Text

Response to Request Dated December 7, 2018 for Docketing of Additional Documents to Support Nrc'S Environmental Review of the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, Subsequent License Renewal Application
	ML19007A326
Person / Time
Site:	Peach Bottom
Issue date:	01/07/2019
From:	Gallagher M; Exelon Generation Co
To:	; Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML19008A020	List: ML19007A326; ML19007A327; ML19007A328; ML19007A330; ML19007A331; ML19007A334; ML19007A335; ML19007A340;
References
	Download: ML19007A326 (214)
	v • d • e

{{#Wiki_filter:Michael P. Gallagher Exelon Nuclear Exelon Generation ~ Vice President License Renewal and Decomm1ss1oning 200 Exelon Way Kennett Square. PA 19348 610 765 5958 Office 610 765 5658 Fax www.exeloncorp.com m1chaelp.gallagher@exeloncorp.com 10 CFR 50 10 CFR 51 10 CFR 54 January 7, 2019 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATIN: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555-0001 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3 Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-44 and DPR-56 NRG Docket Nos. 50-277 and 50-278

Subject:

Response to Request dated December 7, 2018 for Docketing of Additional Documents to Support NRC's Environmental Review of the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, Subsequent License Renewal Application

References:

1. Letter from Michael P. Gallagher, Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon), to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRG) Document Control Desk, "Application for Subsequent Renewed Operating Licenses," dated July 10, 2018

2. Email from Barbara Hayes, NRG, to Nancy L. Ranek, Exelon, "Additional Documents Needed for Peach Bottom SLR Environmental Review," dated December 7, 2018 In the Reference 1 letter, Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon) submitted the Subsequent (i.e., Second) License Renewal Application (SLRA) for the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3 (PBAPS). In the Reference 2 email, the NRG requested that additional documents be docketed to support the Staff's review of the PBAPS SLRA Environmental Report (Appendix E to the SLRA). The table below lists the documents requested by the Reference 2 email and describes Exelon's responses.

Each document being provided for docketing is a separate enclosure to this letter, as indicated in the table. Two of the documents being provided (Enclosures 13 and 14) were not prepared by Exelon or its contractors (i.e., they are "NonExelon" documents), and Exelon did not control development of the documents. Accordingly, while Exelon believes the information in those documents to be accurate and complete, we cannot make any specific representation as to their accuracy or completeness. The first page of each document is marked with the designation "NONEXELON," and the electronic file names include "NON EXELON."

January 7, 2019 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page2 Enclosure# Requested Document Exelon's Response 01 Exelon Nuclear. 2005. "Letter to PADEP (T. The requested document is enclosed with file Barron) regarding Peach Bottom Atomic name: Power Station Proposal for Information 01 _ExelonNuclear_2005.pdf Collection for NPDES PA0009733." June 10, 2005. 02 Exelon Nuclear. 2008. "Letter to PADEP (L. The requested document is enclosed with file McDonnell) regarding NPDES Permit name: PA0009733, Section 316{b) Cooling Water 02_ExelonNuclear_2008.pdf Intake Structure Evaluation." December 22, 2008. 03 [NAI] Normandeau Associates, Inc. 2000. "A The requested document is enclosed with file Report on the Thermal Conditions and Fish name: Populations in Conowingo Pond Relative to 03_NAl_2000.pdf Zero Cooling Tower Operation at the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (June-October 1999)." Prepared for PECO Energy Company. February 2000. 04 [NAI] Normandeau Associates, Inc. 201 Oa. The requested document is enclosed with file "Data Report on Intake Screen Sampling at name: Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station in 04_NAl_201 Oa.pdf 2010." Prepared for Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station. December 2010. 05 [NAI] Normandeau Associates, Inc. 2011 a. The requested document is enclosed with file "Data Report or Intake Screen Sampling at name: Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station in 05_NAl_2011 a.pdf 2011." Prepared for Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station. December 2011 . 06 [NAI] Normandeau Associates, Inc. 2012a. The requested document is enclosed with file "Data Report or Intake Screen Sampling at name: Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station in 06_NAl_2012a.pdf 2012." Prepared for Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station. December 2012. 07 [NAI] Normandeau Associates, Inc. 2013a. The requested document is enclosed with file "Data Report or Intake Screen Sampling at name: Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station in 07_NAl_2013a.pdf 2013." Prepared for Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station. December 2013. 08 [NAI] Normandeau Associates, Inc. 2013b. The requested document is enclosed with file "Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station name: Entrainment Characterization Study 2012." 08_NAl_2013b_REDACTED.pdf Prepared for Exelon Generation. February 2013. A review revealed that Figures 2 and 3 in NAI 2013b are photographs of the PBAPS intake structure. marked with the phrase "Non Record Content." Accordingly, pursuant to the Pennsylvania Open Records Law, Figures 2 and 3 have been redacted from the file that is provided. 09 [NAI] Normandeau Associates, Inc. 2014a. The requested document is enclosed with file "Data Report or Intake Screen Sampling at name: Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station in 09_NAl_2014a.pdf 2014." Prepared for Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station. December 2014.

January 7, 2019 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 3 Enclosure# Requested Document Exelon's Response 10 [NAI] Normandeau Associates, Inc. 2015a. The requested document is enclosed with file "Data Report or Intake Screen Sampling at name: Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station in 1O_NAl_2015a.pdf 2015." Prepared for Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station. December 2015. Please note that the title page of the document being provided contains a title that is not consistent with the title given in the citation for the requested document. However, page 1 in the document contains a header that matches the title in the citation. Exelon has verified that "American Shad Sampling" and "Intake Screen Sampling" refer to the same sampling activities at PBAPS during 2015. 11 [NAI and ERM] Normandeau Associates, Inc. The requested document is enclosed with file and Environmental Resource Management. name: 2014. "Final Report for the Thermal Study to 11 _NAl-ERM_2014.pdf Support a 316(a) Demonstration: Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station.* Prepared for Exelon Generation. February 2014 12 [NAI and ERM] Normandeau Associates, Inc. The requested document is enclosed with file and Environmental Resource Management. name: 2017. "Final Report for Post-EPU Thermal 12_NAl-ERM_2017.pdf and Biological Monitoring Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station." Prepared for Exelon Generation. February 2017. 13 [PADEP] Pennsylvania Department of The requested document is enclosed with file NON EXELON Environmental Protection. 2011. "Letter to name: Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (J. 13_PADEP_2011_NONEXELON.pdf Brozonis) regarding NPDES Permit PA0009733 Entrainment Characterization Study Work Plan." May 5, 2011. 14 [PADEP] Pennsylvania Department of The requested document is enclosed with file NON EXELON Environmental Protection. 2014b. "Letter to name: Exelon Generation Company, LLC (P. Navin) 14_PADEP_2014b_NONEXELON.pdf regarding "401 Water Quality Certification Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Extended Power Uprate," DEP File No. EA 67-024, NRC Docket No. NRC-2013-0232, York and Lancaster County. July 23, 2014 15 [PECO] Philadelphia Electric Company. The requested document is enclosed with file 1975. "Materials prepared for the name: Environmental Protection Agency, Section 15_PEC0_1975.pdf 316(a) Demonstration for PBAPS Units No. 2

                 & 3 on Conowingo Pond." July 1975.

16 [PECO] Philadelphia Electric Company. The requested document is enclosed with file 1977. "Section 316(b) Demonstration for name: PBAPS Units No. 2 & 3 on Conowingo 16_PEC0_1977.pdf Pond." June 1977. Not applicable [NAI] Normandeau Associates, Inc. 2006. The requested document was mistakenly cited "Characterization of Mussel Habitat in the PBAPS SLR Environmental Report (ER), Utilization in the Vicinity of the Holtwood Sec. 3.6.4.1.2, as "NAI 2006." The electronic Hydroelectric Project." Prepared for file paired in Exelon's database of references Kleinschmidt Associates. March 2006. for the PBAPS SLR Environmental Report with "NAI 2006" should have been cited as follows:

January 7, 2019 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page4 Enclosure# Requested Document Exelon's Response [FERG] Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 2008. "Final Environmental Impact Statement for License Amendment. Holtwood Hydroelectric Project FERG Project No. 1881-050, Pennsylvania. FERC/EIS-0224F. November 2008. The FERG report, in which "NAI 2006" is named as a reference, is available on the internet at: https://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/ enviro/eis/2008/11-14-08.asp. Hence, no file for this document is provided. Not applicable URS Corporation. 2008. "316(b) Compliance The requested document is dated June 2008 Report With Source Waterbody Information, and is an earlier version of Exelon Nuclear Impingement Mortality Characterization 2008 (see above Enclosure 2), which is dated Study, and Design and Construction October 2008. Accordingly, the information in Technology Plan, Peach Bottom Atomic URS Corporation 2008 is redundant. Hence, Power Station." Prepared for Exelon no file is provided for URS Corporation 2008. Corporation. June 2008. This letter and its enclosures contain no regulatory commitments. If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Nancy Ranek, Environmental Lead, Exelon Generation License Renewal, at 267-533-1506. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on the 7th day of January 2019. Respectfully, Mi?!!d::fM1¥ ' Vice President - License Renewal and Decommissioning Exelon Generation Company, LLC

Enclosures:

1 through 16 cc: Regional Administrator - NRG Region I (w/o Enclosures) NRG Project Manager (Environmental Review), NRR-DMLR (w/o Enclosures) NRG Project Manager (Safety Review), NRR-DMLR (w/o Enclosures) NRG Project Manager, NRA-DORL Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (w/o Enclosures) NRG Senior Resident Inspector, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (w/o Enclosures) Rich Janati, PADEP-BNR (w/o Enclosures) D.A. Tancabel, State of Maryland (w/o Enclosures)

January 7, 2019 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ENCLOSURE 1 01_ExelonNuclear_2005.pdf Exelon Nuclear. 2005. "Letter to PADEP (T. Barron) regarding Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Proposal for Information Collection for NPDES PA0009733." June 10, 2005.

Exelon Nuclear Peach Bottom Atomic Po~r Station Telephone 717.456.7014 www.exeloncorp.com Nuclear 1848 lay Road Delta, PA 17314-9032 June 10, 2005 Thomas Barron Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Office of Water Management 400 Market Street Rachel Carson State Office Building Harrisburg, PA 17105 Re: Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station

Proposal for Information Collection for NPOES PA0009733

Dear Mr. Barron,

Enclosed 1s the Proposal for Information Collection required by the Phase II 316(b) regulations promulgated by the USEPA for Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station. It is our understanding that you will be co~rdinating the Phase II 316(b) reviews _with the other Agencies that you feel should review the required submissions. We look forward to working with t~e Department on this matter. If you have questions on this proposal, please contact Daniel Jordan (717) 456-4551, or Tracy S1gl1n (610) 765~5904. Sincerely, iv~J~ Wade Scott Chemistry Programs Supervisor Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station ccn 0 5-14067 Cc: H. A. Ryan Environmental Affairs, KS Regulatory Affairs

EXELON GENE~ATION COMPANY, LLC PROPOSAL FOR INFORMATION COLLECTION Clean Water Act Section 316(b) for Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Delta, PA Technical Consultants: Normandeau Associates, Inc. URS Corp. Triangle Economic Research May 26,2005

Table of Contents EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

......................................................._,"..............................-........................_....... I

1.0 INTRODUCTION

._.;....................................................................................- ................................ 3 1.1 FACILITY LOCATION ...................................... _............................................................................. 4 1.2 COOLINO w A'll!R INTAKE SYS'll:M ............................................................................................... 4 1.3 SOURCE WA'IDBODY DESCRIFJ'10N ............................................................. _ .............................. 6 2.0 IMPLEMENTED AND PROPOSED COMPLIANCE TECHNOLOGJF.S ..............................8 2.1 PR!LHINARY EVAWATION OP IMPLEMEN1'ED TECHNOLOOIES ................................................... 9 2.2 PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF PROPOSED TEcHNOLOGIES, OPERATIONAL MEASURES. AND RES'l'ORATJON OPTJONS TO BE Fl1R1HER EVAWA11iD IN'JHECDS............................................. 11 2.2.l Complialu:e ApproQCM8*.*.*...*...***.*..*.- ................................................................................ I 1 2.2.2 Modify ScreetU, Install Fl.sh Retum System .......................................................................... 12 2.2.3 Behavioral ~vicu..............................:................................................................................. I 2 2.2.4

Operational Controu ............................................................................................................ 12 2.2.5 Restol'ation ***************************************************************--******************************************************** JJ 3.0 LIST AND DESCIUP110N OF PREVIOUS STUDIES ........ "'""'""'....- ......- ...- -..... 14 3.1 HISTORICAL S'R.IDIBS LISTED IN APPENDIX A ............................................................................. 14 3.2 REVmw AND EVAWATION Of"J1Di .Rl!LEYANT STUDIES ............................................................. 14 3.3

SUMMARY

OP 11113 RslBVANT S'11n>IBS...................- .................................................................. l S 3.3.J *lmpingtJTMllJStudiu..............................................................................................................16 4.0 AGENCY CONSULTADONS..........._......................................................................................18 5.0 PLANS FOR ADDmONAL INFORMAnON COLLEC110N....- .........._____.... t, 5.l IMPINOEMENTSAMPLINGDBslCiN.........,_................................................................................... 19 S.2 SAMPLECOlJ.ECTION AT111ETRASH BINS ................................................................................. 19 S.3 SAMPl.E PROC'EsSll'fG **************--.. *********************************.............................................................20 5.4 FISH FOR COu.scrtON EFFlclBNCY TEsTs ..................................................................................21 s.s COUEcnoN EFFlclENCY SnJDIES .............................................................................................2) 5.6 SAMPLE HANDLING ....................................................................................................................21 5.7 QUAt.n'Y AsSURANCBANDCONntOL.........................................................................................21 5.8 DATA ANALYSIS AND RE.PoRTJNO .............................................................................................. 22 6.0 ()'rlllR INFORMATION ..........- ...................._ ......................................................................... %3 6.1 BENBFTI'S vALUATION S'ruDY ....................................................................................................23 6.2 COMPIUiHENSJVB COST EV AWATION SnJDY .......................................................- ....................24

6.3 SrrE-SPECn:tC TECHNOLOOY PLAN.............................................................................................25 6.4 srra-SPEClflC REsroRATION PLAN ............................................................................................25 7.0 R.UERENCES..- ......._._........._..................................................................................................26 APPENDIX A ............--***--***...- ..-*.........- .............................................................................................. .29 List of Figures Figure l. Map of Conowingo Reservoir showing locations of Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station and other power plants. Figure 2. Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station's cooling water intakes and discharge. Figure 3. Steps in the valuation process showing the economic losses from impingement ' mortality.

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

Exelon Generation, L.L.C. (Exelon) is submitting this Proposal for Information ColJection (PIC) to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) for the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS) in accordance with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Water Act §316(b) Phase II Rule, 40 CFR 125. As you know, the PIC is the first submission required for compli~e with the Rule, which pertai~ to existing sources of cooling water intake at electric generating stations. PBAPS is a Phase II Existing Facility as defmed in 40 CFR 129.91. PBAPS is a two-unit boiling water reactor facility with a capacity of 2,304 megawatts. Units 2 and 3 entered commercial service in 1974. Unit 1 is no longer in operation. The power plant is about 5 miles north of the Pennsylvania-Maryland border on the west shore of Conowingo Reservoir. which is the lowennost impoundmeot on the Susquehamla River in southeast Pennsylvania. Conowingo Reservoir was formed in 1928 with the construction of Conowingo Hydroelectric Station. Since the facility withdraws cooling water from a reservoir, it is required to meet only the Phase II Rule's impingement performance standard (80 to 95% reduction). This is consistent with the determination that the EPA made in Appendix A of the Phase ll Rule when it based its cost estimates on PBAPS only having to meet the impingement performance standard. PBAPS uses a once-through cooJing system to remove waste heat from the station's condenserS. The circulating water for both units is withdrawn through an outer intake structure located on the western shoreline of Conowingo Reservoir. through two 3-acre jntake basins (one serving each unit), and th~n through the original (inner) intake structure. Exelon conducted a preliminary assessment of existing and potential tedmological, operational, and restoration measllR!s to determine which would be most applicable and feasible at PBAPS and, thus, warrant further evaluation in the Comprehensive Demonstration Study (CDS). In addition to this assessment, Exelon conducted a preliminary evaluation of the potential benefits and costs associated with various compliance measures. Exelon's preliminary assessment found that the original design to supply cooling water to Units 2 and 3 consisted of just the inner intake structure. When the plant was .under co~truction, it was realized that most fish entering the intake canal would become trapped near the inner intake screens due to the high water velocity approaching the screens and the absence of lateral escape routes. Therefore, the fish would be exposed to the high intake velocities for long periods, resulting in exhaustion, impingement and

death. Numerous fish swim speed tests were perfonned in order to select an appropriate intake velocity for a new intake structure that would minimize impingement.

Consequently. the improved outer intake structure was subsequently installed at the mouth of the intake canal to reduce the intake velocity by approximately 70%.

Exelon considers the inner intake structure to be the baseline intake for which the calculation baseline rate_, of impingement mortality will be computed. Current impingement mortality at the outer intake will be evaluated against the calculation baseline to estimate the magnitude of reductions already achieved by installing the new intake structure. Based on a preliminary evaluation, *we conclude that substantial reductions in fish impingement have been achieved due primarily to the much lower water intake velocity at the outer intake screens. PBAPS's seasonal reductions in circulating water volume also reduce impingement from baseline. .Exelon will evaluate the previously implemented technological and operational changes in the CDS to determine how . much progress has already been achieved toward meeting the performance standard. Those measures that Exelon has select;e<i for further analysis include technologies to improve the survival of impinged fish, flow reduction and technologies to reduce impingement, and natural resource restoration.

Exelon anticipates that the review of compliance alternatives will include a site-specific cost benefit evaluation that compares the relative monetary value of the resource being protected to the cost of the fish protection measures being considered.

Intensive impingement sampling was conduct~ at PBAPS in November 1973 through March 1979. In most years since 1982. as part of the American shad restoration program, impingement of emigrating juvenile American shad bu been monitored at the outer intake. In addition. fish sampling in Conowingo Reservoir was performed during 1996 - 1999 in support of zero cooling tower operation. Exelon

believes that the existing impingement and fisheries data are sufficient to characterize fish species composition.

size, Wtµng, seasonal patterns, vulnerability to impingement, and facton that contribute to impinge_ment. In general, species composition of impinged fishes, except for the migratory fishes during the fall outmigration period, is similar to that observed dwing the intensive study petiod (1973 - 1979). In short, channel catfish. white crappie. bluegill, and gizzard shad are the most frequently impinged fish currently. However, Exelon is proposing additiQl181 impingement sampling to supplement and valida~ the existing data and to support our calculation of the impingement reductions already achieved. As mandated by the Phase II Rule, this PIC accomplishes its objective of providing the PADEP_with sufficient details on the infonnation that Exelon intends to *collect and evaluate in order to assure that the PBAPS CDS will fulfill the applicable requirements of the Phase II Rule. 2

1.0 INTRODUCTION

                                                              . ~*

Section 316(b) of the. Clean Water Act requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ensure that the location, design, construction, and capacity of industrial cooling water intake structures *reflect the best technology available (STA) for reducing adverse* environmental impacts. The Federal Ruic implementing 3 l 6(b) performance standlrds for Phase 11. existing *steam electric power stations was promulgated July 9, 2004 .and became effective September 7, 2004. This regulation requires that facilities reduce impingement mortality by 80 to 9S% and, if applicable, entrainment by 60 to 90% from a calculation baseline. The Rule also provides a number of compliance alternatives to achieve these standards. Finally, the Rule allows site-specific detennination of BTA based on cost and benefit analyses.

~x~on's    PBAPS meets EPA's dermition of a ..Phase II Existing Facility became it is:

a point source requiring a NPDES permit that commenced construction before January 17, 2002,
a generator of electric power for transmission or sale, and

     ~  designed to withdraw greater than or equal to 50 million gallons per day (MGD) of water, at least 25% of which is used for cooling.

Determination of the applicable pelformance standards for PBAPS is based on the source water type. Since PBAPS withdraws cooling water from a reservoir, Conowingo Reservoir. the applicable perfonnance standard is 80 to 95% reduction in impingement I mortality. This is oonsistent with the detennination that EPA made in Appendix A of the . I Phase ll Rule wh~ it based its cost estimates on PBAPS only havina to meet the I impingement perfonnance standard. CompliaJiee with the final 116(b) regulations requires PBAPS to submit a PIC to the Director of the PADEP for review and comment. The PIC is the first submission required for 316(b) compliance. This document _is the PIC for PBAPS and is organized as follows:

Section l describes the main requirements of the Phase D Rule and how it applies to PBAPS. It also provides infonnation on the location, design, and operation of the facility and its cooling water intake structure system;
Section 2 provides a preliminary review of technologies and operatibnal and/or restoration compliance m~sures already implemented and the measures proposed to be evaluated further in the CDS;
Section 3 *summarizes past studies o( impingement and discusses their relevance for development of PBAPS'.s CDS; 3
Section 4 summarizes relevant historical consultations with the State and Federal fish and wildlife agencies;
Section 5 describeS the sampling plan for the new field study; and
Section 6 presentS other infonnation available for PBAPS that will assist the Director in commenting on the CDS.

In preparing this PIC, we have relied on:

existing design. constnlction and operational specifications for the cooling w~ter intake systems;
available ecological impa~ assessment data col1ected at PBAPS;
information describing the ecology of Conowingo Reservoir;
available literature about fish protection alternatives;
generally accepted cost-benefit methodologies; and
specific guidance provided by EPA dming its rule making.

1.1 Facility Locadon PBAPS is a two-unit boiling water reactor with a total output of 2,304 megawatts. Unit 2 began commercial operation in July 1974 and Unit 3 entered commercial service in December 1974. Unit 1 is no longer in service. The power plant is about Smiles from .the Pennsylvania-Maryland border on the west shore of Conowingo Reservoir, a 9,000-acre impoundment on the lower Susquehanna River in southeast Pennsylvania (Figure 1). Conowingo Reservoir was formed in 1_928 with the construction of Conowingo Hydroelectric Station Project. 1.2 Cooling Water Intake System PBAPS uses a once-through cooling system to remove waste heat from the station* s condensers. The circu~ing water for both units is withdrawn from the Reservoir through an outer intake structure located on the shoreline of Conowingo Reservoir. The withdrawn water flows through two 3-acre intake basins (one serving each unit). and then through the original, inner intak~ structure (Figure 2). The outer intake is about 500 ft long an4 32 ft high. There are 29 trash racks on the face of the intake followed by a set of 24 vertical traveling screens. The trash racks. consisting of 0.2.5-inch by 3-inch steel bars spaced 3.5-inches on center, are designed to prevent large debris and ice from entering the intake. They are cleaned periodically on an as needed basis. The traveling screens are located about 44'ft downstream of the trash racks. Each screen is lO ft wide and has 3/8-inch niesh openings. The design average water velocity 4

approaching the face of the screens (approach velocity) is no more than 0.75 ft/sec at low reservoir elevation and about 0.60 ft/sec at nonnat elevation. The average water velocity passing through the screen mesh (through-screen velocity), at normal reservoir level, is about 1 ft/sec. The screens are nonnally rotated when the pressure differential between the front and back of the screen reaches a particular level. During high debris loading and periods of icing. the screens can be rotated continuously. The screens can be rotated at either 5 or 10 ft/min. Debris (including fish) is removed from the screens by a front spray-wash system and washed into a sluiceway. The debris is dewatered as it passes over a vibrating screen at each end of the sluiceway and collected in a trash bin. No fish or debris are returned to the river.

Before reaching the inner intake, the water flows through the intake basins. The initially constructed intake was the single inner structure, which is close to the plant within the embayment or intake canal, as shown in Figure 2.- When the improved outer intake was consttucted, the intake canal became the basins between the two intake structures.

Earthen dikes separate the basins from the Reservoir. *

Water enters the inner intake through eight screen bays. Two bays screen the service water flows and six filter the water going to the circulating water pumps. The original standard vertical traveling screens in the circulating water bays were replaced with 3/8-in mesh dual-flow (dual*entry singl~exit) traveling ~ in the late 1990s to alleviate carry-over of trash to the condensen. These screens differ from standard traveling screens. such as those at the outer intake, in that the screen faces are ro~ 90 degrees so that incoming water is filtered by both the ascending and descending sides of the screen.

A benefit to this type of screen is* that debris always stays on the upstream side of the screem, effectively eliminating any debris carcyover to the clean side of the ~. The.. screens have a spray-wash system on the ascending side of the. screens to clean them of

debris and fish. Fish live and grow in the basins and can enter them in several ways. e.g.,

through the screens when they are small, carried over the screens if they are not removed during the screen cleaning process,

and through the cross-tie gate from the discharge canal in winter (recirculation system). The materials removed. from these screens are deposited in a dumpster or trash bin.

Approximately 47 ft downstream from the dual flow screens. there are the six circulating .! water pumps. three per unit. each with a capacity of about 361 MGD (250,880 gpm) for a facility total of 2,168 MGD (3,360 cubic feet per second [ds]). Generally, Exelon operates all six *pumps from April through Octobel:. From approximately November through March, Exelon operates four P-Umps to optimize plant performance. This ____. ,

operational change was initiated in 1984. I On an as-needed basis when ice or debris .restricts water flow through the outer intake structure, a cross-tie gate between the discharge basin and the intake basin is opened to re-~irculate some of the heated discharge water.

During passage through the condensers the temperature of the water is increased by_abou~ .

21°F at full load. The heated non-contact cooling water is discharged into a common s

basin and flows down a 4,700-ft long canal to the Reservoir (Figure 2). Until 1997,

approximately 58% of the cooling water was pumped -through one or two helper cooling towers (as many as five were available) when needed on a seasonal basis to moderate the discharge temperature. The remainder of the discharge water was*passed directly into the discharge canal. As a result of a 4-ycar fishery study of Conowingo Reservoir in 1996 to 1999, and with subsequent concurrence of the regulatory ageµcies, operation of the helper cooling towers was formally ended in 2001.

The entire circulating water flow ia discharged to Conowingo Reservoir via a discharge structure located at the end of the discharge canal. The discharge structure contains one rectangular fixed opening and three regulating ga.tes. The automatic operation of the three regulating gates maintains the velocity of the submerged jet discharge between S to 8 ft/s. The high velocity at the jet discharge provides relatively rapid dissipation of heat and discourages entry of large numbeni off1Sb into the discharge canal. 1.3 Source Waterbody Description Conowingo Reserv~ir, the lower most impoundment on the Susquehanna River, was fonned in 1928 by the backwater of Conowingo Hydroelectric Dam (river mile 10). The Reservoir is bounded upstream by Holtwood Dam (river mile 24) built in 1914. PBAPS, which is at river mile J7, is approximately equidistant from *the two dams (Figure 1). Prior to the construction of these dams and two .other upstream dams (Safe Harbor at river mile 31 and York Haven at river mile SS), the natural river was wide, relatively shallow. and characterized by areas of swift current with a bottom largely of bedrock, much like which exists today downstream of Cooowingo Dam and in the free flowing areas upstream of Yodt Haven Dam. Conowingo Reservoir has a surface area of about 9,000 acres and has a gross storage capacity of at least 310,000 acre-feet. It is 14 miles long and averages 1 mile in width. The average depth of the Reservoir is 20 ft with a maximum depth of nearly 90 ft in the lower Reservoir behind Conowingo Dam. The elevation at nonnal full Reservoir is 108.S ft (Conowingo Datum) and the minimum for operation of Conowingo Hydroelectric Station is 98.S ft. Reservoir elevation is normally maintained at 106.S ft or higher for recreational use on weekends between Memorial Day and Labor Day and at levels no less than 104.5 ft at other times for operation of PBAPS. Thennal stratification, typically characteristic of many temperate lakes and reservoirs, has not been observed in Conowingo Reservoir-. - However, during the summertime,

generally at water temperatures exceeding 75°F and river flows <12,000 cfs, particularly in deeper areas of the lower third of the Reservoir, limited dissolved oxygen stratification can occur. However, this stratification usually is not strong or stable and quickly breaks down during periods of heavy rain or high winds (Mathur et al. 1987). The operation of PBAPS has not had a detectable effect on this phenomenon.

The volume and flow rates of the Reservoir are variable because of the controlled outflows and inflows that can occur on a daily basis from controlled inflows of up to 6

32,000 cfs from Holtwood Hydroelectric Dam and up to 31,000 cfs (during generation) from Muddy Run Pumped Storage Station (river mile 23). Controlled outflows of up to . S!S,000 cfs occur at' Conowingo Hydroelectric Station and of up to 27,000 cfs (during pumping) ac Muddy Run Pumped Storage Reservoir. FERC-mandated seasonally adjusted minimum flow requirements apply at Conowingo Dam while no minimum flow requirements exist at the upstream dams. 1

2.0 IMPLEMENTED AND PROPOSED COMPLIANCE TECHNOLOGIES This section provides a brief discussion of the baseline for detennining compliance with the impingement performance standard at PBAPS. It continues with a preliminary evaluation of existing implemented technologies. The primary technology already implemented to minimize impingement is the outer intake structure. In addition, seasonal flow reduction further mluces impingement. FinaUy, this section presents the results of a preliminary assessment of the technologies to be evaluated in the CDS. As described previously, PBAPS must reduce impingement mortality by 8().95%. This reduction is measured from a "calculation baseline." The calculation can be generalized .as having three basic steps.

Calculate the impingement mortality for the "baseline" condition,
Cakulate the impingement mortality after whatever teclmological fixes you propose to use or have already installed, and *
Demonstrate that the reduction attributed to teclmological or operational changes and/or restoration falls within the range of u:ceptable percentage reductions. (The si~specific approach is an exception.)
As described in the Phase II Rule, EPA' s '1>aseline" c0nsists of:
Once-through cooling,
Opening of the intake located at the shoreline near the surface,
Standard 3/8-inch traveling screen oriented parallel to the shoreline, and
Baseline practices, procedures, and structuraJ configuration that the facility would maintain in the absence of any structural or operational controls, including flow or velocity reduction, implemented in whole or part for the purposes of reducing impingement mortality or entrainment.

Based on a preliminary assessment, "baseline" conditions at PBAPS are:

Once-through cooling.
The design features of original inner intake structure at the original shoreline of the Reservoir. This baseline intake lacks the design improvements which were built into the present outer intalce to reduce intake velocity and to enable fish to escape from the screens, and thereby minimize impingement. *
The baseline intake is equipped . with standard 3/8-inch traveling screens (not dual-flow) and has JO screens to ftlter the circulating and service water flow.
All impinged materials are deposited into a trash receptacle resulting in 100%

impingement mortality. 8

All of the circulating water pumps are always operated at full design flow and none of the heated effluent is re-circulated in the winter. Full design flow is passed through the baseline intake at all times.
2,1 Preliminary Evaluation of Implemented Technologies In this section we describe the technologies and opeiational measures that have already been implemented at PBAPS and present a preliminary evaluation of the reduction in impingement mortality that has resulted from their implementation.

PBAPS currently operates as a once-through cooJi.r,ig facility, consistent wi.tb the baseline condition. Although the facility had helper coolina towers for part-time use, they are no longer required as a result of s~dies performed in the late 1990's which showed that the aquatic.community was not being banned by the thermal discharge. The original design to supply cooling water for Uni~ 2 and 3 consisted of only the inner intake structure. The intake has a total of six vertical traveling screens to filter the circulating water and four to filter service water. The original intake structure was built at the original shoreline of the reservoir. However, fill placed jtJst upstream to create 18114 for station. facilities and just downstream for the cooling towers created a* canal leading to the inner intake. The total screened area for circulating Water W8S about 60 ft wide (six 10-ft wide screens) and 20 ft deep, for an estimated cross sectional area of 1,200 ft2. Given the total circulating water intake volume of 3,360 cfs, the construction engineers estimated that the original configuration would have had an* average intake approach velocity of about 2.8 feet per second (ft/s). This high velocity was deemed to. be adverse for fish. based on high impingement rates observed at other cooling water intakes with similar high velocities. Thus, extensive studies (over S80 laboratory tests) of the swim speeds of resident and anadromous fishes were performed to determine the threshold escape velocity for the common fishes.

The results of these studies, combined with experienc~ from other power stations and i knowledge of fish behavior, provided a basis for the design. modifications needed to minimize impingement. It was realized that most fish entering the intake canal would I

become trapped near the inner intake screens due to the high water velocity approaching I the screens and the absence of lateral escape routes. *Therefore, they would be exposed to the high intake velocities for long periods, resulting in exhaustion, impingement and I death. I White crappie was found to be the weakest swimmer, generally unable to escape velocities exceeding 0.75 ft/s. Consequently, based on the swimming ability of white crappie, Exelon installed an improved outer intake structure to filter all of the water I withdrawn from the Reservoir. The new structure was lengthened to approximately .500 I ft to maintain*an -average intake approach veloclty of less than or equal to 0. 75 ftls at the I face of the screens at the lowest operating Reservoir level of 98.5 ft. The new intake was I provided with 24 vertical traveling screens (12 per unit) equipped with 3/8-in mesh to -. I filter all of the water going into the plant. Also, the new intake structure was located I 9 i

I

about 750 ft outward from the original inner screens site and set parallel with the new shoreline to provide fish with lateral escape routes, thus further minimizing impingement. Because the design Reservoir elevation for the velocity detennination was conservatively set at 98.5 ft, the actual average velocity is less than 0.7S ft/s at the higher nonnal reservoir elevations. The 0.75 ft/sec design intake velocity of the outer screens represents about a 73% reduction in average intake velocity compared to the original intake configuration. The combination of improvements built into the outer intake structure has substantially reduced the number of impinged fish. However, we lack impingement data for the original inner intake, which is the baseline, to calcuiate the percent reduction. We note that reducing intake velocity by increasing the screened area bas the same effect as reducing intake flow (volume) while keeping the screened area the same. This conclusion is consistent with EPA's fmding that "reducing ;ntCIU by installing flow reduction technolog;es will result in similarly high reduction of impinged and entrained organisms, ..." (69 Fed. Reg. 41,612). In addition. "EPA.believu the record contains ample evidence w support the proposition that entrainment is related to flow (see DCN 2-013L-R15 and 2-0131) while impingement is related to a combination offlow, intaU velocity and fish swim speed (see DCN 2-029). *** Swim speeds of affected species cu well as intake velocity must be talcen into account to predict rates of impingement in relation to flow in order to account for t~ ability of juvenile and adult life stages *of species to avoid impingement* (emphasis added). Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that the reduction in numbers of fish impinged bas been substantial. Exelon will further evaluate the available da~

perform a search for comparable data from other facilities, and may propose a field investigation designed to estimate the magnitude of impingement reduction that has already occurred at PBAPS.

Exelon has made additional progress toward achieving the national impingement perfonnance standard due to intake volume reductions. The volume of cooling water withdrawn through the outer intake screens is reduced by one-thin! when four circulating water pumps instead of the full complement of six are operating, usually in November through March which correlates with the period when impingement is highest. This one-r.bird reduction in flow and, consequently, intake velocity further reduces impingement rates. Some additional volume reduction also occurs when the cross-tie gate is opened to allow temporary recirculation of a portion of the heated effluent back into the intake basins when ice or debris restricts flow through the outer intake structure. Exelon will evaluate the impingement mortality reduction that occurs due to reducing the circulating water flow. 10

2.2 Preliminary Evaluation of Proposed Technologies, Operational Measures, and Restoration Options to be Further Evaluated Jn the CDS E~elon conducted a preliminary evaluation of the technologies and operational measures that have potential to enable PBAPS to comply with the perfonnance standard for impingement. Technologies were reviewed for compatibility with site-specific conditions, potential effectiveness, and cost. The technologies were screened to determine which are viable for the site and if further assessment is warranted. Based on the preliminary evaluation, these compliance alternatives, technologies, and operational measures emerge as warranting consideration in the CDS:

Demonstrate that selected technologies, operational, and/or restoration *measures
in place of or in combination with existing technologies meet the performance standard, or

    *  ~ite-specific  BTA determination based on cost-benefit, with the following options or combinations of options:

o Include progress already made toward achieving the performance standard by replacing the "baseline" intake structure with the improved outer intake structure and implementing flow reduction measures o Add a fish return system to the outer intake structure o Add fish baskets to the outer intake screens o Employ behavioral controls such as strobe lights and/or sound.

o Make other modifications to the outer screens, e.g.* incorporate smooth screening material to enhance fish survival o Replace the existing outer intake screens, e.g.. with Geiger MultiDisc rotary screeo8 incorporating fish handling technology o Obtain additional volwnelvelocity reduction through reduced (optimized) pump operation and recirculation of cooling water o Employ restoration, e.g., fish stocking or removal of dams on tributaries to the Susquehanna River that block passage of migratory fish . o Evaluate other options that become apparent during CDS evaluation and appear justifiable. 2.2.1 . Compliance Approaches Exelon selected the two compliance approaches listed above based on the preliminary evaluation of the measures already implemented to reduce impingement mortality, fish species believed to comprise most of the impingement losses, the anticipated magnitude of current impingement, ~d preliminary assessment of the value of impingement losses at PBAPS. For the first compliance approach. Exelon will perform a more detailed evaluation of the _magnitude of impingement reduction due to design and operational measures already adopted. Additional compliance measures will then be evaluated to II

determine those that will provide the incremental reductions needed to achieve the performance standard. The site-specific alternative is being advanced because many of the technologies evaluated thus far are likely to result in "costs that are significantly greater than the benefits. To further evaluate this supposition, Exelon intends to conduct a site-specific cost and benefits evaluation in the CDS. 2.2.2 Modi/J Screens, Install Fish Retum System Modification or replacement of the existing screens is being considered because the present traveling screen system does not have any provision for returning fish back to Conowingo Reservoir. An initial step will be to evaluate means of returning impinged fish back to the Reservoir as an incremental enhancement to the present intake screens. A further enhancement could include changes such as addition of simple fish baskets (not necessarily enhanced Ristroph baskets) to the screen panels and .a low-pressure spray-wash and fish return system incorporated with more frequent or continuous rotation of the screens. This may be a viable approach to reduce impingement mortality sufficiently to achieve the performance standard in combination with other measures. In addition, this approach is consistent with EPA' s detennination in Appendix A of the Phase II Rule which identified the addition of a fish handling and return system to the existing traveling screen system at the outer intake as the most appropriate compliance technology for addressing impingement at PBAPS. If necessary and justifiable within the limits of the benefit valuation, Exelon may evaluate more extensive changes to the outer intake structure. For example, vertical traveling screens equipped with Ristropb/Fletcher modified baskets and a fish return system have proven to yield high impingement survival rates at other large, once-through power plants. As an additional modification, if needed, the performance (impingement survival) of Ristroph/Fletcher-modified screens may be improved by including "smooth screen technology. i.e.. replacing the original coarse woven mesh with a smoother screening material. If screen replacement is justifiable, a relatively new technology, the Oeiger Multidisc screen, may also be considered. This screening technology is installed and operating successfuJly at the D. C. Cook Plant on Lake Michigan and is currently being evaluated for impingement and entrainment reduction in a retrofit situation at a power plant on the Potomac River. 2.2.J Behavioral Devkes Another option is to employ behavioral devices, such as sound or light systems, as an enhancement to one or_more scree11 modifications to divert fish away from the intake structure before they contact the screens. Behavioral devices have limited potential to reduce impingement but may prove, upon further evaluation, to have the potential to be effective with the species at this facility to achieve incremental impingement reductions. 2.2.4 Operational Control8 Reduction in volume of water pumped is a proven way to reduce impingement and will be evaluated. Reducing the number of circulating water pumps in operation or use of variable speed pumps when the full design circulating flow is not needed for efficient plant operation will be further evaluated. Another measure that will be evaluated is 12

recirculation of a portion of the heated effluent through the cross tie-gate between the discharge basin and the intake basins. Flow reduction can be implemented with other options, such as those previously mentioned, to achieve compliance with the perfonnance standard. 2.2.S Restoration If restoration is not eliminated as a compliance option in the Pha8e II Rule, various restoration alternatives may be applicable to PBAPS and will be considered for the CDS. Most likely, potential restoration measures will be evaluated within the limits indicated by the benefits valuation.

13

3.0 LIST AND DESCRIPI'ION OF PREVIOUS STUDIES The second regulatory requirement of th~ PIC involves .providing a list and deScrlption of historical studies that characteri:ze impingement mortality. entrainment. and the physical and biological conditions near the cooling water intake structures. In addition, the PIC must also describe the relevance of these data to developing the CDS. A list of the . historical studies that have been conducted for PBAPS is provided in

Appendix A of this PIC. This section includes a summary of the relevant studies.

