ML18017A155: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Line 17: Line 17:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:REGULATORINFORMATIONDISTRIBUTIONSTEM(RIDS)ACCESSlONNBR'8005070541DOC~DATE;80/04/30NOTARIZED'ODOCKET&#xb9;FACIL:50387-.SusquehannaSteamElectricStationiUnitiiPennsylva0500SO388SusquehannaSteamElectricStationiUnit2iPennsylva4KQ388AUTHBYNAMEAUTHORAFFILIATIONBIKLOiR~J~SusquehanaRiverBasinCommissionRECIP~NAMERECIPIENTAFFILIATIONOfficeofNuclearReactorRegulationSUBJFCT;ComiiientsonNUREG0564i"DraftSupplto.DES:"applicantshouldmorefullyinvestigatewaterqualityproblemsassociatedwlteleases8presentproceduresforamelioratingthem,DISTRIBUTIONCODE:C002SCOPIESRECEIVED:LTRENCL~SIZE:TITLE!Environ<Comments'OTES0RECIPIKNTIDCODE/NAMEACTION!05PMW//11~418LA~bldgWgINTERNAL:0F-I-L0IRK10CSTBiNFTANL13HYDROMETEOR15EFLTTR.TSYS19DIRDSKADSITEANALYEXTERNAL;03LPDR20NATLLABCOPIESLTTRENCL11111122111110155RECIPIENTIDCODE/N4ME17BC<MR%.ADaCUR,02NRCPDR09ENVNSPECBR12GEOSCIENBR14ACDENTANALY16RADASMTBRADENVIRONTECHOKLD04NSICACRSCOPIESLTTRENCL1110111111111,10101110IHAY9~9gPTOTALNUMBEROFCOPIESREQUIRED!LTTR27ENCL22  
{{#Wiki_filter:REGULATOR INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION STEM(RIDS)ACCESSlON NBR'8005070541 DOC~DATE; 80/04/30NOTARIZED'O DOCKET&#xb9;FACIL:50387-.Susquehanna SteamElectricStationiUnitiiPennsylva 0500SO388Susquehanna SteamElectricStationiUnit2iPennsylva 4KQ388AUTHBYNAMEAUTHORAFFILIATION BIKLOiR~J~Susquehana RiverBasinCommission RECIP~NAMERECIPIENT AFFILIATION OfficeofNuclearReactorRegulation SUBJFCT;Comiiients onNUREG0564i"DraftSupplto.DES:"applicant shouldmorefullyinvestigate waterqualityproblemsassociated wlteleases 8presentprocedures forameliorating them,DISTRIBUTION CODE:C002SCOPIESRECEIVED:LTR ENCL~SIZE:TITLE!Environ<Comments'OTES0 RECIPIKNTIDCODE/NAME ACTION!05PMW//11~418LA~bldgWgINTERNAL:
,~.800507'ger~M1tlrlrlN<1~.rt~t~NodFromtheOfficeoftheExecutiveDirectorSUSQUEHANNARIVERBASINCOMMISSION1721NorthFrontStreetHarrisburg,Pennsylvania17102April30,1980DirectorDivisionofSiteSafety&EnvironmentalAnalysisOfficeofNuclearReactorRegulationU.S.NuclearRegulatoryCommissionWashington,DC20555Re:DocketNos.50-387,388
0F-I-L0IRK10CSTBiNFTANL13HYDROMETEOR15EFLTTR.TSYS19DIRDSKADSITEANALYEXTERNAL; 03LPDR20NATLLABCOPIESLTTRENCL11111122111110155RECIPIENTIDCODE/N4ME 17BC<MR%.ADaCUR,02NRCPDR09ENVNSPECBR12GEOSCIENBR14ACDENTANALY16RADASMTBRADENVIRONTECHOKLD04NSICACRSCOPIESLTTRENCL1110111111111,10101110IHAY9~9gPTOTALNUMBEROFCOPIESREQUIRED!
LTTR27ENCL22  
,~.800507'ger~M1tlrlrlN<1~.rt~t~NodFromtheOfficeoftheExecutive DirectorSUSQUEHANNA RIVERBASINCOMMISSION 1721NorthFrontStreetHarrisburg, Pennsylvania 17102April30,1980DirectorDivisionofSiteSafety&Environmental AnalysisOfficeofNuclearReactorRegulation U.S.NuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, DC20555Re:DocketNos.50-387,388


==DearSir/Madam:==
==DearSir/Madam:==
Thefollowingcomments,preparedbythestaffofthisCommis-sion,areinresponsetothe"DraftSupplementtotheDraftEn-vironmentalStatement"(NUREG-0564)relatingtotheSusquehannaSteamElectricStation.TheyfocusprimarilyonclarificationofpositionsattributedtotheCommissionandapparenterrorsoffactormethodology.Thecommentsarekeyedtothesectionnumbersofthe"DraftSupplement".Section3.1-IntroductionWebelievethatthesecondsentenceofthesecondparagraphwouldmoreaccuratelyreflectthecircumstancesifitreadasfollows:"InresponsetocommentsbythePennsylvaniaDept.ofEnvironmentalResourcesandSRBCregardingthedesirabilityofoptimaldevelopmentofthesitetomeetwatersupplyneedsinadditiontothoseoftheSusquehannaplant,theapplicantsub-mitted...."Clearly,ourcommentshavenothingtodowithwaterconservation.Wenotealsothatwehavenotseencopiesofanyofthecorrespondencereferencedinthesecondparagraph.ThereisaminormisstatementoftheSRBCconsumptiveusemake-uprequirement.Thefirstsentencereferstothe"averageconsumptiveuse...bySSES"indefiningthelowflowcriterion,whereastheregulationspecifies"the7-day10-yearlowflowplus DirectorApril30,1980theproject'stotalconsumptiveuseanddedicatedaugmentation."[18CFR803e61(c)(1)(i)]Asweinterprettheregulation,theappropriatevalueistheactualratherthanthe~averaeconsump-tiveuse.ThisnotionisstatedcorrectlyinSection4.4.2.1.Itshouldbecorrectedhere.Section4.2~ZmactsonWaterUseThelast,sentencereferstoanapplicationforaNPDESper-mitapplicabletoreservoirdischarges.Wearenotawareofanysuchpermits.Thesection'alsoconcludesthat"...thequalityofthewaterdischargedfromthePondHillReservoirwillmeetapplicableDERandEPAcriteriaexceptforanoccasionalhighlevelofiron."Thisconclusionshouldbereviewedinlightofthecommentsre-latingtoSection4.3.2below.Onpage4-5,itisstated,"...thepotentialthateutrophicconditionswilloccurinPondHillReservoirisrelativelyhigh.",suggestingthatwaterqualityproblemsarequitelikely.Lateronthatpageitisstated,"...oncephosphorusreachesthebottomsediments,verylittleofitusuallyreturnstotheepilimnion."Theanalysisconcludesthatproductivitylevelswilldeclineovertimeas"...nutrientsarelosttobottomsediments."Wearelessoptimisticthatsuchwillbethecase.Ifthebottomwaterbecomesanoxic,whichseemstobeadistinctpossibility,phosphorusandammoniawillbereleasedfromthesediments.Duringturnovers,thesenutrientswouldbereturnedtotheepilimnion.thestatement,"...aspresentlydesigned,onlyhypolimneticwaterwillbewithdrawn."Thereportthengoesontopointoutthatifthisisthecase,theresultwillbecoldshocktomanyoftheorganisms.Theonlywaywecanseethatsuchaconclusionispossibleistoassumethatforthedampresentlyproposedthespacingandelevationoftheinletstructuresremainasplannedfortheoriginaldamwithtopelevationat950'sl.Doyouknowthistobethecase2AsrecentlyasApril15,1980,PP&Lhasreportedtousthattheprojectdesignhasbeenrevisedtoreflectthe"full-size"reservoir(Elevation990'sltopofdam).Further,thatcorrespondencestatesthattheinlet-outletstructurehasbeenre-visedfrominclinedtoaconventionalmultiportverticaltowerstructure.Weassumethattheapplicantintendstoadheretoits DirectorApril30,1980designcriteriaofhavingmultipleoutlets"...sothatreleasescanbemadefromthereservoirlevelwherethewatertemperaturemostcloselymatchesthatoftheSusquehannaRiver"(TAMS,"De-signReport-PondHillReservoir",February,1979,p.3-4).WedonotethatthefinalparagraphsoftheSectionconcludethatthereleasewillcausecoldshock,containlargeamountsoforganicmaterials,behighiniron,andmaybeanoxic.Wehavethreecommentswithregardtotheseconclusions.1.WefindthemdifficulttoreconcilewiththeassertionofSection4.2thatallqualitycriteria,exceptforiron,willbemet.2.Wecannotaccepttheconclusionthatsuchreleases"shouldhavelittleimpactontheSusquehannaRiver,sinceaugmentation.releaseswillbeinfrequentandusuallysmallinvolume"(p.4-9).Thisargument.seemstohangonalongtimeaverageconcept.Underminimumdailyflowofrecordconditionscompensationreleaseswouldrepresentabout10%oftheriverflow.Moreover,theSRBCconsumptiveuserequirementsspecifythat,"Thephysical,chemicalandbiologicalqualityofwaterusedforcompensationshallmeetthequalitypurposesfor[protectionofpublichealth;streamqualitycontrol;economicdevelopment;protectionoffisheries;recrea-tion;dilutionandabatementofpollution,j"amongothers[18CFR803.61(b)(1)and(e)].Xtisn'clearthatthisrequirementwillbemet.Finally,itshouldbenotedthatourconsumptiveuseregulationsrequirecreasingtheflowabovetheamountavailableundernaturalflowconditions.3.Wefeelthattheapplicantshouldmorefullyinvesti-gatewaterqualityproblemsassociatedwiththereleasesandpresentproceduresforamelioratingthem.Section4.4.1-ConstructionWehavereservationsaboutcertainoftheparametersusedinthetemperaturemodeling.Theoriginalanalysisbytheappli-cants'onsultantused1975climaticdatatosimulatethe1964drawdown.Wefeelitwouldhavebeenmoreappropriatetouse1964climaticdata.Moreover,wefeelthattheresultsazeevenlessappropriateforthelargerreservoir.Ztisourjudgmentthatanewanalysisshouldbemadeofthelazgerreservoir,usingmoreappropriateparameters.
 
