 27 30 (Transition) BFN Downstream TRM 291.7 27 31 27 35 33 31 31 29 29 23 23 29 (Transition) BFN Downstream TRM 293.2 23 23 (Transition) BFN Downstream TRM 290.4 21 21 (Transition) Forebay *TRM 277 19 15 23 17 I 7 15 15 19 15 13 13 15 13 13 13 Embayment *ERM6 15 13 15 15 15 15 17 13 13 13 13 Reservoir Benthic Index Scores: 7-12 ("Very Poor"), 13-18 ("Poor"), 19-23 ("Fair"), 24-29 ("Good"), 30-35 ("Excellent") *=sites with field-processed scores all years. All other sites, 1994 -2010 are field-processed scores and 2011 forward are lab-processed scores. 81 31 35 35 31 17 13 Table 18. Wildlife observed along 2100 m transects parallel to the Tennessee River shoreline, upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, October 2013. Survey Site Birds Obs. Re12tile/Am12hibian Obs. Mammals Obs. TRM 295.9 (US) RDB Blue Jay 5 Map Turtle 37 Eastern Grey Squirrel 2 Great Blue Heron 6 Carolina Chickadee Belted Kingfisher 4 American Crow American Robin Unidentified Songbird 1 Double-crested Cormorant 2 Brown Thrasher Mockingbird 1 Mallard 2 LDB Ring-billed Gull Map Turtle 26 Common Snipe Turkey Vulture 2 Unidentified Songbird 8 Great Blue Heron 2 Mallard 12 Belted Kingfisher Pileated Woodpecker Killdeer 2 TRM 292.5 (DS) RDB Blue Jay 5 Map Turtle 2 American Robin 2 Downy Woodpecker 2 American Crow 1 Belted Kingfisher 3 Turkey Vulture 2 American Coot 4 Great Blue Heron 2 Nuthatch 1 Mallard 2 European Starling 10 Unidentified Songbird 2 LDB Belted Kingfisher 2 Map Turtle 69 Great Blue Heron 4 Pied-billed Grebe 2 Least Flycatcher Unidentified Songbird 3 Blue Jay Mockingbird 2 RDB -right descending bank; LDB -left descending bank 82 Table 19. Water temperature (°F) depth profiles collected to determine the extent of the thermal plume from BFN during 2013. Transect and Profile Location (width from right descending hank) October 2013 Below Discharge-TRM Ambient-TRM 294.4 BFN Discharge-TRM 294.0 293.8 Mid-plume TRM 291.8 End of Plume-TRM 289.9 Depth (m) 10% 30% 50% 70% 90% 10% 30% 50% 70% 90% 10% 30% 50% 70% 90% 10% 30% 50% 70% 90% 10% 30% 50% 70% 90 % 0.3 74.9 74.1 74.2 74.I 73.8 83.9 82.0 74.0 74.7 74.8 80.2 79.9 79.9 74.0 74.9 77.5 76.6 75.4 75.6 76.4 77.0 76.6 76.5 76.7 76.8 1.5 74.8 74.1 74.2 74.l 73.7 83.2 79.5 74.1 74.7 74.8 81.9 79.8 79.8 74.0 74.8 77.5 76.6 75.4 75.5 76.4 76.8 76.5 76.4 76.7 76.7 2 77.8 3 74.8 74.I 74.2 74.0 74.6 76.3 74.1 74.7 80.8 79,6 74.0 77.5 76.6 75.4 75.5 76.3 76.7 76.5 76.3 76.6 76.3 4 76.5 5 74.1 74.2 74.5 80.2 79.3 75.4 76.2 6 74.5 75.3 7 74.I 73.6 78.7 9 74.1 76.3 Shaded numbers represent temperatures 3.6°F (2°C) or greater above ambient temperature. 83 Table 20. Water quality parameters collected along vertical depth profiles at three transects within the RFAI sample areas upstream and downstream of BFN during 2013. October, 2013 LDB Mid-channel RDB TRM 295.9 De Eth oc OF EH Cond DO De Eth oc OF EH Cond DO De Eth oc OF EH Cond DO Upstream 0.3 22.84 73.11 7.38 173.6 6.92 0.3 22.50 72.50 7.52 167.1 7.89 0.3 22.72 72.90 7.78 162.6 7.98 Boundary 1.5 22.85 73.13 7.38 173.3 6.92 1.5 22.49 72.48 7.50 166.7 7.86 1.5 22.72 72.90 7.76 162.6 7.97 2.5 22.77 72.99 7.38 173.3 6.89 3 22.50 72.50 7.48 166.4 7.85 3 22.61 72.70 7.73 161.9 7.83 Mid-site 0.3 22.45 72.41 7.79 177.7 7.60 0.3 22.94 73.29 7.40 167.0 6.87 0.3 22.94 73.29 7.82 162.3 7.69 1.5 22.47 72.45 7.79 178.1 7.59 1.5 22.89 73.20 7.39 167.2 6.92 1.5 22.92 73.26 7.81 162.2 7.71 3 22.91 73.24 7.79 162.5 7.66 Downstream 0.3 22.15 71.87 7.52 170.4 7.15 0.3 25.77 78.39 7.61 165.7 7.44 0.3 25.16 77.29 7.70 164.4 7.60 Boundary 1.5 23.49 74.28 7.46 166.5 7.07 l.5 23.44 74.19 7.76 162.5 7.64 3 23.14 73.65 7.45 166.7 7.03 3 23.04 73.47 7.80 162.1 7.76 5 23.05 73.49 7.43 167.6 6.99 7 22.97 73.35 7.41 168.0 6.97 TRM 292.5 De Eth oc OF EH Cond DO DeEth oc Of Cond DO De Eth oc Of EH Cond DO Upstream 0.3 23.77 74.79 7.79 171.9 7.83 0.3 23.38 74.08 7.46 169.1 6.98 0.3 28.85 83.93 7.82 166.4 7.82 Boundary I 23.76 74.77 7.75 171.9 7.82 1.5 23.38 74.08 7.47 168.4 6.95 1.5 28.46 83.23 7.80 166.1 7.74 3 23.34 74.01 7.40 168.0 6.83 3 23.66 74.59 7.89 164.0 8.12 5 23.6 74.48 7.82 164.5 8.00 6 23.6 74.48 7.83 164.6 8.02 Mid-site 0.3 24.66 76.39 7.60 167.1 7.17 0.3 24.12 75.42 7.62 167.8 7.63 0.3 25.27 77.49 7.90 164.7 8.02 1.5 24.65 76.37 7.61 166.8 7.19 1.5 24.10 75.38 7.62 167.7 7.34 1.5 25.27 77.49 7.91 165.0 8.03 3 24.59 76.26 7.64 166.7 7.20 3 24.10 75.38 7.62 167.3 7.33 3 25.27 77.49 7.88 165 7.99 5 24.10 75.38 7.62 168.0 7.36 6 24.07 75.33 7.62 169.0 7.35 Downstream 0.3 24.90 76.82 7.72 166.2 7.59 0.3 24.74 76.53 7.70 164.3 7.66 0.3 24.98 76.96 7.81 165.2 7.80 Boundary 1.5 24.85 76.73 7.59 165.5 6.92 1.5 24.69 76.44 7.69 164.3 7.63 1.5 24.91 76.84 7.80 165.4 7.80 3 24.62 76.32 7.52 165.7 6.54 3 24.63 76.33 7.66 164.7 7.56 3 24.85 76.73 7.82 165.2 7.87 5 24.53 76.15 7.62 163.8 7.37 Abbreviations: °C -Temperature in degrees Celsius, °F -Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit, Cond -Conductivity, DO -Dissolved Oxygen 84 ATTACHMENT 11 Reference TVA. 2014. Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River Near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2013. Knoxville, Tennessee: River and Reservoir Compliance Monitoring Program.

Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River Near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge Autumn 2013 December 2014 Tennessee Valley Authority River and Reservoir Compliance Monitoring Program Knoxville, Tennessee Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................. i List of Figures*************************************************************************************.************************************:****** iii List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. v Acronyms and Abbreviations ....................................................................................................... vii Executive Summary .....................................................*.................................................................. 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 2 Plant Description ......................................................................................................................... 3 Methods ........................................................................................................................................... 3 Fish and Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sample Locations Upstream and Downstream of BFN .... 3 Aquatic Habitat in the Vicinity of BFN ...................................................................................... 4 Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Assessment ................................................................................... 5 River Bottom Habitat .............................................................................................................. 5 Fish Community Sampling Methods and Data Analysis for Sites Upstream and Downstream of BFN ............................................................................................................................................. 6 Statistical Analyses ................................................................................................................ 12 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Sampling Methods and Data Analysis for Sites Upstream and Downstream of BFN .......................................................................................... 14 Visual Encounter Survey (Wildlife Observations) .................................................................... 16 Wheeler Reservoir Flow and BFN Temperature ....................................................................... 17 Thermal Plume Characterization ............................................................................................... 18 Water Quality Parameters at Fish Sampling Sites during RF AI Samples ................................. 19 Results and Discussion ................................................................................................................. 19 Aquatic Habitat in the Vicinity of BFN .................................................................................... 19 Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Assessment ................................................................................. 19 River Bottom Habitat ............................................................................................................ 20 Fish Community ........................................................................................................................ 20 Statistical Analyses .................................................................................................................... 26 Fish Community Summary ........................................................................................................ 26 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community .................................................................................... 28 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Summary .................................................................... 30 Visual Encounter Survey (Wildlife Observations) .................................................................... 32 . Wheeler Reservoir Flow and BFN Water Temperature ............................................................ 32 Thermal Plume Characterization ............................................................................................... 33 Water Quality Parameters at Fish Sampling Sites during RFAI Samples ................................. 33 Literature Cited ............................................................................................................................. 35 Figures ........................................................................................................................................... 37 Tables ............................................................................................................................................ 55 ii List of Figures Figure 1. Location of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant on Wheeler Reservoir ..................... , ........... 38 Figure 2. Location of Condenser Cooling Water (CCW) intake and discharge at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. ............. , ........................................................................................................ 39 Figure 3. Locations of biomonitoring sites upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant ................ 40 Figure 4. Locations of biomonitoring sites downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. .......... 41 Figure 5. Locations of transects used to characterize shoreline and river bottom habitat upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. ............................................................... 42 Figure 6. Locations of water temperature monitoring sites used to compare water temperatures upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) intake and downstream of BFN discharge. ********************************************************************************************************************************************* 43 Figure 7. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted. Of the eight transects established upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, transects 1 and 2 are the closest to the plant. ............................................................................................... 44 Figure 8. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted ................................................................................................................................ 45 Figure 9. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted ................................................................................................................................ 46 Figure 10. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted . ............................................................................................................................................. 47 Figure 11. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted. Transects 1 and 2 are the farthest downstream of the eight transects established downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. ...................................................................... 48 Figure 12. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted ................................................................................................................................ 49 Figure 13. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted ................................................................................................................................ 50 Figure 14. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted ................................................................................................................................ 51 111 Figure 15. Comparison of observed values for the Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index metric "Number oflndigenous Species", over 13 years of autumn sampling at the sites upstream (TRM 295.9) and downstream (TRM 292.5) of Brown's Ferry Nuclear Plant. .................. 52 Figure 16. Daily mean flows from Guntersville Dam, October 2012 through November 2013, and historic daily flows for the same fiscal year period, averaged over the years 1976-2012. ********************************************************************************************************************************************* 53 Figure 17. Daily water temperatures averaged over depth (3, 5, and 7 feet) upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant (BFN) intake and downstream ofBFN discharge -October 2012 through November 2013 ............................................................................................. 54 IV List of Tables Table 1. Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Index (SAHI) metrics and scoring criteria .......................... 56 Table 2. *Expected trophic guild proportions* and expected numbers of species* in mainstem Tennessee River reservoir transition zones, compared to values observed during 2013 monitoring at BFN ..................................................................................................... 57 Table 3. RFAI scoring criteria (2002) for inflow, transition, and forebay sections of lower mainstem reservoirs* in the Tennessee River system .......................................................... 58 Table 4. Scoring criteria for laboratory-processed benthic macroinvertebrate community samples from inflow, transition, and forebay zones ofmainstem Tennessee River reservoirs ............................................................................................................................. 59 Table 5. SAHI scores for shoreline habitat assessments conducted within the RFAI sample reach upstream ofBFN, autumn 2009 .......................................................................................... 60 Table 6. SAHI scores for shoreline habitat assessments conducted within the RF AI sample reach downstream ofBFN, autumn 2009 ..................................................................................... 61 Table 7. Substrate percentages and average water depth (ft) per transect upstream and downstream ofBFN, autumn 2009 ..................................................................................... 62 Table 8. Individual metric scores and the overall RFAI scores upstream (TRM 295.9) and downstream (TRM 292.5) of Browns Ferry Nuclear plant, autumn 2013 .......................... 63 Table 9. Species collected, ecological and recreational designation and corresponding electrofishing (EF) and gill net (GN) catch per unit effort upstream (TRM 295.9) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant discharge -Autumn 2013 ..................................................... 67 Table 10. Species collected, ecological and recreational designation and corresponding electrofishing (EF) and gill net (GN) catch per unit effort downstream (TRM 292.5) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant discharge -Autumn 2013 ..................................................... 69 Table 11. Spatial statistical comparisons of numbers of species, mean electrofishing catch per unit effort values (number/run), tolerance designations, trophic levels, and non-indigenous individuals, including species richness and Simpson and Shannon diversity values, for samples collected near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, autumn 2013 .................................... 71 Table 12. Summary of autumn RF AI scores from sites located directly upstream and downstream ofBFN and scores from sampling conducted during 1993-2013 as part of the Vital Signs monitoring program in Wheeler Reservoir ...................................................... 72 Table 13. Comparison of RBI metric ratings and total scores for laboratory-processed samples collected upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Wheeler Reservoir, autumn 2013 .................. * ...................................................................................................... 73 Table 14. Metric scores and overall RBI scores determined from field processing criteria, for sites upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Wheeler Reservoir, autumn 2000-2010 ............................................................................................................... 74 v Table 15. Metric scores and overall RBI scores determined from lab processing criteria, for sites upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Wheeler Reservoir, 2001-2006 . ............................................................................................................................................. 76 Table 16a. Mean density per square meter ofbenthic taxa collected upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, autumn 2013. All taxa listed contributed to individual RBI metrics and total scores ....................................................................................................... 77 Table 16b. Mean density per square meter ofbenthic taxa collected but not included in individual RBI metrics or total scores for sites upstream and downstream ofBFN, autumn 2013 ..................................................................................................................................... 80 Table 17. RBI scores from sites directly upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant and from sites sampled as part of the Vital Signs monitoring program on Wheeler Reservoir. LTA-Long term average ................................................................................... 81 Table 18. Wildlife observed along 2100 m transects parallel to the Tennessee River shoreline, upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, October 2013 ......................... 82 Table 19. Water temperature (°F) depth profiles collected to determine the extent of the thermal plume from BFN during 2013 ............................................................................................. 83 Table 20. Water quality parameters collected along vertical depth profiles at three transects within the RF AI sample areas upstream and downstream of BFN during 2013 ................. 84 Vl ATL BIP BFN ccw CWA LDB NPDES QA RBI RDB RFAI RIS SARI TRM TVA vs Acronyms and Abbreviations Alternate Thermal Limit Balanced Indigenous Community Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant Condenser Cooling Water Clean Water Act Left Descending Bank National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Quality Assurance Reservoir Benthic Macroinvertebrate Index Right Descending Bank Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index Representative Important Species Shoreline Assessment Habitat Index Tennessee River Mile Tennessee Valley Authority Vital Signs Vll Executive Summary In 2013, samples of the ecological community upstream and downstream of Brown's Ferry Nuclear Plant were collected, analyzed, and compared to historical data to determine the effects, if any, of the thermal effluent from the plant, in compliance with §316(a) of the Clean Water Act. Shoreline aquatic habitat assessed along both banks was rated "Fair". Assessment of river bottom habitat indicated that three dominant substrates observed at both sites were silt, mollusk shell, and sand. The fish communities upstream and downstream ofBFN, analyzed using RFAI methodology, both showed fair diversity of species and moderate percentages of pollution tolerant individuals. The downstream community supported lower diversity of top carnivore species, but otherwise, was.generally similar to that upstream and was not adversely affected by thermal effluent from BFN. Benthic communities for both downstream sites, at TRM 293 .2 within the thermal plume from BFN discharge, and at TRM 290.4 downstream of the thermal plume, were considered similar to the upstream benthic community. All three sites received RBI ratings of "Excellent". A visual wildlife survey was conducted to assess bird, reptile, and mammal populations around BFN. Turtles and a variety of birds were encountered at both locations. Water quality analysis indicated that daily mean flow past BFN was noticeably higher in 2013 than historic values, but that daily mean temperatures were similar upstream and downstream of the plant. Depth profiles of water temperature, conductivity, dissolved oxygen concentration, and acidity (pH) indicated that values of all these parameters were within acceptable levels both upstream and downstream of BFN. 1 Introduction Section 316(a) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) authorizes alternate thermal limits (ATL) for the control of the thermal component of a point source discharge so long as the limits will assure the protection of Balanced Indigenous Populations (BIP) of aquatic life. The term "balanced indigenous population," as defined by Environmental Protection Agency regulations, describes a biotic community that is typically characterized by: (1) diversity appropriate to the ecoregion; (2) the capacity to sustain itself through cyclic seasonal changes; (3) the presence of necessary food chain species; and ( 4) the lack of domination by pollution-tolerant species. Prior to 2000, the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TV A) Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) was operating under an ATL that had been continued with each permit renewal based on studies conducted in the mid-1970s. In 1999, EPA Region IV began requesting additional data in conjunction with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit renewal applications to verify that BIP was being maintained at TV A's thermal plants with ATLs. TVA proposed that its existing Vital Signs (VS) monitoring program, supplemented with additional fish and benthic macroinvertebrate community monitoring upstream and downstream of thermal plants with A TLs, was appropriate for that purpose. The VS monitoring program began in 1990 in the Tennessee River System. This program was implemented to evaluate ecological health conditions in major reservoirs as part of TV A's stewardship role. One of the 5 indicators used in the VS program to evaluate reservoir health is the Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index (RF AI) methodology which incorporates fish species richness and composition, trophic composition, and fish abundance and health. RF AI has been thoroughly tested on TV A and other reservoirs and published in peer-reviewed literature (Jennings, et al., 1995; Hickman and McDonough, 1996; McDonough and Hickman, 1999). Fish communities are used to evaluate ecological conditions because of their importance in the aquatic food web and because fish life cycles are long enough to integrate conditions over time. Benthic macroinvertebrate populations are assessed using the Reservoir Benthic Index (RBI) methodology. Because benthic macroinvertebrates are relatively 2 immobile, negative impacts to aquatic ecosystems can be detected earlier in benthic macroinvertebrate communities than in fish communities. These data are used to supplement RF AI results to provide a more thorough examination of differences in aquatic communities upstream and downstream of thermal discharges. During 2000-2010, TVA initiated a study to evaluate fish and benthic macroinvertebrate communities in areas immediately upstream and downstream of BFN using RF AI and RBI multi-metric evaluation techniques. The study was continued in 2011 and broadened to include additional data for analyses requested by the EPA. Reported here are the results of biological monitoring and water quality data collected upstream and downstream ofBFN during 2013, with appropriate comparisons to data collected at these sites previous autumn samples. Plant Description BFN is a three-unit nuclear-fueled facility with a total generating capacity of 3,300 megawatts. Unit One, which remained idle for several years, returned to service June 2007. BFN is located on Wheeler Reservoir, approximately 18 miles upstream of Wheeler Dam at Tennessee River Mile (TRM) 294 in Limestone County, Alabama (Figure 1). Current operation utilizes a through condenser cooling water (CCW) system, withdrawing water from the Tennessee River through an intake structure at TRM 294.3 and discharging the water through a multi-port diffuser located downstream from the plant at TRM 293.6 (Figure 2). Maximum flow rate of the CCW is approximately 3,468 million gallons per day. Methods Fish and Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sample Locations Upstream and Downstream ofBFN Thermal discharge from BFN enters the Tennessee River at TRM 293.6 in Wheeler Reservoir (Figure 2). The fish community was sampled at two sites to evaluate similarities and differences in the fish community in the vicinity ofBFN. One site was centered at TRM 295.9, upstream of the plant's intake (Figure 3), and served as a reference site unaffected by the thermal discharge. 3 The second site was centered at TRM 292.5, downstream of the cooling water discharge (Figure 4). From 2000 to 2010, to assess the benthic macroinvertebrate community in the vicinity ofBFN data was collected along transects established across the full width of Wheeler reservoir at two sites in the transition zone, one at TRM 295.9, upstream of the intake, and one at TRM 291.7, downstream of the BFN discharge. Prior to this time, a sampling site in the forebay zone of Wheeler Reservoir (TRM 277) was used as the downstream comparison site. Because other factors, unrelated to influence from BFN, kept benthic communities depressed, both at the forebay site and in the Elk River embayment (Wheeler Reservoir, Elk River Mile [ERM] 6 -between BFN and the forebay site), the downstream site was moved into the transition zone two miles downstream from the BFN diffuser at TRM 291.7 in 2000. Benthic scores and community composition from this site were used through 2010 for downstream comparisons to the upstream benthic site at TRM 295.9. Beginning in 2011, samples were collected in the reservoir's transition zone along transects established at three sites. One site, upstream of the plant intake, was maintained at TRM 295.9 (Figure 3). Two sites were selected downstream to more accurately assess possible effects of BFN discharge on the downstream benthic communities: one at TRM 293.2, within the thermal plume from the BFN discharge, and a second at TRM 290.4 downstream of the thermal plume (Figure 4). Aquatic Habitat in the Vicinity of BFN Shoreline and river bottom habitat data presented in this report were collected during autumn 2009. TVA assumes habitat data to be valid for five years, barring any major changes to the river/reservoir (e.g. major flood event). No significant changes have occurred in the river system from the initial characterization, but in the event of a major change to the river/reservoir, habitat would be re-evaluated during the following sample period. 4 Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Assessment An integrative multi-metric index (Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Index or SAHi), including several habitat parameters important to resident fish species, was used to measure existing fish habitat quality in the vicinity of BFN. Using the general format developed by Plafkin et al. (1989), seven metrics were established to characterize selected physical habitat attributes important to reservoir resident fish populations which rely heavily on the littoral (shoreline) zone for reproductive success, juvenile development, and adult feeding (Table 1 ). Habitat Suitability Indices (US Fish and Wildlife Service), along with other sources of information on biology and habitat requirements (Etnier and Starnes 1993 ), were consulted to develop "reference" criteria or "expected" conditions from a high quality environment for each parameter. Some generalizations were necessary in setting up scoring criteria to cover the various requirements of all species within a single index. When possible, the quality of shoreline aquatic habitat was assessed while traveling parallel to the shoreline in a boat and evaluating the habitat within 10 vertical feet of full pool. Transects were established across the width of Wheeler reservoir within the fish community sampling reaches upstream and downstream ofBFN (Figure 5). At each transect, near-shore aquatic habitat was assessed along sections of shoreline corresponding to the left descending bank (LDB) and right descending bank (RDB) .. For each shoreline section (16 upstream and 16 downstream of BFN), percentages of aquatic macrophytes in the littoral areas were estimated, then each section was scored by comparing the observed conditions associated with each individual metric to the "reference" conditions and assigning the metric a corresponding value: "Good" 5; "Fair" 3; or "Poor" 1(Table1). These scores for each of the seven metrics were summed to obtain the SAHi value for the shoreline section, and this value was assigned a habitat quality descriptor based on trisecting the range of potential SAHi values ("Poor" 7-16, "Fair" 17-26, and "Good" 27-35). River Bottom Habitat Along each transect described above, 10 benthic grab samples were collected with a Ponar sampler at points equally spaced from the LDB to the RDB. Substrate material collected with the Ponar was emptied into a screen, and percent composition of each substrate was estimated to 5 determine existing benthic habitat across the width of the river. Water depths (feet) at each sample location were recorded. If no substrate was collected after multiple Ponar drops, it was assumed that the substrate was bedrock. For example, when the Ponar sampler was pulled shut, collectors could feel substrate consistency. If it shut easily and was not embedded in the substrate on numerous drops within the same location, the substrate was recorded as bedrock. Fish Community Sampling Methods and Data Analysis for Sites Upstream and Downstream of BFN Fish sampling methods included boat electrofishing and gill netting (Hubert 1996; Reynolds 1996). Electrofishing methodology consisted of fifteen boat electrofishing runs near the shoreline, each 300 meters long and of approximately 10 minutes duration. The total near-shore area sampled was approximately 4,500 meters (15,000 feet). Experimental gill nets (so called because of their use for research as opposed to commercial fishing) were used as an additional gear type to collect fish from deeper habitats not effectively sampled by electrofishing. Each experimental gill net consists of five 6.1 meter panels for a total length of30.5 meters (100.1 feet). The distinguishing characteristic of experimental gill nets is mesh size that varies between panels. For this application, each net has panels with mesh sizes of 2.5, 5.1, 7.6, 10.2, and 12.7 cm. Experimental gill nets are typically set perpendicular to river flow, extending from near-shore to the main channel of the reservoir. Ten overnight experimental gill net sets were used at each area. Fish collected were identified by species, counted, and examined for anomalies (such as disease, deformations, parasites or hybridization). The resulting data were analyzed using RF AI methodology. The RFAI uses 12 fish community metrics from four general categories: Species Richness and Composition; Trophic Composition; Abundance; and Fish Health. Individual species can be utilized for more than one metric, though hybrid species and non-indigenous species are excluded from metrics counting numbers of individual species. Together, these 12 metrics* 6 provide a balanced evaluation of fish community integrity. The individual metrics are shown below, grouped by category: Species Richness and Composition (1) Total number of species -Greater numbers of species are considered representative of healthier aquatic ecosystems. As conditions degrade, numbers of species at an area decline. (2) Number of centrarchid species -Sunfish species (excluding black basses) are invertivores and a high diversity of this group is indicative of reduced siltation and suitable sediment quality in littoral areas. (3) Number of benthic invertivore species -Due to the special dietary requirements of this species group and the limitations of their food source in degraded environments, numbers ofbenthic invertivore species increase with better environmental quality. (4) Number of intolerant species -A group made up of species that are particularly intolerant of physical, chemical, and thermal habitat degradation. Higher numbers of intolerant species suggest the presence of fewer environmental stressors. (5) Percentage of tolerant individuals (excluding young-of-year) -An increasec:J. proportion of individuals tolerant of degraded conditions signifies poorer water quality. (6) Percent dominance by one species -Ecological quality is considered reduced if one species inordinately dominates the resident fish community. 