ML20063C960
| ML20063C960 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 08/20/1982 |
| From: | Sugarman R DEL-AWARE UNLIMITED, INC., SUGARMAN & ASSOCIATES |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8208270432 | |
| Download: ML20063C960 (23) | |
Text
- - -
.g I
- e. a J '
o ti. " "$.5' 00cKETED U3HRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'E2,G 23 Ia :41 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.-
In the Matter of
)
)
Philadelphia Electric Company )
Docket No. 50-352-OL
)
50-353-OL (Limerick Generating Station, )
Units 1 and 2)
)
DEL-AWARE'S REPLY TO APPLICANT'S ANSWER TO MOTION TO COMPEL Del-AWARE requests that the Board receive and consider this Reply to applicant's Answer to its Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories, pursuant to 10 CFR Rule 2.730(c) because of the nature of the proceedings at this point, the importance of this Reply, and the recent discovery of the matters involved, as fully set forth hererin.
Interrogatories 1 (d),
(e) and (f) request available
~
information regarding hydraulics of the intake area at various flows, including flows below 3,000 cfs.
Applicant objected on the basis that such action is irrelevant because its DRBC Order precludes operation of the intake for PECo at flows below 3,000 cfs. (objections, p.
8)
Applicant, in a footnote in its Answer, now not only effectively concedes the entire issue of the discoverability of the ;niormation requested in Interrogatories 1 (d), (e) and (f), but also makes it clear that its initial objections were taken although applicant knew that the material was relevant, and therefore discoverable.
a208270432 M g 2 PDR ADOC'A ppg
-1 _
ISO 3
n v v.
~
g
,j Q
e i
s
.i
) ;"
Specifically, in foodhote 7,,, he applicatt incredibly t
y 1,M.
purportC bto rebut /d Lel-AWARE 's p sapplenental
.j r 4
reason f6r
~J,
- 4\\
a f 3, a 4
s I
ipcb,rin'g, the, in[pacds of the intake structure at river fla s be ow 3,000 cs
.e.,
that PECoinow admits it can
(
+
T.J draw maximum flow at any river flow on the basi $ that s'*
- c. g 1
?j '
a 1
k J
.I 4
"DRBC considered and approv'ed this niode off s V operation in Docket No. D-69-210,;CP(final) (NovenMcI'
.i ber 5 1975)." (fn. 7) j' The 1975 DRBC Order referenced, while ambiguous,'y,
j 7
can be g
T.
,t,
q 1
read as permitting PECo to withdraw water at Point $,lehsa.nt'.
a7f 'riv r flow if it replaces tbe / consumptive at 4
water
^
j j
.f A,
j g
Q.~
withdravn,-fbut since it recites the " flow constraints" cited
- 3. '-
).
4 2
~,
whichh4arly precluded such use, ' 'i in DRBC's 1973 Order I
its term;inology is obscure.3 In f a c" t, in the EROL, appli-cank rec des the basic ladguage of the 1973 Order quoted in n
w, footadrM> 2 hereof as being its current (1981) limitation.
'f y s
(EROL k.4A-2).
This limit I
2[4qbeen used repeatedly-to 1
9[
- j. -
,te
{
i j'
reassure ?? agencies and the public that wtthdrawals would
/
not occur at low flow, iYet, PECo now revea'ls that these l'
[+
'I s,
y limits me'an something else; U
'l
+
I
' Ij' ('
when flow as measured at the Trenton gage is less than 3,000.,
cid (1940 mgd)."
(p.
6, 53)3{The 1975 Order states that 4,,
when" the flow constraints.
. prevent the applicant from opdating the plant at 11,1 cad, the app.llcant shall opi-At'e. the plant only at fu(bh 'Wicentages su of full Iced as
' the available water ' supply allows',
as determined by "ths)
,; Ccuhlssion. "
(emphasis added).
The 1981 Order changes the, lW3 le.nguage "use of Delaware River and upstream reser-voi'rs " by precluding withdrawals of " Delaware River water"
,s%
yhen ficws am.less then 3,000 cfs.
a lN
, Copies of tHe referenced pages of the Orders are attached as Exhibits A-1, A-2 and A-3.
\\
r I
/
(
u
,s
.c,A a
- ' h 2-2 4
-Qr,'
~
- l I }b
Applicant's above quoted statement means that PECo should never have objected to the Interrogatories in the first place.
Moreover, it raises a serious question as to the basis for PECo's previous representations to this commission such as the one in applicant's objections to this Interrogatory:
"The DRBC has expressly conditioned operation of the pumping station upon this minimum flow level [3,000 cfs) as a condition of its allocating Delaware River water for Limerick."
(Applicant's objections at p.
8)
Del-AWARE submits, based on the foregoing, that the applicant has acted with less than candor, at least, in objecting to these Interrogatories and to other questions involving the impacts of the intake operation at flows below 3,000 cfs.
These Interrogatories relate to the impacts on the spawning and nursery area of intake operation when River
~
flows are below 3,000. cf s.
These effects are attributable to low (or no) velocity, which in turn depends at least in part on flow.
The Interrogatories do not relate to the effects on the river of flows below 3,000 cfs as such.
Thus, while the supply of water from Merrill Creek may mitigate or prevent net loss of river flow (if extended beyond replacing the
" consumptive" withdrawals as required in the 1975 Order),
that has no bearing on the relevance of these Interrogator-ies.
