What is ‘normative’ at cooling water intakes? Defining normalcy before judging adverse

Abstract

Judgments of adverse environmental impact from cooling water intake structures need to be preceded by an appreciation of what is normal. In its report, Return tu the River, the Independent Scientific Group (now called the Independent Scientific Advisory Board)--the scientific peer review arm of the Northwest Power Planning Council--advanced the notion of a "normative river ecosystem" as a new conceptual foundation for salmonid recovery in the Columbia River basin. With this perspective, the sum of the best scientific understanding of how organisms and aquatic ecosystems function should be the norm or standard of measure for how we judge the effects of human activities on aquatic systems. For the best likelihood of recovery, key aspects of altered systems should be brought back toward normative (although not necessarily fully back to the historical or pristine state); new alterations should be judged for adversity by how much they move key attributes away from normative or what might be considered normal. In this presentation, Iask what "normative" is for the setting of cooling water intake structures and how this concept could help resolve long-standing disputes between groups interested in avoiding damage to all organisms that might be entrained or impinged and those who take a more population or community perspective for judging adverse environmental impact. In essence, I suggest that if a water intake does not move the aquatic ecosystem outside the "normative" range, based on expressions of normalcy such as those discussed, then no adverse impact has occurred. Having an explicit baseline in normal or normative would place 316(b) analyses on the same conceptual foundation as 316(a) analyses, which strive to demonstrate the continuation of a balanced, indigenous community of aquatic organisms at the power station location.Oak Ridge National Laboratory is operated for the U.S. Department of Energy under contract DE-ACOS-960R22464 with Lockheed M a r t i n Energy Research Corp.

Regulatory Dependence and Scientific Advisory Boards

“…Jasanoff (1990), in her case studies, provided numerous examples. This includes the choice of theoretical models in evaluating exposure pathways/harm mechanism, the preferred observation methods, the scientific models on dose-effect relationship, the subjectivity involved in counting excess tumors, the appropriate extrapolation factor from animal test to humans and the judgment involved in deciding whether observed effects in one tissue is idiosyncratic or can be generalized (for additional examples of how science and policy are socially negotiated, see Coutant (2000)). Since the research design, the chosen paradigms for ana-lyzing clinical trials results, the acceptable level of harm and what is deemed as acceptable proof are all subject to social negotiation, this suggests that the "science" behind FDA's science policy is malleable (Jasanoff, 1990).…”