3.1 Historical Studies Listed in Appendix A The impingemen~ fishery and entrainment studies conducted at PBAPS in the 1970s provided the basis for development of the station's 316(a) and 316(b) demonstrations which were issued in 1977. Numerous other studies in support of the demonstrations were perfonned .over many subsequent years to further evaluate . the effects of the station's thermal discharge and to evaluate the hydrothermal and biological characteristics in Conowingo Reservoir. Impingement and entrainment studies as well as other ecological, engineering and technical studies continued to be conducted through the late 1970s and early 1980s. More recently, impingement sampling has been performed to monitor river herring and American shad takings on the intake saeens during the fall out-migration period. In addition. a fisheries study to evaluate the effects of the thermal *discharge was performed in the late 1990s to support elimination of the helper cooling towers at PBAPS. 3.2 Review and Evaluatloa of the Relevant Studies The seteetion of technologies for fish *protection at the PBAPS to *meet the 316(b) perfonnance standard is based, in part; 'on the species and life stages of the important fish subject to the effects of the intake structure, their spatial and temporal abundance, and their relative hardiness. Since the performance standard is based on reduction from a calculated baseline, some understanding of the fish communities in the source waterbody and their interaction with the intake structure is necessary to make predictions about the efficacy of potential compliance options. The studies viously performed at the PBAPS provide the information needed to achieve this understanding. We perfonned a review of the study designs employed* in the sampling programs for impingement to assess data adequacy and relevance to current conditions. Our .review included:

Sampling gear and deployment methods,
Sampling frequency and periodicity,
Sample processing, and 14
Data analysis methods Results of this examination show that:
Sample col~ection gear and methods used for the impingement studies were state*

of*the*art at the time they were employed. In addition. essentially these same methodologies have been used in more recent impingement studies conducted at

similar facilities and would be applicable to impingement studies today.
Sample design was adequate to describe diet. seasonal, and inter*annual variability. The field studies were performed over several years .and sampling frequency was sufficient to describe diet and seasonal variability.

     * : Acceptable measures were employed to assure collection of quality data. In fact, several of the studi~ formed the basis of l'eer-reviewed technical publications.

We believe that the* existing impingement and fish community data are sufficiently representative to characterize species composition, relative abundance, seasonal patterns, and ~Inerability to intake impacts. - 3.3 .. Summary of the Re~evant Studiea Extensive fishery sampling of Conowingo Reservoir between 1966 and 1999 showed that the Reservoir supports a productive and divene wann water fish community*. Recent sampling. in l 996 - 1999, indicated patterns in temporal variation and spatial distribution similar to those observed in 1966 to 1980. Except for the species introduced in Conowingo Reservoir since 1966. the relative abundance of the previously designated representative important species (RIS) has nOt shown significant changes. However, the abundance of white crappie, though within the historical range. has declined since the introduction of gizzard shad, which is now the most abundant species. While the gizzard shad is numerically dominant. its population size in the Reservoir tends to fluctuate widely from year to .year.* The game fishes such as the smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, yellow perch and walleye are well represented. No designated threatened or eridangered. species are pres_ent, nor are any commercially ~ested fishes present in the Reservoir. *

The following fishes were designated 8S the RIS for the original 316(a) and 316(b) demonstrations for PBAPS: white crappie, channel catfish, bluegill, gizzard shad.

smalJmouth bass, largemouth bass, walleye, bluntnose minnow and spotfm shiner. The alewife, American shad, blueback herring and striped bass have been re-introduced during the last 30 years. Except for the American shad, large populations of the other species ~ve not developed. No large concentrations of fish have been observed near the PBAPS intake location, even prior to operation of PBAPS. *Additionally, the themtal effluent from PBAPS-has neither acted as a thermal barrier to the upstream movement of American shad nor does it

impede the downstream winter movement of white crappie.. The location of PBAPS was IS

- - - --------- selected to minimize potential interference with fish spawning areas; studies had shown that major spawning areas of common fishes in Conowingo *Reservoir do not occur near the PBAPS intake. Records of fishes passed upstream at the Conowingo East Fish Lift and Holtwood Fish Lift provide additional data on the fish fauna of Conowingo Reservoir and species that may be impinged. Except for the migratory fishes, the species composition is similar to that observed in Conowingo Reservoir prior to the construction and operation of the fish lifts. Gizzard shad is the most abundant species passed at the lifts. American shad. blueback herring, and alewife have collectively comprised up to 35% of total fish passed dependent on prevailing hydrological conditions. 3.3.l Impingement Studiea Intensive impingement sampling was conducted at PBAPS in November 1973 through March 1979. Sampling frequency varied from two to four 12-hour periods per wee.le: in 1973 through 1976 with four 12-hour periods the nonn in July-September. *After 1976. sampling generally was conducted weekly (one 24-hour sample per.week). Fish were identified. measured, and weighed. More recently in most years since 1982, as part of the American shad restoration program, impingement of emigrating juvenile American shad on outer intake screens has been quantified during fall. Sampling has occurred three times weekly, generally from October through mid-December. The out-migration data provide information on siu, timing, and origin (hatchery versus wild) of juvenile American shad outmigrants. Although the primaey focus of this program bas been for enumeration of Am~can shad impinged, information on other fishes was also obtained. In general, species composition of impinged fishes, except for-the migratory fishes during the outmigration period, is similar to that observed in these same months during the intensive, quantitative study period (1973 - 1979). The number of taxa impinged during the outmigration period (generally September through mid-December) has ranged from 14 to 27 with gizzard shad dominating the collections (channel catfish and bluegill were the other numerous species). Although impingement rates appear to be affected by a host of hydrological-physical factors -and the year-class strength of the particular fishes, the number of alosids (American shad. blueback herring, and alewife) observed in impingement collections appears to be dependent on numbel'S of adult alosids passed by . fish lifts and the numbers of young American shad stocked annually by the*Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission. In the historic studies, channel catfish, white crappie, bluegill, and gizzard shad were most frequently impinged. Most of these fishes averaged less than 120 mm (ages 0 and I). In general, impingement rates for the most common fishes were highest from November to March. However, average rates were affected by a few episodes of high impingement coincident to exceptionally high river flows. We believe that the existing 16

4*.0 AGENCYCONSULTATIONS Exelon .submitted the initial 316(b) demonstration to the PADEP (then DER) in 1977. Subseqilently, PADEP sent Exelon notice that they accepted the conclusions of the document which demonstrated that Best Technology Available was employed at the facility. Exelon did not hold any further discussions specific to 316(b) at PBAPS tmtil November 19, 2004 when Exelon met with' PADEP representatives to discuss me Phase 11 316(b) implementation process in general. PADEP did not raise any specific issues or concerns with respect to impingement and entrainment at PBAPS. Subsequently. on May 2S,

                                                                                      .I 2005, *Exelon met with representatives of the PADEP, Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission. and Maryland Department of NaturaJ Resources to review the draft PIC.

No other consultations that are relevant to compliance with the §316(b) Rule have occurred with any envirorunental or fish and wildlife agency. 18

5.0 PLANS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION COLLECTION This section describes the fieJd study we propose to conduct at PBAPS. The objective of the sampling program is to detennine the species and numbers of fish impinged on the traveling screens at the PBAPS outer intake structure. Data collected in this sampling program will also be used to identify temporal trends in impingement abundance, to evaluate the utility of the existing impingement study da~ and to support preparation of the CDS. Exelon also intends to collect additional data to support evaluation of impingement at PBAPS and evaluation of technologies. operational

measures, an<:iJor restoration measures. However, specific plans for these efforts will depend on additional evaluation of the measures already implemented to reduce impingement These additional data collection efforts will not affect how the proposed *study to develop a scientifically valid estimate of cw,arrent impingement is performed, but it is expected that the new data will validate and support the calculations of impingement reductions that have occurred due to Exelon's design improvements and operational measures.

5.1 Impingement SampUng Design Impingement sampling will be perfonned over one 24-hour sampling event per week at each outer screenhouse over a 1-year period. Each weekly sampling event will be

scheduled for the same day each week to assure systematic spacing of the events. fu some weeks, holidays, equipment or plant operations may interfe(e with this schedule and an adjustment of a day or two may be necessary.

Note that the screens are normally run in response to a pressure (head) differential, *but that they may run continuously when debris loads are high, usually as a result of high river flows associated with stonns. or when icing is expected. Therefore, provision will be made with the station personnel to assure the screens are operated when needed for sampling and to identify periods when the screens may be running continuously. Coordination with PBAPS personnel would occur .to identify periods when screen or other equipment is undergoing maintenance which could interfere with impingement sampling. The weekly sampling events will not be subdivided into predominantly day and night collection periods on a routine basis to obtain infonnation about diel variability in impingement since PBAPS consistently operates at a constant high generation level. Variable operation of PBAPS to take advantage of diel differences in impingement is not a viable*compliance option. 5.2 Sample Collecdon at the Trash Bins Each weekly sampling event will start by running the screens for at least one revolution to clean them of previously impinged fish. The organisms from this initial cleaning run will to be disposed of as per the nonnal practice at the facility. After the cleaning run. a 19

clean net or basket, trash receptacle, or other device will be installed to capture the impinged fish from the periodi~ screen cleanings during the impingement sampling event. Fish collected from the subsequent periodic screen cleanings (the sample collection periods) const~tute the periodic samples. Starting with a clean bin or placing a net over the bin will adequately collect the sample for each sample collection period. If a net or basket is used, it will have a mesh size smaller than the mesh size of the intake screens (3/8*inch) to help assure adequate capture of the impinged fish. 5.3 Sample Processin1 For each sample collection period (within each weekly sampling event), the fish will be separated from the debris, identified to species, categorized as to condition. and enumerated. If there ar~ two size groups (e.g. young of the year and older) then each size group will be enumerated, mea5ured ~ categorized as to condition separately. If possible, the impingeme~t sample ~chniciao will be on-hand to observe the sampling run of the screens in order to determine the condition of impinged fish as soon as they are collected. Fish will be identified to species and at least 20 individuals of each species or size group (age class) in each sample will be measured for total length to the nearest millimeter. If excessive numbers of a particular species are collected in a sample, the total number in each length group for that species will be estimated from a sub-sample count or weight extraP<<>lation. Care will be taken that the sub-sampling technique is random to minimize size bias. For each sample the following information will be recorded on the appropriate data sheets: *.

Date and time of the day at the start ~d end of each sample.
Fish enumerations, measurements and observations of condition.
Intake water temperature and dissolved oxygen at the start and end of each sampling period. *
Identification of the circulating and service water pumps in operation*for each unit during the sampling period. *
Identification of the SCICens in operation during the sampling period.
Note if the cross-tie gate is in open and heated water is being re-circulated, obtain any available infonnation about the use of the tie-gate during the sampling period.
Reservoir water level.
Names of the sample collectors. *
Any deviations from the sampling protocolt unusual conditions, or other pertinent observations (e.g., observations of dead/moribund gizzard shad drifting into the intake).

20

                                                   - -      ---*- . -

S.t mW. fir Collectloa llfider1cJ T~ts

  ,A.fa: taaly,is.. spcci.-iens needct far Ile next rollection efficiency study will be retained.

At least 100 fish rer ~pecies.Aerl1tf1 d ass are needed for each calendar quarter's release, of 1hose ~cies rial:iag ap a1 lus1 lOCll rf 1he quarter's total collection. The fish will be fror.en lll'til need eel, If Jq!Je!aJtii"tes of thase species making up more than 10% of a q.ta.tter's ttlll eollfaio.11. are aot naiktlle. l!ubstitutes may be selected from species of coqmd:lle s_i2c E:l1d l:xicly~:ipe, ~aui er obtained elsewhere.

!.S

CrjJ4c1b Erli:lellCJI Sllldies Tile ~ c1 ttE oollic:tia"J diciellcy testing is to detennine the percentage *of fish ph:f!d 4in:d y cm lle sc:reeas tJa ER SJbsequendy recovered in the impingement oolectiJluJ. Suii:s a rilllY (Xl'M:r phn: cooling water intakes have shown that the i~piagen.e~
Hmpli18 :maJ allda'l:stilrae the number of fish that are actually being hpiaged .~se si:ne pr*portDI af in"llilied fish may be consumed by predators, pass

  ~ ~pemmgs i* tic s::xeering strocruic, carry over to the clean side of the screens, de.

Ccilec1im effd.~ st-.<li.cs vii \e c:on.dl.rted when the species of interest (dominant or n*meti:H.l:y lr:Vt ~ f"&l) uc availabl i an.d nwnerous in the collections~ Studies will be corD!cEd .periaclmty, at 1(9;t 41.lHt~tly or on a modified schedule ir' needed to accoll1Il04atc tie prcsace of tic species of interest. A target

number of 100

  ~gsi c~a' 1isll per species a:xl lqtb cl~ (if available) are to be released as cklse ~ (XHiible t:J fEK:e r£ tic travetm, sc:aeeas at the start of a 24-hr sampling event~

Sevi:nl s::a:ea:JS er1Cllqa:iq l:mh 1.riu ~11 be evaluated. The actual number released ancl tie rurb:J i~dy Jec:overecl K1 each size class over the following 24 hr will be teeoJCiel. N* st~ &11~f1g urill be mloP\'cd on sampling dates on which collection efficie..ey :it.Kl e are am.11Cte4..

s,, Smn(lle Halldlmg Wl'B1 p10ceu:Its of l u,.ple is coqhe, we will determine the disposition of the umple (wletler to clixaad it _er s*bje(t it to QC procedures for counts and icle*tiic11icns) Aftei fish b cdlec1i.m efficiency testing and any fish needed for the rc1cii:n::c cofh:.tioa lr ~ '1eiifatioa have been removed from the sample, the

  'pecinms l"Ji.) ~e ciicar4.ed* iato t\e tra!li bin. All young American shad will be pr°'4cled 10 tbc ~lvatia Fbl aid BOEt Ccmnnission so that they can detennine if the speri lllQ~ B"e of wilt cc la~ cii&il1.

5.1 Qalf3 AISlll"BllCf 8114 Cllltl'Cll A 4etaied S1En:la.xl quatillJ Procecbe and QuaHty Assurance Project Plan wiJI be i:reJH"ed to iover!l tile pedi:::l:nam:e oc tiis study prior to initiating the field collections. full iclerii:fici.ticiu. 0011ats. llCD Jre2911e111euts will be subject to QC checks. Field in.stn.JITJ:rlt5 Mii re ealhttecl pmr '1 etd1 sample event. Data entry and processing will ah* le subject to.qtaliy cAecks. Q~ wdits ud tests wi11 b~ pert'ormed periodically to 21

verify the achievement of quality during the study and to indicate when corrective action is needed. 5.8 Data Analysis and Reporting Numbers of fish impinged for each weekly 24-hr sampling event will be used to calculate the number of fish impinged per week and these will be summed to develop the annual totals. Impingement data from the sampling periods within 24-hr sampling events will be evaluated to detennine diel variation. The periodic collection efficiency tests will indicate the correction factors that need to be applied to the data to develop the total impingement numbers. Seasonal and annual descriptions of species composition and abundance will be provided. The results from this new study will be compared to impingement data obtained in previous studies at PBAPS to assess annual variability and will be compared with other data sets that may be available or applicable. 22

6.0 OTHER INFORMATION The final component of the PIC involves providing other infonnation that will aid the Director in reviewing and commenting on the plans for developing PBAPS's CDS. This section presents an overview of some studies and plans required for the site-specific determination of BTA.

6.1 BeneOts Valuation Study The Phase II 316(b) Rule allows for site-specific impingement and entrainment reduction

.requirements based on cost-benefit assessment. Specifically, a demonstration that the costs of technological compliance with the performance standards is significantly greater than the benefit allows for lesser reduction in impingement and entrainment or the use of restoration to achieve compliance. A Benefits Valuation Study (BVS) is required for this assessment and is based on a comprehensive methodology to value the impacts of impingement mortality and entrainment at the site and the benefits of complying with the applicable performance standards. The BVS study plan will include:

A description of the methodology(ies) used to value commercial. recreational, and ecological benefits (including any non-use benefits, if applicable).
Documentation of the basis for any assumptions and quantitative estimates.
An analysis of the effects of significant sources of uncertainty on the results of the study.
If requested by the Director, a peer review of the items submitted in the BVS. The facility operator would choose the peer reviewers in consultation with the Director who may consult with EPA and Federal, State, and Tribal fish and wildlife management agencies with responsibility for fish and wildlife potentially affected by your cooling water intake structure. Peer reviewers must have appropriate qualifications depending upon the materials to be reviewed.
A narrative description of any non-monetized benefits that would be realized at your site if the facility were to meet the applicable perfonnance standards and a qualitative assessment of their magnitude and significance.

There are a number of inputs to developing a BVS for an individual facility. The following list describes the inputs and the methods that will be used for each. Convert impingement and entrainment sample data to annual -estimates: The BVS will use a sample-period weighted extrapolation to convert the sample data to annual*loss estimates. 23

              ----     ----- ---

petermine the number of Age-1 egujyalents impinged and/or cntQincd: The BVS will use EPA's life history parameters to detennine the number of Age-1 equivalents impinged or entrained. Detennine the rati_o of caught to uncaught fish: The value of impingement and entrainment reductions depends on whether or not spared organisms are harvested. This determination will be based on EPA assumptions of catch by species.

Determine commercial versus recreational breakdown:

Harvested fish are valued differently in the commercial and recreational markets. This determination will be based on EPA assumptions regarding ~ational and commercial catch. Detennine commercial hnpacts: This detennination will employ EPA's percent change in dockside value approach. Determine recreational impacts: Recreational impacts are the largest benefit category in EPA's national analysis. In this analysis, EPA employs regional random utility models (RUMs) to estimate the dollar value impacts from increases in catch rates. The BVS will use these models to develop a rigorous benefits transfer. .Address nonuse values of uncauaht fish: EPA requires a narrative description of non-monetized benefits and a qualitative assessment of their magnitude and significance. The BVS will provide this narrative desCription. Include uncertainty analysis: Analysis of uncertainty in recreational benefits estimates may include bootstrapping to address sample variance, Monte Carlo Analysis for model variance, and an interactive evaluation of variance arising from model specification. 6.2 Comprehensive Cost Evaluation Study The Comerehensive Cost Evaluation Study component of the CDS must include engineering costeStimates for implementing design and *construction technologies, operational measures, and/or restoration measures that would comply with 316(b) performance standards. The three components of the Comprehensive Cost Evaluation Study are:

Engineering cost estimates of technologies/meas~ to meet the applicable perfonnance standards, expressed as Net Present Value including energy penalties, carrying charges, as examples discussed below 24
Demonstration of cost-benefit test.

     * *Engineering cost estimates to document the cost of technologies/measures in the Site-Specific Technology/Restoration Plan.

6.3 Site-Specific Technology Plan If Exelon requests a site-specific detennination of BTA. this plan will be included in the CDS. This plan is required to contain: *

A nmative description of the design and operation of all existing and proposed design and construction technologies or operational measures and/or restoration measures that we have selected.
An engineering estimate of the efficacy of the proposed and/or implemented technologies and/or measures based on representative studies at exjsting facilities and, if applicable. site-specific prototype or pilot studies.
A demonstration that the proposed and/or implemented technologies and/or measures achieve an efficacy that is as close as practicable to the performance standards without resulting in costs significantly greater than the benefits of complying

*.

with the applicable performance standards. '-4 Site-Specific Restoration Plan The final Phase n Rule states that EPA views restoration measures as part of the design'_' of a cooling water intake structure and considers restoration measures one of sevenl technologies that may be employed to minimize adverse environmental impact. . If restoration remains an option in the Phase U Rule. Exelon will consider small restoration projects to achieve compliance. 25

i I I

7.0 REFERENCES

..'

Mathur, D., E.S. McClellan, and S. Haney. 1987. Effects of Variable Discharge Schemes on Dissolved Oxygen at a Hydroelectric Sta~ion. Water Resources Bull. 24{1): 159-167. PECO. 1976. 316(a) Demonstration for PBAPS Units No. 2 & 3 on Conowingo Pond. Supplementary Materials prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency, June 1976. Philadelphia Electric Company. PECO. 1977. 316(b) Demonstration for PBAPS Units No. 2 & 3 on Conowingo Pond. Materials prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency, June 1977. Philadelphia Electric Company.

         --- -----                                             -- --         -- -----

26

I I I* I r CIECIL Figure *1. Map of Conowingo Reservoir showing locations of Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station and other power plants. 27

Figure 2. Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station's cooling water intakes and discharge. ~- 28

APPENDIX A List of Historical Studies 316(b) and Related 316(b) Demonstntion .** Philadelphia Electric Company. 1977. 316(b) Demonstration for PBAPS Units NQ. 2 & 3 on Conowingo Pond. Materials prepared for .the Enviro~ntal Protection

Agency, June 1977.

lchthyological Ass~iates, "Inc. 1977. Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station materials prepared for the EPA 316(b) demonstration for Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Units No. 2 and 3 on Conowingo Pond, 103 pp. ,* ~and Post-operational. Reports that indude Impingement and Entrainment llesult8

Robbins, Timothy W., and Dilip Mathur.. 1974. Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station pre-operational report on the ecology of Conowingo Pond for Units No. 2 and 3.Ichthyological Associates, Inc., Drumore, Pa., prepared for Philadelphia Electric Company, xviii + 349 pp. * .

Robbins, Timothy W., and Dilip Mathur. 1974. Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Post-operational Report No. 1 on the ecology of Conowingo Pond for Units No. 2 and 3. Ichthyological Associates, Inc., Drumore, Pa., prepared for Philadelphia Electric Company. xiii + 142 pp. Robbins, Timothy W., and Dilip Mathur. 1975. Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Post-operational Report No. 2 on the ecology of Conowingo Pond for Units No. 2 and 3. lchthyological Associates, Inc** Drumore, Pa., prepared for Philadelphia El~ic Company, xix+ 192 pp. Robbins, Timothy W., and Dilip Mathur. 1975. Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Post-operational Report No. 3 on the ecology of Conowingo Pond for the period of July 1974-December 1974. lchthyological Ass~ates, Inc., Drumore, Pa., prepared for Philadelphia Electric Company, xxiv + 338 pp. Robbins, Timothy W., and Dilip Mathur. 1975. Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Post*operational Report No. 4 on the ecology of Conowingo Pond for the period January 1975..June 1975. lchthyological Associates, Inc.* Drumore, Pa., prepared for Philadelphia Electric Company, xxiii + 322 pp. Robbins, Timothy w.. and DiJip Mathur. 1976. Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Post-operational Report No. S on the ecology of Conowingo Pond for the period July 1975-December 1975. Ichthyological Associates, Inc., Drumore, Pa.* prep~ for Philadelphia Electric Company, xxiii + SOI pp.

Robbins, Timothy W., and Dilip Mathur. tm. Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Post-operational Report No. 6 on the ecology of Conowingo Pond for the period January 1976-June 1976. lchthyological Associates, Inc., Drumore. Pa.. prepared for Philadelphia Electric Company. xv+ 191 pp.

29

lchthyological Associates, . Inc. 1977. Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Post-operational Report No. 7 on the ecology of Conowingo Pond for the period July 1976-December 1976. lchthyological Associates, Inc., Drumore, Pa., prepared for PJtiladelphia Electric Company, xxi + 313 pp. Ichthyological Associates, Inc. 1977. Peach Bottom Atomic Power Stati~ Post-operational Report No. 8 on the ecology of Conowingo Pond for the period

          )anuary 1977-June 1977. Ichthyological Associates, Inc., Drumore, Pa.. prepared
        . for Philadelphia Electric Company, xi+ 186 pp.

RMC Ecological Division. 1979. Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Post-operational Report No. 9 on the ecology of Conowingo Pond for the period of July 1977-December 1977. Prepared for Philadelphia Electric Company. Muddy Run Ecological Laboratory. Drumore. Pa. xiv+ 245 pp. Other Reports/Presentations/Papen Impingement Robbins, 1unothy W., Pauline L. Heisey, and Paul G. Heisey. 1975. Envirorunental deviation report for impingement of fishes at the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Units No. 2 and 3 on 25-27 February l 97S. lchthyological Associates. Inc .* Drumore, Pa., March 1975, prepared for Philadelphia Electric Company, 10 pp.

Mathur, Dilip, Paul C. Heisey, ai1d Nancy C. Magnusson. 1976. Impingement of fishes at a nuclear powei: station on the lower Susquehanna River. A paper presented at the 106th Ann. Meeting Amer. Fish Soc.,

Dearborn,

Michigan. Mathur, Dilip, Paul C. Heisey, and Nancy C. Magnusson. 1976. Impingement of fishes at a nuclear power station on the lower Susquehanna River. A paper presented at the 32nd Ann. N. E. FISb and Wddlife Conf., Hershey, Pennsylvania. Mathur, Dilip, Paul G. Heisey, and Nancy C. Magnusson. 1977. Impingement of fishes at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station on Conowingo Pond, Pennsylvania. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 106:258-267. RMC Environmental Services Division. 1981. Report on impingement of gizzard shad at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 *and 3, Decembe.- 1980-January 1981. Prepared for Philadelphia Electric Company..7pp. Canberra/Radiation Management Corporation. 1984. Impingement of fishes at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station. Units No. 2 and 3, during December 1983 and early January 1984. Prepared for Philadelphia Electric Company. ISpp. Heisey, P. G. 1987. Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station inner screens fish impingement. Letter report to D. Mathur, 8January1987. 2pp. RMC Environmental Services, Inc. 1994. Analysis of potential factors affecting the white crappie population in Conowingo Pond. Prepared for PECO Energy Company. 12pp. Nonnandeau Associates, Inc. 1996. Environmental review of proposed upgrade to intake water system at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station. York County, Pennsylvania. Prepared for PECO Energy Company. 3pp.- Matty, R.M. Jr., D. Mathur, P. L. Hannon. 1999. PECO Energy's 316(b) experience with

.       specific reference to Peach Bottom Atomic P.ower Station, Permsylvania. In 30

Proceeding: 1998 EPRI Clean Water Act Section 316(b) Technical Workshop. Coolfont Conference Center. EPRJ 1999 TR-112613. Normandeau Associates. Inc. 2000. Data report on intake screen sampling at the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station in 1999. Prepared for Peach Bottom Atomic Power . Station; 3pp.

Normandeau Associates. Inc. 2000. Data report on intake screen sampling at the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station in 2000. Prepared for Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station. 3pp.

Entrainment Boyer. Helen A. 1970. Eff~t of passage of zooplankton*through Peach Bottom Atomic Plant, Unit No. 1. preliminary data report. 65 pp. Boyer, Helen A. 1971. The effect of passage of :it?<>Plankton: through Peach Bottom Atomic Plant, Unit No. 1. M. S. nesis. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, M~. . Anjard,. Charles A.* 1978. Entrainment of fish eggs and larvae at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station. A paper pteseoted at the 34th Ann. Meeting N. E. Amer. Fish. Wildlife Cont** Sulphur Springs. West Virgiqia. Swim Speed Schuler, Victor J. 1968. Progrc:ss report of s\vim speed study conducted on fishes of Conowingo Reservoir. lch1hyolasical Associates, Holtwood, Pa., Progress Report lB. prep~ for Philadelphia Electric Company, 61 pp.

King, Laurence R. 1969. Swimming speed of the channel catfish, white crappie and other warm water fishes from Conowingo Reservoir, Susquehanna River, Pa.

   . lchthyological Associates, Ithaca, NY. Bulletin No. 4, Much 1969, prepared for Philadelphia Electric Company, 74 pp.

Hocutt, Charles H. 1970. The eff~ts of temperature on the swimming.performance of the largemouth bass, spotfin shiner, and.channel catfish. lchthyological Associates, .,

Holtwood, PA, Progress Report S. February 1970, prepared *for *Philadelphia Electric Company, 6S pp.
Hocutt. Charles H. 1970. The e~fects of temperature on the swimming performance of the largemouth baas, spotfm shiner, and channel catfish. M. S. Thesis~ Southern Conn. State College, New Haven, Conn.

Kotkas, Enn. 1970. Studies of the swimming speed of some anadromous fishes found below Conowingo Dam, SusCJ!Channa River, Maryland. lchtbyologicaJ Associates, Holtwood, Pa., Progress Report 6, February 1~0.-prepared for Philadelphia Electric Company fol submission tQ the Advisory Board, 19 pp. Hocutt, Charles H. 1973. Swimming pedormance of three wannwater fishes exposed to a rapid temperature change. Chesapeake Sci. 14:11-16. Hannon, P. L, 0. Mathur. and R. M. Matty, Jr~ 1999. Design *of CWJS in accordance

* . with fish swim speed measurements at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station.
     *Presentation at the Power Generation Impacts on Aquatic Resources Conference.

April 1999. AtJanta, OA. 31

Pre- and Post*operadonal Reports (those that indude Pond limnology, fash distribution, abundance, and movement, thermal testing, biology of fishes, and/or creel surveys) Robbins, Timothy W., and Dilip Mathur. 1974. Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station pre-operational report on the ecology .of Conowingo Pond for Units No. 2 and 3 lchthyological Associates, Inc., Drumore,. Pa., prepared for Philadelphia Electric Company, xviii + 349 pp. Robbins, Timothy W., and Dilip Mathur. 1974. Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Post-operational Report No. 1 on the ecology of Conowingo Pond for Units No. 2 and 3. Ichthyoiogical Associates, Inc., Drumore, Pa** prepare4 for Philadelphia Electric Company, xiii+ 142 pp. . Robbins. Timothy W., and Dilip Mathur. 1975. Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Post-operational Report No. 2 on the ecology of Conowingo Pond for Units No. 2 and 3. lchtbyological Associates, Inc** Drumore, Pa., prepared for Philadelphia Electric Company, xix+ 192 pp.

Robbins, Timothy W., and Dilip Mathur. 197.5. Peach Bottom Atomic Power 'Station Post-operational Report No. 3 on the ecology of Conowingo Pond for the period of July 1974-December 1974. lchthyological Associates, Inc** Drumore. Pa.,

prepared.for Philadelphia Electric Company, xxiv + 338 pp. Robbins, Timothy W., and Dilip Mathur. 1975. Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station,

      . Post-operational Report No. 4 on the ecology of Conowingo Pond for the period January 1975-June 1975. lchthyological Associates, Inc., Drumore, Pa., prepared for Philadelphia Electric Company, xxiii + 322 pp.

Robbins, Timothy W., and Dilip Mathur. 1976. Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station
Post-operational Report No. S on the ecology of Conowingo Pond for the period July 197S-December 197S. Ichthyological Associates, Inc., Drumore, Pa.,

prepafecl*for Philadelphia Electric Company, xxiii + 501 pp. Robbins, Timothy W., and Dilip Mathur. 1977. Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Post-operational Report No. 6 on the ecology of Conowingo Pond for the period January 1976-June 1976. lchthyological Associates, Inc., Drumore, Pa., prepared for Philadelphia Electric Company, xv+ 191 pp. *

lchthyological Associates. Inc. 1977. Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Post-operational Report No. 7 on the ecology of Conowingo Pond for the period July 1976-December 1976. lchthyological Associates, Inc., Drumore, Pa.~ prepared for Philadelphia Electric Company, xxi + 313 pp.
I lchthyological Associates, Inc. 1977. Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Post-operational Report No. 8 on the ecology of Conowingo Pond for the period January J'Y/7-Juoe 1977. lchthyological Associates, Inc., Drumore, Pa., prepared for Philadelphia Electric Company, xi+ 186 pp.
RMC Ecological Division. 1979. Peach Bottom Atomic Power Stati0"9 Post-operational
Report No. 9 on the ecology of Conowingo Pond for the period of July 1977-December l'Y/7. Prepared for Philadelphia Electric Company. Muddy Run Ecological Laboratory, Drumore, Pa. xiv+ 245 pp.

RMC Ecological Division. 1979. Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Post-operational Report No. 10 on the ecology of Conowingo Pond for the. period of January 1978-June 1978. Prepared for Philadelphia Electric Company. Muddy Run Ecological Laboratory, Drumore, Pa. xv+ 210 pp. 32

RMC Ecological Division. 1979. Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station. Post-operational Report No. 11 on the ecology of Conowingo Pond for the period of July 1978-December 1978. Prepared for Philadelphia Electric Company. Muddy Run Ecological Laboratory, Drumore. Pa. xiv+ 24S pp. RMC Ecological Division. 1979. Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Post-operational Report No.* 12 on lhe ecology of Conowingo Pond for the period of January 1979-June 1979. Prepared for Philadelphia Electri~. Company. Muddy Run Ecological Laboratory. Drumore, Pa. xv+ 210 pp. RMC Ecological Division. 1980. Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Post-operational

Report No. 13 on the ecology of Conowingo Pond for the period of July 1979-December 1979. Prepared for Philadelphia ~lectric Comp~y. Muddy Run Ecological Laboratory, Dru~ore, Pa. x + 196 pp.

RMC Ecological Division. 1980. Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Post-operational Report No. 14 on the ecology ofConowingo Pond for the period of January 1980. April 1980. Prepared for Philadelphia Electric Company. Muddy Run Ecological LabOratory. Drumore, Pa. xi+ lS3 pp. NPDES/~oollng Tower Reduction Studies RMC Environmental Services. Inc. 1994 (January). A report on the fish populations in Conowingo Pond relative to the NPDES pennit application for the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Pennsylvania. Prepared for Philadelphia Electric

Company. 8pp:

RMC Environmentai Services. 1994. Analysis of potential factors _affeciing the white crappie population in Conowingo Pond. Prepared for PECO Energy. Company. I+ 12pp. . Nonnancleau Associates, InC. 1995 (August). Summary of thermal surveys for PBAPS. Data report prepared for Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Philadelphia Electric Company. 10 pP. . Nonnandeau As~iates, .Inc. 1996 (May). Study plan to assess fish Populations in Conowingo Pond relative to the reduction in cooling tower operation at the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, P~ylvania. Prepared for PECO Energy Company. 19pp. . *

Nonnandeau Associates. .Inc. 1997 (March). A report on the assessment of fish populations and thermal conditions in Conowingo Pond relative to. the variable cooling tower operation at the Peach Bottom .Atomic Power Station. Prepared for PECO Energy Company. 106~ +Appendices.
Normandeau Associates, Inc. 1997 (March). Study plan fQr fish protection in Conowingo Pond relative to zero cooling tower operation at Pe8ch. *Bottom Atomic Power Stati~ Pe.nnsylvania. Prepared for PECO Energy Company, 16pp. .

Nonnandeau Associates. Inc. 1998 (February). A.report on the thennal conditions ~ fish populations in Conowingo Pond relative to zero cooling tower operation at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (June-October 1997). Prepared for PECO Energy Company. 67pp: + Appendices. Nonnandeau Associates, .Inc. 1999 (February). A report on the thermal conditions and fish populations in Conowingo Pond relative to zero cooling tower operation at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (June-October 1998). Prepared for PECO Energy Comp~y. 67pp. +Appendices. 33

                        . **-- -*--------*-       -*

Normandeau Associates, Inc. 2000 (February). A report on the thermal conditions and fish populations in Conowingo Pond relative to zero cooling tower operation at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (June-October 1999). Prepared for PECO Energy Company. 68pp. +Appendices. Normandeau Associates, Inc. 2000 (June). Assessment of cooling tower operation at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station on potential fish habitat. Prepared for PECO Energy Company. 7pp. + tables and figures + Appendices. 34

January 7, 2019 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ENCLOSURE 2 02_Exelon Nuclear_2008. pdf Exelon Nuclear. 2008. "Letter to PADEP (L. McDonnell) regarding NPDES Permit PA0009733, Section 316(b) Cooling Water Intake Structure Evaluation." December 22, 2008.

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station www.exeloncorp.com Exe on. 1848 Lay Road Nuclear Delta, PA 17314 December 22, 2008 Mr. Lee M~Donnell, Manager Water Management Program Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection South Central Regional Office 909 Elmerton Avenue Harrisburg, PA 17110 Re: Exelon Generation Company LLC - Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station NPDES Permit PA0009733 Section 3 l6(b) Cooling Water lntake Structure Evaluation

Dear Mr. McDonnell,

Enclosed please find two copies of the 3 I 6(b) Cooling Water Intake Evaluation for Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station. The report includes the Source Waterbody Flow Information, the Impingement Mortality Characterization Study (IMCS), and the Design and Constrnction Technology Plan (DCTP). If you have questions or require additional information, please contact Tracy Siglin, (610) 765-5904 or tracy.siglin@exeloncorp.com. Sincerely, ~~~)lik Garey L. Stathes, Plant"Manager Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station. CCN 08-108

316(b) COMPLIANCE REPORT WITH SOURCE WATERBODY I.NFORMA TION, IMPINGEMENT MORTALITY CHARACTERIZATION STUDY, AND DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGY PLAN PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION Prepared for: by URS Corporation Ol:tobcr 2008

Table of Contents J~xecutive Summary ........................................................................................................... iii lr1lr11tluclion ...................................................................................................................... iv 1.0 Facility Description & Classilication .............................................................. 1-1 I. I F:\CILITY DESCRIPTION ........................ ............................................................. 1-1 1.2 CIRCULATING WATER SYSTEM ........................ ................................................. 1-l I .J THROUGH-SCREEN VELOCITY .......................................................................... 1-4 1.4 ADDITIONAL SOURCE WATER !\ND FACILITY INFORMATION ............................ 1-5

1.5 REFERENCES

.....................................................................................................         l-5 2.0             Impingement Mortality Characterization Study ........................................... 2-1 2.1         FISH. SHELLHSH, AND PROTECTED SPECIES CHARACTERIZATION .................... 2- l 2.2         HISTORIC       IM AT THE PBAPS ......................................................... :................. 2-2 2.3         CURRENT        lM AT THE PBAPS ........................................................................... 2-1 2.4         CALCULATION BASELINE AT THE PBAPS ......................................................... 2-3

2.5 REFERENCES

..................................................................................................... 2-4 3.0             Narrative Description of Design and Operating Measures and Demonstration of the Efficacy ................................................................... 3-1

3.1 BACKGROUND

AND INTRODUCTION TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGY PLAN .......................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 PLANT DATA ..................................................................................................... 3-2 3.2. I Capacity Utilization .................................................................................. 3-2 3.2.2 A111111al 1Vet Generation .............................................................................. 3-2 3.2.J Capacity ,4*FC1cility ................................................................................... 3-J 3.3 IMPLEMENTED TECHNOLOGIES AND OPERATIONAL MEASURES FOR IM REDUCTION ....................................................................................................... 3-3 3.4 EFFICACY OF IMPLEMENTED TECHNOLOGIES .................................................... 3-4 3.5 COOLINU TOWER EVALUi\TION ........................................................................ 3-5 3.5.1 Cooling Tower C1111ceptm1l Design ........................................................... J-6 3.5.2 Estimated Costsfor CCC Co11aptuC1! Dt.'si,r.:11 ........................................... 3-6 3.5.J Net E11vircm111ental E.f.l'eL'ts ...................................................................... ... 3-7 3.5.4 Cost t:/./t!ctive11es.1* t4" Cooling To was ....................................................... 3-8 J.6 EV ..\LUATION OF lM REDUCTION TECHNOLOGIES ............................................. 3-9 3.6. 1 Coarst.'-llli!.l'lt Mod(/ied-Ristro11 Vertirnl Trcll'eling Screens ti/ Eri.wing Outer Screen Stmcturt' with New Fish Rt!f/11'11 .~)'stem ............................................ 3-9 J.6.2 Geiger Saee11s with Fish Ret11m ............................................................. 3-10

3. 6. J lvlocl(f[ed Louver System ........... ............................................................... 3- Jl 3.6.4 Hybrid Acoustic t111£i Ligh1i11g Deterrent System ..................................... 3-12 3.6.5 iVater.let C11rfai11 .................................................................................... J-JJ 3.6.6 S11111111a0* .................................................................................................. 3-14 J.7 RErERENci::s ................................................................................................... 3-14

-'*O Assessment of Environmental Impact of Impingement i\fort~lity on the Conowingo Pond Population ............................................................... "'* I 4.1 NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION ............................................... .... .............................. 4-1

  .+.2   REr-ERENCES ..................................................................................................... 4-2 5.0       Conclusicin ........................................................................................................... 5* 1

5.1 REFERENCES

............................................................................................ ......... 5-1 6.0       :.\ppendices and Attachments .......................................................................... 6-l Appendix A      Detailed Charaderization of the Aquatic Resources and Impingement Mortality at' the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Appendix B      List of the Historical Stu<lies Conducted at the Peud1 Bottom Atomic Pmvcr Station Appcn<lix C     Summary of Fish Impingement Sampling at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Conowingo Pond, Pennsylvania 2005-2006 Attachment I 40 CFR § 122.21 (r) NPDES Application Requirements for Facilities with Cooling Water Intake Structures Attachment II Statistical Analysis of lmpingement at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, 2005-2006 ii

List of Tables Table l* l PBAPS Intake Pump Design Capacities ......................................................... 1-2 'I,11ble l-2PB1\PS Design Intake Flo\v ............................................................................. 1-4 Table 2* l List of all Fish Species Collected During Studies of the Aquatic Resources in the Vicinity of the PBAPS ................................................... 2-5 Table 2*2Summary of Current JM Based on Total Number at the PBAPS ............... 2-7 Figure 2-1 Impingement at the PBAPS during August 30, 2005

November l 7, 2C)t)6 Sampling ....................................................................................... 2-7 Table 3-1 Total Annual Generation in MWh for Unit 2 ................................................ 3-2 Table 3-2Total Annual Generation in MWh for Unit 3 ................................................ 3-3 Tahle 3-3Summary of IM calculations from August JO, 2005 through August 29, 2006 ........................................................................................................ 3-4 Figure Figure 2-1 Impingement at the PBAPS during August 30, 2005 *November 17, 2006 Sainpling ....................................................................................... 2-7 iii

Executive Summary Section 316( b) of the Clean Water Act requires the location, design, construction. and capacity of Cooling Water Intake Structures (CWIS) reflect the Best Technology Avnilahle (BT A) lo minimize Adverse Environmental lmpact ( AE(). In 2004, the United States Environmental Protection Agency CUSEPA) promulgated a 111le for existing facilities to establish National Performance Standards for the reduction of impingement mortality an<l/or entrainment from a cnlcul::ited baseline configuration. In 2007, the 211J Circuit Comt remanded severnl key components of the rule. As a result of this ruling the USEPA suspended the rule an<l its requirements. The USEPA also instructed the State Agencies to use their Best Professional Judgment (BPJ) to determine BT A for the CWIS. Peach Bottom *s asse1tion is that the baseline configuration is the original intake design consisting of the Intake Canals and the Inner Screen Intake only. The installation of the Outer Screen Structure was designed and installed to reduce the through screen velocity and, therefore. minimize the amount of impingement occurring at the facility. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) has issued letters to facility owners .~pecifying submittal requirements or has included !hose requirements in newly issued permits. These submittal requirements include information on the source water body, intake structure design and operation, impingement mortality t(M) characterization study. and a Design and Constmction Technology Plan (DCTP). The DCTP is to include an evaluation of the efficacy of the current intake stmcture and other technologies and operational practices employed at the facility for minimizing the environmental impacts. The DCTP should also contain information on the capacity urilization of the intake structure and the facility. Peach Bottom's position is that the Outer Screen Structure was designed and installed to reduce impingement compared to the original design of the smaller inner screen intake and the intake canals. This technology has minimized adverse environment:.il impacts of the operation of Peach Bottom. D:.1ta shows that the operation of Peach Bottom has minimal effect on the biology of Conowingo Pond. The diversity and relative abundance of the aquatic populations are unchanged from the levels before operation at Peach Bottom began. Calculated annual impingement at PBAPS. using the results of the current IJ\'I .itudy at rhe outer intake strucwre. is 22 l.421 fish whereas the Calculation Baseline. estimated for the original inner intake structure, is l .47x. l06 fish. Thus, a reduction in IM of approximately 85 percent from the Cakulation Basdine is already ad1kved by lhc installation of the outer intake alone. Since the design. location. an<l operation of Pcuch Bottom's intake structure minimizes impingement mortality and therefore a<lverse environmental impad, it is the bcsr technology available. iv

Introduction Regulatory Background This repo11 provides information requested by the Pennsylvania Dcpartmcnc of Envirunmenlal Prule1:liu11 (PADEP ur the Department) co demonstrate that Exclon*s Pcuch Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBA~S) cooling watt!r intake structures (CWIS) reflect the Best Technology Available (BTA) for minimizing adverse environmental. impacts. Section 316(b) of the Ch:an Water Act requires the U.S. Environmental Protedion Agency (EPA) to ensure that the location, design, construction, an<l capacity of industrial CWIS reflect the BT A for reducing adverse environmental impacts. The Federal Rule implementing 3 l6(b) performance standards for Phase {{ existing steam electric power stations was promulgated July 9, 2004 and became effective September 7. 2004. This regulation required that facilities reduce impingement mortality (IM) by 80 to 95 percent an<l. if applicuble. entrainment by 60 to 90 percent from a Calculation Baseline. The Rule also provided a number of compliance alternatives to achieve these standards. Finally. the Rule allowed site-specific determination of BTA based on cost and benefit analyses. Exelon's PBAPS meets EPA's definition of a "Phase II Existing Facility" since it meets the following four criteria stated in § 125.91:

It is a point source;
It uses CWIS with a total design intake flow of 50 million gallons per day (MGD) or more to withdraw cooling water from waters of the United States:
As its primary activity, it both generates and transmits electric power. or generates electric power but sells it to another entity for transmission: and
It uses at least 25 percent of water withdruwn exclusively for cooling purposes, measured on an annual bus is.

ln accordance with the Proposal for lnfommtiun Collection (PlC) submitted to and revised by the Department. PBAPS is subject only to the pe1formance standards for IM. On fanuary 25. 2007. the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit vacated or rcnmnued portions of the Rule in its <lecision in Rivcrkccpcr. Inc. v. EPA 475 F.3d 83 (2 11J Cir.2007) (Rivcrkccper f[ Decision). EPA subsequently suspended the Rule on July 9. 2007 and instructed permitting authorities to develop Best Profossional Judgment (BPJ) controls for existing f:.icility CWIS that reflect the BTA for minimizing adverse environmental impacts. Subsequently. PADEP has indicated that they will request that owners/operators of facilities with existing CWIS provide information to demonstrate BTA for minimizing adverse environmental impacts. Since the design, location. and operation of Peach Bottom's intake structure minimizes impingement mortality anu. therefore. adverse environmental impact, it is the best technology available. The applicable information requircu for PBAPS includes the following:

lmpingemcnt l\'lort:dity Characterization Study v
Design and Cnnstmction Tcchnology Plan This <lununenl is intended to:
Provide information requestt:d by PADEP.
Provide informution on the environmental impacts of IM on Conowingo Pond to suppm1 a BPJ determination of BTA at PBAPS.