It must be stressed
- that, according to applicant,,
Merrill Creek. releases will not' maintain the flow at 3,000
- cfs, as generally inferred.
- Thus, despite applicant's implication in footnote 7 that everyone should have known of this interpretation of the DRBC Order, its own project engineer has repeatedly represented that maximum withdrawals will not occur at river flows below 3,000 cfs.
Bourquard's conclusions regarding the hydraulics of the operation of the intake, as well as.those of Brundage's Shortnose Sturgeon Report and Harmon's Biological Assessment Report, are all based on that inference, i.e., that there will be no PECo withdrawals through the intake when the flows in the river are less than 3,000 cfs.
Copies of the relevant pages from the Shortnose Sturgeon Assessment, the Biological Assess-ment, and Bourquard's) description of the hydraulics of the intake (April 30, 1982) are attached hereto as Exhibits.B-1,.
~
B-2 and B-3.
All these documents refer to the local effects of the intake operation, which are dependant at least in part on the flow of the intake relative to the flow in the-river.
Thus, not only Del-AWARE, but the project personnel have consistently interpreted the DRBC Order in the same way.
The significance of this new revelation can hardly be understated, but a subsidiary point of considerable magni-4 tude is why PECo permitted the pleading and discovery process to proceed as far as it did without correcting this misinformation, while continuing to permit this
-4
misimpression to be perpetuated by the consultants.
PECo I
may attempt to take refuge in the claim that the j
representations referred to were made by those consultants in their capacity as consultants to NWRA.
However, PECo had all the documents of which excerpts are attached as Exhibit h, and was perfectly aware of what was being said with respect to its activities.
- Moreover, PECo continues to reinforce, to this date, this misunderstanding of the terms of the DRBC Order, as noted previously with respect to the applicant's Objections.
In other words, PECo knew at the time it was making its objection, and at the time these documents were being provided to official
- agencies, that they were at least misleading with respect to the terms of the DRBC Order.
PECo may also claim that it was not under an obligation to disclose its understanding of the terms of
- the DRBC Order, because Merrill Creek is proposed, and not finally approved.
This is equally meritless. As PECo admits in its b
l
- Answer, the environmental review requirement encompasses 1
reasonably forseeable environmental consequences.
(Answer, J
p.
3)
To suggest that Merrill Creek is not a reasonably
)
forseeable environmental consequence is fatuous in the extreme.
DRBC has directed that it be constructed, subject l
to environmental clearance.
E.g.,
Recommended Changes To The Management Plan.
Most significantly, on August 4,
Del-AWARE received and has just begun to study, the Merrill Creek draft EIS.
That draft EIS uses the recommended '
changes, on the basis that they "will" be adopted, as the basis for evaluating the effects on the salinity front of skimming spring flows.
In other words, adoption of the Recommendations is assumed as the basis for DRBC conducting its environmental review.
Copies of the relevant pages from the Merrill Creek draft EIS are attached hereto as Exhibit C.
Again, applicant cannot be permitted to treat Merrill Creek as speculative, and not a
reasonably forseeable environmental consequence, when DRBC itself has taken the draft Recommendations as the basis for making environmental evaluation.
In summary, this Board has b~een subjected to a shell game, in which the water to be withdrawn from the Delaware River at low flows is never seen.
At one time, it is not to be withdrawn but is in Merrill Creek.
At another time, it is safely into Limerick.
It never is acknowledged that the water will come down the Delaware River and be withdrawn j
(whether it is Delaware River water or Merrill Creek water, as the applicant contended at its deposition), with all the consequences on the nursery and spawning area of withdrawing water at low flows, and the boating and recreational area at Point Pleasant.
Until now, therefore, applicant has had the advantage of the misunderstanding of the DRBC Order by everyone involved, including several government agencies.
This illusion is now shattered, and applicant, in cen-
- science, and equity, and in light of the obligations of.
government agencies, cannot be permitted to hide behind the fact that it is just becoming clear now.
By way of further reply, Del-AWARE also notes that in reviewing the 1975 DRBC Order, it becomes apparent that Del-AWARE's suggestion that DRBC might not enforce the 3,000 cfs limit is not speculative at all, in that Order, DRBC stated it would detemine'the allowed flow from time to time.
For these reasons, Del-AWARE submits that the Board should grant Del-AWARE's request to consider this Reply and grant Del-AWARE's Motion to Compel Answers.
Respectfully submitted, I
m a
\\
ROBERT J.
S GTRl4N Attorney for el-AWARE, Unlimited, Inc.
Of Counsel:
l SUGARMAN & DENWORTH Suite 510 121 South Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19107 (215) 546-0162 Dated: August 20, 1982 66
.2 9.
-I
~) 3 0,
6 2.
Perkiomen Creek Perkiomen Creek water may be used when flows es measured at the Groterfoid gege are in excess of 180 cfs (116 mgd) with one unit in operation and 210 cfs (136 mgd) with two units in operation, exclusive of cny water pumped from the Delowere River.
The constraint on the use of Perkiomen Creek water would peimit the use only when the flow of Groterford wcs obove the long-term median flow of 150 cfs.
3.
