ML19241A618
| ML19241A618 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Skagit |
| Issue date: | 06/01/1979 |
| From: | Bivins W, Goldstein R ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19241A616 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7907090003 | |
| Download: ML19241A618 (19) | |
Text
.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT
)
Docket Nos. STN 50-522 COMPANY, ET AL.
)
STN 50-523 (Skagit Nuclear Power Project,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
NRC Staff Assassment of Impacts Associated with the Delivery of the Reactor Pressure Vessel ___
79070900o3 310 023
Affidavit of William S. Bivins State of Maryland
)
County of Mcntgomery
)
1.
I, William S. Bivins, being duly swo'n do depose and state that:
2.
I am the Section Leader, Hydrologic Engineering Section on the staff of the Hydrology-Meteorology Branch, Division of Sita Safety and Environ-mental Analysis of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
My statement of crofessional qualifications is attached.
I have reviewed submittals by the applicant and have checked other sources to detemine if there is an acequate water depth in the Skagit River in order to allow the barge delivery of the Reactor Pressure Vessels for the Skagit units without dredging of the river. My evalue nn, which follows, leads me to the conclusion thau barge delivery of the Reactor Pressure Vessels will be possible and that there is a high probability that dredging will not be required.
3.
I certify that the statements made ir this assessment regarding the hydrological aspects of the :>arge delivery are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
llbam9 h /
A WlliamS/Bi ns Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of Jm;e,1979
~
c No ary Puolic My Comission Expires:
310 0'c4 s._
Affidavit of Dr. Robert M. Goldstein State of Maryland
)
County of Montgomery
)
1.
I, Dr. Robert M. Goldstein, being duly sworn do Jepose and state:
2.
I am an Aquatic Ecologist with the Divisicn of Environmenta' Impact Studies, Argonne National Laboratory.
I have previously testified in this proceeding and my statement of professional qualifications has -
been entered into the record (Tr. 6,727).
I have reviewed the applicant's proposal for barge delivery of the R! actor Pressure Yessels and have caricluded tnat removal of some snags along the delivery route may occur. My assessment of the potential imoacts to aquatic biota from such removal is included in this affidavit in Section A.
In addition, I have assessed the potential aquatic impacts resulting from the place-ment of culverts et the creek crossings on SR-20.
Th assessment is discussed in Section B. below.
3.
I certify that the statements made in this assessment regarding potential aquatic imnacts are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Robert M. Goldstcin Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of June, 1979 Notary Public My Commission Expires:
3 0 025
P RC Staff Assessment of Incacts Associbted With
_T_h_e Deliverv of The Reactor Pressure Vessels h
This assessment by the NRC Staff of the imoacts associated with the delivery of the Skagit Reactor Pressure 7essels (RPV) was initiated by a letter from Samuel W. Jensch, Chaiman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to Richard L. Black, Counsel for NRC Staff, dated June 8,1978.
Chaiman Jensch indicated that the Board would like the Staff to review the applicant's plans for RPV delivery that were outlined in an April 24, 1978 letter 1/ to the Staff to detemine if the impacts were any different than thase assessed in the issuance of the Skagit FES (NUREG-75/055)2/ and the FES Ff nal Sapple-ment (NUREG-0235).3_/ Additional infomation concerning the RPV delivery is also set forth in a June 27, 1978 letter from J. E. Mecca to W. H. Regan, J r.5/ Af ter a review and evaluation of this additional infomation, the NRC Staff has determined that the original impact assessment of activities associated with RPV delivery in the FES and Final Supplement has not changed.
It is the Staff's opinion that the RPV delivery will affect the aquatic systems in the Skagit River and those creeks which will be crossed by the delivery route.
Although some terrestrial impacts are expected due to the widening of Fruitdale Road and construction of two creek crossings next to bridges along SR-20, these impacts will be minor and similar to te terres-trial impacts evaluated in the applicant's proposal to wider the intersection of SR-20 and Backus Road in its pre-LWA activities.
In adoition, the local community will face some disruption of traffic along the delivery route, but 310 026
. it will probably last not more than a day on each of two occasions and can be avoided b/ taking alternative routes.
Finally, we would note that impacts to the Skagit River from carge slip construction have been addressed in the Final Supplement to the FES, Section 4.4, and are not included in this assessment since there is no change in the proposed construction and impacts thereof.
A.
Imcacts to the Skasit River The RPVs are to be delivered up the Skagit River by barge to a barge slip just east of Sedro Woolley.
