ML19221A778
| ML19221A778 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/28/1979 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-0555, NUREG-0555-04.3.2, NUREG-555, NUREG-555-4.3.2, SRP-04.03.02, SRP-4.03.02, NUDOCS 7907090109 | |
| Download: ML19221A778 (27) | |
Text
Section 4.3.2 February 1979 ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN FOR ES SECTION 4.3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF CONSTRUCTION - ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS:
AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS 4.3.2.1 The Site and Vicinity 4.3.2.2 Transmission Corridors and Of f site Areas REVIEW INPUTS Environmental Report Sections 2.2 Ecolcgy 2.4 Hydrology 4.1 Site Preparation and Station Construction 4.2 Transmission Facilities Construction - Environmental Ef f ects 4.3 Resources Committed 4.5 Construction Impact Control Program Environmental Reviews 2.3.1 Hydrology 2.3.3 Water Quality 2.4.2 Aquatic Ecology 4.2 Hydrological Alterations and Water-Use Impacts Standards and Gtides Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amerdments of 1972 Marine Sanctuaries Act of 1972 Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 Endangered Species Act of 1973 State and local standards and regulations Guidelines for Developing or Revising Water Quality Standards,1973, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.
C.
Regulatory Guide 4. 7, " General Site Suitability Criteria f or Nuclear Power Stations" Memorar.dum of Understanding Between NRC and the Army Corps of Engineers August 25, 1975.
Memorandum of Understanding Between NRC and EPA, December 31, 1975.
C_,oelines fer Dredging and Dredge Spoil Disposa?, 40 FR 19794, May 6,1975; 40 FR 41292, September 5,1975.
108 030 7 9070 90t o9 4.3.2-1
February 1979 Other The site visit Responses to requests for additional information Consultation with local, State, and Federal agencies REVIEW OUTPUTS Environmental Statement Sectjon,s 4.3.2 Environmental Impacts of Construction - Ecological Impacts:
Aquatic Ecosystems 4.3.2.1 The Site and Vicinity 4.3.2.2 Transmission Corridors and Of f site Areas Other Environmental Reviews 4.6 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts During Construction
- 6. 5. 2 Environmental Measurements and Monitoring Programs: Aquatic Ecology 9.3 Alternative Plant and Transmission Systems 10.1 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts 10.2 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources I.
PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this environmental standard review plan (ESRP) is to direct the staf f's description, quantification, and assessment of the impacts of construc-tion of the proposed f acilities on the aquatic ecosystem. The scope of the review directed by this plan will include consideration of construction activities in suf ficient detail to allow the reviewer (1) to estimate the significance of potential impacts to species, populations, and cem1 unities and to the habitats of these biota and (2) to recomnend how these impacts should be treated in the licensing decision. If necessary, the reviewer will recomnend conside-ation of alternative designs or construction practices that would mitigate or avoid adverse environ-montal impacts.
II.
REQUIRED DATA AN:]_INFORMATION The kinds of data and inf ormation required will ne af fected by nd station-specific f actors, and the degree of detail will be modified according to the anticipated magnitude of the potential impact.
The following data or information usually will be requiret 4.3. "
108 031
February 1979 A.
Site and Vicinity 1.
Ecological a.
Location and value of the commercial and sport fisheries (finfish and shellfish) and the seasonal distribution of landings by species (from the ER and ESRP 2.4.2).
b.
Distribution and abundance of "important"* species of aquatic biota and identification of critical life support areas such as spawning areas, nursery grounds, feeding areas, wintering areas, and migration routes (f rom ESRP 2.4.2).
c.
Tolerances and/or susceptibilities of "important" biota to physical and chemical pollutants of construction oriain (from the ER and the general literature).
d.
Presence of endangered or threatened species and their habitat preference (from ESRP 2.4.2).
e.
Description of important pre-existing environmental stress-factors (from ESRP 2.4.2).
2.
Site Preparation and Construction a.
Physical and chemical description of the site's aquatic environs (froin ESRPs 2. 3.1, 2. 3. 3, and 2. 4. 2).
b.
Location and areal limits of construction activities having impacts on aquatic environs (from the ER and from ESRP 4.2).
c.
Potential changes to surface-and ground water quality (e.g.,
heavy metals contamination) resulting from substrate exposure during construction (from the ER).
xSee definition of "important" in the ESRP for ES Section 2.4.1.
4.3.2-3 108 032
February 1979 d.
Description of the magnitude and schedule of construction activities having impacts on aquatic environs (f rcm the ER and ESRP 4.2).
e.
Identification of water bodies receiving construction effluents and the expected average and maximum flow rates, composition, and physical characteristics of these ef fluents (from ESRF 4.2).
f.
Description of proposed erosion and silt control practices (f rom the ER and ESRP 4.2).
g Description of other proposed construction managerrent practices for control of impacts (f rom the ER).
B.
Transmissi n Corridors and Offsite Areas 1.
Iopographic maps (7-1/2-min. or 15-min. scale) shosing proposed routes of transmission and access corridors from the station site to intercon-necting points on the existing high voltage system (f ron ESRP 2.4.1).
2.
The 1ication of all water bodies a;I wetlaL
'rossod or spanned that have been classified as unique aquatic resources by lederal or State agencies ( f rom ESRP 2.4.2).
3.
