ML19148A421

All Enclosures with Coversheets

ML19148A421
Person / Time
Site:	Surry
Issue date:	05/10/2019
From:	Dominion, Dominion Energy Virginia, Virginia Electric & Power Co (VEPCO)
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
19-184
Download: ML19148A421 (488)

Text

SERIAL NO.: 19-184 Enclosure 2 ATTACHMENTS FOR RAI MBH-1 Virginia Electric and Power Company (Dominion Energy Virginia or Dominion)

Surry Power Station Units 1 and 2

From: Kenneth Roller (Services - 6)

Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 12:55 PM To: Degen, Marcia Cc: Tony Banks (Generation - 6)

Subject:

Dominion Energy's Surry Power Station: Request for VDH Response

Dear Dr. Degan:

Thank you for your time and guidance during our call March 26, 2019. As Tony Banks and I discussed with you, Dominion Energy is seeking a response from VDH concerning the potential existence and perceived health risks associated with thermophilic organisms that may be present in the portion of the James River that receives the cooling water discharge from our Surry Power Station (SPS). Information concerning the reason for this request and specific microorganisms of concern is presented below. Additional supporting information is included in the attachments to this email.

Reason for this Request and Microorganisms of Concern On October 16, 2018, Virginia Electric and Power Company d/b/a Dominion Energy Virginia (Dominion) filed an application with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to renew the operating licenses for Surry Power Station Units 1 and 2 (SPS) for an additional 20 years. For SPS Unit 1, this requested renewal would extend the license expiration date from May 25, 2032, to May 25, 2052. For SPS Unit 2, this requested renewal would extend the license expiration date from January 29, 2033, to January 29, 2053.

The license renewal process requires that Dominion Energy develop an environmental report (ER) that assesses the potential for environmental impacts from continued operation of the facility for an additional 20 years. One area of potential environmental impact concerns microorganisms that might be associated with the SPS once-through cooling water discharge (see below).NRC has provided guidance (Reference) that Dominion Energy should consult with VDH concerning potential health concerns associated with the following microorganisms in the portion of the James River that receives the stations cooling water discharge:

• The enteric pathogens Salmonella spp. and Shigella spp., as well as Pseudomonas aeruginosa and thermophilic fungi.

• The bacteria Legionella spp., which causes Legionnaires disease, and

• Free-living amoebae of the genera Naegleria (Naegleria fowleri) and Acanthamoeba Dominion Energy Conclusions Given the size of the river, the saline and tidal influence of the estuary, the documented reduction in water temperatures surrounding the effluent discharge point, positioning of the cooling water intake and discharge to minimize thermal impacts to oyster grounds and regulatory restrictions placed on public access to the waters adjacent to the discharge structures, Dominion Energy does not anticipate the continued operation of SPS to adversely affect the environment or public health as a result of microbiological hazards.

We are seeking VDH concurrence with Dominion Energys conclusion that the continued operation of SPS for the extended license term would not be expected to adversely affect the environment or public health from exposure to thermophilic pathogens in the James River.

We appreciate your consideration of this request, and look forward to a response preferably within a couple weeks, if possible. Please contact me or Tony Banks (see contact information below) should you have any questions concerning this transmittal.

Sincerely, Ken Roller Manager, Environmental Kenneth.roller@dominionenergy.com 804-273-3494 804-592-7825 Tony Banks, MPH Generation Project Manager, Nuclear Tony.banks@dominionenergy.com 804-273-2170 804-201-3965

Reference:

NRC Regulatory Guide 4.1, Supplement 1, Revision 1, 2013

Dominion Energy Surry Power Station Information to Support VDH Consultation on Thermophilic Microorganisms This document provides information to support Dominion Energys request for a response from VDH concerning the potential existence and perceived health risks associated with thermophilic organisms that may be present in the portion of the James River that receives the cooling water discharge from the Surry Power Station.

SPS Operation and Thermal Discharge During the process of generating electricity at SPS, cooling water is withdrawn from the James River on the east end of the site and, following use, is returned to the James River at a higher temperature via VPDES-permitted Outfall 001 located on the west end of the site. Figures depicting the station site and the vicinity within a 6-mile radius of the station and a thermal modelling report, which evaluated temperature distribution in the James River Estuary as a result of the operation of SPS, are attached to this document. A brief discussion of the station and its operations during the extended period of operation is provided below.

SPS is an 840-acre facility located on Gravel Neck Peninsula in Surry County, Virginia, on the south side of the James River, approximately 25 miles upstream of the point where the river enters the Chesapeake Bay.

SPS uses a once-through cooling system designed to take water from the James River on the east end of the site and discharge to the James River on the west end of the site. SPS discharges to surface waters are regulated by and permissible under Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (VPDES) Permit Number VA0004090. The permit has been in place for decades and has been regularly renewed. The current permit was issued with an effective date of March 1, 2016.

In the vicinity of SPS, the James River is approximately 2.5 miles wide and is a tidally influenced freshwater river upstream of the Gravel Neck peninsula and a saline estuary downstream. Outfall 001 is located approximately six miles upstream of the SPS low-level intake canal. This design was implemented specifically to protect oyster beds, located downstream from the low-level intake structure and in more saline water, from being affected by the thermal plume.

The station discharges once-through cooling water (~2.3 billion gallons per day) through permitted Outfall 001 to the James River. The station operates under a 316(a) thermal variance that was approved in 1978 and has been carried forth since. There is a heat rejection limit on Outfall 001 of 12.6 X 109 Btu/hour that effectively restricts the amount of heat that can be discharged under the 316(a) variance. The station has never exceeded the heat rejection limit and there are no plans to increase the amount of heat rejection during the extend license period.

Modeling of the thermal plume at a heat rejection rate of 12 x 109 was undertaken in 1967 and documented in the attached report, Temperature Distribution in the James River Estuary which

will result from the Discharge of Waste heat from the Surry Nuclear Power Station. The report concluded that only a small portion of the estuarine water in the tidal segment adjacent to the plant site is subjected to excess temperatures which might have biological significance.

Averaged over a tidal cycle, the area having excess temperatures exceeding 5°C occupies less than 7% of the width of the estuary.

In addition, Dominion conducted extensive pre- and post-operational studies on thermal effects of SPS on the James River over a seven-year period, which included computer modeling, field investigations of water quality and aquatic biota, field measurements of water temperatures, and electronic measurements of water temperatures in the SPS intake and discharge canals.

Temperatures greater than 90°F at the discharge normally occur only in June, July, August, and September when SPS is operating at or near full capacity. Once discharged into the estuary, the thermal effluent dispersion rapidly reduces outfall temperatures to or near ambient levels.

Effluent temperatures immediately outside the discharge canal decrease 1-2° F with every 1,000 feet from the mouth of the discharge canal. Temperatures were rarely more than 5° F above ambient river temperatures at a distance of 3,000 feet from the outfall.

The discharge outfall is surrounded by rock jetties projecting perpendicularly from the shoreline 1,100 feet into the James River estuary. Virginia Code 20-1060-10 ET SEQ §28.2-106.2 delineates a restricted access area encompassing the entire discharge canal from the jetties at its discharge pipe outlet back to the plant canal. No one may enter this restricted area without prior authorization from the marine police.

During the license renewal term, Dominion proposes to continue operating the units as currently operated. Currently, Dominion anticipates no license renewal-related refurbishment for SPS.

Given the size of the river, the saline and tidal influence of the estuary, the documented reduction in water temperatures surrounding the effluent discharge point, positioning of the cooling water intake and discharge to minimize thermal impacts to oyster grounds and regulatory restrictions placed on public access to the waters adjacent to the discharge structures, Dominion Energy does not anticipate the continued operation of SPS to adversely affect the environment or public health as a result of potential microbiological hazards.

We are seeking VDH concurrence with Dominion Energys conclusion that the continued operation of SPS for the extended license term would not be expected to adversely affect the environment or public health from exposure to thermophilic pathogens on the James River. We appreciate your consideration of this request. Please contact me or Tony Banks should you have any questions concerning this transmittal.

Attachments:

Figure SPS Site Figure 6-mile Vicinity Temperature Distribution in the James River Estuary which will result from the Discharge of Waste heat from the Surry Nuclear Power Station, Dominion, 1967.

Figure SPS Site 1

' i

.1 Legend t:J Property Boundary

---

=====?Miles 0 0.25 0.5

Figure 6-mile Vicinity Williamsburg

-- - ~::..:..j"~~

Wiliai msburg..JMnnlown I

\

York

= Airport

• .. 31 ,1 ;

J a m es City I

/,,' ,

,, ,I ,

\

I K' ,,,,,.,..

,,,, \

I

' \ ,,

I I,

/

\

\

\

/ I I I I

\

/ \

~

I I I IScoUandl ,I '1 I

,./

., 31,, ,, ______ . / /

/

I.

~ /

,I'- I

..,.,...._~

I \ / I I //' I

!I ,..- I I

I ,-,-"/

.,,.-'*:I MelvilR

=

AW'Strip

' I t'  ;

I Surry ,-" I r I I

f \\

\

I s le of

\

\ ,,

Wight

,, ., ;\' \

Legend ..

=

a Airport Heliport

- - Ferry Jamestown-Scotland Surface Water

.,~

_ Interstate c::J Property Boundary U.S. Route 1,-:_IS-Mile Radius

~ State Route Municipality Local Road

......... Railroad c_-* County

_J 0

---

===~ 2 Miles

/

• 1-r.'

Temperature Distribution in the James River Estuary Which Will Result From the Discharge of Waste Heat From the Surry Nuclear Power Station A Report Prepared for

.Virginia Electric and Power Company Richmond, Virginia As Part' of the Surry Nuclear Power Station Site Study Prepared by Pritchard-Carpenter, Consultants 208 MacAlpine Road Ellicott City, Maryland

Background

The Virginia Electric and Power Company is constructing a nuclear power station on the James River estuary. The site of this station, called the Surry Nuclear Power Station, is located approximately 30 miles above the mouth of the James River at Old Point Comfort and 55 miles below Richmond, Virginia. This 85-mile stretch of the river is subjected to tidal.

motion, and hence is a tidal estuary. It is usual to designate that part of the tidal waterway between the mouth and the point of most upstream in-trusion of measurable ocean salt as the estuary proper, while the* fresh water segment above that point up to the hea<i of tide ii; called the tidal river; Hog Point is the northernmost point of a peninsula form,ed by a .large bend in the James River estuary, as shown in Figure 1. The Surry Nuclear Power Station site extends ac.ross the central portion of the peninsula, the river forming both the eastern and western boundaries of the site. The peninsula to the north of the site is a low lying area of tidal marshes, tidal channels, and islands which serve as a wild fowl refuge, and terminates at Hog Point.

The eastern boundary of the site, which borders the river alqng the downstream side of the peninsula, is approximately opposite Deep Water Shoals. The western boundary border~ the river on the upstream side of the peninsula at the northeastern end of Cobham Bay. In the following fre-quent refer*ence will be made to Deep Water Shoals, or downstream, side, and to Cobham Bay, or upstream, side of the site.

\

\

\

I I

//

II The purpose of this report is to present the results of studies made to deter.mine the probable effect of the discharge of waste heat in the con-denser cooling water from the Surry Nuclear Power Station on the distribu-tion of temperature in the adjacent James River estuary. It will aid the discussion of the results of the thermal studies, however, to first briefly consider the pertinent features of the hydr6graphy of the estuary.

Hog Point is in the region of transition between the fresh tidal river and the estuary proper. Under conditions of very high river flow fresh water extends downstream of Deep Water Shoals. During periods of moderately high river flow, brackish water extends past Deep Water Shoals to the vicinity of Hog Point, while the Cobham Bay side of the site remains in the fresh water tidal river. Under flow conditions characteristic of most of the year the upper boundary of the estuary proper is located upstream from the Cobham Bay side of the site.

Under all but the most extreme river flow conditions, the oscillatory ebb and flood of the tide constitute the dominant motion in both estuary proper and the tidal river. The net downstream flow required to discharge the fresh water seaward through any cross section represents but a small fraction .of the tidal flows, The James River estuary has been classified in the literature as a partially mixed estuary. In such an estuary the salinity decreases in a more

.. or less regular manner from the mouth toward the head. The salinity also increases with depth at any location. There u.sually occurs a layer near mid-depth in which the salinity increases more rapidly with depth than is the case in the overlying fresher layer or in the deeper, more saline layer.

In spring and sumrrier this intermediate layer is also a region of relatively rapid decrease in temperature with depth.

The upper, less saline, layer has a net non-tidal motion directed toward the mouth of the estuary, while the lower, more saline, layer has a net non-tidal motion directed toward the head of the estuary. The boundary between these layers is generally sloped across the estuary so that the seaward moving surface layer extends to greater depths on the right side of the estuary (looking seaward) than on the left. Under some conditions, particularly in the wider sections of the estuary, the boundary between the counter-flowing layers intercepts the surface, so that there is a net seaward flow surface to bottom on the right side of the estuary (looking seaward} and a net flow toward the head of the estuary on the left side of the estuary.

This net non-tidal circulation pattern involves flow volumes large compared to the river discharge, but still small compared to the oscillatory tidal flow. For example, measurements made in July 1950, at a time when the fresh water discharge at Hog Point was approximately 6000 cfs, showed a net non-tidal, seaward directed flow in the surface layers at Deep Water

Shoals of 18, 000 cfs, and a counter-flow in the deeper layers of approximately 12,000 cfs (note that the difference in non-tidal flow of the surface and deep layers must equal the river discharge). By comparison, the average volume rate of up- river directed flow during the flood-tide period, and of seaward directed flow durtng the ebb-tide period amounted to some 130, 000 cfs through the Deep Water Shoals section.

At the tim<! of the above described flow measurem,ents, the salinity at the surface at Deep Water Shoals was about 4. 2%o, and, at the bottom about

6. 1 %0. At a point farther down the estuary, where the s,;,_rface and bottom salinities were, res,pectively, about 11. O%o and 14. 5%o, the net non-tidal seaward-directed flow in the surface layers was observed to be about 24, 000 cf$, or some 4 times the fresh water river discharge. 'In general, the volume rate of flow of the net non-tidal circulation increases toward the mouth of the estuary.

As the river flow decreases, the salinity distribution moves up the estuary, so that at any location the* salinity increases with decreasing river flow. Also, in general, the higher the salinity, the larger the ratio of the net non-tidal flow to the river flow. Thus, within the estuary proper, the water available for dilution of an introduced waste material at a given section does not decrease in direct proportion to the decrease in river flow.

A more detailed description of the hydrology of the estuary is con-tained in the report "Hydrology of the James River Estuary with Emphasis upon the Ten-Mile Segment Centered on Hog Point, Virginia", previously submitted to the Virginia Electric and Power Company.

Condenser Cooling Water System In order to convert the thermal energy produced by the reactors into electrical energy, a certain amount of heat must be rejected at the condensers.

This waste heat, which for a nuclear power source at current practical efficiencies amounts to approximately 6. 8 x 106 BTU. hr-1 per MW produced electric power, is carried away from the condensers in the condenser cooling water. The volume rate of flow of the condenser cooling water is therefore determined by the design temperature rise at the condensers and the number of MW of electric power the plant is designed to produce.

The studies described in this report were designed to determine the probable distribution of excess temperature in the James River estuary .

resulting from the discharge of 12,x 109 BTU *hr- 1 of waste heat (corres-ponding to 1764 MW produced electric power, or two units at 882 MW each),

and of 24 x 10 9 BTU. hr- 1 of waste heat (corresponding to 3528 MW produced electric power, or four units at 882 MW each). A temperature rise at the

condensers of 15°F was used in these studies, and hence the volume rate of flow of the condenser cooling water for two units is 3530 cfs and for 4 units 7060 cfs, The first unit now being constructed at the Surry Nuclear Power Station site is actually sized at 850 MW electrical power, and the heat rejected under ful.l load for this unit will therefore be 5. 2. x 109 BTU.

Some te*sts were conducted on the James River estuarine'hydraulic model using this heat loading; however, since it is planned that* a second unit, perhaps somewhat.larger than the first unit, will be add,ed within a few years, and since if may be desirable ultimately to deve:jiop the site for 4 units, most of the tesults presented here are for the higher values of rejected heat given }n the previous paragraph.

At the Surry Nuclear Power Station condenser /cooling water is to be drawn from the es!.tuary from one side of the Hog Pt>int peninsula and di_scharged from the ~ther side, thus the intake and discharge are separated by something over a~idal excursion. Tests were conducted both for the intake on the downstr(lam side of the plant site and the discharge on the upstream side, and for the opposite arrangement. On the basis of these tests, it was determined that any possible influence of the heated discharge on the environment would be minimized if the condenser cooling water were withdrawn from the downstream, or Deep Water Shoals, side of the plant site and discharged from the upstream, or Cobham Bay, side. The major portion of the data presented here is therefore for this arrangement of intake and discharge.

Description of Thermal Studies The distribution of excess temperature which will result from the discharge of waste heat from the Surry Nuclear Power Station as presented in the later sections of this report is based on studies conducted on the hydraulic model of the James River estuary located at the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

This model covers the entire tidal waterway from Richmond to the mouth, and also part of the lower Chesapeake Bay. The model has a horizontal scale of 1 :1000, and a vertical scale of 1 :100. The approximately 90 nautical miles of the estuary are therefore represented by a model about 550 feet long. The time scale of this model is 1 :100; hence one day in the prototype occurs in about 14! minutes in the model.

All pertinent features of tide, current, river inflow and mixing of sea water and fresh water (and hence the distribution of salinity) are properly scaled in the model. Density; temperature and salinity are all scaled 1 :1 in this model, and it has been shown that for models of this relative size, the thermal exchange processes at the water surface are also properly scaled.

A model thermal plant was constructed which consisted of a pump, a flow control system, an accurate volume rate of flow gage, electric heaters to simulate the condensers, a temperature sensing and control system to maintain a constant temperature rise of l 5°F between intake and discharge. This modE:l plant was set up on the hydraulic model of the James River estuary at the location corresponding to the Surry Nuclear Power Station site.

Tests were conducted during two different periods. The first set of tests were made during the period 29 July through 1 August 1966, and the second series during the pJeriod 19 October through 23 October 1966.

During the July-August studies, the model was run for a total of 47 5 tidal cycles, corresponding to approximately 246 days of prototype time. The river inflow at Richmond was maintained throughout this series at a simu-lated 2000 cfs. One of the main purposes of this first series of tests was to determine the degree of mixing produced by discharging the condenser cooling water as a jet having an initial velocity equal to or larger than the tidal velocity in the estuary. Tests were run with the velocity of the con-denser cooling water at the point of discharge into the waterway, of 2ft*sec- 1 , 4ft*sec-, 1 4.56ft*sec- 1 , 6ft*sec- 1 and9.15ft*sec- 1 . On the basis of these studies, it was determined that a discharge velocity of 6 feet per second would be most suitable for design of the condenser dis-charge structure.

Tests were conducted during this July-August series with a simu-lated heat rejection at the condensers of 5.2x 109BTU hr-l, correspond-0 ing to a single 850 MW unit, and at 12 x 109BTU*hr-1, corresponding to a total of 17 64 MW electrical power production. Temperatures in the model were measured using a rapid response thermistor bead mounted on a motor driven trolley structure which ran across the model on a 16-foot long aluminum beam. A single run consisted of setting the beam across the model at a designated eras s- section, and running the thermistor sensor across the model to obtain a plot of temperature vs lateral distance made on a strip chart recorder. At each location runs were made each lf hours throughout a tidal cycle. During the July-August test series a total of 496 such temperature runs was made.

For the October series improvements were made in the temperature measuring system, so that two thermistor bead sensors were towed across the model on each run. The sensors were placed 18 inches apart, repre-senting a prototype distance of 1500 feet. Thus near the discharge structure one run provided data for two adjacent temperature cross sections. Farther away from the discharge, where the horizontal temperature gradients were small, the two simultaneous sections provided a check on the consistency of the data. During the October studies the model was run for a total of 7 84 tidal cycles, corresponding to about 379 days of prototype time. Some 489 temperature runs were made, each consisting of at least one and in many cases two records of surface temperature across a section cf.1he estuary. The loca-

tions of the sections at which temperature runs were made are shown in Figure 2. Again, as in the earlier series of tests, runs were repeated at

+/-

each section for each 1 hours1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> of the tidal cycle, for each set of test conditions.

Tests were conducted for river inflows at Richmond of 2000 cfs and 6000 cfs, and for heat rejected at the condensers of 12 x 109BTU*hr- 1 ,

corresponding to two 882 MW units, and of 24 x 109 BTU *hr-1, corres-ponding to. 4 such units. Most of the tests were run with the intake on the Deep Water Shoals ,side of the plant site, and the discharge on the Cobham Bay side, as marke~ in Figure 2. One set of tests were, however, run with the intake and discharge reversed.

During the Oc;tober studies a special test was made to determine the surface heat exchange coefficient for the model. For this test Cobham Bay was blocked off from the, rest of the model using a long rubber dam. Motor driven paddle wheels were mounted in the enclosed area to circulate the water at a speed corresponding to the mean tidal current. Thermistor bead temperature sensors were placed at several locations in the enclosed water area. Water from this area was circulated through the heater.s until the temperature in the enclosed area was 20°F above the ambient water tem-perature in the adjacent model. A temperature-time record was then made as the water in the enclosed basin cooled. The rate of cooling provided a measure of the surface heat exchange coefficient.

With the tests in the model running over several days during each series, the base or ambient temperature of the water in the model varied during the tests. It was therefore necessary to monitor the water tempera-ture in the model in areas which were sufficiently removed from the plant site so that the temperature of these areas represented the ambient water temperature. During both series of tests, fixed thermistor bead tempera-ture sensors were therefore placed in the model at positions well upstream and well downstream from the plant site.

Treatment of Temperature Data; Some Theoretical and Empirical Relationships In the following the term excess temperature is used to designate the incremental increase in temperature of the water at a given point in the estuary over that which would occul:" if there were no discharge of waste heat to the estuary. Thus, if Th represents the temperature of the water at a given position in the estuary under conditions of waste heat discharge, and Tn represents the temperature which would occur under natural condi-tions, then (1) 8=Th-Tn defines the excess temperature, 8.

Designating Qh as the rate of introduction of waste heat into the condenser cooling water, Qc as the volume rate of flow of the condenser cooling water, and 9 0 as the temperature rise at the condensers, then where .P is the density of the water and GP. is the specific heat at constant pressure. Furthe*r, if Hn designates the heat content per unit volume of a water p;,i.rcel under natural conditions, and Hh designates the heat content per unit volume of that water parcel under conditions of discharge of waste heat to the waterway, then defines the excess heat content, h. Also, Consider a small parcel of water at the surface, having a vertical thickness Dh. This parcel will gain or lose heat through the sides and bottom due to exchange of water with adjacent parcels of different heat content (i.e., the processes of advection and turbulent diffusion). The pare el will also gain and lose heat across the water surface due to radia-tion processes and to exchange processes with the atmosphere. Under steady state conditions, all these gains and losses must be in balance.

Hence, for natural conditions, the heat budget of the parcel can be written where: Qs = incident solar radiation on the water surface Qr = reflected solar radiation at the water surface Qa = long wave atmospheric radiation adsorbed by the water Qb = long wave radiation emitted by the water surface Qe = heat carried away from the surface by evaporation Qt = heat loss from water surface to atmosphere by conduction Qv = heat gained by advective processes Qd = heat gained by processes of turbulent diffusion A similar expression can be written for the case of introduction of waste heat to the waterway. Thus:

Now the incoming solar radiation, the reflected radiation and the radiation from the atmosphere will be the same for both cases; that is Hence, when' equation (5) is subtracted from equation (6), we have (7) qv where etc.

Equation (7) can be considered to express the budget for the excess heat.

];<ate that this budget is independent of solar and atmospheric radiation.

. ~ .

.;l\ The last three terms in (7) represent the exchange of excess heat

{~om the water to the atmosphere. The long wave radiation emitted by the

~i'urface of a parcel of water is proportional to the fourth power of the U~solute temperature of the parcel. Because the differen.c*e in absolute fmperature between the heated and natural conditions is relatively small, ft can be shown that 1*. "'

where F 1 is a slowly varying function of the ambient temperature, Tn.

The amount of heat lost by evaporation from a parc~l of water is given by

.;where L is the latent heat of vaporization, W is the wind speed, es the

)saturated vapor pressure, and ea the vapor pressure of the air over the water (which in turn. is given by R

• es where R is the relative humidity).

Now, since then

since ea will be the same for both natural and heated conditions. Thus the rate of excess heat loss by evaporation is dependent on the wind speed, and on the difference between the saturated vapor pressure for the heated and natural conditions. It is not dependent on the relative humidity. Now the saturated vapor pressure over a water surface is dependent only on the temperature of the water surface, and it can therefore be shown that where F2 is a slowly varying function of the ambient temperature, Tn, and to a lesser degree, of the excess temperature, e.

The sensible heat loss term is related to the evaporative heat loss through the Bowen ratio. It can therefore be shown that where F3 is a slowly varying function of the ambient temperature, Tn, and to a lesser degree of the excess temperature, 9.

Combining these expressions, we have where ":,"", the surface heat exchange coefficient, is primarily a function of wind velocity, but also varies somewhat with the ambient temperature Tn, and only slightly with the excess temperature, e. The various constants which enter the terms comprising -(' have been determined. Table 1 is an abbreviated table of~ as a function of wind velocity, ambient temperature, and excess temperature, to show the primary dependence on wind velocity, the secondary dependence on ambient temperature, and the slight dependence on the excess temperature.

Table 1 f The surface heat exchange coefficient, '6-, as a Junction of I

the wind velocity W (miles per hour), the ambient temper-ature, Tn(°F), and the excess temperature, 0(°F)

For 9= l0°F For 9 = 2° F

~~ 40° 60° 80° 40° 60° 80° 0 0.017 0.020 0.022 0.014 0.016 0.017 5 0.040 0.052 0. 074 0.034 0.045 0.064 10 0.062 0.085 o. 125 0.055 o. 075 0, 111

Returning to equation (7), it is seen that the excess heat budget can be written Now the advective and diffusive terms in this budget (the qv and qd) depend on the velocity field, the intensity of turbulence, and on the spatial gradients of the excess temperature, e. The hydraulic model is designed to reproduce the prototype velocity field and the intensity of turbulence.

The relative pattern of the distribution of excess heat, as shown by the excess temperature isolines as observed in the model, should be applicable to the prototype. However, the model is subject to a different heat exchange coefficient than will prevail in the natural environment. It is therefore necessary to adjust the excess temperature distributions, as observed in the model, to take into account the difference in surface exchange coefficient between model conditions and prototype conditions. The correction proce-dure is based on the expression:

( 14) where (Ae)1 is the area inside the isoline of excess temperature e for a surface exchange coefficient-t 1; and (Ae)z is the area inside the isoline of excess temperature e for a surface exchange coefficient't'z. In the region near the discharge, where the highest values of e are found, cooling has had little time to act. Hence the areas are to a first approximation independent of **f, and the ratio given in (14) is close to unity. For regions removed from the source, the area within an isotherm is inversely proportional to the surface exchange coefficient. However, since the total heat lost to the atmosphere must in all cases equal the heat rejected at the condensers, the ratio of the areas for the two cases of surface cooling must be, for small e, slightly less than the inverse ratio of the surface exchange coefficients.

Therefore:

--'711 for e large

( 15) (A9)2/(A ) f1L 6 1 n X /tz for 6 small, where n is a number slightly less than unity On the basis of available data, we have used the following relation-ships in converting the temperature data observed in the model to the conditions expected in the prototype

( 16) = 1 for e ~ 0. 5 eo

,,cm

- 0.9 '(- p for e~ 0.15 eo and a linear variation in the ratio for intermediate temperatures.

The procedure in developing the expected distribution of excess temperature for the James River estuary from the data obtained in the model involved the use of the isothermal patterns as observed in the model, with an adjustment to the areas contained within the isotherms in accordance with equation (16).

The Results of the Thermal Studies The results presented here are based primarily on the data collected during the October test series. A comparison of the results of the two series showed som<awhat lower excess temperatures in the August tests, as compared to the October tests, than could be accounted for by the difference in ambient temperature in the two cases. During the August tests the large doors to the building containing the model were generally kept opened, and circulating fans were operating *over various areas in the building (although not directly on the test area). The surface exchange coefficient increases rapidly with wind speed at wind speeds near zero. It is likely that the surface exchange coefficient applicable to the August tests corresponded to a finite but unmeasured wind speed. Further, there was an appreciable temperature gradient along the length of the model, and with time during the August series of tests not related to the introduction of waste heat.

Hence the precise establishment of a base temperature was difficult for this series.

During the October series, the building was kept closed. Direct measurements of the surface exchange coefficient gave values appropriate for zero wind speeds. The ambient temperature variation in space and time was much less in this series than in the August studies, and the base temperature could be established with considerable confidence.

While the results of the August tests show somewhat better conditions (lower excess temperatures) than the results of the October series, the differences are not of large magnitude. It was felt most appropriate to re strict the presentation here to the data collected under conditions for which the greatest confidence could be placed in the results.

Figure 2 shows the locations of the sections along which temperature data were obtained. The actual observed temperature for each of the sections occupied during the October test series, expressed in terms of excess temperature, e, is given in the appendix.

Figures 3 through 34 present the excess temperature distribution as determined for the James River estuary, under conditions of an ambient temperature of 80°F and a wind velocity of 5 mph. The distribution is given as isolines of constant excess temperature, expressed in °C. These figures show the expected excess temperature distribution for the condenser cooling water discharge on the Cobham Bay side of the plant site, and the intake on the Deep Water Shoals side.

I II For each combination of river discharge and rejected heat, the excess temperature distribution is given for each li hours over a tidal cycle. The conditions of river flow and rate of h.eat rejection for each set of figures are as follows:

Figure No. 1 s River Flow, cfs Rate of Heat Rejection (Power Production) 3 through 10 2000 12 x l09BTU*hr-l (1765 MW) 11 through 18 6000 12 x 109BTU*hr-l (1765MW) 19through 26 2000 24 x 109BTU*hr-l (3530 MW) 27 through 34 6000 24 x 109BTU*hr-l (3530 MW)

As stated earlier in this report, tests were also conducted with the intake located on the upstream side of the plant site and the discharge on the downstream side. The distributions of excess temperature for this intake-discharge arrangement, and for a river flow of f,OOO cfs and a rate of heat rejection of 12 x 109BTU-hr- 1 are given for each li tidal hours in Figures 35 through 42. Commercial oyster leases occur just downstream of the discharge on the west side of the river, and also just across the river from the discharge. It is evident that these oyster bars would be subject to con-siderably higher excess temperatures with the discharge on the downstream side than for the case of the discharge on the upstream side. Discharge of the condenser cooling water to the upstream, or Cobham Bay, side of the plant site has been shown by these studies to provide less possibility of

• harm to the environment, and further discussion is therefore limited to this discharge arrangement.

A comparison of Figures 3 through 10, which are for a river flow of 2000 cfs, and with Figures 11 through 18, which are for a river flow of 6000 cfs, shows that there is very little difference in the distribution of excess temperature under different river flows. The following factors contribute to this lack of significant dependence on river discharge:

(a) The initial mechanical mixing produced by the jet discharge, which provides for a rapid decrease in the maximum excess temperatures, functions independent of river flow.

(b) Mixing provided by the oscillatory ebb and flood of the tide, which on a single flood tide passes an average of 190,000 cfs past the plant site, is not significantly influenced by river discharge except for very high river flows.

(c) The net new water made available to the tidal segment adjacent to I the plant site, as a result of tidal mixing, is relatively constant over a wide range of river discharges. The net flow of new water to the tidal segment is related to the vertical salinity distribution by the following relationship :

( 1 7) 1  !

where Qi is the volume rate of inflow of net new W?,ter, R is the volume rate of inflow of fresh water (the river disi::harge), Su is the mean salinity in the upper layers of the estuary and St is the mean salinity of the lower layers of the estuary. Salinity data taken in the model during these thermal studies shQwed that at the Deep Water Sh9als section, for a river discharge of 2000 cfs, Su= 11. 60%0 and SJZ. = 12. 52%0. Hence:

11.60 Qi= 2000 + 2000 X 0. = 2000 + 25,220 = 27, 2~0 cfs 92 For the river discharge of 6000 cfs, the salinity data at Deep Water Shoals gave Su = 5. 02%0 and Sa.~ = 6. 46%0. Hence for this river flow Qi = 6000 + 6000 X ~: ~! = 6000 + 20, 940 = 26, 940 cfs .

Thus it is clear that the water available for dilution is relatively independent of river flow except perhaps at high river discharges.

An inspection of Figures 3 through 18, which are for a rate of heat rejection of 12 x 109BTU*hr-l, reveals that the area of the estuary having excess temperatures greater than 5°C is quite small compared to the area of the tidal segment into which the discharge is being made. The size of this area of warmest water is largest at tidal hour 4! for a river flow of 2000 cfs (Figure 6), when it comprises a plume 3500 yards long with an average width of less than 300 yards. On the average over the tidal cycle, water having surface excess temperatures of 2°C or greater occupies less than one-third of the width of the estuary.

The warmest water is confined primarily to the .upper 10 feet of the water column. Only when the excess temperatures are less than 2°c is there likely to be penetration of excess heat to greater depths.

Inspection of Figures 19 through 34, which are for a rate of heat rejection of 24 x 109BTU, corresponding to 3530 MW produced electric power, reveals that while the areas within given isolines of excess tempera-ture are greater for this heat loading than in the case of a rate of heat rejection of 12 x 109BTU, the area of the estuary subjected to warm water is still not excessive. Averaged over the tidal cycle, the area having excess temperatures greater than 5°C occupies less than 14% of the width of the estuary, while the area having excess temperatures greater than 2°C occupies less than half of the width of the estuary.

As discussed earlier in this report, the distribution of excess tem-perature in the estuary results from a combination of mixing and cooling.

The mixing produced by the jet discharge and by the tidal flow is very

important in reducing to a minimum the area having excess temperatures which might be of biological significance. Surface cooling alone could not accomplish this rapid reduction in excess temperatures. To see this consider the data given in Table 2. Here the area having excess tempera-tures greater than a given value, 9, as determined for the James River estuary for a rate of heat rejection at the condensers of 12 x 109BTU*hr-l, is co1npared to the area of a flow through cooling pond required to reduce the excess temperatures to the given value, 8, by surface cooling alone.

The cooling pond areas are based on the relationship QC O 80 (18) Ae= ':) hl',8 where Ae is the area of the cooling pond required to reduce the excess temperature of the condenser cooling water from 8 0 , the temperature rise at the condensers, to the value 8; Qc is the volume rate of flow of the condenser cooling water; and*,',' is the surface heat exchange coefficient.

For this comparison, the value of Y has been taken for an ambient water temperature of 80°F and a wind velocity of 5 mph, which are the conditions taken for the estuary. 8 0 in both cases is l 5°F (8. 33°C).

Table 2 Area (A9) having excess temperatures greater than the given value of 8, as determined for the James River Estuary and for a Flow Through Cooling Pond, for a Rate of Heat Rejection of 12 x 109BTU*hr-l, an Ambient Temperature of 80°F (26. 7°C), a Wind Speed of 5 mph, and a Temperature Rise at the Condensers of l5°F (8. 33°C)

Area, Ag (ft 2 ) For 8°C James River Cooling Pond 5 0.29xl07 0.93xl0 8 4 l.63xl0 7 l.33xl08 3 2.04x 10 7 l.86xl0 8 2 4.91 X 107 2. 59 X 10 8 1 l.55xl0 8 3.86x10 8 This table shows that the area having excess temperatures greater than 5°C would be over 30 times as large for the case of surface cooling alone as for the case of the James River estuary where mixing and cooling are important. The area in the James River having excess temperatures for this rate of heat rejection of 2 °C or greater is only about one-half of the area of a cooling pond required to reduce the excess temperatures to s c.

0

Conclusions

1. The results of the thermal studies in the James River estuarine 1nodel for a rate of heat rejection of 12 x 109BTU*hr- 1 , corresponding to 17 65 MW electric power production, (Figures 3 through 18) show that only a small portion of the estuarine water in the tidal segment adjacent to the plant site;, is subjected to excess temperatures which might have biological significance. Averaged over a tidal cycle, the area having excess tempera-tures exceeding 5°C occupies less than 7% of the width of the estuary. Over 2/3 of the width of the estuary in the tidal segment adjacent to the discharge would have excess temperatures less than 2°C. The highest excess tem-perature which completely closes a cross- section would be O. 80°C which occurs on only one of the eight distributions over the tidal cycle. The average closing excess temperature over the tidal period is 0. 66°C.

2. The excess temperature distribution in the James River estuary adjacent to the Surry Nuclear Power Plant site, as determined for a rate of heat rejection of 24 x 109BTU, reveals that even for this loading there is not an unreasonable use of the estuarine environment as a heat sink.

Averaged over a tidal cycle, the area having excess temperatures exceeding 5°C occupies less than 14% of the width of the estuary. Approximately one-half of the width of the estuary in the tidal segment adjacent to the discharge would have excess temperatures less than 2°C. The highest excess tem-perature which completely closes a cross-section would be l.09°C, and this occurs on only one of the eight distributions over the tidal cycle. The average closing excess temperature over the tidal cycle is O. 82°C.

3. A condenser cooling water circulating system with the intake on the downstream side of the site and the discharge on the upstream side is more desirable, from the standpoint of the estuarine environment, than the opposite arrangement.

4. The magnitude of the river discharge has little effect on the excess temperature distribution, except perhaps at very high discharges.

5. The mechanical mixing produced by a jet discharge, and the turbu-lent mixing resulting from the tidal currents, contribute significantly to reducing the area occupied by the warmest water. Cooling alone would not be sufficiently effective in restricting the area subjected to the warm water to acceptable size.

The attached appendix contains the observed temperature data, as read from the strip chart records, expressed as the difference between the ob served temperature in ° F and the base, or ambient temperature for the time of each temperature section. These observed excess temperatures are entered along a line representing the section on which the measurements were taken, at a

position on the line representing the corresponding position on the section.

The section locations are shown in Figure 2.

D. W. Pritchard August 30, 19 67 Consultant

RICHMOND Figure l LOCATION OF THE SURRY

.; NUCLEAR POWER STATION SITE

-1 4r es

/?;Ve!? 0 5 10 NAUTICAL MILES WILLIAMSBURG

...J HOG PT.

-*--------~-------*----------------------------- *--~-

i

~

l i

I (/)

z 0

N  !

<1)

I-

, §

<{

0

.... 0 r.."°

....l z

I -0 I-0 w

(/)

Figure 3 0 EXCESS TEMPERATURE DISTRIBUTION, °C, FOR AN AMBIENT WATER TEMPERATURE OF 26.6°C/80°F AND A 5 MPH WIND VELOCITY, FOR 2 UNITS {TOTAL REJECTED HEAT= 12X 109BTU* HR-I)

(INTERPOLATED FROM OBSERVED DISTRIBUTION CORRECTED TO ENVIRONMENTAL suPWACE HEAT EXCHANGE CONDITIONS)

RIVER FLOW-2000 CFS AT RICHMOND TIDAL HOUR -0 Figure 4 WATER TEMPERATURE OF 26.6°C/80°F ANDA 5 MPH WINO VELOCITY, FOR 2 UNITS (TOTAL REJECTED HEAT= 12 X [09 BTU* HWI)

{INTERPOLATED FROM OBSERVED DISTRIBUTION CORRECTED TO ENVIRONMENTAL SURFACE HEATEXCHANGE CONDITIONS)

RIVER FLOW-2000 CFS AT RICHMOND TIDAL HOUR- IV2

c' Figure 5

---*--~~~"'"

EXCESS TEMPERATURE 0ISTl1IBUT!ON, °C, FOR AN AMBIENT WATER TEMPERAlURE or 26.G°C/00°f AND A 5 MPH WIND VELOCrrY, FOR 2 UNITS (TOfAL nEJECTED l*IEAT = 12 Xl0 9 BTU* Hrrl)

(INTERf~OLATED FROM OOSERVEO 01S"rR18UTl0N CORRECTl:D TO ENVlflONMENTAL SUFlFACE ~!EAT EXCHANGE CONDITIONS)

RIVER FLOW-2000 CFS AT RICMMOND TIDAL HOUR- 3 Figure 6 WATER TEMPERATURE OF 26.6°C/80°F AND A 5 MPH WIND VELOCITY, FOR 2 UNITS (TOTAL REJECTED HEAT= 12 X 1098TU* HR-1)

(INTERPOLATED FROM OBSERVED DISTRIBUTION CORRECTED TO ENVIRONMENTAL SURFACE HEAT EXCHANGE CONDITIONS)

RIVER FLOW-2000 CFS AT RICHMOND TIDAL HOUR-41/2

I I

Figure 7

• EXCESS TEMPERATURE DISTRIBUTION, °C, FOR AN AMBIENT WATER TEMPERATURE OF 26.6°C/80°F AND A 5 MPH WIND VELOCITY, FOR 2 UNITS (TOTAL REJECTED I IEAT= 12 x109 BTU* m-1)

(INTERPOLATED FROM OBSERVED OISTnlOUTION CORRECTED TO ENVIRONMENTAL SURcACE HEAT EXCHANGE CONDITIONS)

HlVER 17LOW-2000 CFS ATrHCHMOND TIDAL HOUR-6 Figure 8 EXCESS TEMPERATURE DISTRIBUTION, °C, FOR AN AMBIENT WATER TEMPERATURE OF 26.6°C/B0°F ANDA 5 MPH WIND VELOCITY, FOR 2 UNITS (TOTAL REJECTED HEAT= 12 X 109BTU* HR-I)

(INTERPOLATED FROM OBSERVED DISTRIBUTION CORRECTED TO ENVIRONMENTAL SURFACE HEAT EXCHANGE CONDITIONS)

RIVER FLOW-2000 CFS AT RICHMOND TIDAL HOUR-7V2

o'

.... ~"'"

EXCESS TEMPERATURE rn1TRIBUT10N, °C, FOR AN AMBIENT WATER TEMPERATURE OF 2.6.6°C/80°F AND A 5 MPH WIND VELOCITY, FOR 2 UNITS (TOTAL REJECTED HEAT:: 12 X t0 9 BTU* HWI)

(INTERPOLATED FROM OBSERVED D1STRll3UTION CORRECTED TO ENVIRONMENTAL SURFACE HEAT EXCHANGE CONDITIONS)

RIVER FLOW-2000 CFS AT RICHMOND TIDAL HOUR- 9 o'.

Figure 10 EXCESS TEMPERATURE DISTRIBUTION, °C, FOR AN AMBIENT WATER TEMPERATURE OF 26.6°C/80°F AND A 5 MPH WIND VELOCITY, FOR 2 UNITS (TOTAL REJECTED HEAT: 12 x109eru- HR.') '*

(INTERPOLATED FROM OBSERVED DISTRIBUTION CORRECTED TO ENVIRONMENTAL SURFACE HEATEXCHANGE CONDITIONS)

RIVER FLOW-2000 CFS ATRICHMONO TlDALHOUR-IO~z

1.

Figure 11 WATER TEMPERATURE OF 26.6°C/80°F AND A 5 MPH WIND VELOCITY, FOR 2 UNITS (TOTAL REJECTED HEAT= 12 X 10 9 BTU* HWI)

(INTERPOLATED FROM OBSERVED DISTRIBUTION CORRECTED TO ENVIRONMENTAL SURFACE HEAT EXCHANGE CONDITIONS)

RIVER FLOW-6000 CFS AT RICHMOND TIDAL HOUR-0 o'

Figure 12 EXCESS TEMPERATURE DISTRIBUTION, °C, FOR AN AMBIENT WATER TEMPERATURE OF 26.6°C/80"F ANO A 5 MPH WINO VELOCITY, FOR 2 UNITS (TOTAL REJECTED HEAT= 12 XI098TU* HR-I)

(INTERPOLATED FROM OBSERVED OISTRIBUTION CORRECTED TO ENVIRONMENTAL SURFACE HEAT EXCHANGE CONDITIONS)

RIVER FLOW-6<XX) CFS AT RICHMOND TIDAL HOUR- IV2

Figure 13 EXCESS TEMPERATURE ciJSTRIBUTION, °C, FOR AN AMBIENT WATER TEMPERATURE OF 26.6°C/80°F AND A 5 MPH WIND VELOCITY, FOR 2 UNITS (TOTAL REJECTED HEAT= 12X 109eru- HWI)

(INTERPOLATED FROM OBSERVED DISTRIBUTION CORRECTED TO ENVIRONMENTAL SURFACE HEAT EXCHANGE CONDITIONS)

RIVER FLOW-6000 CFS ATRICHMOND TIDAL HOUR - 3 c'

Figure 14 WATER TEMPERATURE OF 26.6°C/80°F AND A 5 MPH WIND VELOCITY, FOR 2 UNITS (TOTAL REJECTED HEAT= 12XI09 BTU* HW 1)

(INTERPOLATED FROM OBSERVED DISTRIBUTION CORRECTED TO ENVIRONMENTAL SURFACE HEAT EXCHANGE CONDITIONS)

RIVER FLOW-6000 CFS AT RICHMOND TIDAL HOUR-41/2

Figure lp t

EXCESS TEMPERATUR~{ jSTRIBUTION, °C, FOR AN AMBIENT WATER TEMPERATURg;d~-26.6°C/80°F ANDA 5 *MPH WIND VELOCITY, FOR 2 UNtr$*cr0TAL REJECTED HEAT: 12 X 10 9 BTU* HR-I) 1 *

(INTERPOLATED FROM OBSERVED DISTRIBUTION CORRECTED TO ENVIRONMENTAL SURFACE HEAT EXCHANGE_ CONDITIONS)

RIVER FLOW-6000 CFS AT RICHMOND TIDAL HOUR-6 Figure 16 EXCESS TEMPERATURE DISTRIBUTION, °C, FOR AN AMBIENT WATER TEMPERATURE OF 26.6°C/80°F AND A 5 MPH WIND VELOCITY, FOR 2 UNITS (TOTAL REJECTED HEAT: 12 X I0 9 BTU* HR- 1)

(INTE-RPOLATED FROM OBSERVED DISTRIBUTION CORRECTED TO ENVIRONMENTAL SURFACE HEAT EXCHANGE CONDITIONS)

RIVER FLOW-6000 CFS AT RICHMOND TIDAL HOUR - 7~

Figure 17 EXCESS TEMPERATURE D pTRIBUTION, °C, FOR AN AMBIENT WATER TEMPERATURE OF 26.6°C/80°F ANDA 5 MPH WINO VELOCITY, FOR 2 UNITS (TOTAL REJECTED HEAT= 12 X 109BTU* HWI)

(INTERPOLATED FROM OBSERVED DISTRIBUTION CORRECTED TO ENVIRON~ENTAL SURFACE HEAT EXCHANGE CONDITIONS)

RIVER FLOW-6000 CFS AtR)CHMOND TIDAL HOUR-9 Figure 18 WATER TEMPERATURE OF 26.6°C/80"F ANDA 5 MPH WIND VELOCITY, FOR 2 UNITS (TOTAL REJECTED HEAT= 12 XI0 9 BTU* HWI)

(INTERPOLATED FROM OBSERVED DISTRIBUTION CORRECTED TO ENVIRONMENTAL SURFACE HEAT EXCHANGE CONDITIONS)

RIVER FLOW-6000 CFS ATRICHMOND TIDAL HOUR-101/2

Figure 19 *

I"' ,r-EXCESS TEMPERATURE-; ~JSTRIBUTION, °C, FOR AN AMBIENT WATER TEMPERATURE !W 26.6°C/80°F AND A 5 MPH WIND VELOCITY, FOR 4 UNITS {TOTAL REJECTED HEAT= 24XI0 9 8TU* HR-I)

(INTERPOLATED FROM OBSERVED DISTRIBUTION CORRECTED TO ENVIRONMENTAL SURFACE HEAT EXCHANGE CONDITIONS)

RIVER FLOW-2000 CFS AT RICHMOND TIDAL HOUR - 0 c'

Figure 20 WATER TEMPERATURE OF 26.6°C/80°F ANO A 5 MPH WINO VELOCITY, FOR 4 UNITS (TOTAL REJECTED HEAT=-24 x109oTU* i-.lR-1)

{INTERPOLATED FROM OBSERVED DISTRIBUTION CORRECTED TO ENVIRONMENTAL SURFACE HEAT EXCHANGE CONDITIONS)

RIVER FLOW- 2000 CFS AT RICHMOND TIDAL HOUR-1'12

Figure 21 EXCESS TEMPERATURI; g1STRl8UTION 1 "C, FOR AN AMBIENT WATER TEMPERATUR&*p~]26.6°C/80°F ANDA 5 MPH WIND VELOCITY, FOR 4 UNIT~"fTOTAL REJ_ECTED HEAT* 24X1o*arn- HR"')

(INTERPOLATED PROM obSERVED DISTRIBUTION CORRECTED TO ENVIRONMENTAL SURFACE HEAT EXCHANGE CONDITIONS)

RIVER FLOW-2000 CFS AT RICHMOND TIDAL HOUR - 3 o'

Figure 22 EXCESS TEMPERATURE DISTRIBUTION, °C, FOR AN AMBIENT WATER TEMPERATURE OF 26.6"C/80°F ANO A 5 MPH WIND VELOCITY, FOR 4 UNITS {TOTAL REJECTED HEAT :::24 X I0 9 BTU* HR-I)

(INTERPOLATED FROM OBSERVED DISTRIBUTION CORRECTED TO ENVIRONMENTAL SURFACE HEAT EXCHANGE CONDITIONS) nJVER FLOW- 2000 CFS AT RICHMOND TIDAL HOUR- 41/2

o' -

Figure 23 "I"! "!12"'"'

EXCESS TEMPERATURE*-~fSTRIBUTtON, °C, FOR AN AMBIENT WATER TEMPERATURE cf 26.6°C/80°F AND A 5 MPH WIND VELOCITY, FOR 4 UNITS (TOTAL REJECTED HEAT=24 XJ0 9 BTU* HWI)

(INTERPOLATED FROM OBSERVED DISTRIBUTION CORRECTED TO ENVIRONMENTAL SURFACE HEAT EXCHANGE CONDITIONS)

RIVER FLOW-2000 CFS AT RICHMOND TIDAL HOUR - 6 Figure 24 WATER TEMPERATURE OF 26.6°C/00°f ANDA 5 MPH WIND VELOCITY, FOR 4 UNffS (TOTAL m:JF.CTf:D llFAT= 24 XI0 9 BTU* I llr 1)

(INTERPOL1'.\lEO FROM OOSl:HVED rnsrrnotHtON CORRECTED TO ENVIRONMENTAL SUl1FACL: 111:AT EXCHANGE CONDITIONS)

RIVER FLOW- 2000 CFS AT mc1 !MONO TIDAL HOUR- 71/2

Figure 25 EXCESS TEMPERATURE DISTRIBUTION, 0 c, FOR AN AMBIENT WATER TEMPERATURE OF 2G.6°C/00°F /\NO/\ 5 MPH WIND VELOCITY, FOR 4UNITS (TOTAL [{EJECTED l lEAT = 24 x109sru- IJWI)

(JNTERPOU\TED FllCM OOSEIWED DISTRlDUTION CORRECTED TO ENVIRONMENl:t.i.L SUl1FACE HEAT EXCHANGE CONDITIONS)

RIVER FLOW-2000 CFS AT RICIIMONO TIDAL HOUR-9 Figure 26 0 EXCESS TEMPERATURE DISTRIBUTION, °C, FOR AN AMBIENT WATER TEMPERATURE OF 26.6°C/80°F ANDA 5 MPH WIND VELOCITY, FOR 4 UNITS (TOTAL REJECTED HEAT= 24 X I0 9 BTU* HR~I)

{INTERPOLATED FROM OBSERVED DISTRIBUTION CORRECTED TO ENVIRONMENTAL SURFACE HEAT EXCHANGE CONDITIONS}

RIVER FLOW -2000 CFS AT RICHMOND TIDALHOUR-JOl/2

Figure 27 EXCESS TEMPERATUR~P\PTRIBUTION, °C, FOR AN AMBIENT WATER TEMPERATURE ,0F.26.6°C/B0°F AND A 5 MPH WINO VELOCITY, FOR 4 UNnsihoTAL REJECTED HEAT= 24 Xt09BTU* HW')

!1 *

(INTERPOLATED.FROM OBSERVED DISTRIBUTION CORRECTED TO ENVIRONMENTAL SURFACE HEAT EXCHANGE CONDITIONS)

RIVER FLOW-6000 CFS AT RICHMOND TIDAL HOUR-0 Figure 28 WATER TEMPERATURE OF 26.6°C/80°F AND A 5 MPH WIND VELOCITY; FOR 4 UNITS (TOTAL REJECTED HEAT= 24 X I0 9 BTU* HR-I)

(INTERPOLATED FROM OBSERVED DISTRIBUTION CORRECTED TO ENVIRONMENTAL SURFACE HEAT EXCHANGE CONDITIONS)

RIVER FLOW-6000 CFS AT RICHMOND TIDAL HOUR- H-'2

Figure 29 EXCESS TEMPERATURE DISTRIBUTION, °C, FOR AN AMBIENT WATER TEMPERATURE OF 26.6°C/80°F ANDA 5 MPH WIND VELOCITY, FOR 4 UNITS (TOTAL REJECTED HEAT= 24XI09 BTU* HR*I~

(INTERPOLATED FROM OBSERVED DISTRIBUTION CORRECTED TO ENVIRONMENTAL SURFACE HEAT EXCHANGE CONDITIONS)

RIVER FLOW-6000 CFS ATRICHMONO TIDAL HOUR- 3 I

Figure 30

,po ""?"" ...

I WATER TEMPERATURE OF 26.6°C/80°F ANO A 5 MPH WIND VELOCITY, FOR 4 UNITS (TOTAL REJECTED HEAT:: 24XI09 8TU* HR*I)

(INTERPOLATED FROM OBSERVED DIS"fRIBUTlON CORRECTED TO ENVIRONMENTAL SURFACE HEAT EXCHANGE CONDITIONS)

RIVER FLOW-6000 CFS ATRICHMONO TIDAL HOUR- 41/z

o' Figure 31 WATER TEMPERATURE OF 26.6°C/80°F ANO A 5 MPH WINO VELOCITY, FOR 4 UNITS (TOTAL REJECTED HEAT== 24XI09 BTU* HR- 1)

(INTERPOLATED FROM OBSERVED DISTRIBUTION CORRECTED TO ENVIRONMENTAL SURFACE HEAT EXCHANGE CONDITIONS)

RIVER FLOW-6000 CFS ATRICHMONO TIDAL HOUR-6 o'

Figure 32 EXCESS TEMPERATURE DISTRIBUTION, °C, FOR AN AMBIENT WATER TEMPERATURE OF 26.6"C/80°F AND A 5 MPH WIND VELOCITY, FOR 4 UNITS (TOTAL REJECTED HEAT= 24 X 109BTU* HR-I)

(INTERPOLATED FROM OBSERVED DISTRIBUTION CORRECTED TO ENVIRONMENTAL SURFACE HEAT EXCHANGE CONDITIONS)

RIVER FLOW- GCXX>CFS AT RICHMOND TIDAL HOUR - 71/2

/

Figure 33 EXCESS TEMPERATURE DISTRIBUTION, "C, FOR AN AMBIENT WATER TEMPERATURE OF 26.6"C/80"F AND A 5 MPH WIND VELOCITY, FOR 4 UNITS (TOTAL REJECTED HEAT= 24Xt09 BTU* HR*I)

(INTERPOLATED FROM OBSERVED DISTRIBUTION CORRECTED TO ENVIRONMENTAL SURFACE HEAT EXCHANGE CONDITIONS)

RIVER FLOW-6000 CFS ATRlCHMONO TIDAL HOUR- 9 Figure 34 EXCESS TEMPERATURE DISTRIBUTION, °C, FOR AN AMBIENT WATER TEMPERATURE OF 26.6"C/80°F AND A 5 MPH WIND VELOCITY, FOR 4 UNITS (TOTAL REJECTED HEAT:: 24 Xl09BTU* HR.I)

(INTERPOLATED FROM OBSERVED DISTRIBUTION CORRECTED TO ENVIRONMENTAL SURFACE HEAT EXCHANGE CONDITIONS)

RIVER FLOW-6000 CFS AT RICHMOND TIDAL HOUR - 10\tz

I EXCESS TEMPERATUREfDISTRtBUTION, °C, FOR AN AMBIENT WATER TEMPERATUREfbF 15.6°C/60°F ANDA O MPH WINO VELOCITY, FOR 2 UNITS (TOTAL REJECTED HEAT= 12 X 109 BTU* HWI)

(INTERPOLATED FROM OBSERVED DISTRIBUTION CORRECTED TO ENVIRONMENTAL SURFACE HEAT EXCHANGE CONDITIONS)

RIVER FLOW-2000 CFS AT RICHMOND TIDAL HOUR-0 NOT£, DISCHARGE ANDINT,tJJ(E REVERSED Figure 36 EXCESS TEMPERATURE DISTRIBUTION, °C, FOR AN AMBIENT WATER TEMPERATURE OF 15.6°C/60°F AND A O MPH WIND VELOCITY, FOR 2 UNITS (TOTAL REJECTED HEAT= 12 X ro9sru- HR-I)

(INTERPOLATED FROM OBSERVED DISTRIBUTION CORRECTED TO ENVIRONMENTAL SURFACE HEAT EXCHANGE CONDITIONS)

RIVER FLOW-2000 CFS AT RICHMOND TIDAL HOUR- ll/2 NOT£, DISCHARGE ANDINTAKE REVERSED

I I

Figure 37 tQOII >000-*

WATER TEMPERATURE OF 15.6"C/60°F AND A O MPH WIND VELOCITY, FOR 2 UNITS (TOTAL REJECTED HEAT= 12 XI0 9 BTU* HR*I)

(INTERPOLATED FROM OBSERVED DISTRIBUTION CORRECTED TO ENVIRONMENTAL SUriFACE HEAT EXCHANGE CONDITIONS)

RIVER FLOW - 2000 CFS AT RICHMOND TIDAL HOUR - 3 NOTE, DISCHARGE ANDI/VTAKE REVERSED Figure 38 WATER TEMPERATURE OF 15.6"C/60°F AND A O MPH WIND VELOCITY, FOR 2 UNITS (TOTAL REJECl ED HEAT:: 12XI09 BTU* HR-I)

(INTERPOLATED FROM OBSERVED DISTRIBUTION CORRECTED TO ENVIRONMENTAL SURFACE HEAT EXCH/\NGE CONDITIONS)

RIVER FLOW - 2000 CFS AT RICHMOND rm.AL HOUR - 4 l/2 NOTE' DISCHARGE AND INTAKE REVERSED

Figure 39 WATER TEMPERATURE OF 15.6°C/60°F ANDA O MPH WIND VELOCITY, FOR 2 UNITS (TOTAL REJECTED HEAT= l2XI0 9 BTU* HW 1)

(INTERPOLATED FROM OBSERVED DISTRIBUTION CORRECTED TO ENVIRONMENTAL SURFACE HEAT EXCHANGE CONDITIONS)

RIVER FLOW-2000 CFS AT RICHMOND TIDA!,.. HOUR - 6 NOTE, DISCHARGE ANDINTAKE REVERSED Figure 40 WATER TEMPERATURE Of 15.6"C/60°F AND AO MPH WIND VELOCITY, FOR 2 UNITS (TOTAL REJECTED HEAT"' J2XI09 BTU* HW 1)

{INTERPOLATED FROM OBSERVED DISTRIBUTION CORRECTED TO ENVIRONMENTAL SURFACE HEAT EXCHANGE CONDITIONS)

RIVER FLOW-2000 CFS AT RICHMOND TIDAL HOUR- 71/2 NOT£, DISCHARGE ANOINTAKE REVERSED

Figure 41 "I" *..,.

WATER TEMPERATURE OF 15.6°C/60°F AND AO MPH WIND VELOCITY, FOR 2 UNITS {TOTAL REJECTED HEAT= 12 X 10 9 BTU* HW 1)

(INTERPOLATED FROM OBSERVED DISTRIBUTION CORRECTED TO ENVIRONMENTAL SURFACE HEAT EXCHANGE CONDITIONS)

RIVER FLOW-20CX) CFS AT RICHMOND TIDAi,.. HOUR-9 NOT£, DISCHARGE ANDINTAKE REVERSED o'

Figure 42 WATER TEMPERATURE OF t5.6°C/60°F ANDA O MPH WIND '-.

VELOCITY, FOR 2 UNITS {TOTAL REJECTED HEAT= 12XJ0 9 BTU* HWI) -. *

{INTERPOLATED FROM OBSERVED DISTRIBUTION ',,'\

\

CORRECTED TO ENVIRONMENTAL SURFACE HEAT EXCHANGE CONDITIONS)

RIVER FLOW-2CXX) CFS AT RICHMOND TIDAL HOUR - IOl/2 NOTE, DISCHARGE ANDINTAKE REVERSED

'\,,

\

A - 1 APPENDIX To The Report Temperature Distribution in the James River Estuary Which Will Result From the Discharge of Waste Heat From the Surry Nuclear Power Station Observed Excess Temperatures from the October 1966 Tests Carried Out in The James River Estuary Model

A-2 2,70 1.Jo 4000 1,40 2,,PO 1.60 3000 2.60 J,JO 1,70 1,40 1,80 2000 1,90 1.55 J.Jo J.70 1,70 2,00 1.60 I 000 2,60 J,00 5,00 t~~ 2.90 4.20 2.00 J,50 4.10 7.20 J,70 7.70

(/)

0 Cl'.

~

O 1 J,20 4,50 2.10 5.JO

• 4.20

© 7,40

© 4,50 4.oo 4.eo 2 5000 r

I-

"'w 2

2.00 1,50 1,90

...J 4000 2 l,JO 2.10 0 1,80 i'.=

u 1.10 w

(/) 1,90 2.00 3000 2,00 1.50 1.20 2.00 1.10 2000 l,JO 1,70 2.20 1000 1,70 2,20 1.90 1.80 2.00 2,JO 0

© © CD © @ @ © OBSERVED EXCESS TEMPERATURES - OF

( SECTION LOCATIONS SHOWN ON FIGURE 2)

FOR RIVER FLOW= 2000 ch REJECTED HEAT* 12 x 109 BTU/ HR.

TIDAL HOUR* 0

A - 3 5000 2.70 1.50 4000 1.40 1.90 3000 2.85 2.80 l,JO 1.90 2.00 2000 2.70 1.60 1.eo 1,70 2.00 6.60 4.05 5.20 6.90 J.60 1000 I'M 2.00 1:t8 4.10 j.20

.70 5.JO t-90 s.~o J.00 2.40 J.60

(/) .90 2. 0 2.rg 0

er 0 1.90 2.95 4.80 4.90

©5.00 © 7. 0

© 2.Bo

<{

z 5000

@ CD I

I-

"'zw 2.00 1.eo 1.90

_J 4000 z l,JO 1.80 0

u 1,70 w 1.50 1.60

(/)

3000 1.20 l,JO 2.10 2.00 2000 1.70 1000 4.70 1.50 1.65 J.20 J.10 4.50 1,70 l.70 2.00 Q 2,70 1.70 2 .20 1.90 2 .JO

© © CD © @ © OBSERVED EXCESS TEMPERATURES - °F

( SECTION LOCATIONS SHOWN ON Fl GURE 2 )

FOR RIVER FLOW= 2000 cfa REJECTED HEAT= 12 x 109 BTU/ HR.

TIDAL HOUR* I 1/2

A- 4 5.000 , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,

2.60 o.95 4000 l.JO 1.10 3000 2.90 2.40 3.00 2000 1.50 1.50 1.80 6.10 2.00 1.)5 1000 I

2.20 5.60 7.35 2.20 4.80

(/) 5.60 8.40 0

O 2.80 2.40 5.20 3.70 1.eo 6.80 6.eo

"'- (i) © © © z 5000

@)

I f-C>

z 2.10 w 2.15 2.20

..J 4000 z 1.90 0

f-u 1.40 w

(/) 2.00 3000 2.50 1.90 2000 2.60 2.90 2.00 1.50 i.eo 2.00 J.20 2.60 2.25 J.60 5.40 2.30 2.10 1000 4.JO 5.00 2.90 0 J.JO 4.oo 4.20 2.10

© © CD © OBSERVED EXCESS TEMPERATURES - °F (SECTION LOCATIONS SHOWN ON FIGURE 2)

FOR RIVER FLOW= 2000 ch REJECTED HEAT* 12 x 10 9 BTU/ HR.

TIDAL HOU.R

• 3

A - 5 1.00 4000 1.Q?.

l ,01 1.35 2.70 1.40 2.40 2.60 I.RO 3000 2.70 2.20 2.30

'2.40 1,01 2.40 -1.01 1.65 2.20 ,1.02 J.JO 1.9 1.02 1.60 2000 /,Jt*Ol 1.80 J.70  ;:1;.01

.20 i".;*20 J,60 ~,40 1.10 2.40 .'jl..20 I 000 1.20 2.00 2.10 J.90 'l}:~6 m.oo ~.oo 2.20 J.90 .60 .e.60 / 6.20 t

1.70 -2.60

,,4.20

~.oo l.l,70

-7 .'l.O

~8 0,40 o

1.25 o.85 2.40 J.60 J:ro 8,55 ~* 0,40 z 5000 Q) © © I

I-C>

2 w 2.25 2.25 2.Jo

-1 4000 2

0 1.eo i==

u 2.20 w 1.90 1.60 V) 1.95 3000 1.80 1.90 2.10 2.90 2.40 J,00 1.95 2,40 2,60 2.40 2000 2.10 1 1.eo 2.50

J,05 2.20 1

z.20 J.10 2.25 2.85 r,~.oo J,50

){*80 1000 J.15 ,.~.60 J,JO 4.90

,....eo 5.90 -4.10 2,40

,-5.50 5.10 4.60 1.90

'4.60 4.80 J.50 1.90 0 ©J.JO 4.10 ©2.20

© OB!;ERVED EXCESS TEMPERATURES - Of

( SECTION LOCATIONS SHOWN ON Fl GURE 2 )

FOR RIVER FLOW* 2000 ch REJECTED HEAT* 12 x 109 BTU/ HR ..

TIDAL HOUR* 4 1/2

A-6 5000 1,80 4000 l,JO 2,00 1,10 1,90 3000 1,90 l,70 1,90 l,JO 1.90 1,50 2.00 1,70 2000 1,80 1,70 1,90 2,JO 1,90 2,10 roo 1000 2,10 2,6 2,70 1,50 2,40 1,90 1.20 2.10 1,40 1,90 2,70 2,90 2,20

(/) 1,90 g,oo 6,80 6,70 2,10 0 ~,20 J,80 J,60 ,70 ,90 6,50 J,10 i,60 Ir 0 2,70 ©,90

<(

z

@,50 2 1 Q) © CD 5000 J'.

f-

"'zw I

..J 4000 2.10 2.40 2.10 2,20 I

z 1,90 1,80. 1,80 0

f-u 1,80 I w I 1,90

(/)

3000 1,70 1,90 2.20 II 2 .20 1,80 I 2,40 2.90 I

2000 2,80 J,90 2 ,50 2,40 2,40 J,00 I 1000 i,eo 2.40 2,60 4,50 4,JO II

,20 s.zo 5, O 4,60 2,JO I

5,50 5,10 5,20 I 0 5,10 5,10 4 ,50 2.20 2 ,80 I

©,80 I

© 0 ©. @ @ © I Ij.

OBSERVED EXCESS TEMPERATURES - °F (SECTION LOCATIONS SHOWN ON FIGURE 2 I FOR RIVER FLOW* 2000 ch REJECTED HEAT* 12 11 109 BTU/ HR.

TIDAL HOUR* 6

A - 7 5000 ,__..................,...._..........................................................................................................................

J.80 0.70 4000 1.10 1.Bo 1.60 3000 2.10 2.20 1.eo 1.90 2000 1.55 1.15 1,80 1.50 a.so 1000

(/)

0 (t:

<(

z 5000 O

I ldl8 1.90 2.55 2.90 co 0.10

© 1.40 6.40 ©4.30 2.20 7.00 I

I-

<!)

z w 2,00 2.20 1.90

_J 4000 z 1.so 1.70 1.95 0

~

l.)

w 1.70

(/) 2.00 3000 2.10 2000 2.70 2.40 2.65 3.30 2.60 2.10 1000 2.70 4.60 ).60 3.30 3 .50 4.80 o 2.95 4 .70 4.50 2 .90 2.10

© © CD © @ © OBSERVED EXCESS TEMPERATURES - °F I SECTION LOCATIONS SHOWN ON Fl GURE 2)

FOR RIVER FLOW= 2000 c fa REJECTED HEAT= 12 x 109 BTU/ HR.

TIDAL HOUR= 7 1/2

A-8 2,80 4000 1,50 3000 2,50

• 2,60 1,75 6,60 J,JO 1,4.0 l,?O 2000 2,05 7,80 l,JO 2,J5 1000 1,70 I

.),JO 8,90 1,85 4,00 Ul 0

. a: 0 1,70 2,70 2,50 9,70

<t ©4,10 2 5000

@ © I

I-

"z w 2.00 1,80 1,75

...J 4000 z 1,50 0 1,80 j::

u w l,90 Ul 3000 l,JO 1,80 2000 2,05 J,90 2.15 1000 J,40 J,80 4,JO O © 2,85 ©J,10 J,00 1,95 2.6o CD © @ @ © OBSERVl;:D EXCESS TEMPERATURES - Of

( SECTION LOCATIONS. SHOWN ON FIGURE 2 )

FOR RIVER FLOW* 2000 ch REJECTED HEAT* 12 x 109 BTU/ HR.

TIDAL HOUR* 9

A- 9 2,85 4000 1,50 1,60 J,20 1,70 3000 J,80

• 60 .6o l,80 2000 J,10 2,40 l,70 J,70 1,80 2.50 2,JO 1.90 I 000 2,40 2,70 I

J,10 2,?0 J.40 1,80 2.00 i.90 1. 90 4,90 4,20 J,5S J,40

({) 4,60 ~:f8 J,40 J.40 5.10 S,JO

,80 S,10 0 6 9S* .],20 l ,90 4.SS a::

<(

0 l,80

~.60 Q) * ©,95 Q':f'o © Z 5000

r:

f--

"'wz 1,65 l,80

...J 4000 z ,JO 0 1.80 l,25 f--

u w

({) 1,70 3000 2,10 ,6o l,70 l,JO l,20 2000 2,10

,70 2,00 2,40

,40 1000 2..20

,40 ,60 2.60

© © © OBSERVED EXCESS TEMPERATURES - oF

( SECTION LOCATIONS SHOWN ON Fl GURE 2 I FOR RIVER FLOW* 2000 ch REJECTED HEAT* 12 x 109 BTU/ HR.

TIDAL HOUR* 10 1/2

RE: Request for Virginia Department of Health (VDH) Input Dominion Energy Surry Power Station Units 1 and 2 Extension of Operating License from Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

Date of Request from Dominion Energy: March 27, 2019 Request from: Ken Roller, Manager, Environmental and Tony Banks, MPH, Generation Project Manager, Nuclear FROM: Marcia Degen, Ph.D., PE Technical Services Manager VDH - Office of Environmental Health Services TO: Ken Roller, Manager, Environmental Dominion Energy DATE: May 6, 2019 CC: Tony Banks, Dominion Energy, Generation Manager, Nuclear Toinette Waldron, VDH, Crater Health District, Environmental Health Manager Margaret Smigo, VDH, Waterborne Hazards Program Coordinator Arlene Warren, VDH, Office of Drinking Water Keith Skiles, VDH, Shellfish Safety, Division Director Discussion: Dominion Energy is seeking renewal of its NRC operating permit for Surry Power Station Units 1 and 2 for an additional 20 years. As part of the renewal process, Dominion Energy is developing an environmental report to assess the potential environmental impacts from the once through cooling water discharge with continued operation of the facility. NRC has provided guidance that Dominion should consult with VDH concerning potential health concerns from specific organisms:

• The enteric pathogens Salmonella spp. and Shigella spp., as well as Pseudomonas aeruginosa and thermophilic fungi,

• The bacteria Legionella spp., which causes Legionnaires disease, and

• Free-living amoebae of the genera Naegleria (Naegleria fowleri) and Acanthamoeba.

Dominion Energy provided a document entitled Information to Support VDH Consultation on Thermophilic Microorganisms which provides a description and analysis of the thermal discharge and its effect on the river and its environment. A 1967 temperature distribution study was attached as supporting documentation.

==

Conclusion:==

After review, VDH has the following comments.

Currently any risk is perceived (not known) and not likely given the long-term existence of this discharge and lack of any known issues resulting in exposure for that area. While VDH does not suspect the waste heat discharge exacerbates waterborne pathogen growth, and public health risk is likely very low as a result, the agency opts to withhold a formal statement in this regard until additional modeling is conducted during the upcoming VPDES permit re-issuance. It will coordinate with the company and DEQ to ensure the modeling scenarios incorporate the critical conditions when public risk and temperatures are highest.

VDH - Office of Drinking Water has reviewed the above project. Below are our comments as they relate to proximity to public drinking water sources (groundwater wells, springs and surface water intakes). Potential impacts to public water distribution systems or sanitary sewage collection systems must be verified by the local utility.

The following public groundwater wells are located within a 1 mile radius of the project site:

PWS ID Number City/County System Name Facility Name VA POWER CONSTRUCTION 3181802 SURRY SITE WELL 1 3181800 SURRY SURRY POWER STATION WELL B INSIDE GATE WELL E WAREHOUSE 3181800 SURRY SURRY POWER STATION ROAD W WELL C HIGH LEVEL 3181800 SURRY SURRY POWER STATION ROAD EAST There are no surface water intakes located within a 5-mile radius of the project site.

The project is not within the watershed of any public surface water intakes.

Best Management Practices should be employed, including Erosion & Sedimentation Controls and Spill Prevention Controls & Countermeasures on the project site.

SERIAL NO.: 19-184 Enclosure 3 ATTACHMENTS FOR RAI WR-1 Virginia Electric and Power Company (Dominion Energy Virginia or Dominion)

Surry Power Station Units 1 and 2

                        
   



     
    
               
   

l~OTEO AYK 1 2 *19l9

• M.f l t1 r ~ ;:;.n s t~ 11 Ll 1 l :;on

.:~:. t I; ) t.h t cf G::~{>?(\J ~~ t

£' l ~.:. t *'. . ;J: ; t :"\ '-- ~_i t r.; n;-:.1 :., f I er*.

5-tirrt Pc*~rt:} t ~.tr;ti o-n r- \4f. te,.r \/ell L

• *- ..., ....-- __..,____ ..... -----~..- -- .- ** ................ . --~ _.,,......................__. .,...... ... " 'J,. -..----.11' Dc~r Hr. Ellison:

Attachad h D CO;;}' of the. \:!tt:.eH" for rcfon~iv.:eu ,..ic 1\.

Very truly yours, He<rrh L. F,rt:hr,, fH', Ph~P.

Executiv e HEnog¢f

, faiY{ fOtlr*ii':fl ta l S~H'V i c;;es be; t1 r

• A. ~!, *Hadder Hr. B~ H. Sylvia Hr. w, L. Stewart Hr. P. * . ti. Coupe '* ,*

Hr. w. w. Camaron, Jr~), .

t1r. o. L. Fl lppen . *~ / :

Hr, t'-1. f. I'\ii d 1i UuetlS,<I ,, I * )

} , . . \

Mr. R. L. BI rckhead ) latt.:1chm(~nt1

FORM G,A 2

' 2/77 10,000 e COMMONWEALTH OFVIRGINI~

STATE WATER CONTROL BOARD . f:~QO P. 0. Box 11143, 2111 North Hamilton Stre~ 1 \

Richmond, Virginia 23230 b e Phone (804) 770-1411 WATER WELL COMPLETION REPORT

~ ;_ .,

DATE REC I D8/30/1978 PERMIT NUMBER BWCM WELL NO. ---

_.....E____

(Certification of Completion)

Well Drill-- --- - TRUCK TAG NO. 21!3 LOCATION OWNER COUNTY: ~Sur;;..=_l"Y...__ _ _ _ __ NAME: Vepco STREET: P.O .Box 26666 .

WELL IS LOCATED APPROX. 16o feet/miles CITY: Richmond 1outh (direction) of intake canal and STATE: Va. ZIP: 2.32@ __ ,_

J2o feet/miles east {direction) of te western end or canal

• WATER WELL USER WELL IS NEWLY CONSTRUCTED / OR IS AN NAHE: Sl.rry Power Plant ALTERATION, REHABILITATION, OR EXTENSION STREET: -Rt. 65.0 _Off Hwy. 10 OF Af4 EXISTING WELL NUMBER OF Cl TY: Surry CERTIFICATE OF GROIINDWATE" RIGHT OF EXIST- STATE: Va. ZIP: 23883 ING WELL, IF APPLICABLE~-~

.CONTRACTOR I FOR OFFICE USE: *s1GNATURE.:

NAME (type) :

g~.i&7~n_/

. ell Ser ce VA. PLAf4E COORDINATES: _ _ _N_~- E STREET: 161'4 Jolliff Rd.

c f TY : Chesapeake

~ TOPOGRAPHIC MAP NUMBER: ST ATE : VI* zI p : 23321 8 ASIC DATA ----------------------------------

DATE STARTEo:Auguet 8,1978 DATE COMPLETED: Aupst .30,1978 DEPTH DRILLED: 420 DEPTH OF COMPLETED WELL: 420,' STATIC WATER LEVEL: 100 feet belcw land surface.

~~

1 YIELD TEST~_P_ _ _ Method; Drawdcwn 28 _ feet; Yie ld gpm; Duration 48 hours.

WAS THE WELL LOGGED7~No; i f Yes, BY WHOM? Layne Atlantip l TYPE OF LOG(S):El.ecti:1c 1

WAS THE WATER ANALYZED? ~ N o ; i f Yes, BY WHOH?

• TYPE OF RIG :Pailing ,SOO WELL TO SUPPLY: Home/Farm/Muni cipa Ii ty/School/lr;d~:_-t~Jsubdiv_i s ion/Other Vepco (circle which) ~ -. - - - -

WERE WELL DRILLING$ SAVED7<Y6' hfo (Well cuttings should be collected at 10-foot inter-vals and shipped express c ~ c t to this office in a shipping contain.er. Sample bags are furnished free of charge upon request).

PUMP DATA CONSTRUCTION. DATA BRAND NAME: Reda Pump co*.

12 0 425.

HOLE SIZE: inches from to feet TYPE: QN 63/8 - i.nches from - t o -feet MODEL NUMBER: 7._.5..,.6_..0_-6-.. * -------- -inches from to -feet RATED CAPAC I TY: ?OC> gpm at .

~-- 320 feet of head. CASE SIZE: ~inches from _Q_to1'2.Q__feet DEFTH OF INTAKE: 1~l- 17_rt...._..._ _ _ _~ - - inches from to feet RA TED HORSEPOWER: _.,2~0:a.aH.&.aeP._.8....__ _ _ __ -inches from to -f~et GROUTING? Yes/No; from surface to o feet. 50

e fOR REFERENCF.

SCREEN DATA DOES THE WELL HAVE SCREENS~o; OR

~L. . or~LY e DOES THE}IELL.-: HAVE SLOTTE_D~R~ORATED PIPE~No LOCATION OF SCREENS: Give the diameter and depth of all screens or sections of slotted or perforated pipe.

4oo 6 inches from to 420 feet* *:

• inches from to

- feet *

• inches f ro.'TI to feet inches from to feet inches from QUALITY DAT A to feet inches from to

- ** feet DID AAY STRATUM CONT Al N WATER ~I~~ WAS UNUSUABLE(( Yes~ TYPE OF WATER _ *

~~ ~ ~~-

DEPTH OF STRATUM: from380 to420 feet; from to feet. WATER TEMPERATURE: OF

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - DRILLER'S L O G - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

DEPTH (feet) TYPE OF ROCK OR SOIL PENETRATED (gravel, clay, etc.; hardness, REMARKS (water, caving, shot, e

From To color, etc.) scree*n*, sa~ples, etc.)

See attached sheets.

• -* 1

~ ..* ,

"'- . \ ,! '

.1 O Clr:y

• 20 Clcy Clay

• - Yellow &md

-Yellow &ind 0ray ~d

• 70-Grey &nd~lay 0ray fand&Clay EOR

• 90-Cley

-100-Cley

)-110-Fine Gray Ee.nd

)-1 20-Fine f'6.nd

)-130-Cley

)-1 40-Fine Gray !:Bn&Cle.y

)-150-Clay

>160-Clay

)-1 70-<::1£.y

-180-Fine Gray fan~la1

)-190-Fine Gray f,en&.Clay 0-200-Fine Grey &m&Clay 0-210-Fine Gray f.:end&Clsy 0-220-Clay 0-230-Clhy 0-240-Cl..ey 0-250-Clay & Yellow ~d 0-26C-Cl.ey &. YellQ.1 f~d 0-270-Clay & Yell°"* ~d i,280-Clay ~ Yellow ~d 90-Cley & Blsc k fend S-300-Bl.ack Sond o- 310-Bl.s.ck ~d 0-320-Black Send C- 330-Biiack ~d

~- 340-Bhack f:end

,C- 350-Mud & Black Sand

o-J60-B1ack [end

)0-)70-Cl.es.r Black ~d

'0-380-Clear Black &ind

)0- 390-Clear Fine ~

ic-400-&md Is Medium & Courae X)-410-fmld Is Nedium & Course

, 0-42D- ~end Is }ledium & Course 0

6 1'Well Fu--w

• ** *.:~

,o,Canent I

12"Hole l Gravel Packed Total Dept 420

- - ...:.-*- ---. .50 -------- -- - ...

lt:8 GW-9 800 ~ '

BWCM NO.

1rch, 1974 STATE WATER CONTROL BOARD .

BUREAU OF WATER CONTROL MANAGEMENT BOX 11143, RICHMOND, VA.

PUMPING TEST WELL DATA PUMPING WELL OBSERVATION WELL General Location Surry Power Station Start Date of Test Aug. 24, 1978 Data Recorded by Tillman Well Service Completion Date of Test Aug. 26, 1978 Test Duration (in hours)

Vepco Owner of We 11

---

We 11 No. E Address of Owner P.O. Box 26666, Richmond, VA 23261 Well Depth -420 --, - - - ~ -Cas1ng. D"1a. -6'- - - - -Screen Dept hs 400-420 Pump Type Reda Pump Co. - QN 63/8 Pumped Well Static W. L.

---

Obs. Well Static W. L.

W. L. Measuring Device

---

Measuring Pt. of Obs. Well TEST DATA (Start time of pump 10:00a.m./.p....m.. Stop time of pumpl0:00 a.m.,Lp-~....)

Time Elapsed Depth Discharge Meter Drawdown hrs., Time to water rate Reading or Remarks mins. (in feet) (gpm) . Recovery (in feet) attached shee ts See

~FOR dt.i- Rr--rRE C . NCE Oi\JLY

{Pump *1'e.or

,ell.I E rower n.aiii.,,

e)A.M. (Oallons Per Minute) (Draw bown) (pumping Level)

(statictt.

"' 220 28 128 100-220 28 128

.) 220 28 128

.o 220 27 128 220 27 127

'° P.M.

)0 220 27 127 X)

• 220 27 127

)0 X)

~20 220 27 27 FOR ,,.,R 127

' C r=1-r, r-220 27

~~1 .;_r t11t;\JCE X)

JO 220 27 --

20 co 220 220 28 28 i;,,;.,c . ~ f'J LY

()

00 220 28 128 co 220 28 128 GO 220, 28 128

<)C Z20 28 128

C)O 220 28 128

• .-..I"\

• .../ \ J 220 28 128

';Q 220 28 128

. ,-.. ! "\

~ . -*,_.. 220 28 128

GO 220 28 128

CO 220 28 1t8

, -..,_r--,,

..)'v 220 28 128

. '-=:0 220 28 128

o 220 28 128

-*e 220 220 28 28 128 128

: CO 2200 28 128

OOA.M. 220 28 128

. :00 2,-0 28 126 i: CO 220 28 128

~:CO 220 28 128

' :00 220 28 128

CO 220 28 128

00 220 28 128

00 220 28 128

00 220 28 128

~ 220 2S 128

CO 220 28 128

.. r-_. f"v 220 28 128

80P .M. 220 28 128

.. - .('\

• ~v 220 28 128

CO 220 28 128

: {)

00 ' 220 220 28 28 128 128

00 220 28 128

00 220 28 128

CO 220 28 128

CO 2ro 28 128 1 8

W(.L\.. :,-

A.C. SCHULTES OF DELAWAI P.O. BOX 188 BR1DGEV1u.E. DEL. OE.Cl 1fc\t\0-110 water wen contrac:::tors CUSTOMER VllGINIA PCNER. JOB 1583 ADDRESS INNSBROOK ncmnCAL CENTE'a, GLEN AI.LEN, VA 23060 DATE 5/08/97 LOCATION GRAVEL NECK COMBUSTION TUR;BDm* lACILITY FeT FROM GROUND SURFACE WElL LOQ 0 lt> ************

GROUND 2*

397' WELL NO. 1 DIAMETER OF WEJ-1 ~6"---- DEPT. OF WEU. 417' HRS. PUMPED 24 SLOT SIZE , 020 (SCREEN) TYPE OF CASINCCQ.TA-t.OC PVC CAPACITY G.P.M. 42 DRIWNG W.CHINE NO**-""D-.......,5"----- l.£NG1l( OF CASING ,397' STATIC LEVEL__.1.x-0_6,...,5._*_ _ __ DRIUERS,,F!LL'EY/J,ZITrINGElt DISTANCE TO TOP OF SCREEQ~97:-.'-

PUMPING L.EVEL.:.15-5::.&,.,.,_5_'- - - CUlA.vall 'NPE JOHNSON STAINLESS SPECIFIC CAf-AorrY

• 86 BAGS OF Cl.AV l 0 SlZE OF SCREEN 6

CATI: WELL COMPLETED 5 /10 / 97 DlULLn: SHAW WILLEY DEPm OF PEA GRAVEL SO - 325 CASINO 'WALL THICKNP.~~

• 405

.AC Schultes - V/.\ Po*wer Co. - TEST 'WELL 1 - 5/8/97 - R:EF. GND

. ~.POMT.t,.MEOUS POTEMTLll.L **

• ------------------------------------~

47.5 mV .57.5 ,*

NATURAI... GA\iMA V SINGLE POINT RESISTANCE 0 CP.S 150 A * . 25 OHr..tS 12.5

~----*

-~

. . . . ----r--*---:----:- :

• • • • • • • • • • • -:****=

. . . ,;"':"- _:. . . _:_Y'T"\~"7':"'~ .... : .. .. *** *******

-~":

... .. .. .. . ****;****1****1****1****1****1****1***J~~~-

... .... ..... .. ... .... *. * * * ** * * *** ** * * * * ** *** * ** * * * * '** **** v' * * * ***** *

. . . .. .. . . . . . .  : : : : : =-~-*,**: :

• • • • i****i~~***i****;****~***

.......... .. .. ... .. .. .............. .... . ... .:;;. re: .. .. :.. .. :.... :.. .. :.... :.... :.... :...

• I * * * * * * * *

5;L~~: I::::\::::\::::\::::\:::: l:::: 1::

: ':-~ : : : : : .