DirectorApril30,1980Itisalsostatedthatthepumpingstationliesoutsidethe100-yearfloodplain.Weazeunabletoverifythatstatementbe-causeofthelevelofdetailusedinFigure2.5.However,thepumpingstationclearlyliesoutsideofthefloodway.Section4.4.2.1-Water~Su~1-Thesecondandthirdparagraphscontainstatementsthatareincompleteandpotentiallymisleading.ThesecondparagraphignoresthefactthatthelargerreservoirisplannedtomeetnotonlytheconsumptiveuserequirementsofSSESduringperiodsoflowflowbutalsosimilarneedsbyotherdownstreamuserswhomightcontractforaportionofthePondHillWaterSupply.Tostatewithoutexplanationthattheapplicanthasassumedareleaserateof2.9cms,asagainstitsownneedsofupto1.8cms,isun-fairtotheapplicant,makingitappeartheyareplanningare-leasethatbearsnorelationtotheirownneeds."Otheruses"arerecognizedinpassinginthethirdpara-graph.However,withoutanyexplanationastothenatureoftheseotheruses,thediscussioncouldleavetheimpressionthattheyaresomehowassociatedwiththeSusquehannaplant.Also,itwouldbemoreaccuratetonotethat,basedontheaverageconsump-tiveuseduringthedesigndrought,1.5cmswillbeneededbytheSSESfozreplacementofconsumedwaterand1.4cmswillbeavail-abletootherusers.(AsimilarmisstatementregardingtheaverageconsumptiveuseatSSESappearsinthesecondparagraph.)ThelastparagraphoftheSectionrelatestotherefillingofthereservoir.Youstatecorrectlythattheplannedopera-tionalprocedurecallsfornopumpingfromtheriverwhenriverflowisbelow85cms(3,000cfs).Youshouldbeawarethatwehaveasyetunresolvedconcernsaboutpossibleenvironmentalim-pactsofpumpingatsuchalowlevelofriverflow.Weassumethattherefillingrateof3.7cmsreferstothepumpingcapacityoftheenlargedproject.Wehavenotseenthesespecifications.Wenotewithcriteriaandthattopping.WefeelforthePa.Dept.toresolve.concernthatthedamdesigndoesnotmeetNRCyourstaffisconcernedaboutpotentialover-thatthedesigncriteriaproblemisamatterofEnvironmentalResourcesandtheapplicant DirectorApril30;1980Section5.1.2-UseofE~xist1nReservoirsAstatementinthesecondparagraphmisconstruesthisCom-missionspositionregardingtheuseofexistingreservoirs.Thestatement"SRBC'sresponsetothisrequestwasthattheCowanesqueReservoirisnotnowatimelyalternative,"misinterpretsthestatementonp.2-3,AppendixHoftheEnvironmentalReport-OperatingLicenseStage.TheapplicantcorrectlysummarizedthecommentsofourApril17,1978letterwhichsuggestedthatare-studyofallpotentialwatersupplyuses,theimpactoftheseusesonotherprojectfunctions,anddeterminationofthenecessityforreauthorizationbemade.Theapplicantthendrewitsowncon-clusionthat,"TheSRBCcommentsindicatethatCowanesqueReservoirisnotnowatimelyalternative."~Emphasisadded)Thedraft.supplementsetsforthasthepositionofthisCommissionacon-clusionreachedbytheapplicant.(AcopyofourApril17,1978lettertotheCorpsofEngineersisattached.)Section5.1.3-~SummerInrecentmonths,wehavebeenworkingcloselywithboththeCorpsofEngineersandPa.Power&LightCo.toexploretheuseoftheCowanesqueprojectandanexpandedPondHillproject(en-largedtoapproximately22,000acre-feetofactivewatersupplystorage)ascomplementarywatersupplysourcestomeetseveralneedsinthebasin,includingSSES.TheCorpshascompletedStageIofitsCowanesqueLakeReformulationStudyandexpectstohavetheentirestudycompletedbyMarch,1982.PPGLestimatesatthistimethatwithcontinuedworkonthePondHillproject,thecom-pletiondateforPPGLstorageonlyissummer,1983andwithmaximumstorage,summer,1984.Asyouareaware,PPSLhas.announcedthein-servicedateforUnit1isnowJanuary,1982andJanuary,1983forUnit2.At.itsMarch,1980meeting,theSusquehannaRiverBasinCommissionadoptedJuly1,1984asthedatebywhichPeachBottomNuclearGeneratingStation,ThreeMileIslandNuclearGen-eratingStation,andSusquehannaSteamElectricStationmustbeincompliancewiththeconsumptivewatermake-uprequirements.Section5.2-AlternativeSitesThefirstparagraphspecifiescertainparametersrelatingtotheusablewaterstoragerequirementinthePondHillReservoirthatarenolongerrelevant.Inresponsetoquestionsraisedbyourstaff,PP6LestimatedthatthefullloadconsumptiveuseatSSESwillbe52.5cfs(1.49cms)basedonthedroughtofrecord;theQ7-10attheWilkes-Barregageis800cfs(24.06cms);andtheconsumptiveusemake-upstorageforthefullloadoperationatSSESconsuming52.5cfsfor106daysis11,030acre-feet.
Thefollowing
DirectorApril30,1980PP&Lstatedfurther"thatthe.PondHillProject,ifintendedsolelyforSSESflowcompensation,willbeconstructedtopro-.videanactivestorageof11,600acre-feet(11,030acre-feetforSSESplus570acre-feetforlossesanddownstreamconservationflow).(LetterfromN.W.Curtis,PP&L,toR.J.Bielo,SRBC,September4,1979)"Thefirstsentenceofthesecondparagraphrefersto"a1970SRBCstudy".ThestudyinquestionisonemadebytheSus-quehannaRiverBasinStudyCoordinatingCommittee,aninteragencytaskforcemadeupofrepresentativesfromsevenFederaldepart-mentsandagenciesandthethreebasinstates.XtwaschairedbytheCorpsofEngineers.ThereportwascompletedandreleasedseveralmonthsbeforethisCommissioncameintoexistence.TheapplicantcitesthestudycorrectlyintheER-OL,AppendixHfSection2.4.Section5.3..l-Benefit-CostA~nalsis-BoActionAlternativeThebenefit-costanalysisforthe"riverfollowing"alterna-tivedevelopedinthissectionposesseveralproblems.First,theanalysispresentedinTables5.1and5.2isbasedontheassumptionofa4-dayshutdownoccurringeveryyear.Thisistheaveragenumberofdaystheplantwouldbeshutdownbasedupontheflowdurationcurve.Thelatterassumptionimpliesthatanaverageflowyearwilloccurineachyearofthelifeoftheproject.Buthydrologydoesn'tworkthatway.Theanalysisshouldhavebeenbasedupontheexpectedvalueofthepresentworthofthecostofplantshutdownfordifferentflowsequences.Theanalysisdis-playedinTable5.3apparentlyutilizesmorerealisticrepresenta-tionoftheflows.Second,thecalculationswhichproducedthe160,000MWH,170,000MWH,and146,000MWHvaluesmentionedinthefirstpara-graphofthesectionarenotevidenttous.Wefeelthisshouldbeclarified.Third,theanalysisassumesanequalprobabilityofhotandcoldshutdown.Ourunderstandingofthesetermsisasfollows:a.Coldshutdownmeansthenuclearreactionisessen-tiallystopped,andnoheatisbeinggenerated;b.Hotshutdownmeansthatthereactorcontrolrodshavebeeninsertedtostopthereactionbutthereactionhasnotactuallyceased,heatisstillbeinggenerated,andbothprimaryandsecondarycoolingloopsarecarry-ingawaytheheat.Underthiscircumstance,theconsump-DirectorApril30,1980tivelosswouldstillbecontinuingforsometime(untilcoldshutdownisobtained)andtheconsumptiveusewouldbedecayingfromitsvaluepriortothebeginningoftheshutdown.Thepointisthatifourunderstandingiscorrect,hotshut-downisnotaviablealternativetoconsumptivelossmake-up,becausetheconsumptivelosscontinuesuntilcoldshutdownisreached.Thatfurtherimpliesthatinordertousetheriverfol-lowermethod,coldshutdownwouldhavetoexistonthefirstdaythattheflowgoesbelow.Q7-10+Candhotshutdownwouldhavehadtostartsomeconsiderableperiodoftimepriortothatdate.Finally,underthebriefperiodsofshutdownpostulatedfortheanalysis,itisnotobvioustouswhythereshouldbeanysignificantsavingsinthecostsofoperatingSSES.Whilewedonotknowthecomponentsofthe"NuclearGeneratingPrice",surelytheyarenotentirelyvariableoperatingcosts.Xtap-pearsthatthisaspectoftheanalysisneedstobereconsidered.Section5.3.2-UseofE~xistinReservoirsThematterofcostofwaterfromtheCowanesqueLakeprojectisnotresolvedandwillnotbeforsometimetocome.ThisCom-missionisintheprocessofdevelopingawatersupplymanage-mentprogram,onecomponentofwhichisawaterpricingplan.ThepresumptionisthatSRBCwillserveasthewholesalevendorofanywatersupplystoragedevelopedinthebasin.Untilthisen-tirematterismorefullydeveloped,noonecanmakeanymeaningfulestimatesofthecostofobtainingwaterfromexistingreservoirs.CertainlyitwouldnotbecorrectatthispointtoapplyeitherthepricesorpricingschemeoftheDelaware.RiverBasinCommissiontotheCowanesqueLakeproject.Section5.3.3-PondHillReservoirThereisanerrorinthestatementaboutthecostofelec-tricityforpumpingwaterintothereservoir.Theannualpumpingcostisthesumofacapacitychargeandanenergycharge.The4,500hpofpumpingcapacityisequivalentto3,357KW.As-suminga(mid-1978)capacitychargeof$12/KW,theannualcapaci-tychargeis(3,357'KWx$12/KW)=$40,300.Theenergycharge,assuming30daysofpumping,andanenergycostof$0.025perKWHis3,357KWx30daysx24hrs./dayx$0.025/KWH=$60,400.Thus,thetotalannualpumpingcostis($60,400+$40,300)=$100,700.(SeeTAMSDesignReport,PondHillReservoir,p.7-2andFigure15.)