7 (7) Percentage of non-indigenous species -Based on the assumption that indigenous species reduce the quality of resident fish communities. (8) Number of top carnivore species -Higher diversity of piscivores is indicative of the availability of diverse and plentiful forage species and the presence of suitable habitat. Trophic Composition (9) Percent top carnivores -A measure of the functional aspect of top carnivores which feed on major planktivore populations. (10) Percent omnivores -Omnivores are less sensitive to environmental stresses due to their ability to vary their diets. As trophic links are disrupted due to degraded conditions, specialist species such as insectivores decline while opportunistic omnivorous species increase in relative abundance. Abundance (11) Average number per run (number of individuals) -Based on the assumption that high quality fish assemblages support large numbers of individuals. Fish Health (12) Percent anomalies -Incidence of diseases, lesions, tumors, external parasites, deformities, blindness, and natural hybridization is noted for all fish collected, with higher incidence indicating less favorable environmental conditions. RF AI methodology addresses all four attributes or characteristics of a "balanced indigenous population" (BIP), defined by the CW A as described below: 8 (1) A biotic community characterized by diversity appropriate to the ecoregion: Diversity is addressed by the metrics in the Species Richness and Composition category, especially metric 1 -"Number of species." Determination ofreference conditions based on the transition zones oflower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs (as described below) ensures appropriate species expectations for the ecoregion. (2) The capacity for the community to sustain itself through cyclic seasonal change: TV A uses an autumn data collection period for biological indicators, both VS and upstream/downstream monitoring. Autumn monitoring is used to document community condition or health after being subjected to the wide variety of stressors throughout the year. One of the main benefits of using biological indicators is their ability to integrate stressors through time. Examining the condition or health of a community at the end of the "biological year" (i.e., autumn) provides insights into how well the community has dealt with the stresses through an annual seasonal cycle. Likewise, evaluation of the condition of individuals in the community (in this case, individual fish as reflected in Metric 12) provides insights into how well the community can be expected to withstand stressors through winter. Further, multiple sampling years during the permit renewal cycle add to the evidence of whether the autumn monitoring approach has correctly demonstrated the ability of the community to sustain itself through repeated seasonal changes. (3) The presence of necessary food chain species: Integrity of the food chain is measured by the Trophic Composition metrics, with support from the Abundance metric and Species Richness and Composition metrics. A healthy fish community is comprised of species that utilize complex feeding mechanisms extending into multiple levels of the aquatic food web. Three dominant fish trophic levels exist within Tennessee River reservoirs: insectivores, omnivores, and top carnivores. To determine the presence of necessary food chain species, these three groups should be well represented within the overall fish community. Other fish trophic levels include benthic invertivores, planktivores, herbivores, and parasitic species. Insectivores include most sunfish, minnows, and silversides. Omnivores include gizzard shad, common carp, carpsuckers, buffalo, and channel and blue catfish. Top carnivores 9 include bass, gar, skipjack herring, crappie, flathead catfish, sauger, and walleye. Benthic invertivores include freshwater drum, suckers, and darters. Planktivores include alewife, threadfin shad, and paddlefish. Herbivores include largescale stonerollers. Lampreys in the genus Ichthyomyzon are the only parasitic species occurring in Tennessee River reservoirs. To establish expected proportions of each trophic guild and the expected number of species included in each guild occurring in transition zones in lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs (Kentucky, Pickwick, Wilson, Wheeler, and Guntersville reservoirs), data collected from 1993 to 2010 were analyzed for each reservoir zone (inflow, transition, forebay). Samples collected in the downstream vicinity of thermal discharges were not included in this analysis so that accurate expectations could be calculated with the assumption that these data represent what should occur in lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs absent from point source effects (i.e. power plant discharges). Data from 900 electrofishing runs (a total of 405,000 meters of shoreline sampled) and from 600 overnight experimental gill net sets were included in this analysis for transition areas in lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs. From these data, the range of proportional values for each trophic level and the range of the number of species included in each trophic level were trisected. These trisections were intended to show less than expected, expected, and above expected values for trophic level proportions and species occurring within transition reservoir zones in lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs. The data were also averaged and bound by confidence intervals (95%) to further evaluate expectations for proportions of each trophic level and the number of species representing each trophic level (Table 2). (4) A lack of domination by pollution-tolerant species: Domination by pollution-tolerant species is determined by metrics 3 ("Number ofbenthic invertivore species"), 4 ("Number of intolerant species"), 5 ("Percent tolerant individuals"), 6 ("Percent dominance by one species"), and 10 ("Percent omnivores"). Scoring categories are based on "expected" fish community characteristics in the absence of human-induced impacts other than impoundment of the reservoir. These categories were developed from historical fish assemblage data representative of transition zones from lower 10 mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs (Hickman and McDonough, 1996). Attained values for each of the 12 metrics were compared to the scoring criteria and assigned scores to represent relative degrees of degradation: least degraded (5); intermediately degraded (3); and most degraded (1). Scoring criteria for lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs are shown in Table 3. If a metric was calculated as a percentage (e.g., "Percent tolerant individuals"), the data from electrofishing and gill netting were scored separately and allotted half the total score for that individual metric. Individual metric scores for a sampling area (i.e., upstream or downstream) were summed to obtain the RF AI score for the area. TV A uses RF AI results to determine maintenance of BIP using two approaches. One is "absolute" in that it compares the RF AI scores and individual metrics to predetermined values. The other is "relative" in that it compares RF AI scores attained downstream to the upstream control site. The "absolute" approach is based on Jennings et al. (1995) who suggested that favorable comparisons of the RF AI score attained from the potential impact zone to a predetermined criterion can be used to identify the presence of normal community structure and function, and hence existence ofBIP. For multi-metric indices, TVA uses two criteria to ensure a conservative screening of BIP. First, if an RF AI score reaches 70% of the highest attainable score of 60 (adjusted upward to include sample variability as described below), and second, if fewer than half of RF AI metrics receive a low (1) or moderate (3) score, then community structure and function are considered normal, indicating that BIP had been maintained and no further evaluation would be needed. RFAI scores range from 12 to 60. Ecological health ratings (12-21 "Very Poor", 22-31 "Poor", 32-40 "Fair", 41-50 "Good, or 51-60 "Excellent") are then applied to scores. As discussed in detail below, the average variation for RF AI scores in TVA reservoirs is 6 (+/- 3). Therefore, any location that attains a RF AI score of 45 (7 5% of the highest score) or higher would be considered to have BIP. It must be stressed that scores below this threshold do not necessarily reflect an adversely impacted fish community. The threshold is used to serve as a conservative screening level; i.e., any fish community that meets these criteria is obviously not adversely impacted. 11 RF AI scores below this level require a more in-depth look to determine if BIP exists. An inspection of individual RF AI metric results and species of fish used in each metric are an initial step to help identify if operation ofBFN is a contributing factor. This approach is appropriate because a validated multi-metric index is being used and scoring criteria applicable to the zone of study are available. A comparison of RF AI scores from the area downstream of BFN to those from the upstream (control) area is one basis for determining if operation of the plant has had any impacts on the resident fish community. The definition of"similar" is integral to accepting the validity of these interpretations. The Quality Assurance (QA) component of the VS monitoring program deals with how well the RF AI scores can be repeated and is accomplished by collecting a second set of samples at 15%-20% of the areas each year. Comparison of paired-sample QA data collected over seven years shows that the difference in RF AI index scores ranges from 0 to 18 points. The mean difference between these 54 paired scores is 4.6 points with 95% confidence limits of 3.4 and 5.8. The 75ili percentile of the sample differences is 6, and the 90ili percentile is 12. Based on these results, a difference of 6 points or less in the overall RF AI scores is the value selected for defining "similar" scores between upstream and downstream fish communities. That is, if the downstream RF AI score is within 6 points of the upstream score and ifthere are no major differences in overall fish community composition, then the two locations are considered similar. It is important to bear in mind that differences greater than 6 points can be expected simply due to method variation (25% of the QA paired sample sets exceeded that value). An examination of the 12 metrics (with emphases on fish species used for each metric) is conducted to analyze any difference in scores and the potential for the difference to be thermally related. Statistical Analyses In addition to RF AI analyses, data were analyzed using traditional statistical methods. Data from the survey were used to calculate catch per unit effort (CPUE), expressed as number of fish per electrofishing run or fish per net night. CPUE values were calculated by pollution tolerance, trophic guilds (e.g., benthic invertivores, top carnivores, etc.), thermal sensitivity (Yoder et al. 2006), and indigenous status. CPUE, diversity, and species richness values were computed for each electrofishing effort (to maximize sample size; n = 30) and compared upstream and downstream to assess potential effects of power plant discharges. 12 Diversity was quantified using two commonly applied indices: Shannon diversity index (Shannon 1948) and Simpson diversity index (Simpson 1949). Both indices account for the number of species present, as well as the relative abundance of each species. Shannon diversity index values were computed using the formula: s , (ni) (ni) H = -L N In N -i=1 where: S = total number of species N =total number of individuals ni = total number of individuals in the i1h species The Simpson diversity index was calculated as follows: where: S = total number of species N = total number of individuals ni = total number of individuals in the i1h species An independent two-sample t-test was used to test for differences in CPUE, species richness, and diversity values upstream and downstream of BFN (a= 0.05). Before statistical tests were performed using this method, data were analyzed for normality using the Shapiro-Wilk test (Shapiro and Wilk, 1965) and homogeneity of variance using Levene's test (Levene 1960). normal data or data with unequal variances were transformed using either square root conversion or the ln(x+ 1) transformation. Transformed data were reanalyzed for normal distribution and equal variances. If transformation normalized the data or resulted in homogeneous variances, transformed data were tested using an independent two-sample t-test. If transformed data were 13 not normally distributed or had unequal variances, statistical analysis was conducted using the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test (Mann and Whitney 1947; Wilcoxon 1945). Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Sampling Methods and Data Analysis for Sites Upstream and Downstream of BFN During autumn 2013, benthic macroinvertebrate data were collected in the transition zone of Wheeler Reservoir along three transects established across the reservoir's width as described above. The upstream transect (TRM 295.9) was used as a control site to compare to benthic community composition potentially affected by the BFN thermal effluent. One downstream transect (TRM 293.2) was within the thermal plume and one transect (TRM 290.4) was located just below the downstream extent of the plume. A Ponar sampler (area per sample 0.06 m2) was used to collect benthic samples at ten points equally spaced along each transect. When heavier substrate was encountered, a Peterson sampler (area per sample 0.11 m2) was used. Sediments from each sample were washed on a 533 µ screen, and organisms were picked from the screen and from any remaining substrate. Samples were fixed in formalin and sent to an independent consultant who identified each organism collected to the lowest possible taxonomic level. Benthic samples were evaluated using seven metrics that represented characteristics of the benthic community. Results for each metric were assigned a rating of 1, 3, or 5, based upon comparison to reference conditions developed for VS reservoir inflow sample sites (Table 4). For each sample site, the ratings for the seven metrics were then summed to produce an RBI score. Potential RBI scores ranged from 7 to 35. Ecological health ratings derived from the range of potential values (7-12 "Very Poor", 13-18 "Poor", 19-23 "Fair", 24-29 "Good, or 30-35 "Excellent") were then applied to scores. The individual metrics are described below: (1) Average number of taxa -Calculated by averaging the total number oftaxa present in each sample at a site. Greater taxa richness indicates better conditions than lower taxa richness. 14 (2) Proportion of samples with long-lived organisms -A presence/absence metric that is evaluated based on the proportion of samples with at least one long-lived organism ( Corbicula, Hexagenia, mussels, or snails) present. The presence of long.:lived taxa is indicative of conditions that allow long-term survival. (3) Average number of EPT taxa-Calculated by averaging the number of Ephemeroptera (mayfly), Plecoptera (stonefly), and Trichoptera (caddis fly) taxa present in each sample at a site. Higher diversity of these taxa indicates good water quality and better habitat conditions. ( 4) Percentage of oligochaetes -Calculated by averaging the percentage of oligochaetes in each sample at a site. Oligochaetes are considered tolerant organisms, so a higher proportion indicates poorer water quality. (5) Percentage as dominant taxa -Used as an evenness indicator, this metric is calculated by selecting the two most abundant taxa in a sample, summing the number of individuals in those two taxa, dividing that sum by the total number of animals in the sample, and converting to a percentage for that sample. The percentage is then averaged for the 10 samples at each site. Because the most abundant taxa often differ among the 10 samples at a site, this approach allows more discretion to identify imbalances at a site than developing an average for a single dominant taxon for all samples at a site. Dominance of one or two taxa indicates poor conditions. (6) Average density excluding chironomids and oligochaetes -Calculated by first summing the number of organisms -excluding chironomids and oligochaetes -present in each sample and then averaging these densities for the 10 samples at a site. This metric examines the community, excluding taxa which often dominate under adverse conditions. Higher abundance of taxa other than chironomids and oligochaetes indicates good water quality conditions. (7) Zero-samples: Proportion of samples containing no organisms -For each site, the proportion of samples which have no organisms present. "Zero-samples" indicate living 15 conditions unsuitable to support aquatic life (i.e. toxicity, unsuitable substrate, etc.). A site with no zero samples was assigned a score of five. Any site with one or more zero samples was assigned a score of one. A similar or higher benthic index score at the downstream sites compared to the upstream site was used as the basis for determining absence of impact on the benthic macroinvertebrate community related to BFN's thermal discharge. The QA component of VS monitoring compared benthic index scores from 49 paired sample sets collected over seven years. Differences between these paired sets ranged from 0 to 14 points; the 75th percentile was four, the 90th percentile was six. The mean difference between these 49 paired scores was 3 .1 points with 95% confidence limits of 2.2 and 4.1. Based on these results, a difference of four points or less was the value selected for defining "similar" scores between upstream and downstream benthic communities. That is, ifbenthic scores at the downstream sites are within four points of the upstream score, the communities are considered similar. However, differences greater than four points can be expected simply due to method variation (25% of the QA paired sample sets exceeded that value). Any difference in scores of greater than four points between communities is examined on a metric-by-metric basis to determine what caused the difference and the potential for the difference to be thermally related. Visual Encounter Survey (Wildlife Observations) Permanent survey sites were established on both the right and left descending banks at one location upstream of the BFN thermal discharge, centered at TRM 295.9 (Figure 3), and at a second location downstream of the discharge, centered at TRM 292.5 (Figure 4). Each survey site spanned a distance of 2, 100 m along the shoreline, and the beginning and ending points were marked using GPS for relocation. Surveys were conducted by steadily traversing the site by boat, at approximately 30 m offshore and parallel to the shoreline, and simultaneously recording observations of wildlife. The sampling frame of each survey generally followed the strip or belt transect concept: from the center-line of each transect landward to an area that included the shoreline and riparian zone (i.e., 16 belt width generally averages 60 m where vision is not obscured), all individuals observed were enumerated. Wildlife observed visually or detected audibly was identified to the lowest taxonomic trophic level, and a direct count of individuals observed per trophic level was recorded. If a flock of a species or a mixed flock of a group of species was observed, numbers of individuals present of each species were estimated. Time was recorded at the start and end points of each survey to provide a general measure of effort expended. Variation of observation times among surveys was primarily due to the difficulty of approaching some wildlife species without inadvertently flushing them from basking or perching sites. The principal objective of the surveys was to provide a preliminary set of observations to verify that trophic levels of birds, 'mammals and reptiles were not affected by thermal effects from the BFN discharge. If expected trophic levels were not represented, further investigation will be used to target particular species and/or species groups (guilds) in an attempt to determine the cause. Wheeler Reservoir Flow and BFN Temperature Total discharge from Guntersville Dam was used to describe the amount of water flowing past BFN and was obtained from TV A's River Operations database. Water temperature data were also obtained from TV A's River Operations database. Locations of water temperature monitoring sites used to measure water temperatures upstream of BFN intake and downstream ofBFN discharge are depicted in Figure 6. Ambient temperatures upstream of the BFN intake were measured at Site 4, located at TRM 297 .8. Upstream daily mean temperatures were calculated by averaging temperatures collected at depths of 3, 5, and 7 feet. Temperatures downstream ofBFN discharge were measured at Sites 1, 16, and 17, all located at TRM 293.5. Downstream temperatures were calculated by first averaging temperatures at each site across depths of 3, 5, and 7 feet. The resultant values from each site were then averaged together to obtain overall mean daily water temperatures downstream ofBFN. 17 Thermal Plume Characterization Physical measurements to characterize and map the BFN thermal plume were collected concurrent with biological field sampling. The plume was characterized under representative thermal maxima and seasonally-expected low flow conditions. Measurements were collected during periods of normal operation of BFN, as reasonably practicable, to capture the thermal plume under existing river flow/reservoir elevation conditions. This effort evaluated potential impacts on recreation and water supply uses and allowed general delineation of the "Primary Study Area" -per the EPA (1977) draft guidance defined as the "entire geographic area bounded annually by the locus of the 2°C above ambient surface isotherms as these isotherms are distributed throughout an annual periocf' -ensuring placement of the biological sampling locations within thermally influenced areas. However, it is important to emphasize that the 2:2°C isopleth boundary is not a bright line; it is dynamic, changing geometrically in response to changes in ambient river flows and temperatures and BFN operations. As such, samples collected outside of, but generally proximate to the Primary Study Area boundary cannot be considered free of thermal influence and thus should not be discounted. Every effort was made to collect biological samples in thermally affected areas as guided by the Primary Study Area definition. Depth profiles of temperature from the river surface to the bottom were collected at points along transects crossing the plume. One transect was located proximate to the thermal discharge point; subsequent downstream transects were concentrated in the near field area of the plume where the change in plume temperature was expected to be most rapid. The distance between transects in the remainder of the Primary Study Area increased with distance downstream (or away from the discharge point). The farthest downstream transect was just outside of the Primary Study Area. A transect upstream of the discharge, in an area not affected by the thermal plume, was included for determining ambient temperature conditions. The total number of transects needed to fully characterize and delineate the plume was determined in the field. Collection of temperature profiles along a given transect began at or near the shoreline from which the discharge originated and continued until the far shore was reached. Measurements across a transect were typically conducted at points 10%, 30%, 50%, 70%, and 90% from the 18 originating shoreline, though the number of measurement points along transects was sometimes increased in proportion to the magnitude of the temperature change across a given transect. The distances between transects, and between measurement points along each transect, depended on the size of the discharge plume. Temperature data were compiled and analyzed to present the horizontal and vertical dimensions of the BFN thermal plume using spatial analysis techniques to yield plume cross-sections, which can be used to demonstrate the existence of a zone of passage for fish and other aquatic species under or around the plume. Water Quality Parameters at Fish Sampling Sites during RFAI Samples Water quality conditions were measured using a Hydrolab that provided readings for water temperature (0C), conductivity (µSiem), dissolved oxygen (mg/L), and pH. Within each of the electrofishing sample reaches upstream and downstream ofBFN, transects were established across the river at the most upstream boundary, at mid-reach, and at the most downstream boundary. Along each transect, samples were collected at the RDB, in mid-channel, and at the LDB by recording readings along a vertical gradient from just above the bottom of the river to approximately 0.3 meters from the surface at one-to two-meter intervals. Results and Discussion Aquatic Habitat in the Vicinity of BFN Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Assessment SAHi methodology was used to evaluate shoreline habitat for eight transects located within each of the RF AI sample reaches upstream and downstream of BFN. Shoreline transects were sampled on each bank (Figure 5). Of the sixteen shoreline transects sampled upstream ofBFN, 19% (3 transects) scored as good, 8% (12 transects) scored as fair, and 6% (1 transect) scored as poor. The average score for 19 transects on the left descending bank was 24 ("Fair"), while scores for transects on the right descending bank averaged 23 ("Fair"). No aquatic macrophytes were observed on either shoreline (Table 5). Of the sixteen shoreline transects sampled downstream ofBFN, 0% scored as good, 88% (14 transects) scored as fair, and 12% (2 transects) scored as poor. The average scores for transects on the left bank descending were equal to those on the right bank descending (20, "Fair"). No aquatic macrophytes were observed on either shoreline (Table 6). River Bottom Habitat Figures 7-10 compare substrate proportions at each sample point along each of the eight transects upstream ofBFN during autumn 2009. Figures 11-14 compare substrate proportions at each sample point along each of the eight transects downstream ofBFN during autumn 2009 (Figure 5). Transects in Figures 7-14 are depicted at an exaggerated slant from bank to bank, in order to fit all of the data on the figure. Actual river bottom habitat sampling upstream and downstream of BFN was conducted in a straight line from the left descending bank to the right descending bank. The three most dominant substrate types encountered along the eight transects upstream of BFN were silt (51.1 %), mollusk shell (32.0%), and sand (5.1 %). Though in slightly different proportions-silt (65.1 %), mollusk shell (19.4%), and sand (5.4%)-these three substrates were also the most prominent downstream of BFN. Fish Community The total RFAI score for the fish community upstream ofBFN was 46 ("Good"). The score for the community downstream was 40 ("Fair"). Because the difference between these scores was within the 6-point range of acceptable variation, the communities were considered similar during autumn 2013. 20 Below, the two communities are compared in further detail, utilizing the four characteristics of a BIP. Discussion of this comparison includes the metrics appropriate for each characteristic. (1) A biotic community characterized by diversity appropriate to the ecoregion Total number of species (highest rating requires> 30) Thirty-three indigenous species were collected upstream, earning the highest score (5). Downstream, 27 indigenous species* were collected earning a mid-range score (3) (Table 8). Seven species -longnose gar (six specimens), golden shiner (six), white crappie (one), northern hogsucker (one), white bass (two), orangespotted sunfish (three), and spotted bass (one) -were collected only upstream. One individual of stripetail darter was collected only downstream (Tables 9, 10). Number of centrarchid species (highest rating requires> 2) Eight centrarchid species were collected upstream and six were collected downstream, resulting in the highest score (5) for both sites (Table 8). White crappie and orangespotted sunfish were collected only upstream (Tables 9, 10). Number of benthic invertivore species (highest rating requires > 7) Five benthic invertivore species were collected upstream and four downstream, resulting in range scores (3) for both sites (Table 8). Spotted sucker, black redhorse, logperch, and freshwater drum were collected at both sites; northern hogsucker was collected only upstream (Tables 9, 10). Number of intolerant species (highest rating requires> 4) Six intolerant species collected upstream and five collected downstream. Both sites earned the highest score (5) (Table 8). Skipjack herring, spotted sucker, black redhorse, longear sunfish, and smallmouth bass were collected at both sites; northern hogsucker was collected only upstream (Tables 9, 10). 21 Number of top carnivore species (highest rating requires> 7) Twelve top carnivore species were collected upstream, and eight were collected downstream. Both sites earned the highest score (5) (Table 8). Longnose gar, white.crappie, white bass and spotted bass were collected only upstream (Tables 9, 10). Summary Both the upstream control site and the site downstream of the BFN discharge earned identical scores for four of the five metrics discussed. The upstream site earned a higher score for only metric 1, "Total number of species". (2) The capacity for the community to sustain itself through cyclic seasonal change Maintenance of diversity can often be indicative of the ability of a fish community to withstand the stressors of an annual seasonal cycle. Autumn RF AI sampling has been conducted at the site upstream ofBFN since 1993, except during 1996, 1998, and 2012. Autumn sampling has been conducted at the site downstream since 2000, except during 2012. Average scores calculated over the history of sampling are identical for both sites ( 41, "Good") (Table 11 ). Figure 15 shows the numbers of indigenous species collected during autumn RF AI samples upstream and downstream of BFN from 2000 through 2013. Over this time period, the numbers collected at the upstream site ranged from 24 to 33, with an average of29 species. Downstream, numbers collected ranged from 23 to 28, with an average of 27 species. Collections upstream have generally been higher than those downstream: more species were collected upstream during nine years, while the same number of species was collected at both sites during 2003, 2007, and 2008, and more species were collected downstream than upstream during only 2009. The numbers of indigenous species collected during autumn 2013 (33 upstream, 27 downstream) showed the greatest difference between the sites over the history of sampling. Percentage of anomalies (highest rating requires< 2 %) Anomalies (i.e. visible lesions, bacterial and fungal infections, parasites, muscular and skeletal deformities, and hybridization) observed in a fish community can also be an indicator of the 22 ability of the community to sustain itself over an annual seasonal cycle. A greater percentage of anomalies (3.3%) was observed in the electrofishing sample at the upstream site, and the site earned a lower partial score than the downstream site, which exhibited only 1.1 % anomalies. No anomalies were observed in the gill net portion of the sample at either site, and both earned the highest partial score for this portion of the metric (Table 8). Summary Average RF AI scores, determined over the history of autumn sampling around BFN, were -identical upstream and downstream. Though more indigenous species were collected upstream during most years, the average numbers of species -calculated over the years during which sampling occurred at both sites -were similar upstream and downstream. The electrofishing catch upstream exhibited a greater percentage of anomalies than that downstream, but no anomalies were observed in the gill net catch at either site. (3) The presence of necessary food chain species Estimates of the trophic compositions of the fish communities upstream and downstream of BFN were calculated from the collection data (Tables 9, 10) as the proportion of the total sample made up by each trophic guild. In direct comparison of the communities upstream and downstream of BFN, the proportions ofbenthic invertivores and planktivores were somewhat similar. The proportions of other trophic guilds were notably different. However, omnivores and top carnivores were collected in greater proportion upstream, while insectivores were collected in greater proportion downstream. One additional guild -specialized insectivore -was represented downstream but not upstream. No parasitic or herbivore species were collected at either site. The numbers of species collected of four guilds were similar upstream and downstream, but notably more top carnivore species were collected upstream, and one species of specialized insectivore was collected only downstream (Table 2). In comparison to expected values for transition zones in lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs (Table 2), upstream proportions ofbenthic invertivores and insectivores were within the range of expected values, while the proportions of top carnivores, omnivores, and planktivores were poorer than expected. Downstream, insectivores comprised an unusually high 23 proportion of the sample (60.0%), primarily due to the collection of large numbers of two species: Mississippi silverside comprised more than 33% of the total catch, and spotfin shiner comprised more than 11%(Table9, 10). The proportions ofbenthic invertivores and omnivores were within the expected ranges, while the proportions of top carnivores and planktivores were below expectations. The collection downstream also included one specimen of "Specialized Insectivore" -the stripetail darter (Table 10) -representing the guild as 0.1 % of the sample. Upstream, the numbers ofbenthic invertivore, insectivore, top carnivore and planktivore species met or exceeded expectations, while the number of omnivore species was poorer (more species) than expected. Downstream, the numbers of species representing all six trophic guilds met or exceeded expectations (Table 2). Summary Trophic composition of the fish community upstream was not similar to that downstream. Proportions of insectivores, top carnivores, omnivores, and specialized insectivores were different between the sites. Although proportions were different between sites, further analysis revealed that numbers collected were similar for all trophic guilds except insectivore and top carnivore. The difference of insectivore proportions between sites was due to larger numbers of Mississippi silverside collected at the downstream site; this species schools, and therefore can be collected in large numbers. (4) A lack of domination by pollution-tolerant species Number of benthic invertivore species Five benthic invertivore species were collected upstream, and four were collected downstream. Both sites earned highest scores (5). Number of intolerant species (highest rating requires> 4) Six intolerant species were collected upstream, and five were collected downstream. Both sites received the highest score (5). Skipjack herring, spotted sucker, black redhorse, loµgear sunfish, and smallmouth bass were collected at both sites; northern hogsucker was collected only upstream (Tables 8-10). 24 Percentage of tolerant individuals (highest rating requires< 27 % electrofishing; < 15 % gill net) The upstream site earned mid-range scores for both portions of the sample: 49.5% of the electrofishing sample and 26.9% of the gill net sample were tolerant individuals. Downstream, 39.0% of the electrofishing sample-a mid-range partial score-and 33.3% of the gill net sample -the lowest partial score -were tolerant individuals (Table 8). Seven tolerant species -gizzard shad, common carp, spotfin shiner, redbreast sunfish, green sunfish, bluegill, and largemouth bass -were collected at both sites. Longnose gar, golden shiner, white crappie, and northern hogsucker were collected only upstream. Gizzard shad and longnose gar were caught in equal percentages (9.6%) in gill nets upstream, but gizzard shad was clearly the most abundant species collected by electrofishing upstream (26.6%) and by either method downstream (17.0% of the electrofishing catch, 25.5% of the gill net catch) (Table 8). Percent dominance by one species (highest rating requires < 29 % electrofishing; < 17 % gill net) The upstream site earned the highest score for both portions of the sample. Gizzard shad was the most prevalent species in the electrofishing catch (26.6%) and channel catfish was most prevalent in the gill net catch (11.5%). The downstream site earned mid-range scores for both portions of the sample, with Mississippi silverside most prevalent in the electrofishing sample (35.l %) and gizzard shad most prevalent in the gill net sample (25.5%) (Table 8). Percentage of omnivores (highest rating requires< 24 % electrofishing; < 16 % gill net) The electrofishing catch upstream consisted of a higher percentage of omnivores (39.0%) and earned a lower partial score (1.5) than that downstream, which consisted of22.4% omnivores and earned the highest partial score (2.5). Gill net portions of the samples at both sites contained high percentages of omnivores (42.3% upstream, 39.2% downstream), and both earned lowest partial scores (Table 8). Six omnivore species -common carp, gizzard shad, smallmouth buffalo, black buffalo, blue catfish, and channel catfish -were collected at both sites. Golden shiner was collected only upstream (Tables 9, 10). 25 Summary Based on RF AI metric scores, the sites upstream and downstream of BFN both exhibited similarly moderate diversity ofbenthic invertivore species and similarly high diversity of intolerant species. Electrofishing samples at both sites exhibited moderate percentages of tolerant individuals, and gill net samples at both sites exhibited high percentages of omnivores. The community downstream was more heavily dominated by a single species than that upstream, though the most prevalent species collected upstream were different for both gear types than those collected downstream. The gill net sample downstream contained a greater percentage of tolerant individuals, but the electrofishing sample contained a lower percentage of omnivores. Statistical Analyses Statistical comparison of the fish communities upstream and downstream ofBFN showed no significant differences in overall species diversity per run, based on either the Simpson or the Shannon diversity indices. Potential differences in diversity between the two communities were also analyzed by parsing the data into nine species parameters. These tests indicated that significantly more top carnivore species were collected per run upstream than downstream, but numbers of species for the other eight parameters were not significantly different between the communities (Table 11 ). The same nine parameters were also tested for differences in rfohness (numbers of individuals per run, or CPUE) between the two communities. Greater numbers of individual top carnivores were collected per run upstream; greater numbers of intolerant species were collected per run downstream (Table 11 ). Fish Community Summary Thirty-seven representative important species (RIS) were collected at the site upstream of BFN, compared to 31 RIS downstream (Tables 9, 10). RIS are defined in EPA guidance as those species which are representative in terms of their biological requirements of a balanced, indigenous community of fish, shellfish, and wildlife in the body of water into which the discharge is made (EPA and NRC, 1977). RIS often include non-indigenous species. A species 26 is designated as "thermally sensitive" if specimens exhibit avoidance behavior or are subject to mortality at water temperatures equal to or greater than 32.2°C (90°F) (Yoder et al., 2006). The same three thermally sensitive species -emerald shiner, spotted sucker, and logperch-were collected at both sites. Two aquatic nuisance species, common carp and Mississippi silverside, were also collected at both sites (Tables 9, 10). Commercially valuable species are defined by the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (2013) as any of the following non-game fish: drum, buffalo, carp, channel catfish, all members of the catfish family, paddlefish (spoonbill), spotted sucker, all members of the sucker family including the species known as redhorse and black horse, bowfin and all members of the gar family, and mullet. Recreationally valuable species are those that are