Those water bodies and wetlands specified in item 2 above that can be expected to have tower f oundations located within t hem ( t rom tho ER).
4 The locations of unique aquatic areas such as " critical hihitat" f or threatened or endangered species, wildiite preserves, and sanctu ir m,vj j acent to or intersected by the corridors (f rom tbRP 2.4.2).
5.
A list of threatened or endangered species (State and or i edet a1) known to occur within water bodies or wetlands alon.; the propowd corridor, m well as their locations and seasonality ( f rom ESRP 2.4.?).
108 033 4.3.1-4
February 1979 6.
The location and areal limits of construction activities hosing impacts on aquatic environs (f rom the ER and ESRP 4.2).
7.
Description of the magnitude and schedule of, onstruction i ctivities (f rom the ER and ESRP 4. 2).
8.
Description of proposed construction practices to be used to minimize impacts to water bodies and wetlands (f rom the ER and ESRP 4.2).
The reviewer should supplement the data required above by consultation with local, State, and Federal fish and g me and conservation 'epartments and other appropriate agencies and institutions.
Through personal knowledge of aquatic sciences, the reviewer should have access to information on physical, chemical, and biological factors known to influence the distribution and abundance of "important" biota.
During the site visit, the reviewer will become familiar with those areas where construction activities will occu: and will review other potentially impacted areas.
III.
AtMLYSIS PPDCEDURE The reviewer's analysis of construction impacts to the aquatic ecosystems will be linked to the environmental descriptions provided by the reviewer for ESRP 2.4.2 in order to ensure that those environmental factors most likely to be impacted by the proposed construction are describe! in sufficient detail to permit assessment of the o~ dicted impacts.
The reviewer must become f amiliar with the prov i > ions of st 1ndarc s, guidei, and agreements pertinent to the construction of nuclear power sta, ions listing n
of those believed most pertinent to this environmental review it canta;ned in the Standards and Guides section of this ESRP. The reviewer will determine comp!
ance with applicable regulations and guides and, where required, will consult witt the reviewers for ES Section 2.3 and with appropriate local. State, and Federai agencies.
The reviewer must also become faniliar with general refereices on construction practices and impacts, a f ew of which are listad in the ref ennce 108 (17' 4.3.2-5
February 1979 O
section of this ESRP.
The reviewer will also examine proposed construction activities in light of recognized " good practice." The term " good practice" as used here will refer to those construction ar.+.ivities which tend to mitigate adverse environmental impact. Appendix A of this ESRP lists examples of construc-tion activities considered to be in keeping with " good practice."
Using the environmental descriptions prepared by the reviewer for ES Sec-tion 2.4.2 and the water related construction activities identified by the reviewer for ES Section 4.2, the reviewer will identify construction activities that couN potentially impact "important" flora and fauna of the site and vicinity, t N rs-mission ctrridors, and offsite areas; and the reviewer will determine the areal extent of potential impact.
These activities and their areal extent will be related to the location of those resources specified in Part II. A.1 of this ESRP.
This can be illustrated by a map with construction impact areas superimposed over the resource areas.
Where impacted species have commercial or recreational value, the reviewer will quantify the magnitude of the impact, either in terms of dollars, or in terms of reduced catch,2r unit ef fort.
In the absence of more sophisticated population models, these determinations can usually be based on percent of habitat type lost.
The reviewer will usually consider the following:
A.
Disturbance of benthic areas (1) by placement of intake and discharge structures; (2) by channel modifications for navigation or flow control, (3) by placement and removal of cofferdams; (4) by construction of bulkheads, piers,
. jetties, basins, and storm sewers; (5) by direct dredging, including the area that may be af fected by resulting siltation and turbidity.
The reviewer will analyze the importance of these a^eas to the biota, taking into account the relationship between the area disturbed and the remaining comparable undisturbed area in the region available for the cor.tinued maintenance of impacted biota.
Of particular interest are the crit' cal life history needs of "important" fish and shell fish,
.g., seasonal requirements, migr
- n routes, spawning areas, 108 035 4.3.?-6
February 1979 nursery grounds, and feeding and wintering areas. The reviewer will relate these needs to the plant construction schedule and consider whether impacts are likely to be of short duration or otherwise reversible.
The reviewer will consider (1) the percent of the water body cross section that might be obstructed by con-struction activity at any time and (2) the time and duration of such obstruction.
The reviewer will consider potential changes to water quality caused by exposure of contaminated substrate during construction, e.g., dredging for intake channels, cofferdam construction.
Where habitz.t of endangered or threatened species is to be disturbed by construction, guidel mes promulgated under the Endangered Species Act 1973 should be followed. This review will be coordinated w;th the District Of fice of the Corps of Engineers.
B.
Sediments, petroleum products, psticides, fertilizers, heavy metals, and other potential pollutants entering adjacent water bodies.
The reviewer should consider both the points of entry of site drainage into surf ace water bodies and the areal extent of impact by suspe. ded muermis and siltation.
The reviewer will determine the potential f or reversibilicy of impacts following completion of construction.
The reviewer should assess plans for maintenance of siltation ponds or catchment basins.
Clearing along reaches of streams, rivers, and other water bodies.
u.
The reviewer will identify water bodies where such changes will occur and will indicate the extent of such changes.
This should be compared to the extent of remaining similar habitats in the region.