: comments, preparedbythestaffofthisCommis-sion,areinresponsetothe"DraftSupplement totheDraftEn-vironmental Statement" (NUREG-0564) relatingtotheSusquehanna SteamElectricStation.Theyfocusprimarily onclarification ofpositions attributed totheCommission andapparenterrorsoffactormethodology.
DirectorApril.30,1980WeappreciatetheopportunitytocommentontheDraftSupplement.Wehopethatourcommentsarehelpful.Verytrulyyours,RobertJ.BieloExecutiveDirector FromtheOtliceoftheExecutiveDirectorSUSQUE~ANI'-JP>>PrVK::.-:BASENCGINiVl':S--"-.'721NorthFrontStreet4Harrisburg,Pennsylvaft;a17102April17,1978ColonelG.K.NithersU.S.Dept.oftheArmyCorpsofEngineersBaltimoreDistrictP.O.Box1715Baltimore,Maryland21203
Thecommentsarekeyedtothesectionnumbersofthe"DraftSupplement".
Section3.1-Introduction Webelievethatthesecondsentenceofthesecondparagraph wouldmoreaccurately reflectthecircumstances ifitreadasfollows:"InresponsetocommentsbythePennsylvania Dept.ofEnvironmental Resources andSRBCregarding thedesirability ofoptimaldevelopment ofthesitetomeetwatersupplyneedsinadditiontothoseoftheSusquehanna plant,theapplicant sub-mitted...."Clearly,ourcommentshavenothingtodowithwaterconservation.
Wenotealsothatwehavenotseencopiesofanyofthecorrespondence referenced inthesecondparagraph.
Thereisaminormisstatement oftheSRBCconsumptive usemake-uprequirement.
Thefirstsentencereferstothe"averageconsumptive use...bySSES"indefiningthelowflowcriterion, whereastheregulation specifies "the7-day10-yearlowflowplus DirectorApril30,1980theproject's totalconsumptive useanddedicated augmentation."
[18CFR803e61(c)
(1)(i)]Asweinterpret theregulation, theappropriate valueistheactualratherthanthe~averaeconsump-tiveuse.Thisnotionisstatedcorrectly inSection4.4.2.1.Itshouldbecorrected here.Section4.2~ZmactsonWaterUseThelast,sentencereferstoanapplication foraNPDESper-mitapplicable toreservoir discharges.
Wearenotawareofanysuchpermits.Thesection'alsoconcludes that"...thequalityofthewaterdischarged fromthePondHillReservoir willmeetapplicable DERandEPAcriteriaexceptforanoccasional highlevelofiron."Thisconclusion shouldbereviewedinlightofthecommentsre-latingtoSection4.3.2below.Onpage4-5,itisstated,"...thepotential thateutrophic conditions willoccurinPondHillReservoir isrelatively high.",suggesting thatwaterqualityproblemsarequitelikely.Lateronthatpageitisstated,"...oncephosphorus reachesthebottomsediments, verylittleofitusuallyreturnstotheepilimnion."
Theanalysisconcludes thatproductivity levelswilldeclineovertimeas"...nutrients arelosttobottomsediments."
Wearelessoptimistic thatsuchwillbethecase.Ifthebottomwaterbecomesanoxic,whichseemstobeadistinctpossibility, phosphorus andammoniawillbereleasedfromthesediments.
Duringturnovers, thesenutrients wouldbereturnedtotheepilimnion.
thestatement,
"...aspresently
: designed, onlyhypolimnetic waterwillbewithdrawn."
Thereportthengoesontopointoutthatifthisisthecase,theresultwillbecoldshocktomanyoftheorganisms.
Theonlywaywecanseethatsuchaconclusion ispossibleistoassumethatforthedampresently proposedthespacingandelevation oftheinletstructures remainasplannedfortheoriginaldamwithtopelevation at950'sl.Doyouknowthistobethecase2AsrecentlyasApril15,1980,PP&Lhasreportedtousthattheprojectdesignhasbeenrevisedtoreflectthe"full-size"reservoir (Elevation 990'sltopofdam).Further,thatcorrespondence statesthattheinlet-outlet structure hasbeenre-visedfrominclinedtoaconventional multiport verticaltowerstructure.
Weassumethattheapplicant intendstoadheretoits DirectorApril30,1980designcriteriaofhavingmultipleoutlets"...sothatreleasescanbemadefromthereservoir levelwherethewatertemperature mostcloselymatchesthatoftheSusquehanna River"(TAMS,"De-signReport-Pond HillReservoir",
: February, 1979,p.3-4).Wedonotethatthefinalparagraphs oftheSectionconcludethatthereleasewillcausecoldshock,containlargeamountsoforganicmaterials, behighiniron,andmaybeanoxic.Wehavethreecommentswithregardtotheseconclusions.
1.Wefindthemdifficult toreconcile withtheassertion ofSection4.2thatallqualitycriteria, exceptforiron,willbemet.2.Wecannotaccepttheconclusion thatsuchreleases"shouldhavelittleimpactontheSusquehanna River,sinceaugmentation.
releaseswillbeinfrequent andusuallysmallinvolume"(p.4-9).Thisargument.
seemstohangonalongtimeaverageconcept.Underminimumdailyflowofrecordconditions compensation releaseswouldrepresent about10%oftheriverflow.Moreover, theSRBCconsumptive userequirements specifythat,"Thephysical, chemicalandbiological qualityofwaterusedforcompensation shallmeetthequalitypurposesfor[protection ofpublichealth;streamqualitycontrol;economicdevelopment; protection offisheries; recrea-tion;dilutionandabatement ofpollution,j "amongothers[18CFR803.61(b)(1)and(e)].Xtisn'clearthatthisrequirement willbemet.Finally,itshouldbenotedthatourconsumptive useregulations requirecreasingtheflowabovetheamountavailable undernaturalflowconditions.
3.Wefeelthattheapplicant shouldmorefullyinvesti-gatewaterqualityproblemsassociated withthereleasesandpresentprocedures forameliorating them.Section4.4.1-Construction Wehavereservations aboutcertainoftheparameters usedinthetemperature modeling.
Theoriginalanalysisbytheappli-cants'onsultant used1975climaticdatatosimulatethe1964drawdown.
Wefeelitwouldhavebeenmoreappropriate touse1964climaticdata.Moreover, wefeelthattheresultsazeevenlessappropriate forthelargerreservoir.
Ztisourjudgmentthatanewanalysisshouldbemadeofthelazgerreservoir, usingmoreappropriate parameters.
DirectorApril30,1980Itisalsostatedthatthepumpingstationliesoutsidethe100-yearfloodplain.Weazeunabletoverifythatstatement be-causeofthelevelofdetailusedinFigure2.5.However,thepumpingstationclearlyliesoutsideofthefloodway.
Section4.4.2.1-Water
~Su~1-Thesecondandthirdparagraphs containstatements thatareincomplete andpotentially misleading.
Thesecondparagraph ignoresthefactthatthelargerreservoir isplannedtomeetnotonlytheconsumptive userequirements ofSSESduringperiodsoflowflowbutalsosimilarneedsbyotherdownstream userswhomightcontractforaportionofthePondHillWaterSupply.Tostatewithoutexplanation thattheapplicant hasassumedareleaserateof2.9cms,asagainstitsownneedsofupto1.8cms,isun-fairtotheapplicant, makingitappeartheyareplanningare-leasethatbearsnorelationtotheirownneeds."Otheruses"arerecognized inpassinginthethirdpara-graph.However,withoutanyexplanation astothenatureoftheseotheruses,thediscussion couldleavetheimpression thattheyaresomehowassociated withtheSusquehanna plant.Also,itwouldbemoreaccuratetonotethat,basedontheaverageconsump-tiveuseduringthedesigndrought,1.5cmswillbeneededbytheSSESfozreplacement ofconsumedwaterand1.4cmswillbeavail-abletootherusers.(Asimilarmisstatement regarding theaverageconsumptive useatSSESappearsinthesecondparagraph.)
