Text

316(b) Entrainment Demonstration Program
	ML20085M512
Person / Time
Site:	Susquehanna
Issue date:	07/31/1982
From:	; PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:	;
References
	RTR-NUREG-1437 AR, PROC-820731-02, NUDOCS 9111110089
	Download: ML20085M512 (71)
	v • d • e

, .

i' 7 g ~

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

--=~

-e DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES Post Office Box 2063 L ' '

- Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 October 6, 1982 (717) 787-9637 In reply refer to Filet 3.00.0 RECEIVED Mr. Jerome S. Fields 00T111982 Senior Environmental Specialist-Nuclear j NUCLEAR DErr, Pennsylvania Power and Light Company

~

Two North Ninth Street Allentown, PA 18101

Dear Mr. Fields :

We have reviewed the 316(b) report submitted by the Pennsyl-vania Power and Light Company for the Susquehanna SES on the Susquehanna River, Luzerne County.

The study has also been reviewed by the United States Environ-mental Protection Agency, United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlif e Service, Pennsylvania DER Wilkes-Barre Office. ar.d the Pennsylvania Fish Commission.

Based on the information and data presented in this rep rt, the above reviewing agencies have concluded *. hat the cooling water intake of the Susquehannt steam Electric St ,: ion will not adversely impact the balanced indigenous community of fish and other aquatic 1:.f e in the Susquehanna River.

Sincere 1y, fgy .It'i /R.

EDWARD R. BREZ,INA, Chief Division of Water Quality Bureau of Water Quality Management I

9111110089 820731 PDR NUREG 1437 C PDR

~-

7 r1 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION 316(b) ENTRAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM FOR NATIONAL POLLUTION DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT NO. PA, 0047325 SPECIAL CONDITION C, PART C BY PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT C0 JL1Y, 1982 l

. ~ _ . _ _

t *

't

q TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1. INTRODUCTION ........................................... 1 II. PROCEDURIS ............................................. 3 III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................. -

IV. CONCLUSION ............................................. t LIST OF TABLES Table

1. Mean river temperature and flow, intake pumping rate, and current velocity for entrainment sampling periods in 1981,

2. Larval fishes collected in entrainment samples at the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station in 1981.

3. Number of larval fish captured with a pump sampler in the mouth of the South Bay channel of the river water intake of the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station 20-21 May 1981.

4 Number of larval fish captured with a pump sampler in Uce mouth of the South Bay channel of the river water intake of the Susquehanna Sceam Electric Station. 28-29 May 1981.

5. Number of larval fish captured with a pump sampler in the mouth of the South Bay channel of the river water intake of the Suscuehanna Steam Electric Station, 11-12 June 1981.

6. Number of larval fish captured with a pump sampler in the mouth ci-the South Bay channel of tha river water intake of the Suscuehanna Steam Electric Station.-16-17 July 1981.

7. Total number of larval fish collected durir.g four diel sampling periods at the river water intake of the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station in 1981.

3

8. Total mean density of larval fish /10 m collected during four diel sampling periods at the river water intake of the Susquehanna Steam Electric Statfon in 1981.

, 9. Mean density of larval fish /10 m3 collected in bottom samples during four diel sampling periods at the river water intake of the

Susquehanna Steam Electric Station in 1981.

Z i~- . - . _ , ~ - - - -- - - - - -

s d'

l

10. Mean density of larval fish /10 m collected in surface samples during four diel sampling periods at the river water intake of the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station in 1981.

11. Comparison of a Predictive Model to a 316(b) Demonstration for entrainment of larval fishes at the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station in 1981.

LIST OF FIGURES Figure

1. Plane view of river intake structure.

2. Cross-section of river intake structure.

3. Mean density (fish /10 m ) of larval fish collected at 0900 and 2100 hours0.0243 days 0.583 hours 0.00347 weeks 7.9905e-4 months at the Susquehanna SES intake (I), and 190 m upriver, near the river channel (R),3 19Sl. Fishes which occurred in densities of less than 0.5 fish /10 = during a sampling period, or which compesed less than 5% of the overall mean were categorized as "other."

LIST OF APPENDICES Appendices A. Pennsylvania Power and Light Co. letter, Predictive Model of Impingement and Entrainment, January 9, 1980.

B. Pennsylvania Povtr and Light Co. letter, List of Entrainment Demonstration Program Objectives, April 9, 1980.

C. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Dept. of Environmental Resources letter, confirming impingement and entrainment study plan, April 29, 1980.

l I. INTRODUCTION Special Condition C of the NPDES Permit No. PA. 0047325, requires a 316(b) study program for impingement and entrainment at the Susquehanna SES. To meet this requirement, a predictive model for impingement and entrainment was submitted to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (Pa. DER) by the Pennsylvania Power and Light Company (PP&L) on January 9,1980 (Appendix A).

Additional discussions were held between the Pa. DER and PP&L on March 4, 1980 to elaborate on this model. At this meeting, it was agreed that a 316(b) demonstration program should be only conducted for entrainment. A proposed sampling program for tra demonstration was submitted to the Pa. DER on April 9, 1980 (Apperdix B). Both the Pa. DER and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency app oved the proposed program in.a letter dated April 29, 1980 (Appendix C). The objective of this 316(b) demonstration was to evaluate che estimated annual number of larval fish that would be entrained by the Susquehanna SES as calculated by the predictive model.

The predictive model was based on specific design information for the Susquehanna SES intake structure and larval fish entrainment data from other power plants with similar intakes on the Delaware and Susquehanna Rivers. In addition, the model also incorporated ecological data from a survey conducted in the vicinity of the Susquehanna SES in 1974 (Ref. 1). Results of the model indicated that few larval fish would be entrained by the Susquehanna SES as compared to those in the river. It was, therefore, cencluded that no adverse impact would occur to the river fishes. The following conservative assumptions were used to design the predictive model:

(1) highest number of larval fish collected per unit volume based on data in the vicinity of the Susquchanna SES, (2) maximum intake flows, and (3) 100% mortality of entrained larval.

The demonstration program submitted to the Pa. DER (Appendix B) was revised after the program was in place. Comparisons between the

, proposed demonstration program and the actual 316(b) demonstr< 'on are listed as follows:

l L

.t.

s Proposed Demonstration Actual Demonstration

1. Samples collection three 1. Samples collection eight i times per 24 hour2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months period times per 24 hour2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months period ;

2. Two replicate 5 minute samples 2. Three replicate 5 minute samples

3. Six sampling periods -- two in 3. Four samnling periods --

May, June and July twica in ;;ay, once each in June and July.

4 Samples collected near skimmer 4 Samples collected near wall and nect bottom of intake skimmer wall and near opening bottom of intake opening

5. Identify larvae 5. Identify larvae The actual demonstration criteria were the same or exceeded the proposal with-the exception of four sampling periods versus six.

Activities associated with station pre-operational testing limited

-the number of sampling periods, but the total number of samples collected was grea'ter than originally proposed.

~

.-. - . _ . - .- . = - _ - . . .. . -- . -

11. PROCEDURES All samples and associated field data for the 316(b) demonstration

, were collected by Ichthyological Associates, in the Susquehanna River at the Susquehanna SES intake structure. The intake is of a standard design (Ref. 2) with two 11 x ll-ft bays (Fig. 1). River water which is drawn into either the North or South bay, passes beneath a skimmer wall and then through 1-inch vertical bar screens followed by 3/8-inch mesh traveling screens before entering a wet pit area which houses four make-up se'ction pumps A through D (Fig. 2) . Only three pumps are necessary to produce a maximum intake flow of of thesg/s 8,880 m (39,100 gpm). During sample collection intake flows were limited to about one-third maximum because of other preoperational testing activities and pumps C and D located in the South bay were operated. Therefore, to simulate more representative intake velocities, all sampling was done directly in front of the skimmer wall of the South intake bay. Since it was not possible co isolate both bay channels before sampling, some flow could have entered via the North intake bay. To evaluate the amount of flow which bypassed the South intake,' water velocities were measured.with a Curley Pygmy Current Meter (Model No. 625) in the first three sampling perieds.

Replicate measurements of water velocity were taken in the center of each bay at depths where samples were collected.

Larval fish samples were collected during four, 24-hour sampling periods on 20-21 May, 28-29 May, 11-12 June, and 16-17 July 1951.

Sets of replicate samples were taken'nt 3-hour intervals throughout each sampling period. In each set, three replicate surface (within 1/2 meter below base of skimmer wall) and bottom (within 1/2 meter of river bottom beneath base of skimmer wall) samples were collected.

In all, 48 replicates (24 surface, 24 bottom) were obtained during each of the four sampling period.

Each replicate was collecced by pumping water through a 216-u resh net-for 5 minutes with a high capacity (500 gal / min) trash pump mounted on a pontoon boat as described by Gale and Mohr (Ref. 3).

The 4-inch ' intake pipe of this sampler was modified by dividing it into two, 4-inch sample collection pipes so that surface and bottom samples could be collected without major adjustments for depth while l sampling was in progress. This was accomplished by attaching the i pump's intake pipe to a polyvinyl chloride (PVC) "t-fitting" affixed to the bow of the boat. From this fitting, two 4-inch pipes were I directed downward with 90* elbows and then equipped with gate valves.

! Prior to each sampling period, the length of each of these sample collection pipes was adjusted with various sizes of PVC pipe to within 1/2 meter of the sampling depth as determined by river level.

l The collection of either surface or bottom samples was controlled with the gate valves. For example.-thi' change from surface to botten l ,

collections, the gate valve on the bottom collection pipe was cpened l __

while simultaneously closing the valve on the surf ace collection pipe.

The volume sampled in each replicate was determined by multiplying pumping duration (5 min) by pumping rate. The pumping rate was measured once in May and once in July by timing the filling of a 1,280-liter trough.

During these tests, the pumping rate was checked with a hand-held tachometer (Stewart-Warner Model 757-W). These tachometer readings were compared to those taken at 3-hour intervals during each sampling period to assure that the pump was functioning at near-maximum capacity.

Each sample was preserved in the field with 10% formalin containing rose bengal stain, and transported to the laboratory where larvae were sorted. Identifications and life stages (prolarva or postlarva) of all larvae were determined using a dissecting microscope (10-70X).

Prolarvae were defined according to Hubbs, as fish with yolk and postlarvae were those without yok (Ref 4). After scalation began fish were considered juveniles and not reported. Catfishes were considered juveniles when morphometrics, meristics, and pigmentation patterns resembled those of adults.

Larvae were identif' ed to the lowest taxon possible by comparing them to our reference series of 31 species of laboratory-reared specimens and with developmental information given in Buynak and Mohr (Refs. 5 through 17). We also used keys and descriptions for larval fish identification in Ref. 18 through 39). Severely damaged fish which could not be identified were tabulated as fragments. All specimens were stored in 10% formalin.

Larval fish data were calculated in terms of mean density and mean number.~N

-$rThe mean density of each 3pecies of larval fish was expressed as the nu=ber collected per 10 3 in the raw data tables. The mean number of fish entrained,per m during the entire demonstration perio d was the mean density of the four sampling periods May through July. ~he mean number of fish entrained per day during the demonstration period wgs calculated by cultiplying the mean number of entrained fish per m by the total volume of wateg withdrawn from the river for 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months at maximum intake flow (0.82 m /s). Tre projected mean number of fishentrainedperdaywascalculatedinSh*******""ar*ft*r adjusting for maximum intake flow (2.46 m /s). Daily estimates of entrained larval fish using the demonstration data were then c:mpared and evaluated relative to daily estimates generated by the predictivr model.

l

-e

1 '

1 I

1 111. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION l

Temperature and flow of the river, and pumping rate and velocity in

. the intake were measured while collecting entrainment samples (Table 1). Seasonal warming of the river occurred throughout the four sampling periods and mean river flow decreased continuously until on the last sampling period in July, it was only 15% of the flow measured in the first period in May. 3 The maximum pumping rate of intake pumps C and D was 0.82 m /s (13,000 gal / min). These pumps created velocities up to 0.15 m/s (0.5 ft/s) in the South bay and no measurable velocity in the North bay. It was concluded from these data that essentially all of the river water was drawn through the South bay when entrainment samples were collected.

At least 18 species of larval fish were collected in the entrainment samples (Table 2). Six species composed 82% of the total number captured. Quillback was the most numerous (37%) followed in abundance by carp (22%), tessellated darter (11%), spottail shiner (8%), and spotfin shiner (4%). Game fish larvae such as bullhead catfishes, sunfishes, and walleye composed less than 3% of the total.

A total of 3,374 larval fish (86% prolarvae) was collected in the four sampling periods (Tables 3 through 7). In each sampling period, over 70% of the la'rvae were captured at night in collections f ren 0900 through-0300 hours. Numbers were always greatest at midnight or 0300 hours0.00347 days 0.0833 hours 4.960317e-4 weeks 1.1415e-4 months . Gale and Mohr (1976) documented similar diel variations in the abundance of drif ting larval fish nearby in the river channe (Ref. 1). Af ter 5 June, the densities of larval fish in the river '

decreased substantially (Ref. 40) suggesting that the sampling period 20 May through 17 July was adequate even though the demonstration program initially was to include sampling in Au3ust.

Large fluctuations in the density of larval fish occurred among the four sampling periods (Table 8). In the first period, 24% of the total catch was collected followed by 48% in the second, 26% in the third, and 2% in the last period. As expected, the majcrity of the l

larvae, about 60%, were captured in surf ace samples (Tgble 9 and 10).

l The maximum mean density at-the intake (35.1 fish /10 m ) was found in thesecondsamplingperjodon28-29Maywhichwassimilartothepeak L density (34.4 fish /10 m ) found at a routine monitoring statien located 190 m upriver near the channel on 27 Ma,. (Ref. 40). In general, fluctuations in mean density were similar to those in the river-(Fig. 3). The density, however, was always greater in the intake (x = 34%). This was due in greatjpart to the fact that commen carp, one of the most numerous fishes in the-intake samples, was seldom taken in the river samples. In' addition Gale and Mohr (1976) found that drifting larvae tended to move shoreward at night.

The estimate of the mean number of fish entrained per m derived from data collected in demonstration program agreed closely with the predictive model estimate (Table 11). The projected demonstration ,

that 389.c00 larvae could be entrained per day from May through July compared to the predictive model estimate of 350,000 larvae per day from May through August. The projected demonstration estimate was slightly higher (11%) partially because August data were not included as they were in the predictive model estimate. Moreover, it should be emphasized that even under conditions of maximum design intake flow (Table 13).-less than 1.5% of the overall river flow would have been withdrawn for cooling purposes for the Susquehanna SES during the demonstration program sampling period. It is fortunate for the fishery that natural river flov is usually high during the period of greatest larval fish abundance.

l

-6 -

9 IV. $NCLUSION To meet Special Condition C of the NPDES Permit No. PA. 0047325, the Pennsylvania Power and Light Co. developed a predictive model (Appendix A) and conducted this demonstration program to detemine the magnitude of larval fish ent ainment at the Susquehanna SES.