D.
Dewatering effects en ground-water supply, wetlands, and other aquatic habitats.
The reviewer will consider the location and areal extent of any wet-lands that will be drained.
The reviewer will determine the relative extent of comparable wetlands in the region and, as in Item A above, address the relative importance to the ecosystem of the impacted wetlands in comparison with the regional wetlands. The reviewer should examine the potential for reversibility of impacts and/or environmental improvement following construction. Guidelines promulgated under Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amend-ments of 1972 should be followed.
This review will be coordinated with the 4.3.2-7 108 030
February 1979 9
District Of fice of the corps of Engineers and the Regional Of fice of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
E.
Disposal of dredged material and placement of fill material.
The reviewer will identify the areal extent of any water bodies or wetlands that would receive dredge spoils during construction.
The reviewer will consider the relative extent of similar water bodies and wetlands in the region and in this context will analyze the importance of the impacted wetlands and water bodies to the ecosystem.
This review will be coordinated with the District Of fice of the Corps of Engineers.
In addition to the above analyses, the reviewer will consider any other site-specific construct %n impacts to aquatic ecosystems that can be predicted on the basis of proposed construction activities and the local aquatic ecosys-tern The reviewer will consult with the reviewers for ES Sections 2.3, 2.4.2, 3.6, and 4.2 to identify such additional impacts.
IV.
EVALUATION Evaluation of each identified impact will result in one o.' the following conclusions:
The impact is minor and mitigation is not required. When impacts are of this nature, the reviewer will accept project construction as proposed.
The impact is adverse but can be mitigated bv specific design or proce-dure modifications that the reviewer has identified and deterf d to be practical.
For these caseo, the reviewer will ccnsult with the project manager and the appro-priate reviewers for ES Section 9.3 for verification that the reviewer's recommended modifications are practical and will lead to an improvement in the benefit cost balance. The reviewer will prepare a list of verified modifications and recommended measures and controls to limit the corresponding impact.
These lists will be provided the reviewer for ES Section 4.6.2.
O
}08 ON 4.3.2-8
February 1979 The impact
.s advm se-2: le~
'e successf ully mitigated, and is of such magnitude that it shc lu De avoiued. When impacts of this nature are identi-
"c-the appropriate reviewers for ES Section 9.3 that fied, the reviewer will i,
an analysis d ^vaieatit of alternative designs or procedures is required.
The reviewer vill participate in any such analysis and evaluation of alternatives that would avoid the impact and that could 'e considered practical.
If no such alternatifes can be identified, the reviewar will be responsible for providing this information to the reviewer for ES Section 10.1.
In making the following evaluations of specific impacts identified by the Analysis Procedure of this ESRP, the reviewer will consider the eatent in time of the identified impacts.
For many construct ion activities, the associated impacts on aquatic resources are usually short term and are reversible.
This is illustrated in References 8-12 for the repopulation of fish in areas that had experienced natural and man-induced fish kills.
The reviewer will evaluate the proposed construction activities and any associated construction monitoring programs to ensure that the applicant is planning to use generally acceptable practices that should result in minimizing impacts associated with such practices (see Appendix A of this ESRP and 40 CFR Part 423.40. )
A.
Disturbance of Benthic Areas. All dredged areas or areas affected by dredging may be considered as temporarily lost habitat.
Impact assessment for loss of habitat for endangered or threatened species should be evaluated in the context of guidelines under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
Where loss of important areas or habitats for commercial or spuri, species occurs, the reviewer will consider the ef fects on the harvestable crop.
For flowing water bodies, it is recommended that no more than two-thirds of the width of a w ter body sb'uld be devoted to construction activity, thus leaving at least one-third f ree as a zone of passage.
This recommendation should be 108 033 4.3.2-9
February 1979 O
applied to direct construction of intake and discharge systems.
The associated ef fects of such construction, e.g., sediment load, should also be considered.
B.
Surface Runoff.
Good construction practices will generally control surface runoff. Where drainage courses represent an especially important resource (see the FES for Skagit Nuclear Station), attention should be given to measures for their p
'ection during construction.
The reviewer (1) will determine if construction activities affecting water quality (e.g., runoff, turbidity) will comply with State, regional, and Federal water quality standards and (2) should reach a conclusion as to whether controls proposed by the applicant will ensure satifactory protection of surf ace waters.
C.
Clearing of Stream Banks.
Clearing of vegetation from,tream banks should be limited to that required for placement of structes.
D.
Dewatering. Guidelines under the FWPCA Amendments of 1972, the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, and the Marine Sanctuaries Act of 1972 should be followed in avaluating the significance of dewatering on wetlands. Generally, dewatering of biologically productive wetlands may be considered as an adverse impact that should be avoided. The percentage loss of such wetlands in the region should be considered to place the loss in perspective for the licensing & cision.
Because of the importance of wetlands, alternatives to avoid any loss of this habitat w:ll always be considered.
E.
Dredge Spoils and Placement of Fill. Drainage from dredge spoil areas should comoly with existing EPA guidelines.
The reviewer should reach a conclu-sion as to whether adequate practices have been provided for management of this stage of construction.
Filling of biologically productive wetlands should generally be avoided.
Dumping of dredge spoils should be performed under the cognizance of the EPA and the District Office of the Corps of Engineers.
V.