Thelastparagraph oftheSectionrelatestotherefilling ofthereservoir.
Youstatecorrectly thattheplannedopera-tionalprocedure callsfornopumpingfromtheriverwhenriverflowisbelow85cms(3,000cfs).Youshouldbeawarethatwehaveasyetunresolved concernsaboutpossibleenvironmental im-pactsofpumpingatsuchalowlevelofriverflow.Weassumethattherefilling rateof3.7cmsreferstothepumpingcapacityoftheenlargedproject.Wehavenotseenthesespecifications.
Wenotewithcriteriaandthattopping.WefeelforthePa.Dept.toresolve.concernthatthedamdesigndoesnotmeetNRCyourstaffisconcerned aboutpotential over-thatthedesigncriteriaproblemisamatterofEnvironmental Resources andtheapplicant DirectorApril30;1980Section5.1.2-Use ofE~xist1nReservoirs Astatement inthesecondparagraph misconstrues thisCom-missionspositionregarding theuseofexistingreservoirs.
Thestatement "SRBC'sresponsetothisrequestwasthattheCowanesque Reservoir isnotnowatimelyalternative,"
misinterprets thestatement onp.2-3,AppendixHoftheEnvironmental Report-Operating LicenseStage.Theapplicant correctly summarized thecommentsofourApril17,1978letterwhichsuggested thatare-studyofallpotential watersupplyuses,theimpactoftheseusesonotherprojectfunctions, anddetermination ofthenecessity forreauthorization bemade.Theapplicant thendrewitsowncon-clusionthat,"TheSRBCcommentsindicatethatCowanesque Reservoir isnotnowatimelyalternative.
"~Emphasis added)Thedraft.supplement setsforthasthepositionofthisCommission acon-clusionreachedbytheapplicant.
(AcopyofourApril17,1978lettertotheCorpsofEngineers isattached.)
Section5.1.3-~Summer Inrecentmonths,wehavebeenworkingcloselywithboththeCorpsofEngineers andPa.Power&LightCo.toexploretheuseoftheCowanesque projectandanexpandedPondHillproject(en-largedtoapproximately 22,000acre-feet ofactivewatersupplystorage)ascomplementary watersupplysourcestomeetseveralneedsinthebasin,including SSES.TheCorpshascompleted StageIofitsCowanesque LakeReformulation Studyandexpectstohavetheentirestudycompleted byMarch,1982.PPGLestimates atthistimethatwithcontinued workonthePondHillproject,thecom-pletiondateforPPGLstorageonlyissummer,1983andwithmaximumstorage,summer,1984.Asyouareaware,PPSLhas.announced thein-service dateforUnit1isnowJanuary,1982andJanuary,1983forUnit2.At.itsMarch,1980meeting,theSusquehanna RiverBasinCommission adoptedJuly1,1984asthedatebywhichPeachBottomNuclearGenerating Station,ThreeMileIslandNuclearGen-eratingStation,andSusquehanna SteamElectricStationmustbeincompliance withtheconsumptive watermake-uprequirements.
Section5.2-Alternative SitesThefirstparagraph specifies certainparameters relatingtotheusablewaterstoragerequirement inthePondHillReservoir thatarenolongerrelevant.
Inresponsetoquestions raisedbyourstaff,PP6Lestimated thatthefullloadconsumptive useatSSESwillbe52.5cfs(1.49cms)basedonthedroughtofrecord;theQ7-10attheWilkes-Barre gageis800cfs(24.06cms);andtheconsumptive usemake-upstorageforthefullloadoperation atSSESconsuming 52.5cfsfor106daysis11,030acre-feet.
DirectorApril30,1980PP&Lstatedfurther"thatthe.PondHillProject,ifintendedsolelyforSSESflowcompensation, willbeconstructed topro-.videanactivestorageof11,600acre-feet (11,030acre-feet forSSESplus570acre-feet forlossesanddownstream conservation flow).(LetterfromN.W.Curtis,PP&L,toR.J.Bielo,SRBC,September 4,1979)"Thefirstsentenceofthesecondparagraph refersto"a1970SRBCstudy".ThestudyinquestionisonemadebytheSus-quehannaRiverBasinStudyCoordinating Committee, aninteragency taskforcemadeupofrepresentatives fromsevenFederaldepart-mentsandagenciesandthethreebasinstates.XtwaschairedbytheCorpsofEngineers.
Thereportwascompleted andreleasedseveralmonthsbeforethisCommission cameintoexistence.
Theapplicant citesthestudycorrectly intheER-OL,AppendixHfSection2.4.Section5.3..l-Benefit-Cost A~nalsis-BoActionAlternative Thebenefit-cost analysisforthe"riverfollowing" alterna-tivedeveloped inthissectionposesseveralproblems.
First,theanalysispresented inTables5.1and5.2isbasedontheassumption ofa4-dayshutdownoccurring everyyear.Thisistheaveragenumberofdaystheplantwouldbeshutdownbasedupontheflowdurationcurve.Thelatterassumption impliesthatanaverageflowyearwilloccurineachyearofthelifeoftheproject.Buthydrology doesn'tworkthatway.Theanalysisshouldhavebeenbasedupontheexpectedvalueofthepresentworthofthecostofplantshutdownfordifferent flowsequences.
Theanalysisdis-playedinTable5.3apparently utilizesmorerealistic representa-tionoftheflows.Second,thecalculations whichproducedthe160,000MWH,170,000MWH,and146,000MWHvaluesmentioned inthefirstpara-graphofthesectionarenotevidenttous.Wefeelthisshouldbeclarified.
Third,theanalysisassumesanequalprobability ofhotandcoldshutdown.
Ourunderstanding ofthesetermsisasfollows:a.Coldshutdownmeansthenuclearreactionisessen-tiallystopped,andnoheatisbeinggenerated; b.Hotshutdownmeansthatthereactorcontrolrodshavebeeninsertedtostopthereactionbutthereactionhasnotactuallyceased,heatisstillbeinggenerated, andbothprimaryandsecondary coolingloopsarecarry-ingawaytheheat.Underthiscircumstance, theconsump-DirectorApril30,1980tivelosswouldstillbecontinuing forsometime(untilcoldshutdownisobtained) andtheconsumptive usewouldbedecayingfromitsvaluepriortothebeginning oftheshutdown.
Thepointisthatifourunderstanding iscorrect,hotshut-downisnotaviablealternative toconsumptive lossmake-up,becausetheconsumptive losscontinues untilcoldshutdownisreached.Thatfurtherimpliesthatinordertousetheriverfol-lowermethod,coldshutdownwouldhavetoexistonthefirstdaythattheflowgoesbelow.Q7-10+C andhotshutdownwouldhavehadtostartsomeconsiderable periodoftimepriortothatdate.Finally,underthebriefperiodsofshutdownpostulated fortheanalysis, itisnotobvioustouswhythereshouldbeanysignificant savingsinthecostsofoperating SSES.Whilewedonotknowthecomponents ofthe"NuclearGenerating Price",surelytheyarenotentirelyvariableoperating costs.Xtap-pearsthatthisaspectoftheanalysisneedstobereconsidered.
Section5.3.2-Use ofE~xistinReservoirs ThematterofcostofwaterfromtheCowanesque Lakeprojectisnotresolvedandwillnotbeforsometimetocome.ThisCom-missionisintheprocessofdeveloping awatersupplymanage-mentprogram,onecomponent ofwhichisawaterpricingplan.Thepresumption isthatSRBCwillserveasthewholesale vendorofanywatersupplystoragedeveloped inthebasin.Untilthisen-tirematterismorefullydeveloped, noonecanmakeanymeaningful estimates ofthecostofobtaining waterfromexistingreservoirs.
Certainly itwouldnotbecorrectatthispointtoapplyeitherthepricesorpricingschemeoftheDelaware.RiverBasinCommission totheCowanesque Lakeproject.Section5.3.3-Pond HillReservoir Thereisanerrorinthestatement aboutthecostofelec-tricityforpumpingwaterintothereservoir.
Theannualpumpingcostisthesumofacapacitychargeandanenergycharge.The4,500hpofpumpingcapacityisequivalent to3,357KW.As-suminga(mid-1978) capacitychargeof$12/KW,theannualcapaci-tychargeis(3,357'KW x$12/KW)=$40,300.Theenergycharge,assuming30daysofpumping,andanenergycostof$0.025perKWHis3,357KWx30daysx24hrs./dayx$0.025/KWH
=$60,400.Thus,thetotalannualpumpingcostis($60,400+$40,300)=$100,700.(SeeTAMSDesignReport,PondHillReservoir, p.7-2andFigure15.)
DirectorApril.30,1980Weappreciate theopportunity tocommentontheDraftSupplement.
Wehopethatourcommentsarehelpful.Verytrulyyours,RobertJ.BieloExecutive Director FromtheOtliceoftheExecutive DirectorSUSQUE~ANI'-JP>>
PrVK::.-:
BASENCGINiVl':S
--"-.'721 NorthFrontStreet4Harrisburg, Pennsylvaft;a 17102April17,1978ColonelG.K.NithersU.S.Dept.oftheArmyCorpsofEngineers Baltimore DistrictP.O.Box1715Baltimore, Maryland21203