Delaware River The Delaware River, c cugmented for the puipose of woler supply by upstream reservoirs may be used via the Point Pleasant pumping facilities, o pipeline, the East Brcnch of Perkiomen Creek cnd Perkiomen Creek with the limilations that such use will not reduce the flow as mecsvred at the Trenton gage belew 3000 cfs (1940 mgd), and that such use will not be permitted when the flow as mecsured of the Trenton gage is less than 3000 cfs (1940 mgd), previded thct ennually off er pumping from the Delaware Rivr.r hcs ccmmenced, the rcle of pumping will be maintained at not less than 27 cis (17.5 mgd) thrcushcut the normcl low flew secson for the protection of equatic life in Perkicmen Creek cnd its Ecst Branch rescrdless of ultimate downstrecm consumptive use requirements. During perieds of high naturcl flow in East Brcnch Perkicmen Creek, pumping frem Peint Plec:cnt shcIl be k. pt at a level so es not to cggrevere high wcter levels.
Bis ccnstraint would prchibit the use of 'the De!cwore River weier when such uso would reduce the flow in the river c,t the Trenten gege belcw 3000 cfs, which is requir::d to meet the sclinity cb[ective in the estvery of 250 mg/l ct mile 92M7 (mouth of the Schuylkill River).
~
Other The fccilities, technige:s cnd procedures for the dispesci of liquid, solid end gesceus westes, cs described in the cpplicatien end supporting documents, end their effect cn wcter quclity, cnd the cdequacy of the cpplicent's prcposed progrcm of mcnitoring l
ihc environment ccnnet be evclucted without cn environmental impcct siciement rs c,uind by Icw.
DECISION l
I.
Full censideretien cf the preject, as described ebove, including Compre-he n:Ivo P!cn cddific,n end section 3.8 review, is dcieried pending the comple! ion of cn environmentcl impcct sictement cs required by Icw.
II. The water supply fectures of the pioject are conditinnolly npproved within the lirnitetiens of the ckvo Findings, cnd subject to lho following conditiens:
I Approvcl is subject to cll ccnditiens impcsed by the United 5 fetes a.
l Atemic f.,crgy Ccmmissicn end the P'ennsylvania Department of Environmental Rescurces, i
cnd it is subject to further review cnd mcdificcticos in accordcoce with the findings I
of en envirnnmentnl imr,n, t <tntrment, inr w'nich ihn Atomic rn r, ~. t h m: ten I, !! a
.{
C/ N ) d lT - y 'l
/ k# #dd
/
/
p.
- 2 b.
Wnenever the flew consircints cited in the above findinre preveni licent frcm cperuting the plant Ct full load, the opplicant shall crerote the the cFP plont on!y at suCb pCrCUnfuges of full locd as the avoi!chle woler supply clIows, cs determined by ihe Commission.
Prior to January 1,1977, the Commission will, in its sole discreijon,
~
c.
determine the adequacy of the then existing storage facilities on the Delaware River cr its tributories logelhcr with cdditional stoinge to be built to supply all n< eds (inc!uding the opplicent's) for water supply from that source by the year 1980. If the Ccmmission then determines that the storoge will not be adequate for o!! projecied needs of the bcsin, the cpplicent will build or ccuse to be built, at ils own c3 pense, at a localicn cpproved by the Ccmmission, for service in 1980, o rescivoir of suf ficient storage ccpocity to cssure the water supply needed for consumptive use by the Limerick plant, during periods when such use would reduce the flow in the Delowore River at the Trenien scge below 3000 cis. Storage end release of woner in such facility will be under the Commission's regulation, at the expense of the cppliconi.
d.
& ginning cne year prier to the first commercial opercticn date of Unit I ct the Limerick plant, the cpplic=nt will pay for meiered qucniities of woier withdecwn thereciter at the several locations described ebeve. The price of waters so teken frcm the Schuylkill River, Perkicmen Creck, and the Celowore River will be dcf r:rmined in occcrdance with the Ccmmissiens' water supply policy, heretofore 7
cdepted cr cs mcy be cmended hereciter.
111. Pricr le cny use, withdtcwel er icking of water pursucnt to this decisien,'
l lhe cpplicent thcIl re-submit the projact pursuant to Secticn 3.8 of the Ccmpact, end this decisica shcIl not be ccnstrued lo ccmmit the Ccmmissicn to cny pcrticulcr IInol ce!Icn rcr will such oction be icken unless and until it is justiIIed by a find! envircn-mentcI Irrpoc! stof ement.
BY THE COMMISSICN DATED: Merch 29,1973 1
4 i
4 l
We
(*
e i
k->
{
i'
~
Sheet 15 c (Final)
-s0
)))
r and report
_ i-*wns s
..,m r 6.
Construction. A period of 30 months is shown on the schedule for -
const ruction. Procurement cod installclion of the electrical and muchonical equip-
~'
ment is the critical item during this phase. However, it is expected that menufoc-turing, ins:allction and Icsting of the equipment con be compicled prior to January.'
l 1, 1981. This will permit reservoir relecscs to be ovoilable, if needed, in the j
summer of 1981.
- 7. Filling of the Reservoir. A period nf five months is allowed for the first filling, cf:er completion in Jcnuary,1981. This will permit the commercial i
eperc: ion of the limerick plcnt scheduled for April,1981, with suf ficient water evcileble :o meet cooling requirements for the summer of 1981.
- 1\\
It remcins to determine what, if cny, environmental icnl world value would be vindicoled
- t y insisting upon a reservoir site selection now, including NEPA review, reiher than fo!!owing j;
i
.ch a schedule cs chove. The Commission concludes th'oi cil of the requirements of NEPA hcve
.en :.ctisfied end cpproval of the cpplication ccn proceed at :his time.