• targeted by anglers or are used as bait. Among the RlS collected upstream were 17 commercially valuable species and 23 recreationally valuable species, compared to 15 commercially valuable and 17 recreationally valuable species downstream (Tables 9, 10). Total RF AI scores for the sampling sites upstream and downstream differed by six points, indicating no substantial differences in ecological structure or balance between the two communities. As previously discussed, RF AI scores have an intrinsic variability of+/- 3 points. This variability comes from several sources, including annual variations in air temperature and stream flow; variations in pollutant loadings from nonpoint sources; changes in habitat, such as extent and density of aquatic vegetation; natural population cycles and movements of the species being measured (TWRA, 2014). Another source of variability arises from the fact that nearly any practical measurement, lethal or non-lethal, of a biological community is a sample rather than a measurement of the entire population. Accordingly, a thorough comparison of the fish communities upstream and downstream ofBFN was conducted by examining each of the twelve individual RF AI metrics as a component of the appropriate characteristic of a BIP. This analysis indicated that the two communities were both poor in abundance (both received low scores for the metric "Average number per run"), but similar in diversity and in their sustainability over an annual cycle. The numbers of species representing the major trophic guilds were generally similar, but distinct differences in 27 proportional trophic composition between the sites were evident. The two sites showed similarly moderate dominance by pollution tolerant species, but the downstream community was more heavily dominated by a single species. This was at least partially due to the collection downstream of an especially large number (33.2% of the total sample) of Mississippi silverside, a species that is often collected in large schools (Table 10). It is also noted that the species of dominance was different upstream and downstream for each type of collection gear (Table 8). To provide additional information about the health of the fish community throughout Wheeler reservoir, Table 12 compares RF AI scores for the sites upstream and downstream of BFN with those from additional VS sites in the reservoir. However, aquatic communities at these sites are not subject to thermal effects from BFN and are not used in determination ofBIP in relation to the plant. Average RF AI scores of these additional VS sites were all in the range of a "Good" rating. Statistical tests indicated that, within the upstream site, more top carnivore species were collected per run and greater numbers of individual top carnivores were collected per run, supporting the observations that this group was both more diverse and comprised a greater proportion of the total sample upstream. Greater numbers of intolerant individuals were collected per run downstream, indicating that conditions below BFN discharge were suitable for sensitive species. In conclusion, though this discussion revealed some differences between the fish communities upstream and downstream ofBFN during autumn 2013, there was no indication that these differences were related to thermal effluent from BFN. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community As discussed previously, data to assess the benthic macroinvertebrate community around BFN were collected from three sites in autumn 2013. RBI metrics for all three sites were scored using evaluation criteria for lab-processed samples collected in the transition reservoir zone (Table 4). Data collected at TRM 290.4, downstream of the thermal plume, produced an overall RBI score of 31 ("Excellent") and data from TRM 293 .2, within the thermal plume, produced an overall 28 RBI score of 35 ("Excellent"). Data from the upstream site, TRM 295.9, produced an overall RBI score of 35 ("Excellent") (Table 13). The upstream site was considered a control site and a difference of 4 points or less was used to define "similar" conditions between the upstream and downstream sites. Because the RBI scores for the two downstream sites were within 4 points of the RBI score for the upstream site, conditions among the three sites were considered "similar" and BIP was maintained. Results for the autumn 2013 benthic macroinvertebrate sampling can be found in Tables 13 and 16. Results were compared between the downstream (TRM's 290.4 and 293.2) and upstream (TRM 295.9) sites and are briefly discussed below for each RBI metric. Average number oftaxa (highest rating requires> 6.6) In autumn 2013, averages of 7.8 and 10.6 taxa were observed for sites downstream ofBFN. The site upstream of BFN averaged 11 taxa per sample. All three sites received the highest score of 5 for this metric (Table 13). Proportion of samples with long-lived organisms (highest rating requires> 0.9) The metric "proportion of samples with long-lived organisms" received the highest score of 5 at both downstream sites with 100% containing long-lived organisms (proportion of 1.0). The proportion of samples with long-lived organisms was 100% at the upstream site which also received the highest score for the metric (Table 13). Average number of EPT taxa (highest rating requires > 1.4) An average of 1.2 EPT taxa was collected at the most downstream site, TRM 290.4, resulting in the mid-range score of 3. Within the plume atTRM 293 .2, an average of 1.8 EPT taxa was collected and upstream ofBFN at TRM 295.9, an average of 1.7 EPT was collected. Both sites received the highest score (Table 13). 29 Average proportion of oligochaete individuals (highest rating requires< 11 %) Oligochaetes are considered tolerant of poor water quality conditions; therefore a low proportion of oligochaetes in the samples is an indication of good water quality condition. All three sites had low proportions of oligochaetes and received the highest score ( 5) for the autumn 2013 samples, which included averages of2.7 % and 8.3 % oligochaetes for the two downstream sites and an average of 3.6 % oligochaetes for the upstream site (Table 13). Proportion of total abundance comprised by two dominant taxa (highest rating requires < 77.8%) The two dominant taxa made up 81.1 % of the samples at the most downstream site, TRM 290.4, which received the mid-range score (3) for this metric (Table 13). Total abundance of the two dominant taxa was 66. 7 % for the site within the plume, TRM 293 .2, and was 67 .3 % upstream ofBFN at TRM 295.9 resulting in the highest score for both sites. Hexagenia mayflies (Ephemeridae) and Asiatic clams (Corbiculidae) were the two most abundant taxa at all three sites (Table 16a). Average density excluding chironomids and oligochaetes (highest rating requires> 609.9/m2) At the downstream sites, average densities excluding chironomids and oligochaetes were 1,161.7/m2 and 1,228.3/m2* Both sites received the highest score (5). Average density excluding chironomids and oligochaetes at the upstream site was 1, 111. 7 /m2, also resulting in the highest score (Table 13). Proportion of samples containing no organisms (highest rating requires that all samples contain organisms) In autumn 2013, there were no samples at any site which were void of organisms. All sites received the highest score (Table 13). Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Summary Monitoring results for autumn 2013 support the conclusion that a BIP ofbenthic macroinvertebrates was maintained downstream ofBFN (Table 13). The site within the thermal 30 plume, TRM 293.2, received the same RBI total score of 35 as the site upstream ofBFN and both rated "Excellent". The downstream site below the plume, TRM 290.4, received a slightly lower RBI total score of 31. However, this score also rated "Excellent" and was within [our points when compared with the scores for the other two sites. Thus, the benthic community at the most downstream site was also considered similar to the upstream benthic community. Individual metrics and RBI total scores for benthic community samples from TRM 291.7 (downstream) and TRM 295.9 (upstream) are provided in Tables 14 and 15 for referencing results from 2000 to 2010. Benthic samples from these two locations were field processed every year monitored through 2010, and during some of the years samples were also laboratory processed. Since 2011, samples have been lab processed which produces a more accurate depiction of the benthic community. Although the locations presently used as the downstream sites (TRMs 290.4 and 293.2) are proximate to the downstream transect sampled from 2000 to 2010 (TRM 291.7), RBI laboratory-processed scores for 2011 and 2013 cannot be directly compared to RBI field processed scores from 2000 to 2010 without inference. To provide additional data on the overall health of the benthic macroinvertebrate community in Wheeler Reservoir, RBI scores for VS monitoring locations -inflow, forebay, and Elk River embayment sites -were included in Table 17. Please note that comparison of these scores to current RBI scores at the sites around BFN is limited for two reasons. First, data from these sites were scored from field-based criteria and cannot be closely compared to lab-based scores. Second, these sites are many river miles away from BFN. The inflow site is 53 river miles upstream, and the forebay sampling site is located 17 river miles downstream. The Elk River embayment site is located 6 river miles upstream of the confluence with the Tennessee River, which in turn is 10 river miles downstream ofBFN. Because of these distances from the plant, poor scores at these sites cannot be considered indicative of thermal effects from BFN. The Wheeler inflow site (TRM 347) has produced RBI scores of "Good" or "Excellent" for 11 of the 14 years sampled (Table 17). The forebay (TRM 277) and Elk River embayment sites (ERM 6.0) have produced "Poor" scores most years sampled. 31 Visual Encounter Survey (Wildlife Observations) Wildlife observed from linear shoreline surveys conducted upstream and downstream ofBFN during autumn 2013 are presented in Table 18. Observations along the upstream survey site consisted of a variety of birds commonly associated with riparian habitat, map turtles, and one Eastern grey squirrel seen along the right descending bank. Observations downstream consisted of a similar variety of birds and map turtles. No mammals were observed downstream. It is important to note that a Visual Encounter Survey provides a preliminary near shore wildlife assessment to determine if the thermally affected area downstream of a power plant has adversely affected the bird, reptile, or mammal communities. The diversity of bird groups recorded indicated that a healthy ecological community existed both upstream and downstream ofWBN during 2013. However, because determination of the presence and diversity of reptiles and mammals using these methods is made difficult by their typical behaviors, observations of these taxa were limited. If an adverse environmental impact is suspected, sampling strategies of a more quantitative nature, such as trapping or netting, active search, investigation of mammal tracks along shoreline areas, long-term observation from blinds, or the use of cameras will be proposed to more accurately estimate the presence and diversity of these groups. Wheeler Reservoir Flow and BFN Water Temperature Daily mean flows from Guntersville Dam over the fiscal year 2013 (October 2012 through November 2013) are compared in Figure 16 to historic daily mean flows over the same fiscal year period, averaged from 1976 to 2012. From October to November 2012 and August to November 2013, flows were similar to historical averages. During December 2012, flows remained lower than historical. Flows were generally higher than historical from January to July 2013. Figure 17 compares daily average water temperatures recorded upstream ofBFN intake and downstream ofBFN discharge during October 2012 through November 2013. Water temperatures were similar at both sites through this period. 32 Thermal Plume Characterization Plume temperatures (water temperatures 3.6°P or greater above ambient) began at the BPN discharge (TRM 294.0) and.continued downstream to TRM 291.8. At the discharge, the plume extended from the RDB to 30% of the width of the river and from the surface to 1.5 m depth. Downstream (TRM 293.8), the plume extended to a maximum depth of7 m but did not extend farther than 50% of the width of the river from the RDB. At TRM 291.8, plume temperatures were observed only along the RDB, from the surface to 3 m depth. No plume temperatures were detected downstream of this point (Table 19). These profiles indicate that, at maximum, the thermal effluent from BPN was confined to the upper two-thirds.ofthe water column from mid-channel to the RDB, and that a sufficient zone of passage for aquatic wildlife existed around BPN during autumn 2013. Water Quality Parameters at Fish Sampling Sites during RFAI Samples Water temperatures observed at the upstream site, centered at TRM 295.9, ranged from 71.9 to 78.4 °P, with the highest temperatures occurring in mid-channel at the surface, along the downstream boundary of the sample reach. Water temperatures at the downstream site, centered at TRM 292.5, ranged from 74.0 to 83.9 °P, with the highest temperatures occurring at the surface along the RDB at the upstream boundary of the sample reach. Values for pH, conductivity, and dissolved oxygen concentration fell within narrow and similar ranges upstream and downstream (Table 20). The values of these parameters indicate that pH, conductivity, and dissolved oxygen concentrations surrounding BPN during autumn 2013 were of sufficient quality to support a BIP of the type expected for this reservoir, and that they were not affected by thermal effluent from BPN. The most elevated temperatures within the downstream site were observed along the RDB at the upper boundary, just downstream of the BPN discharge, and are consistent with temperatures recorded at similar locations during plume determination (Table 19). The most elevated temperatures within the upstream site were observed at the surface along the lower boundary of the site. This lower boundary is less than one mile upstream of the discharge, and 33 considering the width of the reservoir and the relatively low velocity of the river at this point, these elevated temperatures can be attributed to diffusion of heated water upstream from the discharge. Discussion above indicated th.at a zone of passage for aquatic life existed around BFN. Therefore, overall water quality around BFN was not negatively impacted by the thermal effluent. 34 Literature Cited Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (ADCNR), Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries. 2013. 2013-2014 Regulations Relating to Game, Fish, bearers and other Wildlife. http://www.outdooralabama.com/hunting/regulations EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) and NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1977 (draft). Interagency 316( a) Technical Guidance manual and Guide for Thermal Effects Sections of Nuclear Facilities Environmental Impact Statements. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Enforcement, Permits Division, Industrial Permits Branch, Washington, DC. Etnier, D.A. and W.C. Starnes. 1993. The Fishes of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, 681 pp. Hickman, G.D. and T.A. McDonough. 1996. Assessing the Reservoir Fish Assemblage A potential measure ofreservoir quality. In: D. De Vries (Ed.) Reservoir Multidimensional approaches to reservoir fisheries management. Reservoir Committee, Southern Division, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. pp 85-97. Hubert, W. A. 1996. Passive capture techniques, entanglement gears. Pages 160-165 in B. R. Murphy and D. W. Willis, editors. Fisheries techniques, 2nd edition. American Fisheries Society Bethesda, Maryland, USA. Jennings, M.J., L.S. Fore, and J.R. Karr. 1995. Biological monitoring of fish assemblages in the Tennessee Valley reservoirs. Regulated Rivers 11 :263-274. Levene, H. 1960. tests for equality of variances. Jn: Contributions to probability and statistics: essays in honor of Harold Hotelling. I. Olkin, S. G. Ghurye, W. Hoeffding, W. G. Matlow, and H.B. Mann (eds). pp. 278-292. Stanford University Press. Menlo Park, CA. Mann, H.B. and D.R. Whitney. 1947. On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 18:50-60. McDonough, T.A. and G.D. Hickman. 1999. Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index development: A tool for assessing ecological health in Tennessee Valley Authority impoundments. In: Assessing the sustainability and biological integrity of water resources using fish communities. Simon, T. (Ed.) CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 523-540. Plafkin, J.L., Barbour, M.T., Porter, K.D., Gross, S.K., and Hughes, R.M. (1989). Rapid assessment protocols for use in streams and rivers: benthic macroinvertebrates and fish. EPA/444/4-89-001, Washington DC, USA. 35 Reynolds, J.B. 1996. Electrofishing. Pages 221-251 in B. R. Murphy and D. W. Willis, editors. Fisheries techniques, 2nd edition. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. Shannon, C.E. 1948. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal 27:379-423, 623-656. Shapiro, S.S. and M. B. Wilk. 1965. An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika 52:591-611. Simpson, E.H. 1949. Measurement of diversity. Nature 163:688. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA). 2014. Strategic Plan 2014-2020. Nashville, TN. http://www.state.tn.us/twra/pdfs/businessplan.pdf Wilcoxon, F. 1945. Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biometrics Bulletin 1:80-83. Yoder, C.O., B.J. Armitage, and E.T. Rankin. 2006. Re-evaluation of the Technical Justification for Existing Ohio River Mainstem Temperature Criteria. Midwest Biodiversity Institute, Columbus, Ohio. 36 Figures 37 Figure 1. Location of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant on Wheeler Reservoir. 38 Figure 2. Location of Condenser Cooling Water (CCW) intake and discharge at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. 39 Biomonitoring Zones Upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Electrofishlng Station o Gill Nettng Station Benthic lvlacroinvertebrate Transect Wildlife Observation Transect Figure 3. Locations of biomonitoring sites upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. 40 Biomonltorlng Zones Downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant
• Electrofishing Station <> Gill Netting Station Benthic Macroinvertebrate Transect Figure 4. Locations of biomonitoring sites downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. 41 Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Index (SAHi) Transects Upstream and Downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant SAHi Transect Figure 5. Locations of transects used to characterize shoreline and river bottom habitat upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. 42 Rrver Mile X 293 Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Rv.1 Mil<> 2 6 Tennessee River ('Wheeler Reservoir) 112 0 1000 0 I l 112 1 n lie 1000 2000 3000 4000 feet I I I I -Tennessee River (Wheeler Reservoir) -Original River Channel -Water Temperature Monitoring Station Figure 6. Locations of water temperature monitoring sites used to compare water temperatures upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) intake and downstream of BFN discharge. Site 4 was used for upstream ambient temperatures of the BFN intake and was located at TRM 297.8. Sites 1, 16, and 17 were used for temperatures downstream of BFN discharge and were each located at TRM 293.5. This figure originated in the technical report: Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Module III, Water Temperature Monitoring. 43 N ! TVA -E&T -ES&R GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATIO & ENGINEERING DECEMBER 2010 Figure 7. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted. Of the eight transects established upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, transects 1 and 2 are the closest to the plant. 44 N i TVA -E&T -ES&R GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION & ENGINEERING DECEMBER2010 Figure 8. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted. 45 Substrate Type N I I I l *Depth( ft) of water where sample was taken TVA -E&T -ES&R GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION & ENGi EERING DECEMBER 2010 Figure 9. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted. 46 Substrate Type N 1 I I I I *Depth( ft) of water where sample was taken TVA -E&T -ES&R GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION & ENGINEERING DECEMBER 2010 Figure 10. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted. 47 Substrate Type N 2 I( i lometers *Depth( ft) of water where sample was taken TVA -E&T -ES&R GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION & ENGINEERING JANUARY 2011 Figure 11. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted. Transects 1 and 2 are the farthest downstream of the eight transects established downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. 48 Substrate Type N i 2 Kilometers *Depth( ft) of water where sample was taken TVA -E&T -ES&R GEOGRAPHIC INFORMAT!O & E GI EERING JA UARY2011 Figure 12. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted. 49 Substrate Type 2 Kilometers ----I .. *Depth( ft) of water where sample was taken TVA -E&T -ES&R GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION & ENGi EERING JA UARY2011 Figure 13. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted. 50 Substrate Type N 1 2 Kilometers *Depth(H) of water where *ample was taken TVA -E&T -ES&R GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION & ENGINEERING JA UARY 2011 Figure 14. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect across the Tennessee River downstream of Browns Ferry uclear Plant. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted. 51 34 32 "'C 30 0 u Ill QI u l 28 Ill Ill :J 0 c: QI :6 26 c: .... 0 ... QI ..c § 24 z 22 20 I-29 -27 I--24 I-23 I-I-2000 2001 32 30 2828 28 ,___ 26 I-I-I-25 -I-,_ I-I-,_ ,_ I-I-2002 2003 2004 2005 30 2828 27 27 -2626 26 c--I-I-I-I-1--I-I-I-1--2006 2007 2008 2009 Year 31 28 -'---27 '--I-I-I-I-I-I-2010 2011 33 -'---'---'---27 ..._ '--'--'--2013 D TRM 295.9 (Avg=29) D TRM 292.5 (Avg=27) Figure 15. Comparison of observed values for the Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index metric "Number oflndigenous Species", over 13 years of autumn sampling at the sites upstream (TRM 295.9) and downstream (TRM 292.5) of Brown's Ferry Nuclear Plant. 52 VI -0 u:: -FY 2013 Daily Mean Flow 200000 ;----------! -Historical Daily Mean 1976-2012 150000 100000 0 10/1 11/1 12/1 1/1 2/1 3/1 4/1 5/1 Date 6/1 7/1 8/1 9/1 10/1 11/1 Figure 16. Daily mean flows from Guntersville Dam, October 2012 through November 2013, and historic daily flows for the same fiscal year period, averaged over the years 1976-2012. 53 100 90 80 70 u::-0 -; 60 ... ::::i ... Ill ... 50 E QI I-... QI 40 ... Ill :: 30 -Upstream of BFN Intake -Downstream of BFN Discharge 20 0 -$J\"' Figure 17. Daily water temperatures averaged over depth (3, 5, and 7 feet) upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant (BFN) intake and downstream of BFN discharge -October 2012 through November 2013. 54 Tables 55 Table 1. Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Index (SAHi) metrics and scoring criteria. Metric Cover Substrate Erosion Scoring Criteria Stable cover (boulders, rootwads, brush, logs, aquatic vegetation, artificial structures) in 25 to 75% of the drawdown zone Stable cover in 10 to 25% or> 75% of the drawdown zone Stable Cover in< 10% of the drawdown zone Percent of drawdown zone with gravel substrate > 40 Percent of drawdown zone with gravel substrate between 10 and 40 Percent substrate gravel< 10 Little or no evidence of erosion or bank failure. Most bank surfaces stabilized by woody vegetation. Areas of erosion small and infrequent. Potential for increased erosion due to less desirable vegetation cover (grasses) on> 25% of bank surfaces. Areas of erosion extensive, exposed or collapsing banks occur along> 30% of shoreline. Canopy Cover Tree or shrub canopy> 60% along adjacent bank Tree or shrub canopy 30 to 60% along adjacent bank Tree or shrub canopy< 30% along adjacent bank Riparian Zone Width buffered > 18 meters Habitat Gradient Width buffered between 6 and 18 meters Width buffered < 6 meters Habitat diversity optimum. All major habitats (logs, brush, native vegetation, boulders, gravel) present in proportions characteristic of high quality, sufficient to support all life history aspects of target species. Ready access to deeper sanctuary areas present. Habitat diversity less than optimum. Most major habitats present, but proportion of one is less than desirable, reducing species diversity. No ready access to deeper sanctuary areas. Habitat diversity is nearly lacking. One habitat dominates, leading to lower species diversity. No ready access to deeper sanctuary areas. Drawdown zone gradient abrupt (> 1 meter per 10 meters). Less than 10% of shoreline with abrupt gradient due to dredging. Drawdown zone gradient abrupt.(> 1 meter per 10 meters) in 10 to 40% of the shoreline resulting from dredging. Rip-rap used to stabilize bank along> 10% of the shoreline. Drawdown zone gradient abrupt in> 40 % of the shoreline resulting from dredging. Seawalls used to stabilize bank along > 10 % of the shoreline. 56 Score 5 3 1 5 3 1 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 1 5 3 Table 2. Expected trophic guild proportions* and expected numbers of species* in lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoir transition zones, compared to values observed during 2013 monitoring at BFN. Lower Mainstem Tennessee River Transition Zones Proportion(%) Number of species Observed Upstream of Observed Downstream BFN (TRM 295.9) of BFN (TRM 292.5) Trisected range a Average h Trisected range a
• Average h Trophic Guild Expected Expected Proportion Number of Proportion Number of + + (%) S}!ecies (%) S}!ecies Benthic Invertivore < 6.7 6.4 to 13.4 > 13.4 5.5 +/- 1.2 <3 3 to 5 >5 5+/-1 10.7 5 8.3 4 Insectivore <24.6 24.6 to 49.1 >49.1 40.0 +/-4.5 <4 4 to 8 >8 8+/-1 32.5 12 60.0 11 Top Carnivore < 15.1 15.1 to 30.2 > 30.2 18.3 +/-2.2 <4 4 to 8 >8 10+/- 1 14.4 12 7.1 8 Omnivore >38.5 19.3 to 38.5 <19.3 28.7 +/- 3.3 >6 3 to 6 <3 6+/-1 39.2 7 23.3 6 Planktivore < 9.4 9.4 to 18.7 >18.7 6.4 +/-2.6 0 >1 1+/-1 3.2 1.2 1 Parasitic < 0.1 0.1to0.2 > 0.2 0.1+/-0.04 0 >1 1+/-0 Herbivore <1.8 1.8 to 3.6 >3.6 0.6 +/- 0.4 0 >1 1+/-0 Specialized Insectivore 0.1 1 *Expected values were calculated from data collected over 900 electro fishing runs and 600 overnight experimental gill net sets in transition areas of lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs. a Trisected ranges are intended to show below expected (-), expected, and above expected ( +) values for trophic level proportions and species occurring within the transition zones in upper mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs. bAverage expected values are bound by 95% confidence intervals. 57 Table 3. RFAI scoring criteria (2002) for inflow, transition, and forebay sections of lower mainstem reservoirs* in the Tennessee River system. Scoring Criteria Inflow Transition Forebay Metric Gear 1 3 5 1 3 5 1 3 5 1. Total species Combined < 14 14-27 >27 < 16 16-30 >30 < 14 14-27 >27 2. Number of centrarchid species Combined <2 2-4 >4 <2 2-2 >2 <2 2-3 >3 3. Number ofbenthic invertivores Combined <4 4-7 >7 <4 4-7 >7 <4 4-6 >6 4. Number of intolerant species Combined <3 3-6 >6 <3 3-4 >4 <2 2-4 >4 5. Percent tolerant individuals Electro fishing >51% 26-51% <26% >54% 27-54% <27% >61% 30-61% <30% Gill netting >30% 15-30% < 15% >46% 22-46% <22% 6. Percent dominance by one species Electrofishing >47% 24-47% <24% >58% 29-58% <29% >59% 30-59% <30% Gill netting >34% 17-34% < 17% >43% 21-43% <21% 7. Percent non-indigenous species Electro fishing >4% 2-4% <2% >2% 1-2% < 1% >2% 2-2% <2% Gill netting >2% 1-2% <1% >2% 1-2% <1% 8. Number of top carnivore species Combined <4 4-7 >7 <4 4-7 >7 <4 4-7 >7 9. Percent top carnivores Electro fishing < 15% 15-29% >29% <5% 5-10% >10% <6% 6-12% >12% Gill netting <20% 20-39% >39% <25% 25-49% >49% 10. Percent omnivores Electrofishing >48% 24-48% <24% >48% 24-48% <24% >59% 30-59% <30% Gill netting >33% 16-33% < 16% >49% 24-49% <24% 11. Average number per run Electro fishing <68 68-136 >136 <243 243-487 >487 < 170 170-341 >341 Gill netting < 11 11-22 >22 <20. 20-40 >40 12. Percent anomalies Electrofishing >5% 2-5% <2% >5% 2-5% <2% >5% 2-5% <2% Gill netting >5% 2-5% <2% >5% 2-5% <2% *Lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs include Guntersville, Wheeler, Wilson, Pickwick, and Kentucky. Transition scoring criteria were used to score sites upstream and downstream of BFN. 58 Table 4. Scoring criteria for laboratory-processed benthic macroinvertebrate community samples from inflow, transition, and forebay zones of mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs. Scoring Criteria Benthic Community Inflow Transition Forebay Metrics 1 3 5 1 3 5 1 3 5 1. Average number of taxa <4.2 4.2-8.3 >8.3 <3.3 3.3-6.6 >6.6 <2.8 2.8-5.5 >5.5 2. Proportion of samples with long-<0.6 0.6-0.8 >0.8 <0.6 0.6-0.9 >0.9 <0.6 0.6-0.8 >0.8 lived organisms 3. Average number of EPT taxa <0.9 0.9-1.9 >1.9 <0.6 0.6-1.4 >1.4 <0.6 0.6-0.9 >0.9 4. Average proportion of oligochaete >23.9 23.9-12.0 <12.0 >21.9 21.9-11.0 <11.0 >41.9 41.9-21.0 <21.0 individuals 5. Average proportion of total abundance comprised by the two most >86.2 86.2-73.l <73.1 >87.9 87.9-77.8 <77.8 >90.3 90.3-81.7 <81.7 abundant taxa 6. Average density excluding <400.0 400.0-799.9 >799.9 <305.0 305.0-609.9 >609.9 <125.0 125.0-249.9 >249.9 chironomids and oligochaetes 7. Zero Samples: proportion of samples >O 0 >O 0 >O 0 containing no organisms Transition scoring criteria were used to score sites upstream and downstream of BFN 59 Table 5. SAHi scores for shoreline habitat assessments conducted within the RFAI sample reach upstream ofBFN, autumn 2009. Transects Left Descending 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Avg. Bank Latitude 34.68917 34.6832 34.6806 34.67959 34.67709 34.66978 34.67027 34.66841 Longitude -87.13621 -87.13172 -87.12188 -87.1183 -87.10876 -87.10915 -87.10009 -87.09753 Aquatic Macrophytes 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% SAHi Variables Cover 3 3 5 3 3 3 3 Substrate 5 3 3 5 3 Erosion 3 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 4 Canopy Cover 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Riparian Zone 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 4 Habitat 3 3 3 3 2 Slope 5 5 3 5 3 Total 17 29 27 25 21 25 19 19 24 Rating Fair Good Good Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Transects Right Descending 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Avg. Bank Latitude 34.70109 34.'69937 34.69862 34.6986 34.69566 34.69302 34.69062 34.68843 Longitude -87.11896 -87.11535 -87.10973 -87.10061 -87.09157 -87.08836 -87.08452 -87.08094 Aquatic Macrophytes 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% SAHi Variables Cover 3 3 5 5 5 5 4 Substrate 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 Erosion 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Canopy Cover 5 5 5 3 Riparian Zone 5 5 5 3 Habitat 3 3 2 Slope 3 3 2 Total 15 27 25 19 17 19 19 19 23 Rating Poor Good Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Scoring criteria: poor (7-16),fair (17-26), good (27-35) 60 Table 6. SAHi scores for shoreline habitat assessments conducted within the RF AI sample reach downstream ofBFN, autumn 2009. Transects Left Descending 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Avg. Bank Latitude 34.72824 34.72603 34.72398 34.72068 34.71496 34.7128 34.71082 34.70351 Longitude -87.1759 -87.1728 -87.1704 -87.1678 -87.4621 -87.1577 -87.1543 -87.1488 Aquatic Macrophytes 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% SAHi Variables Cover 3 3 2 Substrate 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 Erosion 5 5 5 5 3 Canopy Cover 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 4 Riparian Zone 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 4 Habitat 3 3 2 Slope 3 Total 21 23 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 Rating Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Transects Right Descending 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Avg. Bank Latitude 34.74369 34.74081 34.73891 34.73519 34.73081 34.7266 34.72058 34.71239 Longitude -87.1565 -87.1522 -87.1507 -87.1475 -87.1428 -87.1376 -87.1325 -87.1275 Aquatic Macrophytes 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% SAHi Variables Cover 3 3 3 5 5 5 3 Substrate 5 5 5 5 3 Erosion 5 5 5 5 5 4 Canopy Cover 5 5 5 5 3 3 4 Riparian Zone 3 5 3 5 3 Habitat 3 3 2 Slope Total 21 17 19 19 19 21 15 15 20 Rating Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Poor Poor Fair Scoring criteria: poor (7-16),fair (17-26), good (27-35) 61 Table 7. Substrate percentages and average water depth (ft) per transect upstream and downstream of BFN, autumn 2009. % Substrate per transect upstream ofBFN Substrate Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Avg. Silt 68.5 45.0 25.5 49.0 27.1 79.5 56.0 58.0 51.1 Mollusk Shell 3.5 30.5 45.5 38.5 56.8 13.5 38.0 30.0 32.0 Sand 12.5 0 19.0 0 9.0 0 0 0 5.1 Detritus 4.0 2.0 0.5 2.5 7.5 2.5 5.5 10.0 4.3 Boulder 9.0 9.5 0 10.0 0 0 0 0 3.6 Gravel 0.5 0.5 9.0 0 1.5 0.5 0.5 0 1.6 Cobble 1.0 10.0 0.5 0 0.5 0 0 0 1.5 Clay 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.0 0 0.5 Average Depth (ft) 19.2 17.4 13.3 17.5 16.2 15.0 15.5 15.5 16.2 Actual Depth Range: 6.5 to 36.9 ft % Substrate per transect downstream of BFN Substrate Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Avg. Silt 75.4 80.5 77.0 56.3 69.5 55.5 44.0 62.5 65.1 Mollusk Shell 22.6 12.5 14.5 32.0 7.0 11.5 26.0 29.0 19.4 Sand 0 0 0.0 9.1 9.0 9.0 17.0 0.0 5.5 Detritus 2.0 6.5 8.0 2.5 0.5 1.0 2.5 4.5 3.4 Bedrock 0 0 0.0 0.0 9.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 2.4 Boulder 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 Cobble 0 0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.6 Gravel 0 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.2 Clay 0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Average Depth (ft) 21.0 20.0 20.2 18.7 18.3 18.9 20.6 20.2 19.7 Actual Depth Range: 9.1to31.7 ft 62 Table 8. Individual metric scores and the overall RFAI scores upstream (TRM 295.9) and downstream (TRM 292.5) of Browns Ferry Nuclear plant, autumn 2013. Autumn 2013 TRM 295.9 TRM 292.5 Metric A. Species richness and composition 1. Number of indigenous species (See Tables 9 and 10) 2. Number of centrarchid species (less Micropterus) 3. Number ofbenthic invertivore species 4. Number of intolerant species Combined Combined Combined Combined Obs 33 8 Black crappie Bluegill Green sunfish Longear sunfish Orangespotted sunfish Redear sunfish Warrnouth White crappie 5 Black redhorse Freshwater drum Logperch Northern.hog sucker Spotted sucker 6 Black redhorse Longear sunfish Northern hog sucker Skipjack herring Smallmouth bass Spotted sucker 63 Score 5 5 3 5 Obs 27 Black crappie Bluegill Green sunfish Longear sunfish Redear sunfish Warrnouth 6 4 Black redhorse Freshwater drum Logperch Spotted sucker 5 Black redhorse Longear sunfish Skipjack herring Smallmouth bass Spotted sucker Score 3 5 3 5