This report, containing five documents, .three appendices and two attachments. 1s organized into the following sections: SECTION I Facility Description & Classification SECTION 2 Impingement Mortality Characterization Study SECTrON 3 Nam1tive Description of Design and Operating Measures and Demonstration of the Efficacy SECTrON 4 Assessment of Environmental Impact of Impingement Mortality on the Conowingo Pond Populations SECTION 5 Conclusion SECTION 6 Appendil:es and Attachments Appendix A Detailed Characterization of the Aquatic Resources and Impingement Mortality at tht! Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Appendix B List of the Historical Studies Conducted at the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Appendix C Summary of Fish Impingement Sampling at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Conowingo Pond, Pt'nnsylvania 2005-2006 Attachment I -m CFR *122.21 tr) NPDES Application Requircmt:nts for Facilities with Cooling Water lnt~tkc Structures Attachment II Statistical Analysis of Impingement at Peach Bo!tom Atomic Power Station, 2005-2006 vi

SECTION 1 FACILITY DESCRIPTION & CLASSIFICATION FOR PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION Prepared for: by URS Corpnrntinn October 2008

1.0 Facility Description & Classification 1.1 Facility Description PBAPS is a two-unit Cllnits 2 & 3) nuclear-fueled boiling water reactor dectric power generating facility with a generating capacity of nominally 2,304 megawatts lMW). Unit 2 began commercial operation in June 1974 and Unit 3 entered commercial service in December 1974. The fai:ility is located in York County, Pennsylvania on the west shore of the Conowingo Reservoir (also known as Conowingo Pool or Conowingo Pond: henceforth c.:alled "the Pond'" or "Conowingo Pond'" in this report) m River l\'lile (RM) 18, about 5 miles upstream from the Pennsylvania-1\foryland border (see location map

and aerial photograph in Attachment I, 40 CFR 122.21 (r) NPDES Application Requirements for Facilities with Cooling Water Intake Structures). Three hydroelectric dams in the lower Susquehanna River form a reservoir system stretching 32 river miles (Hainly et al. 1995). These are: Conowingo Dam at about RM JO, Holtwood Dam at about RM 25, and Safe Harbor Dam at about RM 32. Conowingo Dam, located in Maryland, creates the Conowingo Pond that extends about 14 miles upstream into Pennsylvania. PBAPS is located on the west side of the Susquehanna River within the Conowingo Pond.

PBAPS withdra\vs water for its cooling and service/process water needs from the Conowingo Pond through an outer imake .~tructure located on the shoreline. Water flows through che screens of the outer intake stmcture. through two 3-ucre intake ponds (one serving each unit), and then through an inner intake structure/pumphouse. These components supply water for once-through cooling of the main condensers and for plant services (process/equipment needs). (Attachment I, Figure I) 1.2 Circulating Water System The existing configuration at PBAPS includes an outer intake structure located on the shoreline of Conowingo Pond and an original inner intake structure. Neither the inner nor the outer structures have a fish handling system. Thus. there is IOO percent IM at the facility. The PBAPS CWlS provides a continuous supply of water from the Conowingo Pond to Units 2 and 3. The outer screcnhousc structure is approximately 480 feet long and 32 feet high. The strncture occupies the water column from the surface down to the level of the bottom of the trash racks. at an elevation of 84 '-.0" (Conowingo Datum'>. The operaling floor level of the scrcenhouse is at elevation 116'-0" (Conowingo Datum) and is cndosc<l with walls and a roof. To prevent large debris and ice chunks from cnrering the intake. there are 29 active trash racks with 11~-inch wide by 3-inch deep steel bars spaced J 1/2 inches on center on the face of the outer intake structure. Divers manually dean the trash rm:ks periouically when needed anu collected debris is disposed of offsitc. Structures for a previous automatic raking system with a manual collection system are still in place. Twenty-four traveling water screens ( 12 per unit) are located approximately 44 feet inboard of the trash racks. Each screen, most recently rebuilt by Haweo Screens. Inc .. is I0 feet wide with a *!iit-im.:h square opening mesh. Debris, including fish. is removed from 1 The: C11111n~i11g11 Datum. used c\dusivdy al PBAPS. is ll.7 kc:t below the:: NGVD 19~9 datum. 1- 1

the screens by a high-pressure spray-wash system on the ascending side of the scn:ens IO sluiceways (one per unit). The debris from the screens is colleclcd in dumpslers and disposed of offsite. Water flows from the outer screenhouse structure into l\VO intake hasins (one per unit) before reaching the inner screenhouse structure. Water from the basins enters the inner screenhouse structure through eight bays (4 per unit). Six of the bays, each .with their own traveling screen. direct the water to six circulating water pumps (3 per unit). These screens are dual-entry, single-exit (uual-flow) traveling screens. originally manufactured by FMC. with 11~-inc..:h by Vz-irn,;h opening mesh. The remaining two hays (om: buy per unit) have four traveling screens installed (2 per bay). whil:h are a single-entry. single-exit (through-flow) design. The water pumped from these two bays provides service water Lo the units. Debris. including fish, is removed from the screens by a high-pressure spray-wash system on the ascending side of the screens to sluiceways (I per unit). The debris is collected in dumpsters nnd disposed of offsite. Approximately 47 feet downstream of the inner dual-flow and through-flow screens arc the six circulating water pumps (3 per unit) nnd six service water pumps (3 per unit). respectively. The pumps that withdraw water from the intake stmcturc nnd their design flow rates are shown in Table 1- l. The CWIS operates to provide a continuous supply of water from the Pond to PBAPS for once-through cooling of the main condensers, when condenser cooling is required. and for other plant service water needs. Table 1-l PBAPS Intake Pump Design Capacities ..-. Oper~tion .. Number of lnstallt!d Pumps Design Flow (gpm) 1 Condenser Cool in!! 6 (3 per unit) 250.000 each St.!rvice Waier 6 t.2 and I spare per unit) 14.000 each High Pressurt: Service Water 8 l4 per unit) 4. 700 t*ach Emergency Sc:rvicc: Water 2 (common to both units) 8. UOO each J (I per unit and I common to Outer Screen Wash 4,400 each! lmth units) Inner Servke Watl*r Scn~l!n Wash 2 (I per unit) .,n5 em:h Fire Protl.'ction 2 ( I electric and I diesel driven) 2.500 cai.:h I* .. .. . ..trt: b,1sel.l rhesl! tluw l:.tpul:1t1es . . s. 1,1tmgs

                               . . 11n the pump munulul:l111cr   .. . .111d
                                                                        . d11 nnl al;i:lllml tnr dual npcrat111n hcad lnss. pipe i:apadty. and other **us-huilt° rnnditions.

2 Thi:se pumps withuraw water from the mm.lenser llisi:hargc (not the intake). The six circulating water pumps arc started up. as required. for condenser cooling <luring plant startup to generate electricity and shut off when no longer requircu. Certain operational measures at PBAPS result in flow variations. Through most of the year (April through October), all six circulating water pumps arc in opcrntion. However. in the winter months (late November/early December through March.> lower water temperatures in the Pond generally allow for two pumps (one per Unit) to be shut <lawn. Once a year. for appro.\imately one month. one unit is shut down for refudi112 and maintenance. leaving only three pumps in operation for the other opcrnting unit. ... 1*2

The various service water pumps are slarted when necessary to med the normal and emergcm:y plant <lcmamls <luring plant operation or shut<luwn, un<l shut off wl11:11 no longer required. Normally, two service water pumps per unit run lo supply waler for equipment and building cooling, lo water treatment facilities for pro<luction of domestic and Jcmineralized water. and for washing of the traveling s1:recns in the inner s1:rccn strnclure associated wilh the circularing water pumps. One service water pump per unil is an installed spare. Normally. rhe other service water rumps (i.e .. the high pre.'isure and emergency service water pumps) and Fire Protection Pumps :ire maintained in standhy for operation as necessary only during plant shutdown. in the event of an emergency. or required testing. Each pump bay is provided \.vith a sluice gate, which may be dosed in rhc event of high or low water level.'i in the Pond. The outer and inner traveling water screens are normally operated autom*llically. but can he operated manually from local control panels. In normal (automatic) operation, rotation of the screens is activated by preset timers for a predetermined time as set by duration timers. and, additionally, by a set pressure differential across the screens. During automatic operation. required pumps and valves are sta1ted/opencd to provide wash water to the screens. For the outer screen stmcture, the wash water is supplied from

-tcreen wa:-th pumps that take suction from the cooling water dis1:harge pond. After the trash is separated from the wash water. the wash water flows to a sump located in the trash pit and is pumped to the Pond. For the inner screen structure, wash water for the circulating water screens is supplied from the service wmcr pump discharge headers, and wash water for the service water screens arc supplied from screen wash pumps that take suction from the screen strlll:ture. For the inner screen structures, the trash is scparatcd from the wash water and the wash water is returned to the intake water flow using sump pumps located in the trash pits.

Intake flows are calculated based on pump nm time and qesign pump capacity. Heated \VUter is provided from the circulating water system discharge canal through a rcdrculation gate for freeze protection of the CWIS in the winter. Also, :m air bubbler system is provided for che ouccr screen stnu.:tme for breaking up surface ice formation at lhe inh:t side of the structure. , Design intake flow for Units 2 and 3 collectively, conservatively based on c.lt!sign pump capacities (excluding installed spare pumps, pumps rhat operate under shutdown. emergency. or testing conditions only, and pumps that do not increase intake llow requirements) and maximum operating demands, is shown in Table 1-2. j .J

Table 1*2 PBAPS Oesien Intake Flow Opera~ion Design Intake Flow (MGD) Condenser Cooling Water 2.160.0 Service Water 80.6 High Pressure Servil:e Water o' Emergency Service Water O' Screen Wash 01 Fire Protection 01 Total Design Intake Flow 2,240.6 1 I E.,duucs shutdown. t:mt:rgt:ni:y. and rest mg pcnnds The PBAPS Units 2/3 CWIS operate to supply \vater to suppnrl fm.:iliry demand in line with its power generation and process needs. The once-through cooling water system at PBAPS consists of the CWfS, a supply conveyance network to the main condensers and other equipment requiring raw water for non-contact cooling or other processes. and a discharge conveyance network to dissipate waste heat and discharge wastewater into the Pond through a discharge stmcture or other outfalls. During normal operation, approximatdy 96 percent of the design intake flow is used for condenser cooling with the remainder used for plant services. Non-contact cooling water is pumped from the CWIS through the main condensers. where it becomes heated, and then discharges into a discharge pond and canal that flows back to the Conowingo Pond downstream of the intake. The discharge pond an<l discharge canal also provide a place of discharge for heated water from the Service Water System, the High-Pressure Service Water System. and the Emergency Service Water System, and other process wastewaters. Helper cooling towers are installed in the discharge flow path, but are bypassed (the current PBAPS NPDES permit does not require them to be operated). The discharge cam1l is oriented parallel to the shoreline. The Jischarge slnu.:ture consists of one rectangular fixe<l opening with three regulating gates that are controlled by differential water level measurements to maintain a discharge velocity of 5 to 8 fps. This is intended to enhance mixing of the discharge \.Vith the ambient water and also to prevent immature fish from entering the canal and being exposed to potential thermal shock during plant operation. Screen wash water for the outer screen structure, derived from the disdrnrge canal, is discharged to Lhc Pond via Outfalls 002 and 005. 1.3 Through-Screell Velocity The through-screen velocity was cakulated using formulus adapted from Pankratz ( 1995): V =QI WO =~ OA

TW
K where:

V = thruugh-s1.:rren velo1.:ity in foet per second 1fps) 1--1

Q = tlow rate in gallons per minute (gpm) WD = waler Lkplh in kcl (fl) OA = proportion of mesh open area to total mesh '.'lurfacc area TW = nominal screen tray width (ft) K = constant= 3% for through-flow screen; this provides unit conversion and accounts for a rcuuction in the screen open area due to typical screen features (e.g .* boot seal at the hottom nf the screen, mesh support frame. etc.) anu: OA = (W :< L) I ((W + D) x (L + d)) where: d = screen horizontal wire diameter in inches (in) D = screen vertical wire diameter (in) W = width of mesh opening (in) L = vertical length of mesh opening (in) Although the normal water level of the Pond at PBAPS is between I04.5 feet and l08.5 feet (Conowingo Datum), the lowest the Pond can be without causing lhe shut down of the Muddy Run facility is 104.0 feet (Conowingo Pond Management Plan, SRBC 2006). Thcrefow. this water elevation was used as the design minimum low wuter level in the through screen-velocity calculation. The design inputs and calculations of the through-scrcen velocity are provided in Section 6 in Attachment I. The results of these cakulations show the maximum through-screen velocity at the outer screens at the design intake tlow is conservatively estimated as 1.21 fps at a Pond elevation of I04.0. The through-screen velocity is lower under normal pond elevations. 1.4 Additional Source Water a11d Facility 111/ormati.on Additional information on the source water physical data, cooling water intake structure, an<l cooling water system data is provided as Attachment I - 40CFR§122.2l(r) NPDES Application Requirements for focilities with Cooling Water Intake Stmcturcs. 1.5 References Hainly. R.A., L.A. Reed, H.N. Flippo, Jr .. an<l G.J. Barton. 1995. Deposition and Simulation of Seuiment Transport in the Lower Susquehanna River Reservoir Sy.~tem. US Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 95-4122. J9p. Pankratz, T.M. 1995. Screening Equipment Handbook: For Industrial and Munil'ipal Water and Wastewater Treatment. 2nd Euition. Tcdmomic Publishing Company. Inc. SRBC (Susquehanna River Basin Commission). 2006. Conowingo Pono J\.fa1wgement Plan. Public;Hion No. 2-i-2 Harrisburg. PA. 1-5

SECTION2 IMPINGEMENT MORTALITY CHARACTERIZATION STUDY FOR PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION Prepared for: Technical Consultants URS Corporacion Normandeau Associates, Inc. October 2008

2.0 Impingement 1\ilortality Characterization Study This section provides information required by the 316(b) Phase II Rule. at suspenJt*J

  ~ 125.95 (b)(3). Specifically, it di:scribcs the following:

the fish, shellfish, and prutei.:11.:<l spcc.:it:s in the Susquehanna River. spccifo:ally in the vicinity of the Peac.:h Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS).
the historic and current Impingement Mortality (IM) al the PBAPS cooling watcr intake slrm:turcs (CWIS), and
the computed lM Lo be used as the Calculation Baseline.

The J 16(b) Phase fl Rule was suspended on July 9, 2007 in response to the Uuitc<l Stales Second Circuit Cmut of Appeals decision in Riverkceper, Inc. v. EPA. 475 F.3d 83 (2 11J Cir.2007) (referred to as the Rivcrkeeper II uccision). The Rivcrkceper II decision remanded sections of the Rule that addressed the performance standard relative to the Calculation Basdine. Therefore, references to the performance standards in relation to the Calculation Baseline are not included in this rcp011. A summary of the Rull! requirements at suspended § 125.95 (b)(3) with references to text sections is provided below: Rule Requirements (suspended §125.95(b)(3)) Report Section

1. Tu.w11omic itlemijlcation of a/I life stages ojjislz. slzel/jish, Section A.7 wul a11y specit*s protect<'cl 1111der federal, stllte. vr trilwl law (i11d11di11g t/1rl!t1tt*11ecl or e11da11gert*tl specit'S) that are i11 tile Appendix A vicinity of the CWIS anti are susn*ptible to IM:

2. ,4 dtaracteri:.e1tio11 of all life .\*tagt*.\' ofjisli* .\'/udljisll, aml any species protected 11nderfedaal. state or triblll law (i11cl11di11g threatened or endangered spec:i1*s) itlentijit'tl above. i11dudi11g a dl'.\'criptfo11 '~/ t'1£*ir alm11dc111ce amt ft'lll[Jora/ a11d spatial Section A.7 clwractt'l'istic.'i i11 the vic:i11i1y of 1he CW/S, lx1sed 011 s1!fli<*iL*11t Appendix A clatl1 to clwrncteri-:.e a111111al. sell.wmal, a11cl diet \1l1rilttio11s i11 I/vi. Historical data that are rt'/Jrl'Sl!JJfLltive of the rnrrent ope mtion of 1Jw facility wu/ of biological conditions at the .1*ite may he used if appropriate:

J. Dornme11tatio11 of' the 1*111n*111 /JH 1!/' all l(fi.* stages '!{fish. s/Jel({tslr. and any specie*.\' proteL'led 11mler.f(*tlt*ral. state. or Section A.7 tribal law ( i11d11di11g thrcC1tc11ecl or l'11tlc111gerL'd .\pc*cies) ident(lred above a11cl cm c.winwre of /;'vf 10 /Jc used as rlu* Appendix A "Calrnlation Bc1s<*li11e ". 2.1 Fish, Shellfish, and Protected Species Characterization. All fish, shellfish, and protected species in the vicinity of the CWIS have been identifietl through existing studies of the Susquehanna River and impingement studies conducted at the PBAPS. A list of the hi .~torical studies that have been comlucrcd for the PBAPS i.s provided in Appendix 8. The relevant studies reviewed for the IM characterization report indude: 1- I

Extensive fishery sampling of the Conowingo Pond ( 1966-1999).
A thermal condition and fish population study in the Conowingo Pond (NAI 2000).
A fish impingemcnc study at the PBAPS in 1974- 76 (PECO 1977 ). and
The current impingement study ut the PBAPS from August 2005 through November 2006 <NA( 2006: provided as Appcn<lix C).

Each of these studies documented all species cullccted. and noted any species that were protected (i.e .. threatened, endangered. etc.) at the lime of collection. Based on these situ.lies, a total of 57 fish ~pecit:s may be in the vi<:inity of the PBAPS CWIS (Table 2-1 ). The results of these studies are detailed in Appendix A. 2.2 Historic IM at tlze PBAPS The impingement sampling programs conducted from November 1973 through March 1976 and August 2005 through November 2006 included identification and enumeration of impinged organisms collected over a 12 or 24 hour period. Therefore, these sampling programs characterize annual, seasonal, and <liel variation in impingement at che PBAPS. From 1973 through 1976. a total of 240 12-hour samples were collected at Unit 2. resulting in the collection of 16,859 fish representing 37 species. Unit 3 was sampled a total of 137 times from December 1974 through 1976, with a total of 42.088 individuals representing 35 species being collected. Channel catfish, white crappie, and bluegill were the most abundant species collected. Most of the impinged individuals averaged less than 120 millimeters (mm) (age-0 and age-I in length). Overall, impingement rates for the most abundant species were greatest from November through March. However, it is important to note that average rates were skewed by several episodes of high impingement primarily due to exceptionally high river flow events. In addition, <luring most years since l 982, impingement rates of emigrating juvenile American shad on the outer intake screens have been quantified <luring the foll as part of the Susquehanna River American shad restoration program. In general, species composition of impinged fishes <luring the migration sampling, except for several migratory species. is similar to that observed during the histork quantitative study period ( 1973 - 1976). The number of taxa impingl!u uuring the out-migration period (September through mid-December) ranged from 14 to 27, with gizzard shad dominating the collections. Other abundant species collc1.:tcd during the migration sampling included channel catfish and bluegill. 2.3 Current JM at the PBAPS Current field studies were conducted from August 29, 2005 through November 17. 2006. A total of 208 sampling events ( 104 ead1 at Unit 2 and Unit 3) were completed during this period to record the duily and seusonul rates of IM at the outer CWIS. A summary rcpo1t of the impingement sampling is provided in Appendix C. The 2005-2006 IM raw 1.:atch data were ~1djusted for periodic sub-sampling (necessary during the fall of 2005 and 2006 Jue to high debris load) an<l ge:.ir efficiency as described in Appendix A. The 1 _1

annualized number of individuals impinged were calculated from the beginning of sampling at PBAPS (August 30. 2005) co one year later (August 29, 2006). The August JO, 2005 to August 29. 2006 adjusted IM data showed 158.062 imlividuals with gizzard sh:.ld comprising 94 percent ( 148.633) of impinged organisms at PBAPS. A seasonal peak in total IM was evident during the fall 2005 sampling interval (September 23 - December 21) (Figure 2-1 ). Gizzard shud collected during this time period (11:::147,660) accounted for appro:dmatdy 90 percent of Lhe total catch throughout lhi:: entire study period. ln order to annualize IM numbers. impingement for <lays nut sampled was calculated using a 30 day rolling average or by significant rdntionships found though regression analysis (Appendix A). Annualization resulted in yearly numbers of 221.421 fish impinged at the PBAPS. This represents the :.mnual "as buill" IM for the existing PBAPS outer CWIS. Table 2-2 provides a summary of the analysis for the cuITent IM study at the PBAPS. 2.4 Calculation Baseline at the PBAPS The outer CWlS is a stmctural configuration that results in velocity n:ductions and reductions of fish entrapment, and was installed for the purpose of reducing IM. [n addition to the constmction of the outer CWIS, the PBAPS has adapted procedures (e.g. the shutdown of circulation pumps in the winter) to reduce IM. The inner intake stmcture was the original design and represents baseline practices, procedures, and stmctural configuration of the facility. Thus IM at the inner intake structure would be defined as the Calculation Baseline. However, lM measurements are not available at the inner intake stnicture. Therefore, the Calculation Baseline must be computed using available IM data (2005-2006 IM study at the outer CWIS). plant operations. laboratory and field data on IM. and intake velocity. The relationship between intake velocity and IM is well established. USEPA acknowledges this relationship at 69 FR 41612 by stating:

            . .. impi11geme111 is related to a co111bi11atio11 <l.flow, intake veloc:ity, and fish swim .\peed" and " ... EPA agrees that reducing illlake by i11.\*talli11g
          .flow reduction tedu10/ogies will result in a similarly high reduction <f impinged... organisms... "

The con-elation between velocity and impingement has also been demonstrated in laboratory studies (Peake 2004. EPRI 2006 cited in ARL 1007). Peake (2004) found a statistically significant linear relationship between impingement of northern pike and approach vdodty (P<<J.05. R1=0. 70) :md that lM was reduced by 74 percent when approach velocity was reduced from 1.8 to I. I feet per second (fps). Similarly. in a more extensive study evalu:.1ting 10 species commonly impinged at CWIS, a statistically

-.ignificant positive relationship was demonslrateu between upproach velocity and impingement (P<0.05. R2=0. 72) (EPRI 2006 cited in ARL 2007). ARL (2007) conduded that impingement rates can be reduced with reductions in approach velocities and reductions in impingement may average 45 to 75 percent. depending on species. when intake vdm:itics are uccrcascd from 2 to l fps. The methodology and analytical and statistical nnalysis used to compute 1he Cakul:.ition Bnsdine arc provided in Appendix A The Calcuh1tion Buscline for the inner intake slrul'.lure is I .465,857 fish. of which

1,419,750 are gizzard shad (Table 2-2). Thus the "as built IM for the existing PBAPS outer CWIS is 85 percenr less compared co the Calculation Baseline. 2.5 References ARL (Alden Research Laboratory Incorporated). 2007. Review of Laboratory and Field Data To Determine Influence of Approach Velocities on Fish Impingement at Cooling Water Intakes. EPRI (Electric Power Resenn.:h Institute) 2000. Technical Evaluation of the Utility of Intake Approach Vclocity as an Indicator of Potential Adverse Environmental fmpact under Clean Water Ad Sccliun 3 l 6(b ). I000731. EPRI (Electric Power Rese:m:h Institute) 2006. Laboratory Evaluution of Modified Ristroph Trnvding Screens for Protecting Fish at Cooling Water Intakes. I013238 '"National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System-Final Regulations to Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures at Phase II Existing Facilities: Final Rule." Ft:cleral Register 69 (9 July 2004): 41575-41693 NAI (Normandeau Associates, lnc.) 2000. A Report on the Thermal Conditions and Fish Populations in Conowingo Pond Relative to Zero Cooling Tower Operation at the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (June-October 1999). Prepared for PECO Energy Company. Peake. S. 2004. Effect of Approach Velocity on Impingement of Juvenile No1them Pike ut Water Intake Screens. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 24: 390-396. PECO (Philadelphia Electric Company). 1977. 3 l6(b) Demonstration for PBAPS Units No. 2 & 3 on Conowingo Pond. Materials prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency, June 1977.

Table 2-1 List of ail io'ii.h Species Collected During Studies of the Aqu~tic Kesourci:s in the Vicinit~ of the PBAPS CummooN~~ Communi1 SamoliRI! IM&EStudi~ Sclt!otitlc Nllllle J!l!l!I" 1!1!17-2006" 1!174-76' 2005-111>" River Herrines Cluocida~ 111uchuck hcrrmg A.Jnsu u1..*Jt1n:a/is x Citznrd shad l>1>rn.fr>ll!CJ Cfpt!d1a1111m x x x x Amcrk &&n shaJ :-\lo.u11up11/1Jsima x x x x Alewife .*Hri.ta /HUtJolrarcng11s x x x Pikes & Pickerels Esoddae Muskdlun~c Esnx 111nJQui1um~_1* x Minnows and Caros Cvorinidae c~nlr.il :-.lon~mll..:r Campostomu cmoma/11111 x x x Common shiner Lu.\:il11s comuws x x Spmlin shiner C.\*uriutlla Sl'ilomera x x x x Commun carp c_,prums l'arp10 x x x x Rnsy,idc dace C/1110.t/mfuu fi111dulmcJ~s x Cutlip.~ minnow £.~nr:lo.rs1m1 mln*j//in.r:ua x Gl1lJen shiner Nrntmts:nnus cr:-.solt11eu .f x x x x Sil\\!rjaw Minnow No1toµJS b1111.:t1IUS x Rnsyfoca: shiner /\'otrnpis rub~llus x x M1111ic shin~r Nr>trD/llS nl11ce/111s x x x Blu111nose minnow Pim~µhalts 1101a111s x x x x F<ithcat.J minnow Puuephalt!s 1*ra1tll'las x BIJcknosc dace Rlri11irh1h,\ s mratulus x x Creek chub s~mo1Uu1 a1ramncuhi1t1J x x x (\1mlcy shiner Natropi.c a11uu11u.r x x x x Sronail shiner Nntropis hudst*lllllS x x x x Swallowu1il shinl.!r Nmmpis 1uoc11t x x x x Lt1ny.1HlSC Lia....~ Hhi111ch1hys ....a1arac1ae x Falli"osh SemMilu.t cmporali.i x Suckers Cah>stomidae Quill buck Carpiodcs cypri1111s x x x x White sucker Ca10.uam11r commtrso11i x x x x Nl1nhcrn hog :;ui;kl!'r H.\*p~,,1~/iom 1iigr1rans x x x x Sl10nhead rcdhorS< Mo:rnsumra mncrole11idomm x x x x Bullhc11d CallashL'S kralurillae White callish .-\JUtllll11S t"atllS x x x x Ydloll' hullh°'1d Am~fonu nmalis x x x x Brown hullhcud Ameiuru.f nebulosus x x x

!-5

Table 2-1 {contiuued) Lil;1 uf all Fish Species Collected During StudiH uf the Aquatic Rl!SllUl'C1'S i.u the \'kiuiry of the PBAPS Communit

Samolin11 IM&E Studies C11mmunN11me Sciealific N11111e 1!199" 1997-211116" 1974-76' 2005-06° Chann<I ca1fish /c1CJ/111*11s µunc'lows x x x x Flaih~aLI callish Pylodic1is n/irarrs x x Margin~c..I inadl,,m NmuruJ insi.~ms x x Killifishes Fundulidill Mummkhoy Fwtdu/u.r ht11~rncfi111s x x x Ba111lcLI killi1ish F1111d11/11J diuphamu x Sunl1*hes Cemrnrchidae Rud: b;.iss Amblnpli1es rup,-.uris x x x C.rc~n :iunrish l~prm1i1 c::ra11~1/us x x x PumpkinsceLI L~pomis gi/Jbo.ms x x x Bluegill lcpomis macrochir11.t x x x S111osJJmau1h ha..;s i\licmptit.ncs Jll/omit11 x x x Ljr~ernou1h bass !t'lirrnJJter1u 1aJ111aid1*s x x x Whit ...* crappi~ fomtuis ammlaris x x x Blo.:k o:rapptc Pnmo.\'iJ ni.i.11"'1111111cula11u x x x Rcdhr<asi sunrish U1aomi.t a11rims x x x E*b Anguillida~

American eel :\11_t:J1i//a J'OJlfOIU x Temperate Bw;ses l\fomnidae White pcn:h klomut 11111r.rirn11a x x x Striped Bass ,Wnmne llu:a1ili.r x x Hyhrid sirip..-U bas. ,~ ch,,~stJpJ x :'d. sa.xaril1:r x Pea*ches Percidae Tcs:;i:ll~t<<!<l dani!r £1J,,<1Jtnma o/11151e"i x x x Banded Llaner £1h~ru1nma :.m1ale x

        \'dlnw       pcr~h     P(rt't1)laren*,*1u                           x                                          x                           x Lug perch           Ptrciua CCJJ>rOdi!J                          x                                                                      x Walleye             }a11t1.*r 1*i1r,*1u                         x                                          x                           x Grcr:ns1Ue daner         £11tens1unu1 blt1i11w1dts                    x                                                                      x Shield dancr          Pe-rrinn pel1e11a                            x Smelts                          Osmeridae l{.11nhow s111clr       O.m1t!r1u 111or.la.'(                                           x

N .~I !fl{.()

' N.\I ~0117 ' PECO 1'177 ' .'!Al ~00~

T abl e 2 2- summary ore urren t IM r Base d on T oa t IN t um b er at th e PB \PS I Adjusted Number Baseline Inner Common Name 11 Annuul IMh Collected CWISC Gizzard shad l-l8.633 I91.180 I Al9,750 Bluegill 5,589 11.861 23.524 Channel catfish 2.262 14.096 15.159 Walleye 400 791 972 1American shad 138 281 281 White crappie 122 264 500 tomely shiner 86 335 584 Smallmouth bass 50 211 365 Largemouth buss 41 95 212 Non-RS Recreational d 503 1,430 2,986 Non-RS Forage <1 238 877 1.524 fotal 158,062 221.421 1,465,857 "a<lju:;tcd for sub-sampling and gear cffidL"ncy August JO. 2005 through August 29. 2006 h based nn operating <.:onditions over one year (as builtl August 30. 2005 1hnn1gh August 29. 2lKl6

   ,. based on linear relationship between ( log 10 ) Population I IM and TSV. and IM reductions associated with rcdm:ed in intake wlrn.:iries !EPRI ('.!006) as reported in ARL (2007)) for population II.
   ' RIS =representative important species. See Appendix A 1

Figure 2-1 Impingement at the PBAPS during August 30, 2005

November 17.

2006 Sampling 30 ,- - - - - *----*------*--*-**- ---**- -*--***---- *--**---*---*--*-*--** ..---- 25 L . - -*-... -- .. - - - **---- .. - ---* --**- --*- -** --- .. -*- - - --- * ---*-* ... __. I i I 20 **- *- *** - - **--... - - - -*- - * -* - .. ---**- .. --*- - *--**- ** - ** --- -*-- *---* .. -*-* - IS .. 1 10 1- * - - 1 5 I I 0 ~ I ~ *. .,i .... .. - * - * *** **- - .. ..... -*-*- ** * ... . ... .. ... , _,J .... .. ll ... J 2-1

SECTION 3 NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION OF DESIGN AND OPERATING MEASURES AND DEMONSTRATION OF THE EFFICACY FOR PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION Prepared for: Exie: j ,(i,.) n...

_.t:J.P" ll'*'

by URS Corporation October 2008

3.0 Narrathe Description of Design and Operating .Measures and Demonstration of the Efficacy 3.1 Background and Introduction to Design and Co11structio11 Teclz11ology Plan Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP or the Department) requested rhat fadlities proviue a Design and Construction Technology Plan 1_DCTP) which indu<les the following:

a. The capacity utilization rate for the fadlity and/or for individual cooling water intake stmctures;

b. The average annual net generation of the facility. (in megawatt hours

[MWhl) measured over a 5-year period of representative operating conditions;

c. The total net capacity of the facility (in megawntts [MWI) and underlying calculations;

d. A narrative description of the design and operations of all design and constmction technologies and/or opermional meas mes (existing and proposed), including fish handling and return systems, that are in place or may be used to reduce impingement mortality of those species expected to be susceptible to impingement, and informarion that demonstrates the efficacy of these technologies and/or operational measures for those species;

e. A narrative description of the de.sign and operation of all design and constmction technologies and/or operational measures (existing and proposed). that are in place or may be used to reduce entrainment of lhuse species expecte<l to be susceptible to entrainment, if applicable, and information that demonstrates the cffil:acy of the technologies and/or operational measures for those species; and

f. Calculations of the reduction in impingement mortality and entrainment of all life stages of fish and shellfish that \vould be a~hieved by the technologies and/or operational measures that may be selected. In determining reductions of impingcmem mortality and/or 1..mtrainment, a facility should assess the total reduction against the Calculation Basdine. Reductions in impingement mortality an<l entrainment from this Calculation Baseline as a result of any design and constrnction technologies and/or operational measures already implemented at rhe facility should be added to the reductions expected to be achieved hy any additional design an<l/or construction technologies and operational measures that will be implementcu.

In addition. the PADEP has request lhar all Phase II fat:ilitics investigute rhc availahility of dosed cycle cooling (CCC) as a technology. J.1

The required data for the DCTP is provided in this section as follows:

Plant Data
Implemented Technologies and Operational Measures for IM Reduction
Efficacy of Implemented Technologies
Cooling Tower Evaluation
Evaluation of IM Reduction Technologies fn accordance with the Proposal for Information Collcdion (PlC) .~ubmitted and revised hy the Department, PBAPS is suhjcct only to performance standards for impingement mortality. Requirements for design and construction technologies ancVor operational measures for reduction in entrainment (item (e) ahove) :ire not applicable for PB:\PS.

Allhough PBAPS has assessed the effectiveness, site compatibility. and cost of implementing :.ulditional technologies and operational measures to achieve 316( b) compliance. Exelon is not proposing any new technologies or operational changes at PBAPS because implemented technologies and operational measures, especially inscallation of the outer intake. already achieve a significant reduction in IM from the Calculation Baseline. 3.2 Plant Data 3.2.1 Capacity Utilization PBAPS is a basc~loud plant that is available to operate year round. Either unit could be in shutdown mode or operating at less than 100 percent capacity as a result of maintenance outages, reduced electric demand, or other factors. Based on annual operations from 2001 through 2006, the PBAPS' average net facility capacity utilization rate was 93.5 percent. Typically, cooling water demand i.s less during the winter months (late Novl!mber/carly December through l\farch) due to colder intake water temperatures. Cooling water system operntion generally rninci<lcs vv'ith electric power generation with ~1dditional opcrnting time needed before plant startup and after plant shutdown. 3.2.2 Annual Net Generation The annual net generation for Unit 2 for the period of January 200J through Ju11c 2007 is pwvi<lt:d in Table 3~ I bdow (U.S. DOE). Table 3-l Total Annual Generation in MWh for Unit 2 Year TotaJ Generation MWh 2003 lJ.291.121 2004 8,845,679 2005 9,569.015 2006 9.042.327 2007* -L925.989

                                  'Thrnugh June. ~007
                                                                                       .l-~

The annual nee generation for Unit 3 for the period of January 2003 through June 2007 is provided in Table 3-2 below (U.S. DOE). Table 3-2 Total Annual Generation in MWh for Unit 3

*-

Year Total Generalion MWh 2003 8.893.599 2004 9,973. 702 2005 8.824.435 2006 9.890,350 2007* 4.873.423

                                      ~Through June, 2007 The calculated average annual net generation for Units 2 and 3 combined at PBAPS is approximately 18,695,500 MWh per year for the period of January 2003 through June 2007.                                                                              .