Results of the demonstration program favorably support the estimated values of the predictive model. Therefore, if the magnitude of larvae fish entrainment. as derived from the model (based on entrainment studies at other power generating stations with similar intakes and flows) was acceptable to regulatory agencies, it seems reasonable to conclude that the projected entrainment of larval fishes would also be acceptable at this station. There should be no adverse impact from entrainment to the fish population in the Susquehanna SES from operation of this station.

1

REFERENCES

1. Gale, W. F and _ H. W. Mohr, Jr.1976. Larval Fishes. Pages 141 - l 171 in T.V. Jacobsen (ed.) Ecological studies of the North Branch Susquehanna River in th'e tec1nity of the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station-(Annual Report for 1974).

2. Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Units 1 & 2, Environmental Report-Operating License Stage, Pennsylvania Power & Light Co., Volume 2, Subsection 3.4, May 1978.

3. Cale, W. F._and H. W. Mohr Jr. 1978. Larval fish drift in a large river with.a comparison of sampling methods. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc.

197(1): 46-55.

4 Hubbs, C. L. 1943. Terminology of early stages of fishes. Copeia 1943(4): 260.

5. Buynak, G. L. and H. W. Mohr. Jr. 1978. Larval development of the northern hog sucker (Hypentelium nicricans), from the Susquehanna River. Trans. Am. Fish Soc. 107(4): 595-599.

6. Buynak, G. L. and_H. W. Mohr, Jr. 1978. Larval development of :he redbreast sunfish flepomis auritus) from the Susquehanna River.

Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 107(4): 600-604

7. Buynak, G. L. and H. W. Mohr, Jr. 1978. Larval development of :he white sucker (Catostomus commersoni) from the Susquehanna River, Proc. Pa. Acad. Sci. 52(2):- 143-145.

8. Buynak, G. L. and H. W. Mohr, Jr. 1979. Larval development of rock bass from the Susquehanna River Prog. Fish-Cult. 41(1): 39-42.

9. Buynak, G. L. and H. W. Mohr. Jr. 1979. Larval development of :pe shorthead redhorse-(Moxostoma macrolepidocum) from the Susquehanna River. - Trans. kn. Fish. Soc.108 (2) :- 161-165.

10. Buynak, G..L. and H. W. Mohr, Jr. 1979. Larval development of creek chub and fallfish from two Susquehanna River tributaries. Prog.

Fish-Cult 41(3): 124-129.

11. Buynak, G. L. and H. W. Mohr, Jr. 1979. Larval development of the northern pike (Esox lucius) and muskellunge (Esox mascuinoney) from northeast Pennsylvania. Proc. Pa, AcaJ. Sci. 53(1): 69-73,

12. Buynak,- G. L. and H. W. Mohr, Jr.1979. Larval development' of the blacknose dace (Rhinichthys atratulus) and longnose dace (Rhinichthys cataractae) from a Susquehanna River tributary. Proc. Pa. Acad. Sci.

, 53(1): 56-60.

a

13. Buynak, G. L. and H. W. Mohr. Jr.1979. Larval development of the bluntuose minnov (Pimephales notatus) and fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) from northeast Fennsylvania. Proc. Pa. Acad. Sci 53(2):

172-176.

14 Buynak, G. L. and H. W. Mohr, Jr. 1980. Larval development of stoneroller, cutlips minnov, and river chub with diagnostic keys including four additional cyprinids. Prog. Fish-Cult. 42(3):

127-135.

15. Buynak, G. L. and H. W. Mohr, Jr. 1980. Larval development of golden shiner and comely shiner f rom northeastern Pennsylvania. Prog.

Fish-Cult. 42(4): 206-211.

16. Buynak, G. L. and H. W. Mohr. Jr. 1980. Key to the identification of sucker larvae in the Susquehanna River near Berwick, Pennsylvania.

Proc. Pa. Acad. Sci. 54:161-164

17. Buynsk, G. L. and H. W. Mohr, Jr. 1980. Larval development of the common shiner (Notropis cornutus) from northeast Pennsylvania. Proc.

Pa. Acad. Sci. 54: 1b5-168.

18. Fish, M. P. 1932. Contributions to the early life histories of sixty-two species 'of fishes from Lake Erie and its tributary waters.

Bull. U. S. Bur. Fish. 47(10): 293-398.

19. Norden, C. R. 1961. The identification of larval yellow perch Perea flavescens and walleye, Stimostedion vitreum. Copeia 1961(3):

282-288.

20. Mansueti, A. J. 1964 Early development of the yellow perch, Perca flavescens. Chesapeake Sci. $(1-2): 46-66.

21. Mansueti. A. J. and J. D. Hardy, Jr. 1967 Development of fishes of the Chesapeake Bay region. An atlas of egg, larval, and juvenile stages. Part.I. Nat. Resour. Inst., Univ. Maryland Baltimore. 202 PP.

22.- May, E. B. and C. R. Gasaway. 1967. A preliminary key to the identification of larval fishes of Oklahoma, with particular reference to Canton- Reservoir, including a selected bibliography.

Okla. Fish. Res. Lab Bull. 5. Contrib. 164 33 pp.

23. Siefert, R. E. 1969. Characteristics for separation of white and black crappie larvae. Trans.-Am. Fish. Soc. 9B(2): 326-328.

24. Taber, C..A. 1969. The distribution and identification of larval fishes in the Buncombe Creek arm of Lake Texoma with observations en 9

spawning habits and relative abundance. Ph.D. Thesis. Univ.

Oklahoma Norman. 120 pp.

25. Meyer, F. A. 1970. Development of some larval centrarchids. Prog.

Fish-Cult. 32(3): 130-136,

26. Gerlach, J. M. 1973. Early development of the quillback carpsucker, (Carpiodes cyprf.ius). M. S. Thesis. Millersville State College, Milletsville. Pa. 60 pp.

27. .Lippson, A. J. nad R. L. Moran. 1974 Manual for identificatien of early developmental stages of fishes of the Potomac River Estua:y.

Martin Marietta Corp., Environ. Tech. Cent., Baltimore, Md. 282 pp.

28. Hogue, J. J., Jr., R. Wallus, and L. K. Kay. 1976. Prelimina ry guide to the identification of larval fishes in the Tennessee River.

Tenn, Val. Auth., Div. For. Fish. Wildl. Dev. Tech. Note B19. M pp.

29. Fuiman, L. A. 1979. Descriptions and comparisons of catostomil fish la rvae: northern Atlantic drainage species. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc.

108(6): 560-603,

30. Fuiman, L.A. and J. J. Loos. 1977 Identifying characters of the early development of the daces Rhinichthvs atratulus and R.

cataraceae (Osteichthyes: Cyprinidae). Proc. Acad. Nar. Sci. Phila, 129(2): 23-32.

31. Fuiman, L.A. and J. J. Loos. 1978. Morphological changes during the larval development of the cutlips minnow, Exoglossum maxillincua.

Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 107 (4) : 605-612.

32. Snyder, D. E., M. B. M. Snyder, and S. C. Douglas. 1977.

Identification of golden shiner, Notemigonus crysoleucas, spotfin shiner, Notropis spilopterus, and fathead minnow, Pimephales-procelas, la rvae . J. Fish, Res. Board Can. 34(9): 1397-1409.

33. Taubert, B. D. 1977. Early morphological development of the green

'unfish, Lepomis evanellus, and its separation from other larva u_pomis species. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 106(5): 445-448,

34. Hardy, J. D., Jr. 1978. Development of fishes of'the Mid-Atlantic Bight. An atlas of egg, larval and juvenile stages. Vol. III.

Aphredoderidae through Rachycentridae. Office of Biological Services. Fish and Wild 1. Serv. , U.S. Dept. Inc., Washington, D.C.

FWS/0BS-78/12. 394 pp.

35. Jones, P. W., F. D. Martins, and J. D. Hardy, Jr. 1978. Developmen:

of fishes of the Mid-Atlantic Bight. An atlas of egg, larval and juvenile stages. Vol. I. Acipenseridae through Ictaluridae. Office i

of Biological Services. Fish and Wildl. Se rv. , U. S . Dept . Int.,

Washington, D.C. FWS/0BS-73/12, 366 pp.

36. Perry. L. G. 1979. Part I: Identification of nire larval cyprinids inhabiting small northern rivers. Part II: Spatial and temporal patterns of larval fish drif t in the Upper Skunk River. M. S.

Thesis. Iowa State Univ., Ames. 73 pp.

37. Cooper, J. E. 1980. Egg, larval and juvenile development of longnosc dace, Rhinichthys cataraceae, and river chub, Nocomis micropogon, with notes on their hybridization. Copeia 1980(3):

4f9-478.

38. Lathrop, B. F. 1981. Key to larvae and juveniles of common fishes found in the lower Susquehanna River. (unpublished manuscript).

39. Bailey, R. M., J. E. Titch, E. S. Herald, E. A. Lachner, C. C.

Lindsey, C. R. Robins, and W. B. Scott. 1970. A list of common and scientific names of fishes from the United States and Canada. 3rd ed. Am. Fish. Soc., Spec. Publ. No. 6. 150 pp.

40. Mohr, H. W., Jr., G. L. Buynak ana T. V. Jacobsen. 1982. La rval Fishes. Pages 124-169 in T. V. Jacobsen (ed.) Ecological studies of the North Branch Susquehanna River in the vicinity of the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station (Annual Report for 1981).

JSF:lm F-14 Table-I flean river temperature and flow, intake pumping rate, and current velocity for entrainment sampling periods in 1981.

Sampiing Perlod 20-21 1tay 28-29 May Il-12 Jun 16-17 Jul flean river tempe rature -(C)* 15.4 21.8 22.6 25.6 tiea n river flow (m /s) 440 169 136 66 Pumping rate of Antake pumps C & D (m3 /s) 0.82 (13,000 g/u) 0.82 0.73 (11,500 g/m) 0.73 Intake Velocity Time C 1540 h 1545 h 1500 h --

South Bay'(m/s)

Surface d 0.12 (0.4 ft/s) 0.12 0.15 (0.5 ft/s) --

lio t t om" 0.I2 0.12 0.15 -

florth Ilay Surface 0 0 0 -

Itottom 0 0 0 --

"fleasured lay continuous recording thermometer 465 m upriver at Susquehanna SCS Biological laboratory.

I' Calculated f rom continuously recorded river level data at the Biological I.aboratory.

Time velocity measurements were initiateil on first samie l l a n d.2 t c .

tJi t hlu '. m below base of st imim>r wal l .

"ifi a le i er ', in o f rive r bot t om Imneat la luine of d imim r v.elI.

-.m... . - _ .

Table 2 Larval fishes collected in entrainment samples at the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station in 1981. Names and order of listing conform to Robins et al. (1980).

Cyprinidae - Carps and Minnows

@prinus carpio - co= mon carp Notr:pis hudsonius - spottail shiner N. spi!cpteras - spotfin shiner Semori!us corpora!is - f a11 fish Unidentified Cyprinidae - minnow spp.

Catostomidae - Suckers Carpiodes cyprinus - qut11back Cat 08:0-s3 coversoni - white sucke r Mc Os:cm nacro!cpido:x9 - shorthead redhorse Ictaluridae - Lu11 head Catfishes I:00!urus estas - white catfish

. Func:::us - channel catfish Centrarchidae - Sunfishes Amb!:p!i:cs rupastria - rock bass

epc7is cibbosus - pumpkinseed

2. :crechirus - bluegill Micror: crus do! 9ieni - smallmouth bass

.-once,s spp. - crappie spp.

Percidae - Perches Ethcos om o!ms:cdi - tesse11ated darter F. :en !c - banded darte r

?crein pe!:::: - shield darter 5:i::stedian vi:rcum - ualleye

t 9

table 2 Number of larva,1 fish captured with a pump samplet in the south of the Scath Day channel of the river water antaxe of the susquenanna $ team tiectrac station, 20-21 May 1981.

SAMPLING TIMt 0101-0915 1156 1230 M3 /ntPLICAft 9.8 9.4 9.4 9.4 LOCATION SURPACE

POTT 0m b SURPACE 00?? @i RIPLICAff 1 2 3 1 3 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 00L12CT!QN No. TVJ 015 056 047 050 059 060 064 C45 066 261 062 063 SPEC!ts

$POTTAIL $NINER PROLARVA 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 QUILL 3ACR P R0!. ARV A 4 11 1 2 0 1 4 3 4 . . .

WHITE SUCEER PosTLAAVA 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 1 0

?!$$tLLAf t0 DARTER PR O LA RV A 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 S Ah0C0 DA RTt A PkOLARVA 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 P05TkARVA 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1

$ NI ELO C ARTth PROLARVA 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 PCSTLARVA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 wALLITC PROLARVA Q 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 POSTL AAV A 0 1 0 0 0 G 0 0 0 0 1 J TOTAL 5 13 11 4 4 2 7 $ 7 I 1 i SAMPLING ?!PC 1100*1$)) 1802=tdj?

m'/RCPLICAft 9,8 9.4 9.9 4.4 LOC ATI CN 54 R F A CE SCTTCM $Lhl4CT 00T*04 RIP L IC ATE t 2 ) 1 I ) 1 2 3 1 2 0; L LE CT! 0N hC, TVja41* 047 24C 06% 070 071 07) Q76 077 079 07) 074 Ut

$PCCits SPOTTAIL SN!N(R PROLARVA 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J QUILLSACK PROLARVA 2 2 3 2 1 1 1 2 4 1 e i WHITE sucuta PROLARVA 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 POSTLARVA 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 ftSSELLATED DARTta PRO LA RV A 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 2 8 ANoto CARTtp P ROLARVA 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 POS TLA RV A 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 SWitLD DARTER PSOLARV A 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 W AL LEY t POSTLARVA 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L P!5M (PLACMENTS) 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 2 $ 7 3 14 2 4 3 4 1 0 5 l-l l

l 1

- . ~. _ _ . - . . . . . _ _ _ - - _ - .- . - . _. . .

Table 3 (cont.)