I i-
.g
.I DECISION
- 1. The prcject cs descriled in Docket D-69-210 CP cnd supplemcated chove, with the
..iicc:icns inc!vded in :he docket decisien,of March 29,1973 cnd_spe cified, her eincit er, is neby cdded to the Ccmprehensive P!cn.
p s
- 11. The project is cppreved pursucnt to Secticn 3.8 of the Ccmpact, subject to the follow-'
.[
g cendificns:
h Apprevol is sub. ject to cll conditiens imposed by the U.S. Nuclecr Reculclory o.
- ccminien (fermerly :he U.S. A cmic Energy Ccamissien) cnd the Pennsylvcnio Deper: ment of
,viicnmentcl Rescur ces.
- b. Whenever the flew ccnsticints ci:ed in Docket D-69-210 CP (Fh dings) prevent lLe cpplicent frem opeic:ing the plcnt ci full leed, :hegelit ent shr:ll_cm.i_cie ihe plcnt only.,ot ich eicentcces of full leed es :he cvcilcble wc:er supply c!!cws, es dete: mined by the Ccmmis-
=-z
~a
~-
. n fi C rn_t.MTiedo :.
O lin e.
Prior to Jcnucry 1,1977, the Ccmmission will, in ils :cle discretion, deler-l c.
jir e the edequecy of the then existing s!ciege facilities en the Delu,. oc liiver or its tribuleries pgether with cdditionc! s:ciege to be built to supply all nea!> (including the c;'p!; cent's) for lcter supply ficm that.cuice by the year 1981. If the Ccmminion then determines ihet the stor-ge will not be edec;uc!c for cll projected needs of the Desin, the cpplicent.-ill build or cause
) be beilt, ci its cwn expense, of a locotien cppieved by the Cei r.iinion, for service in 1981, ic:cr voir cf :u f fic ent :!c.icge cepcc. ity.to en uie_the _we r.er sor. ply needed fci c c.ntemp.:.ive u:c by
~_ _.
l
,e limerick plcnt, durion perieds when such use would reduce the flew in the Delo.uic River of
.-..s-~____._.
~
i Je.l!iEIEn 02Gefelcw 3,p00 cfs. 5:n cue end relcese ef',.cter in :vch fccility will be under i
>c Cerc.mb:icn's regv!ctien, et the expense of the cpplicent.
f l
]
j D'7 / A'-
I
h.
5 A _T:.
8 2CP
[
- pz
~ ~ ',$,,5 u:
. / /-
/,,g,
The DRSC prepared an Enviponmental Assessment,
'~
in accordance of 1969, the DRBC Rule's
-7 gith the National Environmental Policy Act of Practice and Procedure, Article IV, and as directed by P.esolution 80-11 to determine whether an Environmental Impact Statement should be prepared for the NBWTP and to review the
- l impacts of its related components described in DRBC's FEIS of
'5 i
.?
1973 to see if that document needed to be updated.
The assessment also concluded that subsequent documents support the conclusions of the FEIS on the Point Pleasant Diversion
,. ~ ~
Plan, required by the NEPA of 1969 and issued by DRBC in
-4 February 1973, that the project is feasible and provides a beneficial lT use of water resources in the Neshaminy and Perkiomen Watersheds and is not detrimental to the Delaware Rive'r, provided that mitigating measures are implemented as listed in the FEIS under
" Conclusions," page 3.
Consequently, the assessment recommended on
, a " Findings of No Significant Impact" (Negative Declaration) the NENTP and recommended no supplementary EIS be prepared on the p
related ccmponents.
~
i The water quality of the Delaware River is compatible with that of East Branch Perkicmen Creek and no treatment will be required for the inter-basin transfer.
~
The conditions of Docket D-69-210CP require that the with--
3 drawal of Celaware River water at Point Pleasant for use at the Limerick GeneraE~ing Station not reduce the flow as measured at
~.
the Trenton gage below 3,000 cfs (1940 mgd) and that such use will not be permitted when the flow as measured at the Trenton gage is less th an 2000 cfs (1940 mgd), provided that annually after pumping from the Delaware River has commenced, the rate of pumping will be maintained at not less than 27 cf s. (17. 5 mgd) throughout the normal low flow season' for the protection of aquatic life in Perkicmen Creek and.its East Branch regardless of ultimate dcwnstream c6nsumptive use requirements.
During periods of high natural flow in East Branch Perkiomen Creek, pumping from Point Pleasant shall be kept at a level so as not to aggravate high water levels.
I The rcvised project does not conflict with nor adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan.
.-, _... q _. : -
_i=1.___
In the course of the DRBC proceedings on the pending project, numerous issues have been raised regarding the operation of the Limerick Nuclear Generating Station, including the safety of said f acility, evacuation planning in the event of a nuclear accident, and the need for new generating capacity in the PECO' system.
4 l
a
Q.
A lQ ::"
iy 6
..M a.
e a2c?
l
'\\h
/
, s.:
ynese issues generally lie beyond the statutory jurisdiction of
([
^
pasC, and DRBC has no authority or expertise to render a decision such questions.
These issues do, however, fall within the
<.9 onproper jurisdiction and expertise of other Federal and State 1.4 agencies, particularly the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission.
In rendering a decision
[*Q f
on the docket, the DRBC in no way intends to prejudice or influence the outcome of proceedings in those for.um s.
In particular, J y[
DRBC notes that prior to operation of Limerick, PECO must apply 7;.
for and obtain an operating permit from the NRC.
