,. Entergy Operations, Inc. \/\/~1terford ;~ SES I '1265 Fl1v1~r Road ~Entergy Kiilona, LA 70067 rel 504 739 66SO W380-2008-0023 A4.06 PR Hand Delivered July 9, 2008 Ms. Cheryl Nolan Assistant Secretary Office of Environmental Services Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality P.O. Box 4313 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70821-3181 Subject: Waterford Steam Electric Station - Unit Number 3 LPDES Permit Number LA0007374 316(b) Development Plan Submittal Information Dear Madam: In accordance with Condition Part II X.2 of Louisiana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (LPDES) Permit LA0007374, Waterford 3 (W3) is required to submit a plan for developing information regarding source water physical data, cooling water intake structure data, cooling water system data, and source water biological characterization data. Since information already exists to satisfy this condition and Condition Part II X. 3 of LPDES Permit LA0007374, W3 is enclosing the following attachments to this submittal for Department review and approval: • Attachments A and B address source water physical data (Condition Part II X.3.a). • Attachment A addresses cooling water intake structure data and cooling water system data (Conditions Part II X.3.b and Condition Part II X.3.c). • Attachments C and D address source water biological characterization data (Condition Part II X.3.d). Based on information supported by the attachments to this submittal, reduction in impingement mortality from the combined effects of the fish handling system and the offshore location of the W3 circulating water intake structure (CWIS) is estimated to be 94%, which would have been well within the acceptable range of the performance standards specified in the now suspended 316(b) Phase II regulations, and would also Permit Compliance Unit LPDES Permit Number LA0007374 W380-2008-0023 Page2 July9, 2008 support a previous determination by the Environmental Protection Agency that the existing W3 CWIS represents best technology available. Since W3 is licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, nuclear safety concerns must be evaluated whenever there are changes in plant design including those that could potentially increase the likelihood of cooling water blockage from modifications to an intake structure. Therefore, W3 is very much interested in working with the Department in an effort to not only address future requirements from a re-promulgated Phase II Rule, but to also satisfy nuclear safety concems that must be evaluated under the NRC license. If you have any questions or would like to discuss any information enclosed in this submittal, please contact Brian Falgoust at 504-464-3488. John L Hornsby Chemistry Superintendent Waterford 3 JLH/BPF/bpf Enclosures Permit Compliance Unit LPDES Permit Number LA0007374 W380-2008-0023 Page3 July 9, 2008 cc: B. P. Falgoust W-MSB4-238 Waterford 3 Records Center cc: (w/o Enclosures) K. T. Walsh W-GSB-300 J. A. Kowalewski W-MSB4-300 ecc: (w/Enclosures) G. M. VonBodungen L-ENT-5E R. N. Buckley M-ECH-595 R. J. Leblanc W-MSB4-238 C.O. Barlow M-ELEC-68 Impingement Mortality and Entrainment Characterization Study (IMECS) Entergy - Waterford 3 ENSR Corporation December 2007 Document No.: 00970-027-300 ENSR Prepared for: Entergy Operations, Inc. Impingement Mortality and Entrainment Characterization Study (IMECS) Entergy - Louisiana -A' • ;"- "x I'•', •' .. ' "" / Prepared By: Kurtis Schlicht Reviewed By: Robert D. Carpenter ENSR Corporation December 2007 Document No.: 00970-027-300 ENSR ,"v ENSR I A\1:.4F!! V Contents Executive Sum m ary .......................................................................................................................................... vi 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Statement bf IMECS Goals ...................................................................................... ...... 1-1 1.1.1 Strategy Relative to the 2nd Circuit Court Decision and EPA Suspension of the Rule.. 1-1 1.1.2 Requirements from the Suspended Rule ......................................................................... 1-1 1.1.3 Strategy to Address the Rule's Requirements .................................................................. 1-2 1.1.4 Support Issues Specific to Compliance Alternative .......................................................... 1-2 1.2 Review of Facility and COS ............................................................................................................ 1-3 1.3 Document Organization .................................................................................................................. 1-4 2.0 Habitat Review .......................................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Plant Locations ................................................................................................................................ 2-2 2.2 Habitat Summary ............................................................................................................................. 2-3 2.2.1 W aterford 3 ........................................................................................................................ 2-3 2.2.2 W aterford 1 & 2 .................................................................................................................. 2-4 2.2.3 W illow Glen .............................................................................................................. 2-4 2.2.4 Baxter W ilson ..................................................................................................................... 2-5 2.2.5 Ninem ile ............................................................................................................................. 2-6 2.2.6 Little Gypsy ........................................................................................................................ 2-6 2.2.7 Gerald Andrus .................................................................................................................... 2-7 2 .2 .8 R itch ie ................................................................................................................................ 2 -7 3.0 Review of Data .......................................................................................................................................... 3.1 3.1 Literature Review ............................................................................................................................. 3-1 3.1.1 The existing LMR data are sufficient to characterize the aquatic community, impingement mortality (IM) rates and seasonality of impingement ................................ 3-1 3.1.2 Life Stage and Taxonomy Data for all Species in the LM R ............................................. 3-4 3.1.3 Fish and Other Aquatic Species Distribution ................................................................ 3-4 3.1.4 Abundance of Species Most Com monly Impinged .......................................................... 3-4 3.1.5 Impingement rates at Waterford 3 are estimated to be low and IM will have no long lasting consequences to the populations of impinged fish ....................................... 3-5 3.2 General Trends Relevant to Plant, Compliance Strategy .............................................................. 3-5 3.2.1 Overall Trends ................................................................................................................... 3-5 3.2.2 Timing and M ethods .......................................................................................................... 3-7 3.2.3 Rates of IM......................................................................................................................... 3-7 3.3 Characterization of Susceptible Species and Life Stages ............................................................. 3-7 3.3.1 Overview of LMR Fisheries ............................................................................................... 3-7 3.3.2 Spatial Differences in the LMR Fisheries .......................................................................... 3-9 Repot No. 00970-027-300 ji Deoem-rder 2007 ENSR r 3.3.3 Dom inant Species Im pinged in the LM R ........................................................................ 3-15 3.3.4 Threatened and Endangered Species ............................................................................ 3-19 3.3.5 Other Considerations that Might Drive Additional Concerns .......................................... 3-21 3.4 M ethods of Extrapolation from Historical Data ............................................................................. 3-21 3.4.1 Review of Data Relevance .............................................................................................. 3-21 3.4.2 Method of Extrapolation ................................................................................................... 3-24 3.4.3 Discussion of Uncertainty ................................................................................................ 3-24 4,0 Data Interpretation ................................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Current Im pingem ent Study Performed at the Waterford 1&2 Plant ............................................. 4-1 4.2 Overview of Relevant Studies ........................................................................................................