• Table 8. (Continued) Autumn 2013 TRM295.9 TRM292.5 Metric Obs Score Obs Score 5. Percent tolerant individuals Electro fishing 49.5% 39.0% Bluegill 10.7% Bluegill 3.3% Common carp 0.9% Common carp 0.2% Gizzard shad 26.6% Gizzard shad 17.% Golden shiner 0.9% Green sunfish 4.7% Green sunfish 1.8% 1.5 Largemouth bass 2.1% 1.5 Largemouth bass 5.3% Redbreast sunfish 0.1% Longnose gar 0.2% Spotfin shiner 11.7% Redbreast sunfish 0.2% Spotfin shiner 2.9% White crappie 0.2% Gill Netting 26.9% 33.3% Gizzard shad 9.6% Bluegill 3.9% Largemouth bass 7.7% 1.5 Common carp 2.0% 0.5 Longnose gar 9.6% Gizzard shad 25.5% Largemouth bass 2.0% 6. Percent dominance by one species Electro fishing 26.6% 2.5 35.1% 1.5 Gizzard shad Mississippi silverside Gill Netting 11.5% 2.5 25.5% 1.5 Channel catfish Gizzard shad 7. Percent non-indigenous species Electrofishing 11.2% 35.4% Common carp 0.9% 0.5 Common carp 0.2% 0.5 Mississippi silverside 10.1% Mississippi silverside 35.1% Redbreast sunfish 0.2% Redbreast sunfish 0.1% Gill Netting NA 2.5 2.0% 1.5 Common carp 64 Table 8. (Continued) Autumn 2013 TRM295.9 TRM292.5 Metric Obs Score Obs Score 8. Number of top carnivore species Combined 12 8 Black crappie Black crappie Flathead catfish Flathead catfish Largemouth bass Largemouth bass Longnose gar Sauger Sauger 5 Skipjack herring 5 Skipjack herring Smallmouth bass Smallmouth bass Spotted gar Spotted bass Yellow bass Spotted gar White bass White crappie Yellow bass B. Trophic composition 9. Percent top carnivores Electro fishing 12.1% 4.8% Black crappie 0.2% Largemouth bass 2.1% Flathead catfish 0.2% Smallmouth bass 2.5% Largemouth bass 5.3% Yellow bass 0.2% Longnose gar 0.2% Smallmouth bass 1.4% 2.5 0.5 Spotted bass 0.2% Spotted gar 0.8% White bass 2.4% White crappie 0.2% Yellow bass 1.5% Gill Netting 44.2% 49.0% Flathead catfish 1.9% Black crappie 2.0% Largemouth bass 7.7% Flathead catfish 7.8% Longnose gar 9.6% 2.5 Largemouth bass 2.0% 2.5 Sauger 7.7% Sauger 5.9% Skipjack herring 11.5% Skipjack herring 23.5% Spotted gar 1.9% Spotted gar 3.9% White bass 3.8% Yellow bass 3.9% 65 Table 8. (Continued) Autumn 2013 TRM295.9 TRM292.5 Metric Obs Score Obs Score 10. Percent omnivores Electrofishing 39.0% 22.4% Black buffalo 0.2% Channel catfish 2.3% Channel catfish 6.2% Common carp 0.2% Common carp 0.9% 1.5 Gizzard shad 17.0% 2.5 Gizzard shad 26.6% Smallmouth buffalo 2.9% Golden shiner 0.9% Smallmouth buffalo 4.2% Gill Netting 42.3% 39.2% Black buffalo 3.8% Black buffalo 2.0% Blue catfish 7.7% Blue catfish 3.9% Channel catfish 11.5% 0.5 Channel catfish 2.0% 0.5 Gizzard shad 9.6% Common carp 2.0% Smallmouth buffalo 9.6% Gizzard shad 25.5% Smallmouth buffalo 3.9% C. Fish abundance and health 11. Average number per run Electrofishing 44.1 0.5 61.2 0.5 Gill Netting 5.2 0.5 5.1 0.5 12. Percent anomalies Electrofishing 3.3% 1.5 1.1% 2.5 Gill Netting 0.0% 2.5 0.0% 2.5 Overall RF AI Score 46 40 Good Fair 66 Table 9. Species collected, ecological and recreational designation and corresponding electrofishing (EF) and gill net (GN) catch per unit effort upstream (TRM 295.9) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant discharge-Autumn 2013. Thermally Comm. Rec. Trophic Native Sensitive Valuable ValuableEF Catch EF Catch Total fish GN Catch Per Total Total fish Percent Common Name Scientific name level Tolerance Per Run Per Hr EF Net Night Fish GN Combined Longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus TC x TOL x 0.07 0.25 1 0.50 5 6 0.8 Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM x TOL x x 11.73 44.67 176 0.50 5 181 25.4 Common carp
• Cyprinus carpio OM TOL x 0.40 1.52 6 6 0.8 Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas OM x TOL x x 0.40 1.52 6 6 0.8 Spotfin shiner Cyprinella spiloptera IN x TOL 1.27 4.82 19 19 2.7 Redbreast sunfish* Lepomis auritus IN TOL x 0.o7 0.25 0.1 Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN x TOL x 0.80 3.05 12 12 1.7 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN x TOL x 4.73 18.02 71 71 9.9 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides TC x TOL x 2.33 8.88 35 0.40 4 39 5.5 White crappie Pomoxis annularis TC x TOL x 0.o7 0.25 1 0.1 Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris TC x INT x 0.60 6 6 0.8 Northern hog sucker Hypentelium nigricans BI x INT 0.o7 0.25 1 0.1 Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI x INT x x 1.13 4.31 17 0.10 18 2.5 Black redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei BI x INT x 0.o7 0.25 1 0.1 Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN x INT x 1.13 4.31 17 17 2.4 Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC x INT x 0.60 2.28 9 9 1.3 Spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatus TC x x 0.33 1.27 5 0.10 6 0.8 Threadfin shad Dorosoma petenense PK x x x 1.53 5.84 23 23 3.2 Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides IN x x O.o7 0.25 1 1 0.1 Bullhead minnow Pimephales vigilax IN x x 0.47 1.78 7 7 1.0 Smallmouth buffalo lctiobus bubalus OM x x 1.87 7.11 28 0.50 5 33 4.6 Black buffalo lctiobus niger OM x x 0.o7 0.25 1 0.20 2 3 0.4 Blue catfish lctalurus farcatus OM x x x 0.40 4 4 0.6 Channel catfish lctalurus punctatus OM x x x 2.73 10.41 41 0.60 6 47 6.6 Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC x x x 0.o7 0.25 1 0.10 1 2 0.3 White bass Marone chrysops TC x x 1.07 4.06 16 0.20 2 18 2.5 Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC x x x 0.67 2.54 10 10 1.4 Warmouth Lepomis gulosus IN x x 0.o7 0.25 0.1 Orangespotted sunfish Lepomis humilis IN x x 0.20 0.76 3 3 0.4 Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN x x 1.73 6.60 26 0.40 4 30 4.2 67 Table 9. (Continued) Common Name Scientific name Hybrid sunfish Hybrid Lepomis sp. Spotted bass Micropterus punctulatus Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus Logperch Percina caprodes Sauger Sander canadensis Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens Mississippi silverside
• Menidia audens Total Number Samples Species Collected Trophic Native level species Tolerance IN TC TC BI TC BI IN x x x x x x 34 Thermally Comm. Rec. Sensitive Valuable Valuable EF Catch EF Catch Total fish GN Catch Per Total Total fish Percent Species Species Species Per Run Per Hr EF Net Night Fish GN Combined Composition 0.20 0.76 3 3 0.4 x 0.07 0.25 1 0.1 x 0.07 0.25 1 0.1 x 2.33 8.88 35 35 4.9 x 0.40 4 4 0.6 x 1.27 4.82 19 0.20 2 21 2.9 x x 4.47 17.01 67 67 9.4 3 17 23 44.16 167.97 662 5.20 52 714 100.0 15 10 34 15 Trophic level: benthic invertivore (BJ), herbivore (HB), insectivore (IN), omnivore (OM), planktivore (PK), parasitic (PS), specialized insectivore (SP), top carnivore (TC); Tolerance: tolerant species (TOL), intolerant species (JNT);Comm.-Commercially, Rec.-Recreationally. *Denotes aquatic nuisance species next to common name. All species are considered representative important species. No species collected have a Federal Threatened or Endangered status. 68 Table 10. Species collected, ecological and recreational designation and corresponding electrofishing (EF) and gill net (GN) catch per unit effort downstream (TRM 292.5) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant discharge-Autumn 2013. Thermally Comm. Rec. Trophic Native Sensitive Valuable Valuable EF Catch EF Catch Total fish GN Catch Per Total Total fish Percent Common Name Scientific name level species Tolerance Species Species Species Per Run Per Hr EF NetNight Fish GN Combined Composition Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM x TOL x x 10.40 40.10 156 1.30 13 169 17.4 Common carp . Cyprinus carpio OM TOL x 0.13 0.51 2 0.10 3 0.3 Spotfin shiner Cyprinella spiloptera IN x TOL 7.13 27.51 107 107 11.0 Redbreast sunfish* Lepomis auritus IN TOL x 0.07 0.26 1 0.1 Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN x TOL x 2.87 11.05 43 43 4.4 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN x TOL x 2.00 7.71 30 0.20 2 32 3.3 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides TC x TOL x 1.27 4.88 19 0.10 1 20 2.1 Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris TC x INT x 1.20 12 12 1.2 Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI x INT x x 0.20 0.77 3 3 0.3 Black redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei_ BI x INT x 0.07 0.26 0.1 Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN x INT x 4.00 15.42 60 60 6.2 Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC x INT x 1.53 5.91 23 23 2.4 Spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatus TC x x 0.20 2 2 0.2 Threadfin shad Dorosoma petenense PK x x x 0.80 3.08 12 12 1.2 Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides IN x x 0.20 0.77 3 3 0.3 Bullhead minnow Pimephales vigilax IN x 0.33 1.29 5 5 0.5 Smallmouth buffalo lctiobus bubalus OM x x 1.80 6.94 27 0.20 2 29 3.0 Black buffalo /ctiobus niger OM x x 0.10 1 0.1 Blue catfish Ictalurus furcatus OM x x x 0.20 2 2 0.2 Channel catfish /ctalurus punctatus OM x x x 1.40 5.40 21 0.10 22 2.3 Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC x x x 0.40 4 4 0.4 Yellow bass Marone mississippiensis TC x x x 0.13 0.51 2 0.20 2 4 0.4 Warmouth Lepomis gulosus IN x x 0.13 0.51 2 2 0.2 Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN x x 0.27 1.03 4 4 0.4 69 Table 10. (Continued) Thermally Comm. Rec. Trophic Native Sensitive Valuable Valuable EF Catch EF Catch Total fish GN Catch Per Total Total fish Percent Common Name Scientific name level species Tolerance Species Species Species Per Run Per Hr EF Net Night Fish GN Combined Composition Hybrid sunfish Hybrid Lepomis sp. IN x 0.13 0.51 2 2 0.2 Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC x x 0.10 0.1 Stripetail darter Etheostoma kennicotti SP x 0.07 0.26 1 0.1 Logperch Percina caprodes BI x x 1.87 7.20 28 28 2.9 Sauger Sander canadensis TC x x 0.30 3 3 0.3 Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI x x 2.93 11.31 44 0.40 4 48 5.0 Mississippi silverside
• Menidia audens IN x x 21.47 82.78 322 322 33.2 Total 28 3 15 17 61.20 235.97 918 5.10 51 969 100 Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected 24 15 Trophic level: benthic invertivore (BJ), herbivore (HB), insectivore (IN), omnivore (OM), planktivore (PK), parasitic (PS), specialized insectivore (SP), top carnivore (TC); Tolerance: tolerant species (TOL), intolerant species (INT);Comm.-Commercially, Rec.-Recreationally. *Denotes aquatic nuisance species next to common name. All species are considered representative important species. No species collected have a Federal Threatened or Endangered status. 70 Table 11. Spatial statistical comparisons of numbers of species, mean electrofishing catch per unit effort values (number/run), tolerance designations, trophic levels, and non-indigenous individuals, including species richness and Simpson and Shannon diversity values, for samples *collected near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, autumn 2013. Mean (Standard Deviation) Parameter Upstream Downstream . Significant Test PValue (TRM295.9) (TRM292.5) Difference Statistic Number of species (per run) Total (Species richness) 11.1 (3.9) 10.3 (2.1) No Z= -1.01 0.31 Benthic invertivores 1.5 (1.0) 1.5 (0.6) No Z=0.52 0.60 Insectivores 3.9 (1.8) 4.8 (1.6) No t= 1.49 0.15 Omnivores 2.9 (1.2) 2.1 (1.1) No t= -1.97 0.06 Top carnivores 2.6 (1.4) 1.5 (0.6) Yes Z= -2.26 0.02 Non-indigenous 1.1 (0.7) 0.9 (0.7) No Z= -0.75 0.46 Tolerant 3.7 (1.5) 4.1 (1.2) No Z=0.65 0.52 Intolerant 1.2 (0.9) 1.6 (0.5) No Z= 1.22 0.22 Thermally sensitive 0.9 (0.7) 0.9 (0.5) No Z= -0.22 0.83 CPUE (per run) Total 2.9 (1.7) 4.1 (2.8) No Z= 0.79 0.43 Benthic invertivores 0.2 (0.2) 0.1 (0.1) No Z= 0.52 0.60 Insectivores 1.0 (0.8) 2.6 (2.4) No Z= 1.42 0.16 Omnivores 1.1 (1.1) 0.9 (0.7) No Z= -0.19 0.85 Top Carnivores 0.4 (0.2) 0.2 (0.1) Yes Z= -2.12 0.03 Non-indigenous 0.3 (0.4) 1.4 (1.8) No Z= 1.11 0.27 Tolerant 1.5 (1.1) 1.6(1.1) No Z=0.60 0.55 Intolerant 0.2 (0.4) 0.4 (0.3) Yes Z=2.70 0.01 Thermally sensitive 0.2 (0.3) 0.2(0.1) No Z= -0.11 0.92 Diversity indices (per run) Simpson 0.8 (0.1) 0.8 (0.1) No Z= -1.12 0.26 Shannon 8.1 (5.2) 7.4 (6.0) No t= -0.46 0.65 71 Table 12. Summary of autumn RF AI scores from sites located directly upstream and downstream of BFN and scores from sampling conducted during 1993-2013 as part of the Vital Signs monitoring program in Wheeler Reservoir. 1993-Site Location 1993 1994 1995 1997 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2013 2013 Avg. Inflow TRM348.0 46 48 42 48 36 36 40 38 42 44 42 32 38 40 40 46 40 42 Transition TRM295.9 45 43 34 40 30 41 37 43 39 43 46 41 39 42 39 43 40 46 41 BFN Upstream Transition BFN TRM292.5 43 40 41 43 43 36 42 42 45 36 38 38 40 41 Downstream Fore bay TRM277.0 52 44 48 45 42 41 45 44 43 45 44 49 46 47 40 46 43 45 Elk River ERM6.0 41 47 36 49 36 49 44 49 47 39 42 43 39 44 Embayment RF AI Scores: 12-21 ("Very Poor"), 22-31 ("Poor"), 32-40 ("Fair"), 41-50 ("Good"), or 51-60 ("Excellent") 72 Table 13. Comparison of RBI metric ratings and total scores for laboratory-processed samples collected upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Wheeler Reservoir, autumn 2013. Downstream Downstream Upstream TRM290.4 TRM293.2 TRM295.9 Metric Obs Rating Obs Rating Obs Rating 1. Average number of taxa 7.8 5 10.6 5 11 5 2. Proportion of samples with long-lived organisms 1.0 5 1.0 5 1.0 5 3. Average number of EPT taxa 1.2 3 1.8 5 1.7 5 4. Average proportion of oligochaete individuals 2.7 5 8.3 5 3.6 5 5. Average proportion of total abundance comprised by the two most abundant taxa 81.1 3 66.7 5 67.3 5 6. Average density excluding chironomids and oligochaetes 1,161.7 5 1,228.3 5 1,111.7 5 7. Zero-samples -proportion of samples containing no organisms 0 5 0 5 0 5 Benthic Index Score 31 35 35 Ecological Health Rating Excellent Excellent Excellent Reservoir Benthic Index Scores: 7-12 ("Very Poor), 13-18 ("Poor), 19-23 ("Fair), 24-29 ("Good), 30-35 ("Excellent) 73 Table 14. Metric scores and overall RBI scores determined from field processing criteria, for sites upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Wheeler Reservoir, autumn 2000-2010. Downstream -TRM 291. 7 Avg No. Taxa % Long-Lived Avg.No.EPT D/o % Dominant Density excl Zero Samples Overall tax a Oligochaetes Taxa chiro and oligo Year Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Score 2000 4 3 1 5 0.8 5 6.4 5 79.6 3 125 0 5 27 2001 5.6 5 5 1.1 5 5.7 5 43 5 230 0 5 31 2002 5.7 5 5 0.8 5 7.4 5 88.1 1 120 0 5 27 2003 6.5 5 5 5 0.3 5 76.1 5 1270 5 0 5 35 2004 6.7 5 1 5 1 5 1.4 5 74.4 5 523.3 3 0 5 33 2005 5.5 5 1 5 0.8 5 3.6 5 80.3 3 508.3 3 0 5 31 2006 6.2 5 5 0.1 5 2.3 5 77.3 5 272.3 0 5 31 2007 6.4 5 5 0.8 5 12.4 5 80.2 3 166.7 0 5 29 2008 6.3 5 0.9 5 1.1 5 7.2 5 81.5 3 181.7 0 5 29 2009 5 5 0.7 3 0.6 3 4.6 5 90.3 83.3 0 5 23 2010 4.6 5 0.7 3 0.6 3 0.3 5 94.8 126.7 1 0 5 23 Mean: 5.7 0.9 0.8 4.7 78.7 327.9 0.0 29 Maximum: 6.7 1.1 12.4 94.8 1270 0 Minimum: 4 0.7 0.1 0.3 43 83.3 0 74 Table 14. (Continued) 295.9 Avg No. Taxa % Long-Lived Avg. No. EPT % Oligochaetes %Dominant Density excl Zero Samples Overall taxa Taxa chiro and oligo Sam2Ie Year Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Score 2000 4.6 5 5 0.8 5 6.6 5 77.6 5 190 0 5 31 2001 5.3 5 1 5 5 2.7 5 79.8 3 188.3 0 5 29 2002 6.5 5 5 0.8 5 7.2 5 75.6 5 266.7 0 5 31 2003 5.1 5 0.8 5 1 5 0.8 5 84.1 3 456.7 3 0 5 31 2004 6.2 5 5 0.9 5 1.1 5 73.7 5 353.6 3 0 5 33 2005 5.6 5 5 1.2 5 2.3 5 85.4 3 490 3 0 5 31 2006 5.9 5 0.8 5 0.7 3 7 5 75 5 348.3 3 0 5 31 2007 6.5 5 0.9 5 0.9 5 1.9 5 74.2 5 353.3 3 0 5 33 2008 5.8 5 0.7 3 0.5 3 7.8 5 85.4 3 220 0 5 25 2009 5.1 5 5 0.4 3 12.2 5 75.2 5 133.3 0 5 29 2010 4.2 3 5 0.8 5 2.1 5 92 108.3 0 5 25 Mean: 5.5 0.9 0.8 4.7 79.8 282.6 0 30 Maximum: 6.5 1.2 12.2 92 490 0 Minimum: 4.2 0.7 0.4 0.8 73.7 108.3 0 75 Table 15. Metric scores and overall RBI scores determined from lab processing criteria, for sites upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Wheeler Reservoir, 2001-2006. TRM 291. 7 Avg No. Taxa % Long-Lived Avg. No.EPT O/o % Dominant Density excl Zero Samples Overall tax a Oligochaetes Taxa chiro and oligo Samele Year Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Score 2001 7.8 5 1 5 1.1 3 7.6 5 71.7 5 315 3 0 5 31 2002 5.4 3 1 5 0.9 3 10.9 5 88.2 106.7 0 5 23 2003 7.3 5 1 5 3 0.4 5 73.2 5 1270 5 0 5 33 2004 7.9 5 1 5 1 3 1.6 5 73.5 5 551.7 3 0 5 31 2006 9.4 5 5 1.6 5 2.3 5 78.1 3 448.2 3 0 5 31 Mean: 7.56 1.12 4.56 76.94 538.32 0 30 Maximum: 9.4 1 1.6 10.9 88.2 1270 0 Minimum: 5.4 0.9 0.4 71.7 106.7 0 Uestream -TRM 295.9 Avg No. Taxa % Long-Lived Avg.No.EPT % % Dominant Density excl Zero Samples Overall tax a Oligochaetes Taxa chiro and oligo Score Samele Year Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score 2001 7.4 5 5 1 3 6.9 5 75.6 5 281.7 0 5 29 2002 6.8 5 5 1.1 3 5 5 74.1 5 281.7 0 5 29 2003 6.3 3 5 0.9 3 0.6 5 82.2 3 583.3 3 0 5 27 2004 6.2 3 5 0.8 3 1.1 5 72.2 5 336.2 3 0 5 29 2006 9.2 5 0.8 3 1.2 3 5.1 5 78.6 3 1273.3 5 0 5 29 2011 8.4 5 0.7 3 3 6.3 5 81.1 3 430 3 0 5 27 Mean: 7.4 0.9 1.0 4.2 77.3 531.0 0 28 Maximum: 9.2 1.2 6.9 82.2 1273.3 0 Minimum: 6.2 0.7 0.8 0.6 72.2 281.7 0 76 Table 16a. Mean density per square meter of benthic taxa collected upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, autumn 2013. All taxa listed contributed to individual RBI metrics and total scores. BFN BFN BFN Downstream Downstream Upstream Taxa TRM290.4 TRM293.2 TRM295.9 ANNELIDA Hirudinea Rhynchobdellida Glossiphoniidae Actinobdella sp. 2 Actinobdella inequiannulata 2 Helobdella elongata 2 Helobdella stagnalis 7 8 8 Oligochaeta Haplotaxida Naididae 2 Tubificinae 30 78 20 Branchiura sowerbyi 3 7 5 Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri 5 7 18 ARTHROPODA Crustacea Malacostraca Amphipoda Corophiidae Apocorophium lacustre 167 38 282 Gammaridae Gammarus sp. 2 5 Hexapoda Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Dubiraphia sp. 2 Diptera Ceratopogonidae 2 Chironomidae Orthocladiinae Chironominae 2 Axarussp. 5 32 45 Chironomus sp. 43 28 70 Cryptochironomus sp. 7 5 77 Table 16a. (Continued). BFN BFN BFN Downstream Downstream Upstream TRM Taxa TRM290.4 TRM293.2 295.9 Dicrotendipes neomodestus 7 Glyptotendipes sp. 3 Harnischia sp. 2 Microchironomus sp. 2 Polypedilum halterale gp. 3 2 Stempellina sp. 2 Xenochironomus xenolabis 5 Epoicocladius jlavens 2 Thienemanniella lobapodema 2 Tanypodinae Ablabesmyia annulata 33 13 32 Ablabesmyia mallochi 2 Coelotanypus sp. 97 263 145 Paramerina sp. 30 Procladius sp. 2 7 Ephemeroptera Ephemeridae Hexagenia sp. <lOmm 262 230 163 Hexageniasp. >lOmm 262 213 100 Trichoptera Leptoceridae 2 Oecetis sp. 2 37 28 Polycentropodidae Cyrnellus fraternus 18 32 MOLLUSCA Gastropoda Architaenioglossa Viviparidae Campeloma decisum 2 2 Lioplax sulculosa 3 3 Viviparus sp. 5 3 12 N eotaenioglossa Hydrobiidae Amnicola limosa 5 113 53 Somatogyrus sp. 3 2 Pleuroceridae Pleurocera canaliculata 3 78 Table 16a. (Continued). BFN BFN BFN Downstream Downstream Upstream TRM Taxa TRM290.4 TRM293.2 295.9 Bivalvia Veneroida Corbiculidae Corbiculafluminea <lOmm 263 312 278 Corbiculafluminea > lOmm 3 40 Sphaeriidae Eupera cubensis 5 Musculium transversum 158 233 85 Pisidium compressum 2 Unionidae Truncilla donaciformis 3 Utterbackia imbecillis 2 22 3 PLATYHELMINTHES Turbellaria Tricladida Planariidae Dug_esia tiwina 3 2 5 Number of samples 10 10 10 Mean-Density per meter2 1,380 1,703 1,482 Taxa Richness 21 29 34 Sum of area {meter} 0.6 0.6 0.6 79 Table 16b. Mean density per square meter of benthic taxa collected but not included in individual RBI metrics or total scores for sites upstream and downstream of BFN, autumn 2013. BFN BFN BFN Downstream Downstream Upstream Taxa TRM290.4 TRM293.2 TRM295.9 ARTHROPODA Crustacea Branchiopoda Cladocera Sididae Diaphanosoma sp. 7 Sida crystallina 5 Maxillopoda Cyclopoida Cyclopidae Macrocyclops albidus 5 5 Mesocyclops edax 7 2 Ostracoda Candoniidae Candonasp. 20 27 3 Hexapoda Insecta Diptera Chaoboridae Chaoborus punctipennis 5 10 Chelicerata Arachnida Acariformes Arrenuridae Arrenurus sp. 3 Unionicolidae Unionicola sp. 2 2 3 CNIDARIA Medusozoa Hydrozoa Hydridae Hy__dras12.. 8 3 5 Number of samples 10 10 10 Mean-Density per meter2 40 57 25 Taxa Richness 5 8 6 Sum of area (meter2) 0.6 0.6 0.6 80 Table 17. RBI scores from sites directly upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant and from sites sampled as part of the Vital Signs monitoring program on Wheeler Reservoir. LT A-Long term average. Site Location 1994 1995 1997 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2013 LTA Inflow *TRM 347 31 21 25 23 21 25 31 31 31 33 33 31 27 31 28 BFN Upstream TRM295.9 33 25 31 31 31 29 31 31 33 31 31 33 25 29 25 27 35 30 (Transition) BFN Downstream TRM291.7 27 31 27 35 33 31 31 29 29 23 23 29 (Transition) BFN Downstream TRM293.2 23 35 NIA (Transition) BFN Downstream TRM290.4 21 31 NIA (Transition) Forebay *TRM277 19 15 23 17 17 15 15 19 15 13 13 15 13 13 17 13 Embayment *ERM6 15 13 15 15 15 15 17 13 13 13 13 13 Reservoir Benthic Index Scores: 7-12 ("Very Poor"), 13-18 ("Poor"}, 19-23 ("Fair), 24-29 ("Good), 30-35 ("Excellent) * = sites with field-processed scores all years. All other sites, 1994 -2010 are field-processed scores and 2011 forward are lab-processed scores. 81 Table 18. Wildlife observed along 2100 m transects parallel to the Tennessee River shoreline, upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, October 2013. Site Birds Obs. Obs. Mammals Obs. TRM 295.9 (US) RDB Blue Jay 5 Map Turtle 37 Eastern Grey Squirrel 2 Great Blue Heron 6 Carolina Chickadee Belted Kingfisher 4 American Crow American Robin Unidentified Songbird I Double-crested Cormorant 2 Brown Thrasher Mockingbird I Mallard 2 LDB Ring-billed Gull I Map Turtle 26 Common Snipe I Turkey Vulture 2 Unidenti tied Songbird 8 Great Blue Heron 2 Mallard 12 Belted Kingfisher I Pileated Woodpecker Killdeer 2 TRM 292.5 (DS) RDB Blue Jay 5 Map Turtle 2 American Robin 2 Downy Woodpecker 2 American Crow I Belted Kingfisher 3 Turkey Vulture 2 American Coot 4 Great Blue Heron 2 Nuthatch Mallard 2 European Starling 10 Unidentified Songbird 2 LDB Belted Kingfisher 2 Map Turtle 69 Great Blue Heron 4 Pied-billed Grebe 2 Least Flycatcher I Unidentified Songbird 3 Blue Jay I Mockingbird 2 RDB -right descending bank; LDB -left descending bank 82 Table 19. Water temperature (°F) depth profiles collected to determine the extent of the thermal plume from BFN during 2013. Transect and Profile Location (width from right descending bank) October 2013 Below Discharge-TRM Ambient-TRM 294.4 BFN Discharge-TRM 294.0 293.8 Mid-plume TRM 291.8 End of Plume-TRM 289.9 Depth (m) 10% 30% 50% 70% 90% 10% 30% 50% 70% 90% 10% 30% 50% 70% 90% 10% 30% 50% 70% 90% 10% 30% 50% 70% 90 % 0.3 74.9 74.1 74.2 74.1 73.8 83.9 82.0 74.0 74.7 74.8 80.2 79.9 79.9 74.0 74.9 77.5 76.6 75.4 75.6 76.4 77.0 76.6 76.5 76.7 76.8 1.5 74.8 74.1 74.2 74.1 73.7 83.2 79.5 74.1 74.7 74.8 81.9 79.8 79.8 74.0 74.8 77.5 76.6 75.4 75.5 76.4 76.8 76.5 76.4 76.7 76.7 2 77.8 3 74.8 74.1 74.2 74.0 74.6 76.3 74.1 74.7 80.8 79.6 74.0 77.5 76.6 75.4 75.5 76.3 76.7 76.5 76.3 76.6 76.3 4 76.5 5 74.1 74.2 74.5 80.2 79.3 75.4 76.2 6 74.5 75.3 7 74.1 73.6 78.7 9 74.1 76.3 Shaded numbers represent temperatures 3.6°F (2°C) or greater above ambient temperature. 83 Table 20. Water quality parameters collected along vertical depth profiles at three transects within the RFAI sample areas upstream and downstream of BFN during 2013. October, 2013 LDB Mid-channel RDB TRM 295.9 oc OF Cond DO oc OF Cond DO oc OF Cond DO Upstream 0.3 22.84 73.11 7.38 173.6 6.92 0.3 22.50 72.50 7.52 167.1 7.89 0.3 22.72 72.90 7.78 162.6 7.98 Boundary 1.5 22.85 73.13 7.38 173.3 6.92 1.5 22.49 72.48 7.50 166.7 7.86 1.5 22.72 72.90 7.76 162.6 7.97 2.5 22.77 72.99 7.38 173.3 6.89 3 22.50 72.50 7.48 166.4 7.85 3 22.61 72.70 7.73 161.9 7.83 Mid-site 0.3 22.45 72.41 7.79 177.7 7.60 0.3 22.94 73.29 7.40 167.0 6.87 0.3 22.94 73.29 7.82 162.3 7.69 1.5 22.47 72.45 7.79 178.1 7.59 1.5 22.89 73.20 7.39 167.2 6.92 1.5 22.92 73.26 7.81 162.2 7.71 3 22.91 73.24 7.79 162.5 7.66 Downstream 0.3 22.15 71.87 7.52 170.4 7.15 0.3 25.77 78.39 7.61 165.7 7.44 0.3 25.16 77.29 7.70 164.4 7.60 Boundary 1.5 23.49 74.28 7.46 166.5 7.07 1.5 23.44 74.19 7.76 162.5 7.64 3 23.14 73.65 7.45 166.7 7.03 3 23.04 73.47 7.80 162.1 7.76 5 23.05 73.49 7.43 167.6 6.99 7 22.97 73.35 7.41 168.0 6.97 TRM 292.5 oc OF Cond DO oc Of Cond DO oc Of Cond DO Upstream 0.3 23.77 74.79 7.79 171.9 7.83 0.3 23.38 74.08 7.46 169.1 6.98 0.3 28.85 83.93 7.82 166.4 7.82 Boundary I 23.76 74.77 7.75 171.9 7.82 1.5 23.38 74.08 7.47 168.4 6.95 1.5 28.46 83.23 7.80 166.1 7.74 3 23.34 74.01 7.40 168.0 6.83 3 23.66 74.59 7.89 164.0 8.12 5 23.6 74.48 7.82 164.5 8.00 6 23.6 74.48 7.83 164.6 8.02 Mid-site 0.3 24.66 76.39 7.60 167.1 7.17 0.3 24.12 75.42 7.62 167.8 7.63 0.3 25.27 77.49 7.90 164.7 8.02 1.5 24.65 76.37 7.61 166.8 7.19 1.5 24.10 75.38 7.62 167.7 7.34 1.5 25.27 77.49 7.91 165.0 8.03 3 24.59 76.26 7.64 166.7 7.20 3 24.JO 75.38 7.62 167.3 7.33 3 25.27 77.49 7.88 165 7.99 5 24.10 75.38 7.62 168.0 7.36 6 24.07 75.33 7.62 169.0 7.35 Downstream 0.3 24.90 76.82 7.72 166.2 7.59 0.3 24.74 76.53 7.70 164.3 7.66 0.3 24.98 76.96 7.81 165.2 7.80 Boundary 1.5 24.85 76.73 7.59 165.5 6.92 1.5 24.69 76.44 7.69 164.3 7.63 1.5 24.91 76.84 7.80 165.4 7.80 3 24.62 76.32 7.52 165.7 6.54 3 24.63 76.33 7.66 164.7 7.56 3 24.85 76.73 7.82 165.2 7.87 5 24.53 76.15 7.62 163.8 7.37 Abbreviations: °C -Temperature in degrees Celsius, °F -Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit, Cond -Conductivity, DO -Dissolved Oxygen 84 ATTACHMENT 12 Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River Near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2015.

Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge Autumn 2015 March 2016 Tennessee Valley Authority River and Reservoir Compliance Monitoring Program Knoxville, Tennessee Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................. i List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ iii List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. v Acronyms and Abbreviations ....................................................................................................... vii Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 2 Plant Description ......................................................................................................................... 3 Methods ........................................................................................................................................... 3 Evaluation of Plant Operating Conditions ................................................................................... 3 Aquatic Habitat in the Vicinity of BFN ...................................................................................... 4 Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Assessment ................................................................................... 4 River Bottom Habitat .............................................................................................................. 5 Fish Community Sampling Methods and Data Analysis for Sites Upstream and Downstream of BFN ............................................................................................................................................. 5 Statistical Analyses ................................................................................................................ 12 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Sampling Methods and Data Analysis for Sites Upstream and Downstream of BFN .......................................................................................... 13 Visual Encounter Survey (Wildlife Observations) .................................................................... 16 Wheeler Reservoir Flow and BFN Temperature ....................................................................... 17 Thermal Plume Characterization ............................................................................................... 18 Water Quality Parameters at Fish Sampling Sites during RF AI Samples ................................. 19 Results and Discussion ................................................................................................................. 19 Evaluation of Plant Operating Conditions ................................................................................. 19 Aquatic Habitat in the Vicinity of BFN .................................................................................... 20 Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Assessment ................................................................................. 20 River Bottom Habitat ............................................................................................................ 21 Fish Community ........................................................................................................................ 21 Statistical Analyses .................................................................................................................... 28 Fish Community Summary ........................................................................................................ 28 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community .................................................................................... 31 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Summary .................................................................... 33 Visual Encounter Survey (Wildlife Observations) .................................................................... 34 Wheeler Reservoir Flow and BFN Water Temperature ............................................................ 35 Thermal Plume Characterization ............................................................................................... 36 Water Quality Parameters at Fish Sampling Sites during RFAI Samples ................................. 36 Literature Cited ......................................................................... : ......................................... -.......... 38 Figures ........................................................................................................................................... 40 Tables ............................................................................................................................................ 60 11 List of Figures Figure 1. Location of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant on Wheeler Reservoir. ................................ 41 Figure 2. Location of Condenser Cooling Water (CCW) intake and discharge at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. ...................................................................................................................... 42 Figure 3. Locations of transects used to characterize shoreline and river bottom habitat upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, and water depths within the two sample reaches ................................................................................................................................. 43 Figure 4. Locations ofbiomonitoring sites upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. ............... 44 Figure 5. Locations ofbiomonitoring sites downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. .......... 45 Figure 6. Locations of water temperature monitoring stations used to compare water temperatures upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) intake and downstream of BFN discharge ..................................................................................................................... 46 Figure 7. Megawatts generated, water temperatures of the intake and discharge and flow through the condenser cooling water (CCW) system at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant during 2015. 47 Figure 8. Megawatts generated, water temperatures of the intake and discharge and flow through the condenser cooling water (CCW) system at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant during the five years prior to the survey (2010-2014) ................................................................................. 48 Figure 9. Composition of substrate samples collected at ten points equally spaced along each of transects 1and2 upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. ............................................... 49 Figure 10. Composition of substrate samples collected at ten points equally spaced along each of transects 3 and 4 upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. ............................................... 50 Figure 11. Composition of substrate samples collected at ten points equally spaced along each of transects 5 and 6 upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. ............................................... 51 Figure 12. Composition of substrate samples collected at ten points equally spaced along each of transects 7 and 8 upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. ............................................... 52 Figure 13. Composition of substrate samples collected at ten points equally spaced along each of transects 1 and 2 downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. .......................................... 53 Figure 14. Composition of substrate samples collected at ten points equally spaced along each of transects 3 and 4 downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. .......................................... 54 Figure 15. Composition of substrate samples collected at ten points equally spaced along each of transects 5 and 6 downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. .......................................... 5 5 Figure 16. Composition of substrate samples collected at ten points equally spaced along each of transects 7 and 8 downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. .......................................... 56 Figure 17. Comparison of observed values for the Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index metric "Number of Indigenous Species", over 14 years of autumn sampling at the sites upstream (TRM 295.9) and downstream (TRM 292.5) of Brown's Ferry Nuclear Plant. .................. 57 Figure 18. Daily mean flows from Guntersville Dam during 2015, and historic daily flows for 111 the same period averaged from 1976 to 2014 .................................................................... 58 Figure 19. Daily water temperatures averaged over depth (3, 5, and 7 feet) upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) intake and downstream ofBFN discharge during 2015 .......... 