By letter dated f.j '
December 16, 1980, the NRC has indicated its intent to prepare
- F and complete a new or supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
' 'in as part of the proceedings on the operating permit.
DREC believes and expects that the NRC will address f ully and adequately all of pC the safety and environmental issues regarding operation of
.i?
Limerick.
In the event that review by other State and Federal
[$
agencies results.in a modification to the operation or the design
' of this project, DRBC has so conditioned-this docket to allow a
.;f reopening, reconsiderationf and revision of this project approval
,y as necessary.
I~
The DRBC will-coordinate and confer with the Nuclear Regulatory' Ccmmission concerning all issues relevant to provisions of water
{
supply.
r.-
a DECISION s
I.
The description.of the proposed project in the Compre-h hensive Plan is hereby revised to agree with the project as described above.
\\
II.
The project, as described above, with modifications specified hereinafter, is approved pursuant to Section 3.8 of the Ccmpa t, subject to Ehe following conditions:
A.
All project facilities shall be av,ailable at all times for inspection by the DRBC.
B.
The withdrawal of w ter from the Delaware River at
.f.
~
che Point' Pleasant Pumping Station for diversion into the East schedule and pranch Perkiomen Creek must confonn with the fctnditions listed in DR3C Docket D-69-210CP.
C.
PECO dull maintain a minimum flow of 27 cfs (17.4 mgd) in the East Branch Perkiomen Creek at the proposed Bucks Road stream gage throughout the normal low flow period beginning with the day the booster station commences pumping and ending when pumping is no longer required for the operation of the Limerick Generating Station.
The rest of the year PECO sha31 maintain a minimum flow of 10 cfs (6.5 mgd).
~
r".
- o.
..v._
.,.n
- v. /...... s -..
L.
- 1..
' Ec.$
O POINT PLEASANT PUMPING STATION B YDRA U LI CS OF b'ATER INTAKE i-April 30, 1982 Water Intake Assembly.
As shown.on Drawing No.
PPPS-C, Sheet s
No.
5, attached, the intake assembly will be located in the channel of the Delaware River, about 245 feet off the west bank.
Details of the assembly are shown on Drawing No. PPPS-M, Sheet No.
- 20. It will be noted on these drawings that the screens are part of a Tee and are aligned in two rows parallel to the flow of the River.
The screens will consist of stainless steel wedge wire wrapped around a cage with a clear opening between the wires of 2 Each screen will have mm.
a diameter of 40 inches and a length of 40 inches.
The overall length of the horizontal part of the Tee is 124 inches, and there will be a total of 12 such Tees, 6 in 6e'ach row.
The lower portion of the intake assembly, primarily the
~
support and connecting piping, will be below channel bottom and protected from possible scour during floeds by a blanket of rock j
riprap.
The upper portion of the assembly, the part above the channel bottom, will have a maximum cross-sectional area at intake
{-
centerline of 48.3 square feet.
This portion basically consists of two 4 0--inch di ame te r almast continuous cylinders about 70 feet long with nose cones at each end.
These two cylinders are supported at six places by 24-inch pipes which connect at a 45 I
degree angle to a vertical 36-inch pipe.
The top of the screens, at Minimum Water Surface (Elev. 70.0)*, will be covered by at
{
g See at1. ached copy of Development of Relationship Between Water Discharge and Wa te r Sur f ace El e va t. i o n, De] aware Rive r Pu: api ng l
S t a t. i on Site, Point Pl ea san t, January 4,
1982.
k l.
e1
.(W V."
the surface and the bottom of the water body."
Th'is is based on an analytical analysis and is contained'in a letter from the i h..
Johnson Division dated April 20, 1982, a j
copy of which is a ttached
- ,;t as Exhibit No.
1.
It will be noted therein that, with' these ii.?}
distances, there will be neglible effect on the flow fields
{.
entering the screens; a by-pass current, which will be pres.nnt at
(.%
the intake, will further decrease any effects on these boundaries.
Y$
As the distances between the screens of the Point Pleasant intake m
,4...
and the water surface and the channel bottom will be in excess of f
the suggested minimum distance (2.4' times larger for the - surface F( ~
- .T and 1.2 times for the bottom), and River water will flow past the c?
screens, there should be no measurable disturbance of either the 4.4 water surface or the channel bottom as a
result of the
.if-h.
withdrawals.
This is readily understandable as the screens are
?fL 25 designed for a maximum velocity of 0.5 feet per second through the h;c slots in the screen when the withdrawal rate is at the maximum of 4l 95 MGD.
The velocity of flows approaching the screens will D
naturally be considerably less than 0.5 feet per second; rough 4.
flow net computations indicate the average flow velocity toward
.~
the screens would be only 0.1 feet per second at a distance of one foot from the screens when withdrawals are at the maximum rate.
C c-Another confirming factor is tha t ' the maximum wi thdrawal rate of 95 MGD will only' occur when the River flow is 3000 cfs, or greater, and such a withdrawal would constitute only 51, of the
,].
l 3000 cfs flow and, additionally, the taking will occur along 70 feet of. stream channel.
m
\\
Conclusion.
This intake, which constitutes the state-of-the-art
i,Q f rom an environmental viewpoint, will also be a very hydraulically f.
efficient structure.
The intake is almost streamlined and provides for the withdrawals to take place over a wide area and
/
along an extended length of stream channel.
Furthermore, being
'O' r
the stream channel where higher fl ow velocities obtain out i n t. o and with the face of the screens para]Ie1 to the direction of riow, any possibilities of impinging water borne debris or aquatic.