.. ............ ****\****i*~j~*-~****1* . **~****;****1***

c_n

(._J

. . . .~)?.1::: \: : \: : \: : \: : :t::::;::::;:::

.... :...\~ ... . :.... :.. ..:... .:... .

)  :

....:.... :.... : ...:.... ~.*-<****=****=****= ****

i:::::::::!::::i:::: *.*:::::::: !::::*:::: l/ ::;:: *::*::!::: *:::::::::;::::::: :::

... . : .... :* * .. ;** **: ... . : .... : * ... : * ... : .. "'i( ... .... :****** ....... .. ............. ... ***: .... *:***

. . . . . . . . .1* . .. .. .. .. .. ..

.. :.. .. .\ \... .:.... :.... :... . ****:*. ***:****:****:****:****:****:****: **{*:. ......... . . .

. ~ . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. ... ... .. ..

. . . :.... :.. .(:,, .. .. :.... :... . ......... .................... ............... .

.... .......... :**** ** *~****~*-** f)***~ -- --~ --- -

o * ,I* *

. .. :....:....:... :'.**::l::::1:'.~{:::l::::l:::: .. . .

_: :? ~ :

~ ~ .... ;. ***;**"i .... ;.... ;.... ;* ... ;... */* .. ;.... .... :. .....:.... :. ....:.... :.... :.... :.... :....... .

\. . . "

. . . . \ .  :  :  :  :

.... {"" .. . ....... .. ....................................... .

..... ~*.... ~*.****~--_;):~****~ ** **

~  : :.... : :

• • • • • • • • • ***/****:****:****

• • • • • • • • • ~**:****:****

.... : . -... : ....... -. . . ..... :.... :. ~ .. :......... .

. ) .

• :i*::I::::' l::::' I:::: l: ::1::::!'::1;.:'\ t::::' ::::\:::: !::::'.::::;::::\:::: \::::t:::: l: :::;*~

.... L..,i.}/ ... L......_;

.. .. ................... * .. :.... :.\.: .... :....

. \ . (_n

. ::::::.\:::: \::::::::: t::::::::::: :::1*: t:::. ::::*::: :*::::*::::*:: *::::::;:::: i:::: I::::i:'.

.... '. .... '. .... '. .... ....~-:.... L}L ... L.. .  ; ; ;

~  ; ~ ~ )

l

I  :  ;

. *; l  :  :

.............. .... .... : . . .'j: .... : ....

. . \ . .  ::::._.:::::_: _,_.::::*.* . :_ ******1:*_:J_.: *:*********'******** *****:****'****: **/:

.  :* .. *:--\**":"** ... ... .. ... .. ................  :... .:.. .. :..... :_._*

~  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  : >:  :  ;  :  :  :  :  ;  :  :  : *:~

.  :. :\. , .

.* .. .. :* .... r)'* ... :* ....

'-.:J  :::: ::::::::: ::: :: :*: ::*t:: ::f::. ::: :)::*::::::: :::::::: :::: :: *:: :: :::::*::::*::::*:* ::*:: ::;:*:

.... :. .... :. .. .. :. .... :. .... :. .... :. .. ..:. *,:s* .:. .. ..:....\ . . ....: ... ......  :  :

.. . ; \ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . :~*'. : : '.: : :i}: :; :::.\_~ l*.......................:.... :... :; :*::,.~..::.: ...*l*.. .:.

• - -~

J

!::::*::::*::: *::::*::::*::::*:::F~.:, J T  : * * ** :* * * * * *** ******** ***** ***

• • • • • • • • ***** **** ** ** *** **** *** r

-I C_*::::.::::i:::*::::*:::**i*.~)_._..~...

.i: ... i ... *i ....:.... :*~- :

• **** : **** ***** ** ** * : ** ** : **** * * *** ***

• c. ~ :JJ******** * * * * *** ::**************?:

• • • • .:** **.=**.~-:*. .--: .. : .... :****** ** 0 **

• 0

• 0 0 0 0 ** ' *

• 0 ** 0 : *

• 0 ** * * ** ** * * * * ** -.* * .,.;.:r?:, ". ; ' ' ': ; :::\ :: :f ::::**********:******* **

0 0 0 0 0 0

. ,..~., .

. ... ..... . ....... {"'*:*. .. .... .. .. .... .. .. ... .  :.. .. ..... .. ...... . .. ...... .. : .. **:** ..

• • ** ******** * *:*****. * ******* . * ** ****** .......... .. -~->.-..:_ ' .. ..

............. .  :.,.~-.- ~ * - t - - ~ ~ - - = >

r**~.:i

_n

. .... .... ..* ..... ....*: .. ..... *.*..* .f_,~ ~

,*..*.

• *.*... .... : .. . . **":""~****:.:.:.

. =l .. .. ... ...... .: . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1:._J ....... . . *, . . ... .... .:.... :..... ;- *.:..

• .*.* .-.1.:_:.:.:_: *:** ** :: Lr *_*.=_:,._,_:_ C,

• .l,~.*~_.:_:.r: :_:::: : ::: :: : :::::::  :::::::::::JZ

. . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... *** ...* * * * * :\ ** :*./ .\ :

. * . (: * * * * * , . . . . . ** **.*****.***  : **.*****:

* .. ...*. * ... :* ***-:. ... .:. ..... ::. i:f.c:.:*

.. ..  : .  : -, :~:;*

• • • *:****** **** ** .. ... .. .. ... . :.... : ~; . :

• • • • • • • +***(****: .... :.. ** ****** * .... :.... :..... : ....,.

** . -:',?*

~

. .... ...  :}t:~

• • • • * *********:****:******* .......:... ...........:.... ;. :::::::;::::rr  : ::*t{

• • • • • • • • [ .... ].. **)** .. :... * * * * : .. **~-- -. :.----.~ - . . . ~_ **** :_ * *** : . . . . : . ~ .... .

'*A ; *".;-'*.'/"

*- ~.:  :::'~*

• * **:*** **: ....  :.. . ..: *: _::~:,..

• • • • .... ~****;**";****;-***=*

".: ... . : ... .  :..... :~. ............. ::::::'.::::;::::;::::'.::::'. :::if}

... ,; .... ~ .... :.... :..

....:.... ~ .... 1.... ~ ... .:.. ..  :::::::::::********:**************1****\***J~

... ........ :****: .. .. :****(****!** *.: ....-/!

.. ..=****:* "*!** .. ].... :.... )****.\** .. \.... f:.~  :**************:*********:****:****( ..';.{*..~! -::..~

• • • • • **** *** *:***** ** ** "':--:, ... .... ....  :* .. *:** .. : ...-.f:'} .-:, ~

... .. ..... --... -....... :~ ... ~}~~

(.,M

.)1

• • • • • • • • \ .... \..

                • • • • • • • • :'t :f c::::.) ***=

• • • • • • • • !*-**!*. ***=***1F1 <,(f

. .}

.. :. * ... :-* .. . :.. ~. *:;. ~ ;i.:*.

-****- ~*--/~ ~- --~*- **: .. .. ** *(****:**** )**** =*... :.*... \

~~~

~ . . *** *** ***** **

'~' . .. .... . . ... ..... "=**" :... **:* . ....*.... . :._ .... :. ... :::

:::.:. :.,:J::r:::!:::::::

(,,-I  :  : .  :

-..J ****:** **:** ** :****: .. . ~

c_n

• • • • • • • • '. ****'.****'.***:~~~J:::* -----_ . .::::: .::::: ..."*******:****:****

... . .*:* ** ******** ... * =.... : ... . : ..; ~ .. : ~

fl5. (01""

<t !Olt"O

.t:1

i

~,u~~.

'51+14, ~ """M* ll.,14.t1' ,..i' Fi/led Area]

SURRY POWER STA

.FIGURE I

11111.!> * ,

W' Vlfl'G.MA POWER Engineering Work Sheet P.OW 14 Sheet Number of Document Number FIG. A Revision_NumberQ Date 8-Z.I To /3-21;, PreparedBy ft .L./3LowaH "/0

~ystem Checked By Date

/

/

=~-=----*-* -- -- i a

a

-~:::~~~-'~ :/:t / -- ..-~.'.*~*. /

i

~

' /

I

/

---

=-~*'.:*~. "<. /

-_~;;[:.  ::*::~:~..-~~ :~~..--~~- . ~ :-~;.

= ....

,I I

/.

I I

t* '.

f <  :

I i .. .h

, // ,* I ,* .*

. // .. **--** .

"i="*a*e:*,*-,*a=*;;*a***a' 0**-.,;:,;_:_ ___ a*a*a*e* e.:::, J *. * ****** ,

.. */ .* * '*

I ..*... .,-:'..*:....:~*

1

~

• , 1 ., ':-.i.t-:**

'I

, I *1 i _.;,.

i

-~ ~- .

,'. '.}

---*-.-~** ---

...~-c. ****- ...

.,. '1; '

,,'f I

( .

. .h."' .*

,/ I / .,......  ;:\' ~

' / I ** , : *

, ' I /-I '*:* **

~.:*'

~

/

/ ;,,,.**** / / / -\:.~-\"=.-

/ / .... /  ;,. *. ,.

,

*.:.,::*.*.=. ;' ,,,. ... . *.*'.*:,. / *)(/

,.. ' 'l'

.:...:,.:'** /

• -~-/  ; ,:; .,*. -* .

,,:-~

.** *. l '.'  !

+'--"-'-'+'"--'---'-'~l-'"-+-1----'-+-""-l""l----~ 1,1

,. "',.  :,:o

,._~,"'

'*,}  ;'

• th

~~ <II'

"~ ro .:,.

~

\ N~

\

~"'

~

FIG. 2A Form No. 722712(A"g 87)

(Fotmanv 91701010)

1

~

FIGURE 4

SERIAL NO.: 19-184 Enclosure 4 ATTACHMENTS FOR WR-4 Virginia Electric and Power Company (Dominion Energy Virginia or Dominion)

Surry Power Station Units 1 and 2

Annual Water Withdrawal Report Summary Page 1 of 7 Annual Water Withdrawal Report Summary DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (DEQ)

ANNUAL REPORT OF WATER WITHDRAWALS For the Period: January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018 Organization/Owner: Virginia Electric & Power Company Facility: Surry Power Station Facility UserID: 1339 Facility Status: active Use Type: nuclearpower Locality: Surry Report Status: submitted Type # of MPs Total (MGY)

Surface Water Intake 1 662,922.96 Well 7 137.1323 Source Name: JAMES RIVER MPID: 371018077422301 Source Status: active Source Type: Surface Water Intake Source Name: JAMES RIVER Source Name Date Withdrawal (MGM)

JAMES RIVER Jan/2018 53,086.8 JAMES RIVER Feb/2018 51,095.76 JAMES RIVER Mar/2018 53,496 JAMES RIVER Apr/2018 45,573.48 JAMES RIVER May/2018 41,288.16 JAMES RIVER Jun/2018 66,761.28 http://deq1.bse.vt.edu/d.dh/print/vwuds-online-printable-summary/67224 1/28/2019

Annual Water Withdrawal Report Summary Page 2 of 7 Source Name Date Withdrawal (MGM)

JAMES RIVER Jul/2018 71,256.96 JAMES RIVER Aug/2018 70,536 JAMES RIVER Sep/2018 65,167.44 JAMES RIVER Oct/2018 57,863.52 JAMES RIVER Nov/2018 35,019.84 JAMES RIVER Dec/2018 51,777.72 Source Name: Old Well D - Abandoned MPID: 370928076405900 Source Status: abandoned Source Type: Well Source Name: Well A MPID: 370918076401501 Source Status: active Source Type: Well Source Name: Well A Source Name Date Withdrawal (MGM)

Well A Jan/2018 0.0034 Well A Feb/2018 0.0078 Well A Mar/2018 0.0055 Well A Apr/2018 0.0573 Well A May/2018 0.1667 Well A Jun/2018 0.1875 Well A Jul/2018 0.1926 Well A Aug/2018 0.1581 Well A Sep/2018 0.1 Well A Oct/2018 0.0873 Well A Nov/2018 0.0139 Well A Dec/2018 0.0099 http://deq1.bse.vt.edu/d.dh/print/vwuds-online-printable-summary/67224 1/28/2019

Annual Water Withdrawal Report Summary Page 3 of 7 Source Name: Well B MPID: 370955076420001 Source Status: active Source Type: Well Source Name: Well B Source Name Date Withdrawal (MGM)

Well B Jan/2018 9.0623 Well B Feb/2018 7.5437 Well B Mar/2018 7.4286 Well B Apr/2018 8.2272 Well B May/2018 7.6433 Well B Jun/2018 7.6809 Well B Jul/2018 8.4468 Well B Aug/2018 7.8814 Well B Sep/2018 7.2694 Well B Oct/2018 9.3018 Well B Nov/2018 7.6649 Well B Dec/2018 8.3942 Source Name: Well C MPID: 370950076414801 Source Status: active Source Type: Well Source Name: Well C Source Name Date Withdrawal (MGM)

Well C Jan/2018 2.3956 Well C Feb/2018 0.5365 Well C Mar/2018 0.9462 Well C Apr/2018 2.294 Well C May/2018 0.7263 Well C Jun/2018 2.056 Well C Jul/2018 0.6853 Well C Aug/2018 3.0619 http://deq1.bse.vt.edu/d.dh/print/vwuds-online-printable-summary/67224 1/28/2019

Annual Water Withdrawal Report Summary Page 4 of 7 Source Name Date Withdrawal (MGM)

Well C Sep/2018 0.2042 Well C Oct/2018 2.3043 Well C Nov/2018 0.6292 Well C Dec/2018 3.3288 Source Name: Well CS MPID: 370958076414201 Source Status: active Source Type: Well Source Name: Well CS Source Name Date Withdrawal (MGM)

Well CS Jan/2018 0.1918 Well CS Feb/2018 0.1659 Well CS Mar/2018 0.171 Well CS Apr/2018 0.2845 Well CS May/2018 0.2635 Well CS Jun/2018 0.1901 Well CS Jul/2018 0.2106 Well CS Aug/2018 0.1933 Well CS Sep/2018 0.12 Well CS Oct/2018 0.2137 Well CS Nov/2018 0.1898 Well CS Dec/2018 0.0975 Source Name: Well D - Abandoned MPID: 371006076414801 Source Status: abandoned Source Type: Well Source Name: Well E - Abandoned MPID: 370925076414501 Source Status: abandoned Source Type: Well http://deq1.bse.vt.edu/d.dh/print/vwuds-online-printable-summary/67224 1/28/2019

Annual Water Withdrawal Report Summary Page 5 of 7 Source Name: Well ER MPID:

Source Status: active Source Type: Well Source Name: Well ER Source Name Date Withdrawal (MGM)

Well ER Jan/2018 0.5534 Well ER Feb/2018 1.958 Well ER Mar/2018 0.7395 Well ER Apr/2018 0.5553 Well ER May/2018 1.8095 Well ER Jun/2018 0.5114 Well ER Jul/2018 1.698 Well ER Aug/2018 0.4677 Well ER Sep/2018 2.4529 Well ER Oct/2018 1.2678 Well ER Nov/2018 1.0424 Well ER Dec/2018 0.094 Source Name: Well F - Abandoned MPID: 371009076414801 Source Status: abandoned Source Type: Well Source Name: Well G - Abandoned MPID: 370939076413701 Source Status: abandoned Source Type: Well Source Name: Well H MPID: 370930076413001 Source Status: active Source Type: Well http://deq1.bse.vt.edu/d.dh/print/vwuds-online-printable-summary/67224 1/28/2019

Annual Water Withdrawal Report Summary Page 6 of 7 Source Name: Well H Source Name Date Withdrawal (MGM)

Well H Jan/2018 0.003 Well H Feb/2018 0.002 Well H Mar/2018 0.0046 Well H Apr/2018 0.0151 Well H May/2018 0.0015 Well H Jun/2018 0.0015 Well H Jul/2018 0.0015 Well H Aug/2018 0.0019 Well H Sep/2018 0.0016 Well H Oct/2018 0.0156 Well H Nov/2018 0.0016 Well H Dec/2018 0.0014 Source Name: Well J - Abandoned MPID: 370940076413501 Source Status: abandoned Source Type: Well Source Name: Well JR MPID: 370940076413501 Source Status: active Source Type: Well Source Name: Well JR Source Name Date Withdrawal (MGM)

Well JR Jan/2018 1.0093 Well JR Feb/2018 0.7443 Well JR Mar/2018 0 Well JR Apr/2018 0.3726 Well JR May/2018 0.7818 Well JR Jun/2018 0.4258 http://deq1.bse.vt.edu/d.dh/print/vwuds-online-printable-summary/67224 1/28/2019

Annual Water Withdrawal Report Summary Page 7 of 7 Source Name Date Withdrawal (MGM)

Well JR Jul/2018 0.5451 Well JR Aug/2018 0 Well JR Sep/2018 0.2501 Well JR Oct/2018 0.5264 Well JR Nov/2018 0.2812 Well JR Dec/2018 0 http://deq1.bse.vt.edu/d.dh/print/vwuds-online-printable-summary/67224 1/28/2019

SERIAL NO.: 19-184 Enclosure 5 ATTACHMENTS FOR RAI WR-5 Virginia Electric and Power Company (Dominion Energy Virginia or Dominion)

Surry Power Station Units 1 and 2

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS NORFOLK DISTRICT FORT NORFOLK 803 FRONT STREET NORFOLK VA 23510-1011 April 17, 2017 Eastern Virginia Regulatory Section NAO-2018-00103 / VMRC#18-V0069 (James River)

Virginia Power and Electric Company ATTN: Mr. Fred Mladen 5000 Dominion Boulevard Glen Allen, Virginia 23060

Dear Mr. Mladen:

This is in regard to your Department of the Army permit application number NAO-2018-00103 (VMRC #18-V0069) you have submitted for as-needed maintenance work at the cooling water intake structure at the Surry Nuclear Power Station in Surry County, Virginia. The proposed work involves the removal of submerged logs and similar debris from a concrete apron and the bottom of the James River immediately outboard of the cooling water intake structure. The work zone for the debris removal will not extend more than 200 feet outboard of the intake structure. All debris will be temporarily stockpiled and transported to an appropriate facility. A project vicinity map and drawing of the intake structure are enclosed.

Your proposed work as outlined above satisfies the criteria contained in the Corps Nationwide Permit (3), attached. The Corps Nationwide Permits were published in the January 6, 2017, Federal Register notice (82 FR 1860) and the regulations governing their use can be found in 33 CFR 330 published in Volume 56, Number 226 of the Federal Register dated November 22, 1991.

This nationwide permit verification is contingent upon the following project specific conditions:

Special Conditions:

1. Time of Year Restrictions: This permit does not authorize in-water work between February 15 and June 30, of any year, in order to minimize impacts on anadromous fish and federally managed species.

2. The permittee understands and agrees that, if future operations by the United States require the removal, relocation, or other alteration, of the structure or work herein authorized, or if, in the opinion of the Secretary of the Army or his authorized representative, said structure or work shall cause unreasonable obstruction to the free navigation of the navigable waters, the permittee will be required, upon due notice from the Corps of Engineers, to remove, relocate, or

alter the structural work or obstructions caused thereby, without expense to the United States. No claim shall be made against the United States on account of any such removal or alteration.

3. Incidents where any individuals of sea turtles or Atlantic sturgeon listed by NOAA Fisheries under the Endangered Species Act appear to be injured or killed as a result of discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States or structures or work in navigable waters of the United States authorized by this NWP shall be reported to NOAA Fisheries, Office of Protected Resources at (301) 713-1401 and the Regulatory Office of the Norfolk District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at 757-201-7652. The finder should leave the animal alone, make note of any circumstances likely causing the death or injury, note the location and number of individuals involved and, if possible, take photographs.

Adult animals should not be disturbed unless circumstances arise where they are obviously injured or killed by discharge exposure, or some unnatural cause. The finder may be asked to carry out instructions provided by NOAA Fisheries, Office of Protected Resources, to collect specimens or take other measures to ensure that evidence intrinsic to the specimen is preserved.

4. Enclosed is a "compliance certification" form, which must be signed and returned within 30 days of completion of the project. Your signature on this form certifies that you have completed the work in accordance with the regional permit terms and conditions.

Please note that you should either obtain a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) bald eagle take permit or a letter of concurrence from FWS indicating that a permit is not necessary prior to initiating construction activities. You should contact Scott Frickey concerning this matter at 413-253-8577 or Scott_frickey@fws.gov.

Provided the project specific conditions (above) and the Nationwide Permit General Conditions (enclosed) are met, an individual Department of the Army Permit will not be required. In addition, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality has provided an conditional §401 Water Quality Certification for Nationwide Permit Number 3. A permit may be required from the Virginia Marine Resources Commission and/or your local wetlands board, and this verification is not valid until you obtain their approval, if necessary. This authorization does not relieve your responsibility to comply with local requirements pursuant to the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act (CBPA), nor does it supersede local government authority and responsibilities pursuant to the Act. You should contact your local government before you begin work to find out how the CBPA applies to your project.

This verification is valid until the NWP is modified, reissued, or revoked. All of the existing NWPs are scheduled to be modified, reissued, or revoked prior to March 18,

2022. It is incumbent upon you to remain informed of changes to the NWPs. We will issue a public notice when the NWPs are reissued. Furthermore, if you commence or are under contract to commence this activity before the date that the relevant nationwide permit is modified or revoked, you will have twelve (12) months from the date of the modification or revocation of the NWP to complete the activity under the present terms and conditions of this nationwide permit unless discretionary authority has been exercised on a case-by-case basis to modify, suspend, or revoke the authorization in accordance with 33 CFR 330.4(e) and 33 CFR 330.5 (c) or (d). Project specific conditions listed in this letter continue to remain in effect after the NWP verification expires, unless the district engineer removes those conditions. Activities completed under the authorization of an NWP which was in effect at the time the activity was completed continue to be authorized by that NWP.

In granting an authorization pursuant to this permit, the Norfolk District has relied on the information and data provided by the permittee. If, subsequent to notification by the Corps that a project qualifies for this permit, such information and data prove to be materially false or materially incomplete, the authorization may be suspended or revoked, in whole or in part, and/or the Government may institute appropriate legal proceedings.

If you have any questions and/or concerns about this permit authorization, please contact Audrey Cotnoir at 757-549-8819 or audrey.l.cotnoir@usace.army.mil.

Sincerely, for Peter R. Kube Chief, Eastern Virginia Regulatory Section Enclosures Project Drawings Compliance Certification NWP-#3 Cc: Virginia Electric and Power Company, ATTN: Oula Shehab-Dandan Virginia Marine Resources Commission, ATTN: Mark Eversole

I I

.\

) . '\.

I

(

) '

(

ROG ll!ILANI>

}

. liTATE Wll,DLIFI MANAOl>l'*U:.NT AltlsA*

.f Ill

_I.

/.

l w.tilyl

( o,..,,." ../ /

/ i -* ( /

1 ,_ I ,

I

• I '*'4>** .I

. *>* *v,,

• ;.,*"

• f'fl\..,. '°"'1_,.

\ ,/

.........., I J fl'* * ,.<I~1. I

...... . , 1 - Surry Power Station (.., ., ,.

I *'

/

Intake Location

,, --~ ...

. fl"' .....

~ O flt I  ;

~ ." I

\

~

' Jl t1fl_! f r ,,1.. . .,. J

.A, l )

<2,ut

)

). o>./to

/

,/

'. J' I

) -~~~

..~)

~ *( "OCl IM,A. lltl r *_,-,'..t>'~

c.,/ .,

• r,n c I

ll'ILDLIPI MAN/\GIIM 1L NI' A*llA Dominion Surry Power Station

l. ,

.I*.\ ' :.:, .. r - . ,* Location of Property Boundary

~TlO{'I . )

, *., **: ***, / Map excorpl from USGS Hog Island 7.5 mlnule quadrangle I, ( . I -

' '** ' Omit 05,nilt 1sn1, apptor1moco) 1 Omtlo

T RASH AND DEBRIS REMOVAL Cf. EMERGENCY SERVICE WATER PUMP FISH RETURN

<t. ELS' JAMES RIVER

. . .TO INTAKE TRASH RACK CANAL y" MSLO.O'

¥ MLW -1.3' ct. EL 2.5 INTAKE CHANNEL H DREDGED TO -13.3' y" E.L.W. -4.8' 1L--i..- --t11-- CURTAIN WALL EL-8.5' . . . FLOW EL-25.94' 0 7.5 15FEET

~ ~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil SCALE IS APPROXIMATE M0DIF1ED FROM ALDEN 2003 LOW-LEVEL INTAKE SURRY POWER STATION NU062006003RDO 2-4 (Sl16I06)

U.S. Army Corps Of Engineers Norfolk District CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT Permit Number: NAO-2018-00103 VMRC Number: 18-V0069 Corps

Contact:

Audrey Cotnoir Name of Permittee: Virginia Power and Electric Company (Surry Nuclear Power Station-cooling water intake structure)

Date of Issuance: April 17, 2018 Permit Type: NWP #3 Within 30 days of completion of the activity authorized by this permit and any mitigation required by the permit, sign this certification and return it to the following address:

Norfolk District, Corps of Engineers ATTN: Ms. Audrey Cotnoir Great Bridge Reservation 2509 Reservation Road Chesapeake, Virginia 23322-5217 Or scan and send via email to audrey.l.cotnoir@usace.army.mil Please note that your permitted activity is subject to a compliance inspection by a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers representative. If you fail to comply with this permit you are subject to permit suspension, modification or revocation.

I hereby certify that the work authorized by the above referenced permit has been completed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the said permit, and required mitigation has been completed in accordance with the permit conditions.

Signature of Permittee Date

Nationwide Permit (3) Maintenance returned to pre-construction elevations. The areas affected by temporary fills Effective 3/19/2017 must be revegetated, as appropriate.

Expires 3/18/2022 (d) This NWP does not authorize maintenance dredging for the primary purpose (a) The repair, rehabilitation, or replacement of any previously authorized, of navigation. This NWP does not authorize beach restoration. This NWP does currently serviceable structure or fill, or of any currently serviceable structure not authorize new stream channelization or stream relocation projects.

or fill authorized by 33 CFR 330.3, provided that the structure or fill is not to be put to uses differing from those uses specified or contemplated for it in the Notification: For activities authorized by paragraph (b) of this NWP, the original permit or the most recently authorized modification. Minor deviations in permittee must submit a pre-construction notification to the district engineer the structure's configuration or filled area, including those due to changes in prior to commencing the activity (see general condition 32). The pre-materials, construction techniques, requirements of other regulatory agencies, construction notification must include information regarding the original design or current construction codes or safety standards that are necessary to make capacities and configurations of the outfalls, intakes, small impoundments, and the repair, rehabilitation, or replacement are authorized. This NWP also canals.

authorizes the removal of previously authorized structures or fills. Any stream channel modification is limited to the minimum necessary for the repair, Note: This NWP authorizes the repair, rehabilitation, or replacement of any rehabilitation, or replacement of the structure or fill; such modifications, previously authorized structure or fill that does not qualify for the Clean Water including the removal of material from the stream channel, must be immediately Act section 404(f) exemption for maintenance.

adjacent to the project. This NWP also authorizes the removal of accumulated sediment and debris within, and in the immediate vicinity of, the structure or fill. Authority: Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and section 404 of This NWP also authorizes the repair, rehabilitation, or replacement of those the Clean Water Act (Sections 10 and 404) structures or fills destroyed or damaged by storms, floods, fire or other discrete events, provided the repair, rehabilitation, or replacement is commenced, or is REGIONAL CONDITIONS:

under contract to commence, within two years of the date of their destruction or damage. In cases of catastrophic events, such as hurricanes or tornadoes, this 1. Conditions for Waters Containing Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) two-year limit may be waived by the district engineer, provided the permittee Beds: This condition applies to: NWPs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, can demonstrate funding, contract, or other similar delays. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 44, 45, 48, 52, 53 and 54. A pre-construction notification (PCN) is required if work (b) This NWP also authorizes the removal of accumulated sediments and debris will occur in areas that contain submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV). Information outside the immediate vicinity of existing structures (e.g., bridges, culverted about SAV habitat can be found at the Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences road crossings, water intake structures, etc.). The removal of sediment is limited website http://web.vims.edu/bio/sav/. Additional avoidance and minimization to the minimum necessary to restore the waterway in the vicinity of the measures, such as relocating a structure or time-of-year restrictions (TOYR),

structure to the approximate dimensions that existed when the structure was may be required to reduce impacts to SAV habitat.

built, but cannot extend farther than 200 feet in any direction from the structure.

This 200 foot limit does not apply to maintenance dredging to remove 2. Conditions for Anadromous Fish Use Areas: To ensure that activities accumulated sediments blocking or restricting outfall and intake structures or authorized by any NWP do not impact documented spawning habitat or a to maintenance dredging to remove accumulated sediments from canals migratory pathway for anadromous fish, a check for anadromous fish use areas associated with outfall and intake structures. All dredged or excavated materials must be conducted via the Norfolk Districts Regulatory GIS (for reporting must be deposited and retained in an area that has no waters of the United permits) and/or the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF)

States unless otherwise specifically approved by the district engineer under Information System (by applicant for non-reporting permits) at separate authorization. http://vafwis.org/fwis/ . For any proposed NWP, if the project is located in an area documented as an anadromous fish use area (confirmed or potential), a (c) This NWP also authorizes temporary structures, fills, and work, including the time-of-year restriction (TOYR) prohibiting all in-water work will be required from use of temporary mats, necessary to conduct the maintenance activity. February 15 to June 30 of any given year or any TOYR specified by VDGIF Appropriate measures must be taken to maintain normal downstream flows and and/or Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC). For permits requiring a minimize flooding to the maximum extent practicable, when temporary PCN, if the Norfolk District determines that the work is minimal and the TOYR is structures, work, and discharges, including cofferdams, are necessary for unnecessary, informal consultation will be conducted with NOAA Fisheries construction activities, access fills, or dewatering of construction sites. Service (NOAA) to obtain concurrence that the TOYR would not be required for Temporary fills must consist of materials, and be placed in a manner, that will the proposed activity. For dredging in the Elizabeth River upstream of the Mid-not be eroded by expected high flows. After conducting the maintenance Town Tunnel on the mainstem and the West Norfolk Bridge (Route 164, Western activity, temporary fills must be removed in their entirety and the affected areas Freeway) on the Western Branch of the Elizabeth River, a TOYR is not required.

1

Classes I-IV are considered wild trout streams. Classes V and VI are considered

3. Conditions for Designated Critical Resource Waters, which include stockable trout streams. Information on designated trout streams can be National Estuarine Research Reserves: Notification is required for work under obtained via their Virginia Fish and Wildlife Information Service's (VAFWIS's)

NWPs 3, 8, 10, 13, 15, 18, 19, 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 30, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38 and 54 in Cold Water Stream Survey database. Basic access to the VAFWIS is available the Chesapeake Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve in Virginia. This via http://vafwis.org/fwis/.

multi-site system along a salinity gradient of the York River includes Sweet Hall The waters, occurring specifically within the mountains of Virginia, are within the Marsh, Taskinas Creek, Catlett Islands, and Goodwin Islands. More information following river basins:

can be found at: http://www.vims.edu/cbnerr/. NWPs 7, 12, 14, 16, 17, 21, 29, 1) Potomac-Shenandoah River Basins 31, 35, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 49, 50, 51, and 52 cannot be used to authorize the 2) James River Basin discharge of dredged or fill material in the Chesapeake Bay National Estuarine 3) Roanoke River Basin Research Reserve in Virginia. 4) New River Basin

5) Tennessee and Big Sandy River Basins

4. Conditions for Federally Listed Species and Designated Critical Habitat: For 6) Rappahannock River Basin ALL NWPs, notification is required for any project that may affect a federally VDGIF recommends the following time-of-year restrictions (TOYRs) for any in-listed threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitat. The U.S. stream work within streams identified as wild trout waters in its Cold Water Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has developed an online system that allows Stream Survey database. The recommended TOYRs for trout species are:

users to find information about sensitive resources that may occur within the

• Brook Trout: October 1 through March 31 vicinity of a proposed project. This system is named Information, Planning and

• Brown Trout: October 1 through March 31 Conservation System, (IPaC), and is located at: http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ . The

• Rainbow Trout: March 15 through May 15 applicant may use IPaC to determine if any federally listed species or designated This condition applies to the following counties and cities: Albemarle, Allegheny, critical habitat may be affected by their proposed project. If your Official Species Amherst, Augusta, Bath, Bedford, Bland, Botetourt, Bristol, Buchanan, Buena List from IPaC identifies any federally listed endangered or threatened species, Vista, Carroll, Clarke, Covington, Craig, Dickenson, Floyd, Franklin, Frederick, you are required to submit a PCN for the proposed activity, unless the project Giles, Grayson, Greene, Henry, Highland, Lee, Loudoun, Madison, Montgomery, clearly does not impact a listed species or suitable habitat for the listed species. Nelson, Page, Patrick, Pulaski, Rappahannock, Roanoke City, Roanoke Co.,

If you are unsure about whether your project will impact listed species, please Rockbridge, Rockingham, Russell, Scott, Shenandoah, Smyth, Staunton, submit a PCN, so the Norfolk District may review the action. Further information Tazewell, Warren, Washington, Waynesboro, Wise, and Wythe. Any discharge about the Virginia Field Office Project Review Process may be found at: of dredged and/or fill material authorized by the NWPs listed above, which would http://www.fws.gov/northeast/virginiafield/endangered/projectreviews.html. occur in the designated waterways or adjacent wetlands of the specified Additional consultation may also be required with National Marine Fisheries counties, requires notification to the appropriate Corps of Engineers field office, Service for species or critical habitat under their jurisdiction, including sea turtles, and written approval from that office prior to performing the work. The Norfolk marine mammals, shortnose sturgeon, and Atlantic sturgeon. For additional District recommends that prospective permittees first contact the applicable information about their jurisdiction in Virginia, please see Norfolk District Field Office, found at this web link:

https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/protected/index.html . Additional http://www.nao.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/Contacts.aspx, to determine resources to assist in determining compliance with this condition can be found on if the PCN procedures would apply. The notification must be in writing and our webpage: http://www.nao.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/USFWS.aspx include the following information (the standard Joint Permit Application may also be used):

5. Conditions for Waters with Federally Listed Endangered or Threatened

• Name, address, and telephone number of the prospective permittee.

Species, Waters Federally Designated as Critical Habitat, and One-mile

• Name, address, email, and telephone number of the property owner.

Upstream (including tributaries) of Any Such Waters: Any work proposed in

• Location of the proposed project.

critical habitat, as designated in regional condition 4, requires a PCN.

• Vicinity map and project drawings on 8.5-inch by 11-inch paper (plan view, profile, & cross-sectional view).

6. Conditions for Designated Trout Waters: Notification is required for work in

• Brief description of the proposed project and the project purpose.

the areas listed below for NWPs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 23,

• Where required by the terms of the nationwide permit, a delineation of 25, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 49, 50, 51, affected special aquatic sites, including wetlands.

52, 53, and 54. This condition applies to activities occurring in two categories of When all required information is received by the appropriate field office, the waters; Class V (Put and Take Trout Waters) and Class VI (Natural Trout Corps will notify the prospective permittee within 45 days whether the project can Waters), as defined by the Virginia State Water Control Board Regulations, proceed under the NWP or whether an individual permit is required. If, after Water Quality Standards (VR-680-21-00), dated January 1, 1991, or the most reviewing the PCN, the District Commander determines that the proposed activity recently updated publication. The Virginia Department of Game and Inland would have more than minimal individual or cumulative adverse impacts on the Fisheries (VDGIF) designated these same trout streams into six classes.

aquatic environment or otherwise may be contrary to the public interest, then 2

he/she will either condition the nationwide permit authorization to reduce or c. Exemption for extensions and certain maintenance: The requirement to eliminate the adverse impacts, or notify the prospective permittee that the activity countersink does not apply to extensions of existing pipes or culverts that are is not authorized by the NWP and provide instructions on how to seek not countersunk, or to maintenance to pipes/culverts that does not involve authorization under an individual permit. If the prospective permittee is not replacing the pipe/culvert (such as repairing cracks, adding material to notified otherwise within the 45-day period, the prospective permittee may prevent/correct scour, etc.).

assume that the project can proceed under the NWP. d. Floodplain pipes: The requirement to countersink does not apply to pipes or culverts that are being placed above ordinary high water, such as those

7. Conditions Regarding Invasive Species: Plant species listed by the most placed to allow for floodplain flows. The placement of pipes above ordinary current Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreations Invasive Alien high water is not jurisdictional (provided no fill is discharged into wetlands).

Plant List shall not be used for re-vegetation for activities authorized by any e. Hydraulic opening: Pipes should be adequately sized to allow for the passage NWP. The list of invasive plants in Virginia may be found at: of ordinary high water with the countersinking and invert restrictions taken http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural-heritage/invsppdflist. DCR recommends the into account.

use of regional native species for re-vegetation as identified in the DCR Native f. Pipes on bedrock or above existing utility lines: Different procedures will be Plants for Conservation, Restoration and Landscaping brochures for the coastal, followed for pipes or culverts to be placed on bedrock or above existing piedmont and mountain regions http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural- buried utility lines where it is not practicable to relocate the lines, depending heritage/nativeplants#brochure . on whether the work is for replacement of an existing pipe/culvert or a new pipe/culvert:

8. Conditions Pertaining to Countersinking of Pipes and Culverts: This i.Replacement of an existing pipe/culvert: Countersinking is not required condition applies to: NWPs 3, 7, 12, 14, 17, 18, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 32, 33, 37, 38, provided the elevations of the inlet and outlet ends of the replacement 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 49, 50, 51, and 52. NOTE: COUNTERSINKING IS pipe/culvert are no higher above the stream bottom than those of the NOT REQUIRED IN TIDAL WATERS. However, replacement pipes/culverts in existing pipe/culvert. Documentation (photographic or other evidence) must tidal waters must be installed with invert elevations no higher than the existing be maintained in the permittees records showing the bedrock condition and pipe/culvert invert elevation, and a new pipe/culvert must be installed with the the existing inlet and outlet elevations. That documentation will be available invert no higher than the stream bottom elevation. For Nontidal Waters: Following to the Norfolk District upon request, but notification or coordination with the consultation with the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF), Norfolk District is not otherwise required.

the Norfolk District has determined that fish and other aquatic organisms are ii.A pipe/culvert is being placed in a new location: If the prospective permittee most likely present in any stream being crossed, in the absence of site-specific determines that bedrock or an existing buried utility line that is not evidence to the contrary. Although prospective permittees have the option of practicable to relocate prevents countersinking, he/she should evaluate the providing such evidence, extensive efforts to collect such information is not use of a bottomless pipe/culvert, bottomless utility vault, span (bridge) or encouraged, since countersinking will in most cases be required except as other bottomless structure to cross the waterway, and also evaluate outlined in the conditions below. The following conditions will apply in nontidal alternative locations for the new pipe/culvert that will allow for waters: countersinking. If the prospective permittee determines that neither a

a. All pipes: All pipes and culverts placed in streams will be countersunk at both bottomless structure nor an alternative location is practicable, then he/she the inlet and outlet ends, unless indicated otherwise by the Norfolk District on must submit a pre-construction notification (PCN) to the Norfolk District in a case-by-case basis (see below). Pipes that are 24 or less in diameter shall accordance with General Condition 32 of the NWPs. In addition to the be countersunk 3 below the natural stream bottom. Pipes that are greater information required by General Condition 32, the prospective permittee than 24 in diameter shall be countersunk 6 below the natural stream must provide documentation of measures evaluated to minimize disruption bottom. The countersinking requirement does not apply to bottomless of the movement of aquatic life as well as documentation of the cost, pipes/culverts or pipe arches. All single pipes or culverts (with bottoms) shall engineering factors, and site conditions that prohibit countersinking the be depressed (countersunk) below the natural streambed at both the inlet pipe/culvert. Options that must be considered include partial countersinking and outlet of the structure. In sets of multiple pipes or culverts (with bottoms) (such as less than 3 of countersinking, or countersinking of one end of the at least one pipe or culvert shall be depressed (countersunk) at both the inlet pipe), and constructing stone step pools, low rock weirs downstream, or and outlet to convey low flows. other measures to provide for the movement of aquatic organisms. The

b. When countersinking culverts, permittees must ensure reestablishment of a PCN must also include photographs documenting site conditions. The surface water channel (within 15 days post construction) that allows for the prospective permittee may find it helpful to contact the regional fishery movement of aquatic organisms and maintains the same hydrologic regime biologist for the VDGIF, for recommendations about the measures to be that was present pre-construction (i.e. the depth of surface water through the taken to allow for fish movements. When seeking advice from VDGIF, the permit area should match the upstream and downstream depths). This may prospective permittee should provide the VDGIF biologist with all available require the addition of finer materials to choke the larger stone and/or information such as location, flow rates, stream bottom features, description placement of riprap to allow for a low flow channel. of proposed pipe(s), slopes, etc. Any recommendations from VDGIF should 3

be included in the PCN. The Norfolk District will notify the prospective telephone and/or email is acceptable). The permittee must provide the permittee whether the proposed work qualifies for the nationwide permit Norfolk District with specific information concerning site conditions and within 45 days of receipt of a complete PCN. NOTE: Blasting of stream limitations on countersinking. The Norfolk District will work with the bottoms through the use of explosives is not acceptable as a means of permittee to determine an acceptable plan, taking into consideration the providing for countersinking of pipes on bedrock. information provided by the permittee, but the permittee should recognize

g. Pipes on steep terrain: Pipes being placed on steep terrain (slope of 5% that the Norfolk District could determine that the work will not qualify for a or greater) must be countersunk in accordance with the conditions above nationwide permit.

and will in most cases be non-reporting. It is recommended that on i. Emergency pipe replacements: In the case of an emergency situation, slopes greater than 5%, a larger pipe than required be installed to allow such as when a pipe/culvert washes out during a flood, a permittee is for the passage of ordinary high water in order to increase the likelihood encouraged to countersink the replacement pipe at the time of that natural velocities can be maintained. There may be situations where replacement, in accordance with the conditions above. However, if countersinking both the inlet and outlet may result in a slope in the pipe conditions or timeframes do not allow for countersinking, then the pipe that results in flow velocities that cause excessive scour at the outlet can be replaced as it was before the washout, but the permittee will have and/or prohibit some fish movement. This type of situation could occur on to come back and replace the pipe/culvert and countersink it in the side of a mountain where falls and drop pools occur along a stream. accordance with the guidance above. In other words, the replacement of Should this be the case, or should the prospective permittee not want to the washed out pipe is viewed as a temporary repair, and a countersunk countersink the pipe/culvert for other reasons, he/she must submit a PCN replacement should be made at the earliest possible date. The Norfolk to the Norfolk District in accordance with General Condition 32 of the District must be notified of all pipes/culverts that are replaced without Nationwide Permits. In addition to the information required by General countersinking at the time that it occurs, even if it is an otherwise non-Condition 32, the prospective permittee must provide documentation of reporting activity, and must provide the permittee's planned schedule for measures evaluated to minimize disruption of the movement of aquatic installing a countersunk replacement (it is acceptable to submit such life as well as documentation of the cost, engineering factors, and site notification by email). The permittee should anticipate whether bedrock or conditions that prohibit countersinking the pipe/culvert. The prospective steep terrain will limit countersinking, and if so, should follow the permittee should design the pipe to be placed at a slope as steep as procedures outlined in (g) and/or (h) above.

stream characteristics allow, countersink the inlet 3-6, and implement measures to minimize any disruption of fish movement. These measures 9. Conditions for the Repair of Pipes: This condition applies to: NWPs 3, 7, 12, can include constructing a stone step/pool structure, preferably using 14, 17, 18, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 32, 33, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 49, river rock/native stone rather than riprap, constructing low rock weirs to 50, 51, and 52.

create a pool or pools, or other structures to allow for fish movements in NOTE: COUNTERSINKING IS NOT REQUIRED IN TIDAL WATERS. However, both directions. Stone structures should be designed with sufficient-sized replacement pipes/culverts in tidal waters must be installed with invert elevations stone to prevent erosion or washout and should include keying-in as no higher than the existing pipe/culvert invert elevation, and a new pipe/culvert appropriate. These structures should be designed both to allow for fish must be installed with the invert no higher than the stream bottom elevation. For passage and to minimize scour at the outlet. The quantities of fill Nontidal Waters: If any discharge of fill material will occur in conjunction with pipe discharged below ordinary high water necessary to comply with these maintenance, such as concrete being pumped over rebar into an existing requirements (i.e., the cubic yards of stone, riprap or other fill placed deteriorated pipe for stabilization, then the following conditions apply:

below the plane of ordinary high water) must be included in project totals. a. If the existing pipe or multi-barrel array of pipes are NOT currently The prospective permittee may find it helpful to contact the regional countersunk:

fishery biologist for the VDGIF for recommendations about the measures i. As long as the inlet and outlet invert elevations of at least one pipe located to be taken to allow for fish movements. When seeking advice from DGIF, in the low flow channel are not being altered, and provided that no concrete the prospective permittee should provide the DGIF biologist with all apron is being constructed, then the work may proceed under the NWP for available information such as location, flow rates, stream bottom features, the other pipes, provided it complies with all other NWP General Conditions, description of proposed pipe(s), slopes, etc. Any recommendations from including Condition 9 for Management of Water Flows. In such cases, DGIF should be included in the PCN. The Norfolk District will notify the notification to the Norfolk District Commander is not required, unless prospective permittee whether the proposed work qualifies for the specified in the NWP Conditions for other reasons, and the permittee may nationwide permit within 45 days of receipt of a complete PCN. proceed with the work.

h. Problems encountered during construction: When a pipe/culvert is being ii. Otherwise, the prospective permittee must submit a pre-construction replaced, and the design calls for countersinking at both ends of the notification (PCN) to the Norfolk District Commander prior to commencing pipe/culvert, and during construction it is found that the streambed/banks the activity. For all such projects, the following information should be are on bedrock, a utility line, or other documentable obstacle, then the provided:

permittee must stop work and contact the Norfolk District (contact by 1) Photographs of the existing inlet and outlet; 4

2) A measurement of the degree to which the work will raise the invert 11. Condition for Temporary Impacts: All temporarily disturbed waters and elevations of both the inlet and outlet of the existing pipe; wetlands must be restored to their pre-construction contours within 12 months of

3) The reasons why other methods of pipe maintenance are not commencing the temporary impacts construction. Impacts that will not be practicable (such as metal sleeves or a countersunk pipe restored within 12 months (calculated from the start of the temporary impacts replacement); construction) will be considered permanent, unless otherwise approved by the

4) A vicinity map showing the pipe locations. Corps, and mitigation may be required. Once restored to their natural contours, Depending on the specific case, the Norfolk District may discuss soil in these areas must be mechanically loosened to a depth of 12 inches and potential fish usage of the waterway with the Virginia Department of wetland areas must be seeded or sprigged with appropriate native vegetation Game and Inland Fisheries. (see Regional Condition 7 regarding revegetation).

The Norfolk District will assess all such pipe repair proposals in accordance with guidelines that can be found under Pipe Repair 12. Condition for Transportation Projects Funded in Part or in Total by Local, Guidelines at: State or Federal Funds: For all impacts associated with transportation projects http://www.nao.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/GuidanceDocume funded in part or in total by local, state or federal funds and requiring a PCN, nts.aspx compensatory mitigation will generally be required for all permanent wetland iii. If the Norfolk District determines that the work qualifies for the NWP, impacts (including impacts less than 1/10 acre). Therefore, the PCN must additional conditions will be placed on the verification. Those conditions can include a mitigation plan addressing the proposed compensatory mitigation.

be found at the web link above (in item ii).

iv. If the Norfolk District determines that the work does NOT qualify for the 13. Condition for Projects Requiring Coordination Under Section 408: General NWP, the applicant will be directed to apply for either Regional Permit 01 Condition 31 of the NWPs requires that prospective permittees submit a pre-(applicable only for Virginia Department of Transportation projects) or an construction notification (PCN) if an NWP activity also requires permission from Individual Perm the Corps pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 408 because it will alter or temporarily or

v. it. However, it is anticipated that the applicant will still be required to perform permanently occupy or use a US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) federally the work such that the waterway is not blocked or restricted to a greater authorized civil works project. For information on the location of Norfolk District degree than its current conditions. projects, prospective permittees are directed to the maps showing the locations

b. If the existing pipe or at least one pipe in the multi-barrel array of pipes IS of Norfolk District projects located at:

countersunk and at least one pipe located in the low flow channel will http://www.nao.usace.army.mil/Portals/31/docs/regulatory/RPSPdocs/RP-continue to be countersunk, and no concrete aprons are proposed: No 17_Corps_Project_Maps.pdf. If the prospective permittee is uncertain whether PCN to the Norfolk District is required, unless specified in the NWP the proposed activity might alter or temporarily or permanently occupy or use a Conditions for other reasons, and the permittee may proceed with the Norfolk District federally authorized civil works project, the prospective permittee work. shall submit a PCN.

c. If the existing pipe or at least one pipe in the multi-barrel array of pipes IS countersunk and no pipe will continue to be countersunk in the low flow GENERAL CONDITIONS:

channel: This work cannot be performed under the NWPs. The prospective permittee must apply for either a Regional Permit 01 Note: To qualify for NWP authorization, the prospective permittee must comply with (applicable only for VDOT projects) or an Individual Permit. However, it is the following general conditions, as applicable, in addition to any regional or case-anticipated that the prospective permittee will still be required to perform specific conditions imposed by the division engineer or district engineer. Prospective the work such that the waterway is not blocked or restricted more so than permittees should contact the appropriate Corps district office to determine if regional its current conditions. conditions have been imposed on an NWP. Prospective permittees should also

d. In emergency situations, if conditions or timeframes do not allow for contact the appropriate Corps district office to determine the status of Clean Water Act compliance with the procedure outlined herein, then the pipe can be Section 401 water quality certification and/or Coastal authorization under one or more temporarily repaired to the condition before the washout. If the temporary NWPs, or who is currently relying on an existing or prior permit authorization under repair would require a PCN by the above procedures, the permittee must one or more NWPs, has been and is on notice that all of the provisions of 33 CFR §§ submit the PCN at the earliest practicable date, but no longer than 15 330.1 through 330.6 apply to every NWP authorization. Note especially 33 CFR § days after the temporary repair. 330.5 relating to the modification, suspension, or revocation of any NWP authorization.

10. Condition for Impacts Requiring a Mitigation Plan: When a PCN is required, a mitigation plan needs to be submitted when the permanent loss of wetlands 1. Navigation.

exceeds 1/10 acre and/or 300 linear feet of waters of the U.S., unless otherwise (a) No activity may cause more than a minimal adverse effect on navigation.

stated in the Regional Conditions (see Regional Condition 12).

5

(b) Any safety lights and signals prescribed by the U.S. Coast Guard, through management activities, and temporary and permanent road crossings, except as regulations or otherwise, must be installed and maintained at the permittee's expense provided below. The activity must be constructed to withstand expected high flows.

on authorized facilities in navigable waters of the United States. The activity must not restrict or impede the passage of normal or high flows, unless (c) The permittee understands and agrees that, if future operations by the United the primary purpose of the activity is to impound water or manage high flows. The States require the removal, relocation, or other alteration, of the structure or work activity may alter the pre-construction course, condition, capacity, and location of open herein authorized, or if, in the opinion of the Secretary of the Army or his authorized waters if it benefits the aquatic environment (e.g., stream restoration or relocation representative, said structure or work shall cause unreasonable obstruction to the free activities).

navigation of the navigable waters, the permittee will be required, upon due notice from the Corps of Engineers, to remove, relocate, or alter the structural work or 10. Fills Within 100-Year Floodplains. The activity must comply with applicable FEMA-obstructions caused thereby, without expense to the United States. No claim shall be approved state or local floodplain management requirements.

made against the United States on account of any such removal or alteration.

11. Equipment. Heavy equipment working in wetlands or mudflats must be placed on

2. Aquatic Life Movements. No activity may substantially disrupt the necessary life mats, or other measures must be taken to minimize soil disturbance.

cycle movements of those species of aquatic life indigenous to the waterbody, including those species that normally migrate through the area, unless the activity's 12. Soil Erosion and Sediment Controls. Appropriate soil erosion and sediment primary purpose is to impound water. All permanent and temporary crossings of controls must be used and maintained in effective operating condition during waterbodies shall be suitably culverted, bridged, or otherwise designed and construction, and all exposed soil and other fills, as well as any work below the constructed to maintain low flows to sustain the movement of those aquatic species. If ordinary high water mark or high tide line, must be permanently stabilized at the a bottomless culvert cannot be used, then the crossing should be designed and earliest practicable date. Permittees are encouraged to perform work within waters of constructed to minimize adverse effects to aquatic life movements. the United States during periods of low-flow or no-flow, or during low tides.

3. Spawning Areas. Activities in spawning areas during spawning seasons must be 13. Removal of Temporary Fills. Temporary fills must be removed in their entirety and avoided to the maximum extent practicable. Activities that result in the physical the affected areas returned to pre-construction elevations. The affected areas must be destruction (e.g., through excavation, fill, or downstream smothering by substantial revegetated, as appropriate.

turbidity) of an important spawning area are not authorized.

14. Proper Maintenance. Any authorized structure or fill shall be properly maintained,

4. Migratory Bird Breeding Areas. Activities in waters of the United States that serve including maintenance to ensure public safety and compliance with applicable NWP as breeding areas for migratory birds must be avoided to the maximum extent general conditions, as well as any activity-specific conditions added by the district practicable. engineer to an NWP authorization.

5. Shellfish Beds. No activity may occur in areas of concentrated shellfish populations, 15. Single and Complete Project. The activity must be a single and complete project.

unless the activity is directly related to a shellfish harvesting activity authorized by The same NWP cannot be used more than once for the same single and complete NWPs 4 and 48, or is a shellfish seeding or habitat restoration activity authorized by project.

NWP 27.

16. Wild and Scenic Rivers.

6. Suitable Material. No activity may use unsuitable material (e.g., trash, debris, car (a) No NWP activity may occur in a component of the National Wild and Scenic bodies, asphalt, etc.). Material used for construction or discharged must be free from River System, or in a river officially designated by Congress as a study river for toxic pollutants in toxic amounts (see section 307 of the Clean Water Act). possible inclusion in the system while the river is in an official study status, unless the appropriate Federal agency with direct management responsibility for such river, has

7. Water Supply Intakes. No activity may occur in the proximity of a public water determined in writing that the proposed activity will not adversely affect the Wild and supply intake, except where the activity is for the repair or improvement of public water Scenic River designation or study status.

supply intake structures or adjacent bank stabilization. (b) If a proposed NWP activity will occur in a component of the National Wild and Scenic River System, or in a river officially designated by Congress as a study river

8. Adverse Effects from Impoundments. If the activity creates an impoundment of for possible inclusion in the system while the river is in an official study status, the water, adverse effects to the aquatic system due to accelerating the passage of water, permittee must submit a pre-construction notification (see general condition 32). The and/or restricting its flow must be minimized to the maximum extent practicable. district engineer will coordinate the PCN with the Federal agency with direct management responsibility for that river. The permittee shall not begin the NWP

9. Management of Water Flows. To the maximum extent practicable, the pre- activity until notified by the district engineer that the Federal agency with direct construction course, condition, capacity, and location of open waters must be management responsibility for that river has determined in writing that the proposed maintained for each activity, including stream channelization, storm water 6

NWP activity will not adversely affect the Wild and Scenic River designation or study (d) As a result of formal or informal consultation with the FWS or NMFS the district status. engineer may add species-specific permit conditions to the NWPs.

(c) Information on Wild and Scenic Rivers may be obtained from the appropriate (e) Authorization of an activity by an NWP does not authorize the take of a Federal land management agency responsible for the designated Wild and Scenic threatened or endangered species as defined under the ESA. In the absence of River or study river (e.g., National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land separate authorization (e.g., an ESA Section 10 Permit, a Biological Opinion with Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). Information on these rivers is also incidental take provisions, etc.) from the FWS or the NMFS, the Endangered Species available at: http://www.rivers.gov/. Act prohibits any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take a listed species, where "take" means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,

17. Tribal Rights. No NWP activity may cause more than minimal adverse effects on capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. The word harm in tribal rights (including treaty rights), protected tribal resources, or tribal lands. the definition of take means an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such an act may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or

18. Endangered Species. injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including (a) No activity is authorized under any NWP which is likely to directly or indirectly breeding, feeding or sheltering.

jeopardize the continued existence of a threatened or endangered species or a (f) If the non-federal permittee has a valid ESA section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take species proposed for such designation, as identified under the Federal Endangered permit with an approved Habitat Conservation Plan for a project or a group of projects Species Act (ESA), or which will directly or indirectly destroy or adversely modify the that includes the proposed NWP activity, the non-federal applicant should provide a critical habitat of such species. No activity is authorized under any NWP which may copy of that ESA section 10(a)(1)(B) permit with the PCN required by paragraph (c) of affect a listed species or critical habitat, unless ESA section 7 consultation addressing this general condition. The district engineer will coordinate with the agency that the effects of the proposed activity has been completed. Direct effects are the issued the ESA section 10(a)(1)(B) permit to determine whether the proposed NWP immediate effects on listed species and critical habitat caused by the NWP activity. activity and the associated incidental take were considered in the internal ESA section Indirect effects are those effects on listed species and critical habitat that are caused 7 consultation conducted for the ESA section 10(a)(1)(B) permit. If that coordination by the NWP activity and are later in time, but still are reasonably certain to occur. results in concurrence from the agency that the proposed NWP activity and the (b) Federal agencies should follow their own procedures for complying with the associated incidental take were considered in the internal ESA section 7 consultation requirements of the ESA. If pre-construction notification is required for the proposed for the ESA section 10(a)(1)(B) permit, the district engineer does not need to conduct activity, the Federal permittee must provide the district engineer with the appropriate a separate ESA section 7 consultation for the proposed NWP activity. The district documentation to demonstrate compliance with those requirements. The district engineer will notify the non-federal applicant within 45 days of receipt of a complete engineer will verify that the appropriate documentation has been submitted. If the pre-construction notification whether the ESA section 10(a)(1)(B) permit covers the appropriate documentation has not been submitted, additional ESA section 7 proposed NWP activity or whether additional ESA section 7 consultation is required.

consultation may be necessary for the activity and the respective federal agency (g) Information on the location of threatened and endangered species and their would be responsible for fulfilling its obligation under section 7 of the ESA. critical habitat can be obtained directly from the offices of the FWS and NMFS or their (c) Non-federal permittees must submit a pre-construction notification to the World Wide Web pages at http://www.fws.gov/ or http://www.fws.gov/ipac and district engineer if any listed species or designated critical habitat might be affected or http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/ respectively.

is in the vicinity of the activity, or if the activity is located in designated critical habitat, and shall not begin work on the activity until notified by the district engineer that the 19. Migratory Birds and Bald and Golden Eagles. The permittee is responsible for requirements of the ESA have been satisfied and that the activity is authorized. For ensuring their action complies with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and activities that might affect Federally-listed endangered or threatened species or Golden Eagle Protection Act. The permittee is responsible for contacting appropriate designated critical habitat, the pre-construction notification must include the name(s) local office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine applicable measures to of the endangered or threatened species that might be affected by the proposed reduce impacts to migratory birds or eagles, including whether incidental take activity or that utilize the designated critical habitat that might be affected by the permits are necessary and available under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or Bald and proposed activity. The district engineer will determine whether the proposed activity Golden Eagle Protection Act for a particular activity.

may affect or will have no effect to listed species and designated critical habitat and will notify the non-Federal applicant of the Corps determination within 45 days of 20. Historic Properties.

receipt of a complete pre-construction notification. In cases where the non-Federal (a) In cases where the district engineer determines that the activity may have the applicant has identified listed species or critical habitat that might be affected or is in potential to cause effects to properties listed, or eligible for listing, in the National the vicinity of the activity, and has so notified the Corps, the applicant shall not begin Register of Historic Places, the activity is not authorized, until the requirements of work until the Corps has provided notification that the proposed activity will have no Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) have been satisfied.

effect on listed species or critical habitat, or until ESA section 7 consultation has been (b) Federal permittees should follow their own procedures for complying with the completed. If the non-Federal applicant has not heard back from the Corps within 45 requirements of section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. If pre-days, the applicant must still wait for notification from the Corps. construction notification is required for the proposed NWP activity, the Federal permittee must provide the district engineer with the appropriate documentation to 7

demonstrate compliance with those requirements. The district engineer will verify that assistance despite the adverse effect created or permitted by the applicant. If the appropriate documentation has been submitted. If the appropriate documentation circumstances justify granting the assistance, the Corps is required to notify the ACHP is not submitted, then additional consultation under section 106 may be necessary. and provide documentation specifying the circumstances, the degree of damage to the The respective federal agency is responsible for fulfilling its obligation to comply with integrity of any historic properties affected, and proposed mitigation. This section 106. documentation must include any views obtained from the applicant, SHPO/THPO, (c) Non-federal permittees must submit a pre-construction notification to the appropriate Indian tribes if the undertaking occurs on or affects historic properties on district engineer if the NWP activity might have the potential to cause effects to any tribal lands or affects properties of interest to those tribes, and other parties known to historic properties listed on, determined to be eligible for listing on, or potentially have a legitimate interest in the impacts to the permitted activity on historic properties.

eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, including previously unidentified properties. For such activities, the pre-construction notification must state 21. Discovery of Previously Unknown Remains and Artifacts. If you discover any which historic properties might have the potential to be affected by the proposed NWP previously unknown historic, cultural or archeological remains and artifacts while activity or include a vicinity map indicating the location of the historic properties or the accomplishing the activity authorized by this permit, you must immediately notify the potential for the presence of historic properties. Assistance regarding information on district engineer of what you have found, and to the maximum extent practicable, the location of, or potential for, the presence of historic properties can be sought from avoid construction activities that may affect the remains and artifacts until the required the State Historic Preservation Officer, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, or coordination has been completed. The district engineer will initiate the Federal, Tribal, designated tribal representative, as appropriate, and the National Register of Historic and state coordination required to determine if the items or remains warrant a Places (see 33 CFR 330.4(g)). When reviewing pre-construction notifications, district recovery effort or if the site is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic engineers will comply with the current procedures for addressing the requirements of Places.

section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The district engineer shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to carry out appropriate identification efforts, which 22. Designated Critical Resource Waters. Critical resource waters include, NOAA-may include background research, consultation, oral history interviews, sample field managed marine sanctuaries and marine monuments, and National Estuarine investigation, and field survey. Based on the information submitted in the PCN and Research Reserves. The district engineer may designate, after notice and opportunity these identification efforts, the district engineer shall determine whether the proposed for public comment, additional waters officially designated by a state as having NWP activity has the potential to cause effects on the historic properties. Section 106 particular environmental or ecological significance, such as outstanding national consultation is not required when the district engineer determines that the activity does resource waters or state natural heritage sites. The district engineer may also not have the potential to cause effects on historic properties (see 36 CFR 800.3(a)). designate additional critical resource waters after notice and opportunity for public Section 106 consultation is required when the district engineer determines that the comment.

activity has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. The district engineer (a) Discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States are not will conduct consultation with consulting parties identified under 36 CFR 800.2(c) authorized by NWPs 7, 12, 14, 16, 17, 21, 29, 31, 35, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 49, 50, 51, when he or she makes any of the following effect determinations for the purposes of and 52 for any activity within, or directly affecting, critical resource waters, including section 106 of the NHPA: no historic properties affected, no adverse effect, or adverse wetlands adjacent to such waters.

effect. Where the non-Federal applicant has identified historic properties on which the (b) For NWPs 3, 8, 10, 13, 15, 18, 19, 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 30, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, activity might have the potential to cause effects and so notified the Corps, the non- and 54, notification is required in accordance with general condition 32, for any activity Federal applicant shall not begin the activity until notified by the district engineer either proposed in the designated critical resource waters including wetlands adjacent to that the activity has no potential to cause effects to historic properties or that NHPA those waters. The district engineer may authorize activities under these NWPs only section 106 consultation has been completed. after it is determined that the impacts to the critical resource waters will be no more (d) For non-federal permittees, the district engineer will notify the prospective than minimal.

permittee within 45 days of receipt of a complete pre-construction notification whether NHPA section 106 consultation is required. If NHPA section 106 consultation is 23. Mitigation. The district engineer will consider the following factors when required, the district engineer will notify the non-Federal applicant that he or she determining appropriate and practicable mitigation necessary to ensure that the cannot begin the activity until section 106 consultation is completed. If the non-Federal individual and cumulative adverse environmental effects are no more than minimal:

applicant has not heard back from the Corps within 45 days, the applicant must still (a) The activity must be designed and constructed to avoid and minimize adverse wait for notification from the Corps. effects, both temporary and permanent, to waters of the United States to the (e) Prospective permittees should be aware that section 110k of the NHPA (54 maximum extent practicable at the project site (i.e., on site).

U.S.C. 306113) prevents the Corps from granting a permit or other assistance to an (b) Mitigation in all its forms (avoiding, minimizing, rectifying, reducing, or applicant who, with intent to avoid the requirements of section 106 of the NHPA, has compensating for resource losses) will be required to the extent necessary to ensure intentionally significantly adversely affected a historic property to which the permit that the individual and cumulative adverse environmental effects are no more than would relate, or having legal power to prevent it, allowed such significant adverse minimal.

effect to occur, unless the Corps, after consultation with the Advisory Council on (c) Compensatory mitigation at a minimum one-for-one ratio will be required for all Historic Preservation (ACHP), determines that circumstances justify granting such wetland losses that exceed 1/10-acre and require pre-construction notification, unless 8

the district engineer determines in writing that either some other form of mitigation (4) If permittee-responsible mitigation is the proposed option, the prospective would be more environmentally appropriate or the adverse environmental effects of permittee is responsible for submitting a mitigation plan. A conceptual or detailed the proposed activity are no more than minimal, and provides an activity-specific mitigation plan may be used by the district engineer to make the decision on the NWP waiver of this requirement. For wetland losses of 1/10-acre or less that require pre- verification request, but a final mitigation plan that addresses the applicable construction notification, the district engineer may determine on a case-by-case basis requirements of 33 CFR 332.4(c)(2) through (14) must be approved by the district that compensatory mitigation is required to ensure that the activity results in only engineer before the permittee begins work in waters of the United States, unless the minimal adverse environmental effects. district engineer determines that prior approval of the final mitigation plan is not (d) For losses of streams or other open waters that require pre-construction practicable or not necessary to ensure timely completion of the required compensatory notification, the district engineer may require compensatory mitigation to ensure that mitigation (see 33 CFR 332.3(k)(3)).

the activity results in no more than minimal adverse environmental effects. (5) If mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program credits are the proposed option, the Compensatory mitigation for losses of streams should be provided, if practicable, mitigation plan only needs to address the baseline conditions at the impact site and through stream rehabilitation, enhancement, or preservation, since streams are the number of credits to be provided.

difficult-to-replace resources (see 33 CFR 332.3(e)(3)). (6) Compensatory mitigation requirements (e.g., resource type and amount to (e) Compensatory mitigation plans for NWP activities in or near streams or other be provided as compensatory mitigation, site protection, ecological performance open waters will normally include a requirement for the restoration or enhancement, standards, monitoring requirements) may be addressed through conditions added to maintenance, and legal protection (e.g., conservation easements) of riparian areas the NWP authorization, instead of components of a compensatory mitigation plan (see next to open waters. In some cases, the restoration or maintenance/protection of 33 CFR 332.4(c)(1)(ii)).

riparian areas may be the only compensatory mitigation required. Restored riparian (g) Compensatory mitigation will not be used to increase the acreage losses areas should consist of native species. The width of the required riparian area will allowed by the acreage limits of the NWPs. For example, if an NWP has an acreage address documented water quality or aquatic habitat loss concerns. Normally, the limit of 1/2-acre, it cannot be used to authorize any NWP activity resulting in the loss riparian area will be 25 to 50 feet wide on each side of the stream, but the district of greater than 1/2-acre of waters of the United States, even if compensatory engineer may require slightly wider riparian areas to address documented water mitigation is provided that replaces or restores some of the lost waters. However, quality or habitat loss concerns. If it is not possible to restore or maintain/protect a compensatory mitigation can and should be used, as necessary, to ensure that an riparian area on both sides of a stream, or if the waterbody is a lake or coastal waters, NWP activity already meeting the established acreage limits also satisfies the no more then restoring or maintaining/protecting a riparian area along a single bank or than minimal impact requirement for the NWPs.

shoreline may be sufficient. Where both wetlands and open waters exist on the project (h) Permittees may propose the use of mitigation banks, in-lieu fee programs, or site, the district engineer will determine the appropriate compensatory mitigation (e.g., permittee-responsible mitigation. When developing a compensatory mitigation riparian areas and/or wetlands compensation) based on what is best for the aquatic proposal, the permittee must consider appropriate and practicable options consistent environment on a watershed basis. In cases where riparian areas are determined to with the framework at 33 CFR 332.3(b). For activities resulting in the loss of marine or be the most appropriate form of minimization or compensatory mitigation, the district estuarine resources, permittee-responsible mitigation may be environmentally engineer may waive or reduce the requirement to provide wetland compensatory preferable if there are no mitigation banks or in-lieu fee programs in the area that have mitigation for wetland losses. marine or estuarine credits available for sale or transfer to the permittee. For (f) Compensatory mitigation projects provided to offset losses of aquatic resources permittee-responsible mitigation, the special conditions of the NWP verification must must comply with the applicable provisions of 33 CFR part 332. clearly indicate the party or parties responsible for the implementation and (1) The prospective permittee is responsible for proposing an appropriate performance of the compensatory mitigation project, and, if required, its long-term compensatory mitigation option if compensatory mitigation is necessary to ensure that management.

the activity results in no more than minimal adverse environmental effects. For the (i) Where certain functions and services of waters of the United States are NWPs, the preferred mechanism for providing compensatory mitigation is mitigation permanently adversely affected by a regulated activity, such as discharges of dredged bank credits or in-lieu fee program credits (see 33 CFR 332.3(b)(2) and (3)). However, or fill material into waters of the United States that will convert a forested or scrub-if an appropriate number and type of mitigation bank or in-lieu credits are not available shrub wetland to a herbaceous wetland in a permanently maintained utility line right-at the time the PCN is submitted to the district engineer, the district engineer may of-way, mitigation may be required to reduce the adverse environmental effects of the approve the use of permittee-responsible mitigation. activity to the no more than minimal level.

(2) The amount of compensatory mitigation required by the district engineer must be sufficient to ensure that the authorized activity results in no more than 24. Safety of Impoundment Structures. To ensure that all impoundment structures are minimal individual and cumulative adverse environmental effects (see 33 CFR safely designed, the district engineer may require non-Federal applicants to 330.1(e)(3)). (See also 33 CFR 332.3(f)). demonstrate that the structures comply with established state dam safety criteria or (3) Since the likelihood of success is greater and the impacts to potentially have been designed by qualified persons. The district engineer may also require valuable uplands are reduced, aquatic resource restoration should be the first documentation that the design has been independently reviewed by similarly qualified compensatory mitigation option considered for permittee-responsible mitigation. persons, and appropriate modifications made to ensure safety.

9

25. Water Quality. Where States and authorized Tribes, or EPA where applicable, authorized activity and implementation of any required compensatory mitigation. The have not previously certified compliance of an NWP with CWA section 401, individual success of any required permittee-responsible mitigation, including the achievement of 401 Water Quality Certification must be obtained or waived (see 33 CFR 330.4(c)). ecological performance standards, will be addressed separately by the district The district engineer or State or Tribe may require additional water quality engineer. The Corps will provide the permittee the certification document with the management measures to ensure that the authorized activity does not result in more NWP verification letter. The certification document will include:

than minimal degradation of water quality. (a) A statement that the authorized activity was done in accordance with the NWP authorization, including any general, regional, or activity-specific conditions;

26. Coastal Zone Management. In coastal states where an NWP has not previously (b) A statement that the implementation of any required compensatory mitigation received a state coastal zone management consistency concurrence, an individual was completed in accordance with the permit conditions. If credits from a mitigation state coastal zone management consistency concurrence must be obtained, or a bank or in-lieu fee program are used to satisfy the compensatory mitigation presumption of concurrence must occur (see 33 CFR 330.4(d)). The district engineer requirements, the certification must include the documentation required by 33 CFR or a State may require additional measures to ensure that the authorized activity is 332.3(l)(3) to confirm that the permittee secured the appropriate number and resource consistent with state coastal zone management requirements. type of credits; and (c) The signature of the permittee certifying the completion of the activity and

27. Regional and Case-By-Case Conditions. The activity must comply with any mitigation.

regional conditions that may have been added by the Division Engineer (see 33 CFR The completed certification document must be submitted to the district engineer 330.4(e)) and with any case specific conditions added by the Corps or by the state, within 30 days of completion of the authorized activity or the implementation of any Indian Tribe, or U.S. EPA in its section 401 Water Quality Certification, or by the state required compensatory mitigation, whichever occurs later.

in its Coastal Zone Management Act consistency determination.

31. Activities Affecting Structures or Works Built by the United States. If an NWP

28. Use of Multiple Nationwide Permits. The use of more than one NWP for a single activity also requires permission from the Corps pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 408 because it and complete project is prohibited, except when the acreage loss of waters of the will alter or temporarily or permanently occupy or use a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers United States authorized by the NWPs does not exceed the acreage limit of the NWP (USACE) federally authorized Civil Works project (a USACE project), the prospective with the highest specified acreage limit. For example, if a road crossing over tidal permittee must submit a pre-construction notification. See paragraph (b)(10) of waters is constructed under NWP 14, with associated bank stabilization authorized by general condition 32. An activity that requires section 408 permission is not NWP 13, the maximum acreage loss of waters of the United States for the total project authorized by NWP until the appropriate Corps office issues the section 408 cannot exceed 1/3-acre. permission to alter, occupy, or use the USACE project, and the district engineer issues a written NWP verification.

29. Transfer of Nationwide Permit Verifications. If the permittee sells the property associated with a nationwide permit verification, the permittee may transfer the 32. Pre-Construction Notification.

nationwide permit verification to the new owner by submitting a letter to the (a) Timing. Where required by the terms of the NWP, the prospective permittee appropriate Corps district office to validate the transfer. A copy of the nationwide must notify the district engineer by submitting a pre-construction notification (PCN) as permit verification must be attached to the letter, and the letter must contain the early as possible. The district engineer must determine if the PCN is complete within following statement and signature: 30 calendar days of the date of receipt and, if the PCN is determined to be incomplete, notify the prospective permittee within that 30 day period to request the additional When the structures or work authorized by this nationwide permit are still in existence information necessary to make the PCN complete. The request must specify the at the time the property is transferred, the terms and conditions of this nationwide information needed to make the PCN complete. As a general rule, district engineers permit, including any special conditions, will continue to be binding on the new will request additional information necessary to make the PCN complete only once.

owner(s) of the property. To validate the transfer of this nationwide permit and the However, if the prospective permittee does not provide all of the requested associated liabilities associated with compliance with its terms and conditions, have information, then the district engineer will notify the prospective permittee that the the transferee sign and date below. PCN is still incomplete and the PCN review process will not commence until all of the requested information has been received by the district engineer. The prospective

_____________________________________________ permittee shall not begin the activity until either:

(Transferee) (1) He or she is notified in writing by the district engineer that the activity may proceed under the NWP with any special conditions imposed by the district or

_____________________________________________ division engineer; or (Date) (2) 45 calendar days have passed from the district engineers receipt of the complete PCN and the prospective permittee has not received written notice

30. Compliance Certification. Each permittee who receives an NWP verification letter from the district or division engineer. However, if the permittee was required to from the Corps must provide a signed certification documenting completion of the notify the Corps pursuant to general condition 18 that listed species or critical 10

habitat might be affected or are in the vicinity of the activity, or to notify the and ephemeral streams, on the project site. Wetland delineations must be Corps pursuant to general condition 20 that the activity might have the prepared in accordance with the current method required by the Corps. The potential to cause effects to historic properties, the permittee cannot begin the permittee may ask the Corps to delineate the special aquatic sites and other activity until receiving written notification from the Corps that there is no waters on the project site, but there may be a delay if the Corps does the effect on listed species or no potential to cause effects on historic properties, delineation, especially if the project site is large or contains many wetlands, or that any consultation required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species other special aquatic sites, and other waters. Furthermore, the 45 day period Act (see 33 CFR 330.4(f)) and/or section 106 of the National Historic will not start until the delineation has been submitted to or completed by the Preservation Act (see 33 CFR 330.4(g)) has been completed. Also, work Corps, as appropriate; cannot begin under NWPs 21, 49, or 50 until the permittee has received (6) If the proposed activity will result in the loss of greater than 1/10-acre of written approval from the Corps. If the proposed activity requires a written wetlands and a PCN is required, the prospective permittee must submit a waiver to exceed specified limits of an NWP, the permittee may not begin the statement describing how the mitigation requirement will be satisfied, or activity until the district engineer issues the waiver. If the district or division explaining why the adverse environmental effects are no more than minimal engineer notifies the permittee in writing that an individual permit is required and why compensatory mitigation should not be required. As an alternative, within 45 calendar days of receipt of a complete PCN, the permittee cannot the prospective permittee may submit a conceptual or detailed mitigation plan.

begin the activity until an individual permit has been obtained. Subsequently, (7) For non-Federal permittees, if any listed species or designated critical the permittees right to proceed under the NWP may be modified, suspended, habitat might be affected or is in the vicinity of the activity, or if the activity is or revoked only in accordance with the procedure set forth in 33 CFR located in designated critical habitat, the PCN must include the name(s) of 330.5(d)(2). those endangered or threatened species that might be affected by the (b) Contents of Pre-Construction Notification: The PCN must be in writing and proposed activity or utilize the designated critical habitat that might be affected include the following information: by the proposed activity. For NWP activities that require pre-construction (1) Name, address and telephone numbers of the prospective permittee; notification, Federal permittees must provide documentation demonstrating (2) Location of the proposed activity; compliance with the Endangered Species Act; (3) Identify the specific NWP or NWP(s) the prospective permittee wants to (8) For non-Federal permittees, if the NWP activity might have the potential to use to authorize the proposed activity; cause effects to a historic property listed on, determined to be eligible for (4) A description of the proposed activity; the activitys purpose; direct and listing on, or potentially eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic indirect adverse environmental effects the activity would cause, including the Places, the PCN must state which historic property might have the potential to anticipated amount of loss of wetlands, other special aquatic sites, and other be affected by the proposed activity or include a vicinity map indicating the waters expected to result from the NWP activity, in acres, linear feet, or other location of the historic property. For NWP activities that require pre-appropriate unit of measure; a description of any proposed mitigation construction notification, Federal permittees must provide documentation measures intended to reduce the adverse environmental effects caused by the demonstrating compliance with section 106 of the National Historic proposed activity; and any other NWP(s), regional general permit(s), or Preservation Act; individual permit(s) used or intended to be used to authorize any part of the (9) For an activity that will occur in a component of the National Wild and proposed project or any related activity, including other separate and distant Scenic River System, or in a river officially designated by Congress as a study crossings for linear projects that require Department of the Army authorization river for possible inclusion in the system while the river is in an official study but do not require pre-construction notification. The description of the status, the PCN must identify the Wild and Scenic River or the study river proposed activity and any proposed mitigation measures should be sufficiently (see general condition 16); and detailed to allow the district engineer to determine that the adverse (10) For an activity that requires permission from the Corps pursuant to 33 environmental effects of the activity will be no more than minimal and to U.S.C. 408 because it will alter or temporarily or permanently occupy or use a determine the need for compensatory mitigation or other mitigation measures. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers federally authorized civil works project, the pre-For single and complete linear projects, the PCN must include the quantity of construction notification must include a statement confirming that the project anticipated losses of wetlands, other special aquatic sites, and other waters for proponent has submitted a written request for section 408 permission from the each single and complete crossing of those wetlands, other special aquatic Corps office having jurisdiction over that USACE project.

sites, and other waters. Sketches should be provided when necessary to show (c) Form of Pre-Construction Notification: The standard individual permit that the activity complies with the terms of the NWP. (Sketches usually clarify application form (Form ENG 4345) may be used, but the completed application the activity and when provided results in a quicker decision. Sketches should form must clearly indicate that it is an NWP PCN and must include all of the contain sufficient detail to provide an illustrative description of the proposed applicable information required in paragraphs (b)(1) through (10) of this general activity (e.g., a conceptual plan), but do not need to be detailed engineering condition. A letter containing the required information may also be used.

plans); Applicants may provide electronic files of PCNs and supporting materials if the (5) The PCN must include a delineation of wetlands, other special aquatic district engineer has established tools and procedures for electronic submittals.

sites, and other waters, such as lakes and ponds, and perennial, intermittent, (d) Agency Coordination:

11

(1) The district engineer will consider any comments from Federal and state 1. In reviewing the PCN for the proposed activity, the district engineer will determine agencies concerning the proposed activitys compliance with the terms and whether the activity authorized by the NWP will result in more than minimal individual conditions of the NWPs and the need for mitigation to reduce the activitys or cumulative adverse environmental effects or may be contrary to the public interest.

adverse environmental effects so that they are no more than minimal. If a project proponent requests authorization by a specific NWP, the district engineer (2) Agency coordination is required for: (i) all NWP activities that require pre- should issue the NWP verification for that activity if it meets the terms and conditions construction notification and result in the loss of greater than 1/2-acre of of that NWP, unless he or she determines, after considering mitigation, that the waters of the United States; (ii) NWP 21, 29, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 50, 51, and 52 proposed activity will result in more than minimal individual and cumulative adverse activities that require pre-construction notification and will result in the loss of effects on the aquatic environment and other aspects of the public interest and greater than 300 linear feet of stream bed; (iii) NWP 13 activities in excess of exercises discretionary authority to require an individual permit for the proposed 500 linear feet, fills greater than one cubic yard per running foot, or involve activity. For a linear project, this determination will include an evaluation of the discharges of dredged or fill material into special aquatic sites; and (iv) NWP individual crossings of waters of the United States to determine whether they 54 activities in excess of 500 linear feet, or that extend into the waterbody individually satisfy the terms and conditions of the NWP(s), as well as the cumulative more than 30 feet from the mean low water line in tidal waters or the ordinary effects caused by all of the crossings authorized by NWP. If an applicant requests a high water mark in the Great Lakes. waiver of the 300 linear foot limit on impacts to streams or of an otherwise applicable (3) When agency coordination is required, the district engineer will immediately limit, as provided for in NWPs 13, 21, 29, 36, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 50, 51, 52, or 54, the provide (e.g., via e-mail, facsimile transmission, overnight mail, or other district engineer will only grant the waiver upon a written determination that the NWP expeditious manner) a copy of the complete PCN to the appropriate Federal or activity will result in only minimal individual and cumulative adverse environmental state offices (FWS, state natural resource or water quality agency, EPA, and, if effects. For those NWPs that have a waivable 300 linear foot limit for losses of appropriate, the NMFS). With the exception of NWP 37, these agencies will intermittent and ephemeral stream bed and a 1/2-acre limit (i.e., NWPs 21, 29, 39, 40, have 10 calendar days from the date the material is transmitted to notify the 42, 43, 44, 50, 51, and 52), the loss of intermittent and ephemeral stream bed, plus district engineer via telephone, facsimile transmission, or e-mail that they any other losses of jurisdictional waters and wetlands, cannot exceed 1/2-acre.

intend to provide substantive, site-specific comments. The comments must explain why the agency believes the adverse environmental effects will be 2. When making minimal adverse environmental effects determinations the district more than minimal. If so contacted by an agency, the district engineer will wait engineer will consider the direct and indirect effects caused by the NWP activity. He an additional 15 calendar days before making a decision on the pre- or she will also consider the cumulative adverse environmental effects caused by construction notification. The district engineer will fully consider agency activities authorized by NWP and whether those cumulative adverse environmental comments received within the specified time frame concerning the proposed effects are no more than minimal. The district engineer will also consider site specific activitys compliance with the terms and conditions of the NWPs, including the factors, such as the environmental setting in the vicinity of the NWP activity, the type need for mitigation to ensure the net adverse environmental effects of the of resource that will be affected by the NWP activity, the functions provided by the proposed activity are no more than minimal. The district engineer will provide aquatic resources that will be affected by the NWP activity, the degree or magnitude to no response to the resource agency, except as provided below. The district which the aquatic resources perform those functions, the extent that aquatic resource engineer will indicate in the administrative record associated with each pre- functions will be lost as a result of the NWP activity (e.g., partial or complete loss), the construction notification that the resource agencies concerns were duration of the adverse effects (temporary or permanent), the importance of the considered. For NWP 37, the emergency watershed protection and aquatic resource functions to the region (e.g., watershed or ecoregion), and mitigation rehabilitation activity may proceed immediately in cases where there is an required by the district engineer. If an appropriate functional or condition assessment unacceptable hazard to life or a significant loss of property or economic method is available and practicable to use, that assessment method may be used by hardship will occur. The district engineer will consider any comments received the district engineer to assist in the minimal adverse environmental effects to decide whether the NWP 37 authorization should be modified, suspended, determination. The district engineer may add case-specific special conditions to the or revoked in accordance with the procedures at 33 CFR 330.5. NWP authorization to address site-specific environmental concerns.

(4) In cases of where the prospective permittee is not a Federal agency, the 3. If the proposed activity requires a PCN and will result in a loss of greater than 1/10-district engineer will provide a response to NMFS within 30 calendar days of acre of wetlands, the prospective permittee should submit a mitigation proposal with receipt of any Essential Fish Habitat conservation recommendations, as the PCN. Applicants may also propose compensatory mitigation for NWP activities required by section 305(b)(4)(B) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery with smaller impacts, or for impacts to other types of waters (e.g., streams). The Conservation and Management Act. district engineer will consider any proposed compensatory mitigation or other (5) Applicants are encouraged to provide the Corps with either electronic files mitigation measures the applicant has included in the proposal in determining whether or multiple copies of pre-construction notifications to expedite agency the net adverse environmental effects of the proposed activity are no more than coordination. minimal. The compensatory mitigation proposal may be either conceptual or detailed.

If the district engineer determines that the activity complies with the terms and DISTRICT ENGINEERS DECISION: conditions of the NWP and that the adverse environmental effects are no more than minimal, after considering mitigation, the district engineer will notify the permittee and 12

include any activity-specific conditions in the NWP verification the district engineer deems necessary. Conditions for compensatory mitigation requirements must comply SECTION 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION (4/7/17):

with the appropriate provisions at 33 CFR 332.3(k). The district engineer must approve the final mitigation plan before the permittee commences work in waters of The State Water Control Board issued conditional §401 Water Quality Certification for the United States, unless the district engineer determines that prior approval of the NWP 3 as meeting the requirements of the Virginia Water Protection Permit final mitigation plan is not practicable or not necessary to ensure timely completion of Regulation, which serves as the Commonwealths §401 Water Quality Certification, the required compensatory mitigation. If the prospective permittee elects to submit a provided that: (1) the deviations from the original configuration or filled area do not compensatory mitigation plan with the PCN, the district engineer will expeditiously change the character, scope, or size of the original design or approved alternative review the proposed compensatory mitigation plan. The district engineer must review design; (2) the discharge: a) would not increase the capacity of an impoundment, or b) the proposed compensatory mitigation plan within 45 calendar days of receiving a would not reduce instream flows; (3) any compensatory mitigation meets the complete PCN and determine whether the proposed mitigation would ensure the NWP requirements in the Code of Virginia, Section 62. 1-44.15:23 A through C, except in activity results in no more than minimal adverse environmental effects. If the net the absence of same river watershed alternatives in Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUC) adverse environmental effects of the NWP activity (after consideration of the mitigation 02040303 and 02040304, single family dwellings or locality projects may use proposal) are determined by the district engineer to be no more than minimal, the compensatory mitigation in HUC 02080102, 02080108, 02080110, or 02080111 in district engineer will provide a timely written response to the applicant. The response Virginia; (4) the Corps of Engineers shall provide DEQ an annual report of projects will state that the NWP activity can proceed under the terms and conditions of the authorized by this Nationwide Permit that includes detailed information on physical NWP, including any activity-specific conditions added to the NWP authorization by the changes to water withdrawal structures, such as the maintenance of an intake, dam, district engineer. weir, or water diversion structure that are deviations from the original configuration, or are a change in the character, scope, or size of the original design, or where those

4. If the district engineer determines that the adverse environmental effects of the deviations would otherwise reduce instream flows.

proposed activity are more than minimal, then the district engineer will notify the applicant either: (a) that the activity does not qualify for authorization under the NWP COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION (4/5/17):

and instruct the applicant on the procedures to seek authorization under an individual permit; (b) that the activity is authorized under the NWP subject to the applicants Based on the comments submitted by the agencies administering the enforceable submission of a mitigation plan that would reduce the adverse environmental effects policies of the Virginia CZM Program, DEQ concurs that the 2017 NWPs and Virginia so that they are no more than minimal; or (c) that the activity is authorized under the Regional Conditions as proposed, are consistent with the Virginia CZM Program NWP with specific modifications or conditions. Where the district engineer determines provided the following conditions, discussed below, are satisfied:

that mitigation is required to ensure no more than minimal adverse environmental effects, the activity will be authorized within the 45-day PCN period (unless additional 1) Prior to construction, applicants shall obtain all required permits and approvals for time is required to comply with general conditions 18, 20, and/or 31, or to evaluate activities to be performed that are applicable to the Virginia CZM Program's PCNs for activities authorized by NWPs 21, 49, and 50), with activity-specific enforceable policies, and that applicants adhere to all the conditions contained therein.

conditions that state the mitigation requirements. The authorization will include the necessary conceptual or detailed mitigation plan or a requirement that the applicant The Virginia Marine Resources Commission's (VMRC) concurrence of consistency submit a mitigation plan that would reduce the adverse environmental effects so that with regard to the fisheries management, subaqueous lands management, wetlands they are no more than minimal. When compensatory mitigation is required, no work in management, and dunes management enforceable policies is based on the waters of the United States may occur until the district engineer has approved a recognition that prospective permittees may be required to obtain additional state specific mitigation plan or has determined that prior approval of a final mitigation plan and/or local approvals from the VMRC and/or the local wetlands board prior to is not practicable or not necessary to ensure timely completion of the required commencement of work in both tidal and nontidal waters under the agency's compensatory mitigation. jurisdiction. Such approvals must precede implementation of the projects.

Further Information: 2) The DEQ Office of Wetlands and Stream Protection (OWSP) has provided §401 Clean Water Act (CWA) Water Quality Certification for the 2017 NWPs and Regional Conditions, applicable to the wetlands management and point source pollution control

1. District Engineers have authority to determine if an activity complies with the terms enforceable policies of the Virginia CZM Program. The activities that qualify for the and conditions of an NWP.

NWPs must meet the requirements of DEQ's Virginia Water Protection Permit

2. NWPs do not obviate the need to obtain other federal, state, or local permits, Regulation (9 VAC 25-210-130) and the permittee must abide by the conditions of the approvals, or authorizations required by law.

NWP. DEQ-OWSP has identified specific NWP exceptions. DEQ will process an

3. NWPs do not grant any property rights or exclusive privileges.

individual application for a permit or a certificate or otherwise take action pursuant to 9

4. NWPs do not authorize any injury to the property or rights of others.

VAC 25-210-80 et seq. for those activities covered by an NWPs that have not received

5. NWPs do not authorize interference with any existing or proposed Federal project blanket §401 CWA Water Quality Certification.

(see general condition 31).

13

The Corps should forward pre-construction notifications to DEQ for applicants that do not comply with or cannot meet the conditions of the §401 CWA Water Quality Certification. Further, the Commonwealth reserves its right to require an individual application for a permit or a certificate or otherwise take action on any specific project that could otherwise be covered under any of the NWPs when it determines on a case-by-case basis that concerns for water quality and the aquatic environment so indicate.

In accordance with the Federal Consistency Regulations at 15 CFR Part 930, section 930. 4, this conditional concurrence is based on the applicants demonstrating to the Corps that they have obtained, or will obtain, all necessary authorizations prior to implementing a project which qualifies for a NWP. If the requirements of section 930.

4, sub-paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) are not met, this conditional concurrence becomes an objection under 15 CFR Part 930, section 940.43.

14

SERIAL NO.: 19-184 Enclosure 6 ATTACHMENTS FOR RAI VAR-1 Virginia Electric and Power Company (Dominion Energy Virginia or Dominion)

Surry Power Station Units 1 and 2

D0:ri1n1on : nerq*; S~: v*ces. nr.

5000 Dom111*0 " Bou!cvilrd. Gl(m l\llen. \'A '.'3060 Dominion Dur 11in1on Er:t-: *9 y c; u r11 Energy BYU.SMAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED January 23, 2019 l\llr.JosephBryan Department of Environmental Quality Piedmont Regional Office 4949-A Cox Road Glen Allen, VA 23060 RE: Dominion Energy-Surry Power Station VPDES Permit No. VA0004090 CWIS- 2018 Annual Certification and Effectiveness of Control Measures

Dear l\llr. Bryan:

In accordance with Part I.E.5 of the subject permit, Dominion Energy is hereby certifying that no substantial changes have occurred in the operations of any unit at the Surry Power Station that impacts cooling water withdrawals or operation of any cooling water intake structure (CWlS).

In accordance with Part I.E.6, Dominion is providing the following information:

a. The station maintained interim Best Technology Available (BTA) measures to minimize adverse impacts. Each operating cooling water intake structure utilized a modified traveling screen, low-pressure screen wash system, and a fish return system .

b. During 2018 no Federally-listed threatened or endangered species were observed or collected during station activities around the intake, such as removal of debris from the intake trash racks.

Also, no impingement or entrainment samples were collected in 2018.

Should you require additional information, please contact Oula Shehab-Dandan at (804) 273-2697 or via email oula .k.shehab-dandan@dominionenergy.com.

I 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 for gathering the information, the information submilted 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 offine and imprisonment for knowing violations.

Sincerely,

~

(/~

Williams Director, Environmental

Dominion Surry Power Station VA0004090 Ebe page 1 of 1 Please send electronic copy to:

Amanda Tornabene Jason Williams Barry Garber Phyllis Wells Ken Roller Bob Graham Karen Canady Oula Shehab-Dandan Beverly Wood Jason Ericson Documentum/ Water-NPDESVCompliance Documentation /Surry/SU VA0004090 Cooling Water Intake Structures-2018 Annual Certification

• VIRGINIA POWER CORRESPONDENCE REVIEW AND APPROVAL FORM DOCUMENT RESPONSE DUE TO THE DEQ (FIRM DUE in PLANNED DOCUMENT SERIAL DEQ's hands) 1/10/2019 APPROVAL (NOT FIRM NUMBER DUE)

• Review due to Corporate EES by 12/31/2018 N/A for signature and submittal to DEQ 5-DAY (OR 3-DAY) RULE FOR STATION PLANNED STATION APPROVAL APPROVAL 12/27/18 DOCUMENT Suny Power Station - SPS Cooling Water Intake Structure 2018 Annual TITLE Certification Report- Management Approval for Submittal NO REASON: N/A ACTION PLAN ATTACHED YES X YES NO X REASON: N/A VOA ATTACHED COGNIZANT LICENSING ENGINEER: Phyllis G. Wells x.2377 COMMENTS: There were no deviations or issues found during 2018 for the SPS Cooling Water Intake Structure, 316b Weekly Inspections, and that no Impingement or Entrainment Sampling had been completed during 2018.

The Annual Repo1t is required by the VPDES Permit to be submitted annually to document our compliance with the 316b Intake Structure management regulations.

Need Management Approval for submittal of the 2018 316b Annual Ce11ification Repmt.

The letter and required certification will be signed by the Director of Environmental Services at Corporate on January 2, 2018. Corporate Environmental had wanted us to obtain Station Management Review and Approval prior to my retirement on December 31, to ensure that the report will be able to be submitted to the VA DEQ on time.

DATE REVIEWERS INITIAL INITIALED RECEIVED X LICENSING LEAD - Senior Environmental Compliance Coordinator DIRECTOR- SITE ENGINEERING (We..11 s) ~w J&))0 hi /&ho I iv MANAGER - MAINTENANCE MANAGER - OPERATIONS MANAGER - RAD PROTECTION/CHEMISTRY MANAGER- OUTAGE & PLANNING MANAGER- NUCLEAR SITE SERVICES MANAGER - TRAINING X MANAGER - LICENSING ( GA-V'b<-r > .di14 1-a./Joh Y I

/2./,,ltr X DIRECTOR - SAFETY & LICENSING ( Ga,v-\Jelf '\ /J.IJ1/J J r!~hi./lf}

I I PLANT MANAGER - NUCLEAR

/

X SITE VICE PRESIDENT ( GO-\"'\.Jl.'<" M fl.JVJu. WL .. r~/JBI,~

. I M l~o{ M)

Dorn m1011 ErierQ'/ s~* \,t(0S . nr:

5000 Dorn*r*ro" Boulevarcl. Gl ~r* /\lien. \.A 23060 O u:i 11n1o n E,,c!*Oy cu,n BYD.SMAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED January 29, 2018 Ms. Emilee Adamson Department of Environmental Quality Piedmont Regional Office 4949-A Cox Road Glen Allen, VA 23060 RE: Dominion Energy-Surry Power Station VPDES Permit No. VA0004090 CWIS- 2017 Annual Certification and Effectiveness of Control Measures

Dear Ms. Emilee Adamson:

In accordance with Part I.E.5 of the subject permit, Dominion Energy is hereby certifying that no substantial changes have occurred in the operations of any unit at the Surry Power Station that impacts cooling water withdrawals or operation of any cooling water intake structure (CWIS).

In accordance with Part I.E.6, Dominion is providing the following information:

a. The station maintained interim Best Technology Available (BIA) measures to minimize adverse impacts. Each operating cooling water intake structure utilized a modified traveling screen, low-pressure screen wash system, and a fish return system.

b. During 2017 no Federally-listed threatened or endangered species were collected while sampling for the 316(b) biological studies.

Entrainment samples were generally collected from the Unit I B intake bay twice a month from January through July 20 17. Samples consisted of approximately 100 m3 of water pumped from the near-surface, mid-water, and near-bottom and filtered through 330 µm plankton nets approximately every 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> over a 24-hour period. Taxa identifications were made in the laboratory. A total of 168 entrainment samples were collected in 2017.

No impingement samples were collected in 2017.

c. During 2017 no Federally-listed threatened or endangered species were observed or collected during station activities around the intake, such as removal of debris from the intake trash racks; therefore no Federally-listed threatened or endangered species were impacted by injury or death.

VPDES Permit No. V A0004090 CWIS-2017 Annual Certification and Effectiveness of Control Measures Should you require additional information, please contact Oula Shehab-Dandan at (804) 273-2697 or via email oula.k.shehab-dandan@dominionenergy.com.

I 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 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 offine and imprisonment for knowing violations.

Sincerely,

.,,./*****-____...~:....~::**** ---~?

(>----::.:.~___:.---- - -===>

~ Jason E Williams Director, Environmental

VPDES Permit No. V A0004090 CWIS-2017 Annual Certification and Effectiveness of Control Measures Ebe page I of I Please send electronic copy to:

Pamela Faggert Jason Williams Fred Mladen Barry Garber Phyllis Wells Ken Roller Bob Graham Karen Canody Oula Shehab-Dandan Amelia Boschen Documentum/Water-NPDESVCompliance Documentation /Surry/SUVA0004090 Cooling Water Intake Structures-2017 Annual Certification

• VIRGINIA POWER CORRESPONDENCE REVIEW AND APPROVAL FORM DOCUMENT RESPONSE DUE TO THE OEQ (FIRM DUE in PLANNED DOCUMENT SERIAL DEQ's hands) 2/10/2018 APPROVAL (NOT FIRM NUMBER DUE)

• Review due to Corporate EES by 217/2018 N/A for signature and submittal to DEQ 5-DAY (OR 3-DAY) RULE FOR STATION PLANNED STATION APPROVAL APPROVAL 2/7/18 DOCUMENT Surry Power Station -SPS Cooling Water Intake Structure 2017 Annual TITLE Certification Report - Management Approval for Submittal ACTION PLAN ATTACHED X REASON:N/A YES NO YES NO X REASON:N/A VOA ATTACHED COGNIZANT LICENSING ENGINEER: Phyllis G. Wells x2377 COMMENTS: There were no deviations or issues found during 2017 for the SPS Cooling Water Intake Structure, 316b Weekly Inspections or the Entrainment Sampling.

The Annual Report is required by the VPDES Permit to be submitted to document our compliance with the 316b Intake Structure management regulations.

Need Management Approval for submittal of the 316b Annual Certification Report.

The cover letter and required ce11ification will be signed by the Director of Environmental Services at Corporate.

REVIEWERS INITIAL DATE RECEIVED INITIALED X LICENSING LEAD -Senior Environmental Compliance Coordinator '\)IA) }\It...\ 1<t 1\1L\1~

--. I

• DIRECTOR - SITE ENGINEERING MANAGER - MAINTENANCE MANAGER - OPERATIONS MANAGER- RAD PROTECTION/CHEMISTRY MANAGER- OUTAGE & PLANNING MANAGER - NUCLEAR SITE SERVICES MANAGER - TRAINING MANAGER- NUCLEAR OVERSIGHT MANAGER- PROTECTIVE SERVICES MANAGER- MATERIALS 1/a.J/ v

/

X SUPERVISOR - LICENSING /7"'0 //'J~hr X DIRECTOR - SAFETY & LICENSING ~It 1'L t/ l.1. I,~ ( lx- l1fl PLANT MANAGER- NUCLEAR . (

X SITE VICE PRESIDENT

,"1AA

. th1 hoJfJ ,1~,,~11.;,

(

Pamela F. Faggert Vice President and Chief Environmental Officer Dominion Resources Services, Inc.

5000 Dominion Boulevard, Glen Allen, VA 23060 Phone, 804-273-3467 Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested December 29, 2008 Mr. Ray Jenkins I Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Piedmont Regional Office 4949-A Cox Road II Glen Allen, VA 23060 RE: Surry Power Station VPDES Permit VA0004090 I

Section 3 l 6(b) Phase II Requirement Entrainment Characterization Report I

Dear Mr. Jenkins:

Please find enclosed the Entrainment Characterization Report submittal for the Surry Power II Station as required by the VPDES permit VA0004090, Part I.C.17.

I certify under penalty oflaw 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 for gathering the I

information, the information submitted is, to the best ofmy 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.

If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Oula Shehab-Dandan at (804) 273-2697.

smy~ok ~~e?i Pamela F. Faggert Enclosure

be page 1 of 1 Scan and Name: IM & E Characterization Study Results (SU) ebc (electronic distribution):

Barry Garber (i*.

I tachment)

Cathy Taylor Karen Canody <-c-Bill Bolin Oula Shehab 61,, 11/tS File (hard copy and electronic): Surry/ENVSS/CORRESPONDENCE I

I I

I I

Entrainment Characterization Report Surry Power Station June 2005 - May 2006 I I

I I

Prepared for I

Dominion Resources Services, Inc.

5000 Dominion Boulevard Glen Allen, Virginia 23060 Prepared by EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc.

15 Loveton Circle Sparks, Maryland 21152 FINAL Report August2007

CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................... :.................... ii LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ ii

1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1

2. GENERATING STATION DESCRIPTION ................................................................. 2 2.1 Site Description.................................................................................................... .2 2.2 Station Description................................................................................................ 2 2.3 Habitat and Biological Community ..................................................................... .3

3. ENTRAINMENT STUDY AT SURRY POWER STATION...................................... .4 3 .1 Methods ................................................................................................................ .4 3.1.1 Entrainment Sampling and Laboratory Processing ................................. 4 3.1.2 Ambient Ichthyoplankton Sampling ....................................................... .4 3.1.3 Ambient Juvenile and Adult Fish Sampling ........................................... .5 3.1.4 Water Quality .......................................................................................... .5 3.1.5 DataAnalysis ........................................................................................... 5 3.2 Results ................................................................................................................... 6 3.2.1 Composition and Abundance ..................................................................... 6 3.2.2 Length Frequency ..................................................................................... 6 3.2.3 Monthly and Annual Estimates of Total Entrainment.. ............................ 7 3.2.4 Comparison of Entrainment and Ambient (River) Ichthyoplankton and Shellfish Densities .............................................................................. 8 3.2.5 Comparison of Entrainment Data and Ambient Juvenile and Adult Data ................................................................................................. 8 3.2.6 Historical Studies ...................................................................................... 9 3.2.7 Summary ................................................................................................. 10

4. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 12 APPENDIX A Entrainment and Ambient Ichthyoplankton Calculation Procedures APPENDIX B Monthly Entrainment Densities APPENDIX C Monthly Ambient River Densities i

I I

LIST OF FIGURES I

I

1.  !

2. Location of Ambient Ichthyoplankton Tow Tracks at Surry Power Station.

3. Entrainment Calculation Schematic: Extrapolation of Atlantic Silverside Larvae Numbers from a Single Sampling Event to the Annual Total, Surry Power Station.

4. Annual Average Density of Common Species Entrained at Surry Power Station During Different Diel Periods.

5. Comparison of Entrainment and Ambient Ichthyoplankton Densities of Atlantic Croaker Juveniles, Surry Power Station.

6. Comparison of Entrainment and Ambient Ichthyoplankton Densities of Atlantic Silverside Larvae, Juveniles, and Adults, Surry Power Station.

7. Comparison of Entrainment and Ambient Ichthyoplankton Densities of Bay Anchovy Eggs, Surry Power Station.

8. Comparison of Entrainment and Ambient Ichthyoplankton Densities of Bay Anchovy Larvae, Juveniles, and Adults, Surry Power Station.

9. Comparison of Entrainment and Ambient Ichthyoplankton Densities ofNaked Goby Larvae and Juveniles, Surry Power Station.

10. Comparison of Entrainment and Ambient Ichthyoplankton Densities of Blue Crab Megalopae, Surry Power Station.

LIST OF TABLES

1. List of Common and Scientific Names of Fish and Shellfish Mentioned in this Report.

2. Average Density ofichthyoplankton and Macroinvertebrates Entrained at Surry Power Station, June 2005 - May 2006.

3. Average Density and Percent Composition ofichthyoplankton Entrained at Surry Power Station, June 2005 - May 2006.

ii

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

4. Average Monthly Density of Common Species oflchthyoplankton and Shellfish

5. Length-Frequency Distribution of Bay Anchovy Larvae, Juveniles, and Adults.

6. Length-Frequency Distribution of Atlantic Croaker Larvae and Juveniles.

7. Length-Frequency Distribution of Naked Goby Larvae and Juveniles.

8. Mean Water Quality Values Associated with Entrainment Sampling, Surry Power Station.

9. Monthly and Annual Entrainment Estimates for Surry Power Station.

10. Density of Ichthyoplankton and Blue Crab Larvae Entrained at Surry Power Station, June 2005 - May 2006.

11. Density oflchthyoplankton and Blue Crab Larvae in the Ambient James River Near Surry Power Station, June 2005 - May 2006.

12. Mean Water Quality Values Associated with Ambient Ichthyoplankton Sampling, Surry Power Station.

13. Results of Dominion Resources' Quarterly Sampling of Juvenile and Adult Fish and Shellfish in the Vicinity of Surry Power Station, 2005 - 2006.

Ill

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Surry Power Station is located on Gravel Neck peninsula on the James River, approximately 30 miles upstream of the confluence with the Chesapeake Bay (Figure!).

The Proposal for Information Collection (PIC) Surry Power Station (Dominion 2005) was submitted to the Virginia Department of Enviromnental Quality (VDEQ) in March 2005 and subsequently approved by VDEQ.

An entrainment characterization study for the Surry Power Station was initiated in June 2005 in accordance with the approved PIC and completed in May 2006 and is the subject of this report. Impingement studies were not required in the PIC because the Ristroph screens at Surry Power Station are deemed to be Best Technology Available for reduction of impingement mortality (Dominion 2005).

I This report represents the results of the Entraimnent Characterization Study for Surry Power Station based on field collections made between June 2005 and May 2006.

I I

2.0 GENERATING STATION DESCRIPTION 2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION Surry Power Station is located in southeastern Virginia on Gravel Neck Peninsula on the James River in Surry County (Figure 1). The site is approximately 30 miles upstream of the confluence of the James River with the Chesapeake Bay, and 44 miles to the southeast of Richmond, Virginia.

2.2 STATION DESCRIPTION Surry Power Station began commercial operation in 1972. The station comprises two generating units with a combined electrical output of 1,710.8 MW. The station uses once-through cooling with a shoreline intake structure and a discharge canal. The intake is located on the downstream side of the Gravel N eek peninsula (Figure 1), and is oriented I

parallel to the river flow (Dominion 2005; White and Brehmer 1976). Cooling water for both units is withdrawn through a common low-level intake structure. This intake is I

protected first by trash racks, then by eight Ristroph traveling water screens, each 15-feet wide and constructed of 1/8 by 1/2-inch mesh screening. The screens are designed to operate I

I I

continuously. Downstream of the Ristroph screens there are eight circulating-water l pumps that convey the screened intake water to a common high level intake canal that I!

serves both units. At full operation, the total station pump capacity is 6,662 M 3/minute. I Cooling water in the high level intake canal enters a second screen house with conventional traveling screens, is routed to the condensers and is ultimately discharged back to the river on the upstream side of the peninsula.

The Ristroph screens in the low-level intake are considered state-of-the-art for protection of impinged fish and other aquatic organisms. Installed in 1974, they are designed for continuous operation to minimize contact (impingement) time of organisms. Other protective features include low pressure screen-wash systems, troughs on the screens to hold fish in water as the screens rotate, and a fish return system to route impinged organisms back to the river. The Ristroph screens originally had 3/8-inch mesh screening, but wete subsequently retrofitted with 1/8 by 1/2-inch rectangular mesh.

2

2.3 HABITAT AND BIOLOGICAL COMMUNITY The James River at Surry Power Station is approximately 3.7 miles wide with main channel depths ranging from 21 to 90 feet (Dominion 2005). There are extensive shallow areas(< 6 feet) on both the upstream and downstream sides of the peninsula. The river is tidal and estuarine in nature, with an oligohaline salinity regime (typically 0.5-5 parts per thousand). The area is a transitional zone between freshwater and seawater and thus freshwater, estuarine, and marine organisms may all be fonnd there at certain times.

Bottom substrates vary from mud, clay, sand, pebbles, and oyster beds.

A diverse assemblage of fishes has been recorded from the area, with 80 species downstream of the station in brackish water, and 40 freshwater species upstream (Dominion 2005). Common estuarine and marine species include bay anchovy, striped bass, white perch, weakfish, spot, American eel, and Atlantic menhaden. Typical freshwater species include blue catfish, charmel catfish, and common carp.

Numerous aquatic invertebrate species are also found in the area, including zooplankton (primarily copepods), amphipods (e.g., Gammarus ), and benthic organisms such as polychaete worms and shellfish. The latter include soft-shell clams (Rangia), American oyster, blue crab, spider crab, several species of shrimp, and other forms.

3

3.0 ENTRAINMENT STUDY AT SURRY POWER STATION 3.1 METHODS 3.1.1 Entrainment Sampling and Laboratory Processing Entrainment sampling was carried out at Surry Power Station twice a month (except for sampling events missed due to weather or mechanical problems) from June 2005 through May 2006. Samples were collected from a boat positioned in front of the cooling-water intake. During each sampling event, duplicate I 0-minute samples were collected from near bottom, mid-depth, and near surface locations four times during the 24-hour period, centered around: 1000, 1600, 2200, and 0400 hours0.00463 days <br />0.111 hours <br />6.613757e-4 weeks <br />1.522e-4 months <br />. Samples were collected with 0.5-m diameter mouth plankton nets constructed of 505-µm netting, each affixed in a double-net bongo frame. A General Oceanics 2030R or 2030R6 (low flow) mechanical flowmeter was suspended in the mouth of each net. Flowmeter calibration was periodically checked with a General Oceanics Model 2030CF Flowmeter Calibration Frame.

Samples were preserved in 5 percent buffered formalin containing Rose Bengal dye and transported to the laboratory for processing. Samples were sorted with the aid oflighted magnifying rings to separate organisms from debris. Extremely abundant samples were split with a Folsom plankton splitter to obtain manageable portions for sorting.

Subsequent to sorting, some samples containing large numbers of a .single organism were subsampled with a Henson-Stempel pipette. All fish eggs, larvae, and commercially important shellfish were stored in labeled vials for subsequent identification.

Entrained organisms were identified under magnification. Taxonomic resources included Fuiman et al. (1983), USFWS (1978), Wang and Kemehan (1979), Bullard (2003), and Gosner (1971 ). For each sample, up to 20 fish larvae of each taxon were measured to the nearest 0.1 mm with an ocular micrometer.

3.1.2 Ambient lchthyoplankton Sampling In conjunction with each entrainment sample, samples were also collected from the James River upstream, downstream, and adjacent to the intake centered around 1000, 1600, 2200 and 0400 hours0.00463 days <br />0.111 hours <br />6.613757e-4 weeks <br />1.522e-4 months <br />. These samples were collected with a single 0.5-meter diameter plankton net consisting of 505-µm netting, and with a General Oceanic 2030R flowmeter affixed in the net mouth. Tows were made at mid-depth for 4.5 minutes 4

against the prevailing tide. Sampling locations are illustrated in Figure 2. Sample processing and data handling were as described for entrainment.

3.1.3 Ambient Juvenile and Adult Fish Sampling Dominion Resources personnel conducted quarterly sampling of juvenile and adult fish in the vicinity of Surry Power Station. Three stations were sampled by otter trawl and beach haul seines, one station upstream, one downstream, and one near the intakes. At each station, 30.5 meters of shoreline were seined and one otter trawl tow was conducted for a ten minute period. Larger fish were identified, measured, weighed and released in the field, and smaller fish were preserved and subsequently processed in the laboratory.

3.1.4 Water Quality Water quality measurements were made with a YSI Model 556 water quality analyzer that was calibrated prior to each sampling event. All water quality parameters (water temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and salinity) were measured at mid-depth in front of the intake in association with each of the 4 entrainment samples during the 2-hour sampling event. During ambient ichthyoplankton sampling in the river, water quality was I measured at the mid-point of each sampling transect at surface, mid-depth, and bottom.

l I

3.1.5 Data Analysis I I

All data were entered into an SQL Server database using an Access-based, "front-end" data~entry template. Reports were then printed out and proofed against the original data II sheets, and electronic corrections made as necessary. All data manipulations, calculations, and summaries included in this report were performed within the database.

II I

An example of the entrainment calculation sequence is provided in Figure 3 using actual data from one of the sampling events at Surry Power Station. The density of Atlantic I

silverside larvae in each individual sample (24 per 24-hour event) is displayed by depth and sampling time. Densities were averaged over the four sampling times, and then I averaged again to produce an average density for the 24-hour sampling period. This I 24-hour average density was then multiplied by the maximum station cooling-water flow I

in cubic meters, and then divided by 100 to calculate the total number of bay anchovy larvae entrained during the 24-hour period. This value was then multiplied by the i

number of calendar days represented by the 4/12-13/2006 sampling event to project the II 5 I I!

I I

total number oflarvae entrained during that period. This value was then added to the analogous values from the other 22 extrapolation periods during the stndy year to estimate the total number of Atlantic silverside larvae entrained during the stndy year, under maximum cooling-water flow conditions. Additional calculation details are provided in Appendix A.

3;2 RESULTS 3.2.1 Composition and Abundance During the 2005-2006 stndy, 46 different taxa and life stages were identified from entrainment samples (Tables 1 - 3). Not unexpectedly, young life stages of invertebrates composed the majority of organisms, nearly 97 percent, based on average annual density (Table 2). Considering only young life stages of fish, gobies and bay anchovy were most abundant; together they composed nearly 85 percent of all ichthyoplankton entrained on an annual average basis (Table 3). As indicated above, young life stages of bay anchovy and naked goby were also most abundant in entrainment samples in the 1976-1978 stndy.

On a monthly basis, common species of ichthyoplankton and macro invertebrates exhibited typical density patterns (Table 4 and Appendix B). Atlantic croaker are fall spawners (USFWS 1978) and consequently peak densities were in December (larvae) and January Guveniles). The peak density of Atlantic silverside in April is consistent with the species' known spawning period. The blue crab, bay anchovy, and goby species are all late spring-early summer spawners and this is reflected in Table 4.

Overall, entrainment densities were much greater during the nighttime. This was driven largely by the abundant taxa entrained (Figure 4). Early morning (0400 hrs) densities were from 2 to 5 times greater than daytime densities for the most abundant taxa. For larvae this may represent swim-up activity at night. The day-night pattern for bay anchovy eggs is consistent with their documented spawning habits. Typically, spawning occurs during the early evening hours (USFWS 1978), thus higher densities may be expected in late evening and early morning.

3.2.2 Length Frequency Length-frequency distributions for several common species are displayed in Tables 5 - 7.

All life stages of bay anchovy were captured during entrainment sampling. Post-yolk sac 6

larvae were evident from less than 4.9 mm to approximately 25 mm. Juveniles were in the 25 - 40 mm range, and all larger individuals were likely adults. The growth progress of the 2005-year class of bay anchovy can clearly be seen progressing from the upper left in Table 5 (early season smaller individuals) to the lower right (larger individuals caught during winter/spring). The length-frequency distribution for Atlantic croaker (Table 6) is consistent with their offshore (oceanic) spawning location. Nearly all specimens collected (10- 55 mm) were juveniles that had metamorphosed from the larval form by the time they had drifted into the site vicinity. No pattern is evident in the length distribution of naked gobies (Table 7). This may be a result of their protracted spawning habit, i.e., similar size larvae are available throughout the summer.

Water quality measurements during the study exhibited typical seasonal patterns (Table 8). As water temperature decreased into the winter period, dissolved oxygen increased. Salinity was higher during the fall when there was less freshwater inflow.

3.2.3 Monthly and Annnal Estimates of Total Entrainment Entrainment density data were used in conjunction with station cooling-water flow data to estimate the total number of each fish and invertebrate taxon entrained, both on a monthly and an annual basis (Table 9). The temporal distribution mirrors that discussed above on a density basis. An estimated 53 billion organisms were entrained during the study year. The largest total numbers offish entrained were young life stages of bay anchovy and naked goby. For all life stages combined, a total of656.25 X 106 bay anchovy and 390.15 X 106 naked gobywere entrained during the survey year. Goby sp.

were among the highest numbers entrained at 440.16 X 106 for the year. Many of these were likely naked goby also, but could not be confidently assigned to a specific species.

Young life stages of Atlantic silverside (60.94 X 106) and Atlantic croaker (111.98 X 106) were also entrained in relatively high numbers.

Invertebrate species are typically much more abundant in the estuarine environment than fish, and this is reflected in Table 9. Young life stages of bivalves (2,927. I X I 06),

shrimp (35,690.5 X 106), and crabs (13,337.1 X 106) were the most abundant organisms entrained. These are largely small forage species such as mud crabs and mysid shrimp.

As Lippson and Lippson (1984) pointed out, the opossum shrimpNeomysis americana "occur in dense populations throughout the" Bay. Only the blue crab forms (73.18 X 106 for the year) represent a commercially important species.

7

3.2.4 Comparison of Entrainment and Ambient (River) Ichthyoplankton and Shellfish Densities Mean densities for key ichthyoplankton and invertebrates collected in both entrainment and ambient samples from the James River are displayed in Tables 10 and 11, respectively. The data in the tables are means of all entraimnent samples and river ambient samples during each sampling event. (Appendix C contains monthly ambient river densities for all taxa.) Notwithstanding the fact the entraimnent and river samples were collected at the same time and in the near vicinity of each other, there are some clear differences between the two programs. For one, the difference in bay anchovy eggs early in the study stands out. The data in Tables 10 and 11 were plotted to provide a simpler comparison of densities in the two programs (Figures 5 - 10). With the exception of bay anchovy eggs, there is a consistent pattern of higher densities in the entraimnent samples. The reason for this is not readily apparent from the data. It could simply be a reflection of the natural "patchiness" that has been documented for plankton populations. It is also possible that the shallow channel leading into, and the deeper depression in front of the intake, concentrate larvae, in contrast to the shallow shelf over which the ambient samples were collected (Figure 2). Also likely, mysid shrip and mud crabs are near-shoreline inhabitors and therefore would not be present at the off-shore ambient sampling stations. These organisms represented the bulk of the entraimnent collection.

Mean water quality measurements associated with ambient ichthyoplankton sampling are displayed in Table 12.

3.2.5 Comparison of Entrainment Data and Ambient Juvenile and Adult Data Dominion biologists collected quarterly sampling of juvenile and adult fish and also some shellfish at three locations in the James River near Surry Power Station. Otter trawls and beach seines were used in the program. The results of these surveys are displayed in Table 13.

Twenty-four species of finfish and blue crab were collected during the survey, with Atlantic silverside, bay anchovy, blue catfish, hogchoker, and spot being the most common. Although relatively few in number in the ambient program (Table 13), Atlantic croaker were more abundant during winter and this is also reflected in the entraimnent data (Table 10).

Atlantic silverside were abundant in the area, as reflected in the early season densities of 8

larvae (Table 10) and September abundance of juveniles and adults (Table 13). Eggs and larvae of bay anchovy were common early in the season, and throughout much of the study year as juveniles and adults (Tables 10 and 13). Several species common as juveniles and adults-blue catfish, hogchoker, and spot-were present in low densities or absent as young life stages (Appendices B and C). Conversely, naked goby were quite commonly entrained during summer (Table I 0) but were not collected in the juvenile/adult program (Table 13).

The abundance of a species as young life stages and scarcity as juvenile/adults, and the converse, cannot always be explained, but several observations are possible in the present study. Blue catfish-first stocked in the James River in 197 5 (Jenkins and Burkhead 1993)-spawn on nests and provide parental protection, possibly in less saline water upstream of Surry Power Station, and thus the young life stages would not likely be entrained. Hogchokers can spawn at any salinity up to 24 parts per thousand (ppt), but prefer 10 - 16 ppt, which is generally higher than that found at Surry Power Station. It is not uncommon for naked goby larvae and juveniles to be common in entrainment samples, but juveniles and adults are absent from ambient sampling programs because the adults prefer oyster bars as habitat.

3.2.6 Historical Stndies Entrainment sampling was conducted at Surry Power Station during 1976-1978 (Vepco 1980). Samples were collected from the intake forebay and in the discharge canal using paired, 0.5-meter plankton nets with 505µm mesh. Discrete samples were collected from near bottom, mid-depth, and near surface locations. A total of 1,080 entrainment samples were collected during this study period.

Although 39 taxa of fish larvae and/or eggs were documented during this study, abundance was overwhelmingly dominated by bay anchovy eggs and larvae, and naked goby larvae (91.1 percent of all organisms collected). Maximum concentrations of the larvae of these forms occurred during early to mid-summer. Bay anchovy egg concentrations peaked in mid-spring. The average maximum concentrations measured over the three study years were:

bay anchovy eggs 62.6/M3 bay anchovy larvae 7.0/ M 3 naked goby larvae 25.7/ M 3 9

Although in much lower densities than bay anchovy or naked goby, other ichthyoplankton that were regularly collected were larval and juvenile Atlantic croaker and spot; larval and juvenile Atlantic menhaden; all life stages of Atlantic, inland, and rough silverside; and eggs and larvae of white perch. Shellfish were not required to be evaluated in the earlier studies, therefore the historical and current studies are not directly comparable.

Bay anchovy eggs and goby larvae also dominated the 2005-2006 entrainment samples.

3.2.7 Summary

• An entrainment and ambient (river) ichthyoplankton study was carried out at Surry Power Station from June 2005 through May 2006. Sampling was scheduled twice per month and included four sample periods in 24-hours, each consisting of two samples each from surface, mid-depth, and bottom in front of the intakes for entrainment, and a single, mid-depth tow at each of three locations in the river ambient program.

• Forty-six different taxa and life stages of fish and invertebrates were entrained during the study. Young life stages of invertebrates ( e.g., crabs, shrimp) accounted for the bulk of the samples, nearly 97 percent. Considering only fish, the eggs, larvae, and juveniles of gobies and bay anchovy were most abundant, accounting for 85 percent of the remaining 3 percent.

• Temporal abundance in both entrainment and river samples reflected the unique reproductive strategies of the species. Early life stages of Atlantic silverside, bay anchovy, and gobies were most abundant in spring and/or early summer. In contrast, juveniles of the fall-spawning Atlantic croaker were most abundant in winter, with a peak in January.

• Entrainment densities were markedly higher during nighttime.

• Based on maximum cooling-water flow at Surry Power Station, an estimated 53 billion organisms were entrained during the study year, the vast majority of which were small invertebrates, primarily mysid shrimp. Annual estimates for common ichthyoplankton ranged from 94 million Atlantic croaker juveniles to 448 million bay anchovy eggs.

• Measurements of dissolved oxygen, pH, salinity, and water temperature were typical for the region and gave no indication of environmental stress.

10

• Comparison of densities of common fish taxa and blue crab megalopae between entrainment and ambient river collections indicated a tendency for greater densities in entrainment, with the exception of bay anchovy eggs. This phenomenon is unexplained, but may be related to "patchiness" of plankton distributions.

• Many of the same taxa of ichthyoplankton entrained were recorded in Dominion's juvenile and adult river sampling program.

• The fish and shellfish collected in all of the studies in 2005-2006 were considered representative for that year.

11

4.0 REFERENCES

Bullard, S.G. 2003. Larvae of Anomuran and Brachyuran Crabs of North Carolina.

Crustaceana Monographs I.

Dominion. 2005. Proposal for Information Collection, Final Rule for Phase II Facilities Cooling Water Intake Structures, Surry Power Station. Prepared by Dominion Resources Services, Inc. Submitted to Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. I March 2005.

Fuiman, L., J. Conner, B. Lathrop, G. Bunyak, D. Snyder, and J. Loss. 1983. State of the art of identification for cyprinid fish larvae from eastern North America. Trans.

Amer. Fish. Soc. 112:319-332.

Gosner (1971). Guide to Identification of Marine and Estuarine Invertebrates. Wiley-Interscience.

Jenkins, R. and N. Burkhead. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.

Lippson, A. and R. Lippson. 1984. Life in the Chesapeake Bay. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD. 229 pp.

Nelson, J., E. Crossman, H. Espinosa-Perez, L. Findley, C. Gilbert, R. Lea, and J.

Williams. 2004. Common and Scientific Names ofFishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Sixth Edition. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 29, Bethesda, MD.

USFWS. 1978. Development ofFishes of the Mid-Atlantic Bight: An Atlas ofEgg, Larval, and Juvenile Stages, Vols. I-VI. U.S. Dept. of Interior.

Virginia Electric and Power Company (Vepco). 1980. Surry Power Station- Units 1 and 2 Cooling Water Intake Studies. Vepco Environmental Services Department, Richmond, VA.

Wang and Kemehan. 1979. Fishes of the Delaware Estuaries: A guide to the Early Life Histories. EA Communications, Towson, MD.

12

White, J., Jr. and M. Brehmer. 1976. Eighteen-Month Evaluation of the Ristroph Traveling Fish Screens. pp. 367-380 in: Third National Workshop on Entrainment & Impingement, Section 3J6(b) Research and Compliance (L.

Jensen, editor). Communications Division, Ecological Analysts, Inc., Melville, NY.

13

I FLOOD

~

JAi/ES RIVCH 0 ..._ _.

• toOa O IOOO 2000 8000 Y*rllh Figure 1. Location of the Surry Power Station near Hog Island on the James River, Virginia, (from White and Brehmer 1976).

P:\Projects\Utility\DominionEnergy\Projects\6200301*316b\DraftReports\Surry\Map.cdr

Figure 2 Location of Ambient Ichthyoplankton Tow Tracks at Surry Power Station Tow tracks shown as red lines with red diamonds marking either end Endpoints designated as:

SUUSI (Upstream)

SUUS2 (Upstream)

SUAJI (Adjacent)

SUAJ2 (Adjacent)

SUDS I (Downstream)

SUDS2 (Downstream)

I I

I!

Ii I

I I

JAMES RIVER NEWPORT NEWS TO JAMESTOWN ISLAND Chart 12248_1 (BSB Electronic Charts) Depth Units: FEET Datum:

/ / \

3 SUUSl 20

\

10 \ 14 3

~ \

.;'PA16 \ \

\ ~

/ \ co

\,\

2 3/ G11 13

/ ~t\'\J

• os a.~ 9 11 1 PA SUAJl

[J/

/

11 D

G 5 11 PA 2

11 3 PA 11

\ \ 14 1 ,

.IA SUAJ2

\

\

PA 5 19 G

7 SUDSl 2

8 C '25" I 2

.: 1 h

5

\SUDS2 4

3 15 1s l I

DO NOT USE FOR NAVIGATION PURPOSES Nautical Miles Printed by ChartView' from Nobeltec Corporation (503) 579-1414 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40

Number Entrained per 100 Cubic Meters Sample Set: Average Atlantic silverside larvae by 4/12-13/2006 Surface Middle Bottom Sampling Left Right Left Right Left Right Period 10am 5 0 0 0 0 0 0.8 4PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 10PM 6 0 11 15 12 0 7.3 4AM 9 3 9 33 13 0 11.2 24-HOUR AVERAGE= 4.8 Maximum plant flow in 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> = 9, 160,999 M3 Total larvae e n t r a ~

3 3 in the 24-hour period= 9,160,999 M X 4.8/100 M = 439,728 larvae Calendar days represented by the 4/12-13/2006 sample set = 18 days Total larvae entrained during the 18-day period represented by the 4/12-13/2006 sample set= 18 days X 439,728 larvae = 7,915,104 larvae Total larvae entrained 7,915,104 larvae entrained in 4/12-13/2006 18-day extrapolation period during the study year =

PLUS 50,304,896 larvae entrained during remaining 22 extrapolation periods

= 58,220,000 larvae entrained during the study year Figure 3 Entrainment Calculation Schematic: Extrapolation of Atlantic Silverside Larvae Numbers from a Single Sampling Event to the Annual total, Surry Power Station

Figure 4 Annual Average Density of Common Species Entrained at Surry Power Station During Different Diel Periods 180 160 140 M

iE 120 0

0

...:g_ 100 Cl)

.Q E

, 80 z

C:

Cll Cl)

iE 60 40 32 29 20 0

Late AM Early PM Late PM Early AM Time of Day

!--+- Goby sp. Larvae ---- Bay anchovy egg Naked Goby larvae ~ Atlantic Croaker Juvenile --ilE- Bay Anchovy Larvae j

Figure 5 Comparison of Entrainment and Ambient lchthyoplankton Densities of Atlantic Croaker Juveniles, Surry Power Station 45.00 40.00 U)

-Cl)

Cl)

il:

c.>

35.00

c::::, 30.00

(.)

0 0 25.00 Cl)

...C.

Cl) 20.00

.c E

z 15.00 Cl)

C)

E Cl) 10.00

~

5.00 AA A

- -.... ,.// ~ _, I \

0.00 - -

~

1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. ~~#############