==DearColonelWithers:==
==DearColonelWithers:==
Thankyouforprovidi'nguswithacopyofarequestfromPPCLaskingyourofficetodeterminewhethertheuseoftheCowanesqueReservoir'spotentialseasonalstoragecapabilitytomeetSusque-hannaSteamElectricStation'sconsumedwatermake-upneedswouldbecompatiblewithCowanesques'therfunctionsandwhethersuchusewouldbepracticableandeconomicallyjustified.NenotefromthePPPLrequestthatifitisdeterminedsuchstorageandwateruseispermissiblethecompanyintendstoseekacontractwiththeCorpsfortheuseof-CowanesquewaterandtosubmitsuchcontracttoSRBCforapproval.IhavepolledtheCommissionalternatesonthestudproposalandwouldadvisethattheCommissionrecognizestheneeforthecompany(PPOL)toexplorevariousalternativemeasurestoobtain.make-upwatertocompensateforconsumptivelossesofwateratitsSusquehannaSteamElectricStationduringcertainperiodsoflowstreamflow.Further,theCommissionrecognizesaneedodeterminethepotentialforseasonalwatersupplystorageintheCowanesqueReservoirforusesotherthanasoutlinedoytnecompany.EssentiallytheCommissionbelievesthatanyreviewofthestoragecapabilityoftheCowanesqueReservoirshouldinclude:arangeofwatersupplyandotherwaterusestoragealternativesatthesite,adeterminationoftheeffectssuchalternativeswouldhaveonfloodstorageandotherprojectuses,and.adeterminationwhethersuchalternativeswouldrequirereauhoriz"tionorcouldbeaccomplishedundercurrentprojectauthorizationandCorps'uthority.
Thankyouforprovidi'ng uswithacopyofarequestfromPPCLaskingyourofficetodetermine whethertheuseoftheCowanesque Reservoir's potential seasonalstoragecapability tomeetSusque-hannaSteamElectricStation's consumedwatermake-upneedswouldbecompatible withCowanesques'ther functions andwhethersuchusewouldbepracticable andeconomically justified.
Col.G.K.Nithers2April17,.1978TheCommissionalsowishestonotethatifasaresultofthestudyapositivedeterminationis"madeofthepotentialcapabilityofCowanesqueReservoirtomeetthevaterstorageneedsoutlinedbyPP5Linitsrequestthat,suchfindingdoesnotinanyvayprejudicefutureCommissionactionregardingallocationofwaterfromthisproject.Newilllookforvardtoyourfindingsandvillbepleasedtocooperateinanyvaypossible.Verytrulyyours,p/'yRobert.BieloExecutiveDirector}}
NenotefromthePPPLrequestthatifitisdetermined suchstorageandwateruseispermissible thecompanyintendstoseekacontractwiththeCorpsfortheuseof-Cowanesque waterandtosubmitsuchcontracttoSRBCforapproval.
IhavepolledtheCommission alternates onthestudproposalandwouldadvisethattheCommission recognizes theneeforthecompany(PPOL)toexplorevariousalternative measurestoobtain.make-upwatertocompensate forconsumptive lossesofwateratitsSusquehanna SteamElectricStationduringcertainperiodsoflowstreamflow.Further,theCommission recognizes aneedodetermine thepotential forseasonalwatersupplystorageintheCowanesque Reservoir forusesotherthanasoutlinedoytnecompany.Essentially theCommission believesthatanyreviewofthestoragecapability oftheCowanesque Reservoir shouldinclude:arangeofwatersupplyandotherwaterusestoragealternatives atthesite,adetermination oftheeffectssuchalternatives wouldhaveonfloodstorageandotherprojectuses,and.adetermination whethersuchalternatives wouldrequirereauhoriz"tion orcouldbeaccomplished undercurrentprojectauthorization andCorps'uthority.
Col.G.K.Nithers2April17,.1978TheCommission alsowishestonotethatifasaresultofthestudyapositivedetermination is"madeofthepotential capability ofCowanesque Reservoir tomeetthevaterstorageneedsoutlinedbyPP5Linitsrequestthat,suchfindingdoesnotinanyvayprejudice futureCommission actionregarding allocation ofwaterfromthisproject.Newilllookforvardtoyourfindingsandvillbepleasedtocooperate inanyvaypossible.
Verytrulyyours,p/'yRobert.BieloExecutive Director}}