5 1 ife are J
drastically reduced.
In view of the streamlined nature N
)
i-
w...
ms u~
h.
t:-e T.
t-M i
r.
s
.5
'.a
- 7.,J
~
2..."-
\\.
- . k.'
r,;..
J-
- a
. e.'
....e
,.Y BIOUX;JC'iL EWd>JATION OF THE PROPOSED
..~'
UATER I]EAKE IN 'IHE DEUGARE RIVER AT I
l POINT PLEAS.tdC, PElHSYLV/WIA
-1
~
L. '.. g t
.~
~
. i~
For' h'esh2a.iny Lter Resources Authority, County of P/.chs
'i h
I' l
l
~,
f, i
l I
fiu By i.- _
d' P. L. H anron jr Pot.tr.to..cn Ecological Laboratory
'{
l I
Frjehs lock P033, R.D.
1 Pot.ts t o.'n, PA 19/64 i,
e l'ow/her 1980 f
f )$)[.
~
O
3
[.
N n
r the D.rtervi13e wing dam.
Tne proposed screen 62 sign is to provide a j
mxi:n.m through-slot ve16:ity of 0.5 fps at the design naxintrn flow j r
m rate of 95 ned (147 cfs).
Data from a river ve3ocity survey condtx:ted I
on 7 Novenber (Table 1, Figure 4) illustrate that anbient currents
[
at this location are generally 1 fps or greater even at los floa j
I' (3000 cfs) and are suf ficient to noximize efficiency for screens with i.
i;'.c N
ll a 2 nm slot size.
~
D2SCRIPTIW OF ' LEE FISH COSM.NITY e
~_
t, Tne middle portion of the Delacare Riser, within which Point
}.
Pleasant is lccated, supports a diverse fish conmunity which includes j
warm: ster resident ga re and forage fishes, anadrencus species, and the J
catadrcnous knerican cel. The area doas not appear 'to be critical n
habitat for any of the species found there. No fishes classified as I
~ ~'
thrcatened or endangered by the U.S.' Departnent of Interior are known to occur in this reach of the Delaware, River.
Mihursky (1962) sanpled the fish fauna of the middle basin of the Dela:are River from 1956 to 1962 at over 300 col 3ecting stations on the
}
nainstream and tributaries and reported the presence of 81 species.
S. tith and RanTen (1974) sampled the fiches near Point P3casant from r
July 1972 through Deccrber 1973 and collected a total of 41 species.
.,'t
'Ihr6e spacies accounted for 5% or nore of the total catch of over c
32',000 spacimens t&.en in 102 seine collections:
satinfin shiner (625),
u swallc atail shiner (141), and spottail shiner (5%).
Scnu 149 trap net
(
collections yic]ded 985 specinens of which the nost abundant species j-were bro.en bullhead (20%), pnpkinseed (18?,), reibreast sunfish (17%),
i i::
4
g-
-;..;.g.
3 ~g.
-:* 7 -.
w----a---~~'
- ~~
'Q
~
L -
=-~'
~
\\,
1 l
l 1
I o,
i I
I i
'!l ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPACTS OF THE h
PROPOSED POINT PLEASANT PUMPING S
STATION AND INTAKE ON THE
[{'
SHORTNOSE STURGEON, ACIPENSER BREVIROSTRUM I
l i
l i
For i
l Neshaminy Water Resources Authority County of Bucks
~
By Harold M.
Brundage III f
Consulting Biologist 1
Ichthyological Associates, Inc.
100 South Cass Street Middletown, DE 19709 l
1 1
I i
January 1982 I
I f
[ql.hGli.o v ;
7 l;
i i
depth and position in the river.
Results of velocity
'j l-measurements along the Point Pleasant Pumping Station intake
! [-
'j' l
centerline on 7 November 19 80 (flow at Trenton ca. 3,000 g
3 gg g r
~
f:
cfs) and 23 July 1981 (flow at Trenton ca. 4,500 cfs) are t
.O c~
t
.y v
\\
}
{
.j g '/
given in Tables 2-2 and 2-3 and shown in Figures 2-2 and 2-i
'n i
I 3,
respectively.
On 7 November 1980 velocity was greatest i p!
i i
1 l
f,g[/ '
. (0.52 m/sec) on the surface at intake centerline station 9+3 fi i
{ (~c~a.79.N 100 m from the Pennsylvania shore) and on 23 July 1981 f
3,4r (1.07 m/sec) on the surface at intake i
I, velocity was greatest 2 76 '
hcenterline station 9+24 (ca. 91 m from shore).
An upstream i
l
back eddy which extended from intake centerline station 6+99 l
~
,to 7+74 was detected on 23 July.
I 2.3 Temperature
\\
The water temperature in the Delaware River near Point Pleasant ranges from about 0 C in winter to a maximum of about 31.5 C in summer (USGS, 19 81b').
t I
2.4 Water Quality l'
I The Delaware River at Point Pleasant can be characterized as I
a well-oxygenated warm water stream with a carbonate base i
and relr.tively good water quality (Kahnle et al., 1978).
The water is moderately hard (Hem, 1971) and contains adequate but not excessive concentrations of nutrients.
ll ll l.
l' 1
(j/ "f.// /. A
7 8
/
- 1. A. Research/Consulung i
y.
yh i
79 l
I!!
degree of diagonal orientation to the slot.