~~~#~~~###~#~~#~~~~#~~~

~~~~~~~~$#~$~~~~~J~~~~~

Sampling Dates I~ Entrainment ---- Ambient lchthyoplankton I

Figure 6 Comparison of Entrainment and Ambient lchthyoplankton Densities of Atlantic Silverside Larvae, Juveniles, and Adults, Surry Power Station 25.00 1/1

- Cl)

Cl)

iE CJ

c~

20.00 u

0

....0 i... 15.00 Cl)

.c E

~

z 10.00 Cl)

Cl

~

Cl)

~

5.00

~#~~~~~~~~#~~~~~~§#~~~~

~~~~~~~~~#~$~~~~~J~~~~~

Sampling Dates I~ Entrainment - Ambient lchthyoplankton i

Figure 7 Comparison of Entrainment and Ambient lchthyoplankton Densities of Bay Anchovy Eggs, Surry Power Station 400 .00 350.00 I!!

~

Q)

Q)

(.)

300.00

c::I

(.) 250.00 0

0

~ 200.00 Q)

.Q E 150.00

I z

Q)

Cl Cll Q) 100.00

~

50.00 0.00

~~~~~~~~#~~#~~#~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~#~$$¢~~~~f~~~~

Sampling Dates

!-+- Entrainment - - - Ambient lchthyoplankton I

Figure 8 Comparison of Entrainment and Ambient lchthyoplankton Densities of Bay Anchovy Larvae, Juveniles, and Adults, Surry Power Station

~ 20.00 + -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---1+- - - - - - - - - -- - -- - - - - l

.!a,

ii:

CJ

c:::,

u 15.00 -+----+-- - - - - - ----,~ ~- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -+---+-- - - - - - -- - --------i C

C a,

...a,C.

..c E 10.00 +---------'~ - - - - - - - - --\-- - - - - - - - ---......._- - - - - - - - -- - -- - - - - - - 1 z

a, en E

a,

~ 5.00 + -- - - - - - ------IF'--- ---+-- -- - - - + - -- - -- - ---+- - -+-+- ----+-- -- - ~f - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - 1

1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. ~#####

~~~~~~~~#~~#~~#~~#~#~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ i..; i..; "- "-v "-v v v Sampling Dates I~ Entrainment ---- Ambient lchthyoplankton j

Figure 9 Comparison of Entrainment and Ambient lchthyoplankton Densities of Naked Goby Larvae and Juveniles, Surry Power Station 120.00 I!!Q)

-Q)

iE 100.00 CJ

a:i

(.)

C) 80.00 C)

Q)

Q.

Q)

..c 60.00 E

i z

Q)

Cl 40.00 f!

Q) 20.00

1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. ~~#####

~~~~~~~~#~~#~~#~#;~#~~~

~~~~~~~~$#~$~~~~~J~~~~~

Sampling Dates I~ Entrainment ----- Ambient lchthyoplankton ;

Figure 10 Comparison of Entrainment and Ambient Plankton Densities of Blue Crab Megalopae, Surry Power Station 30.00 -r-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,

25.00 fG)

- G)

!=

CJ

c::::J 20.00

(.)

0 0

~ 15.00 G)

.Q E

J z 10.00 G)

C)

...ra G)

~

5.00 0.00 -1-a-,--1-1-,---a-1--,---a~ ~:;:::::::!!!!...._

~- ~

........""'""-......__1--,-_ _---,-___.....,...._ _ _ _ _ _- - ._ _............._...................._.1--,-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _...._J

~#~~~~~~~~#~~~#~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~#~$#~~~~~~~~~~

Sampling Dates I-+- Entrainment - Ambient lchthyoplankton I

TABLE 1 LIST OF COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF FISH AND SHELLFISH MENTIONED IN THIS REPORT Family Common Name Scientific name

~guillidae Freshwater eels American eel Anguilla rostrata Engraulidae Anchovies Bay anchovy Anchoa mitchilli Clupeidae Herrings Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus Blueback herring Alosa aestivalis Hickory shad Alosa mediocris Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum Atlantic menhaden Brevoortia tyrannus Cyprinidae Carps and minnows Common carp Cyprinus carpio Ictaluridae North American catfishes Blue catfish Ictalurus furcatus Channel catfish lctalurus punctatus White catfish Ameiurus catus Mugilidae Mullets White mullet Mugil cephalus

!\.therinopSidae New World silversides Rough silverside Membras martinica Inland silverside Menidia beryllina Atlantic silverside Menidia menidia II Belonidae Needlefishes Atlantic needlefish Strongylura marina I Synguathidae Pipefishes Northern pipefish Sygnathus fuscus Moronidae Temperate basses White perch Marone americana Marone saxatilis I

Striped bass Centrarchidae Pomatomidae Sunfishes Bluefishes Bluespotted sunfish Bluefish Enneacanthus gloriosus Pomatomus saltitrix II Sciaenidae Drums and croakers Silver perch Weakfish Bairdiella chrysoura Cynoscion regalis II Spot Leiostomus xanthurus I I

Atlantic croaker Micropogonias undulatus I

3lenniidae Gobiidae Combtooth blennies Gobies Feather blenny Nakedgoby Hypsoblennius hentz Gobiosoma hose I I Greengoby Microgobius thalassinus I Gobiesocidae Clingfishes Skilletfish Gobiesox strumosus Stromateidae Butterfishes Harvestfish Peorilus oaru II I

II I

I

TABLE 1 (Continued)

Familv Common Name Scientific name S::inrl flonnrlP-rs SnmmP.r flnnnrlP.r P::ir::i11r.hthys rlP.nt::ih1s Achiridae American soles Hogchoker Trinectes maculatus Cynoglossidae Tonguefishes Blackcheektonguefish Symphurus plagiusa X:anthidae Mud crabs Depressed mud crab Eurypanopeus depressus llortunidae Swimmine crabs Blue crab Callinectes saoidus Note: Common and scientific names of finfish follow Nelson et al. (2004); shellfish names based on Gosner (1971)

TABLE 2 AVERAGE DENSITY OF ICHTHYOPLANKTON AND MACROINVERTEBRATES ENTRAINED AT SURRY POWER STATION, JUNE 2005 - MAY 2006 Cumulative 3

Species/Taxon No./100M Percent Percent Shrimp 1004.78 65.77 65.77 Other crab zoea 376.68 24.66 90.43 Bivalve young 83.26 5.45 95.88 Gaby sp. larvae 12.22 0.80 96.68 Other crab megalopae 11.12 0.73 97.41 Bay anchovy egg 11.12 0.73 98.14 Naked goby laivae 8.67 0.57 98.70 Bay anchovy juvenile/adult 4.44 0.29 98.99 Naked goby juvenile 4.13 0.27 99.26

!Atlantic croaker juvenile 2.72 0.18 99.44

!Atlantic silverside larvae 1.81 0.12 99.56 Bay anchovy larvae 1.67 0.11 99.67 Blue Crab megalopae 1.37 0.09 99.76 Blue Crab juvenile 0.58 0.04 99.80

!Atlantic croaker larvae 0.49 0.03 99.83 Fish egg: undetermined/damaged 0.48 0.03 99.86 Dorsoma sp. egg 0.45 0.03 99.89 Invertebrate - undetermined 0.24 0.02 99.91 Rough silverside larvae 0.20 0.01 99.92 Inland silverside larvae 0.19 0.01 99.93 Feather blenny larvae 0.13 0.01 99.94 Silver perch juvenile 0.12 0.01 99.95

~tlantic menhaden juvenile 0.12 0.01 99.96 Fish larvae: undetermined/damaged 0.11 0.01 99.96 Spot juvenile 0.09 0.01 99.97

~nchoa sp. juvenile 0.07 <0.01 99.97 Depressed mud crab juvenile 0.06 <0.01 99.98 Gizzard shad larvae 0.05 <0.01 99.98 Anchoa sp. larvae 0.04 <0.01 99.98 White perch juvenile/adult 0.04 <0.01 99.99

~therinopsidae sp. egg 0.03 <0.01 99.99 Hogchoker larvae 0.03 <0.01 99.99 Atlantic silverside juvenile 0.02 <0.01 99.99 Atlantic menhaden egg 0.02 <0.01 99.99 Silver perch larvae 0.01 <0.01 99.99 Clupeidae sp. juvenile/adult 0.01 <0.01 99.99 Atherinopsidae sp. larvae 0.01 <0.01 99.99 Clupeidae sp. larvae 0.01 <0.01 100.00 Northern pipefish juvenile 0.01 <0.01 100.00 American eel juvenile 0.01 <0.01 100.00 Blackcheek tonguefish juvenile 0.01 <0.01 100.00 Spot larvae 0.01 <0.01 100.00 sciaenidae sp. egg 0.01 <0.01 100.00 Bluespotted sunfish juvenile 0.01 <0.01 100.00

~tlantic menhaden larvae 0.01 <0.01 100.00

" Primarily mysid shrimp

TABLE 3 AVERAGE DENSITY AND PERCENT COMPOSITION OF ICHTHYOPLANKTON ENTRAINED AT SURRY POWER STATION, JUNE 2005 -- MAY 2006 Cumulative 3

Species/Taxon No./100M Percent Percent Goby sp. larvae 12.22 24.65 24.65 Bay anchovy egg 11.12 22.44 47.09 Naked goby larvae 8.67 17.49 64.58 Bay anchovy juvenile/adult 4.44 8.96 73.53 Naked goby juvenile 4.13 8.33 81.86 Atlantic croaker juvenile 2.72 5.50 87.36 Atlantic silverside larvae 1.81 3.65 91.01 Bay anchovy larvae 1.67 3.37 94.38

!Atlantic croaker larvae 0.49 0.99 95.37 Fish egg: undetermined/damaged 0.48 0.96 96.33 Dorsoma sp. egg 0.45 0.90 97.23 Rough silverside larvae 0.20 0.41 97.64 Inland silverside larvae 0.19 0.39 98.03 Feather blenny larvae 0.13 0.26 98.29 Silver perch juvenile 0.12 0.24 98.53

!Atlantic menhaden juvenile 0.12 0.24 98.78 Fish larvae: undetermined/damaged 0.11 0.23 99.00 Spot juvenile 0.09 0.18 99.18 ll.nchoa sp. juvenile 0.07 0.14 99.32 Gizzard shad larvae 0.05 0.09 99.41

!Anchoa sp. larvae 0.04 0.08 99.49 White perch juvenile/adult 0.04 0.07 99.56 6.therinopsidae sp. egg 0.03 0.06 99.62 Hogchoker larvae 0.03 0.05 99.68 Atlantic silverside juvenile 0.02 0.04 99.72 Atlantic menhaden egg 0.02 0.04 99.76 Silver perch larvae 0.01 0.03 99.78 Clupeidae sp. juvenile/adult 0.01 0.03 99.81 Atherinopsidae sp. larvae 0.01 0.03 99.84 Clupeidae sp. larvae 0.01 0.03 99.87 Northern pipefish juvenile 0.01 0.02 99.89

!),merican eel juvenile 0.01 0.02 99.91 Blackcheek tonguefish juvenile 0.01 0.02 99.94 Spot larvae 0.01 0.02 99.96 Sciaenidae sp. egg 0.01 0.02 99.97 Bluespotted sunfish juvenile 0.01 0.01 99.99 Atlantic menhaden larvae 0.01 0.01 100.00

3 TABLE 4 AVERAGE MONTHLY DENSITY (N0./100M ) OF COMMON SPECIES OF ICHTHYOPLANKTON AND SHELLFISH ENTRAINED AT SURRY POWER STATION, 2005 -- 2006 Species/Taxon Jun 2005 Jul 2005 Aug 2005 Sep 2005 Oct 2005 Nov 2005 Dec 2005 Jan 2006 Feb 2006 Mar 2006 Apr 2006 May 2006 J

Bay anchovy juvenile/adult 8.80 8.10 3.96 6.78 1.58 0.43 1.26 10.21 3.32 4.31 2.51 0.00 Bay anchovy egg 89.18 7.19 7.50 0.55 1.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 27.67 Bay anchovy larvae 4.32 2.61 10.30 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.59 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.55

!Atlantic silverside juvenile 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 tlantic silverside larvae 0.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.16 6.35 Naked goby juvenile 21.05 25.31 3.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Naked goby larvae 31.75 57.14 8.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 IAtJantic croaker juvenile 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.35 1.04 3.42 4.73 21.27 1.50 0.27 0.12 0.00 tlantic croaker larvae 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.77 2.16 0.00 2.77 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goby sp. larvae 37.50 31.54 13.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 63.95 Blue Crab juvenile 0.00 0.00 1.85 1.79 2.78 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Bluei Crab megalopae 0.00 0.00 2.22 9.45 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

TABLE 5 LENGTH-FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF BAY ANCHOVY LARVAE, JUVENILES, AND ADULTS Mean 10 to 15 to 20 to 25 to 30to 35 to 40 to 45to 50to 55 to 60 to 65 to ru ,o Length Oto 4.9 5 to 9.9 14.9 19.9 24.9 29.9 34.9 39.9 44.9 49.9 54.9 59.9 64.9 69.9 74.9 Date (mm) N mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm 06/23/05 13.8 22 5 10 4 3 06/29/05 16.3 23 5 5 5 6 2 07/13/05 13.7 14 2 5 6 1 07/28/05 11.3 22 1 5 14 1 1 08/10/05 10.3 34 2 15 16 1 08/24/05 11.1 34 1 17 9 4 2 1 09/14/05 11.1 39 8 31 09/28/05 16.9 22 1 5 11 4 1 10/12/05 19.4 11 3 2 6 10/26/05 19.8 3 1 2 11/29/05 30.0 2 1 1 12/12/05 37.2 7 1 2 2 1 1 12/27/05 34.8 4 1 1 1 1 01/11/06 40.3 3 2 1 01/25/06 44.1 121 2 4 26 46 20 10 8 3 2 02/13/06 46.7 13 1 1 1 1 2 5 2 02/27/06 46.3 31 7 11 4 6 1 1 1 03/08/06 41.8 12 1 3 4 3 1 03/22/06 47.5 32 1 5 8 7 4 3 3 1 04/12/06 46.4 38 4 15 11 4 1 1 2 04/26/06 ---- 0 05/10/06 4.6 1 1 05/24/06 5.0 2 2 Totals: 490 5 60 99 35 26 8 11 49 88 49 31 13 9 6 1

TABLE 6 LENGTH-FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF ATLANTIC CROAKER LARVAE AND JUVENILES Mean Length Oto 4.9 5 to 9.9 10 to 14.9 15 to 19.9 20 to 24.9 25 to 29.9 30 to 34.9 35 to 39.9 40 to 44.9 45 to 49.9 50 to 54.91 Date (mm) N mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm 06/23/05 ****- 0 06/29/05 HH*

0 07/13/05 ..... 0 07/28/05 ----- 0 08/10/05 2.20 1 1 08/24/05 ..... 0 09/14/05 10.30 1 1 09/28/05 11.86 8 5 1 1 1 10/12/05 11.55 13 4 7 2 10/26/05 10.02 16 8 8 11/29/05 16.22 20 6 11 3 12/12/05 16.29 43 21 16 2 1 3 12/27/05 14.66 26 15 9 1 1 01/11/06 14.99 9 4 4 1 01/25/06 16.82 151 76 48 14 4 2 2 1 3 1 02/13/06 22.98 11 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 02/27/06 26.43 9 1 2 1 2 2 1 03/08/06 29.40 2 1 1 03/22/06 25.50 1 1 04/12/06 31.60 1 1 04/26/06 ----- 0 05/10/06 ----- 0 05/24/06 ---- 0 Totals: 312 1 18 145 94 24 9 10 3 2 4 2

TABLE 7 LENGTH-FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF NAKED GOBY LARVAE AND JUVENILES Mean Length 3 to 4.9 5 to 6.9 7 to 8.9 9 to 10.9 111012.9 13 to 14.9 15 to 16.9 17 to 18.9 19 to 20.9 Date (mm) N mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm 06/23/05 8.75 65 4 10 9 36 6 06/29/05 8.56 115 3 33 18 45 15 1 07/13/05 9.02 70 2 15 7 39 6 1 07/28/05 8.22 201 2 43 93 57 6 08/10/05 8.91 83 1 10 26 41 5 08/24/05 12.00 5 1 3 1 09/14/05 ----- 0 09/28/05 ----- 0 10/12/05 ----- 0 10/26/05 ----- 0 11/29/05 ----- 0 12/12/05 ----- 0 12/27/05 ----- 0 01/11/06 ----- 0 01/25/06 ----- 0 02/13/06 ----- 0 02/27/06 ----- 0 03/08/06 ----- 0 03/22/06 ----- 0 04/12/06 ----- 0 04/26/06 ----- 0 05/10/06 ----- 0 05/24/06 ---- 0 Totals: 539 12 111 153 219 41 1 1 0 1

TABLE 8 MEAN WATER QUALITY VALUES ASSOCIATED WITH ENTRAINMENT SAMPLING, SURRY POWER STATION Sampling DO pH Salinitv Temperature Event (mg/L) (pH unitsl lnnt}

• IDearees Cl 6/23/2005 7.5 7.7 8.5 27.0 6/29/2005 5.7 7.6 6.3 26.8 7/13/2005 6.5 7.8 7.4 29.0 7/28/2005 7.0 7.9 5.9 31.4 8/10/2005 5.9 7.7 8.2 30.1 8/24/2005 5.6 7.6 10.3 29.2 9/14/2005 8.3 8.2 10.7 26.5 9/28/2005 8.6 8.2 9.8 25.5 10/12/2005 9.7 7.6 9.6 22.0 10/26/2005 8.9 7.4 9.0 15.4 11/29/2005 10.0 7.8 12.3 12.6 12/12/2005 12.4 7.8 4.4 7.5 12/27/2005 12.9 7.7 3.7 6.8 1/11/2006 11.9 7.6 3.4 8.2 1/25/2006 11.4 7.6 3.5 8.1 2/13/2006 12.5 7.7 5.7 6.5 2/27/2006 12.6 8.1 5.5 6.8 3/8/2006 ND 8.7 6.3 8.5 3/22/2006 12.3 8.5 9.6 10.4 4/12/2006 9.6 7.7 9.2 16.2 4/26/2006 7.3 7.2 7.1 19.1 5/10/2006 6.7 7.5 7.2 19.7 5/24/2006 8.3 7.5 6.8 20.9 ND=no data due to instrument malfunction I

I II r

I*

I

TABLE 9 MONTHLY AND ANNUAL ENTRAINMENT ESTIMATES (X 106 ) FOR SURRY POWER STATION Annual Taxon-Life Stage 6-2005 7-2005 8-2005 9-2005 10-2005 11-2005 12-2005 1-2006 2-2006 3-2006 4-2006 5-2006 6-:1006 Total American eel-juvenile 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 IBay anchovy-adult 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.1 2.7 5.6 1.8 0.0 0.0 ().0 32.1 IBay anchovy-fertilized egg 296.8 21.9 21.2 4.2 3.7 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 71.4 27.8 448.5 Bay anchovy-juvenile 21.1 22.7 11.9 23.6 5.5 1.6 4.3 0.7 6.8 11.4 8.3 0.0 ().0 117.9 Bay anchovy-larvae 11.4 7.5 27.6 6.9 0.1 0.0 1.5 0.3 0.6 0.1 0.0 1.5 0.3 57.8 IA.nchoa sp.-juvenile 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (l.0 2.0 IAnchoa sp.- larvae 0.0 0.8 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (l.0 1.4

)Atlantic menhaden-fertilized egg 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 (l.0 0.6

!Atlantic menhaden-juvenile 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 1.8 0.2 Cl.O 3.6

~tlantic menhaden-larvae 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 (l.0 0.2 Gizzard shad-larvae 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (l.0 1.9 Dorsoma sp.-fertilized egg 4.4 9.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.2 Clupeidae sp.-adult 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 Clupeidae sp.-juvenile 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 Clupeidae sp.-larvae 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5

!Atlantic silverside-juvenile 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.6

!Atlantic silverside-undetermined life stage 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 (1.Q 2.1

!Atlantic silverside-larvae 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.7 19.7 1.4 58.2 Inland silverside-Jarvae 4.7 1.0 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 7.2 Rough silverside-larvae 1.1 5.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.2 A.therinopsidae sp.-fertilized egg 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.4 1.3 IAtherinopsidae sp.-larvae 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 Northern pipefish-juvenile 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 IWhite perch-adult 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 c.o 0.3 Nhite perch-juvenile 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 Bluespotted sunfish-juvenile 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 Silver perch-juvenile 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 Silver perch-larvae 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 Spot-juvenile 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 1.5 0.9 0.0 0.0 3.1 Spot-larvae 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4

!Atlantic croaker-juvenile 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 2.8 6.6 55.1 13.3 14.7 1.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 94.7

!Atlantic croaker-larvae 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.1 5.6 2.7 0.9 6.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.3 Sciaenidae sp-fertilized egg 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 Feather blenny-larvae 5.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.3 Naked goby-juvenile 26.1 77.3 15.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 118.9 Naked goby-larvae 68.7 149.7 52.3 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 271.2

TABLE 9 (Continued)

I Taxon-Life Stage I 6-200511-2005 I s-2005 I 9-2005 I10-2005l 11-2005l 12-2005l 1-2006 I 2-200613-200614-2006 I 5-2006 I 6-,!006 I Total I Naked goby-undetermined/damaged 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 Gaby sp.-larvae 62.5 99.5 42.6 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 164.0 68.8 439.6 Gaby sp.-undetermined/damaged 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (1.0 0.5 Hogchoker-larvae 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 Blackcheek tonguefish-juvenile 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 Fish eggs: Undetermined 11.4 4.6 0.3 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (1.0 17.5 Fish larvae/juveniles: undetermined 0.0 1.4 1.9 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (1.0 3.7 Blue Crab-juvenile 0.0 0.0 4.7 6.4 7.5 3.2 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (1.0 22.2 Blue Crab-megalop 0.0 0.0 5.7 45.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (1.0 51.0 Other crab-megalopae 0.0 12.9 290.5 75.0 4.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (1.0 383.3 Other crab-zoeae 528.6 714.6 9948.9 1323.6 37.9 0.8 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 39.7 255.4 27.5 12877.3 Depressed mud crab - juvenile 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.7 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (1.0 3.3 Bivalves 1.7 2.2 12.3 10.4 21.5 82.9 130.8 195.1 165.0 215.3 1929.0 154.7 ~i.3 2927.1 Shrimp 649.2 114.5 1064.3 524.8 940.5 894.2 97.3 1150.0 321.5 7873.8 10623.5 10216.6 1220.4 35690.5 Total= 1699.0 1251.2 11503.6 2024.6 1032.2 994.1 313.1 1371.6 515.2 8106.5 12639.5 10888.2 1353.0 53691.9 Note: June 2005 and 2006 are each partial months

TABLE 10 DENSITY (#/100 M3) OF ICHTHYOPLANKTON AND BLUE CRAB LARVAE ENTRAINED AT SURRY POWER STATION JUNE 2005 -- MAY 2006 Bay Atlantic anchovy Naked Atlantic silverside Bay larvae/ goby Blue Sample croaker larvae/ anchovy juvenile/ larvae/ crab date juvenile juvenile enn adult iuvenile meqalopae 6/23/05 0.0 1.9 167.9 16.0 36.3 0.0 6/29/05 0.0 0.0 10.5 10.3 69.0 0.0 7/13/05 0.0 0.0 7.1 10.7 45.7 0.0 7/28/05 0.0 0.0 7.3 10.8 131.4 0.0 8/10/05 0.0 0.0 2.3 11.0 22.5 1.1 8/24/05 0.0 0.0 12.7 17.5 2.2 3.4 9/14/05 0.3 0.0 0.0 14.1 0.0 28.3 9/28/05 0.4 0.0 0.8 4.1 0.0 0.0 10/12/05 1.4 0.0 1.4 2.3 0.0 0.2 10/26/05 0.7 0.0 1.4 0.8 0.0 0.0 11/29/05 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 12/12/05 7.4 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 12/27/05 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 1/11/06 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 1/25/06 40.6 0.0 0.0 21.0 0.0 0.0 2/13/06 1.6 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 2/27/06 1.4 0.0 0.0 4.6 0.0 0.0 3/8/06 0.4 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 3/22/06 0.2 0.0 0.0 6.1 0.0 0.0 4/12/06 0.2 4.9 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 4/26/06 0.0 25.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5/10/06 0.0 8.5 4.7 0.5 0.0 0.0 5/24/06 0.0 2.6 50.6 0.6 0.0 0.0

3 TABLE 11 DENSITY (#/100 M ) OF ICHTHYOPLANKTON AND BLUE CRAB LARVAE IN THE AMBIENT JAMES RIVER SAMPLES NEAR SURRY POWER STATION, JUNE 2005 -- MAY 2006 Atlantic Bay silverside anchovy Naked Atlantic larvae/ Bay larvae/ goby Blue Sample croaker juvenile/ anchovy juvenile/ larvae/ crab date juvenile adult eaa adult juvenile megalopae 6/23/05 0.0 1.5 341.7 2.9 16.8 0.0 6/29/05 0.0 0.2 150.2 3.8 29.0 0.0 7/13/05 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.1 12.0 0.0 7/28/05 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 10.3 0.0 8/10/05 0.0 0.0 3.2 5.0 7.1 0.5 8/24/05 0.0 0.0 3.8 5.9 0.9 1.4 9/14/05 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.8 0.0 3.5 9/28/05 1.4 0.0 0.1 2.8 0.0 0.0 10/12/05 0.5 0.0 1.2 1.3 0.0 0.1 10/26/05 1.2 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 11/29/05 8.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 12/12/05 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 12/27/05 0.6 0.0 0.0 10.3 0.0 0.0 1/11/06 0.3 0.0 0.0 9.1 0.0 0.0 1/25/06 7.8 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 2/13/06 0.7 0.4 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 2/27/06 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 3/8/06 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 3/22/06 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 4/12/06 0.0 3.8 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 4/26/06 0.0 4.0 0.5 3.6 0.0 0.0 5/10/06 0.0 7.1 1.3 0.5 0.0 0.0 5/24/06 0.0 1.9 64.6 0.3 5.8 u.u

TABLE 12. MEAN WATER QUALITY VALUES ASSOCIATED WITH AMBIENT ICHTHYOPLANKTON SAMPLING, SURRY POWER STATION DO pH Salinity Temperature Sampling Sampling Event (ma/Ll (pH units) (ppt) (Dearees Cl Station Middle Middle Middle Middle ADJACENT 7.4 7.7 8.5 26.2 06/23/05 DOWNSTREAM 6.9 7.5 9.0 25.9 UPSTREAM 6.9 7.6 8.0 26.0 ADJACENT 5.7 7.6 6.2 26.7 06/29/05 DOWNSTREAM 5.5 7.5 6.5 26.9 UPSTREAM 5.6 7.6 6.2 26.9 ADJACENT 5.8 7.6 7.7 29.2 07/13/05 DOWNSTREAM 6.2 7.7 7.7 29.0 UPSTREAM 5.9 7.7 7.7 29.1 ADJACENT 7.3 7.9 6.0 31.8 07/28/05 DOWNSTREAM 7.5 7.9 5.9 32.0 UPSTREAM 7.2 7.9 6.0 31.8 ADJACENT 5.4 7.6 8.6 29.5 08/10/05 DOWNSTREAM 5.4 7.6 8.7 29.4 UPSTREAM 5.2 7.6 8.4 29.6 ADJACENT 5.5 7.6 10.3 29.3 08/24/05 DOWNSTREAM 5.3 7.6 10.4 29.1 UPSTREAM 5.6 7.6 9.9 29.3 ADJACENT 8.4 8.3 10.4 26.7 09/14/05 DOWNSTREAM 8.7 8.3 11.0 26.6 UPSTREAM 8.1 8.3 10.2 26.6 ADJACENT 8.8 8.3 9.8 25.6 09/28/05 DOWNSTREAM 8.3 8.1 9.9 25.5 UPSTREAM 8.6 8.3 9.5 25.6 ADJACENT 10.4 7.6 9.6 22.2 10/12/05 DOWNSTREAM 10.6 7.6 10.1 22.2 UPSTREAM 10.7 7.6 9.2 22.3 ADJACENT 8.9 7.5 8.9 16.1 10/26/05 DOWNSTREAM 8.8 7.6 9.1 16.4 UPSTREAM 8.9 7.5 8.6 16.1 ADJACENT 10.1 7.9 12.2 12.1 11/29/05 DOWNSTREAM 10.4 7.8 12.6 12.2 UPSTREAM 10.1 7.9 12.2 12.4 ADJACENT 12.5 7.8 4.2 7.7 12/12/05 DOWNSTREAM 12.6 7.8 4.6 7.5 UPSTREAM 'IL.4 I.>} .j, I lj,.j

TABLE 12 (Continued)

DO pH Sal1mru 1 emperature Sampling Sampling Event lma/Ll lnH unitsl lnntl /Decrees Cl Station Middle Middle Middle Middle ADJACENT 12.9 7.6 3.6 6.8 12/27/05 DOWNSTREAM 13.1 7.6 3.8 6.9 UPSTREAM 12.9 7.7 3.5 6.8 ADJACENT 11.6 7.6 3.3 8.1 01/11/06 DOWNSTREAM 12.0 7.6 4.1 8.0 UPSTREAM 10.2 7.6 2.6 8.6 ADJACENT 11.4 7.7 3.0 8.4 01/25/06 DOWNSTREAM 11.5 7.6 4.0 8.0 UPSTREAM 11.3 7.7 2.3 9.0 ADJACENT 12.1 7.5 6.2 6.6 02/13/06 DOWNSTREAM 12.4 7.6 6.0 6.6 UPSTREAM 12.0 7.6 5.9 6.6 ADJACENT 12.5 8.1 5.7 6.9 02/27/06 DOWNSTREAM 12.4 8.1 6.1 7.0 UPSTREAM 12.4 8.1 5.5 7.0 ADJACENT 14.9 8.6 6.4 8.4 03/08/06 DOWNSTREAM 14.8 8.5 6.5 8.4 UPSTREAM 14.5 8.6 6.5 8.7 ADJACENT 11.8 8.4 9.7 10.6 03/22/06 DOWNSTREAM 11.9 8.4 10.6 10.5 UPSTREAM 11.6 8.3 9.3 10.8 ADJACENT 9.5 7.6 9.3 16.1 04/02/06 DOWNSTREAM 9.3 7.6 9.3 16.0 UPSTREAM 9.4 7.6 9.3 16.3 ADJACENT 7.6 7.3 6.9 19.3 04/26/06 DOWNSTREAM 7.6 7.3 7.2 19.3 UPSTREAM 7.6 7.3 6.9 19.4 ADJACENT 7.1 7.5 7.4 19.5 05/10/06 DOWNSTREAM 7.1 7.4 7.6 19.5 UPSTREAM 7.0 7.5 7.4 19.6 ADJACENT 8.8 7.5 6.8 20.9 05/24/06 DOWNSTREAM 9.0 7.5 7.3 20.8 UPSTREAM 9.2 7.5 6.5 [1.0

TABLE 13 RESULTS OF DOMINION RESOURCES' QUARTERLY SAMPLING OF JUVENILE AND ADULT FISH AND SHELLFISH IN THE VICINITY OF SURRY POWER STATION, 2005

• 2006 Seotember November Januarv June Species 11 survey! 11 survev* 11 survev* 11 survev*

American eel 1

~ayanchow 127 46 69 47 Alewife 6 lueback herrina 3 2 ickorvshad 1 izzard shad 7 2 Atlantic menhaden 2 13 3 kommon caro 3 4 2 1

[lue catfish 160 110 30 140 uhannel catfish 1 White catfish 8 1 1 Nhite mullet 2 tlantic silverside 211 5 31 nland silverside 135 Atlantic needlefish 2

• 1hite oerch 24 31 69 10 trioed bass 3 3 5 2 luefish 1 1 Atlantic croaker 2 1 14 49

~ilver oerch 17 5 75 109 15 l~ot eakfish 1 3 Harvestfish 3 oochoker 30 14 126 9 lue Crab 4 2 otal Oraanisms 669 351 366 418

APPENDIX A Entrainment and Ambient Ichthyoplankton Calculation Procedures

A.1. INTRODUCTION The Dominion Resources 316b database stores plant operating conditions, water quality data, and organism data collected for three main types of sampling events: entrainment, impingement, and ambient ichthyoplankton ("ich") sampling. Data for quarterly juvenile/adult sampling events, which occur at off-site sampling locations, are also stored in the database. One of the main project objectives is to generate estimates of monthly and annual organism estimates, based on the collected organism data. This appendix describes the entrainment and ambient ichthyoplankton calculation procedures for Surry Power Station.

A.2. SAMPLING SCHEDULE AND EXTRAPOLATION RANGE The sampling schedule consisted of two parent sampling events per month. Each parent event was considered a 24-hour sampling period.

Each Parent Event date has an assigned "date range" where each date in the range was assigned the same organism estimate that was measured during the parent event date. The date range is established by counting halfway back to the prior parent event, and halfway forward to the subsequent parent event. A small example for three parent dates is presented below:

I Parent Date 6/23/2005 Ranee Start 6/7/2005 Ranee End 6/25/2005 Day Count 19

!I 6/29/2005 6/26/2005 7/5/2005 10 7/13/2005 7/6/2005 7/20/2005 15 I' A.3. ENTRAINMENT DATA A.3.1 Overview The entrainment samples were collected in front of an operating unit at the plant intake. The sample volume, water quality data, and organism collection occurred at each of the 12 entrainment events, each consisting of a pair of plankton samples at a specific depth. Usually three entrainment events (a sample pair at each of three depths) occurred in a designated "sampling hour." The 12 entrainment events, numbered I to 12, grouped three to an hour, typically occurred at the following times for a 24-hour parent event:

Hour Group A: events 1-3 in the IOa.m. hour (10:00)

Hour Group B: events 4-6 in the 4 p.m. hour (16:00)

Hour Group C: events 7-9 in the 10 p.m. hour (22:00)

Hour Group D: events 10-12 in the 4a.m. hour (04:00 - the following day)

Each entrainment event typically had two organism samples and corresponding sample volume measurements collected at a given depth (bottom, middle, or surface) in each of the left and right sampling nets. So for each Hour Group, consisting of three entrainment events, there were usually six samples/volume measurements taken. Below is an example sample listing for events 1,2,3 (Hour Group A):

A-1

Example of Entrainment Hourly Group A (3 events, 2 samples each):

Parent Ent Ent Event Right/ FlwNet Site Event Depth FlowMeter SampleName Date Time Number Left Count Date

- SlJrry -- 10/26/2005 10/26/2005 1106 1 Bottom L GO 2030R6 LoFlow S-1026-01-LB 1676 Surry 10/26/2005 10/26/2005 1106 I Bottom R GO 2030R6 LoFlow S-1026-01-RB 1620 Suny 10/26/2005 10/26/2005 1121 2 Middle L GO 2030R6 LoFlow

• S-1026-01-LM 1999 Suny 10/26/2005 10/26/2005 1121 2 Middle R GO 2030R6 LoFlow' S-1026--01-RM 1933 Suny 10/26/2005 10/26/2005 1135 3 Surface L GO 2030R6 LoFlow S-1026-01-LS 2030 Suny 10/26/2005 10/26/2005 1135 3 Surface R GO 2030R6 LoFlow S-1026-01-RS 1998 Therefore, there were typically six samples collected iu each of four hourly sampling groups, resulting in 24 total entrainment samples collected in a 24-hour parent event period.

A.3.2 Organism Data:

In each sample collected, the organisms were identified by species or lowest practicable taxonomic level and life stage (egg, larvae,juvenile, etc). For individual fish larvae, the length (0.1 mm) was recorded for 20 specimens of each taxon. If large numbers of a particular organism/life stage were collected, the organisms in excess of the 20 measured organisms were combined as a "batch count."

Thus a given sample could have individual and batch organism counts associated with it.

A.3.3 Entrainment Sample-Volume Calculations Each sample collected had a corresponding sample volume measurement. The sample flow through the uet was measured with one of two flow meters. For each flow measurement the flow meter initial, final, and net "counts" were recorded. The net count was used in a formula, specific to each meter, to calculate the water sample volume (in cubic meters) associated with a sample. The flow meters and volume formulas are as follows:

Meter Name Formula Factor1 Factor2 G02030R NetCount/9480. 774

• 50 = cubic meters 9,480.77 50.00 GO 2030R6 LoFlow NetCount/4426.282

• 50 = cubic meters 4,426.28 50.00 Using the flow meter ID, formula, and net counts recorded, the final sample volume in cubic meters (M3) was calculated for each sample, as: (net count/ factor!)

• factor 2.

A.3.4 Impact of Low Net Flow Counts on Calculations Occasionally during sampling, one or both flow meters recorded noticeably low counts for the 10-minute sample. Whereas typical flow meter counts could be as high as 3 or 4 thousand, some counts were recorded well below 500. Once all the data were collected and assembled, the low flow counts were investigated by running a series of simulations with different flow meter counts and raw organism counts. These test showed that at counts below 100, organism densities were overestimated by at least 20 percent. For Surry Station, 14 of 534 samples, or 2.6 percent, had flow meter counts below 100. To address this at Surry, all net counts below 300 were identified, and totaled 30, or 4.7 percent of the total. Typically, one net count of a pair would be below 300 and the other above 300.

In these cases, the low net count was set equal to the higher count. On a few occasions, both net A-2

counts of a pair were less than 300, and these were set equal to the average of all net counts that were greater than 300 during the sampling event.

A.3.5 Entrainment Parent 24-hour Average Organism Densities For each species/ life stage of organism, the objective was to calculate a 24-hour average organism density (#/100 M 3 sample volume). This would be considered the final organism density for the 24-hour parent event.

The 24-hour final density for each parent event was calculated in steps as follows:

1. Adjust each organism/life stage count in each sample to the standard "100 M 3" sample density.

2. The standard densities of the four "Hour Groups" ( A, B, C, D) were averaged.

3. The four averages were averaged to yield a final "24-hour average density.

An example calculation for bay anchovy eggs from the Surry 6/23/05 parent date is presented in the Table A-1.

A.3.6 Calculation of Entrainment Final (Annual) Organism Estimates Twenty-four parent sampling events were scheduled (2 per month), however, one was missed at Surry due to severe weather. Therefore, there were 23 parent events at Surry over the year cycle.

Each parent event is assigned a date range, to each date of which the 24-hour final organism estimate for the parent date is applied. The date range for a parent event may span across two different months. Below is a tabulation of parent date ranges for Surry Station:

Surry Parent Event dates and Applied Ranges:

Parent Date Ran"e Start RanPeEnd Dav Count 6/23/2005 6/7/2005 6/25/2005 19 6/29/2005 6/26/2005 7/5/2005 10 7/13/2005 7/6/2005 7/20/2005 15 7/28/2005 7/21/2005 8/3/2005 14 8/10/2005 8/4/2005 8/17/2005 14 8/24/2005 8/18/2005 9/3/2005 17 9/14/2005 9/4/2005 9/20/2005 17 9/28/2005 9/21/2005 10/4/2005 14 10/12/2005 10/5/2005 10/19/2005 15 10/26/2005 10/20/2005 11/11/2005 23 11/29/2005 11/12/2005 12/5/2005 24 12/12/2005 12/6/2005 12/19/2005 14 12/27/2005 12/20/2005 1/3/2006 15 1/11/2006 1/4/2006 1/17/2006 14 1/25/2006 1/18/2006 2/3/2006 17 2/13/2006 2/4/2006 2/20/2006 17 2/27/2006 2/21/2006 3/3/2006 11 3/8/2006 3/4/2006 3/14/2006 11 3/22/2006 3/15/2006 4/1/2006 18 A-3

4/12/2006 4/2/2006 4/19/2006 18 4/26/2006 4/20/2006 5/2/2006 13 5/10/2006 5/3/2006 5/17/2006 15 5/24/2006 5/18/2006 6/6/2006 20 An annual organism estimate at maximum flow operation was calculated in three steps:

1. The final 24-hour organism density (#/100 M 3) for each parent event was used with the maximum daily circulating-water flow to calculate the estimated number of organisms entrained during the 24-hour parent event. For example, the maximum 24-hour flow at Surry is 9,160,999 M 3* The bay anchovy egg density for the Surry 6/23/2005 parent event was 167.9/100 M 3 (Table A-1). The 24-hour estimate adjusted for the maximum flow volume is 15,381,317 ([9,160,999/100]*167.9) total eggs entrained.

2. The final 24-hour organism estimate at maximum flow volume was applied to each day in the parent date range. For example, the bay anchovy egg 24-hour estimate for the Surry 6/23/05 parent event was 15,381,317 at maximum flow. The 6/23/05 parent date range was 6/7/05 to 6/25/05 (19 days), therefore the 24-hour maximum flow estimate for the parent event would be multiplied by 19 to get the final maximum estimated number entrained for that date range.

3. The sums of 24-hour organism estimates (at maximum flow volume) for each date range were then summed to yield the final annual entrained organism estimate, for maximum flow conditions.

A.3.7 Monthly Organism Estimates For monthly estimates, the parent-event estimate data are still used to assign the fish estimates to each day in the month. For example, the monthly estimate for June 2005 required the use of three parent events as shown below:

Parent date Start date End Date 6/09/05 05/27/05 06/12/05 6/15/05 06/13/05 06/25/05 07/0505 06/26/05 07/11/05 The 6/09/05 event spans 12 days in June, the 6/15/05 event spans 13 days in June, and the 7/05/05 event spans 5 days in June. Therefore the June 2005 monthly total for an organism would be calculated as the sum of:

06/09/05 parent 24-hour organism estimate

• 12 days 06/15/05 parent 24-hour organism estimate

• 13 days 07/05/05 parent 24-hour organism estimate* 5 days.

The yearly totals are simply the sum of all the parent, or monthly, total estimates.

Note that the date ranges assigned to each parent event span exactly 365 days for the year.

A-4

A.4. AMBIENT ICHTHYOPLANKTON DATA A.4.1 Overview The ambient ichthyoplankton ("amb ich") samples were collected at designated locations upstream, downstream, and adjacent to the plant intake. During each parent event there were usually 12 samples collected. The 12 sample events, numbered I to 12, grouped three to an hour, typically occurred at the following times for a 24-hour parent event, in concert with in-plant entrainment samples:

Hour Group A: events 1-3 in the !Oa.m. hour (10:00)

Hour Group B: events 4-6 in the 4 p.m. hour (16:00)

Hour Group C: events 7-9 in the 10 p.m. hour (22:00)

Hour Group D: events 10-12 in the 4a.m. hour (04:00-the following day)

The samples consisted of mid-depth tows at each of three locations. Sample volume calculations were based on counts from flow meters affixed in the mouth of each net.

Example of 12 Ambient lch Sample Events Group Samp Net Event Samp Evnt SampEnd Flow-Site Loe SampName Depth Start Flow Number Date Time Time Meter Time Count Surry Downstream 1 A 7/20/2005 1051 S-0720-01-DS N/A 1051 1057 G02030R 13061

_?~l!X _J'.\_~j~_C?_~nt 2 A 7/20/2005' 1115 S-0720-01-AJ N/A 1115 1121 G02030R 13141 Surry Upstre~m 3 A 7/20/2005 1140 S-0720-01-US N/A 1140 1146 G02030R 13050 Surry Upstream 4 8 7/20/2005 1653 S-0720-02-US N/A 1653 1659 G02030R 5199 Surry Adjacent 5 8 7/20/2005 1717 S-0720-02-AJ N/A 1717 1723 G02030R 12789 Surry Downstream 6 8 7/20/2005 1738 S-0720-02-DS N/A 1738 1744 G02030R 12378 Surry , Downstream 7 C 7/20/2005 2240 S-0720-03-DS N/A 2240 2246 G02030R 13081 Surry Adjacent 8 C 7/20/2005 2310 S-0720-03-AJ N/A 2310 2316 G02030R 14073 Surry Upstream 9 C 7/20/2005 2332 S-0720-03-US N/A 2332 2338 G02030R 11297 Surry Downstream 10 D 7/21/2005 0454 S-0721-04-DS N/A 0454 0500 G02030R 11291 Surry Adjacent 11 D 7/21/2005; 0514 S-0721-04-AJ N/A 0514 0520 G02030R 9661 Surry Upstream 12 D 7/21/2005, 0529 S-0721-04-US N/A 0529 0535 G02030R 11244 A.4.2 Organism Data In each sample collected, the organisms were identified by species and life stage (egg, larvae, juvenile, etc). For individual fish larvae, the length (0.1 mm) was recorded. If large numbers of a particular organism/life stage were collected, the organisms were combined as a "batch count." Thus a given sample could have individual and batch organism counts associated with it.