59 IV List of Tables Table 1. Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Index (SAHI) metrics and scoring criteria .......................... 61 Table 2. Expected trophic guild proportions* and expected numbers of species* in lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoir transition zones, compared to values observed during 2013 monitoring at BFN ............. : ....................................................................................... 62 Table 3. RFAI scoring criteria (2002) for inflow, transition, and forebay sections of lower mainstem reservoirs* in the Tennessee River system ......................................... ................ 63 Table 4. Scoring criteria for laboratory-processed benthic macroinvertebrate community samples from inflow, transition, and forebay zones ofmainstem Tennessee River reservoirs ............................................................................................................................. 64 Table 5. Intake and discharge water temperatures (°F), megawatts generated, and flow* (mgd) of the condenser circulating water ( CCW) system at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant during 2015 ..................................................................................................................................... 65 Table 6. SAHI scores for shoreline habitat assessments conducted within the RF AI sample reach upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear plant, autumn 2015 ..................................................... 67 Table 7. SAHI scores for shoreline habitat assessments conducted within the RF AI sample reach downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear plant, autumn 2015 ................................................ 68 Table 8. Substrate percentages and average water depth (ft) per transect upstream and downstream ofBFN, autumn 2015 ............... * ...................................................................... 69 Table 9. Individual metric scores and the overall RFAI scores upstream (TRM 295.9) and downstream (TRM 292.5) of Browns Ferry Nuclear plant during 2015 ............................ 70 Table 10. Species collected, ecological and recreational designation and corresponding electrofishing (EF) and gill net (GN) catch per unit effort upstream (TRM 295.9) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant discharge-Autumn 2015 ..................................................... 74 Table 11. Species collected, ecological and recreational designation and corresponding electrofishing (EF) and gill net (GN) catch per unit effort downstream (TRM 292.5) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant discharge -Autumn 2015 ..................................................... 76 Table 12. Spatial statistical comparisons of numbers of species, mean electrofishing catch per unit effort values (number/run), tolerance designations, trophic levels, and non-indigenous individuals, including species richness and Simpson and Shannon diversity values, for samples collected near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, autumn 2015 .................................... 78 Table 13. Summary of autumn RF AI scores from sites located directly upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant and scores from sampling conducted during 1993-2015 as part of the Vital Signs monitoring program in Wheeler Reservoir .............. 79 Table 14. Comparison of RBI metric ratings and total scores for laboratory-processed samples collected upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Wheeler Reservoir, autumn 2015_ ........................................................................................................................ 80 Table 15. Metric scores and overall RBI scores determined from field processing criteria, for sites upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Wheeler Reservoir, v autumn 2000-2010 ....................................... ....................................................................... 81 Table 16. Metric scores and overall RBI scores determined from lab processing criteria, for sites upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Wheeler Reservoir, 2001-2006 . ........................................................................................................................................... ;. 83 Table 17a. Mean density per square meter ofbenthic-taxa collected upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, autumn 2015. All taxa listed contributed to individual RBI metrics and total scores ....................................................................................................... 84 Table 17b. Mean density per square meter of other benthic taxa collected but not included in individual RBI metrics or total scores for sites upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, autumn 2015 ................................................................................................ 87 Table 18. Comparison of2015 RBI scores with LTA scores from sites directly upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant and from sites sampled as part of the Vital Signs monitoring program on Wheeler Reservoir. LTA-Long term average, 1994 -2013 . ............................................................................................................................................. 89 Table 19. Wildlife observed during surveys conducted upstream and downstream of TV A's Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, November 2015 .................................................................... 90 Table 20. Wildlife observed during visual surveys conducted upstream and downstream of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, 2011 through 2015 ..................................................................... 91 Table 21. Depth profiles of water temperature (°F) collected to determine the extent of the thermal plume discharged from TV A's Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant during 2015 ............ 93 Table 22. Water quality parameters collected along vertical depth profiles at three transects within the RF AI sample reaches upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant during 2015 ......................................................................................................................... 94 vi ATL BIP BFN ccw CWA NP DES QA RBI RFAI RIS SAHi TRM TVA vs Acronyms and Abbreviations Alternate Thermal Limit Balanced Indigenous Community Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant Condenser Cooling Water Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Quality Assurance Reservoir Benthic Macroinvertebrate Index Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index Representative Important Species Shoreline Assessment Habitat Index Tennessee River Mile Tennessee Valley Authority Vital Signs Vll Executive Summary In 2015, samples of the ecological community upstream and downstream of Brown's Ferry Nuclear Plant were collected, analyzed, and compared to historical data to determine the effects, if any, of the thermal effluent from the plant, in compliance with §316(a) of the Clean Water Act. Shoreline aquatic habitat assessed along both banks received an average rating of "Fair". Assessment of river bottom habitat indicated three dominant substrates upstream: silt, mollusk shell, and clay. Downstream, silt, mollusk shell, and sand were most prominent. The fish communities upstream and downstream ofBFN were analyzed and compared using RF AI methodology. Both communities supported similar numbers of indigenous species; higher diversity evident in the upstream community was due primarily to the presence of hybrids and of non-indigenous species. Due to large collections of two schooling species, the downstream community exhibited greater dominance by a single species, higher percentages of omnivores and of pollution tolerant fishes than that upstream. However, there is no evidence indicating that these differences were due to thermal effluent from BFN. Benthic communities in 2015 for both downstream sites, at TRM 293 .2 within the thermal plume from BFN discharge, and at TRM 290.4 downstream of the thermal plume, were considered similar to the upstream benthic community. All three sites received RBI ratings of "Excellent". A visual wildlife survey was conducted to assess bird, reptile, and mammal populations around BFN. Turtles and a variety of birds were encountered at both locations. Water quality analysis indicated that daily mean flow past BFN was generally similar to historic flows in 2015, and that daily mean temperatures were similar upstream and downstream of the plant. Depth profiles of, conductivity, dissolved oxygen concentration, and acidity (pH) indicated that values of all these parameters were within acceptable levels both upstream and downstream of BFN. Profiles of water temperature indicated some recirculation of thermal effluent from BFN upstream of the discharge along the right descending bank. 1 Introduction Section 316(a) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) authorizes alternate thermal limits (ATL) for the control of the thermal component of a point source discharge so long as the limits will assure the protection of Balanced Indigenous Populations (BIP) of aquatic life. The term "balanced indigenous population," as defined by Environmental Protection Agency regulations, describes a biotic community that is typically characterized by: (1) diversity appropriate to the ecoregion; (2) the capacity to sustain itself through cyclic seasonal changes; (3) the presence of necessary food chain species; and ( 4) the lack of domination by pollution-tolerant species. Prior to 2000, the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) was operating under an A TL that had been continued with each permit renewal based on studies conducted in the mid-l 970s. In 1999, EPA Region IV began requesting additional data in conjunction with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit renewal applications to verify that BIP was being maintained at TV A's thermal plants with ATLs. TVA proposed that its existing Vital Signs (VS) monitoring program, supplemented with additional fish and benthic macroinvertebrate community monitoring upstream and downstream of thermal plants with A TLs, was appropriate for that purpose. The VS monitoring program began in 1990 in the Tennessee River System. This program was implemented to evaluate ecological health conditions in major reservoirs as part ofTVA's stewardship role. One of the 5 indicators used in the VS program to evaluate reservoir health is the Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index (RF AI) methodology which incorporates fish species richness and composition, trophic composition, and fish abundance and health. RF AI has been thoroughly tested on TV A and other reservoirs and published in peer-reviewed literature (Jennings, et al., 1995; Hickman and McDonough, 1996; McDonough and Hickman, 1999). Fish communities are used to evaluate ecological conditions because of their importance in the aquatic food web and because fish life cycles are long enough to integrate conditions over time. Benthic macroinvertebrate populations are assessed using the Reservoir Benthic Index (RBI) methodology. Because benthic macroinvertebrates are relatively 2 immobile, negative impacts to aquatic ecosystems can be detected earlier in benthic macroinvertebrate communities than in fish communities. These data are used to supplement RF AI results to provide a more thorough examination of differences in aquatic communities upstream and downstream of thermal discharges. During 2000 through 2010, TV A initiated a study to evaluate fish and benthic macroinvertebrate communities in areas immediately upstream and downstream of BFN using RF AI and RBI multi-metric evaluation techniques. The study was broadened in 2011 to include additional data for analyses (i.e., shoreline wildlife observations) requested by the EPA. Reported here are the results of biological monitoring and water quality data collected upstream and downstream of BFN during 2015, with appropriate comparisons to data collected at these sites during previous autumn samples. Plant Description BFN is a three-unit nuclear-fueled facility with a total generating capacity of 3,300 megawatts. Unit One, which remained idle for several years, returned to service June 2007. BFN is located on Wheeler Reservoir, approximately 18 miles upstream of Wheeler Dam at Tennessee River Mile (TRM) 294 in Limestone County, Alabama (Figure 1 ). Current operation utilizes a through condenser cooling water (CCW) system, withdrawing water from the Tennessee River through an intake structure at TRM 294.3 and discharging the water through a submerged port diffuser located at TRM 294.0 (Figure 2). Maximum flow rate of the CCW is approximately 3,468 million gallons per day. Methods Evaluation of Plant Operating Conditions Data describing the operation of BFN during the course of biological monitoring-specifically daily averages of power generation, water temperatures at the cooling water system intake and discharge, the intake flow of cooling water and the discharge flow returned to the river-were 3 collected, compiled, analyzed and compared to available historical operational data to assist in the interpretation of thermal plume characteristics and biological community information. Aquatic Habitat in the Vicinity of BFN Shoreline and river bottom habitat data presented in this report were collected during autumn 2015. TVA assumes habitat data to be valid for five years, barring any major changes to the river/reservoir (e.g. major flood event). In the event of a major change to the river/reservoir, habitat would be re-evaluated during the following sample period. Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Assessment An integrative multi-metric index (Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Index or SAHi), including several habitat parameters important to resident fish species, was used to measure existing fish habitat quality in the vicinity ofBFN. Using the general format developed by Plafkin et al. (1989), seven metrics were established to characterize selected physical habitat attributes important to reservoir resident fish populations which rely heavily on the littoral (shoreline) zone for reproductive success, juvenile development, and adult feeding (Table 1 ). Habitat Suitability Indices (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), along with other sources of information on biology and habitat requirements (Etnier and Starnes 1993), were consulted to develop "reference" criteria or "expected" conditions from a high quality environment for each parameter. Some generalizations were necessary in setting up scoring criteria to cover the various requirements of all species within a single index. When possible, the quality of shoreline aquatic habitat was assessed while traveling parallel to the shoreline in a boat and evaluating the habitat within 10 vertical feet of full pool. Transects were established across the width of Wheeler Reservoir within the fish community sampling reaches upstream and downstream ofBFN (Figure 3). At each transect, near-shore aquatic habitat was assessed along sections of shoreline corresponding to the left descending bank (LDB) and right descending bank (RDB). For each shoreline section (16 upstream and 16 downstream of BFN), percentages of aquatic macrophytes in the littoral areas were estimated, then each section was scored by comparing the observed conditions associated with each 4 individual metric to the "reference" conditions and assigning the metric a corresponding value: "Good" -5; "Fair" -3; or "Poor" -1 (Table 1). The scores for each of the seven metrics were summed to obtain the SAHi value for the shoreline section, and this value was assigned a habitat quality descriptor based on trisecting the range of potential SAHi values ("Poor", 7-16; "Fair", 17-26; and "Good", 27-35). River Bottom Habitat Along each transect described above, a b'enthic grab sample was collected with a Ponar sampler at each often points equally spaced from the LDB to the RDB. Substrate material collected with the Ponar was emptied into a screen, and percent composition of each substrate was estimated to determine existing benthic habitat across the width of the river. Water depths (feet) at each sample location were recorded (Figure 3). If no substrate was collected after multiple Ponar drops, it was assumed that the substrate was bedrock. For example, when the Ponar sampler was pulled shut, collectors could feel substrate consistency. If it shut easily and was not embedded in the substrate on numerous drops within the same location, the substrate was recorded as bedrock. Fish Community Sampling Methods and Data Analysis for Sites Upstream and Downstream of BFN Thermal discharge from BFN enters Wheeler Reservoir (Tennessee River) at TRM 294.0 (Figure 2). To evaluate the fish community in the vicinity ofBFN, two sample sites were selected. One site was centered at TRM 295.9, upstream of the plant's intake (Figure 4), and served as a reference site unaffected by the thermal discharge. The second site was centered at TRM 292.5, downstream of the cooling water discharge (Figure 5). Fish sampling methods included boat electrofishing and gill netting (Hubert 1996; Reynolds 1996). Electrofishing methodology consisted of fifteen boat electrofishing runs near the shoreline, each 300 meters long and of approximately 10 minutes duration. The total near-shore area sampled was approximately 4,500 meters (15,000 feet). 5 Experimental gill nets (so called because of their use for research as opposed to commercial fishing) were used as an additional gear type to collect fish from deeper habitats not effectively sampled by electrofishing. Each experimental gill net consists of five 6.1 meter panels for a total length of30.5 meters (100.1 feet).* The distinguishing characteristic of experimental gill nets is mesh size that varies between panels. For this application, each net has panels with mesh sizes of2.5, 5.1, 7.6, 10.2, and 12.7 cm. Experimental gill nets are typically set perpendicular to river flow, extending from near-shore to the main channel of the reservoir. Ten overnight experimental gill net sets were used at each sample site. Fish collected were identified by species, counted, and examined for anomalies (such as disease, deformations, parasites or hybridization). The resulting data were analyzed using RF AI methodology. The RF AI uses 12 fish community metrics from four general categories: Species Richness and Composition; Trophic Composition; Abundance; and Fish Health. Individual species can be utilized for more than one metric, though hybrid species and non-indigenous species are excluded from metrics counting numbers of individual species. Together, these 12 metrics provide a balanced evaluation of fish community integrity. The individual metrics are shown below, grouped by category: Species Richness and Composition (1) Total number of species -Greater numbers of species are considered representative of healthier aquatic ecosystems. As conditions degrade, numbers of species at an area decline. (2) Number of centrarchid species -Sunfish species (excluding black basses) are invertivores and a high diversity of this group is indicative of reduced siltation and suitable sediment quality in littoral areas. 6 (3) Number of benthic invertivore species-Due to the special dietary requirements of this species group and the limitations of their food source in degraded environments, numbers of benthic invertivore species increase with better environmental quality. ( 4) Number of intolerant species -A group made up of species that are particularly intolerant of physical, chemical, and thermal habitat degradation. Higher numbers of intolerant species suggest the presence of fewer environmental stressors. (5) Percentage of tolerant individuals (excluding young-of-year) -An increased proportion of individuals tolerant of degraded conditions signifies poorer water quality. (6) Percent dominance by one species -Ecological quality is considered reduced if one species inordinately dominates the resident fish community. (7) Percentage of non-indigenous species -Based on the assumption that indigenous species reduce the quality of resident fish communities. (8) Number of top carnivore species -Higher diversity ofpiscivores is indicative of the availability of diverse and plentiful forage species and the presence of suitable habitat. Trophic Composition (9) Percent top carnivores -A measure ofthe functional aspect of top carnivores which feed on major planktivore populations. (10) Percent omnivores -Omnivores are less sensitive to environmental stresses due to their ability to vary their diets. As trophic links are disrupted due to 7 Abundance degraded conditions, specialist species such as insectivores decline while opportunistic omnivorous species increase in relative abundance. (11) Average number per run (number of individuals)-Based on the assumption that high quality fish assemblages support large numbers of individuals. Fish Health (12) Percent anomalies -Incidence of diseases, lesions, tumors, external parasites, deformities, blindness, and natural hybridization is noted for all fish collected, with higher incidence indicating less favorable environmental conditions. RF AI methodology addresses all four attributes or characteristics of a "balanced indigenous population" (BIP), defined by the CW A as described below: (1) A biotic community characterized by diversity appropriate to the ecoregion: Diversity is addressed by the metrics in the Species Richness and Composition category, especially metric 1 -Number of species." Determination of reference conditions based on the transition zones oflower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs (as described below) ensures appropriate species expectations for the ecoregion. (2) The capacity for the community to sustain itself through cyclic seasonal change: TV A uses an autumn data collection period for biological indicators, both VS and upstream/downstream monitoring. Autumn monitoring is used to document community condition or health after being subjected to the wide variety of stressors throughout the year. One of the main benefits of using biological indicators is their ability to integrate stressors through time. Examining the condition or health of a community at the end of the "biological year" (i.e., autumn) provides insights into how well the community has dealt with the stresses through an annual seasonal cycle. Likewise, evaluation of the condition of individuals in the 8 community (in this case, individual fish as reflected in Metric 12) provides insights into how well the community can be expected to withstand stressors through winter. Further, multiple sampling years during the permit renewal cycle add to the evidence of whether the autumn monitoring approach has correctly demonstrated the ability of the community to sustain itself through repeated seasonal changes. (3) The presence of necessary food chain species: Integrity of the food chain is measured by the Trophic Composition metrics, with support from the Abundance metric and Species Richness and Composition metrics. A healthy fish community is comprised of species that utilize complex feeding mechanisms extending into multiple levels of the aquatic food web. Three dominant fish trophic levels exist within Tennessee River reservoirs: insectivores, omnivores, and top carnivores. To determine the presence of necessary food chain species, these three groups should be well represented within the overall fish community. Other fish trophic levels include benthic invertivores, planktivores, herbivores, and parasitic species. Insectivores include most sunfish, minnows, and silversides. Omnivores include gizzard shad, common carp, carpsuckers, buffalo, and channel and blue catfish. Top carnivores include bass, gar, skipjack herring, crappie, flathead catfish, sauger, and walleye. Benthic invertivores include freshwater drum, suckers, and darters. Planktivores include alewife, threadfin shad, and paddlefish. Herbivores include largescale stonerollers. Lampreys in the genus Jchthyomyzon are the only parasitic species occurring in Tennessee River reservoirs. To establish expected proportions of each trophic guild and' che expected number of species included in each guild occurring in transition zones in lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs (Kentucky, Pickwick, Wilson, Wheeler, and Guntersville reservoirs), data collected from 1993 to 2010 were analyzed for each reservoir zone (inflow, transition, forebay). Samples collected in the downstream vicinity of thermal discharges were not included in this analysis so that accurate expectations could be calculated with the assumption that these data represent what should occur in lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs absent from point source effects (i.e. power plant discharges). Data from 900 electrofishing runs (a total of 405,000 meters of shoreline sampled) and from 600 overnight experimental gill net sets were included in this analysis for transition areas in lower 9 mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs. From these data, the range of proportional values for each trophic level and the range of the number of species included in each trophic level were trisected. These trisections were intended to show less than expected, expected, and above expected values for trophic level proportions and species occurring within each reservoir zone in lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs. The data were also averaged and bound by confidence intervals (95%) to further evaluate expectations for proportions of each trophic level and the number of species representing each trophic level (Table 2). (4) A lack of domination by pollution-tolerant species: Domination by pollution-tolerant species is determined by metrics 3 ("Number of benthic invertivore species"), 4 ("Number of intolerant species"), 5 ("Percent tolerant individuals"), 6 ("Percent dominance by one species"), and 10 ("Percent omnivores"). Scoring categories are based on "expected" fish community characteristics in the absence of human-induced impacts other than impoundment of the reservoir. These categories were developed from historical fish assemblage data representative of transition zones from lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs (Hickman and McDonough, 1996). Attained values for each of the 12 metrics were compared to the scoring criteria and assigned scores to represent relative degrees of degradation: least degraded (5); intermediately degraded (3); and most degraded (1). Scoring criteria for lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs are shown in Table 3. If a metric was calculated as a percentage (e.g., "Percent tolerant individuals"), the data from electrofishing and gill netting were scored separately and allotted half the total score for that individual metric. Individual metric scores for a sampling area (i.e., upstream or downstream) were summed to obtain the RF AI score for the area. TV A uses RF AI results to determine maintenance of BIP using two approaches. One is "absolute" in that it compares the RF AI scores and individual metrics to predetermined values. The other is "relative" in that it compares RF AI scores attained downstream to the upstream control site. The "absolute" approach is based on Jennings et al. (1995) who suggested that 10 favorable comparisons of the RFAI score attained from the potential impact zone to a predetermined criterion can be used to identify the presence of normal community structure and function and hence existence ofBIP. For multi-metric indices, TVA uses two criteria to ensure a conservative screening ofBIP. First, if an RFAI score reaches 70% of the highest attainable score of 60 (adjusted upward to include sample variability as described below), and second, if fewer than half of RF AI metrics receive a low (1) or moderate (3) score, then community structure and function are considered normal, indicating that BIP had been maintained and further evaluation would be needed. RFAI scores range from 12 to 60. Ecological health ratings (12-21 "Very Poor", 22-31 "Poor, 32-40 "Fair, 41-50 "Good", or 51-60 "Excellent") are then applied to scores. As discussed in detail below, the average variation for RF AI scores in TVA reservoirs is 6 (+/- 3). Therefore, any location that attains a RF AI score of 45 (7 5% of the highest score) or higher would be considered to have BIP. It must be stressed that scores below this threshold do not necessarily reflect an adversely impacted fish community. The threshold is used to serve as a conservative screening level; i.e., any fish community that meets these criteria is obviously not adversely impacted. RFAI scores below this level require a more in-depth look to determine ifBIP exists. An inspection of individual RF AI metric results and species of fish used in each metric are an initial step to help identify if operation of BFN is a contributing factor. This approach is appropriate because a validated multi-metric index is being used and scoring criteria applicable to the zone of study are available. A comparison of RF AI scores from the area downstream of BFN to those from the upstream (control) area is one basis for determining if operation of the plant has had any impacts on the resident fish community. The definition of "similar" is integral to accepting the validity of these interpretations. The Quality Assurance (QA) component of the VS monitoring program deals with how well the RF AI scores can be repeated and is accomplished by collecting a second set of samples at 15%-20% of the areas each year. Comparison of paired-sample QA data collected over seven years shows that the difference in RF AI index scores ranges from 0 to 18 points. The mean difference between these 54 paired scores is 4.6 points with 95% confidence limits of 3.4 and 5.8. The 75th percentile of the sample differences is 6, and the 90th percentile is 12. Based 11 on these results, a difference of 6 points or less in the overall RF AI scores is the value selected for defining "similar" scores between upstream and downstream fish communities. That is, ifthe downstream RFAI score is within 6 points of the upstream score and ifthere are no major differences in overall fish community composition, then the two locations are considered similar. It is important to bear in mind that differences greater than 6 points can be expected simply due to method variation (25% of the QA paired sample sets exceeded that value). An examination of the 12 metrics (with emphases on fish species used for each metric) is conducted to analyze any difference in scores and the potential for the difference to be thermally related. Statistical Analyses In addition to RF AI analyses, data were analyzed using traditional statistical methods. Data from the survey were used to calculate catch per unit effort (CPUE), expressed as number offish per electrofishing run or fish per net night. CPUE values were calculated by pollution tolerance, trophic guilds (e.g., benthic invertivores, top carnivores, etc.), thermal sensitivity (Yoder et al. 2006), and indigenous status. CPUE, diversity, and species richness values were computed for each electrofishing effort (to maximize sample size; n = 30) and compared upstream and downstream to assess potential effects of power plant discharges. Diversity was quantified using two commonly applied indices: Shannon diversity index (Shannon 1948) and Simpson diversity index (Simpson 1949). Both indices account for the number of species present, as well as the relative abundance of each species. Shannon diversity index values were computed using the formula: s , '(ni) (ni) H = -L N ln N i=l where: S = total number of species N = total number of individuals ni = total number of individuals in the i1h species The Simpson diversity index was calculated as follows: 12 where: S = total number of species N = total number of individuals ni =total number of individuals in the ith species An independent two-sample t-test was used to test for differences in CPUE, species richness, and diversity values upstream and downstream ofBFN (a= 0.05). Before statistical tests were performed using this method, data were analyzed for normality using the Shapiro-Wilk test (Shapiro and Wilk, 1965) and homogeneity of variance using Levene's test (Levene 1960). normal data or data with unequal variances were transformed using either square root conversion or the ln(x+ 1) transformation. Transformed data were reanalyzed for normal distribution and equal variances. If transformation normalized the data or resulted in homogeneous variances, transformed data were tested using an independent two-sample t-test. If transformed data were not normally distributed or had unequal variances, statistical analysis was conducted using the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test (Mann and Whitney 1947; Wilcoxon 1945). Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Sampling Methods and Data Analysis for Sites Upstream and Downstream of BFN To assess the benthic macroinvertebrate community in the vicinity ofBFN from 2000 to 2010, data were collected along transects established across the full width of Wheeler reservoir at two sites in the transition zone-one at TRM 295.9 upstream of the intake and one at TRM 291.7 downstream of the BFN discharge. Prior to this time, a sampling site in the fore bay zone of Wheeler Reservoir (TRM 277) was used as the downstream comparison site. Because other factors unrelated to influence from BFN depressed benthic communities at both the forebay site and in the Elk River embayment (Wheeler Reservoir, Elk River Mile [ERM] 6 -between BFN and the forebay site), the downstream site was moved into the transition zone two miles . downstream from the BFN diffuser at TRM 291.7 in 2000. Benthic scores and community 13 composition from this site were used through 2010 for downstream comparisons to the upstream benthic site at TRM 295.9. Beginning in 2011, samples were collected in the reservoir's transition zone along transects established across the full width of the reservoir at three sites. One site upstream of the plant intake was maintained at TRM 295.9 (Figure 4). To more accurately assess any possible effects of the BFN discharge on the benthic communities downstream, two sites were selected: one at TRM 293.2, within the thermal plume from the BFN discharge, and a second at TRM 290.4, downstream of the thermal plume (Figure 5). During autumn 2015, benthic macroinvertebrate data were collected along these three transects. The upstream transect was used as a control site for comparison to the downstream benthic communities potentially affected by the BFN thermal effluent. A Ponar sampler (area per sample 0.06 m2) was used to collect benthic samples at ten points equally spaced along each transect. When heavier substrate was encountered, a Peterson sampler (area per sample OJ 1 m2) was used. Sediments from each sample were washed on a 533 µ screen, and organisms were picked from the screen and from any remaining substrate. Samples were fixed in formalin and sent to an independent consultant who identified each organism collected to the lowest possible taxonomic level. Benthic samples were evaluated using seven metrics that represent characteristics of the benthic community. Results for each metric were assigned a rating of 1, 3, or 5, based on comparison to reference conditions developed for VS reservoir transition sample sites (Table 4). For each sample site, the ratings for the seven metrics were then summed to produce an RBI score. Potential RBI scores ranged from 7 to 35. Ecological health ratings derived from the range of Potential values (7-12 "Very Poor" 13-18 "Poor" 19-23 "Fair" 24-29 "Good" or 30-35 ' ' ' ' "Excellent") were then applied to scores. The individual metrics are described below: (1) Average number of taxa -Calculated by averaging the total number of taxa present in each sample at a site. Greater taxa richness indicates better conditions than lower taxa richness. 