' barge would have the following general specifications: width 55 feet; le,gth 276 feet; design draft 6 fee
- 2 incnes (loadM); height to deck 15 feet 4 inches; height from dec-to top of components 28 feet 9 inches. General Electric Company, which is responsible for delivery of the RPV to the Skagit site, made a test barge run in 1976. The test barge was 165 feet in length and ballasted to the proper depth for a fully loaded barge. The test barge did not experience ar.y height, width, or depth restrictions on its jcurney, however, a section of an old railroad bridge near Sedro Woolley will have to be removed for the actual RPV delivery.
This stretch of the Skagit River is navigable and is maintained by the Corps of Engineers up to Mount Vernon. Maintenance usually consists of the removal of snags once or twice a year. The Corps of Engineers does not dredge the Skagit River.
If navigation is impeded and dredging required, it wculd be 310 027
. the responsibility of the commercial hauler and would require a prior perait by the Corps of Engineers.
Based upon information in the report entitled " Delivery of tM Skagit Reactor Pressure Vessel Equipment for Puget Sound Power and Light Company," dated March 1978 (T<ev.1),1' and on subsequent discussions with both the applicant sed the reactor vendor who prepared the report, including a review of the
~
actual depth sounding; made at the time of the test run, we conclude that the test run provided adequate infomation to support the applicant's con-tention that the RPV can be delivered by barge up the Skagit River.
In addition, based upon information in the report and an independent evaluation of water supply records of the river, the Staff concludes that it is highly probeie that the river ficw will exceed, or can be made to exceed by con-trolled releases from upstream dams, the minimum required to move the barge without requirements for dredging.
However, transportation of the RPV barge may be impeded by snags which can be defined as trees, root balls or other objects that hinder navigation.
The occurrence of snags
- c. 1 their movment is a natural process in the Skagit River. As previously noted, the Corps of Engineers rem. oves snags from parts of the Skagit River. Since General ~1ectric intends to survey the river at least 30 days prior to transport, adequate time exists to clear such impec'mants to navigation.
In the event that snags do impede naviga-tion, they will be removed by the commercial hauler--usually by lifting then out of the river by a crane and placing them on a barge for ultimate disposal.
310 028
,4 -
Removal of snags wil' cause minor impacts on the aquatic biota as discussed below. However, snags periodically move especially during periods of high river flow.
In a survey of the river by the applicant on '4ay 16,1979, only two snags were observed in the expected path of the barge. Thus, the impact to the aquatic biota from snag removal is expected to be :nsignificant.
(1) Potential Imoacts to Primary Producers There are two *:ajor types of primary producers or green plants, in aquatic systems: algae and macrophytes.
Removal of snags from the river will reduce the instances of slow water areas and potential habitat for these plants. After a snag ir removed, the area downstream of the snag is no longer protected from the full velocity of the river. Accumulated detritus, silt, and mud, which serve as favorable substrate for macrophytes, will be washed away by increased scour. Periphytic algal growth on the snag will be removed along with the snag.
In both instances the primary production potential of the river is reduced.E A high order river (large size with many smaller tributaries) such as the Skagit has a diverse base uf primary production. This base includes (1) imported organic matter (particulate organic matter of-both terrestrial and aquatic origin) from upstream reaches and tributaries and (2) organic " tatter produced photosynthetically in the river proper by periphytic algae (primarily 310 029
, diatoms and attached green algae), planktonic algae, and rooted aquatic macrophytes.
In a large river like the Skagit, the dominant source of organic matter would be both imports fron upstream and that produced by algae, primarily diatoms, epiphytic on the rocky substrate.
Based on the proporticnal amount of surface area available as substrate for epiphytic algae on the river bottom as compared with snags, the latter is probably not a major contributor to the total primary production of the Skagit River. Loss of substrate for rooted aquatic macrophytes is also unquantifiable, however these plants are not abundant in the Skagit River
( FES, Section 2.'7.2. 7).
(2) Potential Imoacts to '4acroinvertebrates Macroinvertebrates have an important function in the trophic structure of aquatic systems. This function is to process organic matter (both imported and that from primary production) into a fom more available (as food) to the next trophic level (primarily fishes). Macroinvertebrates feed on both detritus (dead organic matter and its associated microflora - bacteria and fungi) and living organic matter (algae, macrophytes, and other inverte-brates). Most macroinvertebrates are associated with relatively specific substrate types and have evolved morphologically to utilize a specific sub-strate type and food soJrce efficiently.
Snags prc<ide unique substrate types and harbor food sources for invertebrates.
Removal of snags will 310 030
therefore also remove this unique habitat from the river.
Remo,. of snags will also expose downstream collected mud, si't, and sand substrates to the full velocity of the river current and potentially erode these substrates thereby eliminating these habitats and their fauna.