3.2.3 Capacity of Facility PBAPS is a two-unit (Units 2 and 3) nuclear-fueled boiling water reactor electric power generacing facility with a generating capacity of nominally 2,304 (MW). Unit 2 has a net capacity of l.112 megawatt electric (MW(e)) and Unit J has a net capacity of 1,112 MW(e) (U.S. DOE). 3.3 Implemented Technologies and Operational 1~/easures for I1l1 Reduction As identified in the PIC, existing technologies and operational measures implemented at PBAPS include:

Outer inlake structure specifically designed and installed to reduce impingement by lowering the approach and through-screen velocities, having flush alignment of the screens with the shoreline with lateral fish escape passages, and eliminating the need for intake canals;
Flow reductions by not operating all of the designed circulating water pumps during the late fall and winter months (late November/early December through Man:h) and by recirculating warm disdrnrge water to the intake busins in the winter;
Air bubbler system in front of trash rncks that may encourage fish avoidance behavior; and Operational measures account for an annual flow reJuction due to seasonal and mainccnance shutdowns. Three circulating pumps (one unit) arc shut clown for approximately one month for maintenance each year. From late November/early December through March, four circulacing water pumps ( 2 per unit) instead. of six arc generally operated due to lower intake water temperatures.

The outer CWIS is a strw:tural configuration that results in velocity reductions and avoids fish entrapment. and was implemented for the purpose of reducing lM. The outer CWJS was designed to minimize fish impingcmenr during construction of the station. The J- l

original intake (in 1967), consisting of only an inner set of vertical traveling screens, three circulating wmcr screens per unit (a total of six) and two service water sl'.reens per unit (a total of four), is located at the end of the intake canal. The relatively high velocity resulting from this configuration and the absence of lateral escape routes would entrap most fish in the intake canal where they would eventually hccome impinged. Conscquencly. e.xtensive swim speed studies of resident and anadromous fishes (over 580 tests) were initiated in June 1967 to determine the most sensitive species and the critical maximum velocity that would minimize cntrnpmcm and impingi:ment. Based on data from these studies and experience from other facil'itics ut that time. the outer CWIS was designed and installed with an approach velocity of ~O. 75 fps; the maximum velocity tolerated by most sensitive species (i.e., young white crappie). In addition, the PBAPS has adapted procedures that were implemented to reduce lM (e.g. the shutdown uf circulation pumps in rhe winter). The inner intake stnu:ture was the original design and represents baseline practices. procedures, and structural configuration uf the facility. Thus IM at the inner intake strncture would be defined as the Calculation Baseline. However. field data are not available for lM at the inner intake structure. Therefore. the Calculation Baseline must be estimated using available IM data (2005-2006 lM study at the outer CWIS). plant operations, laboratory and field data on IM, and intake velocity. 3.4 Efficacy of Implemented Tecluwlogies The outer CWIS was designed and constructed to reduce intake velocity for fish protection purposes. and results in a reduction in lM. The efficacy of the existing outer CWIS was evaluated by comparing the estimated annual II.VI at the outer CWlS to that of the inner CWIS at original design conditions (i.e .. the Calculation Baseline). Details of the methods and statistics used in this evaluation are presented in Appendix A and a summary of the results is provided below. To determine the percent reduction of IM, or credit, attrihutahle to the presence of the outer CWIS as operated between August 30. 2005 and August 29, 2006. the estimatc<l annual lM at each structure (measured as total number) was compared. Results show that overall IM was reduced by approximately 85 percent (Table 3-3). Table 3-3* Summary of IM calculations from August JO, 2005 through August

                                                              *29~   2006" 1

Population 1 Population 11 2 Total Impingement OurerCWIS 18J ...ns +/- 8VN2 :H.1.J86 +/- J.8:! I 121.-1-21 +/- S6.713 (as huifl) Inner CWIS l...J.11.438 +/- 103.517 5..J.All.J +/- 6J79 l.465,H57 +/- 109.896

   !Cakularion Baselim:: I Percent Rl'duction From B:Jseline                       85%
                       ...

Populatmn l 1ep1esl!nts a stat1st1i:ally d1st1m:t pnpulatuin ot 1111g.rat111g. gizzard shad 11np111gcd dur111g !hi! fall season.

Pnpularion II represents gizzard shad impinged during winter. spring and summer 111on1hs and all other (ish i111pinged thmughuut the yeur.

A number of assumptions were made in this evaluation to ensure that the cakulatcu lM and creuit for IM reduction arc at the lower end of the range. The following paragraphs tlcscrihe these assumptions and the potential effects on the final conclusions. EPRI (2006) evaluated the reduction of IM resulting from uccrcases in approach velocities of 3. 2, and l fps. In the calculation of the annual lM m the inner intake stmcture for Population ll (CM excluding gizzar<l shad in Fall 2005, sec Appendix A). the percent decrease in lM corresponding to the change in approach vdocity from 2 to l fps (a difference of I fps) was used bccm1se these data were available anu best approximated the change in approach velocities at PBAPS . The average approach velocities for the inner CWIS and outer CWIS during the study period were approximately I .2 and 0.3 fps respectively (a difference of 0.9 fps). IM reductions were only applied to fish of similar size classes tu those tested in the EPRI (2006) study (cited in ARL 2007), though lM is likely reduced for all size classes. This conservative employment of the lM reductions results in a lower cal.culatcd lM at the inner screens and is a source of uncertainty. lf IM reductions were expanded to include all impingement, the estimated IM at the inner intake .'itructure would increase (i.e.', Calculation Baseline), resulting in a greater credit for the outer intake structure. Another source of uncertainty is the evaluation of only differences in approach velocity in calculating the outer CWIS credit. The outer CWIS was constructed to eliminate the intake canals that resulted in fish entrapment, as well as reduce approach velocity. The elimination of fish entrapment reduces IM. However, data were not available to estimate a potential efficacy for the design of the outer CWIS to reduce entrapment. Therefore. the calculated credit, using only approach velocity, is likely underestimated. The Calculation Baseline for Population I (gizzard shad impinged in fall 2005. see Appendix A) utilized linear regression analysis to find a relationship between through

s1.:rccn velocity (TSV) and lM for the data collected at the outer CWl.S. This relationship was applied to inner CWCS TSV values for the Population l Calculation Baseline. TSV at the outer screens ranged from approximately 0.5 - 1.0 fps while TSV at the inner CWlS ranged from 1.2 - 2.5 fps. Extrapolating IM data beyond the limits of measured independent variables (outer CWIS TSV) added uncertainty to the estimated lM at the inner intake. To be conservative. a linear correlation \Vas used to estimate IM at higher TSV rather than the best-fit logarithmic relationship. There is evidence. however. that impingement rates increase exponentially with increasing intake vclodty. EPRl (2000) demonstrated this relationship from impingement studies conducted at the Indian Point Plant on the Hudson River in the 1970s, where there was an exponential rise in impingement when the incake velocity exceeded approximately l fps. Therefore. using the linear regression models to estimate IM ut the inner intake is a conservative approach

ind underestimates the efficacy for the outer screen.

3.5 Cooling Tower Evaluation The PADEP has requested that all Phase Il facilities invcstigare the availability of doseJ cycle cooling (CCC) as a technology. Therefore. a rreliminary analysis was completcJ

ror PBAPS to address the feusibility. rnsts for rnnslruclion and operation. and the ncl L:nvironmenral i111pacc of CCC at the facility. 3.5.l Cooling Tower Conceptual Design A preliminary evaluation of CCC was completed for PBAPS assuming the installation of mechanicul-<lrnft evaporative cooling towers (MECT) :.1c the current location of the existing helper cooling towers. Non-contact cooling water at PBAPS is currently pumped from the CWIS through the main condensers. where it becomes heated, and then discharges into a discharge pon<l and canal that flows hack to the reservoir downstream of the intake. Five helper cooling towers were constructed on site to help lower the discharge tcmpcr<.1lllre uf the cooling water. However. as a result of a four-year study uf the Pond. the operation of the helper cooling towers ceased in 1997. For the purposes of this evaluation. the MECTs were assumed ll> be installed on the same sites as the existing helper towers. but with larger basin footprints. Two 22-cell back-to-bnck towers (each 602' x 104' x 6') undone-half of a 20-ccll back-to-back tower (one tower sized at 548' x 104' x 6' to be shared between the two units) would be needed for each generating unit. Water from the cooling tO\vcrs may be routed back to the intake basins; and the inner intake stntccure may continue to be used. Or the heated cooling water could continue to be routed to the discharge canal. which may be used to feed the cooling towers. The basic characteristics of the towers include a design wet bulb temperature of 74°F (for the Conowingo Pond area), a range of 20.8°F. reservoir TDS of 126 ppm (from PBAPS NPDES permit renewal application), and eight cycles of concentration. Estimated per unit water flow requirements include 750,000 gpm condenser cooling water flow rate. 3.8 gpm drift rate, 15.600 gpm cooling tower evaporation rate, 2,229 gpm blowdown rate, and 17 ,829 gpm mnke up rate. The current location of the helper cooling towers was assumed to be the optimal location for this facility and no other locations were evaiuated. HO\vcver, the site of the existing helper cooling towers appears to be suitable only for MECT. An alternate locution woul<l be required for natural draft or dry cooling tm.vcrs, \vhid1 \Vere assumed to be not practit:ab le. 3.5.2 Estimated Costs for CCC Conceptual Design Prdiminary costs were evaluated for the installation and annual Operation and Mai11tena11cc (O&M) of tht! CCC described in 3.5.1. Initial retrofit c<tpitul costs were based on an average cost of $265 per gpm of cooling water. This average l:OS( was derived for a fossil fuel plant from the results of a survey of 50 plants condul*tcd by Mmllbetsch Consulting in 2002. The retrofit c.1pital cost was then scaled up 35% to account for higher costs related to the retrofit of nuclear facilities. This 35~1(;. increase was found to be typical by Maulbetsch Consulting in their 2002 stu<ly and it c01Telates with the 1.35 cost factor for O&M costs at PBAPS interpolated from Table 2-27 of cost modules for the EPA final Phase II 3 I6(b) Rule. The estimated capital c:ost associated with the installation of MECT at PBAPS is $536.6M 2* The estimated O&M rnsts, including operating power costs. maintenance. and a heat rnte penalty, are estimated at 1

 .-\II rn~ls f1>r l*o11ling 101wr rt:mil'it arlO' in 2t)ll2 J11llars.
                                                                                             .l-6

S47.5M 3 per year. Assuming a 5% discount rate ~md an expcc.:ted plant life of 20 years, these costs equate to an annualized cosc of $90.6M 4* 3.5.3 Net Environmental Et'fects The following environmental and social effects will potentially occur with the installation of MECT:

Aquatic biota The conversion from once-through cooling to CCC results in a significant cb:rcasc (97.6 percent) in the amount of cooling water withdrawn from the water body and a subsequent decrease in impingement mortality at PBAPS. The current calculated annual impingement, of 221.421 would decrease to an estimated 5,313 if PBAPS were to conve11 to CCC. lt should be noted that more than 85 percent of all impingement wus comprised of gizzard shad, a forage species of limited value.
Human health related to air quality Potential human health issues are driven by possible health impacts resulting from additional air emissions from MECTs in the form of PM w or PM25 . Impacts as.-.ociated with exposure to PM include:

o Mortality due to long-term exposure to an increased concentration of PM that measures 2.5 microns or less in diameter (P~h.s), and o Hospital admissions for treatment of morbidity effects such as heurt disease, bronchitis, emphysema, and pneumonia due to exposure to increased com:cntrations of PM2.s and/or PM that measures between I0 and 2.5 microns in diameter (PMrn-1.s). Base<l on estimated emissions from MECTs at PBAPS, approximately 7,500 people over age JO and l ,300 people over 65 could be exposed to increased PM and mmlting adverse health impacts.

TeITestrial resources Salt and mineral drift from MECTs may adversely affect native vegetation, soils and crops. Based on estimated emissions from r\/lECTs at PBAPS:

o Approximately 13 acres of woody vegetation would be exposed to mo<lernte levels of salt mineral drift possible resulting in visible leaf damage (NRC 2003); o 26 hectares of agricultural land would receive adverse levels of salt mineral drift

Water resources Rctrofitcing to MECT may result in adverse impacts un \Vater resources inclmling the net im:rease in evaporacion of waccr resulting in a decrease in the availability of water in the

 .'\II l'o~ts for rnolin!! hllWr retrofit are in 2002 <loll;irs.

1 All ;,:osts for l'lluling tmwr rctrnti1 are in 200::! d,1f1:1r~. 1 3- 7

source \Vatcrbody. In turn. this could potentially lower water surface elevations in the

\.VmcrboJies. Jecrease the availability of potable water. and clecreuse littoral habitats.

Additional evaporative loss from MECTs may also increase the frequency of drought declarations in the watcrsheu. The estinrntcd net increase in evaporation (over evaporation from once through cooling) from MECTs at PBAPS is approximately 25,500.000 gallons per day (39.5 d's). This is the equivalent daily water use of between 200.000 and 300.0lJO people (based on n:sidential water use of 75 to 130 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) (Lindeburg, 2003)). The 39.5 cf-; loss to evaporation is approximately 2.6 percent of the minimum monthly average flows of lhe Conowingo Reservoir of the Susquehanna River. However, flow levels are controlled by reservoir releases and. as such, consumptive \Valer loss associated with cooling tower operation would be mitigated by existing institutional mechanisms.

Safety and Security Retrofitting to MECT may result in fogging interference with nuclear facility security systems and the plant perimeter.
Quality of life (noise and visual);

The installation of a MECT at PBAPS will result in an adverse impact to quality of life through increased noise levels and visual impacts. Increased noise level will be perceived on the Conowingo Pond, adjacent recreation area and nearby homes. Likewise vapor plumes of various lengths and plume shadows will impact the surrounding urea. These noise and visual impacts will decrease property values and enjoyment of recreational areas.

Greenhouse gases.

The installation of a l\:IECT at PBAPS will result in an increase in CO:! gas emissions associated with: o Lost generation capacity from increased parasitic load associated with cooling towl!rs (electricity required co operate the pumps and fans) and the need for nuclear facilities to optimize their comknsers. o Replacement of power by a mix of fossils plants during the period PBAPS is oflline to optimize the con<lcnscrs for dosed-cycle cooling. This outage may vary from 6 to 12 months. This lost power \11;ould be made up by increased generation at fossil plants which have a vailablc capacity. Based on an 8 month outage and a value of 1.341 pounds of carbon tlioxi<le per kilowatt-hour (DOE and EPA 2000) emitted from the curn~nt 'mix' of fuels and facilities. an additional 8.24 million tons of C0 2 would be emitted to compensate for the loss of elt:ctricity generation. 3.5.4 Cost Effectiveness of Cooling Towers Although the Second Circuit remanded the use of cost-benefit for 3 l 6(b) compliance, the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing arguments in Lhe foll of 2008 that may allow cost-benefit analysis. Benefits transfer and the methods nutlincd by EPA in its J 16(b) Phase [(and !I(

regional benefits assessment (USEPA 2002 and 200-lb) arc used to estimate willingness to pay t WTP) to avuid the assumed foregone recreational harvest, foregone commcrcial harvest, and foregone production. Using the EPA approach. the annual benefit (WTP) of installing MECTs al PBAPS is $6.484 annually. This value is low due. in part, to the fa1.:t that juvenile gizzard shad. a forage species of limited value, would compri.'ie more than 85 percent of the fish saved by the installation of l\'lECTs. fo comparison to the $6.484 of annual benefit. the anm1~1J izcd cost to install nml operate the f\.IECTs is $90.6M. Thus, the costs are wholly disproportionate to the benefits. 3.6 Evaluatioll of /1\1. Reduction Teclt11ologies The PlC in<lkates that PBAPS will assess the effectiveness. site compatibility, and cost of implementing additional technologies and operntional measures that may he used to ad1ieve J 16(h) rnmpliance. The PIC f urthcr i<lemifie<l two primary categories of technologies that wpuld be evaluated, including upgrades to the outer intake with screen improvemcnt.s/replacemcnt and diversion systems. This section provides a summary of the preliminary technology evaluation for alternative compliance technologies. These are: Screening Improvement/Replacement Technologies

Addition of fish buckets, fish handling system, and potential upgrade with smooth screening material
Replacement of through-t1ow traveling water screens with Geiger Multi-Disc rotary screens with a fish handling system Diversion Technologies
Replacement of existing trash bars with modified louvers to encourage fish avoidance behavior
Behavioral controls such as strobe lights and/or sound
lnstallation of water jct screen to encourage fish avoidance behavior 3.6.1 Coarse-mesh .l\tlodified-Ristroph Vertical Traveling Screens at Existing Outer Screen Structure with New Fish Return System Options evaluated for screen upgrades at rhc outer intake included both:
A complete replacement of the existing screens with new mo<lific<l-Ristroph screens (inclutUng smooth finer mesh (\!4 x 1/2-inch) wire baskets) with a fish handling an<l return system: an<l
A retrofit of the existing screens with smooth finer mesh ( 1/i x ~~i-im:h) baskets, fish buckets upgrmle and a fish return s ystcm.

These types of screen modific~1tions are generally accepted as 'off-rhc-shclf' technology and have been widely implemented at power plant CWfSs across the country. However. at PBAPS, signifo:aut modifications will be required within the screen house to accommoJate the two separnte fish and debris handling sy~tems. Additionally, the fish wrurn trough would have to be huried outside the s1.:rcen house to minimize intl*rfcrencc J-9

wi1h roadways and olher plant struclurcs. The nrngnitudc of conslruction (24 screens to be replaced or retrnfi1ted) amJ the complexity involved in tying all screens to !he new fish return system contribute to high installation costs. and arc expected 10 result in significant downtime for the planr. Although this alternative potentially has moderate to high biological hcncfits, gizzard shad dominate the catch at PBAPS and site specific factors may affect their survival. Since 1he screen mc-;h open area \voulu be kept the same (0. 14 squ<ire inches) or slightly finer (O. lJ square inches), a minimal change in the number of organisms impinged is c.'<-pcdccl. Huwcwr. adding a foh return syslem would reduce IM. Additionally, 1hc smooth mesh wire would. in general, reduce fish injuries and increase the likelihood for survival. Expected survival using modified Ristroph screens ranges from nearly 100 percent for hardy species (hluegill and L'hannel catfish) to 64 percent for more fragile species (gizzard shad) (EPRI and ARL 2003). Overall efficacy of this technology at PBAPS is uncertain due to gizzard shad ahundance and !he variability of their survival. The estimated initial cost associated with replacing the screens with new modificd-Ristroph screens and a fish return system is approximately $10.0M 5 with an estimated incremental O&M cost of approximately $ l .3M 6 . The estimated initial cost associated with retrofitting the screens with smooth top mesh and a new fish return system is approximacely $7.7M 7 with an estimated incremental O&M cost of appro,"<irnately

 $1.lM:i.

Based on this preliminary evaluation. this alternative is not recommended for PBAPS due to 1he uncertainty in overall biological efficacy for the most abundant fish species and the moderate to significant constrnction and installation issues, and significant initial costs relative to the anticipated reduction in IM. 3.6.2 Geiger Screens with Fish Return This alternative includes replacing the existing 24 screens wilh Geiger traveling water screens (also called rvlulti-Disc Screens) and installing a new fish handling and return system. The Geiger screen design \vould require a separate fish and debris wash system on rhe front of the screens, and space constraints within the screen house may complicate installation of the new troughs. As with the replacement or retrofit with modificd-Ristroph screens. significant modifications will be required within the screen house to accommodate the two separate fish and debris ham.Hing systems. Additionally, rhc fish return trough would have 10 be buried outside the screen house to minimize interference with roadways and other plant strnclures. The magnitude of construction (24 screens to be rcph1ced or retrofincd) and rhe comp\e:'{ity involvet.l in tying all screens to lhe new fish 5 Cost deriwd from 2006 wndor quotes and construi:rion cost d<.1!a. and !hen ~.:ali.'d up to 2008 dollars using Engineering News Record Constru\.*tion Cost Indii:es. '.*.Cost Jerived using EPA Phase II final Rule rnst modules and scaled up from 2002 dollars to 2008 uollars usinu Enuineerin!! News Rei.:ord Construi:tion Cost lm.lices. 7 Ci1~t de;ivcd fn;m 2D06 wndor qu11te.~ and construi:tion l'!lSI data. and then s..:alcd up to 2008 dnllJrs using En!.!inecrin\! Ni::ws R1.xnrcl Cnnstru.:tion Cnst lndil*e~. ~ Ct1~( de;iwd u~ing EPA Phase II Final Rule l'l>S[ 1110clules and SL'aled up from 211112 dollars to 20118 unllars using Engim:ering News Rcc1ird c~1nstrui:ti1111 Cost Indices.

1- !0

return system contribute to high installation costs, an<l arc expected to result in significant downtime for the plant. The most abundant species of fish impinged at PBAPS are gizzard shad, bluegill. ~md channel catfish. in that order. Geiger screens h~ive c.lisplaycd similar impingement survival rates to modified Ristroph screens, up to 100 percent. for bluegill and channel catfish (EPRI '.!007). However. survival was poor for gizzard shad, 50 percent in the Fall of 2005 and 0 percent in the Spring of 1006. Note that the numher of gizzard shad impinged was very low ( 7 individuals). so these results may nut be representative. Likewise, survival of American shad (97 individuals) was also poor (0 percent). Therefore, the biological efficacy, as it applies to PBAPS, has a high um:ertainty compared to modified-Ristroph screens. The estimated initial cost assoduted with rcplacin§ the screens with new Geiger screens and a fish return system is aftproximatcly $IO. IM' with un est imatcd incremental O&M cost of approximately$ I .3M 1

Based on this preliminary evaluation, Gieger screens arc not recommended for PBAPS due to the lack of data and the uncertainty in overall biological efficacy for the most abundant fish species, the moderate to significant construction and installation issues and significant initial costs relative to the anticipated reduction in lM.

3.6.3 l\tloditied Louver System Traditional louver systems consist of vertical panels (the frame) arranged side-by-side at an angle to the source water flow direction (typically 15 co 30 degrees) with the individual blades perpendicular to the source water flow. Certain features of a t~aditional louver system, such as a frame angled to the source water flow direction, cannot be utilized at PBAPS. PBAPS is located on a reservoir, and flow through the reservoir is generally too slow to provide a parallel cuncnt along a traditional louver system installed in front of the outer screen structure. It would also be difficult to structure a fish bypass as the louver would be directing fish. downstream of the intake and into the Pond. The length of the outer intake structure requires any traditional louver system to be very large (a minimum of 500-feet in length at an angle of 15 degrees from the screen structure and protmding into the Pond over IOO-fcct) and expensive. However. a .. modified" louver system that would replace the existing trash rrn:ks and utilize the existing rack slots could be installed at a significanLly lower cost and could potentially provide fish diversion at the outer intake at PBAPS. This **modified" louver system would consist of vertical panels *manged parallel with the screen stmcture; the hladcs would be at an acute .1ngle to the frame. This configuration also creates an abrupt clrnnge in flow direction a11d velocity that fish may avoid. A total of 29 individual

modified" louver frames would be insmlled parallel with the shoreline (outer screen structure) and with louver blades installed at a 45- to 60-degrce a11gle to the frame (instead of the 90-dcgrces angle uf the existing bar racks) .

., Cosr Jeri ved from 2006 vendor qunres and con.,lruL*tion c1>st du ta. and then scalt:d up to ~1108 dollars usinl! Engincerinl! News Rel*ord ConstruL'tion Co.~t lndiL'cs. 111 G~.'it d~rived u;in!,! EPA Ph:1sc II Final Rule L'll.~t modules and sc.:;rk*J up from 2002 dollars lo 201/X (h1flars using Engineering Ne\~s Record Cunsrrul'lion C11~1 Indices.

                                                                                                               .1-1 1

Im.tallalion of the modified louver system is expected to be straightforward. although louver manufacturing experience appears tu be limited. O&M efforts i.voul<l he expcch.:d to increase with the added responsibility of the operators to maintain the modific<l louver. the increased debris loading. an<l ad<litional power requirements for the mcchunical de*ming system an<l conveyor. Based on the efficiency studies conducted using louvers and angled screens across a nuruber of target fish spcdcs. EPA (EPA 2004a) conduJe<l that, with proper design. louvers and anglc<l screens cun be effective (70 - 90+ percent) in diverting fish an<l reducing impingement. However. this assun11.:s a significant bypass current to carry fish past the louver system, u condition that often is not present at PBAPS. Note that study results Jiscussed in this section are based 011 a traditional louver design. As indicated

above. the "modificcr* louver system at PBAPS woulJ replace the existing trash racks an<l utilize the existing rack slots. Since biological duta are not n:auily available for this specific louver configurnrion. a pilor stu<ly or fidd study will be required to confirm the biological efficacy at PBAPS.

The estimated initial cost associated with replacing the existing bar racks with a mollified louver system is approximately $4.4M 11 with an cstimare<l O&M cost of approximately

$0.35M 12

Based on this prdiminary evaluation. a modified louver system is not recommemkd al PBAPS due to limited manufacturing experience, the lack of biological efficacy data, and high initial costs relative to the anticipated reduction in IM.

3.6.4 Hybrid Acoustic and Lighting Deterrent System This alternative includes the installation of a hybrid light and sound system upstream of the outer intake structure. Effective diversion of fish by acoustical means requires the sound field to extend smoothly across rhe widrh of the intake location. Both sound and light must extend a sufficient distance from the intake to allow fish to escape hy swimming away from the intake. Additional field information and/or studies would be required tu optimize the hybrid system for site-specific conditions. Installation in front of the bar racks would require a configuration that would not compromise the bar rack cleaning an<l O&M. The effectiveness of these systems is dependent on the health of the fish. as was demonstrated at a lcsl of a light an<l dual-frequency (400 to 4000 Hz and 110 lU 130 kHz) acoustic system at Barry Electric Generating Pltml on the ti<lal freshwater Mobile River, A.labama. The test system was ineffective at deterring. fish completely; however, inspection of the impinged fish indicated a high incidence of disease. which may have contributed to their inability to respond to the stimuli. There have been sevcrnl laboratory and field studies involving the dominant species impinged at PBAPS. Tests at the Pickering Station in Ontario demonstrated rhat "poppers" had no effect on gizzard shad (EPA 1004). However. vendor information for a combined strobe and acoustic 11 Cost derived from .2006 n:mfor quotes and constrw.:lion co~t dala. and then s1.:aled up to .2008 ~k11lars us in\! E1H!it1et!ri1w. Nt!ws Ri:!corcl C1111struction (\1st l11dic1:s. i: c:;st d;rivcd 11;ing .20ll6 w11d11r 1.*s1imall's and EPA Phase II final Rule cos! mlldules and scaled up ro 2011~ llllllars u~i11g E11gint:ering News RCL'lll'U C1.111~1ruction co~t Indices.

                                                                                                                 .1 - 12

sy.'ltem from unpublished reports (Kinectrics Inc. 2005) shows 60 and 85 pcn:cnt effectiveness for catfish* and gizzard shad (two of the top impinged fish species at PBAPS), respectively. Laboratory studies reported by Richards (2006), ORNL ( 1979). EPRI (2006) and Patrick and Filopovic (undated) indicated that strobe light and acoustic deterrent systems can be dfective for gizzard shad an<l channel catfish. Effectiveness ranged from 74.4 to 96.3 pen:ent for gizzard shad and 14.2 to 60.6 percent for channel catfish. A field study of the dTcctiveness of a sound ucterrent system ( 125 kHz) at Danskammcr Station locatcu on the Hudson River founu a 76.5 pcn:cnt reuuction in river herring (i.e. alewife. American shad and hlucback herring) impingement (EPRI 2006). Fmthermore, another strobe and

1coustic deterrent system study at Lambcon Gencracing Sration on the Sr. Clair River in Ontario. Camula found a 73 to 80 percent reduction in gizzard shad impingement (Kincctrics Inc. 2005). Despite these findings. a strobe light/ultrasonic tandem system was tested at York Haven Dam to guide migrant juvenile American shad (Susquehanna River, PA), but was deemed ina<lequate and was suhsequently dropped from consideration for a full installation (OTA l 995).

Therefore, light and acoustic detenent systems have been found to have variable results in diverting important species occmTing at PBAPS. These results suggest that site-specific factors (hydraulic. environmental, etc.) must be considered and that a pilot study will be necessary to determine the overall effectiveness at PBAPS. The estimated initial cost associated with installing a hybrid acoustic and lighting fish deterrent system is approximately $3.SMl.l with an estimated O&M cost of nppmdmately

$0.56M 14 *                                                     ,

Based on this preliminary evaluation. a hybrid lighting and deterrent system is not recommended at PBAPS due to the uncertainty in overall biological efficacy for the most abundant fish species and high initial costs relative to the anticipated reduction in lM. 3.6.5 \Vater Jet Curtain The water jet system would include a pipe distribution network and <lischarge nozzle array to provide pressurized water from the cooling water discharge to the front of the trash racks. Water for the jet system would be conveyed to a horizontal header located

tlong the top of the trash rnck structure. Vertical <lischargc headers could be placed along the existing center walls between the trash racks, and nozzles would be installed to

<lirect a curtain of water outward from the bar racks toward the Pond. Specific design parameters (tlow, pressure, nozzle angle, nozzle spaci11g, etc.) and the biological efficacy of each parnmcter would have to be cvaluatc<l during a pilot study. New pumps an<l additional power may he required and special consideration will nce<l to be made to avoid interferences with existing equipment, piping and appurtenances, and deaning of the trash racks. 13 Cost lkrivt'd from 2.006 cons1n11.:1inn rnst Jata. anJ then ~cali.:d up Ill 2008 dollars using Enginct!ring Nc:ws Rc:(11rd Consrructiun Cmc Indices. 11 Cost dl'rivcd using 21)06 n~ndor l'Slimale' and EPA Pha~l' II Final Ruic cost m11dules anJ s.:;1lt'd up lo 2008 d11!1;1rs using Enginc:t'ring Nt:\~~ Rc:cnnl Con~1ru..:ti11n Cu*;( lndict's.

3. 1J

Water jcts inum:e an abrupt change in flow direction and velocity that most fish species avuiu (EPA 1976). Water jl!ts have hccn cvaluatl!d nn a limited basis including one full-scale, one prototype an<l two laboratory studies. EPRI (1984) reported biological effectiveness of 75 to 80 pen:ent based on this limited data. However other installations i11Jil.:ate liule Lo no biological efficacy. Species/life-stage-<lcpendcncy or the variables that affoct performance \Vere not assessc<l. The estim<ttcd initial cost associated \vith installing a water jct curtain is approximately 111

$I .2M 15 with an estimated O&M cost of approximatdy $0.08M

Based on this preliminary evaluation, a wattr jct system is not reco111111en<lcd at PBAPS due to the uncertainty in overall biological efficacy and high initial costs relative to the anticipated reduction in IM.

3.6.6 Summary The cx1st111g intake design at PBAPS greatly reduces lM and therefore adverse environmental impact. The cost of any additional technology far exceeds the small potential benefit of $6.484 annually. Additionally. there is a high level of uncertainty of the biological efficacy for these technologies for PBAPS target fish species. Additional studies and/or pilot tests may be required to evaluate the actual biological efficacy at PBAPS and assess the overall cost effectiveness of these alternntivcs. Based on the results of this preliminary evaluation. the ctment design, location, and operation of PBAPS's intake structure is the best technology available (BTA). 3.7 References ARL (Alden Research Laboracory Inc.) 2007. Review of Laboracory and Field Data To Determine Influence of Approach Velocities on Fish Impingement at Cooling Water Intakes. EPA (United Stutes Environmental Protection Agency), 1976. Development Document for Best Technology Available for the Location, Design, Construction and Capacity of Cooling Water lntake Structures for Minimizing Adverse Environmental Impact. EPA 440/1-76/015-a. April. 1976. EPA {United Sttltcs Environmental Protection Agency). 2002. Case Study Analysis for the Proposed Section 316(b) Phase ll Existing Facilities Rule. Available at http://www.cpa.gov/watcrsciencc/3 I6b/phasc2/cases tudy /i ndcx .html EPA (Unite<.! States Enviro11mc111al Protection Agency), 2004a. Technical Development Document for the Final Section 3 I6(b) Phase ll Existing Facilities Rule. EPA. 821-R-04-007. DCN 6-0004. Office of Water. February 12, 2004. "Cost derived frnrn 2006 wnuor quotes and c11nstruction l*n~t data. anti tht:n scaled up to 2008 dollars u~in!! En!!im:erin!! News Record C1instructinn C11st lndil't:s. 1

" Ci~st d~rived u~ing 2006 construction cost data and EPA Phast: rr Final Rule cost modules and scaled up Ill :2Dll8 dollars using Engineering News Record Cnn~tructinn Cost Indices.
                                                                                                        .1-1..J.

EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2004b. The Regional Benefits

         /\sscssment for 1he Proposed Section JI 6(h) Rule for Phase lil Facilities.

Available at http://www.epa.gov/watcrscience/3 I 6b/phase3/ph3docs/p3 _rba_fullreport.p<lf EPRl (Electric Power Research Institute), 1984. A<lvancc<l lntakc Technologies Study. CS-3644 Project 2214-2. September 1984. EPRI (Elect1ic Power Research Institute). 2000. Technical Evaluation of the Utility of [ntake Approach Velocity as an lmfa:ator of Potential Adverse Environmental Impact under Clean Water Act Section 316(b). 1000731 EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute). 2006. laboratory Evaluation of Modified Ristroph Traveling Screens for Protecting Fish at Cooling Water Intakes. IOIJ2J8 EPRl (Electric Power Research Institute). 2007. Latent Impingement Mo11aliry Assessment of the Geiger Multi-Disc Screening System at the Potomac River Generating Station. 1013065 EPRI and ARL (Electric Power Research Insriture and Aluen Research Laboratory, Inc.), 2003. The Use of Angled Bar Racks and Louvers for Protecting Fish at Water Intakes, presentation ar the Symposium on Cooling Water Intake Technologies to Protect Aquatic Organisms. EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute), 2006. Technologies and Techniques for

        ~316(b) Compliance Symposium presented by Utility Water Act Group (UWAG) and Electric Power Research Institute ( EPRl). September 6- 7. 2006. Atlanta, Georgia.

Kincctrics, Inc., :!005. Fish Protection at Lambton: Draft Repmt. Report Prepared for the Lambton Generating Station. Lindeburg, Michael R. 2003. Environmental Engineering Reference Manual. Professional Publications, Inc. NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2003. Generic Environmental Impm:l Statement for License Rt:!newal of Nuclear Plants. N UREG-1437 Supplement I 0. Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station. Units 2 an<l 3. Final Report. J:.urnary 2003. URL: htlp://www.nrc.gov/rea<ling-rm/<loc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr 1437/suppkmt:nt l 0/ sr t 437s I O.pdf OT A (Office of Technology Assessment). 1995. Fish Passage Technologies: Protedion al Hydropower Facilities. OTA-ENV-64 l (Washington, DC: US Govi.:rnment Printing Office). Patrick, P.H. and S. Filopovic. Untlatcd. Draft Evaluation of Alternntivcs ro Reduce Fish Impingement at Pkkering Nuclear - Further Laboratory Tests. J- 15

Richards. N.S., 2006. Strobe Light Effects on Stress and Avoi<lance Behavior in Fishes and Distribution of Zonplankton in Lake Oahe. South Dakota. Master or Sdt:nce Thesis. South Dakota State University, 2006. U.S. DOE (U.S. Department nf Energy). ,;Capacity- EIA Smvey form 860", **Annual Electric Generator Reporc**, "Generation - ElA Survey Form 908", Power Plant Report. U.S. Department of Energy Database. URL: http://www.eia.<loc.gov/ U.S. DOE and EPA (Department of Energy and the US Environmental Protection Agency). 2000. Carbon dioxi<lc emissions from the generation of electricity power in the United States. July 2000.

1. - 16

SECTION 4 ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF IMPINGEMENT MORTALITY ON THE CONOWINGO POND POPULATION FOR PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATI ON Prepared for: by URS Corporation October 2008

.&.O Assessment of Environmental Impact of Impingement l\ilortality on the Conowingo Pond Population 4.1 Narrative Descriptioll Conowingo Pond presents a complex and dynamic ecosystem in which fish recruitment and losses occur on a daily basis. Fish recruitment into Conowingo Pond. particularly of juvenile fishes, occurs primarily from upstream sources and from the Muddy Run Pumped Scorage Station (Muddy Run) when it is in a generating mode. Since 1972, obligate migrutory fishes and several resident species arc rccrnited into the Pond via the operation of the West Fish Lift and later (l99l) the East Fish Lift at Conowingo Hydroelectric Station (Conowingo) during their oper::ition from April through early June.

Fish losses occur during Muddy Run pumping mode. impingement mortality (IM) at PBAPS. entrainment through Conowingo, and via the spring operations of the Holtwoo<l Hydroelectric Station Fish Lift. Because of the above stated dynamic processes, the impact of fish losses at PBAPS Units 2 and 3 have been quantified on a relative basis using two approaches: ( l) considering PBAPS as an angling "predator" and comparing to losses inflicted by angler harvest and (2) examining changes in relative abundance of common, representative, important species (RIS) of Conowingo Pond (current RIS: American shad l1\losa .wpidissimal, bluegill ll!!pomi.\' 11wcrod1irusl, channel catfish [/ctalurus p1111c*tatus I, comely shiner LNotropis tmwenml, gizzard shad LDoro.mma cepeditmuml. largemouth bass j,\tficropterus .wlmoide.\'I, smallmouth bass f_Micropterus dolomieul, walleye [Stiwstedion vitreum I. and white crappie lPomoxi:~ w11111/arisl) via long-term fish sampling ( 1966-1986) by multiple gear types and locations (e.g., trawls, trap net, haul seine, dectroshocking, .meter net) during the pre-operational ( 1966-1973) and post-operational ( 1976-1986) periods. The most recent fish sampling occurred from 1996 to 1999 for the assessmcnl of impacts on Conowingo Pond fish community from cooling tower operations (NAI 2000). Sampling stations illld gear used throughout the various periods were similar. enabling direct cornparisons of fish relative abundance (RMCESI 1994 ). Results of the two different approaches indicate that PBAPS operational-related fish losses were low. Relative abundance of most common species was either within the historic range of that observed during the pre-opcrntional period or exceeded it: much variability between sampling locations and years was observed. Overall, no change in relative abundance of most species was detected. Additionally, other indil:es tc.g .. diversity percent similarity) of the fish community indicated no detectable chang\!s. However, a significant decline in the relative abundance of white crappie. a common resident species in Conowingo Pond. was observed beginning in the Ince I970s. This decline was coincident with the sizeable population growth of gizzard shud. which were inadvertently introduced into Conowingo Pond in 1972 during the American shad restoration dforts. It was determined that a large population of gizzard shad. particularly young fish. out-competed whitt! crappie for the same food resourct!s and may have caused or been an important factor in its decline (RMCESI 1994). This conclusion was further strcngthcm:<l wht*n the \vhite crappie population <li<l not recover tluring the shutdown of PBAPS in 1987-1989, a period in which the fish community did not incur losses at the

-1

intake. The population's inability to rebound suggested that other fa<:tors besides PBAPS may have been responsible for the Jedine in abundance (RMCESI 1994). The other metric, a comparison of fish losses at PBAPS with recreational fishing mortality of white crappie, indicated that daily fish losses at PBAPS were equivule'nt to less than that caused by five recreational fishermen (Mathur ct al. 1977). This estimate is deemed conservative because most fish impinged at PBAPS are juveniles and those taken by anglers arc adults: no adjustment for natural mortality between juvenile an<l a<lult life stuge was made in this comparison. Furthermore, it was condu<leu that an aJJitional five anglers (equivalent to PBAPS losses) fishing Conowingo Pond would not result in detectable changes in the population sizes of common resident fishes (NAI 2000). 4.2 References Mathur. D., P. G. Heisey. and N. C. Magnuson. 1977. Cmpingement of Fishes at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Pennsylvania. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 106: 258-

       '2.67.

NAI (No1mnndeau Associates, [nc.) 2000. A report on the thermal conditions :.tn<l fish populations in Conowingo Pond relative to zero cooling tower operation at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (June-October 1999). Prepared for PECO Energy Company, Philadelphia, PA. RMCESl (Rfv[C Environmental Services, Inc.) 1994. Analysis of potential factors affecting the white crappie population in Conowingo Pond. Prepared for PECO Energy Company. Philadelphia, PA.