SAMPLING flht 2109-2201 2314 00JS M3 /kSPLICAft 9.0 9.4 1.8 9.4 LOCATION SURPACt BOTTOM $URPACE 80f?OM REPLICAft 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 COLLtCTION N0 TVJ-81* 079 000 081 at2 083 044 088 089 090 081 :46 047

$ttC!ts

$P0ttA!L $NINER P RC LA RV A 0 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 C 1 0 PCSTLARVA 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PALLP!$N P0stL ARV A 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 QU1LLakCE PROLARVA 14 33 22 17 7 13 23 44 14 2 10 7 wn1Tt 50Csta P ROL A RV A 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 P05tLARVA 10 4 3 4 1 2 1 2 0 1 1 3 f tS8tLLAft0 CARTER PROLARVA 13 15 17 9 10 15 5 9 9 5 7 7 PC$TLARYA 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 B ANCED CAR?tR P ROL ARV A 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 POSTLARVA 0 0 1 J. 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 FISM iP AAGMENTS ) 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 total 38 58 48 32 18 33 31 $9 41 8 20 17 i

l l

SAh.PLIN0 TIME 0303*0337 0531-0631 I

M /REPLICAft 9,8 9.4 9.6 9.4

~~

LOC A?!0N $URPAct 80f?CM SURPACE SCTTOM l RE PLICAft 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 l

COLLECT!CN NC, TVJ e 81* 091 092 093 094 095 096 100 101 101 091 018 099 SPECitt

$P0ttAIL $NIN!R l P ROL ARV A 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 PALLitsN

- PostL ARV A 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 QUILLRACE PROLARVA 60 34 29 11 14 8 3 2 4 1 1 0 WHITt SUCRER P ROLARV A 1 2 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 705tLARV A 6 4 3 1 2 1 0 0 0 L 0 0 ftSICLLAf tD DARita PROL A RV A 6 8 5 2 5 0 0 1 1 3 1 2 BAM080 DARitt Ph0 LARVA 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 P0stLARVA 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 SMitLa DAnita PROLARVA 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 P OSTL ARV A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 J C TOTAL 84 60 41 15 21 10 5 3 4 7 6 7 "Within % a below base of sktamer wall.

"Wsthan % a of river bottom noneeth case of saimmer wall.

Table 4 Number of larval fish Captured with a pump samplet in the mouth of the South Bay 24 29Ch4hAtl Of the river wettf intekt Of thG SuSquehenna $%845 tiectr1C Stat &OR, may list.

$AMPLING TIME 1203*1237 1504-1537 M3 /AtPLICAft 9.4 9,4 tot 9.4 LOC ATIOW SU R P Act * &CTTOMb SURFACE 80TTDM REPLICATE 1 1 3 CCLLCOT!CN NO, TVJa91*

1 1 3 1 3 } 1 2 )

104 107 tot 103 104 105 tot 110 til 112 113 114 8PEC!ts

.r-CARP P RO LA RV A 5 3 2 0 6 4 4 2 3 0 SPCTT AIL 5 WINE A 4 0 PROLARVA- 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 QUILLa ACK 0 0 1 PROLARVA 4 1 1 1 2 6 4 2 3 1 ftsstLLATED OARTER 2 1 PROLARVA 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 POSTLARVA 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D ANOta CA RTER P RCL ARV A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 POSTLARVA 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W A L Lt Y t PCSTLARVA 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 10 9 1 1 1 14 10 4 3 2 4 4

$AMPLING TIME 100$*1439 I 2101 2134 M /RCPLICAft 9,8 9.4 9. 4 9 ,4 "

LDC ATI CN $URfACf BOTTOM S UR P ACE ACTTOM REPLICAtt 1 2 3 1 2 1 1 2 3 1 2 3 COLLECT!CN NC, TVJ 41* 114 119 120 115 116 117 121 122 12 3 124 125 126 SPtcit$

CARP P RO LA RV A 4 4 1 3 2 0 4 7 1) 5 9 6 SPCTTAIL SHtHER P AC LA RV A PGtTLARVA 0 0 1 0 0 1 6 -- 3 15 1 5- t 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 -0 0 0 SPOTr!N $NINER PROLAkVA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 b MINMOW SPP.

PROLARVA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 Cu!LLaAct PROLARVA 3 1 PC STLARV A

$ $ 3 3 15 14 21 12 9 9 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 WWITE SUCKta P03 f LARV A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 J 0 S NO RT ht AD R ECW QES E PROLARVA 0 0- 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 PCSTLARVA 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 I

It$5tLLATEL DARTta PR OLARV A 0 0 0

! PQ$7 LARVA 0 1 2 4 13 16 *0

. 10 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0

$AN0tC OARTER PROLARVA 0 0 0 1- 0 0 POSTLARVA 3 0 1 1 0 )

0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 C

$N!tLD QARTth POSTLARVA 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

l. P!$N ( F RA CHEN TS ) 0 0 0 0 0

, 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 TOTAL 7 6 7 10 6 9 40 40 76 31 37 3$

l l

Table 4 (cont,1 SAMPLINC TIMC 0034 0108 0303-0338 n I/P.tPLICAtt 9.8 9.4 9.8 i r.

LOC ATION $URFAC1 90TTOM SURfACC B OTT CM LEP L2 CAft 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 COLLECTION do. TVJ*t1= 130 131 132 127 128 129 133 134 13$ 136 137 130 SPECitS CARP P RO LARV A 22 34 23 14 14 19 33 44 30 22 15 2

$POTTAIL $N!N!R P h0 LA RV A 17 15 26 21 13 14 7 15 16 16 la 4 P05?L ARV A 4 1 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 SPOTFtN $N!htR PROLARVA 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 QUILL 8ACR PROLARVA 37 43 $1 23 il 2$ ll 20 29 le 12 13 wNITC SVCktR P RO LA RV A 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 POSTLARVA 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 Sh0RTHE AD RfDHOR$t PROLARV A C 2 2 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 CkAPP!t SPP.

PROLARVA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 POSTLARVA 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0

C55tLLAT ED CART ER Pac LARV A 6 6 11 7 ? 1P 2 1 0 4 J 2 PosTLAnvA 0 0 3 1 0 1 a 0 g j ; ;

S ANDED L ART E R PROLARVA 2 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 , w 0 POSTLARVA 0 0 0 0 ; ; , 3 0 0 :

SH!!LC OARTER PROLA RV A 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 g ; ; ; O F!$H (FAA0 MENT $l 0 0 3 1 0 Q 0 1 0 1 ; ,

TOTAL 87 108 122 70 $4 74 42 9$ 71 61 38 51

$AMPLINC T!Mt 0600-0633 0900-0440 I

M /RtPLICAtt 9.0 9.4 9.4 4.4 LOC ATION $UBIACE SOTTOM $URPACE 80**0M REPLICATS 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 3 3 COLLICTION No. TVJ a $ l e 142 143 144 139 140 141 145 146 14 7 14 4 t o 9 Lt; f.

SPECIES CARP PROLARVA 16 24 20 30 14 10 26 26 36 21 12 16 SPCTTAIL $ MINER P RCLA RV A 0 0 2 1 $ 2 1 3 0 1 0 1 PosTLARVA 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CurLLaACE P R O LA RV A 2 3 1 4 6 4 1 0 1 1 1 1 WHITt SUCE*R PO ST LARV A 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S HO RT MCAD R EDMO R$ t P ROL ARV A 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TtSSELLATED DARTER PRC LARV A 1 0 0 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 POSTLARVA 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 S ANDED DARTER PROLARVA 0 1 1 3 5 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 PC STLARV A 0 0 1 2 3 3 0 0 0 J J 0

$N!!LD CARTER PO S TLA RV A 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fl$H (FRAOMENTS) 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 TCTAL 20 33 27 48 36 24 21 29 37 23 14 19

'watnan 4 m tetow case of satraer =a11.

'wa tnan 4 m o f river cottom benea tn base of sntmmer wall.

s Table $

NumDet of terVel f18h C$ptJted with 4 furp Sampigt sh t rie mouth Of the South Bay enannel of the raver water intake of the sangaenanna steam 11octrac statacn.

11=12 June 1991.

1459*1538 18 C 6

16 4 0 SAMPLING TIMt 3 9.4 9.4 9.8 9.4 M /REPL3CATC SURP A t' 80T TOM 8 $URPA01 S 0tiDM LOCATION 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 REPL10 ATE COLLt: TION No. TVj ell a lli 1$2 15) 1$4 l$$ 156 160 161 162 157 IS$ 139 8PECitl CARP 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 P ROLARV A SPOTTAIL SMINER 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 PROLARV A

$POTPIN SWINER 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 2 PROLARvA 2 0 0 2 CUILL8 ACE 0 2 3 5 1 0 0 0 0 2 PR O LARV A 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 POSTLARV A ROCR S All 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 POSTLARVA SLLE CILL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 POSTLARVA CRArtit SPP. 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 f05TLARvn 1 TtS$tLL ATED D ARTER 0 0 0 0 J 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 PROLAHVA S A.10 E 0 D A RT ER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 PROLARV A 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 POS T LARV A 4 7 TOTAL 6 4 4 5 3 12 1 1 1 1 1100-2133 0004*0043 SAMPLINO Timt I 9.6 9.4 9.8 9.4 M /REPL!CATE SURfACt BOTTCM $UnfA01 60TTOM LOCATION 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 REFLICATt 172 173 114 169 170 17!

COLLECTION NO. TVO *4 le 14) 164 165 146 167 168 SPECit5 CARP 6 2 4 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 I i PROLARVA

$POTTAIL SM!NER 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 P ROLA RV A J 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 POSTLARVA 1 0 0 0 SPOTFIN $NINER 0 3 7 $ 1 2 1 P RO LARV A 0 0 3 2 1 0 1 3 $ 7 1 1 0 POSTLARVA 0 1 0 0 MINWOW SPP. 0 0 0 G 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 PO STLARV A QUILLBACE $5 2$ $0 20 47 il 1 0 1 3 2 PROLARVA 1 4 2 1 1 0 6 3 2 8 1 1 1 POSTLARVA

$ HO RTH EAD R ECHO R$ t 7 0 2 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 POSTLARV A ROCR S At1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P ROLARV A 0 1 1 1 1 3 4 6 e 4 1 PQ 5fL ARV A 1 SMALLM0gTM B ASS 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 P OSTL ARV A 0 0 CBAPPit SPP. 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 P90 LARVA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 POSTL ARV A 1 0 1 2 TES$tLLATED OARTER 7 10 4 9 8 PRO LARV A 4 1 ! 7 8 7 3 7 5 0 3 4 5 5 3 6 6 3 3 POSTLARVA B AN o tD D A RT ER 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 1 7 ROL ARV A 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 POSTLARVA 1 3 1 SultLD CARTER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 POSTLARV A 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 FISM ( F RAONEN TS )

TO TA L 16 16 20 21 17 31 94 70 94 45 72 51

Table 1 (coat.)

0301-0336 0587-0631 EAMP1JNG TIME 3 9,0 9.4 9.6 9.4 M /RfPLICAft LOCAT!DN SURPACE 80TTOM l'nPAct 80TTOM 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 Rf ?LICA tt COLLECTION NO. TVJ -41* 17$ 176 177 173 179 180 194 'ti 186 181 182 181 SPt0!?S CARP 6 3 3 2 3 2 2 % 7 3 4 PROLARVA 6

$ PCT' TAIL SPINER 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 PROLARVA 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 PC5?L ARV A 1 SPOTPIN 5NINER 0 0 0 PROLARv4 10 6 11 4 0 6 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 PC ET L ARV A QVIL La ACK 0 0 2 10 1 9 10 2 7 0 1 1 PROLARVA 0 0 n 6 3 4 1 2 0 1 0 0 P051 LARV A Wu!TE SUCKIR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 POSTLARVA S MC RT MCAD S CDNORS E 2 2 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 1 PLS TLARV A ROCK RASS 7 4 5 0 0 0 2 2 3 0 0 0 POSTLARVA BLUt !LL 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 POST L ARV A 0 0 0 0 C RA PP! E SPP. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 PO STL AAV A f tsstLL ATED DARTER 0 0 1 J 3 3 4 2 1 1 0 1 PRcLARV A 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 3 P057tARVA 2 2 2 1 4A#ct0 DARTER 0 0 0 2 J 1 P R0LARV A 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0- 0 2 3 G PCSTLARVA SN!CLD CARTER 0 0 0 0 POCTLARVA C Q 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 J 0 P!5M tFAA0MENTS) 1 4 10 11 14 9 ?

t0TAL $1 39 39 28 11 24 SAMPLINC TIME 0 0 5 %= 0912 1205-1230 M /REPLICATt 9.8 9.4 9.6 %.4 SURPACE 80TT0m $VRPAOC BCTTLM LOC ATION 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 AE P LICATE 1 2 3 1 COLLECTION NO. TVJ-41= 187 148 199 190 191 192 196 197 198 193 194 19 5 SPECitS i

CARP 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 P h0 LA RV A 2 2 1

$POTPIN SHINCR 0-0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 POSTLARVA QUILL 3ACK 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 PRCLARVA 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Pos? LARVA 1 CRAPP!E $P P. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 POSTLARVA ftS$tLLAftD CARTER 0 0 0 0 PRO LARV A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 B ANDED D ARTER 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 POST LARV A 0 2 2 2 3 1 0 1 1 0 1 TOTAL 3 3

Wathan g m telow base of eatmmer wall.

(

D Nithin g a of river bottom beneatn base of shtamer wall.

l

4 9

7 tale 4 Number Of larvel f14h captured with a pump aamplet in the ecuth of the South Say channel of the river water intane of the Susquenanna steam $1ect:4c statton, 16 1's Jdly 19 81.

SAMPLINC TIME 1300=1232 1$00+1$34 M3 /RtPLICAft 10.1 -10.1 10.1 '10.1 D

LOCATICW dVRFAct

BOTTOM SURfAct B OTTON ntP LIC Att 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 COLLECTION NO. TVJ=$1= 202 203 204 199 200 201 20$ 206 :s! 200 209 110 SPECits PUMPEIN5ttD PosTLARVA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 G 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 SAMPLl>C TIME 1800*1833 2100*2132 M /RtPLICATE 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 LOCATICN $URfACE 80TTOM $UPFACE SOTTOM R EP LI CAtt L 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 1 COLLECTION NO. TVJ-ll- 214 215 216 211 212 213 217 219 Ill 22,. 221 222 SPECits 570Tf!N $NINER P RO LA RV A 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 FO5TLARVA 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 2 1 0 0 WHITC CAff!SH POSTLARVA 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 CMANntL CAfrisu POSTLARV A 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 SLU!CILL POSTLARVA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 SANDt0 DARTra POSTLARVA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 fl5N (fkACMENTSI 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 TGTAL 0 1 1 0 0 1 6 3 4 2 0 3

-- , , -- - - -, y -- . , , . , -y, ~ . a. rm w.- ,

m<r es--s -m -n-

. - ._. - _. . . - . - _ ~ .- - _ _ _ - - - . _ _ - - - - -

i e

table 4 (cont.)