INPUT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT This section of the environmental statement should be planned to accomplish the following ob'jectives: (1) public disclosure of impacts to aquatic ecosystems 108 0,O
- /
4.3.2-10
February 1979 resulting from construction, (2) presentation of the basis for the staf f analysis, and (3) presentation of staff conclusions, recommendations, and conditions regarding impacts of construction to the aquatic ecosystems.
The following information will usually be included in ES Section 4.3.2:
A.
The section will be divided into two parts: Section 4. 3. 2.1, The Site and Vicinity, and Section 4.3.2.2, Transmission Corridors and Of fsite Areas.
A description of the intended construction activities should be included along with a description of the timing for such efforts. A map locating construc-tion limits and the extent of the impact should be included or referenced. These sections should next relate "important" biota and their life stages (as described in ES Section 2.4.2) to areas of intended construction and discuss susceptibilities to proposed construction activities.
These sections should include a summary of impact for each of the construction activities as described under the Analysis Procedure and Evaluation sections.
For all the activities, the commitment of aquatic resources should be indicated.
The reviewer should discuss compliance with other agency guidelines.
Any construction activity for which mitigative action has been recommended should be described.
Practices proposed by the applicant for the protection of the environment should be described if the reviewer determines that they are necessary.
B.
The reviewer will provide inputs or ensure that inputs will be made to the following ES sections:
1.
Section 4.6.
The reviewer will provide as input to ES Section 4.6 a list of applicant commitments and staff recommendations of practices to limit adverse environmental impacts of construction.
2.
Section 6.5.2.
The reviewer should provide as input to ES Section 6.5.2 a discussion of any deficiencies in the site preparation and construction monitoring program that should be corrected by additional monitoring provisions.
1 0 c3 0.' t' 4.3.2-11
.V
February 1979 3.
Section 9.3.
The reviewer will provide the appropriate ES Section 9.3 reviewers with a list of adverse impacts te aquatic ecosystems that could be avoided or mitigated through alternative construction practices or procedures.
The reviewer will assist the ES Section 9.3 reviewers in determining appropriate alternatives.
4.
Section 10.1.
lhe reviewer will provide a list of the unavoidable impacts that are predicted to occur as a result of the proposed construction activity.
This will usually be limited to the more significant impacts, e.g.,
temporary loss of habitat for "important" species.
5.
Section 10.2.
The reviewer will provide a brief summary of irreversible and irretrievable commitments of aquatic resources as a result of the proposed construction activity.
For example, this would include any permanent loss of habitat or loss of p oductive wetlands.
VI.
REFERENCES 1.
D. B. Emerson, et al., General Environmental Guidelines for Evaluating and Reporting the Effects of Nuclear Power Plant Site Preparation, Plant and Transmission Facilities Construction, Prepared by Hittman Associates, Inc.,
for the Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc., Washington, D.
C.,
1974.
2.
Office of Air and Water Programs, Processes, Procedures and Methods to Con-t,-ol Pollution Resulting from all Construction Activity, EPA 430-9-/2-00/,
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.
C.,
1973.
3.
M. B. Boyd, et al., Disposal of Dcedge Spoil - Problem Identification and Assessment and Research Program Development, Technical Report H-72,8, U.S.
Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, 1972.
4.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Protection Measures for Construc-tion Practices, Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Seattle, Washington, 4.3.2-12 108 00
February 1979 5.
J. A. Sherk, Jr., and L. E. Cronin, The Effects of Suspended and Deposited Sediments on Estuarine Oraanisms, an Annotated Bibliograuhv of Selected References, U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers, Washington, D.
C.,
1970.
6.
Committee on Water quality Criteria, National Academy of Sciences and Nationil Academy of Engin3ering, Ecological Research Series, Water Quality Criterca, 1972, EPA-R3-033, 1973.
7.
Environmental Protection Agency, Impacts of Construction Activities in Wet-lands o" the U.S., EFA 600/3-76-046, April 1976.
8.
G. E. Gunning, and T. M. Berra, " Fish Repopulation of Experimentally Decimated Segments in the Headwaters of Two Streams," Trans. Am. Fish. Soc., vol. 98, no. 2, pp. 305-308, 1969.
9.
T. M. Berna, and G. E. Gunning, " Repopulation of Experimentally Decimated Sec-tions of Streams by Longear Sunfish, Lepomis megalotis megalotis (Rafinesque),"
vol. 99, no. 4, pp. 776-781, 1970.
10.
L. Barr, and J. R. Knull, "A Temporary Anoxic Water Mass in an Alaska Estuary,"
Fishery Bulletin, vol. 71, no. 3, pp. 896-900, 1973.
11.
L. L. Olmsted, and D. G. Cloutnan, " Repopulation After a Fish Kill in Mud Creek, Washington County, Arkansas Following Pesticide Pollution," Trans.
Am. Fish. Soc., vol. 102, no. 1, pp. 79-87, 1974.
12.
W. T. Bryson, R. T. Lockey, J. Cairns, Jr., and K. L. Dickson, " Restocking after Fishkills as a Fisheries Management Strategy," Trans. Am. Fish. Soc.,
vol. 104, no.2, pp. 256-263, 1975.
13.
D. L. Sorensen, M. M. McCarthy, E. J. Middlebrooks, D. B. Porcella, and J. H. Gabstatter, " Suspended and Dissolved Solids Effects on Freshwater Biota:
A Review," Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, Oregon, April 1977.