SECTION 5 CONCLUSION FOR PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER ST ATION Prepared for: by URS Corporation Octob1.:r 2008

5.0 Conclusion This submiual provides information to support a Best Professional Judgment Determination of Best Technology Available (BTA) for Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS). rt also provides duta and i11funnation rcqlu: . . tl:d by Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (the Depmtment), indu<li11g the Impingement Mortality (IM) Characterization Study {Section 2 above and Appendix A) an<l applicable sections of the Design and Construction Technology Plun {Section 3 ubmc). In accordance with the Proposal for Information Collection submitted and reviewed by the Department, PBAPS i.~ :mbject only lo performance !'!tandanls for impingement mortality. A<lditionally. PBAPS has already *u:hicvc<l a significant reduction in IM from lhc Calculation Baseline because of implemented lcL'hnologies *mcl operationaJ measures, especially installation of the outer intake. Therefore, Exelon is not proposing any new technologies or operational changes at PBAPS since the implemented tcdmologics already represent STA. This conclusion is supported by c.lata collcctec.l from the current IM stu<ly (Aug 2005 - Nov 2006). Calculated annual impingement at PBAPS. using the results of the current fM study at the outer intake stmcture, is 22 l ,42 l fish. 191, l 80 of which arc gizzard shad. The Calculation Baseline. estimated for the inner intake stmcturc, is 1.465,857 fish, of which 1.419,750 are gizzard shad. A reduction in IM of approximately 85 percent from the Calculation Baseline is alreac.ly achieved by the installation of the outer intake alone. Additionally, by comparing fM losses at PBAPS to losses inflicted by anglers' harvest. it has been found that PBAPS operational-related fish losses were low and could not be detected in relative abundance of common resident species (NAI 2000). Considering reductions i11 IM from the Calc.:ulation Baseline from the use of the outer intake and results of the NAI evaluation, the environmental impacts from cmTcnt PBAPS operations are very limited and PB A PS already has BTA. 5.l References Mathur. D.. P. G. Heisey. and N. C. Magnuson. 1977. impingement of Fishes at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station. Pennsylvania. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. I06: 258-167. NA! (Nornrnmkau Associates. Inc.) 2000. A report on the thermal condition"i and fish populations in Conowingo Pond relative 10 zero cooling tower operation at Pcac.:h Bottom Atomic Power Station (June-October 1999). Pn:parcJ for PECO Energy Company. Philadelphia. PA. 5-1

SECTION 6 APPENDICES AND ATTACHMENTS FOR PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION Prepurc<l for: by URS Corporation October 2008

6.0 Appendices and Attachments Appendix A - Detailed Characterization of Lhc A4uatk Resources and Impingement ivlurtali1y at 1he Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Appendix B - list of the Historical Studies Con<luctc<l ar the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station .\ppendix C - Summary of Fish Impingement Sampling at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Conowingo Pond. Pennsylv:rnia 2005-2006 Attachment [ - 40 CFR § 122.21 (r) NPDES Application Requirements for Facilifo.:s with Cooling Water intake Structures Attachment II - Statistical Analysis of impingement at Peach Boctom Atomic Power Station. 2005-2006 (1- I

APPENDIX A DETAILED CHARACTERIZATION OF THE AQ.UATIC RESOURCES AND IMPINGEMENT MORTALITY AT THE PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION FOR PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION Prepared for:

                *Ex e
                 .         * *I-{ 'J 1. n 1
                                 ., ,.,ii ......

T edmil'al Consultants URS Corporation Normandeau Associates. Inc. October 2008

Table of Contents

 .\.I          Pl'IU'llSE ......................................................... ................................................... ......................... \-1
 .\.1          fllSTIJIU< '.\I. S*n :IHES ................................................................................................................. \-I

\.2 .1 l :ISll l'0\1:\ll :'.IT'! DESI ' Rll'Tlll\ ............ .. ..................... .. . .. ....... .... .......... ... .......... .... ...... .. :\*I

\ .2.2 I llSTOl'IC:\l. l:\11 '1:\(ii:\IE\T S 'll'Dll '. S .... ........... .. .... .. ......... ....... . ....................... .. ... .. .. .. ... .. :\-2

 .u            Cl ' HHK~T l:\11'1:"'< ; E:\IE'.\T STI 'llY ................... ........................................................................... ,\.J
      .u .1              .\lllllOIJS .. ...... ....... .. .......... .... ........ ............. .. ...... .... .... ...... .... .. ......... .. ....... .. ............... ...... \-.1
     .U.2                I{ LI 'I( ESl::vr. \ riv E :\PEI. '!ES .. .... .. .............. .. .... .... ... .... .... .. .. .... .. .... ..... ..... ... ... ......... . .. ... .... . :\ ..\

A..U R.\\\i DAT:\ ... .. ........................ .. .. ...... ....... ........ .. .. .. ............. .. ... .. ......... .. ... .. ... .... .... .. ... .. .. ... \ *. 1

     .. LU               . \DJl:ST.\IENT OF)(.\\\' l.>.\T:\ ............. .... .. ..... ................................... . ... ..... .. ...... .. .. ... .. ... .. .. \-5
     .\ ..l.5            .STATISTIC. \L ;\;'1;..\l. SIS ................. ............ .. . ... . .. . .......... .. .... .. ... . ....... .. .. ... ..... ....... ............ ,\ . .)

11.3.5.I Regre.uir111 ,.\1wlysis .................. .............. .... .... .......................... ...... ....... ..... ........ ........... . :\-ti

          .1.3.5...?    :\tltfifilll/(// (\1/1/f,l'.l'i,\' ..... ....... ......... .. ............... .. ....... .... .. .............. ... ... ....... .. ........ ... ....... ..... :\,I)
.\A            C.\l.lTl .. \TIO!'i o.- l:\11*1:-ica*:i\IEYI' O!'\              D.\ \ 'S NoT S.\.\11'1 .EU .................................................... . \*

\A. I POPlll..\TION ( ....... ... ............................................... .. ........ .. .............. . .......... .. ................ :\-111 AA.2 POPlJl .. \TlON 11 ............. ......... ............................................................ ......... ......................\-1(1

.\.5          ,\J'i~t:.\I. l:\ll'IN<;Ei\IEi\tT .\T TllE               PBAPS ................................................................................ ,\-Ill
    ,\.5.1              ,\N~l !:\I. V.\Rl:\BILITY ................. ........ .. ....... .. ......................... ....... .. .. ... .... .. ..... ............. .\-11 A.6            C.\L<'t:L\TION BAsJo:1.1N1o: .\T Tm: PRAPS ............................................................................. A-11

\.6.1 i\KNU.\L (I\*( ATTllE INNER INT:\KE STRLln'l!HE- POPUL:\TION 1...... ... ......................... \-12

\.6.2 .\NNl!:\L 11\1 AT THE (N:"llER IJl;T:\KE STRUl"rllHE- l'OPUL.1\TIUN 11 .. ..................... ...... ... ,\-1.l 1\.<i..l TOT:\L C..\L< 'lll.t\TF.D IM AT Tl IE (NNER INTAKE STRUCTt:RE ...... .. ... ..... ................. .. ..... A-16 A.7 R,\lu:, T111u: . \T1~:-11m, ,\NU ENDAN<:EllEn Sn:cms ................................................................. \-16

\. 7. 1 UH: Hi:ffllHY DESCRIPTION OF l\MERIC.\:'-: SI 1.\1) (;\LOS.\ S.\l'IDISSl:\I.\) .. .......... .. .... ..... \-17

.\.,. l!N('l*: ttTAINT\' ......................................................................................................................... /\-17

    '\.S. I             YE:\RLY (!\IPINl'iEll.*IENTC\l.C'l 'L\TIONS ....... .. ... ........ .. ......... .. .. ...... .. .. .... .. .. .... ........ .. ..... .'\-Ix
    ,\.X.2              C .\Ll 'UL:\TION BASELINE Cm.IPl/r:\TION ....... .... .. ....................... ... ....... ... ...... ............... A- I lJ

,\,*J REl'EIU'. Nl'ES CITED ................................................................................................................. \- I~)

\ .lJ.I 01111-.1{ REFf:IU::\Ct.:S .. .... .............. .. .... .... ......... .. .. .. ..... .......... .. .......... .. .. ......... .... ...... .. .. ... . \*.211

List of Tables T.\BLEA-1 C :\TEGORIZ:\TION OFNON-RIS SPEl." IES l.\IPl'.'lliED :\T PBAPS AUGUST JO. 200.5 - NOVEMBER 18, 2006 .............. ................................ .............................................. .............. A-4 T;\BLE A-2 REVERSE STEPWISE MULTIPLE REGRESSION RESULTS FOR THE NUMBER OF GIZZARD SHAD IMPINGED DURING THE FALL 2005 (POPULATION I) .................................................A-7 T 1\BLE A-.1 REVERSE STEPWISE MULTIPLE REGRESSION RESULTS FOR POPULXflON 11... ..................... A-8 TABLEA--i TOTAL J\NNUr\L IM fOR THE PBAPS AUi.JUST 30, 2005 THROUGH AUGUST 29. 2006 ..... A- I I TABLEA-5 MORPHOMETRIC COMP1\RISON OI' IUS AND SllRROLiA rr. SPECIES l'ROM EPl~l 2006 LABORATORY E.'\PERIMENT1\TION .. ........... .......................................... .... ..... ..... ............... /\-15 Tt\BLE ,.\-6 LISTOF RIS, Sl.JRROG:\TE SPECIES USED TOC.-\LCtlLHE POPULATION 11 IM, AND MODE OF SELECTION .................................................................................. ...................... /\-16 TABLE A-7 CALCULATED TOT,\L IM AT THE INNER INT..\KE STRUCTURE FROM AUGUST JO. 2005 TOAUGUST29, 2006 ... .. .. .... .. ... ... ...... ..... ... ... .. ... ... .. ..... ... .... ...... ...... .......... .... ............... ..... A-16 List of Figures FIGURE A- I REGRESSION PLOT OF I LOG111 #GIZZARD SHi\D IMPINGED I Vi\LUES AS A FUNCTION OF TSV FOR POPULATION l. .................................. ....... ...........................................................A-8 FIGURE A-2 REGRESSION PLOTOFIMPINGF.MENTV.*\LUES AS A FUNCflON OFTSV FOR POPULATION l ..... .................................................................................... .......................... A- I J ll

A.l Purpose This appendix provides a lli.:tailed summary of both historic and recl:!nt studies of chc aquatic resources of the Susquehanna River and impingement at the Peach Bottom Alomi1: Poi,ver Station <PBAPS) Cooling Water lntake St111cturcs (CWIS). In audition, it provides calculations of the current annual Impingement Mortality (IM), the Calculation Baseline at the PBAPS CWIS. and a det*1ilc<l description of the statistical analyses used in dctL'l"lnining thcsi.: cakulations. The following information providcd the basis or the IM Characterization Study for the PBAPS. A.2 Historical Studies The fish community and impingement studies conducted at the PBAPS in the 1970s were used to develop the station's 316(n} and 316(h) demonstrations, which were issued in 1977. Numerous other studies in support of the demonstrations were performed over subsequent years to further evaluate the effects of the station's thermal discharge and to evaluate the hydrothermal and biological drnractcriscics of the Conowingo Pond. lmpingcmcnt studies, as well as other ecological, engineering and technical studies. continued to be conducted through the late 1970s and early 1980s. More recently, sampling has been performed to monitor river herring and American shad impingement on the intake screens during the fall out-migration period. In addition. a fisheries study to evaluate the effects of the thermal discharge was performed in the late 1990s to support elimination of the helper cooling towers at the PBAPS. A list of che historical studies that have been conducted for the PBAPS is provided in Appendix B of this repmt. The following section includes a summary of the studies relevant to the characterization of the IM at the PBAPS. A.. 2.1 Fish Community Description . Extensive fishery sampling of the Conowingo Pond ( 1966 - 1999) shows that the Pond supports a productive and diverse warm 1,vatcr fish community. Sixty (60) species were collected in the Pond, the fish lifts at Conmvingo and Holtwood dams, and other surrounding areas. The spotfin shiner, bluegill. pumpkinsccd. bluntnose minnow, white crappie. and drnnncl catfish historically were the most common fish. Recent sampling ( 1996 - 1999) indicates patterns in temporal variation and sputial distribution similar to those observed from 1966 through L980. Except fur several species intro<luccd in Conowingo Pond post-1966, !he relative abundance of the previously designated representative species (RS) has also not changed significanlly. One cxccpcion is that the abundance of \vhitc crappie has declined. primarily due to the introduction of gizzard shad, which is crnTently the most abundant species within the Porn.I. While gizzard shad is generally the most abundant fish species present, its population size in the Pond may fluctuate greatly from year to year. Game fishes such as smallmouth bass. largcmmllh bass. yellow perch. and walleye arc all well represented within the Pond. No Pennsylvania protected (threatened or endangered) or commercially harvested species arc present in the Pond. The following fishes were designated as RIS for the original 316(n} and 316{h) dcmonstrntions for PBAPS: white crappie, channel 1.:atfish, bluegill, gizzard shad. A- I

smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, walleye, bluntnose minnow, and spotfin shiner. The alewife, American shad, blueback herring, and striped bass have all been re-introduced to the area within the lust 30 years. Only populations of American shad have responded favorably to these 1:fforts, establishing a comparatively large population which utilizes the Susquehanna River. Records of fish passed upstream at the Conowingo East Fish lift and Holtwoocl Fish Lift provide additional data on the fi sh populations of Conowingo Pond. Except for several migratory fishes. the species composition observed at the fish lifts is similar to that observed within Conowingo Pond prior to the construction and operation of the fish lifts. Gizzard shad is the most abundant species passed at the I ifk American shad. blueback herring, and alewife have comprised up to 35 percent of the total fish passage in recent years depending on prevailing hydrological conditions. The most common species (channel catfish, pumpkinseed, bluegill, gizzard shad, and spotfin shiner) are widely distributed throughout the Pond. Game fish. including walleye, smallmouch bass, and largemouth bass, have a more limited distribution. Largemouth bass are more common in the southern downstream Pond. while smallmouth bass, walleye, and bluntnose minnow are more abundant in the northern upstream Pond. A.2.2 Historical Impingement Studies Impingement sampling was conducted at the PBAPS from November 1973 through March 1979. From 1973 through l 976, intensive impingement monitoring was performed with sampling frequency varying from two to four 12-hour periods per week; typically four periods per week generally conducted between July and September. After 1976, sampling was usually performed once weekly (24-hour sample). All fish were identified, measured (total length ITLJ) to the nearest millimeter (mm), and enumerated. During most years since 1982, impingement rates of emigrating juvenile American shad on the outer intake screens have been quantified during the fall as part of the Susquehanna River American shad restoration program. Sampling generally occurs three times weekly from October through mid-December. The migration data provide information on size, temporal scale, and origin (hatchery versus wild) of juvenile American shad individuals. Although the primary focus of this program is the enumeration of impingcd American shad, information on all other fish species is also collected. From 1973 through l 976, a total of 240 12-hour sampling events were conducted at Unit 1, resulting in the collection of 16.859 fish representing 37 species. Unit 3 was sampled a total of 137 times from Decemher 1974 through 1976, with a total of 42,088 individuals representing 35 species being collected. During this quantitative impingement sampling, channel catfish. white crappie. bluegill, and gizzard shad were the most abundant species collected. Most of the individuals measured less than 120 mm (age-0 and age- I). Overall. impingement rates for the most abundant species were greatest from November through !\*larch. No significant differences in impingement rates between day and night samples were fouml. The authors noted that avernge rates were skewed by scvi:rnl episodes of high rates of impingement that coincided with exceptionally high river flow events (>200,000 cubic feet per second).

In general. species composition of impinged fishes during the migration sampling, except for several migratory species, is similar to that observed dming the quantitative study period ( 1973 - 1979). The number of taxa impinged during the out-migration period (September through mi<l-Dcccmber) rangeu from 14 to 27, with gizzard shad dominating the collections. Other abun<lant species collected during the migration sampling included channel catfish and bluegill. Although impingement rates appear to be influenced by various hydrological-physical factors and year-class strei1gth of a particular species, the m1111ber of alosi<ls (American shad, blueback herring, and alewife) observed in impingement collections appears to be cmTelatcd with the abundance of alosids passed by fish lifts and the abundance of early life stage American shad stocked annually hy the Pennsylvania Fish an<l Boat Commission. A.3 Current Impingement Study A.3.1 il'letlwds Field studies were conducted in accordance with the Proposal for lnfonnation Collection (PIC) by Normandeau Associates, Inc. tNAI) at PBAPS from August 30. 2005 through November 17, 2006 to document the rate of [M at the outer CWlS. A total of 208 sampling events (104 each at Unit 2 and 3) were completed during this period. The study was designed to *1ccount for both seasonal and die! variation. Sampling generally occurred once per week. However, sampling was increascc.l to multiple times per week during the American shad out-migration (primarily October and November). The peak out-migration period, and corresponding increased sampling, occurred from October 18 through December 6 in 2005 and from October 23 through November 17 in 2006. Each sampling event comprised a 24-hour monitoring period. hnpingemcnt samples were collected in a trash bin located at the en<l of the sluiceway. At the end of the monitoring period, the bin was removed from the sluiccway and the contents of the bin were sorted by hand. Fish and shellfish were identified. enumeraced, measured (TL) to the nearest mm, and assessed for condition (uninjured, injured, or dead). Environmental variables (water temperature, dissolved ollygcn, turbidity) were noted on the datashects at the time of collection. A.3.2 Representative Species The suspend~d Phase ([ Rule allows the use of RlS for evaluation. Ct11Tent RlS included species used as RlS for earlier 316 demonstrations at the PBAPS :md other species a<l<lcd to improve estimates using U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 316(b) guidance ( 1977). The following RlS are used for the current lM study at the PBAPS: Walleye (Sander 1-'itre11s) - an important recreational piscivore; Gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepediw111m) - an abundant invasive omnivorous fornge fish; American shad (Alo.\*a .wpidi.uima) - an imporrant migratory species; Channel catfish (/ctalums punctatus) - an abundant recreational fi:-.h: Comely shiner (Notropis w11oe1111s ) - an important forage species: White crappie (Po1110.\*is w11111/aris) - an abundant recreational species:

\ *J

Bluegill (lepomis macruc/1irus) - an import~mt recreational insectivore; Smallmouth !lass (Alicroprems dolu111ie1.d - an important recrcatiunal piscivon:; and Largemouth bass (Micro1Jterus .w/111oides) - an important recreational pisdvore. USEPA mctho<lology used in the suspended Ruic development included accounting for all species by combining the remaining fish into two categories: non-RS fisheries species and non-RS forage species. All remaining non-RS species were thus grouped as forage species or fi:-;heries (recreational) species (Table A-1) and analyzed cullectin:ly.

_ Table A-1 _ Catego-rization'or Non-RiS spedes impinged ~t PBAPS August jo;-2005"' No~ember 18, 2006~

Non*RIS Recreational species Non-RIS Fora2e' SIJfdes Black i:rappie Prmroxis 11igm111<1t'lllt1t11s Alewife Alt 1sa 11s~11dolw n:'11g11s Flathead rnttish Pylm/icris oli1*aris Bluntnose minnow Pimt*plw/es 11ntalus Green sunfish Lt!pomis c_1w1t'flus Carp Cypri11us c((lpia Pumpkinsecd Lt!pomis gihbo.ms Central s!llncroller C11111po.1*t11111C1 d11011111/11111 Redbreast sunfish Lepm11is a11rit11s Common shiner L11.\'il11s com11t11s Ruck buss :lmhloplite.~ m11estris Creek chub Semoti Ius cl(ro11wc11latus Shorthead rcdhorse Mo.mstmna 11uicmlepitlor11111 Golden shiner No1,*migo1111s crysolt'ucas Striped buss Moro/le .mxatilis Greenside darter Etlreostoma hle1111ioides White catfish tl111ei11r11s catus Logpcn:h Perci11'1 ccrprudt*s White pcn:h Mom11t:' americmw Mimic shiner Notropi.1* voflln*llus Yellow bullhead l\//lei11rns 1111tulis Mummichlig F1mdul11s lretemditus Yellow perch PercCI jlawsce11s Northern hogsm:ker Hype11tt*li11111 11igrica11s Quillback Corpiodes cypri1111s Spotfin shiner Cypri11cllt1 spiloptcra Spottuil shiner Normpis /111c/.w11i11s Swallowtail shiner Notrt111is proc11e Tessdlatcd darter Etlll:'o.~to111a obusredi White S111.:ker CrJTOSW/1111.\' co111111erso11i A.3.3 Raw Data Over the entire study a total of 61,504 fish. representing 40 fish species, were collected at the PBAPS CWIS; Gizzard shad (n=53.432) was the most abundant species collected.

comprising 87 percent of the catch. Other imponant species collected included bluegill and channel catfish, which comprised an additional seven percent and four percent of the catch, respectively. No other species constituted greater than three percent of the total catch. Overall impingement was greatest during the foll momhs of each ye;,u of 1he study. Pcnk impingement rates were observed during October and November of 2005 and September rhrough mid-November of 2006. The majority of impi11gcd fish collccred over the cnrire

                                                                                                                   , \- ~

-;tudy were rnllected <luring these periods. (Omprising 85 µcn:cnt of the overall impingement observed throughout the stu<ly .
    .4.3.4 Adjustment of Raw Data The 2005-2006 impingement raw catch data were aJjustc<l for pcriuc.lic sub-sampling: lhat w~1s necessary during the fall of 2005 and 2006 due to high debris loa<l. Twenty-seven

( 27) sub-samples 1,vi.:re processed in 2005 and six were processed in 2006. On these sampling uaccs, a representative portion of at lease 20 percent of the debris and fish was removed from the rnlh..:dion bin a11u sorlcu Lu collect impingetl specimens. A rn1Tcdion factor based on the amount of sample processed was then applied to the catch for that givi:n <luy using the following equation: Equation ( l) where Scf is the sub-sampling correction factor. l1u> is the daily (24-hour) impingement collection, and Its> is the impingement adjusted for sub-sampling. The raw catch data were also adjusted for gear efficiency. Traveling screen collection efficiency was determined during several collection efficiency tests. For each test, either dyed or radio-tagged dead fish of several spccil!s and representative sizes to those prcd~minantly collected in impingement samples were released directly in front of the screens through doors on the traveling screen covers. The ratio of fish recovered to fish released during the trials was reported as the gear efficiency for each particular test. An efficiency value of 84 and 86.5 percent for Units 2 and 3, respectively, were determined based on pooled results for each unit. All impingement catch data were adjusted to account for this efficiency value using the following equation: Equation (2) where Iiau.i> is the total daily impingement adjusted for gear efficiency and sub-sampling. and e is the unit-specific collection d'ficiency. The August JO, 2005 to August 29, 2006 adjusted impingement data showed 158,062 indiviuuals, with gizzard shad comprising 94 percent ( 148.633} of impinged organisms at the PBAPS. A seasonal peak in total impingement \Vas cviJcnt during the fall (September 23 - December 21) 2005 sampling interval. Gizzard shat! collected during this rime pcrio<l accuunte<l for approximately 90 percent (n= 147,660) of the total catch throughout the entire study period. A..3.5 Statistical ,4nalysis Statistical output from the tests discusseu here is providet.I in Attachment II. Based on the dominance of individuals impinged during fall 2005. seasonal differenc~s in the impingement data were analyzcli using S YSTAT 11 statistical software. Stmistical tests npplicd in this assessment char desl..'ribe or compare populations of dato. result in a

                                                                                        .-\ -5

probability value. or p-value. which is a measure of the significance of a particular test. In general. the more !'lignificant the relationship is the lower the p-value will be. For example, if rhe p-valuc is less than a <lcsignate<l value, the null h~pothesis that two or more populations arc the !'lame is n:jectl:!<l. For our comparisons. a r-value below 0.05

\vas considered statistically significant (i.e., that the populations arc different).

The total number of impinged gizzard shad was analyzed separately from other species because its overnll abundance was the primary driver of impingement totals throughout the study, specifkally during fall 2005. Gizzard shad impingement <lata were first evaluated to determine whether the population followed a normal distribution. Tests for normality (Shapiro-Wilk, D'Agostino-Pearson K2) showed that the data were not normally distributed and that common tramformations for positively skewed distributions <lid not result in normality. Therefore, gizzard shad impingement data were :mulyzcd with the non-parametric two-sample Kolmogorov-Smimov test to explore differences between seasons. The results showed fall 2005 gizzard shad impingement differed from nil other seasons, and therefore must be analyzed separately to determine relationships with independent variables. The remaining data (all impingement excluding fall 2005 gizzard shad) were analyzed to assess whether there was a statistical difference in mean impingement of this dataset between seasons (foll 2005, winter 2005/06. spring 2006, and summer 2006). Normality was attained using a log 111 transformation. ANOVA analysis showed that no one season differed from all other seasons, allowing the remaining IM data to be evaluated as a single population. Therefore, two separate populations of impingement data exist and were used in subsequent analyses: 1) Population I, consisting of gizzard shad impinged during fall 2005, and 2"} Population II, comprised of all other impinged fish and gizzard shad collected in seasons other than fall 2005. Population II represented approximately I0 percent of the total number of fish impinged <luring the study. A.3.5.1 Regression Analysis Environmental conditions may have an effect on impingement at the PBAPS. Stepwise multiple regression analysis was used to determine if independent variables potentially associated with fish abundance and distribution were corrdatcd with impingement and could potentially explain variability in observed impingement rates. Environmental variables used .in this analysi:-; im:lude the following:

W:iter temperature o Dissolved oxygen
Turbidity (secchi depth)
Through-screen vclodty (TSV)
Pool elevation
Daily change in pool elevation
River tlow A-6

Before performing the multiple regression analysis. the data for each population were logrn transformed to satisfy assumptions for normality. When testing the relationship between variables. an R-squarl~d (R 2) value was calculatccl. in addition to the p-value. This value measures the amount of variation rhat can be explained by a particular variable. In general. a higher calculated R! value im.licutes a stronger correlation between the independent variables (e.g .. river flow) and the response variable (e.g., impingement). and vice-versa. Because statistical analyses showed that two separate populations exist within the impingement dataset, regression analyses were performed on each population separately. A. reverse stepwise regression was performed, where each of the variablt!s was removed one by one (in increasing order of importam:e) and the statistical results for the remaining variables was observed. The following sections provide the results of rcgres.'iion analysis performed on data from gizzard shad impinged in foll 2005 (Population 1) and data from all other species <:ombined with gizzard shad collected from the remainder of the sampling study (Population II}. When significant relationships were detected, regression plots are provided. A.3.5.1.1 Population I Multiple regression analysis resulted in a highly significant CotTclation between TSV and log 10(#gizzard shad impinged) during fall 2005 (Table A-2). TableA-2

    . Renne Stepwis' ~ultipl~ Regression Results for the Number of Gluard Shad Impinged
        .. *              *  . During t.he Fali:lOO~ (~op~lution I)/ ,. * * :* * .. * . :      :

Variable .. . Step Renwvcd 0 .. p-vulue;: RzValue Change in Riwr. Flow I 0.984 NIA Pool Elt:V*lliuu 2 11.884 NIA Tcrnp1m1t11re J 0.622 NIA Turbidity 4 0.242 NIA Dissolved Oxygen 5 0.266 NIA Change in Pool Ekvation 6 0.214 Nii\ Through - si:re~n Vclodty --- <0.0001 0.63 The plot of log'°(#gizzard shad impinged) values inclu<lccl in the regression 'analysis for Population l versus TSV is shown in Figure A-1. The coefficient of determination (R 2) generated by che linear regression model (0.63) indicates chat approximately 63 percent of the variation in log1o(#gizzard shad impinged) can be accounted for by TSV. t\. -7

Figure A*l Regression Plot of {log 111 #Gizzard Shad Impinged] Values as a Function of TSV for Population I. 5 l I 4 i y =4.4212x

0.7376 2

R = 0.6314 *

                                                                                                               *
                                                                                                                  **
                                                                                                                     ...
                                                                                                                      ~
   ~
    ~       ;
                                  *
    ~       I                    *
  § 21

8 ,.

                                    ** *
  ;::!.

I * *

I I

0 , _ * * - * - * *-- - * - ***-------** -***.--* - *-~* - *-- * ---**------ * .. --,.- * - - - 1- - - -- 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 Through Screen Velocity (fps) A.3.S.1.2 Population II A step-wise multiple regression analysis was performed to determine if environmental variahles were co11*clatcd with impingement using the Population II impingement dataset. Although three variables were statistically significnnt (Table A-3), there were no strongly co1Telatcd relationships between observed impingement rates and these variables. The R2 vnlue of the most significant variable was 0.09, and the two most significant variables combined (pool elevation and TSV) ha<l a coefficient value of approximately O. l 5. indicating that only 15 percent of the variation in impingement coul<l be explained by lhcsc two variables collcctivdy. Table A-J Reverse Stepwise Multiple Regression Results for Population II Variable* Step Removt!t.I p-\*aJue R2 V11lue Change in Puol Elevatinn I 0.804 NIA River flow 2 OA41 N1;\ T~mpcralure 3 0.165 NIA Turbidity 4 0. 114 NI.'\ Dissolwd Oxygen *-* 0.075 0.04 Throu~h-s1.:rec11 Vd1>1.:i1y --- 0.023 ll.1)6 Pnnl Elevatiun **- 0.008 0.04

\ -~

A.3.5.2 Additional Analysis All RIS species/groups were also cxamincu separately in an atcempr co uisccrn any ccmclation hct\vecn a particular species' impingement rate and any of the environmental variables tcstcc..I. The fall ~005 season encompassed 45 sampling events, uuc in part to an effort to sample intensively through the American shad migration pcriou. Tlwreforc. during this particular season there is generally a wide distribution in the values of tested l'nvironmental rariables. making it useful for l'l.'gression analysis. Each species \Vas tested through multiple rcgn:ssion analysis a~ainst several environmental \*ariablcs (Section A.3 ..5.1). No significant eon-elations (R- > 0.50) were found between any of the RIS species (other than giZLard shau) and the variables t1..*:-.tcd. Other seasons could not be tested due to small sample sizes. A.4 Calculation of Impingement on Days Not Sampled Impingement sampling at the PBAPS W<lS generally conducted once per week, and more frequently during the American shad migration period (September 21 - December 6, 2005). Impingement collections were not conducted on a daily basis; therefore, calculations must be made for days not sampled in order to determine the annual IM. The following seL*tions describe the methodology used for calculating tlays not sampled during the IM characterization study to account for uncertainty and provide a tlcfcnsihle approach for annualizing the IM data. Annualization methods differed between Population l <llld lI because regression analyses showt!d that im~ingcment was correlated with TSV for Population I. However, no strong con-elations (R- > 0.50) were observed with any of the independent variables used in Population II. Therefore. the regression equations derived from the regression anulyscs were used to calculate impingement for Population l and a 30-<lay rolling mean was used for calculating <lays not sampled fur Population ll. The regression equations used for Population l require the TSV for the days not sampled. Tht.: TSV fur all days not sampled during fall "2005 was calculated using fo1mulas adapted from Pankratz ( 1995): TSV =QI (\\iD

OA
TW
K) Equation (3) where:

TSV =through-screen wlocity in feet p.er second (fps) Q = llow rate in gallons per minute (gpm) WD = water depth in fect (ft) OA =proportion of screen open area lo total st-rccn area TW =nominal screen tray width (ft) K =constant = 396 for through-flow screen and: OA = (W .,, L) I ((W + 0) '1' (L + d)) Equation H> A -tl

where: d:: screen horizontal wire diameter in inches (in)

D si.:reen vertical wire diameter (in) W =width of screen opening (in) L =vertical length of screen opening (in) A.4.1 Population I The following model. based on the regression analysis, was selected ro cakulute fall gizzard sha<l impingement numb~rs, 111cusurc<l as fish impinged per Jay, for Jays 1101 sampled during the fall 2005 period: LOGIO(I!#)) =4.42 I 2(TSV) - 0.7376 Equation (5) where 11# 1 is the number of fish impinged. Equation (5) was usc<l to cnkulatc daily impingement values for days not sampled using TSV values computed from daily flow rates and water depths for that day. To account for uncertainty, 95 percent confidence intervals (95% Cl) for the year were calculated by multiplying the number of days in the season (90) by the 95% Cl about the mean. The calculated seasonal impingement for gizzard shad (+/- 95% Cl) for fall 2005 (September 23 - December 21) was 183,435 +/- 82,892 individuals, or 2.038 +/- 92 l individuuls per day. A.4.2 Population II Regression results for Population II data do not allow for the utilization of a statistical approach for predicting impingement on non-sampled days. To calculate impingement for the days not sampled, a 30-day rolling mt:an was developed using sample data from the 2005-2006 dataset. All available impingement values for the 15 days preceding and following Lhe date of interest were averaged to create a mean daily value for all dates not sampled. Cakulatcd daily values were rounded to the nearest individual and summed to ubrain the calculated annual impingement. To account for uncertainty, 95% Cl for Lhe year were calculated by multiplying the number of <lays in the year (365) by the 95% Cl about the mean. The calculated annual (August 30, 2005 - August 29. 2006) impingement (+/- 95% Cl) of Population II was 37,986 +/- 3,821 individuals. or 104 +/- 10 individuals per d~ty. A.5 Annual Impingement at the PBAPS The calculated daily numbers impinged for each population (gizzard shad collccteJ in the fall 2005 IPopulation fl and the remaining impinged individuals I Population HI) were su1111ncd to quamify the total annual IM for the PBAPS (Table A-4). Ni111.:cy-fivc pcrci.:nt Cl rrom eai.:h populatilm wnc summcJ to accounl ror unccrlainty. A - I0

Table A--4 Total Annual IM for the PBAPS August 30, 20115 through Augu5t 29, 21106* Population l Population 11 . Toral Impingement I ~U.4J5 +/- X2.X92 J7.986+/-J.K21 221A21+/-86.713 A.5. I Annual Variability The annualized impingement numbers in Tahle A-4 were calculated from the heginning of sampling at the PBAPS (August 30, 2005) to one year later (August 29, 2006). An annual estimate of fish impinged cakulatcd using the final 365 days of the study, November 18, 1005 - November 17. 2006. shows the cllt!ct of annual variability. Duri11g this time period. an annualized total of 53. 771 +/- 11,870 individuals were impinged at the PBAPS. This annual impingement is appro:<imatcly 75 percent lower than the first 365 days of the study and is lnrgcly due to the relatively low numbers of gizznrd :-.hud observed from mid-October through mid-November 2006. The out-migration in the fall of 2006 wns unusually low due to the very high flow event that occuned in June of 2006. General trends in species year dass strengths. including broadcast spawncrs sud1 as gizzard shad, in the Susquehanna and other river systems cnn tluctuute widely depending upon an environmental variable such as river flow. If high flows occur during or shortly after the spawning season of many species of fish, recruitment of young will be reduced. In contrast, low river flows in the spring generally result in production of a greater number of young-of-the-year fish. Therefore. the first 365 <lays of sampling were used to compute the Calculation Baseline (inner intake) IM. This period will result in the most conservative numbers, since numbers of young were atypicully low in the fall of 2006. A.6 Calculation Baseline at the PBAPS The Calculation Baseline is designed to evaluate impingement mortality tlM) encountered at baseline prnctices, procedures, and structural configuration. The outer CWlS at PBAPS is a structural configuration that results in velocity reductions and reductions of fish cntrapmem, and was implemented for the purpose of reducing impingement. In addition PBAPS has adapted procedures that were implemented in part for reducing impingement. These include restricted plant operations during times of low \Valer ekvations in Conowingo Pond and the seasonal shut down of circulating water pumps. The inner intake structure wns the original design and represents the baseline practices, prnccJurcs. an<l structural configuration of the facility. Thus IM at the inner intake structure would be c.lefined as the Calculation Baseline. However. impingement <lata arc not available for the inner intake structure. Therefore. the Calculation 8~1selinc must be computed using available data (2005-2006 lM field study at the outer CW!S ). plant operations, laboratory and field data on impingement, antl intake velocity. This was done by using the same methodology and similar nnalytical ~md statistical analysis as was used to calculate impingement on days not sampled for the annual impingement cakulations at the outer intake as Jcscribl.!d above. Because the PBAPS docs not have a A- I I

fish retum system. 100 percent mortality is assumed. Therefore, for the purpo,.es of this evaluation, the number of impinged fish is tht: same as IM. For Population I. the relationship between gizzard shad impingement and TSV <li.::rivcd from the regression analysis of data from the outer CWIS were used to calculate potential gizzard shad IM at the inner CWIS during the fall 2005. For Population II, percent reductions of impingement observed over a range of approach velocities in laboratory trials of various species were used for calculating !M at the inner CW!S. A.6.1 An11ual l1U at tlze Inner Intake Structure - Population l In order to compute the Calculation Baseline nt the inner intake. the TSV was calculated using water depth and plant flow. Based on these cakulations, the inner intake TS V conservatively ranged from I .2 to 2.5 fps. To compute the Baseline Calculation of Population l. the daily inner CWIS TSV wa..; used in the regression equation for the outer intake (Equation 5 above). Extrapolation of Population I data to inner screen values using the regression equation hased upon the LOGw transformed impingement data resulted in the impingement of over 103 billion individuals, or slightly over l. l billion per day over the fall out-migration. Extrapolating data beyond the limits of measured independent variables is not realistic in that the calculated regression equation may not apply at TSV values above the measured maximum of l.O fps at the outer CWIS. However. there is a demonstrated positive relationship between TSV and IM rates of gizzard shad during the fall 2005. Therefore, to utilize a more conservative approach, the linear regression cquatiun (see Figure A-2). developed from the untransformed fall 2005 gizzard shad collection. was used to extrapolate IM rates at the calculated daily inner intake TSV. Equntion (6) l~1nn.:rl = 12,916*TSV - 7.468 where 1111111, ...> is the calculated total number of fish impinged at the inner intake structure. The Calculation Baseline of the inner intake for Population I is 15,683 +/- 1.150 per <lay. or 1.411,438 +/- I03,51'7 over the foll out-migration. This calculated rate is reasonable since daily impingement greater than 20,000 were samplcll in the foll 2005 at the outer CWIS.

                                                                                             .'\ -12

Figure A-2 Regression Plot of Impingement Values as a Function of TSV for Population I 30000 l I I 25000 *I *

                                                                                                                  *
  ~   20000 ;
  ~             I E
   ~
  .s Ecu 15000 I.

E I * *

a. I y =12916x - 7468

                                                                                                            *
  §             j
                                              ~,02599\

10000

I

                                                                                                                 * .-

j

                                                                                                         *
                                                                                                        ..

5000

                                                                                        .. . . .....

Ii 0 OA I

              *~*---- --*    ... -****

0.5 0.6 0.7

                                                                       .
                                                                      *--- - :-*

0.8 0.9

                                                                                                              *~.
                                                                                * -*------- --* *----*,------ ------ .,

Through Screen Velocity (fps) A.. 6.2 A..nnual IM at the J11ner Intake Structure - Popula.fi,on II No significant correlation between impingement and TSV was observed for Population IL most likely due co numerous confounding variables in the sy~tcm. However, the rdationship between intake vdodty and IM is well cstublishcd. USEPA acknowledges this relationship at 69 rR 41612 by stating:

         *'. .. i111pingt'mt:11t is rdatt:cl to a c0111bi11aticm 1fflmv. intake re/ocity. mu/fish
         .\"Wim Jpt*ed" and " ... EPA agrees that red11ci11g i11take h.v i11st11/li11g.f7ow rcduc*tio11 tec/1110/ogi<:s will result in .\*imilarly high n.*ductimr <.~{';nrpinged...

orgcmisms... The com:lalion bdwcen velocity an<l impingement has also been ctcmonslralc<l in laboratory studies as wdl (Peake 2004, EPRl 2006 as cited in ARL 2007). Peake (2004) round a scaristically significunt lin~ar rdationship between impingement of northern pike am! approach vo.:locity (P<0.05. R-=0.70) and that IM \Vas reduced by 74 percent when approach velocity was reduced from I .8 to 1.1 fps. Similarly. in a more extensive study evaluating lO species commonly impinged at CWIS, a statistically significant positive relationship was demonstrated hctwcen approach velocity and impingement (P<0.05. R2=0.72) (EPRI 2006 cited in ARL 2007). ARL (2007) conclu<lcd that impingement rates can be reJuccd with reuuctions in approach velocities and reductions in impingement may avcragr.: .+5 to 75 percent. depending on species, when intake vcl01.:itit:s are dt:crcasL"d from 2 lo I fps.

                                                                                                                    .\ - U

Therefore. inner screen daily IM for Population II were cakulated using percent rc<luctions observed over a range of approach velm:itics in laboratory trials (EPRI 2006 as cited in ARL 2007). The percent reduction of impingement observed from changing approach vdm:ity from 2 to I fps in lhl! lubor~1tory trials was used. because this diffen:m:~ best approximated actual approach *velocities at the PBAPS between the inner and outer intakes. Four species impinged at the PBAPS tblucgill, channel catfish, largemouth buss, and yellow perch I Non-RIS recreational I) were studied during the trial. and the inverse of

 !he observeJ percent reductions for 1hcse species were applied to the outer intake srmcturc daily impingcmcnc to compute the Calculation Baseline for Population II.

For species not specifically examined in the laboratory tri~1ls. su1rngales were chuscp that best represented the RIS from the PBAPS. based on factors such as swimming spcctl, body shape and size (morphomctrics). taxonomy. and overall life l1istory 1.:haractcrisli<.:s. Published swimming speed data were reviewed to assess the similarities between the RIS and surrogate species. Since swimming capability is highly variable depemling on fish length and water temperature, sufficient data were not available to relate one species to another in all cases. However, all of the examined species <lo exhibit carangiform type locomotion: that is. the main power for s\vimming is accomplished by side to side sweeps of the tail region (Lagler et al. l 962). Therefore, body morphomctrics were considered in the impingement evaluation because morphomctry plays an integral role in determining swimming ability. Species with similar morphometry (specifically in the posterior region) are likely to exhibit similar swimming capacity. Morphomctric measurements were used to compare the RlS not included in the laboratory study to species that \Vere studied to determine a suitable smrngatc for an l.M reduction (Table A-5). Morphomctric values provided are presented as the percent of the fish's total length, with the exception of caudal fin aspect ratio. Aspect ratio of the caudal fin is calculated as: Equation (7) ARd = H2cr/ SAr where ARL'I* is equal to the aspect ratio of the caudal fin. H\r is equal to the height of the caudal fin (squared), and* SAr is equal to the surface area of the fin. This ratio is directly related to fish swimming ubility. In general. faster swimming fish possess higher ratios in comparison to slower swimming species. Using these measurements, surrogate species for three RIS , bluegill (smTOgate: white crappie), walleye (surrogate: yellow pen..:h), and smallmouth bass (smrngate: largemouth bass) were determined. Smallmouth bass was also found to have similar critical swimming speeds as largemouth hass: 31.7 and 35.7 centimeters per second at 20"C. respectively (EPRI 2000).