9000 4022 0300*0332 LAMPLING fint 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 MI /LEPL!cAtt SUtPAct 80tTOM SVpFAct 8 0 tic" LOCAtt0W -

3 1 2 3 1 2 3 3 1 2

f tLIC Att 1 2 229 230 til 232 213 !)4 226 211 Its 223 224 til

'OLLtCTION No. tvJa01* _

$PtC!t8 l CAPP 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 P R0LA RV A 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 70$tLAAVA

$PDtPlu 8MlutR 0 1 0 1 3 1 4 1

1 4 1 7 90LARV A 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 PottLA9VA vatte CAttilu 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PostLA8VA 1 1 CN Amhth CATP18u 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 PoltLAPVA PumPKINltt0 6 0 0 0 0 0 t C PROLAaVA 0 0 0 1 '

$ Lu t CIL'. 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pelt LADV A O ANotD CApttR 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 PROLARVA 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 :

P18N (P AAGMENis )

~

6 3 2 6 1 4 4 1 4 2 1 1 TCTAL 4

9 0600*0631 Gl& O *C 9 31 8AMPLING T3mt M /P!PLICATL 10.1 10.1 10.1 10..

SutPAct 60tTOM $UDPAct 50ftCM LOCATION

)

i 4 tP LIC Att i I ) 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 COLttCTION NO. TVJoel* $ )$ 2)$ 240 2)$ ))$ 2)) 241 242 $4) 144 141 246

$PLCits SPDtP!N SHINt2 0 0 0 3 g 0 0 1 1 1 1 P E0LakV A 1 PUMPE!W$tt0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P h0LARV A SLdtCILL 0 0 0 0 0 PROLABVA 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 O ANDED DARTi 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 PROLARVA TOTAL 0 1 1 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 J !

'Wnthan i a Lelow base of saasaar well.

8 magnan g a of raver tottom 4.swata saet ef sk6 Aer

ell 4

Tatile ? .

total n e er af larval fish collected du ing four dast sospitng persede at the revet ester antake t,i the EvaquenAhna steas Electras Station an 1981. [

sttetts 'O tal it *At u Joh he JA MT AL 4 %*% ,

CAAP P CLAM A 4 412 04 8 ilt 21.9 PaE1tmA 0 0 0 1 I a.J

$N'"! AIL Sit!!Et PELAPia al 236 12 0 26 6 T. D Kt%4A A ! 10 10 0 21 0.6

$PJ:71N SHINLA PC;AMi A 0 2 41 40 IJ) 3.6 pit.wA 0 0 22 la 12 ;.9 thL LI S SN KtNA A 2 0 0 0 2 C.1

w ou 6tr.

NOLN4A 0 2 J Q 2 0.. ,

F.LftvNA 0 0 1 3 1 a..

2k tl.w as P NiAP/ A 417 4 94 316 3 Mll I?. .

hEWW A 0 4 W 0 60 1.6 Wilit $OT.A !

PNLAPv4 22 3 0 0 25 0. '

PTTL\fN A il i 2 0 89 2.6

$1 MitrAD R24rASA S OLAP A 0 12 0 0 22 J.1 Pam>AA 0 2 23 0 25 J.1

er!'t U -Y!$M MA,"l LF. A 0 0 0 5 i '.1 OM.tt CMf f 91 P'11'JA A 0 0 0 3 3 i..

El L445 FIC D N A 0 0 1 3 . ...

P M L AP,ia 4 0 ll ; il ..%

Mbi..stC P KLAA A 0 0 0 3 3 J..

ft47t M A 0 0 0 1 1 0..

ELsL C LL '

P vlA Yd h 0 0 0 2 s 2.1 P'En>A A 0 0 2 2 4 0..

991*/OV'M

. &M5 PCB"*J P/ A 0 J l 0 1 0. J JVJPlt SIP.

P CLAPVA 0 2 4 0 6 0.2 w.W'*> P.1 0 1 n) ) 14 .. ,.

i 7 Ctt* L C UF*tp

> T u Ps A _e & 1)[ $$ 0 >f 6 ,1,4 P'J-'.A P. A 4 10 e4 0 *4 l, SAst EL *arTa P OLA W A 47 11 14 2 64 !. 9 Kf!'J M A Il &l 16 1 46 1. 4 ,

5tCCL$ LARlTR PotAWA 10 1 0 0 11 2.3 ,

KmtAPs A 3 1 2 0 7 0.2 s*Ltin P OLA W A 1 0 0 0 1 1.0 a

Pan >WA 5 1 0 e 0.;

FISH 6fkAs2 0f'11 2 11 0 3 24 0.7 WTAL 402 1124 873 75 1314 l

f t

- - , - - , a 7, n- ---.n--.---.-,,ne,-.,.----..n, - , , , - , - , , , , , - - - , - . - - , . . . - - , , - . . - - - - - - - - - - - -.,-,,--...er,

'4 t

, table a total mean delalty of lerval (Ash /10 a0 collected during fear dien 88* Plane Fer4084 at the taver mater antase of the svoquehenne 8te84 toesttet $ tat 4M &n 1981, t# Elta JD *S' .8

f .** .fpN i6 IL*L G 4 TM CMP ,

Pmt.AA A 0.00 14.09 1.t i 0. 04 3.99 !!.9 '

RVftAA A J.4 0.00 0.00 0. 03 0. 01 0.0

$M7t"All EMihu

FMJAA 3.39 6.11 0. 26 0. 00 1.44 1. 9 fWMv6 0. 2 0.12 0.22 0.00 0.11 0.6 [

SMI% SMluth PELA WA 0. t d 0.04 1.15 0. 9 ) 0.65 1. 6 W1>AA 0.00 0.00 0.41 0. 21 0.17 0.9 FALul$M

>#rLANA 0. 04 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.0L 0.1 etito tPt.

NLAAA 0. 00 0.04 0.00 0. 00 0.JI 0.1 PNf1 ARA 0. 3 0. 00 0. 02 0.00 0.04 0.0 QUIL180 P u.AAA t 8l 10.31 6.99 0.00 6. 4 37.1 K f". AA A 0. 30 0.09 1.21 0.00 0.32 4.8

AOtt stols PotAA A 0.41 0. 06 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.?

705TLAAA 1. fi 0.11 0. 04 0.00 0.44 1.4 90mtAD 503c40 f*CLAPA 0.00 0.41 0. 00 0.00 0.12 0.6 KerLAA A 0. 00 0.04 0.60 0.00 0.8) 0.7 tellit uit18N KETLANA 0.00 0.00 0. 00 0.10 0.01 0.1 O' A+ CL Cn1TIDI Ks5?LAPA 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 0.06 0. 3 0.1 NT 4 Bass PIK2>AA 0.00 0.00 0. 02 0.00 0.01 0.0 forlLAAA 0. J0 0.00 1.01 0.00 0.37 1. 4 K'PC %5t tD FKLAAA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0. c: 0.1 i for!".AAA 0. 00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0. 01 0.0 DLLt:1LL PE LAN A 0. 30 0.00 0. 00 0. 04 0.01 0.1 PCTTLA W A J.00 0.00 0. 04 0 . 04 0.0; 0.1

$:iALD D'T4. $ALS EL AP. A 0. 00 0.00 0.01 0.00 3. 01 0.0 CMPr!! $PP.

PCLAP.4 0.00 0.04 0.09 0.00 0.03 0.2 N AA A 0.C0 34 31 0. 28 0.00 0.00 0.4 TCstL1/*to 0&fth PwAt 1.60 2.81 1.94 0.00 2.10 11. 6 P>TP AA & 0 . 09 0.22 1.39 0.00 0.42 .)

bANotD DArita f*CLA A A 0.)? 0.64 0.31 '0.04- 0.31 - 1.9 KTitAJYA 0.32 0. 33 0.33 0.02 0.35 1.4 SHI(10 IARTtR ,

P*2AA A 0.22 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.1 Nf!LAWA 0.07 0. 04 0. 04 0.00 0,04 0.2 b ALLEYt l NLAA A 0.02 0.00 0.00 0, 00 0.0L 0.0 l POSTL.'A A 0.11 0.02 0.00 0. 30 0.01 0.2 f tSH tthAOLNTS) 0. 04 0.34 0.11 0.06 0.8) 0.7

0TAL 17.17 11.14 13. pt 1.$1 16.gn 't mp.,,__m ,_, ,,-, ,,e ,, ~. .- m-.

l Table 9 heen denalty of larval fleh/10 a collected I in bottua samples during four diel sampling pertogs at the taver water antaae of the Susgushanna steam electras station in list,

$rt"I ts E PWI 20 par u JW 16 Jul, WAN t K'!AL CMJ P aaLAW A 0. 7) 11.)$ 1. 37 0. 04 3.19 21.6 PJmAM C . JO 0.00 0.00 0.04 t.C1 C.1 EKTtML !tilhu PatAm 0.2% 4 .14 0. 13 C.0* 1. 31 4.9 PE!".AM C. 00 C. !? C. O C.00 C.10 0.7 Er? TIN FlhD i t.1AA A 0.00 0.04 1.24 0.62 C.48 1. 2 PEtl.W A 0. 00 0.G0 C.22 0. JB C.04 0.8 tK1115n .

P;MUA A 0. N 0.00 C. 00 0.00 0.01 0.1 PC +0. SF P.

Pw1AAA 0.00 0.00 0.00 C. 00 0.02 0.2 K3?uA% 0. 0.0 0. 00 0. G4 0.00 s.41 0.1 WILOG P p1A A A 4.12 8.20 6.29 0.C0 4.') 12.!

Ns1 4A G . 10 0.s0 0.44 0.C0 C. 1 4.4 4tl*t i sp PP l> & C. J C.M C. C 0 0.00 0.J4 t.4 K ct., 1.46 t.1) C.09 C 00 C.42 i.v sti"N. 3 tK E L 3* h

0. L 0 1.02 C.00 C. C0 C.C6 C.4 K M LAP /A Q.e0 0. 's L . J5 C. 00 0.10 0.'

411*t 3M13H NST'.JA A NO.00 0.00 0. JC c . .s ;.;1 0.1 Q M NLL 3*T13h Ros*;.AA A C.;0 il .; 0 . 00 0 . 04 0. ;1 J.1 Mrs$45 PXt RA' A C . 00 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.11 0.9 Pus eh3 gt PCLAP. A 0.X 0.;C J.00 3.12 C.03 0..

Glit ", LL F 80LAA A 3.00 C .0 0 0. 0C C.04 0.C1 0.1 PCS"".AA A C... 0.00 0.44 0.04 0.02 C.1 CFAP P!t $f P.

Pha.AA A 0. X 0.00 0. 14 0.00 0.;4 ..)

KS*u '.% 0. 'X C.s4 0.11 C.00 0.C9 J.6 it tiL'd A%0 CAPTD 6*1AA4 3.37 3.11 2.35 0.00 2.; 2 11.0 K RU A'A 0.M 0.M 1 , 46 0.0; 0.41 1. 2 6ActL lAP'D PhiXJ M 0.31 0.9) C ,4 4 0,04 0.4) .)

KJ'".Ar.1 0.22 0.49 0.31 J.04 0.; ? 1.s SH! ELO *> P'u 19'1A 8"/ A C.11 0.00 0 . 00 C.00 0.;) ...

9 N AAAA 0.3 0.M 0.M C 00 C.;6 .4 4 LLht tt:LA P. a 0. 04 0.00 0.00 0.00 C.ul 0.1 Kf* WA1 0.M 0.00 0 . 00 L.00 0.;2 . . .

FISH J WJ7)d%i C.M 0.21 0.19 . . ;al 3.14 4.J

- ?' % 10.4% X. 26 16.13 1.24 14. M S

J

\ h,

e table 10 aie an de ne t t y o f la r va l fl e h/10 nI collected in surface eseples dettag tour dial semp!!nf Pet &ods at the t1*et ester antste of the Susquehanns steam taect:1c Station an 1981.

syg*t ts r my 20 et t u Juh 16 JUL wm t TVtN.

CAAP f otna 0.00 16.04 2.25 0.04 4. ?8 22.1 SKTtAIL 90kta roLAPvA 0.43 1, 48 0. 30 0.00 1.17 7. 3 forrLMr.'A 0.04 0.17 0. A1 0.00 0.13 0.6

$mft!N &INUt

rotJJh A 0. 00 0.04 2.25 1.01 0.8) 3.0

0ftLAAA 0. 00 0.00 0.12 0.21 0.26 1.2 FAL1/tsu KTrLAP/A 0.04 0.00 0. 00 0.00 0.01 0.0 QUl'.La o Pau1AP/a 11.09 12 . 4 6 1.48 0.00 6.*4 40.4 PLT *LAA. A D. 00 0. 17 1.57 0.44 Q. 00 2.0 wa't Se t*

P4uPsn D.it 0. 09 0.00 0.00 0.21 1.0 f0!f'" APv A L, P6 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.54 2. 6 90mtAD stDCIEt f9ra.AAA C 00 0.?! 0.0c C. 00 0.18 0.9 fol'LAN. a 0.00 0.04 0.64 0.00 0.17 C.4

.et!?T OATTISH fostLAA A O. 00 C.00 0.N 0.17 0. 04 0.'

OwedfL GTF1Dt KVfLAPvA 0. % 0.00 0.00 0.tt 0 . 0.2 0,1 Kr a hA55 191A Pi A 0.00 0.00 0. 04 0,00 0. 01 0.0 fCW P.A 0.00 0.00 1.74 0.;0 . 44 2.J Ppt C .itL

CffU p.A 4.00 0. JC J. 00 0.04 0... 0..

eM 01Li FC LAMA 0. #> 0.00 0.JC 0. 04 0.01 3.I fCt*LW A C. ,0 0.00 0. 04 0.W 0.0. G.i 5'K utvm SAM PATLAWA 0 . 00 0. 00 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.0 0.appIt spp.