08 L l2 4.3.2-13
February 1979 9
14.
A. J. Cordone, and D. W. Kelly, "The Influences of Inorganic Sediment on the Aquatic Lifc of Streams," California Fish and Game, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 189-228, 1961.
15.
W. M. Beck, Jr., and D. J. Klemm, " Environmental Requirements and Pollution Tolerance of Common Freshwater Chironomidae," EPA-600/4-77-024, Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, April 1977.
O jg8 04J 4.3.2-14
Appendix A to ESRP 4.3.2 February 1979 ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN FOR ES SECTION 4.3.2 AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS APPENDIX A CONSTP.UCTION ACTIVITIES OF RECOGNIZED GOOD PRACTICE Aquatic impacts may result from construction activities in or adjacent to surface waters (e.g., dredging, placement and removal of cof ferdams, construction of bulkheads, piers, jetties, basins, storm sewers) or from activities on land (e.g., defoliation, burning, dewatering, disposal of dredge spoils, runof f of sediment, herbicides, pesticides, petroleum products, and chemical cleaners).
The term " good practice" refers to those construction activities that eliminate or reduce adverse environmental irpact. The followir; examples of construction activities are recognized as " good practice" and were derived from a review of NRC environmental statements.
The " good practices" chosen are site-specific and dependent on the potential adverse impact to the aquatic ecosystems.
A general reference listing of commonly used construction prac ' ices is also provided.
1.
DREDGING, SP0IL DISPOSAL, OTHER WORK IN OR NEAR THE WATER Good dredging practices are specific according to the ecology, the hydrology, (depth, bottoin topography, currents, etc. ) and the character of the material to be dredged (volume and area, chemical, physical and biological properties).
Techniques and equipment range from suction methods (hopper, scow, sidecaster, dustpan) to mechanical methods (clamshell, dipper, bucket, ladder, mud cat) or a combination of both suction and mechanical methods (cutterhead).
Examples of good control practices include silt curtains, dikes, cof ferdams, cutterhead shields, specialized dredges, clamshell closer attachments, positioning equipment, precise and frequent surveys, slurry monitoring, and water quality monitoring. Sometimes judicious location and design of the dredged area will obviate the need for future maintenance dredging.
Spoil disposal can be on land or in open water. Disposal in wetlands should be avoided. Spoil disposal should be in compliance with local, State, and Federal 4.3.2-A-1 108 044
February 1979 regulations.
Spoi! can be transported by pipeline, barge, hopper, railroad, or truck. Control measures include confining behind dikes, spillage control, retaining runof f long enough for settling of solids, monitoring suspended solids and chemistry of the runof f, flocculation, dewatering and clarification, aeration and incineration.
The spoil can be covered with unpolluted materials, used for beaches (sand),
create artificial fishing reefs, used for landfill, used as a soil builder in agriculture, or made into bricks.
Dredging may be limited to certain times of the year, when aquatic lite forms are not abundant or when impacts of dredging can be minimized.
Pertinent Environmental Statements:
1-3, 5-7, 9, 11-15.
Pertinent
References:
3-6, 8, 13, 16, 22.
2.
DEWATERING, u'0UNDWATER Wdter f ro, dewaterino of excavated areas is generally pumped to ponds or to a settling basin. Where the ground water is of poor quality (e.g., saline or high sulfur) chemical treatment, evaporation or dilution before discharge to waterways should be considered. Since the water table is af f ected by dewatering, and by withdrawals for drinking water, fire protection systems, etc., control measures need to be taken.
They include monitoring nearby wells or special observation wells, use of grout curtains, or cessation of pumping for specified periods. Aquif ers may be recharged by trenching or with wells.
Pertinent Environmental Statenents:
1-3, 5, 8-9, 12-15.
3.
IREE AND BRUSH CLEARING Generally, tree and brush clearing should be minimized. Construction areas should be judiciously located so as to both minimize clearing and to confine clearing to more gently sloping areas.
Buffer areas of vegetation should be left near all surf ace waterways.
This can range from absolute prohibit, ion of cutting and intrusion of men and equipment to selective clearing iigures uf anywhere f rom 15 to 200 metres have been used f or the width of this buf ter strip.
108 Ol5 4.3.2-A-2 i
February 1979 Cleared vegetation can be used for erosion control, e.g., at the ends of drainage-ways for dissipating the water. Slash can be chipped and used for mulch. Cleared vegetation should not be allowed to f all into streams.
Roots should be lef t intact near waterways to prevent bank erosion.
Pertinent Environmental Statements:
2-8, 10-14.
Pertinent
References:
1, 2, 8, 12, 16, 22.
4.
BURNING. FIRE Burning practices can range f rom absolutely no burning to burning almost all flammable materials.
Burning should not be performed near waterways where the residue can wash into the water, Burning should not be performed when fire hazard is high. In remote, heavily forested areas with high fire hazard, vehicles shculd be equipped with spark prevention devices.
Pertinent Environmental Statements:
1-2, 6, 11-15.
5.
EXCAVATION, GRADING, ORAINAGE, EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL, REVEGETATION Excavation and earthmoving should be balanced so that what is removed from one area is used as fill for another area.
If permanent borrow pits must be dug, they should not be located in wetlands.