A.4.3 Ambient lch Sample-Volume Calculations Each sample collected had a corresponding water flow (volume) measurement. The flow was measured with a General Oceanics (GO) mechanical flow meter. For each flow measurement the flow meter initial, final, and net "counts" were recorded. The net count was used in a formula to calculate the water sample volume (in cubic meters) associated with a sample. The flow meter and volume formula is as follows:

A-5

Meter Name Formula Factor1 Factor2 G02030R NetCount/9480.774

• 50 = cubic meters 9,480.77 50.00 Using the flow meter ID, formula, and net counts recorded, the final sample volume in cubic meters

,_ -":t, * * ' * ,. * * , ' . ' ,. . * ' .,. ,. -

{M-) was catcutatea tor eacn sample, as: {net count/ racror I J ~ ractor L..

A.4.4 Final Organism Density Calculations Unlike the entrainment data, the ambient ich data were not processed into final "yearly estimates."

The organism counts for each organism/life stage were presented as average organism densities in a standard 100 M 3 sample volume for each 24-hour parent event.

The time duration of the sample is not a factor in the calculations. The 4.5-minute tow time was established, based on experience, to generate a sample volume of roughly 40-60 cubic meters of water. So it is only the flow meter net count (and associated formula) that figures in the calculations.

The process for obtaining the average density was as follows. For each parent event, usually consisting of 12 samples, the raw organism counts were adjusted to account for a 100 M 3 standard sample volume. Most actual sample volumes were 40-60 M 3 volume. For example, for a sample volume of 46.7 M 3, and a raw count of85 bay anchovy larvae, the sample density of bay anchovy larvae is calculated as ([100/46.7]*85= 182 bay anchovy larvae per 100 M 3

• When averaged with the remaining 11 samples from the parent event, the result is the organism density representing the entire 24-hour period.

A-6

TABLE A-1 CALCULATION SEQUENCE FOR 24-HOUR ENTRAINMENT DENSITY ESTIMATE FOR BAY ANCHOVY EGGS, 6/23/05 PARENT EVENT Dominion Power - Entrainment Organism Density (24 Hour)

Site Date Organism Surry I I s12312oos I I Bay anchovy

• fertilized egg

'-----====------...JL------~

Event Group: A

'-----------------__J Count in Density Event# Depth left/Right Sample Vol M3 Sample lndiv or Batch (#/100 M3) 1 Surface l 7.811 0 0.000 1 Surface R 7.811 1 IND IND 12.803 2 Middle l 11.507 6 IND IND 52.140 2 Middle R 3.296 1 IND IND 30.338 3 Bottom l 14.287 2 IND IND 13.999 3 Bottom R 14.245 7 IND IND 49.141 Event Group Average: 26.404 Event Group: I B Count in Density Event# Depth left/Right Sample Vol M3 Sample lndiv or Batch (#/100 M3) 4 Surface l 7.905 10 IND IND 126.495 4 Surface R 2.162 2 IND IND 92.495 5 Middle l 17.514 1 IND IND 5.710 5 Middle R 8.929 0 0.000 6 Bottom l 13.775 6 IND IND 43.556 6 Bottom R 10.880 4 IND IND 36.765 Event Grollp Average: 50.837 Event Group: j C Count in Density Event# Depth left/Right Sample Vol M3 Sample lndiv or Batch (#/100 M3) 7 Bottom l 6.935 31 BATCH IND 447.002 7 Bottom R 4.688 16 IND IND 341.265 8 Middle l 8.132 4 IND IND 49.187 8 Middle R 4.209 19 IND IND 451.465 9 Surface l 8.132 7 IND IND 86.077 9 Surface R 8.132 6 IND IND 73.780 Event Group Average: 241.463 Event Group: I D Count in Density Event# Depth left/Right Sample Vol M3 Sample lndiv or Batch (#/100 M3) 10 Bottom l 18.427 82 BATCH IND 445.005 10 Bottom R 16.444 84 BATCH IND 510.831 11 Middle l 12.821 31 BATCH IND 241.797 11 Middle R 11.001 16 IND IND 145.439 12 Surface l 4.177 19 IND IND 454.886 12 Surface R 5.632 18 IND IND 319.577 Event Group Average: 352.922 jsay anchovy - fertilized egg Average 24-hour Density at Max Flow in 100 M3: 167.906 Print Date: 1/8/2007 12:08:18 PM Page 1 of 1

APPENDIXB Monthly Entrainment Densities I

I I

I I

I

TABLE B-1 AVERAGE DENSmES (#,'PER 100Mi OF ICHTHYOPLANKTON AND MACROINVERTEBRATES ENTRAINED AT SURRY POWER STATION, JUNE 2005-MAY 2006 Taxon-Llfe Sta~ e men can ee - uvem e 23-lun

,.o 29-Jun 0.0 13-Jul 28-JuL 10-Au~

2005 14-Seo 28-Sen ,,

.0 ' ?6-0ct

.0 29-Nov o.o 12-0ec 0.0 27-0ec 0.0 11-Jan 25-Jan 2006 13-Feb 27-Feb B-Mar 22-Mar 0.0 0.0

'2 0.0 r 10-M 0.0

".0 anch -fertilized 167.9 10.5 7.1 7.3 2.3 12.7 0.0 o., 1.4 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.7 50.6 anch * " lk-sac larvae 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

• • anch anchow -1uvenlle ' lk sac larvae 5.8 10.1 2.6 7.5 1.3 9.3 4.3 6.5 3.4 7.4 17.0 0.5 1.2 12.9 0.4 3.7 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.8 o.o 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.2 3.3 0.0 2.1 0.4 3.5 0.0 2.5 0.0 5.1 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.8 0.0

"** enchO""

• adult choa so. - oo ;t-volk sac larvae 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.6 0.0 16.5 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 choa so.* uvenlle 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 tlantic menhaden. fertlliwd enn 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 lan~c menhaden. oost-wlk sac larvae 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 o.o 0.0 0.0 tlantic menhaden - *uvenile 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.4 0.5 1.1 0.0 0.0 Glizard shad. t-vnlk sac larvae 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Dorsoma so.

• fertlllwd 2.5 0.0 7.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 Cluooldaeso .* nost..vc lk sac larvae 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Clu""'ldaesn .* uvenile 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cluoeldae s~ ** adult 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 tlantic silverside

• vr lk-sac larvae 1.9 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 15.7 0.0 0.0 tlantlc silverside

• nost-vr lk sac larvae 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 9.7 8.5 2.6 tlantlc silverside - *uvenile 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 I 0.5 0.0 0.0 tlantlc sllverside - undeterminedldamaoed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 Inland silverslde

• nost-vc lk sac larvae 2.6 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 I ' 0.0 0.5 0.0 Rounh sllverslde. lk-sac larvae 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Rouoh silverslde

• sac larvae 0.5 0.4 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 therinoosidae so. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.7 sac larvae 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

- uvanlle 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 I 0.0 0.0 0.0

-adult 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 sunfish - uvenile

,_ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o I 0.0 0.0 0.0 lk sac larvae 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ' 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0

" 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 lk sac larvae 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.7 2.6 0.0 2.3 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.4 1.4 0.7 3.4 7.4 2.0 2.0 40.6 1,8 1.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 larvae 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.0 32.2 16.7 111.1 15.0 2.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

' 5.3 36.8 29.0 20.3 7.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

• undeterminedldamaoed 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 I*"' lk sac larvae 21.9 53.1 32.6 30.1 23.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.8 2.8 125.1 ndeterminedldama11ed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

• oost-voik sac larvae o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 n uefish - *uvenile 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,3 0,0 6.5 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

"" 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.5 1.1 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 uvenlle me alon

"" 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.1 3.3 3.4 2.8 28.3 1,3 0.0 3.4 0.2 2.2 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

-zoea o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6

~ ressed mud crab

• iuvenile 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 IIOther crab - menalon 0.0 0.0 2.8 9.0 111.7 113.2 20.6 12.9 0.1 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 110ther crab - zoea 292.8 40.5 269.4 323.7 3918.3 3769.5 133.3 86.9 4.1 0.8 0.4 0,2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 39.0 133.9 48.4 11Bivalva- 0.3 2.5 0.5 0.3 5.2 4.3 4.3 2.8 3.6 14.2 39.4 126.9 12.7 11.1 88.3 48.0 94.3 76.8 71.7 965.4 303.1 61.6 11.5 Invertebrate - undetermined 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 mp *., '"*'

APPENDIXC Monthly Ambient River Densities

me canee uvenia cles. Life Sta""

TABLE C-1 AVERAGE DENSITIES (#/100Mii OF ICKTHYOPLANKTON AND MACRO INVERTEBRATES COLLECTED DURING AMBIENT TOWS AT SURRY POWER STATION, JUNE 2005 - MAY 2006 23-Jun 29..Jun 13-Jul 28..Ju I 10-Au 0.

,., o., ' o.,

0.0 0.0 0.0 12.0ct 0.0 """"

,.o 2.fl-NDY 12..0ec

,.o 27..0ec 11..Jan

'A 13-Feb 27-Feb

~,

8-Mar 2006 22-Mar 12-A r

-o.,

26-A r 0.0 ' ,.,

0.0 O."

'"""' *fertilized 341.7 150.2 o.,

,.o ,.,,..

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.,

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 o., "*'

- ost- lksac larvae '2 ,.5 5.S 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ba anct\o -*uvonlle o., o., ,.5 0.0 o., ,.o o., o., o., o., 0.0 0.5 OA o., S.5 o., o.,

o., 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o o.o 0.0 o., o., 0.0 o., o., 10.1 ,.o o., 0.0 o., o.o o., o., 0.0 0.0

" anct\ov dult Ba ancho -undetermloodfdamaaed choa sc. -oost*" lksec larvae o.,

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.,

0.0 0.5 0.0 o.,

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 choa st. - uvenlle o.o 0.0 o., o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 choa se .*undetarmined/dama, ad 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o., 0.0 0.0 o.o o.o o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 nfic menhaden-fertilized e<m 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o., o., 0.0 o.,

antic menhaden-nost-Wllk sac larvae tlantic menhaden-*uvenlle 0.0 o.,

0.0 o.,

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 o., ,.,

0A 0.0 0.7 o.,

0.0

,.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.,

tlantic menhaden-adult

,_ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o., 0.0 o.o o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 izzardstlad- lksac larvae o., 0.0 o.o o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o o.,

Blueback r.Elrrin - uvenlle

.. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.,

0.0 o.o 0.0 o.,

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.,

o.,

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.,

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

= larvae ,.,

0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 ,.,

o., 2.2 LS ,.,o.,o.o o.o

,.5 o.,

o., 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o., 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 02 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o., 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o., 0.0 0.0 o., o., o., 0.0 o.,

c ,arvae o., 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o., 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Inland sllvernlda- uvenlla 02 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Rouoh silvernide-v lk-sec larvae 0.0 o., 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Rouoh silvernlde-oost-volk sac larvae OA 0.0 o., o., o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 h8Mr10nsidae sc .*volk-sec larvae 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o., 0.0 0.0 0.0 herino idae sn.-r>nst-""ik sac larvae 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o., 0.0 herlno idae s .**uvanile

,_ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o., 0.0 Skillelfis lk sac larvae 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.7 o.,

Skillotfis uvenile 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.,

Northam iPensh-P< st-volk sac larvae 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o., 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Northam loonsti-*uvenlle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 o.,

ntmrchidae

• ost-v<llk sac larvae 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 lk sac larvae 0.0 o., 0.0 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o o., 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o., o.,

sec larvae 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

,,o.,

0.0 o.,

0.0

'-7 0.0 o.,

0.0 0.9 ,.,

0.0 o.,

0.0 0.0 o.,

0.0 0.0 1.,

0A o., 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o o.o 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 o.s S.5 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.,

14.9 ,., ,., ,.,

0.0 o., 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.,

o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1., 14.1 9.2 9.2 5.5 o., 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.S o., o., 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Green

' -*uven e 1Goov so.-oost-volk sac larvae o.,

,.o 0.0 17.0 ,.,

0.0 0.0

,.5 0.0 27.3 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

'-7 ,.,

0.0 0.0 n.o Go s ** *uvanile OA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o., 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 sac larvae 0.0 0.0 o., 0.0 0.0 o., o., 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o., 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o., 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 larvae 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o., o., 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 o., 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o., 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 OA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.,

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.,

0.0 0.0 o., ,.,,.,o., ...

0.0 0.0 0.0 o.,

o.,

,., 0.0 5.7 0.0 1., ,.,

0.0 o.,

12.3 ,.,

0.0 0.0 12.5 0.0 0.0 32.1 0.0

"*5 0.0 300.4 0.0 267.9 m o.o o.,

SA uvenile meoaloo 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.,

0.0 0,

0.5 ,, o.,

S.5 0A 0.0 o.,

o.,

0.6 o.,

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.,

0.0 undetermlned/demened o.o 0.0 0.0

,.1 ,,

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o., 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 meru,lon rab. zoea 0.0 101.0 0.0 5.7 73.3 0.0 187.1 o.o 170.5 o.o 1996.2 0.0 71.8 1158.B 0.0 5.2 49.9 0.0 11.0 103.9 0.0 0.7 "o.,

0.0 02 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.,

0.0 0.0 97.1 0.0 0.0 68.8 0.0 0.0 134.1 0.0

DRAFT Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Prepared for:

Dominion Resources Services, Inc.

Prepared by:

HDR Engineering, Inc.

May 29, 2016 Surry Power Station Surry, VA 23883

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Table of Contents 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Regulatory Background ............................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Study Plan Objectives and Document Organization ................................................................. 3 2 Generating Station Description ........................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Site and Environmental Description .......................................................................................... 3 2.2 Station Description .................................................................................................................... 7 2.2.1 Station Operational History .......................................................................................... 7 2.2.2 Intake Structure ............................................................................................................ 7 3 Historical Studies ............................................................................................................................... 12 3.1 Entrainment Study, 2005-2006 ............................................................................................... 12 3.2 Ambient Ichthyoplankton Bongo Net Sampling, 2005-2006 ................................................... 15 4 Threatened and Endangered Species .............................................................................................. 18 5 Basis for Sampling Design ................................................................................................................ 24 6 Entrainment Characterization Study Plan ......................................................................................... 26 6.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 26 6.2 Safety Policy............................................................................................................................ 27 6.3 Field Collection Procedures .................................................................................................... 27 6.3.1 Location ...................................................................................................................... 27 6.3.2 Equipment .................................................................................................................. 28 6.3.3 Sampling Schedule .................................................................................................... 32 6.3.4 Entrainment Sample Collection Procedures .............................................................. 32 6.3.5 Pump Flow Rate Check Procedures .......................................................................... 34 6.3.6 Water Quality Measurements ..................................................................................... 35 6.4 Laboratory Procedures ............................................................................................................ 35 6.4.1 Equipment .................................................................................................................. 36 6.4.2 Laboratory Analysis .................................................................................................... 36 Sample Sorting ........................................................................................................................ 36 Sort Sub-sampling Procedure ................................................................................................. 37 Sample Identification ............................................................................................................... 37 Morphometrics ......................................................................................................................... 37 Taxonomic Resolution Monitoring ........................................................................................... 38 Methods for Identifying Atlantic Sturgeon ................................................................................ 38 6.4.3 Laboratory Quality Control (QC) Procedures ............................................................. 39 7 References ........................................................................................................................................ 40 Dominion l i

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station List of Appendices Appendix A. Atlantic Sturgeon Life History Information Appendix B. Field Instrumentation: Calibrations and Standardizations Appendix C. Lists of Data to be Collected and Recorded for Field Collection and Laboratory Analysis List of Tables Table 1-1. §316(b) Rule for Existing Facilities Submittal Requirements Summary ...................................... 2 Table 3-1. Surry Power Station June 2005 - May 2006 Entrainment Sampling Methods Summary ......... 13 3

Table 3-2. Average Monthly Density (No./100m ) of Common Species of Ichthyoplankton and Shellfish Entrained at Surry Power Station, 2005 - 2006 ........................................................................ 14 3

Table 3-3. Density (No./m ) of Ichthyoplankton and Blue Crab Larvae in the Ambient James River near Surry Power Station, June 2005 - May 2006 ............................................................................ 16 3

Table 3-4. Density (No./m ) of Ichthyoplankton and Blue Crab Larvae Entrained at Surry Power Station, June 2005 - May 2006 .............................................................................................................. 17 Table 4-1. Federal and State Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species with the Potential to Occur within 2 miles of the Cooling Water Intake of Surry Power Station ........................................... 19 Table 5-1. Summary of Approach for Development of §122.21(r)(9) Required Entrainment Characterizations....................................................................................................................... 25 Table 6-1. Entrainment Sampling Details ................................................................................................... 27 List of Figures Figure 2-1. Surry Power Station Regional Location Map.............................................................................. 4 Figure 2-2. Aerial View of Surry Power Station............................................................................................. 5 Figure 2-3. The James River Watershed ...................................................................................................... 6 Figure 2-4. General River Depths in the Vicinity of Surry Power Station (Soundings in Feet at Mean Lower Low Water) ................................................................................................................................. 8 Figure 2-5. Surry Power Station Low-level Cooling Water Intake Structure Location (37°0922 N, 76°4016 W) .............................................................................................................................. 9 Figure 2-6. Details of Surry Power Station Ristroph Traveling Water Screen at Low-level CWIS ............. 10 Figure 2-7. Plan View of Surry Power Station Low-level Cooling Water Intake Structure .......................... 11 Figure 2-8. Typical Section View of Surry Power Station Low-level Cooling Water Intake Structure ........ 11 Figure 3-1. Percent Entrainment of Fish and Shellfish at Surry Power Station, 2005 - 2006 .................... 14 Figure 3-2. Ambient Ichthyoplankton Sampling Locations near Surry Power Station, 2005 - 2006 .......... 15 Dominion l ii

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Figure 6-1. Proposed Location of Surry Power Station Entrainment Sampling, 2015 - 2017 .................... 29 Figure 6-2. Conceptual Design of Intake Piping for Entrainment Sampling ............................................... 30 Figure 6-3. Entrainment Pump Sampling System Configuration ................................................................ 31 Dominion l iii

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station 1 Introduction 1.1 Regulatory Background Clean Water Act §316(b) was enacted under the 1972 Clean Water Act, which also introduced the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. Facilities with NPDES permits are subject to §316(b), which requires that the location, design, construction and capacity of cooling water intake structures (CWIS) reflect best technology available (BTA) for minimizing adverse environmental impacts. Cooling water intakes can cause adverse environmental impacts by drawing early life-stage fish and shellfish into and through cooling water systems (entrainment), or trapping juvenile or adult fish against the screens at the opening of an intake structure (impingement).

On August 15, 2014, the final §316(b) Rule for existing facilities was published in the Federal Register. The Rule applies to existing facilities that withdraw more than 2 million gallons per day (MGD) from Waters of the United States, use at least 25 percent of that water exclusively for cooling purposes, and have or require an NPDES permit. The Rule supersedes the Phase II Rule, which regulated large electrical generating facilities until it was remanded in 2007, and the remanded existing-facility portion of the previously promulgated Phase III Rule.

Facilities subject to the new Rule are required to develop and submit technical material, identified at §122.21(r)(2)-(13), that will be used by the NPDES Director (Director) to make a BTA determination for the facility (Table 1-1). The specific material required to be submitted and compliance schedule are dependent on actual intake flow rates at the facility and NPDES permit renewal date, respectively. Facilities are to submit their §316(b) application material to their Director along with their next permit renewal, unless that permit renewal takes place prior to July 14, 2018, in which case an alternate schedule may be negotiated.

Dominions Surry Power Station (SPS) is subject to the existing facility Rule and based on its current configuration and operation is anticipated to be required to develop and submit each of the §122.21(r)(2)-(13) submittal requirements with its next permit renewal in accordance with the Rules technical and schedule requirements. Within the §122.21(r)(2)-(13) requirements, (r)(4), (7), (9) and (11) have specific requirements related to entrainment data and evaluations (refer to Table 1-1 for additional detail). This document provides an Entrainment Characterization Study Plan to support §316(b) compliance at the facility with consideration of these specific requirements. Notably, this Entrainment Characterization Study Plan is not explicitly required by the Rule.

Dominion l 1

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Table 1-1. §316(b) Rule for Existing Facilities Submittal Requirements Summary Submittal Requirements Submittal Descriptions at §122.21(r)

Source Water Physical (2) Characterization of the source water body including intake area of influence Data Cooling Water Intake Characterization of cooling water system; includes drawings and narrative; description of (3)

Structure Data operation; water balance Characterization of biological community in the vicinity of the intake; life history Source Water Baseline summaries; susceptibility to impingement and entrainment; must include existing data; (4) Biological identification of missing data; threatened and endangered species and designated critical Characterization data habitat summary for action area; identifies fragile fish and shellfish species list (<30 percent impingement survival)

Narrative description of cooling water system and intake structure; proportion of design Cooling Water System flow used; water reuse summary; proportion of source water body withdrawn (monthly);

(5)

Data seasonal operation summary; existing impingement mortality and entrainment reduction measures; flow/MW efficiency Chosen Method of Provides facilitys proposed approach to meet the impingement mortality requirement Compliance with (chosen from seven available options); provides detailed study plan for monitoring (6)

Impingement Mortality compliance, if required by selected compliance option; addresses entrapment where Standard required Provides summary of relevant entrainment studies (latent mortality, technology efficacy);

Entrainment (7) can be from the facility or elsewhere with justification; studies should not be more than 10 Performance studies years old without justification; new studies are not required.

Provides operational status for each unit; age and capacity utilizations for the past five years; upgrades within last 15 years; uprates and Nuclear Regulatory Committee (8) Operational Status relicensing status for nuclear facilities; decommissioning and replacement plans; current and future operation as it relates to actual and design intake flow Requires at least two years of data to sufficiently characterize annual, seasonal, and diel variations in entrainment, including variations related to climate, weather, spawning, feeding, and water column migration; facilities may use historical data that are representative of current operation of the facility and conditions at the site with documentation regarding the continued relevance of the data to document total Entrainment (9) entrainment and entrainment mortality; includes identifications to the lowest taxon Characterization Study possible; data must be representative of each intake; must document how the location of the intake in the water body and water column are accounted for; must document intake flows associated with the data collection; documentation in the study must include the method in which latent mortality would be identified (including QAQC); sampling and data must be appropriate for a quantitative survey Comprehensive Provides an evaluation of technical feasibility and incremental costs of entrainment (10) Technical Feasibility & technologies; Net Present Value of facility compliance costs and social costs to be Cost Evaluation Study provided; requires peer review Provides a discussion of monetized and non-monetized water quality benefits of candidate entrainment technologies from (r)(10) using data in (r)(9); benefits to be quantified physical or biological units and monetized using appropriate economic valuation methods; includes (11) Benefits Valuation Study changes in fish stock and harvest levels and description of monetization; must evaluate thermal discharges, facility capacity, operations, and reliability; discussion of previous mitigation efforts and affects; benefits to environment and community; social benefits analysis based on principle of willingness-to-pay; requires peer review Non-Water Quality Provides a discussion of non-water quality factors (air emissions and their health and Environmental and environmental impacts, energy penalty, thermal discharge, noise, safety, grid reliability, (12)

Other Impacts consumptive water use, etc.) attributable to the entrainment technologies; requires peer Assessment review Documentation of external peer review, by qualified experts, of submittals (r) (10), (11),

and (12). Peer Reviews must be approved by the NPDES Director and present their (13) Peer Review credentials. The applicant must explain why it disregarded any significant peer reviewer recommendations.

Dominion l 2

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station 1.2 Study Plan Objectives and Document Organization The Entrainment Characterization Study Plan provided in this report was developed to create a site-specific entrainment study plan that meets and exceeds the requirements of the §316(b)

Rule with the following key objectives in mind:

1. Collect data to supplement the submission of data required under §122.21(r)(4),

including a list of species and life stages most susceptible to entrainment at the facility 1;

2. Collect data to support development of §122.21(r)(7) which allows for summaries of relevant technology efficacy studies conducted at the facility 2;

3. Collect data to support development of §122.21(r)(9) which requires at least two years of entrainment studies be conducted at the facility;

4. Collect data to support Dominions objective of having data sufficient to evaluate biological efficacy of potential alternative intake technologies that may require site specific evaluation at the facility as a part of the §122.21(r)(10)-(13) compliance evaluations.

To meet these objectives, this document provides summaries of the stations configuration and operations (Section 2), historical biological sampling efforts conducted at the facility that are relevant to cooling water intake evaluations (Section 3), a summary of Threatened and Endangered Species identified in the vicinity of the facility (Section 4), a sampling program design justification based on this information (Section 5), and the recommended study methods including key parameters of gear, schedule, frequency, and quality control procedures (Section 6).

2 Generating Station Description 2.1 Site and Environmental Description The two nuclear power-generating units at SPS use a once-through cooling water system.

Cooling water for both units is withdrawn from the James River through a common Low-level CWIS oriented parallel to, and flush with, the western shore of the James River. SPS is located on the estuarine portion of the James River on the Hog Island peninsula in Surry County Virginia, approximately 25 miles upstream of the river's confluence with the Chesapeake Bay (Figure 2-1). SPS is located approximately 44 miles southeast of Richmond and 9 miles south of Williamsburg. The SPS Low-level CWIS for the two units is located on the east side of the peninsula (Figure 2-2).

1 40 C.F.R. §122.21(r)(4) requires applicant to submit available Source Water Baseline Biological Characterization data.

2 SPS is expected to reduce entrainment at the facility due to at least the following factors: 1) the 1/8-inch by 1/2-inch Ristroph screens with fish return, and 2) flow reduction relative to design flow (e.g., reduced winter pumping and unit outages). This study plan will collect data to support calculation of these and potentially other entrainment reduction attributes at the facility.

Dominion l 3

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Map Source: USGS Topographic Map of Williamsburg, VA; Map ID #37076-A1-TB-100 (1984)

Figure 2-1. Surry Power Station Regional Location Map Dominion l 4

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Image Source: Google Earth Retrieved September 8, 2014 Figure 2-2. Aerial View of Surry Power Station Dominion l 5

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station The James River watershed encompasses approximately 10,000 square miles, which makes up almost 25 percent of the state. The James River watershed covers about one-third of the Chesapeake Bay drainage area in Virginia. The river flows approximately 340 miles from the Alleghany Mountains of western Virginia to the Chesapeake Bay. The watershed is comprised of three sections: the Upper James watershed begins in Allegheny County and travels through the Allegheny and Blue Ridge Mountains until Lynchburg, the Middle James watershed runs from Lynchburg to Richmond, while the Lower James watershed stretches from Richmond to the Chesapeake Bay (Figure 2-3).

Source: Middle James Roundtable Figure 2-3. The James River Watershed SPS is located on the Lower James River section in the Coastal Uplands Physiographic Province. The James River is approximately 3 miles wide at the SPS location. The land surface is generally flat with steep banks sloping down to the river. Land surface elevations at SPS range from sea level to approximately elevation (EL.) +39 feet. Water elevations at SPS are affected by tides with a mean low tide water level of EL. -1.0 foot and a high tide level of EL. 1.1 feet, resulting in a mean tidal range of 2.1 feet and a mean spring tidal range of 2.5 feet. The average water depth in front of the SPS intakes is 26 feet deep. The average maximum ebb and flood tidal currents at SPS are 2.23 ft/s (0.68 m/s) and 1.90 ft/s (0.58 m/s), respectively. The maximum James River flow at the site is approximately 420,000 cubic feet per second (cfs),

with a monthly mean range of 857 cfs to 39,778 cfs.

A navigation channel is maintained at 24.9 feet and generally courses through the middle of the river. In the vicinity of the SPS CWIS, the river has an abbreviated littoral or shoreline zone as a result of steep bank elevations and the channelized river bottom. The river bed in the vicinity of Dominion l 6

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station SPS is composed of soft mud, clay, sand, and pebbles with no single bottom type predominating. General river depths in the region of SPS are provided in the navigational chart provided in Figure 2-4.

Salinity concentrations in the James River in the vicinity of SPS characterize the area as the transition region between salt and freshwater. Depending primarily on river discharge, salinity concentrations in the vicinity of SPS can range from 0 ppt to approximately 21 ppt. Despite the large range in salinity covering several salinity zone classifications, for the purposes of this report an oligohaline zone classification (salinity range 0.5-5.0 ppt) is considered representative.

River temperatures in the vicinity of the station ranged from 1.8 °C to 33.8 °C , during 1975-1976 (VEPCO 1977).

2.2 Station Description 2.2.1 Station Operational History SPS is a base-load facility which means the facility serves as one of Dominions primary means of generating the minimum amount of power necessary to meet customer demands.

Accordingly, the facility generally operates twenty-four hours per day, seven days per week, although there is seasonal variation in its operations and maintenance. In the summer months, all pumps are in operation to meet thermal transfer requirements. Generally, in the winter not all eight circulating water pumps operate. Maintenance outages on the generating units are scheduled at regular intervals. The duration of the maintenance outages depends on the type of outage and the scheduled work that needs to be done on the units.

2.2.2 Intake Structure The two nuclear power-generating units at SPS use a once-through cooling water system.

When the facility is generating power, the circulating cooling water system is in operation.

Cooling water for both units is withdrawn from the James River through a common Low-level CWIS oriented parallel to, and flush with, the western shore of the James River (Figure 2-5).

The total design flow at SPS with all pumps working to capacity is approximately 2,535 million gallons per day (MGD) [i.e., 3,922 cfs] to meet the water requirements of the power station.

Approximately 95 percent of the flow withdrawn from the James River is used for cooling water purposes. The remaining water withdrawn is used in the sluice, seals, and screen wash.

At the Low-level CWIS, the James River is approximately 3 miles wide and 26 feet deep and flows in a generally southerly direction. The Low-level CWIS consists of eight screen bays and is equipped with eight Ristroph traveling water screens. Eight circulating water pumps, located downstream of each low-level screen, convey screened water flow to a common high-level intake canal for both units. Water flows down the high-level intake canal to a secondary screen house at the facility with conventional traveling water screens.

Dominion l 7

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Source: NOAA Office of Coast Survey Chart 12248 (noaa.gov) Retrieved September 7, 2014 Figure 2-4. General River Depths in the Vicinity of Surry Power Station (Soundings in Feet at Mean Lower Low Water)

Dominion l 8

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Figure 2-5. Surry Power Station Low-level Cooling Water Intake Structure Location (37°0922 N, 76°4016 W)

Trash racks extend across each of the eight intake bays to prevent debris from entering the Low-level intakes. Each trash rack has 1/2-inch-wide fiberglass reinforced plastic bars with 4.0-inch spacing, providing a 3.5-inch clear opening. The trash racks have a 1H:12V slope and are 18 feet wide. A curtain wall extends down to El. -8.5 feet, approximately 3.8 feet below the minimum water level, approximately 6 feet downstream of each trash rack. The intake contains eight screen bays (15.3 feet wide), equipped with Ristroph traveling water screens (See Figure 2-6) located approximately 17 feet downstream from the bottom of each trash rack. The Low-level CWIS is the §316(b) compliance point at SPS. Plan and section drawings of the Low-level CWIS are provided on Figures 2-7 and 2-8, respectively.

The screens at SPS have been modified substantially from their original design. Prior to 1974, SPS had conventional traveling screens at the high-level intake structure and no screens at the Low-level intake structure. Starting in 1974, the Low-level intake was fitted with Ristroph traveling water screens to maximize fish impingement survival potential. These Ristroph traveling water screens contained 2 foot-high and 14 foot-wide baskets with 3/8-inch [0.146 square inch (in2)] square mesh openings.

Dominion l 9

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Source: VEPCO (1980)

Figure 2-6. Details of Surry Power Station Ristroph Traveling Water Screen at Low-level CWIS Dominion l 10

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Source: CH2M HILL (2006)

Figure 2-7. Plan View of Surry Power Station Low-level Cooling Water Intake Structure Source: CH2M HILL (2006)

Figure 2-8. Typical Section View of Surry Power Station Low-level Cooling Water Intake Structure Dominion l 11

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station In the early 1990s, the original Ristroph traveling water screens were modified to include 1/8-inch by 1/2-inch rectangular mesh openings. Each screen basket has a 2 inch-deep by 5.5 inch-wide steel fish bucket. The screens are designed for continuous operation and can rotate at a slow speed (approximately 5 feet per minute (ft/min)) or a fast speed (approximately 10 ft/min) in a manual mode. At times of high fish abundance or low river levels, the screens can be rotated at fast speed, reducing impingement time to approximately 1.5 minutes or less.

The outside spray wash has 12 spray nozzles. A single return trough located upstream of the screens transports organisms and debris back to the river approximately 1,000 feet south (downstream) of the intake structure and approximately 300 feet from the shore. Transported organisms are therefore discharged away from the hydrodynamic zone of influence of the Low-level CWIS.

3 Historical Studies Past fisheries studies conducted at SPS which are pertinent to §316(b) include the following:

• June 2005 - May 2006 entrainment studies (EA 2007)

• May 1974 to May 1983 impingement studies (CH2M HILL 2006)

• September 2005 - June 2006 adult and juvenile finfish sampled by beach seine and otter trawl (EA 2007)

• June 2005 - May 2006 ambient ichthyoplankton studies (EA 2007)

• 1970 - 1978 adult and juvenile finfish sampled by haul seine and otter trawl (VEPCO 1980)

For the purposes of development of this Study Plan, the June 2005 - May 2006 entrainment study and ambient ichthyoplankton studies (EA 2007) are summarized in the sub-sections below.

3.1 Entrainment Study, 2005-2006 Entrainment data were collected at SPS from June 2005 through May 2006 as a part of a series of studies conducted to meet the requirements of the §316(b) Phase II Rule. Entrainment samples were collected in front of the SPS Low-level CWIS using paired conical plankton nets deployed from a boat. A total of 46 ichthyoplankton taxa were identified in the 24 entrainment samples. The studies were conducted bi-monthly and included four sample periods in 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.

Details of June 2005 - May 2006 entrainment sampling program are presented in Table 3-1.

Dominion l 12

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Table 3-1. Surry Power Station June 2005 - May 2006 Entrainment Sampling Methods Summary Entrainment Details Units Sampled Units 1 and 2 Sampling Location In front of SPS Low-level CWIS Surveys from June 2005 to 2 surveys per month for 12 months May 2006 Every 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> in a 24-hr period (4 collections / 24-hr period) centered Daily Collection Schedule around 1000, 1600, 2200 and 0400 hours0.00463 days <br />0.111 hours <br />6.613757e-4 weeks <br />1.522e-4 months <br /> Depths Sampled Near surface, mid-depth and near bottom Number of Samples 2 samples per depth using paired bongo nets (duplicate samples at Collected per Depth each depth)

Sample Duration 10 minutes 0.5-m diameter mouth plankton nets constructed of 505-µm mesh netting, each affixed in a double-net bongo frame; General Oceanics Sampling Gear 2030R or 2030R6 (low flow) mechanical flowmeter suspended in the mouth of each net Temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and conductivity measured with Water Quality Measurements YSI Model 556 water quality analyzer at mid-depth during each entrainment sampling event Young life stages of invertebrates comprised approximately 97 percent of the total entrainment, while finfish comprised approximately 3 percent of the total entrainment (Figure 3-1). The finfish component of the entrainment data was represented primarily by Goby sp. larvae, Bay Anchovy egg, Naked Goby larvae, Bay Anchovy juvenile/adult, Naked Goby juvenile, Atlantic Croaker juvenile and Atlantic Silverside larvae, which accounted for approximately 91 percent of the finfish component and approximately 3 percent of the entrainment total. Percent composition of fish and shellfish entrained at SPS during 2005 - 2006 is shown Figure 3-1.

Average monthly density for the most commonly entrained finfish species are presented in Table 3-2. The entrained ichthyoplankton was largely comprised of Bay Anchovy eggs and Goby sp. larvae and which were most often entrained in May to July.

Dominion l 13

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Source: CH2M HILL (2006)

Figure 3-1. Percent Entrainment of Fish and Shellfish at Surry Power Station, 2005 - 2006 Table 3-2. Average Monthly Density (No./100m3) of Common Species of Ichthyoplankton and Shellfish Entrained at Surry Power Station, 2005 - 2006 2005 2006 Species/Taxon Life Stage Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Atlantic Croaker juvenile 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.35 1.04 3.42 4.73 21.27 1.50 0.27 0.12 0.00 Atlantic Croaker larvae 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.77 2.16 0.00 2.77 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 Atlantic Silverside juvenile 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 Atlantic Silverside larvae 0.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.16 6.35 Bay Anchovy juvenile/adult 8.80 8.10 3.96 6.78 1.58 0.43 1.26 10.21 3.32 4.31 2.51 0.00 Bay Anchovy egg 89.18 7.19 7.50 0.55 1.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 27.67 Bay Anchovy larvae 4.32 2.61 10.30 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.59 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.55 Blue Crab juvenile 0.00 0.00 1.85 1.79 2.78 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Blue Crab megalopae 0.00 0.00 2.22 9.45 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goby sp. larvae 37.50 31.54 13.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 63.95 Naked Goby juvenile 21.05 25.31 3.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Naked Goby larvae 31.75 57.14 8.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Source: Table 4 of EA 2007 Dominion l 14

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station 3.2 Ambient Ichthyoplankton Bongo Net Sampling, 2005-2006 Ambient ichthyoplankton sampling conducted on a bimonthly basis June 2005 - May 2006 provided additional information on larval fish and pelagic invertebrates. The James River upstream, downstream, and adjacent to the intake was sampled at 0400, 1000, 1600 and 2200 hours0.0255 days <br />0.611 hours <br />0.00364 weeks <br />8.371e-4 months <br /> on a bi-weekly basis (Figure 3-2). These samples were collected with a single 1/2-meter diameter plankton net consisting of 505 µm mesh netting and a General Oceanic 2030R flowmeter affixed in the net mouth. Stepped-oblique tows were made at mid-depth for 4.5 minutes against the prevailing tide.

Only six taxa were collected in ambient ichthyoplankton samples conducted during June 2005 -

May 2006. These were, in order of abundance, Bay Anchovy eggs, Naked Goby larvae/adults, Bay Anchovy larvae/juvenile/adults, Atlantic Croaker juveniles, Atlantic Silverside larvae/juvenile/adults and Blue Crab megalopae (Table 3-3). Higher densities of most ichthyoplankton species were found in the entrainment samples rather than ambient river samples, with the exception of Bay Anchovy eggs, dominant in June 2005 (See Table 3-4.) The reason for the higher abundance of entrainment numbers versus ambient numbers is not known, but may be related to a patchy distribution of organisms.

Figure 3-2. Ambient Ichthyoplankton Sampling Locations near Surry Power Station, 2005

- 2006 Dominion l 15

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Table 3-3. Density (No./m3) of Ichthyoplankton and Blue Crab Larvae in the Ambient James River near Surry Power Station, June 2005 - May 2006 Atlantic Atlantic Bay Naked Bay Anchovy Blue Crab Croaker Silverside Anchovy Goby Sample Date larvae/juvenile/ larvae/juvenile/ larvae/

juvenile egg megalopae adult adult juvenile 06/23/05 0.0 1.5 341.7 2.9 16.8 0.0 06/29/05 0.0 0.2 150.2 3.8 29.0 0.0 07/13/05 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.1 12.0 0.0 07/28/05 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 10.3 0.0 08/10/05 0.0 0.0 3.2 5.0 7.1 0.5 08/24/05 0.0 0.0 3.8 5.9 0.9 1.4 09/14/05 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.8 0.0 3.5 09/28/05 1.4 0.0 0.1 2.8 0.0 0.0 10/12/05 0.5 0.0 1.2 1.3 0.0 0.1 10/26/05 1.2 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 11/29/05 8.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 12/12/05 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 12/27/05 0.6 0.0 0.0 10.3 0.0 0.0 01/11/06 0.3 0.0 0.0 9.1 0.0 0.0 01/25/06 7.8 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 02/13/06 0.7 0.4 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 02/27/06 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 03/08/06 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 03/22/06 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 04/12/06 0.0 3.8 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 04/26/06 0.0 4.0 0.5 3.6 0.0 0.0 05/10/06 0.0 7.1 1.3 0.5 0.0 0.0 05/24/06 0.0 1.9 64.6 0.3 5.8 0.0 Source: Table 11 of EA 2007 Dominion l 16

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Table 3-4. Density (No./m3) of Ichthyoplankton and Blue Crab Larvae Entrained at Surry Power Station, June 2005 - May 2006 Atlantic Atlantic Bay Naked Bay Anchovy Blue Crab Croaker Silverside Anchovy Goby Sample Date larvae/juvenile/ larvae/juvenile/ larvae/

juvenile egg megalopae adult adult juvenile 06/23/05 0.0 1.9 167.9 16.0 36.3 0.0 06/29/05 0.0 0.0 10.5 10.3 69.0 0.0 07/13/05 0.0 0.0 7.1 10.7 45.7 0.0 07/28/05 0.0 0.0 7.3 10.8 131.4 0.0 08/10/05 0.0 0.0 2.3 11.0 22.5 1.1 08/24/05 0.0 0.0 12.7 17.5 2.2 3.4 09/14/05 0.3 0.0 0.0 14.1 0.0 28.3 09/28/05 0.4 0.0 0.8 4.1 0.0 0.0 10/12/05 1.4 0.0 1.4 2.3 0.0 0.2 10/26/05 0.7 0.0 1.4 0.8 0.0 0.0 11/29/05 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 12/12/05 7.4 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 12/27/05 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 01/11/06 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 01/25/06 40.6 0.0 0.0 21.0 0.0 0.0 02/13/06 1.6 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 02/27/06 1.4 0.0 0.0 4.6 0.0 0.0 03/08/06 0.4 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 03/22/06 0.2 0.0 0.0 6.1 0.0 0.0 04/12/06 0.2 4.9 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 04/26/06 0.0 25.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 05/10/06 0.0 8.5 4.7 0.5 0.0 0.0 05/24/06 0.0 2.6 50.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 Source: Table 10 of EA 2007 Dominion l 17

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station 4 Threatened and Endangered Species The EPA consulted with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (or collectively, Services) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) during development of the existing facilities §316(b) Rule. The Services concluded that the Rule is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. Among other requirements, §122.21(r)(4) requires that facilities submit, to the extent such data is available, a list of species (or relevant taxa) for all life stages and their relative abundance in the vicinity of the cooling water intake structure and identify all threatened, endangered, and other protected species that might be susceptible to impingement and entrainment at your cooling water intake structure. In addition,

§122.21(r)(9) requires facilities to develop an Entrainment Characterization Study that includes a minimum of two years of entrainment data collection. The text below provides a review of listed species associated with SPS to support compliance with these provisions and development of this Entrainment Characterization Study Plan.

The Virginia Fish and Wildlife Information Service (VAFWIS) database, managed by the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) and the USFWS Information, Planning, and Conservation System were consulted on August 20, 2014 to develop a list of Federal and state of Virginia endangered and threatened species known or likely to occur within a 2-mile radius of SPS (See Table 4-1) 3. Additionally, the complete list of threatened and endangered species that occur in the state of Virginia (USFWS 2014) was reviewed and compared against the list of threatened and endangered species under NMFS jurisdiction (NMFS 2014) to confirm that NMFS species were not omitted from the list. A review of scientific literature and other documents was also conducted, including a NMFS Biological Opinion and Letter of Concurrence for projects proposed to occur near the vicinity of the CWIS; those documents were used to confirm that marine species under the jurisdiction of NMFS were appropriately considered. Additionally, for each species with the potential to occur in the vicinity of the CWIS, the USFWS or NMFS species profile was reviewed to confirm that no critical habitat was designated. A review of the following resources was used to develop the species list in Table 4-1.

• VAFWIS (http://vafwis.org/fwis/)

• IPAC (http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/)

• USFWS Listings and Occurrence for Virginia (http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/pub/stateListingAndOccurrenceIndividual.jsp?state=VA&

s8fid=112761032792&s8fid=112762573902)

• Endangered and Threatened Species Under NMFS Jurisdiction (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/listed.htm) 3 Using the VAFWIS, the minimum radius that can be screened for is a 2-mile radius from the center of the power station. There is no determination that species found within a 2-mile radius of SPS are susceptible to entrainment.

Similarly, the occurrence of a species on the Services Information, Planning, and Conservation System, which provides a search area encompassing both terrestrial and aquatic habitats, does not necessarily indicate that the species is likely to be present in the source water body.

Dominion l 18

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Table 4-1. Federal and State Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species with the Potential to Occur within 2 miles of the Cooling Water Intake of Surry Power Station Potential to Occur within 2 miles Potential for Entrainment Common Name Scientific Name Status* Tier**

of the Intake of Early Life Stages FISH a Acipenser Atlantic Sturgeon FE, SE II Improbable Highly improbable oxyrinchus a Enneacanthus No - Freshwater species only known to exist Blackbanded Sunfish SE I c No chaetodon in the Chowan River drainage REPTILES Kemp's Ridley Sea Improbable - may be present near the a Lepidochelys kempii FE, SE - d No Turtle confluence of the James River Leatherback Sea Dermochelys Improbable - may be present near the a FE, SE - d No Turtle coriacea confluence of the James River Loggerhead Sea Improbable - may be present near the a Caretta caretta FT, ST I d No Turtle confluence of the James River No - interdunal ponds and sinkhole Eastern Chicken Deirochelys a SE I complexes that experience seasonal water No Turtle reticularia reticularia e fluctuations Canebrake a Crotalus horridus SE II No - terrestrial No Rattlesnake AMPHIBIANS Eastern Tiger No - aquatic habitats include ditches, vernal a Ambystoma tigrinum SE II f No Salamander ponds, and rarely, sluggish streams No - fish-free vernal ponds or ephemeral a

Mabees Salamander Ambystoma mabeei ST II coastal plain sinkholes up to 1.5 meters No g

deep, with surrounding forests No - breeds in cypress ponds and bays, and a in pine barren ponds; open canopied ponds; Barking Treefrog Hyla gratiosa ST II No all Virginia breeding sites were found in h

graminoid dominated temporary ponds .

Dominion l 19

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Potential to Occur within 2 miles Potential for Entrainment Common Name Scientific Name Status* Tier**

of the Intake of Early Life Stages BIRDS Red Cockaded a Picoides borealis FE, SE I No - terrestrial No Woodpecker a

Piping Plover Charadrius melodus FT, ST I No - terrestrial No a

Red Knot Calidris canutus rufa FP IV No - terrestrial No a Laterallus Black Rail SE I No - terrestrial No jamaicensis a

Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus ST I No - terrestrial No a Bartramia Upland Sandpiper ST I No - terrestrial No longicauda a

Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus ST I No - terrestrial No a Ammodramus Henslow's Sparrow ST I No - terrestrial No henslowii Migrant Loggerhead Lanius ludovicianus a ST - No - terrestrial No Shrike migrans MAMMALS Northern Long-Eared Myotis a FP - No - terrestrial No Bat septentrionalis Rafinesque's Eastern Corynorhinus a SE I No - terrestrial No Big-eared Bat rafinesquii macrotis No - associated with a heavy ground cover; can be found in all successional stages from Southeastern Dismal Sorex longirostris a ST IV grassy openings to closed forests, generally No Swamp Shrew fisheri in moist to wet areas in or bordering j

swamps, marshes, or rivers.

Dominion l 20

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Potential to Occur within 2 miles Potential for Entrainment Common Name Scientific Name Status* Tier**

of the Intake of Early Life Stages PLANTS b Aeschynomene No - typically grows in the intertidal zone of Sensitive Joint-Vetch FT - i No virginica coastal marshes Status* Tier** for State-listed Species FE= Federally Endangered I=VA Wildlife Action Plan - Tier I - Critical Conservation Need; FT= Federally Threatened II=VA Wildlife Action Plan - Tier II - Very High Conservation Need; SE= State Endangered III=VA Wildlife Action Plan - Tier III - High Conservation Need; ST= State Threatened IV=VA Wildlife Action Plan - Tier IV - Moderate Conservation Need FP= Federally Proposed Source:

a Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries; Fish and Wildlife Information Service b

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Information, Planning, and Conservation System c d e f g h i Kercher 2006, VDGIF 2014a, VDGIF 2014b, VDGIF 2014c, VDGIF 2014d, VDGIF 2014e, and USFWS 2012 Dominion l 21

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station

• Biological Opinion of James River Federal Navigation Project: Tribell Shoal Channel to Richmond Harbor in Surry, James City, Prince George, Charles City, Henrico, and Chesterfield Counties and the Cities of Richmond and Hopewell, Virginia (FINER/2012/01183).

• Letter of concurrence, from Mr. D.M. Morris, NMFS, to Ms. Amy Hull, Nuclear Regulatory Commission that continued operation Surry Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2 is not likely to adversely affect species listed by NMFS.

• USFWS or NMFS Species Profile (http://www.fws.gov/endangered/, or http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/listed.htm)

Note that only Federal and State threatened and endangered species were included in Table 4-

1. Federal species of concern and candidate species were omitted from the list (unless they were also State Threatened or Endangered), because there are no requirements to address those species under Section 7 of the ESA.

The majority of the species in Table 4-1 are terrestrial species or occur in habitats that are not in the vicinity of the SPS CWIS and thus would not be subject to entrainment or impingement at the facility. Additional literature was reviewed to identify aquatic species that do not occur near the CWIS and thus should be eliminated from further consideration; these documents are cited in Table 4-1.

Kemps Ridley (endangered), Leatherback (endangered), and Loggerhead (threatened) Sea Turtles occur seasonally in Chesapeake Bay and may be present and forage near the confluence of the James River near Hampton Roads and Portsmouth, Virginia. However, the facility is approximately 25 miles upstream of where sea turtles are expected to occur (NMFS 2012a, NMFS 2012a). At the vicinity of the facility, the James River is classified as oligohaline with salinities ranging from 0.5-5.0 ppt, considered representative. This salinity range does not support sea turtle habitat or their forage base, which includes estuarine and marine species such as whelks, crabs, and other shellfish and benthic invertebrates for Loggerheads and Kemp's Ridleys; sea grasses and marine algae for Green Sea Turtles, and cnidarians, salps, jellyfish and tunicates for Leatherback Sea Turtles (NMFS 2012a). Therefore, high quality forage habitat is not located near the facility. As such, listed sea turtles are not expected to swim, forage, or rest in the vicinity of the CWIS and thus generally not be subject to direct impacts by the cooling water intake system.

Atlantic Sturgeon (listed as both endangered and threatened) 4 spawn in the James River, however, the spawning grounds are located at least 50 miles upstream of the SPS intake with a second area of potentially suitable habitat located approximately 25 miles upstream (refer to Appendix A for more detail). Atlantic Sturgeon eggs are adhesive and demersal and occur only on the spawning grounds (Hildebrand and Schroeder 1927). Spawning is expected to occur 4

Atlantic Sturgeon originating from the New York Bight, Chesapeake Bay, South Atlantic and Carolina Distinct Population Segments (DPSs) are listed as endangered. Those originating from the Gulf of Maine DPS are listed as threatened. Atlantic Sturgeon from these five DPSs have the potential to occur in the James River and the vicinity of the SPS cooling water intake; however, the majority of the spawning adults are likely to originate from the James River and thus, the Chesapeake Bay DPS (NMFS 2012b).

Dominion l 22

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station during April through June (temperatures for spawning can range from 13 - 26°C); and recent studies suggest that spawning might occur in the fall as well, with high adult usage in the river from August through November (Balazik et al. 2012, Secor et al. 2012). Eggs typically hatch in 4-7 days depending on temperature (Gilbert 1989; Hildebrand and Schroeder 1927). At hatching, Atlantic Sturgeon larvae are large bodied and are assumed to undertake a demersal existence in the same areas where they were spawned (ASMFC 2012, Bath et al. 1981). Based on the preceding, entrainment of Atlantic Sturgeon is highly improbable to occur at SPS.

This is confirmed through the 2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission initiated ESA Section 7 consultation with NMFS that followed the listing of the Chesapeake Bay DPS of Atlantic Sturgeon as endangered. NMFS (2012b) reviewed a variety of materials as part of the consultation, and concluded based on information from NRC, Dominion, and other sources, all effects to listed species will be insignificant or discountable. Therefore, the continued operation of Surry 1 and 2 is not likely to adversely affect any listed species under NMFS jurisdiction.

Nonetheless, because of its protected status this study plan includes explicit methods that are focused on maximizing the potential of identifying early life stage Atlantic Sturgeon in the improbable event that they are collected in entrainment samples (refer to Methods for Identifying Atlantic Sturgeon section for additional details).

Dominion l 23

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station 5 Basis for Sampling Design HDR performed a site visit at SPS on August 19, 2014 to evaluate potential entrainment sampling options for the Low-level CWIS, the point of §316(b) compliance at the facility, and determined that collection locations are greatly limited for the following reasons:

• There is no access to the water between the Ristroph screens and the circulating water pumps for the collection of pumped or streamed net entrainment samples;

• There is very limited access to the water between the bar racks and Ristroph screens from the deck level such that collection of pumped or streamed net entrainment samples is not feasible;

• Streamed net sampling from the intake channel in front of the bar racks requires the use of a boat anchored in the channel which introduces weather related safety concerns and potential for missed sampling events and limited control over volume sampled (subject to intake velocity rather than pump capacity).

Based on these findings, it was determined that pumped samples taken from the river side of the bar racks is the preferred location for entrainment sample collections. Specifically, entrainment samples are to be collected by using a gas-powered 4-inch trash pump to pump water through a 335-µm mesh plankton net suspended in a water buffering tank. Entrainment samples will be collected concurrently from three depth intervals (near surface, mid-depth, and near bottom).

Entrainment sampling surveys will be conducted twice per month over a 24-month interval from August 1, 2015 - July 31, 2017. Each sample collection event will be conducted over a 24-hour period with sample sets collected every 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />. The sample frequency selected for this entrainment study will provide finfish and invertebrate (shellfish) taxa, density distribution and seasonal/diel variation data over a two year period. Shellfish, for the purposes of this study, will be inclusive of shrimp, crabs (including horseshoe), lobsters, crayfish, and motile stages of bivalves and gastropods.

This methodology includes the following significant changes relative to the June 2005 - May 2006 entrainment study (refer to Section 3.1 for details):

1) Use of a pump to collect samples directly in front of the bar racks rather than a streamed net approximately 100 feet in front of the bar racks.

2) Use of 335-µm mesh targeted for the current study rather than 505-µm mesh;

3) Collection of detailed morphometric data is included to support alternative technology evaluations;

4) Inclusion of methods and evaluations to maximize resolution of the taxonomic identifications with regard to Atlantic Sturgeon and other species; and

5) Collection of 24 months of entrainment data rather than 12 months.

The approach for development of the specific entrainment characterizations required in

§122.21(r)(9) based on the collected data is summarized in Table 5-1.

Dominion l 24

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Table 5-1. Summary of Approach for Development of §122.21(r)(9) Required Entrainment Characterizations 122.21(r)(9) Requirement Basis for Meeting the Requirement Evaluation of species and life stage composition and densities based Two years of data and annual on August 2015 - July 2016 (Year 1) and August 2016 - July 2017 variation (Year 2) entrainment studies Evaluation of monthly species and life stage compositions based on Seasonal variation the Year 1 and Year 2 studies Evaluation of densities in 6-hour sample collections in the Year 1 Diel variation and Year 2 studies Variation related to climate and Evaluation of Year 1 and Year 2 data relative to water temperature weather and weather events (e.g., rain events)

Evaluation of Year 1 and Year 2 data to determine species and life Variation related to spawning, stage period of occurrence for spawning and feeding variation; feeding and water column Evaluation of differences among near surface, mid-depth and near migrations bottom collections for water column migrations The resolution of taxonomic and life stage designations will be Identification of lowest taxon monitored through regular evaluations of catch data with the goal of possible reducing percent of unidentified organisms and increasing resolution of genera and higher taxonomic designations Sampling in front of Unit 1 would be representative of average Data must be representative of each intake water because eight screens and eight cooling water pumps intake are identical How the location of the intake in the Sampling of near surface, mid-depth and near bottom at the bar water body are accounted for racks assumed to be best method for accounting for intake location Document flow associated with the Facility will monitor flows for period of sampling for use in the final data collections report produced after sampling Methods in which latent mortality will Assume 100% mortality be identified Data will be expressed as taxon and life stage specific densities Data must be appropriate for a which can be multiplied by flow to support quantification of quantitative survey entrainment Dominion l 25

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station 6 Entrainment Characterization Study Plan 6.1 Introduction This section of the Study Plan provides methods, materials, and procedures for entrainment sample collection and processing. Any failures at the sampling or laboratory analysis stage are often uncorrectable because design-specified sampling times cannot be repeated once they have passed. Therefore, Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and a Quality Assurance (QA)

Plan will be developed by the contractor performing the field studies for the entrainment sample collection and processing based on this Study Plan and the contractors preferred methods, datasheets and equipment to eliminate, reduce, and/or quantify those errors.

Adherence to sample collection and lab analysis SOPs will be observed and documented through regular technical assessments/audits. These technical assessments/audits will be conducted by a QA officer, who is independent of those individuals collecting and generating the data during the study and has experience in performing QA/QC programs for aquatic monitoring surveys, and will be scheduled to occur at least quarterly throughout the course of the study.

The specific requirements are to be developed by the contractor performing the work, will incorporate a checklist of items to be inspected based on the SOPs, and will include observations relevant to performance of sampling that may not be covered by the SOP. Careful attention will be paid to the initiation of the study when staff may be less familiar with the SOPs.

Entrainment sampling will be carried out at SPS twice per month from August 1, 2015 - July 31, 2017. The sampling will start in August 2015. This month was selected to expedite the start date for sampling to the extent possible as required within the larger §316(b) compliance timeframe and with a goal of minimizing the potential for disjoining year classes of anadromous fishes where the period of occurrence for entrainment of these species if generally over by July.

Entrainment samples will be collected directly from in front of the bar racks at the Low-level CWIS. During each 24-hr sampling event, concurrent samples will be collected from near surface, mid-water and near bottom depths four times, centered around 0400, 1000, 1600, and 2200 hours0.0255 days <br />0.611 hours <br />0.00364 weeks <br />8.371e-4 months <br />. Samples will be collected by pumping water through a 0.5-m diameter mouth plankton net constructed of 335-µm netting suspended in a buffering tank. A total of four, 6-hour samples will be collected from each depth over a 24-hr period sampling event twice per month.

Table 6-1 provides the details of entrainment sampling.

Dominion l 26

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Table 6-1. Entrainment Sampling Details Entrainment Details Units to be Sampled Unit 1 (Primary Location) and Unit 2 (Secondary Location)

August 1, 2015 - July 31, 2017 Twice per month sampling events (within the first and third week of Sampling Events each month) for 24 months (2/month x 24 months = 48 sampling events)

Daily Collection Schedule Samples collected every 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> in a 24-hr period (4 collections / 24-hr period)

Targeted Organisms Fish eggs, larvae, and juveniles; shellfish life stages Depths Near surface, mid-depth, near bottom for a total of 3 depths Number of Samples Collected per 1 sample per depth by pumping water through a 335-µm net Depth suspended in a buffering tank (Three sub-samples for each depth will be combined)

Sample Duration ~100 minutes per depth per 6-hour sample (or time required to get 100 m3 per depth per 6-hour sample)

Number of Samples per Sampling 4 collections/survey x 3 depths/collection x 1 sample/depth = 12 Event samples/survey Total Number of Samples 12 samples/survey x 2 surveys/month x 24 months = 576 samples 6.2 Safety Policy All work performed under the direction of Dominion Environmental Services (DES) and/or Dominion Business Units (BU) on Dominion properties and/or on properties owned or operated by third parties (i.e., not owned or operated by the contractor or Dominion) is to be performed using safe work practices that are at least equivalent to those required for Dominion personnel and of any third party owner or operator. At a minimum, all contractors are expected to be aware of, and adhere to, Dominions Corporate Safety Policy, DES Safety Work Practices and any BU or other location-specific safety policies and procedures.

6.3 Field Collection Procedures 6.3.1 Location Entrainment samples will be collected in front of bar racks at the Low-level CWIS from near surface, mid-water and near bottom depths. The primary sample location will be at Unit 1 in front of the bar rack 1B (See Figure 6-1). If Unit 1 is not operating the secondary location will be at Unit 2 in front of the bar rack 2C. Changes or variations in the sampling location over the duration of the 24-month study will require Dominion notification and approval.

Near surface, mid-water and near bottom pumped samples will be collected from intake piping installed along the front of the bar racks with the face of bar racks used to stabilize the temporary intake piping. The near bottom sample will be collected approximately 3 feet above the bottom, the mid depth sample will be collected at the mid-depth of the water column at Mean Sea Level (MSL), and the surface sample intake will be positioned 3 feet below the surface at Dominion l 27

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Mean Low Water (MLW) in order to make sure that the intake piping of the surface sample is low enough to stay below the water surface and the system keeps its prime. Figure 6-2 presents the conceptual design of intake piping for the entrainment sampling at three depths.

6.3.2 Equipment Sampling equipment will be acquired and/or constructed according to specifications in this Study Plan. Adequate backup equipment will be provided to ensure the study design can be followed in the event of equipment failure or loss. Prior to initiation of sampling, equipment will be tested or otherwise confirmed to meet specifications. A calibration program will be instituted for equipment requiring calibration that must be consistent with Dominions instrumentation calibration and maintenance practice document (See Appendix B).

Cooling water at the Low-Level CWIS will be pumped using temporary gas-powered four-inch centrifugal pumps (trash pump) and four-inch diameter intake piping installed at the face of bar racks. The pumped intake water will be filtered through a 335-micron mesh conical plankton net suspended in a 200-gallon polyethylene sample buffering tank (See Figure 6-3).

The following list includes the minimum items expected to be required for entrainment sample collection:

• 94 x 102-cm, 335-µm mesh hoop plankton nets (9) with 335-µm mesh PVC cod-end buckets (9)

• 94 x 102-cm, 505-µm mesh hoop plankton nets (9) with 505-µm mesh PVC cod-end buckets (9) 5

• 4-Inch trash pumps with open head design/gas cans (4 pumps)

• 200-gallon buffering tanks (3)

• Intake hoses (surface, mid, and bottom)

• 4-inch Schedule 40 PVC pipe of various lengths and configurations

• 4-inch PVC flex hose of various lengths and configurations

• In-line flowmeter (3)

• 120 VAC submersible wash down pump with 25 feet of 3/4-inch diameter hose and waterproof switch

• 1-L wide-mouth sample jars with labels

• 10% Formalin/Rose Bengal stain solution

• PPE: hard hats, safety glasses, steel toe boots, ear muffs/plugs, PFDs

• First-aid kit

• Flashlights

• Disposable Nitrile gloves

• Plastic buckets (assorted capacities)

• 335-m sieves (3), squirt bottles, spoons

• Field Binder w/pens, pencils, SOP, data sheets, calibration sheets, QC sheets, etc.

5 It is anticipated that during certain periods, 335-µm mesh may result in clogging of the net with a potential to compromise sample collections; 505-µm mesh may be used during these periods.

Dominion is to be notified prior to, or immediately after, a net mesh large than 335-um is required to be used.

Dominion l 28

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Figure 6-1. Proposed Location of Surry Power Station Entrainment Sampling, 2015 - 2017 Dominion l 29

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Figure 6-2. Conceptual Design of Intake Piping for Entrainment Sampling Dominion l 30

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Figure 6-3. Entrainment Pump Sampling System Configuration Dominion l 31

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station

• Clipboard

• Stopwatch

• Niskin water sampler

• Extra 5-gal buckets or similar for sample transportation

• Portable water quality meters (2) as described below 6 o Handheld Salinity, Conductivity & Temperature meters (2) with autoranging scales (e.g., YSI Model 30 or equivalent) with the following minimum specifications:

Conductivity ranges of 0 to 500 µS/cm and 0-200 mS/cm with an accuracy of +/- 0.5 % full scale Salinity range of 0 to 80 ppt with an accuracy of +/- 2 % or +/- 0.1 ppt Temperature range of -5 to 45 °C with an accuracy of +/- 0.2 °C o Handheld Dissolved Oxygen & Temperature meters (2) with autoranging scales (e.g., YSI Model 55 or equivalent) with the following minimum specifications:

Dissolved Oxygen % Saturation ranging from 0 to 200 % with an accuracy of +/- 2 %

Dissolved Oxygen mg/L ranging from 0 to 2 mg/L with an accuracy of +/-

0.3 mg/L Temperature range of -5 to 45 °C with an accuracy of +/- 0.2 °C o Portable pH meters (2) with the following minimum specifications:

pH range of 0 to 14 units with an accuracy of +/- 0.2 units

• Calibration solutions as required for the water quality instrumentation 6.3.3 Sampling Schedule The program anticipates sampling for 24 consecutive months with 48 sampling events (twice per month) conducted over the August 1, 2015 - July 31, 2017 period. Sampling events will be distributed within the first and third week of each month for the 24-month period. Each sampling event will encompass a 24-hour period divided into four, 6-hour subsampling periods centered around 0400, 1000, 1600, and 2200 hours0.0255 days <br />0.611 hours <br />0.00364 weeks <br />8.371e-4 months <br />. If a sampling event is missed due to weather or other unforeseen events, the scheduled sampling event will be conducted within 96-hours of resolution of the complicating event.

6.3.4 Entrainment Sample Collection Procedures The first shift crew will check in with the facility operations engineer or designee and security personnel to notify them of the initiation of the survey and the crews arrival on site. Prior to initiating entrainment sampling, the crew will install the intake piping at the three depths along the bar rack (refer to Section 6.3.1 for details). Stabilizers will be used to keep the pipes in place and orient them to the intake flow. Once the intake pipes are secured in place, the intake piping will be connected to trash pumps with 4-inch flexible hoses and then the hoses will be connected to the buffering tanks. All connections will be checked. All sampling pumps will be 6

A multiple parameter water quality meter may be used provided it meets the minimum specifications outlined for the individual meters.

Dominion l 32

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station placed in secondary containments with oil/fuel sorbent pads in the event there is a fuel or oil spill 7. The discharge hoses from the tanks will be directed over the bulkhead back into the river.

The gas-powered pump head will be primed (filled with water) before starting the pump. Once the pump has begun to discharge water and a stable flow has been established the engine throttle will be adjusted and/or the throttling valve located at the terminal end of the flow metering pipe will be adjusted slowly to achieve a flow rate of approximately 250-275 gallons per minute (gpm). A pump flow rate check is to be conducted for each pump prior to commencing the 24-hour sampling event (refer to Section 6.3.5 for details). To commence sampling, the buffering tank discharge valve should be closed to fill to the level of the tank to the upper overflow drain. The discharge valve is then partially opened to balance the level in the buffering tank to the point where water is just spilling into the upper overflow drain (and not overflowing the top).

Once the flow in the system is balanced, the sample net is inserted into the buffering tank and the start time, pump flow and flow totalizer readings are recorded on the appropriate data sheet.

The crew should observe the sampler to ensure that the water level is maintained at the correct level throughout the collection period. This is particularly important as the river is tidally influenced and a rising river level will result in higher pump flows while a dropping river level will result in lower pump flows.

Flow rates will be monitored and adjusted as necessary; a maximum flow rate of 250-275 gpm has been selected to minimize potential damage to the organisms from abrasion in the net during the sample collection interval. An inline flowmeter will be used to monitor and maintain the flow rate for each sample. The target water volume for each entrainment sample is 100 m3.

Contractors SOP must include methods for tracking sample volumes in the field with potential to adjust sample times as may be required to achieve 100 m3 sample volume per depth. In the event that ctenophores are present in entrainment samples and are clogging the net mesh (generally occurring in July - September at SPS), target total sample volume may be reduced to as low as 50 m3. Systematic deviation from this target sample volume will require Dominions prior approval.

In addition, three sub-samples of approximately 35 m3 each (~35 minutes) will be collected from each depth interval. After approximately 35 minutes (or a volume of ~35 m3; ~9,246 gallons),

the net will be removed from the buffer tank and switched with a second net (this is to be performed without shutting down the pump). The removed net containing the first sub-sample will then be washed down from the outside of the net into the cod-end bucket and the sample will be transferred to a 1-liter wide-mouth polyethylene sample jar labeled with the pertinent sample information. Label information shall include: sample number/ID, date, time (start and end), sample location, sample depth, and crew member initials. The second and third sub-7 All pumps will be shut down and allowed to cool prior to refueling. Gasoline storage cans will be Type I UL-approved containers outfitted with flame arrestors; the gas cans will be stored in secondary containments. A dry chemical (ABC) fire extinguisher will be available in the area of the pumps.

Dominion l 33

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station samples will be washed down and transferred to the same 1-liter sample jar which contains the first sub-sample for each depth interval. The near surface, mid-depth, and near bottom samples will be collected concurrently using three pairs of pumps and buffering tanks.

The sample jar(s) will be preserved to a 5% Formalin solution with a vital stain, such as rose bengal and labeled appropriately. Each sample jar will be filled no more than halfway (50%) with the sample so that at least 500 ml of a 10% Formalin solution can be mixed with the sample to properly preserve it. All preserved samples will be packaged and transported to the laboratory for processing.

All pertinent information for each sample will be recorded on the appropriate data sheet to document the samples collected and ensure they are correctly identified and labeled for sampling processing. This information shall include but is not limited to: sample number/ID, year, date, time (start and end), sample location, sample depth, pumping duration (min), total volume filtered (m3), water quality measurements, cooling water pump status, crew member initials.

At the completion of the 24-hr sampling period and final pump flow calibrations, the entrainment sampling apparatus will be broken down. The intake piping will be removed from the bar racks and all equipment (pumps. hoses, and buffering tanks) will be removed from the intake structure and stored in the designated location. The second shift crew will check in with the facility operations engineer or designee and security personnel to notify them of the surveys completion and the crews departure from the site. The number and rated capacity of circulating water pumps in operation during the sampling interval will be verified and recorded.

Measures must be made to ensure the sampling event does not interfere with plant operation nor result in risk to health and safety of field personnel. The contractor must contact the facility to provide them a weeks notice prior to each sampling event. The contractor should coordinate with the facility personnel to ensure sampling activities will not interfere with any scheduled maintenance activities at the intake structure of the station. If there are required activities that could conflict with plant maintenance operations the sampling event will be postponed as necessary so it does not interfere with plant operations. Prior to the sampling events, the contractor shall request that the facility personnel observe the bar racks and clean them of debris prior to the installation of the sampling equipment to minimize the possibility that the bar racks will need to be cleaned during the sampling event. In the event the station is required to access the bar racks during the sampling event due to unscheduled maintenance activities the sampling equipment can be removed if necessary. All open grates will be protected with barricades during the sampling events.

6.3.5 Pump Flow Rate Check Procedures Prior to commencing with the first sampling period and again at the beginning of the second crew shift, a pump flow rate check will be conducted for each pump according to the flow rate check procedure outlined as follows:

Dominion l 34

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station

• With the sample net removed from the tank, the crew will lower the water level of the buffering tank to the 50-gal mark on the side of the tank by opening the discharge regulating valve on the lower discharge line from the tank.

• When the water level is at the 50-gal line in the tank, the valve will be quickly closed.

• The totalized start flow from the flowmeter will be recorded immediately following valve closure.

• The crew will time, and record, how long it takes the rising water level in the tank to reach the 150-gal level line (100 gal pumped).

• The totalized end flow from the flowmeter will be recorded immediately after the 150-gal level line is reached.

The flow rate check will be calculated by the following equation:

100 gal/t = X gal/60 sec or X = 6000/t Where: t is the time in seconds to fill 100 gal, and X is the calculated gpm.

This procedure will be run three times, and the average compared to the observed flow rate from the flowmeter. If there is a discrepancy of more than 20%, the pipe connections will be checked and the flow rate check procedure will be conducted again until the results are within 20% of the flowmeter results. All flow rate check data will be recorded on the appropriate data sheet.

6.3.6 Water Quality Measurements During each 6-hour sample period, water quality data will be collected twice (approximately every 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br />), targeted for the start and end of each period at near-surface, mid-depth, and near-bottom depths at a convenient location along the bulkhead using a calibrated water quality meter (see instrument specifications above). Parameters that will be collected are: temperature (C), dissolved oxygen (DO) (mg/L), specific conductance (µS/cm), salinity (ppt) and pH. In addition ambient DO will be measured at mid-water depth at a pre-determined location near the entrainment samplers (where DO reading is unaffected by the discharge from the buffering tank) before the trash pumps are turned on for each entrainment sampling period. Water quality measurements will be recorded on the Entrainment Sampling Field Data Sheet.

Quality control for water quality data collection will be performed twice per sampling event (once per 12-hour shift) using either a second calibrated water quality meter or by collecting water samples for wet chemistry analysis. Calibration of water quality equipment will be consistent with the Field Instrumentation: Calibration and Standardizations requirements in Appendix B.

6.4 Laboratory Procedures The entrainment samples collected during this study will be transported to the laboratory for sorting and analysis using the equipment and procedures identified below.

Dominion l 35

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station 6.4.1 Equipment The following list includes the expected minimum items required for laboratory analysis:

• Light boxes

• Pyrex trays

• 335µm sieves

• Plastic buckets (2 qt)

• Folsom Plankton Splitter (or equivalent)

• Binocular dissecting microscope with ocular micrometer

• Computer with ImageTool' Software (or equivalent)

• Measuring board (accurate to the nearest millimeter)

• Featherweight forceps, dissecting forceps, eyedroppers, probes, spoons

• Petri dishes and covers

• Pencils, data sheets

• Vials (assorted capacities: 8 to 120 ml), vial holders

• Multiple and single mechanical hand counters

• Labels, Scotch tape

• 5% Formalin solution

• Safety glasses

• Squirt bottles (assorted sizes), plastic beakers (2 L)

• Nitrile gloves, paper towels

• SOP

• Taxonomic keys.

6.4.2 Laboratory Analysis After collected samples are transported to the laboratory for processing, following major activities will be accomplished:

1) For very abundant samples, the total sample may be carefully mixed and split as needed to obtain a reliable and representative estimate of the total sample collection (refer to Sort Sub-sampling Procedure section for more information).

2) Identify each fish and shellfish to the lowest practicable taxon including life stage designation.

3) Determine the number and size of fish and shellfish collected (refer to Morphometrics section for more information).

4) Enter field sheet information and laboratory analysis data into Dominion approved database format.

Chronological sample processing will be performed for the duration of the study. Samples will be stored for a minimum of five years after the completion of the data collection effort. Protocols for managing and storing samples from multiple facilities, should a contractor be working at multiple facilities, will be required.

Sample Sorting The following sample sorting protocol is to be followed:

Dominion l 36

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station

• After a sample number has been assigned, the sample will be gently rinsed through a mesh of 335 µm or smaller to remove excess formalin.

• The rinsed sample will be placed in a sorting tray with adequate water to cover the sample. If the sample is thick with detritus, it may be split into several trays using a MotodoTM Plankton Splitter to improve visibility and sorting effectiveness.

• The organisms will be removed with forceps or eyedroppers and sorted into their respective groups of fish larvae, eggs, or shellfish larvae and enumerated. Each group will be placed in a separate glass vial with 5% buffered formalin and labeled externally with the sample number for identification. Tops of vials will be taped to reduce loss of fluid. Samples that are estimated to contain more than 400 fish eggs or 400 larvae will be sub-sampled.

• All samples (sorted organisms and not detritus) will be stored as appropriate to protect from freezing, breakage, or other sample damage.

Sort Sub-sampling Procedure The preservative-free washed sample will be transferred to the MotodoTM Plankton Splitter. A sufficient quantity of water will be added to the box to ensure thorough mixing and dispersal of the sample. The box will be tilted until the sample has moved into the two separate chambers.

Then, half of the sample will be carefully drained from the box. Samples will be split in half, and then the halves will be split in quarters, and so on, until the approximate number of organisms that were the target of the split is 200 in the final split portion.

The final split portion will be analyzed for whichever group was the target of the subsampling procedure. If a minimum of 200 eggs or larvae is reached, sorting for that group ends with that split portion. The whole sample, including the final split, will be analyzed for the other group of ichthyoplankton. The split fraction will be recorded on the data sheet for each taxon and life stage to which the split applies.

Sample Identification After sorting, the fish and shellfish will be identified to the lowest practical taxon and enumerated. All fish will be assigned a life stage: viable egg, non-viable egg, yolk sac larvae, post yolk sac larvae, juvenile, or unidentified larval stage. Only whole larvae, parts of larvae with a head and a majority portion of the body present (more than half), or pieces of larvae with an extensive portion of the body present (more than three quarters) will be counted. All fish and shellfish will be preserved in 5% formalin and stored in properly labeled vials. All shellfish will be identified to the lowest practical taxon, enumerated and assigned to a life stage.

Morphometrics For each 24-hr sampling event, the following morphometric data will be collected and recorded for each life stage of fish and shellfish (i.e., larval fish, fish egg, and blue crab) on the corresponding Morphometric Data Sheet:

Dominion l 37

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station

• Up to 5 individuals from each fish taxon and life stage will be measured for total length and notochord length, greatest body depth and width, and head capsule depth and width, all to the nearest 0.1 mm;

• Up to 5 eggs of each taxon will be measured for minimum and maximum diameter;

• Up to 5 Blue Crab (Callinectes sapidus) individuals from each life stage will be measured for greatest body length, width, and depth to the nearest 0.1 mm; megalopa and later life stage measurement maximum widths and depths will be based on carapace.

Only whole organisms will be subject to morphometric evaluations. Organisms subject to the morphometric evaluation should be selected at random from within each taxonomic category (i.e., each taxon and life stage). Length measurements will be performed with a calibrated ocular micrometer or other calibrated tool (e.g., ImageTool' Software).

Taxonomic Resolution Monitoring The resolution of taxonomic and life stage designations will be monitored through regular evaluations of catch data with the goal of reducing percent of unidentified organisms and increasing resolution of genera and higher taxonomic designations. These evaluations will occur on a quarterly basis. Density data will be reported to Dominion within one month of the close of each three month period, as number of organisms per 100 m3 by month, for each taxon and life stage.

Methods for Identifying Atlantic Sturgeon Atlantic Sturgeon are not expected to be susceptible to entrainment at SPS. However, in the improbable event of identification of Atlantic Sturgeon in entrainment samples, the NRC will be notified by SPS within four hours of any state agency notification of an event pursuant to 10 CFR 50.72(b)(2)(xi), and the VDGIF will be contacted by Dominion (i.e., DES) within 24-hours of the event as per the requirements of the Scientific Collection Permit. The following method will be used to maximize the potential identification of this species in entrainment samples in the improbable event that they are collected:

1. Because of their large size and distinctive morphology, it is unlikely that sturgeon eggs and larvae would remain unidentified. Regardless, unidentified eggs and larvae and split fraction samples collected from March through November will be subject to an additional visual scan for eggs ranging in size from 2-3 mm and for larvae 6 mm or greater. This range of months is meant to be inclusive because of the uncertainty associated with spawning period of the James River Atlantic Sturgeon. The range of sizes is also meant to be inclusive to allow for slight variation from the descriptions.

2. This subset of eggs will be scanned for an apparent germinal disc and pigmentation. All pigmented eggs will be examined for consistency with the description of eggs provided in Appendix A.

3. The subset of yolk-sac larvae will be viewed for consistency with the description of yolk-sac larvae provided in Appendix A, distinguishing characteristics will include size, color Dominion l 38

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station and a continuous finfold extending from behind the head dorsally around the notochord and ventrally to the posterior end of the yolk sac.

4. Larvae will be examined for consistency with size and developmental stage (see Snyder 1988). Bath et al. (1988) provides an extensive description of Atlantic and Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum), that can be used as an aid in identifying Atlantic Sturgeon.

For Quality Control purposes, any eggs and larvae identified as potential sturgeon specimens will be preserved separately and provided to an appropriate third party for taxonomic identification. The third party will provide a blind taxonomic identification wherein they will not be provided the results from the original taxonomic designation.

See Appendix C for a list of data to be collected and recorded during field collection and processing.

6.4.3 Laboratory Quality Control (QC) Procedures Quality control methods for split, sort and identification of ichthyoplankton will be checked using a continuous sampling plan (CSP) to assure an Average Outgoing Quality Limit (AOQL) of 0.1 (90% accuracy). Specific methods for quality control will be provided in the SOP developed by the contractor performing the work. Quality control checks will be recorded on appropriate datasheets and these records will be maintained for review.

Dominion l 39

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station 7 References Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 2012. Habitat Addendum IV to Amendment 1 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Sturgeon.

Bain, M.B. 1997. Atlantic and shortnose sturgeons of the Hudson River: Common and divergent life history attributes. Environmental Biology of Fishes 48: 347-358.

Bain, M.B., N. Haley, D. Peterson, J.R. Waldman, and K. Arend. 2000. Harvest and habitats of Atlantic sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus Mitchill, 1815, in the Hudson River estuary:

Lessons for sturgeon conservation. Boletin-Instituto Espanol de Oceanografía 16: 43-53.

Balazik, G., C. Garman, and J.P. Van Eenennaam. 2012. Empirical Evidence of Fall Spawning by Atlantic Sturgeon in the James River, Virginia. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 141: 1465-1471.

Bath, D.W., J.M. OConner, J.B. Alber, and L.G. Arvidson. 1981. Development and identification of larval Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus) and shortnose sturgeon (A. brevirostrum) from the Hudson River estuary, New York. Copeia 1981: 711-717.

CH2MHILL. 2006. Draft Comprehensive Demonstration Study for Surry Power Station. 2006.

Connelly, W.J. 2001. Growth patterns of three species of catfish (Ictaluridae) from three Virginia tributaries of the Chesapeake Bay. Masters Thesis. College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA. 153p.

Dominion 2005. Proposal for Information Collection - SURRY POWER STATION.

EA Engineering and Technology (EA). 2007. Entrainment Characterization Report; Surry Power Station.

Gilbert, C.R. 1989. Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (Mid-Atlantic Bight)--Atlantic and shortnose sturgeons. U.S.

Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 82(11.122). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TR EL82-4. 28 pp.

Hager, C. 2011. Atlantic sturgeon review: Gather data on reproducing subpopulation of Atlantic sturgeon in the James River. Contract EA133FlOCN0317.

Hildebrand, S.F. and W.C. Schroeder. 1928. Fishes of Chesapeake Bay. Department of Commerce, Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Fisheries, Volume XLIII.

Jenkins, R.E., and N.M. Burkhead. 1993. Freshwater fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Dominion l 40

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Johnson, R.I. 1970. The Systematics and Zoogeography of the Unionidae (Mollusca: Bivalvia) of the Southern Atlantic Slope Region. Bulletin of Museum of Comparative Zoology 140(6):263-449.

Kercher, D.M. 2006. Genetic Assessment of Rare Blackbanded Sunfish (Enneacanthus Chaetodon) Populations in Virginia. M.S. Thesis. Virginia Commonwealth University.

Kynard, B., D. Pugh, and T. Parker. 2005. Experimental studies to develop a bypass for shortnose sturgeon at Holyoke Dam. Final report to Holyoke Gas and Electric, Holyoke, MA.

Kynard, B. and M. Horgan. 2002. Ontogenetic behavior and migration of Atlantic Sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus, and Shortnose Sturgeon, A. brevirostrum, with notes on social behavior. Environmental Behavior of Fishes 63: 137-150.

Moser, M. L., and S. W. Ross. 1995. Habitat use and movements of shortnose and Atlantic sturgeons in the lower Cape Fear River, North Carolina. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 124: 225-234.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2012a. Biological Opinion of James River Federal Navigation Project: Tribell Shoal Channel to Richmond Harbor in Surry, James City, Prince George, Charles City, Henrico, and Chesterfield Counties and the Cities of Richmond and Hopewell, Virginia (FINER/2012/01183).

NMFS. 2012b. Letter of concurrence, from Mr. D.M. Morris, NMFS, to Ms. Amy Hull, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, that continued operation Surry Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2 is not likely to adversely affect species listed by NMFS.

Smith, T.I.J., E. K. Dingley, and D. E. Marchette. 1980. Induced spawning and culture of the Atlantic sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrinchus (Mitchill). Progressive Fish-Culturist 42: 147-151.

Snyder, D.E. 1988. Description and Identification of Shortnose and Atlantic Sturgeon Larvae.

American Fisheries Society Symposium 5: 7-30.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Raleigh Ecological Serices Field Office. 2012. Sensitive Joint-vetch (Aeschynomene virginica). Retrieved September 7, 2014.

http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/es_sensitive_joint-vetch.html Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). 2014a. Eastern chicken turtle (Deirochelys reticularia reticularia). Available online. Retrieved September 7, 2014.

http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/wildlife/information/?s=030064 VDGIF. 2014b. Eastern tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum tigrinum). Available online.

Retrieved September 7, 2014. http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/wildlife/information/?s=020052 VDGIF. 2014c. Mabee's salamander (Amybstoma mabeei). Available online. Retrieved September 7, 2014. http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/wildlife/information/?s=020044 Dominion l 41

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station VDGIF. 2014d. Barking treefrog (Hyla gratiosa). Available online. Retrieved September 7, 2014. http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/wildlife/information/?s=020002 VDGIF. 2014e. Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew (Sorex longisrostris fisheri). Available online. Retrieved September 7, 2014.

http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/wildlife/information/?s=050008 VEPCO. 1977. Section 316(a) Demonstration (Type 1). Surry Power Station - Units 1 and 2.

Virginia Electric and Power Company. Richmond, VA.

VEPCO. 1980. Surry Power Station-Units 1 and 2 Cooling Water Intake Studies.

Watson, J. 2012. James River Mainstem Freshwater Mussel Surveys. Virginia Department of Game & Inland Fisheries, Bureau of Wildlife Resources. Accessed on November 13, Available online:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CC 8QFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fncmollusks.wikispaces.com%2Ffile%2Fview%2FJamesR iverSurveys.pdf&ei=1QVmVIfDH_TesASBvICgBg&usg=AFQjCNHoLbYHINRMh89V_2H 6BPNyEZT8cA&sig2=NR_T2jFldgg2ucIZqnJn_w&bvm=bv.79142246,d.cWc.

Dominion l 42

Appendix A Atlantic Sturgeon Life History Information

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Atlantic Sturgeon Life History Information Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus) originating from the New York Bight, Chesapeake Bay, South Atlantic and Carolina Distinct Population Segments (DPSs) are listed as endangered.

Those originating from the Gulf of Maine DPS are listed as threatened. Atlantic Sturgeon from these five DPSs have the potential to occur in the James River and the vicinity of the cooling water intake of Surry Power Station (SPS). The marine range of all five DPSs extends along the Atlantic coast from Canada to Cape Canaveral, Florida (NMFS 2012a).