In the Skagit River the dominant macroinvertebrates are the lar/al stages of insects (FES, Section 2.7.2.4), and the dominant substrate type is rocky botton with sand and silt in the interstices of the rocks.
Although snags are common, their surface area plus the surface area of velocity protected substrates does not contribute a major portion of the total invertebrate habitat in the river. By far, the majority of snaos are located in areas of low velocity and away from areas of major flow in the river. Therefore, the majority of snags and their associated habitats and fauna would be unaffected by the delivery of a reactor pressure vessel. More importantly, the unaffected areas also serve as reservoirs of the types of invertebrates which can utilize snag produced habitats and provide colonizers in dcwnstream drift.
The potential loss to fishes in both the amount of available food items and the types of food items should be small and probably undetectable in tems of reduced growth or survival.
(3) Potential Imoacts to Fishes Fishes obtain two major benefits from snags:
(1) cover - shelter protected from predation, and (2) velocity protection - energy expenditures are reduced 310 031
by maintaining a position out of the direct current of the river.b Renoval of snags can reduce the carrying capacity of a river by increasing terri-torial competition for cover. Alternatively, the carrying capacity of a stream for trout has been increased by adding cover.U Renoval of snags reduces the cover and shelter capabilities of a river and could have a measurable effect on abundance of fishes.
In the Skagit River, the dominant source of cover is snags.
Snags may pro-vide more cover than undercut banks, riprap, or natural structure combined.
Removal of snags may therefore have a significant effect on the fish popu-lations of the Skagit River.
If the number of snags removed is small, which the Staff expects from current infomation, no significant loss of cover should occur and aquatic impacts should be insignificant.
If a large number of snags have to be removed, the resulting loss of cover may have a more severe impact on the aquatic biota and mitigating measures may become appropriate.
For example, snags which e.re removed can be returned to the water as soon as possible and as close to the original position as practicable.
This procedure would insure that impacts are kept to an acceptable level because (1) loss of primary production to the systen should be undetectable, (2) loss of invertebrate habitat would be limited to the depositional areas downstream from 2 nags, and these areas would be recreated at the disposal location, ard (3) cover for fish would not be lost.
Each time a snag is 310 032
moved, some amount of silt will be released to the river. However, this should be a relatively small amount of silt and create only a limited turbidity plume prior to settling out of suspension.
From an aquatic standpoint, the return of snags may be beneficial. H owev e r, the return of snags might not be feasible since they may float downstream with the current and pose navigational hazards and other dangers to users of the river. Based on these considerations and our expectation that only a few snags will have to be removed, the Staff does not recommend that snags be returned to the river.
B.
Potential Imcacts of Stream Crossinos After the RPV's are offloaded at the barge slip, they will be transferred to an overland transporter which will move the RPV's down Fruitdale Road, SR-20, and Backus Hill Road to the site.
In order that SR-20 can accommo-date the heavy lead, the applicant w'll place culverts at the crossings for both Hansen and Coal Creek. At each stream crossing the applicant plans to excavate the stream bed to a depth of 0.6-0.9 m (2-3 feet) and replace the original stream bed with compacted sand and gravel. The culverts will be positioned in the stream bed and then sand and gravel will be used for backfill. The bottom of each culvert will be covered with approximately
%-30 cm (6 to 12 inches) of gravel 0.6-2.5 cm (1/4" to 1") in diameter, with fines less than 5% by weight.
310 035
.g.
(1) Excavation Imoacts This construction activity may cause several types of impacts.
First, both the ttream bed and bank excavaticn will cause siltation dcwnstream.
Silta-tion with sand and silt can fill stream bed interstices, reducing the inter-gravel spaces. These spaces are utilized as habitat by benthic invertebratee and as nursery and protected aren oy eggs and alevins of salmonids. The time period for construction of the stream crossings is linited to summer, May 31 to September 15. During this period the streams should be experiencing l ow flowsE such that dcwnstream dispersal of suspended solids should be minimal. This would cause the majority of the produced particulate matter to settle out cf suspension close to the construction area, minimizing the area that could be affected. When fall precipitation runoff increases stream flow, the increased surficial sediments will be redistributed down-stream with natural sediments by the flushing action. Therefore, impacts to the streams and benthic fauna will be temporary. Affected areas will be recolonized from upstream reaches by invertebrate drift. The majority of salmonid emergence from the gravel beds will have occurred prior to the construction period.
Some alevins may not have energed by the time con-struction begins, primarily those of steelhead trout (FES Table 1.11, page 5 2-31). However, the numbars should be small and all emergence should be completed by mid-July.