P mX.A Pv 4 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.1 PWrLAAA 0. 00 0.00 0.26 0.00 0 . 36 u,)

7t$$tLIJJtD IAFJta rot.AP. A 1.61 2.11 L.l3 0.00 1. W 9.1 P]S"fLAWA C. .?? 0.13 1.32 0. 00 0. J8 1.8 IMtilD CARit3 rutAAA 0.43 0.43 0.11 0.04 0.21 1.2 PO:T"'LAPv A 0.4) 0.17 0. 24 0.00 0.2) 1.1 SHtt1 Dtap;u PUu fN A O. 30 0.04 0.00 0.0G 0.09 0.4 A FTLA M C. 04 0.04 0.00 0.00 0 .02 0.1 4LL t%1 PUFrLAWA 0. !) 0.04 0.00 0. 00 0.N 0 .2 F1&M (FluOt2ml C. 04 0.21 0.11 0. 04 0.12 0.6

.. M 8L U. 60 39.92 2 1. 24 1.86 21.66 Al

'l

N _ ' '

%. .y J t e O E ty/ s s F 3

~

P s, ,

aM s 9 9, h b

s e 2 0 e t. J 8 3

., me at e a t NL S

. 5 s e 6 t t

. h

. s 4 s s

. 4 ds e. e. O.

g F et

. ae e e S

,. s t

a m te. I

. y 5 sa e t g

et 6 e.

i.

t w tra s 3 f t e

t.

, r .

a.

, er h vJ s ih s e 4 e nt 2 4 4 r i 8

ew 3 0

4 .w no ep i s, t I

g ' l w

o o

e l 8

& i 9 ti -

t. c s 2 S e

h.

t

. n g I -

. 6 2 6 -

e. a < 4 8 4 -

s e

r ta s '. 2 0 2 o

f w _

r 0 0

.- I . e n e D u, 49, 19, -

a --

a. s i 6 4 - .

e e .- O y v -

- t

t. a s p - d

m. 2 2, -

e o n

<_S.ss w

e 0

7 0

7

_ e t L 6 m '. _ _ a 3 1

. ,e v

1 4 _ a 6

1$

d ou _.

_ t t

e r _ a 8 8 8 .

a e 7 5 . s P 9 9 9 .

3 3 o

g 1

t t #s u , t l e

s a . e u e n a J J &d s

u v a

y y

y n a

m a . a t 8a S i s 9 8 h t

,s .

s8 e.

L t 8 a N e9 o t s 1 t e

d t a w ea r p

s n t F n s s l aos e n hi d e o

f t e u s o t oa e u k ,. _ e t a t e S e t e

_ k J ro v s d. c I

t oc i s e.. ..

s e

s a s e y t

c t

s t .

c 2

_ h. e t e. t m e lu e s t J di e a t4 >e

= e e e o l e l r h f a

T 5 F C1 F t t i ll l l lj! 1ll1l,tl ll'jli! ll

Concrwte F= Marios af IUvar intake Structure Step 1.og %s i I 1 hp ; .; -

O a Wet Pit ! ! Intake Channel :; orth hune , Intake Bay 6 l5 . ) N

, Ll *

\' \ 5 n i c i l $

husp > j E.

~

Intake Channel South Wet Pit , , sntar.e c a:- .

hun p e 's, I U

/ r l

i i

,u.i

_~., %,

m... -, m Mer.hanacsur ca m.4

\

aar Scr l- n l

l i

l Fig. 1 i

Plane view of river intake structure.

l

,--,er--.e , . - ~ . , - , , m,, , , ,

l l

Traveling Screen 3 Bar :

Screen ge .,., , g Makeup Pump D Wuh 'g,

'o i 5 :

~ i '~'

. - . . - . . M, _ m

(- .i i r,;-

J i

l a

s h *M,.,' 'i n ) n.' ., .M is a

j~,

n i , l sc f in, I i

' I i j' 9 I i M a.

i '

6 i

' l 4'

?. <-,

i , 1 Ji fl I ,

M

.%l8 Pm

~f. ,

l W, i y ski:=er all

.c <-,

i i il ,.

s l8'

@ i i

IL Y g;- ; _

Q jj

p..< .i

{.,........g River le i _ LG

,.,. ,.. ,. 1 ,, .. ....< ..< ............... ...... <

=- ,

1 l l l

,r 5' .

.o.r.g t

l ,.

" i l=

f.Ye [' South 9 .

i i

l

,o <% l( = Intake Bay 4@'.*

J-L i i

() ii =

b ': $ hkk' .h

DeMy%%!inM

't Fig. 2 Cross-section of river intake structure.

... . . . . _ - . . ~ . . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . . . . _ , . . _ _ _ _ _ . . __ ._

i

! ,7 QUILLBACK l 30 - :::{: COMMON CARP 2

! h TESSELLATED DARTER i 7:r:r

! 9 I :::

SPOTTAIL SHIN ER i s

I OTHER l $ 20- <

l u.

O i

ce l $ ::::::l l 2 -

l 0 -

I z z l0-

<t uJ 2 R O- ' -C 19 ~20 27 28 9 ll 15 16 I

i MAY JUN JUL MEAN Fig. 3 Mean density (fish /10 m ) of larval fish collected at 0900 and 2100 hours0.0243 days 0.583 hours 0.00347 weeks 7.9905e-4 months at the Susquehanna SES intake (I), and 190 m upriver, near the river ch.tanel (R).

1981. Fishes which occurred in densities of less than 0.5 fish /10 m3 durtn; a sampling period, or which composed less than 5% of the ovetall mean were categori:ed as "other."

APPENDIX A correction

1.Section V. , paragraph 2, pg. 4 Hunlock SES :tean river flow withdrawn was 1% and not 0.7% as originally listed. Also, the ratio of fish impinged is 1% for Hunlock SES to 0.6% for the Susquehanna SES or 1 0.6 and net 1 0.86.

2. Tabic li the max. % river flow is 1% (see above). The estimated no. of impinged fish per day for the Susquehanna SES is 13.68 and not 19.5 Also, the weight is 0.84 pounds per day and not 1.18.

n Revised July 1982 l

l l

SOCIAL ECONOMIC QUESTIONS NUMARC STUDY Response to Socioeconomic Questions for Susquehanna Steam Electric Station

1. 2,400 permanent workers

2. 2,400 pennanent workers on average since the issuance of Susquehanna's Operating License. This is average for the total sitet statistics are not available on a per-unit basis.

3. The following attachment sunimarizes the answer to Question #3. It is important to note that each planned outage at Susquehanna SES is a single unit outage and all planned outages include 151 activities. Therefore, the answers to Part A and Part B are the same.

The largest single outage (Part C) was the Unit I first Refueling and Inspection Outage (2/9/85-6/12/85). A significant portion of the work performed during this outage was one-time modification work. A steam dryer crack repair and IHS! accounted for a major percentage of outage man-rem.

Also, outage costs at Susquehanna SES are calculated as the cost above normal 0&M costs for the outage period, esh/ msg 2149c(26)

~ ~~ ~ .

M.L.Bohnst -

tl-4

. L.I.Hatto11 -

it3 3 C.H. Trots -

A3-3 R.G. Johnson - Susq. SES A M 4 08 t- A H.R.During -

A3-3 Janua:7 9, 1930 J.S. Fields m -

A3-3*

File

!! . Lawrence A. Paviush Regional Water Quality !!anager Bureau of Water Quality 1:ar.a6ccent Uilkes Barre Regional office 90 East Union St.-2ai Floor Vilkes Barre, PA 18701 9. t. ico456 ot 7 Dear Mr. Paviusht Specini Condition C of our recently issued ITFDES Permit for the Susquehscna S~d (Persit No. PA0047325 July 31,19'T9) requires subnission of a specific study pro 3 ras for monitoring i=pirgement and entrainnent effect: at the plant i tel.:es.

In preparing such a study program, studies conducted at othar stations by PPLL and other utilities were reviewed for similaritics of aquatic environs, de:ign and operation. Pregrtes reviewed would then be used as a basis for a cinilar study to be conducted at the Susquehanna CES. Those pregrams reviewed included:

1) Hunlock SES - for simiWity of river conditions and intake flows.

2) !!artins Creek SES - for similarity of river intahe structure design.

(Eote: However, thero is an intake canal prior to theintakestructure).

3) 2: runner Isis. d - simiinrity of intake structure and flows.

4) Three 1111e Ialand Uuelear Station - similarity of intake structure and flow Cc:parisons of results of studies at these four staticus and projected impingt:.e; and entrain ent for the Susquebacca SES are cu=:arised in the atte.(n=ent to this letter. (D pinge=ent and Entrai.c=ent Studies for Susquehan:s SIS).

Analysis of data from the various stations reviewed indicate.i there was nst an e.dverse impe.ct to the aquatic envirens fres ispir.gecent and cetrai:nent. "n e .

projected rates for the Susqueher.na SI.S are sisilar to data collectM at these four other stations. 'Ibe projection of i=pir.gement e,nd er.trair. ent band en int .

structure, locetion, design, operation, and river vatar withiraval rates indicat the adverse impact from the Susquehacna CIS will also be negl.igible, r?ll vould like to meet vith D::R perso:nel to discuss this study pr:gra.icad any additions er changes you may request, and answer any questions at your convenien Please contact Michael R. During of try staff at 215-821-4655 for any questions o nrrange the meeting referred to above.

Vc:/ truly yours, .

IS'Gd '!. H. .'.Kf.U Gene H. Gochicy

'gr . -Enviror.~enta1 lo'-: t . '

-Att:.ch ent c-i'.RichardL.Constricir.no

~

123:ZJ:1

- -_ - - _ - - . - . - , . - - - . - _ . - - - _ - - - . - a

^ '

IMPINGEMENT AND ENTRAINMENT STUDIES POR THE SUSQUEllANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION I. Purpose In response to Special Condition C of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit No. PA-0047325, the Pennsylvania Power &

Light Co. (PP&L). is providing a study for projection of impingement and entrainment effects at the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station -

(Susquehanna SES) intake. The purpose of this study was to determine impingement and entrainment monitoring requirements for the Susquehanna SES.

II. Study Area The Susquehanna SES consists of two boiling water reactors, each with an electrical generating capacity of 1,050 MVe. It is located on a 1075 acre site in Salem Township, Luzerne County, about 5 miles northeast of Berwick, Pennsylvania. Commercial operation of Unit 1 is scheduled to begin in 1982 and Unit 2 in 1983. Aquatic studies have been conducted on tho Susquehanna River near the Susquehanna SES by Ichthyological Associates, Inc. since 1971. The Susquehanna River will be the source of make-up water for the station cooling system.

The overall objective of these studies has been to establish an ecological baseline of existing conditions in the river and on the site prior to operation of the Susquehanna SES (Ref.1).

Most of the-aquatic studies were conducted within 1.25 miles of the intake structure and discharge diffuser of the Susquehanna SES. The slope of the river bed in this stretch of the Susquehanna River is 1.6 ft/mi and the average width is about 984 ft. Depth is relatively shallow in most areas (less than 6.6 f t.), but some pools may exceed 16.4 ft. even during low river flow. During perieds of low ficw.

which normally occur in late summer and early autumn, abanoooed cel walls help maintain pools, some of which are several kilometers long.

In times of high flow the river level commonly increases 9.84 f t, or more, and its flow characteristics resemble those of an open channel.

Upriver from the site, the " Wyoming Region" of the northern anthracite coal field lies beneath or adjacent to the river. Acid mine drainages from this Area, which enter from abandoned strip and shaft mines, degrade the water quality at the site.

III. River Vater Intake The river intake structure, as shown on Figure 1. River Intake Structure-Velocity Profile, consists of a structural steel superstructure above the operating floor and 4- reinforced concrete

' substructure that extend into rock below the level of the river bottom.

i The superstructure houses the makeup water pumps and l

l 1

associated equipment including switchgear, automatic operating -

equipment for trash handling screens, motor control centers, sc een wash strainers and a debris br,ndling facility. (Ref. 2)

The substructure contains two water entrance chambers that house the traveling screens and two pump chambers. The two intake openings are formed by the floo; and sides of the entrance chambers. The top of the intake openings is formed by an inverted weir that extends one foot below the minimum river water level, elevation 484.0 ft., to intercept floating oil and debris. The front of the intake is at the river bank with flared wing walls extending down the natural slope of the bank to provide for an even and gradual water approach velcrity.

(See Figure 2, River Intake Structure Ving Valls).

A cost-benefit analysis was used in determining the best intake structure type for this station. The standard intake structure was selected for the Susquehanna SES over the alternate infiltratien system (Ranney Collector) since the altnerate could not provide the required water supply for station operation. The staudard intake has also been used without adverse environmental impacts at other PP&L and utility stations. Based on environmental impact, location on the river and economic costs the standard intake structure was considered to be the best technology available (BTA) for the Susquehanna SES by PP&L.

The intake flow velocity (0.37 fps, max) is perpendicular to, and '

considerably less than, the mean river velocity (1.22 fps mean, July 1974 through April 1975), which tends to move submerged aquatic life and floating debris past the intake (Ret 1, 1974, 1975, 1976). Figure 1 shows the average horizontal velocity of the water flowing from the river to the intake punps.

Four nominal 33.3a% capacity intake pumps that have a capacity of 13,500 gpm (30 cis) each are installed in the intake structure. At 100% station load operation of both units maximum intake flow under the least favorable (1%) meteorological conditions is 39,100 gpm (87 cis).

The two water entrance chambers are each equipped with automatically operated trash bar screens and traveling screens. A trash bar screen is provided behind each of thw invetted weir intake openings to prevent large debris from impeding operation of the automatic traveling screen located downstream. The trash bar screens and traveling screens are operated automatically by differential pressure sensors or by a timer for periodic cleaning. Vater spray systems wash debris from the screens into a basin for disposal whenever the trash bar screens or traveling screens operate. The trash bar screens consist of vertical bars with a 1 in, opening between bars. The-traveling screens have 3/B in. mesh wire openings. (Ref. 2).

2

The velocity of water through both intake structure passages when three pumps are operating (39,100 gym maximum) is as follows:

o Through the entrance openings (i.e. under inverted weir) is

. independent of river level: 0.37 fps, o Through the clean bar screen openings at minimum river level 484 ft. above mal: 0.58 fps, o Through the clean trsveling screen openings at the minimum river level 484 ft above mal: 0.64 fps.

4 Under the worst case anticipated (general maintenance and repair) with three pumps operating at a flow of 39,100 gpm and with only one passage open, the inlet velocity would be 0.75 fps (Ref. 2). The worst case situation should occur less than once per year and be of short duration since maintenance of this type it norna11y scheduled during outages.