An orientation
$i M.
of head width at an angle of about 38 degrees to the long fY' dimension of the slot was determined graphically (Fig. 6-2) to be the smallest angle (i.e.,
the greatest head width) i:
i i
l.
which allowed a head depth within the internal dimensions of t
ip 1.'
the slot.
Head wid th at this critical angle was 3.25 mm and f
fi 't l' head depth 2.47 mm.
Figure 6-1 shows that a larva with a
)
head width of 3.25 mm would be 20.5 mm TL.
Ex tension of i
i i:
pectoral fins and approach to the screens in other than head lq {!
first position would significantly decrease the minimum l
li, i
excludable and the maximum entrainable sizes.
. r Harmon (1980) reported that several species of river herring (Alosa spp.)
i were resistant to entrainment through profile-wire i
j screens 1
I, at a size less than necessary to achieve physical exclusion.
Z l
P a
i.
~
i Tomlj anovich et al. (1977) reported that fish with body W
I depths up to 84% greater than mesh size could be retained,
.U
.i :
compressed, and extruded through the mesh.
Retention on,
,i
'i l and subsecuent extrusion through, the Point Pleasant intake
.l [ j
' --1 l
screens in unlikely.
Ambient river currents in the vicinityf j;
'of'the proposed y :
intake generally exceed the maximum through-l
,P, I;
~
slot veloci ty (0.15 m/sec) bya factor of two, even at very
~
t low flows I
k (see Section 2.2).
Current velocity during April and May, when small i
shortnose. larvae are potentially j
h; j
present, will he much greater.
Imbient currents wig _ tend
- to sweep material off of the screen face thercby limiting I
j i
' exposure time and the opportunity for extrusion.
e
/f~
gg
(.I 73 e t
r, 1
I l
1 I
l DRAFT b-1 ENVIRON! ENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
?
\\
for the I
l i
1 PROPOSED MERRILL CREEK RESERVOIR PROJECT f
ON MERRILL CREEK IN HARMONY TOWNSHIP, g
WARREN COUNTY, NEW JERSEY j
$5 The Merrill Creek Owners Group Applicants
[
3 af DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION u
(Lead Agency)
With cooperation from the U.S. Army,
- 1 ;
Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District
[
- l. -
i Draft sent to Environmental Protection Agency, 8
Washington, D.C. on July 23, 1982.
i I
f i
l Abstract _.--The ; referred location for a reservoir to pr 5
se;;1ezentary vater storage for electric generatirg facilitics d ovide required I
periods of Icv river fic,ws is a site en Merrill Creek, in )?armeny T uring
{
ship, '.'arren County, ?;ev Je rsey.
i e a-determines pt:bable 1 pacts of the reservoir without mitigThis IIS evaluates viable alterna j
j' r.utlines scoe mitigating =easures; and estimates the likely degr ating.casurest I
I 1:; acts with mitigation.
ee of i.
{
l
_Clese of Review Period.--Cecents en this Oraf t until Septe:ber 30, 1982.
Thursby, DAhC, (609) E63-9500.For further information contactEIS vill be acre;ted t
Mr. J. W.
a
, ' I' c
h-l JULY 1982 9
i.;
e 8'
a f
l lt
{
t I
[
e h'
f bif D l - ' '. 2
-l'
~
1
.,)
p While oysters are benefitted by higher flows during drought -
periods, the proposed project would not have such an effect.
Normally one would assume that a low-flow augmentation facility would benefit th '
entire Delaware River aquatic biota during periods of augmentation. 1 ["
3 this case the maximum benefit would be limited to the stretch of the
~~
and the intake for the nearest elect Delaware between the release point generating station downstream (Gilbert Unit 8, followed by the Point Pleasant, Pennsylvania intake for Limerick Station).
Downstream of thg.'
electric generating stations to be served by Merrill Creek Reservoir,.
river flow would be the same with or without the project because DR3C S approvals of these stations do not permit operation when the flow is I
3,000 cfs at Trenton, without release of augmentation water.
Potentia 1I benefits to the biota in the vicinity of the pump station are considereb i
under b. Augmentation.
y The potential for water withdrawn by the proiect to have a U.,
i cumulatively significant adverse impact.when considered witiiother Q
~
l existing and proposed withdrawals, is addressed in the addendum of j
% Appendix 4.5 @ Whg the original calculations indicate the project _ed.'.~
depletive water uses to the yearf r uma d %crme chlorinity trom ~ ~,
ii
{
7,743 mg/l to 8,204 mg/l and cause an upstream movement of the 15 part i
~
ph JUosand isobaline at z.18 miles, the analysis concludes that the p,
.a.qt;ual ef f ects are likely to be much less.
The Merrill Creek Project
.I' would increase these values by a very small amount.
Because of the verff low order of impact and the rarity of the event, the cumulative biologie effect of the water withdrawal for the Merrill Creek Project is judged "
insignificant.
2 The F6US staff have tentatively suggested monthly minimum b
Delaware River flow levels for March-July that DREC could set below 3
which MCOG would not be permitted to draw from the river.
The criteriad could be applied to any depletive water use in the upper basin. The intent of such a recommendation is to maintain springtime flows as high: '
as possible for the general benefit of downstream biota, especially Delaware Bay oysters, while recognizing the need for depletive water
.n The values were derived from historical flow data and represent I.1 use.
flows which are equaled or exceeded 10% of the time in the given month;h there is no specific biological basis, or cause and effect relationshir,#
for these numbers; March-31, S00 cfs, April-37,500 cfs, May-23,100, Junc -
14,000 and July-7,500 (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, personal coccunicai
- tion).