                                                                                        .'\ 1

Table A-S MoTphomt!lric Comparison of RIS nod Surrogate Species from EPRI 2006 Lahorntory Experimentation RIS Surrogate RIS Surrogate RIS Surrogate Morphomctric Character White Ycllnw Smallmourh Largem11uth Bluegill Walleye Cr:moie Pcn.:h Bas!\ Bass Standard length XLV& Xl.6% 86.770 84.6'ii: 82..'.'< % xs.w:c Fork length 96.8% 95.4% 95 . ~% lJ7Nk ')6.5% 1i6.1Vi0 Pre-anal length 46.7% 49.6% 57.6% 61.1% 55 .6% 51 .5% Body depth J6.-Vi(; .m.5% 15.5~-0 23.4 ~{; 26.7% ~8.0% A!lpe1:t ratio 11f 1.62 1.62 1.29 J.2J I ..+.1 1.2S l*auJal tin I Spe~1cs ~pe~tfk morphometm data

                                  ..      .                       -
                                     . .a1:qu1rcd tr11m !m~.0\W\~hl,~.    '!J;*

The hybrid striped bass is a cross of the striped bass and white bass species. Percent reduction values for the hybrid striped bass were used for both American shad and gizzard shad based on swim speed data and their life history similarities. Cnstro-Santos (2005) observed relatively similar prolonged swim speeds uf American shad and striped bass (7.2 and 10.4 bo<ly lengths per second, respectively). American -;had, striped bass, and white bass are all anadromous and are subject to similar migratory patterns, and .(;onscquently experience similar llow and temperature regimes. Therefore. these species arc assumed to exhibit similar swimming capacity. Morphometric data were unavailable for the comely and spottail shiners and much of . these species' life histories are poorly understood. Therefore. the percent reductions of the fathead minnow were used for comely shiner an<l spottaii shiner, based on their taxonomic relationship (Family Cyprinidac) and similar body shape and size. Table A-6 summarizes th~ results of this evaluation. The laboratory trials were conducted on specific size ranges of fish. Age class was uetcrmineu to be a more appropriate comparative measure than fish length due to the use of surrogates for many of the RIS . Therefore, nge class was estimated for each tested spcdes. and the percent reduction value was applicJ only lo the percentage of impinged RIS that fc.:11 \vithin the age classes tcskd. To be conservative. no adjustlm:nts \Vere maue to indiviuuals that were outside of the tested age dasses. although some reuucLion is likdy. For example. there is 110 credit for a reduction in American shad lM because the age ~*lasses impinged wen: outside of age dass used in the tcsls.

                                                                                                     ..\-1)

Table :\-6 List of RlS , Surrognte Species Used to Calculate Population I l IM, 11nd Mode of Sell-ction Percent Sum>gute Species RJS Mode of Selection Reduction 1,EPRI .!11061 ( EPRI 2006) 1

Wallt:ye Ydlow Perch i\!11rph11metric measurc111e111s 51J'?n Bluegill Blm:gill s~1111t: Specit:s 501:"1:

Largemouth B:iss Largcmouth Bass Same Spccies 6W'{: Morphomelric mcasun:mcnts. Smallmouth Ba.~.~ Largemouth Bass liO'ii

                                                                   *:ritkal swimming \fWcd White Crappie                         Bluegill               Morphometric mealluremcnts                  50%

Life History. prolonged American Shad Hybri<l Stripe<l Bass ~wimming speed. 7S*U limirt*d morphomctrv Channel Catfish Channd Catlish Same Species 1s~o Ta.rnnomy. limited Comely Shiner Fathead Minnllw 44% morohomctry Yellnw Perch Ydlow Pcn:h Same Spccies 59%

  !Non-RIS RL'1.Teillionall Spotcail Shiner                                                      Taxonomy. limitt:d Fathead Minnow                                                           44%

INon-RlS forage) 1m1rph11metry

                                                            ... wlm:rl!cs ..

I cn:ent 1edm:t1011 m 1mp111gcmcnt bet~~="- _I-~ lps. .1ppwai.:h I> ' Following the adjustments for observed percent reductions on surrogate spct:ies. the Calculation Baseline of the inner intake for Population H is calculated to be 54,419 +/- 6,379 individuals. or 149 +/- 18 per <lay. A.6.3 Total Calculated liW. at the Inner llltake Structure By summing the calculated annual IM at the inner intake structure for both populations the overall Cakulution Baseline was determined (Table A-7). Tuhle A-7 Calculated Totnl IM at the lnm~r (ntake Stnu:ture From August JO, 2005 to August 29, 20116. (nner Intake Inner Intake Total Population I Population II 1.411.43~ +/- IOJ.517 5~A19+/-6.J79 1.-165.857 +/- Il\9.H% A.7 Rnre, Threatened, and Endangered Species There were no collections of any Pennsylvania Endangered, Threatened. :rnu Camlid:.itc 'ipccics (Penm;ylvania Code Title 58 §75) in the reviewed community or impingement 'ituclics in th~ vicinity of the PBAPS. There is one species of concern that occurs in the vil:inity of the PBAPS: the American shad. a species targeted for restoration along the Susquehanna River. A description of the life history of this species is presented below.

\- l (1

A.7.1 Life History Description of American Shad (Alo.m sapiclissima) The range of the American shad extends from the Bay of Fundy in Nova Scotia to the St. Johns River in Florida. Large populations of adult American shad spend the summer months in the Gulf of ivtainc, Bay of Fun<ly. and the St. Lawrence estuary. [n mid-foll. large schools migrate south. where they overwinter in deeper pelagic habitats off lht: i'*lid-Atlantic coast (ASl\ffC 1999). Water temperatures generally trigger spawning migrations to natal rivers: hO\ven:r. photopcriod. flow velocity, an<l water turbidity also influence the onset of spawning ( USF\VS I 985a, 1986). Spawning in rhe Susquehanna River generally occurs from late-April to early June (Chesnpcukc E:u:cutivc Council 1989). The United States Fish an<l Wildlife Service ( USFWS) reports that American shad is non-selective for spawning substrate. imlicating that it will spa\.vn over sand, silt, muck. gravel, and boulder substrates i11 higher gradient stretches of river with flow velocities of 0.5 to 3 fps ( USFWS 1985n; Chesapeake Executive Coum:il 1989). The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (AS MFC) ( 1999) indicates that spawning type is likely not critical to the spawning success rate, given that thousands of eggs ate broadcast over a range of substrates and are transported <lownstrcam. Spawning may occur in water depths ranging from 3 to 30 feet, but typically occurs in less than IO feet of water (USFWS 1985a). Emigration occurs in the fall and is initiated when water temperatures <lrop below 6U°F (USFWS 1985b). Once in the open ocean. young American shad join schools from other rivers and begin their seasonal migrations northward and southward along the Atlantic Const. The American shad has nut maintained its value in the modem market. However, in 1989, econometric models estimated that a restored American shad fishery in the Chesapeake Bay could be valued from 42 million to 178 million dollars (Chesapeake Executive Council l 989). To enhance restoration efforts of Amcric~m shad, the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission has imposed a year-round closed senson in the Susquehanna River in Pennsylvania. In some regions, non-consumptive uses of Lhe alosine resources still remain as an important part of public ctlucation, local hcriragc and outdoor recreation. Am\!rican shud ;.1lso play a major role us a food source for many other wildlife species (ASMFC 1999). A.8 Uncertainty Statistical uncertainty is an unavoidable aspect of ~my environmental monitoring stu<ly. Uncertainty arising from imperfect precision and accuracy of biological data (sampling and measurement error:-;) is often of primary com:crn. particularly with respect Lo monitoring studies of fish impingement. However. beyond simple mechanical error, there is uncertainty stemming from the normal sampling regime used at PBAPS that called for impingement sampling once per week. [t was assumed that weekly S<lmpling was sufficient to l.:apture seasonal variation in the a4LWtic community. However, daily variations in numbers of fish impinged coul<l have ~kcwcd annualizaiion calculations. For example, daily IM of gizzarJ shad varied greatly in foll 2005 (<luring a time when i111pinge1m:nt wa~ sampkd fi'<c times per week i11 an attempt to capture the si.:asonal American shad out-migration). More Lhan 25.000 gizzard shad were impinged on October 26. 2005. whereas less than 1.200 individuals *vcre impinged on the previous and A-17

following days. Sampling only once per week may not have captured other large impingement events which would kaJ to smaller estimated annual ltvl. On the olher hand. if the weekly sampling <lid capture large one-Jay I~*I events, estimated annual IM woul<l bl! inflatc<l. irrnccuruccly suggesting a higher impingement rate than the actual. Furthermore, collection efficiency m the CWJS screens was assumed to be constant throughout the study and across all species collected. Uncertainty about numeric values used in the extrapolation to annualized IM will gcnt:rally lead to impm;ision rather than inaccuracy since inaccurades across parameters (above and below actual values) will tend to counteract each other. A.8.1 Yearly Impingement Calculations fatrapulation to annualized IM required several assumptions even with the most appropriate methods. The ex.LrapulaLion of Population I ll\'l numbers to days not sampled used a regression equation (based on the logw ll'vl) that indicated that 63 percent of the variation in the gizzard shad IM in Fall 2005 was explained by TSV. The remaining 37 percent represents other potential sources of error. The procedure for developing daily impingement numbers for Population (I (i.e., using the 30-day rolling mean approach for days not sampled) represented an alternative approach for calculating impingement since 110 significant coITclations were found between impingement and any environmental or operational variable. Because statistical tests showed no difference in impingement between seasons for Population U (Attachment II), seasonal data were pooled as one data set. A rolling average (mean impingement of 15 days before and 15 days after) was used to calculate impingement for days not sampled. For days that were sampled, the observed impingement number was used. Total annual impingement was calculated as the sum of the daily impingement numbers. This method takes into account the temporal variability in impingement on a daily basis, rather than evaluating 'variability from means uf a unit of time such as weeks or months. Uncertainty is reduced by estimating daily impingement for days not sampled from actual impingement values around the data point

to be cakulated ( 15 days prior and post), compared to the assumption that impingement is constant over a given week, month, or other urbitrary time period.

Collection efficiency studies conducted September and November 2006 produced viable estimates of collection efficiency that could be applied to the impingement data set. Given that the number of collection efficiency trials from these studies \.Vere limited. calculation of confidence intcrv:1ls hascd on seasonal colkction efficiency vr1Jucs as requested by the Maryland Dcpmtment of Natural Resomccs was not l'casible. Instead, collection efficiency values of 84 and 86.5 percent for Unit 2 an<l Unit 3. n:spectivcly, from the September and November 2006 stu<lies were applit:d to actual impingement mm1bcrs prior to implt:menting annualization procedures. The requested methodology also called for determination of seasonal impingement by multiplying the average number impinged by the number of Jays in the season. Since impingement rates vary throughout a season, this methodology would bias the estimate townrds portions of the season in which more sump ling occurred. This uneven spacing of sampling e\'ents occurs throughout the current study. The methods employed in this report. rolling averages and the regression equation, do not require even tempornl spacing of sampling events. The 95% Cl about the cukul:rn::d unnual number i111pi11gcu was co111pwcd as the product of 11Je

                                                                                        .'\ -18

95% Cl of the cakulati.:d tbily impingement values ~m<l the number of days in the year (365). A.8.2 Cnlculation Baseline Computation Impingement data were not avail:1blt! for the inner CWIS. so the Cal.culation Baseline needed to be computed from Jata collected at the outer CWIS. The Cakulation Baseline for Population I used a linear regression equation bnscd on IM and TSV. Uncertainty arises from the fact that Calculation Baseline IM numbers arc extrapolated from beyond 1hc:: limirs of mcasurcJ imk:pt~nclcnt variabks (TSV). (i.e. lhe highest TSV value rci..:onlcd at the outer CWIS was <I fps. whereas the inner CWIS had TSV values bet1,vcen l.J and 2.8 fps). It is likely that this mcthml results in conservative numbers since the best fit regression equation. hascd on the logw IM and TSV. e.~lrapolated to inner CWJS TSV values n.:sultc:d in over 103 billion impinged fish over the fall 2005 season. The Calculation Baseline for Population II assumed a percent reduction in H\:l from the inner to outer CWlS based upon published lM reductions resulting from an approach velocity Jecreasl.! from 2 to I rps. Other aspects of this mt!thod added to the uncertainty. First. some RIS species were not included in the published study and required surrogates for inclusion in the analysis. Second, reductions were only applied to fish in the same size dass as those in the published study even though reduced approach velocities are likely lo have an effect on IM across all sizes of fish. A.9 References Cited ARL (Alden Rcsean.:h Laboratory lnc.) 2007. Review of Laboratory and Field Data To Determine Influence of Approach V clocities on Fish Impingement at Cooling Watcr Intakes. ASMFC (Atlantic States Marini.! Fisheries Commission). 1999. Amendment I to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Shad & River Hc1Ting. Fishery Management Report No. 35. April 1999. Castro-Santos. T. 2005. Optimal swim speeds for traversing velocity barriers: un analysis of volitional high-speed swimming behavior of migratory fishes. The Journal of Experimental Biology 208: 421-432. Chesapeake Exccutiv~ Council. 1989. Chesapeake Bay J\losi<l Ma11agemc111 Plan Agreement Commitment Report. Chesapeake Bay Progrnm. EPRI (Elcctrk Power Research Institute). 2000. Technical Evaluatiu11 of the Utility uf Intake Approach Velocity as an Indicator of Poti:nlial Adverse Environmental Impact under Clean Water Act Section 3 I6(b ). I0007 31. EPRI CE!ec1ric Power Research Institute). 2006. Lahoratury Evaluation uf Modifi~d Ristroph Traveling Screens for Protecting Fish ac Cooling Water lntakes. IO 13238 Laglcr. K.F .. J.E. Branch and R.R. ~lillt.:r. 1962. Ichthyology. John Wiley and Sons. [m:orporatcd. New York. 545 pp.

                                                                                       .'\ - l lJ

"National Pollut*mt Discharge Elimination System-Final Regulacions to Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures at Phase II Existing Facilities:

Final Ruic." Federal Register 69 (9 July 2004): -l-1575-41693 Pankratz. T.M. ( 1995). Screening Equipment Handbook: For Industrial ai11.J Municipal Water an<l Wastewater Treatment 2n<l Et.lit ion. Te<.:hnomk Puhli:-.hing Company. Inc. Peake. S. 2004. Effect of Approach Vclrn.:ity nn Impingement of Juvenile Northern Pike at W<Her lntuke Screens. North American Journal of Fishl!ries Managemc:nt 24: 390-396. USEPA (United States Environmental Prntcclion Agency). 1977. Draft Guic.lanl*c for Evaluating the Adverse Impact of Cooling Water Intake Slrm:turcs on the A4uatic Environment: Section JI 6(b) P.L. 92-500. Office of Water Enforcement Permits Division, Industrial Permits Branch. May I. 1977. USFWS (United States Fish an<l Wildlife Service). 1985a. Species Profiles Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (Mid-Atlantic): American Shad. Biological Report 82( 11.37). United States Department of the Interior. April 1985. USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 1985b. Habitat Suitability Index Moucls and lnstrcam Flow Suitability Curves: American Shad. Biological Report 82 ( 10.88). United Stutes Department of the Interior. June 1985. USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 1986. Species Profiles Life Histories an<l Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (South-Atluntic): American Shad. Biological Report 82( 11.45). United States Department of the Interior. April 19~6. A.9.l Other Refere11ces Campbell. J.S. ~md 1-1.R. MacCrimmon. 1970. Biology of lhe emerald shiner Notropis atl1eri11oides in Lake Simcoe, Canal.la. Journal of Fish Biology 2(3): 259-273. Cnrlundcr. K. D. 1969. Hurn.lbook of Freshwater Biology. Volume l. Life 1-fotory Data on Freshwater Fishes of the United States and Canada, l:Xclusivc of the Perciformes. Iowa State University Press, Ames. 752 pp. CarlanJcr. K.D. 1977. I fandhook of Freshwater 8 iology. Volume II. Life History Data on Cc11trarchid Fishes of the United States and Canada. Iowa State University Prc-;s, Ames, [owa. 431 pp. NA! <Normandeau Associates. Inc.) 2000. A Rcporr on the Thermal Con<litions an<l Fish Populations in Cunowingo Pond Relative to Zero Cooling Tower Opcr:1tior1 at the Peach Bottum i\tomic Power Sration (June-October 1999). Preparcu for PECO Energy Company. Od1krt. G. W. 2000. DL'S ign aml t\11:. tl ysis of Experiments. \VF Frci.:11wn and Co111p:111y. A-20

Smull. R.J. :mm. Trophic Interactions Between Larval Gizz:ird Shad and Resident Zooplanktivorcs in Claytor Lake. Virginia. M.S. Thesis. Virginia Polytechnic Uni v~rs ity.

                                                                                .\ -.2 I

Sd111tidcr. J.C.. P. W. Laan11a11. ;mu H. Gowing. '2000. Length-weight rel.1tio11~hips. Chapter 17 i11 Schneider. James C. (ed.) 2000. Manual of Fisheries Survi:y Methods II, with periodic updates. Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Fisheries Special Rept?rt 25. Ann Arbor. Sneed. K.E. l 95 l. A McthocJ for Cakulating the Growth of Channel Catfish. lctaluru.\* 111111ctat11s. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 80: 174-183 SRAFRC {Susquehanna River Ana<lromous Fish Restoration Committee). 2006. Annual Progress Report, 2005. February 2006. Swingle, H.S. 1949. Experiments with Combinations of Largemouth l:ilack Bass, Bluegills. and Minnows in Ponds. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 76: 46-62. Trautman. M.B. 198 l. The Fishes of Ohio. Revised edition. Ohio State University Press. Columbus. Ohio. 782 pp. USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2004A. 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefit Case Studies. Part C: The Ohio River Watershed Case Study. Appendix Cl, l&E l\'kthods. URL: httr://www.l~pa.!.!ov/watcrscicncc/3 I 6b/cascs111dy/ USEPA (United Stales Environmcnrnl Protection Agency). 20048. 316(,b) Existing Facilities Benefit Case Studies, Part H: The Ohio River Watershed Case Study. Appendix H l, l&E Methods. URL: http://www.cpa.gov/w;11crsc icncc/J I6h/casestud y/ USEPA (United States Environmcnral Protection Agency). 2006. Data Quality Assl!ssmcnt: Statistical Tools for Prnctitioners (QA/G-9S). URL: htrp://www.cpa.gnv/QIJ!\UTY/qa docs .html. Accessed Fchrunry 19. 2007.

\-22

APPENDIX B LIST OF THE HISTORICAL STUDIES CONDUCTED AT THE PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION FOR PEACH BOTTOM ATO MIC POWER STATION Prepared for:

                 ..E
                   ,   .-

~.x*e*:

~.

I . *.n ...

                              .' .

by URS Corporation Oc1ubcr 2008

Table of Conknts LIST OF TllE lllSTOIUC.\L STl.DIES CO:\l>CCTEI> ,\T TllE PF.\CH noTTO:\I ,\TO,llC l'O\\'ER STATION H.l JltillJI llE\111.\STl<ATl<l'iS .......... ..... ............... .............. .............................................. ..... ........ B-I B . .? Piii*:-.\ 'ill PosT-Ol'Elt\TIC l'i.\I. REl'OIHS Tll.\T I\< 'I .I 'lW I \ll'l\1 ;1*:.\lE\T .\ .\ ll E\TR\l:\.\IE:"'T R1*:s1 *1; rs .*****.******.*****.***.***********.**********..**..******.****.**.*.**.**..****.**.*. ..****.***......*..* n-1 IU (J'l'llEI< MEI'( llffS/l'IU:.'*il-:.\T.\TICJ:\S/l'.\l'l<l<S ************************************************************************ *** B-.? fl..1 . 1 l\.ll'l ~ <; r: ~. 11::--;T .. ... .... ....... ......... .... ......... ......... .. ...... .. .. ..... ....... ... ........ ..... ............ ........ ... . B-2 B..1.2 EVrR. \IN.\ IENT ....... ... ... .. ........... ... ........ ... ........... .. ... ........... ............ .. ... ...... ...... .. ....... ...... 11-.l B..1.3 SWl~l SPEED ....... .. ............ ... ... .. ... ..... .. .. ......... .. ....... ... .. .. .. .. ... ..... ... ........ ....... .. ... .... .. .. ..... B-.1 BA Ptm- .\\II PosT-Ol'l' tt\TION \I . REPORTS 11:'1< *1.1'. 1>1N<; 1.1:\l"<Ol.oc;y, F1s11111sT1UllLTION,

          .\llt.~11.\N('E,       .\Nil :\10\'E:\IE:"IT. TllElnl .\I. TESTINl;, .\'Ill ('!<EU . St:l<HYS) .*******************.*.**. 11-J n.s        Nl'l>F.S/CCICll .IN(; Tll\\ l*:R REiil '( 'Tl()l'i STI 'lllES ...................................................................                                          n-s

B.l 316(b) Demonstrations Philadelphia Electric Company. 1977. 316(b) Demonstration for PBAPS Units No. 2 & 3 on Conowingo Pond. Materials prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency. June 1977. khthyological Associates. Inc. 1977. Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station materials prcpan:J for the EPA 316<b) demonstration for Pem:h Bottom Atomic Power Station Units No. 2 :111d 3 on Conowingo Pond. IOJ pp .

.B.2     Pre-and Post-Operational Reports that Include Impingement and Entrainment Results Robbins. Timothy W.* and Dilip Ma1hur. 1974. Peach Bullum J\10111ic Power S1ation prc-operntional report on the ecology of Conowingo Pond for Units No. 2 and 3.

khthyological Associates, Inc .. Drumore. Pa .. prepared for Philaddphia Electril: Company, xviii+ 349 pp. Robbins, Timothy W., and Dilip Mathur. 1974. Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Post-operational Report No. l on the ecology of Conowingo Pond for Units No. 2 and 3. lchthyological Associates. Inc., Drumore, Pa .. prepared for Philadelphia El!.!ctric Company, xiii+ 142 pp. Rohhins. Timothy W .. and Dilip Mathur. 1975. Pca<.:h Bottom Atomic Power Station Post-operational Report No. 2 on lht! ecology of Conowingo Pond for Units No. 2 and 3. khthyological Associate.-;, lnc .. Drumore, Pa., prepared for Philadelphia Electric Company, xix+ 192 pp. Robbins. Timothy W., and Dilip Mathur. 1975. Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Post-operational Report No. 3 on the ecology of Conowingo Pond for the period of July 1974-December 1974. lchthyologkal Associates, fnc .. Drumore, Pa., prepared for Philadelphia Electric Company, xxiv + 338 pp. Ronhins, Timothy W., and Dilip Mathur. 1975. Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station. Post-operati~mal Report No. 4 on the ecology of Conowingo Pond for the period January 1975-June 1975. khthyological Associates, Inc., Drumore. Pa .* prepared for Philadelphia Electric Company. xx iii + 322 pp. Robbins. Timothy W., and Dilip Mathur. 1976. Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Post-opcrntional Report No. 5 on the ecology of Conowingo Pond for the period July 1975-Decembcr 1975. khrhyologh.:ul Associates, Inc.. Drumore. Pa .. pn.*parcd for Philadelphia Electric Company. xxiii + 501 pp. Robbins. Timothy W., and Dilip Mathur. 1977. Peach Bollom Atomil: Power Station Pos1-operntio11al Report No. 6 on the cwlogy of Conowingo Pon<l for the period Janu:1ry 1976-Junc I 976. khthyological Associalcs , Inc .. Drumore. Pa .. prepared for Philadelphia Eb:tric Company, xv+ L91 pp. khthvolo!?:ical Associates. Inc. 1977. Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Post-

     . op'Crational Report No. 7 on the ecology uf Conowingo Pond for the period July I 976-Dccember 1976. khthyological Associates. (nc .. Drumore. Pa .. prepared for Philadelphia Electric Company. :u.i + J 13 pp.

khlhyological Associates. ln<.:. I977 . Peach Bo!tom Atomic Power Stal ion Po: upcrat ional Report No. 8 011 1he ecology of Conowingo Pond for the pcril)u fonuary 1977-J une 1977. ldHhyological Associates. Inc .. Drumore. Pa .. prepared for Philaudphiry. Drumore. Pa. xiv+ 1.:15 pp. 8.3 Other Rcports/P1*esentations/Papers H.J. J lmpi11gement Robbins. Timothy W., Pauline L. Heisey, and Paul G. Heisey. 1975. Environmental deviation report for impingement of fishes at the Pcal'h 13ottom Atomic Power Station Units No. 2 and 3 on 25-27 February l 975. lchthyological Associates, Inc .. Drumore. Pa .. March 1975. prepared for Philadelphia Electric Company. 10 pp. l\lathur. Dilip, Paul C. I-kiscy. and Nancy C. ivlagnussun. 1976. lmpingcmenr of fishes at a 11udear power station on the lower Susquehanna River. A paper presented at the l06th Ann. l'vkcting Amer. Fish Soc., Dearborn. Michigan. Mathur. Dilip, Paul C. Heisey. and Nancy C. Magnusson. L976. lmpingcmcnt of fishes at a nuclear power station on the lower Susqudumna River. 1\ paper presented at the 32nd Ann. N. E. Fish and Wildlife Cont'.. Hershey, Pennsylvania. Mathur. Dilip. Paul G. Heisey, and Nancy C. l'vlagnusson. 1977. Impingement of fishes at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station on Conowingo Pond. Pennsylvania. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. L06:258-267. Rl'vlC Environmental Services Division. 198 l. Report nn impingement of gizzard shad at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station. Units 2 and 3, December 1980-January 1981. P~*epared for Philadelphia Ekctric Company. 7pp. Canbcrrn/Ra<liation Management Corporution. 1984. lmpingcmcnt of fishes at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station. Units No. 2 and 3. cJuring December 1983 and early Janu~iry 1984. Prepared for Philadelphia Electric Company. I5pp. Heisey, P. G. 1987. Peach Bottom Atomic Po\ver Station inner screens fish impingc111cnt. Letter report to D. Mathur. 8 January l 987. 2pp. RMC Environmental Services. Inc. 1994. Analysis of potential factors affecting the white crappie population in Conowingo Pond. Prepared for PECO Energy Company. 12pp. Normandeau Associates, fnc. 1996. Environmental revie'vv of proposec.l upgrac.le to intake