Revision as of 05:58, 29 June 2018

Comments on NUREG-0564, Draft Suppl to Des: Applicant Should More Fully Investigate Water Quality Problems Associated W/Releases & Present Procedures for Ameliorating Them
ML18017A155
Person / Time
Site: Susquehanna  Talen Energy icon.png
Issue date: 04/30/1980
From: BIELO R J
SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN COMMISSION
To:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
RTR-NUREG-0564, RTR-NUREG-564 NUDOCS 8005070541
Download: ML18017A155 (11)
v • d • e


Text

REGULATOR INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION STEM(RIDS)ACCESSlON NBR'8005070541 DOC~DATE; 80/04/30NOTARIZED'O DOCKET¹FACIL:50387-.Susquehanna SteamElectricStationiUnitiiPennsylva 0500SO388Susquehanna SteamElectricStationiUnit2iPennsylva 4KQ388AUTHBYNAMEAUTHORAFFILIATION BIKLOiR~J~Susquehana RiverBasinCommission RECIP~NAMERECIPIENT AFFILIATION OfficeofNuclearReactorRegulation SUBJFCT;Comiiients onNUREG0564i"DraftSupplto.DES:"applicant shouldmorefullyinvestigate waterqualityproblemsassociated wlteleases 8presentprocedures forameliorating them,DISTRIBUTION CODE:C002SCOPIESRECEIVED:LTR ENCL~SIZE:TITLE!Environ<Comments'OTES0 RECIPIKNTIDCODE/NAME ACTION!05PMW//11~418LA~bldgWgINTERNAL:

0F-I-L0IRK10CSTBiNFTANL13HYDROMETEOR15EFLTTR.TSYS19DIRDSKADSITEANALYEXTERNAL; 03LPDR20NATLLABCOPIESLTTRENCL11111122111110155RECIPIENTIDCODE/N4ME 17BC<MR%.ADaCUR,02NRCPDR09ENVNSPECBR12GEOSCIENBR14ACDENTANALY16RADASMTBRADENVIRONTECHOKLD04NSICACRSCOPIESLTTRENCL1110111111111,10101110IHAY9~9gPTOTALNUMBEROFCOPIESREQUIRED!

LTTR27ENCL22

,~.800507'ger~M1tlrlrlN<1~.rt~t~NodFromtheOfficeoftheExecutive DirectorSUSQUEHANNA RIVERBASINCOMMISSION 1721NorthFrontStreetHarrisburg, Pennsylvania 17102April30,1980DirectorDivisionofSiteSafety&Environmental AnalysisOfficeofNuclearReactorRegulation U.S.NuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, DC20555Re:DocketNos.50-387,388

DearSir/Madam:

Thefollowing

comments, preparedbythestaffofthisCommis-sion,areinresponsetothe"DraftSupplement totheDraftEn-vironmental Statement" (NUREG-0564) relatingtotheSusquehanna SteamElectricStation.Theyfocusprimarily onclarification ofpositions attributed totheCommission andapparenterrorsoffactormethodology.

Thecommentsarekeyedtothesectionnumbersofthe"DraftSupplement".

Section3.1-Introduction Webelievethatthesecondsentenceofthesecondparagraph wouldmoreaccurately reflectthecircumstances ifitreadasfollows:"InresponsetocommentsbythePennsylvania Dept.ofEnvironmental Resources andSRBCregarding thedesirability ofoptimaldevelopment ofthesitetomeetwatersupplyneedsinadditiontothoseoftheSusquehanna plant,theapplicant sub-mitted...."Clearly,ourcommentshavenothingtodowithwaterconservation.

Wenotealsothatwehavenotseencopiesofanyofthecorrespondence referenced inthesecondparagraph.

Thereisaminormisstatement oftheSRBCconsumptive usemake-uprequirement.

Thefirstsentencereferstothe"averageconsumptive use...bySSES"indefiningthelowflowcriterion, whereastheregulation specifies "the7-day10-yearlowflowplus DirectorApril30,1980theproject's totalconsumptive useanddedicated augmentation."

[18CFR803e61(c)

(1)(i)]Asweinterpret theregulation, theappropriate valueistheactualratherthanthe~averaeconsump-tiveuse.Thisnotionisstatedcorrectly inSection4.4.2.1.Itshouldbecorrected here.Section4.2~ZmactsonWaterUseThelast,sentencereferstoanapplication foraNPDESper-mitapplicable toreservoir discharges.

Wearenotawareofanysuchpermits.Thesection'alsoconcludes that"...thequalityofthewaterdischarged fromthePondHillReservoir willmeetapplicable DERandEPAcriteriaexceptforanoccasional highlevelofiron."Thisconclusion shouldbereviewedinlightofthecommentsre-latingtoSection4.3.2below.Onpage4-5,itisstated,"...thepotential thateutrophic conditions willoccurinPondHillReservoir isrelatively high.",suggesting thatwaterqualityproblemsarequitelikely.Lateronthatpageitisstated,"...oncephosphorus reachesthebottomsediments, verylittleofitusuallyreturnstotheepilimnion."

Theanalysisconcludes thatproductivity levelswilldeclineovertimeas"...nutrients arelosttobottomsediments."

Wearelessoptimistic thatsuchwillbethecase.Ifthebottomwaterbecomesanoxic,whichseemstobeadistinctpossibility, phosphorus andammoniawillbereleasedfromthesediments.

Duringturnovers, thesenutrients wouldbereturnedtotheepilimnion.

thestatement,

"...aspresently

designed, onlyhypolimnetic waterwillbewithdrawn."