After passing through the intake structure river water goes through the stations circulating water system. There are two hyperbolic natural draft cooling towers for cooling heated condenser cooling water. Cold air enters the bottom of the tower, mixes with the circulating water in the tower fill (water dispe nal material),

removes best f rom the water and tbc warm air-water vapor mixture rises to leave the tower at the top. The towers are suitable for year-round operation. (Ref. 2). The maximum volume of water withdrawn by the Susquehnna SES from the Susquehanna River as indicated previously will be 39,100 gpm (87 cis) while the annual average will be 32,365 gpa (72 cis).

IV. Hethods for Determining 1mpingement and Entrainment Calculations The equation used for calculating entrainment is as follows:

1arval fish /ft 3(X) # max. intake flow it /sec(X) 3 E0 sec/ min (X) 60 min / hour (X) 24 hour2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months / day = # larval fish entrained / day NOTE: (X) = multiply An example of entrainment at Hunlock SES is as follows:

0.03 larval fish /f t3 (X) 145 ft 3/s (X) 60 s/m (X) 60 m/hr (X) 24 h/d = 375,840 larval fish entrained / day The equation used for calculating weight of impinged fish is as follows:

lbs. fish = lbs. fish sampling time day 3

f.w, , -.v W4 -4 4 - g ,m mw , - wq m.9 w w.+y.-e - g a--g- ymw v

An example of an impingement calculation for Three Mile Island Nuclear Station can be shown as follows:

5.4 lbs a lbs fish = 0.3 lb. fish impinged / day 480 hr 24 hr/ day To facilitate comparisons of data collect ed from the various impingement and entrainment studies the data was normalized. See Table 1, Impingement and Entrainment Data from Power Stations, for the appropriate parameters. The calculation for impingement at the Susquehanna SES however, is based on a direct ratio with Hunlock SES impingement data.

V. Assumptions used in Determining Impintement and Entrainment Projection for the Susquehanna SES Since the Susquehanna SES bas a closed cycle heat dissipation system, PP&L conservatively assumes that the mortality of all entrained organisms is 100%. The critical months for development of fish eggs and larvae in 1974 were May through August. The year 1974 was selected since three separate methods (fixed net, push net, and pump) of larval fish collection vete used at the Susquehanna SES (Ref. 1, 1974). By using these methods both drifting and swieming larvae were collected. The nest larval fish were collected with the push net technique (0.0465 larval fish /f t 3), and this data was used in determining entrainment for the station.

Impingement studies between July 1974 and April 1975 at the nearby Hunlock Steam Electric Station, (Junlock SES) indicated that fish werc considered to be the critical organism (Ref. 3). During this period approximately 1.0% of the mean river flow was withdrawn by Hunlock SES. This is similar to the flow to be withdrawn by the Susquehanna SES of 0.6% (87 cis). Based on Hunlock SES impingement data a direct ratio of 0.7% to 0.6% (1:0.6) vas used in projecting estimates for the Susquehanna SES.

VI. Impintement and Entrainment Study Data

1. Susquehanna Steam Electric Station. Units 1 & 2 Susquehanna SES, Units 1 and 2 are two-1050 NVe boiling water reactors operated by PP&L. The station will utilize a closed cooling system with a maximum flow of 87 efs of Susquehanna River water with an intake velocity of 0.37 fps.

Larval fish data have been collected for over seven years in the vicinity of the Susquehanna SES intake structure (Ref. 1).

Larval fish data collected between May and July of 1974 were used for this analysis. There were 275 push net samples (0.0465 Revised July 1982 4

larval fish /f t )8 average about five minutes each 276 fixed net samples (0.0277 larval fish /ft ), 3 and 343 five minute pump samples (0.0177 larval fish /f t3 ). Larvae of 22 species of fish were collected with a majority being suckers, minnows and carp, and perches. The push net data of 0.0465 larval fish /f t3 was

, used in projecting that approximately 350,000 larval fish / day vtuld be entrained. About 1.23% of the mean river flow will be withdrawn by the station during the spawning season. (See Table 1, for additional information.)

Projected impingement data for the Susquehanna SES are based on the nearby data collected at the Hunlock SES between July 1974 and April 1975 (Ref. 3). Seventy six fish were collected during an 80 hour9.259259e-4 days 0.0222 hours 1.322751e-4 weeks 3.044e-5 months sampling period and it is estimated that approximately 23 fish were impinged per day. Also, the estimated weight per day of these impinged fish was 1.4 lbs. Since the Susquehanna SES withdraws about 86% as much water from the Susquehanna River as does Hunlock SES (0.6% vs. 0.7%) the projected number of fish impinged per day was approximately 20 with a weight of about 1.2 i lbs.

2. Hunlock Steam Elcet ric Station The Hunlock SES is a small one unit coal-fited station (46 MWe) operated by the Luzerne Electric Division of UGI Corporation. It is located about 9.3 miles up river from the Susquehanna SES, and utilizes a once through cooling system that draws in about 145 cfs of Susquehanna River water through two intake canals with velocities up to 0.75 ft/s.

Larval fish were also sampled at the Hunlock SES once per month in May through July 1974 to determine entraitment losses. Mean densities of entrained larvae were less than 0.03 larval fish /ft) or about 375,000 larval fish / day. This was-concluded to be an acceptible loss because less than 2% of the mean river flow van drawn into the station during the r* pling period.

Once each month, from July 1974 through April 1975, impingembat samples were collected. Seventy-six fish were collected in an 80 hour9.259259e-4 days 0.0222 hours 1.322751e-4 weeks 3.044e-5 months period. Extrapolation of results from these samples showed that 23 fish were impinged per day and approximately 1.4 lbs, of fish were impinged per day. It was concluded that impingement losses would have a negligible affect on the sport fishery of the Susquehanna River (Ref. 3).

3. Martins Creek Steam Electric Station Units, 1 & 2 Martins Creek SES is located about 6 miles north of Easton, Pa. ,

on the Delaware River (Ref 4). Martins Creek SES Units 10 2 are two-150 MWe coal fired units and Units 3 & 4 are two-800 Mi'e 5

oil fired units operated by PP&L. Units 1 & 2 utilize a combined maximum of 268 cfs of Delaware River Vater for once through cooling with an intake velocity of 0.8 fps. Units 3 & 4 utilize 80 cfs for cooling tower askeup and station service water. Since Units 3 & 4 are used only for cycling, impingement and entrainment studies were monitored only on Units 1 & 2.

The water withdrawn by Units 1 & 2 during the entrainment sarpling period of April through June 1976 was 3.5% of the mean river flow.

The number of larval fish entrained was 0.0012/f t 3 About 28,000 larval fish were entrained at Martins Creek per day and the impact of entrainment was not considered adverse for the aquatic environs.

The impingement program was conducted from March 1976 through February 1977. During a sempling period (26 hours3.009259e-4 days 0.00722 hours 4.298942e-5 weeks 9.893e-6 months ) it was projected that about 3 fish per day would be impinged or about 4 lbs. per day. Impingement was not considered an adverse impact since so few fish were impinged. .

4. Brunner Island Steam Electric Station.

The Brunner Island SES lorated on the Susquehanna River about 8 miles north of York, Pa. 11 ow4ed and operated by PP&L. Unit 1 is rated at 300 MWe, Unit 2 at 350 MWe and Unit 3 is rated at 790 MWe (Ref. 5). This station has a once through cooling system with a maximum intake flow of 1,154 cf .

The entrainment survey was conducted between April and July oi 1976.

The river watcr withdrawn during the entrainment study was about 3.7% of the nean river flow. The number of larval fi:h entrained per day was about 500,000 and this was not considered to be an adverse environmental impact on the Susquehanna River. -

The impingement study was conducted between March 1976 and February 1977. The data collected for this stuJy was limited bowever 47 fish were impinged over a 267 hour0.00309 days 0.0742 hours 4.414683e-4 weeks 1.015935e-4 months sampling period.

The number of fish impinged per day was 43 or 7.88 lbs. per day.

It was evident that impingenient losses on the traveling

eens were not substantial (Ref. 5).

5.

Three Mile Island Nuclear Station (Unit 1)

The Three Mile Island Nuclear Station (Three Mile Islard NS) is located on Three Mile Island about 10 miles Southeast of Harrisburg, Pa. and is owned and operated by Metropolitan Edicen Company (Ref. 6). Unit 1 is 792 NWe pressurized water reactor with an intake flow of 60 cfs and a velocity of 0.2 fps. This station used a closed cooling system with two natural draf t cooling towers.

6 j

An entrainment survey of larval fish was conducted between April and August 1977.

About 0.2% of the mean river flow was used for station, cooling (two natural draft cooling towers). The number of larval fish entrained was 0.075 larval fish /ft3 The nunber of 'arvae estimated to be entrained per day was 388,800 and was not considered an adverse environmental impact.

The impingement studies indicated that raainly diseased or dead l l

fish are impinged while healthy fish avoid the screer.s. During l the period March through 11ecember 19/7, 168 fish were impinged !

per day (0.27 lbs./ day). This was t4ot considered to be an adverse . impact to the aquatic environs.

VII . Sena ry Impingement and entrainment surveys bave been candocted at several power stations including those mentioned in this study. Iu all cases with the exception of the Mirtins Creek SES the projected estimite for fish impinged and entrained at the Susquehanna SES is similar to the data collectea at the other stations. At Martins Creek which is on the Delaware River the number of organisms entrained 0.0012/f t) was very low and this may be dea to a very small number of larval fish in the vicinity of the station ;r the period in which the larval fish were sampled. Samples collected at Martins Creek were April through June while at other stations the entrained samples were collected in July and some also in August. Table 1, lists both the appropriate impingement and entrainment data.

The intake structure design selected L'e the Susquehanna SES wa; based on environmental as well as economic )st3 meeting BTA requirements (Ref. 7 & 8). The Susquehanna SES i, ake utructure location and type were based on availability of water .d >ography in the vicin:ty surrounding the station. The location c the intake on the river is in an area which has tended to limit the .fpes and quantitles cf organisms present (Ref. 1, 1974).

Comparisons of flow volume, available organisms, flow rates, design of the intake structure, river condition, and sampling data indicate that the Susquehanna SES intake is not uniaue. The projected estimates of impingement and entrainment values for the Susquehanna SES are similar to data collected for studies at Hunlock SES, Martins Creek SES, Brunner Island SES and Three Mile Island NS. Based on data collected from field impingement and entrainment studies at similar electric generating stations which indicated that the impacts are not adverse, an impingement acd entrainment field study at the Susquehanna SES should not be required ts part of the Nat.ional Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit.

1 i

7 l

VIII References 1.

Ecological Studies of the North Branch Susquehanna River in the vicinity 1972-1978, of the Susquehanna Ichthyological Steam Electric Station, Progress Reports Associates

& Light Co. Inc. for the Pennsylvania Power 2.

Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Units 1 & 2, Environmental Report Operating Subsection 3.4, May 1978.

License Stage, Pennsylvania Power & Light Co., Volume 2, 3.

Hunlock Steam Electric Station Ecological Study, Progress Report for the Period May 1974 - April 1975, by !chthyological Associates loc.

for Luzerne Electric Division of UGI Corporation, September 1975.

4 An Ecological Water Intake, Study of the Effects of the Martins Creet S.E.S. Cooling November 18, 1977. for Pennsylvania Power & Light Co., Roy F. Weston, 5.

An Ecological Study of the effects of the Brunner Island SES Cooling Water November Intakes, for Pennsylvania Power & Light Co., Roy F. Weston, 18, 1977.

6.

An ecological study of the Susquehanna River in the vicinity of the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Annual Report for 1977, Ichthyological Associates, Inc. , for Metropolitan Edison Co. , April 1978.

7. USEPA, 1976.

Developmer.Ndocument for best technology available for the location, design, construction and capacity of cooling water intake structures Washington, D.C. for minimizing adverse environmental impact 8.

Review of Best Technology Available for Cooling Vater Intakes, lits Corporation, Angeles, March for1978.

the Depaitment of Water and Power City of Los JSF:JLI JSF127:3 8

a 9

4 s:.

t

.) M P **

e4 #, a h *a.

la g n '~. Fa .

.3 w '

t.2.<x 6- >= i i

h .- <

, , . .. e; >= C 8 e e $3

~8 q

. /.);*. l' . ..

2'. ** 'l . I '

w 1 W 8

' c s 3 a o E a :*

t:: W a

] b o Rs >

8 Yw - g 1

) '

M. / ::' f" "Ow( E.I O r.

'f j

'f

uf,*,,,, (a ..j ' i > z<

C' 'y > I a l1 3

o C p lf O s 'CO

' ct z f 'i.*Q' n 's'. o. Il ;

f I

s

/. 5.4 I n*.

J *.. k I o i i % Ii i

/

)

i =

/ f g

I ,'

m

.

Il t l *% " u

/ ll 0 O

Ra /

\ - l I w d

b >

l ,

E ' I I;' yb o

j

/ ,

~W w

j_, E^$ }$ .

p i

x l ,I e

?..

w j

l ~

, x .%.. e.

I l ~

w' t' ~ >>* g j u

/

/ Q&

s

- NIh, l !

i g O I '

?:i i / D e'

D l;*: ,

}-

M ,-- y -

/ .*

at'e *y K

""",-*' 1 p.

I

. gg *J l , ,'. :c , ~4 I s i.

< i (

, x I l 1 _. - :::= ,,41 z ) e ..

p- _o ,

t_ . - -

i e.

5, u

o F Dw 1 l N

{ 9 " i n -

g L' :t sw 7, J [. -

- 3 i *'

Is wu

e C x

61 I

kU <

I

\ >

l l e' gM C i **

~

g g "'

.I 7, .

A V

. J'.

I'

( I t &#' h

.- .- , t 4 y{ '. b

- _- n _J , ,,,.

_.. . , - .} y w. .; =: a t1 n

/ -

/ #

'.T

~ / / i.

% /

/

c s

i

[

f /

/

U 2'- { -

- / <

4. s

,sN .n**

h L

@ ii M. -

/ #

Y

. .R. d1, L%', . .'