If they will fill up with water at the end of construction, the contours of the subsequent lake or pond should be considered when creating the borrow pit.
Topsoil should be segregated and stored for use in revegetation.
Stored topsuil and other excavated materials should be coltoured and temporarily seeded for erosion control. Excess excavated materials should be spread out in such a manner that they will not erode into nearby waterways.
Drainage, erosion and sediment control practices are variable and extremely site specific. They basically involve keeping land disturbance to a minimum both in area and time, controlling runof f, stabilizing the land surf ace with mats.
4.3.2-A-3 10R n:<
\\/
.)
February 1979 mulches. chemicals, vegetation, etc. and providing places for suspended materials to settle out from runoff before draining into waterways. Consideration of the percent slope, size of sediment basins based on expected storm runoff, percent of basin fill-in allowed, extent and duration of exposure of land, dates of seeding, size and number of terraces, particle-size distribution of soil, con-centration of suspended and dissolved materials in overflow from sediment basins, etc. are all desirable. Drainage, erosion and sediment control structures, for various stages of construction, should also be considered.
Revegetation practices should be tailored to specific soils and growing conditions. Fertilizers, soil binders and other chemicals can also have aquatic impacts and should be detailed as to their use. Temporary erosion controls and revegetation practices should also be detailed.
Erosion of shorelines can be controlled by various means, ranging from concrete break-waters or rip-rapping with rocks to planting special grasses.
Pertinent Environmental Statements:
1-15.
Pertinent
References:
1-2, 7-16, 18-20.
6.
ROADS, PARKING AREAS, LAYDOWN, ASSEMBLY AND STAGING AREAS Access roads should be kept to a minimum.
Sometimes it is desirable not to construct continuous roads down the centerline of transmission line corridors so as to discourage access and consequent constant perturbations to stream crossings, etc. Slopes, drainage structures, pavement types, revegetation of embankments, etc., should be detailed. Roads, parking areas, laydown and assembly areas, etc.,
should be located away from waterways and on level terrain, if possible. Temporary areas, including ternporary transmission line roads, should be graded and revegetated.
Rutted ar.d compacted soil should be loosened and seeded.
Pertinent Environmental Statements:
1, 2, 7, 12, 14, 15.
Pertinent
References:
8, 10-13, 16, 18, 20.
108 00 4.3.2-A-4
February 1979 7.
DUST The most common sources of dust during construction include temporary and heavily used roads, unpaved parking areas, concrete batch plants, sandblasting, and exposed soils. Paving and graveling of roads, spraying with water or calcium chloride, and revegetation of disturbed soils are common practices for minimizing dust. Spraying of bituminous coating 3 (oiling), asphalt cutback, or water-soluble polymers may have adverse aquatic impacts if these substances contaminate runof f and should either be avoided or used only when runof f will not result in aquatic impacts or can be prevented f rom reaching water bodies. Special attention should be given to dust control near streams and lakes.
Pertinent Environmental Statements:
1-2, 5-8, 12, 15.
Pertinent
References:
1, 8, 13, 16.
8.
STREAM CROSSINGS AND RIPARIAN AREAS Special consideration should be given to construction activities which involve stream crossings or riparian areas. Transmissior, towers shculd be placed back from the edge of waterways. A vegetative buffer strip should be maintained at all waterways and riparian areas. Conditions can range from no clearing to selective clearing, including feathering or topping.
Stream crossings should be avoided, but if necessary, they can either be simple fords with rocks, if the crossing is to be used only occasionally, or culverts and a bridge.
However, the latter usually ettails damage to stream banks and riparian areas and may cause impounding of the water. Banks may be riprapped, or other special erosion control measures taken.
In wetlands, construction of pipelines, transmission lines, etc., will generally have minimum impact when activities are limited to the frozen winter months. Herbicides should generally not be applied in wetlands or near waterways, or perhaps 1;mited to very selective application. Sometimes activities in and near streams and riparian areas should cease during flood season or during times when aquatic biota are seasondlly abundant.
108 040 4.3.2-A-5
February 1979 Pertinent Environmental Statements:
7, 8, 14-15.
Pertinent Re'erences:
3, 8, 12, 16.
9.
HERBICIDES AND PESTICIDES Generally, use of herbicides and pesticides should be avoided.
Sometimes, specific ccnditions, such as only basal application near waterways, or no use of a herbicide containing more than 0.1% dioxin, or no broadcast application, (e.g., hand aoplication) are necessary. Alternatives to use of these chemicals should be considered (e.g., selective hand-clearing of vegetation instead of herbicide " brush" control, and special policing of construction for lunch waster instead of using rodenticides).
Pertinent Environmental Statements:
1, 3-4, 6-8, 10-15.
10.
OIL, MAINTENA4CE AREAS, SALVAGEABLE MATERIALS, LANDFILL Maintenance areas should be specifically designated and located so that oils and other chemicals will not wash of f into waterways. Oils from the cleaning process for trarisformer insulating oil systems and turbogenerator lube oil systems should not be allowed to contaminate runof f.
Oil wastes should be collected and removed for possible reuse.
Salvageable materials should be collected and stored in designated areas so that there is minimal danger of contamination of runoff.
Landfills for scrap or solid wastes should not be located in or near wetlands and surf ace waterways, should not be located where ground water or runof f can be contaminated, and should be covered and reclaimed at the completion of construction.