The James River has historically provided the largest stock of Atlantic Sturgeon in the Chesapeake and the majority of the adults in the river are likely to originate from the James River and thus, the Chesapeake Bay DPS (Hildebrand and Shroeder 1928; ASSRT 2007; Hager 2011; NMFS 2012a). Because early life stages (eggs and larvae), yearlings, and juveniles do not leave their natal river or estuary, any Atlantic Sturgeon from these life stages in the James River would have originated from the Chesapeake Bay DPS. Subadult Atlantic Sturgeon (greater than 50 cm but not yet sexually mature), move outside their natal rivers.

Therefore, subadult Atlantic Sturgeon present in the James River and in the vicinity of the intake could be from any of the five DPSs.

Atlantic Sturgeon spawn in the James River. However, the spawning grounds are located at least 50 miles upstream of the SPS intake with a second area of seemingly suitable habitat also located approximately 25 miles upstream (NMFS 2012a). Spawning is expected to occur from the April through June; evidence exists that spawning might occur in the fall as well, with high adult usage in the river from August through November (Balazik et al. 2012, Secor et al. 2000).

Virginia Marine Resources Commission restricts dredging in the James River from March 15 through June 30 to accommodate spring-spawning anadromous fish (Balazik et al. 2012) and NMFS (2012b) recently restricted dredging in the lower James River from February 15 to June 15th and in the rest of the river from February 15 to June 30 to protect anadromous fish during migration and spawning periods.

Eggs can hatch in 4 - 7 days depending on temperature (Gilbert 1989; Hildebrand and Schroeder 1928). Eggs are strongly adhesive and demersal, and occur only on the spawning grounds attaching to the substrate in 20 minutes (Jones et al. 1978). Atlantic Sturgeon eggs are approximately 2.6 mm in diameter (Hildebrand and Schroeder 1928) and hatch approximately 94, 140, and 168 hours0.00194 days <br />0.0467 hours <br />2.777778e-4 weeks <br />6.3924e-5 months <br /> after egg deposition at temperatures of 20°C, 18°C, and 17.8 °C, respectively (Gilbert 1989; Hildebrand and Schroeder 1928).

Ripe (unfertilized) Atlantic Sturgeon eggs are reported to be 2.5 - 2.6 mm in diameter, globular in shape, and of a light to dark brown color. Fertilized eggs are up to 2.9 mm in diameter, slate gray or light to dark brown, and become oval as development proceeds (Jones et al. 1978) (see Figure A-1). The germinal disc is evident in the unfertilized egg. A cross- or star-shaped pigment patch is apparent in the animal pole of the fertilized egg. The eggs are distinctly two-layered with the outer layer being a viscous substance.

Appendix A Dominion l 1

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Source: Jones et al. 1978 as presented in Gilbert 1989 Figure A-1. Atlantic Sturgeon Egg Development from Unfertilized Egg to 48-hour Stage Yolk-sac larvae are expected to inhabit the same areas where they were spawned (Bain et al.

2000; ASMFC 2012). Smith et al. (1980 in Gilbert 1989) also reported that the yolk-sac larvae were darkly pigmented and active swimmers. Hard substrate is important to larval Atlantic Sturgeon as it provides refuge from predators (Kieffer and Kynard 1996 and Fox et al. 2000 as cited in ASMFC 2012). Bath et al. (1981) only collected sturgeon larvae in bottom samples.

Larvae are also active swimmers and leave the bottom when 8 to 10 days old to swim in the water column (Kynard and Horgan 2002).

The yolk-sac larval stage is completed in about 8 to12 days (Jones et al. [1978] reports 6 days),

at which time the larvae move downstream to the rearing grounds (Kynard and Horgan 2002).

During the first half of this migration, larvae move only at night and use benthic structure (e.g.,

gravel matrix) as refuge during the day (Kynard and Horgan 2002). During the latter half of migration to the rearing grounds, when larvae are more fully developed, movement occurs during both day and night. Larvae transition into the juvenile phase at approximately 30 mm total length (TL) and move further downstream into brackish waters, developing a tolerance to salinity as they go., Eventually they become residents in estuarine waters for months to years before emigrating to open ocean (ASSRT 2007, ASMFC 2012).

Atlantic Sturgeon larvae are expected to be approximately 7 - 9 mm TL at hatching (Bath et al.

1981, Smith 1980 as cited in Bain et al. 2000, Gilbert 1989, Snyder 1988), although Jones et al.

(1978) describe a newly hatched Atlantic Sturgeon larvae at 11.5 mm TL. The head width is 8%

of standard length (SL) with a depth of 11 % of SL (behind the posterior margin of the eye). The Appendix A Dominion l 2

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station yolk-sac maxima is 23 % of SL and the yolk-sac depth is 20% of SL (Snyder 1988). Jones et al.

(1978) describes the newly hatched Atlantic Sturgeon larvae with a head and the tail that is darkly pigmented and a yolk that is a large dirty yellow, vascular oval. The head is not deflected over the yolk (bent around the yolk). The mouth is formed. The eye is relatively small and is about the same size as the round auditory vesicles. The branchial arches are concealed by the opercular folds, the barbels are lacking, pectoral buds are present, and the origin of the dorsal finfold is in the occipital region. Bath et al. (1981) reports that a continuous finfold extends from behind the head dorsally around the notochord and ventrally to the posterior end of the yolk sac, a dorsal wedge-shaped cavity at the fourth ventricle in the posterior of the blunt head, and a vent extended through the finfold at 0.6 to 0.7 of the TL from the snout. The spiral valve was distinguishable, even in small specimens.

Source: Snyder 1988 Figure A-2. Atlantic Sturgeon Yolk Sac Larvae Just Hatched Snyder (1988) reports that Atlantic Sturgeon complete yolk absorption by 13 - 14 mm SL in 6 - 7 days, acquire their first scutes between 17 and 20 mm SL at 13 - 29 days, acquire their first fin rays at 21 mm SL (13 - 29 days), and acquire a full complement of fin rays, except the caudal fin, between 47 and 58 mm SL at 29 - 100 days. A 29-day hatchery-reared larva is presented in Figure A-3. Mean myomere counts for shortnose and Atlantic Sturgeon are 38 preanal and 22 or 23 postanal. Snyder (1988) presents a detailed comparison of shortnose and Atlantic Sturgeon and provides details on the age and length of the onset of certain developmental events.

Appendix A Dominion l 3

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Source: Snyder 1988 Figure A-3. Atlantic Sturgeon, 28.9 mm SL, 29.3 MM TL, 29 Days After Hatching Juvenile Atlantic Sturgeon demonstrate a lot of variation with regard to salinity tolerance (ASMFC 2012). Atlantic Sturgeon spawn in their natal river and remain in the river until approximately age two and at lengths of approximately 76 - 92 cm (30 - 36 inches; ASSRT 2007). Yearlings are known to occupy freshwater portions of their natal river (Secor et al. 2000) and their distribution in the James River is expected to follow this pattern. Juveniles in the river are also restricted to low salinity areas, with overwintering known to occur in deep water areas near river mile 25 (NMFS 2012).

Hager (2011) used telemetry to establish movement patterns of adult and subadult Atlantic Sturgeon in the James River. Thirty-two adults and thirty-three subadults were outfitted with telemetry tags and telemetry receivers were placed throughout the river to record the presence of tagged fish when they are within approximately one kilometer of the receivers.

Results of Hager (2011) indicate that adult Atlantic Sturgeon enter the James River in spring when water temperatures are around 17°C, and occur from river mile 29 to river mile 67 before departing from the river in June when water temperatures are around 24° C. Data collected in 2010 demonstrated a congregation of sturgeon in freshwater areas near river mile 48, suggesting the possibility of spawning in this area (Hager 2011). Adult sturgeon appear to be absent from the James River for most of the summer until late August when tagged fish are once again detected in the river (Hager 2011). During the late summer-early fall residency (August-October), fish ascend the river rapidly and congregate in upriver sites between river mile 48 and the fall line near Richmond, VA; possibly in response to physiologically stressful conditions (e.g., low dissolved oxygen and elevated water temperature) in the lower James River and Chesapeake Bay (Hager 2011). As temperature declines in late September or early October, adults disperse through downriver sites and begin to move out of the river (Hager 2011). By November, adults occupy only lower river sites (Hager 2011). By December, adults Appendix A Dominion l 4

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station are undetected on the tracking array and, thus, are presumed to be out of the river (Hager 2011).

The highest number of subadults are present in the river in the spring and fall with the lowest numbers present in August when ambient water temperatures in the river are the highest. At this time of year, most subadults leave the river and any Atlantic Sturgeon remaining in the river are holding in cool water refugia (Hager 2011). The number of subadults in the river peaks in October. Many subadults leave the river for overwintering with some known to overwinter off the coast of North Carolina. Subadults overwintering within the river are located downstream of Hog Island.

Appendix A Dominion l 5

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Literature Cited Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 2012. Habitat Addendum IV to Amendment 1 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Sturgeon.

Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Team (ASSRT). 2007. Status Review of Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus). Report to National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Regional Office. February 23, 2007. 174 pp.

Balazik, G., C. Garman, and J.P. Van Eenennaam. 2012. Empirical Evidence of Fall Spawning by Atlantic Sturgeon in the James River, Virginia. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 141: 1465-1471.

Bain, M.B., N. Haley, D. Peterson, J.R. Waldman, and K. Arend. 2000. Harvest and habitats of Atlantic sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus Mitchill, 1815, in the Hudson River estuary:

Lessons for sturgeon conservation. Boletin-Instituto Espanol de Oceanografía 16: 43-53.

Bath, D.W., J.M. OConner, J.B. Alber, and L.G. Arvidson. 1981. Development and identification of larval Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus) and shortnose sturgeon (A. brevirostrum) from the Hudson River estuary, New York. Copeia 1981: 711-717.

Fox, D. 2006. History of Atlantic Sturgeon Fishery. Power Point presentation presented to Delaware Department of Natural Resources, courtesy of Greg Murphy (DEDNR) April 13, 2006.

Gilbert, C.R. 1989. Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (Mid-Atlantic Bight)--Atlantic and shortnose sturgeons. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 82(11.122). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TR EL82-4. 28 pp.

Hager, C. 2011. Atlantic sturgeon review: Gather data on reproducing subpopulation of Atlantic sturgeon in the James River. Contract EA133FlOCN0317.

Hildebrand, S.F. and W.C. Schroeder. 1928. Fishes of Chesapeake Bay. Department of Commerce, Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Fisheries, Volume XLIII.

Jones, P. W., Martin, F. D. and Hardy, J. D. Jr. 1978: Development of fishes of the Mid-Atlantic Bight. An atlas of egg, larval and juvenile stages. Volume I Acipenseridae through Ictaluridae. U. S. Dep. Interior, Fish Wildl. Serv., Biol. Serv. Prog. FWS/OBS-78/12. 366 pp.

Kercher, D.M. 2006. Genetic Assessment of Rare Blackbanded Sunfish (Enneacanthus chaetodon) Populations in Virginia. M.S. Thesis. Virginia Commonwealth University.

Kieffer, M. C. and B. Kynard. 1993. Annual movements of shortnose and Atlantic sturgeons in the Merrimack River, Massachusetts. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 122: 1088-1103.

Appendix A Dominion l 6

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Kynard, B. and M. Horgan. 2002. Ontogenetic behavior and migration of Atlantic sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus, and shortnose sturgeon, A. brevirostrum, with notes on social behavior. Environmental Behavior of Fishes 63: 137-150.

Kynard, B., D. Pugh, and T. Parker. 2005. Experimental studies to develop a bypass for shortnose sturgeon at Holyoke Dam. Final report to Holyoke Gas and Electric, Holyoke, MA.

NMFS. 2012. Biological Opinion of James River Federal Navigation Project: Tribell Shoal Channel to Richmond Harbor in Surry, James City, Prince George, Charles City, Henrico, and Chesterfield Counties and the Cities of Richmond and Hopewell, Virginia (FINER/2012/01183).

Smith, T.I.J., E. K. Dingley, and D. E. Marchette. 1980. Induced spawning and culture of the Atlantic sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrinchus (Mitchill). Progressive Fish-Culturist 42: 147-151.

Secor, D.H.,E., J. Niklitschek, J.T. Stevenson, T.E. Gunderson, S.P. Minkkinen, B. Richardson, B. Florence, M. Mangold, J. Skjeveland, and A. Henderson-Arzapalo. 2000. Dispersal and growth of yearling Atlantic sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrinchus, released into Chesapeake Bay. Fishery Bulletin 98: 800-810.

Snyder, D.E. 1988. Description and Identification of Shortnose and Atlantic Sturgeon Larvae.

American Fisheries Society Symposium 5: 7-30.

Appendix A Dominion l 7

Appendix B Field Instrumentation:

Calibrations and Standardizations

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Appendix B Dominion

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Appendix B Dominion

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Appendix B Dominion

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Appendix B Dominion

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Appendix B Dominion

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Appendix B Dominion

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Appendix B Dominion

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Appendix B Dominion

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Appendix B Dominion

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Appendix B Dominion

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Appendix B Dominion

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Appendix B Dominion

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Appendix B Dominion

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Appendix B Dominion

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Appendix B Dominion

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Appendix B Dominion

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Appendix B Dominion

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Appendix B Dominion

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Appendix B Dominion

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Appendix B Dominion

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Appendix B Dominion

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Appendix B Dominion

Appendix C Lists of Data to be Collected and Recorded for Field Collection and Laboratory Analysis

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Minimum Entrainment Sample Collection Data Category Parameter Value Crew Names Date General Information Time (military)

Tidal Phase o

Air Temp. ( C)

Wind Direction Wind Speed (MPH)

Weather Condition Sky Precipitation (in)

Wave Height (ft)

Circulating Pump Status Facility Operation Screen Status Screen Wash Status Unit/Bar Rack Unit # Bar Rack ID Sampling Location Time (military) Start End Duration (min.) Calculated Time (military) Meter Start End Flow meter Readings 3 Flow (m ) Meter Start End 3

Total Volume (m ) Calculated Time (military)

Depth (ft) Reading Surface Mid Bottom o

Temp. ( C) Meter Surface Mid Bottom DO (mg/L) Meter Surface Mid Bottom Water Quality Specific Cond. (µs) Meter Surface Mid Bottom o

Specific Cond. @ 25 C (µs) Calculated Salinity (ppt) Calculated Surface Mid Bottom pH Meter Surface Mid Bottom o

Temp. ( C) Bottle DO (mg/L) Bottle Water Quality QC Specific Cond. (µs) Bottle pH Bottle Mesh size (µm)

Gear Used Dimension Configuration Sample Collection IP Sample Bottle # Label Surface Mid Bottom Vegetation Note Light Moderate Heavy Observations Invertebrates Note Light Moderate Heavy Vertebrates Note Light Moderate Heavy Comments Crew Signature Appendix C Dominion l 1

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Minimum Entrainment Sample Laboratory Data Sheet Category Parameter Value Date/Time Sample ID Species Taxon Name Enumera- Egg Split Fraction Count Egg tion Larvae Split Fraction Count UID YS PYS JUV Total Larvae Count Total Shellfish Count Comments Date/Time Sample Number Species Taxon Name Lifestage Total Length / Notochord Length (mm)

Body Depth / Width (mm)

Morpho- Head Capsule Depth / Width (mm) metrics Greatest Body Depth / Width (mm)

Diameter, Max and Min (eggs only; mm)

Greatest Body Length, Width & Depth (Blue Crab only for each life stage; mm)

Maximum Widths and Depths based on carapace (Megalopa and later life stage only; mm)

Comments Note: UID = Unidentified; YS = Yolk Sac; PYS = Post Yolk Sac; JUV = Juvenile Appendix C Dominion l 2

DRAFT Impingement Characterization Study Plan Prepared for:

Dominion Resources Services, Inc.

Prepared by:

HDR Engineering, Inc.

May 29, 2016 Surry Power Station Surry, VA 23883

Impingement Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Table of Contents 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Regulatory Background ............................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Study Plan Objectives and Document Organization ................................................................. 3 2 Generating Station Description ........................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Site and Environmental Description .......................................................................................... 3 2.2 Station Description .................................................................................................................... 8 2.2.1 Station Operational History .......................................................................................... 8 2.2.2 Intake Structure ............................................................................................................ 8 3 Historical Studies ............................................................................................................................... 12 3.1 Impingement Studies ............................................................................................................... 12 3.2 James River Studies ............................................................................................................... 14 3.2.1 Trawl and Seine Sampling, 2005-2006 ...................................................................... 14 3.2.2 Trawl and Seine Sampling, 1970-1978 ...................................................................... 14 4 Threatened and Endangered Species .............................................................................................. 19 5 Basis for Sampling Design ................................................................................................................ 25 6 Impingement Characterization Study Plan ........................................................................................ 26 6.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 26 6.2 Safety Policy............................................................................................................................ 27 6.3 Field Collection Procedures .................................................................................................... 27 6.3.1 Location ...................................................................................................................... 29 6.3.2 Equipment .................................................................................................................. 30 6.3.3 Sampling Schedule .................................................................................................... 31 6.3.4 Water Quality Measurements ..................................................................................... 32 6.4 Collection Processing .............................................................................................................. 32 6.4.1 Initial Impingement Survival ....................................................................................... 33 6.4.2 Morphometrics............................................................................................................ 33 6.4.3 Debris Load Characterization ..................................................................................... 33 6.4.4 Handling Procedures for Atlantic Sturgeon ................................................................ 34 7 References ........................................................................................................................................ 37 List of Appendices Appendix A. Atlantic Sturgeon Life History Information Appendix B. Field Instrumentation: Calibrations and Standardizations Appendix C. Lists of Data to be Collected and Recorded for Field Collection and Processing Dominion l i

Impingement Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station List of Tables Table 1-1. §316(b) Rule for Existing Facilities Submittal Requirements Summary ...................................... 2 Table 3-1. VEPCO Impingement Sampling Details .................................................................................... 12 Table 3-2. Number of Fish and Shellfish Collected during Quarterly Otter Trawl and Haul Seine Sampling near Surry Power Station, 2005 - 2006 .................................................................................... 15 Table 3-3. Top 10 Fish Collected During Monthly Haul Seine Sampling, 1970 - 1978 ............................. 18 Table 3-4. Top 10 Fish Collected During Monthly Otter Trawl Sampling, 1970 - 1978 ............................. 18 Table 4-1. Federal and State Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species with the Potential to Occur within 2 miles of the Cooling Water Intake of Surry Power Station ........................................... 20 Table 5-1. Summary of Approach for Development of §122.21(r) Impingement Characterizations ........... 26 Table 6-1. Impingement Sampling Details .................................................................................................. 27 List of Figures Figure 2-1. Surry Power Station Regional Location Map.............................................................................. 4 Figure 2-2. Aerial View of Surry Power Station............................................................................................. 5 Figure 2-3. The James River Watershed ...................................................................................................... 6 Figure 2-4. General River Depths in the Vicinity of Surry Power Station (Soundings in Feet at Mean Lower Low Water) ................................................................................................................................. 7 Figure 2-5. Low-level Intake Structure Location (37°0922 N, 76°4016 W) ............................................... 9 Figure 2-6. Details of Surry Power Station Ristroph Traveling Water Screen at Low-level Cooling Water Intake Structure ........................................................................................................................ 10 Figure 2-7. Plan View of Surry Power Station Low-level Cooling Water Intake Structure .......................... 11 Figure 2-8. Typical Section View of Surry Power Station Low-level Cooling Water Intake Structure ........ 11 Figure 3-1. Surry Power Station Seasonal Impingement Variation for Top 10 Species Using 1974 to 1983 Impingement Data .................................................................................................................... 13 Figure 3-2. Location of Surry Power Station Monthly Haul Seine, 1970 - 1978 ........................................ 16 Figure 3-3. Location of Surry Power Station Monthly Otter Trawl Sampling, 1970 - 1978 ........................ 17 Figure 6-1. Surry Power Station Impingement Sampling Location, 2015 - 2016 ....................................... 29 Figure 6-2. Pictures of Surry Power Station Fish Return Trough, Fish Holding Pen and Basket to Cover the Drain of Fish Holding Pen .................................................................................................. 30 Dominion l ii

Impingement Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station 1 Introduction 1.1 Regulatory Background Clean Water Act §316(b) was enacted under the 1972 Clean Water Act, which also introduced the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. Facilities with NPDES permits are subject to §316(b), which requires that the location, design, construction and capacity of cooling water intake structures (CWIS) reflect best technology available (BTA) for minimizing adverse environmental impacts. Cooling water intakes can cause adverse environmental impacts by drawing early life-stage fish and shellfish into and through cooling water systems (entrainment), or trapping juvenile or adult fish against the screens at the opening of an intake structure (impingement).

On August 15, 2014, the final §316(b) Rule for existing facilities was published in the Federal Register. The Rule applies to existing facilities that withdraw more than 2 million gallons per day (MGD) from Waters of the United States, use at least 25 percent of that water exclusively for cooling purposes, and have or require an NPDES permit. The Rule supersedes the Phase II Rule, which regulated large electrical generating facilities until it was remanded in 2007, and the remanded existing-facility portion of the previously promulgated Phase III Rule.

Facilities subject to the new Rule are required to develop and submit technical material, identified at §122.21(r)(2)-(13), that will be used by the NPDES Director (Director) to make a BTA determination for the facility (Table 1-1). The specific material required to be submitted and compliance schedule are dependent on actual intake flow rates at the facility and NPDES permit renewal date, respectively. Facilities are to submit their §316(b) application material to their Director along with their next permit renewal, unless that permit renewal takes place prior to July 14, 2018, in which case an alternate schedule may be negotiated.

Dominions Surry Power Station (SPS) is subject to the existing facility Rule and based on its current configuration and operation is anticipated to be required to develop and submit each of the §122.21(r)(2)-(13) submittal requirements with its next permit renewal in accordance with the Rules technical and schedule requirements. Within the §122.21(r)(2)-(13) requirements, (r)(4) and (6) have specific requirements related to impingement data and evaluations (refer to Table 1-1 for details). While these requirements do not specify that an Impingement Characterization Study must be conducted, Dominion has determined that one is warranted based on the following anticipated benefits:

• Ability to document current impingement at SPS where recent impingement data is not available to supplement data to be provided pursuant to§122.21(r)(4) and potentially inform the chosen method of compliance pursuant to (r)(6); and

• Understanding the nature of current impingement at SPS to evaluate potential effectiveness of alternative technologies and determination of fragile species composition.

Dominion l 1

Impingement Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Table 1-1. §316(b) Rule for Existing Facilities Submittal Requirements Summary Submittal Requirements Submittal Descriptions at §122.21(r)

Source Water (2) Characterization of the source water body including intake area of influence Physical Data Cooling Water Characterization of cooling water system; includes drawings and narrative; description of (3) Intake Structure operation; water balance Data Source Water Characterization of biological community in the vicinity of the intake; life history summaries; Baseline Biological susceptibility to impingement and entrainment; must include existing data; identification of (4)

Characterization missing data; threatened and endangered species and designated critical habitat summary for data action area; identifies fragile fish and shellfish species list (<30 percent impingement survival)

Narrative description of cooling water system and intake structure; proportion of design flow Cooling Water used; water reuse summary; proportion of source water body withdrawn (monthly); seasonal (5)

System Data operation summary; existing impingement mortality and entrainment reduction measures; flow/MW efficiency Chosen Method of Provides facilitys proposed approach to meet the impingement mortality requirement (chosen Compliance with (6) from seven available options); provides detailed study plan for monitoring compliance, if Impingement required by selected compliance option; addresses entrapment where required Mortality Standard Provides summary of relevant entrainment studies (latent mortality, technology efficacy); can Entrainment (7) be from the facility or elsewhere with justification; studies should not be more than 10 years Performance studies old without justification; new studies are not required.

Provides operational status for each unit; age and capacity utilizations for the past five years; upgrades within last 15 years; uprates and Nuclear Regulatory Committee relicensing status (8) Operational Status for nuclear facilities; decommissioning and replacement plans; current and future operation as it relates to actual and design intake flow Requires at least two years of data to sufficiently characterize annual, seasonal, and diel variations in entrainment, including variations related to climate, weather, spawning, feeding, and water column migration; facilities may use historical data that are representative of current operation of the facility and conditions at the site with documentation regarding the Entrainment continued relevance of the data to document total entrainment and entrainment mortality; (9) Characterization includes identifications to the lowest taxon possible; data must be representative of each Study intake; must document how the location of the intake in the water body and water column are accounted for; must document intake flows associated with the data collection; documentation in the study must include the method in which latent mortality would be identified (including QAQC); sampling and data must be appropriate for a quantitative survey Comprehensive Provides an evaluation of technical feasibility and incremental costs of entrainment Technical Feasibility (10) technologies; Net Present Value of facility compliance costs and social costs to be provided;

& Cost Evaluation requires peer review Study Provides a discussion of monetized and non-monetized water quality benefits of candidate entrainment technologies from (r)(10) using data in (r)(9); benefits to be quantified physical or biological units and monetized using appropriate economic valuation methods; includes Benefits Valuation (11) changes in fish stock and harvest levels and description of monetization; must evaluate Study thermal discharges, facility capacity, operations, and reliability; discussion of previous mitigation efforts and affects; benefits to environment and community; social benefits analysis based on principle of willingness-to-pay; requires peer review Non-Water Quality Provides a discussion of non-water quality factors (air emissions and their health and Environmental and environmental impacts, energy penalty, thermal discharge, noise, safety, grid reliability, (12)

Other Impacts consumptive water use, etc.) attributable to the entrainment technologies; requires peer Assessment review Documentation of external peer review, by qualified experts, of submittals (r) (10), (11), and (12). Peer Reviews must be approved by the NPDES Director and present their credentials.

(13) Peer Review The applicant must explain why it disregarded any significant peer reviewer recommendations.

Dominion l 2

Impingement Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station 1.2 Study Plan Objectives and Document Organization The Impingement Characterization Study Plan provided in this report was developed to support the SPS §316(b) compliance project through development of a site-specific impingement study plan that meets and exceeds the requirements of the §316(b) Rule with the following key objectives in mind:

1. Collect data to supplement the submission of data required under §122.21(r)(4),

including a list of species and life stages most susceptible to impingement at the facility including documentation of fragile fish and shellfish species (those with < 30%

impingement survival) 1;

2. Collect data to support Dominions objective of having data sufficient to evaluate biological efficacy of potential alternative intake technologies.

To meet these objectives, this document provides summaries of the stations configuration and operations (Section 2), historical biological sampling efforts conducted at the facility that are relevant to cooling water intake evaluations (Section 3), a summary of Threatened and Endangered Species identified in the vicinity of the facility (Section 4), a sampling program design justification based on this information (Section 5), and the recommended study methods including key parameters of gear, schedule, frequency, and quality control procedures (Section 6).

2 Generating Station Description 2.1 Site and Environmental Description The two nuclear power-generating units at SPS use a once-through cooling water system.

Cooling water for both units is withdrawn from the James River through a common Low-level Cooling Water Intake Structure (CWIS) oriented parallel to, and flush with, the western shore of the James River. SPS is located on the estuarine portion of the James River on the Hog Island peninsula in Surry County Virginia, approximately 25 miles upstream of the river's confluence with the Chesapeake Bay (Figure 2-1). SPS is located approximately 44 miles southeast of Richmond and 9 miles south of Williamsburg. The SPS Low-level CWIS for the two units is located on the east side of the peninsula (Figure 2-2).

The James River watershed encompasses approximately 10,000 square miles, which makes up almost 25 percent of the state. The James River watershed covers about one-third of the Chesapeake Bay drainage area in Virginia. The river flows approximately 340 miles from the Alleghany Mountains of western Virginia to the Chesapeake Bay.

1 40 C.F.R. § 122.21(r)(4) requires applicant to submit available Source Water Baseline Biological Characterization data.

Dominion l 3

Impingement Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Map Source: USGS Topographic Map of Williamsburg, VA; Map ID #37076-A1-TB-100 (1984)

Figure 2-1. Surry Power Station Regional Location Map Dominion l 4

Impingement Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Image Source: Google Earth Retrieved September 8, 2014 Figure 2-2. Aerial View of Surry Power Station Dominion l 5

Impingement Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station The watershed is comprised of three sections: the Upper James watershed begins in Allegheny County and travels through the Allegheny and Blue Ridge Mountains until Lynchburg, the Middle James watershed runs from Lynchburg to Richmond, while the Lower James watershed stretches from Richmond to the Chesapeake Bay (Figure 2-3).

Source: Middle James Roundtable Figure 2-3. The James River Watershed SPS is located on the Lower James River section in the Coastal Uplands Physiographic Province. The James River is approximately 3 miles wide at the SPS location. The land surface is generally flat with steep banks sloping down to the river. Land surface elevations at SPS range from sea level to approximately elevation (EL.) +39 feet. Water elevations at SPS are affected by tides with a mean low tide water level of EL. -1.0 foot and a high tide level of EL. 1.1 feet, resulting in a mean tidal range of 2.1 feet and a mean spring tidal range of 2.5 feet. The average water depth in front of the SPS intakes is 26 feet deep. The average maximum ebb and flood tidal currents at SPS are 2.23 ft/s (0.68 m/s) and 1.90 ft/s (0.58 m/s), respectively. The maximum James River flow at the site is approximately 420,000 cubic feet per second (cfs),

with a monthly mean range of 857 cfs to 39,778 cfs.

A navigation channel is maintained at 24.9 feet and generally courses through the middle of the river. In the vicinity of the SPS CWIS, the river has an abbreviated littoral or shoreline zone as a result of steep bank elevations and the channelized river bottom. The river bed in the vicinity of SPS is composed of soft mud, clay, sand, and pebbles with no single bottom type predominating. General river depths in the region of SPS are provided in the navigational chart provided in Figure 2-4.

Dominion l 6

Impingement Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Source: NOAA Office of Coast Survey Chart 12248 (noaa.gov) Retrieved September 7, 2014 Figure 2-4. General River Depths in the Vicinity of Surry Power Station (Soundings in Feet at Mean Lower Low Water)

Dominion l 7

Impingement Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Salinity concentrations in the James River in the vicinity of SPS characterize the area as the transition region between salt and freshwater. Depending primarily on river discharge, salinity concentrations in the vicinity of SPS can range from 0 ppt to approximately 21 ppt. Despite the large range in salinity covering several salinity zone classifications, for the purposes of this report an oligohaline zone classification (salinity range 0.5-5.0 ppt) is considered representative.

River temperatures in the vicinity of the station ranged from 1.8 °C to 33.8 °C, during 1975-1976 (VEPCO 1977).

2.2 Station Description 2.2.1 Station Operational History SPS is a base-load facility which means the facility serves as one of Dominions primary means of generating the minimum amount of power necessary to meet customer demands.

Accordingly, the facility generally operates twenty-four hours per day, seven days per week, although there is seasonal variation in its operations and maintenance. In the summer months, all pumps are in operation to meet thermal transfer requirements. Generally, in the winter not all eight circulating water pumps operate. Maintenance outages on the generating units are scheduled at regular intervals. The duration of the maintenance outages depends on the type of outage and the scheduled work that needs to be done on the units.

2.2.2 Intake Structure The two nuclear power-generating units at SPS use a once-through cooling water system.

When the facility is generating power, the circulating cooling water system is in operation.

Cooling water for both units is withdrawn from the James River through a common Low-level CWIS oriented parallel to, and flush with, the western shore of the James River (Figure 2-5).

The total design flow at SPS with all pumps working to capacity is approximately 2,535 million gallons per day (MGD) [i.e., 3,922 cfs] to meet the water requirements of the power station.

Approximately 95 percent of the flow withdrawn from the James River is used for cooling water purposes. The remaining water withdrawn is used in the sluice, seals, and screen wash.

At the intake structures, the James River is approximately 3 miles wide and 26 feet deep and flows in a generally southerly direction. The Low-level CWIS consists of eight screen bays and is equipped with eight Ristroph traveling water screens. Eight circulating water pumps, located downstream of each low-level screen, convey screened water flow to a common high-level intake canal for both units. Water flows down the high-level intake canal to a secondary (high-level intake) screen house at the facility with conventional traveling water screens.

Trash racks extend across each of the eight intake bays to prevent debris from entering the Low-level intakes. Each trash rack has 1/2-inch-wide fiberglass reinforced plastic bars with 4.0-inch spacing, providing a 3.5-inch clear opening. The trash racks have a 1H:12V slope and are 18 feet wide. A curtain wall extends down to El. -8.5 feet, approximately 3.8 feet below the minimum water level, approximately 6 feet downstream of each trash rack.

Dominion l 8

Impingement Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Figure 2-5. Low-level Intake Structure Location (37°0922 N, 76°4016 W)

The intake contains eight screen bays (15.3 feet wide), equipped with Ristroph traveling water screens (See Figure 2-6) located approximately 17 feet downstream from the bottom of each trash rack. The Low-level intake is the §316(b) compliance point at SPS. Plan and section views of the Low-level CWIS are provided on Figures 2-7 and 2-8, respectively.The screens at SPS have been modified substantially from their original design. Prior to 1974, SPS had conventional traveling screens at the high-level intake structure and no screens at the Low-level intake structure. Starting in 1974, the Low-level intake was fitted with modified Ristroph traveling water screens to maximize fish survival potential. These Ristroph traveling water screens contained 2 foot-high and 14 foot-wide baskets with 3/8-inch [0.146 square inch (in2)] square mesh openings.

In the early 1990s, the original Ristroph traveling water screens were modified to include 1/8-inch by 1/2-inch rectangular mesh openings. Each screen basket has a 2 inch-deep by 5.5 inch-wide steel fish bucket. The screens are designed for continuous operation and can rotate at a slow speed (approximately 5 feet per minute (ft/min)) or a fast speed (approximately 10 ft/min) in a manual mode. At times of high fish abundance or low river levels, the screens can be rotated at fast speed, reducing impingement time to approximately 1.5 minutes or less.

The outside spray wash has 12 spray nozzles. A single return trough is located upstream of the screens that transports organisms and debris back to the river approximately 1,000 feet south (downstream) of the intake structure and approximately 300 feet from the shore. Transported organisms are therefore discharged away from the hydrodynamic zone of influence of the Low-level CWIS.

Dominion l 9

Impingement Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Source: VEPCO (1980)

Figure 2-6. Details of Surry Power Station Ristroph Traveling Water Screen at Low-level Cooling Water Intake Structure Dominion l 10

Impingement Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Source: CH2M HILL (2006)

Figure 2-7. Plan View of Surry Power Station Low-level Cooling Water Intake Structure Source: CH2M HILL (2006)

Figure 2-8. Typical Section View of Surry Power Station Low-level Cooling Water Intake Structure Dominion l 11

Impingement Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station 3 Historical Studies Past fisheries studies conducted at SPS which are pertinent to §316(b) include the following:

• June 2005 - May 2006 Entrainment Study (EA 2006)

• May 1974 to May 1983 Impingement Studies (CH2M HILL 2006)

• September 2005 - June 2006 Adult and Juvenile Finfish Sampled by Beach Seine and Otter Trawl (EA 2006)

• June 2005 - May 2006 Ambient Ichthyoplankton Study (EA 2006)

• 1970 - 1978 Adult and Juvenile Finfish Sampled by Haul Seine and Otter Trawl (VEPCO 1980)

For the purposes of development of this study plan, historical Impingement Studies from 1974 to 1983 (CH2M HILL 2006) and Ambient Adult and Juvenile Finfish Sampling (EA 2006 and VEPCO 1980) are summarized in the sub-sections below.

3.1 Impingement Studies Virginia Electric Power Company (VEPCO) collected impingement monitoring data from May 1974 to May 1983. The impingement monitoring data consist of discrete fish samples (identified to species and size groups) that were extrapolated to daily, weekly, and annual estimates of impingement and fish survival. Details of the VEPCO impingement sampling program are presented in Table 3-1.

Table 3-1. VEPCO Impingement Sampling Details Impingement Details Units Sampled Units 1 and 2 Sampling Location Low level cooling water intake structure Surveys from May 1974 to Almost daily (Monday through Friday)

May 1983 Sampling Frequency Two consecutive 5-minute impingement samples taken daily Screen wash water trough was fitted with a Y-shaped section with a Sampling Method flop gate that allowed wash water to be diverted into an in-ground holding pool.

A single unit of effort was obtained by diverting the entire flow of screen Sample Duration wash water from the trough into the holding pool for a 5-minute period.

Fishes were collected in a D-frame dip net after the water in the holding Sampling Gear pool was drained.

Water Quality Temperature, conductivity and salinity measured with Beckman RS5-3 Measurements portable salinometer during each sampling Seasonal trends in impingement exist for many of the fish species. Seasonal impingement rates varied among the 10 top species, with Spot and Menhaden occurring in the samples primarily in summer and early fall (Figure 3-1). In contrast, White Perch, Blueback Herring, and Threadfin Dominion l 12

Impingement Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Shad were infrequently impinged during these months, primarily being found in the samples in the late fall and winter months. Bay Anchovy were dominant only in the spring.

Two of the top six dominant impinged species, Spot and White Perch, represented game fish species. Other game fish species impinged, in order of numerical dominance, included Atlantic Croaker, White Catfish, Brown Bullhead, and Channel Catfish. Of these species, the catfishes were impinged at a relatively constant level throughout the year. Atlantic Croaker showed highest impingement rates between March and May.

Source: CH2M HILL (2006)

Figure 3-1. Surry Power Station Seasonal Impingement Variation for Top 10 Species Using 1974 to 1983 Impingement Data Dominion l 13

Impingement Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station 3.2 James River Studies 3.2.1 Trawl and Seine Sampling, 2005-2006 Ambient juvenile and adult fish sampling collections were conducted quarterly along with entrainment studies during June 2005 - May 2006 and sampled at three stations by otter trawl and beach haul seines - one upstream, one downstream, and one near the station intakes. At each station, 30.5 meters of shoreline were seined and one otter trawl was conducted for a 10-minute period. Larger fish were identified, measured, and weighed in the field, and smaller fish were preserved and subsequently processed in the laboratory.

The fish and shellfish collected in 2005 - 2006 were considered representative for that year.

Twenty-four species of finfish and one shellfish (Blue Crab) were collected. Blue Catfish, Bay Anchovy, Atlantic Silverside, Spot, Hogchoker, Inland Silverside and White Perch were the most abundant species collected, and accounted for 90 percent of the total catch (Table 3-2). With regards to the catfish, results are consistent with studies that have documented the increasing abundance of Blue Catfish following their successful introduction as a sport fish in the James, Rappahannock, and Mattaponi rivers from 1974 through 1989, and decreasing abundance of White and Channel Catfish (Connelly 2001; NOAA 2014).

3.2.2 Trawl and Seine Sampling, 1970-1978 VEPCO (1980) conducted monthly haul seine and monthly otter trawls in the vicinity of SPS as part of a §316(b) demonstration from 1970 through 1978 (Figure 3-2; 3-3). A total of 63 native and introduced species was collected by haul seines. During the study period, 5 species comprised over three-fourths or 75.5 percent of the total number of fishes collected in the monthly haul seine program (Table 3-3). These species were Atlantic Menhaden, Blueback Herring, Bay Anchovy, Tidewater Silverside and Spottail Shiner. The otter trawl samples reflected a different fish capture selectivity and Hogchoker, Spot, Channel Catfish, Bay Anchovy and Atlantic Croaker were the most commonly collected taxa (Table 3-4).

Dominion l 14

Impingement Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Table 3-2. Number of Fish and Shellfish Collected during Quarterly Otter Trawl and Haul Seine Sampling near Surry Power Station, 2005 - 2006 September November January June Species (1 Survey) (1 Survey) (1 Survey) (1 Survey)

American Eel 1 Bay Anchovy 127 46 69 47 Alewife 6 Blueback Herring 3 2 Hickory Shad 1 Gizzard Shad 7 2 Atlantic Menhaden 2 13 3 Common Carp 3 4 2 1 Blue Catfish 160 110 30 140 Channel Catfish 1 White Catfish 8 1 1 White Mullet 2 Atlantic Silverside 211 5 31 Inland Silverside 135 Atlantic Needlefish 2 White Perch 24 31 69 10 Striped Bass 3 3 5 2 Sand Perch 5 Bluefish 1 1 Atlantic Croaker 2 1 14 49 Silver Perch 17 Spot 75 109 15 Weakfish 1 3 Harvestfish 3 Hogchoker 30 14 126 9 Blue Crab 4 2 Total 669 351 366 418 Source: Table 12 of EA 2006 Dominion l 15

Impingement Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Source: VEPCO (1980)

Figure 3-2. Location of Surry Power Station Monthly Haul Seine, 1970 - 1978 Dominion l 16

Impingement Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Source: VEPCO (1980)

Figure 3-3. Location of Surry Power Station Monthly Otter Trawl Sampling, 1970 - 1978 Dominion l 17

Impingement Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Table 3-3. Top 10 Fish Collected During Monthly Haul Seine Sampling, 1970 - 1978 Rank Scientific Name Common Name Percent Composition (%)

1 BREVOORTIA TYRANNUS Atlantic Menhaden 26.6 2 ALOSA AESTIVALIS Blueback Herring 14.1 3 ANCHOA MITCHILLI Bay Anchovy 13.2 4 MENIDIA BERYLLINA Tidewater Silverside 13.2 5 NOTROPIS HUDSONIUS Spottail Shiner 8.4 6 MENIDIA MENIDIA Atlantic Silverside 5.9 7 LEIOSTOMUS XANTHURUS Spot 5.6 8 ALOSA PSEUDOHARENGUS Alewife 2.6 9 ALOSA SAPIDISSIMA American Shad 1.8 10 MORONE AMERICANA White Perch 1.8 Total 93.2 Source: Modified from Table 4 of VEPCO 1980 Table 3-4. Top 10 Fish Collected During Monthly Otter Trawl Sampling, 1970 - 1978 Rank Scientific Name Common Name Percent Composition (%)

1 TRINECTES MACULATUS Hogchoker 27.6 2 LEIOSTOMUS XANTHURUS Spot 22.1 3 ICTALURUS PUNCTATUS Channel Catfish 13.0 4 ANCHOA MITCHILLI Bay Anchovy 9.5 5 MICROPOGON UNDULATUS Atlantic Croaker 9.4 6 MORONE AMERICANA White Perch 5.1 7 ICTALURUS CATUS White Catfish 4.0 8 NOTROPIS HUDSONIUS Spottail Shiner 2.5 9 DOROSOMA PETENENSE Threadfin Shad 2.2 10 ANGUILLA ROSTRATA American Eel 0.7 Total 96.1 Source: Modified from Table 11 of VEPCO 1980 Dominion l 18

Impingement Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station 4 Threatened and Endangered Species EPA consulted with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (or collectively, Services) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) during development of the existing facilities §316(b) Rule. The Services concluded that the Rule is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. Among other requirements, §122.21(r)(4) requires that facilities submit, to the extent such data is available, a list of species (or relevant taxa) for all life stages and their relative abundance in the vicinity of the cooling water intake structure, and identify all threatened, endangered, and other protected species that might be susceptible to impingement and entrainment at your cooling water intake structure. The text below provides a review of listed species associated with SPS to support development of this Impingement Characterization Study Plan.

The Virginia Fish and Wildlife Information Service (VAFWIS) database, managed by the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) and the USFWS Information, Planning, and Conservation System were consulted on August 20, 2014 to develop a list of Federal and state of Virginia endangered and threatened species known or likely to occur within a 2-mile radius of SPS (See Table 4-1) 2. Additionally, the complete list of threatened and endangered species that occur in the state of Virginia (USFWS 2014) was reviewed and compared against the list of threatened and endangered species under NMFS jurisdiction (NMFS 2014) to confirm that NMFS species were not omitted from the list. A review of scientific literature and other documents was also conducted, including a NMFS Biological Opinion and Letter of Concurrence for projects proposed to occur near the vicinity of the CWIS; those documents were used to confirm that marine species under the jurisdiction of NMFS were appropriately considered. Additionally, for each species with the potential to occur in the vicinity of the CWIS, the USFWS or NMFS species profile was reviewed to confirm that no critical habitat was designated. A review of the following resources was used to develop the species list in Table 4-1.

• VAFWIS (http://vafwis.org/fwis/)

• IPAC (http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/)

• USFWS Listings and Occurrence for Virginia (http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/pub/stateListingAndOccurrenceIndividual.jsp?state=VA&

s8fid=112761032792&s8fid=112762573902)

Endangered and Threatened Species Under NMFS Jurisdiction (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/listed.htm) 2 Using the VAFWIS, the minimum radius that can be screened for is a 2-mile radius from the center of the power station. There is no determination that species found within a 2-mile radius of SPS are susceptible to impingement.

Similarly, the occurrence of a species on the Services Information, Planning, and Conservation System, which provides a search area encompassing both terrestrial and aquatic habitats, does not necessarily indicate that the species is likely to be present in the source water body.

Dominion l 19

Impingement Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Table 4-1. Federal and State Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species with the Potential to Occur within 2 miles of the Cooling Water Intake of Surry Power Station Potential for Impingement of Common Name Scientific Name Status* Tier** Potential to Occur within 2 miles of the Intake Adults and Juveniles FISH Acipenser Atlantic Sturgeona FE, SE II Likelyc Highly improbable oxyrinchus Blackbanded Enneacanthus No - Freshwater species only known to exist in SE I No Sunfisha chaetodon the Chowan River drainaged REPTILES Kemp's Ridley Lepidochelys Improbable - may be present near the confluence FE, SE Highly improbable Sea Turtlea kempii of the James Rivere Leatherback Sea Dermochelys Improbable - may be present near the confluence FE, SE Highly improbable Turtlea coriacea of the James Rivere Loggerhead Sea Improbable - may be present near the confluence Caretta caretta FT, ST I Highly improbable Turtlea of the James Rivere Deirochelys Eastern Chicken No - interdunal ponds and sinkhole complexes reticularia SE I No Turtlea that experience seasonal water fluctuationsf reticularia Canebrake Crotalus horridus SE II No - terrestrial No Rattlesnakea AMPHIBIANS Eastern Tiger Ambystoma No - aquatic habitats include ditches, vernal SE II No Salamandera tigrinum ponds, and rarely, sluggish streamsg No - fish-free vernal ponds or ephemeral coastal Mabees Ambystoma ST II plain sinkholes up to 1.5 meters deep, with No Salamandera mabeei surrounding forestsh Dominion l 20

Impingement Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Potential for Impingement of Common Name Scientific Name Status* Tier** Potential to Occur within 2 miles of the Intake Adults and Juveniles No - breeds in cypress ponds and bays, and in pine barren ponds; open canopied ponds; all Barking Treefroga Hyla gratiosa ST II No Virginia breeding sites were found in graminoid dominated temporary ponds.i BIRDS Red Cockaded Picoides borealis FE, SE I No - terrestrial No Woodpeckera Charadrius Piping Plovera FT, ST I No - terrestrial No melodus Calidris canutus Red Knota FP IV No - terrestrial No rufa Laterallus Black Raila SE I No - terrestrial No jamaicensis Peregrine Falcona Falco peregrinus ST I No - terrestrial No Upland Bartramia ST I No - terrestrial No Sandpipera longicauda Loggerhead Lanius ST I No - terrestrial No Shrikea ludovicianus Henslow's Ammodramus ST I No - terrestrial No Sparrowa henslowii Migrant Lanius Loggerhead ludovicianus ST No - terrestrial No Shrikea migrans MAMMALS Northern Long- Myotis FP No - terrestrial No Eared Bata septentrionalis Dominion l 21

Impingement Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Potential for Impingement of Common Name Scientific Name Status* Tier** Potential to Occur within 2 miles of the Intake Adults and Juveniles Rafinesque's Corynorhinus Eastern Big- rafinesquii SE I No - terrestrial No eared Bata macrotis No - associated with a heavy ground cover; can Southeastern be found in all successional stages from grassy Sorex longirostris Dismal Swamp ST IV openings to closed forests, generally in moist to No fisheri Shrewa wet areas in or bordering swamps, marshes, or rivers.j PLANTS Sensitive Joint- Aeschynomene No - typically grows in the intertidal zone of FT No Vetchb virginica coastal marshesi Status* Tier** for State-listed Species FE= Federally Endangered I=VA Wildlife Action Plan - Tier I - Critical Conservation Need; FT= Federally Threatened II=VA Wildlife Action Plan - Tier II - Very High Conservation Need; SE= State Endangered III=VA Wildlife Action Plan - Tier III - High Conservation Need; ST= State Threatened IV=VA Wildlife Action Plan - Tier IV - Moderate Conservation Need FP= Federally Proposed Source:

aVirginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries; Fish and Wildlife Information Service bU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Information, Planning, and Conservation System cNMFS 2012a, dKercher 2006, eVDGIF 2014a, fVDGIF 2014b, gVDGIF 2014c, hVDGIF 2014d, iVDGIF 2014e, and jUSFWS 2012 Dominion l 22

Impingement Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station

• Biological Opinion of James River Federal Navigation Project: Tribell Shoal Channel to Richmond Harbor in Surry, James City, Prince George, Charles City, Henrico, and Chesterfield Counties and the Cities of Richmond and Hopewell, Virginia (FINER/2012/01183).

• Letter of concurrence, from Mr. D.M. Morris, NMFS, to Ms. Amy Hull, Nuclear Regulatory Commission that continued operation Surry Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2 is not likely to adversely affect species listed by NMFS.

• USFWS or NMFS Species Profile (http://www.fws.gov/endangered/, or http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/listed.htm)

Note that only Federal and State threatened and endangered species were included in Table 4-

1. Federal species of concern and candidate species were omitted from the list (unless they were also State Threatened or Endangered), because there are no requirements to address those species under Section 7 of the ESA.

The majority of the species in Table 4-1 are terrestrial species or occur in habitats that are not in the vicinity of the SPS cooling water intake structure (CWIS) and thus would not be subject to entrainment or impingement at the facility. Additional literature was reviewed to identify aquatic species that do not occur near the CWIS and thus should be eliminated from further consideration; these documents are cited in Table 4-1.

Kemps Ridley (endangered), Leatherback (endangered), and Loggerhead (threatened) Sea Turtles occur seasonally in Chesapeake Bay and may be present and forage near the confluence of the James River near Hampton Roads and Portsmouth, Virginia. However, the facility is approximately 25 miles upstream of where sea turtles are expected to occur (NMFS 2012a, NMFS 2012b). At the vicinity of the facility, the James River is classified as oligohaline with salinities ranging from 0.5-5.0 ppt, considered representative. This salinity range does not support sea turtle habitat or their forage base, which includes estuarine and marine species such as whelks, crabs, and other shellfish and benthic invertebrates for Loggerheads and Kemp's Ridleys; sea grasses and marine algae for Green Sea Turtles, and cnidarians, salps, jellyfish and tunicates for Leatherback Sea Turtles (NMFS 2012b). Therefore, high quality forage habitat is not located near the facility. As such, listed sea turtles are not expected to swim, forage, or rest in the vicinity of the cooling water intake and thus generally not be subject to direct impacts by the cooling water intake system.

Atlantic Sturgeon (listed as both endangered and threatened) 3 spawn in the James River with a primary spawning area at least 50 miles upstream of the SPS intake and a second area of potentially suitable habitat located approximately 25 miles upstream (refer to Appendix A for more detail).

3 Atlantic Sturgeon originating from the New York Bight, Chesapeake Bay, South Atlantic and Carolina Distinct Population Segments (DPSs) are listed as endangered. Those originating from the Gulf of Maine DPS are listed as threatened. Atlantic Sturgeon from these five DPSs have the potential to occur in the James River and the vicinity of the SPS cooling water intake; however, the majority of the spawning adults are likely to originate from the James River and thus, the Chesapeake Bay DPS (NMFS 2012a).

Dominion l 23

Impingement Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Atlantic Sturgeon eggs are adhesive and demersal and occur only on the spawning grounds (Hildebrand and Schroeder 1927). Spawning is expected to April through June (temperatures for spawning can range from 13-26C); some evidence exists that spawning might occur in the fall as well, with high adult usage in the river from August through November (Balazik et al.

2012, Secor et al. 2012). Eggs can hatch in 4-7 days depending on temperature (Gilbert 1989; Hildebrand and Schroeder 1927). At hatching, Atlantic Sturgeon larvae are large bodied and are assumed to undertake a demersal existence in the same areas where they were spawned (ASMFC 2012, Bath et al. 1981). A more detailed account of Atlantic Sturgeon life history, including habitat distribution and size at age and other characteristics is presented in Appendix A.

Impingement occurs when a fish cannot swim fast enough to escape the intake (e.g., the fish's swimming ability is overtaken by the velocity of water being drawn into the intake). The approach velocity at SPS's trash racks is 0.98 feet per second (fps), with a through-rack velocity of 1.12 fps. In order for impingement to happen, a fish must be overcome by the intake or approach velocity. As provided in Appendix A, young of the year (yearling), juvenile and adult Atlantic Sturgeon may occur in the vicinity of the facilitys intake 4. Shortnose Sturgeon, while not expected to occur in the vicinity of the SPS intake, are well studied and have swimming capabilities expected to be representative of Atlantic Sturgeon. Juvenile and adult Shortnose Sturgeon (body lengths greater than 58.1 cm) can avoid impingement at intakes with velocities as high as 3.0 fps (Kynard et al. 2005 as cited in NMFS 2012a). Shortnose Sturgeon with body lengths greater than 28 cm have been demonstrated to avoid impingement at intakes with velocities of 1.0 fps (Kynard et al. 2005 as cited in NMFS 2012a). Assuming that Atlantic Sturgeon have swimming capabilities at least equal to shortnose sturgeon, Atlantic Sturgeon in the vicinity of the intake should also be able to avoid becoming impinged on the trash racks and intake screens. This is a reasonable assumption given that the Atlantic Sturgeon that would be present in the vicinity of the intake are at least of a similar size to the juvenile and adult shortnose sturgeon tested by Kynard et al. (2005) and because these species have similar body forms. As a result, impingement of Atlantic Sturgeon is highly improbable to occur at SPS.

This is confirmed through the 2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission initiated ESA Section 7 consultation with NMFS that followed the listing of the Chesapeake Bay DPS of Atlantic Sturgeon as endangered. NMFS (2012a) reviewed a variety of materials as part of the consultation, and concluded based on information from NRC, Dominion, and other sources, all effects to listed species will be insignificant or discountable. Therefore, the continued operation of Surry 1 and 2 is not likely to adversely affect any listed species under NMFS jurisdiction.

For the purposes of this study plan, it is assumed that the only listed fin-fish species with the potential to occur in the source water of the SPS is Atlantic Sturgeon. Because of its well 4 While no federal threatened or endangered species were collected during the impingement studies from 1974 to 1983, entrainment studies from 1970 to 1978 or 2005 - 2006, 2005 - 2006 ambient ichthyoplankton study, or 2005-2006 trawl or seine study, four sturgeon were collected in the trawl sampling from 1970 to 1978, indicating that juvenile or adult sturgeon have the potential to occur in the vicinity of the facility.

Dominion l 24

Impingement Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station developed swimming capabilities, impingement of healthy Atlantic Sturgeon is considered highly improbable. Although no Atlantic Sturgeon are expected to be encountered as part of this study, because of its protected status, this study plan includes handling methods focused on reducing stress and quickly releasing Atlantic Sturgeon, in the improbable event that they are collected in impingement samples.

5 Basis for Sampling Design HDR preformed a site visit at SPS on August 19, 2014 to evaluate potential impingement sampling options for the Low-level CWIS, the point of §316(b) compliance at the facility. The eight screen wash housings at the Low-level CWIS are arranged in a row and discharge into a common fish return trough which exits to the south of the intake. The fish return trough extends approximately 1,000 feet downstream and approximately 300 feet offshore where it discharges into the James River below the surface of the water. Sampling of screenwash from individual screens was determined to be impracticable due to the limited space available to install an impingement sampling net or basket in the trough sections prior to their joining the common fish discharge trough and because the force of the water entering such a sampling device would result in increased mortality to the organisms collected in the device and thus compromise the planned initial impingement survival assessments that are an important component of the sampling objectives.

Based on these findings, it was determined that the preferred impingement sampling location would be from the common fish return trough south of the Low-level CWIS. Specifically, impingement sample collections will be conducted by diverting the screen wash water into the fish holding pen located in the existing housing designated for impingement study (i.e.,

impingement building hereafter). Impingement sample collection events will be conducted twice per month over a 12-month study period from August 1, 2015 to July 31, 2016. Impingement sampling will be conducted every 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> over a 24-hour period. The targeted sample duration will be approximately 30 minutes within each 4-hour period, or 15 minutes if more than 400 fish and shellfish have been collected in the same sampling time slot of the prior sampling event.

This frequency is selected in order to capture efficiencies available from having field staff already on site for the Entrainment Characterization Study. The sub-sample durations of 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> and 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> for impingement and entrainment characterization studies, respectively are expected to allow a single field crew sufficient time to conduct both studies within a single 24-hour period. The sample duration and frequency selected for the current impingement study will provide finfish and invertebrate (shellfish) taxonomic identifications, seasonal impingement density distributions, diel variation, and initial impingement survival. One year of study is anticipated to be sufficient to achieve the project objects.

The approach for development of the specific impingement characterizations required in

§122.21(r) is summarized in Table 5-1.

Dominion l 25

Impingement Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Table 5-1. Summary of Approach for Development of §122.21(r) Impingement Characterizations Data Use of Data 122.21(r)(4) requirement to provide available Evaluation of species and life stage composition and densities data regarding species most susceptible to based on 2015-2016 Impingement Study impingement 122.21(r)(4) requirement to provide available data regarding identification of fragile fish and Evaluation of literature values and initial impingement survival shellfish species (<30% impingement values from 2015-2016 Impingement Study survival)

Evaluation of densities in 6-hour sample collections in the 2015-Diel variation 2016 Impingement Study Evaluation of the 2015-2016 Impingement Study data relative to Variation related to climate and weather water temperature and weather events (e.g., rain events)

Evaluation of the 2015-2016 Impingement Study monthly Period of occurrence densities Impingement data to support alternative Evaluation of the 2015-2016 Impingement Study densities, length technology evaluations and weight data, and initial impingement survival 6 Impingement Characterization Study Plan 6.1 Introduction This section of the Study Plan provides methods, materials, and procedures for impingement sample collection and processing. Any failures at the sampling or laboratory analysis stage are often uncorrectable because design-specified sampling times cannot be repeated once they have passed. Therefore, Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and a Quality Assurance (QA)

Plan will be developed by the contractor performing the field studies for the impingement sample collection and processing based on this Study Plan and the contractors preferred methods, datasheets and equipment to eliminate, reduce, and/or quantify those errors.

Adherence to sample collection SOPs will be observed and documented through regular technical assessments. These technical assessments will be conducted by a QA officer, who is independent of those individuals collecting and generating the data during the study and has experience in performing QA/QC programs for aquatic monitoring surveys, and will be scheduled to occur at least quarterly throughout the course of the study. The specific requirements are to be developed by the contractor performing the work, will incorporate a checklist of items to be inspected based on the SOPs, and will include observations relevant to performance of sampling that may not be covered by the SOP. Careful attention will be paid to the initiation of the study when staff may be less familiar with the SOPs.

Dominion l 26

Impingement Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station 6.2 Safety Policy All work performed under the direction of Dominion Environmental Services (DES) and/or Dominion Business Units (BU) on Dominion properties and/or on properties owned or operated by third parties (i.e., not owned or operated by the contractor or Dominion) is to be performed using safe work practices that are at least equivalent to those required for Dominion personnel and of any third party owner or operator. At a minimum, all contractors are expected to be aware of, and adhere to, Dominions Corporate Safety Policy, DES Safety Work Practices and any BU or other location-specific safety policies and procedures.

6.3 Field Collection Procedures An overview of the Impingement Characterization Study Plan methods is provided in Table 6-1.

Upon arrival at the plant, the crew will check in with facility security and operations personnel prior to commencing any on-site activities. Prior to the start of each 24-hour impingement sampling event, the crew with the assistance of an operations engineer or designee will document the screens are operating under normal operating conditions. The number of operating cooling water pumps will be documented.

Table 6-1. Impingement Sampling Details Impingement Details Units to be Sampled Units 1 and 2 August 1, 2015 - July 31, 2016 Twice per month sampling events (within the first and third week of Sampling Events each month) for 12 months [2/month x 12 months = 24 sampling events]

Daily Collection Schedule Samples collected every 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> in a 24-hr period (6 collections / 24-hr period)

Targeted Organisms Adult and juvenile fish and shellfish Sampling Location Sample common fish return trough screenwash after diversion to a fish holding pen Sampling Gear 1 8-inch x 1 2-inch mesh basket on the exit to the fish holding pen Sample Duration 30 minutes as the target interval (every 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />); minimum of 15 minutes allowed if heavy debris loads and/or fish collections Number of Samples per 6 sample collections/survey Survey Total Number of Samples 6 samples/survey x 2 surveys/month x 12 months = 144 samples Consideration must be made to ensure the sampling event does not interfere with plant operation nor result in risk to health and safety of field personnel. Specific sampling details associated with each 4-hour sampling period are as follows:

• Circulating water pump status, traveling screen and rake status will be documented for each Unit, pump and intake bay.

Dominion l 27

Impingement Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station

• If no circulating water pumps are operating, sampling will be rescheduled; periods of one unit operation are anticipated and should not affect the schedule, and screens should not be rotated for a unit that is not operating during impingement sampling.

• At the start of impingement sampling, the screen wash water from the fish return discharge trough will be diverted into the fish holding pen by opening the flop gate in the Y-shaped diversion section.

• A minimum water level of 1 foot will be maintained in the fish holding pen during the diversion of fish return discharge water to protect fish entering the holding pen.

• At the end of the sample collection period the flop gate will be pushed back to stop the diversion of the screen wash water into the holding pen.

• After the 30-minute sample time (or 15 minutes depending on debris loading and fish volume) has passed the flop gate in the fish return trough will be returned to its normal position and the holding pen will be slowly drained to allow access into the pen for collection of the finfish and shellfish impinged during that time interval.

• Following completion of each sampling time, the crew will promptly retrieve the catch from the fish holding pen and analyze the catch.

• If analysis cannot be done immediately the contents of the collection event will be put in a plastic bag, placed on ice and analyzed as soon as possible; this will preclude handling procedures of Sturgeon (see Section 6.4.4) and evaluations of initial impingement survival.

• After collection of the impingement sample, the fish will be separated from the debris and prepared for analysis.

• Collected finfish and shellfish will be processed and analyzed for identification, enumeration and length/weight measurements.

• Initial impingement survival data will be collected for the first 10 minutes of sample processing only during each hourly sampling (See Section 6.4.1).

• Water quality parameters (i.e., water temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, salinity and conductivity) will be taken from the fish return trough (inside the impingement building) and in the fish holding pen with a calibrated water quality analyzer (see instrument specifications above). In addition, water quality sampling will be conducted at the entrainment location at near-surface, mid-depth, and near-bottom depths approximately every 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br />.

• A voucher collection will be maintained for the project representing each species collected during impingement. Vouchered fish will be collected from the site and fixed in unstained 10 percent formalin. After a period of at least 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br />, the fish will be Dominion l 28

Impingement Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station transferred to 70 percent ethanol after being soaked in water for at least 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> and up to one week.

• Other climatic data such as rain, cloud cover, wind speed and direction, etc. shall also be recorded on the datasheet.

• At the end of each 24-hour sampling event the crew will notify the facility engineer or designee that impingement sampling has concluded.

6.3.1 Location Impingement samples will be collected from the common fish return trough south of the Low-level CWIS. The water will be diverted into a fish holding pen in the impingement building adjacent to the fish return trough. See Figures 6-1 and 6-2 for the impingement sampling location, and pictures of the fish return trough, fish holding pen and the basket to cover the drain of the fish holding pen, respectively.

Figure 6-1. Surry Power Station Impingement Sampling Location, 2015 - 2016 Dominion l 29

Impingement Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Figure 6-2. Pictures of Surry Power Station Fish Return Trough, Fish Holding Pen and Basket to Cover the Drain of Fish Holding Pen 6.3.2 Equipment Sampling equipment will be acquired and/or constructed according to specifications in this Study Plan. Adequate backup equipment will be provided to ensure the study design can be followed in the event of equipment failure or loss. Prior to initiation of sampling, equipment will be tested or otherwise confirmed to meet specifications. A calibration program will be instituted for equipment requiring calibration that must be consistent with Dominions instrumentation calibration and maintenance practice document (See Appendix B).

The following list includes the minimum items expected to be required for impingement sample collection:

• Balance/Electronic Scale/Spring scale (accurate to the nearest gram)

• Calibrated weights

• Sorting bin

• Table to weigh and measure on

• Measuring boards (accurate to the nearest millimeter)

• Scissors, forceps Dominion l 30

Impingement Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station

• Disposable Nitrile gloves

• Paper towels

• Field Binder w/ pens, pencils, SOP, data sheets, QC sheets, etc.

• Calculator

• Plastic buckets (both 2 quart & 5 gallon)

• Plastic bags (large, small, & Ziploc), labels, & twist ties

• Taxonomic keys

• Cooler(s) with ice

• Calibrated 5-gallon bucket for debris volume estimates

• Certified thermometers (2)

• pH pens (3) & standards

• Watch

• 500-ml plastic bottles for water quality QC

• Portable water quality meters (2) as described below 5 o Handheld Salinity, Conductivity & Temperature meters (2) with autoranging scales (e.g., YSI Model 30 or equivalent) with the following minimum specifications:

Conductivity ranges of 0 to 500 µS/cm and 0-200 mS/cm with an accuracy of +/- 0.5 % full scale Salinity range of 0 to 80 ppt with an accuracy of +/- 2 % or +/- 0.1 ppt Temperature range of -5 to 45 °C with an accuracy of +/- 0.2 °C o Handheld Dissolved Oxygen & Temperature meters (2) with autoranging scales (e.g., YSI Model 55 or equivalent) with the following minimum specifications:

Dissolved Oxygen % Saturation ranging from 0 to 200 % with an accuracy of +/- 2 %

Dissolved Oxygen mg/L ranging from 0 to 2 mg/L with an accuracy of +/-

0.3 mg/L Temperature range of -5 to 45 °C with an accuracy of +/- 0.2 °C o Portable pH meters (2) with the following minimum specifications:

pH range of 0 to 14 units with an accuracy of +/- 0.2 units

• Calibration solutions as required for the water quality instrumentation

• Buckets/Containers with calibrated 0.5 gal. graduations; 1-, 3-, and 5-gallon sizes, or as dictated by debris load.

• Shovels/scoops as necessary

• Digital camera

• Nitrile or latex gloves

• Hand sanitizer

• Identification keys for aquatic vegetation 6.3.3 Sampling Schedule The program anticipates sampling for 12 consecutive months with the 24 sampling events conducted over the August 1, 2015 - July 31, 2016 period. Each sampling event will encompass a 24-hour period with six, four-hour subsampling periods centered around 0100, 0500, 0900, 1300, 1700, and 2100 hours0.0243 days <br />0.583 hours <br />0.00347 weeks <br />7.9905e-4 months <br />. Sampling events will be distributed within the first and third week 5

A multiple parameter water quality meter may be used provided it meets the minimum specifications outlined for the individual meters.

Dominion l 31

Impingement Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station of each month for the 12-month period. If a sampling event is missed due to weather or other events, the scheduled sampling event will be conducted within 96 hours0.00111 days <br />0.0267 hours <br />1.587302e-4 weeks <br />3.6528e-5 months <br /> of resolution of the complicating event.

6.3.4 Water Quality Measurements Water quality parameters (i.e., water temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, salinity and conductivity) will be taken from the fish return trough (inside the impingement building) and in the fish holding pen with a calibrated water quality analyzer (see instrument specifications above). In addition, water quality sampling will be conducted at the entrainment location at near-surface, mid-depth, and near-bottom depths approximately every three hours.

Quality control for water quality data collection will be performed twice per sampling event (once per 12-hour shift) using either a second calibrated water quality meter or by collecting water samples for wet chemistry analysis. Calibration of water quality equipment will be consistent with the Field Instrumentation: Calibration and Standardizations requirements in Appendix B.

6.4 Collection Processing The following collection processing will be accomplished on-site:

• All fish and macroinvertebrates will be identified to the lowest practical taxonomic level and enumerated.

• In addition, the following, fish and shellfish will be enumerated on site and preserved in 5% Formalin solution for laboratory identification and morphometrics:

Up to 20 age-0 or age-1 river herring (Alewife and Blueback Herring) per impingement sample will be preserved for laboratory identification by dissection (age-2 and older river herring are expected to be able to be identified to species in the field).

If more than 20 age-0 and age-1 river herring are collected in a sample, these additional fish will be identified and enumerated as river herring or Alosa spp. on field datasheets. River herring will be identified in the laboratory by dissection and examination of the peritoneum. External identifying characteristics will also be noted for laboratory identified river herring in order to facilitate possible future field identification of these species.

Up to 10 shrimp per impingement sample will be preserved for laboratory identification and morphometrics.

• For each 4-hour sample period, up to 15 randomly selected live and fresh dead fish from each species collected will be measured for total length, maximum body width, and maximum body depth to the nearest millimeter and weighed to the nearest gram; no more than 100 measurements of each species are required within a 24-hour impingement sampling event.

• All balances will be checked against standard weights on each day that they are used and the results will be recorded.

Dominion l 32

Impingement Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station

• Threatened or endangered species will be processed immediately. Refer to Section 6.4.4 Handling Procedures for Atlantic Sturgeon for more detail.

• Debris collected during a sampling event will be categorized and an estimate of volume for each category will be recorded in the datasheet.

• Following analysis of the catch and categorization of the debris, all organisms and fish will be placed in an appropriate trash receptacle to eliminate potential for re-impingement.

Refer to Appendix C for a summary of key data to be collected during the study.

6.4.1 Initial Impingement Survival Initial impingement survival data will be collected for only the first 10 minutes of sample processing during each hourly sampling. Field crews will select fish for processing at random across species and size classes present in the screen wash sample. Each fish and macroinvertebrate will be classified according to the following condition criteria and enumerated by category:

• Live, Undamaged - live with no apparent damage

• Live, Damaged - live with evidence or indication of abrasion or laceration

• Fresh Dead - no vital signs, no body or opercular movement, clear eyes, red gills and no obvious signs of decay

• Dead Decaying - no vital signs, cloudy eyes, soft flesh, pale gills, other obvious signs of decay.

6.4.2 Morphometrics For each 4-hour sampling period, up to 15 randomly selected live and fresh dead fish from each taxon collected will be measured for total length, maximum body width, and maximum body depth to the nearest millimeter and weighed to the nearest gram. No more than 100 measurements of each species are required within a 24-hour impingement sampling event.

Additionally, up to 10 randomly selected live and/or fresh dead blue crabs (Callinectes sapidus) will be measured for greatest body (carapace) length, width, and depth.

All balances will be checked against standard weights on each day that they are used and the results will be recorded on the appropriate form.

6.4.3 Debris Load Characterization Upon completion of fish and shellfish catch processing, a debris load characterization will be completed for the impingement collection. Debris volume will be measured to the nearest 0.5 gallon by means of marked and calibrated buckets or other containers of varying sizes. At a minimum, one-, three- and five-gallon containers will be available; exact size and number of containers may be modified as is appropriate for the debris load at the facility. If feasible, debris types (outlined below) will be separated, and the volume of each measured. If this is not feasible, total debris volume will be measured, and the best possible estimation of volume of each debris type will be made. A photograph of the debris load will be required only if debris Dominion l 33

Impingement Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station characterization or quantification is not possible. Data will be recorded on the impingement sampling data forms.

Debris types/categories will include at a minimum:

• Aquatic vegetation and algae, with taxonomic description as practicable

• Terrestrial vegetation - leafy/herbaceous

• Terrestrial vegetation - woody 6

• Aquatic or terrestrial fauna (e.g. Ctenophora; Cnidaria; Insecta) not quantified in impingement sample, with taxonomic description as practical

• Sediments or other natural inorganic debris, with general description of size composition (e.g. gravel, sand, silt etc.)

• Man-made debris/refuse with general description of types (plastic, metal etc.)

If debris collected at a facility does not fall into one of the above categories, a new one may be created. Whenever pertinent, additional descriptions and photos of debris should be recorded.

Following measurement and description, debris will be disposed of according to facility procedures.

6.4.4 Handling Procedures for Atlantic Sturgeon Atlantic Sturgeon are not expected to be susceptible to impingement at SPS. In the improbable event of observation or collection of Atlantic Sturgeon, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will be notified by SPS within four hours of any state agency notification of an event pursuant to 10 CFR 50.72(b)(2)(xi), and the VDGIF will be contacted by Dominion (i.e., DES) within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of the event as per the requirements of the Scientific Collection Permit obtained prior to any sampling.

In addition, the following handling methods are provided in order to reduce stress, avoid injury and mortality, and quickly release Atlantic Sturgeon, in the improbable event that they are collected (procedures were developed based on Damon-Randall et al., 2010). Other sturgeon species are not documented from the vicinity of the SPS; there is no need to distinguish Atlantic Sturgeon from other species of sturgeon (NMFS 2012b).

1) Sturgeon will be removed from the collection gear as quickly and carefully as possible and total processing time, exclusive of resuscitation efforts, should not exceed 10 minutes.

2) Live Sturgeon will be placed into tubs filled and overflowing with ambient river water, which will be continuously supplied to the tubs while they contain fish.

6 Branches and other woody debris that cannot conveniently be put into a bucket should be photographed.

Dominion l 34

Impingement Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station

3) In the absence of a continuous water source (pump and hose) or for Sturgeon that dont fit in tubs, buckets will be used to add ambient water or every few minutes or to keep sturgeon wet while they are being processed.

4) Each Sturgeon will be placed on the measuring board where live sturgeon will be kept wet throughout the data collection procedure. Large specimens will be measured using a tape measure. The following measurements (in mm) will be quickly recorded on Atlantic Sturgeon Data Sheet:

o Total Length: straight line along the body axis from the tip of the snout to the tip of the tail (not following the curvature of the body) o Fork Length: straight line along the body axis from the tip of the snout to the posterior edge of the fork of the tail (not following the curvature of the body) o Interorbital Width: distance between the lateral margins of the bony skull at the midpoint of the orbit o Mouth Width: distance between the left and right inside corners of the mouth (i.e.,

excluding the lips); this should be measured with the mouth closed

5) Each individual will be examined for a Passive Integrated Transponder (PIT) tag and external injuries.

6) After making sure that the fish is wet enough, three photographs will be quickly taken to aid in species identification and document the condition of the fish. One will be taken of the top of the fish, one will be taken of the bottom of the fish (a good view of the mouth is important), and one will be taken of the side of the fish. A ruler will be included in the photograph for scale of the dorsal and ventral surface of the head. Injuries and physical abnormalities will also be photographed. After the requisite data has been collected, live fish will be returned to the area downriver from the impingement return pipe (not far from the impingement building), as quickly and as gently as possible to prevent mortality.

7) If Sturgeon appears nonresponsive, an attempt will be made to resuscitate them by flushing water over the gills until recovery is obvious by the fishs desire to escape. The best method is to use a pump and hose directed into or placed in the mouth (with a piece of sponge to protect the mouth). In the absence of a pump and hose, the sturgeon can be gently dragged back and pushed forward underwater. The drag back should be gentle and slower to protect the gills (Damon-Randall et al. 2010).

8) Sturgeon handling and reporting will comply with all conditions of the VDGIF Scientific Collection Permit.

9) If incidental death or injury of Sturgeon occurs, Dominion is to notify VDGIF at collectionpermits@dgif.virginia.gov within twenty-four (24) hours of occurrence. The following information must be reported: collector, date, species, location (county, quad, waterbody, and latitude and longitude to nearest second), and number collected. Dead Sturgeon will be retained by Dominion on ice or frozen until VDGIF specific handling guidance is obtained. Non-lethal injured Sturgeon will be returned to the source waterbody alive.

10) If incidental observation or collection and live release of Sturgeon occur, Dominion is required to notify VDGIF at collectionpermits@dgif.virginia.gov within seven (7) days, providing the same information as the above condition.

Dominion l 35

Impingement Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Refer to the following references for additional information on sturgeon handling practices:

• Moser, M.L., M. Bain, M.R. Collins, N. Haley, B. Kynard, J.C. OHerron II, G. Rogers, and T.S. Squiers. 2000. A Protocol for Use of Shortnose and Atlantic Sturgeons.

National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAAT Technical Memorandum NMFS-OPR-18.

Damon-Randall, K., R. Bohl, S. Bolden, D. Fox, C. Hager, B. Hickson, E. Hilton, J. Mohler, E.

Robbins, T. Savoy, and A. Spells. 2010. Atlantic Sturgeon research techniques. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-215.

The following includes the minimum items expected to be needed to handle sturgeon, should they be collected in impingement samples:

• Large tank or tub (~5 feet x 2.5 feet x 2 feet)

• 12-volt pump for flow-through on holding tank with hoses & fittings as required

• Battery to operate pump

• 12 volt pig-tail adapter

• Fish sling (to hold & lift large fish safely for handling, transport & aid in release)

• PIT Tag Reader

• 5-Gallon Buckets

• Scale to weigh larger fish

• Measuring board (for smaller fish)

• Tape (for large fish)

• Calipers for interorbital and mouth measurements

• Camera

• Contact numbers Dominion l 36

Impingement Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station 7 References Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 2012. Habitat Addendum IV to Amendment 1 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Sturgeon.

Bain, M.B. 1997. Atlantic and shortnose sturgeons of the Hudson River: Common and divergent life history attributes. Environmental Biology of Fishes 48: 347-358.

Bain, M.B., N. Haley, D. Peterson, J.R. Waldman, and K. Arend. 2000. Harvest and habitats of Atlantic Sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus Mitchill, 1815, in the Hudson River estuary:

Lessons for sturgeon conservation. Boletin-Instituto Espanol de Oceanografía 16: 43-53.

Balazik, G., C. Garman, and J.P. Van Eenennaam. 2012. Empirical Evidence of Fall Spawning by Atlantic Sturgeon in the James River, Virginia. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 141: 1465-1471.

Bath, D.W., J.M. OConner, J.B. Alber, and L.G. Arvidson. 1981. Development and identification of larval Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus) and shortnose sturgeon (A.

brevirostrum) from the Hudson River estuary, New York. Copeia 1981: 711-717.

CH2MHILL. 2006. Draft Comprehensive Demonstration Study for Surry Power Station. 2006.

Connelly, W.J. 2001. Growth patterns of three species of catfish (Ictaluridae) from three Virginia tributaries of the Chesapeake Bay. Masters Thesis. College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA. 153p.

Dominion. 2005. Proposal for Information Collection - SURRY POWER STATION.

EA Engineering and Technology. 2006. Entrainment Characterization Report; Surry Power Station.

Gilbert, C.R. 1989. Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (Mid-Atlantic Bight)--Atlantic and shortnose sturgeons. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 82(11.122). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TR EL82-4. 28 pp.

Hager, C. 2011. Atlantic Sturgeon review: Gather data on reproducing subpopulation of Atlantic Sturgeon in the James River. Contract EA133FlOCN0317.

Hildebrand, S.F. and W.C. Schroeder. 1928. Fishes of Chesapeake Bay. Department of Commerce, Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Fisheries, Volume XLIII.

Jenkins, R.E. and N.M. Burkhead. 1993. Freshwater fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Johnson, R.I. 1970 The Systematics and Zoogeography of the Unionidae (Mollusca: Bivalvia) of the Southern Atlantic Slope Region. Bulletin of Museum of Comparative Zoology 140(6):263-449.

Dominion l 37

Impingement Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Kercher, D.M. 2006. Genetic Assessment of Rare Blackbanded Sunfish (Enneacanthus Chaetodon) Populations in Virginia. M.S. Thesis. Virginia Commonwealth University.

Kynard, B., D. Pugh and T. Parker. 2005. Experimental studies to develop a bypass for shortnose sturgeon at Holyoke Dam. Final report to Holyoke Gas and Electric, Holyoke, MA.

Kynard, B. and M. Horgan. 2002. Ontogenetic behavior and migration of Atlantic Sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus, and Shortnose Sturgeon, A. brevirostrum, with notes on social behavior. Environmental Behavior of Fishes 63: 137-150.

Moser, M. L. and S. W. Ross. 1995. Habitat use and movements of shortnose and Atlantic sturgeons in the lower Cape Fear River, North Carolina. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 124: 225-234.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2012a. Biological Opinion of James River Federal Navigation Project: Tribell Shoal Channel to Richmond Harbor in Surry, James City, Prince George, Charles City, Henrico, and Chesterfield Counties and the Cities of Richmond and Hopewell, Virginia (FINER/2012/01183).

NMFS. 2012b. Letter of concurrence, from Mr. D.M. Morris, NMFS, to Ms. Amy Hull, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, that continued operation Surry Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2 is not likely to adversely affect species listed by NMFS.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2014. Chesapeake Bay Office.

Invasive catfish. Retrieved September 10, 2014. http://chesapeakebay.noaa.gov/fish-facts/invasive-catfish Smith, T.I.J., E.K. Dingley, and D.E. Marchette. 1980. Induced spawning and culture of the Atlantic Sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrinchus (Mitchill). Progressive Fish-Culturist 42: 147-151.

Snyder, D.E. 1988. Description and Identification of Shortnose and Atlantic Sturgeon Larvae.

American Fisheries Society Symposium 5: 7-30.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Raleigh Ecological Serices Field Office. 2012.

Sensitive Joint-vetch (Aeschynomene virginica). Retrieved September 7, 2014.

http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/es_sensitive_joint-vetch.html Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). 2014a. Eastern chicken turtle (Deirochelys reticularia reticularia). Available online. Retrieved September 7, 2014.

http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/wildlife/information/?s=030064 VDGIF. 2014b. Eastern tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum tigrinum). Available online.

Retrieved September 7, 2014. http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/wildlife/information/?s=020052 VDGIF. 2014c. Mabee's salamander (Amybstoma mabeei). Available online. Retrieved September 7, 2014. http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/wildlife/information/?s=020044 Dominion l 38

Impingement Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station VDGIF. 2014d. Barking treefrog (Hyla gratiosa). Available online. Retrieved September 7, 2014.

http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/wildlife/information/?s=020002 VDGIF. 2014e. Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew (Sorex longisrostris fisheri). Available online. Retrieved September 7, 2014.

http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/wildlife/information/?s=050008 VEPCO. 1977. Section 316(a) Demonstration (Type 1). Surry Power Station - Units 1 and 2.

Virginia Electric and Power Company. Richmond, VA.

VEPCO. 1980. Surry Power Station - Units 1 and 2 Cooling Water Intake Studies.

Watson, J. 2012. James River Mainstem Freshwater Mussel Surveys. Virginia Department of Game & Inland Fisheries, Bureau of Wildlife Resources. Accessed on November 13, 2013.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CC 8QFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fncmollusks.wikispaces.com%2Ffile%2Fview%2FJamesR iverSurveys.pdf&ei=1QVmVIfDH_TesASBvICgBg&usg=AFQjCNHoLbYHINRMh89V_2H 6BPNyEZT8cA&sig2=NR_T2jFldgg2ucIZqnJn_w&bvm=bv.79142246,d.cWc.

Dominion l 39

Appendix A Atlantic Sturgeon Life History Information

Impingement Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Atlantic Sturgeon Life History Information Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus) originating from the New York Bight, Chesapeake Bay, South Atlantic and Carolina Distinct Population Segments (DPSs) are listed as endangered.

Those originating from the Gulf of Maine DPS are listed as threatened. Atlantic Sturgeon from these five DPSs have the potential to occur in the James River and the vicinity of the cooling water intake of Surry Power Station (SPS). The marine range of all five DPSs extends along the Atlantic coast from Canada to Cape Canaveral, Florida (NMFS 2012a).

The James River has historically provided the largest stock of Atlantic Sturgeon in the Chesapeake and the majority of the adults in the river are likely to originate from the James River and thus, the Chesapeake Bay DPS (Hildebrand and Shroeder 1928; ASSRT 2007; Hager 2011; NMFS 2012a). Because early life stages (eggs and larvae), yearlings, and juveniles do not leave their natal river or estuary, any Atlantic Sturgeon from these life stages in the James River would have originated from the Chesapeake Bay DPS. Subadult Atlantic Sturgeon (greater than 50 cm but not yet sexually mature), move outside their natal rivers.

Therefore, subadult Atlantic Sturgeon present in the James River and in the vicinity of the intake could be from any of the five DPSs.

Atlantic Sturgeon spawn in the James River. However, the spawning grounds are located at least 50 miles upstream of the SPS intake with a second area of seemingly suitable habitat also located approximately 25 miles upstream (NMFS 2012a). Spawning is expected to occur from the April through June; evidence exists that spawning might occur in the fall as well, with high adult usage in the river from August through November (Balazik et al. 2012, Secor et al. 2000).

Virginia Marine Resources Commission restricts dredging in the James River from March 15 through June 30 to accommodate spring-spawning anadromous fish (Balazik et al. 2012) and NMFS (2012b) recently restricted dredging in the lower James River from February 15 to June 15th and in the rest of the river from February 15 to June 30 to protect anadromous fish during migration and spawning periods.

Eggs can hatch in 4 - 7 days depending on temperature (Gilbert 1989; Hildebrand and Schroeder 1928). Eggs are strongly adhesive and demersal, and occur only on the spawning grounds attaching to the substrate in 20 minutes (Jones et al. 1978). Atlantic Sturgeon eggs are approximately 2.6 mm in diameter (Hildebrand and Schroeder 1928) and hatch approximately 94, 140, and 168 hours0.00194 days <br />0.0467 hours <br />2.777778e-4 weeks <br />6.3924e-5 months <br /> after egg deposition at temperatures of 20°C, 18°C, and 17.8 °C, respectively (Gilbert 1989; Hildebrand and Schroeder 1928).

Ripe (unfertilized) Atlantic Sturgeon eggs are reported to be 2.5 - 2.6 mm in diameter, globular in shape, and of a light to dark brown color. Fertilized eggs are up to 2.9 mm in diameter, slate gray or light to dark brown, and become oval as development proceeds (Jones et al. 1978) (see Figure A-1). The germinal disc is evident in the unfertilized egg. A cross- or star-shaped pigment patch is apparent in the animal pole of the fertilized egg. The eggs are distinctly two-layered with the outer layer being a viscous substance.

Appendix A Dominion l 1

Impingement Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Source: Jones et al. 1978 as presented in Gilbert 1989 Figure A-1. Atlantic Sturgeon Egg Development from Unfertilized Egg to 48-hour Stage Yolk-sac larvae are expected to inhabit the same areas where they were spawned (Bain et al.

2000; ASMFC 2012). Smith et al. (1980 in Gilbert 1989) also reported that the yolk-sac larvae were darkly pigmented and active swimmers. Hard substrate is important to larval Atlantic Sturgeon as it provides refuge from predators (Kieffer and Kynard 1996 and Fox et al. 2000 as cited in ASMFC 2012). Bath et al. (1981) only collected sturgeon larvae in bottom samples.

Larvae are also active swimmers and leave the bottom when 8 to 10 days old to swim in the water column (Kynard and Horgan 2002).

The yolk-sac larval stage is completed in about 8 to12 days (Jones et al. [1978] reports 6 days),

at which time the larvae move downstream to the rearing grounds (Kynard and Horgan 2002).

During the first half of this migration, larvae move only at night and use benthic structure (e.g.,

gravel matrix) as refuge during the day (Kynard and Horgan 2002). During the latter half of migration to the rearing grounds, when larvae are more fully developed, movement occurs during both day and night. Larvae transition into the juvenile phase at approximately 30 mm total length (TL) and move further downstream into brackish waters, developing a tolerance to salinity as they go. Eventually they become residents in estuarine waters for months to years before emigrating to open ocean (ASSRT 2007, ASMFC 2012).