Thereportthengoesontopointoutthatifthisisthecase,theresultwillbecoldshocktomanyoftheorganisms.

Theonlywaywecanseethatsuchaconclusion ispossibleistoassumethatforthedampresently proposedthespacingandelevation oftheinletstructures remainasplannedfortheoriginaldamwithtopelevation at950'sl.Doyouknowthistobethecase2AsrecentlyasApril15,1980,PP&Lhasreportedtousthattheprojectdesignhasbeenrevisedtoreflectthe"full-size"reservoir (Elevation 990'sltopofdam).Further,thatcorrespondence statesthattheinlet-outlet structure hasbeenre-visedfrominclinedtoaconventional multiport verticaltowerstructure.

Weassumethattheapplicant intendstoadheretoits DirectorApril30,1980designcriteriaofhavingmultipleoutlets"...sothatreleasescanbemadefromthereservoir levelwherethewatertemperature mostcloselymatchesthatoftheSusquehanna River"(TAMS,"De-signReport-Pond HillReservoir",

February, 1979,p.3-4).Wedonotethatthefinalparagraphs oftheSectionconcludethatthereleasewillcausecoldshock,containlargeamountsoforganicmaterials, behighiniron,andmaybeanoxic.Wehavethreecommentswithregardtotheseconclusions.

1.Wefindthemdifficult toreconcile withtheassertion ofSection4.2thatallqualitycriteria, exceptforiron,willbemet.2.Wecannotaccepttheconclusion thatsuchreleases"shouldhavelittleimpactontheSusquehanna River,sinceaugmentation.

releaseswillbeinfrequent andusuallysmallinvolume"(p.4-9).Thisargument.

seemstohangonalongtimeaverageconcept.Underminimumdailyflowofrecordconditions compensation releaseswouldrepresent about10%oftheriverflow.Moreover, theSRBCconsumptive userequirements specifythat,"Thephysical, chemicalandbiological qualityofwaterusedforcompensation shallmeetthequalitypurposesfor[protection ofpublichealth;streamqualitycontrol;economicdevelopment; protection offisheries; recrea-tion;dilutionandabatement ofpollution,j "amongothers[18CFR803.61(b)(1)and(e)].Xtisn'clearthatthisrequirement willbemet.Finally,itshouldbenotedthatourconsumptive useregulations requirecreasingtheflowabovetheamountavailable undernaturalflowconditions.

3.Wefeelthattheapplicant shouldmorefullyinvesti-gatewaterqualityproblemsassociated withthereleasesandpresentprocedures forameliorating them.Section4.4.1-Construction Wehavereservations aboutcertainoftheparameters usedinthetemperature modeling.

Theoriginalanalysisbytheappli-cants'onsultant used1975climaticdatatosimulatethe1964drawdown.

Wefeelitwouldhavebeenmoreappropriate touse1964climaticdata.Moreover, wefeelthattheresultsazeevenlessappropriate forthelargerreservoir.

Ztisourjudgmentthatanewanalysisshouldbemadeofthelazgerreservoir, usingmoreappropriate parameters.

DirectorApril30,1980Itisalsostatedthatthepumpingstationliesoutsidethe100-yearfloodplain.Weazeunabletoverifythatstatement be-causeofthelevelofdetailusedinFigure2.5.However,thepumpingstationclearlyliesoutsideofthefloodway.

Section4.4.2.1-Water

~Su~1-Thesecondandthirdparagraphs containstatements thatareincomplete andpotentially misleading.

Thesecondparagraph ignoresthefactthatthelargerreservoir isplannedtomeetnotonlytheconsumptive userequirements ofSSESduringperiodsoflowflowbutalsosimilarneedsbyotherdownstream userswhomightcontractforaportionofthePondHillWaterSupply.Tostatewithoutexplanation thattheapplicant hasassumedareleaserateof2.9cms,asagainstitsownneedsofupto1.8cms,isun-fairtotheapplicant, makingitappeartheyareplanningare-leasethatbearsnorelationtotheirownneeds."Otheruses"arerecognized inpassinginthethirdpara-graph.However,withoutanyexplanation astothenatureoftheseotheruses,thediscussion couldleavetheimpression thattheyaresomehowassociated withtheSusquehanna plant.Also,itwouldbemoreaccuratetonotethat,basedontheaverageconsump-tiveuseduringthedesigndrought,1.5cmswillbeneededbytheSSESfozreplacement ofconsumedwaterand1.4cmswillbeavail-abletootherusers.(Asimilarmisstatement regarding theaverageconsumptive useatSSESappearsinthesecondparagraph.)

Thelastparagraph oftheSectionrelatestotherefilling ofthereservoir.

Youstatecorrectly thattheplannedopera-tionalprocedure callsfornopumpingfromtheriverwhenriverflowisbelow85cms(3,000cfs).Youshouldbeawarethatwehaveasyetunresolved concernsaboutpossibleenvironmental im-pactsofpumpingatsuchalowlevelofriverflow.Weassumethattherefilling rateof3.7cmsreferstothepumpingcapacityoftheenlargedproject.Wehavenotseenthesespecifications.

Wenotewithcriteriaandthattopping.WefeelforthePa.Dept.toresolve.concernthatthedamdesigndoesnotmeetNRCyourstaffisconcerned aboutpotential over-thatthedesigncriteriaproblemisamatterofEnvironmental Resources andtheapplicant DirectorApril30;1980Section5.1.2-Use ofE~xist1nReservoirs Astatement inthesecondparagraph misconstrues thisCom-missionspositionregarding theuseofexistingreservoirs.

Thestatement "SRBC'sresponsetothisrequestwasthattheCowanesque Reservoir isnotnowatimelyalternative,"

misinterprets thestatement onp.2-3,AppendixHoftheEnvironmental Report-Operating LicenseStage.Theapplicant correctly summarized thecommentsofourApril17,1978letterwhichsuggested thatare-studyofallpotential watersupplyuses,theimpactoftheseusesonotherprojectfunctions, anddetermination ofthenecessity forreauthorization bemade.Theapplicant thendrewitsowncon-clusionthat,"TheSRBCcommentsindicatethatCowanesque Reservoir isnotnowatimelyalternative.

"~Emphasis added)Thedraft.supplement setsforthasthepositionofthisCommission acon-clusionreachedbytheapplicant.

(AcopyofourApril17,1978lettertotheCorpsofEngineers isattached.)

Section5.1.3-~Summer Inrecentmonths,wehavebeenworkingcloselywithboththeCorpsofEngineers andPa.Power&LightCo.toexploretheuseoftheCowanesque projectandanexpandedPondHillproject(en-largedtoapproximately 22,000acre-feet ofactivewatersupplystorage)ascomplementary watersupplysourcestomeetseveralneedsinthebasin,including SSES.TheCorpshascompleted StageIofitsCowanesque LakeReformulation Studyandexpectstohavetheentirestudycompleted byMarch,1982.PPGLestimates atthistimethatwithcontinued workonthePondHillproject,thecom-pletiondateforPPGLstorageonlyissummer,1983andwithmaximumstorage,summer,1984.Asyouareaware,PPSLhas.announced thein-service dateforUnit1isnowJanuary,1982andJanuary,1983forUnit2.At.itsMarch,1980meeting,theSusquehanna RiverBasinCommission adoptedJuly1,1984asthedatebywhichPeachBottomNuclearGenerating Station,ThreeMileIslandNuclearGen-eratingStation,andSusquehanna SteamElectricStationmustbeincompliance withtheconsumptive watermake-uprequirements.

Section5.2-Alternative SitesThefirstparagraph specifies certainparameters relatingtotheusablewaterstoragerequirement inthePondHillReservoir thatarenolongerrelevant.

Inresponsetoquestions raisedbyourstaff,PP6Lestimated thatthefullloadconsumptive useatSSESwillbe52.5cfs(1.49cms)basedonthedroughtofrecord;theQ7-10attheWilkes-Barre gageis800cfs(24.06cms);andtheconsumptive usemake-upstorageforthefullloadoperation atSSESconsuming 52.5cfsfor106daysis11,030acre-feet.