\Vatcr systL'lll at Peach Bollom Atomic Power Station. York Cou1Hy.
Pennsylvania. Prepared for PECO Energy Company. Jpp. t\falty. R.M. Jr .. D. Mathur. P. L. Hannon. 1999. PECO Energy's Jl6(b) L'Xpcricnee with specific rd'crcm:e to Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Pcnnsylvaniu. In Prol'eeding: 1998 EPRI Clean Water Act Section J 16th) TL'chnical Workshop. Coolfonl Conference Center. EPRI 1999 TR-112613. Normandeau Associates, Inc. 2000. Data report on intake screen sampling at the Peach Bottom Atomic Powl!r Sration in 1999. Prepared for Pcai..:h Bottom Atomic Po\-Vcr Station. 3pp. U-2
B.3.2 E11trainme11t Boyer. Helen A. 1970. Effect of passage of zooplankton through Peach Bottom Atomic Plant. Unit No. I. preliminary data report. 65 pp. Boyer, Helen A. 1971. The effect of passage of zonplankton through Peach Bottom Atomic Plant, Unit No. l. M. S. Thesis. University of Minnesota. l'vlinneapolis, Minn. Anjan.l. Chmlcs A. 1978. Entrainment of fish eggs and lurv*1c at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station. A pnper presented at lhe 34th Ann. Meeting N. E. Amer. Fish. Wildlife Conf.. Sulphur Springs. West Virginia. B.J.J Swim Speed Schuler, Victor J. 1968. Progress report of swim speed study conducted on fishes of Conowingo Reservoir. lchthyological Associates, Holtwood, Pa., Progress Report I B. prepared for Philadelphia Electric Company. 61 pp. King, Laurence R. 1969. Swimming speed of the channel catfish. white crappie and other warm water fishes from ConO\*vingo Reservoir, Susquehanna River, Pa. Ichthyological Associates, Ithaca. NY, Bulletin No. 4. Murch 1969. prepared for Philadelphia Electric Company, 74 pp. Hocutt Charles H. 1970. The effects of temperature on the swimming performance of the lurgemouth bass. spotfin shiner, and channel catfish. khthyulogical Associates, Holtwood. PA, Progress Report 5, February 1970, prepared for Philadelphia Electric Company. 65 pp. Hocutt, Charles H. 1970. The effects of temperature on the swimming performance of the largemouth bass, spotfin shiner, and channel catfish. M. S. Thesis. Southern Conn. State College, New Haven, Conn. Kotkas, Enn. 1970. Studies of the swimming speed of some ana<lromous fishes found below Conowingo Dam, Susquehanna Riwr. !Vlarylan<l. khthyological Associates. Holtwood, Pa., Progress Rcpo1t 6. February 1970. prepared for Philadelphia Electric Company for submission to the Advisory Board, 19 pp. Horntt. Charles H. 1973. Swimming performance of three warmwatcr fishes exposed to a rnpi<l tcmpernture change. Chesapeake Sd. 14: 11-16. Harmon, P. L.. D. l\.fathur, *md R. M. ~fatty. Jr. 1999. Design of CWIS in accordance with rish s\.vim speed measurements at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station. Presentation at the Po,vcr Generation Impacts on Aquatic Resources Confercn~c. April 1999. Atlanta, GA. B.4 Pre- and Post-Operational Reports (including limnology, fish distribution, abundance, and movement, thermal testing, and creel surveys) Robbins. Timothy W.. and Dilip Mathur. 1974. Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station prc-opcrntional report un the ecology of Conowingo PonJ for Units No. 2 and 3 khthyologil:al Associates, Inc., Drumore. Pa .. prepan:d for Phibdclphia Eh:ctril.: Company. xviii+ J-.J.9 pp. B-3
R\)bbi11~. Timothy W.. and Dilip Mathur. 1974. Pc:ich Oottom Atomic Power Station PusL-upt:ratiunal Rcpurl Nu. I un the l!colugy l)f Co11owi11gu PunJ fur Unils Nu. 1 and 3. ldnhyological .\ssudatcs. lnc .. Dn.mK1rc. Pa .. prepared for Philaddphia Electric Company. xiii + l.:J.2 pp. Robbins. Timothy W .. ~uH.1 Di lip l\fathur. 1975. Pcad1 Bottom Atomic Power Stat ion Po~t-npcrational Report No. 2 on the ecology of Conmvingo Pon<l for Units Nu. 1 anJ 3. khthyological Associates. Inc .. Drumore. Pa .. pn:parc<l for Phila<lelphia Elcctrk Company. xix+ 192 pp. Rnbbins. Timothy W.. and Dilip Mi.lthur. 1975. Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Post-operational Report No. 3 on the ecology of Conowingo Pond for the period of July 1974-Dlxcmbcr 1974. khthyologkal Associates. Im: .. Orumore. Pa .. prepared for Philadelphia Eh:ctric Company. xxiv + 338 pp. Robbins. Timothy W .. and Dilip Mathur. 1975. Peach Bottom :\tomic Power Station.
"Post-operational Report No. 4 on the ecology of C'onowingo Pond for the period January 197 5-June 197 5. khth yological Associates. Inc., Drumore. Pa .. prepared for Phila<ldphia Electric Company. xx iii+ 322 pp.
Robbins. Timothy W .. and Dilip l\ilathur. 1976. Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Post-operational Repoll No. 5 on the ecology of Conowingo Pond for the period July 1975-Dccembcr 1975. lchthyulogical Associates, lnc.. Drumore, Pa., prepared for Philaddphia Electric Company, :<xiii+ 501 pp. Robbins. Timothy W.. and Dilip Muthur. 1977. Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Post-operational Report No. 6 on the ecology of Cunuwingo Pond for the period January 1976-June l 976. khthyological Associates, Inc .. Drumore. Pa., prepared for Philadelphia Electric Company. x.v + 19 I pp. khthyological Associates, Inc. 1977. Peach Bottom Atomic Pm.ver Station Post-opcrational Report No. 7 on the ecology of Conowingo Pond for the period July 1976-Dcccmber 1976. khthyologi...:al Associates. lnc .. Drumore. Pa .* prcparl!d for Philadelphia Electric Company. xxi + 313 pp. khthyulogical A'isociatcs. Int-. 1977. Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Post-upcralionul Report No. 8 on the ecology of Conowingo Pond for the period January 1977-June 1977. khthyological Associates. Inc .. Drumore. Pa .. preparcJ for Philadelphia Elc(*trit: Company. xi + 186 pp. Rl\tlC Ecological Division. 1979. Peach Bottom Aromit: Power Station. Post-operational Report No. 9 on the ecology of Conowingo Poml for the pcrio<l of July 1977-Dl!ecmbcr 1977. Prepared for Philaddphia Electric Company. t'vlu<ldy Run Ecological Laboratory. Drumore, Pa. xiv + 1..J.S pp. RMC Ecutogil.:al Division. 1979. Peach Bollom Arumic Power Stat-ion Post-operational Report No. I0 on the ernlogy of Conowingo Pond for the period of January 1978-June 1978. Prepared for Philadelphia Elcl:tric Company. MuJdy Run Ecologkal Laborntory, Drumore. Pa. xv+ 2 IO pp. Ri\!C Ecological Division. 1979. Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station. Post-operational Report No. 11 on the ecology of Conowingo Pond for the period of July I978-Dcl.'clllbcr 1978. Pn:pan:<l for Philadelphia Electric Company. Mw.ldy Run Ecological Laboratory. Drumore. Pa. xiv+ 2-1-5 pp.
RMC' Ecologieal Division. 1979. Peach Bottum Atomic Power Station Pust-operational Report No. 12 on the ecology of Cono\vin~o Pond ror the period of J anuarv 1979-Junc 1979. Prepared for Philadelphia Elccrric Company. Muddy Run Ec<ifogical Laboratory. Drumore, Pa. xv + 210 pp.
ll-4
RMC Ecological Division. 1980. Peach Bottom Atomk Power Station Post-nperalional Report No. 13 on the ecology of Conowingo Pond for the period of July 1979-Dcccmber 1979. Prepared for Philadelphia Electric Company. ivl11ddy Run Ecological Laboratory. Drumore. Pa. x + 196 rr. RMC fa:olugic:.11 Division. llJ80. Peach Bottum A.tomic Power Station Post-operational Report Nu. 14 on the i::colugy of Conowingo Pond for the period of Janumy 1980-
,\pril 1980. Prepared for Philadelphia Electric Company. Muddy Run fa:ological Laboratory. Drumore. Pa. xi + I 53 pp.
B.5 NPDES/Cooling Tower Reduction Studies Rl'v!C Environmental Services. fnc. 1994 (Ja1111ary). A report on the fish populmions in Cnnowingo Pond relative to the NPDES p1.:nnit application for the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Pennsylvania. Prepared for Philadelphia Elcdrk Company. 8pp. RMC Environmental Services. 1994. Analysis of potential factors affecting 1he white crappie population in Conowingo Pon<l. Prepared for PECO Energy Company. l + 12 pp. Normandeau Associates. Inc. 1995 (A11g11st). Summary of thermal surveys for PBAPS. Data report prcpan:d for Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station. Philadelphia Ekctric Company. I0 pp. Normandeau Associates. Inc. l 996 (May). Study plan to assess fish popul::itions in Conowingo Pond relative to the reduction in cooling tOWl'r operation at the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Pennsylvania. Prepared l'or PECO Energy Company. l 9pp. Normandeau Associates. [nc. 1997 (Mardi). A report on the assessment of fish populations and thcnnal conditions in Conowingo Pond relative to the variable cooling tower operation at the Peai.:h Bottom Atomic Power St*ltion. Prepared for PECO Energy Company. I06pp + App1.:ndiccs. Normandeau Associates. Inc. 1997 (March). Study plan for fish protection in Conowingo Pond rek1tivc to zero cooling tower operation al Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Pennsylvania. Prepared for PECO Energy Company. I6pp. Normandeau Assodatcs. Inc. 1998 (Fdmwry). A report on the thermal rnnditions and fish populations in Conovvingo Pond n:lativc to zero cooling tower operation at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Starinn rJunc-Octubcr l997). Prepared for PECO Ent'rgy Compuny. 67pp. +Appendices. Non11andcnu Assodatcs. Inc. 19()9 (Fchnwry). A report on thl' thermal conuitions and fish populations in Conowingo Pond rdativc to zero cooling tmvcr operation at Peach Bot com Atomic Po'vvcr Stat iu11 (J um:-Ol:tobcr 1998 ). Prepared for PECO Energy Company. 67pp. +Appendices. Nl>rmandeau Associates. !nc. 2000 (Felmwry). A report on the thermal ..:onditions and fish populations in Conowingo Pond relative to zero cooling tower operation at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (June-October 1999), PrcparL'd l'or PECO Energy Company. 68pp. + AppcndiLl!s. Nom1andl*au Associates. Inc. 2000 (./1111£'). As-.essmcnt of cooling rower opcrntion at Peach Bottom Atomic Powt*r Sr:1rio11 on porenrial fish lwbital. Prl.!ran:d for PECO EnL*rgy Company. 7pp. +tables and figun:s + ,\ppcndices. 13 -5
APPENDIXC
SUMMARY
OF FISH IMPINGEMENT SAMPLING AT PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION, CONOWINGO POND, PENNSYLVANIA, 2005-2006 FOR PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION Prepared by Normandeau Associates, Inc. for: October 2008 Normandeau Projel:t Number 20501.000
FINAL
SUMMARY
OF FISH IMPINGEMENT SAMPLING AT PEACH BOTTOlVI ATOMIC POWER STATION, CONO\iVINGO POND, PENNSYLVANIA, 2005-2006 . Prepared for EXELON NUCLEAR 200 Exelon Way Kennett Square PA 19348 Prepared by NORMANDEAU ASSOC/A TES, INC. 1921 River Road Drumore PA 17518 Nomu111dea11 Project Number 20501.000 September 2007 - - --- - - - - -- - -
Characterization of Fish Impingement at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Conowingo Pond, Pennsylvania Relative to 316(b) Rule TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTlVE SUl'vlMARY ..................................... ........................................................................ ES-I 1.0 CONOWINGO POND FISH COMMUNITY .................................................................... I 2.0 IMPINGEMENT OF FISHES ............................................................................................ 2 2.1 Present Impingement Sampling (September 2005-November 2006) ......................... 2 2.1.1 Frequt!ncy of Sampling .......................................................................................... 2 2.1.2 Sample Processing ................................................................................................. 3 2.1 .3 Collection Efficiency of Tests .............................................................................. .4 2.1.4 Estimation of Confidence lntervals ....................................................................... 5 2.2 Historical Impingement Sampling ( 1973-1979) ......................................................... 6 2.2. l Impingement Sampling for Outmigrants ............................................................... 7 2.3 Characterization of Impingement ............................................................................... 7 2.3.1 Species Composition and Seasonal Trends ........................................................... 7 2.3.2 Comparison of Current Study to Historic Data (Assessment of Trends) ............... 8 2.3.3 Species Composition Outmjgration Sampling ....................................................... 9 PBAPS 316(b) - 20501 000 Final - September 2007 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
Characterization of Fish Impingement at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Conowingo Pond, Pennsylvania Relative to 316(b) Rule
3.0 CONCLUSION
S ................................................................................................................ 9 4.0 LITERATURE CITED ...................................................................................................... 11 TABLES FIGURES APPENDICES PBAPS 316(b) - 20501.000 Final - September 2007 ii Normandeau Associates, Inc.
Characterization of Fish Impingement at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Conowingo Pond, Pennsylvania Relative to 316(b) Rule LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1 Summary of impingement subsample events at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, September 2005-November 2006. Table 2-2 Summary of collection efficiency tests conducted at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Units 2 and 3, September-November 2006. Table 2-3 Number of impinged fish collected at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Units 2 am.l 3 August 30,2005- November l 7, 2006. Table 2-4 Monthly estimated number of fish impinged at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, August 2005 - November 2006. Impingement adjusted for collection efficiency along with Standard errors (SE) and nonsampled days. Table 2-5 Summary of the species composition and number of fish impinged during American shad outmigration sampling at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Units 2 and 3, 1997-2006. PBAPS 316(b) - 20501 .000 Final - September 2007 ii i Normandeau Associates, Inc.
Characterization of Fish Impingement at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Conowingo Pond, Pennsylvania Relative to 316(b) Rule LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2-l Monthly impingement rates of common and other species of interest at the PBAPS Units 2 and 3, September 2005-November 2006. Figure 2-2 Comparison of observed and predicted impingement values (log of number of fish/ 12 h + I) along with 90% confidence intervals of total fish (gizzard shad excluded) at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Unit 2 and Unit 3, August 2005 - November 2006. Note the trends in variability in impingement were similar in the two periods. Figure 2-3 Comparison of observed and predicted impingement values (log of number of fish/ 12 h +I) along with 90% confidence intervals of bluegill at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Units 2 and 3, August 2005-November 2006. Note the trends in variability in impingement in the two periods were similar. Figure 2-4 Comparison of observed and predicted impingement values (log of number of fish/ i°2 h +I) along with 90% confidence intervals of channel catfish at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Units 2 and 3, August 2005-November 2006. Note the trends in variability in impingement in the two periods were similar. PBAPS 316(b) - 20501.000 Final - September 2007 Iv Normandeau Associates, Inc.
Characterization of Fish Impingement at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Conowingo Pond, Pennsylvania Relative to 316(b) Rule EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
This report characterizes fish impingement at the outer vertical traveling screens of Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Units 2 and 3 {PBAPS), located on Conowingo Pond, as required by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's 3 l6(b) Phase II Rule for large, existing power producing facilities (July 2004). This report also provides information on; fish of Conowingo Pond; and a comparison with the historical trends of variation in fish impingement. The designed approach velocity of the new outer verti<.:al traveling screens represented about a 73% reduction in velocity over what would have presumably been the baseline velocity at the inner intakes. Assuming a linear relationship between velocity and impingement rate, implicit in the EPA criterion, this reduction in velocity would translate in about 73 % reduction in impingement rate. Extensive fishery studies of Conowingo Pond between 1966 and 1999 indicate that the Pond supports warm water fishes. The common fishes are gizzard shad, channel catfish, bluegill, and spotfin shiner. Gizzard shad was inadvertently introduced in 1972 and its population has exploded since then and is beset with natural winter die-offs. Except for large annual fluctuations in abundance and introduction of some species, the present day fish community of Conowingo Pond is similar to that observed in the preoperational pe1;od and early years of plant operation. The game fishes include largemouth bass. smallmouth bass, and walleye. Since 1997. migratory fishes (e.g., American shad and river herrings) and other species have been given direct access to Conowingo Pond via the Conowingo East Fish Lift. Prior to initiating the present impingement sampling, a detailed study plan was prepared and distributed to various regulatory agencies (primarily Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, and Susquehanna River Basin Commission) in May 2005 for their review and commenls. Upon concurrence of these agencies and incorporation of their comments, the study plan was implemented on 30 August 2005 and sampling continued until l 7 November 2006, including collection efficiency tests. The characterization of fish impingement is based on this sampling period. PBAPS 316(b) - 20501.000 Final - September 2007 ES-I Normandeau Associates, Inc.
Characterization of Fish Impingement at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Conowingo Pond, Pennsylvania Relative to 316(b) Rule In the ct11Tent investigation, 61,504 fish representing 40 species and 532 crayfish were impinged at Units 2 and 3. Some 60.2% of the fish representing 38 species were collected at Unit 3, and 39.7% of the fish comprising 29 species were collected at Unit 2. Gizzard shad represented 86.9% of the impingement samples. Bluegill and channel catfish comprised an additional 6.9% and 4.1 % of the catch, respectively. Collectively. the remaining 38 species made up less than 3.0% of the samples. Impingement of fishes (all species combined) was greatest (85%) from September through November. This was most evident for gizzard shad; American shad impingement was low (0.3%) and coincident with their emigration period out of the river. It is difficult to quantify the proportion of gizzard shad which may have been in moribund state or dead prior to impingement, particularly at water temperatures~ 45° F, and were swept onto the screens. Natural die-offs of gizzard shad are common at water temperatures< 45° Fin Conowingo Pond (RMC 1194b; field observations). The trends in impingement rates and species composition, except for those introduced via restoration efforts or inadvertently since 1972, observed in the 2005-2006 sampling period were similar to those observed in 1973 to I978. Most fishes impinged in both periods measured ~ 140 mm. PBAPS 31 S(b) - 20501 .000 Final - September 2007 ES-2 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
Characterization of Fish Impingement at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Conowingo Pond, Pennsylvania Relative to 316(b) Rule
1. CONOWINGO POND FISH COMMUNITY Fishery studies in Conowingo Pond consisted of over 25,000 collections by meter net, trap net, Lrawl, seine, and electrofishing between 1966 and 1999 to assess changes, if any, in relative abundance, distribution, spawning areas, etc., due to the operation of PBAPS (PECO 1975; Normandeau Associates 2000). Sampling locations were selected up~tream and dowr1stream from PBAPS and in areas expected to be within the heated plume.
Collected fishes were measured and important life history aspect data were recorded to characterize reproduction, food habits. and age class-growth of representative, important species (RIS) established for PBAPS (gizzard shad, inadvertently introduced .in 1972; white crappie, channel catfish, bluegill, largemouth bass. smallmouth bass, walleye, spotfin shiner, and bluntnose minnow). In general, the above sampling indicated wide annual variations in species abundance between sampling locations and seasons. No large concentrations of fish near the PBAPS intake were observed. Additionally, the thermal effluent from PBAPS did not impede the downstream winter movement of white crappie. Recent radio tagging studies of adult American shad did not indicate impedance of upstream migration through Conowingo Pond by PBAPS effluent (Normandeau Associates 2000). The fishes in the Pond are, for the most part, classified as warm water species. Some 60 species were taken in the Pond or in the fish lifts at Conowingo and Holtwood dams and the tributary streams. The spotfin shiner, bluegill, pumpkinseed, bluntnose minnow, and channel catfish are the most common fish; the white crappie, once most common until the early 1970's, are not as abundant at present. Its decline in abundance was attributed to concomitant explosive population increase of gizzard shad, which was inadvertently introduced in 1972; both species compete for zooplankton for food (RMC 1994). Gizzard shad is the most abundant spec-ies at present, though wide annual fluctuations in its population occur; natural winter die-offs occur when water temperatures are< 45° F (RMC l l 94b; field observations). The game fishes include the smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, and walleye. No rare, endangered, or commercially harvested fishes are present in the Pond. The alewife, American shad, blueback herring, and striped bass have been introduced during the last 35 years. The Pennsylvania Fish Commission has srocked muskellunge upstream in PBAPS 316(b)- 20501 000 Flnal-Seplember 2007 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
Characterization of Fish Impingement at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Conowingo Pond, Pennsylvania Relative to 316(b) Rule the vicinity of Falmouth, Pennsylvania and a few adult muskellunge were taken in the Pond and at PBAPS (Mathur et. al. 1977). Recent sampling ( 1996-1999) of Conowingo Pond indicated trends in variation and distribution of fishes were similar to those observed in 1966 to 1980 (Normandeau Associates 2000). Except for the fishes introduced in Conowingo Pond since 1966, the abundance of the representative impmtant species (RS) has not changed significantly due to the operation of PBAPS. The common species (channel catfish, pumpkinseed, bluegill, gizzard shad, and spotfin shiner) are widely distributed in the Pond (PECO 1975 ). The distribution of many of the less common fishes, such as the walleye, smallmouth bass, largemouth bass and many cyprinids including the bluntnose minnow, is more limited (PECO 1975). The largemouth bass is more common in the southern part of the Pond whereas the smallmouth bass, walleye and bluntnose minnow are found near the northern part, primarily in habitat more riverine in nature, between Holtwood Dam and the Muddy Run Station (PECO 1975).
2. IMPINGEMENT OF FISHES 2.1. Present Impingement Sampling (September 2005-November 2006)
Impingement sampling program as outlined in the study plan and submitted to the agencies was implemented between 30 August 2005 to 17 November 2006 to characterize fish impingement at PBAPS Units 2 and 3. Specifically, the objectives of impingement sampling were to determine the numbers, seasonal patterns, species, and size distributions of fish impinged on the outer intake screens of each unit. 2.1.1. Frequency of Sampling Impingement sampling began on 30 August 2005 and was terminated on 17 November 2006. Sampling occurred on 110 days <luring this time. 104 days at Unit 2 an<l 104 days at Unit 3. Sampling initially occurred once per week and then was increased to two or three times per week prior to the riming of the American shad outmigracion (primarily October and November). Once juvenile American shad were observed emigrating downriver from upriver monitoring locations, impingement was monitored five times per week. [n 2005. this occurred on I0 October, with the first juvenile American shad caught at PBAPS on 13 October. Sampling five days per week continued until 6 December 2005, when water PBAPS 316(b)- 20501 .000 Final - Seplember 2007 2 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
Characterization of Fish Impingement at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Conowingo Pond, Pennsylvania Relative to 316(b) Rule temperatures dropped to survival threshold limits for American shad within the Pond. Sampling was resumed to once per week after 6 December 2005. In 2006, a sampling effort uf five days per week began on 23 October when the first emigrating American shad was collected and continued until the end of the study on 17 November. Sampling involved sorting through trash bins at the terminus of the outer screen house. Once debris passed over a vibrating screen at the end of the sluiceway, it was dewatered and collected in a trash bin. After 24-h, the bin was removed from the system and placed outside of the screen house with a protective net over the top to avoid avian predation. Specimens chat accumulated in the trash bin at the end of 24-h period constituted a sample. These specimens were dead and no return bypass system exists to move them out safely. Occasionally, sampling could not be completed due to mechanical problems and/or accumulation of excessive debris. Environmental variables including intake water temperature, dissolved oxygen, and water clarity (Secchi) were recorded at the time of sampling. These data along with those on fishes are presented in Appendix A and B. 2.1.2. Sample Processing For each sample collection period, all fish were separated from the debris, identified to species, measured for total length to the nearest millimeter, categorized as to condition, and enumerated. If excessive numbers of a particular species were collected in a sample, the total number in each length group for lhat species was estimated from a sub-sample count or weight extrapolation. Care was taken so that the sub-sampling was random and did not bias the selection of individuals by size. The raw fish catch data were adjusted for sub-sampling that occurred in the fall of 2005 and 2006, due to logistical constraints relative to leaf debris load; 27 sub-samples were processed in 2005 and six in 2006 (Table 5-1). For each sub-sampling event, the amount of debris in a bin was visually eslimated by the personnel as a proportion of a full bin (i.e., 50% full, 100%, etc.). Then a random sample of at least 15% of the debris and fish was removed and sorted to collect impinged specimens. Based on the amount of sample processed, the total number of fish impinged was estimated for that given day. Later, the number of fish impinged was adjusted for collection efficiency (see below Section 5.1.3). The monthly expanded catches of each species at Units 2 and 3 along with their standard PBAPS 316\b) - 20501 000 Final - September 2007 3 Normandeau Associates, fnc.
Characterization of Fish Impingement at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Conowingo Pond, Pennsylvania Relative to 316(b) Rule errors (SE) and the collection values used are presented in Appendix B. However, summarized monthly catches of common species impinged are discussed herein. 2.1 .3. Collection Efficiency Tests Because it was assumed that some dead fish impinged on the traveling screens may have not passed into the collection bins, collection efficiency tests were conducted on five different dates. However, for a variety of factors some tests were not considered reliable or representative and data from these trials had to be excluded in estimation of total number of fish impinged. For example, the tests conducted on April 24, July 11, and July 18, 2006, were excluded from the evaluation of collection efficiency. It was determined that the pre-killed fish were released into the portals too far upstream (approximately eight feet) of the screen for the fish to be cmTied against the screen by the intake flow. An additional trial on September 8, 2006 was excluded because it was determined that the traveling screen wash system on the particular screen tested was not functioning properly and most of the fish were carried over into the intake canal. Appendix C provides a complete list of intake screen efficiency tests conducted. For each efficiency test, either dyed (Bismark Brown) or radio tagged dead fish of several species and representative sizes to those predominantly collected in impingement samples were released in front of traveling screens through access portals approximately 10 ft upstream of the screens or directly in front of the screens through doors on the traveling screen covers. It was delt!rmined that if the fish were not released close (< 2ft) to the screens, the likelihood of their complete recapture was low. Collection efficiency was estimated at 84% (Standard Error, SE= 4.3%) for Unit 2 and 86.5% (SE= 5.7%), based on three trials deemed reliable at Unit 2 and four at Unit 3 (Table 5-2). All impingement catch data were adjusted upward to account for these efficiency values for each Unit. The study protocol specified sampling each unit intake once ger week; however, there were instances when sampling one or both unit intakes did not occur due to logistical constraints at PBAPS. When a weekly sample was missed, the estimated values from the previous and following weeks were averaged and those numbers were assigned to the missed sampling date and the following six days until the next sampling event occurred. PBAPS 316(b) - 20501.000 Final- September 2007 4 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
Characterization of Fish Impingement at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Conowingo Pond, Pennsylvania Relative to 316(b) Rule 2.1 .4. Estimation of Confidence Intervals The: precision of impingement estimates for each species, month, and unit was calculated using the method recommended be MD DNR as follows:
"*
Ic;
-(.' _ i=I s---.
n, with variance
* (
var cs ) = -1=1- - - - n,. -1 Where c =catch per unit day, n, = number of days sampled in a month, c.1. = monthly mean catch per day. Catches were adjusted for collection efficiency (e). Three estimates of collection efficiency were available for Unit 2 and four for Unit 3 (Table 5-2). Mean and variance of collection t!fficiency were calculated as follows: 2 I(e; -;) var(~S )= -'-i='""I_ __ 11.,. -1 An estimate of the total fish impinged (c,) at each unit is: where N =number of days per month. The variance was estimated as follows: 1 var 2 A(cA), = N_ [var( 2
. _>
c_. + (i-cJ_ C
c,,. + _c, 1
*(-)]
var e., . e., ,. e, Total catch was estimated as: PBAPS 316(b) - 20501.000 Final - September 2007 5 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
Characterization of Fish Impingement at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Conowingo Pond, Pennsylvania Relative to 316(b) Rule 15 c,.=Ic,, i =I with variance 15 var v =IP=I var.*., For all estimates the standard error= Mc . Appendix B provides monthly impingement estimates and standard errors of each species and the collection efficiency values used. Estimates are shown separately for Unit 2 and 3. 2.2. Historical Impingement Sampling (1973-1979) Intensive impingement sampling was conducted at the outer traveling screens of Units 2 and 3 to determine: (I) the species composition, (2) the number of fishes impinged, and (3) the impact of fish losses due to impingement on the fish community of Conowingo Pond. Samples for Unit 2 were collected from November 1973-January 1979, and from December 1974-March 1979 at Unit 3. The following data were recorded with each sample: intake water temperature, Pond elevation, number of circulating water pumps in operation. average daily river flow, time of day, and date. These data were used to develop separate statistical relationships between each common species impinged per 12-h at each unit and external variables (Mathur et al. 1977). Each model was validated using an independent data set (i.e., data set that was not included in the development of each model). These models were based on data collected in late-1973 to 1975. However, with the availability of additional data collected beyond 1975, the latter data have been included in the models. These models were used to predict the number of fish impinged per 12-h and compared with the observed impingement rate to assess whether trends in variability in fish impingement were similar in the two periods. If the predicted values fell within the confidence bands developed for the hi.~torical period. it was interpreted that no significant changes in the factors influencing variability in impingement rates had occurred and the observed variability in impingement was similar to that observed historic<11ly. PBAPS 31 S(b) - 20501 .000 Final - Saplombor 2007 6 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
Ch;:uacterization of Fish Impingement at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Conowingo Pond, Pennsylvania Relative to 316(b} Rule 2.2.1. Impingement Sampling For American Shad Outmigrants As part of the American shad restoration program on the Susquehanna River. impingement of emigrating juvenile American shad on outer intake screens has been quantified during fall in most years since 1982; no sampling occu1Ted in 1988 and 1998. Sampling occurred primarily three limes weekly from October through mid-December. These data provide information on size, timing. and origin (hatchery versus wi Id) of juvenile American shad outmigrants. Although the primary focus of this program has been for enumeration of American shad impinged, collected samples also provide information on other fishes as well. Appendix A providt.::s the data on species composition observed uuring the cu1Tent sampling. 2.3. Characterization of Impingement 2.3.1. Species Composition and Seasonal Trends A total of 61,504 fish representing 40 species and 532 crayfish were caught over the course of the study (Table 5-3). Gizzard shad represented 86.9% of the catch. Bluegill and channel catfish comprised an additional 6.9% and 4.1 % of the catch, respectively. Individually, the remaining 38 species made up less than 0.3% of the catch. Some differences in impingement between units were observed (Table 2-3). A greacer impingement occurred at Unit 3 than at Unit 2. Some 60.2% of the fish representing 37 species were collected at Unit
3. and 39.7% of the fish comprising 32 species were collected at Unit 2 (Table 2-3). Two species, gizzard shad and bluegill, contributed substantially to the difference in impingement between units.
Impingement rates exhibited seasonal patterns relative to all species combined (Figure 2-1 ). Impingement was highest in October and November of 2005 and in September 2006 through mid-November 2006 with 85 % of fish impinged during these periods. The lowest monthly impingement (0.1 % ) occurred in March (Figure 2-1 ). Becaui.e of the episodic nature of impingement of fishes or coincident with specific extreme hydrological event, a high variability either due to seasonal availability was observed. A similar pattern was reported in <in earlier study (Mathur et al. 1977). With the exception of channel catfish, most impingement occutTed in October through Dt:ccmber. This was most evident for gizzard shad. Gizzard shad migrate PBAPS 316(b) - 20501 000 Final - September 2007 7 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
Characterization of Fish Impingement at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Conowingo Pond, Pennsylvania Aelative to 316(b) Rule downstream during fall and many gizzard shad are in moribund state or die at water temperature< 45° F. It is likely that many of these gizzard shad may have been swept onto screens. As expected, most American shad impingement occurred during their emigration period (primarily in October and November). The relatively large number of walleye impinged in September through December 2005 is perhaps a reflection of a high production of young walleye in 2005 and their tendency to pursue clupeid prey; examination of stomach contents of impinged walleye revealed heavy feeding on young gizzard shad. It is likely that walleye were pursuing abundant young gizzard shad and became victim of impingement. Walleye were not commonly observed in either historical impingement or fishery samples (PECO 1977). Length frequency data for all species collected are presented in Appendix A. Virtually all (94.4%) of the fish collected were< 140 mm and primarily age 0 or young of the year fish. 2.3.2. Comparison of Current Study to Historic Data (Assessment of Trends) As stated previously, intensive sampling occurred for several years at both Unit 2 and Unit 3. In general, impingement rates for the most common fishes were highest from November to March. Channel catfish, white crappie, bluegill, and gizzard shad were most frequently impinged. Most of these fishes averaged less than 140 mm. In the present study, gizzard shad, bluegill, and channel catfish were most commonly impinged; impingement was generally higher in October through December than in other months. Most fishes impinged were less than 140 mm. The trends in variability in impingement rates (number of fish per 12-h) in the present study were assessed by comparing with those predicted by regression models developed for the historic data ( 1973-1978) for all fishes combined (excluding gizzard shad), channel catfish, and bluegill separately for Units 2 and 3. In general, predictability of impingement rate was higher for Unit 3 (range of R2 =0.5 I 2 for channel catfish to 0.582 for all fishes) than for Unit 2 (range of R2 =0.145 for channel catfish to 0.404 for bluegill). Depending upon the species or unit, the influencing variables affecting impingement were river flow, water temperature, number of pumps, and Pond elevation. The appropriate models were used to predict impingement rates (number of fish per l 2-h) of channel catfish, bluegill, all fish combined, and PBAPS 316(b}-20501.000 Final - September 2007 8 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
Characterization of Fish Impingement at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Conowingo Pond, Pennsylvania Relative to 316(b) Rule compared with the observed values in the current study to assess if the trends had changed significantly. Plots of these comparisons along with 90% confidence intervals are shown in Figures 5-2 to 5-4. Although predicted values tcm.kd to be higher than observed :1t low impingement values and lower at high values particularly for channel catfish and bluegill the overall observed variability in impingement rates was within the range of historical variation; one would expect I0% of the values to fall outside the 90% confidence limits on a random chance alone. The models tended to over-predict impingement of all fishes combined and channel catfish at lower impingement values and under predicted for bluegill at both units. 2.3.3. Species Composition During Outmigration Sampling A total of 45 taxa were impinged during the outmigration sampling between 1997 and 2006 (Table 5-5). Gizzard shad were most common with bluegill, the other commonly impinged species. Of the migratory fishes, juvenile American shad were most common. The number of American shad impinged, though relatively low, is a reflection of intensive efforts to restore the species via a release of hatchery-reared larvae and naturally produced young in upstream areas; adult pre-spawned American shad have been given access to upstream areas since 1997 though their transport had occurred more than a decade earlier. The onset of juvenile American shad emigration in October through November is generally coincident with increasing river flow and lowering of water temperature.
3. CONCLUSIONS Impingement sampling conducted from September 2005 to November 2006 at Units 2 and 3 indicated about 87% of the total catch were young gizzard shad, 6.9% were bluegill, and 4.1% were channel catfish.
Most gizzard shad were impinged in October to December, and many of these may have heen in moribund state or dead when water temperatures were < 45° F. Gizzard shad, bluegill, and channel catfish comprised about 98% of these fish with other species of interest (American shad 627 and walleye 932) comprising most of the remainder. As in the past stlldy (Mathur et al. 1977), due to the episodic PBAPS 316(b) -20501 .000 Final - September 2007 9 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
Characterization of Fish Impingement at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Conowingo Pond, Pennsylvania Relative to 3 t6(b) Rule nature of impingement a large variability was observed in the present sampling. Most impinged fishes were less than 140 mm long. The species composition and trends in impingement rates were similar to those observed during the intensive sampling in 1973 to 1978. Statistical models, developed from historic data, indicated that the observed variability impingement rates of common fishes in the present study were, in general, within the historic variability. PBAPS 316(b) - 20501.000 Final - September 2007 10 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
Characterization of Fish Impingement at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Conowingo Pond, Pennsylvania Relative to 316(b) Rule
4. LITERATURE CITED Harmon. P. L.. D. Mathur, and R. M. Matty, Jr. 1999. Design of CWIS in accordance with fish swim speed measurements at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station. Presentation at the Power Generation Impacts on Aquatic Re:-;ources Conference. April 1999. Atlanta, GA.
Hocutt, C. H. 1970. The effects of temperature on the swimming performance of the largemouth bass, spotfin shiner, and channel catfish. lchthyological Associates, Hohwood, PA, Progress Report 5, February 1970, prepared for Philadelphia Electric Company, 65 pp. Hocutt. C. H. 1973. Swimming performance of three warmwater fishes exposed to a rapid temperature change. Chesapeake Sci. 14: 11-16. King, L. R. 1969. Swimming speed of the channel catfish, white crappie and other warm water fishes from Conowingo Reservoir. Susquehanna liver. Pa. lchthyological Associates. Ithaca, NY, Bulletin No. 4, March 1969, prepared for Philadelphia Electric Company, 74 pp. Kotkas, E. 1970. Studies of the swimming speed of some anadromous fishes found below Conowingo Dam, Susquehanna River, Maryland. Ichthyological Associates, Holtwood, Pa., Progress Report 6, February 1970, prepared for Philadelphia Electric Company for submission to the Advisory Board, 19 pp. Mathur, D., P. G. Heisey, and N. C. Magnusson. 1977. Impingement of fishes at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station on Conowingo Pond, Pennsylvania. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 106:258-267. Mathur, D., E. S. McClellan, and S. A. Haney. 1988. Effects of variable discharge schemes on dissolved oxygen at a hydroelectric station. Water Res. Bull. 24: 159-167. Moyer, S., and E. C. Raney. 1969. Thermal discharges from large nuclear plant. J. Sanitary Eng. Div., Proc. Amer. Civil Eng. 95: 1131-1163. Normandeau Associates, Inc. 2000. A report on the themml conditions and fish populations in Conowingo Pond relative to zero cooling tower operation at the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (June-October 1999). Prepared for PECO Energy Company, Philadelphia, PA. Normandeau Associates. lnc. 200 I. Adult American shad movement in the vicinity of Conowingo and Holtwood Hydroelectric Stations, Susquehanna River, during spring 2001. Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, PPL Holtwood LLC, and Exelon (Susquehanna Electric Company). Philadelphia Electric Company tPECO) 1975. Materials prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency 316(a) demonstration for PBAPS Units No. 2 3 on Conowingo Pond. Philadephia Electric Company, Philadephia, PA. Philadelphia Electric Company (PECO). 1977. 3 I 6(b) Demonstration for PBAPS Units No. 2 & 3 on Conowingo Pond. Materials prepared for the Environmental Protection/\-gency, Jurfe 1977. RMC Environmental Services, Inc. I 994a. Analysis of potential factors affecting the white crappie population in Conowingo Pond. Prepared for PECO Energy Company. 12pp. RMC Environmental Services, Inc. Report on fish entrainment at the Townsend Dam
New Brighton, Pennsylvania (FERC Project No. 3451 ). Prepared for Beaver Falls Municipal Authority Public Water Service, Beaver Falls, PA.
PBAPS 316(b) - 20501.000 Final- September 2007 11 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
Characterization of Fish Impingement at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Conowingo Pond, Pennsylvania Relative to 316(b) Rule Schuler, V. J. 1968. Progress repo11 of swim speed study conducted on fishes of Conowingo Reservoir. Ichthyological Associates, Holtwood, Pa., Progress Report 18, prepared for Philadelphia Electric Company, 61 pp. PBAPS 316(b) - 20501 000 Final - September 2007 12 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
TABLES Table 2-1 Summary of impingement subsample events at Peach Bottom Atomic Stating I !nits 2 and J, September 2005-Noyember 2006, Collection Collection Unit Percentage Subsample Number Date Sampled of bin subsampled Multi pier MDM05003 10/13/05 2 50 2 MDM05005 10/15/05 2 30 3.3 MDM05007 I0/18/05 2 30 3.3 MDM05008 I0/18/05 3 30 3.3 MDM05013 10/21/05 2 15 6.6 MDM05014 10/21/05 3 15 6.6 MDM05019 10126105 2 20 5 MDM05020 10126105 3 20 5 MDM05028 11/1/05 3 30 3.3 MDM05032 11/3/05 3 75 1.3 MDM05033 11/4/05 2 25 4 MDM05034 I 1/4/05 J 50 2 MDM05035 1117/05 2 50 2 MDM05037 11/8/05 2 25 4 MDM05039 11/9/05 2 25 4 MDM05040 I 1/9/05 3 50 2 MDM05041 11/10/05 2 50 2 MDM05042 11110/05 3 25 4 MDM05043 11/11/05 2 25 4 MDM05044 11/11/05 3 25 4 MDM05045 11/14/05 2 50 2 MDM05047 11/15/05 2 75 1.3 MDM05048 11/15/05 3 50 2 MDM05049 I 1/16/05 2 50 2 MDM05063 11/29/05 2 50 2 MDM05069 12/2/05 2 25 4 MDM05070 12/2/05 3 25 4 MDM06083 10/23/06 2 30 3.3 MDM06084 10/23/06 3 30 3.3 MDM06090 10/26/06 3 30 3.3 MDM06095 I0/31/06 2 30 3.3 MDM06096 10/31/06 3 30 3.3 MDM06116 I 1/17/06 3 30 3.3 PBAPS 316(b)- 20501.000 Final - September 2007 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
Table 2-2 Summary of efficiency tests, deemed reliable, conducted at the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Outer Screen House. 2006. Efficiency Unit Release Species Number Number Efficiency Test Date Tested Location Tested Released Recovered Percentage 9/8/2006 2 H-J screen Bluegill 50 48 96.0% 9/8/2006 2 B-C screen Gizzard shad 50 48 96.0% 11/13/2006 2 F screen Walleye 5 3 60.0% Total Unit 2 84.0% 9/8/2006 3 J-K screen Bluegill 50 48 96.0% 9/8/2006 3 E-F screen Gizzard shad 50 50 100.0% 9/8/2006 3 on G screen Yellow perch 10 10 100.0% 11/13/2006 3 C screen Wal !eye/Crappie 6 3 50.0% Total Unit J 86.5% PBAPS 316(b) - 20501 .000 Final - September 2007 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
Table 2-3 Number of imoinged fish collected at PBAPS Units 2 and 3, August 30, 2005 through November 17, 2006. Common Name Scientific Name Collection location Combined Unit2 Unit3 Total % Alewife Alosa pse11doliare11}f1tS 17 21 38 0.1 American shad Alosa s11pidissima 68 115 183 0.3 Gizzard shad Dorosoma ce11edia1111111 21065 32367 53432 86.9 Central stoneroller Campostoma anoma/11111 0 2 2 0.0 Common carp Crµrinu.v carpio 9 14 23 0.0 Golden shiner Note111igo1111s crvsoleucas 8 7 15 n.o Comely shiner Notropis a11we1111s 30 29 59 0.1 Common shiner l11xi/11s com11111s I 0 I 0.0 Spottail shiner Notropis /111clso11i11s 6 15 21 0.0 Swallowtail shiner Notmpis procne I () I 0.0 Spollin shiner Cvvrinella spifoptera 14 31 45 0.1 Bluntnose minnow Pimepfulfes notatus 0 I I 0.0 Creek chub Se111otil11s atmmac11/at11s () I I 0.0 Mimic shiner Notropis vol11cell11s () 2 2 0.0 IQuillback Carpiodes CV1Jri1111s 10 I 11 0.0 White sucker Catosto11111s co111111erso11i 0 I l 0.0 Northern hogSUl'ker Hvpe111eli11m 11il(riccms I 9 10 0.0 Shorthead redhorse MoxosfOma 111acrolepidot11m 4 I 5 0.0 White catfo.h A111ei11rus cat11s 0 I I 0.0 Yellow bullhead t\111t!i11 rus na ta tis 0 I I 0.0 Channel catfish lctal11r11s p1111ctat11s 1141 1364 2505 4.1 Flathead catfish Pvlodictis olivaris 48 77 125 0.2 Mummichog F11m/11/11s l1eteroc/it11s I I 2 0.0 White oerch Morone americana 5 5 10 0.0 Striped bass Moro11e .mxatilis 0 2 2 0.0 Rock bass A111h/opfites ruvestris 27 51 78 0.1 Redbreast sunfish Levo111is a11ri111s 0 3 3 0.0 Green sunfish lepomis cm11el/11s 24 59 83 0.1 Pumpkinseed lepomis gihbo.ms 4 5 9 0.0 Bluegill Levomis macrochirus 1763 2510 4273 6.9 Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomie11 11 20 31 0.1 Larl!emouth bass Microvterus sa/111oides 9 24 33 0.1 White crappie Pomoxis m11111laris 56 64 120 0.2 Black craooic Pomoxis 11iRm111arnlat11s 0 I I 0.0 Tessellated dancr £theosto111a ol111.1*tedi 8 22 JO 0.0 Yellow perch Perea tlavescens 33 92 125 0.2 Logpen:h Percina caprode.1* 0 3 3 0.0 Walleye Sti:.ostedirm l'itre11111 75 138 213 0.3 Banded darter I£theos/0111a zona/e I 0 I 0.0 Greenside darter Etheostoma ble1111ioiJes l I 2 0.fl Tntals 24442 37062 61504 100 PBAPS 316(b) - 20501.000 Final - September 2007 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
Table 2-1 i\.lonlbly estimult:"d number of fish impinRcd .at Peuch Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units land 3, Augu!it 2005 to No,*ember 2006. Impingement adjustl-d for culh:ction ellki~nL2' ulun~ "'ith Stund:.1rd trrors (SE} und nooSAmet~ du,*s. American shud Hlu!&ill Channel catfish GlZZJ1rddtoad Wllll<l* Olhcrs ToWI E.'itimaltd Eollnwted Esllmoted E"itimultd Estlm*l<d Estlm*l<d 1':.*llnwled Monlh culch SE cotch SE catch SE Qllch SE cutc:b SE cutcb SE c.1.1tch SE Unit 2 AUG 2005 0 17 0.0 1107 ms 74 14K 2620 SEP 2005 0 0.0 29 49.7 1029 1463.1 3929 2459.J 21 10.J 107 114.0 5114 28645 OCT 2005 64 14M.7 2516 2738.9 305 360.4 75780 165.116.4 79 Q(J,5 J'U 100.9 791.19 165339.9 NOV 2005 JO 74 ..1 14(o2 1.136.4 80 120.4 52751 114762.J 9R qs ..i 54K 603.9 54970 M4775.2 DEC 2005 0.0 1893 3695.8 116 !Jl.7 728 720 ..l 69 101.0 2.17 250.4 .l()-12 .1777-1 JAN 2006 0 o.n 199 148.5 310 .l 11.4 37 3H.O 0 00 81 116.6 627 366.2 FEB 2000 0 0.0 108 169.9 742 1101.2 so 98.0 0 00 100 113.4 1000 1124.2 MAR 2006 0 0.0 28 40.4 240 262.9 0 0.0 0 00 92 M0.4 3b(J 277.9 APR 2006 0 0.0 12 .l5.R 381 136.6 12 35.8 0 0.0 71 KS.7 476 1691 MAY2UOI> 0 0.0 0 0.0 8)4 31.l. I 52 37.3 22 55.0 14M 12.l.2 IU55 343.0 JUN 2006 JO 62.5 0 0.0 m 308.0 48 .17.6 24 29.7 274 1.17.l 1102 .146.l JUU006 () 0.0 65 56.6 932 803.8 572 974.9 9 37 .0 123 IK6.4 1901 1279.0 AUG 20CIO 0 0.0 0 0.0 989 11114.0 (>6 59.5 0 0.0 81 115.2 11)7 1191.1 SEP 2006 0 0.0 11!-1 531.6 938 736.4 516 .150.7 0 0,0 196 1~1.7 2054 9905 OCT2006 124 161.0 IR47 2765.7 384 351.R 1670 1774.4 40 5 752 533.6 47K5 3351.7 NOV2006 0 0.0 fi7 77.J Rl 75.R 246 306.5 0 00 163 124.6 5fi0 148.1 1'01.&al for Unit ? 254 239.7 8647 5562.7 9291 2571.5 137731 185H09.3 404 187.9 3716 'l'IJ.1 IMX142 185913.2 PBAPS 316(b) - ::<>501.000 Final - Soptembor 2007 Normanduu ASBociatn, Inc.
Tahl* 2-1 Continutd. Amnicun slutd lllug:UI Ch*nnel cutOsh Glz:mrd shad \Voalle1*e Olhers Tomi EslimutL-d Estimated Estimated Estimated t::stlm*ted Esllnwted Estim*led Mouth Cltcb SE a1tch SE cutch SE cntch SE CUICh SE cilch SE ualch SF. Unit3 AUG2005 0 0 538 215 0 0 753 SEP 2005 0 00 49 107.2 520 824.7 2136 2044.0 14 33.1 132 158.1 2851 2212.6 OCT1005 105 195.7 2Jl6 .1307.7 174 135.1 65716 14.16.Jli.2 109 148.9 505 487.4 611925 143675-4 NOV 2005 42 130. 1 1920 3174.4 146 337.9 68293 96837.9 JIO 5R6.3 673 777.4 71.184 96895.5 DEC 2005 0 0.0 1874 2414.3 174 149.9 696 602.4 JI 58.6 189 165.6 2%4 2499.0 JAN 2006 0 0 .0 545 800..5 817 150.1 36 45.0 o 0.0 315 252.7 171J 1127.0 FEB 2006 0 0,11 194 364.1 380 546.6 8 32.5 0 0.0 7.1 81.I 655 662.6 MAR2006 0 0.0 27 57.2 108 65.9 0 0 .0 0 0.0 63 69.5 197 111.6
.~PR 2006 0 0.0 0 0.0 231 167.1 0 0.0 23 29.1 150 104.4 405 199.1 MAY2006 29 66.6 35 .9 767 641.0 14 34.2 1 35.9 n I00.4 896 655.0 JUN 2006 12 14 8 12 34.8 382 491 .3 0 0.0 0 0.0 162 117.6 566 501.5 JUL2006 0 0.0 SI 88.3 1559 893.2 762 1.146.3 18 J.1.1 403 213.6 2822 1632..5 AUG2006 0 0.0 14 42.6 1175 938.7 803 1587.6 7 35.9 129 12.1.7 21~9 18-19.3 SEP 2006 0 0.0 1275 2406.2 2870 3793.3 2072 2128.3 9 34.8 408 224.6 6633 4975.9 OCT2006 180 231.I 1590 3132.4 376 3Q9.9 2344 3618.5 0 0.0 762 456.0 5251 4829.8 NOV2006 )44 2338 7126.2 156 124.8 225 160.7 0 0.0 529 496.1 3255 7146.5 Total for Unit J 374 339.8 12239 9697.0 IOJn 4315.7 143321 173307.4 528 61.1.3 4561> 1252.9 171199 171638.1 Total both unils 627 415.8 20886 11179.2 19663 5023.7 281051 2'4087.7 9)2 641.4 M?l:l? 1598.8 )31442 254389.3 PBAPS 3161b) - 20501 .000 Anal - Seplember 2007 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
Table2*5 Sumnuary uf the !iipl'Cies cumposi.Uun and number or llsh collected during outmigration Impingement sampllng of Unil~ land 3 al the Peach Bottom Atomic Pow~r Stution, 1997-2006. Year 1997 % 1999 'J& 2000 'h 2001 % 2001 % 2003 'h W04 'h 2005 II> 2006 % Number days sampled 14 23 12 28 2.1 23 IS 46 17 Number of'J'uxu 26 22 14 23 24 27 17 31 ~3 American ShaJ 64 01 285 5.3 100 5.7 65 2.2 18 7 O.J DS 0.2 59 2.8 Blm:back Hcmng .158 0.S 112 2.1 0.3 105 3.S 48.0 2.0 I Alewife I 0.1 I 0.1 6.0 0.4 29 6 0.J Alosa sp. .10.0 0.6 GiZ7arJ shad 7.1.944 98 4.463 82 1,292 74 1.281 43 944.379 99 1.534 63 1.346 86 56.944 93 1.013 48 Ci:ntral slonerollc.r 1.0 Carp 76 1.4 0.2 4 0.1 3 0.1 16 Guillen shim:r 3 0.1 3 0.1 I 0.1 2 7 0_1 Comely shiner 4 0.1 0.1 5 0.2 12 16 0.7 46 1.9 29 3 0.1 Sponail shi.ni:r 4 0.1 7 0.2 I I I 0.1 7 6 OJ Spolfin shiner 3 0.1 4 0.1 11 4 0.2 7 0.4 15 14 0.7 Swallo\\tilil shinl!r I Mimic shiner 0.1 Notropis sp. Bluntno~ minnow Crcl!k ~hub Quillba<k 4 1.0 4 0.1 Rainbow smdt II Whitcslh:kt.-r I Shonhead n:dhorsc 1.0 I Nunhcm h'1gsucker 10 White .:atlish Yellow liullhca~ 2.0 1.0 0.1 Brown bullhead ChaMCl catfish 113 0. 1 79 l.S 100 5.7 1.326 444 129 80 3.3 21 1.3 346 0.6 177 8.4 FlalhClld ca11ish 0.1 19 71 3.4 Whil< pen:h 9 Mummu.:hog I Sui xJ ha~'
<0.1%
PSAPS :l.16(b) - 20501 .000 Final - Seplembar 2007 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
Tobie 2*5 Conlinued. Pumpkinseeu 37 00 9 0.3 21 0.1 0. 1 0. 1 Bluegill 773 1.0 221 4.1 205 11.8 71 2.4 11.363 1.1 549 22.4 66 4.2 3.351 5.5 659 3 I.I Smallmoulh bass IS 0.0 27 0.5 4 0.2 40 1.3 45 10 0.4 5 0.3 13 LJrgemou1h bass 10 0.0 9 0.2 17 0.6 9 4 0.2 8 0.5 22 9 0.4 While crappie 87 0. 1 80 l.j 16 0.9 15 0 .5 4 42 1.7 13 0.8 65 0.1 50 2.4 Black crappie 5 0 .0 I 0.1 4 0. 1 I I 0.0 Yellow perch 0.3 II 0.4 24 97 4.0 32 2 117 0.2 2 0.1 Walleye 5 0.0 6 0.2 0.1 198 03 Tcssclartd dJner 5 0 .0 5 0.2 15 Bamled dancr Grccns1do uaner Logpcn:h I 00 I fO'i'AL I 75,559 100 S.413 100 11.742 100 I i.~11-1 100 ~.1311 Ifill 12.450 100 1,563 JOO 61.4211 1110 I 2,111 IOU
* <0. 1%
PBAPS 316(b) - 20501.000 Final - Sep1*mber 2007 NonnandtNIU Auoclat.., Inc.
FIGURES 0 Unit2 50 ii Unit 3
---- - *- -*--*-*------**-----------*------*-**-*------**------- *-*-*- .... - . -*1 1 *.:. ; . .t~i -c 40 ----- ~ -.~ *--,~~- ---* - - ----*- - ----*-* --*--*-*----*-*-*--------.. -- --** -* -- -.. -- --- ... -- .---*ii !~- -~ 30 *-** --~-- ----t.~_:.'.. --- ~ --- ---*-- -**------*--**-------*--**-----*----*----- ----**-- -* -- -- -11 . FJ *. .e ~~.~:.** 1: ... !~
20 -***---**-f..f
~" --~
2':..t
- - - - - - - - - - - - -*--*-----*----*--**-*----.- -*-*-*- -** .. **-*-1 ,; IP +~; iW ;;J. ~l - ~; - - - -~ ~-
lo - .. -- -- lJ; Ii ~
~ ii~
rf~*. .)!;?. .
0-1-1~il:!lll.--.-J"-:.llmL-r-L.l.i.O..ll..._-.-J:::::::.1o1116L-.-c='"---.--c=im--..,-~~..,-~~-,--c::::o.--.-'=>>--.-'~---.--':=1:..._, Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun .Jul Aug Month Figun: J Monthly catch of all impinged fish at PBAPS, 2005-2006 PBAPS 316{b) -20501.000 Final -Seplember 2007 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
Unh 2, all *peel* but Gizzard 11had
------------ - - ~ I I
1 3J N ~ 282 R2 - 0.293 S a 0.242 yx 0 90% CL 0 2 3 Observed log(n + 1) Unit 3, all apec:laa but GlzUrd *had
N - 170 R2