Atlantic Sturgeon larvae are expected to be approximately 7 - 9 mm TL at hatching (Bath et al.

1981, Smith 1980 as cited in Bain et al. 2000, Gilbert 1989, Snyder 1988), although Jones et al.

Appendix A Dominion l 2

Impingement Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station (1978) describe a newly hatched Atlantic Sturgeon larvae at 11.5 mm TL. The head width is 8%

of standard length (SL) with a depth of 11 % of SL (behind the posterior margin of the eye). The yolk-sac maxima is 23 % of SL and the yolk-sac depth is 20% of SL (Snyder 1988). Jones et al.

(1978) describes the newly hatched Atlantic Sturgeon larvae with a head and the tail that is darkly pigmented and a yolk that is a large dirty yellow, vascular oval. The head is not deflected over the yolk (bent around the yolk). The mouth is formed. The eye is relatively small and is about the same size as the round auditory vesicles. The branchial arches are concealed by the opercular folds, the barbels are lacking, pectoral buds are present, and the origin of the dorsal finfold is in the occipital region. Bath et al. (1981) reports that a continuous finfold extends from behind the head dorsally around the notochord and ventrally to the posterior end of the yolk sac, a dorsal wedge-shaped cavity at the fourth ventricle in the posterior of the blunt head, and a vent extended through the finfold at 0.6 to 0.7 of the TL from the snout. The spiral valve was distinguishable, even in small specimens.

Source: Snyder 1988 Figure A-2. Atlantic Sturgeon Yolk Sac Larvae Just Hatched Snyder (1988) reports that Atlantic Sturgeon complete yolk absorption by 13 - 14 mm SL in 6 - 7 days, acquire their first scutes between 17 and 20 mm SL at 13 - 29 days, acquire their first fin rays at 21 mm SL (13 - 29 days), and acquire a full complement of fin rays, except the caudal fin, between 47 and 58 mm SL at 29 - 100 days. A 29-day hatchery-reared larva is presented in Figure A-3. Mean myomere counts for shortnose and Atlantic Sturgeon are 38 preanal and 22 or 23 postanal. Snyder (1988) presents a detailed comparison of shortnose and Atlantic Sturgeon and provides details on the age and length of the onset of certain developmental events.

Appendix A Dominion l 3

Impingement Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Source: Snyder 1988 Figure A-3. Atlantic Sturgeon, 28.9 mm SL, 29.3 MM TL, 29 Days After Hatching Juvenile Atlantic Sturgeon demonstrate a lot of variation with regard to salinity tolerance (ASMFC 2012). Atlantic Sturgeon spawn in their natal river and remain in the river until approximately age two and at lengths of approximately 76 - 92 cm (30 - 36 inches; ASSRT 2007). Yearlings are known to occupy freshwater portions of their natal river (Secor et al. 2000) and their distribution in the James River is expected to follow this pattern. Juveniles in the river are also restricted to low salinity areas, with overwintering known to occur in deep water areas near river mile 25 (NMFS 2012).

Hager (2011) used telemetry to establish movement patterns of adult and subadult Atlantic Sturgeon in the James River. Thirty-two adults and thirty-three subadults were outfitted with telemetry tags and telemetry receivers were placed throughout the river to record the presence of tagged fish when they are within approximately one kilometer of the receivers.

Results of Hager (2011) indicate that adult Atlantic Sturgeon enter the James River in spring when water temperatures are around 17°C, and occur from river mile 29 to river mile 67 before departing from the river in June when water temperatures are around 24° C. Data collected in 2010 demonstrated a congregation of sturgeon in freshwater areas near river mile 48, suggesting the possibility of spawning in this area (Hager 2011). Adult sturgeon appear to be absent from the James River for most of the summer until late August when tagged fish are once again detected in the river (Hager 2011). During the late summer-early fall residency (August-October), fish ascend the river rapidly and congregate in upriver sites between river mile 48 and the fall line near Richmond, VA; possibly in response to physiologically stressful conditions (e.g., low dissolved oxygen and elevated water temperature) in the lower James River and Chesapeake Bay (Hager 2011). As temperature declines in late September or early October, adults disperse through downriver sites and begin to move out of the river (Hager 2011). By November, adults occupy only lower river sites (Hager 2011). By December, adults Appendix A Dominion l 4

Impingement Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station are undetected on the tracking array and, thus, are presumed to be out of the river (Hager 2011).

The highest number of subadults are present in the river in the spring and fall with the lowest numbers present in August when ambient water temperatures in the river are the highest. At this time of year, most subadults leave the river and any Atlantic Sturgeon remaining in the river are holding in cool water refugia (Hager 2011). The number of subadults in the river peaks in October. Many subadults leave the river for overwintering with some known to overwinter off the coast of North Carolina. Subadults overwintering within the river are located downstream of Hog Island.

Appendix A Dominion l 5

Impingement Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Literature Cited Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 2012. Habitat Addendum IV to Amendment 1 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Sturgeon.

Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Team (ASSRT). 2007. Status Review of Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus). Report to National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Regional Office. February 23, 2007. 174 pp.

Balazik, G. C. Garman, and J.P. Van Eenennaam. 2012. Empirical Evidence of Fall Spawning by Atlantic Sturgeon in the James River, Virginia. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 141: 1465-1471.

Bain, M.B., N. Haley, D. Peterson, J.R. Waldman, and K. Arend. 2000. Harvest and habitats of Atlantic sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus Mitchill, 1815, in the Hudson River estuary:

Lessons for sturgeon conservation. Boletin-Instituto Espanol de Oceanografía 16: 43-53.

Bath, D.W., J.M. OConner, J.B. Alber, and L.G. Arvidson. 1981. Development and identification of larval Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus) and shortnose sturgeon (A. brevirostrum) from the Hudson River estuary, New York. Copeia 1981: 711-717.

Fox, D. 2006. History of Atlantic Sturgeon Fishery. Power Point presentation presented to Delaware Department of Natural Resources, courtesy of Greg Murphy (DEDNR) April 13, 2006.

Gilbert, C.R. 1989. Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (Mid-Atlantic Bight)--Atlantic and shortnose sturgeons. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 82(11.122). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TR EL82-4. 28 pp.

Hager, C. 2011. Atlantic sturgeon review: Gather data on reproducing subpopulation of Atlantic sturgeon in the James River. Contract EA133FlOCN0317.

Hildebrand, S.F. and W.C. Schroeder. 1928. Fishes of Chesapeake Bay. Department of Commerce, Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Fisheries, Volume XLIII.

Jones, P. W., Martin, F. D., and Hardy, J. D. Jr. 1978: Development of fishes of the Mid-Atlantic Bight. An atlas of egg, larval and juvenile stages. Volume I Acipenseridae through Ictaluridae. U. S. Dep. Interior, Fish Wildl. Serv., Biol. Serv. Prog. FWS/OBS-78/12. 366 pp.

Kercher, D.M. 2006. Genetic Assessment of Rare Blackbanded Sunfish (Enneacanthus chaetodon) Populations in Virginia. M.S. Thesis. Virginia Commonwealth University.

Kieffer, M. C. and B. Kynard. 1993. Annual movements of shortnose and Atlantic sturgeons in the Merrimack River, Massachusetts. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 122: 1088-1103.

Appendix A Dominion l 6

Impingement Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Kynard, B. and M. Horgan. 2002. Ontogenetic behavior and migration of Atlantic sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus, and shortnose sturgeon, A. brevirostrum, with notes on social behavior. Environmental Behavior of Fishes 63: 137-150.

Kynard, B., D. Pugh, and T. Parker. 2005. Experimental studies to develop a bypass for shortnose sturgeon at Holyoke Dam. Final report to Holyoke Gas and Electric, Holyoke, MA.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2012a. Letter of concurrence, from Mr. D.M. Morris, NMFS, to Ms. Amy Hull, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, that continued operation Surry Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2 is not likely to adversely affect species listed by NMFS.

NMFS. 2012b. Biological Opinion of James River Federal Navigation Project: Tribell Shoal Channel to Richmond Harbor in Surry, James City, Prince George, Charles City, Henrico, and Chesterfield Counties and the Cities of Richmond and Hopewell, Virginia (FINER/2012/01183).

Smith, T.I.J., E.K. Dingley, and D.E. Marchette. 1980. Induced spawning and culture of the Atlantic sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrinchus (Mitchill). Progressive Fish-Culturist 42: 147-151.

Secor, D.H., E.J. Niklitschek, J.T. Stevenson, T.E. Gunderson, S.P. Minkkinen, B. Richardson, B. Florence, M. Mangold, J. Skjeveland, and A. Henderson-Arzapalo. 2000. Dispersal and growth of yearling Atlantic sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrinchus, released into Chesapeake Bay. Fishery Bulletin 98: 800-810.

Snyder, D.E. 1988. Description and Identification of Shortnose and Atlantic Sturgeon Larvae.

American Fisheries Society Symposium 5: 7-30.

Appendix A Dominion l 7

Appendix B Field Instrumentation:

Calibrations and Standardizations

Impingement Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Appendix B Dominion

Impingement Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Appendix B Dominion

Impingement Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Appendix B Dominion

Impingement Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Appendix B Dominion

Impingement Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Appendix B Dominion

Impingement Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Appendix B Dominion

Impingement Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Appendix B Dominion

Impingement Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Appendix B Dominion

Impingement Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Appendix B Dominion

Impingement Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Appendix B Dominion

Impingement Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Appendix B Dominion

Impingement Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Appendix B Dominion

Impingement Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Appendix B Dominion

Impingement Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Appendix B Dominion

Impingement Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Appendix B Dominion

Impingement Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Appendix B Dominion

Impingement Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Appendix B Dominion

Impingement Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Appendix B Dominion

Impingement Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Appendix B Dominion

Impingement Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Appendix B Dominion

Impingement Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Appendix B Dominion

Impingement Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Appendix B Dominion

Appendix C Lists of Data to be Collected and Recorded for Field Collection and Processing

Impingement Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Impingement Sample Collection Data Sheet Category Parameter Value Crew Names Date General Information Time (military)

Tidal Phase Air Temp. (oC)

Wind Direction Wind Speed (MPH)

Weather condition Sky Precipitation (in.)

Wave Height (ft)

Circulation Pump Facility Operation Screen Status Screen Wash Method Time (military)

Depth (ft) Reading Temp. (oC) Meter DO (mg/L) Meter Water Quality Specific Cond. (µs) Meter Specific Cond. @ 25 Calculated Salinity (ppt) Calculated pH Meter Temp. (oC) Bottle DO (mg/L) Bottle Water Quality QC Specific Cond. (µs) Bottle pH Bottle Mesh size (µm)

Gear Used Dimension Configuration Time (military) Start End Sample Collection Volume Reading Live, Live, Fresh Dead Dead/decaying Batch Species Species Name Undamaged Damaged Collection Processing Count Count Weight Count Count Comments Length Max Depth Max Width Weight (g)

Length/Weight Species Name (mm) (mm) (mm)

See Handling Total Procedures for Fork Length Interorbital Mouth Width Atlantic Sturgeon Length Weight (g)

Atlantic Sturgeon (mm) Width (mm) (mm)

(mm)

(Section 6.4.4)

Total Debris Volume gallons Aquatic Terrestrial Terrestrial vegetation -

vegetation vegetation -

leafy/herbaceous and algae woody Aquatic or terrestrial fauna not quantified in impingement sample, with description (exact taxonomic identification if feasible but not Debris Load Debris Volume by Percentage necessary, e.g. aquatic insect larvae)

Type Sediments or other natural inorganic debris, with general description of size composition (e.g. gravel, sand, silt etc.)

Man-made debris/refuse with general description of types (plastic, metal etc.)

Other with description Crew Signature Appendix C Dominion l 1

Impingement Characterization Study Plan Surry Power Station Example Impingement Identification and Enumeration Quality Control Results Data Sheet Category Value Date Project Location QC Analyzer Original Analyzer QC Program:

Model 1 Model 2 QC#

Sample Number Date Species Original Count QC Count

% Efficiency I.D. Count Comments Appendix C Dominion l 2

Page 1 of 2 From: Sumalee Hoskin [

Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2015 11:31 AM To: Matt Overton (Services 6)

Cc: Karen K Canody (Services 6)

Subject:

RE: Surry Power Station Clearing Matt, We do not have any documented hibernacula or roost trees in Surry Co. They are free to clear the trees next week.

Sumalee Sumalee Hoskin US Fish & Wildlife Service 6669 Short Lane Gloucester, VA 23061 4

Visit us at http://www.fws.gov/northeast/virginiafield/

From: Matt Overton (Services - 6) [

Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2015 11:23 AM To: Hoskin, Sumalee Cc: Karen K Canody (Services - 6)

Subject:

Surry Power Station Clearing Ms. Hoskins:

At our Surry Nuclear Power Station, they have a requirement to monitor the air surrounding the station for any potential harmful releases from the power station. In order to keep the air sampler operating correctly, they must clear a limited amount of trees in a 50foot radius around the sampler. This equates to 0.2 acres of tree clearing. Station personnel are proposing to clear these trees in the next week (offseason). I wanted to confirm that this area is greater than 0.25miles from a known hibernaculum and/or roost tree for NLEB. The station is located in Surry County (map below). Could you please confirm the presence/absence of known resources and if the project may proceed in the off season.

Thanks for your help.

file:///U:/FACILITIES/SURRY/Bats/RE%20Surry%20Power%20Station%20Clearing.htm 11/29/2016

Page 2 of 2 P. Matt Overton, PWD Environmental Biology 4111 Castlewood Road Richmond, Virginia 23234 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic message contains information which may be legally confidential and or privileged and does not in any case represent a firm ENERGY COMMODITY bid or offer relating thereto which binds the sender without an additional express written confirmation to that effect. The information is intended solely for the individual or entity named above and access by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this information is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please reply immediately to the sender that you have received the message in error, and delete it. Thank you.

file:///U:/FACILITIES/SURRY/Bats/RE%20Surry%20Power%20Station%20Clearing.htm 11/29/2016

VPDES PERMIT FACT SHEET This document gives pertinent information concerning the reissuance of the VPDES permit listed below. This permit is being processed as a Major, Industrial permit. The industrial discharges result from the generation of electricity (station capacity of 1625 megawatts) with steam produced by the fission of nuclear fuel. The permit also addresses the discharge from a privately owned sewage treatment plant, as well as discharge from the storage of petroleum in above ground storage tanks. The effluent limitations contained in this permit will maintain the Water Quality Standards of 9 VAC 25-260 et seq. This permit action consists of evaluating effluent data, revising permit limitations and monitoring requirements, and revising permit special conditions.

1. Facility Name and Address: Surry Power Station & Gravel Neck 5570 Hog Island Road Surry, VA 23883 Facility Contact Name: Phyllis G. Wells

Title:

Environmental Compliance Coordinator Telephone: (757) 365-2377 Email: phyllis.g.wells@dom.com SIC: 4911 - Electric Services

2. Permit Number: VA0004090 Permit Expiration Date: January 21, 2012

3. Owner Name and Address: Virginia Electric & Power Company 5000 Dominion Boulevard Glen Allen, VA 23060 Owner Contact Name: Cathy C. Taylor

Title:

Director, Electric Environmental Services Telephone: (804) 273-2929 Email: catherine.c.taylor@dom.com

4. Application Complete: Date: July 11, 2011 Permit Drafted By: Jeremy Kazio Date: October 5, 2012, November 13, 2012 Reviewed By: Emilee Adamson Date: December 19, 2012, December 27, 2012 Curt Linderman Date: March 5, 2013, March 22, 2013 Kyle Winter Date: March 25, 2013 EPA Region III Date:

Public Comment Period Dates: from to Published Dates: and in Sussex-Surry Dispatch

VA0004090: VPDES Permit Fact Sheet Surry Power Station and Gravel Neck Page 2 of 43

5. Receiving Stream Information:

Process Discharge Storm Water Runoff Outfall 001 Outfall 002 Outfall 050 Outfall 051 Outfall 052 Outfall 053 Unnamed Unnamed Unnamed Receiving Stream Tributary to James River Tributary to Tributary to James River James River Name: Hog Island James River James River Creek James River James River James River James River James River James River Basin:

(Lower) (Lower) (Lower) (Lower) (Lower) (Lower)

Subbasin: NA NA NA N/A NA NA Section: 1 1a 1a 1 1 1 Class: II III III II II II Special Standards: a, bb None None None a, bb a, bb Rivermile: 2-JMS037.30 2-XTD002.15 2-XTD001.80 2-CXBO000.42 2-JMS029.34 2-JMS029.27 Tidal Receiving YES NO NO NO YES YES Stream?

On 303(d) List? YES NO NO YES YES YES 7-Day, 10-Year Low 0 MGD Flow (7Q10):

1-Day, 10-Year Low 0 MGD Flow (1Q10):

30-Day, 5-Year Low 0 MGD Flow (30Q5):

30-Day, 10-Year NA - Tidal NA - Storm Water 0 MGD Low Flow (30Q10):

7Q10 High Flow: 0 MGD 1Q10 High Flow: 0 MGD Harmonic Mean 0 MGD Flow (HM):

Tidal Dilution Mulipliers (Applicable to Outfall 001 ONLY)

ESR = 0.70:1 Acute DM = 1.43 ESR = Effluent to Stream Ratio (Concentration of whole effluent in stream, in ESR = 0.69:1 parts)

Chronic DM = 1.45 ESR = 0.66:1 DM = Dilution Multiplier (Parts stream divided by parts effluent)

Human Health DM = 1.52 Please see Attachment A for Flow Frequency Memo by J.V. Palmore revised 10/3/2012 and Mixing and Dilution of the Surry Nuclear Power Plant Cooling Water Discharge in the James River by J.M. Hamrick, A.Y

VA0004090: VPDES Permit Fact Sheet Surry Power Station and Gravel Neck Page 3 of 43 Kuo, and J. Shen dated July 1995 and submitted to DEQ on August 11, 1995 (see Table 4 - Maximum tidal cycle averaged relative concentrations with respect to concentrations in the cooling canal discharge).

6. Operator License Requirements: Class III (Sewage Treatment Plant). Licensed operator not required for discharges from Outfalls 001 and 002 because there are no forms of biological, chemical, or physical treatment as intended by the requirements contained in 9 VAC 25-31-200.C of the VPDES Permit Regulation

7. Reliability Class: Class II (Sewage Treatment Plant)

8. Permit Characterization:

(X) Existing Discharge (X) Reissuance (X) Water Quality Limited (X) Interim Limits in Permit (X) Industrial (SIC=4911) (X) Discharge to 303(d) Listed Segment (X) PVOTW (X) Toxics Management Program Required (X) Private (X) Storm Water Management Plan (X) Compliance Schedule Required (X) Effluent Limited

9. Discharge Description Outfalls Limited and Monitored in Part I.A.1 Outfall Max. 30-day Discharge Source Description Treatment No. flow (MGD)

Units 1 & 2 Mixing, cooling, and Once-through non-contact Condensers (and periodic disinfection 001 cooling water & Internal Outfalls 2300.396 internal outfalls 101 for biofouling 101-122 through 122) control.

Outfalls Limited and Monitored in Part I.A.3 Outfall Max. 30-day Discharge Source Description Treatment No. flow (MGD)

Flow equalization, screening, settling, grinding, activated The treatment plant treats sludge, disinfection 0.038238 Sewage Treatment domestic wastewater originating 101 (chlorination), (design flow =

Plant from Surry Power Stations aerobic digestion 0.085) sanitary drains.

(sludge), sludge drying beds (rarely used).

Outfalls Limited and Monitored in Part I.A.5 Outfall Max. 30-day Discharge Source Description Treatment No. flow (MGD) 102 Turbine Sump A The turbine sumps collect water 0.0234 and hydraulic/lube oil leakage Flotation, settling, oil 103 Turbine Sump B 0.05 from components within the skimmer.

106 Turbine Sump C turbine building. 0.0234

VA0004090: VPDES Permit Fact Sheet Surry Power Station and Gravel Neck Page 4 of 43 Outfalls Limited and Monitored in Part I.A.6 Outfall Max. 30-day Discharge Source Description Treatment No. flow (MGD)

The RSHXs are part of an emergency system that Unit 1 Recirculation maintains appropriate 116 Spray Heat atmospheric pressure within the None 0.023 Exchanger (RSHX) nuclear containment area. The RSHXs remove heat from water that collects in the containment sump. The supply water to these heat exchangers is Unit 2 Recirculation James River water from the 2.982 (from 117 Spray Heat intake canal. The RSHXs are None application)

Exchanger typically drained and maintained in a dry ready condition, but are tested once every other outage.

Outfalls Limited and Monitored in Part I.A.7 Outfall Max. 30-day Discharge Source Description Treatment No. flow (MGD)

Reverse Osmosis Well water is treated by reverse (RO) Reject &

104 osmosis to provide makeup None 0.0216 Membrane water to the Polishing Building.

Backwash The Radwaste Facility Ion exchange, 109 Radwaste Facility processes radioactive liquid 0.0181 reverse osmosis waste.

Unit 1A Waste The waste neutralization sumps 110 0.0279 Neutralization Sump collect and treat non-neutral pH Unit 1B Waste wastewater produced during 111 0.0279 Neutralization Sump routine operation of the Settling, Unit 2A Waste Condensate Polishing System 112 neutralization 0.0279 Neutralization Sump and resin regeneration process.

The treated wastewater can be Unit 2B Waste discharged to the Settling Pond 113 0.0279 Neutralization Sump or to the Discharge Canal.

This sump collects wastewater from the Condensate Polishing System operation and associated resin regeneration process. Only wastewater with neutral pH is discharged via this internal outfall. Wastewater Low Conductivity Settling, 120 outside of the neutral pH range 0.038 Sump neutralization is directed to the Waste Neutralization Sumps for additional treatment prior to release (Outfalls 110, 111, 112, and 113). This sump can be discharged to the Settling Pond or to the Discharge Canal.

VA0004090: VPDES Permit Fact Sheet Surry Power Station and Gravel Neck Page 5 of 43 Outfalls Limited and Monitored in Part I.A.8 Outfall Max. 30-day Discharge Source Description Treatment No. flow (MGD)

The auxiliary boilers provide steam to the Auxiliary Steam System when both nuclear Package Boilers A & reactors are shut down. These 107 None B boilers are also performance 0.0031 tested once per year. Boiler wastewater (primarily boiler blowdown) is discharged.

Each Unit has 3 separate Steam Generators and 3 separate Steam Generator Unit 1 Steam Blowdown Systems. The water 114 Generator used for the Steam Generators 0.0429 Blowdown is treated by ion exchange, conditioned with additives for pH and corrosion control, and is recirculated within the system.

Blowdown (i.e. purging of a None specific volume of recirculated water) is necessary to regulate the chemistry of the Unit 2 Steam recirculating water. The 115 Generator blowdown can be discharged to 0.0429 Blowdown the discharge canal via these internal outfalls, or to the condenser hotwells for recirculation back into the steam system.

The Condenser Hotwells (where Unit 1 Condenser steam condensate collects) are 118 0.09 Hotwell Drain periodically drained for maintenance and inspection.

None Steam Generator Blowdown Unit 2 Condenser (see Outfalls 114 and 115 119 above) may be directed to these 0.09 Hotwell Drain condenser hotwells.

Unit 1 Steam 121 Generator Periodically, deionized water is Filtration 0.0005 Hydrolance used to clean the steam Unit 2 Steam generators using a hydrolance 0.1025 122 Generator (water blasting) process. Filtration (from Hydrolance application)

VA0004090: VPDES Permit Fact Sheet Surry Power Station and Gravel Neck Page 6 of 43 Outfalls Limited and Monitored in Part I.A.9 Outfall Max. 30-day Discharge Source Description Treatment No. flow (MGD)

The 210,000 gallon fuel oil tank located adjacent to the Discharge Canal serves the None. Collected Auxiliary Boiler and Emergency storm water is Diesel Generators. The visually inspected Oil Storage Tank 105 concrete dike provides for petroleum, which 0.05891 Dike emergency holding in the event if present is of tank failure. Storm water removed prior to collected within the dike is release.

released via a gate valve to the Discharge Canal.

Outfalls Limited and Monitored in Part I.A.11 Outfall Max. 30-day Discharge Source Description Treatment No. flow (MGD)

The Settling Pond receives discharges from internal outfalls 110, 111, 112, 113, and 120 (see outfall descriptions above).

The Settling Pond also receives the discharge from the Gravel Neck oil/water separator, which is pumped to the Settling Pond via a lift station. Influent to the Gravel Neck oil/water separator includes discharges from:

1) oil/water separators for individual combustion turbine units 3, 4, 5, & 6;

2) compressor wash water and floor drains from combustion Sedimentation, 108 Settling Pond turbine units 3, 4, 5, & 6; 0.049318 aeration

3) RO reject from the mobile RO systems;

4) Gravel Neck AST truck off-loading drains and emergency spill tank;

5) storm water collected within Gravel Neck fuel oil AST containment dike;

6) water collected within Gravel Neck fuel oil AST dike from periodic pressure washing exterior of tanks;

7) storm water collected within Surry Power Stations various fuel oil AST containment dikes

VA0004090: VPDES Permit Fact Sheet Surry Power Station and Gravel Neck Page 7 of 43 Outfalls Limited and Monitored in Part I.A.12 Outfall Max. 30-day Discharge Source Description Treatment No. flow (MGD)

The 320,000 gallon fuel oil tank located between the newer None. Collected combustion turbines and the storm water is intake canal serves the older Gravel Neck Gas visually inspected backup combustion turbines.

002 Turbine for petroleum, which 0.02127 The dirt dike provides Containment Dike if present is emergency holding in the event removed prior to of tank failure. Storm water release.

collected within the dike is released via a gate valve.

Outfalls Limited and Monitored in Part I.A.15 Outfall Max. 30-day Discharge Source Description Treatment No. flow (MGD)

Storm water runoff from ~272 acres of drainage area 050 located in the central portion of the Surry Power Station and Gravel Neck sites Storm water runoff from ~84 acres of drainage area located adjacent to 051 and East of the drainage area contributing to Weather Outfall 050 Storm water runoff None dependent Storm water runoff from ~10 acres of drainage area 052 located adjacent to and North of the high level intake structure Storm water runoff from ~10 acres drainage area 053 located adjacent to and South of the high level intake structure Please see Attachment B for facility flow diagram, outfall location map, sewage treatment plant diagram and sludge haul route, storm water outfall locations and drainage maps, and well location map.

VA0004090: VPDES Permit Fact Sheet Surry Power Station and Gravel Neck Page 8 of 43

10. Sewage Sludge Use or Disposal: Sewage sludge generated by the Surry Power Station Sewage Treatment Plant (Outfall 101) is hauled offsite by Ducks Septage Company (DSC). The sludge is either placed into an aerated septage lagoon that is operated by DSC or taken to the Sussex Service Authoritys Black Swamp Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant in Waverly, VA. See Attachment B for sewage sludge haul directions and map.

It has not historically been necessary to remove sludge from the Settling Pond (Outfall 108). If it becomes necessary in the future, it is expected of the permittee that all solids removal and handling activities will be in conformance with the facilitys Operations and Maintenance Manual in accordance with Part I.C.5.f of the 2013 permit.

11. Discharge Location

Description:

See Attachment C for topographic map and aerial photographs. See below for external outfalls coordinates.

Map Name: Hog Island (066B) Quadrangle External Outfall No. Latitude Longitude Outfall 001 37.17133 -76.70423 Outfall 002 37.16100 -76.69285 Outfall 050 37.16712 -76.68959 Outfall 051 37.16167 -76.68315 Outfall 052 37.15707 -76.67109 Outfall 053 37.15472 -76.67109

12. Material Storage:

See Attachment D for chemicals that are or will be stored and/or used onsite within the 2013 permit cycle.

The, handling, storage, and use of these chemicals are expected to be in accordance with Part I.C.2 (Materials Handling/Storage) and Part I.C.26 (Best Management Practices) of the 2013 permit.

In addition, the Surry Power Station and Gravel Neck facilities have multiple ASTs and other containers used for fuel oil or chemical storage located outdoors. The nature of stored material and maximum volume of each tank/container is listed below. Please note that chemical storage does not occur outdoors at the Gravel Neck site:

Surry Power Station - Petroleum ASTs Secondary Containment Container Product Stored Total Capacity Volume Name / ID No. (gal) (gal) / Type 228,904 / Concrete Floor 1-HS-TK-1 No. 2 Fuel Oil 210,000 and Wall 12,320 / Concrete Floor 1-UO-TK-1 Used Oil 10,000 and Walls Administration Building No. 2 Fuel Oil 1,500 1,621 / Integral Steel EDG Fuel Tank 1,550 / EDG Room with Base Tank 1 No. 2 Fuel Oil 550 Concrete Curb 1,550 / EDG Room with Base Tank 2 No. 2 Fuel Oil 550 Concrete Curb 1,550 / EDG Room with Base Tank 3 No. 2 Fuel Oil 550 Concrete Curb EDG 1 Day Tank (1-EE- 832 / EDG Room with No. 2 Fuel Oil 541 TK-3) Concrete Curb

VA0004090: VPDES Permit Fact Sheet Surry Power Station and Gravel Neck Page 9 of 43 Surry Power Station - Petroleum ASTs Secondary Containment Container Product Stored Total Capacity Volume Name / ID No. (gal) (gal) / Type EDG 2 Day Tank (2-EE- 832 / EDG Room with No. 2 Fuel Oil 541 TK-3) Concrete Curb EDG 3 Day Tank (1-EE- 832 / EDG Room with No. 2 Fuel Oil 541 TK-4) Concrete Curb

>205 / Double-walled EDG/ISFSI No. 2 Fuel Oil 205 tank Emergency Service 6,488 / Room with Water Pump Fuel Tank No. 2 Fuel Oil 4,800 Concrete Curb (1- SW-TK-1)

Fire Water Diesel Fuel 570 / Fire Pump House No. 2 Fuel Oil 370 Tank (1-FP-TK-4) with Concrete Curb NSS Garage Engine Oil Engine Oil 580 / Double wall tank Tank (VP-75-T-2)

NSS Garage Hydraulic Hydraulic Oil 580 / Double wall tank Oil Tank (vP-75-T-3)

NSS Garage Used Oil Used Oil 300 / Double wall tank Tank / (VP-75-T-1)

Oil Recovery System >300 / Metal curbed Oil 300 Tank (1-UO-TK-3) concrete pad & sump SBO Generator Tank 1,676 / Concrete Floor (Blackout Diesel) (0-BFO- No. 2 Fuel Oil 1,217 and Dike TK-1)

Security EDG 0-SE-DG-3 Diesel Fuel 300 / Double wall tank Base Tank Security FAP EDG Tank / >112 / Double-Walled No. 2 Fuel Oil 112 0-SE-EG-2 Tank Turbine Lube Clean Oil 62,313 / Enclosed Turbine Lube Oil 22,000 (1-LO-TK-2) Concrete Area Turbine Lube Used Oil (1- 62,313 / Enclosed Turbine Lube Oil 22,000 LO-TK-3) Concrete Area Total Petroleum AST Volume --> 277,537 Surry Power Station - Chemical Container Storage Secondary Containment Container Total Capacity Product Stored Volume (gal)

Name / ID No. (gal) / Type No ID # Six - Sodium Poleyurethane Polyurethane 3 for Unit 1 hypochlorite - 15%

Each 3000 gal containment for each tank and 3 for Unit 2 High max / balance (max) tanks, can hold the entire level Chemical Injection water, typical value 12,000 gallon for system System of 13%

VA0004090: VPDES Permit Fact Sheet Surry Power Station and Gravel Neck Page 10 of 43 Surry Power Station - Chemical Container Storage Secondary Containment Container Total Capacity Product Stored Volume (gal)

Name / ID No. (gal) / Type No ID # Two -

Acti-Brom 1318 - Poleyurethane Polyurethane 1 for Unit 1 30 to 60% / Each 3000 gal containment for each tank and 1 for Unit 2 High balance water, (max) tanks, can hold the entire level Chemical Injection typical value 43%. 12,000 gallon for system System 1-CS-TK-2 Unit 1 17-18% NaOH RWST* Chemical (Sodium 4311 gallons No Addition Tank Hydroxide) 17-18% NaOH 2-CS-TK-2 Unit 2 RWST (Sodium 4311 gallons No Chemical Addition Tank Hydroxide)

Gravel Neck - Petroleum ASTs Secondary Containment Container Total Capacity Volume Name / ID No. Product Stored (gal) (gal) / Type 00-FO-TK-1A Fuel Oil No. 2 3,177,000 3,190,208/Diked Area 00-FO-TK-1B Fuel Oil No. 2 3,177,000 3,190,208/Diked Area 02-FO-TK-1C Fuel Oil No. 2 320,000 312,782/Diked Area 1,000/OWS to VPDES Filter Drain Tank Used Oil 270 Sump and Pond Mist Vapor Holding Tank 1,000/OWS to VPDES Fuel Oil No. 2 250 1 Sump and Pond Mist Vapor Holding Tank 1,000/OWS to VPDES Fuel Oil No. 2 250 2 Sump and Pond 1,000/OWS to VPDES Mobile Oil Tank Used Oil 500 Sump and Pond Unit 1 and 2 Emergency 235,100/Stormwater Diesel Fuel 171 Diesel Generator basin 235,100/Stormwater Unit 1 Oil Sump Fuel Oil No. 2 434 Retention Basin 235,100/Stormwater Unit 2 Diesel Fuel Tank Diesel Fuel 203 basin Total Petroleum AST Volume --> 6,676,078

VA0004090: VPDES Permit Fact Sheet Surry Power Station and Gravel Neck Page 11 of 43

13. Ambient Water Quality Information (Outfalls 001 and 002 ONLY, not applicable to storm water outfalls):

Outfall 001 - Water quality information used for the evaluation of the discharge from Outfall 001 are derived from data collected at DEQs ambient monitoring station 2-JMS041.27. The station is located at the Scotland Ferry pier approximately 3.97 miles upstream of the discharge. However, hardness data were not collected at this station; therefore hardness data from station 2-JMS050.57 were used. The station is located at buoy 66 above the confluence with the Chickahominy River and is 13.27 miles upstream of the discharge.

Outfall 002 - The receiving stream for Outfall 002 is considered to be intermittent, therefore, statistical low flows used for the evaluation of the discharge are considered to be zero for permitting purposes. Since flows within the receiving stream may be made up entirely of effluent at various times during the year, effluent quality information was used in place of ambient water quality information for the evaluation of the discharge from Outfall 002.

(see Attachment E for raw data and statistically derived values from monitoring stations 2-JMS041.27 and 2-JMS050.57).

14. Antidegradation Review & Comments: Outfall 001: Tier 1 X Tier 2 _____ Tier 3 _____

Outfall 002: Tier 1 X Tier 2 _____ Tier 3 _____

The State Water Control Board's Water Quality Standards includes an antidegradation policy (9 VAC 25-260-30). All state surface waters are provided one of three levels of antidegradation protection. For Tier 1 or existing use protection, existing uses of the water body and the water quality to protect those uses must be maintained. Tier 2 water bodies have water quality that is better than the water quality standards. Significant lowering of the water quality of Tier 2 waters is not allowed without an evaluation of the economic and social impacts. Tier 3 water bodies are exceptional waters and are so designated by regulatory amendment. The antidegradation policy prohibits new or expanded discharges into exceptional waters.

The anti-degradation review begins with a Tier determination.

Outfall 001 & Outfall 052: The James River had previously been considered a Tier 2 water at the discharge points. However, due to the benthic impairment in the oligohaline mainstem segment, the James is considered to be designated a Tier 1 waterbody.

Outfall 053: The James River had previously been considered a Tier 2 water at the discharge point.

However, due to the benthic impairment in the mesohaline mainstem segment during the 2010 Assessment Cycle, the James is considered to be designated a Tier 1 waterbody.

Outfall 002, Outfall 050, & Outfall 051: Due to their intermittent natures, the receiving streams are considered to be Tier 1 water bodies.

(See Attachment A for Flow Frequency Memorandum by Jennifer V. Palmore, P.G. revised 10/3/2012)

15. Site Inspection: Date: November 9, 2010 Performed by: Charles Stitzer (See Attachment F)

16. Effluent Screening & Limitation Development:

Effluent Screening:

Effluent testing results submitted by the permittee in order to satisfy the requirements of EPA Form 2C and Attachment A for Outfall 001 and Outfall 002 have been summarized in Attachment G of this fact sheet.

Also included in this attachment are DMR data submitted to DEQ between March 2007 and February 2012.

If it is feasible that a specific pollutant for which in-stream criteria are given in the Virginia Water Quality Standards (9 VAC 25-260 et.seq.) may exist in the facilitys effluent, a Reasonable Potential Analysis must be conducted in order to determine if it is statistically probable that the permittees future discharge may

VA0004090: VPDES Permit Fact Sheet Surry Power Station and Gravel Neck Page 12 of 43 contain that pollutant in concentrations which are harmful to aquatic life and/or human health within the receiving stream. The first step of the analysis is to calculate the pollutants wasteload allocations (WLAs),

which are defined as the pollutant concentration that may be discharged by the facility over specific periods of time which will maintain the in-stream criteria at the boundary of the effluents mixing zone within the receiving stream. The WLAs are determined using a DEQ-sourced Excel spreadsheet called MSTRANTI, which requires inputs representing site specific data for critical flows, dilution, mixing, and water quality for both the receiving stream and the effluent.

For aquatic life Reasonable Potential evaluations, a desktop computer application called STATS is utilized to determine if future pollutant concentrations may exceed the aquatic life WLAs. The STATS application projects the WLA inputs, as well as observed effluent data, onto respective lognormal distributions. If the projected effluent distribution exceeds the most restrictive aquatic life WLA distribution, then a limitation is deemed necessary. The limitation is equal to the concentration expected to be observed at the required monitoring frequency of the most protective WLA distribution.

For human health reasonable potential evaluations, the WLAs are compared directly to the reported test results for the respective pollutant. If the test results exceed the human health WLA, then a limitation is deemed necessary. The human health WLA is directly applied as the monthly limitation, and the maximum daily or weekly average limitations are derived using multiplication factors in accordance with the January 10, 2001 memorandum by Dale Philips titled Advice for Daily Maximum and Weekly Average Limits for Human Health Based Limits.

The table in Attachment G mentioned above lists the WLAs for each pollutant of concern, as well as the determination of whether a limitation is needed after the aforementioned Reasonable Potential evaluations were applied. The following tables represent those pollutants for which limitations were determined to be necessary for the 2013 permit. Please note that the permittee submitted total recoverable metals data for internal Outfall 101, however, these data were not evaluated because this effluent stream is reflected by Outfall 001, and because WLAs cannot be calculated for internal outfalls.

Outfall 002 2012 Wasteload Allocations (µg/L) Basis for Limitations (µg/L)

Pollutant Test Results (µg/L) WLAHH- Proposed Mon.

WLAa WLAc WLAHH Limitation Max.

PWS Avg.

Copper, 8, 22, 29, 4, 7, 3.6 2.7 1300 -- WLAa 3.6 3.6 dissolved 7,16, 6, 32, 6 Nickel,

<5 (entered as 5) 56 6.3 610 4600 WLAc 9.2 9.2 dissolved 37,182, 77, 231, Zinc, 180, 282, 22, 72, 36 36 7400 26000 WLAa 36 36 dissolved 59, 119 Please note that Nickel at Outfall 002 was reported below a QL that is greater than the DEQ-recommended QL for that pollutant. Consequently, the value was treated as concentration data equal to the QL for the purposes of this permit evaluation. Also note that the test results for Copper and Zinc at Outfall 002 submitted with the 2011 application (in bold under the Test Results column) were combined with monitoring data submitted to DEQ between August 2008 and March 2012. The permittee was required to monitor for dissolved Copper and Zinc during the 2007-2012 permit cycle due to elevated levels of these pollutants reported in the 2006 application for Outfall 002.

Please also note that the permittee submitted bacteriological test results for both E.coli and Enterococcus of 75 N/CML and >2420 N/CML, respectively, taken at the Outfall 001 discharge. The main source of effluent from this outfall is once through cooling water. There are no processes at this facility which contribute bacteria to the effluent other than the Sewage Treatment Plant, which discharges to the effluent canal through internal Outfall 101. The effluent from the Sewage Treatment Plant is limited for Fecal Coliform bacteria, and additionally, the permittee has demonstrated adequate disinfection through a successful

VA0004090: VPDES Permit Fact Sheet Surry Power Station and Gravel Neck Page 13 of 43 Bacteria Demonstration Study conducted during the 2007 permit cycle. Between March 2007 and February 2012 the permittee did not violate their Fecal Coliform or minimum TRC limitations. Therefore, it is staffs judgment that the source of the elevated bacterial levels discharged through Outfall 001 may be attributed to background levels within the James River. Please note that the James River is not impaired for the Recreation Use at the Outfall 001 location, and thus the discharge has not caused, nor does it currently contribute to, any bacteriological impairments within the receiving water body.

Please see Attachment H for MSTRANTI and STATS printouts.

Permit Limitations and Monitoring Requirements Rationale:

Basis for Effluent Limitations: Outfall 001 (Final Effluent Canal)

MONITORING DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS EFFLUENT REQUIREMENTS CHARACT. BASIS MONTHLY WEEKLY SAMPLE MIN. MAX. FREQ.

AVERAGE AVERAGE TYPE Flow (MGD) NA NL NA NA NL Continuous Recorded pH (Standard 1, 3 NA NA 6.0 9.0 2 per Month Grab Units)

Total Residual 1, 3 0.0080 NA NA 0.016 1 per Day Grab Chlorine (mg/L)

Heat Rejected Heat rejected shall not exceed a daily maximum of 4 9 Continuous Recorded (BTU/HR) 12.6 x 10 Intake pH NA NA NA NL NL 2 per Month Grab (Standard Units)

Intake Total Suspended Solids NA NL NA NA NL 1 per Month Grab (mg/L)

Thallium, total NA NL NA NA NL 1 per Year Grab recoverable (µg/L)

Basis for Limitations:

1) Water Quality Standards (9 VAC 25-260)

2) Federal Effluent Guidelines (40 CFR 423.12)

3) Best Engineering Judgment (BEJ)

4) 316(a) Demonstration Report pH: GM95-012 suggests that pH limits not be applied to once-through cooling water discharges that intake from and discharge to the same water body due to a lack of reasonable potential that pH would be changed by the process, even in the event of equipment failure. Additionally, GM95-012 advises that the permittee has no control over the pH of the intake water and no reasonable remedy in the event that the intake water fails to meet the Water Quality Standards. For this facility, even though once-through cooling water comprises the bulk of the discharge through Outfall 001, this outfall also includes multiple low volume internal outfalls which may have a bearing on the pH levels of the discharge, especially during plant outages or in the event of equipment failure. Consequently, in accordance with the Exclusions section of GM95-012 (Pg. 3),

pH limitations are considered to be appropriate for the facilitys discharge because . . . chemical additives, routine operation, equipment failure or leakage could change the pH of the cooling water. The pH limitations required in 40 CFR 423.12(b)(1) of the Federal Effluent Guidelines (6.0-9.0 SU) are specifically exempted from being applied to once-through cooling water discharges, and therefore, the pH limitations required in the 2013 permit for Outfall 001 are based on the Water Quality Standards (9 VAC 25-260-50.- Class II Estuarine Waters).

However, with regard for the abovementioned statement in GM95-012 concerning the permittee having no control over intake pH levels, footnote (b) in Part I.A.1 of the 2013 permit allows that pH be maintained within

VA0004090: VPDES Permit Fact Sheet Surry Power Station and Gravel Neck Page 14 of 43 0.5 SUs of the intake pH values when intake pH values are observed outside of the limitation range. This permit requirement aids in ensuring that the permittee consistently provides controls for the overall influence that the facilitys daily processes may have on the influent pH levels. It should be noted that pH data reported with DMRs submitted between March 2007- February 2012 for the Outfall 001 discharge included a 5 year maximum of 8.5 SU and minimum of 6.9 SU, while the intake pH data for the same time period included a 5 year maximum of 8.46 SU and minimum of 6.43 SU. These values are within the 2007 permit limits as well as the 2013 proposed permit limits of 6.0-9.0 SU.

Total Residual Chlorine (TRC): Chlorine compounds may be added to the facilitys service water as an anti-biofouling agent. Additionally, chlorine is also used for disinfection at the onsite wastewater treatment plant discharging through Outfall 101. In accordance with GM10-2003 (IN-3, Pg.21), if chlorine has the potential to exist in the discharge, a TRC limit should be placed in the permit that reflects the more stringent of either water quality-based limit or an applicable effluent guideline technology-based limit. The applicable Federal Effluent Guideline for this facility (40 CFR 423.13(b)(1)) includes a maximum TRC limitation of 0.20 mg/L. In order to determine if this value is more or less stringent than the water quality based limit, a Reasonable Potential and Limitation Evaluation was conducted for TRC as explained above. GM 00-2011 requires that an effluent value of 20 mg/L be entered into STATS as effluent data in order to bypass the programs Reasonable Potential Analysis in cases where TRC is purposely introduced or known to exist in the facilitys effluent. The resulting limitations for TRC are 0.016 mg/L maximum and 0.0080 mg/L monthly average, which are more stringent than the FEG based limitation. Please note that the TRC limitation in the 2013 permit is more stringent than the TRC limitation in the 2007 permit because the WLAs for Chlorine Producing Oxidants were used instead of TRC due to: 1) the WLAs being more stringent than the TRC WLAs, and 2) the permittees close proximity to the border between estuarine waters and transition waters on the James River. Chlorinated effluents which are discharged to salt water react to produce chlorine produced oxidants that have a toxic impact similar to TRC in freshwater. It is assumed that CPO in salt water receiving streams is controlled by the effluent TRC limit and are therefore interchangeable. A compliance schedule for the new TRC limitation is not included for the 2013 permit because it is staffs judgment that the permittee will be able to meet the new limitation immediately upon permit reissuance based on historic DMR data.

Heat Rejected: Pursuant to a Study Plan approved by the Board, Virginia Power conducted a 316(a) study and submitted a §316(a) Demonstration Report on September 1, 1977. The Board reviewed the report and found that effluent limitations more stringent than the thermal limitations included in the 2013 permit are not necessary to assure the protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous community of shellfish, fish, and wildlife in the James River. 9 VAC 25-260-90 of the Virginia Water Quality Standards state that a satisfactory showing made in conformance with § 316(a) shall be deemed compliance with the general standard and with the temperature requirements of the standards. Virginia Power declared in the 2011 permit renewal application that there have been no substantial changes in the conditions described in the 316(a) Demonstration Report. The 316(a) variance is therefore, continued.

Intake pH: Monitoring only is included in the 2013 permit so that the impact of the power station on pH at Outfall 001 can be accurately determined. See pH limitation rationale above.

Intake Total Suspended Solids: Monitoring only is included in the 2013 permit so that the net increase produced by Outfalls 102, 103, 106, 116, and 117 can be calculated. These internal outfalls include the discharge of water sourced from the facilitys intake canal. See Item 9 of this fact sheet for outfall descriptions.

Thallium: Monitoring for Thallium has been included in the 2013 permit due to concentrations observed in the effluent greater than the human health WLAs. See the chart below for concentration data submitted with the 2011 permit application. On September 27, 2012 Dominion provided additional Thallium data indicating a concentration less than a QL of 5 µg/L at Outfall 001. Due to the data variability, it is staffs judgment that a limitation is not warranted at this time, but that additional data should be collected through regular monitoring for Thallium to determine if a limitation may be necessary in a future permit reissuance.

VA0004090: VPDES Permit Fact Sheet Surry Power Station and Gravel Neck Page 15 of 43 Test Results (µg/L) 2012 Wasteload Allocations (µg/L)

Pollutant 2011 Application 9/27/2012 WLAa WLAc WLAHH-PWS WLAHH Dissolved = 6.2 Thallium <5 NA NA 0.24 0.71 Total Rec. = 8.1 Basis for Effluent Limitations: Outfall 101 (Wastewater Treatment Plant)

MONITORING DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS EFFLUENT REQUIREMENTS CHARACT. BASIS MONTHLY WEEKLY SAMPLE MIN. MAX. FREQ.

AVERAGE AVERAGE TYPE Flow (MGD) NA NL NA NA NL Continuous Recorded pH (Standard 2 NA NA 6.0 9.0 1 per Day Grab Units)

BOD5 (mg/L) 1 per 2 2 30 NA NA 45 4 HC Months Total Suspended 1 per 6 2 30 NA NA 45 4 HC Solids (mg/L) Months 4 Days per Enterococci (n/100 35 Month 1, 3 geometric NA NA NA (between 10 Grab mL) mean a.m. and 4 p.m.)

4 Days per 200 Month Fecal coliform 3 geometric NA NA NA (between 10 Grab (n/100 mL) mean a.m. and 4 p.m.)

Basis for Limitations:

1) Water Quality Standards (9 VAC 25-260)

2) Federal Effluent Guidelines (40 CFR 133.102)

3) Best Engineering Judgment (BEJ) pH, BOD5, and TSS: These limitations are based on 40 CFR 133.102 of the Federal Effluent Guidelines (FEGs) for Secondary Treatment Standards. Please note that the weekly (7-day) average limitations for BOD5 and TSS recommended by the FEGs have been applied as maximum limitations in the 2013 permit in order to align with the permit limitations at other industrial internal outfalls which discharge to Outfall 001.

Enterococci: The limitation for Enterococci is expected to protect the primary contact recreation use bacteria criteria outlined in 9 VAC 25-260-170 (Water Quality Standards). The primary contact recreation bacterial in-stream criteria for protection of saltwater is 35N/100 mL colony forming units (CFU) of Enterococci bacteria is based on a monthly geometric mean resulting from at least 4 weekly samples. The 2007 permit reissuance incorporated a new limitation for Enterococci, but allowed the permittee the option of performing a Bacteria Demonstration Study. If the requirements of the Study were met, the permittee would have been allowed to eliminate the bacterial limitation in lieu of utilizing chlorine concentration to demonstrate that proper disinfection was being performed. The permittee successfully completed the demonstration study and submitted the results to DEQ on 6/21/2007, and consequently, the Enterococci limitation did not become effective during the 2007-2013 permit term. However, due to recent guidance from EPA prohibiting the use of surrogate parameters (i.e. in this case, TRC), the limitation has been included in the 2013 permit reissuance.

VA0004090: VPDES Permit Fact Sheet Surry Power Station and Gravel Neck Page 16 of 43 Fecal Coliform: The fecal coliform limitation is based on BEJ due to the internal outfall contributing to Outfall 001 which ultimately discharges to shellfish waters. Fecal coliform monitoring provides data directly applicable to the protection of shellfish waters. Although the Water Quality Standards have been amended to remove the reference to this effluent limit in shellfish waters, the Virginia Department of Health, Bureau of Shellfish Sanitation still uses fecal coliform as an indicator for determining the quality of shellfish waters, and it is necessary to ensure discharges meet this level. Since it has historically maintained the in-stream water quality criteria for fecal coliform of 14/43 per 100 milliliters, the 200 per 100 milliliters effluent limit will be used in shellfish waters in order to continue meeting the in-stream criteria and for protection of shellfish under the general standard.

Basis for Effluent Limitations: Outfalls 102, 103, 106 (Low Volume Waste Sources)

MONITORING DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS EFFLUENT REQUIREMENTS CHARACT. BASIS MONTHLY WEEKLY SAMPLE MIN. MAX. FREQ.

AVERAGE AVERAGE TYPE 1 per 6 Flow (MGD) NA NL NA NA NL Estimate Months pH (Standard 1 per 6 3 NA NA NL NL Grab Units) Months Total Suspended 1 per 6 Solids - Net 2 30 NA NA 100 Grab Months Increase (mg/L)

Oil and Grease 1 per 6 2 15 NA NA 20 Grab (mg/L) Months Basis for Limitations:

1) Water Quality Standards (9 VAC 25-260)

2) Federal Effluent Guidelines (40 CFR 423.12)

3) Best Engineering Judgment (BEJ) pH: Monitoring only is required based on BEJ. Since pH is ultimately limited in accordance with the Water Quality Standards at Outfall 001, the technology based pH limitations contained 40 CFR 423.12(b)(1) of the FEGs are not necessary at this internal outfall. However, monitoring is required in order to aid in determining which contributing process may be the cause of pH violations, if any are observed, at Outfall 001.

Total Suspended Solids - Net Increase: Limitation is based on 40 CFR 423.12(b)(3) of the FEGs for low volume waste sources. The limitation is applied as a net increase with respect to the intake canal because the source water for these discharges is derived from the intake canal. Application as a net limitation is allowed by 9 VAC 25-31-230.G.2 (VPDES Permit Regulation) because the permittee has demonstrated, through reporting of DMR data between March 2007-February 2012 showing a consistent net increase of zero, that the . . .constituents of the generic measure in the effluent are substantially similar to the constituents of the generic measure in the intake water . . ..

Oil and Grease: Limitation is based on 40 CFR 423.12(b)(3) of the FEGs for low volume waste sources.

VA0004090: VPDES Permit Fact Sheet Surry Power Station and Gravel Neck Page 17 of 43 Basis for Effluent Limitations: Outfalls 116, 117 (Low Volume Waste Sources)

MONITORING DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS EFFLUENT REQUIREMENTS CHARACT. BASIS MONTHLY WEEKLY SAMPLE MIN. MAX. FREQ.

AVERAGE AVERAGE TYPE Flow (MGD) NA NL NA NA NL 1 per Month Estimate pH (Standard 3 NA NA NL NL 1 per Month Grab Units)

Total Suspended Solids - Net 2 30 NA NA 100 1 per Month Grab Increase (mg/L)

Oil and Grease 2 15 NA NA 20 1 per Month Grab (mg/L)

Basis for Limitations:

1) Water Quality Standards (9 VAC 25-260)

2) Federal Effluent Guidelines (40 CFR 423.12)

3) Best Engineering Judgment (BEJ) pH: Monitoring only is required based on BEJ. Since pH is ultimately limited in accordance with the Water Quality Standards at Outfall 001, the technology based pH limitations contained 40 CFR 423.12(b)(1) of the FEGs are not necessary at this internal outfall. However, monitoring is required in order to aid in determining which contributing process may be the cause of pH violations, if any are observed, at Outfall 001.

Total Suspended Solids - Net Increase: Limitation is based on 40 CFR 423.12(b)(3) of the FEGs for low volume waste sources. The limitation is applied as a net increase with respect to the intake canal because the source water for these discharges is derived from the intake canal. Application as a net limitation is allowed by 9 VAC 25-31-230.G.2 (VPDES Permit Regulation) because the permittee has demonstrated, through reporting of DMR data between March 2007-February 2012 showing a consistent net increase of zero, that the . . .constituents of the generic measure in the effluent are substantially similar to the constituents of the generic measure in the intake water . . ..

Oil and Grease: Limitation is based on 40 CFR 423.12(b)(3) of the FEGs for low volume waste sources.

Basis for Effluent Limitations: Outfalls 104, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 120 (Low Volume Waste Sources)

MONITORING DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS EFFLUENT REQUIREMENTS CHARACT. BASIS MONTHLY WEEKLY SAMPLE MIN. MAX. FREQ.

AVERAGE AVERAGE TYPE 1 per 6 Flow (MGD) NA NL NA NA NL Estimate Months pH (Standard 1 per 6 3 NA NA NL NL Grab Units) Months Total Suspended 1 per 6 2 30 NA NA 100 Grab Solids (mg/L) Months Oil and Grease 1 per 6 2 15 NA NA 20 Grab (mg/L) Months Basis for Limitations:

1) Water Quality Standards (9 VAC 25-260)

2) Federal Effluent Guidelines (40 CFR 423.12)

3) Best Engineering Judgment (BEJ)

VA0004090: VPDES Permit Fact Sheet Surry Power Station and Gravel Neck Page 18 of 43 pH: Monitoring only is required based on BEJ. Since pH is ultimately limited in accordance with the Water Quality Standards at Outfall 001, the technology based pH limitations contained 40 CFR 423.12(b)(1) of the FEGs are not necessary at this internal outfall. However, monitoring is required in order to aid in determining which contributing process may be the cause of pH violations, if any are observed, at Outfall 001.

Total Suspended Solids: Limitation is based on 40 CFR 423.12(b)(3) of the FEGs for low volume waste sources.

Oil and Grease: Limitation is based on 40 CFR 423.12(b)(3) of the FEGs for low volume waste sources.

Basis for Effluent Limitations: Outfalls 107, 114, 115, 118, 119,121, 122 (Low Volume Waste Sources)

MONITORING DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS EFFLUENT REQUIREMENTS CHARACT. BASIS MONTHLY WEEKLY SAMPLE MIN. MAX. FREQ.

AVERAGE AVERAGE TYPE Flow (MGD) NA NL NA NA NL 1 per Month Estimate pH (Standard 3 NA NA NL NL 1 per Month Grab Units)

Total Suspended 2 30 NA NA 100 1 per Month Grab Solids (mg/L)

Oil and Grease 2 15 NA NA 20 1 per Month Grab (mg/L)

1) Water Quality Standards (9 VAC 25-260)

2) Federal Effluent Guidelines (40 CFR 423.12)

3) Best Engineering Judgment (BEJ) pH: Monitoring only is required based on BEJ. Since pH is ultimately limited in accordance with the Water Quality Standards at Outfall 001, the technology based pH limitations contained 40 CFR 423.12(b)(1) of the FEGs are not necessary at this internal outfall. However, monitoring is required in order to aid in determining which contributing process may be the cause of pH violations, if any are observed, at Outfall 001.

Total Suspended Solids: Limitation is based on 40 CFR 423.12(b)(3) of the FEGs for low volume waste sources.

Oil and Grease: Limitation is based on 40 CFR 423.12(b)(3) of the FEGs for low volume waste sources.

VA0004090: VPDES Permit Fact Sheet Surry Power Station and Gravel Neck Page 19 of 43 Basis for Effluent Limitations: Outfall 105 (Oil Storage Tank Dike [Low Volume Waste Source])

MONITORING DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS EFFLUENT REQUIREMENTS CHARACT. BASIS MONTHLY WEEKLY SAMPLE MIN. MAX. FREQ.

AVERAGE AVERAGE TYPE Flow (MGD) NA NL NA NA NL 1 per Month Estimate pH (Standard 3 NA NA NL NL 1 per Month Grab Units)

Total Suspended 2 30 NA NA 100 1 per Month Grab Solids (mg/L)

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons 3 NL NA NA NA 1 per Month Grab (TPH) (mg/L)

Oil and Grease 2 15 NA NA 20 1 per Month Grab (mg/L)

Basis for Limitations:

1) Water Quality Standards (9 VAC 25-260)

2) Federal Effluent Guidelines (40 CFR 423.12)

3) Best Engineering Judgment (BEJ) pH: Monitoring only is required based on BEJ. Since pH is ultimately limited in accordance with the Water Quality Standards at Outfall 001, the technology based pH limitations contained 40 CFR 423.12(b)(1) of the FEGs are not necessary at this internal outfall. However, monitoring is required in order to aid in determining which contributing process may be the cause of pH violations, if any are observed, at Outfall 001.

Total Suspended Solids: Limitation is based on 40 CFR 423.12(b)(3) of the FEGs for low volume waste sources.

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH): Oil and grease limitations are required for low volume waste sources per 40 CFR 423.12(b)(3) of the FEGs. According to GM96-002 (entire document) and GM08-2006 (Fact Sheet, Section 6.1, Pg. 6), however, TPH is considered to be a good indicator of non-gasoline petroleum contamination. Therefore, based on BEJ, monitoring for TPH is required for the 2013 permit due to the nature of the potential source for contamination from this discharge point. Please note that requirements specifying that particular TPH test methods for diesel range organics (DRO) and gasoline range organics (GRO) be used by the permittee to determine compliance with the limitation have been added to the 2013 permit in order to match those required in DEQs General VPDES Permit for Petroleum Contamination Sites, Groundwater Remediation, and Hydrostatic Tests (9 VAC 25-120).

Oil and Grease: Limitation is based on 40 CFR 423.12(b)(3) of the FEGs for low volume waste sources.

VA0004090: VPDES Permit Fact Sheet Surry Power Station and Gravel Neck Page 20 of 43 Basis for Effluent Limitations: Outfall 108 (Settling Pond [Low Volume Waste Source])

MONITORING DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS EFFLUENT REQUIREMENTS CHARACT. BASIS MONTHLY WEEKLY SAMPLE MIN. MAX. FREQ.

AVERAGE AVERAGE TYPE Flow (MGD) NA NL NA NA NL 1 per Month Measured pH (Standard 3 NA NA NL NL 1 per Month Grab Units)

Total Suspended 2 30 NA NA 100 1 per Month Grab Solids (mg/L)

Total Organic 3 NA NA NA 110 1 per Month Grab Carbon (mg/L)

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons 3 NL NA NA NA 1 per Month Grab (TPH) (mg/l)

Oil and Grease 2 15 NA NA 20 1 per Month Grab (mg/L)

Basis for Limitations:

1) Water Quality Standards (9 VAC 25-260)

2) Federal Effluent Guidelines (40 CFR 423.12)

3) Best Engineering Judgment (BEJ) pH: Monitoring only is required based on BEJ. Since pH is ultimately limited in accordance with the Water Quality Standards at Outfall 001, the technology based pH limitations contained 40 CFR 423.12(b)(1) of the FEGs are not necessary at this internal outfall. However, monitoring is required in order to aid in determining which contributing process may be the cause of pH violations, if any are observed, at Outfall 001.

Total Suspended Solids: Limitation is based on 40 CFR 423.12(b)(3) of the FEGs for low volume waste sources.

Total Organic Carbon (TOC): The limitation for TOC is carried over from the 2007 permit reissuance to the 2013 permit reissuance because the permittee has previously demonstrated compliance with this limit and therefore it cannot be removed due to antibacksliding policies. The TOC limitation was initially based on BEJ and originates from previous agency guidance for permitting of Bulk Oil Storage Facilities (Permit Manual, issued July 1995, Appendix IN - Industrial, Part F.2.d). TOC is also utilized as an indicator parameter for non-petroleum organic substances in the General Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (VPDES) Permit Regulation for Discharges from Petroleum Contaminated Sites, Groundwater Remediation, and Hydrostatic Tests (VAG83) (see GM08-2006 Fact Sheet, Pg. 17). A large portion of contributing flow to this outfall is from the oil/water separator which serves the various drains around the Gravel Neck Combustion Turbine (CT) Station (see Item 9 of this fact sheet for a description of contributing flows to the oil/water separator). A large volume of number two fuel oil is stored at this site for use as an auxiliary fuel for the CT generators, and therefore, the potential for non-gasoline petroleum product contamination supports the limitation for TOC applied to this outfall.

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH): Oil and grease limitations are required for low volume waste sources per 40 CFR 423.12(b)(3). According to GM96-002 and GM08-2006 (Fact Sheet, Section 6.1, Pg. 6),

however, TPH is considered to be a better indicator of non-gasoline petroleum contamination than oil and grease. Therefore, based on BEJ, monitoring for TPH is required for the 2013 permit due to the nature of the potential source for contamination from this discharge point. Please note that requirements specifying that particular TPH test methods for diesel range organics (DRO) and gasoline range organics (GRO) be used by the permittee to determine compliance with the limitation have been added to the 2013 permit in order to match those required in DEQs General VPDES Permit for Petroleum Contamination Sites, Groundwater Remediation, and Hydrostatic Tests (9 VAC 25-120).

VA0004090: VPDES Permit Fact Sheet Surry Power Station and Gravel Neck Page 21 of 43 Oil and Grease: Limitation is based on 40 CFR 423.12(b)(3) of the FEGs for low volume waste sources.

Basis for Effluent Limitations: Outfall 002 (Gravel Neck AST Containment Dike)

MONITORING DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS EFFLUENT REQUIREMENTS CHARACT. BASIS MONTHLY WEEKLY SAMPLE MIN. MAX. FREQ.

AVERAGE AVERAGE TYPE Flow (MGD) NA NL NA NA NL 1 per Month Estimate pH (Standard 1 NA NA 6.0 9.0 1 per Month Grab Units)

Rainwater pH 2 NA NA NL NL 1 per Month Grab (Standard Units)

Total Suspended 2 30 NA NA 100 1 per Month Grab Solids (mg/L)

Total Organic 2 NA NA NA 110 1 per Month Grab Carbon (mg/L)

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons 2 NL NA NA 15 1 per Month Grab (TPH) (mg/L)

Copper, total 1 3.6 NA NA 3.6 1 per Month Grab recoverable (µg/L)

Nickel, total 1 9.2 NA NA 9.2 1 per Month Grab recoverable (µg/L)

Zinc, total 1 36 NA NA 36 1 per Month Grab recoverable (µg/L)

Basis for Limitations:

1) Water Quality Standards (9 VAC 25-260)

2) Best Engineering Judgment (BEJ) pH: The pH limit is derived from 9 VAC 25-260-50 (Water Quality Standards) for discharges to Class II or Class III waters in the Piedmont and Coastal Zones.

Rainwater pH: Footnote (a) in Part I.A.12 of the 2013 permit allows that pH be maintained within 0.5 SUs of the rainwater pH values when rainwater pH values are observed outside of the limitation range. This permit requirement aids in ensuring that the permittee consistently provides controls for the overall influence that the facilitys daily processes may have on the rainwater pH levels.

Total Suspended Solids: Limitation is based on BEJ. Activities which contribute to the discharge from this outfall are not covered by any part of the Federal Effluent Guidelines. It is unknown when the TSS limitation for this outfall first became effective, but because the permittee has previously demonstrated compliance with this limit, it cannot be removed due to antibacksliding policies.

Total Organic Carbon (TOC): Limitation is based on BEJ. Activities which contribute to the discharge from this outfall are not covered by any part of the Federal Effluent Guidelines. The limitation for TOC is carried over from the 2007 permit reissuance to the 2013 permit reissuance because the permittee has previously demonstrated compliance with this limit and therefore it cannot be removed due to antibacksliding policies.

The TOC limitation is originally derived from previous agency guidance for permitting of Bulk Oil Storage Facilities (Permit Manual, issued July 1995, Appendix IN - Industrial, Part F.2.d). TOC is also utilized as an indicator parameter for non-petroleum organic substances in the General Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (VPDES) Permit Regulation for Discharges from Petroleum Contaminated Sites, Groundwater Remediation, and Hydrostatic Tests (see GM08-2006 Fact Sheet, Pg. 17).

VA0004090: VPDES Permit Fact Sheet Surry Power Station and Gravel Neck Page 22 of 43 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH): Limitation is based on BEJ. Activities which contribute to the discharge from this outfall are not covered by any part of the Federal Effluent Guidelines. The TPH is limitation is derived from current agency guidance (Permit Manual, Section IN-5, Pg.5) for permitting of Bulk Petroleum Storage facilities. Additionally, according to GM08-2006 (Fact Sheet, Section 6.1, Pg. 6), TPH is considered to be an indicator parameter for contamination from non-gasoline petroleum products, and is thus limited in the General Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (VPDES) Permit Regulation for Discharges from Petroleum Contaminated Sites, Groundwater Remediation, and Hydrostatic Tests. Please note that requirements specifying that particular TPH test methods for diesel range organics (DRO) and gasoline range organics (GRO) be used by the permittee to determine compliance with the limitation have been added to the 2013 permit in order to match those required in DEQs General VPDES Permit for Petroleum Contamination Sites, Groundwater Remediation, and Hydrostatic Tests (9 VAC 25-120).

Copper, Nickel, and Zinc: Limitations for these pollutants were determined to be necessary in accordance with the Reasonable Potential and Limitation Analyses described in the first part of this fact sheet section.

Please see Attachment I for a copy of 40 CFR 423, the Federal Effluent Guidelines for Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category.

17. Antibacksliding Statement : All limits in the 2013 permit are at least as stringent as the 2007 permit. The Total Phosphorus limitation formerly applied to Outfall 001 has been removed from the 2013 permit. During previous permit re-issuances, the Water Quality Standards assigned Special Standards NEW-19 to the receiving water body section, designating it as a Nutrient Enriched Water (NEW). Therefore, in accordance with 9 VAC 25-40-30 A. (Policy for Nutrient Enriched Waters), a limitation for Total Phosphorus was required. For the 2013 reissuance, the current Water Quality Standards (January 2011) have repealed the NEW designation to the receiving water body section, and consequently, the associated Total Phosphorus limitation is no longer applicable to this discharge. Therefore, in accordance with Guidance Memo 07-2008, Amendment 2 (Page 15), removal of the former TP limitation does not violate antibacksliding policies because: a) the facility is a non-significant industrial facility and therefore the discharge of nutrients are covered under the Watershed General Permit (see Item 23 of this fact sheet for further information); b) the limit is technology-based, so backsliding is permissible; c) a discharge to the Chesapeake Bay watershed is exempt from the 2.0 mg/L limit per 9VAC 25-40-30.D (Policy for Nutrient Enriched Waters); d) the facility has not installed nutrient control treatment; and e) the facility has not undertaken any process or site management changes in order to comply with the TP limit.

18. Special Conditions:

Part I.B. - Additional TRC Limitations and Bacterial Limitations and Monitoring Requirements-Outfall 101 (Sewage Treatment Plant)

Rationale: Required by Sewage Collection and Treatment Regulations, 9VAC25-790 and Water Quality Standards 9VAC25-260-170, Bacteria; Other Recreational Waters. Also, 40 CFR 122.41(e) requires the permittee, at all times, to properly operate and maintain all facilities and systems of treatment in order to comply with the permit. This ensures proper operation of chlorination equipment to maintain adequate disinfection.

Part I.C - Other Requirements or Special Conditions C1 - Notification Levels Rationale: Required by VPDES Permit Regulation, 9 VAC 25-31-200 A for all manufacturing, commercial, mining, and silvicultural dischargers.

C2 - Materials Handling and Storage Rationale: 9 VAC 25-31-50 A prohibits the discharge of any wastes into State waters unless authorized by permit. Code of Virginia § 62.1-44.16 and 62.1-44.17 authorizes the Board to regulate the discharge of industrial waste or other waste.

VA0004090: VPDES Permit Fact Sheet Surry Power Station and Gravel Neck Page 23 of 43 C3 - Licensed Operator Requirement (Sewage Treatment Plant)

Rationale: The VPDES Permit Regulation, 9 VAC 25-31-200 C and the Code of Virginia § 54.1-2300 et seq., Rules and Regulations for Waterworks and Wastewater Works Operators and Onsite Sewage System Professionals(18 VAC 160-20-10 et seq.), require licensure of operators.

C4 - TMDL / Nutrient Reopener Rationale: Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires that Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) be developed for streams listed as impaired. This special condition is to allow the permit to be reopened if necessary to bring it into compliance with any applicable TMDL approved for the receiving stream. The re-opener recognizes that, according to Section 402(o)(1) of the Clean Water Act, limits and/or conditions may be either more or less stringent than those contained in this permit. Specifically, they can be relaxed it they are the result of a TMDL, basin plan, or other wasteload allocation prepared under section 303 of the Act. 9 VAC 25-40-70 A authorizes DEQ to include technology-based annual concentration limits in the permits of facilities that have installed nutrient control equipment, whether by new construction, expansion or upgrade. 9 VAC 25-31-390.A authorizes DEQ to modify VPDES permits to promulgate amended water quality standards.

C5 - Operation and Maintenance Manual Requirement Rationale: Required by Code of Virginia § 62.1-44.16; VPDES Permit Regulation, 9 VAC 25-31-190 E, and 40 CFR 122.41(e). These require proper operation and maintenance of the permitted facility. Compliance with an O & M manual ensures this.

C6 - Compliance Reporting Rationale: Authorized by VPDES Permit Regulation, 9 VAC 25-31-190 J 4 and 220 I. This condition is necessary when pollutants are monitored by the permittee and a maximum level of quantification and/or a specific analytical method is required in order to assess compliance with a permit limit or to compare effluent quality with a numeric criterion. The condition also established protocols for calculation of reported values.

Quantification levels (QLs) for TSS, Oil & Grease, TPH, and TRC are recommended by current agency guidance (GM10-2003, Attachment A, and GM00-2011). The BOD5 QL of 2 mg/L is consistent with recently adopted VPDES General Permit regulations. The QLs for Copper, Nickel, and Zinc are the lesser of 0.4 or 0.6 multiplied by the acute WLA or chronic WLA, respectively, as advised in GM10-2003 (IN-3, Pg. 7).

C7 - Effluent Monitoring Frequencies Rationale: Permittees are granted a reduction in monitoring frequency based on a history of permit compliance. To remain eligible for the reduction, the permittee should not have violations related to the effluent limits for which reduced frequencies were granted. If permittees fail to maintain the previous level of performance, the baseline monitoring frequencies should be reinstated for those parameters that were previously granted a monitoring frequency reduction.

C8 - Oil Storage Ground Water Monitoring Reopener Rationale: Facilities with less than 1,000,000 gallons of regulated aboveground petroleum storage are required to provide a means for early leak detection in the event of AST failure, and facilities with greater than 1,000,000 gallons of regulated aboveground petroleum storage are required to regularly monitor ground water and submit results to DEQ under the Facility and Aboveground Storage Tank Regulation (9 VAC 25-91-10 et seq.) (AST Regulation).

The Surry Power Station stores approximately 278,000 gallons of petroleum product in aboveground storage tanks. Virginia Power has elected to conduct groundwater monitoring in order to fulfill the AST Regulation requirements for early leak detection. If monitoring proves inadequate to properly evaluate potential impacts to ground water, the VPDES permit, under Code of Virginia § 62.1-44.21, can be modified to incorporate appropriate monitoring.

The Gravel Neck Station stores greater than 1,000,000 gallons of petroleum product in aboveground storage tanks, and consequently Virginia Power is required to conduct regular groundwater monitoring in accordance with the AST Regulation. If monitoring proves inadequate to properly evaluate potential impacts to ground water, the VPDES permit, under Code of Virginia § 62.1-44.21, can be modified to incorporate appropriate monitoring.

VA0004090: VPDES Permit Fact Sheet Surry Power Station and Gravel Neck Page 24 of 43 C9 - Tank Bottom Waters and Pump and Haul Activities Rationale: State Water Control Law §62.1-44.21 authorizes the Board to request information needed to determine possible impacts on State waters. This special condition requires the permittee to report any pump and haul activities regarding the removal of tank bottom waters. The requirement is carried forward from the 1996, 2001, and 2007 permit reissuances and allows DEQ to be kept apprised of tank bottom pump and haul activities.

C10 - Intake Trash Racks Rationale: This special condition prohibits the return of debris collected on the intake trash racks to the waterway.

C11 - No Discharge of PCBs Rationale: This special condition implements a prohibition against the discharge of polychlorinated biphenyl compounds in accordance with 40 CFR 423.12(b)(2) of the Federal Effluent Guidelines.

C12 - Discharge of Uncontaminated Water Rational: This special condition identifies miscellaneous point source discharges at the power station that should consist only of uncontaminated river water or ground water. As such, effluent limitations and monitoring requirements are not necessary.

C13 - Discharge of Chlorine in Cooling Water Rationale: This special condition prohibits the discharge of chlorine from any one power generating unit for more than 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> in any one day unless the utility can demonstrate that the unit cannot operate with this restriction. This 2-hour prohibition is in accordance with 40 CFR 423.13(b)(2) of the Federal Effluent Guidelines.

C14 - Radioactivity Regulated by NRC Rationale: This special condition recognizes that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is the proper agency to regulate discharges of radioactivity.

C15 - No Discharge of Tank Bottom Waters Rationale: This special condition prohibits the discharge of tank bottom waters from bulk fuel oil or waste oil storage facilities. This prohibition is consistent with the regulation of bulk petroleum handling facilities and is applicable to this facility because large quantities of fuel oil are stored. This special condition does not prohibit the discharge of tank bottom waters from highly refined lubricating oil tanks.

C16 - Water Quality Criteria Reopener Rationale: VPDES Permit Regulation, 9 VAC 25-31-220 D requires effluent limitations to be established which will contribute to the attainment or maintenance of the water quality standards.

C17 - §316(b) Requirements Rationale: The facility includes a cooling water intake structure governed by §316(b) of the Clean Water Act which requires that the location, design, construction and capacity of the cooling water intake structures reflect the "best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact". The Surry Power Station November 1980 environmental report on impingement and entrainment studies conducted at the facility indicated minimal or no adverse environmental impact. The special condition requires continued compliance with §316(b). Collected data and any changes to the intake structures or conditions will be reevaluated at each reissuance to monitor continued compliance with the requirement. The condition also includes a reopener, should further §316(b) related conditions become necessary once the EPA Phase II rule is finalized or a new BPJ determination is required.

C18 - Treatment Works Closure Plan Rationale: Code of Virginia § 62.1-44.16 of the State Water Control Law. This condition establishes the requirement to submit a closure plan for the wastewater treatment facility if the treatment facility is being replaced or is expected to close.

VA0004090: VPDES Permit Fact Sheet Surry Power Station and Gravel Neck Page 25 of 43 C19 - 95% Capacity Reopener (Sewage Treatment Plant)

Rationale: Required by VPDES Permit Regulation, 9 VAC 25-31-200 B 4 for all POTW and PVOTW permits.

C20 - CTC, CTO Requirement (Sewage Treatment Plant)

Rationale: Required by Code of Virginia § 62.1-44.19; Sewage Collection and Treatment Regulations, 9 VAC 25-790-50. 9VAC 25-40-70.A authorizes DEQ to include technology-based annual concentration limits in the permits of facilities that have installed nutrient control equipment, whether by new construction, expansion or upgrade.

C21 - Reliability Class (Sewage Treatment Plant)

Rationale: Required by Sewage Collection and Treatment Regulations, 9 VAC 25-790 for all municipal facilities.

C22 - Sludge Reopener (Sewage Treatment Plant)

Rationale: Required by VPDES Permit Regulation 9 VAC 25-31-220 C for all permits issued to treatment works treating domestic sewage.

C23 - Sludge Use and Disposal (Sewage Treatment Plant)

Rationale: VPDES Permit Regulation, 9 VAC 25-31-100 P; 220 B 2, and 420 through 720; and 40 CFR Part 503 require all treatment works treating domestic sewage to submit information on sludge use and disposal practices and to meet specified standards for sludge use and disposal.

C24 - Monitoring Frequencies Encompassing Multiple Months Rationale: Clarifies monitoring and reporting schedules.

C25 - Concept Engineering Report (CER)

Rationale: § 62.1-44.16 of the Code of Virginia requires industrial facilities to obtain DEQ approval for proposed discharges of industrial wastewater. A CER means a document setting forth preliminary concepts or basic information for the design of industrial wastewater treatment facilities and the supporting calculations for sizing the treatment operations. 9VAC 25-40-70.A authorizes DEQ to include technology-based annual concentration limits in the permits of facilities that have installed nutrient control equipment, whether by new construction, expansion or upgrade.

C26 - Schedule of Compliance Rationale: The VPDES Permit Regulation at 9 VAC 25-31-250 allows for schedules that will lead to compliance with the Clean Water Act, the State Water Control Law, and regulations promulgated under them. A compliance schedule has been provided for Copper, Nickel, and Zinc for the 2013 permit reissuance.

C27 - Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Monitoring Program Rationale: VPDES Permit Regulation, 9 VAC 25-31-210 and 220 I, requires monitoring in the permit to provide for and assure compliance with all applicable requirements of the State Water Control Law and the Clean Water Act. WET testing requirements and language were provided by OWP&CA. Please see Attachment J for WET evaluation and the above referenced guidance from OWP&CA.

Part I.D - Storm Water Management Conditions Rationale: VPDES Permit Regulation, 9 VAC 25-31-10 defines discharges of storm water from industrial activity. 9 VAC 25-31-120 requires a permit for these discharges. The General Storm Water Special Conditions, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan requirements, and Benchmark Monitoring requirements of the permit are derived from the VPDES general permit for discharges of storm water associated with industrial activity (VAR05), 9 VAC 25-151-10 et seq. VPDES Permit Regulation, 9 VAC 25-31-220 K, requires use of best management practices where applicable to control or abate the discharge of pollutants when numerical effluent limits are infeasible or the practices are necessary to achieve effluent limits or to carry out the purpose and intent of the Clean Water Act and State Water Control Law. General storm water requirements, SWPPP requirements, and monitoring requirements have been included in accordance with the GM10-2003 Permit Manual, Section IN-4 and in accordance with the VAR05 Industrial Storm Water General Permit (9VAC25-151-10 et seq.). The Sector Specific Requirements contained in

VA0004090: VPDES Permit Fact Sheet Surry Power Station and Gravel Neck Page 26 of 43 Parts I.D.4 and I.D.5 of the 2013 permit reflect Sector O, Steam Electric Generating Facilities, but have been revised to remove references to activities relating to coal and ash/residue handling areas because these activities are not relevant to this site.

Part II, Conditions Applicable to All Permits Rationale: VPDES Permit Regulation, 9 VAC 25-31-190 requires all VPDES permits to contain or specifically cite the conditions listed.

19. NPDES Permit Rating Work Sheet: Total Score: 600 (see Attachment K)

VA0004090: VPDES Permit Fact Sheet Surry Power Station and Gravel Neck Page 27 of 43

20. Changes to Permit:

Outfall 001 - Changes to Limitations and Monitoring Requirements 2008 Permit Modification Limitations & Monitoring 2013 Permit Limitations & Monitoring DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS MON. REQS DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS MON. REQS EFFLUENT Reason for Change CHARACT. MO WE MO WE MIN MAX FREQ SAMPL MIN MAX FREQ SAMPL AVG AVG AVG AVG Flow (MGD) NL NA NA NL Continuous Recorded NL NA NA NL Continuous Recorded No Changes pH (Standard 2 per NA NA 6.0 9.0 2 / Month Grab NA NA 6.0 9.0 Grab Units) Month The TRC limitation is more stringent due to WLAs for chlorine producing oxidants Total Residual 0.011 NA NA 0.023 1 / Day Grab 0.0080 NA NA 0.016 1 per Day Grab being used in lieu of Chlorine (mg/L)

TRC WLAs in the limitation evaluation.

See Item 16 for further information Heat Rejected Heat rejected shall not exceed Heat rejected shall not exceed 9 Continuous Recorded 9 Continuous Recorded (BTU/HR) a daily maximum of 12.6 x 10 a daily maximum of 12.6 x 10 No Changes Intake pH 2 per NA NA NL NL 2 / Month Grab NA NA NL NL Grab (Standard Units) Month Monitoring frequency increased in order to Intake Total 1/6 1 per match minimum TSS Suspended Solids NL NA NA NL Grab NL NA NA NL Grab Months Month monitoring frequencies (mg/L) for internal outfalls 116 and 117.

Limitation removed.

Total Phosphorus See Item 17 of this fact 2.0 NA NA NL 1 / Year Grab -- -- -- -- -- --

(mg/L sheet for further information.

Monitoring only added.

Thallium, total See item 16 of this fact

-- -- -- -- -- -- NL NA NA NL 1 per Year Grab

(µg/L) sheet for further information.

VA0004090: VPDES Permit Fact Sheet Surry Power Station and Gravel Neck Page 28 of 43 Outfall 101 - Changes to Limitations and Monitoring Requirements 2008 Permit Modification Limitations & Monitoring 2013 Permit Limitations & Monitoring DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS MON. REQS DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS MON. REQS EFFLUENT Reason for Change CHARACT. WE WE MA MO AVG MIN MAX FREQ SAMPL MO AVG MIN FREQ SAMPL AVG AVG X Flow (MGD) NL NA NA NL Continuous Recorded NL NA NA NL Continuous Recorded No Changes pH (Standard NA NA 6.0 9.0 1 / Day Grab NA NA 6.0 9.0 1 per Day Grab Units)

BOD5 (mg/L) 1 per 2 Monitoring frequency 30 NA NA 45 1 / Week 4 HC 30 NA NA 45 4 HC Months reduction granted in Total accordance with 1 per 6 GM10-2003 (IN-2, Suspended 30 NA NA 45 1 / Month 4 HC 30 NA NA 45 4 HC Months Pgs.51-52)

Solids (mg/L)

TRC monitoring and limitations are 3 / Day at explained in Part I.B Total Residual NA NA NA NA 4 Hr. Grab Removed of the 2013 permit.

Chlorine (mg/L)

Intervals This line item is unnecessary and redundant Monitoring frequency 4 Days per changed to match Fecal coliform 200 200 Month recommended geometric NA NA NA 1 / Week Grab geometric NA NA NA (between Grab frequency in GM10-(n/100 mL) mean mean 10 a.m. and 2003 (MN-2, Pg.2) 4 p.m.) when chlorine disinfection is used.

See Item 16 of this 4 Days per fact sheet for Enterococci 35 Month information regarding

-- -- -- -- -- -- geometric NA NA NA (between Grab (n/100 mL) the addition of this mean 10 a.m. and limitation to the 2013 4 p.m.)

permit.

VA0004090: VPDES Permit Fact Sheet Surry Power Station and Gravel Neck Page 29 of 43 Outfalls 102, 103, 106 - Changes to Limitations and Monitoring Requirements 2008 Permit Modification Limitations & Monitoring 2013 Permit Limitations & Monitoring DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS MON. REQS DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS MON. REQS EFFLUENT Reason for Change CHARACT. MO WE MO WE MIN MAX FREQ SAMPL MIN MAX FREQ SAMPL AVG AVG AVG AVG 1/6 1 per 6 Flow (MGD) NL NA NA NL Estimate NL NA NA NL Estimate Months Months 1/6 1 per 6 pH (Standard Units) NA NA NL NL Grab NA NA NL NL Grab Months Months Total Suspended No Changes 1/6 1 per 6 Solids - Net 30 NA NA 100 Grab 30 NA NA 100 Grab Months Months Increase (mg/L)

Oil and Grease 1/6 1 per 6 15 NA NA 20 Grab 15 NA NA 20 Grab (mg/L) Months Months Outfalls 116, 117 - Changes to Limitations and Monitoring Requirements 2008 Permit Modification Limitations & Monitoring 2013 Permit Limitations & Monitoring DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS MON. REQS DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS MON. REQS EFFLUENT Reason for Change CHARACT. MO WE MO WE MIN MAX FREQ SAMPL MIN MAX FREQ SAMPL AVG AVG AVG AVG 1/6 1 per Flow (MGD) NL NA NA NL Estimate NL NA NA NL Estimate Baseline monitoring Months Month frequencies applied because these outfalls discharge on 1/6 1 per pH (Standard Units) NA NA NL NL Grab NA NA NL NL Grab an intermittent basis, Months Month and monitoring frequency reductions Total Suspended are not allowed for 1/6 1 per Solids - Net 30 NA NA 100 Grab 30 NA NA 100 Grab intermittent Months Month Increase (mg/L) discharges (GM10-Oil and Grease 1/6 1 per 2003, IN-2, Pg. 53).