Pertinent Environmental Statements:
2-4, 6, 7, 9-15.
Pertinent
References:
8, 13, 16.
Ash 4.3.2-A-6 108 00
February 1979 11.
SANITARY WASTES Portable chemical toilets can be used during the early stages of construction and in remote areas (e.g., transmission lines). These wastes should be collected and disposed of in accordance with applicable local regulations. A temporary package sewage treatment plant can be used onsite. Effluent from the temporary facility can be discharged to the main water body, to tributary streams or ponds, to a septic system, etc., using the best site-spt;ific practice.
Solid wastes from the sewage treatment facility should be collected by a licensed contractor and disposed of offsite or disposed of onsite in an approved manner.
Post-treatment water could bo roryrlod for othar uses such as dust control, but should be done only under the appropriate local, State, and Federal guidelines.
Pertinent Enviror$ mental Statements:
2-3, 5-7, 11-12, 14.
12.
CONCRETE Wastewater and runoff from aggregate washing, concrete batch plant and lif t operations, cement truck washinga and the plant area will have a high lime content and should be routed to settling ponds and treated prior to any releases. Discharges f rom these ponds should be monitored. Cement spoil should be dumped in designated areas and allowed to harden and used as fill whenever possible. All concrete operations should be conducted away f rom waterways where contanination f rom airborne cement dust or from runoff is possible. Concrete batch plants should be equipped with dust control systems.
Post-treatment water could be recycled for other uses such as dust control, out should be done only under tne appropriate local, State, and Federal guidelines.
Pertinent Environmental Statements:
2-4, 7, 9, 11-12, 14-15.
Pertinent
References:
8, 16.
13.
CHEMICAL CLEANING There are several acceptable practices for cleaning piping systems during O
the construction phase.
In all cases, waste solutions should be treated and f g U mq q 4.3.2-A-7 n
v
February 1979 monitored prior to discharge to waterways. By shot-blasting piping, acid cleaning for mill scale removal can be eliminated; by proper selection of preservatives, major alkaline cleanings can be avoided. Some systems cleaning can be accomplished by manual wiping although some detergents are involved. When detergents, acids, and other solutions are used, they can be discharged to a settling basin for sedimentation, precipitation, skimming, absorption, and neutralization. Temporary traps or screens can be used to collect any large objects. Solid sastes (including those resulting from settling, precipitation and evaporation) can be disposed of in a landfill or packagt>u and buried.
If the main water supply system is operational, waste solutions (af ter treatment) can be diluted with the main water flow.
Pertinent Environmental Statements:
3, 9, 12-14.
14.
OTHER Consideration shculd be given to the use of special equipment (e.g., heli-copters) when construction activities take place in or near sensitive habitats.
Also, some construction activities should be suspended during certain seasons, e.g., not filling a cooling pond during a low-flos period, erecting transmission lines in marshes only during the winter, not erecting or clearing veger.ation during bird breeding seasons, and ceasing diedging or other construction activities in the water during fish spawning periods.
Occasionally, special ef forts to create new habitat to replace habitat committed to f acilities or for other ptrposes could be considered and should be coordinated with the appropriate State or Federal agencies.
Pertinent Environmental Statements:
4, 6-8, 12, 14.
15.
CONTROL. QUALITY ASSURANCE, AND FEEDBACK FROM MONITORING PROGRAMS A good practice is the establishment of a quality assurance program f or construction practices and control measures. Provision should be made for direct and timely feedback from ecological monitoring programs to construction activities.
It is desirable to have a full-time coordinator during the peak construction 108 051 9.3.2-A-8
February 1979 years. This person is responsible for seeing that the environmental protection conditions of the construt tion permit are met and fcr briefing construction personnel on construction practices and controls designed to prevent and reduce ecological impacts.
Pertinent Envirormental Statements: 12-15.
16.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENTS 1.
" Final Environmental Statenient Related to the Proposed Byron Station Units 1 and 2," Directorate of Licensing, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Docket Nos. STN50-454 and STN50-455, July 1974.
2.
" Final Environmental Statement Related to Construction of Douglas Point Nuclear Generating Station Units 1 and 2," Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regula-tion, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Docket Nos. 50-448 and 50-449, NUREG-0037, March 1976.
3.
" Final Environmental Statement Related to Construction of Sterling Power Project Nuclear Unit 1," Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Docket No. STN50-485, NUREG-0075, June 1976.
4.
" Final Environmental Statement Related to Construction of Wolf Creek Generating Gation Unit 1," Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regula-tory Commission, Docket No. STN50-482, NUREG-75/096, October 1975.
5.
" Final Environmental Statement Related to Construction of Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2," Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Docket Nos. 50-514 and 50-515, NUREG-75/025, April 1975.
6.
" Final Environmental Statement Related to the Proposed South Texas Project Units 1 and 2," Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, NUREG-75/019, March 1974.
b hh 4.3.2-A-9
February 1979 7.
"Draf t Environmental Statement Related to Construction of Koshkcnong Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2," Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Docket Nos. STN50-502 and SIN 50-503, NUREG-0079, August 1976.
8
" Final Environmental Statement Related to Construction of Black Fox Nuclear Generatii.g Station Units 1 and 2," Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Docket Nos. STN50-556 and STN50-557, NUREG-0176, Februa y 1977.