<, . .i. ,

cu

ou y 1> g Uu c

g U

k.

gOn o, o g-,'ol oo o n9 o . . , , ,

nao c, ga y tw 81 r

H h. O. 9F1 ** ,

TABLE 1 frptnteernt and Tatraterent Dat e Tro Power St at s.m, ns, .

f!e s intane !!an 1 No. Organisms No. of Ta sh No. of Tish Ehe, e[ The Meen Ent r a ine d !=esated ImpiateJ Sampling River Flow ' Intake Flav Velocity River Flev Entraingd Ter n,y Period efs cfs __f f ' Wi t !*d ' **" _ Per it Fer Day _ rer U2g__

Stetten _ ,,

37 0.37 1.23 0.0445 349,531 - -

E-May - Augeot 1974 7.017

. 5,equehanna Steam Elegggic I-July 1974 - April 1975 34,519 87 0.5 0.6 - -

13.68 0.84 Stction (Unita 1 & 2) 8,574 0.75 1.7 0.03 3 rs,8 40 - -

spal:.ck Steen Electric Stettee E-Mey - Jely 1974 l'5 22.8 1.4 1-July 1974-April 1973 14,519 145 0.75 1,0 - -

7,733 263 0.8 3.5 0.0012 27,786 - -

. !!crtina Creek Stene Electrie E-April - June 1976 2.5 4 1-March 1976 - 1,286 268 0.8 2.3 - -

Stction (Unite 1 & 2)

February 1977

. Brunn-r Islead Stese Electric E-April - July 1976 31,333 1,154 2.2 3.7 0.C35 438.528 -

43.4 7.88- 3) 31,716 1,154 2.2 3.6 - -

Stction (Unita 1, 2, 3) I-March 1976 February 1977 E-April - August 1977 29,148 to 0.2 0.21 0.G15 388.800 -

. Thr:e Mile Isloed Nuclear Sta. I-March - Decenter 1977 39,118 60 0.2 0.15 - - 168 C.27 (Unit 1)

I ,,.kW h

- Entreinacet

- !=p12tement

' t'n t r.

Proj2cted imptagenest & estralmsent veloce bened,ea far #$Nk stedtes at Susquebenr.e SE3 & Reclock SES dete.

W y .emw Velshts were est sessered se part of this study;'ta== - are tsey were aestgeed to the 47 fish cellected in a 26 heer perieJ be* ween TheMarch 37 1976 -

Tetrecry 1977. Tem of the floh longer than 10 cm were given estimated weights of 3ergest fleh collected (white escher 30 cm - 383 g).The weight of ficS 1sse then 10 cm in length were assigned the weight of the moet common fish impieged (14 out of 37) the blue gill (5 cm - 2 g).

fish 1.plaged per day mey be sa overestimated by a f actor of I high.

'ST:LES

'2-J evised ,

oly 1982 i t

.um,, p-m tF as. .'M@de-M. ' ' ' ' '

3p_ -14 m- 4 4 4. h 6M AM MM " -- * " ^ "& '4e4 4 2-h a m.tc .dha-h.4 mAA he h

hm Aum h wA...A-sa5MAm.=M-A 42M .h h4.44M h4 m aa _, aJL4t_.

f i

9 '

I t

1 4 l b

b

+

F i

,i b

b I

e I

APPENDIX B b

1 1

L h

r k

r

+

1 3

6 5

=

l.

i I

I .

. C: pics to S.J. Berg:r TW2 R.J.Shov11n N4 G.H.Gockley As-3 r1PPemD / x S w.s.aarderich x4 J.S. Fields A3-3 i S.H.Cantono N4 R.P.Janoso A3- 3 April 9, 1930 R.A. Webster Susq. SES J.p.Mahony Susq. SES R.H.Featenby Susq. SES Jia Ulanowski SUSQUCHANNA SES I :PINCDIC{T/ENTMINME.NT File 100450 012

Dear Mr. Ulanowski:

During our coeting of March 4,1950 at Wilkus Barre we discussed our sub=ittal of January 9,1930 regarding Special Condition C of our NPDES Perait #0047325. Our subnittal included a predictive model to satisfy this condition. Durin this meeting you requested that FP5L sub=Lt a progran for confiraation of predicted organisa entrainnant values. You also concurred with our conclusion that inpin;ccent losses would be no;11;i';1c and that further nonitoring would not be required. Accordingly, wo are submit *.ing a proposed verification program for entrainment values for fish larvao which we feel cortain will verify our predictive modol. This progran is as follows:

1. Simpling Frequency -

o Fish larvae will be sampled at the intake bay at which :..o pu:ps are operating:*

1. Threo times per 24 hour2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months day (includin; daylight and nighttico) at approxinately S hour intervals) .* *

2. Approxicately five minutes duration per replicate.

3. Two sample days per conth.

II.. Samplin2 LOVol -

o Samplos will be withdrawn at two lovels

1. Near the botton of tho skinmer wall.

2. Near tho botton of the intako aperture.

4

Thoro are two bays with two full capacity pu -ps per bay. Normal two unit station operation requires three of those four pumps to operato. These tests will be consucted with three pumps operating.

- Current plans are to conduct sampling at 0200, 1400, 2200 hrs.

Page 2 III. Sanplc Volume -

.o A ~14hmted voluce do!,ivery pu=p with a discharge co11cetion II.Itzr will be used wruch delivers approxi=stely 500 gallons por

- e. Since the samp17 will be of about 5 ninutes duration, asch sampic volu=c will be about 2300 gallons.

IV. Identifi$ H = - .

o Fish inrrae co11ceted will be identified to the lowest feasible um V. Program Daration -

o Tnis progrra will be conducted for a period of three =enths durin:: the spawning season watch at the Sasq. SES is ::ay, Juno and July.

VI. Reporting -

ife w111 supply you copius of the draft report upon review and ctr.mle tion.

- Final results will be reported to you as an addundun to our routine annus1 report which is completed prior to !by 1st of the year

, following data co11cetion. Copies will be supplied to your offico after preparation.

Although you suggested a sanpling frequency of four hours rather that the eight hour frcquency dascribed above, we have detemined that this cannot be accocplished witnout si;;nificant adverso impact on the intake pu::.ps.

Sinco ~the ecoling tonors' will not be in operation during this sar.pling period thero will be no evaporation and the i.ntake rate will exceed the blowdown rate. As a result it will be necessary to cycle these purps on and off to persit blowdown of water accumulated in the cooling tower basins between sa pl.ing periods. Thoso pu=ps are designed for continuous operation and a linited number of cycles are permitted. Wo have therefore proposed n'oight hour interval between sa: pling periods. -

You suggested a.lso in our recting that wo should consid: ss=plin at i bottom, middle and surface levels. We cannot at this tine deterr.ine a practical s:thod for samplina at three different icvols. !!e have dotetuince however from our daw .in existing siver concentrations of fish larvao that these organisms tend to group at cithef the bottoa or surfaca lovol. We ceasider that there will be no loss of confidence in verification of the progran with thu described sampling.

l Sinco this is not normal operational raode as described in cur !!PXS pernit and applicatica we also requ,st your appro?5Tfor this pa::, pin;; and releaso concept.

l l

l l _ -

. s , .

Pago 3 lio trust that this verification prograu as described vill serve to verify our initial program subnittal of January 9,1030. lio request your approval of this pro ran as described at your earliest convenienco sinco we fully intend to proceed during !by of 1930. ,

If you have any questions plcoso do not hesitate to en11 ne at 215-251-4735.

Very truly yours,

[ Av, 1 chsel R. During (

kRit:NLF ltRB8] O3:0 copi c5 to:

Ed Kupski PA DER lillhos Barro Paul Swordon PA DUR lillkes Usrro e

4 e

e a

" *--^* ' '"- - - ' ^ "

hMh EM M

-ra. A 4_%m A. d iA=.k-. A. A el.-Mh.A-gE_ 4' .R4AL .#.4 --M-" ' h h4eMurm.4M~^

9 l-4 e

APPENDIX C ,

I i

)

I t

?

I h

7 I

r k

I s

f:

r

).

7 5

t i

1 ...

c - w w . .w-rr$ w =- - m v s a--,,=+..s ex-.,.,re,, -.<v,,,,.v., s.p, - w--,,-y.,,,-,,+ymyynv.pw.ww,,,,,,,. -w,,y,% --,.,m,,.,,,,-c.,--,>.-y~,...-.c..,vy.--

vi n..e-g . c s.y .-w. w9 -~.+ v

.' - A P..P. Eno ix.. c._._.

l 'p Y\_

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA y -

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES -

, P.O. Box 2063 2,.- J Harrisburg, Pennsylvenio 17120 (717) 787-9614 April 29,1980 Mr, Michoel R. Buring Pennsylvenic Power and Light Company 2 North 9th Street Allentown, PA 18101 Deor Mr. Buring:

Ed Kupsky, myself, and Jim LcBuy, U.S. EPA have reviewed your proposed impingement /entralnment study picn fer the Susquehenno Steam Electric Station es contained in your letter dated April 9,1980. We find the proposal to be acceptable.

Pesl Swerdon, Focilities Engineer, Wilkes-Barre Office, has approved your request for the pumping and release operational mode.

erely, ,

21 -v'~% k [ Ek~

James T. Ulanoski f

Aquatic Biology Section Division of Water Quality 4

- ~

L a

TOTAL FOR OUTAGE

. OCCUPAT!ONAL: EXPOSURE - (REM)

(NOT AVAILABLE- BY TASK)

J LEfeSTH OF ? A00ff!O8eAL - COST (APPROM) feet uEtiseG ROUTWeE SMANTEfeMcCE* IWWOR es00rtCAft008 OUTAGE WORMEftS - (seettt088Sl**** - PEnnegEEeff TEtsP0ftUrr PENA 4MFiNT TEssPORMIY PEfuaMEsfT TEtr OftMgr

!- TYPICAL-i

PLANNED / 9 WEEKS 1 " 19 23 000 0.000 122.000 183.000 40.000 0.000 ISI' OUTAGE *

LARGEST SINGLE OUTAGE ** 13 WEEKS 1300 22.4 17.000 0.000

, 97.800 147.000 95.000 508.000' 2 -w:ves

.w l NOTES

ALL PP&L PLANNED OUTAGES ARE SINGLE UNIT OUTAGES AND INCLUDE ISI AND SNUB 8ER ACTNDES i ** UNIT ONE FIRST REFUEL OUTAGE (2/9/95 -6/12/85) INCLUDED A SGNIFICANT PORTION OF ONE TIME ONLY WORK.

EXPOSURE BREAKDOWN . OF PERMANENI VS. TEMPORARY WORKERS IS AN APPROXIMATION.

~ INC8 UDES ISIAND SNUBBER DATA

- - - ABOYE NORMAL ' O&M COSTS

, b-

NUMARC Study

4. In accordance with your June 8,1990 request, following are estimates of Pennsylvania Public Utility Realty Tax (PURTA) paid by the Compan for 1980,1985 and 1989 applicable to its 90% ownership share in Susquehanna Nuclear Ilant (Unit #1, Unit

2, and common facilities):

Estimated Taxable Plant Value Estimated Xmit _aLQecember 31 PURTA Paid 1980 $486,958,000 $14,609,000 198S 953,911,000 28,617,000 1989 895,478,000 26,864,000 Utility property subject to PURTA is exempt from local taxes.

V' UTILITY en n s tg k uc nin he us er 4 C cp b.

SITE bt ti e ha n n a D 4 en m E l er f ri c Stdioq ENCLOSURES A n5 wces b n oesWon3

__ (

'A o P hi 'h t A Y i b IP M O F

' i

=

WASTE KAKAGEMENT QUESTIONS A. SPENT FUEL QUESTIONS

1. High density storage racks were installed in Susquehanna Unit 1 and Unit 2 fuel pools during initial construction. No other storage techniques are being utilized at this time.

?. Once the storage capacity of the high density racks is reached, an alternate form of spent fuel storage will be required.

3. The most likely form of additional storage capacity will be aboveground dry storage.

4 Yes, such storage is licensable for 100 years under the current laws. --

5 Not evaluated at this time.

6. Yes.

7. It is likely that PP&L will construct aboveground dry storage facilities on PP&L property on or adjacent to the Susqueh,$nna plant site.

B. Low-level radioactive waste management questions:

1. Yes, based on the following:

2 Access to Barnwell until 1993 Onsite storage available for 4-5 years Target date for PA compact site availability is 1996-1998. _

2. Short time (4-5 years) storage is available onsite in a low-level radwaste holding facility.

3. A. Waste Compaction 26% of total LLRW volume DAW sh3pped to offsite vendor (SEG) for volume reduction.

B. Waste Segregation Designated barrels for launoerable (contaminated), radioactive trash, clean trash, hazardous materials located throughout Controlled Zone.

C. Decon - 2% of Total LLRW Volume large non-compactible components shipped to offsite vendor (ALARON) for decon.

D. Sort Use hydro-nuclear trailer to sort trash colle:ted from clean trash drums.

Waste sent to SEG for volume reduction is sorted by SEG for identifying compactibles vs. incinerables.

4 E. Other Incineration - 15% of total currently being incinerated.

Incineration is expected to increase with full use. Incineration only in place since April.

Dewatering - Approximately 98% of all processed waste including the following waste streams:

RWCU filter media URC waste LRW filter media Bead resin (condensate demin & RW demin)

Solidification - Approximately-2% sump sludge waste only.

Note: Processed waste is 57% of total volume disposed.

4. Continue with methods discussed above with the following changes expected -

Increased incineration of DAW based on increase use of incinerable materials.

In addition, we have the following initiatives we are pursuing:

incineration of waste oil incineration of resins smelting of contaminated metals changeout of decon shop equipment to reduce mixed waste (Freon unit)

5. No-7-8. Yes. Current LLRWHF requires modifications to be able to store

'dewatered waste. Facility is currently set up for solidified and packaged DAW only.

9& 6. Modifications

- Cond Demin Resin Changeout & Vessel Modifications - will generate approx 2,500 cuft of resin and 800 cuft of concrete fill from vessels. Plan to try and recover vessel steel by decontamination or smelting. Approximately 1991-1992 time frame if project is approved.

- Control Blade Exchange and Spent fuel Pool Cleanout approximately

- 72 cuft and approximately 4.65E+5 curies of waste per pool cleanout l (control blades, IRMs, LPRMs, TIPS, etc.). Periodic cleanout of the pools will be required over the iife of the plant (approximately every five years),

kes/ msg 2162b(26)

Page 1 AQUATIC RESOURCE QUESTIONS

1. Post-licensing modifications and/or changes in operations of intake and/or discharge systems may have altered the effects of the power plant on aquatic resources, or may have been made specifically to mitigate impacts that were not anticipated in the design of the plant. Describe any such modifications and/or operational changes to the condenser cooling water intake and discharge systems since the issuance of the Operating License.

Response i There have been no post-licensing modifications and/or changes in operation of the intake or discharge systems.

i

Page 2

2. Summarize and describe (or provide documentation of) any known impacts on aquatic resources (e.g. fish kills, violations of discharge permit conditions) or National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) enforcement actions

'that have occurred since issuance of the Operating License. How have these been resolved or changed over time? (The response to this questions should indicate whether impacts are ongoing or were the result of start-up problems that were subsequently resolved).