DirectorApril30,1980PP&Lstatedfurther"thatthe.PondHillProject,ifintendedsolelyforSSESflowcompensation, willbeconstructed topro-.videanactivestorageof11,600acre-feet (11,030acre-feet forSSESplus570acre-feet forlossesanddownstream conservation flow).(LetterfromN.W.Curtis,PP&L,toR.J.Bielo,SRBC,September 4,1979)"Thefirstsentenceofthesecondparagraph refersto"a1970SRBCstudy".ThestudyinquestionisonemadebytheSus-quehannaRiverBasinStudyCoordinating Committee, aninteragency taskforcemadeupofrepresentatives fromsevenFederaldepart-mentsandagenciesandthethreebasinstates.XtwaschairedbytheCorpsofEngineers.

Thereportwascompleted andreleasedseveralmonthsbeforethisCommission cameintoexistence.

Theapplicant citesthestudycorrectly intheER-OL,AppendixHfSection2.4.Section5.3..l-Benefit-Cost A~nalsis-BoActionAlternative Thebenefit-cost analysisforthe"riverfollowing" alterna-tivedeveloped inthissectionposesseveralproblems.

First,theanalysispresented inTables5.1and5.2isbasedontheassumption ofa4-dayshutdownoccurring everyyear.Thisistheaveragenumberofdaystheplantwouldbeshutdownbasedupontheflowdurationcurve.Thelatterassumption impliesthatanaverageflowyearwilloccurineachyearofthelifeoftheproject.Buthydrology doesn'tworkthatway.Theanalysisshouldhavebeenbasedupontheexpectedvalueofthepresentworthofthecostofplantshutdownfordifferent flowsequences.

Theanalysisdis-playedinTable5.3apparently utilizesmorerealistic representa-tionoftheflows.Second,thecalculations whichproducedthe160,000MWH,170,000MWH,and146,000MWHvaluesmentioned inthefirstpara-graphofthesectionarenotevidenttous.Wefeelthisshouldbeclarified.

Third,theanalysisassumesanequalprobability ofhotandcoldshutdown.

Ourunderstanding ofthesetermsisasfollows:a.Coldshutdownmeansthenuclearreactionisessen-tiallystopped,andnoheatisbeinggenerated; b.Hotshutdownmeansthatthereactorcontrolrodshavebeeninsertedtostopthereactionbutthereactionhasnotactuallyceased,heatisstillbeinggenerated, andbothprimaryandsecondary coolingloopsarecarry-ingawaytheheat.Underthiscircumstance, theconsump-DirectorApril30,1980tivelosswouldstillbecontinuing forsometime(untilcoldshutdownisobtained) andtheconsumptive usewouldbedecayingfromitsvaluepriortothebeginning oftheshutdown.

Thepointisthatifourunderstanding iscorrect,hotshut-downisnotaviablealternative toconsumptive lossmake-up,becausetheconsumptive losscontinues untilcoldshutdownisreached.Thatfurtherimpliesthatinordertousetheriverfol-lowermethod,coldshutdownwouldhavetoexistonthefirstdaythattheflowgoesbelow.Q7-10+C andhotshutdownwouldhavehadtostartsomeconsiderable periodoftimepriortothatdate.Finally,underthebriefperiodsofshutdownpostulated fortheanalysis, itisnotobvioustouswhythereshouldbeanysignificant savingsinthecostsofoperating SSES.Whilewedonotknowthecomponents ofthe"NuclearGenerating Price",surelytheyarenotentirelyvariableoperating costs.Xtap-pearsthatthisaspectoftheanalysisneedstobereconsidered.

Section5.3.2-Use ofE~xistinReservoirs ThematterofcostofwaterfromtheCowanesque Lakeprojectisnotresolvedandwillnotbeforsometimetocome.ThisCom-missionisintheprocessofdeveloping awatersupplymanage-mentprogram,onecomponent ofwhichisawaterpricingplan.Thepresumption isthatSRBCwillserveasthewholesale vendorofanywatersupplystoragedeveloped inthebasin.Untilthisen-tirematterismorefullydeveloped, noonecanmakeanymeaningful estimates ofthecostofobtaining waterfromexistingreservoirs.

Certainly itwouldnotbecorrectatthispointtoapplyeitherthepricesorpricingschemeoftheDelaware.RiverBasinCommission totheCowanesque Lakeproject.Section5.3.3-Pond HillReservoir Thereisanerrorinthestatement aboutthecostofelec-tricityforpumpingwaterintothereservoir.

Theannualpumpingcostisthesumofacapacitychargeandanenergycharge.The4,500hpofpumpingcapacityisequivalent to3,357KW.As-suminga(mid-1978) capacitychargeof$12/KW,theannualcapaci-tychargeis(3,357'KW x$12/KW)=$40,300.Theenergycharge,assuming30daysofpumping,andanenergycostof$0.025perKWHis3,357KWx30daysx24hrs./dayx$0.025/KWH

=$60,400.Thus,thetotalannualpumpingcostis($60,400+$40,300)=$100,700.(SeeTAMSDesignReport,PondHillReservoir, p.7-2andFigure15.)

DirectorApril.30,1980Weappreciate theopportunity tocommentontheDraftSupplement.

Wehopethatourcommentsarehelpful.Verytrulyyours,RobertJ.BieloExecutive Director FromtheOtliceoftheExecutive DirectorSUSQUE~ANI'-JP>>

PrVK::.-:

BASENCGINiVl':S

--"-.'721 NorthFrontStreet4Harrisburg, Pennsylvaft;a 17102April17,1978ColonelG.K.NithersU.S.Dept.oftheArmyCorpsofEngineers Baltimore DistrictP.O.Box1715Baltimore, Maryland21203

DearColonelWithers:

Thankyouforprovidi'ng uswithacopyofarequestfromPPCLaskingyourofficetodetermine whethertheuseoftheCowanesque Reservoir's potential seasonalstoragecapability tomeetSusque-hannaSteamElectricStation's consumedwatermake-upneedswouldbecompatible withCowanesques'ther functions andwhethersuchusewouldbepracticable andeconomically justified.

NenotefromthePPPLrequestthatifitisdetermined suchstorageandwateruseispermissible thecompanyintendstoseekacontractwiththeCorpsfortheuseof-Cowanesque waterandtosubmitsuchcontracttoSRBCforapproval.

IhavepolledtheCommission alternates onthestudproposalandwouldadvisethattheCommission recognizes theneeforthecompany(PPOL)toexplorevariousalternative measurestoobtain.make-upwatertocompensate forconsumptive lossesofwateratitsSusquehanna SteamElectricStationduringcertainperiodsoflowstreamflow.Further,theCommission recognizes aneedodetermine thepotential forseasonalwatersupplystorageintheCowanesque Reservoir forusesotherthanasoutlinedoytnecompany.Essentially theCommission believesthatanyreviewofthestoragecapability oftheCowanesque Reservoir shouldinclude:arangeofwatersupplyandotherwaterusestoragealternatives atthesite,adetermination oftheeffectssuchalternatives wouldhaveonfloodstorageandotherprojectuses,and.adetermination whethersuchalternatives wouldrequirereauhoriz"tion orcouldbeaccomplished undercurrentprojectauthorization andCorps'uthority.

Col.G.K.Nithers2April17,.1978TheCommission alsowishestonotethatifasaresultofthestudyapositivedetermination is"madeofthepotential capability ofCowanesque Reservoir tomeetthevaterstorageneedsoutlinedbyPP5Linitsrequestthat,suchfindingdoesnotinanyvayprejudice futureCommission actionregarding allocation ofwaterfromthisproject.Newilllookforvardtoyourfindingsandvillbepleasedtocooperate inanyvaypossible.

Verytrulyyours,p/'yRobert.BieloExecutive Director

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML18017A155&oldid=734022"