Coal Creek does not appear to support any anadromous solmonids, only resident cutthroat trout, although Hansen
~
Creek does contain coho salmon, steelhead, and cutthreat trout (FES 37
)
310 334
Table 2.14, page 2-33). Considering tha,t apcroximately 6000 m (3.7 miles) of ' ' 2am are available to salmonids in Hansen Creek (FES Table 2.13, page 1-33), only a small section of this area would be affected. Like-wise only a small area of Coal Creek would be affected.
The sta#f feels that the expected impacts from s',!tation are acceptable for the following reasons:
(1) the area of stream bed affected will be small, (2) natural flushing of sediment will occur prior to fall-winter saimon'
- cawning, and (3) benthic invertebrates can rapidly recolonize the affected area from upstream populations.
lowever, the staff recommends that all areas of stream bank surrounding the culverts be covered with riprap to prevent erosion during periods of nigh stream flows.
(2)
Installation of Culverts Installation of culverts in the stream will destroy existing benthic habitat and organisms.
The area affected will be slightly larger than the area 2 (685 ft ) in Coal Creek and 2
occupied by the culverts, approximately 63.6 m 127.3 m (1370 ft ) in Hansen Creek (area of the cu! vert: span x length).
The bottom of the culverts will be covered with ; ravel thus providing new substrate for benthic organisms.
It is highly likely that the new gravel fill will contain less fine material than the existing stream bed.
- ntro-duction of gravel containing minor amounts of fine material is analogous to 9
cleaning existing gra,.. of fine material. Meehan / found that benthic 90Oh
. invertebrate densities initially were reduced by gravel cleaning, but that after three months densities increased to twice the previous levels. After one year, populations returned. to pre-cleaning levels.
Potential loss of salmonid spawning hr.aitat may occur in Hansen Creek and Coal Creek.
If salmonids will spawn inside the culverts on the new gravel, then no spawn-ing habitat will be lost.
Requirements for salmonid spawning include pre-ferred water depth, veolcity, and substrate type.
SmithSI collected water depth and velocity data from over 1000 coho and steelhead redds in Oregen and Washington to develop criteria.
Steelhead prefer a minimun depth of 0.24 meters (0.8 ft) anu a water veiocity of 0.40 - 0.91 m/s (1.3-3.0 f t/s).
Coho salmon nrefer a minimun depth of 0.15 m and velocities of 0.21 -
0.70 m/s (0.7-2.3 ft/s). Although no data were given for cutthroat trout, the overall criteria for salmonids were a depth range of 0.22-0.43 m (0.7-1.3 ft) and velocities of 0.11-0.73 m/s (0.4 - 2.3 ft/s).
Presence of these depths and velocities as well as the shading cover provided by the culverts may simulate salmonid spawning habitat, Perhaps more important than depth and velocity criteria is substrate type.
Preferred substrate consists of gravel or cobble with minor amounts of detrimentally fine mate-rial. Detrimentally fine material is considered by the State of Washington as particles less than 0.84 m (0.03 in) in' diameter; however, for Big Beef Cteek in Washington this is increased t:; 3.33 mm (0.13 in). The U.S. Forest Service definition is less than 2 m (0.08 in) and the International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission defines detrimentally fine material at less than 12.7 m (0.5 in).E Depth of gravel in the stream bed is also important.
310 036
. Most salmonids will dig a redd 30 cm (12 inches) into the stream bed.
cill-ing the bottoms of the culverts with large size, washed gravel, may produce salmonid spawning habitat but, at a minimum, culvert installation should not remove potential spawning habitat.
Alternatively, the accessible spawning area to anadromous salmonids in Hansen Creek is approximately 6000 m (FES Table 2.13, page 2-22).E The culverts are less than 20 m (60 ft) in length.
If this area were totally unusable by salmonids, there would be : reduction in available habitat of approximately 0.3%.
The Staff finds that impacts to Hants and Coal Creeks from the installation of the culverts to be acceptable because (1) benthic habitat is replaced and recolonization should be rapid, (2) potential salmonid spawning habitat will still be available, and (3) the spawning area potentially affected is minor compared to the total spawning area available.
(3) Culvert Removal After the pressure ~ vessels have been delivered to the site, the applimt will remove the culverts and restore the stream beds to their original com-position. The applicart has also suggested leaving the culverts in place.
The Staff finds both alternatives acceptable, but agrees with the applicant that by leaving the culverts in place impacts from removal would be avoided
~
310 037
. a tne benefits Jf stream shading and cover would be maintained. Those 1mpacts associated with removal will be similar in both character and magni-tude to those described in the pre. ious section on excavation and installation.