14 (2) Proportion of samples with long-lived organisms -A presence/absence metric that is evaluated based on the proportion of samples with at least one long-lived organism (Corbicula, Hexagenia, mussels, or snails) present. The presence oflong-lived taxa is indicative of conditions that allow long-term survival. (3) Average number ofEPT taxa-Calculated by averaging the number of Ephemeroptera (mayfly), Plecoptera (stonefly), and Trichoptera ( caddis fly) taxa present in each sample at a site. Higher diversity of these taxa indicates good water quality and better habitat conditions. ( 4) Percentage of oligochaetes -Calculated by averaging the percentage of oligochaetes in each sample at a site. Oligochaetes are considered tolerant organisms, so a higher proportion indicates poorer water quality. (5) Percentage as dominant taxa -Used as an evenness indicator, this metric is calculated by selecting the two most abundant taxa in a sample, summing the number of individuals in those two taxa, dividing that sum by the total number of animals in the sample, and converting to a percentage for that sample. The percentage is then averaged for the 10 samples at each site. Because the most abundant taxa often differ among the 10 samples at a site, this approach allows more discretion to identify imbalances at a site than developing an average for a single dominant taxon for all samples at a site. Dominance of one or two taxa indicates poor conditions. (6) Average density excluding chironomids and oligochaetes-Calculated by first summing the number of organisms -excluding chironomids and oligochaetes -present in each sample and then averaging these densities for the 10 samples at a site. This metric examines the community, excluding taxa which often dominate under adverse conditions. Higher abundance of taxa other than chironomids and oligochaetes indicates good water quality conditions. 15 (7) Zero-samples: Proportion of samples containing no organisms -For each site, the proportion of samples in which no organisms are present. "Zero-samples" indicate living conditions unsuitable to support aquatic life (i.e. toxicity, unsuitable substrate, etc.). A site with no zero samples was assigned a score of five. Any site with one or more zero samples was assigned a score of one. A similar or higher benthic index score at the downstream sites compared to the upstream site was used as the basis for determining absence of impact on the benthic macroinvertebrate community related to BFN's thermal discharge. The QA component of VS monitoring compared benthic index scores from 49 paired sample sets collected over seven years. Differences between these paired sets ranged from 0 to 14 points; the 75th percentile was four points, the 90th percentile was six points. The mean difference between these 49 paired scores was 3 .1 points with 95% confidence limits of 2.2 and 4.1. Based on these results, a difference of four points or less was the value selected for defining "similar" scores between upstream and downstream benthic communities. That is, ifbenthic scores at the downstream sites are within four points of the upstream score, the communities are considered similar. However, differences greater than four points can be expected simply due to method variation (25% of the QA paired sample sets exceeded that value). Any difference in scores of four points or greater between communities is examined on a metric-by-metric basis to determine what caused the difference in scores and the potential for the difference to be thermally related. Visual Encounter Survey (Wildlife Observations) Permanent survey sites were established on both the right and left descending banks at one location upstream of the BFN thermal discharge, centered at TRM 295.9 (Figure 4), and at a second location downstream of the discharge, centered at TRM 292.5 (Figure 5). Each survey site spanned a distance of 2, 100 m along the shoreline, and the beginning and ending points were marked using GPS for relocation. Surveys were conducted by steadily traversing the site by boat, at approximately 30 m offshore and parallel to the shoreline, and simultaneously recording observations of wildlife. The 16 sampling frame of each survey generally followed the strip or belt transect concept: from the center-line of each transect landward to an area that included the shoreline and riparian zone (i.e., belt width generally averages 60 m where vision is not obscured), all individuals observed were enumerated. Wildlife observed visually or detected audibly was identified to the lowest taxonomic trophic level, and a direct count of individuals observed per trophic level was recorded. If a flock of a species or a mixed flock of a group of species was observed, numbers of individuals present of each species were estimated. Time was recorded at the start and end points of each survey to provide a general measure of effort expended. Variation of observation times among surveys was primarily due to the difficulty of approaching some wildlife species without inadvertently flushing them from basking or perching sites. The principal objective of the surveys was to provide a preliminary set of observations to verify that trophic levels of birds, mammals and reptiles were not affected by thermal effects from the BFN discharge. If expected trophic levels were not represented, further investigation will be used to target particular species and/or species groups (guilds) in an attempt to determine the cause. Wheeler Reservoir Flow and BFN Temperature Total daily average discharge from Guntersville Dam was used to describe the amount of water flowing past BFN and was obtained from TV A's River Operations database. Water temperature data were also obtained from TV A's River Operations database. Locations of water temperature monitoring stations used to compare water temperatures upstream of BFN intake and downstream ofBFN discharge are depicted in Figure 6. Ambient temperatures upstream of the BFN intake were measured at Site 4, located at TRM 297.8. Upstream daily mean temperatures were calculated by averaging temperatures collected at depths of 3, 5, and 7 feet. Temperatures downstream ofBFN discharge were measured at Sites 1, 16, and 17, all located at TRM 293.5. Downstream temperatures were calculated by first averaging temperatures at each site across depths of 3, 5, and 7 feet. The resultant values from each site were then averaged together to obtain overall mean daily water temperatures downstream of BFN. 17 Thermal Plume Characterization Physical measurements to characterize and map the BFN thermal plume were collected concurrent with biological field sampling. The plume was characterized under representative thermal maxima and seasonally-expected low flow conditions. Measurements were collected during periods of normal operation ofBFN, as reasonably practicable, to capture the thermal plume under existing river flow/reservoir elevation conditions. This effort evaluated potential impacts on recreation and water supply uses and allowed general delineation of the "Primary Study Area" -per the EPA (1977) draft guidance defined as the "entire geographic area bounded annually by the locus of the 2°C above ambient surface isotherms as these isotherms are distributed throughout an annual period' -ensuring placement of the biological sampling locations within thermally influenced areas. However, it is important to emphasize that the isopleth boundary is not a bright line; it is dynamic, changing geometrically in response to changes in ambient river flows and temperatures and BFN operations. As such, samples collected outside of, but generally proximate to the Primary Study Area boundary cannot be considered free of thermal influence and thus should not be discounted. Every effort was made to collect biological samples in thermally affected areas as guided by the Primary Study Area definition. Depth profiles of temperature from the river surface to the bottom were collected at points along transects crossing the plume. One transect was located proximate to the thermal discharge point; subsequent downstream transects were concentrated in the near field area of the plume where the change in plume temperature was expected to be most rapid. The distance between transects in the remainder of the Primary Study Area increased with distance downstream (or away from the discharge point). The farthest downstream transect was just outside of the Primary Study Area. A transect upstream of the discharge, in an area not affected by the thermal plume, was included for determining ambient temperature conditions. The total number of transects needed to fully characterize and delineate the plume was determined in the field. Collection of temperature profiles along a given transect began at or near the shoreline from which the discharge originated and continued until the far shore was reached. Measurements across a transect were typically conducted at points 10%, 30%, 50%, 70%, and 90% from the 18 originating shoreline, though the number of measurement points along transects was sometimes increased in proportion to the magnitude of the temperature change across a given transect. The distances between transects, and between points of measurement along each transect, depended on the size of the discharge plume. Temperature data were compiled and analyzed to present the horizontal and vertical dimensions of the BFN thermal plume using spatial analysis fechniques to yield plume cross-sections, which can be used to demonstrate the existence of a zone of passage for fish and other aquatic species under or around the plume. Water Quality Parameters at Fish Sampling Sites during RFAI Samples Water quality conditions were measured using a Hydrolab that provided readings for water temperature (°C), conductivity (µSiem), dissolved oxygen (mg/L), and pH. Within each of the electrofishing sample reaches upstream and downstream ofBFN, transects were established across the river at the most upstream boundary, at mid-reach, and at the most downstream boundary. Along each transect, samples were collected at the RDB, in mid-channel, and at the LDB by recording readings at one-to two-meter intervals along a vertical gradient from just above the bottom of the river to approximately 0.3 meters from the surface. Results and Discussion Evaluation of Plant Operating Conditions Relevant plant operational data-mean daily temperatures at the CCW intake and discharge, mean daily flow through the CCW system, and mean daily power generation by the three nuclear units at BFN-were compiled from 2010 through 2015. Biological monitoring was conducted upstream and downstream of BFN on October 21 and 22 and on November 5. Daily mean generation for these three days was 3,409 MW; 3,401 MW; and 3,390 MW, respectively, from 15 to 17% greater than the historical daily averages. Daily 19 mean intake temperatures for these dates were 66.6, 68.6, and 68.2 °F, respectively, which were between 0 and 15% higher than historical means for these dates (67.8, 66.5, and 59.2 °F). Daily mean discharge temperatures were 71.8, 73.5, and 71.8 °F, respectively, from 1 to 11 % higher than historical means (71.4, 71.1, and 64.9 °F). Daily flow rates were not available, but were assumed to be similar to monthly averages (Table 5, Figure 7). During 2015, daily mean generation ranged from 1995 to 3460 MW, with an annual average of 3201 MW. Through the year, mean daily generation was on average, 8% higher than the historical daily mean. Monthly mean CCW flow ranged from 2428 to 3097 mgd (3,757 to 4,792 cfs). The annual average of2,867 mgd (4,436 cfs) was 7% greater than the historical average. Daily mean intake temperatures ranged from 34.6 to 88.9 °F, with an annual average of 67.7 °F. Daily mean discharge temperatures ranged from 41.2 to 89.1 °F, with an annual average of70.l °F. Both daily mean intake and discharge temperatures were, over the course of the year, an average of 2% higher than historical daily means (Table 5, Figure 8). Aquatic Habitat in the Vicinity of BFN Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Assessment Of the sixteen shoreline transects sampled upstream ofBFN, 12.5% (two transects) scored as good, 75% (12 transects) scored as fair, and 6% (one transect) scored as poor. The average score for transects on the left descending bank was 24 ("Fair"), while scores for transects on the right descending bank averaged 20 ("Fair"). No aquatic macrophytes were observed on either shoreline (Table 6). Of the sixteen shoreline transects sampled downstream of BFN, 31 % (five transects) scored as good, 56% (nine transects) scored as fair, and 12% (two transects) scored as poor. The average score for transects on the left descending bank was 24 ("Fair"), and the average score for transects on the right descending bank was 22 ("Fair"). No aquatic macrophytes were observed on either shoreline (Table 7). 20 River Bottom Habitat Figures 9-12 compare substrate proportions and water depth at each sample point along the eight transects upstream ofBFN. Figures 13-16 compare substrate proportions at each sample point along the eight transects downstream of BFN. Relative locations of all sixteen transects are shown in Figure 3. The three most dominant substrate types encountered along the eight transects upstream ofBFN were silt (59.0%) and mollusk shell (23.0%), and clay (4.1 %). Downstream ofBFN, silt (65.7%), mollusk shell (16.0%), and sand (8.4%) were the most prominent (Table 8). Fish Community The total RF AI score for the fish community upstream of BFN was 49 ("Good"). The score for the community downstream was 44 ("Fair") (Table 9). Because the difference between these scores was within the 6-point range of acceptable variation, the communities were considered similar during autumn 2015. Below, the two communities are compared in further detail, utilizing each of the four characteristics of a BIP. Discussion of this comparison includes the metrics appropriate for each characteristic. (1) A biotic community characterized by diversity appropriate to the ecoregion Total number of species (highest rating requires> 30) Thirty-five indigenous species were collected upstream, compared to 31 species downstream. Both sites earned the highest score (5) (Table 9). Eight species -longnose gar (five specimens), northern hogsucker (two), spotted gar (18), black buffalo (two), blackspotted topminnow (one), orangespotted sunfish (one), spotted bass (one), and snubnose darter (one) -were collected only upstream (It should be noted that, in records since 2003, blackspotted topminnow and snubnose darter have not been collected in any previous sample at either site). Four species -black 21 redhorse (one specimen), bowfin (one), bullhead minnow (two), and black crappie (one)-were collected only downstream (Tables 10 and 11 ). Number of centrarchid species (highest rating requires> 2) Both sites earned the highest score (5), with seven centrarchid species collected in each sample reach. Orangespotted sunfish was collected only upstream; black crappie was collected only downstream (Table 9). Number of benthic invertivore species (highest rating requires> 7) Five benthic invertivore species were collected at both sites, resulting in mid-range scores (3). Spotted sucker, river darter, logperch, and freshwater drum were collected at both sites; northern hogsucker was collected only upstream; black redhorse was collected only downstream (Table 9). Number of intolerant species (highest rating requires> 4) Five intolerant species were collected at both sites, and both earned the highest score (5). Longear sunfish, skipjack herring, smallmouth bass, and spotted sucker were collected at both sites; northern hogsucker was collected only upstream, black redhorse was collected only downstream (Table 9). Percent non-indigenous species (highest rating requires <1 % for electrofishing, <1 % for gill netting) Both sites received the lowest score for the electrofishing portion of the sample, due mostly to unusually large collections of Mississippi silverside (27.3% of the upstream sample, 32.2% of the downstream sample). Two other non-indigenous species were collected at each site in minor proportions: upstream-striped bass (0.3%) and common carp (0.2%); downstream-redbreast sunfish (0.1 % ) and yellow perch (0.1 % ). 22 Both sites received the highest score for the gill netting portion of the sample. Striped bass made up 0.8% of the sample upstream, and no aquatic nuisance species were captured in gill nets downstream. Number of top carnivore species (highest rating requires> 7) Eleven top carnivore species were collected upstream, and ten were collected downstream. Both sites earned the highest score (5). Longnose gar, spotted bass and spotted gar were collected only upstream; black crappie and bowfin were collected only downstream (Table 9). Summary Scorns for the upstream site were identical to thost:'. for the downstream site for all metrics discussed. Both sites earned highest scores for four metrics and for the gill netting portion of "Percent non-indigenous species". Scores for the electrofishing portion of this metric were heavily influenced by large collections of Mississippi silverside at both sites. Both sites earned mid-range scores for "Number ofbenthic invertivore species". (2) The capacity for the community to sustain itself through cyclic seasonal change Maintenance of diversity can often be indicative of the ability of a fish community to withstand the stressors of an annual seasonal cycle. Autumn RF AI sampling has been conducted at the site upstream ofBFN since 1993, except during 1996, 1998, 2012 and 2014. Autumn sampling has been conducted at the site downstream since 2000, except during 2012 and 2014. Average scores calculated over the history of sampling are identical for both sites ( 41, "Good") (Table 13). Figure 17 shows the numbers of indigenous species collected during autumn RF AI samples upstream and downstream ofBFN from 2000 through 2015. Over this period, the numbers collected at the upstream site ranged from 24 to 35, with an average of 29 species. Downstream, numbers collected ranged from 23 to 31, with an average of 27 species. Collections upstream have generally been higher than those downstream: more species were collected upstream during ten sample years, while the same number of species was collected at both sites during 2003, 23 2007, and 2008; more species were collected downstream than upstream during o.nly 2009. The numbers of indigenous species collected during autumn 2015 (35 upstream, 31 downstream) were the highest ever for both sites. Average number per run (highest rating requires> 487 for electrofishing, > 22 for gill netting) For the electrofishing portion of the sample, an average of70.1 fish was collected per effort upstream, and an average of 114.8 fish was collected per effort downstream, resulting in lowest scores for both sites. An average of 13.3 fish was collected per net-night upstream, resulting in a mid-range score. An average of5.4 fish was collected per net-night downstream, resulting in the lowest score. Percentage of anomalies (highest rating requires< 2 %) Anomalies (i.e. visible lesions, bacterial and fungal infections, parasites, muscular and skeletal deformities, and hybridization) observed in a fish community can also be an indicator of the ability of the community to sustain itself over an annual seasonal cycle. The two sites earned highest scores for both the electrofishing and gill net portions of the samples, though slightly greater percentages of anomalies were observed in both portions of the sample at the upstream site (1.1 % EF; 0.8% GN), than at the downstream site (0.3% EF; 0.0 % GN) (Table 9). Summary Average RF AI scores, determined over the history of autumn sampling around BFN, are identical upstream and downstream. Though more indigenous species were collected upstream during most years, the average numbers of species -calculated over the years during which sampling occurred at both sites -were similar upstream and downstream. Average catch per effort was poor at both sites for electrofishing; average gill net catch upstream was moderate, but the downstream average was also poor. The upstream site exhibited a greater percentage of anomalies than that downstream during 2015, but both sites earned the highest score for this metric. 24 (3) The presence of necessary food chain species Estimates of the trophic compositions of the fish communities upstream and downstream of BFN were calculated from the collection data (Tables 10 and 11) as the proportion of the total sample made up by each trophic guild. In direct comparison of the communities upstream and downstream ofBFN, the proportions ofbenthic invertivores, insectivores, and planktivores were generally similar, but the upstream sample contained a greater proportion of top carnivores and a smaller proportion of omnivores. Two additional guilds -herbivore and specialized insectivore -were represented in both samples, though in slightly higher proportions upstream. No parasitic species were collected at either site. The same numbers ofbenthic invertivore species, insectivore, species, and planktivore species were collected upstream and downstream, but more species of top carnivore, omnivore, and specialized insectivore were collected upstream (Table 2). In comparison to expected values for transition zones in lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs (Table 2), both sites exhibited proportions of top carnivores and herbivores that were poorer than expectations, but the proportions of all other guilds were within or better than the expected ranges. Upstream, the numbers of omnivore species were poorer than expected (more species), but the numbers of species representing all other guilds met or exceeded expectations. Downstream, the numbers of species representing all six trophic guilds met or exceeded expectations (Table 2). Percent top carnivores (highest rating requires> 10% for electrofishing, <39% for gill netting) Seven top carnivore species comprised 9.4% of the electrofishing catch upstream, earning a range score. The most abundant species were largemouth bass (5.6%) and smallmouth bass (1.2%). The other five species made up less than I% each. Downstream, eight top carnivore species made up 4.5% of the sample, and the site earned the lowest score. Smallmouth bass (2.9%) and largemouth bass (0.8%) were the most abundant species; the six others comprised less than 0.5% each. Both sites earned the highest score for the gill netting portion of the sample. Nine species made up 59.4% of the sample upstream; white bass (16.5%) and skipjack herring (14.3%) were most 25 abundant. Eight species made up 53.7% of the sample downstream; skipjack herring (25.9%) and largemouth bass (7.4%) were most abundant. Percent omnivores (highest rating requires < 24% for electrofishing, < 16% for gill netting) Both sites earned highest scores for the electrofishing portion of the sample. Seven omnivore. species made up 11.7% of the sample upstream; gizzard shad (5.5%), channel catfish (2.9%), and smallmouth buffalo (2.2%) were most abundant. Five omnivore species made up 22.0% of the sample downstream; gizzard shad (20.2%) was overwhelmingly the most abundant species collected. Both sites earned lowest scores for the gill netting portion of the sample. The same four species-blue catfish, channel catfish, gizzard shad, and smallmouth buffalo-were collected in similar proportions at each site, totaling 35.3% of the catch upstream and 35.2% of the catch downstream. Summary Both sites exhibited relative proportions and diversity (number of species collected) of most trophic guilds that met or exceeded expected values, though the proportion of top carnivores was poorer than expected at both sites. The number of omnivore species collected upstream was poorer (inore species) than expected, but the general trophic compositions of the fish communities at the two sites were considered similar. Electrofishing yielded more individual top carnivores upstream than downstream, but gill netting efforts collected similarly high proportions at both sites. Both sites showed low proportions of omnivores collected by ele.ctrofishing and high proportions collected in gill nets. (4) A lack of domination by pollution-tolerant species Number of benthic invertivore species Five benthic invertivore species were collected at both sites, and both earned mid-range scores of 3 (Table 9). 26 Number of intolerant species (highest rating requires> 4) Five intolerant species were collected at both sites, and both received the highest score (5). Longear sunfish, skipjack herring, smallmouth bass and spotted sucker were collected at both sites; northern hogsucker was collected only upstream; black redhorse was collected only downstream (Table 9). Percentage of tolerant individuals (highest rating requires< 27% electrofishing; < 15% gill net) At the upstream site, eight tolerant species comprised 23.9% of the electrofishing sample, and the site earned the highest partial score (2.5). The gill net sample included 21.1 % tolerant fishes of three species, earning a mid-range partial score (1.5). Downstream, tolerant fishes of eight species made up 3 0.1 % of the electro fishing sample, and four tolerant species made up 29 .6% of the gill net sample. The downstream site earned mid-range scores for both portions (Table 9). Seven tolerant species -bluegill, gizzard shad, golden shiner, green sunfish, largemouth bass, spotfin shiner, and striped shiner -were collected at both sites. Common carp and longnose gar were collected only upstream; redbreast sunfish and white crappie were collected only downstream. Gizzard shad was the most abundant species collected in gill nets at either site, and was collected in similar percentages upstream (16.5%) and downstream (18.5%). It was also the most abundant species collected by electrofishing downstream (20.2%). In the electrofishing catch upstream, bluegill (7.1 %), gizzard shad (5.5%), largemouth bass (5.6%), and green sunfish ( 4.2%) were each collected in similar percentages (Table 9). Percent dominance by one species (highest rating requires < 29% electrofishing; < 17% gill net) The upstream site earned highest scores for both portions of the sample. Mississippi silverside was the most prevalent species in the electrofishing catch (27.3%), and gizzard shad in the gill net catch (16.5%). The downstream site earned mid-range scores for both portions of the sample. Mississippi silverside was most prevalent in the electrofishing sample (32.2%) and skipjack herring was most prevalent in the gill net sample (25.9%) (Table 9). 27 Percentage of omnivores (highest rating requires < 24% electrofishing; < 16% gill net) Both sites earned highest scores for the electrofishing catch. The proportion of om,nivores in the upstream sample was 11. 7%, made up primarily of gizzard shad ( 5 .5% ), channel catfish (2.9% ), and smallmouth buffalo (2.2%). The proportion in the downstream sample was nearly twice that upstream (22.0%) and consisted almost entirely of gizzard shad (20.2%). Gill net samples at both sites contained similar proportions (35.3% upstream; 35.2% downstream) of the same four omnivore species, and both sites earned the lowest partial scores (Table 9). Summary Both sites exhibited moderate diversity ofbenthic invertivore species and relatively high diversity of intolerant species, but the downstream sample was more heavily dominated by single species in both portions of the collection. Mississippi silverside was the most abundant single species collected downstream, but a large collection of gizzard shad (20.1 % of the total catch) resulted in higher proportions of tolerant individuals and omnivores than those observed upstream. Statistical Analyses Both the Simpson and Shannon diversity indices revealed significantly greater diversity per run in the fish community upstream ofBFN compared to that downstream (Table 12). Potential differences in species richness between the two communities were also analyzed by parsing the data into nine species parameters, and statistical tests of each of these revealed no significant differences between the two communities. The same nine parameters were* also tested for differences in abundance (numbers of individuals per run, or CPUE), and results indicated that greater numbers of omnivores and greater numbers of tolerant species were collected per run downstream (Table 12). Fish Community Summary Resident important species (RIS) are defined in EPA guidance as those species which are representative in terms of their biological requirements of a balanced, indigenous community of 28 fish, shellfish, and wildlife in the body of water into which the discharge is made (EPA and NRC, 1977). RIS often include non-indigenous species. Thirty-nine RIS were collected at the site upstream ofBFN, compared to 34 RIS downstream (Tables 10 and 11). Species that experience avoidance behavior or mortality at water temperatures equal to or greater than 32.2°C (90°F) are designated as "thermally sensitive" (Yoder et al., 2006). The same thermally sensitive species -logperch -was collected at both sites. The aquatic nuisance species common carp, striped bass, and Mississippi silverside were collected upstream; redbreast sunfish and Mississippi silverside were collected downstream (Tables 10 and 11 ). Commercially valuable species are defined by the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (2013) as any of the following non-game fish: drum, buffalo, carp, channel catfish, all members of the catfish family, paddlefish (spoonbill), spotted sucker, all members of the sucker family including the species known as redhorse and black horse, bowfin and all members of the gar family, and mullet. Recreationally valuable species are those that are targeted by anglers or are used as bait. Among the RIS collected upstream were 14 commercially valuable species and 22 recreationally valuable species, compared to 12 commercially valuable and 18 recreationally valuable species downstream (Tables 10 and 11 ). Total RF Al scores for the sampling sites upstream and downstream differed by five points, indicating that the two communities exhibited similar ecological structure and balance. As previously discussed, RF AI scores have an intrinsic variability of+/- 3 points (6-point range). This variability comes from several sources, including annual variations in air temperature and stream flow; variations in pollutant loadings from nonpoint sources; changes in habitat, such as extent and density of aquatic vegetation; natural population cycles and movements of the species being measured (TWRC 2006). Another source of variability arises from the fact that nearly any practical measurement, lethal or non-lethal, of a biological community is a sample rather than a measurement of the entire population. The effects of these sources of variability on the sample data could have generated a difference in scores due simply to method variation. Accordingly, a thorough comparison of the fish 29 communities upstream and downstream ofBFN was conducted by examining each of the twelve individual RF AI metrics as a component of the appropriate characteristic of a BIP. Measures of diversity were similarly high for both communities, except diversity ofbenthic invertivores, which was moderate for both sites. Abundance was generally poor (both sites received low scores for the metric "Average number per run"), but both sites exhibited strong sustainability over an annual cycle and similar trophic composition. The downstream community was more heavily dominated by a single species, and included higher proportions of tolerant individuals and of omnivores than were observed upstream. To provide additional information about the health of the fish community throughout Wheeler Reservoir, Table 12 compares RF AI scores for the sites upstream and downstream of BFN with those from additional VS sites in the reservoir. Average RFAI scores of these additional VS sites, determined across all years sampled, are in the "Good" range. However, aquatic communities at these sites are not subject to thermal effects from BFN and are not used in determination ofBIP in relation to the plant. Individual metric scores, overall RF AI scores, species collected, and catch per effort from electrofishing and gill netting conducted upstream and downstream ofBFN during 1999 through 2013 are included in TVA (2011) and TVA (2014). Statistical tests of nine species parameters indicated that no significant differences existed between the upstream and downstream communities in number of species collected per run, but that significantly more omnivores and tolerant fishes were collected per run downstream. These results support similar observations made in the RF AI analysis. The results of both the Simpson and Shannon diversity analyses show significantly greater diversity in the upstream samples. The RF AI metric "Number of indigenous species" indicates similar total numbers collected at both sites. However, review of the total collections shows that eight indigenous species were collected only upstream, while four others were collected only downstream. When indigenous species and hybrids are included, a total of 11 taxa were collected upstream that were not found downstream, compared to six taxa collected only downstream (Tables 10 and 11 ). 30 In conclusion, the community downstream ofBFN was found to be less diverse and more heavily dominated by a single species than that upstream, with higher proportions of omnivores and tolerant fishes. However, large collections of Mississippi silverside and gizzard shad, two species which are known to form large schools, significantly influenced the downstream results. There was no evidence indicating the differences between the communities were caused by thermal effluent from BFN. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community As discussed previously, data to assess the benthic macroinvertebrate community around BFN were collected from three sites in autumn 2015. RBI metrics for all three sites were scored using evaluation criteria for lab-processed samples collected in the transition reservoir zone (Table 4). Data collected at TRM 290.4, downstream of the thermal plume, produced an overall RBI score of 33 ("Excellent") and data from TRM 293.2, within the thermal plume, produced an overall RBI score of 31 ("Excellent"). Data from the upstream site, TRM 295.9, produced an overall RBI score of 33 ("Excellent") (Table 14). The upstream site was considered a control site and a difference of 4 points or less was used to define "similar" conditions between the upstream and downstream sites. Because the RBI scores for the two downstream sites were within 4 points of the RBI score for the upstream site, conditions among the three sites were considered "similar" and BIP was maintained. Results for the autumn 2015 benthic macroinvertebrate sampling can be found in Tables 14 and 17. Results were compared between the downstream (TRM's 290.4 and 293.2) and upstream (TRM 295.9) sites and are briefly discussed below for each RBI metric. Average number oftaxa (highest rating requires> 6.6) In autumn 2015, averages of 9.2 and 10.4 taxa were observed for sites downstream ofBFN. The site upstream of BFN averaged 9.5 taxa per sample. All three sites received the highest score of 5 for this metric (Table 14). 