15 NA NA 20 Grab 15 NA NA 20 Grab (mg/L) Months Month

VA0004090: VPDES Permit Fact Sheet Surry Power Station and Gravel Neck Page 30 of 43 Outfalls 104, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 120 - Changes to Limitations and Monitoring Requirements 2008 Permit Modification Limitations & Monitoring 2013 Permit Limitations & Monitoring DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS MON. REQS DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS MON. REQS EFFLUENT Reason for Change CHARACT. MO WE MO WE MIN MAX FREQ SAMPL MIN MAX FREQ SAMPL AVG AVG AVG AVG 1/6 1 per 6 Flow (MGD) NL NA NA NL Estimate NL NA NA NL Estimate Months Months 1/6 1 per 6 pH (Standard Units) NA NA NL NL Grab NA NA NL NL Grab Months Months No Changes Total Suspended 1/6 1 per 6 30 NA NA 100 Grab 30 NA NA 100 Grab Solids (mg/L) Months Months Oil and Grease 1/6 1 per 6 15 NA NA 20 Grab 15 NA NA 20 Grab (mg/L) Months Months Outfalls 107, 114, 115, 118, 119, 121, 122 - Changes to Limitations and Monitoring Requirements 2008 Permit Modification Limitations & Monitoring 2013 Permit Limitations & Monitoring DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS MON. REQS DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS MON. REQS EFFLUENT Reason for Change CHARACT. MO WE MO WE MIN MAX FREQ SAMPL MIN MAX FREQ SAMPL AVG AVG AVG AVG 1/6 1 per Flow (MGD) NL NA NA NL Estimate NL NA NA NL Estimate Baseline monitoring Months Month frequencies applied because these 1/6 1 per outfalls discharge on pH (Standard Units) NA NA NL NL Grab NA NA NL NL Grab an intermittent basis, Months Month and monitoring frequency reductions Total Suspended 1/6 1 per are not allowed for 30 NA NA 100 Grab 30 NA NA 100 Grab Solids (mg/L) Months Month intermittent discharges (GM10-Oil and Grease 1/6 1 per 2003, IN-2, Pg. 53) 15 NA NA 20 Grab 15 NA NA 20 Grab (mg/L) Months Month

VA0004090: VPDES Permit Fact Sheet Surry Power Station and Gravel Neck Page 31 of 43 Outfall 105 - Changes to Limitations and Monitoring Requirements 2008 Permit Modification Limitations & Monitoring 2013 Permit Limitations & Monitoring DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS MON. REQS DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS MON. REQS EFFLUENT Reason for Change CHARACT. MO WE MO WE MIN MAX FREQ SAMPL MIN MAX FREQ SAMPL AVG AVG AVG AVG 1/6 1 per Flow (MGD) NL NA NA NL Estimate NL NA NA NL Estimate Baseline frequencies Months Month applied because 1/6 1 per these outfalls pH (Standard Units) NA NA NL NL Grab NA NA NL NL Grab Months Month discharge on an Total Suspended 1/6 1 per intermittent basis, 30 NA NA 100 Grab 30 NA NA 100 Grab Solids (mg/L) Months Month and monitoring Total Petroleum frequency reductions 1 per are not allowed for Hydrocarbons (TPH) NL NA NA NA 1 / Year Grab NL NA NA NA Grab Month intermittent (mg/L)

Oil and Grease 1/6 1 per discharges (GM10-15 NA NA 20 Grab 15 NA NA 20 Grab 2003, IN-2, Pg. 53)

(mg/L) Months Month Outfall 108 - Changes to Limitations and Monitoring Requirements 2008 Permit Modification Limitations & Monitoring 2013 Permit Limitations & Monitoring DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS MON. REQS DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS MON. REQS EFFLUENT Reason for Change CHARACT. MO WE MO WE MIN MAX FREQ SAMPL MIN MAX FREQ SAMPL AVG AVG AVG AVG 1 per Flow (MGD) NL NA NA NL 1 / Month Measured NL NA NA NL Estimate Month Baseline monitoring 1 per frequencies applied pH (Standard Units) NA NA NL NL 1 / Month Grab NA NA NL NL Grab Month because this outfall Total Suspended 1 per discharges on an 30 NA NA 100 1 / Month Grab 30 NA NA 100 Grab Solids (mg/L) Month intermittent basis, Total Organic 1/6 1 per and monitoring NA NA NA 110 Grab NA NA NA 110 Grab frequency reductions Carbon (mg/L) Months Month Total Petroleum are not allowed for 1 per intermittent Hydrocarbons (TPH) NL NA NA NA 1 / Year Grab NL NA NA NA Grab Month discharges (GM10-(mg/L)

Oil and Grease 1 per 2003, IN-2, Pg. 53) 15 NA NA 20 1 / Month Grab 15 NA NA 20 Grab (mg/L) Month

VA0004090: VPDES Permit Fact Sheet Surry Power Station and Gravel Neck Page 32 of 43 Outfall 002 - Changes to Limitations and Monitoring Requirements 2008 Permit Modification Limitations & Monitoring 2013 Permit Limitations & Monitoring DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS MON. REQS DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS MON. REQS Reason for Change EFFLUENT CHARACT. MO WE MO WE MIN MAX FREQ SAMPL MIN MAX FREQ SAMPL AVG AVG AVG AVG 1/6 Measure 1 per Flow (MGD) NL NA NA NL NL NA NA NL Estimate Baseline monitoring Month d Month frequencies applied 1/6 1 per because this outfall pH (Standard Units) NA NA NL NL Grab NA NA NL NL Grab Month Month discharges on an Total Suspended 1/6 1 per intermittent basis, 30 NA NA 100 Grab 30 NA NA 100 Grab Solids (mg/L) Month Month and monitoring Total Organic 1/6 1 per frequency reductions NA NA NA 110 Grab NA NA NA 110 Grab are not allowed for Carbon (mg/L) Months Month Total Petroleum intermittent 1 per discharges (GM10-Hydrocarbons (TPH) NL NA NA NA 1 / Year Grab NL NA NA NA Grab Month 2003, IN-2, Pg. 53)

(mg/L)

New limitations, see Item 16 of this fact sheet for further Copper, total 1/6 1 per information. Please NL NA NA NL Grab 3.6 NA NA 3.6 Grab recoverable (µg/L) Months Month note that the 2007 permit required monitoring only for Dissolved Copper and Zinc due to high concentrations Nickel, total 1 per observed in effluent

-- -- -- -- -- -- 9.2 NA NA 9.2 Grab recoverable (µg/L) Month screening data submitted with the 2006 application.

Permit limitations for Total Recoverable Copper and Zinc Zinc, total 1/6 1 per have replaced the NL NA NA NL Grab 36 NA NA 36 Grab recoverable (µg/L) Months Month former monitoring requirements in the 2013 permit.

VA0004090: VPDES Permit Fact Sheet Surry Power Station and Gravel Neck Page 33 of 43 Outfall 002 - Changes to Limitations and Monitoring Requirements 2008 Permit Modification Limitations & Monitoring 2013 Permit Limitations & Monitoring DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS MON. REQS DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS MON. REQS Reason for Change EFFLUENT CHARACT. MO WE MO WE MIN MAX FREQ SAMPL MIN MAX FREQ SAMPL AVG AVG AVG AVG Line item for Rainwater pH added to clarify the existing 1 per requirement listed as Rainwater pH -- -- -- -- -- -- NA NA NL NL Grab Month a footnote for this outfall. See Item 16 of this fact sheet for further information.

1/5 PCB monitoring first PCB 1260 (µg/L) NL NA NA NL Grab -- -- -- -- -- -- appeared in the 2007 years permit because 1/5 effluent screening PCB 1242 (µg/L) NL NA NA NL Grab -- -- -- -- -- --

years data submitted by the permittee reflected 1/5 Grab -- -- -- -- -- -- PCB concentrations PCB 1254 (µg/L) NL NA NA NL years less than a QL that 1/5 was greater than the PCB 1221 (µg/L) NL NA NA NL Grab -- -- -- -- -- -- DEQ-required QL at years the time. The 1/5 permittee PCB 1232 (µg/L) NL NA NA NL Grab -- -- -- -- -- --

years subsequently submitted acceptable 1/5 -- -- -- -- -- -- PCB monitoring data PCB 1248 (µg/L) NL NA NA NL Grab years to fulfill this permit requirement on 4/10/2007, and 1/5 PCB 1016 (µg/L) NL NA NA NL Grab -- -- -- -- -- -- therefore, it has been years removed from the 2013 permit.

VA0004090: VPDES Permit Fact Sheet Surry Power Station and Gravel Neck Page 34 of 43 Outfalls 050, 051, 052, 053 - Changes to Limitations and Monitoring Requirements 2008 Permit Modification Limitations & Monitoring 2013 Permit Limitations & Monitoring DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS MON. REQS DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS MON. REQS Reason for Change EFFLUENT CHARACT. MO WE MO WE MIN MAX FREQ SAMPL MIN MAX FREQ SAMPL AVG AVG AVG AVG Monitoring for Sector 1 per 3 Flow (MGD) -- -- -- -- -- -- NA NA NA NL Estimate O benchmark Months parameters added due to the addition of 1 per 3 storm water Iron, total (mg/L) -- -- -- -- -- -- NA NA NA NL Grab requirements in the Months 2013 permit.

VA0004090: VPDES Permit Fact Sheet Surry Power Station and Gravel Neck Page 35 of 43 Changes to Special Conditions and Other Changes From To Special Condition Changed Rationale The structure and language of the cover page have been modified in accordance with new agency procedures and for streamlining purposes. Signatory requirements have also changed in accordance with the October 2008 DEQ Cover Page Cover Page -- Agency Policy Statement 2-09, Delegations of Authority.

The facility name and locations have been revised to match those provided in the 2011 permit application. The authorization to discharge storm water from Outfalls 050, 051, 052, and 053 was added at the permittees request.

Part I.A.1 & Part Limitations & Monitoring Page Structure and language revised and combined for acuity Part I.A.1 I.A.1.a Preamble and streamlining purposes.

Cooling Pump Operation Equivalent Part I.A.1.a(1) Part I.A.1(a) No Change to Flow Maintain pH within 0.5 SU of Intake No Change Part I.A.1.a(2) Part I.A.1(b) pH Part I.A.1.a(3) Part I.A.1(c) Compliance Reporting Reference No Change TRC Sampling Coincide with Part I.A.1.a(4) Part I.A.1(d) Revised wording for acuity purposes Addition Part I.A.1.a(5) Part I.A.1(e) TSS Intake Sampling Revised wording for acuity purposes Revised to reflect prohibition of discharge of water with Part I.A.1.b Part I.A.2 Visible Effluent Quality visible sheen.

Part I.A.2 & Part Structure and language revised and combined for acuity Part I.A.3 Limitations & Monitoring Preamble.

I.A.2.a and streamlining purposes.

Added reference to 95% Capacity Reopener special Part I.A.2.a(1) Part I.A.3(a) Design Flow condition for clarity.

Additional TRC Requirements Part I.A.2.a(3) Part I.A.3(b) Spelled out TRC acronym for acuity purposes Reference 4 Days per Month Monitoring

-- Part I.A.3(c) New, added to clarify expected monitoring schedule.

Frequency Clarification Monitoring Frequencies

-- Part I.A.3(d) New, added to clarify expected monitoring schedule.

Encompassing Multiple Months Part I.A.2.a(2) Part I.A.3(e) Significant Figures Wording revised for clarity Part I.A.2.b Part I.A.4 85% Removal No Change Structure and language revised and combined for acuity and streamlining purposes. Removed Outfalls 116 & 117 from the 2013 permit Part I.A grouping because they are intermittent discharges and, therefore, monitoring frequencies were matched to baseline (see explanation in Limitations & Monitoring Page Part I.A.3 Part I.A.5 limitations and monitoring changes section of this fact sheet Preamble section above). The discharges from Outfall 102, 103, &

106, however, are eligible for monitoring frequency reductions for the 2013 permit, and consequently, were grouped in the Part I.A page addressed by this change explanation.

Part I.A.3(1) Part I.A.5(a) Effluent Monitoring Frequencies No Change Monitoring Frequencies

-- Part I.A.5(b) New, added to clarify expected monitoring schedule.

Encompassing Multiple Months Part I.A.3(2) Part I.A.5(c) Significant Figures Wording revised for clarity

VA0004090: VPDES Permit Fact Sheet Surry Power Station and Gravel Neck Page 36 of 43 Changes to Special Conditions and Other Changes From To Special Condition Changed Rationale This is a new limitations and monitoring requirements page (i.e. Part I.A page) created in order to separate and group those outfalls which have the same limitations and monitoring requirements. The outfalls addressed in this Limitations & Monitoring Page

[Part I.A.3] Part I.A.6 2013 permit Part I.A page were formerly grouped under Part Preamble I.A.3 of the 2008 permit modification. However, due to the intermittent discharge from these outfalls, baseline monitoring frequencies have been applied rather than the formerly reduced monitoring frequencies.

The intermittent discharge frequency from these outfalls may prevent a sampling event from occurring on a minimum basis of once per month. Therefore further sampling

-- Part I.A.6(a) Monthly Sampling Requirements instructions have been added via this footnote for months in which no discharge occurs in order that the permittee remains consistent with previous sampling practices and current agency policy.

[Part I.A.3(2)] Part I.A.6(b) Significant Figures Wording revised for clarity Structure and language revised and combined for acuity and streamlining purposes. Removed Outfalls 107, 114, 115, 118, 119, 121, & 122 from the 2013 permit Part I.A grouping because they are intermittent discharges and, therefore, monitoring frequencies were matched to baseline Limitations & Monitoring Page (see explanation in limitations and monitoring changes Part I.A.4 Part I.A.7 Preamble section of this fact sheet section above). The discharges from Outfalls 101, 102, 103, 104, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113,

& 120, however, are eligible for monitoring frequency reductions for the 2013 permit, and consequently, are grouped in the Part I.A page addressed by this change explanation.

Part I.A.4(1) Part I.A.7(a) Effluent Monitoring Frequencies No Change Monitoring Frequencies

-- Part I.A.7(b) New, added to clarify expected monitoring schedule.

Encompassing Multiple Months Part I.A.4(2) Part I.A.7(c) Significant Figures Wording revised for clarity This is a new limitations and monitoring requirements page (i.e. Part I.A page) created in order to separate and group those outfalls which have the same limitations and monitoring requirements. The outfalls addressed in this Limitations & Monitoring Page

[Part I.A.4] Part I.A.8 2013 permit Part I.A page were formerly grouped under Part Preamble I.A.3 of the 2008 permit modification. However, due to the intermittent discharge from these outfalls, baseline monitoring frequencies have been applied rather than the formerly reduced monitoring frequencies.

The intermittent discharge frequency from these outfalls may prevent a sampling event from occurring on a minimum basis of once per month. Therefore further sampling

-- Part I.A.8(a) Monthly Sampling Requirements instructions have been added via this footnote for months in which no discharge occurs in order that the permittee remains consistent with previous sampling practices and current agency policy.

[Part I.A.4(2)] Part I.A.8(b) Significant Figures Wording revised for clarity Limitations & Monitoring Page Structure and language revised and combined for acuity Part I.A.5 Part I.A.9 Preamble and streamlining purposes.

New, reflects most recent TPH analysis procedures required in accordance with the General VPDES Permit for

-- Part I.A.9(a) TPH Test Method Requirements Petroleum Contamination Sites, Groundwater Remediation, and Hydrostatic Tests (9 VAC 25-120).

VA0004090: VPDES Permit Fact Sheet Surry Power Station and Gravel Neck Page 37 of 43 Changes to Special Conditions and Other Changes From To Special Condition Changed Rationale The intermittent discharge frequency from these outfalls may prevent a sampling event from occurring on a minimum basis of once per month. Therefore further sampling

-- Part I.A.9(b) Monthly Sampling Requirements instructions have been added via this footnote for months in which no discharge occurs in order that the permittee remains consistent with previous sampling practices and current agency policy.

Part I.A.5(2) Part I.A.9(c) Significant Figures Wording revised for clarity No Discharge of Tank Bottom Part I.A.5.b Part I.A.10 No Change Waters Limitations & Monitoring Page Structure and language revised and combined for acuity Part I.A.6 Part I.A.11 Preamble and streamlining purposes.

New, reflects most recent TPH analysis procedures required in accordance with the General VPDES Permit for

-- Part I.A.11(a) TPH Test Method Requirements Petroleum Contamination Sites, Groundwater Remediation, and Hydrostatic Tests (9 VAC 25-120).

The intermittent discharge frequency from these outfalls may prevent a sampling event from occurring on a minimum basis of once per month. Therefore further sampling

-- Part I.A.11(b) Monthly Sampling Requirements instructions have been added via this footnote for months in which no discharge occurs in order that the permittee remains consistent with previous sampling practices and current agency policy.

Part I.A.5(2) Part I.A.11(c) Significant Figures Wording revised for clarity Limitations & Monitoring Page Structure and language revised and combined for acuity Part I.A.7 Part I.A.12 Preamble and streamlining purposes.

Maintain pH within 0.5 SU of Rainfall Revised for the purposes of enforceability and for clarity.

Part I.A.7.a(2) Part I.A.12(a) pH Part I.A.7.a(4) Part I.A.12(b) Quantification Levels No Change The intermittent discharge frequency from this outfall may prevent a sampling event from occurring on a minimum basis of once per month. Therefore further sampling

-- Part I.A.12(c) Monthly Sampling Requirements instructions have been added via this footnote for months in which no discharge occurs in order that the permittee remains consistent with previous sampling practices and current agency policy.

Part I.A.7.a(3) Part I.A.12(d) Significant Figures Wording revised for clarity Added because a Schedule of Compliance has been

-- Part I.A.12(e) Schedule of Compliance Reference granted to the permittee in order to meet new permit limitations at this outfall.

New, reflects most recent TPH analysis procedures required in accordance with the General VPDES Permit for

-- Part I.A.12(f) TPH Test Method Requirements Petroleum Contamination Sites, Groundwater Remediation, and Hydrostatic Tests (9 VAC 25-120).

Revised to reflect prohibition of discharge of water with Part I.A.7.b Part I.A.13 Visible Effluent Quality visible sheen.

No Discharge of Tank Bottom Part I.A.7.c Part I.A.14 No Change Waters Part I.A.15, Part I.A.15(a) Storm Water Benchmark Monitoring Added due to the permittees request that storm water Part I.A.15(b) Requirements management requirements be added to the 2013 permit.

Part I.A.15(c)

VA0004090: VPDES Permit Fact Sheet Surry Power Station and Gravel Neck Page 38 of 43 Changes to Special Conditions and Other Changes From To Special Condition Changed Rationale Wording and structure changed for acuity purposes.

Minimum TRC limitation revised to reflect two significant figures. Fecal coliform limitation added in the event that TRC and Additional Bacteria Part I.B Part I.B disinfection is by means other than chlorination.

Requirements (Outfall 101)

Enterococci demonstration study requirements removed because the permittee successfully completed the study and submitted results to DEQ on 6/21/2007.

Revised threshold value for Antimony to reflect 2 significant Part I.C.1 Part I.C.1 Notification Levels figures.

Revised to require consistency with Best Management Part I.C.2 Part I.C.2 Materials Handling and Storage Practices.

DPOR regulation name changed to match current Part I.C.3 Part I.C.3 Licensed Operator Requirements regulation Part I.C.18 / Revised combined language addresses both nutrient Part I.C.4 TMDL / Nutrient Reopener Part I.C.4 reopener and TMDL reopener.

Revised to reflect boilerplate language released by Part I.C.5 Part I.C.5 O & M Manual Requirement OWP&CA on 4/3/2012 Revised to reflect current agency guidance (GM10-2003, IN-3,Pg.15). Language further revised according to regional procedure and for clarity purposes. BOD5 QL revised from 5 mg/L to 2 mg/L for consistency with recently adopted Part I.C.6 Part I.C.6 Compliance Reporting VPDES General Permit regulations. QL for Nickel added to reflect current target value in accordance with agency guidance. QL for TPH revised to match QL for Oil &

Grease. PCB and TP QLs removed as the parameters are no longer limited or monitored in the permit.

Language unchanged. Outfalls 107, 108, 114, 115,116, 117, 118, 119, 121, 122, and 002 removed because Part I.C.7 Part I.C.7 Effluent Monitoring Frequencies monitoring frequency reductions no longer apply to these outfalls and monitoring frequencies have been returned to baseline.

Reference to ODCP regulation removed because ODCPs are required by the AST regulation. Language revised to account for how the AST regulation addresses both the Surry Power Station and Gravel Neck Station facilities with regard to groundwater monitoring. Unlike the Gravel Neck Oil Storage Ground Water facility, the Surry Power Station is not specifically required Part I.C.8 Part I.C.8 Monitoring Reopener by the AST regulation to conduct groundwater monitoring because it has an aggregated petroleum storage volume of less than 1 million gallons. However, they are required by the AST regulation to implement an early leak detection system, and one of the options for doing this is groundwater monitoring, which Virginia Power has elected to do.

Tank Bottom Waters Pump and Haul Part I.C.9 Part I.C.9 No Change Activities Part I.C.10 Part I.C.10 Intake Trash Racks No Change Part I.C.11 Part I.C.11 No Discharge of PCBs No Change Discharges of Uncontaminated Part I.C.12 Part I.C.12 No Change Water Discharge of Chlorine in Cooling Revised language to match that used as the basis for this Part I.C.13 Part I.C.13 Water special condition (40 CFR 423.13(b)(2))

Part I.C.14 Part I.C.14 Radioactivity Regulated by NRC No Change

VA0004090: VPDES Permit Fact Sheet Surry Power Station and Gravel Neck Page 39 of 43 Changes to Special Conditions and Other Changes From To Special Condition Changed Rationale Removed at the Gravel Neck Facility because the No Discharge of Tank Bottom Part I.C.15 Part I.C.15 prohibition on discharging tank bottom waters applies to Waters both the Surry Power Plant and the Gravel Neck facilities.

Part I.C.16 Part I.C.16 Water Quality Criteria Reopener No Change Revised to reflect language released by OWP&CA on Part I.C.17 Part I.C.17 316(b) Requirements 11/7/2011.

Language revised in accordance with current agency Part I.C.19 Part I.C.18 Treatment Works Closure Plan guidance (GM10-2003, IN-3 , Pg. 19). Language further revised in accordance with Staff Decisions (8/7/2012)

Part I.C.20 Part I.C.19 95% Capacity Reopener Language slightly revised for clarity.

Revised wording to reflect GM10-2003 (MN-3, Pg.4) and to Part I.C.21 Part I.C.20 CTC, CTO Requirement be consistent with GM07-2008 Amendment 2.

Part I.C.22 Part I.C.21 Reliability Class No Change Part I.C.23 Part I.C.22 Sludge Reopener No Change Revised to remove reference to the Virginia Department of Part I.C.24 Part I.C.23 Sludge Use and Disposal Health in accordance with GM10-2003 (MN-3, Pg.16)

Monitoring Frequencies New, added to clarify the expected monitoring schedule for

-- Part I.C.24 Encompassing Multiple Months monitoring periods spanning more than a single month.

New, added in accordance with 6/29/2010 regional staff, and 7/22/2010 water program manager decision to include

-- Part I.C.25 Concept Engineering Report this special condition in all industrial VPDES individual permits. Second paragraph added to be consistent with GM07-2008 Amendment 2.

New, added to provide the permittee with a schedule to

-- Part I.C.26 Schedule of Compliance attain compliance with the new 2013 permit limitations for Copper, Nickel, and Zinc.

Language revised in accordance with recommendations Part I.C.25 Part I.C.27 WET Monitoring Program from OWP&CA.

New, added at the permittees request. Storm water discharges from this site were previously covered under a No Exposure Certification issued in 2007. In January 2012 the permittee requested a meeting to discuss the fact that Dominion found it difficult to maintain a condition of No Exposure onsite during outages (about every 18 months) due to the influx of very large machinery and the need for Storm Water Management storage of replaced turbines. The permittee submitted a

-- Part I.D Conditions Form 2F application to DEQ in May 2012, but did not include monitoring data at that time. Therefore, the boilerplate special condition language from GM10-2003 (IN-3, Pg. 16) was incorporated into Part I.D in order to allow the permittee to submit Part VII of Form 2F within one year of the effective date of the permit. Once testing results are received, the permit may be reopened to incorporate regular pollutant monitoring and WET monitoring.

New, incorporated to reflect change in laboratory

-- Part II.A.4 VELAP Requirement accreditation requirements and in accordance with GM10-2003

VA0004090: VPDES Permit Fact Sheet Surry Power Station and Gravel Neck Page 40 of 43 Changes to Special Conditions and Other Changes From To Special Condition Changed Rationale Items Removed from 2008 Permit Modification Part I.A.1.a Part I.A.2.a This subpart has been combined with the rest of the Limitations & Monitoring Page Removed preamble to better match regional permit structural Part I.A.5.a Preamble preferences Part I.A.7.a The footnote is redundant to the 2013 Part I.A.3 page and Part I.A.2.a(4) Removed Fecal coliform sampling to Part I.B special condition

[Part I.A.3(1)]

[Part I.A.4(1)] Baseline monitoring frequencies have been applied for the Effluent Monitoring Frequencies 2013 permit, therefore, this footnote reference to the Part I.A.5(1) Removed Reference Effluent Monitoring Frequencies special condition is no Part I.A.6(1) longer applicable.

Part I.A.7.a(1)

Part I.A.7.a(5) Removed PCB Sampling Instructions PCB sampling is not required for the 2013 permit

21. Variances/Alternate Limits or Conditions: A §316(a) thermal variance is continued in the proposed permit.

There have been no substantial changes in the conditions described in Virginia Powers initial request for a variance under §316(a) of the Clean Water Act.

22. Public Notice Information required by 9 VAC 25-31-280 B:

Comment period: Start Date: TBD End Date: TBD Published Dates: TBD Name of Newspaper: Sussex-Surry Dispatch All pertinent information is on file and may be inspected or copied by contacting Jeremy Kazio at:

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)

Piedmont Regional Office 4949-A Cox Road Glen Allen, Virginia 23060-6296 Telephone Number 804/527-5044 Facsimile Number 804/527-5106 Email Jeremy.Kazio@deq.virginia.gov DEQ accepts comments and requests for public hearing by hand delivery, e-mail, fax or postal mail. All comments and requests must be in writing and be received by DEQ during the comment period. Submittals must include the names, mailing addresses and telephone numbers of the commenter/requester and of all persons represented by the commenter/requester. A request for public hearing must also include: 1) The reason why a public hearing is requested. 2) A brief, informal statement regarding the nature and extent of the interest of the requester or of those represented by the requester, including how and to what extent such interest would be directly and adversely affected by the permit. 3) Specific references, where possible, to terms and conditions of the permit with suggested revisions. A public hearing may be held, including another comment period, if public response is significant, based on individual requests for public hearing, and there are substantial, disputed issues relevant to the permit. The public may review the draft permit and application at the DEQ Piedmont Regional Office by appointment or may request copies of the documents from the contact person listed above.

VA0004090: VPDES Permit Fact Sheet Surry Power Station and Gravel Neck Page 41 of 43

23. Additional Comments:

Previous Board Action: None Staff Comments:

a. Watershed Nutrient General Permit: This facility is authorized to discharge total nitrogen and total phosphorus in accordance with 9 VAC 25-820-70.A.2 of the General VPDES Watershed Permit Regulation for Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus Discharges and Nutrient Trading in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed in Virginia. During promulgation of Virginias Water Quality Management Plan Regulation (9 VAC 25-720), this facility was identified as a non-significant discharger according to the definition in the regulation, and therefore the permittee did not receive site specific nutrient load allocations. Existing facilities that were not identified as significant dischargers may, nonetheless, be required to register under the Watershed Nutrient General Permit (and consequently receive individual nutrient load allocations) if the facility has undergone a design flow expansion (municipal dischargers),

or has increased its delivered nutrient load to levels that are equivalent to a design flow expansion (industrial dischargers) as outlined in § 62.1-44.19:15 (Code of Virginia), and 9 VAC 25-40-70 (Regulation for Nutrient Enriched Waters and Dischargers within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed).

For industrial dischargers, agency guidance (GM07-2008 Amd.2, Page 10) asserts that an increase in effluent flow volume should not be used to determine whether there has been an increase in delivered nutrient load from a facility unless the flow rate increase is directly associated with capital construction improvements requiring a Concept Engineering Report. Since Virginia Power has not undergone an expansion or upgrade, the permittee is not required to register under the Watershed Nutrient General Permit, and an evaluation of the facilitys delivered nutrient load is not required.

b. Monitoring Frequency Reduction: The permittee has not received any Notices of Violation in the last three years. A reduction in monitoring frequency was granted for BOD5 and TSS at Outfall 101, and for all pollutants that are limited or monitored at Outfalls 102, 103, 104, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, & 120 in accordance with GM10-2003 (IN-2, Pgs.51-53) for the 2013 permit. Please note that the monitoring frequency reduction analysis for TSS at Outfall 113 resulted in an increased monitoring frequency of 1 per 3 Months (from 1 per 6 Months). This was due to a single data point of 28.2 mg/L, which is much higher than the overall 5 year average of 8.7 mg/L (6.2 mg/L without this data point). It is staffs judgment that this data point is an outlier and does not represent the typical effluent discharged from this outfall, and therefore, it is recommended that the monitoring frequency for this parameter remain at 1 per 6 months.

Pollutants for which monitoring frequency reductions were previously granted at Outfalls 107, 108, 114, 115,116, 117, 118, 119, 121, 122, and 002 have been increased to baseline frequencies (1 per Month) because these outfalls discharge on an intermittent basis according to historic DMR data submittals and the 2011 permit application. Monitoring frequency reductions are not allowed for intermittent discharges according to GM10-2003 (IN-2, Pg. 53).

c. Storm Water Requirements: Storm water discharges from this site were previously covered under a No Exposure Certification accepted 9/28/2008. In January 2012 the permittee requested a meeting to discuss the fact that Dominion found it difficult to maintain a condition of No Exposure onsite during station outages (about every 18 months) due to the influx of very large machinery traffic and the need for storage of replaced turbines, and other large machinery, onsite. The permittee submitted a Form 2F application to DEQ in May 2012, but did not include monitoring data at that time. Therefore, the boilerplate special condition language from GM10-2003 (IN-3, Pg. 16) was incorporated into Part I.D of the 2013 permit in order to allow the permittee to submit Part VII of Form 2F within one year of the effective date of the permit. Once testing results are received, the permit may be reopened to incorporate regular pollutant monitoring and WET monitoring. In the interim, and during the rest of the permit cycle, the permittee is expected to develop and maintain a SWPPP and utitlize BMPs in accordance with Parts I.D.2, 3, and 4, as well as conduct benchmark monitoring in accordance with Part I.D.5, of the 2013 permit.

VA0004090: VPDES Permit Fact Sheet Surry Power Station and Gravel Neck Page 42 of 43

d. Permit Expiration Prior to Reissuance: This permit is being reissued subsequent to expiration due to administrative delays.

e. VDH-Office of Drinking Water (ODW) and VDH-Division of Shellfish Sanitation (DSS): The VDH-ODW indicated no objection to the existing discharge. Coordination with VDH-DSS indicated that the existing discharge would not change the current shellfish harvest designation (see Attachment L).

f. This permit reissuance is non-controversial. The staff believes that the attached effluent limitations will maintain the Water Quality Standards adopted by the Board.

g. Planning Concurrence: The discharge is not addressed in any planning document but will be included when the plan is updated.

h. EPA Comments: The draft permit was sent to EPA on --, 2013. EPA responded on --, 2013 stating that --. Please see Attachment M for EPAs full response.

i. Permit Fees: The permittee is considered to be current on their annual maintenance fee, last paid on August 22, 2012.

j. VEEP Status: The permittee is not a participant in the Virginia Environmental Excellence Program.

k. E-DMR Status: The permittee is an e-DMR participant beginning 4/19/2012.

l. Local Government Notification of Public Notice: A copy of the public notice for the 2013 permit reissuance was mailed to the Crater Planning District Commission, the Surry County Administrator, and the Chairman of the Surry County Board of Supervisors on , 2013, in accordance with the Code of Virginia, §62.1-44.15:01. No comments regarding the permit action were received.

m. Coordination with DCR: Coordination with DCR was initiated on 9/27/2012. DCR responded on 10/22/2012 stating that they do not anticipate that the permit reissuance will adversely impact natural heritage resources or state-listed threatened or endangered plant and insect species (see Attachment L)

n. Application Waiver The permittee submitted a request for, and was subsequently granted, a waiver from 24-hour composite sampling from Outfall 002. Please see Attachment N for Virginia Powers sampling plan as well as a copy of the application waiver granted by DEQ.

o. Special standards z, and ESW-11 do not apply to the segment of the river basin to which this facility discharges. Special standard a is addressed via a limitation for Fecal Coliform at Outfall 101(see Item 16 of this fact sheet for more information). See Item 25 of this fact sheet for further information regarding special standard bb.

24. Public Comment: TBD

25. 303(d) Listed Segments and TMDLs:

Outfall 001 / Outfall 052:

During the 2010 305(b)/303(d) Integrated Water Quality Assessment, the James River was considered a Category 5A water (A Water Quality Standard is not attained. The water is impaired or threatened for one or more designated uses by a pollutant(s) and requires a TMDL (303d list).) The Aquatic Life Use is impaired due to excessive chlorophyll a, inadequate benthic community, and past dissolved oxygen exceedances. The Fish Consumption Use is impaired due to a VDH advisory for PCBs; in addition, kepone is considered a non-impairing observed effect. The Recreation Use was fully supporting and the Wildlife Use was not assessed.

In the draft 2012 Water Quality Assessment, the river was assessed as Category 5D. The Aquatic Life Use is impaired due to excessive chlorophyll a, inadequate benthic community, and past dissolved oxygen exceedances. The Fish Consumption Use is impaired due to a VDH advisory for PCBs; in addition, kepone

VA0004090: VPDES Permit Fact Sheet Surry Power Station and Gravel Neck Page 43 of 43 is considered a non-impairing observed effect. The Recreation Use was fully supporting and the Wildlife Use was not assessed.

Outfall 002 / Outfall 050:

During the 2010 305(b)/303(d) and draft 2012 Assessments, the unnamed tributary was not assessed for any Designated Use. It is therefore considered a Category 3A water.

Outfall 051:

The stream was not assessed in the 2010 or draft 2012 Water Quality Assessment (Category 3A).

Outfall 053:

Stormwater outfall 052 discharges to the mesohaline James River at rivermile 2-JMS029.27. The James River was considered Category 5A in the 2010 305(b) cycle and Category 5D in the draft 2012 report. The applicable fact sheets are attached. The Aquatic Life Use is impaired due to excessive chlorophyll a and dissolved oxygen exceedances during the summer period in segment JMSMH. The Fish Consumption Use is impaired due to a VDH advisory for PCBs; in addition, kepone is considered a non-impairing observed effect. The Recreation Use and Shellfish Uses were fully supporting and the Wildlife Use was not assessed.

All Outfall Locations:

The facility was addressed in the Chesapeake Bay TMDL, which was approved by the EPA on 12/29/2010.

The TMDL allocates loads for total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and total suspended solids to protect the dissolved oxygen and submerged aquatic vegetation acreage criteria in the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries. The Surry Power Plant discharge was included in the aggregated loads for non-significant wastewater dischargers in the oligohaline James River estuary (JMSOH). The stormwater outfall discharge to the mesohaline James River estuary (JMSMH) was not addressed. The nutrient allocations are administered through the Watershed Nutrient General Permit; the TSS allocations are considered aggregated and facilities with technology-based TSS limits are considered to be in conformance with the TMDL.

a. Chesapeake Bay TMDL, chlorophyll-a, benthic impairments, and dissolved oxygen impairment:

This facility discharges directly to James River in the Chesapeake Bay watershed in segment JMSOH.

The receiving stream has been addressed in the Chesapeake Bay TMDL, approved by EPA on December 29, 2010. The TMDL addresses dissolved oxygen (DO), chlorophyll a, and submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) impairments in the main stem Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries by establishing non-point source load allocations (LAs) and point-source waste load allocations (WLAs) for Total Nitrogen (TN), Total Phosphorus (TP) and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) to meet applicable Virginia Water Quality Standards contained in 9VAC25-260-185.

Implementation of the Chesapeake Bay TDML is currently accomplished in accordance with the Commonwealth of Virginias Phase I Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP), approved by EPA on December 29, 2010. The approved WIP recognizes the General VPDES Watershed Permit Regulation for Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus Discharges and Nutrient Trading in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed of Virginia (9VAC25-820) as controlling the nutrient allocations for non-significant Chesapeake Bay dischargers. The approved WIP states that for non-significant Municipal and Industrial facilities, nutrient WLAs are to be consistent with Code of Virginia procedures, which set baseline WLAs to 2005 permitted design capacity nutrient load levels. In accordance with the WIP, TN and TP WLAs for non-significant facilities are considered aggregate allocations and will not be included in individual permits. The WIP also considers TSS WLAs for non-significant facilities to be aggregate allocations, but TSS limits are to be included in individual VPDES permits in conformance with the technology-based requirements of the Clean Water Act. However, the WIP recognizes that so long as the aggregated TSS permitted loads for all dischargers is less than the aggregated TSS load in the WIP, the individual permit will be consistent with the TMDL.

40 CFR 122.44(d)(1)(vii)(B) requires permits to be written with effluent limits necessary to meet water quality standards and to be consistent with the assumptions and requirements of applicable WLAs.

VA0004090: VPDES Permit Fact Sheet Surry Power Station and Gravel Neck Page 44 of 43 This facility is considered a Non-significant Chesapeake Bay discharger because it is an existing facility with a nutrient load equivalent to a permitted design capacity flow of less than 100,000 gallons per day into tidal waters. This facility has not made application for a new or expanded discharge since 2005. It is therefore covered by rule under the 9VAC25-820 regulation. In accordance with the WIP, TN and TP load limits are not included in this individual permit, but are consistent with the TMDL because the current nutrient loads are in conformance with the facilitys 2005 permitted design capacity loads. This individual permit includes TSS limits of 30 mg/L that are in conformance with technology-based requirements and, in turn, are consistent with the Chesapeake Bay TMDL.

Implementation of the full Chesapeake Bay WIP, including GP reductions combined with actions proposed in other source sectors, is expected to adequately address ambient conditions such that the proposed effluent limits of this individual permit are consistent with the Chesapeake Bay TMDL, and will not cause an impairment or observed violation of the standards for DO, chlorophyll a, or SAV as required by 9VAC25-260-185.

The Regulation for Nutrient Enriched Waters and Dischargers within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, 9VAC25-40, does not regulate discharges of storm water; therefore, the permittees storm water discharges are not subject to the General VPDES Watershed Permit Regulation for Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus Discharges and Nutrient Trading in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed in Virginia, 9VAC25-820. Although the storm water requirements of this permit do not include numeric limitations, it is consistent with the Chesapeake Bay TMDL through the SWPPP. The goal of the SWPPP is consistent with that of the TMDL, which is to minimize pollutants to the maximum extent possible.

b. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs): The permittee submitted effluent data for all seven PCB aroclors required by Attachment A using the proper test method (608). All PCB aroclors were reported less than the DEQ recommended QL (<1.0 µg/L). Therefore, this facilitys discharge is not expected to cause or contribute to the PCB fish consumption impairment.

26. Fact Sheet Attachment Guide:

Attachment A Flow Frequency Memo, VIMS Mixing Study Flow Diagram, Outfall Location Map, Sewage Treatment Plant Attachment B Diagram, Storm Water Outfall Location Map, Well Location Map and Sludge Hauling Route Attachment C Topographic Map and Aerial Photographs Attachment D Materials/Chemicals Used/Stored Onsite Attachment E Ambient Data from Monitoring Stations 2-JMS041.27 & 2-JMS050.57 Attachment F Facility Site Inspection Attachment G Effluent Screening Data, Form 2C Data, and DMR Data Attachment H Effluent Limitation Analysis (MSTRANTI & STATS Printouts)

Attachment I Federal Effluent Guidelines (Steam Electric Power Generating Cat.)

Attachment J WET Evaluation and Associated OWP&CA Guidance Attachment K NPDES Permit Rating Worksheet Attachment L VDH and DCR Concurrence Attachment M EPA Review Response Attachment N 5/27/2010 Application Waiver

SECTION 316(a) DEM(JNSTRI\TIOll (Type I)

SURRY POWER STATION - UNITS land 2 Submitted to Virginia State Water Control Board by Virginia Electric and Power Company August 31, 1977

SECTION 316(a) DEMONSTRATION (Type I)

SURRY POWER STATION - UNITS 1 and 2 Submitted to Virginia State Water Control Board by Virginia Electric and Power Company August 31 , 1977

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . . ... . . .. ... . ..

11. MASTER RATIONALE FOR TYPE I DEMONSTRATION 3 111. DESCRIPTION OF SURRY POWER STATION 10 A. PHYSICAL LAYOUT . . . . . . . ........ 10 B. PERTINENT ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN CHARACTER I ST ICS 11 C. CIRCULATING WATER SYSTEM . . . 12 IV. SURRY POWER STATION OPERATING HISTORY 14 V. DESCRIPTION OF THE TIDAL JAMES RIVER AND TRANSITION ZONE 20 A. HYDROLOGY 20 B. METEOROLOGY 24 C. WATER QUALITY 27

1. Chemistry 27

2. Sa 1 in i ty 29

3. Temperature 31 VI. HISTORICAL ECOLOGY OF THE TIDAL JAMES RIVER AND TRANSITION ZONE 33 A. FINFISH . . . . . 34 B. BENTHOS . . , , . 36 C. FOULING ORGANISMS 38 D. ZOOPLANKTON 39 E. PHYTOPLANKTON 41 F. THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES 42 G. VERTEBRATES OTHER THAN FINFISH . . 43 VI I. HISTORY OF THERMAL AND ECOLOGICAL STUDIES AROUND SURRY POWER STATION 44 A. THERMAL MODEL STUDIES AND FIELD VERIFICATION 45 B. ECOLOGICAL FIELD STUDIES 47

1. Finfish . . . . . 49

2. Benthos . . . . . 50

3. Fouling Organisms 51

4. Zooplankton 52

5. Phytoplankton 53 C. ECOLOGICAL LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS 54 VI II. ANALYSIS OF SURRY STUDIES BY OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY 55 IX. THERMAL PLUME ANALYSIS . . . 59 A. PHYSICAL MODEL PREDICTIONS 59 B. FIELD MEASUREMENTS . . . . 62 C. COMPARISON OF FIELD DATA WITH MODEL PREDICTIONS 64 D. COMPLIANCE WITH WATER QUALITY STANDARDS 65 X. THERMAL EFFECTS . . . 66 A. FINFI SH * . , . . 67 B. BENTHOS . . . . . 85 C. FOULING ORGANISMS 89

O. ZOOPLANKTON . . . . . . . . . . . 94 E. PHYTOPLANKTON . . . . . . . . . . 101

t. THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES 108 G. VERTEBRATES OTHER THAN FINFISH 109

SUMMARY

. . 11 0 APPENDICES 111

FIGURES Location of Surry Power Station on the James River, Virginia Typ i ca 1 Intake Current Velocity Flow Records of the James River at Richmond (1970-1976) Showing Monthly Maxima, Minima *and Averages Temperature - Salinity Hydrocl imographs Showing Average Conditions for Seven Seine Stations Around Hog Point, James River, Virginia by Month by Year, 1970-1976 Mean Benthic Community Structure Measurements by Transect Temperature Monitoring Recorders - James River in Vicinity of Hog Point

7. Sample Station Locations for Various Components of the Surry Power Station Ecological Studies

8. Boat Cruise Temperature and Salinity Monitoring Stations

9. Sample Stations for Haul Seine and Otter Trawl. Haul Seine 0001 to 0007; Otter Trawl 0009 to 0014

10. Sample Stations for Special Seine Study

11. Number of Species, Diversity (H'), Evenness (J), and Richness (D) by Season for Seine and Trawl Caught Fishes, 1970-1976

12. Temporal Distribution of Surface Salinity at Benthos Station 11

13. Temporal Distributions of Balanus sp. Population Densities at the Three Fouling Plate Stations 1971-1976

14. Temporal Distributions of Barnacle Naupli i and Balanus sp. Adults at Fouling Plate Station DWS, and of Balanus sp. Adults at all Benthos Stations Combined; 1973-1976

15. Temporal Distributions of Corophium lacustre Population Densities at the Three Fouling Plate Stations and at All Benthos Stations Combined; 1971-1976

16. Population Densities of Copepod Naupl ii in the Study Area, 1975-1976; Means Over Nine Stations 17, Population Densities of Rotifers in the Study Area, 1975-1976; Means Over Nine Stations

18. Population Densities of Bosmina sp. in the Study Area, 1975-1976; Means Over Nine Stations

19. Population Densities of Barnacle Naupl ii at the Surry Power Station Discharge, 1975-1976

Population Densities of Polychaete Larvae in the Study Area, 1975-1976; Means Over Nine Stations Surface Water Temperature and Total Phytoplankton Abundance in the Study Area, 1975-1976 Surface Salinity and Skeletonema costatum Abundance in the Study Area, 1975-1976 L

TABLES Surry Power Station - Unit One - Net Electrical Output in Megawatt Hours Surry Power Station - Unit Two - Net Electrical Output in Megawatt Hours Surry Power Station - Unit One - Plant Capacity%

Surry Power Station - Unit Two - Plant Capacity%

Preoperational and Postoperational Haul Seine Data Preoperational and Postoperational Haul Seine Data 7, Preoperational and Postoperational Trawl Data

8. Species Occurrence by Temperature 9, Species Occurrence by Salinity

10. Ecological Classification of Benthic Macroinvertebrates Found in the 01 igohaline James River

I. INTRODUCTION The Virginia Electric and Power Company (Vepco) announced plans in 1967 for the construction of a two unit nuclear powered electric generating station on Gravel Neck peninsula adjoining Hog Island in Surry County, Virginia (Fig. 1). Gravel Neck is located adjacent to the tidal ol igohaline transition zone of the James River, a major tributary of Chesapeake Bay. This zone is centered around Hog Island and generally ranges from 46 to 63 km (25-34 nautical miles) upstream from the river mouth.

Unit 1 attained initial criticality on July 1, 1972, and Unit 2 attained initial criticality on March 7, 1973.

Vepco applied for a Section 316(a) demonstration on August 16, 1974, to be filed with the Virginia Water Control Board on September 1, 1977.

The following report constitutes a non-predictive demonstration (Type I, absence of prior appreciable harm), and is submitted in accordance with the provisions and regulations under Public Law 92-500 and Vepco's request of August 16, 1974. The data presented herein will demonstrate conclusively that the therma 1 eff 1uent from Sur.ry has not caused apprec i ab 1e ha rm to the fish, she] !fish, and wildlife in and on the waters of the James River. Such proof will constitute a successful Type I demonstration and render the Surry Power Station thermal discharge eligible for alternate thermal effluent 1 imi-tations as provided in existing laws and regulations.

2

-N-I Fl.COD

• a. .

EBB INTAKE JAMES RIVER 0 2 Nautical Miles 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 Yards f FIGURE 1: Location of Surry Power Station on the James River, Virginia.

3 I I. MASTER RATIONALE FOR TYPE I DEMONSTRATION Regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provide that a Type demonstration (absence of prior appreciable harm) may permit the impo-sition of alternate effluent limitations where the applicant can demonstrate that "no appreciable harm has resulted from the thermal component of the dis-charge . . to a balanced, indigenous community of shellfish, fish and wildlife in and on the body of water into which the discharge has been made * . . "

40 C.F.R. § 122.15(b) (1) (A) (1976). In order to conduct a Type I demonstration, Vepco has conducted and funded extensive physical and ecological studies in the vicinity of Surry Power Station. As discussed below and throughout this demon-stration, data from these studies indicate that Vepco's Type I demonstration successfully meets the regulatory standard. The remainder of this master rationale discusses the requirements fo'r conducting a Type I demonstration and the results of the physical and ecological studies.'

The threshold question is whether an applicant may be permitted to conduct a Type I demonstration. Vepco submitted a Type I demonstration study plan to EPA with a copy to the State Water Control Board on October 14, 1974.

This plan was approved on March 22, 1976. Also, Vepco satisfies the require-ments for such a demonstration. According to EPA's regulations, a Type I demonstration may be conducted if it satisfies two requirements. First, an applicant must have been discharging heated effluent into a body of water for a sufficient period of time prior to its§ 316(a) application to allow evaluation of the effects of the discharge. The preamble to EPA's regulations specifies that the minimum period between the commencement of thermal discharges and a

§ 316(a) demonstration should be one year. Vepco's Surry Power Station more than satisfies this requirement -- Unit 1 became critical on July 1, 1972 and Unit 2, on

4 March 7, 1973, and Vepco submitted its applicati.on on August 16, 1974, Moreover, Vepco has conducted or funded ongoing physical and ecological studies since the late 1960's including more than three years since its application for a§ 316(a) demonstration. Thus, there is a substantial body of on-site thermal effects data with which to evaluate the influence, if any, of the discharge.

Second, the discharge must not have been into waters which are (or were) so despoiled as to preclude evaluation of the ecological effects of the thermal discharge. While the James River, at points upstream from Surry, might be considered despoiled, it is not despoiled in the vicinity of Surry because the station is located in the river's transition zone. As will be discussed later in this demonstration, this transition zone is one of relatively clean water since the pollution load in the river upstream is largely dissipated through natural processes before reachi.ng Surry. Thus, the James River in the vicinity of Surry is not so despoiled as to preclude evaluation of the ecological effects of its thermal discharge.

Once it is established that a thermal effluent qualifies for a Type demonstration, it is necessary to determine whether absence of prior appreciable harm can be demonstrated. To accomplish this entails comprehensive, long-term ecological studies in the area of concern; studies which involve communities from almost all trophic levels as well as selected species within communities. If the data from several years' duration indicate that the balanced, indigenous populations of fish, shellfish, and wildlife in and on the body of water under study are not being appreciably harmed by the thermal effluent, the demonstration should b; found successful.

The circulating water system of Surry Power Station was designed to minimize the size of the thermal plume with the knowledge that such a design would minimize any poss(ble impact on the aquatic ecosystem. During the design

5 phase of Surry Power Statio.n, Vepco contracted with Pritchard-Carpenter, Consultants, to utilize the hydraulic model of the James River estuary located.

at the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. The purpose of using the model was to develop an optimum discharge location, configuration, and exit velocity. The final design resulted in a relatively low delta-t effluent that mixes rapidly with ambient estuarine waters.

This design minimizes any possible influence from the effluent on the environ-ment by substantially reducing the area of excess temperature. Model tests also showed that by withdrawing water from the downstream side of Hog Point and discharging it into Cobham Bay upstream, any possible influence of the heated effluent on the downstream James River seed oyster beds would be eliminated.

The success of the design and the accuracy of the model have been verified by extensive field monitoring. The circulating cooling water system was desig~ed, constructed, and operated according to hydraulic model parameters.

Model verification field data were collected by VIMS from 1971 through 1975, and included several years of station operation. These field studies indicated that mode 1 project ions were conservative in that areas of exces*s temperature were much smaller than predicted. Vepco concluded and the State Water Control Board has recently agreed that, under operating conditions, the thermal plume complies with Virginia water quality standards.

The most important component of this demonstration isSection X which describes the effects, if any, of Surry's thermal discharge upon various components of the aquatic ecosystem. In order to assess these thermal effects, Vepco has conducted and funded extensive studies on various trophic levels.

Most of the proof of absence of prior appreciable harm is based upon these recent physical and ecological studies. In addition, the demonstration draws

6 from s.tudies of the James River ranging from water quality, to fishes, to power station effects which have been conducted by a myriad of sponsors for a multitude of reasons.

Field studies commenced in 1969, placing primary emphasis on fish populations and benthic communities. These studies also included fouling organ_i sms, zoop l ankton and phytoplankton studies continued throughout several years of station operation. Depending on the trophic level under investigation, sample frequency ranged from daily to annually.

The sum total of these studies support two basic conclusions. First, the heated effluent from Surry Power Station has caused no appreciable harm to the aquatic ecosystem. Second, these studies confirm what is already well-known by estuarine ecologists. The ol igohaline zone of an estuary is a highly variable, inhospitable environment cha~acterized by its natural instability.

Such instability dictates that only a few species from each trophic level are indigenous to this type zone. Other species that may be present in significant numbers, and there are many of these, are temporary inhabitants and are present when environmental conditions are sui~able for their well being.

The highest trophic level, the finfish, have not been appreciably harmed by the thermal discharges from Surry Power Station. Communities have remained stable, within natural variability, as evidenced by diversity, evenness, and richness indices and confirmed by both parametric and non-parametric statistical tests. In addition, changes within dominant species, where changes were evident, were examined and determined to be the result of natural and man-made perturbations other than Surry. Also, the thermal plume from Surry was determined not to form a barrier to migratory fishes based on studies of various anadromous species such as blueback herring (Alosa aestival is). During six years

7 of study, fishes of the James River from egg stage through adult, were subjected to a wide variety of environmental insults. Hurricane Agnes flooded the lower estuary with freshwater runoff. Certain species were overfished. Mild as well as extremely cold winters were the rule rather than the exception. Chemicals such as chlorine from sewage treatment pl*ants as well as Kepone resulted in unknown consequences.

As to ichthyoplankton, relatively few eggs and larvae were found because 1 ittle spawning occurs in the vicinity of Surry. Centers of spawning abundance are known to be well upstream and downstream. VIMS determined that

.those eggs and larvae present in the area were not being entrained by the thermal plume.

Benthos (including shellfish) and fouling organisms have not been appreciably harmed by the thermal effluent. Rather, studies have served largely to confirm the well-known low diversity and high temporal variability in communities of an estuarine transition zone. Change has occurred, largely in community structure but has not been related to the thermal effluent. Change, however, appears. related to natural events such as Hurricane Agnes, depressed salinity levels, elevated wintertime temperatures, and minimum wintertime temperatures. Natural, environmentally induced changes, have overshadowed any response of these communities that may have been due to the power station effluent.

Results of plankton studies by VIMS revealed no appreciable harm from the thermal plume to James River communities of phytoplankton and zooplankton (including egg and larval stages of benthic macroinvertebrates). Natural periodic seasonal shifts in species dominants related to normal reproductive cycles, not Surry produced temperature regimes, were found. A slight modifi-cation in community structure during the summer months was found within the discharge canal and in a small area immediately outside of the canal, but not

8 in the balance of the river. It should be noted that, while this was the only seemingly negative effect found in any of the studies related to Surry operations, the effect was due to pumping operations across the peninsula, was not a thermal effect, and did not constitute an impact. In reality, plankton populations in the plume were sometimes di luted when the downstream water was poorer in plankton than the upstream receiving water, and were augmented when the down-stream water was richer in plankton or when meroplankton were released into the cooling water canals by natural spawning activity. These were near-field, non-thermal effects that could not be detected in sampling at other stations in the river.

From these studies the following conclusions have been made:

1. These studies demonstrate that there has been, and is likely to be, no appreciable harm to the balanced, indigenous community of shellfish, fish, and wildlife in and on the James River resulting from the thermal discharge from Surry Power Station.

a. Finfish populations have shown natural variability within and between species, sample stations, months, seasons, and years. The increase or decline of any given species has not been the result of the thermal effluent from Surry. A zone of passage has not been impaired to the extent that fish and shellfish species are unable to pass upstream and downstream past the thermal discharge.

b. Benthic organisms, including shellfish, have not displayed a negative response to, or impact from, the Surry thermal effluent.

c. Fouling organisms exhibited seasonal variation patterns that changed from year-to-year in response to natural factors and indicated no appreciable harm from the Surry thermal effluent.

9

d. Zooplankton populations, while generally low in numbers, showed considerable variability in abundance within and between stations, months, and seasons, as well as depth, tide, and time of day. The zooplankton community in the transition zone was not appreciably affected by the thermal effluent.

e. Phytoplankton populations did not react to the thermal component of the Surry discharge. An infrequently observed*pumping effect in the immediate discharge area consisted of augmentation (both species and individuals within species) or reduction depending on the comparative concentration of cells between the intake and discharge. Far-field populations showed no changes due to this non-thermal pumping effect.

f. There has been no harm to threatened or endangered species.

g. Vertebrates other than finfish have not been appreciably harmed by the Surry thermal effluent.

2. Receiving water temperatures, outside the State established mixing zone, comply with thermal water quality standards.

3. The receiving waters are not of such quality that in the presence or absence of the thermal discharge promote the growth of nuisance organisms.

10 I I I. DESCRIPTION OF SURRY POWER STATION A. PHYSICAL LAYOUT Units 1 and 2 .were constructed on a peninsula of land known as Gravel Neck (Fig. 1). This peninsula, generally land of 20+ feet MSL, is adjacent to Hog .Island Waterfowl Refuge on the north, and timber lands to the south. Prior to construction, the.840 acre site was used solely for timber operations.

The station, from Intake point to discharge point, extends across the peninsula with the discharge situated upstream from the intake, about 6 miles away.

Cooling water is withdrawn from the James River through an eight-bay, reinforced-concrete intake structure (hereinafter cal led "low-level").

Housed within each of the intake bays is a 210,000 gpm circulating water pump

• which moves water through a 95-in. diameter line to an elevated intake canal.

The canal, maintaining a minimum of 45,000,000 gallons of water, is concrete lined and about 1.7 miles in length.

Cooling water flows by gravity the entire length of the canal (hereinafter cal led "high-level") into two four-bay intake structures, each structure serving one 810 MWe nuclear unit. After passing through the condensers and station proper, the water from both units, warmed by about 15 F, flows into a common discharge canal, 20-65 feet wide and 2,900 feet long. The end of the canal at the point of exit to the James River is designed to maintain a 6 fps discharge velocity to aid in the rapid mixing of heated water with ambient river water.

11 B. PERTINENT ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS Certain features of environmental significance were incorporated into the design of the Surry Power Station. Because of the proximity of the station to historical Jamestown Island, the reactor containment foundations were constructed 50 feet below grade so as to lower the tops of the concrete domes and minimize their effect on the skyline as seen from across the river.

A blue-green siding for the turbine building was chosen to help to blend the structure into the forest background. The discharge canal, 1 ined with trees, was constructed with an offset angle to minimize the view of the station from the river.

No chlorine is used for condenser cleaning at Surry Power Station.

Instead, an Amertap system was installed, utilizing abrasive sponge rubber ba 11 s.

A relatively low delta-t of 15 F was designed into the cooling system. This feature, coupled with the 6 fps jet discharge of heated water to the river, reduces the area of excess temperature in the James River proper.

Probably the feature of most significance to the aquatic environment of the James River was the design, construction, installation, and, above all, successful operation of a new concept in vertical travel] ing intake screens -

the Ristroph travelling fish screen. These screens are discussed in detail in Appendix S; briefly, they permit 94% of all impinged fishes to return alive to the James River.

12 C. CIRCULATING WATER SYSTEM Surry Power Station utilizes a once-through system to dissipate waste heat from the turbine condensers and plant service water system (Fig. 1).

Water is withdrawn from the James River by eight 210,000 gpm pumps in an eight-bay shore! ine structure. Ahead of each pump is a standard trash rack (4 inches on center, 1/2 inch thick, 3 1/2 inch clearance). Between each trash rack and pump is a Ristroph travel! ing fish screen which effectively removes fishes greater than 30 mm total length from the incoming water and safely transports about 94% of them back to the James River.

From the pumps, water travels upward through 95 inch diameter pipes to an elevated, 1.7 mile long canal, whereby it flows by gravity through a second intake structure. This high-level structure has a trash rack assembly similar to the one at the low-level structure, and conventional vertical travel] ing screens which operate on a pressure differential. Water passes through the 15 F condensers of each unit and into 12.5-ft. by 12.5-ft.

rectangular tunnels and then into separate seal-pits in the discharge canal.

The canal is 2900 feet in length; 1800 feet is concrete lined and extends from the unit discharges to the river shore] ine, and 1100 feet extends out into the river in the form of a limestone rock enclosed groin (Fig. 1).

The velocity of the water flowing through the discharge canal is about 2 fps, however, the terminal discharge velocity is maintained at 6 fps by a control structure at the end of the canal. The time required for water to travel from the low-level shore! ine intake structure to the discharge canal exit is about 61 minutes, of which the time of travel from the condenser inlet to the discharge canal exit is about 28 minutes.

13 In ful 1-power operation, the Surry Power Station discharges 11.9 x 109 Btu/hr into the James River. Dissipation of the thermal plume is dependent on prevailing estuarine and meteorological conditions including, but not 1 imited to: the flow regimes of the estuary, their associated densities and temperatures, wind velocities and direction, ambient air temperatures, and relative humidities.

River topography is also important in determining the manner of heat dissipation. The river in the vicinity is generally shallow with a maintained shipping channel. Directly across from the discharge toward Jamestown Island the river is about 2.6 miles wide. At its narrowest, opposite Hog Point, the river is 1.5 miles wide, and becomes about 3,75 miles wide opposite the low-1eve 1 intakes.

14 IV. SURRY POWER STATION OPERATING HISTORY Surry Unit 1 attained initial criticality July 1, 1972, and was declared commercial December 22, 1972. Unit 2 became critical March 7, 1973, and was declared commercial May 1, 1973. The following Tables (1-4) 1 ist net electrical output (MW-hrs) and plant capacities (%) from the time each unit became critical through June 1977.

Surry Power Station utilizes eight (8) circulating water pumps to supply cooling and service water from the James River for the condensers.

When all eight (8) circulating water pumps are in operation, the combined flow is 1,680,000 gpm or 210,000 gpm per pump.

Figure 2 indicates current velocities at the low-level intakes.

These data were determined utilizing a Bendix Savonius Rotor Current Speed Sensor Model B-1. Replicates were taken surface to bottom at one foot intervals outboard of three (3) intake bays.

The change in temperature (delta-t) of the cooling water when both units are operating at 100% capacity and all systems are functioning, varies between 14.0 and 14.8 F. If both units are operating and a malfunction in the system occurs, eg., loss of a circulating water pump, there may be a subsequent slight increase in the delta-t.

The groin discharge structure was designed to maintain an exit current velocity of approximately 6 fps. This design was established from model studies so that the velocity of the discharge water would permit maximum heat transfer efficiency with ambient river water.

15 TABLE 1: SURRY POWER STATION - UNIT ONE -

NET ELECTRICAL OUTPUT IN MEGAWATT-HOURS 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 January 76,582 -o- 561,212 139,519 February 351,949 412,497 517,366 456,863 March 345,220 251,119 431,94*1 376,648 568,732 April 313,633 503,663 462,515 426,326 195,185 May 337,327 478,272 530,894 465,205 308,286 June 266,603 498,838 477,277 527,763 551,480 July 30,252 445,294 326,556 407,891 395,817 August 409,375 548,037 487,651 416,802 September 78,764 284,190 468*, 107 429,467 422,821 October 31 159,011 243,481 286,925 November 490,569 -o- December 206,937 -o- 276,394 16 TABLE 2: SURRY POWER STATION - UNIT TWO -

NET ELECTRICAL OUTPUT IN MEGAWATT-HOURS 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 January 493,276 424,102 387,305 547,338 February 427,329 480,554 371,511 174,425 March 57,436 526,222 514,153 449,305 April 255,450 229,597 427,911 358,361 349,246 May 147,294 -o- 564,584 June 466,755 51,204 216,234 355,272 543,470 July 410,548 401,279 458,372 527,570 August 450,028 400;622 513,134 505,862 September 481,628 104,944 497,651 258,516 October 409,633 424,714 -o-November 223,365 542,529 December 475,475 553,728 129,619

17 TABLE 3: SURRY POWER STATION - UNIT ONE - PLANT CAPACITY%

1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 January 13. 1 95.7 23.8 February 66.6 78.0 94.3 87.7 March 58.9 42. 1 73. 7 64.2 98.6 Apri 1 55.4 88.8 81. 5 75. 1 35.0 May 57.5 78.2 90.6 79.3 53.5 June 47.0 84.3 84. 1 93.0 98.8 July 5. 1 76.0 53.4 69.5 67.5 August -o- 69.8 93.4 83.2 71. 1 September 13.9 50. 1 82.5 75.7 74.5 October 0.005 27. 1 41. 5 63.3 48.9 November -o- 86.5 52.5 57.6 December 44.5 -o- 32.7 47. 1 -o-Net Elec. Power Generated Plant Capacity= Cur. Lie. Power Level {788)xGross Hours in Reporting Period x lOO

18 TABLE 4: SURRY POWER STATION - UNIT TWO - PLANT CAPACITY%

1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 January 87.7 72.3 66.0 93.4 February 78.9 90.7 67.7 33.5 March 9.8 87.8 87.7 76.6 0 Apri 1 45. 1 38.8 75.4 63.2 62.7 May 25. 1 56.2 64.7 0 97.9 June 82.2 8.6 38. 1 62.6 97.4 July 70.0 65.6 78.2 90.0 August 76.8 68.3 87.5 86.3 September 84.9 18.5 87.7 45.6 October 69.8 45.8 72.4 0 November 39.3 41. 7 95.6 0 December 81. 1 38. 2 94.4 22. 1 Net Electric Power Generated . p

• d X 100 Plant Capacity= Cur. Lie. Power Level (788) x Gross Hours in Report,ng er10

19 Surface 5

10

.c a.

15

<l) 0 20 0 .5 1. 0 1. 5 2.0 Velocity (feet per second)

• FIGURE 2: Typical Intake Current Velocity

20 V. DESCRIPTION OF THE TIDAL JAMES RIVER AND TRANSITION ZONE A. HYDROLOGY The James River is tidal from its mouth at Fort Wool to its fall line at Richmond. Upstream from the site at Surry, the James is fed by a drainage area of 9517 square miles. Freshwater inflow from this watershed is highly variable, ranging from a mean monthly average low of 350 cfs in October, 1930, to a mean monthly average high of 36,185 cfs in January, 1937. Hurricane Agnes in June, 1972 caused the flood of record in the James River with a flow of 313,000 cfs.

The tidal James River is classified as a partially mixed estuary where salinity decreases in a more or less regular manner from the mouth toward the transition zone, and also increases with depth at any location.

The less saline upper part of the water column has a net non-tidal motion directed toward the mouth of the James, while the more saline deeper part has a net non-tidal motion directed upstream. The boundary between the layers is generally sloped across the estuary so that the downstream moving surface layer extends to greater depths on the right side (looking downstream) than on the left. Conditions can exist whereby a net downstream flow on the right side of the estuary coexists with a net upstream flow on the left side.

Basically this means that the net non-tidal flow involves volumes of water that are large when compared to river flow, but small compared to oscillatory tidal flow. For example, in July, 1950, the fresh water discharge at Hog Point was about 6,000 cfs, the downstream directed flow in the surface layers was 18,000 cfs, and a counter-flow upstream in the deeper layers was about 12,000 cfs. By comparison, the average volume rate of flow (upriver during flood tide, downriver during ebb tide) was about 130,000 cfs during this time.

21 Flow records for the James River have been maintained for many years at the farthest downstream gaging station on the main stem at Richmond (Fig. 3).

Using these records and i-ecords from major tributary streams downstream from Richmond, fresh water inflows at Hog Point have been calculated. It should be noted that the mean travel time for a flow of 14,000 cfs from Richmond to Hog Point is in excess of 20 days. This results in a relatively slow reaction time of the estuary at Hog Point to rapid fluctuations'{in ' flOw at Richmond. The effects of rapid changes at Richmond are dampened considerably by the time the water reaches Hog Point.

The" astronomical tide in the James River estuary, as *.;1Jo_ng the Atlantic coastline of the United States, is primarily semi-diurnal with two high and two low waters each lunar day of 24.84 hours9.722222e-4 days <br />0.0233 hours <br />1.388889e-4 weeks <br />3.1962e-5 months <br />. Mean t*ide level at Hog Point (based on a datum plane of'mean lo~_water) is +1.0 foot. Mean ,tidal

!j range is 2.1 feet and the mean spring tidal range is 2.5 feet. ,_

At Hog Point the ebb current is longer and stronger than the flood current. The average ma.ximum ebb current is 2.2 ft. sec-l (1.3 knots) while

-1 the average maximum flood current -is 1.9 ft. sec (1.1 knots). Spring tides have maximum ebb currents of 3.2 ft. sec-l (1.9 knots) and maximum flood currents of 2.8 ft. sec-l (1.6 knots). Current ebbs for 7 hours8.101852e-5 days <br />0.00194 hours <br />1.157407e-5 weeks <br />2.6635e-6 months <br /> 5 minutes and floods for 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> 20 minutes during a typical tidal period of 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> 25 minutes.

Since these figures are based on near surface observations, it should be noted that the predominance of ebb over flood decreases with decreasing river discharge and often depth.

The salinity structure in the James River has been studied almost every year since 1942. Hog* Point ha~ been established to be in the transition region between the tidal river and the estuary proper. Areas upstream and

r

• 9of

~

!!?

. -."'" I O>

I I. '!'

. - N

• C ii aof ~

0

~

~

701 I I I I I I I I

• -;;;- so I - 1I 4-I I I I I I I

<)

~

3 00 a

40

,o 20 10 J f MA MJ J A s ON 01 J f M AM J J A s O N 01 J f MAM J J A s O N DI J f MA M JJ A s ON DI J f MA M J J s ON DI J f A MA M J J s ON DIJ f A MA M J J A s ON DI J f MA M JJ As O " D.

1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 197~ 1976 FIGURE 3: Flow records of the James River at Richmond (1970-1976) showing monthly maxima, minima, and averages.

N N

23 downstream from Hog Point are subject to a wide range of salt concentrations, primarily depending on freshwater river flow. Above 10,000 cfs, the freshwater/

saltwater interface moves downstream of Hog Point. At median river flows of about 7,500 to 8,000 cfs, salinity readings off Hog Point are about 2 ppt.

High discharge rates in the James River occur generally in the colder months with low flows occurring generally in late summer and early fall.

For a more detailed description of the hydrology of the James River estuary see Appendix C from which much of the foregoing summary has been drawn.

24 B. METEOROLOGY The Surry Power Station is located in a humid subtropical climate which has warm humid summers and mild winters. Tropical maritime air dominates the area during the summer months while the winter season is dominated by a transition zone separating polar continental and tropical maritime air masses.

The site's close proximity to the Atlantic Ocean, Chesapeake Bay, and the Appalachian Mountains results in these geographic features influencing the local climate in the Surry area. The Atlantic Ocean and the Chesapeake Bay have a moderating effect on the ambient temperature at Surry. The Appalachian Mountains either deflect or modify winter storms approaching from the West and Northwest and, thereby, decrease the storms' severity for the Piedmont and Tidewater areas of Virginia.

The onsite meteorology has been monitored since March., 1974 by a mini-computer based system which satisfies the requirements of Regulatory Guide 1 .23.

The meteorological monitoring site is located 1494 meters to the southeast of Unit 1. The system includes a 45.7 meter tower. Dry bulb temperature, dew point temperature, wind speed, and wind direction are measured at the 10 meter level. Wind speed and wind direction are measured at the 45.7 meter level.

Differential dry bulb temperature is measured between the 10 meter level and the 45.7 meter level. Precipitation is measured at the surface. The data are processed into one hour averages for historical storage.

Joint frequency distributions of wind speed and wind direction for the wind sensors at the 10 m and the 45.7 m levels for the period March, 1974 through February, 1977 are-presented in Appendix B. A summary of the maximum one hour averaged wind speeds and their associated wind directions for the 10 m

25 and the 45.7 m wind sensors for the pefiod March, 1974 through February, 1977 is also presented in Appendix B. The data show that the prevailing wind direction is from the S through SW with a secondary maximum from the NW through N. This is in good agreement with climatological wind direction data for eastern Virginia.

Dry bulb temperature, dew point temperature, and differential dry bulb temperature data are presented in Appendix B for the period March, 1974 through February, 1977. The average daily value, maximum one hour value, and minimum one hour value are given for each parameter. Additionally, an hourly profile of the average parameter day for each summary period is presented. The Surry dry bulb temperature data indicate an annual average of 59.9 F and 57.8 F for 1975 and 1976 which agrees very well with the average annual temperatures for Richmond (58.5 F and 57.7 F) and Nor.folk (60.8 F and 59.7 F) for the same periods.

The Surry average annual dew point temperatures of 50.6 F and 45.1 F for 1975 and 1976 compare favorably with estimated average annual dew point temperatures for Richmond (50 F and 47 F) and Norfolk (52 F and 48 F). The one hour averaged dew point temperature extremes are 78.9 F (August, 1975) and

-4.5 F (January, 1977).

The onsite precipitation data are also given in Appendix 8. The maximum 1, 6, 12, 18, and 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> precipitation amounts and the total precipi-tation are given for each month during the period March, 1974 through February, 1977. The monthly total precipitation data for Surry are also given. The Surry annual precipitation amounts for 1975 and 1976 are 59.07 in. and 32.66 in. These amounts compare1.ery well with the precipitation totals for Richmond (61.31 in. and 34.76 in.) and Norfolk (50.53 in. and 32.36 in.) for the same periods.

26 Based upon the onsite wind speed, wind direction, dry bulb temperature, and dew point temperature data observed at Surry for the period March, 1974 through February, 1977, there are no significant deviations in the onsite meteorology from the general meteorological conditions experienced by eastern Virginia for the same period.

27 C. WATER QUALITY

1. Chemistry The James River is the most heavily industrialized and urbanized of Virginia's major tributaries to Chesapeake Bay. In addition to receiving substantial artificial enrichment from forest and agricultural sources, the tidal river receives heavy organic and inorganic loadings from both the metropolitan Richmond and the industrialized Hopewell areas.

Levels of dissolved oxygen in the James River estuary, as in other estuarine systems, are determined largely by temperature and salinity influ-enced solubility coefficients. In addition, man-made or natural organic loadings which create an oxygen demand exceeding reaeration rates also influ-ence this coefficient. Lower portions of estuaries generally range between 90 and 100 percent saturation, while upper reaches frequently fall below 90 percent due to marsh drainage and industrial wastes. In the James River, reaeration generally occurs between the transition zone and the 5 ppt isohaline and "critical" levels have not been measured around Hog Point.

Values for pH levels show that the James River estuarine and tidal fresh water is slightly alkaline with mean values of ?.4-8.0 (Appendix D). An occasional value as low as 6.8 has been recorded in the freshwater reach which has been attributed to marsh drainage water. Biological activity or minor influences by man seldom cause significant changes in pH levels. In general, mean pH values tend to decrease from the mouth upstream to the fall line although the range of values becomes wider upstream with decreasing salinity.

Alkalinity values tend to show differences with decreasing salinity in the James River because the freshwater discharge in this system is poorly

28

-1 buffered. Mean values range from 1.50 meq*l (1.26-1.71) at the 20 ppt

-1 isohaline to 0.69 meq*l (0.41-1.18) at the O ppt isohal ine.

Phytoplankton productivity in natural waters depends largely on the primary nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus. Added to trace substances these elements are discharged in large amounts into estuarine waters through runoff from farmland, sewage treatment facilities, detergents, and certain industrial activities.

Total nitrogen levels in the tidal James River are generally indicative of upstream loadings. While nitrate plus nitrite values tend to remain constant within the system at any given time, soluble organic nitrogen and particulate organic nitrogen levels varied with freshwater discharge.

Phosphorus levels are generally related to loadings from artificial sources, especially sources in Richmond and Hopewell. During the summer and fall months, the highest soluble phosphorus levels tend to be found near the mouth of the James River indicating that this form is coming from lower Chesapeake Bay or the Atlantic Ocean. Wintertime and springtime values show that total particulate phosphorus was the dominant form and these levels were generally related to high freshwater discharges during these seasons.

29

2. Salinity The James River is tidally influenced from its mouth at Ft. Wool in Hampton Roads upstream to the fall 1 ine at Richmond, about 90 nautical miles. In times of low freshwater inflow, measurable ocean-derived salt water can be found as far upstream as Hopewell, although the upstream 1 imit at median river flows is generally between Jamestown Island and the Chickahominy River. When river discharges are greater than 14,000 cfs, the boundary between the fresh water tidal river and the estuary proper is downstream from Deep Water Shoals. Thus, salinities exceeding 0.5 ppt occur off the downstream intakes about 75% of the time while the upriver 1 imit of salt intrusion extends above the upstream discharge point more than 50% of the time.

According to data appearing in Appendix C , the following salinity ranges have been observed in the vicinity of Surry Power Station:

Off intakes: Surface - 0.0 to 16.95 ppt.

at 25 ft. - 0.0 to 21.13 ppt.

Off Hog Point: Surface - 0.0 to 12.20 ppt.

at 20 ft. - 0.0 to 14.20 ppt.

Off discharge: Surface - 0.0 to 9. 19 ppt.

at 20 ft. - 0.0 to 11. 16 ppt.

While these ranges were observed from 1942 through 1965, the upper 1 imits recorded have not been measured from 1969 through 1976, the time period for Surry preoperational and operational studies (Fig. 4).

For a more detailed description of the sa! inity structure of the James River estuary, see Appendices C and D.

t 1

,. I I' ,. ,.

I 1970 1971 I 1972 1973 1974 I 197, 1976 I

30 1

______,-----;;\

I 8

.--------7' ',,==:;;3

• • "'\/\

t' /. i 8--~

' *~*/ ;.// .

> ~

.~'

• v*

10

~ I I

~

u

1/

w

"'::::,I-20 I

('\ I I

'I I .*

i . \ j'\\

I I

~ 15h 'I w

a.

c

'I

' ,,t" 112 ' \0 1 ...I

/ / :.I *~

w ,2 2 r*

I I

[\

, 1- IOt1

'I 3 II

• I /

I

. IZ

31 1, I

• t,

,1 I f 2

l I

I I

'I I

I I '

I I 't I

I

' 'I 0

I o~- .- - .- .- .-

23456789 0 2 3 4 0 2 3 0 2 3 4 5 0 I

- ----- -- --~- .--- -- ---

2 3 4 5 I

0 2 3

l __ ~-~-----~--------

0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 SALINITY (ppt)

FIGURE 4: Temperature-salinity hydroclimographs showing average conditions for seven seine stations around Hog,Point, James River, Virginia by month by year, 1970-1976.

a

p 31

3. Temperature As with salinity, the temperature structure of the James River has been studied in detail since 1942. Surface water temperatures historically have closely followed the mean daily air temperature, except for a slight lag in the spring when air temperatures rise rapidly, and in the fall when they cool rapidly. Temperature-salinity hydrocl imographs are presented in Figure 4.

Prior to station operation, the maximum surface water temperature measured in the area was 33.SC (92.8F) while the minimum was O.OC (32F) when this stretch of the river iced over in 1969. While the majority of summer surface water temperatures fall in the range of 26-28c (?8.8-82.4F), tempera-tures exceeding 30C (86F) are commonly found.

During the spring and summer wa.ter temperatures generally decrease with depth. A vertical gradient of about 4C is present over 20 feet of depth in the spring while the gradient is about 1-2C in the summer. In the fall, the temperature is approximately isothermal with wintertime.temperatures increasing slightly with depth.

It should be noted that because surface water temperatures closely track air temperatures, differences in surface water temperature patterns between years and between months of successive years can be considerable. A prolonged season such as winter can result in an "out-of-phase" spring or even an abbreviated spring if summer air temperatures occur on schedule. A prolonged winter can, for example, result in an increasing day-length occurring with cool water whereby water temperatures would "normally" be increasing along with day-length. These situations can adversely influence the normal biological processes of many species .

t

32 Minimum water temperatures can occur in December, January, February, or March while maxima can occur in July, August, or September.

More detail on the temperature structure of the James River before Surry Power Station operation can be found in Appendices C and D.

p 33 VI. HISTORICAL ECOLOGY OF THE TIDAL JAMES RIVER AND TRANSITION ZONE Aquatic populations of the James River have been studied for many years and a bibliography of these studies has been compiled by Virginia Institute of Marine Science (Appendix A). Generally, many of the investigations have examined the tidal James from its mouth at Fort Wool to the fall 1 ine at Richmond. Reference to the ol igohaline or transition zone, where Surry Power Station is situated, is contained in these pub! ications.

The following brief synopsis is a general characterization of the tidal James River taken from these many publications, with emphasis on the transition zone at Surry.

l

34 A. FINFISH The tidal James River* supports a wide diversity of finfish species ranging from exclusively marine forms near the mouth to exclusively freshwater riverine forms at the fall 1 ine in Richmond. Also present at various 1 ife stages, depending on the season, are both anadromous and catadromous species.

Extensive commercial and sport fisheries exist within the tidal James although the activities of both have been severely curtailed in recent years due to chemical contamination of the basin waters.

Limited localized surveys of the James River fish fauna have been conducted for many years. However, no systematic survey of the entire basin has ever been attempted. The Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS), through its anadromous fish program and winter trawl survey, has probably been the most instrumental in characterizing the fishes of the tidal James River. Vepco has characterized the faunas of the upper tidal James and the transition zone.

About 80 species have been taken in the transition zone and 40 in the upper tidal river.

Population densities for any given species will vary by several orders of magnitude depending on the season of the year and the location within the basin where such a determination was made. Variation of a similar magnitude also occurs between years. Long-term studies have shown that probably the most numerous estuarine species on an annual basis tend to be the indigenous forage forms such as the bay anchovy, Anchoa mitchill i, and silver-side, Menidia spp., as well as nondescript forms such as the hogchoker, Trinectes maculatus.

p 35 The. tidal James River contains meroplanktonic forms from marine, estuarine, freshwater, anadromous, and catadromous fish species that spend all or part of* their 1 ife cycles in these waters. Few fish eggs, however, are found in the vicinity of Surry Power Station because the true estuarine species generally spawn at salinities higher than 5 ppt, while the freshwater and anadromous forms spawn upriver from the 0.5 ppt isohaline. Salinities in the vicinity of Surry are usually between these values but can vary between O ppt and about 15 ppt.

Larval stages of several species, transported largely by tidal action, are found in the transition zone. Some species, especially marine and estuarine, use this zone as a nursery. Among the more notable are postlarvae of the Atlantic croaker, Micropogon undulatus and the Atlantic menhaden, Brevoortia tyrannus.

The tidal James River has been the site of several large fish kills over the last several decades. Despite these kills, the resiliency of the system has been shown as affected populations have tended to recover, some more quickly than others. Fish diversity in the tidal basin has remained relatively stable.

More detailed analyses of historical fish populations in the tidal James River appear in Appendices A and E.

36 B. BENTHOS Bottom dwelling species are found in the James River estuary from the mouth to the fall line. Variation is considerable, changes occurring Mot only with longitudinal distance upstream (Fig. 5), but with sediment type and depth within an area as wel I.

Shellfish, from the transition zone downstream form the bulk qf the benthic biomass encountered in the James River estuary. The brackish water clam, Rangia cuneata, dominates from fresh water to about 5 ppt salinity. The American oyster, Crassostrea virginica, occurs from about 5 ppt to about 20 ppt, while the hard clam, Mercenaria mercenaria, occurs extensively in higher saline parts of the lower estuary. In relatively recent times the Asiatic clam, Corbicula sp., has been found in the fre~hwater James in ever increasing numbers.

The blue crab, Call inectes sapidus, occurs sporadically in the transition zone, with population concentrations downstream in more saline waters. Commercial quantities of penaeid shrimp are not present within Chesapeake Bay.

The diversity of benthic taxa is minimal in the transition zone, increasing maximally toward seawater and moderately upriver to freshwater.

This distribution is not the result of a single environmental variable such as the oft-studied parameter salinity, but results from a combination of physical, chemical, and biological gradients which influence the genotypic physiological behavior and tolerance of all species from all sources. These variables collectively may I imit the distribution of a species to a much greater extent than could be determined through laboratory experimentation on single factors.

The ionic composition of the water~~' however, probably exerts the greatest influence on the distribution of benthic organisms.

More specific details on estuarine benthos in general and James River benthos in particular may be found in Appendices F and G.

37 e FALL 1971 3.0 0 SUMMER 1972 t,. FALL 1972

~

x:

>- 2.0 I-U) 0::

w Cl 1.0 0.75

~

~

U)

U) 0.50 w

z z

w 0.25 w

0.00 3.0 0::

(/)

~

2.0

(/)

CJ')

w 2:

r

(.)

0: 1.0 0-'----+--+----+~-+--+-+--,-+-4--+--!-,-1--+--1--+--1--.f-10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 LOWER OLIGO LOWER UPPER JAMES HALINE TIDAL FRESHWATER ESTUARY JAMES NAUTICAL MILES UPSTREAM FIGURE 5: Mean benthic community structure measurements by transect.

(from Appendix G)

38 C. FOULING ORGANISMS One component of the infauna of benthic organisms that is usually highly visible but often I ittle studied are the fouling organisms. These organisms in estuaries are commonly composed of barnacles (Bal anus spp.),

hydroids, tube-secreting worms, and sea squirts.

Diversity in the transition zone is generally low due to the salinity gradient experienced over time while numbers within a given species may be relatively high (Appendices G and H).

39 D. ZOOPLANKTON Historically, zooplankton abundance and composition in the James River has been closely related to phytoplankton abundance and turbidity levels.

The fresh water component of the James River estuary supports relatively large populations of cyclopoid and calanoid copepods, however, the heavy organic load results in cladocerans being a common part of the zooplankton community. The estuarine component is volumetrically abundant but relatively limited as to the number of species. Reasons for this phenomena include a salinity gradient compartmentil ization of species.

Whether the salinity is reduced going upstream or the salinity manifests itself going downstream from fresh water, there is an area where the most tolerant species of both environmen,ts coexist, the transition zone. At Surry, seasonal pulses are evident in both forms dependent, in part, on the salinity regime present at the time, as well as the prevailing temperature and turbidity levels. In addition to salinity zonation, temperature zonation is also known to occur.

Meroplankton includes those forms having a temporary planktonic stage (eggs, larvae, etc.) in their life cycle. Included are temporary planktonic stages of true benthic organisms and other invertebrates such as the blue crab, Callinectes sapidus, as well as fish eggs and larvae discussed previously.

Few egg stages are found in the vicinity of Surry Power Station.

Such a phenomenon oc,cu rs because the true estuarine forms genera 1 I y spawn at salinities higher than 5 ppt, while the freshwater and anadromous forms spawn upriver from the 0.5 ppt isohaline. Freshwater inflow and tidal action, however, result in 1 imited numbers of both forms present in the transition zone.

40 Larval stages of several species, transported by tidal action, are found in the transition zone. Other species, such as the indigenous brackish water clam, Rangia cuneata, spawn in the transition zone with egg and larval stages tending to cluster within the zone of salinity tolerance.

The zooplankton fauna in the transition zone is usually dominated by copepod naupl ii with occasional pulses of other forms. More detailed species information may be found in Appendices A and I.

l T

i E. PHYTOPLANKTON 41 The James River estuary, while probably the most highly enriched of Virginia's estuaries, is also one of the most turbid. High turbidity levels tend to reduce 1 ight penetration and hence phytoplankton populations; a condition usually found in the James.

The James contains both downriver saline and upriver freshwater species of phytoplankton with the transition zone around Hog Point having a mixture of the two. Standing crop, as determined by chlorophyll "a" determi-nations, wi 11 vary significantly at any given point in the estuary both within and between seasons, within and between years, and within and between stations.

In the oligohal ine zone it is not uncommon to find the fauna dominated by one or two species particularly wel 1 suited ,to existing environmental condi'tions.

The study area of the James is usually dominated by diatoms and cryptophytes with representatives from both freshwater and estuarine environ-ments present. Primary productivity values, whether by mgC/hr/m 3 or by 1

µg l , are extremely low in this zone.

Species lists appear in Appendices A and I. Individual species wi 11 be discussed in more detail in Section X-E of this demonstration.

42 F. THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES The following species are I isted as endangered (E) or threatened (T) by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service* as possibly occurring on or near the Surry Nuclear Power Station site.