Response

Since receiving an Operating Permit for the Susquehanna SES, there have been no adverse impacts to the environs in the vicinity of the station causing either fish kills or significant impacts to their aquatic biota. There have been several NPDES noncompliances over the years, with seven in 1989 and one to date in 1990.

During the operational period, there were two NPDES enforcement actions.

In 1985, the onsite sewage treatment plant (STP) was unable to process all-the sewage and solids properly to meet NPDES limits. The STP treatment was expanded to increase treatment of these waste streams. The second incident was an acid leal from the circulating water acid injection system. An additional procedure for leak testing, as well as replacement of piping, have been initiated to avoid this problem in the future. In both incidents, impact to the Susquehanna River was minimal with no olservable consequences to the aquatic biota.

Paga 3

3. Changes to the NPDES permit during operation of the plant could indicate whether water quality parameters were determined to have no significant impacts (and were dropped from monitoring requirements) or were subsequently raised as a water quality issue. Provide a brief summary of changes (and when they occurred) to the NPDES permit for the plant since issuance of the Operation License.

Response

Since the early 1970, after Tropical Storm Agnes, the Susquehanna River water quality has improved. There have been decreases in sulfates and iron, while pH has increased, in January 1990, the Susquehanna SES received a new NPDES permit. One major change was deletion of iron as a cooling tower blowdown water quality limit. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources calculations determined that the river water quality standards would not be violated from this additional input to the river.

L:

Page 4

4. An examination of trends in the effects on aquatic resources monitoring can indicate whether impacts have increased, decreased, or remained relatively stable during operation. Describe and summarize (or provide documentation of) results of inonitoring of water quality and aquatic biota (e.g., related to NPDES permits, Environmental Technical Specifications, site-specific monitoring required by federal or state agencies). What trends are apparent over time?

Response

Environmental monitoring studies have been conducted in the vicinity of the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station (Susquehanna SES) since 1971. These studies have included the collection of both aquatic and terrestrial data'.

Trends in these monitoring data were used to characterize the enviranment before the power station began operation in 1982 (Ichthyological Associates 1972-83). Since then, comparison of trends in preoperational and operational years have been used to evaluate possible effects of the Susquehanna SES on the environment (Ichthyological Associates 1984-8S. Ecology III 1986-89). Results of these evaluations have been summarized for monitoring oata collected in 1987 and 1988 (Ecology !!! 1988,1989). A brief description of the major trends that have occurred during this period is presented in " Ecological Studies in the Vicinity of the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station,1988 Summary Report" (Ecology III 1989).

Page 5

5. Sumarize types and numbers (or provide documentation) of organisms entrained and impinged by the condenser cooling water system since issuance of the Operating License. Describe any seasonal patterns associated with entrainment and impingement. How has entrainment and impingement changed over time?

Response

In 1981, a 316(b) entrainment demonstration program was conducted concerning potential entrainment and impingement impacts on the Susquehanna River from operation of the Susquehanna SES. Results of this study (PP&L 1982) were submitted to thc Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PaDER). After careful review, the PaDER concluded that cooling water intake of the Susquehanna SES would not adversely inipact aquatic life in the Susquehanna River. This absolved PP&L from the need to conduct any additional impingement and/or entrainment studies at the Susquehanna SES.

Impingement studies were conducted for approxim0tely 6 weeks (1 September to 15 October) each year from 1983 through 1987, at the request of the Susquehanna Anadromous Fish Committee, to verify the occurrence of juvenile American shad in the vicinity of the Susquehanna SES intake. No shad were ever captured, but a few other fishes were taken, mainly small channel catfish, rock bass, smallmouth bass, and various minnow species. On most days throughout this study, no fish were found on the screens; the largest number captured on one day was eleven.

It is interesting to note that based on the initial study (PP&L 1982), the predicted number of fish impinged per day was twenty, with a total weight of 1.2 pounds

Page 6

6. Aquatic habitat enhancement or restoration efforts (e.g., anadromous fish runs) during operation may have enhanced the biological communities in the vicinity of the plant. alternatively, degradation of habitat or water quality may have resulted in loss of biological resources near the site. Desc-ibe any changes to aquatic habitats (both enhancement and degradation) in t;ie vicinity of the power plant since the issuance of the Operating Licenses including those that may have resulted in different plant impacts than those initially predicted.

Response-As mentioned previously, the water quality of the Susquehanna River has continued to improve in the vicinity of the power station. This higher water quality has undoubtedly increased the chances for success of the ongoing anadromous fish restoration program. American shad returned in record numbers this spring to the base of the Conowingo Dam,10 miles upriver from the Chesapeake Bay.

The improvement in water quality was predicted prior to issuance of the operating license for the Susquehanna SES. The upgrade of several sewage treatment facilities upriver was well underway and natural abatement of acid mine drainage had also been documented. Some groups were more optimistic about improved river conditions than others. For instance, the Susquehanna River Basin Study Coordinating Committee (1970) predicted a much faster improvement than actually occurred.

There was less optimism about the-success of anadromous fish restoration in the Susquehanna River when the operating license was issued. In more recent years, however, the program has shown undeniable signs of success. PP&L remains strongly committed to this restoration effort and will continue to

., support it in the future.

Page 7

7. Plant operations may have had positive, negative, or no impact on the use of aquatic resources by others. Harvest by comercial or recreational fishermen may be constrained by plant operation. Alternatively comercial harvesting may

'be relatively large compared with fish losses caused by the plant. Describe (or provide documentation for) other nearby uses of waters affected by cooling water systems (e.g., swi ming, boating, annual harvest by cohuercial and recreational fisheries) and how these impacts have changed since issuance of the Operating License.

Response

Operation of the Susquehanna SES has had a positive impact on the use of aquatic resources by others. When the power station began producing electricity in 1982, PP&L's recreation areas, the Susquehanna Riverlands and Wetlands, were opened to the public. The Riverlands provide a 24-acre lake, Lake Took-a-while, which was enlarged during construction of the park. The Wetlands features a series of ponds and canals which were restored from an abandoned section of the North Branch Canal. In addition, both the Riverlands and Wetlands are located adjacent to the Susquehanna River. Visits by the public to these facilities have undoubtedly helped to stimulate increased use of the ,iver.

There are no comercial fisheries on this section of the Susquehanna River, but there is an active sportfishery for channel catfish, smallmouth bass, walleye, muskellunge, and other river fishes. Results of an angler survey on a 3-mile stretch of the river near the Susquehanna SES showed that the total estimated hours fished increased from 5,800 hours0.00926 days 0.222 hours 0.00132 weeks 3.044e-4 months in 1981 to 7,400 hours0.00463 days 0.111 hours 6.613757e-4 weeks 1.522e-4 months in 1986 (Ecology III 1987). There is little doubt that fishing pressure on the river has increased substantially since this last survey was conducted.

Page 8

8. Describe other sources of impacts on aquatic resources (e.g., industrial discharges, other power plants, agricultural runoff) that could contribute to cumulative impacts. What are the relative contributions by percent of these sources, ir,;iuding the contributions due to the power plant to overall water quality degradation and losses of aquatic biota?

Response

There are literally hundreds of municipalities of various sizes located upriver from the Susquehanna SES. In most instances, sewage from these communities and local industries discharge their waste into public waste treatment facilities. Some of the larger industries have their own treatment plants. Some of the relative contributions of these impacts may be obtained from the Chesapeake Bay Basin Monitoring Program Atlas (U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 1989).

The Final Environmental Statement Operating License Stage Report (U. S. ,

- Atomic Energy commission 1973) estimated that consumptive river water use during normal conditions is less than 1%. The use of such a small quantity of water should not adversely impact aquatic biota'in the river.

Page 9

9. Provide a copy of your Section 316(a) and (b) Demonstration Report required by the Clean Water Act. What section 316(a) and (b) detenninations have been made by the regulatory authorities?

Response

Attached is a copy of the Susquehanna SES 316(b) Demonstration Report required by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources. A 316(a) study was not required.

Page 10 REFERENCES Ecology III, Inc. 1986. Ecological studies of the Susquehanna River in the vicinity of the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station,1985 annual report.

Ecology III, Inc., Be mick, PA. 267 pp.

. 1987. Ecological studies of the Susquehanna River in the vicinity of the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station,1986 annual report. Ecology III, Inc.,

Berwick, PA. 260 pp.

. 1988(a). Ecological studies of the Susquehanna River in the vicinity of the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station,1987 annual report. Ecology III, Inc.,

Berwick, PA. 228 pp.

. 1988(b). Ecological studies of the Susquehanna River in the vicinity of the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station,1987 summary report. Ecological III, Inc., Be mick, PA. 22 pp.

. 1989(a). Ecological studies in the vicinity of the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, 1988 annual report. Ecology III, Inc., Berwick, PA. 177 pp.

. 1989(b). Ecological studies in the vicinity of the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station,1988 summary report. Ecology III, Inc., Berwick, PA. 25 pp.

Ichthyological Associates, Inc. 1972. An ecological study of the North Branch Susquehanna River in the vicinity of Berwick, Pennsylvania, progress report for the period January-December 1971. Pennsylvania Power and Light Company, Allentown, PA. 232 pp.

. 1973. An ecological study of the North Branch Susquehanna River in the vicinity of Berwick, Pennsylvania, progress report for the period January-December 1972. Ichthyological Associates, Inc., Berwick, PA. 658 pp.

. -1974, An ecological study of the North Branch Susquehanna River in the vicinity of Berwick, Pennsylvania, progress report for the period January-Dece.nber 1973. Ichthyological Associates, Inc., Berwick, PA. 838 pp.

. 1976(a). Ecological studies of the North Branch Susquehanna River in the vicinity of the Susquehanna Steam Ele:tric Station, progress report for the period January-December 1974. Ichthyological Associates, Inc., Berwick, PA.

314 pp.

. 1976(b). Ecological studies of the North Branch Susquehanna River in the vicinity of the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, annual report for 1975.

Ichthyological Associates, Inc., Berwick, PA. 237 pp.

. 1977. Ecological studies of the Susquehanna River in the vicinity of the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, annual report for 1976. Ichthyological-Associates, Inc., Berwick, PA. 250 pp.

. 1978. Ecological. studies of the_ Susquehanna River in the vicinity of the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, annual report for 1977. Ichthyological Associates, Inc., Berwick, PA. 345 pp.

Page 11 Ecological studies of the Susquehanna River in the vicinity of the

. 1979.

Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, annual report for 1978. Ichthyological Associates, Inc., Berwick, PA. 293 pp.

. 1980. Ecological studies of the SusqueN.r,r? Qiver in the vicinity of the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, annual report for 1979. Ichthyological Associates, Inc., Berwick, PA. 298 pp.

. 1981. Ecological studies of the Susquehanna River in the vicinity of the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, annual report for 1980. Ichthyological Associates, Inc., Berwick, PA. 306 pp.

. 1982. -Ecological studies of the Susquehanna River in the vicinity of the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station,1981 annual report. Ichthyological Associates, Inc., Berwick, PA. 365 pp.

. 1983. Ecological studies of the Susquehanna River in the vicinity of the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station,1982 annual report. Ichthyological Associates, Inc., Berwick, PA. 353 pp.

. 1984. Ecological studies of the Susquehanna River in the vicinity of the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, 1983 annual report. Ichthyological Associates, Inc., Berwick, PA. 338 pp.

. 1985. Ecological studies of the Susquehanna River in the vicinity of the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station,1984 annual report. Ichthyological Associates, Inc., Berwick, PA. 343 pp.

Pennsylvania Power and Light Company. 1982. Susquehanna Steam Electric Station 316(b) entrainment demonstration program for National Pollution Discharge Elimination System pemit No. PA 0047325, special condition C, Part C. PP&L.

Allentown, PA. 11 pp. + appendix.

Susquehanna River Basin Study Coordinating Committee. 1970. Susquehanna River Basin study, Appendix H - Power.

U. S. Atomic Energy Commission. 1973. Final environmental statement related to the construction of Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Units I and 2, Pennsylvania Power and Light Company. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Directorate of Licensing.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Chesapeake Bay Basin monitoring program atlas, volume 1. Report CBP/TRS 34/89. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Annapolis, MD. 411 pp.

~

o

' I beet J. R. Calhoun TW-16 IN . . Can e N-4 v/a R. E. Doebler Susq. SES v/a J. S. Fields N-4 w/a T. V. Jacobsen IA w/a #

Mr. Paul M. Sverdon H. W. Keiser Susq. SES v/a Chief Facilities Section D. W. Killer N-4 v/a Fa. Department of Environmental Resources L. I. Ratzell A3-3 v/a 90 East Union Street. 2nd Floor L. D. Rutman A3-3 v/a Wilkme-Barre, PA 13701 Corporate File T-2 v/a SP&E File N-3 Date File N-3

$USQUE3LNNA SES .

ENTPAISMEh'T DDt0NSTRATION PROGRAM, 316(b)

SPECIAL CONDITION C, PART C IC' DES PERMIT NO. PA 0047325 ER 100450 FILE 012 PLE-2117 -

Daar Mr. Sverdon:

The Pennsylvania Power and Light Co. (PP&L) is submitting to the Pa.

Department of Environmental Resources (DER) 2 copies of results of a 316(b) Entrain =ent Demonstration Program for the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station. This program was cuveloped to neet recuirenents of Special Condition C, Part C of hTDES Percit No. PA 0047325 ( July 31,1979) .

Also, attached are Appendices which discuss an entrainment predictive modal, January 9,1980, a letter to Mr. Jim Ulanovski of the Pa. DER, April 9,1980, and a letter f rom Mr. Ulanovski to PP&L, Apri.1 29,1980.

If,you.have any questions or cocnents, on this Entrainment Demonstration Program please contact me at (215) 770-5842.

, Raspecfully yours, ,

O

( troma S. Fields ,

r Environmenta.1 Spec 4 =14 at-Nuclear ,

J5Famab 442206 Atemetunents CC:

Mr. Lawrence A. Paviush - Pa. DER Mr. Paul J. Koval - Pa. DER Mr. Edvard Eupsky - Pa. DER Mr. James T. Ulanowski - Pa. DER Mr. Richard L. Constrisciano - EPA -

8 L % ..

4 mes.# w = O g. .

- = = = ene ,p= , m

- _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

ML20085M512

Contents

Text

Dear Mr. Fields :

Dear Mr. Ulanowski:

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Navigation menu

ML20085M512

Text

Dear Mr. Fields :

Dear Mr. Ulanowski:

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Navigation menu

Search