9.
"Draf t Environmental Statement Related to Construction of Greene County Nuclear Power Plaat," Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Docket No. Sr-549, NUREG-0045, March 1976.
10.
" Final Environm.:ntal Statemer,t Related to Construction of Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station Units 1 and 2 " Of fice of Nuclear Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory res,bsion, Docket Nos. STN50-546 and STN50-547, NUREG-0097, September 1976.
11.
" Final Environmental Statement Related to Construction of Washington Public Power Supply System Nuclear Projects 3 and 5," Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Docket Nos. STN50-508 and 50-509, NUREG-75/053, June 1975.
12.
" Final Environmental Statement Related to Construction of Bellefonte Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2," Directorate of Licensing, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Docket Nos. 50-438 and 50-439, June 1974.
13.
" Final Environmental Statement Related to Construction of Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Units 2 and 3," Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Docket Nos. 50-500 and 50-501, NUREG-75/083, September 1975.
9 4.3.2-A-10 108 053
February 1979 14.
" Final Environmental Statement Related to Construction of Hartsville Nuclear Plant," Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commis-sion, Docket Nos. STN50-518, STN50-519, SIN 50-520 and STN-521, NUREG-75/039, June 1975.
15.
" Final Environmental Statement Relate i to Construction of Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2 and 3 ' Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U. S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Docket Nos. STN50-528, SIN 50-529, and STN50-530, NUREG-75/078, September 1975.
17.
GENERAL REFERENCES 1.
R.
P. Beasley, " Erosion and Sediment Pollution Control," The Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa,1972.
2.
E. C. Grim and R. D. Hill, " Environmental Protection in Surface Mining of Coal," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-670/2-74-093, October 1974.
3.
B.
H. Ketchum, ed., "The Water's Edge: Critical Problems of the Coastal Zone," The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts,1972.
4.
M. 8. Boyd, et al., " Disposal of Dredge Spoil Problem Identification and Assessment and Research Program Development," Techr.ical Report H-72-8, U.S.
Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, November 1972.
5.
G.
F.
Lee and R.
H.
Plumb, " Literature Review on Research Study for the Development of Dredged Material Disposal Criteria," Contract Report D-74-1, Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, AD-780 755, June 1974.
6.
W. L. Murphy and T. W. Zeigler, " Practices and Problems in the Confinement of Dredged Material in Corps of Engineers Projects," Technical Report D-74-2, Army Engineer Wate~ays Experiment Station, AD-780 753, May 1974.
108 05l 4.3.2-A-11
February 1979 7.
Soil Survey Staff, Soi! Survey Mancal, U. S.
Dept. Agriculture Handbook N ).
18, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S.
Government Printing Office, W.ishington, D. C., August 1951.
8.
D.
B. Emerson, et al., " General Environmental Guidelines for Evaluating and Reporting the Ef fects of Nuclear Power Plant Site Preparation, Plant and Transmission Facilities Construction," Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc.,
AIF/NESP-003, February 1974.
9.
" Methods for Identifying and Evaluating the Nature and Extent of Nonpoint Saurces of Pollutants," EPA-430/9-73-014, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C., October 1973.
10.
J. T. Green, Jr., et al., " Stabilizing Disturbed Areas During Highway Construc-tion for Pollution Control," Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State, PB-231 074, December 1973.
11.
" Construction Inspection, Section 19," SCS National Engineering Handbook, Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
12.
" Final Environmental Statement, General Construction and Maintenance Program,"
Bonneville Power Administration, Department of the Interior, FES 74-48, August 1974.
13.
" Environmental Guidebook for Construction," U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Government Printing Of fice, Washington, D. C.,1974.
14.
" Standards and Specifications for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in Developing Areas," U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, July 1975.
15.
U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, " Comparative Costs of Erosion and Sediment Control, Construction Activities," EPA-430/9-73-016, July 1973.
4.3.2-A-12 n-r
february 1979 16.
" Processes, Procedures, and Methods to Control Pollution Result f r.g Erom Ali Construction Activity," EPA 430/9-73-007, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D. C., October 1973.
17.
J. N. Kochenderfer, " Erosion Control on Logg'.ng. loads in the Appalachian 3,
" 3.0.A.
Forest Service Research Paper NE-158, Forest Service Department of Agricul ture,1970.
18.
":mtrolling Erosion on Construction Sites " Agriculture Information Bulletin 347, U.S. Department of Agriculture, December 1970.
19.
R. E. Thronson, " Control of Erosion and Sediment Deposition from Construction of Highways and Land Development," Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Programs, September 1971.
20.
J. T. Green, Jr., et al., " Final Report, Stabilizing Disturbed Areas During Highway Construction for Pollution Control," Virginia Polytechnic In3i.ii.ute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia, December 1973.
21.
W. L. Hottenstein, " Erosion Control, Safety, and _str,etics on the Roadside -
Summarj of Current Practices." Public Roads. vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 29-43, June 1970.
22.
" Channel Modification Guidelines," U.S. Departrent of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C., February 1978.
23.
" Floodplain Management Guidelines," for Implementing Executive Order 11988, 43 FR 6030, U.S. Water Resources Council, Washington, D.C., Federal Register, February 10, 1978.
aW l08 m UsJ 4.3.2-A-13