Fish Acipenser brevirostrum shortnose sturgeon (E)

Birds Haliaectus l* leucocephalus southern bald eagle (E)

Falco peregrinus anatum American peregrine fa lean (E)

Falco peregrinus tundris Arctic peregrine fa I con (E)

Pelecanus occidental is brown pe Ii can (E)

Dondrocopus boreal is red-cockaded woodpecker (E)

Dendroica kirtlandi Kirtlands warbler (E)

Only the southern bald eagle and American peregrine falcon are likely to have resident individuals during any given season of the year. All others would probably occur, if at all, only as migrants through the area.

Federal Register, Wednesday, October 27, 1976, Vol. 41, No. 208, pp. 47181-47197.

j

.l L ~

1 43 G. VERTEBRATES OTHER THAN FINFISH The only category of vertebrates coming under the jurisdiction of this classification that would be reasonably close to the thermal discharge at Surry would be waterfowl. Eastern Virginia lies within a major duck and goose migration route. Consequently, directly to the north of Surry Power Station, on Hog Island, the Commonwealth of Virginia owns and operates a waterfowl refuge that is annually visited by thousands of ducks and Canada geese. The refuge consists of many freshwater ponds as well as fields that are planted each year with waterfowl food.

]

44 I:~

J I

I

,I VI I. HISTORY OF THERMAL AND ECOLOGICAL 'I STUDIES AROUND SURRY POWER STATION I

,j Historically, the James River and its ecology have been under investigation for many years and a list of these studies has been compiled in an inclusive bibliography by VIMS (Appendix A). Although the majority of these studies were conducted under Federal, State or University sponsorship, private industry such as Vepco has also contributed extensively to knowledge concerning I the James River (Appendices J and K).

Studies conducted and/or funded by Vepco with the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) were initiated in 1969. These studies, designed to assess ecological consequences of operation of a nuclear generating facility on the ol igohal ine zone of the James River, include the following trophic levels or areas of interest: finfish;benthos, primary productivity, zooplankton, phytoplankton, and fouling plate communities. In addition, extensive model and field studies on thermal plume configuration have been conducted.

Studies related to an assessment of the aquatic ecosystem as influenced by the thermal plume were divided into three categories -- thermal plume model studies, field studies and laboratory investigations.

I

'I I

II i

45 A. THERMAL MODEL STUDIES AND FIELD VERIFICATION During the design phase of Surry Power Station, Vepco and its consultant (Pritchard-Carpenter, Consultants) employed the hydraulic model of the James River estuary at the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experi-ment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, to determine the best design features and location of the circulating water system (Appendix L). The results were incorporated into the design of the station and later checked by field studies when the station became operational.

A thermal monitoring system was designed and employed by VIMS and Vepco in order to better determine the region of the James River estuary which would be affected by the discharge of the Surry Power Station as well as to better determine the temperature distribution within that area. Three different measurement systems were utilized: (1) multi-sensor system located on a small boat serving as a mobile measurement platform, (2) multi-sensor system located on towers in the James River which served as fixed instrument platforms (Fig. 6), and (3) infra-red sensor scanning system located in a plane.

Two years of background data were obtained prior to Units 1 and 2 becoming operational. These data and the subsequent three years of data collected after the plant went operational are described in detail in Appendix M. i

j

• 1 i

I

-**.*. 46 FIGURE 6: TEMPERATURE MONITORING RECORDERS - JAHES RIVER IN VICINITY ' OF HOG POINT G)

• G)

~.**

SURRY POWER~; ..

STATION ~

r--~.._._*_____;_*__~_ _!'r ...,.c~*w11 .JAMES RIVER

-'.IO:o

__ ,.:*:___:=~--'*~=~-~= -*

Le1-end l, Station Intakes

!, Deep,,ater Shoals I. Hog Point South

'* Hor, Point North Cobhan Bay Sout:il C...,l*h:,:-\ D.iy ~*1 t~!,~ 1~

Cobham I.lay Nortl1 Jmr,estown lsla::ul

47 B. ECOLOGICAL FIELD STUDIES Field studies designed specifically to characterize the biota in the Hog Point region of the James River were originated in May, 1969 by VIMS and by Vepco in 1970. The field work placed primary emphasis on fish populations and benthic communities but also included studies on phytoplankton, zooplankton, and fouling organisms. Figure 7 locates the sampling stations for various components of the Surry Power Station ecological studies.

L

rI 48 I

I I BIOLOGiCAL SAMPLE - STATIONS I

I l -N-I l:,.

MESTOI./N D *O l:,.

El D ISLAND l:,.

l:,.

00 l:,.

• HOG I SLAtlD l:,.

l:,.

0 D

l:,. l:,. 01::,.

t:,. . ~

0 a

SURRY POWER STATION

• • s::~....._,:__

O ____...____...,2 Nautical Milos JAMES RIVER IOoo o 1000 2000 3000 Yards O Trawl (Nekton) 9 Seine (Nekton)

D Plankton 13 Fouling Plates t:,. Benthos FIGURE 7: Sample station locations for various components of the Surry Power Station ecological studies.

49

1. Finfish A program by Vepco personnel was begun in May, 1970, to identify finfish populations in the shallow water oligohal ine zone of the James River near the Surry Power Station. The program's purpose was to obtain base] ine data prior to the facility becoming operational. Collections were taken monthly by beach seine and by otter trawl at thirteen locations. In addition, fish populations have been sampled by VIMS lchthyological Department on a monthly basis at four locations in the James River near Surry since 1964.

These data collectively provided a sound data base to which similar post-operative study results could be compared (Appendices N, 0, and E).

The postoperative studies were intensified to have a better under-standing of the composition and changes of the fish populations at Surry. In

• addition to the haul seine and otter trawl samples, the circulating water intake screens were employed as a biological sampling gear type during this study. The circulating water intake screen system was sampled, usually five days per week, from July, 1972 through August, 1976 (Appendix 0).

50

2. Benthos

• Studies began in May, 1969, to quantitatively and qualitatively describe the benthic organisms found in the James River adjacent to the Surry Power Station. Samples were gathered quarterly with the exception of the summer months when samples were collected monthly. Two replicates were 2

collected with a 0.07 m Van Veen grab, washed through a 1 mm screen and preserved. Selection of the sixteen stations generally was based on the sediment type found at each station as well as on the areas most likely to be influenced by the thermal discharge. A large number of these stations were, therefore, concentrated in Cobham Bay, however, some were selected in areas not likely to be affected by the effluent (Appendices Hand P).

L

51

3. Fouling Organisms Fouling organism studies have been conducted at three river towers, Cobham Bay North, Cobham Bay South and Deep Water Shoals (Fig. 6), since 1971. The studies involved suspending two pairs of 125 x 75 mm asbestos plates one meter above the bottom at each of the towers, one pair being replaced monthly and the other on a yearly schedule. Scheduled plate removal and replacement have yielded data on the fouling community in this area (Appendix H) .

l

52

4. Zooplankton Surface zooplankton samples have been taken with a No. 20 mesh Clarke-Bumpass plankton sampler on a monthly schedule since November, 1972.

Tow duration ranged from one minute to five minutes, depending on the turbidity conditions encountered. Samples were preserved and counts and identifications made using a dissecting microscope. Seven river stations were sampled in 1972-1974, increasing to twelve stations in 1975, while ten stations were sampled in 1976 (Appendices Hand P).

53

5. Phytoplankton Phytoplankton samples were taken monthly at seven river stations and in the intake and discharge canals in 1973 and 1974, and continued at six stations in 1975 and ten stations in 1976. A non-metallic 2-1 iter Van Dorn bottle was used for the collection. These samples were preserved with Lugols' iodine solution, and total cell counts and identification of dominant organisms were made using the inverted microscope method. These stations were also sampled and analyzed qua] itatively in the second half of 1972. Monthly phyto-plankton studies are continuing at ten stations. Chlorophyll a measurements were taken from July, 1972 through December, 1973 and again in 1975 and 1976.

Primary productivity measurements have been taken at three stations monthly between May, 1971 and April, 1972. This program was continued in 1975. A modified C-14 procedure was utilized at river towers Cobham Bay North (CBN),

Cobham Bay South (CBS) and at the intake canal (Fig. 6 ), (Appendices Hand P).

54 C. ECOLOGICAL LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS Diaz ( 1972) studied the effects of therma 1 shock on grow th, morta I i ty .

and setting success of oyster larvae, Crassostrea virginica. Another study researched the reproductive cycle and larval tolerance of the brackish water clam, Rangia cuneata in the James River (Cain, 1972). Dressel (1971) examined the effects of thermal shock and chlorine exposure on the estuarine copepod, Acartia tonsa. Details of these studies are presented in Appendix I.

55 VI I I. ANALYSIS OF SURRY STUDIES BY OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY The Oak Ridge National Laboratory, acting under contract with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, reviewed the physical and bLological data collected under the NRC Technical Specification requirements and published two reports authored by Adams,~~- on its evaluation of the non-radiological environmental technical specifications. The first, ORNL/NUREG/TM-69, Vol. 1, compared the quality of the studies conducted at eight nuclear ~owered generating facilities. The Surry studies received an overall ranking of 2, only behind Peach Bottom, a station located on a riverine impoundment. The authors acknowledged the quality of study data despite the complexity and dynamics of the tidal system at Surry.

A second report, ORNL/NUREG/TM-70, (Vol. 2 of ORNL/NUREG/TM-69),

covered only the studies conducted over a three-year period at Surry.

The authors concluded that the data indicated that the thermal dis-charges were enhancing the nektonic (fish) and benthic populations in the discharge area, but were having a negative effect on the phytoplankton and zooplankton in the discharge area. However, they did not address the materiality of their interpretation of negative effects on phytoplankton and zooplankton, except insofar as their conclusions implicitly recognized that any such effects have not adversely affected nektonic or benthic populations.

The conclusions relating to adverse impacts were strongly challenged by aquatic scientists of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science and the Virginia Electric and Power Company. The Institute and the Company immediately requested the Oak Ridge National Laboratory to recall the publication and correct the erroneous data analyses that led to the conclus'ions. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory has not responded to the request.

L

56 The fish and benthic data reviewed by the authors were very straight-forward, and persons with minimal knowledge and experience in estuarine systems could only conclude that the thermal discharges were not adversely affecting the populations. The oligohaline-freshwater reach of an estuary is a very complex environment for phytoplankton and zooplankton, however, and the authors completely misinterpreted the data in arriving at their conclusions.

The authors major interpretive error resulted from their complete disregard for salinity differences that occur in an oligohaline reach of an estuary both within and between years. Salinity changes may also be associated with turbidity levels in this reach because high freshwater runoff which depresses salinity also carries high levels of suspended solids. Nektonic and benthic populations that are found in the area are much better adapted to cope with fluctuations in salinity and turbidity than are phyto- and zooplankton populations.

Dr. Robert A. Jordan, Associate Marine Scientist, Virginia Institute of Marine Science; was the scientist in charge of the phytoplankton and zooplankton studies. Dr. Jordan reviewed the Oak Ridge National Laboratory Report and submitted a critical review to the authors in support of the request to recall the pub] ication.

Dr. Jordan pointed out that, "most of the data analyses performed by Adams,~~- in the sections listed above failed to support their conclusions, because the analyses either were fundamentally improper or were inaccurately done. 11

r 57 Dr. Jordan went on to say, "Consequently the statements made by Adams,~-~..!: concerning the ecological impact of the Surry Power Plant are unjustified."

Adams,~~- concluded that the 1974 data suggested inhibition of phytoplankton production in the discharge area. Dr. Jordan replied," . . .

the 1974 control means lie within the discharge confidence 1 imits for eleven of the twelve sampling dates. The control values and the discharge means were very close for the warm summer months of July, August, and September. There is certainly no statistical evidence for inhibition of phytoplankton production."

Adams,~~- contended that zooplankton densities at the control station were generally higher than those in the discharge area. Dr. Jordan's statistical analysis of the data for 1975 indicated that only two t values were significant, the value for May when the discharge mean was significantly higher than the mean for the control station and the value for July when the control mean was higher. He concluded, "These test results certainly do not support the author's statement."

The Conclusion section of Dr. Jordan's critical review follows:

"The deficiencies present in the data evaluations performed by Adams et~- are serious. The authors committed many errors attributable to carelessness: improper application of the log transformation; inaccurate construction of graphs; inaccurate interpretation of graphs. Other errors may be attributable to ignorance: failure to select benthos stations with the same substrate type to use in their data comparisons; selection of a study conducted in the polyhaline York River to provide the basis for predicting plankton responses to a thermal effluent in the oligohaline James River. Their most serious technical error, however, which renders all of their conclusions invalid, is their complete failure to invoke the concept of statistical significance in making the comparisons upon which .their con-clusions are based. Professional scientists cannot be forgiven for such a failure. As I mentioned in the section on models, L

58 I suspect that the preoccupation of Adams~~. with performing a modeling exercise can explain, to a large degree, their approach to the data evaluation and their zeal to demonstrate power plant effects that, upon proper scrutiny, prove to be imaginary."

Staff members of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science have presented numerous papers at professional meetings (Atlantic Estuarine Research Society, National Benthological Society, etc.) which described the flora and fauna of the James River in the vicinity of Hog Point before and/or after the operation of Surry Units 1 and 2. Without exception, these papers reached the same conclusion as that contained in this demonstration - that the operation of the Surry Power Station was not adversely affecting the balanced, indigenous aquatic populations of the James River.

In summary, while the Oak Ridge,review of existing data concluded that the data indicated a reduction in planktonic populations in the immediate discharge area but enhancement of benthic and nektonic populations, intensive and extensive studies conducted by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science and Vepco discussed in this demonstration, indicate that the thermal effluent from the Surry Power Station is not adversely affecting any trophic level including the balanced, indigenous population ~f fish, shellfish, or wildlife in the James River.

II IX. THERMAL PLUME ANALYSIS 59 A. PHYSICAL MODEL PREDICTIONS The distribution of excess temperature that would result from the discharge of waste heat from the Surry Power Station was determined from studies conducted on the hydraulic model of the James River estuary located at the U. S.

Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

This physical model covers the entire tidal waterway from Richmond to the mouth, and part of the lower Chesapeake Bay. Studies were conducted for Vepco by Pritchard-Carpenter, Consultants and are appended as Appendix L. The model has a horizontal scale of 1 :1000, and a vertical scale of 1:100. The approximately 90 nautical miles of the estuary are therefore represented by a model about 550 feet Jong. The time scale of this model is 1:100; therefore one day in the prototype occurs in about 14. 1/2 minutes in the model.

All pertinent features of tide, current, river inflow, and mixing of seawater and freshwater are properly scaled in the model. Density, temperature, and salinity are al 1 scaled 1 :1 in this model, and previous studies have shown that for models of this relative size, the thermal exchange processes at the water surface are also properly scaled.

A model heat source was constructed at the site of the Surry Power Station on the James River estuary. The heat source was designed to maintain a constant temperature rise of 15 F between the intake and discharge.

Tests were conducted during two different periods. The first set of tests were made between 29 July - 1 August 1966, and the second series during the period 19 October - 23 October 1966. The freshwater inflow at Richmond was maintained throughout the first series at a simulated 2000 cfs. The results of the first series of tests determined that the ideal discharge of the heated effluent back to the James River could be accomplished through a six foot per

60 second discharge velocity.

For the second series improvements were made in the temperature measuring system so that 2 thermister bead sensors were tow~d across the model on each run. In the October series the model was run for a total of 784 tidal cycles, corresponding to about 379 days of prototype time.

In addition to the simulated flow of 2000 cfs from Richmond into the model, tests were also run simulating a river flow of 6000 cfs. Results showed that there was very little difference in the distribution of excess temperature under these two different river flows. This lack of difference is largely attributable to the initial mechanical mixing produced by the jet discharge, which*provides for a rapid decrease in the maximum excess temperatures. In addition, mixing provided by the oscillatory ebb and flood of the tide, which on a single flood tide passes an average of 190,000 cfs pass the plant site, is not significantly influenced by river discharge except during very high river flows.

The results of the thermal studies in the James River estuarine model show that only a small portion of the estuarine water in the tidal segment adjacent to the plant site would be subject to excess temperatures which might have biological significance, assuming that the plant were designed, built and operated according to the parameters tested in the model. Averaged over a tidal cycle the area having excess temperatures exceeding 5 C would occupy less than 7 percent of the width of the estuary. Over 2/3 of the width of the estuary in the tidal segment adjacent to the discharge would have excess temperatures less than 2 C. The highest excess temperature which completely encloses cross-section of the river would be 0.80 C which occurs at only 1 of the eight dis-tributions over the tidal cycle. The average closing excess temperature over the tidal period would be 0.66 C.

61 Other results of the model study indicated parameters that might be useful in the design and construction of the Surry Power Station. For example, it was found that the condenser cooling water circulating system with an intake on the downstream side of the site and the discharge on the upstream side would be more desirable from the standpoint of the estuarine environment than the opposite arrangement. In addition, the mechanical mixing produced by a jet discharge, and the turbulent mixing resulting from the tidal currents, should contribute significantly to reducing the area occupied by the warmest water.

Subsequently, these two parameters in particular were incorporated into the design of Surry Power Station.

For a more detailed study of the results of the model test, the reader is referred to Appendix L.

62 B. FIELD MEASUREMENTS Temperature distribution in the James River in the vicinity of Surry Power Station is measured by two methods: stationary recorders affixed to towers or buoys within the river (Fig. 6), and a monthly boat survey that starts downstream near the intake at low slack water and proceeds upstream to the vicinity of Jamestown Island (Fig. 8). In addition, the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, under a grant from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, conducted a multitude of near-field measurements during several years of station operation (Appendix M).

Results generally show that the thermal plume dissipates rapidly due to thei:,-oper functioning of the jet discharge at the end of the discharge groin. Rapid mixing occurs between the heated effluent and ambient river water causing the area of excess temperatu~ to be kept at a minimum.

r 63

.:.A, ',

/ '

I

~A

~-" '* ' '

~ I ,,,,,,., '"Y'\

"'.. I ,,' '"T"'

' . '/:!,,."' HOG \

I' ISLAUD 1\

I \

~ \\

\

~ 6-----..C:.---'1 \ .*..,6.**** -,6 SURRY POWER STAT! ON

-;;;::,:4'...._0 _ _ ___.._ _ _ _...2 Nautical Miles JAMES RIVER 1000 a 1000 2000 3000 Yards

..... I LEGEND:

6 Monthly Salinity - Temperature Profile Station o Continuous Salinity - Temperature Monitoring Station Cl Near Surface Temperature Monitoring Station Boat Cruise FIGURE 8: Boat cruise temperature and salinity monitoring stations.

64 C. COMPARISON OF FIELD DATA WITH MOPEL PREDICTIONS Although Vepco has been collecting monthly temperature and salinity data as well as continuous temperature and salinity data from the James River estuary in the vicinity of the Surry Power Station, probably the most intensive survey in the area has been conducted by Dr. C. S. Fang, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, under ERDA project AT-(40-1)-4067. Results of Dr. Fang's study may be found as Appendix M.

Comparison of actual field studies with model studies indicates that model results tend to be about an order of magnitude higher in their predictions than actual field measurements. The main reason for this discrepancy 1 ies in the fact that the scale of the model is distorted and does not appear to accurately predict water entrainment and near field excess temperatures.

Because actual field data show that the areas of excess temperature are much less than the model predicted, and therefore much of the James River in the area is not affected by the thermal plume from Surry Power Station, the reader is referred to Appendix M showing six parts of the study by Dr. Fang on "The Thermal Effects of the Surry Nuclear Power on the James River, Virginia."

65 D. COMPLIANCE WITH WATER QUALITY STANDARDS The Commonwealth of Virginia has determined that the thermal discharge from Surry Power Station is in compliance with state water quality standards.

This determination will be reflected in the amended NPDES permit.

66 X. THERMAL EFFECTS The following section contains information from studies conducted over the past seven years (1970-1976) which show, in keeping with the purpose of the Type I demonstration (absence of prior appreciable harm), that the Surry Power Station has been operated for five years with no appreciable harm occur*ring in the balanced indigenous populations of fish, shellfish, and wildlife in the James River estuary surrounding the Surry Power Station. Sample station locations for various components of the study are shown on Figure 7.

L

67 A. FINFISH Vepco has elected to examine fish populations in the Surry area through the study of juvenile fishes. This stage in the 1 ife cycle is usually beyond the stages of highest natural mortality and can be used to reflect the general success and "health" of the current year-class of any given species as well as to make implications concerning past and future adult populations. In addition, juvenile fishes are more susceptible to capture by present-day biological sampling gear than are larvae or adults. Fishes less than 30 mm TL and greater than 200 mm TL usually display gear avoidance behavior patterns not so commonly found in fishes within this size range. Finfish in the ol igohal ine zone of the James River have been examined with probably more intensity and repetitiveness than lower organisms since th~ ecological "health" of this trophic level generally reflects the "health" of the ecosystem as a whole.

The breakdown of, or damage to, a lesser trophic level should manifest itself in this higher level once or twice removed from the affected component.

The studies of fish populations i*nfluenced by Surry Power Station operations commenced in May, 1970, and have concentrated on a 10-mile stretch of the James River centered on Hog Island (Appendices N and 0). This geographical limit allowed for a characterization of populations found about 5 miles upstream and downstream from Hog Point and encompassed both the intake and discharge areas as well as the primary study area and a reasonable far-field study area. In addition to the study of juvenile fishes by Vepco, fish eggs and larvae of the area have been sampled by VIMS through a thermal plume entrainment study (Appendices Hand P).

Although estuaries are generally regarded as intricate environments their transition zones display an even greater complexity with wide variability being characteristically normal. Physico-chemical parameters such as tempera-L

68 ture and salinity exhibit wide annual ranges and are subject to rapid changes within each range. Variations in freshwater input from the basin watershed, in addition to tidal fluctuations, have a pronounced influence on these param-eters. Natural events such as floods, hurricanes, and droughts are added variables. These changes continually influence freshwater, estuarine, and marine fishes which perpetually immigrate and emigrate through the area at different 1 ife stages. In addition, natural or man-made occurrences may be causative factors of periodic fish kills which, in turn, influence the relative abundance and/or behavior of certain species.

In an effort to assess the composition and fluctuations of the fish populations as influenced by thermal and other factors, haul seines, trawls, and circulating water system intake screen were used during this study. While each gear type has its own 1 imitations, their*uses in a repetitive sampling program have collectively provided the best available insight into the composi-tion, habits, and movements of young fishes in the area.

The overall program was divided into three parts. Seines at seven stations and trawls at six stations (Fig. 9) were used in a monthly pre-operational and postoperational survey (May, 1970 - August, 1976) (Ap~endix 0) and are continuing. A haul seine was used to study shore zone populations at three stations (Fig. 10) between the power station intake and discharge points (hereinafter called the special seine program). These three stations were sampled from May, 1973 through August, 1976. The circulating water system intake screens were sampled for impinged fish, usually five days a week, from July, 1972 through August, 1976.

Results from these three studies covering the period from May, 1970 through August, 1976 have been presented in an inclusive report (Appendix O ).

69

• 0007

-N-JAMESTOWN 0009 ISLAND 0011

\ 0003

• 0012~\

HOG 0013

~ ISLAND DEEP 0 WATER GOOSE ~ ~0010 SHOAL HILL SURRY POWER 0001 STATION *

.JAMES RIVER 0 2 Nautical Miles 1000 *o 1000 2000 3000 Yards FIGURE 9: Sample stations for haul seine and otter trawl.

Haul seine - 0001 to 0007; otter trawl - 0009 to 0014.

70

~

-N-I JAMESTOl<N ISLAND HOG I SLAtlD

~

Discharge/

C*

SURRY POI./ER STATION Intakes I

l. .

IIO~ 9 9

1000 2000 3000 2, Nautical Miles Yards JAMES RIVER I A~Hog Point-West B--Hog Point-North c~Hog Point-East FIGURE 10: Sample stations for special seine study.

71 Using three gear types during the six years of the study, 84 species and five genera of fishes were collected. This diverse population included 32 freshwater species, 32 species 1 iving in both the Atlantic Ocean and freshwater, and 20 species normally inhabiting only the Atlantic Ocean. The following are the major conclusions resulting from this comprehensive examination of young fishes residing in that section of the James River most I ikely to be influenced by operation of the Surry Power Station.

This series of studies has shown that *the nektonic community around Surry is very diverse and dynamic, changing monthly and seasonally between species and sizes of individuals within species (Fig. 11). Diversity, even-ness, and richness indices are useful analyses for determining long-term community trends and comparing pre- and postoperational communities. Since wide variability exists within and between samples, fish communities were analyzed by season, e.g., a given diversity for a given seine or trawl gear type for a given season is representative of samples from seven collection sites taken once each month for three months. Data pooled in this manner provide a more realistic look at fish community changes arid provide a damping effect on the within and between station variability.

The diversity, evenness, and richness trends are amenable to a parametric test such as regression analysis. Using least squares regression, analyses show that the young fish populations around Surry have remained relatively stable for the past six years (including two years preoperational and four years postoperational data). Regression slopes have either: (1) not changed significantly, or (2) increased slightly (p < 0.05) over time indicating improvement.

r 1

§

2-s w ,*,

I 2-0 0

-i.1.5 ... -**

• ..... o....

. . 'o .... - -o--- o--- <--,

-o- -o-~

~- -o- - - - Q .......

..... o- ....

.~o.._,,,,.-

.,,.,,.,o, '-

, 'o ------ --~ .,.

• '\ D j

.,, 1-0 ,, , ;,o '"0----o ----o ---o-" /

w 2 0*5

---"° ____,,.--...o--- ---0---0--- ---o- _ _.:-e.,.--_ ---o- __o ___ .o ___ o__ -o-- _ --- ---o---

0 0

~

3-0

.,JJ--- --*---... ' , ,,

o---.o,

~2-5 t- 2*0 '/

)' ************* ... ._

\ .- , --- ,- / ---"0----o ___ ,o __. -;..J:J-

,....o_

- ... -a....

~ .

' 'o_. - ,,,

'o' ~ ' ' ,'tl ___ ...o.

/

\

, /

5 1*5 *' \

\

D 1-0 0 - SEINE o---o TRAWL 0*5

.,30

~25 w

tzo

, ,o----o..

..... o ___ ..c..., ,/ '"'\ ' --o... ,,.o--- ....

0

-.... .. ~----o /~*

015 0

x IO ,,

, o**********

---o-- --o- --.o""' o-r--o- .- - J> 'o .......

-.- .,. ... '--o---o"'

- - ..... 0 .....

/

o' 5

§_ s F w s-* s F w s s' f w s s_ F w _s __ s F s s F VI *s* s F 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 197~ 1976 FIGURE 11: Number of species, diversity (H'), evenness (J), and richness (D) by season for seine and trawl caught fishes, 1970-1976,

-...J N

r 73 A non-parametric comparison between preoperational and postoperational diversity indices indicated either no significant difference in the means or that preoperational means were significantly (p < 0.05) less than postoperational means.

The null hypothesis was that the preoperational mean and postoperational mean were equa 1.

It was therefore concluded not only but from both parametric and non-parametric analyses of the data in Figure 11, that operation of the Surry Power Station has caused no appreciable harm to the fish community in the area. A negative response, if any, of the young fish community has not been evident as community diversity, evenness, and richness indicators have remained relatively stable or increased slightly during the six years of the study (Fig. 11).

At the species level, the following discussion focuses on the dominants, as well as certain non-dominant commercially and recreationally important species.

Changes have taken place at the species level within the community that are a direct response to other environmental perturbations that have occurred in the James River. Du*ring the study period from May, 1970 through August, 1976, a major hurricane (Agnes) resulted in the flood of record and corresponding salinity depression; several other floods occurred; droughts and attendant salinity elevations were frequent; rainfall patterns within any given year did not appear to follow expected "norms"; winters were relatively mild, on the average, except for an occasional cold snap, similar to that in January, 1976, that caused water temperatures to drop sharply in a relatively short period of time.

Between 1962 and 1971, the.re were 17 documented fish kills in the James River between Hopewell and Jamestown (Appendix 0). The Virginia Water Control Board 1 ists 24 kills in the lower James River alone from 1962 to 1973

74 (Appendix Q). The kill of 1971, prior to Surry operations, was one of the worst on record and possibly contributed to the precipitous population decline experi-enced by white perch, Marone americana. Other species possibly affected included striped bass (Marone saxati l is) and hogchoker (Trinectes maculatus).

Another kill was recorded in 1973, and another in 1974. No kills, however, were associated with the operation of the Surry Power Station.

These events have undoubtedly influenced specific fish populations in the James River. The response of the individual species, however, has not always been one of population dee! ine (Tables 5, 6, 7 ). Marine spawners whose larvae and young use the river as a nursery have generally shown increases in relative abundance. Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus), spot (Leiostomus xanthurus), and Atlantic croaker (Micropogon undulatus) are three of the dominants at Surry that were spawned in the,marine environment. Using a combination of seine and trawl catches, these three species have shown increases over preoperational times in relative percent of the total number of fishes taken during operational times. Declines in relative abundance of some anadromous species such as alewife (6,. pseudoharengus) and blueback herring

(~. aestival is) have been attributed by VIMS to natural fluctuations in year-class strength and offshore catches by foreign fishing fleets (Appendix E).

Estuarine species such as the indigenous bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli) and silvers ides (Menidia spp.) have shown no change at all or have increased.

Upper estuarine species such as channel catfish (lctalurus punctatus) and spottail shiner (Notropis hudsonius) have experienced significant population increases.

The r.esults of all of these studies only serve to emphasize what is already known about young fish populations in the transition zone of an estuarine environment. While this zone serves as a nursery for some species, there is

75 TABLE 5 -PREOPERATIONAL AND POSTOPERATIONAL HAUL SEltlE DATA Pre - 149 hauls Post - 357 hauls Frequency of Occurrence. (%)

Pre Post Pre Post vers i de sp. 95 99 Carp ~1 3 tta i I Shiner 57 77 Summer Flourider <I 4 Mosquitofish

=

~1. 2 Anchovy 56 *53 te PeTch 41 10 Tessellated Darter ~1 1 eback Herring 39 39 White Catfish ~1 2 ichog 28 17 Si Iver Perch ~1 0 t 28 30 Bluefish ~1 1 iped Bass 24 2 Harvestfish <1 0 rican Shad 22 8 B1ueg i 11 ~1 1 nt i c Menhaden 22 21 Common Shiner 0 6 ard Shad 20 23 Threadfin Shad 0 7 en Shiner 18 37 Satinfin Shiner 0 13 ki nseed 13 13 Silvery Minnow 0 8 ife 11 7 Johnny Darter 0 2 hoker 11 4 Shiner sp. *o 1

• ory Shad in <i StripPrl Mq1!1;3t 0 5 nt i c Needle fish 9 r Rough Silverside 0 3 ican Ee I 7 4 Chain Pickerel 0 2_1 ow Perch 7 4 Ladyfish 0 2 nel Catfish 6 15 Bonefish 0 <1 Sheepshead Mi nno*,1 0

=

ped Ki 11 ifish 5 <1 ~1 n Bui 1 head 5 6 Bluespotted Sunfish 0 ~1 edKillifish 5 27 Redfin Pickerel 0 ~1 nt i c Croaker 4 13 Sma I ]mouth Bass 0 <1 le Shiner 3 1 White Mullet 0 1 fish 3 0 Spotfi n Killifish 0 <1 1aJ le Jack 2* 0 *Longnose Gar 0 ~1 d Goby 2 1 Redbreast Sunfish 0 2_1 iish Sp. 2 <1 Short head Redhorse 0 ~1 ernouth Bass :l 0 lroncolor Shiner 0 <1

'er sp. 2_1 2 tern Mudm i nnow ~1 0

76 TABLE 6 -- PREOPERATIONAL AND POSTOPERATIONAL HAUL SEINE DATA Pre - 149 hauls Post - 357 hauls Total Number (%)

Blueback Herring

~

18.6

-Post

15. 5 Naked Gaby Pre

.'.'il

• 1

~o. 1 ;;,O. 1

~

,O. 1 18.0 24.5 Bluegi 11 Silverside sp. Bluefish <O. 1 ~0.1 Atlantic Menhaden *. 16. 3 . 21 . 2 <O. 1 Silver Perch 0 Bay Anchovy 14. 8 9.9 ~0.1

• 0 8.5 o.4 Largemouth Bass Alewife Weakfish _g). 1 0 Spot 6.6 2.2 Harvestfish <O. 1 0 White Perch 4.2 0.5 Eastern Mudminnow <O. 1 0 American Shad 4.2 1.3 Creval le Jack <O. 1 0 Spottail Shiner 3.8 15. 1 <O. 1 Striped Mullet 0 Striped Bass 1.6 0. 1 Common Shiner 0 0.2 0.9 1. 1 Mummichog Rough Silverside 0  :£0. 1 Atlantic Needlefish o.8 <O. 1 0.2 Threadfi n Shad 0 Golden Shiner* 0.5 1. 9 0.2 Satinfin Shiner 0 Hickory Shad 0.3 .::_0. 1 Si 1very Mi rinm~ 0 0.3 0.2 .<o. 1 -~.o. i Hog choker i-0. 1

~ ,. Jch~r.'/ Darter G Gizzard Shad V *-,

Chain Pickerel 0 =

<O. 1 Brown Bui lhead ~0.1 <O. 1 :o_O . 1 Ladyf i sh 0 Pumpkin seed ~o: 1 0.2 <O. 1 Shiner sp. 0 Sunfish sp. <O. 1 <O. 1 0 <O. 1

=

~0.1 0.5 Spotfin Killifish =

Channel Catfish White Mullet 0 ~o. 1 Yel 101-1 Perch <O. 1 ."_O. 1 0 <O. 1

<O. 1 :o_O. 1 Smallmouth Bass Striped Killifish Redfin Pickerel *O <O. 1

=~o. 1 American Ee 1 .::_O. 1 <O. 1 0

• - ~o. 1 0.7 Bluespotted Sunfish Atlantic Croaker Sheepshead Minnow 0 :o_O. 1 Banded Killifish :o_O. 1 3. 1 0 <O. 1

.::_O. 1  ;;,,O. 1 Bonefish =

Darter sp. Redbreast Sunfish 0 ~0.1 Carp :o_O. 1 <O. 1 0 <O. 1

<O. 1 :o_O. 1 lroncolor Shiner Summer Flounder Shorthead. Redhorse 0 :o_O. 1 Bridle Shiner ~0.1  ;;,,O. 1 0 <O. 1

o_O. 1 <O. 1 Longnose Gar White Catfish Mosquitofish ~o. 1  ;;,,O. 1 Tessellated Darter .::_0. 1 ~o. 1

77 TABLE 7 *- PREOPERATI ONAL AND POSTOPERAT I ONAL TRAWL DATA Pre - 90 trawls Post 300 tra11ls Frequency of Occurrence (%) Total Number (%)

Pre Post Pre Post 84 50 Hogchoker 46. 1 11. 7 Hog choker 8.8 22.9 56 25 Channel Catfish White Perch '* 8. 4 18. 1 Channe 1 Catfish 53 .74 Spot 8.2 1.3 46 55 White Perch White Catfish 15.5 39 48 Atlantic Croaker ', 7. 9 aay Anchovy 5.0 9.5 34 40 Bay AAchovy Spot 3. 1 4.9 34 44 White Catfish Atlantic Croaker 2.6 o.6 29 39 Ale1-Jife Spottail Shiner 2.6 5.3 26 4 Spottail Shiner Brown Bu 11 head 1.3 0.3 22 22 American Shad Ame:- i can Ee 1 1. 1  :;,,o. 1 18 8 Brown Bullhead American Shad o.8 0.2 17 16 Weakfish Alewife 0.7  :;,,o. 1 16 1Ii Striped Bass Carp 0.7 1. 0

.16 4 American Ee 1 Weakfish 16 2 Carp. 0.5 o. Ii Striped Bass

• n !, 0.5 12 9 Blueback Herring V * '

Biueh.:3ci< HArring 8 11 Si Iver Perch 0.3 :s.o. 1 Gizzard Shad o.3 0.7 6 1 Gizzard Shad Silver Perch 0.2 0 6 1 Hickory Shad

~arter sp. 0.2 0.3 6 5 Pumpkinseed Pumpkin seed :o.O. 1  :£.0. 1 4 0 Creval le Jack Hickory Shad g), 1  ;;.O. 1 3 4 Darter sp.

Tessellated Darter :o.O. 1 0.2 1 Tessellated Darter Creva 11 e Jack 3 :o.O. 1

• 0 1 Atlantic Sturgeon Yellow Perch 3  ;;.a. 1  ;;,o. 1 2 O* Silverside sp.

Atlantic Sturge*on 2 1 Yellow Perch g). 1  ;;.o. 1 Silverside sp.

. ~1 0 Harvestfi sh g). 1 *o Harves tfi sh g). 1 .'.50. l

<1 1 Seaboard Gaby Sea boa rd Goby ~0.1 0

<1 0 Bluespotted. Sunfish Bluespotted Sunfish g).1 0.4

.1 9 Atlantic Menhaden Atlantic Menhaden 0 0.2 0 5 Summer Flounder Summer Flounder 0 5.4 0 12 Threadfin Shad Threadfin Shad

,1 . Redbreast Sunfish 0  ;;.a. 1 Redbreast Sunfish 0  ;;,o. 1 Longnose Gar 0 Longnose Gar

• 0 <1

=

,.1 Ladyfish 0  ;;.O. 1 ladyf i sh 0  :,.0. 1 Catfish sp. 0 Catfish sp. 0 ~1  ;;,O. 1 Naked Gaby 0 Naked Gaby 0 2 Spotfin Mojarra 0 <O. 1 Spotfin Mojarra 0

=<1 0

=,;,,O. 1 0 <1 Silvery Minnov, Silvery Minnow = 0 ,:;,O. 1 0  ;;,1 Spotted Hake Spotted Hake Bluefish 0

=<1 Bluefish 0

=<O. 1

78 considerable immigration and emigration through the zone as well as constant changes taking place within the zone as well as without. lnterspecific and intraspecific competition for food and space are commonplace. Over an extended time period, natural and man-made insults generally appear to result only in relatively short-term changes, and fishes within the zone apparently thrive.

These results also show that, despite numerous environmental pertur-bations occurring in almost every year of the studies, the young fish population in the transition zone of the James River has remained relatively diverse and stable.

Turning to ichthyoplankton, the transition zone supports little spawning activity although its nursery function has been established previously.

Relatively few fish eggs and larvae are found in the area of Surry Power Station (Appendices Hand P). Of those found, numbers of individuals and numbers of species are generally at their highest in early summer, declitiing during late summer and early fall. Although the number of species continues to decrease in late fall, total numbers of larvae increase. Wintertime sees fluctuating levels of, and early springtime shows increases in, both species and individuals within species.

Analysis of total catch data showed little or no entrainment of fish larvae or fish eggs by the thermal plume. VIMS concluded that effects on ichthyoplankters caused by Surry, if any, were within natural variability.

Thus, the thermal effluent is resulting in no appreciable harm to the ichthyoplankton component of the nekton community of the James River. Naked goby, Gobiosoma bosci, and bay anchovy, Anchoa mitchilli, are the dominant species whose eggs (anchovy only) and larvae are found in the area. These two estuarine species have centers of abundance downstream from Surry Power

79 Station and those in the oligohaline zone are representative of the upstream edge of the population. Postlarvae and/or juveniles of some commercially important species such as Atlantic croaker, Micropogon undulatus, and spot, Leiostomus xanthurus, were captured seasonally in relatively low numbers; however, these are ubiquitous species, being widespread along the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts.

Species occurrences by temperature and salinity give some indication of the environmental I imits within which these species were found during the course of the study (Tables 8, 9). It is interesting to note that both marine and freshwater species apparently tolerate lower and higher salinity levels, respectively, than is popularly believed.

An additional area of concern in more northern latitudes is one of "cold shock" whereby fish ki I ls can occur upon rapid temperature decrease during winter months. No "cold shock" c~used fish kills or other effects have been observed during Surry operations.

The thermal plume was not found to form a barrier to migratory fishes.

This finding was confirmed by catches of several comparatively strong year-classes of juvenile blueback herring (Alosa aestival is), the most numerically dominant of the James River anadromous fishes. These fishes had migrated as adults upstream past Surry to spawning grounds near Hopewell and Richmond and the young were sampled as they migrated downstream past Surry to Chesapeake Bay.

Several important conclusions can be drawn from the results of the finfish study:

1. Surry Power Station operations have had no significant effect on the young fish community of the James River.

2. From May, 1970 through August, 1976, several major environmental disturbances (Surry was not one) have occurred.

r=** 'z'~til-e... ff . \*p Oc.c<AA~_.l:.,f.1~~

C

. --*---**o*-*----*- -* . -- *-**- .

u s 1111111111222222222233333 N

.* - - - - * - - * * - - - - - - - - p o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 s 9 o 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 s ..9 0_1.2 ~ 't 5 .o..J.~ .~ 9.L~.. ~_+/-__I. _ _ __

ACIPENSER OXYRHYNCHUS X X 2

• ----*--**--*---* ALBULA VULPES X l ALOSA AESTIVALIS X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X xxxx X X X X X X X X X X X 33 .

ALOSA MEDIOCR!S )( xx xxxx X X X X X X X X 15 ALOSA PSEUDDHARENGUS 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.x x ... x ___ ..32 _ _ * - - - - * * * *

• ALOSA SAPIDISSIMA X X X X X xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx X X X X X X X X X X X 31 AMIA CALVA XXX XXXXXX X 10 ANCHOA HEPSETUS X X X 3 ANCHOA MITCHILLI X XXXXXXXX-XXXXX X X X X X X X X X x*x XX XX X *-*****30 **-**-* **-*

ANGUILLA ROSTRATA 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 X X X 33

_ _ _ _ BAIRDIELLA CHRYSURA X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 14 SREVOORTIA TYRANNUS --**- -*** X x* i( X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X x x x*jcX x x x-i *x-X-34 CARANX HIPPOS X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 14 CENTRARCHUS MACROPTERUS .>< X 2

• • • • -- . X . l C!THARICHTHYS SPILOPTERUS CYNOSCION NEBULOSUS X X X 3 CYNOSCION REGALIS X X X ( X X ---*-* X X- ....

X X X**-*--

X X .X- X X X -X X- - X- - - - - - 20 2---*

CYPRINIDAE X X CYPRINODON VARIEGATUS X XXXX XXXX XXX XX X X X l7 CYPRINUS CARPIO X X X X X X xxxxxxx x x x x x x x x x x XX XX XX X. ....... 30*--*--*-*--*--*-

• - * - - - - - - - - - - DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM ****-**x*x x*x*x* XX X XX (XX XX XX XX Xi X *x XX X X XX XX XX XX 35 DOROSOMA PETENENSE X X X X X X X X XX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XX XX XX X X 34 ELOPS SAURUS

-*-------**----*-ENNEACANTHUS GLORIOSUS ---*-*---*** *-- ... -*- - --

X x ..... x .. x .... x_ ...... x. x.x_x ___ . x X X X X X X X _ _ 17*---*--*-**-*-**

X X X X X X X 7 ERIMYZDN SP. x* 1 ESOX NIGER .. _____ x __ _ ----*--------****-*** _x * - * * - * * - * - * *

• 2 - * - - * - * * * - -***

---

ETHEOSTOMA NIGRUM X X X X X X 6 ETHEOSTOMA OLMSTEDI X XX XX XX.( XXX X X X X X 16 ETH EDS TOMA SP. X X X _. X X X _ _ ... X.. X *-* .. X X .... X --* ____.11 .. _ _ _

EUCINOSTOMUS ARGENTEUS X 1 FUNDULUS CONFLUENTUS X l FUNDULUS DlAPHANUS 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 X X X 33 FUNDULUS HETEROCLITUS xx xx xx xx Xx xx xx x*)C>Cxx XX x*x xx >ix x Xx x**-*x-32---------**

FUNDULUS LUCIAE X l FUNDULUS MAJALIS X X  :( X X.. *--*** ****-*--** - X X X X

... - ..... *-* -

• X .. XX -* -*- 6 10 GAMBUSIA AFFIN!S X X x* X GASTEROSTEUS ACULEATUS X X 2 GOBIESOX STRUMOSUS X X 2 GOB!OSOMA BOSCI XX XX X X *:<XX XX X x*Y X XX X x*x*x x*icx XX x Y * - * * - *

• 2 s - - - - - * * *

• GOBIOSOMA GINSBURG! X l HYBOGNATHUS NUCHALIS 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*-**-* 30 -* ***----*-* ***-*** *-*

.. HYPORHAMPHUS UMIFASCIATUS X l ICTALURUS CATUS X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X xxxxxx X X X X 32 ICTALURUS NEBULOSUS X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X xxxxxx X X X X X X 34 ICTALURUS PUNCTATUS 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 XX XX XX x*3s-*---*-**-**

ICTALURUS SP. X X 2 00 LEIOSTOMUS XANTHURUS XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX X 33 0 LEPISOSTEUS OSSEUS X X X XX X - X * * - * - * *

• 1 * - - - - - -

LEPOMIS AURITUS X X X X X X X 7 LEPOMIS GIBBOSUS XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX x.x Xx.xx.xx XX x_x xx X x_x .. __ )(_34_**---**---

r -----*--*- ---- ------ _.... _ .... T ....(..k . .2._~c>:,,,..P.,.Q *--*-----

C o__________

~

u s l l l 1 1 1 1 l l 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 N p 0 .1 2 3 4 5 6_7 8 _9 O_l 2 .3 ... 4. 5 __ 6 __ 7_8 9_0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 __ 8 9_ 0_1_ 2 __3 4 T _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

LEPOMIS GULOSUS X 1 LEPOMIS MACROCHIRUS X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X ______156_______

LEPOMIS SP. . . X X . X X X X LUTJANUS GRISEUS X X X X 4 MEMBRAS MARTINICA X X XXX XXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 23

.. - - - MENIDIA BERYLLINA ... XXX X X X xx xx x*x x *x*x*x x*x x*x xx-x x*xx 'j( X X X X X X X X - 3 5 0 - - - - - - - -

• MENIDIA MENID!A  :< 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 X.X XX X 35 MENIDIA SP. X X X X X X X X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 30

. MICROPOGON UNOULATUS XXX X X X X X X X X X X *x X X XX XX x*xx XX XX x*x x x .. x-**;c-------":33~--------

MlCROPTERUS DDLDMIEUI X X 2 MICROPTERUS SALMOIOES X X X X X X X 1*

MORONE AMERICANA X *x X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X i( X X x* X iC5fx-x x*x x X X X 33 MORONE SAXAT!LIS xxxxxxxxx X X X X X X xxxxxxx X X X 25 MOXOSTOMA MACROLEPIDOTUM X 1 MUGIL CEPHALUS X X X XX X X X X x*x* ** -****-**----x *x * -x-x x x**x* x *x x x x x x-x-x--x-2s~-----*---

MUGIL CUREMA X XX .X X X X x 8 NOTEM!GONUS CRYSOLEUCAS 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- X**-----

X X X 32 21 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

NOTROP!S ANALOSTANUS -- X X X X X X X X X X X *x *x X . i( x* X X x*x NOTROPIS B!FRENATUS X X X X X X X X X X 10 NOTROPIS CHALYBAEUS X l NOTROP!S CORNUTUS x x x-***x --x xx x--*x - - xx -x*x--*x x 15:---------

NOTROP!S HUDSONIUS 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 X X X X X X 35 NOTROPIS PROCNE X X X .... X ----* . --* ........ -*. X . .. - 41 - - - - - - -

NOTROPIS SP.

PARALICHTHYS DENTATUS X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 24 PEPR!LUS ALEPIDOTUS X X X X X X X X X X 10

-- - . -- .. - .. **-- --*-- -*-*- -** -* )(- . . .. 1---------

PEPR!LUS TRIACNATHUS PERCA FLAVESCENS X X x X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 19 PETRDMYZON MAR!NUS X XXXXX XX 8 POMATOMUS SALTATRIX xx xx ***x--x*x xx x*x xx x-x--x x-x*-------18*---------

POMDX!S N!GROMACULATUS x X X X 4 PR!ONUTUS CAROL!NUS X X X X 4 PRIONOTUS TRIBULUS -------- --*- *- -** ****---*- * ----*-**** ***** ** *

• x - - - * - - - - - -

• 1 - ~ - - - - - -

• SCOMBEROMORUS MACULATUS xxxxxx 6 SELENE VOMER X X X X 4 SEMOTILUS ATROMACULATUS X ***--- -----*-------*1 ----*--

STRONGYLURA MARINA X X xxxxxxxx 10 SYGNATHUS FLORIDAE X SYMPHURUS PLAGIUSA x* . X X -* **x *-x* x*x * - - - - - * - - - - -17 * - - - - - - - -

TRICHIURUS LEPTURUS x X 2 TRINECTES MACULATUS 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 X X 31 UMBRA PYG~AEA X *-* ....... *-**-**-*1 UROPHYCIS REGIUS X X 2

. ---------- 00

---

~- ----------~----~-----------

r -----

~---------**

SP 0 PT5 l 2 3 4 5 b 7 8 9 10 11 12 COUNT AC!PENSER OXYRHYNCHUS X X 2 ALOSA AEST!VALIS X X X X X X X X X X X 11

. 9 ____ _

ALOSA MED!OCR!S X X X X ~ -- X --- X ------ --- - _x X X ------.. - - - - - -

ALOSA PSEUDOHARENGUS - X X X X X X X X X X X 12 ALOSA SAP!D!SS!MA X X X X X X X X X X X 11 AMIA CALVA ____________ X - - - - - - - - - - X ----- -

x_______ ---- ------- --- _____ ____ -*----------------.

., 3 ..

ANCHOA HEPSETUS X X X 3 ANCHOA MITCH IL LI X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 14 ANGUILLA ROSTRATA ___________ X_ ___ X ----- X X *-**-*** X ---- X --- . X _ x__ x_______ x___ x______ x _____ x ___ x_________ 14 BA!RDIELLA CHRYSURA X X X X X X X X X X 10 BREVOORTIA TYRANNUS X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 14 CARANX HIPPOS X X X X X x_ _x - _ 1( _ x x__ x________ x_______ x ______ 13 CENTRARCHUS MACROPTERUS X l CITHARICHTHYS SP!LOPTERUS X l CYNOSCION NEBULOSUS X X X 3

---

CYNOSCION REGALIS x----*x* --- -*x -- X X X X X X X .X X X X 14

• CYPR !NIDAE X X 2 CYPRINODON VARIEGATUS X X X X _ X -* X ----- X ____ x ___ X ---- x ___ ---* ---** __ 10_

CYPRINUS CARPIO --- -- X ----- X--- X X X X* X X X X X X 12 OOROSOMA CEPED!ANUM X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 14 DOROSOMA PETENENSE X X X X ___ x_______ x_____ x ______ x__ x ______ x_______ x____ x_____ x _ x ____ l4 _____ _

- - - ELOPS SAURUS .... -------- -- X - X X *X X X X X X X X X X 13 ENNEACANTHUS GLORIOSUS X X X X X X 6 ERJMYZON SP. _X _l ______ -

ESOX NIGER X X 2 ETHEOSTOMA NIGRUM X X X X X 5 ETHEOSTOMA OLMSTED! _________ x _________ x_____ _ X x_ .X ------ ------------ --- 5 ETHEOSTOMA SP. X X X 3 EUC!NOSTOMUS ARGENTEUS X l FUNDULUS CDNFLUENTUS X - ---- -------------------------------------------- l

- - - - - - - . FUNDULUS D!APHANUS ****-------X----x--*x*----X X X X X X X 10 FUNDULUS HETEROCLI TUS X X X X X X X X X X X X X 13 FUNDULUS LUCIAE X l FUNOULUS MAJALIS - --- X -- X X X X X X X 8 GAMBUSIA AFFINIS X *X X X 4 GASTEROSTEUS ACULEATU~ X ------- 1 GOBIESOX STRUMOSUS X l GOBIOSOMA BOSCI X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 14 GOBIOSOMA GINSBURG! X l HYBOGNATHUS NUCHAL!S X X )( X X X X X X X 10 HYPORHAMPHUS UNIFASCIATUS X l ICTALURUS CATUS X X X X --- X X X X X X X X X X l*,

ICTALURUS NEBULOSUS - X X X X X X x ---x***--** x *-*--x - ***x**-------- X -- X - l3.

!CTALURUS PUNCTATUS X X X X X X x X X X X X X X 14 ICTALURUS SP. X l LEIOSTOMUS XANTHURUS - - - - - - - X X X X X X X

• x ---x *---- x*--x X . X X 14 LEP!SOSTEUS OSSEUS X X X X X X X 7 LEPOMIS AURITUS X X X X X X 6 LEPOMIS GIBBOSUS X . - X X X X X X X X X X - X X l3 LEPOMI S GULOSUS X l co LEPOMIS MACROCHIRUS X X X X X X 6 N LEPOMIS SP. ------- - X X X X X 5 LUT JANUS GRISEUS X X X X X 5 x _____ x ___ x _______ x _______ x _x _____ 14 MEMBRAS MARTINICA X X X X X ,. --X---*- X X

~--~-:.

• * * - SP *--*-----*--**-*-- *--

0 PT5 l 2 3 4

-1 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 CWNT MENID!A BERYLLINA . X X X X x x )c-*--,c--x ___x___ x x x i:f MENIDIA MENIDIA X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 14 MEN IOI A SP. X X X X X x ______ x___ x ___ x_____ x ____ x______________ 11 ______

M!CROPOGON UNDULATUS ***--- X .. X X X X X X X X X X X X X 14 MICRDPTERUS DOLOMIEUI X MICROPTERUS SALMD!OES X 1 X X X MORONE AMERICANA . *---*x X X X X x * *-x:--~x- X i( X X X 13 4

MOROC-/E SAXATILIS X X X X X x X X X X X X 12 MOXOSTOMA MACROLEPIDOTUM X MUG!L CEPHALUS -* - *x x* 1 X X X X X- X-- X X X X X X 14------*

MUG!L CUREMA X X X X 4 NOTEMIGONUS CRYSOLEUCAS X X X NOTRDPIS ANALOSTANus* - - x -**---x X- --- X X X x-*--x--x-- X X X X

--X X

• X X X 14_____ _

NDTRDP!S BI FRENATUS X X 7 X X X 5 NOTROPIS CHALYBAEUS X NOTROP!S CDRNUTUS *- .. -** X X X X X X NOTROPIS HUDSDN!US X 6 X X X X X X X X X X X X 13 NOTROPIS PROCNE X _______________________ J~---

NOTROP!S SP. - -*x -- -** -X -----

PARAL!CHTHYS OENTATUS X X X 2 X X X X X X X X X X 13 PEPRILUS ALEPIDOTUS X X X X X X X 7 PEPRILUS TR!ACNATHUS . ----- x-------- l PERCA FLAVESCENS X X X X X X X X 8 PETROMYZON MARINUS X X X

?OMATOMUS SALTATRIX . X X X

x-*-*x---x. x x x _x___x___x x x n4 POMOXIS NIGROMACULATUS X X X 3 PR!ONOTUS CAROL!NUS X X X 3 PR!ONOTUS TR!BULUS -**---*--- X - - - - - - - **i-**---

SCOMBEROMORUS MACULATUS X X X X X X X X 8 SELENE VOMER X SEMOTILUS ATROMACULATUS - i-- ~---x 3 1---**

STRONGYLURA MARINA X X X X X X X X X X X X 12 SYGNATHUS FLORIOAE

--***---- -*- .. X x- --x* l SYMPHURUS PLAGIUSA ~

X X X *s ----

TR!CH!URUS LEPTURUS X X TR!NECTES MACULATUS 2 X X X X X UMBRA PYGMAEA .. **--**-*-****- *xX XX X

--* - **- ---XX - X X X 14 1----

UROPHYC!S REG!US X X 2 co w

---

--*--- ------*--- --- - - --- ---~-----*------** *------

84

3. There have been increases in the relative abundance of some species, decreases in others, while still other species such as the indigenous bay anchovy have shown no change at all. None of these changes could be correlated with Surry operations.

4. No "cold shock" fish kills have occurred.

5. No thermal barrier to migratory fishes was found to be present.

6. These studies show that, despite both natural and man-made pertur-bations, the young fish community of the transition zone of the James River is viable and stable and, above all, exhibits no appreciable response to Surry Power Station operation.

I

,+

85 B. BENTHOS Benthic macroinvertebrate studies have been conducted in the transition zone of the James River since 1969. Because this zone is of low but highly variable salinity (Fig. 12) and is characterized by high turbidities and sedimentation rates, it presents an inhospitable environment for all but a few of the most tolerant of benthic species (Appendix G). Those surviving either maintain viable, reproducing resident populations, or are temporary invaders when suitable environmental conditions permit. Consequently, the benthos of the area are characterized by low species diversity values (0-3.04 bits per individual), values that have been found throughout the study period.

Diversity values have remained within natural 1 imits of level and variability before and during Surry Power Station operations which have had no detectable influence on the components of this trophic level (preoperational, 0-2.8; postoperational, 0-3.04).

As is typical of most zones of this type, a few species are over-whelmingly dominant. In the James River at Surry, the non-commercial brackish water clam, Rangia cuneata is found in abundance, and comprises more than 90%

of the total invertebrate biomass. The American oyster (Crassostrea virginica) is not found in the ol igohaline zone of the James River, this species being more mesohal ine in habitat while the blue crab (Cal 1 inectes sapidus) is only a sporadic visitor to the Surry area. VIMS concluded that Rangia cuneata showed no obvious preference or avoidance regarding the thermal plume as increases and dee] ines occurred at both plume and non-plume sampling stations. Rather, Rangia cuneata revealed an apparent preference for silty-clay substrates whether this substrate type was within the thermal plume area or not (Append"ices H and P).

~--

10 9

8

., r .,

7*

• e 0

C O>

(.) <t o

~

~

6 5 h i T\

I 4

V, 4

I

) I\ ,- . I I 1111 AIIIIJ-'

3*

2*

1969

,V \

1970 J.

0 IJ FMA 1,1.J J A soNo!J F r.cA1otJ J As 01-rnpr "'" 1.1 J J!<

1971 M! v , ~ wiv~

soNOIJFMA"' J J As OHDIJF M AMJ J,. s 1972 1973 oNolJ F,.. Aw J J

• SON 1974 oJJF wAM J JA 1975 s ON olJFt.1AWJ J,. so NDIJFMA 1976 1977 Figure *12: Temporal distribution of surface salinity at benthos Station 11 * (from Appendix P)

(X)

°'

87 Other benthic species have shown changes during operational times with some decreasing in abundance while others increased. These changes occurred at both plume and non-plume stations and appeared to be related to natural perturbations such as Hurricane Agnes and its attendant low salinity levels. These changes are reflected in species diversity levels as well as temporal distribution patterns (Appendices Hand P).

Benthic macroinvertebrates represent an excellent example of the natural variability encountered in nature, the subtle as well as obvious changes that take place over time, and, above all, the resiliency of the eco-system to recover from insults such as Hurricane Agnes. Diversity and species richness levels were reduced in the summer of 1972 fol lowing Agnes. While diversity recovered rather quickly, richness depression continued into 1973.

Diversity and richness values had recovere~ in 1974, 1975, and 1976 and were not significantly different from one of the two preoperational periods used for comparison (Appendices Hand P).

The majority of the benthic macroinvertebrate species collected during this study are classed as "estuarine endemic" and are characteristic of the mesa- and ol igohaline zones of the estuarine system of Chesapeake Bay (Table 10). As such, they are wel 1 adapted to the varying environmental conditions found around Surry Power Station. Since the transition zone is what it is, other species from both the upstream freshwater zone and down-stream saline zone are found when suitable conditions exist.

Results of this study show that the benthic macroinvertebrate community, including she] ]fish, is not being appreciably harmed by the thermal effluent from Surry Power Station. Changes within the community have been correlated with natural changes as well as sediment type.

88 TABLE 10: ECOLOGICAL CLASSIFICATION OF BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES FOUND IN THE OL I GO HAL I NE JAMES RI VER,\

Estuarine Endemic Other Scolecolepides viridis Tubulanus pellucidus (polyhal ine)

Laeonereis culveri Nereis succinea (euryhaline) 01 i gochaeta Dipteran larvae (freshwater to oligohaline)

Hydrobia sp. Lepidactylus dytiscus (euryhaline)

Congeria leucophaeta Corbicula manilensis (freshwater tool igohaline)

Rangia cuneata Brachidontes recurvus (meso- to euhal ine)

Macoma balthica Polydora 1 ignl (oligo- to euhaline)

Ma coma mi tche 11 i Edotea triloba (euryhaline)

Cyathura pol ita Monoculodes edwardsi (euryhal ine)

Chiridotea almyra Gammarus spp.

Leptocheirus plumulosus Corophium lacustre Rhithropanopeus harrisi i

• Adapted from Appendix G.

89 C. FOULING ORGANISMS A series of fouling plate stations was established in the James River around Surry Power Station in January, 1971. Studies on the organisms colonizing the plates have continued since that time. This community has shown no effect from the thermal effluent from Surry Power Station (Appendices Hand P).

Throughout the six years that this trophic level has been under study the fouling plates have been colonized mainly by barnacles, ectoprocts, hydroids, and one species of amphipod of the genus Corophium. Other forms have been found in reduced numbers. With the exception of 1972 following Hurricane Agnes, the largest numbers of species and individuals within species have been collected in August and October of each year. Temporal distribution patterns related to normal seasonal cycles of temperature and salinity have been displayed.

Two species were dominant during the entire study period and these have shown no changes in population density or structure attributable to the thermal effluent from Surry Power Station. Barnacles of the genus Balanus exhibited similar temporal patterns in all years of the study except 1972 when Hurricane Agnes resulted in reduced salinity levels in the area (Fig. 13).

Comparison of fouling plate data with plankton data (which sample barnacle naupl ii) and benthic data (which sample adults on a monthly or quarterly basis) shows the superiority of fouling plates for sampling organisms of this genus (Fig. 14). While plates yield samples integrated over time, plankton sampling can miss periods of naupl ier abundance and benthic sampling for adult barnacles is dependent on a suitable substrate. All three methods, however, gave results showing no influence from the thermal effluent.

1

90 Ba/anus sp. X-ANNUAL PLATES 3.5 CBN

-- -- - ~- - ,-

3.0 . --- -

E 2.5

,- ~

X

~

2.0 Q.

X z

ci 1.5 .

"'0... 1.0 (J) (J) 00 n- I 0.5 ..J ..J I

0 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 3.5 .

CBS -

N

. 3.0 I-E 2.5 .

2.0 Q.

zo I.5 X

"'...0 ......

X 1.0 (J) (J) (J) 0.5 13 00

..J ..J 0

4.0 .

3.5 DWS 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975

~

1976 N~

3.0

~ X

"'~

2.5 -

- ~

z 0

2.0 .

I-X

"'0...

1.5 1.0 .

- - i-(J)

(J) (J)

. 0

..J 00

..J ..J 0

1971

. r 1972 1973 1974 1975

. 1976 Figure 13: Temporal distributions of Balanus sp. population densities at the three fouling plate statit~s, 1971-76. (from Appendix P)

L --

2.0 BARNACLE NAUPLI I DWS

-+

~

~ r-

~

0 1.5 ~

r-0

~

,- ~

~

1.0 ~

r- ,-

t- ._ ~

n 0

z 0.5

"'0.J 0

1973 n 1974 r 1975 1976 n

.+ 4.0 BARNACLES ON FOULING PLATES DWS E 3.0 .

"'~ .__

0 2.0 z 1.0 .

0

.J 0 1973 1974 1975 1976 4.0

+

.,E BARNACLES IN BENTHOS SAMPLES- ALL STATIONS 3.0

~

2.0 0

z 1.0 0

.J N

ssNI N 1ssNI INnN s s N N s s N

s NIs INs Ns 0

1973 1975 1976 Figure 14: Temporal distributions of barnacle nauplii and Balanus sp.

adults at fouling plate station DWS, and of Balanus sp.

adults at all benthos stations combined; i97J-/b.

(NS = not sampled) ( from Appendix P) I.D

92 Amphipods (Corophium lacustre), while not considered a fouling organism, were opportunistic in seeking suitable habitat and consequently comprised the other dominant species collected during this study. Population densities for this species were highest in late summer or early fall at all stations in the six study years (Fig. 15). Specimens were collected in June of each year except 1971 and 1974 when they appeared on the fouling plates in February. The winters of 1970-1971 and 1973-1974 were relatively mild through-out the Chesapeake Bay system and resulted in the early collections.

Fouling organism populations, on the whole, exhibited seasonal variation patterns that changed from year-to-year in response to natural factors. No evidence has been found of any appreciable adverse effects from the thermal effluent from Surry Power Station (Appendices Hand P).

93 Corophium /ocustre X. ANNUAL PLATES

• -*

• BENTHOS STUDY TOTALS 3.5 . CBN -

x-E 2.5 3.0

- X N

~

2.0 z

Q.

ci 1.5 .

(!)

0 1.0 L...

n

..J >- (/) (/)

. (/) oo 05 0 ..J ..J

..J 0 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1971 3.5 -

CBS X-

-. 3.0 - - - +

N X 2.5Ne E 2.5 -

N ~

. 2 0-;:

~

Q.

ci z 1.5 2.0 .

'I I I

I '

'"' - I

...f I

,- le.,

I

... T" I

t I

.1.5 i C.

. LO g

(!)

1.0 .

I I

I I >- >- r ......,I I

I I ... * .' I I

)

-r *33f

\ (/) (/)

0 \ I I I ..J

..J \ I I ~ . 0.5 0.5 I

~

r

• 0 0 ~

1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1971 4.0 DWS 3.5 3.0 .

x-

+

• N E

X N 2.5

~

• c. 2.0 .

z ci

(!)

0 1.5

..J 1.0

l. r

(/) (/)

0.5 00

..J ..J 0 ~

1975 1976 1971 1972 1973 1974 Figure 15: Temporal distributions of Corphium lacustre population densities at the three fouling -

plate stations and at all benthos stations combined, 1971-76. (from Appendix P)

94 D. ZOOPLANKTON The James River zooplankton community is composed of two groups:

the true zooplankton (holoplankton), and the meroplankton. The true zoo-plankters are generally present in varying numbers all year while the mero-plankters are seasonal additions to the community, present only during times of reproduction. Those meroplankton discussed in this section include only the larval for~s of benthic and fouling organisms. lchthyoplankton, the other component of the meroplankton, are discussed in the finfish section.

Zooplankton studies have been conducted on a monthly schedule since November, 1972 by personnel of VIMS (Appendices Hand P). Seven river stations were sampled in 1972-1974, twelve stations in 1975 and ten in 1976. These samples are taken with a 12.5 cm diameter Clarke-Bumpass quantitative sampler equipped with a No. 20 net. In addition to these river surveys, studies were designed and data taken to determine the effects of plume entrainment. Vertical distribution, vertical migration and the ranges of abundance of major zooplankton groups during a twenty-four hour period were also determined.

Throughout the study there has been a relative paucity of zooplankton in the area. This finding was not unexpected since it is typical of most turbid estuarine transition zones. As with preoperational sampling, copepod nauplii are the dominant forms in postoperational times (Fig. 16). Rotifers, likewise, are a dominant (Fig. 17) and both show, along with most other species, considerable variation due to tidal, diel, salinity, and seasonal influences (e.g., Fig. 18 showing variability of Bosmina sp.). Normally freshwater species such as Bosmina are most abundant when salinity levels fall below one ppt.

r----~--**

3.2 COPEPOD NAUPLII

-g 2.82.4

"'; 2.0.

0 z

- .1.6

"'.J0 1.2 0.Q

• J

• f

• M

• A ' M J"J"A"S"O'N'D"J"f"M'A'M'J'J'A S'O'N'D 1975 1976 Figure 16: Population densities of copepod nauplii in the study area, 1975-76; means over nine stations. (from Appendix P)

\.D V,

r~-~. ~.* -*

2.a, ROTIFERS 2.4~ (Mean of 9 Stations)

~ 2.0 0

=0

+

1.6 1.2 3

(!)

0 .8

.4 O. J . F . M . A . M . J . J ' A . S . 0 ' N ' D ' J ' F . M . A ' M . J ' J . A . S . 0 ' N . D 1975 1976 Figure. 17: Po~ulation densities ~f rotif 7rs in the study area, 1915-76; means over nine stations. (from Appendix P)

~-- ...*

1.8 Bosmina sp.

1.6 1.4 0 1.2 0

"+

0 1.0

~

.e e,

0 .6

.J

.4

.2 0 .*. J F . M' A . M' J ' J 0 . N. D. J

• F . M. A ' M ' J . J ' A . S . 0 ' N . D 1975 1976 Figure 18: Population densities of Bosmina sp. in the study area, 1975-76; means over nine stations. (from Appendix P)

\.!)

- * * - - - - " --------,, -*-"""'"C"'" *.:._:_:.:..:_,

98 As to true zooplankters, the ol igohaline zone of the James River was usually dominated by two genera of copepods: Acartia and Eurytemora. These dominants were joined by rotifers and cladocerans during low salinity conditions and by larvae of gastropods, polychaetes, and pelecypods during normal reproductive seasons.

Meroplankton larval forms of benthic and fouling organisms were sampled as an inseparable component of the holoplankton. Normal seasonal patterns of abundance were observed with additions to the community by barnacle nauplii from June to September (Fig. 19), polychaete larvae from June to December (Fig. 20), gastropod larvae from June to September, and pelecypod larvae from June to September. The only apparent effect of the Surry discharge was an addition of barnacle naupl ii to the river in August and September. However, these are not considered to be a nuisance species.

Analyses were designed to determine significant differences in plume and non-plume areas of the river. Analyses were conducted on all parameters using a variety of approaches, including analysis of variance. Considerable variability in abundance was found within and between stations in and out of the thermal plume, as well as months and seasons. Variation also occurred over depth, tide, and time of day. VIMS concluded from such analyses that the heated effluent from Surry Power Station was not affecting the zooplankton community in the oligohaline zone of the James River.

r--

3.2 BARNACLE NAUPLII 2.8 2.4

-o 2.0 0

'* 1.6 0

3 1.2 0

...J .8

.4 F ' M. A ' M ' J ' J ' A' S ' 0 ' N' D 0 J F ' M J ' J ' A' S . 0 1976 1975 Figure 19:. Population densities of barnacle nauplii at the Surry Power Station discharge, 1975-76, (from Appendix P)

1.8 POLYCHAETE LARVAE 1.6 1.4 o T.2 0

1.0 0

z .8 Cl 0 ,6

..J

.4

.2 O'*, J f'M'A'M'J'J'A'S'O'N'D'J'f'M'A'M'J'J'A'S'O'N'D 1975 1976 Figure 20: Population densities of polychaete larvae in the study area, 1975-76; means over nine stations, (from Appendix P) 0 0

101 E. PHYTOPLANKTON Phytoplankton populations in the ol igohaline zone of the James River have been under study since the late 1960 1 s, largely by personnel of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (Appendices Hand P). Populations were charac-terized, and the effects of Surry Power Station thermal discharge determined, by at least four methods commonly utilized in such studies: primary production, chlorophyll a, total cell counts and identification, and community structure (See VI I for details). The major conclusion reached by VIMS during preoperational studies was that the ol igohal ine zone of the James River is one of low productivity (Appendix I ) , a conclusion affirmed during operational studies. Subsequently, through operational studies, VIMS concluded that the thermal effluent of Surry Power Station was not appreciably harming the diatom-dominated phytoplankton community of the river (Appendices Hand P). There were two main reasons for the findings of low productivity. Populations are naturally low in the transition zone because it is the interface zone between fresh and salt water, a relatively hostile environment for all but the hardiest of species. Also, the zone is an area of high turbidity which reduces light penetration levels which in turn reduce plankton levels.

As stated previously, ol igohaline or transition zones, such as the one near Surry Power Station, usually have low levels of phytoplankton because of fluctuating levels of salinity and because this zone is one of high turbidity resulting in reduced levels of light penetration. Employing several of the accepted methods for the characterization and evaluation of estuarine phyto-plankton communities, it has been determined that although transition zone phytoplankton populations at times are diverse assemblages of flora, the thermal

102 effluent from Surry Power Station is not causing appreciable harm to them.

Dominance shifts and total density fluctuate seasonally in response to natural temperature conditions and the number of species (or community structure) varies in response to salinity (Appendices Hand P).

Primary production in the James River transition zone has been determined to be generally very low. Primary production is basically the production of organic matter from inorganic materials per unit of time by autotrophic organisms (e.g., phytoplankton) with the aid of radient energy and is measured in terms of milligrams of carbon. Preoperational studies have shown most wintertime levels to be below 0. 1 mgC*m- 3 -hr-l with 87% of the annual measure-ments below 5 mgC*m -3 *hr -1 (Appendices D and I). These low levels were due in part to extreme tidal variations in temperature and salinity and to high turbidities (e.g., Secchi disk readings ranged from 0:1 m to 1.0 m). Postoperational studies by VIMS tended to confirm those levels found prior to station o~eration in that 85% of the values obtained were below 5 mgC*m- 3 *hr-l (Appendices Hand P) indicating that the thermal effluent from Surry Power Station is not harming productivity in the phytoplankton community.

Chlorophyll~ determinations, as measured in micrograms or milligrams per liter, provide a relative measure of the standing crop of phytoplankton, and were made during both preoperational and operational times (Appendices I, Hand P).

Variability was the rule within and between seasons and within and between stations. Generally, those measurements from July, 1972 through December, 1973

-1 -1 showed values ranging from 1.8 µg*l in November, 1973 to 5.0 µg*l in June, 1973. Studies in 1975 revealed ranges from 1.5 µg*l-l in December to 5.3 µg*l-l in July (Appendix H ). Additional studies conducted in 1976 showed mean surface values ranging from 1.6 µg*l-l in November to 6.7 µg*l-l in April (Appendix P).

103 Investigations of tidal James River phytoplankton populatiOQS in 1968 and 1969 showed similar values with few measurements exceeding 10 µg*l-l (Appendix D).

-1 Levels exceeding 50 µg*l are considered indicative of overenrichme.nt. The results by VIMS show that the thermal effluent is not influencing the standing crop of phytoplankton in the river.

Finally, phytoplankton populations have been studied through total cell counts and identification (Appendices Hand P) with 1973 through 1976 samples having been analyzed quantitatively. In 1973 and 1974, VIMS found that the

-1 lowest counts were obtained in January which had ranges of 50-400 cells*ml

-1 (1973), and 30-150 cells*ml (1974). Yearly maxima occurred in the summer

-1 -1 with ranges of 3,000-7,500 cells*ml in June, 1973 and 1 ,550-5,200 eel ls*ml in August, 1974. Similar results were obtained by VIMS in 1975 and 1976 (Fig.21), who concluded that there were no harmful effects from the thermal plume on cell counts.

Community structure in the James River was also similar in all of the years studied (Appendices Hand P) although structure changes due to pumping were infrequently noted in the discharge canal. Dominant genera included four diatoms (Nitzschia, Melosira, Cyclotella, Skeletonema) and one cryptophyte (Chroomonas). As might be expected, periodic within-community dominance shifts occurred which were related to salinity fluctuations ir the transition zone. Extreme, but natural, variability within species was the rule rather than the exception (Fig. 22}. No effect on community structure could be related to the thermal effluent by VIMS.

During 1975, intensified studies were conducted to determine diel and vertical distributions of phytoplankton populations (Appendix H). These intensified studies were conducted in addition to the regular monthly samples

~'*-***---*-***-

40 SURFACE WATER 30 TEMPERATURE

,I'- ' *

\

I I I

\

r" \ *, I \

,,.- , \, 0*is.-.., I ' ,.I \,

u ,

• I \

0 0.: 20 II I ~ .

I \

\

~ J , , .... ' \ - I *" \\

/

\ / I I *\ II \

10 * ', I Int._.. ',I 1 1 1 1 1 O(J F M AM J JASO N D J F M AM J JASON D 1975 1976 TOTAL PHYTOPLANKTON 2400 (Means: Sta.JI, CBC, HPW 2)

,E 1600 (I)

.J

.J w

u 800 O

• J F M A M J J A S O N D J F ,--M-, A ' M ' J ' J ' A ' S ' 0 ' N ' D 1975 1976 Figure 21: Surface water temperature and total phytoplankton abundance in che scudy area, i975-76, (from Appendix P)

• 0

~--

SURFACE SALINITY 0

~

8

~

..J

<( 4 II ',, '* ,*,

1

'I \

I

,.,. \ **

,, I ' ,-- I ' ' \

"' *, / 'oJ /"'-,. ,\ , ,*

,; ~,,, , II I I I // --- I \

,,\

' ' ,, - * \.; - ' *-- - ...... "'

• It

\J

o. J F'M'A'M'J'J'A'S'O'N'D'J'F'M'A'M'J'J'A's'o'N'D 1975 1976 12.ooi Skeletonemo costatum Downstreom-,'"\ .....

e ' ..

..J eoo ' I

I I

I I

\

..J I I

~ 400J Upstream-... .

\.,.,Bot h I I Up I I

\. and down ' 1

... \

• ; I o I j FM AM J "'

J,;J A s'o'N

• • • • • • • • • • ,?--D'J ,

1 1 F

, --=--

1 M * ~ ~ - ~.......- ~ ~ - - . . . _ ~ ~ ~

A M J J A S 0 N D 1975 1976 Figure 22: Surface salinity and Skeletonema costatum abundance in the study area, 1975-76, (from Appendix P) 0 V,

106 taken at 12 river stations .. Vertical distribution samples were taken at each of the 12 stations three times during the year. Diel distributions were determined by sampling at a single station for three 24-hour periods during the year.

Basically, the data indicate that the maximum abundance of phyto-plankton occurs during daylight hours (justifying the validity of daytime sampling), and that abundance is relatively uniform over depth (justifying the validity of replicate surface samples). Similar studies in 1976 tended to confirm these results (Appendix P).

The one influence of power station operations that was observed by VIMS occurred in the warmer months of some, but not all, years and appeared to have been limited to the discharge canal system and to a very small area of the river immediately outside of the discharge* canal mouth. The effect consisted of slightly reduced or increased numbers of eel Is in the discharge area which is well within the prescribed mixing zone for Surry Power Station. It should be pointed out that this effect was measured within the discharge canal and immediate vicinity and that there has been no detectable impact on the phyto-plankton population in the James River. VIMS found that the effect was due largely to pumping operations and the resultant transport of organisms based on their comparative upstream/downstream densities. Discharge canal decreases occurred when downstream intake waters were poorer in plankton than upstream waters. The reverse was true at times when downstream areas were richer in plankton, and slight increases outside the discharge canal would occur from pumping augmentation. Once again, this increase or decrease could not be detected in the zone of the river beyond the immediate discharge area.

107 Studies by VIMS concluded that there is little likelihood that the discharge is altering the indigenous community and appreciable harm to the balanced indigenous phytoplankton population is not occurring nor is likely to occur as a result of the heated discharge from Surry Power Station. While the presence of blue-green algae species was noted, VIMS found no evidence to suggest that a shift toward nuisance species of phytoplankton had occurred nor was it likely that it would occur.

Further reading into the effects of Surry Power Station operation on phytoplankton populations in the ol igohal ine reach of the James River may be found in Appendices Hand P.

108 F. THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES The following species, whose known or suspected range includes the area of the Surry Power Station, have been officially classified as endangered or threatened by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service:

Mammals - none.

Birds -

Southern Bald Eagle, Halieetus leucocephalus leucocephalus American Peregrine Falcon, Falco peregrinus anatum Arctic Peregrine Falcon, Falco peregrinus tundrius Brown Pelican, Pelecanus occidental is Kirt lands Warbler, Dendroica kirtlandi i Red Cockaded Woodpecker, Dondrocopos boreal is.

Reptiles - none.

Fish -

Shortnose Sturgeon - Acipenser brevirostrum.

Snails - none.

Clams - none.

Insects - none.

Plants - none.

None of the named species has been, or is likely to be, affected by the thermal discharge from Surry Power Station. Two Southern Bald Eagles are known to reside on the Hog Island Wildlife Refuge, feeding largely in the freshwater ponds on the island. Shortnose sturgeon are suspected to occur in Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries although none have been reported from the James River in recent years and none were taken during VIMS and Vepco fish surveys.

109 G. VERTEBRATES OTHER THAN FINFISH The location of Surry Power Station near the ol igohal ine zone of the James River precludes the presence of most aquatic vertebrates other than fin-fish. For example, there are no manatees, sharks, or whales in the area.

Other major vertebrates in the area include the ducks and geese found on the Hog Island Wildlife Refuge. These species are in no*way adversely affected by the heated effluent from Surry Power Station.

11 0 XI.

SUMMARY

The foregoing demonstration contains all of the information necessary to meet the statutory and regulatory standard for a successful Section 316(a) demonstration. Vepco has conclusively demonstrated in this document and the attached appendices that no appreciable harm has resulted from the thermal component of the Surry Power Station discharge to the balanced, indigenous community of shel !fish, fish, and wildlife in and on the James River into which the discharge has been made.

I I

I

11 1 XI I . APPENDICES A. Tennyson, P. S., S. 0. Barrick, F. J. Wojcik, J. J. Norcross, and W. J. Hargis, Jr. 1972. "The Chesapeake Bay Bibliography, Volume 11, Virginia Waters". Spec. Sci. Rep. 63, Virginia Institute of Marine Science.

B. Meteorological Data.

C. Pritchard-Carpenter, Consultants. n.d. "Hydrology of the James River Estuary with Emphasis upon the Ten-Mile Segment Centered on Hog Point, Vi-rginia". A Report Prepared for Virginia Electric and Power Company, Richmond, Virginia As Supporting Material for The Preliminary Safety Analysis Report, Surry Nuclear Power Station.

D. Brehmer, M. L., 1972. "Biological and Chemical Study of Virginia's Estuaries".

VPI-WRRC-BULL 45, Contribution No. 452, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, Virginia.

E-1 Hoagman, W. J., J. V. Merriner, W. H. Kriete, Jr. and W. L. Wilson. 1974.

"Biology and Management of River Herring and Shad in Virginia".

Annual Report Anadramous Fish Project. Virginia Institute of Marine Science.

E-2 Hoagman, W. J., and W. H. Kriete, Jr. 1975. "Biology and Management of River Herr i n g and Sh ad i n Vi rg i n i a" . Ann ua l Report Anadramous Fish Project.

Virginia Institute of Marine Science.

E-3 Loesch, J. G. and W. H. Kriete, Jr. 1976. "Biology and Management of River Herring and Shad in Virginia". Completion Report, Anadromous Fish Project, 1974-1976. Virginia Institute of Marine Science.

F. Carriker, M. R. ]967. "Ecology of Estuarine Invertebrates: A Perspective".

Edited by George H. Lauff, in Estuaries. W. K. Kellogg Biological Station, Michigan State University. pp. 442-487.

G. Diaz, R. J. 1977. "The Effects of Pollution on Benthic Communities of The Tidal James River, Virginia". Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Marine Science, University of Virginia.

H. Jordan, R. A., R. K. Carpenter, P. A. Goodwin, C. G. Becker, M. S. Ho, G. C. Grant, B. B. Bryan, J. V. Merriner, A. D. Estes. 1976. "Ecological Study of The Tidal Segment of The James River Encompassing Hog Point".

Final Technical Report submitted to Virginia Electric and Power Company by Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, Virginia.

I. Cain, T., R. Peddicord, R. Diaz, D. Dressel, E. Tennyson, M. Bender. 1972.

"Surry - Pre-Operational Ecological Studies". Report 1 and 2 submitted to Virginia Electric and Power Company by Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester -Point, Virginia.

112 J, Jenson, L. D. 1974, "Environmental Responses To Thermal Discharges From The Chesterfield Station, James River, Virginia". The Johns Hopkins University, Department of Geography and E*nvi ronmental Engineering, Report No. 13.

• K. Woolcott, W. S. 1974 . . "The Effects of Loading by The Bremo Pcwer Station on a Piedmont Section of The James River, Volume I and 11". Virginia Institute for Scientific Research, Richmond, Vi.rginia.

L. Pritchard - Carpenter, 1967. "Temperature Distribution in The James River Estuary Which Will Result From The Discharge of Waste Heat From The Surry Nuclear Power Station". A Report Prepared for Virginia Electric and Power Company, Richmond, Virginia.

• M-1 Bolus, R. L., S. N. Chia and C. S. Fang. "The Design of The Monitoring System for The Thermal Effect Study of The Surry Nuclear Power Plant on the James River". VIMS Special Report in Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engine~ring, No. 16, Gloucester Point, Virginia, October 1971, M-2 Chia, S. N., C. S. Fang, R. L. Bolus and W. J. Hargis, Jr. "Thermal Effects of The Surry Nuclear Power Plant on The James River, Virginia, Part 11 Results of Monitoring Physical Parameters of The Environment Prior to Plant Operation". VIMS Special Report in Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering, No. 21, Gloucester Point, Virginia, February 1972, M-3 Shearls, E. A., S. N. Chia, W. J. Hargis, Jr., C. S. Fang and R. N. Lobecker.

"Thermal Effects of The Surry Nuclear Power Plant on The James River, Virginia, Part I I I. Results of Monitoring Physical Parameters of The Environment Prior to Plant Operation". VIMS Special Report in Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering, No. 33, Gloucester Point, Virginia, February 1973, M-4 Parker, G. C., E. A. Shearls and C. S. Fang, "Thermal Effects of The Surry Nuclear Power Plant on The James River, Virginia, Part IV. Results of Monitoring Physical Parameters During The First Year of Plant Operation". VIMS Special Report in Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering, No. 51, Gloucester Point, Virginia, February 1974.

M-5 Parker, G. C. and C. S. Fang, "Thermal Effects of The Surry Nuclear Power Plant on The James River, Virginia, Part V. Results of Monitoring Physical Parameters During The First Two Years of Plant Operation".

VIMS Special Report in Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering, No. 92, Gloucester Point, Virginia, June 1975, M-6 Fang, C. S, and G. C. Parker, "Thermal Effects of The Surry Nuclear Power Plant on The James River, Virginia, Part VI. Results of Monitoring Physical Parameters". VIMS Special Report in Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering, No. 109, Gloucester Point, Virginia, May 1976.

N. White, J. C., Jr., J. T. Baranowski, C. J. Bateman, I. W. Mason, R. A. rlammond,

• P. S. Wingard, 8. J. Peters, M. L. Brehmer and J. D. Ristroph, 1972, "Young Littoral Fishes of The Oligohaline Zone, James River, Virginia, 1970-1972 11

• Surry Nuclear Power Station Preoperational Studies.

Virginia Electric and Power Company manuscript.

11 3

0. White, J. C., Jr. editor, 1976. "The Effects of Surry Power Station Operations on Fishes of The Oligohaline Zone, James River, Virginia".

Virginia Electric and Power Company manuscript.

P. Jo'rdan, R. A., R. K. Carpenter, P. A. Goodwin, C. G. Becker, M. S. Ho, G. C. Grant, B. 8. Bryan, J. V. Merriner, A. D. Estes. 1977. "Ecological Study of The Tidal Segment of the James River Encompassing Hog Point".

Final Technical Report submitted to Virginia Electric and Power Company by Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, Virginia.

Q. Anon. 1974. "Fish Kill 73-025, James River". Bureau of Surveillance and Field Studies, Virginia State Water Control Board.

R. Byrd, M. A. 1975. "Study of The Vascular Flora and Terrestrial Fauna of the VEPCO Surry Nuclear Plant Area, Surry County, Virginia". Submitted to Virginia Electric and Power Company by College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia.

S. White, J.C., Jr. and M. L. Brehmer, in press. "Eighteen-Month Evaluation of the Ristroph Traveling Fish Screens".