It is likely that these criteria, if adopted, would necessitate (
major changes in the design of the intake works and the operation of the,a system.
The values are far higher than those developed above in the
[
" Montana Method" which are directed towards setting a safe, yearly
~
minimum flow value.
Because of the small volume of water to be pumped '.
relative to the river flow (even during low flow periods) and the low *.-j frequency of pumping required, it is hard to think of any direct bioleSi'.
f ical benefits to be realized by applying the criteria suggested by FW f.
to this individual project.
Furthermore, the very minor and rare cum t*
tive ef fects of water withdrawal to which the Merrill Creek Project FWS will have to adopt a final set e such stringent measures.
This would contribute, may also not warrant issue is unresolved at this time; c
l 4-26
J
['
M I
Q)
.D 4.M Delaware Estuary Salinity Study
/
)l '
Addendum to Answer to Ques, tion 22 l
1 The estimation-of the maximum potential increase of chlorinity over l
seed-oyster beds of upper Delaware Bay attributable to filling of Merrill k Reservoir was based on a =athematical model simulation of a fluw re-l,!
'el tion larger than that caused by the filling of Merrill Creek Reservoir.
This i
Is to a question:
Would the chlorinity increase related to Merrill Creek' reduction? The answer depends on the rate of water diversion assumed for
! { jl -
k**.[.ncrementally added to the chlorinity increase caused by the basic la e
,.. York City and northeastern New Jersey.
In the basic model simulation on l j' I
.g s analysis is based _, it was assumed that these diversions would be~
j
,, -gd and 100 mgd, respec h ely, the maximum rates permTtted by the U. S.
I
- '75e CcQTr s amended decree of 1954.
This assumption was for stucy purposes f a,
- 3y; ir Tppears that
~
such high diversion rates would be unlikely in a severe i
i
- ~ $.:gh t.
For exa=ple, during the droughts of 1965 and 1980, the diversion
$$,:cswerecutbackinordertosustainhigherratesofflowintheDelaware i
b.cer at Montague and Trenton.
Currently, the parties to the 1954 decree are
.,-sidering the need for minimum flows in the river, anLigp ars ge 1.600 cfs.
This h,. objectiv@te.Qor the river at Montague will be about q
fj tne max 1 mum diver-EicTTiTglier than would be possible in a severe drought 1r
,n.s permitted by the decree were taken, as assumed in the foregoing analysis.
1-tis assumption resulted in a sustainable Montague flow of only 600 cfs, which--
. ge:her with other changes in salinity-controlling factors--caused a chlorinity
.g:rease of 461 mg/l over the seed-oyster beds at mile 40.39.
_A more rea K c
] 'j n-i um flow at Montague, say 1.600 cfs, would mean a much smaller increase in i
. M inity (and salinity) M t we scad-.,vster neds.
il ll From the above, it is reasoned that although the effecj_s of the Merrill
- 'j
- cvk Reservoir filling operation on oyster-bed salinities will be additive l
- . ether salinity-increasing ef f ects, these other effects will not be as great 7j n :ssumed in condition sets 26 and 27, which caused the chlorinity increase
- ',! 31 ag/l at aile 40.39.
Thus, the Merrill Creek increment (with an upper
' '. a f t of 0.053"pt) would be Eded to a basic inc?ifise tnat would oe, 'under
^
r
~
fe:hstic conditions, much smaller than 461 mg/1.
i t
l
/
It is also true that the maximum incremental up-estuary movement of Pc 15-ppt ischaline, 0.26 mile, attributable to the filling of Merrill Creek I
h2 severe drvught vuuld be added to the movenent caused by other factors.
~
':!e gain, however, the covement caused by realistic d v.w eh t diversions to
* York City and northeastern "ew Jersey woulo oe Tess than the 2.18-mile shif t
- 'U*.ed to conditica sets,26 and 27, which included the assumptions of maximum jf
- ec-permitted diversions and a sustainable E ntsgue flow of only 600 cfs.
h i
i lI i
... L?3C--12/31/80 l!
I i.
i i
~0)00$
l t
iI O
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE g, /ie
- }
p' E~ES
.Q a
I hereby certify that Del-Aware's 2
Reply t,6' Applicant's Answer to Motion to Compel were served by mail this 20Eh day?ef!q93 M *O
,,a g-q 7 c! ?,"N August, 1982 on the following persons:
C ~. ;,
Lawrence Brenner, Esq., Chairman Administrative Judge U.S.
Nucl' car Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Richard F.
Cole Administrative Judge U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washingto'n, DC 20555 Dr. Peter A.
Morris
,i.
Administrative Judge U.S.
Nuclear Regu)atory Commission Wa s h i n g t o'n, DC 20555 Mr. Edward G.
Bauer, Jr.
Vice President & General Counsel 1
Phjladelphia, Electric Company 2301 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19101 Troy B.
- Conner, Jr.,
Esquire Conner and Wetterhahn 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006 Secretary U.S.
Nuc) ea r Regul a tory Co:imi cs 3 on A'nN:
Chief, Docketing & Service Br.
Uirhingion, DC 20555 Siephen H.
Lewis, Esquire 4
Counsel for NRC Staff U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1.'a 's h i n g t on, DC 2055 6
h 1)
! %, si'
' 'i' s
Sugarmrij Robert J.
DATFD:
August 20, 1982