31 Proportion of samples with long-lived organisms (highest rating requires > 0.9) The metric "proportion of samples with long-lived organisms" received the highest score of 5 at both downstream sites with 100% containing long-Hved organisms (proportion of 1.0). The proportion of samples with long-lived organisms was 100% at the upstream site which also received the highest score for the metric (Table 14). Average number of EPT taxa (highest rating requires > 1.4) An average of 1.5 EPT taxa was collected at the most downstream site, TRM 290.4, resulting in the highest score (5). Within the plume at TRM 293.2, an average of 1.3 EPT taxa was collected and upstream ofBFN at TRM 295.9, an average of 1.4 EPT was collected. Both sites received the mid-range score of 3 (Table 14). Average proportion of oligochaete individuals (highest rating requires< 11 %) The two downstream sites, TRM's 290.4 and 293.2, received the mid-range score for the autumn 2015 samples, which included averages of 12.6% and 19.l % oligochaetes, respectively. The average proportion of oligochaetes in upstream samples was lower with 8.1 %, resulting in the highest score for the upstream site, TRM 295.9 (Table 14). Proportion of total abundance comprised by two dominant taxa (highest rating requires <77.8%) The two downstream sites, TRM's 290.4 and 293.2, received the highest score for this metric, with the two dominant taxa making up 67.5% and 66.4% of the samples, respectively. The upstream site also received the highest score and total abundance of the two dominant taxa was 66.8% (Table 14). At the most downstream site, TRM 290.4, chironomid midge Coelotanypus sp. (Chironomidae) and Asiatic clams (Corbiculidae) were the two most abundant taxa. Coelotanypus sp. and the fingernail clam Musculium transversum (Sphaeriidae) were the two most abundant taxa at both the site within the thermal plume, TRM 293.2 and at the upstream site, TRM 295.9 (Table 17a). 32 Average density excluding chironomids and oligochaetes (highest rating requires> 609.9/m2) At the downstream sites, average densities excluding chironomids and oligochaetes were 613.3/m2 and 736.7/m2* Both sites received the highest score. Average density excluding chironomids and oligochaetes at the upstream site was 991. 7 /m2, also resulting in the highest score (Table 14). Proportion of samples containing no organisms (highest rating requires that all samples contain organisms) In autumn 2015, there were no samples at any site which were void of organisms. All sites received the highest score (Table 14). Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Summary Monitoring results for autumn 2015 support the conclusion that a BIP ofbenthic macroinvertebrates was maintained downstream of BFN. The site within the thermal plume, TRM 293.2, and the site downstream of the thermal plume, TRM 290.4, received RBI total scores of 31 and 33, respectively, and both received ecological health ratings of "Excellent". The upstream control site, TRM 295.9, received an RBI total score of 33 and "Excellent" rating also. Benthic communities at the downstream sites were considered similar with one another and with the upstream control site, whose RBI score was within four points when compared with RBI scores for the downstream sites (Table 14). Individual metrics and RBI total scores for benthic community samples from TRM 291. 7 (downstream) and TRM 295.9 (upstream) are provided in Tables 15 and 16 for referencing results from 2000 to 2010. Benthic samples from these two locations were field processed every year monitored through 2010, and during some of the years samples were also laboratory processed. Since 2011, samples have been lab-processed which produces a more accurate depiction of the benthic community. Although the locations presently used as the downstream sites (TRMs 290.4 and 293.2) are proximate to the downstream transect sampled from 2000 to 2010 (TRM 291.7), laboratory-processed RBI scores for 2011 and forward cannot be directly compared to field-processed RBI scores from 2000 to 2010 without inference. 33 To provide additional data on the overall health of the benthic macroinvertebrate community in Wheeler Reservoir, RBI scores for VS monitoring locations-inflow, forebay, and Elk River embayment sites-were included in Table 18. Please note that comparison of these scores to current RBI scores at the sites around BFN is limited for two reasons. First, data from these sites were scored from field-based criteria and cannot be closely compared to lab-based scores. Second, these sites are many river miles away from BFN. The inflow site is 53 river miles upstream, and the forebay sampling site is located 17 river miles downstream. The Elk River embayment site is located 6 river miles upstream of the confluence with the Tennessee River, which in turn is 10 river miles downstream ofBFN. Because of these distances from the plant, poor scores at these sites cannot be considered indicative of thermal effects from BFN. RBI scores for VS monitoring locations in 2015 were considered similar to their respective long term average scores, differing by three points or less. The Wheeler inflow site (TRM 347) has produced RBI scores of"Good" or "Excellent" for 12 of the 15 years sampled. The forebay (TRM 277) and Elk River embayment sites (ERM 6.0) have produced "Poor" scores most years sampled (Table 18). Visual Encounter Survey (Wildlife Observations) During autumn 2015, observations of shoreline wildlife upstream of BFN included 295 birds of . twelve species and 52 turtles of two species. Observations downstream included 217 birds of 15 species and 26 turtles of a single species. No mammals were observed at either location. Six species-of birds -great blue heron, European starling, mallard, blue jay, American robin, and double-crested cormorant-and one species of turtle -map turtle -were observed at both stations. Belted kingfisher, mockingbird, American crow, common flicker, white pelican, Carolina wren and painted turtle were observed only upstream. Golden eagle, bald eagle, Carolina chickadee, common grackle, pileated woodpecker, American coot, red-tailed hawk, pied-billed grebe, and osprey were observed only downstream (Table 19). Table 20 compares the wildlife species observed along the same transects since 2011. Some species-belted kingfisher, blue jay, great blue heron, mallard, map turtle-were recorded along all 34 transects upstream and downstream during each year and can be considered common. Others were observed intermittently, along a single transect or during only one sample year. It is important to note that a Visual Encounter Survey provides a preliminary near shore wildlife assessment to determine if the thermally affected area downstream of a power plant has adversely affected the bird, reptile, or mammal communities. Using the methods described for these surveys, determination of the presence and diversity of small, perching bird species, reptiles and mammals is made difficult by their typical behaviors. Other factors contributing to the limited observations of some taxa include ecological status (e.g. top-level predators-raptors such as red-tailed hawk, osprey, bald eagle, etc.-are less abundant than species at lower trophic levels), and migratory habits. The diversity of bird groups recorded indicates that a healthy ecological community has existed both upstream and downstream ofBFN since 2011 and that the shoreline wildlife community downstream has not been adversely affected by the operation of the plant. If, after any survey an adverse environmental impact is suspected, sampling strategies of a more quantitative nature, such as trapping or netting, active search, investigation of mammal tracks along shoreline areas, long-term observation from blinds, or the use of cameras will be proposed to more accurately estimate the presence and diversity of these groups. Wheeler Reservoir Flow and BFN Water Temperature Daily mean flows from Guntersville Dam during 2015 are compared in Figure 18 to historic daily mean flows averaged from 1976 to 2014 over the same period. From early to mid-January and mid-July through November 2015, flows were similar to historical averages. Flows were generally lower than historical averages from mid-January through February, in early April and from May through July 2015. Flows were slightly higher than historical averages during March, April, and early July and considerably higher during December 2015. Figure 19 compares daily average water temperatures recorded upstream ofBFN intake and downstream of BFN discharge during 2015. Water temperatures were similar at both sites through this period. 35 Thermal Plume Characterization Plume temperatures (water temperatures 3.6°P [2°C] or greater above ambient) were detected at the BPN discharge (TRM 293.5) along the right descending bank, extending approximately 30% across the width of the river and from the surface to 1.5 m depth. The plume continued downstream of the discharge along the right descending bank, and at TRM 291.7 it extended to 3 m depth. At TRM 290.2, downstream of the sample area, the plume extended to 50% of the width of the river and to a maximum depth of 4 m (Table 21). These profiles indicate that, at maximum, the thermal effluent from BPN was confined to the upper half of the water column from the right descending bank to mid-channel, and that a sufficient zone of passage for aquatic wildlife existed around BPN during autumn 2015. Water Quality Parameters at Fish Sampling Sites during RFAI Samples Water temperatures observed at the upstream site centered at TRM 295.9, ranged from 65.8 to 76.2 °P. The highest temperature observed was at the surface on the right descending bank along the downstream boundary of the sample reach. Surface temperatures of all other profiles ranged from 69.7 to 71.2 °P. This indicates that the plume of heated effluent from BPN includes some flow upstream of the discharge along this bank. Water temperatures at the downstream site, centered at TRM 292.5, ranged from 66.7 to 72.8 °P. Temperatures generally increased from the left to the right descending bank, and the highest temperatures occurred at the surface in midchannel and along the RDB of the mid-station transect. This indicated that the plume from BPN dissipated along the RDB downstream of the discharge, but did not extend beyond midchannel (Table 22). Values for pH, conductivity, and dissolved oxygen concentration were similar in both the upstream and downstream sample reaches, falling within narrow ranges: values for pH were from 7.1 to 7.7 upstream and from 7.2 to 7.8 downstream; conductivity was between 207.4 and 218.8 µSiem upstream and between 207.3 and 214.6 µSiem downstream; DO concentrations were between 7.7 and 9.4 mg/L upstream and between 8.1and9.6 mglL downstream (Table 22). 36 The values of these parameters indicate that pH, conductivity, and dissolved oxygen concentrations surrounding BFN during autumn 2015 were of sufficient quality to support a BIP of the type expected for this reservoir, and that they were not affected by thermal effluent from BFN. The most elevated temperatures within the downstream site were observed along the right descending bank at the surface, and are consistent with temperatures recorded at similar locations during plume determination (Table 20). The most elevated temperatures within the upstream site were observed at the surface along the lower boundary of the site. This lower boundary is less than one mile upstream of the discharge, and considering the width of the reservoir, the curvature of the river bed, and the relatively low velocity of the river at this point, these elevated temperatures can be attributed to a recirculation of heated water upstream from the discharge. Discussion above indicated that a zone of passage for aquatic life existed from midchannel to the left descending bank around BFN. Therefore, overall water quality around BFN was not negatively impacted by the thermal effluent. 37 Literature Cited Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (ADCNR), Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries. 2013. 2013-2014 Regulations Relating to Game, Fish, bearers and other Wildlife. http://www.outdooralabama.com/hunting/regulations EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) and NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1977 (draft). Interagency 316(a) Technical Guidance manual and Guide for Thermal Effects Sections of Nuclear Facilities Environmental Impact Statements. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Enforcement, Permits Division, Industrial Permits Branch, Washington, DC. Etnier, D.A. and W.C. Starnes. 1993. The Fishes of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, 681 pp. Hickman, G.D. and T.A. McDonough: 1996. Assessing the Reservoir Fish Assemblage A potential measure ofreservoir quality. Jn: D. De Vries (Ed.) Reservoir Multidimensional approaches to reservoir fisheries management. Reservoir Committee, Southern Division, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. pp 85-97. Hubert, W. A. 1996. Passive capture techniques, entanglement gears. Pages 160-165 in B. R. Murphy and D. W. Willis, editors. Fisheries techniques, 2nd edition. American Fisheries Society Bethesda, Maryland, USA. Jennings, M.J., L.S. Fore, and J.R. Karr. 1995. Biological monitoring of fish assemblages in the Tennessee Valley reservoirs. Regulated Rivers 11 :263-274. Levene, H. 1960. Robust tests for equality of variances. Jn: Contributions to probability and statistics: essays in honor of Harold Hotelling. I. Olkin, S. G. Ghurye, W. Hoeffding, W. G. Matlow, and H.B. Mann (eds). pp. 278-292. Stanford University Press. Menlo Park, CA. Mann, H.B. and D.R. Whitney. 1947. On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 18:50-60. McDonough, T.A. and G.D. Hickman. 1999. Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index development: A tool for assessing ecological health in Tennessee Valley Authority impoundments. In: Assessing the sustainability and biological integrity of water resources using fish communities. Simon, T. (Ed.) CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 523-540. Plafkin, J.L., Barbour, M.T., Porter, K.D., Gross, S.K., and Hughes, R.M. (1989). Rapid assessment protocols for use in streams and rivers: benthic macroinvertebrates and fish. EPA/444/4-89-001, Washington DC, USA. 38 Reynolds, J.B. 1996. Electrofishing. Pages 221-251 in B. R. Murphy and D. W. Willis, editors. Fisheries techniques, 2nd edition. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. Shannon, C.E. 1948. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal 27:379-423, 623-656. Shapiro, S.S. and M. B. Wilk. 1965. An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika 52:591-611. Simpson, E.H. 1949. Measurement of diversity. Nature 163:688. TVA. 2011. Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge during Autumn 2010. Tennessee Valley Authority, Biological and Water Resources, Knoxville, 1N. TVA. 2014. Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Discharge during Autumn 2013. Tennessee Valley Authority, Biological and Water Resources, Knoxville, 1N. TWRC. 2006. Strategic Plan, 2006-2012. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Commission, Nashville, 1N. March 2006. pp 124-125. http://tennessee.gov/twra/pdfs/StratPlan06-12.pdf Wilcoxon, F. 1945. Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biometrics Bulletin 1:80-83. Yoder, C.O., B.J. Armitage, and E.T. Rankin. 2006. Re-evaluation of the Technical Justification for Existing Ohio River Mainstem Temperature Criteria. Midwest Biodiversity Institute, Columbus, Ohio. 39 Figures 40 Figure 1. Location of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant on Wheeler Reservoir. 41 Figure 2. Location of Condenser Cooling Water (CCW) intake and discharge at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. 42 0 X River Mile 1.5 Water Depth (ft) 3 Miles -i o, . u10 "' tJ "I c c:,"' ::: I 0 -" Athens Substrate Composition Sampling Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Vicinity Map Created by TVA GIS & Mapping, March 2016 Figure 3. Locations of transects used to characterize shoreline and river bottom habitat upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, and water depths within the two sample reaches. 43 Biomonitoring Zones Upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Electrofishing Station <> Gill Netting Station Benthic Macroinvertebrate Transect Wildlife Observation Transect Figure 4. Locations of biomonitoring sites upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. 44 Biomonitoring Zones Downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Electrofishing Station <> Gill Netting Station Benthic M acroinvertebrate Transect Wildlife Observation Transect Figure 5. Locations of biomonitoring sites downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. 45 Figure 6. Locations of water temperature monitoring stations used to compare water temperatures upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) intake and downstream of BFN discharge. Station 4 was used for upstream ambient temperatures of the BFN intake. Stations l, 16, and 17 were used for temperatures downstream ofBFN discharge. 46 "' ... .2 ... 100 +-------------Intake Temperature 80 Discharge Temperature -CCWFlow Total Generation Sample Megawatts Date Generated 10/21 3409 10/22 3401 11/5 3390 DlJRJNG SAMPLE PERIOD Units in Intake Discharge Flow Ooeration Temperature Temperature (monthly avg) -3 of3 66.6 71.8 2845 3 of3 68.6 73.5 2845 3 of3 68.2 71.8 2989 60 E ... 20 r------------------------------------------------January August September 0 0 ct ob er I November February March April July May June 2015 6500 6000 5500 5000 ::0-Cl) 4500 s ii: 0 4000 6 = 0 *.c 3500 ... "' = "' "' ---3000 2500 2000 1500 December Figure 7. Megawatts generated, water temperatures of the intake and discharge and flow through the condenser cooling water (CCW) system at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant during 2015. 47 100 90 7350 80 6350 70 ,.-._ "O ,.-._ ... 0 ._, 5350 i:)Jl E ._, Q) 60 .... ::I .... "' .... Q) c. 50 E E <:> --4350 ,.-._ ._, Q) E-.... 40 Q) .... "' = 3350 .... "' .... Q) = Q) 30 Co-' 2350 20 -Intake Temperature Discharge Temperature 1350 10 "-CCW Flow Total Generation 0 350 ..c: .... .... ..c: .... .... "' :; ., ., <.) "' ., ., "' 2 ..0 ..0 "' ::E ::J ..0 ..0 "' ::J "' ....., E E ::J ....., E E ::J c: c: 2 c: E ., "' E ., "' > ....., > ....., ., 0 ., 0 VJ z VJ z .... .... .... .... .... .... ., ., ., ., ., ., ..0 ..0 "' "' ..0 ..0 "' ..0 ..0 E E ::J ::J E E ::J E E E ., c: c: E ., c: E ., "' "' "' > ....., ....., > ....., > ., 0 ., ., 0 ., 0 VJ z VJ VJ z VJ z 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Figure 8. Megawatts generated, water temperatures of the intake and discharge and flow through the condenser cooling water (CCW) system at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant during the five years prior to the survey (2010-2014). 48 Substrate Type Browns FerryNP Substrate Composition Sampling Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Upstream, Transect 1-2 Created by TVAGIS & Mapping, March 2016 Figure 9. Composition of substrate samples collected at ten points equally spaced along each of transects 1 and 2 upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. 49 Substrate Type @:.q Browns FerryNP Substrate Composition Sampling Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Upstream, Transect 3-4 Created by TVA GIS & Mapping, March 2016 Figure 10. Composition of substrate samples collected at ten points equally spaced along each of transects 3 and 4 upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. 50 Substrate Type I Browns FerryNP Substrate Composition Sampling Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Upstream, Transect 5-6 Created byTVAGIS & Mapping, March 2016 Figure 11. Composition of substrate samples collected at ten points equally spaced along each of transects 5 and 6 upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. 51 Substrate Type Browns FerryNP Substrate Composition Sampling Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Upstream, Transect 7-8 Created by TVA GIS & Mapping, March 2016 Figure 12. Composition of substrate samples collected at ten points equally spaced along each of transects 7 and 8 upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. 52 Browns FerryNP Substrate Composition Sampling Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Downstream, Transect 1-2 Created by TVA GIS & Mapping, March 2016 Figure 13. Composition of substrate samples collected at ten points equally spaced along each of transects 1 and 2 downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. 53 Substrate Type I I I t' "2il v' <,{'. & -.-<:!' (3

• Browns FerryNP Substrate Composition Sampling Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Downstream, Transect 3-4 Created by TVA GIS & Mapping, March 2016 Figure 14. Composition of substrate samples collected at ten points equally spaced along each of transects 3 and 4 downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. 54 Substrate Type Browns FerryNP Substrate Composition Sampling Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Downstream, Transect 5-6 Created by TVA GIS & Mapping, March 2016 Figure 15. Composition of substrate samples collected at ten points equally spaced along each of transects 5 and 6 downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. 55 Substrate Type Browns FerryNP Substrate Composition Sampling Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Downstream, Transect 7-8 Created by TVA GIS & Mapping, March 2016 Figure 16. Composition of substrate samples collected at ten points equally spaced along each of transects 7 and 8 downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. 56 36 34 "O 32 Q; ... u 0 u 30 u "ii) c. "' "' g 28 c Q; l:ll) :a .5 'o 26 .... Q; ,Q E ::: z: 24 22 20 29 -27 24 '----23 -I-I-2000 2001 32 30 30 28 28 28 27 27 --26 ---25 ......... I-'----I--I-I-I-I-2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 35 DTRM 295.9 -(Avg=29) 33 -31 31 -....._ ._ 29 -28 28 28 ._ 27 27 27 -'--......... 26 26 26 '----'----'----I-._ -I-I-I-I-I-._ I--I-I-I-I-I-._ 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2013 2015 Year Figure 17. Comparison of observed values for the Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index metric "Number oflndigenous Species", over 14 years of autumn sampling at the sites upstream (TRM 295.9) and downstream (TRM 292.5) of Brown's Ferry Nuclear Plant. 57 250,000 +---1 200,000 ,-._ <.I ._,, 150,000 0 100,000 1/1 -2015 -Historical Daily Average 1976-2014 2/1 3/1 411 511 611 7/1 Date 8/l 911 10/J I 1/ l 12/l Figure 18. Daily mean flows from Guntersville Dam during 2015, and historic daily flows for the same period averaged from 1976 to 2014. 58

,-., ..... 0 ._, :.... :s -C'l :.... Q. E E--< :.... 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 -Upstream ofBFN Intake -Downstream ofBFN Discharge 0 1/1/2015 2/1/2015 3/l/2015 4/1/2015 5/1/2015 6/l/2015 7/1/2015 8/1/2015 911/2015 10/1/2015 11/1/2015 1211/2015 Date Figure 19. Daily water temperatures averaged over depth (3, 5, and 7 feet) upstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) intake and downstream of BFN discharge during 2015. 59 Tables 60 Table 1. Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Index (SAHi) metrics and scoring criteria. Metric Cover Substrate Erosion Scoring Criteria Stable cover (boulders, rootwads, brush, logs, aquatic vegetation, artificial structures) in 25 to 75% of the drawdown zone Stable cover in 10 to 25% or> 7 5% of the drawdown zone Stable Cover in< 10% of the drawdown zone Percent of drawdown zone with gravel substrate > 40 Percent of drawdown zone with gravel substrate between 10 and 40 Percent substrate gravel < 10 Little or no evidence of erosion or bank failure. Most bank surfaces stabilized by woody vegetation. Areas of erosion small and infrequent. Potential for increased erosion due to less desirable vegetation cover (grasses) on> 25% of bank surfaces. Areas of erosion extensive, exposed or collapsing banks occur along > 3 0% of shoreline. Canopy Cover Tree or shrub canopy> 60% along adjacent bank Tree or shrub canopy 30 to 60% along adjacent bank Tree or shrub canopy< 30% along adjacent bank Riparian Zone Width buffered > 18 meters Habitat Gradient Width buffered between 6 and 18 meters Width buffered < 6 meters Habitat diversity optimum. All major habitats (logs, brush, native vegetation, boulders, gravel) present in proportions characteristic of high quality, sufficient to support all life history aspects of target species. Ready access to deeper sanctuary areas present. Habitat diversity less than optimum. Most major habitats present, but proportion of one is less than desirable, reducing species diversity. No ready access to deeper sanctuary areas. Habitat diversity is nearly lacking. One habitat dominates, leading to lower species diversity. No ready access to deeper sanctuary areas. Drawdown zone gradient abrupt (> 1 meter per 10 meters). Less than 10% of shoreline with abrupt gradient due to dredging. Drawdown zone gradient abrupt.(> 1 meter per 10 meters) in 10 to 40% of the shoreline resulting from dredging. Rip-rap used to stabilize bank along> 10% of the shoreline. Drawdown zone gradient abrupt in> 40 % of the shoreline resulting from dredging. Seawalls used to stabilize bank along > 10 % of the shoreline. 61 Score 5 3 5 3 1 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 Table 2. Expected trophic guild proportions

• and expected numbers of species* in lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoir transition zones, compared to values observed during 2013 monitoring at BFN. Lower Mainstem Tennessee River Transition Zones 2015 Proportion(%) Number of species Observed Upstream of Observed Downstream BFN (TRM 295.9) of BFN (TRM 292.5) Trisected range a Average b Trisected range a 'Average b Trophic Guild Expected + Expected + Proportion Number of Proportion Number of (%} Seecies (%} Seecies Benthic Invertivore < 6.7 6.4 to 13.4 > 13.4 5.5 +/- 1.2 <3 3 to 5 >5 5+/-1 13.8 5 11.1 5 Insectivore <24.6 24.6 to 49.1 >49.1 40.0 +/-4.5 <4 4 to 8 >8 8+/-1 40.1 10 43.2 10 Top Carnivore < 15.1 15.1to30.2 >30.2 18.3+/-2.2 <4 4 to 8 >8 10+/-1 15.0 12 6.0 10 Omnivore >38.5 19.3 to 38.5 <19.3 28.7 +/-3.3 >6 3 to 6 <3 6+/-1 14.4 8 22.4 6 Planktivore < 9.4 9.4 to 18.7 >18.7 6.4 +/-2.6 0 > 1 1+/-1 16.2 17.2 Parasitic <0.1 0.1to0.2 >0.2 0.1+/-0.04 0 >1 1+/-0 Herbivore <1.8 1.8 to 3.6 >3.6 0.6 +/- 0.4 0 >1 1+/-0 0.3 0.1 1 Specialized Insectivore 0.3 2 0.1 1 *Expected values were calculated from data collected over 900 electro fishing runs and 600 overnight experimental gill net sets in transition areas of lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs. a Trisected ranges are intended to show below expected (-), expected, and above expected ( +) values for trophic level proportions and species occurring within the transition zones in upper mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs. b Average expected values are bound by 9 5% confidence intervals. 62 Table 3. RF AI scoring criteria (2002) for inflow, transition, and fore bay sections of lower mains tern reservoirs* in the Tennessee River system. Scoring Criteria Inflow Transition Forebay Metric Gear 1 3 5 1 3 5 1 3 5 1. Total species Combined < 14 14-27 >27 < 16 16-30 >30 < 14 14-27 >27 2. Number of centrarchid species Combined <2 2-4 >4 <2 2-2 >2 <2 2-3 >3 3. Number ofbenthic invertivores Combined <4 4-7 >7 <4 4-7 >7 <4 4-6 >6 4. Number of intolerant species Combined <3 3-6 >6 <3 3-4 >4 <2 2-4 >4 5. Percent tolerant individuals Electrofishing >51% 26-51% <26% >54% 27-54% <27% >61% 30-61% <30% Gill netting >30% 15-30% < 15% >46% 22-46% <22% 6. Percent dominance by one species Electro fishing >47% 24-47% <24% >58% 29-58% <29% >59% 30-59% <30% Gill netting >34% 17-34% < 17% >43% 21-43% <21% 7. Percent non-indigenous species Electrofishing >4% 2-4% <2% >2% 1-2% < 1% >2% 2-2% <2% Gill netting >2% 1-2% < 1% >2% 1-2% < 1% 8. Number of top carnivore species Combined <4 4-7 >7 <4 4-7. >7 <4 4-7 >7 9. Percent top carnivores Electrofishing < 15% 15-29% >29% <5% 5-10% >10% <6% 6-12% >12% Gill netting <20% 20-39% >39% <25% 25-49% >49% 10. Percent omnivores Electrofishing >48% 24-48% <24% >48% 24-48% <24% >59% 30-59% <30% Gill netting >33% 16-33% < 16% >49% 24-49% <24% 11. Average number per run Electro fishing <68 68-136 >136 <243 243-487 >487 < 170 170-341 >341 Gill netting < 11 11-22 >22 <20 20-40 >40 12. Percent anomalies Electro fishing >5% 2-5% <2% >5% 2-5% <2% >5% 2-5% <2% Gill netting >5% 2-5% <2% >5% 2-5% <2% *Lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs include Guntersville, Wheeler, Wilson, Pickwick, and Kentucky. Transition scoring criteria were used to score sites upstream and downstream of BFN 63 Table 4. Scoring criteria for laboratory-processed benthic macroinvertebrate community samples from inflow, transition, and forebay zones of mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs. Scoring Criteria Benthic Community Inflow Transition Fore bay Metrics 1 3 5 1 3 5 1 3 5 1. Average number of taxa <4.2 4.2-8.3 >8.3 <3.3 3.3-6.6 >6.6 <2.8 2.8-5.5 >5.5 2. Proportion of samples with long-<0.6 0.6-0.8 >0.8 <0.6 0.6-0.9 >0.9 <0.6 0.6-0.8 >0.8 lived organisms 3. Average number of EPT taxa <0.9 0.9-1.9 >1.9 <0.6 0.6-1.4 >1.4 <0.6 0.6-0.9 >0.9 4. Average proportion of oligochaete >23.9 23.9-12.0 <12.0 >21.9 21.9-11.0 <11.0 >41.9 41.9-21.0 <21.0 individuals 5. Average proportion of total abundance comprised by the two most >86.2 86.2-73.l <73.l >87.9 87.9-77.8 <77.8 >90.3 90.3-81.7 <81.7 abundant taxa 6. Average density excluding <400.0 400.0-799.9 >799.9 <305.0 305.0-609.9 >609.9 <125.0 125.0-249.9 >249.9 chironomids and oligochaetes 7. Zero Samples: proportion of samples >O 0 >O 0 >O 0 containing no organisms Transition scoring criteria were used to score sites upstream and downstream of BFN 64 4 Table 5. Intake and discharge water temperatures (°F), megawatts generated, and flow* (mgd) of the condenser circulating water (CCW) system at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant during 2015. Intake Discharge Intake Discharge Intake Discharge Date TemQ TemQ Flow MW Date TemQ Tem2 Flow MW Date TemQ TemQ Flow .MW 11112015 45.02 50.27 3459.3 2/26/2015 39.22 43.24 3411 4/23/2015 66.32 69.48 3430.4 112/2015 45.73 51.09 3459.6 2/27/2015 40.31 44.15 3405.5 4/24/2015 65.84 68.90 3429.5 113/2015 48.00 51.64 3459.7 2/28/2015 41.91 44.82 2895 3395.4 4/25/2015 66.43 69.49 3427.9 114/2015 52.39 53.56 3328.6 3/l/2015 44.64 46.22 3102.2 4/26/2015 67.51 70.51 3423.7 115/2015 49.89 51.84 3454.6 3/2/2015 46.09 47.60 3346.7 4/27/2015 66.92 70.16 3424.6 116/2015 46.85 50.45 3456.8 3/3/2015 47.41 47.75 3384 4/28/2015 66.56 69.06 2806.2 117/2015 45.32 49.08 3401.3 3/4/2015 50.47 49.82 3377.8 4/29/2015 66.54 69.11 2273.7 118/2015 40.43 45.31 3435.5 3/5/2015 49.05 47.37 3372 4/30/2015 . 67.41 70.77 2626 2273.1 119/2015 37.65 46.19 3436.5 3/6/2015 41.58 44.99 3365.4 5/112015 66.95 70.36 2269.5 1110/2015 37.38 45.04 3435.7 317/2015 42.39 46.74 3168 5/2/2015 68.66 71.02 2611.7 111112015 38.10 45.48 3436.2 3/8/2015 45.80 49.14 3359.5 5/3/2015 70.93 73.02 3207.4 1112/2015 41.21 46.54 3396.3 3/9/2015 47.68 49.71 3355.2 5/4/2015 73.70 74.41 3336.8 1113/2015 43.03 46.17 3453.4 3/10/2015 49.12 49.57 3348.7 5/5/2015 74.37 75.04 3289 1114/2015 41.74 45.19 3459.4 3/11/2015 51.69 52.69 3340.2 5/6/2015 75.09 75.80 3379.7 1115/2015 40.24 45.04 3458.8 3/12/2015 53.79 53.79 3329.8 517/2015 76.86 76.61 3375.l 1116/2015 40.08 45.87 3460.3 3/13/2015 54.00 54.44 2851.3 5/8/2015 78.85 77.05 3371.8 111712015 41.99 47.19 3363.6 3/14/2015 2306.3 5/9/2015 79.62 78.22 3368.3 1118/2015 44.69 48.20 3437.2 3/15/2015 54.56 54.35 2305.1 5/10/2015 80.51 79.35 3361.2 1119/2015 46.05 47.96 3436.8 3/16/2015 55.88 55.38 2303.3 5/1112015 82.52 80.78 3350.4 1120/2015 47.44 49.59 3436.5 3/1712015 57.06 56.83 2302.1 5/12/2015 78.87 80.87 3361.3 112112015 47.79 51.74 3436.4 3/18/2015 57.71 57.31 2302.1 5/13/2015 78.28 80.48 3364.5 1122/2015 47.29 51.24 3436.4 3/19/2015 56.99 57.44 2302.7 5/14/2015 80.20 80.89 3358 1123/2015 46.21 50.08 3438.1 3/20/2015 56.71 57.98 2274.6 5/15/2015 82.91 81.51 3324.4 1124/2015 44.83 49.59 3407.4 3/2112015 56.73 57.79 2025.5 5/16/2015 83.03 81.92 3146.7 1125/2015 44.56 50.22 3433.9 3/22/2015 56.71 58.04 2190.6 5/17/2015 82.02 81.27 3346.1 1126/2015 44.70 49.56 3434.4 3/23/2015 56.97 58.53 2286 5/18/2015 80.02 81.39 3364.5 1127/2015 44.90 49.96 3435.4 3/24/2015 58.98 59.69 2298.8 5/19/2015 79.84 81.46 3371.3 1/28/2015 45.22 49.53 3432.3 3/25/2015 60.52 60.89 2298.1 5/20/2015 80.71 81.04 3370.7 1/29/2015 46.35 50.19 3426.8 3/26/2015 61.34 61.61 2297.9 5/21/2015 76.76 79.48 3384.4 l/30/2015 47.16 50.26 3307.4 3/27/2015 59.05 60.55 2300.8 5/22/2015 75.64 79.28 3396.4 1/31/2015 46.56 50.25 2902 3439.5 3/28/2015 56.51 59.42 2303.4 5/23/2015 77.72 79.42 3390.8 2/1/2015 46.43 51.74 3451.4 3/29/2015 54.61 58.76 2304.6 5/24/2015 81.09 81.25 3378.9 2/2/2015 47.33 50.41 3445.3 3/30/2015 57.33 60.28 2302.8 5/25/2015 79.75 81.17 3377.8 2/3/2015 43.98 49.46 3441.8 3/3112015 59.14 62.13 2428 2291.6 5/26/2015 81.65 81.31 3372.5 2/4/2015 43.18 49.38 3438.6 4/1/2015 61.48 62.65 2283.2 5/27/2015 80.31 80.51 3375.8 2/5/2015 44.06 49.24 3431.8 4/2/2015 62.74 64.32 2275.8 5/28/2015 75.56 78.89 3385.1 2/6/2015 43.71 48.82 3419.3 4/3/2015 65.42 66.44 2272.7 5/29/2015 76.40 79.42 3356.4 217/2015 44.42 49.24 3269.5 4/4/2015 61.90 64.74 2286 5/30/2015 77.72 80.36 3301.3 2/8/2015 46.79 51.48 3431.8 4/5/2015 62.43 64.63 2293.9 5/3112015 78.57 81.41 3097 3377 2/9/2015 48.83 52.58 3433.6 4/6/2015 62.01 64.95 2294.3 6/112015 78.02 81.43 3377 2/10/2015 48.21 51.14 3434 417/2015 62.17 64.96 2293.3 6/2/2015 76.82 80.42 3384.5 2/1112015 47.42 51.98 3433.3 4/8/2015 64.11 65.94 2221.9 6/3/2015 76.69 80.63 3386.4 2/12/2015 46.79 50.95 3431.5 4/9/2015 65.80 67.19 1995 6/4/2015 78.43 81.88 3378 2/13/2015 44.25 48.86 3434.3 4/10/2015 66.86 68.53 2415.9 6/5/2015 80.48 82.68 3359.6 2/14/2015 44.14 50.37 3434.2 4/11/2015 65.21 67.89 2594.7 6/6/2015 81.15 83.46 3213.7 2/15/2015 42.39 48.07 3434.9 4/12/2015 65.90 68.38 3053.9 617/2015 84.92 85.03 3339.8 2/16/2015 39.73 46.69 3436 4/13/2015 67.20 69.47 3314.9 6/8/2015 87.20 86.55 3324.l 2/17/2015 39.44 46.76 3437.1 4/14/2015 67.41 69.46 3294.4 6/9/2015 84.30 86.57 3338.3 2/18/2015 38.27 46.08 3438.5 4/15/2015 68.09 70.09 3262.3 6/10/2015 86.17 86.17 3327.1 2/19/2015 36.02 41.99 3439.1 4/16/2015 68.46 70.32 3419.6 6/1112015 85.12 86.90 3326.3 2/20/2015 34.62 41.22 3438.4 4/1712015 66.76 69.66 3420.8 6/12/2015 83.62 86.47 3338.1 2/2112015 35.65 42.18 3437.5 4/18/2015 66.49 69.21 3418.4 6/13/2015 85.76 86.97 3336 2/22/2015 41.10 45.17 3430.1 4/19/2015 67.93 70.23 3423.8 6/14/2015 85.51 87.46 3336.2 2/23/2015 41.81 44.71 3425 4/20/2015 67.73 69.96 3426.2 6/15/2015 85.93 3327.9 2/24/2015 41.19 45.10 3419.4 4/2112015 66.08 68.53 3431.5 6/16/2015 87.84 88.62 3317.2 2/25/2015 40.00 45.08 3415 4/22/2015 66.27 69.27 3430 6/17/2015 88.63 88.43 3302.6 *Flow values are monthly averages 65 Table 5. (Continued). Intake Discharge Intake Discharge Intake Discharge Date Tem12 Tem12 Flow MW Date Tem12 Tem12 Flow MW Date Tem12 Tem12 Flow MW 6/18/2015 87.29 88.12 3299.6 8/23/2015 84.06 86.80 3314.4 10/28/2015 65.88 70.67 3418.4 6/19/2015 87.34 89.11 3297.3 8/24/2015 82.92 86.56 3350.3 10/29/2015 66.72 71.45 3414.4 6/20/2015. 