310 038
., REFERENCES 1.
" Delivery of the Skagit Reactor Pressure Vessel Eouipment for Puget Sound Power & Light Company.
March 1978.
Letter from J. E. Mecca PSPL to Paul Leach, U.S. NRC. April 24, 1978.
PLN-185, 2.
Final Environmental Statement Related to the Construction of Skagit Nuclear Power Project Units 1 and 2.
Puget Sound Power and Light Ccm-pany eti al. NUREG-75/055, Docket Nos. 50-522 and 50-523; (May 1975).
3.
Final Supplement to the Final Environmental atatement related to the Construction of Skagit Nuclear Power Project Units 1 and 2.
Puge t Sound Power & Light Company, ett al.
Docket Nos. STN 50-522 and STN 50-523 (April 1977).
4.
Response to Staff Questions. Letter from J. E. Mecca PSPL to W. H. Regan, Jr.
U.S. NRC June 27, 1978, PLN-191.
5.
Mar:ol f, G. R.1978.
The potential effects of clearing and snagging on stream ecosystems.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/0BS-78/14, 31 pp.
6.
Hynes, H. B. N., 1970. The ecology of running waters.
Univ. Toronto Press, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 555 pp.
7.
Hu n t, R. L.
1971.
Responses of a brook trout population to habitat development in Lawrence Creek. Wisc. Dept. Nat. Res. Tech. Bull. 48, 35 pp.
8.
Water Resources Data for Washington, Water Year 1975.
U.S.G.S. Water-Data Report WA-75-1.
9.
Meehan, W. R.
1972.
Effects of gravel cleaning on bottom organisms in three southeast Alaska streams.
Prog. Fish-Cult. 33(2):
107-111.
10.
9nith, Allan X.
1973.
Development and application of spawning velocity and depth criteria for Oregon salmonids. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc.102 (2):
312-316.
- 11. Mih, Wal ter C.
1978.
A review of restoration of stream gravel for spawning and rearing of salmon species.
Fisheries 3(1):
16-18.
310 039
William S. Sivins, Leader Hydrologic Engineering Section Hydroloay-:leteorology Branch Division of Site Safety and Envirccmental Analysis Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulatis n Professional Qualifications I am the Section Leader, Hydrologic Engineering Section on the staff of the Hydrology-Meteorology Branch, Division of Site Sa fety and Environmental Analysis.
- 'y formal education consists of study in civil engineering at New thxico State University, where I receivt i a B.S.C.E. in 1966, and a M.S. in Water Resource Management from the University of Wisconsin in 1969. The graduate study was as a Planning Fellow under total sponsorship of the Corps of Engineers.
I have had courses in hydrology, water resources, fluid mechanics, engineering construction, soil mechanics, water supply, geology, hydro-geology, economics, water law, urban and regional planning, and advanced mathematics.
My present employment with the NRC ( formerly the AEC) dates from 1972 in the area of hydrologic engineering with the Division (new Office) of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, with the Office of Standards Development, and for consultation on siting of materials facilities, and on environmental matters. My responsibility in the 1icensing review of nuclear facilities is in the area of flood vulnerability, adequate water supply, an surface and groundwater acceptability of effluents. In cdition, I pccicipate in the development of Regulatory Guides in these areas of interest.
From 1970 to 1972, I was a Hydraulic Engineer with the Southwestern Division of Corps of Engineers, Dallas, Texas.
I was responsible for the hydrologic review of mul ti-purpose dams, flood control projects, navigation projects, and coastal engineering development. The projects included those of the five districts of the Southwestern Division of the Corps of Engineers and included parts or all of the states of Colorado, New Mexico, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Missouri, Arkansas, and Luuisiana.
From 1966 to 1970, I was a Hydraulic Engineer with the Corps of Engineers, Albuqueraue District, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
I worked on hydroingic engineering and hydraulic design projects such as mul ti-purpose reservoirs, channels, and levees in New Mexico, Colorado, and Kansas; including estimates of long-tern water availability, and hypothetical flood events.
I prepared hydrologic engineering estimates for major flood control levee systems including the water salvage potential of such projects.
310 040
'.li l l i an S. B i v i n s professional cualificaticns I have published in the Journal of the American Society of Civil Encineers and in internal technical papers of the Corps of Engineers.
- am a registered Engineer-In-Training in the State of New "exico.
I am a
.1cmber of the American Society of Civil Engineers, 'cerican Association for the Advancement of Science, and the A,merican Geophysical Union.
310 041
.