86.29 3311.9 8/25/2015 81.60 85.62 3354.2 10/30/2015 66.27 70.88 3412.9 6/21/2015 86.36 88.09 3314.5 8/26/2015 80.33 84.62 3360.6 10/31/2015 65.46 70.38 2845 3417.4 6/22/2015 86.70 88.04 3310.6 8/27/2015 80.39 84.37 3363.l 1111/2015 65.04 70.33 3418.8 6/23/2015 86.78 88.67 3308.6 8/28/2015 81.70 85.09 3340.3 1112/2015 64.74 69.91 3414.l 6/24/2015 86.76 88.37 3307.1 8/29/2015 81.63 84.88 3119.2 1113/2015 66.34 70.98 3408.1 6/25/2015 87.34 3296.9 8/30/2015 79.33 83.16 2680.2 1114/2015 67.58 71.42 3390.4 6/26/2015 88.39 3283 8/3112015 81.83 84.03 2895 3079.5 1115/2015 68.16 71.79 3390.4 6/27/2015 86.96 89.11 3301 9/112015 81.60 84.56 2625.2 1116/2015 69.67 72.50 3386.9 6/28/2015 85.11 87.34 3318.7 9/2/2015 82.22 85.10 2688.3 1117/2015 68.33 71.64 3357.1 6/29/2015 85.29 86.76 3321 9/3/2015 83.88 86.47 3273.3 1118/2015 65.28 69.57 3404.5 6/30/2015 83.93 86.29 2895 3331.3 9/4/2015 85.29 87.27 3265 1119/2015 62.34 68.83 3411.2 7/112015 82.26 84.68 3343.3 9/5/2015 84.95 88.05 3323.7 11/10/2015 63.18 68.80 3407.9 7/2/2015 80.58 83.90 3352.9 9/6/2015 86.37 88.49 3320.9 1111112015 63.68 69.18 3406 7/3/2015 80.34 84.82 3354.9 917/2015 85.97 88.55 3320.3 11/12/2015 65.08 69.76 3410.9 7/4/2015 79.47 84.70 3361.3 9/8/2015 85.81 88.67 3319.1 11/13/2015 62.24 67.32 3417.5 7/5/2015 80.81 85.07 3353.9 9/9/2015 86.86 88.52 3315.7 11/14/2015 58.96 65.79 3427.1 7/6/2015 81.46 85.39 3345 9/10/2015 85.36 88.17 3322.9 11/15/2015 58.12 65.12 3080.4 717/2015 82.73 85.63 3337.6 9/1112015 84.30 87.47 3289.2 11116/2015 58.07 64.06 2279 7/8/2015 83.54 86.41 3330.6 9/12/2015 81.44 85.88 3009.2 11117/2015 60.17 64.31 2265.4 7/9/2015 83.95 87.00 3325.8 9/13/2015 78.89 83.76 3032.l 11118/2015 62.58 65.60 2257.6 7/10/2015 84.41 87.41 3321.4 9/14/2015 79.91 83.23 3281.5 11119/2015 61.75 64.64 2262.7 7/11/2015 85.16 87.67 3313.1 9/15/2015 79.35 82.64 3377.3 11120/2015 60.07 63.28 2417.4 7/12/2015 86.39 87.88 3304.3 9/16/2015 79.38 82.52 3366.5 1112112015 58.07 62.96 3183 7/13/2015 87.12 88.41 3298.9 9/17/2015 80.38 83.38 3369.4 11122/2015 56.04 61.42 3086.7 7/14/2015 87.39 88.62 3280.l 9/18/2015 80.33 83.94 3352 11123/2015 53.03 59.41 3139.4 7/15/2015 85.74 86.82 3305.3 9/19/2015 81.35 84.26 3359.3 11124/2015 52.67 60.28 3313.4 7/16/2015 86.18 86.96 3297.3 9/20/2015 81.38 85.03 3360 11125/2015 53.32 59.75 3321 7/17/2015 86.72 88.32 3295.1 9/2112015 80.48 84.38 2998 11126/2015 54.83 59.60 3170.7 7/18/2015 87.31 88.11 3293.2 9/22/2015 79.83 83.37 2697.l 11127/2015 60.73 3366.4 7/19/2015 87.88 88.79 3232 9/23/2015 79.23 83.29 2701 11128/2015 61.45 3385.5 7/20/2015 88.86 88.86 3142.2 9/24/2015 80.47 84.05 3140.7 11/29/2015 61.70 3404.4 7/2112015 88.24 89.14 3242.7 9/25/2015 79.51 83.79 3301.1 11130/2015 59.84 61.68 2989 3258.6 7/22/2015 87.62 87.92 3290.1 9/26/2015 80.11 83.70 3296 12/112015 59.58 60.36 3342 7/23/2015 86.88 87.29 3273.2 9/27/2015 82.52 84.46 3364.2 12/2/2015 57.87 58.89 3394.4 7/24/2015 86.50 87.11 3293.3 9/28/2015 80.48 82.52 3372.9 12/3/2015 55.68 56.97 3388.9 7/25/2015 86.98 87.11 3290.2 9/29/2015 76.82 81.25 3382.7 12/4/2015 54.65 56.65 3382.8 7/26/2015 87.48 87.63 3289 9/30/2015 76.60 81.19 2897 3384.6 12/5/2015 56.57 3373.9 7/27/2015 88.18 88.15 3284 10/112015 74.32 78.73 3393.8 12/6/2015 56.18 2938.5 7/28/2015 88.87 88.67 3254.6 10/2/2015 71.18 76.69 3403.4 1217/2015 54.87 56.22 2234.7 7/29/2015 88.44 88.41 3230.6 10/3/2015 68.24 74.45 3412.2 12/8/2015 54.62 56.03 2229.2 7/30/2015 87.77 87.73 3267.6 10/4/2015 67.70 73.83 3413.8 12/9/2015 54.18 55.33 2225.4 7/3112015 86.35 86.19 2895 3292.4 10/5/2015 71.48 74.86 3380.3 12/10/2015 54.25 55.83 2222.7 8/1/2015 85.46 85.69 3302.5 10/6/2015 72.70 76.72 3350.1 12/1112015 55.50 56.82 2215.6 8/2/2015 86.14 85.95 3301 1017/2015 75.20 78.20 3354.9 12/12/2015 57.43 58.17 2207.5 8/3/2015 86.21 86.27 3293.3 10/8/2015 75.61 78.43 3363.4 12/13/2015 58.62 58.36 2426.2 8/4/2015 87.37 87.23 3287.3 10/9/2015 75.46 78.64 3349.3 12/14/2015 59.65 58.75 3127.3 8/5/2015 87.48 87.58 3283 10/10/2015 74.70 77.94 3282.7 12/15/2015 58.55 58.97 3157.4 8/6/2015 86.08 86.61 3296.6 10/11/2015 73.51 77.83 3393.7 12/16/2015 57.61 58.92 3204.8 817/2015 84.07 85.30 3313.5 10/12/2015 72.84 77.33 3396.8 12/17/2015 58.03 59.86 3316.8 8/8/2015 84.89 85.37 3307.7 10/13/2015 72.73 77.41 3396.4 12/18/2015 54.05 57.29 3324.1 8/9/2015 86.55 85.86 3300.3 10/14/2015 72.31 76.94 3396.6 12/19/2015 49.97 55.51 3313.8 8/10/2015 86.66 87.03 3291.3 10/15/2015 71.57 76.69 3397.2 12/20/2015 49.68 55.86 3314.1 8/1112015 85.97 87.36 3293.9 10/16/2015 71.60 76.26 3396.1 12/2112015 50.34 55.18 3313.4 8/12/2015 85.53 87.41 3298 10/17/2015 69.60 74.63 3403.8 12/22/2015 53.43 57.55 3302.1 8/13/2015 84.66 86.43 3304.2 10/18/2015 67.75 73.30 3410.5 12/23/2015 56.75 57.56 3297.2 8/14/2015 84.35 85.99 3286.1 10/19/2015 66.60 72.82 3409.6 12/24/2015 60.30 59.48 3282.9 8/15/2015 83.86 86.31 3187.3 10/20/2015 64.42 71.26 3414.6 12/25/2015 61.30 59.69 3268.8 8/16/2015 84.42 86.65 3329.5 10/2112015 66.62 71.82 3409.2 12/26/2015 62.23 58.91 3237.7 8/17/2015 83.70 86.58 3334.1 10/22/2015 68.62 73.54 3401.1 12/27/2015 61.64 59.58 3237.5 8/18/2015 84.71 87.30 3331.3 10/23/2015 69.93 74.12 3382.3 12/28/2015 61.99 60.71 3232.2 8/19/2015 84.73 87.18 3332.7 10/24/2015 72.05 74.64 3351.4 12/29/2015 60.72 60.22 3214.2 8/20/2015 82.90 86.97 3338.4 10/25/2015 70.56 74.50 3403.6 12/30/2015 59.57 60.61 3230.8 8/2112015 83.06 86.51 3304.2 10/26/2015 68.84 73.07 3407.7 12/3112015 58.29 59.45 3044 3223.4 8/22/2015 83.29 86.33 3120.4 10/27/2015 69.12 70.97 3410.7 66 Table 6. SAHi scores for shoreline habitat assessments conducted within the RF AI sample reach Jipstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear plant, autumn 2015. Transects Left Descending 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Avg. Bank Aquatic Macrophytes 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% SAHi Variables Cover 5 3 3 2 Substrate 3 3 3 3 5 5 3 3 Erosion 5 5 5 3 5 3 Canopy Cover 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Riparian Zone 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 5 Habitat 3 1 Slope 5 5 5 5 3 5 3 5 5 Total 25 25 25 23 21 27 23 23 24 Rating Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Good Fair Fair Fair Transects Right Descending 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Avg. Bank Aquatic Macrophytes 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% SAHi Variables Cover 3 3 3 3 3 5 3 Substrate 5 3 3 3 5 5 5 4 Erosion 5 5 3 5 5 3 Canopy Cover 5 5 5 5 5 4 Riparian Zone 5 5 5 5 3 Habitat 1 Slope 3 5 5 2 Total 15 27 23 19 13 23 17 19 20 Rating Poor Good Fair Fair Poor Fair Fair Fair Fair Scoring criteria: poor (7-16),fair (17-26), good (27-35) 67 Table 7. SAHi scores for shoreline habitat assessments conducted within the RFAI sample reach downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear plant, autumn 2015. Transects Left Descending 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Avg. Bank Aquatic Macrophytes 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% SAID Variables Cover 3 5 3 5 3 Substrate 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 Erosion 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 Canopy Cover 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 4 Riparian Zone 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 4 Habitat 3 3 2 Slope 5 5 5 5 5 4 Total 27 23 25 23 29 23 23 19 24 Rating Good Fair Fair Fair Good Fair Fair Fair Fair Transects Right Descending 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Avg. Bank Aquatic Macrophytes 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% SAID Variables Cover 5 3 5 5 3 3 3 Substrate 5 3 3 3 3 3 Erosion 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 Canopy Cover 5 5 3 5 3 5 4 Riparian Zone 5 5 3 5 3 Habitat 5 3 3 3 2 Slope 5 5 5 5 3 3 4 Total 31 27 19 27 21 15 13 21 22 Rating Good Good Fair Good Fair Poor Poor Fair Fair Scoring criteria: poor (7-16),fair (17-26), good (27-35) 68 Table 8. Substrate percentages and average water depth (ft) per transect upstream and downstream ofBFN, autumn 2015. % Substrate per transect upstream of BFN Substrate Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Avg. Silt 63.5 69.4 65.9 57.0 41.0 64.0 51.3 60.0 59.0 Mollusk Shell 7.9 20.9 25.l 21.2 33.4 11.3 32.9 31.0 23.0 Sand 16.5 6.7 2.9 0.1 2.1 0.5 0.5 0.5 3.7 Detritus 1.9 0.6 0.0 0.7 8.5 0.7 1.3 1.0 1.8 Bedrock 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 Boulder 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 Gravel 0.2 2.4 1.1 4.5 5.1 16.0 0.5 1.5 3.9 Clay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 8.9 7.5 13.5 2.0 4.1 Wood 0.0 0.0 3.9 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 1.1 Average Depth (ft) 12.9 13.0 13.6 10.6 12.5 9.9 13.8 14.3 12.6 Actual Depth Range: 2.2 to 29.1 ft % Substrate per transect downstream of BFN Substrate Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Avg. Silt 64.6 75.9 89.l 79.2 86.4 45.5 37.8 47.4 65.7 Mollusk Shell 19.4 16.3 6.3 8.1 7.6 29.3 21.6 19.3 16.0 Sand 0.0 1.0 0.0 9.0 0.0 14.0 37.0 6.5 8.4 Detritus 2.7 4.8 4.4 3.7 4.8 1.7 3.1 6.3 3.9 Bedrock 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 0.0 8.0 2.5 Boulder 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cobble 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 Gravel 2.0 2.0 0.2 0.0 1.2 2.5 0.5 8.5 2.1 Clay 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.4 Wood 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.1 Average Depth (ft) 14.0 13.0 14.l 13.2 13.2 10.9 11.4 12.8 12.8 Actual Depth Range: 2.0 to 25.3 ft 69 Table 9. Individual metric scores and the overall RFAI scores upstream {TRM 295.9) and downstream (TRM 292.5) of Browns Ferry Nuclear plant during 2015. Autumn 2015 Metric A. Species richness and composition 1. Number of indigenous species (Tables 9 and 10) 2. Number of centrarchid species (less Micropterus) 3. Number ofbenthic invertivore species 4. Number of intolerant species Combined Combined Combined Combined TRM295.9 Obs 35 7 Bluegill Green sunfish Longear sunfish Orangespotted sunfish Redear sunfish Warmouth White crappie 5 Freshwater drum Logperch Northern hog sucker River darter Spotted sucker 5 Longear sunfish Northern hog sucker Skipjack herring Smallmouth bass Spotted sucker 70 Score 5 5 3 5 TRM292.5 Obs Black crappie Bluegill 31 7 Green sunfish Longear sunfish Redear sunfish Warmouth White crappie 5 Black redhorse Freshwater drum Logperch River darter Spotted sucker 5 Black redhorse Longear sunfish Skipjack herring Smallmouth bass Spotted sucker Score 5 5 3 5 Table 9. (Continued). Autumn 2015 TRM295.9 TRM292.5 Metric Obs Score Obs Score 5. Percent tolerant individuals Electrofishing 23.9% 30.1% Bluegill 7.1% Bluegill 2.1% Common carp 0.2% Gizzard shad 20.2% Gizzard shad 5.5% Golden shiner 0.1% Golden shiner 0.5% 2.5 Green sunfish 5.7% 1.5 Green sunfish 4.2% Largemouth bass 0.8% Largemouth bass 5.6% Redbreast sunfish 0.1% Spotfin shiner 0.5% Spotfin shiner 1.0% Striped shiner 0.3% Striped shiner 0.1% Gill Netting 21.1% 29.6% Bluegill 0.8% Bluegill 0.9% Gizzard shad 16.5% 1.5 Gizzard shad 18.5% 1.5 Longnose gar 3.8% Largemouth bass 7.4% White crappie 1.9% 6. Percent dominance by one species Electrofishing 27.3% 2.5 32.2% 1.5 Mississippi silverside Mississippi silverside Gill Netting 16.5% 2.5 25.9% 1.5 Gizzard shad Skipjack herring 7. Percent non-indigenous species Electrofishing 27.8% 32.3% Common carp 0.2% 0.5 Mississippi silverside 32.2% 0.5 Mississippi silverside 27.3% Redbreast sunfish 0.1% Striped bass 0.3% Yellow perch 0.1% Gill Netting 0.8% 2.5 NA 2.5 Striped bass 71 Table 9. (Continued). Autumn 2015 TRM295.9 TRM292.5 Metric Obs Score Obs Score 8. Number of top carnivore species Combined 11 10 Flathead catfish Black crappie Largemouth bass Bow:fin Longnose gar Flathead catfish Sauger Largemouth bass Skipjack herring 5 Sauger 5 Smallmouth bass Skipjack herring Spotted bass Smallmouth bass Spotted gar White bass White bass White crappie White crappie Yellow bass Yellow bass B. Trophic composition 9. Percent top carnivores Electro fishing 9.4% 4.5% Flathead catfish 0.5% Black crappie 0.1% Largemouth bass 5.6% Bowfin 0.1% Smallmouth bass 1.2% Flathead catfish 0.2% Spotted gar 0.9% 1.5 Largemouth *bass 0.8% 0.5 Striped bass 0.3% Skipjack herring 0.1% White bass 0.9% Smallmouth bass 2.9% Yellow bass 0.1% White bass 0.2% Yellow bass 0.1% Gill Netting 59.4% 53.7% Flathead catfish 9.8% Flathead catfish 3.7% Longnose gar 3.8% Largemouth bass 7.4% Sauger 4.5% Sauger 5.6% Skipjack herring 14.3% 2.5 Skipjack herring 25.9% 2.5 Spotted bass 0.8% Smallmouth bass 1.9% Spotted gar 6.8% White bass 3.7% Striped bass 0.8% White crappie 1.9% White bass 16.5% Yellow bass 3.7% Yellow bass 2.3% 72 Table 9. (Continued). Autumn 2015 TRM295.9 TRM292.5 Metric Obs Score Obs Score 10. Percent omnivores Electro fishing 11.7% 22.0% Black buffalo 0.2% Channel catfish 1.0% Channel catfish 2.9% Gizzard shad 20.2% Common carp 0.2% Golden shiner 0.1% Gizzard shad 5.5% 2.5 Smallmouth 2.5 Golden shiner 0.5% buffalo 0.7% Smallmouth Striped shiner 0.1% buffalo 2.2% Striped shiner 0.3% Gill Netting 35.3% 35.2% Blue catfish 6.0% Blue catfish 5.6% Channel catfish 8.3% 0.5 Channel catfish 3.7% 0.5 Gizzard shad 16.5% Gizzard shad 18.5% Smallmouth Smallmouth buffalo 4.5% buffalo 7.4% C. Fish abundance and health 11. Average number per run Electrofishing 70.1 0.5 114.8 0.5 Gill Netting 13.3 1.5 5.4 0.5 12. Percent anomalies Electrofishirig 1.1% 2.5 0.3% 2.5 Gill Netting 0.8% 2.5 0.0% 2.5 Overall RF AI Score 49 44 Good Good 73 Table 10. Species collected, ecological and recreational designation and corresponding electrofishing (EF) and gill net (GN) catch per unit effort upstream (TRM 295.9) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant discharge -Autumn 2015. Thermally Comm. Rec. Trophic Native Sensitive Valuable Valuable EF Catch EF Catch Total fish GN Catch Per Total Total fish Percent Common Name Scientific name level
• Tolerance Per Run Per Hr EF NetNight Fish GN Combined Longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus TC x TOL x 0.5 5 5 0.42 Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM x TOL x x 3.87 17.42 58 2.2 22 80 6.76 Common carp* Cyprinus carpio OM TOL x 0.13 0.6 2 2 0.17 Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas OM x TOL x 0.33 1.5 5 5 0.42 Spotfin shiner Cyprinella spiloptera IN x TOL 0.33 1.5 5 5 0.42 Striped shiner Luxilus chrysocephalus OM x TOL 0.2 0.9 3 3 0.25 Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN x TOL x 2.93 13.21 44 44 3.72 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN x TOL x 5 22.52 75 0.1 76 6.42 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides TC x TOL x 3.93 17.72 59 59 4.98 White crappie Pomoxis annularis TC x TOL x 0 0.00 Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris TC x INT x 1.9 19 19 1.60 Northern hog sucker Hypentelium nigricans BI x INT 0.13 0.6 2 2 0.11 Spotted suckt<r Minytrema melanops BI x INT x 2.07 9.31 31 31 2.62 Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN x INT x 2.4 10.81 36 36 3.04 Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC x INT x 0.87 3.9 13 13 1.10 Spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatus TC x x 0.6 2.7 9 0.9 9 18 1.52 Threadfin shad Dorosoma petenense PK x x x 12.8 57.66 192 192 16.22 Largescale stoneroller Campostoma oligolepis HB x 0.2 0.9 3 3 0.25 Smallmouth buffalo lctiobus bubalus OM x x 1.53 6.91 23 0.6 6 29 2.45 Black buffalo lctiobus niger OM x x 0.13 0.6 2 2 0.17 Blue catfish I ctalurus furcatus OM x x x 0.8 8 8 0.68 Channel catfish lctalurus punctatus OM x x x 2 9.01 30 1.1 11 41 3.46 Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC x x x 0.33 1.5 5 1.3 13 18 1.52 Blackspotted Fundulus olivaceus IN x 0.07 0.3 1 1 0.08 White bass Marone chrysops TC x x 0.6 2.7 9 2.2 22 31 2.62 Yellow bass Marone mississippiensis TC x x 0.07 0.3 1 0.3 3 4 0.34 Striped bass* Marone saxatilis TC x 0.2 0.9 3 0.1 4 0.34 Warmouth Lepomis gulosus IN x x 0.47 2.1 7 7 0.59 Orangespotted sunfish Lepomis humilis IN x x 0.07 0.3 1 1 0.08 Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN x x 0.67 3 10 0.5 5 15 1.27 Hybrid sunfish Lepomis spp. IN x x 0.2 0.9 3 3 0.25 Spotted bass Micropterus punctulatus TC x x 0.1 1 0.08 74 Table 10. (Continued). Common Name Scientific name Stripetail darter Etheostoma kennicotti Snubnose darter Etheostoma simoterum Logperch Percina caprodes River darter Percina shumardi Sauger Sander canadense Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens Mississippi silverside* Menidia audens Total Number Samples Species Collected Trophic Native level species Tolerance SP SP BI BI TC BI IN x x x x x x 36 Thermally Comm. Rec. Sensitive Valuable ValuableEF Catch EF Catch Total fish GN Catch Per Species Species Species Per Run Per Hr EF Net Night 0.13 0.6 2 O.D7 0.3 1 x 7.67 34.53 115 0.07 0.3 1 x 0.6 x 0.87 3.9 13 0.1 x x 19.13 86.19 287 1 14 22 70.07 315.59 1,051 13.3 15 10 33 16 Total Total fish Percent Fish GN Combined Composition 2 0.17 1 0.08 115 9.71 1 0.08 6 6 0.51 14 1.18 287 24.24 133 1,184 100 An asterisk(*) denotes aquatic nuisance species. Trophic level: benthic invertivore (Bl), herbivore (HB), insectivore (IN), omnivore (OM), planktivore (PK), parasitic (PS), specialized insectivore (SP), top carnivore (TC); Tolerance: tolerant species (TOL), intolerant species (INT);Comm.-Commercially, Rec.-Recreationally. All species are considered representative important species. No species collected have a Federal Threatened or Endangered status. 75 Table 11. Species collected, ecological and recreational designation and corresponding electrofishing (EF) and gill net (GN) catch per unit effort downstream (TRM 292.5) of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant discharge -Autumn 2015. Thermally Comm. Rec. Trophic Native Sensitive Valuable Valuable EF Catch EF Catch Total fish GN Catch Per Total Total fish Percent Common Name Scientific name level Tolerance Per Run Per Hr EF NetNight Fish GN Combined Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM x TOL x x 23.13 104.52 347 10 357 20.10 Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas OM x TOL O.Q7 0.3 1 0.06 Spotfin shiner Cyprinella spiloptera IN x TOL 1.2 5.42 18 18 1.01 Striped shiner Luxilus chrysocephalus OM x TOL 0.13 0.6 2 2 0.11 Redbreast sunfish* Lepomis auritus. IN TOL x O.Q7 0.3 1 1 0.06 Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN x TOL x 6.6 29.82 99 99 5.57 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN x TOL x 2.4 10.84 36 0.1 37 2.08 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides TC x TOL x 0.93 4.22 14 0.4 4 18 1.01 White crappie Pomoxis annularis TC x TOL x 0.1 0.06 Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris TC x INT x 0.13 0.6 2 1.4 14 16 0.90 Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI x INT x 0.47 2.11 7 0.1 1 8 0.45 Black redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei BI x INT x O.Q7 0.3 0.06 Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN x INT 3.07 13.86 46 46 2.59 Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC x INT 3.33 15.06 50 0.1 51 2.87 Bowfin Amia calva TC x x x O.Q7 0.3 1 1 0.06 Threadfin shad Dorosoma petenense PK x x 20.33 91.87 305 305 17.17 Largescale stoneroller Campostoma oligolepis HB x O.Q7 0.3 1 0.06 Bullhead minnow Pimephales vigilax IN x 0.13 0.6 2 2 0.11 Smallmouth. buffalo Ictiobus bubalus OM x x 0.8 3.61 12 0.4 4 16 0.90 Blue catfish /ctalurus furcatus OM x x x 0.3 3 3 0.17 Channel catfish lctalurus punctatus OM x x x 1.13 5.12 17 0.2 2 19 1.07 Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC x x x 0.27 1.2 4 0.2 2 6 0.34 White bass Marone chrysops TC x x 0.27 1.2 4 0.2 2 6 0.34 Yellow bass Marone mississippiensis TC x x O.Q7 0.3 0.2 2 3 0.17 Warmouth Lepomis gulosus IN x x 0.27 1.2 4 4 0.23 Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN x x 0.27 1.2 4 4 0.23 Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC x x O.Q7 0.3 0.06 Stripetail darter Etheostoma kennicotti SP x 0.13 0.6 2 2 0.11 76 Table 11. (Continued). Thermally Comm. Rec. Trophic Native Sensitive Valuable Valuable EF Catch EF Catch Total fish GN Catch Per Total Total fish Percent Common Name Scientific name level species Tolerance Species Species Species Per Run Per Hr EF Net Night Fish GN Combined Composition Yell ow perch* Perea jlavescens IN x 0.13 0.6 2 2 0.11 Logperch Percina caprodes BI x x 11.4 51.51 171 171 9.63 River darter Percina shumardi BI x 0.13 0.6 2 2 0.11 Sauger Sander canadense TC x x 0.3 3 3 0.17 Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI x x 0.73 3.31 11 0.4 4 15 0.84 Mississippi silverside* Menidia audens IN x x 36.93 166.87 554 554 31.19 Total 31 1 12 18 114.8 518 .. 64 1,722 5.4 54 1,776 100 Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected 31 15 An asterisk(*) denotes aquatic nuisance species. Trophic level: benthic invertivore (Bl), herbivore (HB), insectivore (JN), omnivore (OM), planktivore (PK), parasitic (PS), specialized insectivore (SP), top carnivore (TC); Tolerance: tolerant species (TOL), intolerant species (INT);Comm.-Commercially, Rec.-Recreationally. All species are considered representative important species. No species collected have a Federal Threatened or Endangered status. 77 Table 12. Spatial statistical comparisons of numbers of species, mean electrofishing catch per unit effort values' (number/run), tolerance designations, trophic levels, and non-indigenous individuals, including species richness and Simpson and Shannon diversity values, for samples collected near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, autumn 2015. Mean (Standard Deviation) Parameter Downstream Upstream Significant Test PValue (TRM292.5) (TRM 295.9) Difference Statistic Number of species (per run) Total (Species richness) 11.1 (3.4) 12.7 (5.1) No t= -0.96 0.34 Benthic invertivores 1.9 (1.1) 2.3 (1.3) No Z= -0.94 0.34 Insectivores 4.0 (2.0) 3.9 (1.8) No t= 0.20 0.85 Omnivores 2.6 (1.0) 3.3 (1.8) No Z= -0.95 0.34 Top carnivores 3.2 (1.6) 3.8 (2.4) No t= -0.80 0.43 Non-indigenous 0.9 (0.5) 1.2 (0.4) No Z= -1.58 0.11 Tolerant 3.5 (1.4) 3.6 (2.0) No t= -0.11 0.92 Intolerant 2.3 (0.9) 2.2 (1.3) No Z= 0.26 0.79 Thermally sensitive 1.1 (0.6) 1.4 (0.7) No Z= -1.16 0.25 CPUE (per run) Total 5.6 (2.5) 4.3 (2.6) No t= 1.39 0.17 Benthic invertivores 0.9 (0.8) 0.7 (0.5) No Z= 0.35 0.72 Insectivores 3.4 (3.1) 2.2 (2.4) No Z= 0.58 0.56 Omnivores 1.9 (1.5) 0.9 (0.7) Yes Z=2.28 0.02 Top Carnivores 0.6 (0.3) 1.0 (0.8) No Z= -1.58 0.11 Non-indigenous 2.5 (2.9) 1.3 (1.6) No Z= 0.79 0.43 Tolerant 2.4 (1.4) 1.3 (1.0) Yes Z=2.37 0.02 Intolerant 0.6 (0.4) 0.5 (0.4) No t= 0.67 0.51 Thermally sensitive 0.8 (0.8) 0.6 (0.5) No Z= 0.31 0.76 Diversity indices (per run) Simpson 0.7 (0.1) 0.8 (0.1) Yes Z= -2.98 0.002 Shannon 5.2 (1.8) 7.9 (2.5) Yes t= 3.33 0.003 78 Table 13. Summary of autumn RFAI scores from sites located directly upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant and scores from sampling conducted during 1993-2015 as part of the Vital Signs monitoring program in Wheeler Reservoir. 1993-Site Location 1993 1994 1995 1997 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2013 2015 2015 Avg. Inflow TRM348.0 46 48 42 48 36 36 40 38 42 44 42 32 38 40 40 46 40 44 41 Transition TRM295.9 45 43 34 40 30 41 37 43 39 43 46 41 39 42 39 43 40 46 49 41 BFN Upstream Transition BFN TRM292.5 43 40 41 43 43 36 42 42 45 36 38 38 40 44 41 Downstream Forebay TRM277.0 52 44 48 45 42 41 45 44 43 45 44 49 46 47 40 46 43 46 45 Elk River ERM6.0 41 47 36 49 36 49 44 49 47 39 42 43 39 46 43 Embayment RF AI Scores: 12-21 ("Very Poor"), 22-31 ("Poor"), 32-40 ("Fair"), 41-50 ("Good"), or 51-60 ("Excellent") 79 Table 14. Comparison of RBI metric ratings and total scores for laboratory-processed samples collected upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Wheeler Reservoir, autumn 2015. Downstream Downstream Upstream TRM290.4 TRM293.2 TRM295.9 Metric Obs Rating Obs Rating Obs Rating 1. Average number of taxa 9.2 5 10.4 5 9.5 5 2. Proportion of samples with long-lived organisms 1 5 1 5 1 5 3. Average number of EPT taxa 1.5 5 1.3 3 1.4 3 4. Average proportion of oligochaete individuals 12.6 3 19.1 3 8.1 5 5. Average proportion of total abundance comprised by the two most abundant taxa 67.5 5 66.4 5 66.8 5 6. Average density excluding chironomids and oligochaetes 613.3 5 736.7 5 991.7 5 7. Zero-samples -proportion of samples containing no organisms 0 5 0 5 0 5 Benthic Index Score 33 31 33 Ecological Health Rating Excellent Excellent Excellent Reservoir Benthic Index Scores: 7-12 ("Very Poor), 13-18 ("Poor), 19-23 ("Fair), 24-29 ("Good), 30-35 ("Excellent) 80 Table 15. Metric scores and overall RBI scores determined from field processing criteria, for sites upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Wheeler Reservoir, autumn 2000-2010. Downstream -TRM 291. 7 Avg No. Taxa % Long-Lived Avg.No.EPT % %Dominant Density excl Zero Samples Overall tax a Oligochaetes Taxa chiro and oligo Score Year Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score 2000 4 3 1 5 0.8 5 6.4 5 79.6 3 125 0 5 27 2001 5.6 5 5 1.1 5 5.7 5 43 5 230 0 5 31 2002 5.7 5 5 0.8 5 7.4 5 88.1 1 120 1 0 5 27 2003 6.5 5 5 5 0.3 5 76.1 5 1270 5 0 5 35 2004 6.7 5 5 5 1.4 5 74.4 5 523.3 3 0 5 33 2005 5.5 5 5 0.8 5 3.6 5 80.3 3 508.3 3 0 5 31 2006 6.2 5 5 0.1 5 2.3 5 77.3 5 272.3 0 5 31 2007 6.4 5 5 0.8 5 12.4 5 80.2 3 166.7 0 5 29 2008 6.3 5 0.9 5 1.1 5 7.2 5 81.5 3 181.7 1 0 5 29 2009 5 5 0.7 3 0.6 3 4.6 5 90.3 83.3 0 5 23 2010 4.6 5 0.7 3 0.6 3 0.3 5 94.8 126.7 0 5 23 Mean: 5.7 0.9 0.8 4.7 78.7 327.9 0.0 29 Maximum: 6.7 1.1 12.4 94.8 1270 0 Minimum: 4 0.7 0.1 0.3 43 83.3 0 81 Table 15. (Continued) -TRM 295.9 Avg No. Taxa % Long-Lived Avg.No.EPT % Oligochaetes % Dominant Density excl Zero Samples Overall tax a Taxa chiro and oligo Sam_ele Year Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Score 2000 4.6 5 5 0.8 5 6.6 5 77.6 5 190 0 5 31 2001 5.3 5 5 5 2.7 5 79.8 3 188.3 1 0 5 29 2002 6.5 5 1 5 0.8 5 7.2 5 75.6 5 266.7 0 5 31 2003 5.1 5 0.8 5 5 0.8 5 84.1 3 456.7 3 0 5 31 2004 6.2 5 5 0.9 5 1.1 5 73.7 5 353.6 3 0 5 33 2005 5.6 5 1 5 1.2 5 2.3 5 85.4 3 490 3 0 5 31 2006 5.9 5 0.8 5 0.7 3 7 5 75 5 348.3 3 0 5 31 2007 6.5 5 0.9 5 0.9 5 1.9 5 74.2 5 353.3 3 0 5 33 2008 5.8 5 0.7 3 0.5 3 7.8 5 85.4 3 220 0 5 25 2009 5.1 5 5 0.4 3 12.2 5 75.2 5 133.3 0 5 29 2010 4.2 3 5 0.8 5 2.1 5 92 108.3 0 5 25 Mean: 5.5 0.9 0.8 4.7 79.8 282.6 0 30 Maximum: 6.5 1.2 12.2 92 490 0 Minimum: 4.2 0.7 0.4 0.8 73.7 108.3 0 82 Table 16. Metric scores and overall RBI scores determined from lab processing criteria, for sites upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Wheeler Reservoir, 2001-2006. Downstream -TRM 291. 7 Avg No. Taxa % Long-Lived Avg.No.EPT % % Dominant Density excl Zero Samples Overall tax a Oligochaetes Taxa chiro and oligo Score Year Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score 2001 7.8 5 1 5 1.1 3 7.6 5 71.7 5 315 3 0 5 31 2002 5.4 3 5 0.9 3 10.9 5 88.2 106.7 0 5 23 2003 7.3 5 5 3 0.4 5 73.2 5 1270 5 0 5 33 2004 7.9 5 5 3 1.6 5 73.5 5 551.7 3 0 5 31 2006 9.4 5 5 1.6 5 2.3 5 78.l 3 448.2 3 0 5 31 Mean: 7.56 1.12 4.56 76.94 538.32 0 30 Maximum: 9.4 1.6 10.9 88.2 1270 0 Minimum: 5.4 1 0.9 0.4 71.7 106.7 0 -TRM 295.9 Avg No. Taxa % Long-Lived Avg.No.EPT % % Dominant Density excl Zero Samples Overall tax a Oligochaetes Taxa chiro and oligo Year Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Score 2001 7.4 5 1 5 1 3 6.9 5 75.6 5 281.7 0 5 29 2002 6.8 5 5 1.1 3 5 5 74.l 5 281.7 0 5 29 2003 6.3 3 5 0.9 3 0.6 *5 82.2 3 583.3 3 0 5 27 2004 6.2 3 5 0.8 3 1.1 5 72.2 5 336.2 3 0 5 29 2006 9.2 5* 0.8 3 1.2 3 5.1 5 78.6 3 1273.3 5 0 5 29 2011 8.4 5 0.7 3 3 6.3 5 81.1 3 430 3 0 5 27 Mean: 7.4 0.9 1.0 4.2 77.3 531.0 0 28 Maximum: 9.2 1.2 6.9 82.2 1273.3 0 Minimum: 6.2 0.7 0.8 0.6 72.2 281.7 0 83 Table 17a. Mean density per square meter of benthic taxa collected upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, autumn 2015. All taxa listed contributed to individual RBI metrics and total scores. BFN BFN BFN Downstream Downstream Upstream Taxa TRM290.4 TRM293.2 TRM295.9 ANNELIDA Hirudinea Rhynchobdellida Glossiphoniidae Actinobdella inequiannulata 3 2 Actinobdella sp. 2 2 Helobdella stagnalis 7 13 3 Placobdella montifera 2 2 Oligochaeta Tubificida Naididae Naidinae 2 Derosp. 20 Naissp. 2 3 Pristina leidyi 5 Pristina sp. 10 Slavina appendiculata 8 Sty/aria lacustris 3 Vejdovskyella comata 2 Tubificinae whc 8
• Tubificinae wohc 92 182 88 Aulodrilus limnobius 2 Aulodrilus pigu,eti 12 7 10 Branchiura sowerbyi 5 3 2 Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri 18 3 ARTHROPODA Crustacea Malacostraca Amphipoda Corophiidae Apocorophium lacustre 10 145 260 Gammaridae Gammarus sp. 17 17 12 Talitridae Hyalella azteca 2 84 Table 17a. (Continued) BFN BFN BFN Downstream Downstream Upstream Taxa TRM290.4 TRM293.2 TRM295.9 Hexapoda Insecta Coleoptera Staphylinidae 2 Diptera Ceratopogonidae 2 Chironomidae Ablabesmyia annulata 18 17 7 Ablabesmyia mallochi 2 Ablabesmyia rht;imphe gp. 2 Chironomus sp. 8 7 28 Coelotanypus sp. 293 245 270 Conchapelopia sp. 2 Cryptochironomus sp. 10 Dicrotendipes neomodestus 25 Dicrotendipes simpsoni 2 Dicrotendipes sp. 18 2 17 Glyptotendipes sp. 5 65 Nanocladius distinctus 2 8 Polypedilum halterale gp. 5 Procladius sp. 3 Tanytarsus sp. 3 Ephemeroptera Caenidae Caenis sp. 7 Ephemeridae Hexagenia sp. <1 Omm 75 67 52 Hexagenia sp. > 1 Omm 98 97 100 Trichoptera Hydroptilidae Hydroptila sp. 2 Leptoceridae Oecetis sp. 8 3 5 Polycentropodidae Cyrnellus fraternus 13 10 12 MOLLUSCA Gastropoda 85 Table 17a. (Continued) BFN BFN BFN Downstream Downstream Upstream Taxa TRM290.4 TRM293.2 TRM295.9 Architaenioglossa Viviparidae Lioplax sulculosa 2 Viviparus sp. 5 3 7 Basommatophora Ancylidae Ferrissia rivularis 7 N eotaenioglossa Hydrobiidae Amnicola limosa 3 7 10 Somatogyrus sp. 2 12 30 Pleuroceridae Pleurocera canaliculata 2 Pleurocera canaliculata excuratum 10 Bivalvia Unionoida Unionidae Truncilla donaciformis 7 Veneroida Corbiculidae Corbiculajluminea <lOmm 38 8 40 Corbiculajluminea > lOmm 227 127 112 Dreissenidae Dreissena polymorpha Sphaeriidae 3 Eupera cubensis 2 Musculium transversum 88 183 327 PLATYHELMINTHES Trepaxonemata Neoophora Planariidae Dug_esia tig_rina 13 17 3 Number of samples 10 10 10 Mean-Density per meter2 1090 1305 1497 Taxa Richness 27 38 27 Sum of area {meter) 0.6 0.6 0.6 86 Table l 7b. Mean density per square meter of other benthic taxa collected but not included in individual RBI metrics or total scores for sites upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, autumn 2015. BFN BFN BFN Downstream Downstream Upstream Taxa TRM290.4 TRM293.2 TRM295.9 ARTHROPODA Crustacea Branchiopoda Diplostraca Sididae Sida crystallina 13 Maxillopoda Cyclopoida Cyclopidae Macrocyclops albidus 2 3 Mesocyclops edax 2 10 3 Ostracoda Podocopida Candonidae Candonasp. 15 33 18 Hexapoda Insecta Diptera Chaoboridae Chaoborus punctipennis 10 13 5 Chelicerata Arachnida Acariformes Trombidiformes Arrenuridae Arrenurus sp. 2 3 2 Krendowskiidae Krendowskia sp. 2 Unionicolidae Neumania sp. 2 Unionicola SQ. 8 18 3 87 Table l 7b. (Continued) BFN BFN BFN Downstream Downstream Upstream Taxa TRM290.4 TRM293.2 TRM295.9 CNIDARIA Medusozoa Hydrozoa Hydroida Hydridae Hydra SQ. 8 3 Number of samples 10 10 10 Mean-Density per meter2 47 85 48 Taxa Richness 7 8 7 Sum of area (meter2) 0.6 0.6 0.6 88 Table 18. Comparison of 2015 RBI scores with LTA scores from sites directly upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant and from sites sampled as part of the Vital Signs monitoring program on Wheeler Reservoir. Long term average, 1994 -2013. Site Location 1994 1995 1997 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2013 LTA.2015 Inflow *TRM 347 31 21 25 23 21 25 31 31 31 33 33 31 27 31 28 31 BFN Upstream TRM 295.9 33 25 31 31 31 29 31 31 33 31 31 33 25 29 25 27 35 30 33 (Transition) BFN Downstream TRM291.7 27 31 27 35 33 31 31 29 29 23 23 29 (Transition) BFN Downstream TRM 293.2 23 35 *NIA 31 (Transition) BFN Downstream TRM290.4 21 31 NIA 33 (Transition) Fore bay *TRM277 19 15 23 17 17 15 15 19 15 13 13 15 13 13 17 16 13 Embayment *ERM6 15 13 15 15 15 15 17 13 13 13 13 14 15 Reservoir Bent hie Index Scores: 7-12 ("Very Poor"), 13-18 ("Poor), 19-23 ("Fair), 24-29 ("Good), 30-35 ("Excellent) *=sites with field-processed scores all years. All other sites, 1994-2010 are field-processed scores and 2011 forward are processed scores. 89 Table 19. Wildlife observed during surveys conducted upstream and downstream of TV A's Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, November 2015. Surve;y Site Birds Obs. Obs. Mammals Obs. TRM295 (US) RDB Belted kingfisher 5 Map turtle 22 34.69047 Great blue heron 5 -87.08415 European starling 230 Unspecified perching bird 3 34.69852 Mallard 1 -87.10239 Mockingbird 3 Blue jay 8 American crow 8 American robin 6 Common flicker 2 34.68032 LDB Great blue heron 5 Map uirtle 29 -87.11340 White pelican 11 Painted turtle Carolina wren 1 34.67013 Double-crested cormorant 4 -87.10204 Blue jay 3 TRM292 (DS) RDB Great blue heron 5 34.72314 Blue jay 3 -87.13579 Unspecified perching bird 3 Golden eagle 3 34.73411 Bald eagle 1 -87.14642 Carolina chickadee 2 American robin 5 European starling 30 Common grackle 150 Mallard 2 Pileated woodpecker 1 American coot 1 34.72218 LDB Red-tailed hawk 1 Map turtle 26 -87.16943 Great blue heron 4 Bald eagle 2 34.71100 Pied-billed grebe 2 -87.15496 Double-crested cormorant 1 Osprey RDB -right descending bank; LDB -left descending bank 90 Table 20. Wildlife observed during visual surveys conducted upstream and downstream of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, 2011 through 2015. TRM295RDB TRM295LDB TRM 292.5 RDB TRM 292.5 LDB Observed 2011 2013 2015 2011 2013 2015 2011 2013 2015 2011 2013 2015 Birds American crow 6 8 1 American coot 6 4 1 American robin 6 2 5 Bald eagle 1 2 Belted kingfisher 4 5 2 3 2 Blue jay 5 8 3 5 3 1 Brown thrasher 1 Carolina chickadee 1 2 Carolina wren Common flicker 2 Common grackle 20 150 Common snipe Double-crested cormorant 2 4 Downy Woodpecker 2 European starling 230 10 30 Golden eagle 3 Great blue heron 4 6 5 4 2 5 6 2 5 5 4 4 Least flycatcher 1 Killdeer 2 Mallard 5 2 1 12 7 2 2 8 Mockingbird 1 3 2 Osprey I Pied-billed grebe 2 2 Pileated Woodpecker Red-tailed hawk Ring-billed gull Sanderling 2 Turkey vulture 2 2 Unspecified perching bird 3 8 2 2 3 5 3 White pelican 11 White-breasted nuthatch Wood duck 8 4 91 Table 20. (Continued). Species Observed Reptile/ Amphibian Map Turtle Painted turtle Unspecified turtle Mammals Eastern grey squirrel TRM295RDB 2011 2013 2015 37 22 2 TRM295LDB TRM 292.5 RDB TRM 292.5 LDB 2011 2013 2015 2011 2013 2015 2011 2013 2015 26 29 2 69 26 I 20 92 Table 21. Depth profiles of water temperature (°F) collected to determine the extent of the thermal plume discharged from TV A's Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant during 2015. October Ambient-TRM 295.4 Discharge-TRM 293.5 Mid-plume-TRM 291.7 Below Sample Reach 2015 TRM290.2 Depth 10% 30% 50% 70% 90% 10% 30% 50% 70% 90% 10% 30% 50% 70% 90% 10% 30% 50% 70% 90% m 0.3 68.l 67.2 66.7 66.8 67.5 72.4 72.0 66.9 67.l 67.8 71.9 72.0 69.8 69.7 68.0 7 l.5 7 l.8 7 l.2 69.4 68.4 1.5 68.l 67.2 66.6 66.8 67.4 70.9 70.8 67.0 67.0 7 l.9 72.0 69.7 69.6 67.9 71.3 71.8 7 l.2 69.3 68.2 2 68.l 66.9 3 67.2 66.5 66.8 69.8 68.7 66.9 7 l.9 72.0 69.2 69.5 67.9 7 l.2 71.8 70.9 69.2 67.9 4 69.4 7 l.2 71.8 67.8 5 66.4 68.0 68.1 69.0 69.8 69.l 6 69.0 7 66.4 67.9 67.9 8 66.4 67.9 Shaded numbers represent temperatures 3.6°F (2°C) or greater above ambient temperature. 93 Table 22. Water quality parameters collected along vertical depth profiles at three transects within the RFAI sample reaches upstream and downstream of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant during 2015. October, 2015 TRM 295 Upstream Boundary Mid-station Downstream Boundary Depth 0.3 1.5 0.3 1.5 0.3 1.5 LDB Mid-channel oc 21.4 21.4 OF 70.6 70.5 21.0 69.8 21.0 69.8 21.7 71.1 21.1 70.0 pH Cond DO Depth °C °F pH 7.5 210.6 8.6 0.3 21.0 69.7 7.6 7.4 210.6 8.6 1.5 20.7 69.3 7.5 7.4 210.9 8.1 7.4 2 I 1.2 8. I 7.6 210.I 8.6 7.5 209.4 8.5 3 20.7 69.2 7.4 5 20.7 69.2 7.4 6 20.6 69.2 7.4 0.3 1.5 3 4 6 0.3 1.5 3 4 6 8 20.9 69.6 20.6 69.1 20.3 68.6 20.2 68.4 20.1 68.1 21.8 71.2 21.7 71.0 21.7 71.0 21.4 70.6 20.9 69.6 20.4 68.6 7.4 7.4 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.5 7.5 Cond 209.7 209.8 212.5 209.I 208.1 DO 7.8 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 218.8 8.2 210.7 8.0 212.7 8.0 211.8 7.9 210.7 7.8 208.4 8.8 209.3 8.7 210.7 8.7 209.0 8.7 209.1 8.6 208.6 8.5 Depth 0.3 1.5 0.3 1.5 0.3 1.5 3 4 oc 21.7 20.1 20.4 18.8 24.6 22.1 21.3 21.3 RDB OF 71. I 68.2 68.7 65.8 76.2 71.7 70.4 70.3 pH 7.3 7.1 7.6 7.7 7.7 7.6 7.5 7.5 Cond 209.4 207.4 DO 8.5 8.4 207.4 9.2 207.5 9.4 211.5 9.0 211.0 8.7 209.1 8.5 208.6 8.5 TRM 292 Depth oc OF pH Cond DO Depth oc OF pH Cond DO Depth oc OF pH Cond DO Upstream Boundary Mid-station Downstream Boundary 0.3 1.5 3 0.3 1.5 3 0.3 1.5 3 4 20.7 69.2 19.7 67.5 19.4 66.9 21.8 71.3 20.4 68.7 19.7 67.5 20.8 69.4 20.0 68.0 19.4 66.8 19.3 66.7 7.7 211.4 9.6 7.6 211.5 9.5 7.6 210.0 9.4 7.7 213.2 9.0 7.8 209.0 9.2 7.6 213.4 8.5 7.8 210.7 9.4 7.8 211.6 9.6 7.2 210.5 9.4 7.7 209.5 9.3 0.3 1.5 3 5 0.3 1.5 3 4 6 0.3 1.5 3 4 6 21.6 70.8 20.6 69.1 20.0 68.0 19.9 67.8 22.7 72.8 21.3 70.3 20.4 68.7 19.9 67.9 19.8 67.6 21.6 70.9 20.0 67.9 19.7 67.4 19.5 67.1 19.3 66.8 7.5 7.5 7.4 7.2 7.6 7.5 7.5 7.4 7.4 7.8 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 211.9 8.5 211.6 8.3 210.9 8.2 207.8 8.1 213.8 8.9 210.3 8.8 210.6 8.6 209.3 8.4 214.6 8.3 210.5 9.1 210.3 8.9 211.2 8.9 209.7 9.0 211.0 8.9 0.3 1.5 3 0.3 1.5 2 0.3 1.5 3 Abbreviations: °C -Temperature (degrees Celsius), °F -Temperature (degrees Fahrenheit), Cond -Conductivity, DO -Dissolved Oxygen 94 21.8 21.0 20.7 22.5 21.6 21.4 21.6 21.2 20.3 71.3 69.8 69.3 72.5 70.9 70.6 70.9 70.2 68.6 7.6 7.5 7.4 7.7 7.6 7.6 7.7 7.6 7.5 21 1.3 8.9 210.2 8.7 210.1 8.5 211.7 9.2 211.4 9.2 209.8 8.8 210.9 9.2 209.9 8.9 207.3 8.5}}