0.582 0
E\,.. = 0.242 0 2 3 Observed log(n+1) Figure 2-2. Comparison of observed and predicted impingement values (log of number of fish/12 h + 1) along with 90% confidence intervals of total fish (gizzard shad excluded) at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Unit 2 and Unit 3, August 2005 - November 2006. Note the trends in variability in impingement was similar in the two periods PBAPS 316(b) - 20501.000 Final - September 2007 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
3,----- 1 Unit 2, Blueglll 21
+ .s ..... .8' 1 al *
ii
~
c!: t :~
* *" >i< *
c * *~

* .~ ;** t '~ * , . ¥ .. *;O<*
N = 282
,!f-'i< **
R2a 0404

Sy,.~ 0.185
-ll0 ' 2 3 Observed log(n + 1)
Unit 3, Blueglll 4 N"' 170 A2 = 0.559 sv.* D .o.204 3
;:- + .s. .8' I
cl: 1 0 0 2 3 ObseNed Jog(n+l) Figure 2-3. Comparison of observed and predicted impingement values llog of number of fish/12 h + I) along with 90% confidence intervals of bluegill at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Unit 2 and Unit 3, August 2005 - November 2006. Note the trends in variability in impingement in the two periods was similar. PBAPS 316(b)-20501 .000 Final-Seplember 2007 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
Unit 3, Ch*nnel calfl*h 31 21 I I l~ .~ :-¥ ,,
+ k "" * * .s .,. ,~ ~
al
+: ~ *~ t: *
~f:
u *~
* ** '":t.*ie' ~ '" . . . '* N - 158 ,[
R2 - 0.5115 Sy.x~ 0.256
_, r 0 2 3 ObS6/Wd klg(n + 1)
Unit 2, Ch*nnel C8lft*h
--- --- * ------ --
N
282 R2 - 0 .145 Sy.. ~ 0250 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 12 1.3 1.4 1.5 16 1.7 1.8 Observed klg(n + 1)
Figure 2-4. Comparison of observed and predicted impingement values (log of number of tish/12 h + l) along with 90% confidence intervals of channel catfish at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Unit 2 and Unit 3, August 2005 - November 2006. Note the trends in variability in impingement in the two periods was similar. PBAPS 316(b) - 20501.000 Final - September 2007 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
Appendix A ( O"\CJWl:\CO RES lill\ c llR
f: co1.01 ; l('~I. STl"ll\' mll'l'\G\IE'.\"r l' IEl.ll ll \T~
UNIT2 UNIT 3 Ri,*er Number Cltt. tStution llJ) <Station 20) Flow or Circ. pump Sumple# DATE TIME TEMP. C" D.O SECCHI BIN % Sample# DATE T IME Th:MP. C 0.0 SECCHI DL'I % DAU: In cts pumps In cfs DDR05027 ft/2912005 915 28.9°C 7.4ppm DOR05026 8/29/2005 29.l"C 7.7ppm 1112912005 407H 6 3342 DDR0502H 9161:!005 'l4S 26. 1°C 9.3ppm l.IM OOR05029 9/612005 26. l"C S.7ppm l.IM 9/ri/2005 I 2'J60 6 1342 UOR050JO 912012005 ')()() 21.o*c 6.Sppn1 .SM ODROSOJO 9/20/2005 21.o*c 7. lppm .SM 'J/20/200:5 4.'29 s 17SS DDR05032 9/2'.!12005 945 25.7° c 7.lppm I.JM DOR0503J 9/2'.!12005 25.9"C 7.Sppm l.IM 912212005 noo 1671 OOR05034 9/27/'2005 I 500 n.o*c 7.2ppm 0.9M 30% DOR0503S 912112005 1500 u.o*c 7.6ppm 0.9M )()% 9/27/2005 2573 1671 DDR050.16 9/29/2005 20.s*c 8.95ppm IM 25% OOR05037 9/29f.!005 23.9"C 7.7ppm .9M 2511> 9/29/2005 3567 lb7l DDR05039 10/1/2005 1020 2~.5° c H.9ppn1 IM DDR05038 10/1/2005 2l.2°C 9.9ppm IM I 0/1/2005 3568 1671 DDR05056 I 0/312005 2J.8°C 8.6ppm IM DDR050S5 10/4/2005 2J.8° c 7.9ppm IM 10/3/2005 4016 1671 DDROSOl>O I 0/512005 2J.8"C 8.5ppm I.JM OORD.5059 I O/S/2005 2.J.J°C 8.4ppm !.JM IO/S/2005 4716 1671 ODR05061 10110/2005 1100 19.l"C 7.7ppm .2M 30% ODR05062 10/10/2005 1057 19.2"C 7.8ppm .2M 15% IO/ I 0/2005 29-141 1671 DDR05063 1om12oos 830 20.6°C ftppm 0.7SM OOR05064 10/12/2005 905 19.S"C 7.9ppm .MM 10/1212005 21774 1185 MDM05001 10/1312005 MOM05002 I0/13f.!OOS I0/ ll/2005 20407 2785 MDMOS00.1 I 0/14/2005 I 0.10 18.5"C 8. lppm 0.75M MDM05004 10/14/2005 18.5°C 8.0ppm .7SM 100% 10/14/2005 18961 2785 MDMOSOOS IO/IS/2005 940 17. l'C H. lppm .9M 80% MOMOS006 IO/IS/2005 1230 17.l"C S.2ppm .9M 70% 10/1512005 18201 2785 Broken MDM05007 10/1812005 16.S' C l11Cl<( .9M MDM05008 10/1812005 16.2"C .9M 10/11112005 30387 2785 MDM05009 10119{.!005 904 16.S"C 9.4ppm .9M 50% MOM050IO I 0/ 19/2005 907 16.s*c 9.4ppm .9M 10/19/2005 2hi90 2785 MDM0501 I 10/2012005 910 16.3"C 9.4ppm .8M MOMOSOl2 I 0/20/2005 l 030 15.R"C 9.6ppm .9M 10/20/2005 23757 3342 MOM0501 3 10/2112005 HOO 14.o'C 9.3ppm lM 85% MOM05014 10/11/2005 1030 14.8°C 9.35ppm IM lOO<:t. lQ.12112005 21158 6 3342 MOM05015 IU/H/2005 HOO 15.0' C 9.65ppm .7M 15% MOMOSOl6 I 0/24f.!OOS I 030 14.8"C 9 ..lSppm IM 100% 10/24/2005 19.117 )14~ MDM05017 10/25/2005 900 12.o*c ll .2ppm .9M 30% MDM0501S 1012512005 1100 IS.O'C 9.65ppm .7M 15% 10/25/2005 22971 3342 MOM05019 10/2612005 900 15.5"C 9.6Sppm lM 10011> MOM05020 l 0/2612005 II 00 hrokcn IM 100% IOt:!li/2005 44276 3342 MOM05021 10/2712005 900 11.B'C ll.7ppm .7M IS'l& MDMOS022 I0/2712005 1100 l0.8°C 12.0ppm .7M 15% 10/27/2005 81146 3342 MOM05023 I0/2H/2005 815 10.9"C 9.Sppn1 .6M 1591. MOMOS024 10/2812005 10.s*c I l.5ppm .7M 12% 10/2812005 118140 6 3342 MOM05025 I 0/3112005 830 8.9°C 11.!Sppm AM 10% MDM05026 10/3lf.!OOS S.9'C ll.2ppm .SM 10% 10/31/2005 58320 6 3342 MOM05027 11/1/2005 830 10.0'C ll.2ppm .7M 30% MOMOS02S 111112005 io.o*c 11.0ppm .7M 65% 11/112005 47572 6 3342 MOMOS029 I l/:!r-005 I0.8'C 11.lppm .7M 30% MOM05030 I lf'J2005 10.5*c 11.0ppm .7M 30% 11/212005 405.15 6 D42 MDM05m1 IW/2005 1l.2'C I0.6pprn .BM 70'h MOM050J2 I lf.1f.!005 1030 10.l'C I l.2ppm .8M 30'l. 111.112005 361.16 3342 MDM05033 11/412005 815 I l.7'C 10.6ppm .9M 45% MOM05034 111412005 820 11.7° c I0.9ppm .9M 30% I IW2005 33926 3J42
~IOM05035 I ln/2005 815 12.2 c 9.07ppm I.JM 30% MOMOS036 11nnoo5 11m20os 28:522 3342 MDM050.17 I l/!i/2005 1107 11.s*c 10 8ppm l.IM 66% MOMOS038 111812005 I I07 13.0'C I0.8ppm LIM 30% -1118/2005 25664 6 3342 MOM05039 11 1912005 815 12.s*c 10. lppm 1.2M 60% MDM05040 11/9/2005 10.10 12.s*c 10.3ppm UM SO'-'> I IN/2005 24158 6 3342 MDM05Cl41 11/10/2005 IOJO 1.1.0"C 10.l ppm I.OM 50'ib MOM05042 I I/I 0/2005 800 13.0"C IO.Oppm I.OM 85% 11110/2005 D940 6 3.142 MDM05()4.1 11/11/2005 BIS ll .8"C 10.0ppm l.IM 75% MOM OS~ llllWOOS 1030 13.o*c 9.8ppm !.JM 15'1. 1111112005 24182 6 3342 MOM05045 11/14/2005 HIS 11 .2* c IOAppm I.OM 2S'ii> MDMOS046 1111412005 1030 11.2° C 10.4ppm I.OM 50'L 11/1412005 36-176 JJ42 MDM05Cl47 11/15/2[1()5 8.10 11.o*c I0.6ppm I.JM .10'il> MOM05048 I 1115/2005 I 0.10 13.0'C 9.8ppm l.IM 75% 11/15/2005 33161 3342 MD~l05C>l9 1111012005 IOOO I 1.5'C 11.0ppm I.JM 66% MDM05050 1111612005 900 I l.4"C 11.0ppm UM 50% 11111112005 .10075 6 3.\42 MOM0505l 11/1712005 11.o*c 10.oppm I .OM 10% MOM05052 11117/2006 11.o*c I0.6ppm I.OM 15% 11/1712005 )0572 6 D42 ~1DM0505.1 11/lli/2005 815 IO.S"C 106ppm I.OM 10% MDM05054 11/18/2005 1030 10.s*c I0.6ppm l.IJM 20% I 1/1~2005 4511~ 6 D41 PBAPS 316(bJ
20501.000 Final* Sep1ember 2007 Normandeau Assoclares, Inc.
Api"'ndlx A UNITl UNIT J Rh'er Numbt:r Circ. (Sl*tlnn Ill) (Stntlon 20> J.luw of Clrc. pump Sample II llA'l"E TIME TEMl'.C" D.O SECCHI BIN '@ SIUllple # DATE TIME 'fEMP. c* D.O SECClll BIN %
DA'fE iu cfs pumps in d's MDM05055 1111112005 815 7.7' C I l.9ppm I.JM 15% MDMOSOS6 1112112005 925 7.2°C 12.lppm I.JM 15% 11121/2005 54049 6 3342 MDM05057 1111212005 815 8.0'C 12.0ppm .9M IO'it MDMOS058 11/2212005 1030 1.M' C 12.0ppn* .9M 10% 1 ll221200S 46729 6 3J42 MDM05059 l lr.D/1005 815 7.8°C II Sppm I.OM 10\'b MDM05060 11/23/2005 I OJO 7.8'C ll.4ppm I.OM 15% 11/23/2005 416o0 6 3342 MDM05061 11/28/2005 815 s.o* c 9.Sppm 2.0M 10% MDMOS062 ll/28/200S 1030 4.9'C 9.9ppm 9.9M SO% I 1/28/2005 26939 2228 MDM0506J 1112q12oos 81S 5.s* c 12.6ppm l.-15M 70% MDM05064 11/29/2005 lOJO 5.0'C 13.0ppn* L4SM 25% l 112'112005 2517) 4 2228 MDMU5065 l l/1CV2005 8SO 5.R" C IJ.Oppm l.:?M 15'.lo MDMOS066 11130/2005 935 5.5'C 12.6ppm l.2M 2% 11/30/2005 50661 4 2228 MDM05067 12/112005 sso 8.J'C 12.2ppm I.JM 50% MDMOS06S 1211/2005 840 S.O'C I l 6ppm l.IM HJ% 121112005 194.175 4 2228 MDM05069 12/2/2005 940 10.o* c I l.7ppm .SM 100% MDM05070 121212005 1010 s.s* c 12.0ppm SM 100% 12/212005 218118 4 2228 MDM05071 l 2/S /2005 815 6.0' C 12.Sppm JOM 5% MDM05072 1215/2005 IOJO 10.1*c ll.2ppm .HM 30% 12611005 93476 4 2228 MDM0507.1 121612005 901 4.s

c 13.Sppm .SM 50% MDM05074 1216/2005 900 4.8'C 13.Sppm .SM 15% 12/l\/200S 7365S 4 2228 MDM[J5075 1211311005 1045 2.o*c IJ.7ppm .9M Sib MDMOS076 1211312005 I045 1.0'C 14.Jppm l.IM IO'ib 121Ll/2005 3061.l 4 2228 MDM05077 12110/2005 935 2.0'C 14.2ppm .SM 10% MDM05078 12120/2005 940 .s*c 14.6ppm .8M Sil> 1212011005 31790 4 2221J MDM05079 12127/2005 9l0 2.0'C 13.8ppm .l.25M 10% MDM050SO 1212712005 920 l.8'C l3 .7ppm l.25M 5% 1212711005 34197 4 2228 MDM06001 1/)/2006 815 8.J' C 133ppm .8.6M S% MDM06002 l/3/2006 I OJO 4.0'C 13.0ppm .6M .1% 1/3/2006 77*)25 4 2228 MDM06003 1/1011006 SIS 9.~°C 12.Jppm 2.2SM S% MDM06004 1/10/2006 1030 5.0'C 12.2ppm 2.75M 20% 1/10/2006 62195 2228 MDM06005 1/1711006 Sl5 3.2' C l5.2ppm .75M IS% MDM06006 1117/2006 10.10 3.2"C l4.6ppm .75M 10% 1/17/2006 106014 4 2228 MDM06007 1/2411()(16 815 5.3°C 12.Sppm .6M 15% MDM06008 1124/2006 IOJO 4,0'C IJ.Sppm .6M 211% 112411006 104607 4 2228 MDM06009 l/ll/1006 815 5.5°C l2 .4ppm l.2M 5% MDM06010 l/31/2006 1030 4.0'C IJ.4ppm l.2M 5% 113111006 51839 2228 MDM06011 2/612006 815 4,8' C l3.4ppm .4M 5% MDM06012 21612006 835 4,2°C 1:1.bppm AM 15% 21612006 MDM06013 2/14/2006 9SO 1 s*c l4.3ppm l.6M 15% MDM06014 2114/2006 94S 1.a*c 14.0ppm I.HM 5\'b 2/1412006 49200 22:!8 MDM0601S 2121/2006 900 .i.2*c 12.lppm l.4M <5% MDM06016 2121/2006 910 3.6'C 13.0ppm 1.4M 20% 2/21/2006 .16500 2228 MDM06017 2/28/2006 900 2.5°C 13.oppm l.2M 1% MDM0601S 2128/2006 910 3_5*c l3.2ppn1 1.25M 1% 21211/2006 26:!00 2228 MDM06019 3nt2006 945 3.S'C 13.Jppm I.SM <1% MDM06020 3n/2006 1000 3.o*c 13.Sppm l.66M <1% 3nmi06 ll)()O() 2228 MDM06021 )/1412006 1130 16.0'C 12.6ppm 56" 15% MDM06022 3/1412006 1135 9.2°C 12.6ppm 56" NA'! 3/14/2006 25400 2228 MDM06013 312111006 S45 6.o*c 12.4ppm .4M 1% MDM06024 3/21/2006 900 6.o*c 12.7ppm .4M 1% 3111/2006 .1S500 22:?8 MDM06025 31111/2006 930 7.5'C I l.8ppm l.IM 15% MDM06026 3/28/2006 935 1.o*c 12.0ppn* l.2M :Ol'il> .l/2K/2006 2J200 2228 MDM06027 4/4/2006 900 12.5'C 13.8ppm .SM NA? MOM06028 4/4/2006 910 15.l' c 11.Sppm .8M NA? 4/4/2006 20200 2228 Bin wasn'I Bin,,,.nsn't No Sample 4111/2006 pull<d No Sample 4111/2006 pulled 4/11/2006 28600 4 2228 MDM06029 4/IH/2006 900 16.2'C 11.0ppm 30" NA? MDM06030 4/1812006 910 16.0'C 10.lppm 30" NA'! 4/11!12006 26SOO 4 2228 MDM060Jl 412512006 IO:?O 15.5°c 9.6ppm 30" 50-15% MOM060J2 4125/2006 1030 1s.s*c 9.7ppm .10" 75% 4/25/2006 S9100 4 2228 MDMU60.l3 5/212006 i005 17.0'C l l.2ppm .75M 50% MDM06034 512/2006 1015 11.o*c 11.2ppm .75M 10% 51211006 34SOO 4 2228
~IDM060J5 j/912006 900 19.l'C S.2ppm IM NA? MDM06036 5/911006 9i0 19.5°C 8.3ppm .75M NA? 5/9/2006 19HOO 4 2228 MDl\.106037 5116/2006 900 19.0"C 7.3ppn1 .75M i0% MDM06038 S/16/2006 9i0 19.0°C 7.4ppm .75M i0% 5/1611006 .13100 2228 MDMOOOJ9 5/2111006 900 l6.40'C 9.lppm 29"M S% MDM06040 5123/2006 1000 16.4'C 9.2ppm 29"M 2S% 5/23/2006 27300 2228 MDM0604l j/30/2006 930 23.0'C 9.Sppm LIM 15% MOM06042 5130/2006 920 22.0°c 9.lppm l.IM 25% S/J0/2006 19500 2228 Binwilsn'I Bin wasn't MDM06043 &lb/2001> pulh:d No Sample 61611006 pulled PBAPS 316(bJ -20501.000 Final-S~plember 2007 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
Apptndix A l 'll'\0 \\' l'\f;O IU*. ~l*: llVOlll*l*:COl.Of;IC \I. ~*rLHV IMl'l ... Ci\IE:-0"1' l'll*:LIJ II\ I'\ UNIT? UNITJ Rlnr Nurnber Clrc. iSl:ltlon IOI {StaUon 20) Flow oCClrc. euml! Sample# DATE Tiii-iE TEMP.C" D.O SECCHI BIN II> Sample# DATE Tll\IE TEMP.C" D.O SECCHI BIN% DATE in cfs PWDfl" In cfs MDM06().15 61131'.!006 '!00 21.ll'C 8.7M .SM 1511. MDM06046 6113/2006 930 21.0°C 8.Sppm .8M 2'ili 6/IJ/2()()(J 29700 6 3?42 MDM06().17 61'.!0/2006 900 2-tJl'C SA ppm 37" 33% MDM06048 6120/2006 IOOO 24.l°C K.2ppm 37" 10% 6120/2006 16:l00 3242 MDM06049 6/2712006 9 10 25.2*c 7.Bppm A.If SO'JJ MD/1106050 611712006 915 2S.2 11 C 7.7ppm AM .1.1% 6/D/J006 80000 6 3.?42 no data no data MDM06051 7/612006 900 r~conk.-d 12% MDM06052 7/6/2006 reconh!d 12% 7/6/!006 64200 MDM06053 7/11/1006 QIS 2s.2*c 8.!ppm .SM SO% MDM060S4 711112006 90S 24.2°C R.Oppm .SM 2S% 7/1112006 36SOO J.?4:? MDM0605S 7/11!/l006 815 2K.5'C 8.lppm .8M 6% MDM06056 7118/l006 800 28.0'C 8.5ppm .7M 15% 7/18/2006 34fl00 3242 MDM06057 7/25/2006 Bin broJr.:cn MDM060S8 712512006 830 28.4'C 6.&lppm !7" 50% 712512006 3.1900 6 .1242 MDM060S9 8/1/2006 845 29.2°c 7.lppm .9M 5~b MDM06060 81112006 848 29.0'C 7.9ppm 1.2M 15% 8/11:1006 22700 6 3242 MDM06061 8/l!/2006 IOIO Jo.2°c 6 ..1ppm .9M 25% MDM06062 8/8/2006 !013 30.2'C 6.Jppm .9M 80% K/8/2006 14500 6 3~42 MDM06063 1!115/2006 KSS issues with hin:lfC:l flooded MDM06064 8/IS/2006 l8.5°C 7Appm 40" 10% l!/15n006 9400 6 .l24.! MDM06065 1!12111006 1015 2s.o*c 7.5ppm l.2M MDM06066 812112006 935 28.2°C 7.Mppm I.OM S% 1!12112006 8200 fi 3242 MDM06067 R/29/l006 900 27.3'C 7.0ppm 42" 50% MDM06068 8129/2006 IOOO '.?7 .2° c 7.lppm 42* l!/2912006 IKOOO 6 .IN2 MDMOll009 9/5/2006 900 19. 1*c 9.4ppm 22* 20% MDM06070 9/Sl2006 1000 19.l'C 9.3ppm 22" 60% 91512006 100600 3242 MDM06071 9/1212006 900 21.2' c 8.2ppm 25" 40% MDM06072 9/1212006 1000 21.2° c 8.0ppm 25" S0'..0 9/121:!006 25800 3242 MDM0()()73 9119/lOOli 900 2'.?.5°c K.8ppm 20% MDM06074 9/19/2006 1000 20.o*c 8.7ppm 20'ili 9/1912006 30700 3242 MDMOo075 9/28/2006 900 22.0' c 8.7ppm s~ MDM06076 9/28/2006 1000 19.o*c 8.9ppm 12% Q/28/2006 14400 324'.? MDM06ll77 10/2/200/i I)()() IK.S'C 8.4ppm I.OM 5% MDM06078 1{){2/2006 910 IR.8* C S .5~m I.OM 10% 10/2/21)06 21h00 '24! PBAPS 315(b)
20501 000 Final

September 20il7 Normandeau Assoc/ares, Inc.
Appendix B Estimated number of fish impinged at PBAPS from August 2005 to November 2006. Efficiency for Unit 2 is 0.84 <SE=0.0432) and for Unit 3 is 0.865 (SE=0.0596) Location Common name Exl!anded catch SE August 2005 Unit 2 Gizzard ~had 1255 Unit 2 Spottin shiner 111 Unit 2 Channel 1:atflsh 1107 Unit 2 White perch 37 Unit 2 Bluegill 37 Unit 2 Walle~e 74 2620 Sept11111ber 2005 Unit 2 Gizzard shad 3929 2459.3 Unit 2 Comely shiner 29 49.7 Unit 2 Common shiner 7 35 .8 Unit 2 Spottin shiner 14 42.4 Unit 2 Channel catfish 1029 1463.1 Unit 2 Flathead catfish 7 35.8 Unit 2 Green sunfish 14 34.1 Unit 2 Bluegill 29 49.7 Unit 2 Srnallmouth bass 7 35.8 Unit 2 Tessellated dar1er 7 35.8 Unit 2 Yellow perch 7 35.8 Unit 2 Walleye 21 30.3 Unit 2 River cra~fish 14 34.1 5114 286--J.5 October 2005 Unit2 American shad 64 148.7 Unit 2 Gizzard shad 75780 165316.4 Unit 2 Comely shiner 5 36.7 Unit2 Spottail shiner I0 49.6 Unit 2 Spottin shiner 10 49.6 Unit 2 Quill back 5 39.3 Unit 2 Channel catfish 305 360.4 Unit 2 Flalhead cattish 7 39.0 Unit 2 Rock bass 15 64.0 Unit 2 Green sunfish 49 88.3 Unit 2 Pumpkinseed 7 39.0 Unit 2 Bluegill 2516 2738.9 Unit 2 Smallmouth buss 2 36.9 Unit 2 Lurgemouth bass 5 36.7 Unit 2 White crappie 73 93.5 Unit 2 Tessellated darter 2 36.9 Unic 2 Yellow perch 22 55.4 Unit 2 Walleye 79 90.5 Unit 2 River cra~fish 181 227.8 79139 165339.9 PBAPS 3!6(b) - 20501 000 Final
September 2007 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
Appendix B Continued. Location Common name Expanded catch SE Novc111ber 2005 Unit 2 Alewife 13 56.2 Unit 2 American shad JO 74.3 Unit2 Gizzard shad 52751 84762.3 Unit 2 Common carp 5 35.5 Unit 2 Golden shiner 7 45.2 Unit 2 Comely shiner 6 37.9 Unit 2 Spottail shiner 2 35.1 Unit 2 Swallowtail shiner 2 35.1 Unit2 Northern hog.sucker 2 35.7 Unit 2 Channel catfish 80 120.4 Unit 2 Flathead catfish 20 68.5 Unit 2 White perch 5 37.3 Unit 2 Rock bass 25 52.1 Unit 2 Green sunfish 2 35.7 Unit 2 Pumpkinseed 4 37.5 Unic 2 Bluegill 1462 1336.4 Unit 2 Smallmouth bass 13 45.7 Unit 2 Largemouth bass II 46.1 Unit 2 White crappie 37 49.8 Unit 2 Tessellated darter 2 35.7 Unit 2 Yellow perch 23 83.4 Unit 2 Walleye 98 95.3 Unit 2 Banded darter 2 35.7 Unit 2 River crayfish 370 570.3 54970 84775.2 Dece111ber 2005 Unit 2 Alewife 42 83.2 Unit 2 Gizzard shad 728 720.3 Unit 2 Common carp 5 36.9 Unit 2 Comely shiner 21 38.1 Unit 2 Shonhead redhorse 5 36.9 Unit 2 Channel catfish 116 132.7 Unit 2 Flathead catfish 5 36.9 Unit 2 White perch 5 36.9 Unit 2 Rock bass 16 40.5 Unit 2 Pumpkinseed 11 41.9 Unit 2 Bluegill 1893 3695.8 Unit 2 Largemouth bass 26 59.0 Unit 2 White crappie 11 41.9 Unit 2 Tessellated darter 5 36.9 Unit 2 Yellow perch 74 192.6 Unit 2 Walleye 69 101 .0 Unit 2 River crayfish II 41.9 3042 3777.3 PBAPS 316(b)
20501.000 Final - September 2007 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
Appendix B Continued. Location Common name Expanded catch SE January 2006 Unit 2 Gizzard shad 37 J8.0 Unit 2 Golden shiner 7 36.9 Unit 2 Comely shiner 37 83.0 Unit 2 Spottail shiner 7 36.9 Unit 2 Sputfin shiner 7 36.9 Unit 2 Channel catfish 310 311.4 Unit 2 Rock bass 7 36.9 Unit 2 Bluegill 199 148.5 Unit 2 River crayfish 15 35.2 627 366.2 February 2006 Unit 2 Gizzard shad 50 98.0 Unit 2 Common carp 8 33.4 U.nit 2 Golden shiner 8 33.4 Unit 2 Comely shiner 25 53.I Unit 2 Quill back 8 33.4 Unit 2 Channel catfish 742 1101.2 Unit 2 Rock bass 8 33.4 Unit 2 Bluegill 108 169.9 Unit 2 White crappie 8 33.4 Unit 2 Tessellated darter 8 33.4 Unit 2 Yellow perch 8 33.4 Unit 2 Greens ide darter 8 33.4 Unit 2 River crayfish 8 33.4 1000 1124.2 Mardi 2006 Unit 2 Comely shiner 18 3.J..O Unit2 Quillback 18 34.0 Unit 2 Channd catfish 240 262.9 Unit 2 Rock bass 9 37.0 Unit 2 Bluegill 28 40.4 Unit 2 Tessellated darter 18 45.4 Unit 2 River crayfish 28 27.0 360 '277.9 April 2006 Unit 2 Gizzard shad 12 35.8 Unit 2 Channel catfish 381 136.6 Unit 2 Rock bass 12 35.8 Unit 2 Bluegill 12 J5 .8 Unit 2 Smallmouth bass 36 62.5 Unit 2 River crayfoh 24 46.5 476 169.I PBAPS 316(b)
20501 .000 Final

September 2007 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
Appendix B Continued. Location Common name Expanded catch SE May 2006 Unit2 Alewife 7 36.9 Unit2 Gizzard shad 52 37.3 Unit 2 Common carp 15 35.2 Unit2 Comely shiner 37 38.0 Unit2 Quillbai.:k 22 40.8 Unit2 Shorthead redhorse 7 36.9 Unit 2 Channel catfish 834 313.1 Unit2 Mummichog 7 36.9 Unit 2 Green sunfish 7 36.9 Unit 2 Smallmouth bass 7 36.9 Unit 2 Yellow perch 7 36.9 Unit2 Walleye 22 55.0 Unit 2 River crayfish 30 5 l.4 1055 343.0 June 2006 Unit 2 American shad 36 62.5 Unit 2 Gizzard shad 48 37.6 Unit 2 Common carp 12 35.8 Unit 2 Golden shiner 12 35.8 Unit 2 Quill back 12 35.8 Unit 2 Shorthead redhorse 12 35.8 Unit2 Channel catfish 821 308.0 Unit 2 Flathead catfish 12 35.8 Unit 2 Green sunfish 12 35.8 Unit 2 Largemouth bass 12 35.8 Unit 2 Walleye 24 29.7 Unit 2 River crayfish 190 99.4 1202 346.3 JuJ.v 2006 Unit 2 Gizzard shad 572 974.9 Unit2 Sputtin shiner 9 37.0 Unit 2 Channel catfish 932 803.8 Unit2 Flathead catfish 46 68.3 Unit 2 Rui.:.k bass 74 79.0 Unit2 Bluegill 65 56.6 Unit 2 Smallmouth bass 18 45.4 Unit2 White crappie 9 37.0 Unit 2 Tessellated darter 9 37.0 Unit 2 Yellow perch 9 37.0 Unit 2 Walleye 9 37.0 Unit 2 River craytish 148 127.7 1901 1279.0 PBAPS 316(b)
20501 ooo Final

September 2007 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
Appendix 8 Continued. Location Common name Expanded catch SE August 2006 Unit 2 Gizzard shad 66 59.5 Unit 2 Channel catfish 989 1184.0 Unit 2 Green sunfish 7 36.9 Unit 2 River crayfish 74 109.1 1137 1191. I September 2006 Unit 2 Gizzard shad 536 350.7 Unit 2 Shorthead redhorse 9 35.8 Unit2 Channel catfish 938 736.4 Unit 2 Flathead cattish 54 105.0 Unit2 Green sunfish 9 35.8 Unit2 Bluegill 384 531.6 Unit 2 River crayfish 125 139.5 2054 990.5 October 2006 Unit 2 American shad 124 161.0 Unit 2 Gizzard shad 1670 1774.4 Unit2 Common carp 4 36.9 Unit2 Golden shiner 4 36.9 Unit 2 Comely shiner 24 56.0 Unit 2 Spottail shiner 7 40.5 Unit2 Spotfin shiner 7 40.5 Unit2 Bluntnose minnow 37 117.1 Unit2 Mimic shiner 7 36.5 Unit 2 Northern hogsm:ker 12 49.0 Unit2 Channel catfish 384 351.8 Unit 2 Flathead catfish 133 143.0 Unit2 Rock bass :!4 80.2 Unit 2 Green sunfish 16 48.1 Unit 2 Bluegill 1847 2765.7 Unit 2 White crappie 157 251.5 Unit2 Walleye 7 40.5 Unit2 River crayfish 319 407.1 4785 3351.7 PBAPS 316(b). 20501 .000 Final - Seplember 2007 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
1\ppendix B Continued. Location Common name Expanded catch SE Noreinhcr 2006 Unit 2 Alewife 4 35.7 Unit 2 Gizzard shad 246 306.5 Unit 2 Golden shiner 12 34.3 Unit 2 Comely shiner 4 35.7 Unit 2 Spotfin ~hiner 4 35.7 Unit 2 Channel catfish 83 75.8 Unit 2 Flathead catfish 32 47.5 Unit 2 Green sunfish 4 35.7 Unit 2 Bluegill 67 77.3 Unit 2 White crappie 28 73.2 Uni12 River crayfish 75 -l0.3 560 348.1 Unit 2 total 160042 185913.2 August 2005 Unit3 Gizzard shad 215 Unit 3 Channel catfish 538 753 September 2005 Unit3 Gizzard shad 2136 2044.0 Unit 3 Comely shiner 14 33.1 Unit 3 Spottin shiner 55 122.1 Unit3 Channel catfish 520 824.7 Unit 3 Flathead catfish 7 34.7 Unit 3 Green sunfish 7 34.7 Unit 3 Bluegill 49 107.2 Unit 3 Smallmouth bass 7 34.7 Unit 3 Tessellated darter 21 51.8 Unit 3 Walleye 14 33.1 Unit 3 River crayfish 21 51.8 2851 2212.6 PBAPS 31 S(b) - 20501.000 Final - September 2007 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
Appendix B Continued. Location Common name Expanded catch SE Ocwber 2005 Unit 3 American shad 105 195.7 Unit 3 Gizzard shad 65716 143636.2 Unit 3 Clirnmun carp 12 43.7 Unit 3 Comely shiner 19 57.9 Unit3 Spottail shiner 2 35.8 Unit 3 Spotfin shiner 17 53.7 Unit 3 Yellow bullhead 2 35.8 Unit3 Channel catfish 174 135. I Unit 3 Flathead catfish 19 57.9 Unit 3 White perch 2 35.8 Unit3 Striped bass '.! 35.8 Unit 3 Rock bass 22 68.8 Unit 3 Green sunfish 29 66.3 Unit 3 Bluegill 2316 3307.7 Unit 3 Smallmnuth bass 28 76.3 Unit 3 Largemouth bass 10 37.4 Unit 3 White crappie 64 107.2 Unit 3 Tessellated darter 7 42.5 Unit 3 Yellow perch 117 371.1 Unit 3 Walleye 109 148.9 Unit 3 River crayfish 153 231.4 68925 143675.4
-------------~---
PBAPS 316(b)
20501.000 Final* September 2007 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
Appendix B Continued. Location Common name Expanded catch SE Nol'ember 2005 Unit 3 Alewife 16 55.8 Unit 3 American shad 42 IJO.I Unit3 Gizzard shad 68293 96837.9 Unit 3 Common carp 20 82.1 U11it 3 Golden shiner 2 J..U UnitJ Comely shiner 44 Y5.4 Unit 3 Spottail shiner 6 41.1 Unit3 Spottin shiner 9 40.9 Unit J Northern hogsucker JI 84.6 Unit 3 Channel catfish 146 337.9 Unit 3 Flathead catfish 25 85.5 Unit J Mummichog 2 34.7 Unit 3 White perch 4 34.6 Unit 3 Striped bass 6 41.1 Unit 3 Rock bass 50 132.7 Unit J Green sunfish 16 58.8 Unit 3 Bluegill 1920 3174.4 Unit 3 Smallmouth bass 5 34.4 Unit J Largemouth bass 26 48.5 Unit 3 White crappie 28 51.1 Unit 3 Tessellated darter 34 131.3 Unit 3 Yellow perch 160 653.2 Unit3 Walleye 310 586.J Unit 3 Greenside darter 2 34.7 Unit 3 River crayfish 188 299.8 71384 96895.5 PBAPS 316(b)
20501.000 Final-September 2007 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
Appendix B Continued. Location Common name Expanded catch SE December 2005 Unit 3 Alewife 26 70.8 Unit 3 Gizzard shad 696 602.4 Unit 3 Common carp 10 40.7 Unit 3 Golden shiner 5 35.9 Unit 3 Cumdy shiner 26 57.4 Unit 3 Sputtin shiner 5 35.9 Unit 3 Creek chub 5 35.9 Unit 3 Channel catfish 174 149.9 Unit 3 Rock bass 26 49.4 Unit 3 Redbreast sunfish 5 35.9 Unit 3 Green sunfish 15 39.3 Unit3 Pumpkinseed 5 35.9 Unit 3 Bluegill 1874 2414.3 Unit 3 Smallmouth bass 5 35.9 Unit 3 Largemouth bass 5 35.9 Unit 3 White crappie 15 33.5 Unit 3 Tessellated darter 15 39.3 Unit 3 Yellow perch 20 42.5 Unit 3 Walleye 31 58.6 2964 2499.0 January 2006 Unit 3 Gizzard shad 36 45.0 Unit3 Comely shiner 14 42.6 Unit 3 Spottail shiner 43 45.5 Unit3 Channel catfish 817 750.7 Unit3 Rock bass 79 120.9 Unit3 Redbreast sunfish 7 35.9 Unit 3 Green sunfish 136 201.3 Unit 3 Bluegill 545 H00.5 Unit 3 White crappie 7 35.9 Unit J Yellow perch 7 35.9 Unit 3 River crayfish 22 30.6 1713 1127.0 Febmary 2006 UnitJ Alewife 8 32.5 Unit 3 Gizzard shad 8 32.5 Unit 3 Channel catfish 380 546.6 Unit 3 Rock bass 24 51.6 Unit 3 Bluegill 194 364.1 Unit 3 Tc:;sellated darter 24 35.6 Unit 3 River crayfish 16 39.9 655 662.6 PBAPS 316(b)
20501.000 Final - September 2007 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
Appendix B Continued. Location Common name Exeanded catch SE
/Harell 2006 Unit 3 Channel catfish 108 65.9 Unit J Bluegill 27 57.2 Unit J Largemouth bass 9 35.9 UnitJ Black aappie 9 35.9 Unit J Tessellated darter 9 35.9 Unit 3 River cra~tish 36 31.0 197 111.6 April 2006 Unit 3 Central stoneroller 12 34.8 Unit 3 White sucker 12 34.8 Unit 3 Channel c:1tfish 231 167. 1 Unit 3 Redbreast sunfish 12 34.8 Unit 3 Green sunfish 12 34.8 Unit3 Smallmouth bass 12 34.8 Unit 3 Tessellated darter 23 29.1 Unit 3 Walleye 23 29.1 Unit 3 River cra~fish 69 63.2 405 199.1 May 2006 Unit 3 Alewife 7 35.9 Unit 3 American shad 29 66.6 Unit 3 Gizzard shad 14 34.2 Unit 3 Common carp 7 35.9 Unit 3 Golden shiner 7 35.9 Unit3 Comely shiner 14 34.2 Unit J Quillback 7 35.9 Unit 3 Channel catfish 767 641 .0 Unit 3 Green sunfish 7 35.9 Unit 3 Bluegill 7 35.9 Unit 3 Yellow pen:h 7 35.9 Unit 3 Walleye 7 35.9 Unit 3 River cra~tish 14 34.2 896 655.0 - -~
J1111e 2006 -- Unit 3 American shad 12 34.8 Unit3 Channel catlish 382 491.3 Unit 3 Bluegill 12 34.8 Unit 3 Smallmouth bass 12 34.8 Unit 3 River cra~fish 150 112.4 566 507.S PBAPS 316(b) - 20501 .000 Final - September 2007 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
Appendix B Continued. Location Common name Expanded catch SE July 2006 Unit 3 Gizzard shad 762 1346.3 Unit 3 White catfish 9 35.9 Unit 3 Channel catfish 1559 893.2 Unit 3 Flathead caltish 27 39.4 Unit 3 Rock bass 18 44.2 Unit 3 Green sunfish 9 35.9 Unit 3 Pumpkinseed 9 35.9 Unit 3 Bluegill 81 88.3 Unit 3 Smallmouth bass 72 50.5 Unit 3 Largemouth bass 9 35.9 Unit 3 White crappie 18 33.1 Unit 3 Yellow perch 18 44.2 Unit 3 Logperch 18 44.2 Unit 3 Walleye 18 33.I Unit 3 River crayfish 197 171.5 2822 1632.5 August 2006 Unit 3 Gizzard shad 803 1587.6 Unit 3 Common carp 14 34.2 Unit 3 Comely shiner 14 42.6 Unit 3 Channel cattish 1175 938.7 Unit3 Flathead catfish 7 35.9 Unit 3 Rock bass 7 35.9 Unit 3 Green ~unfish 7 35.9 Unit 3 Bluegill 14 42.6 Unit 3 White crappie 14 34.2 Unit 3 Walleye 7 35.9 Unit 3 River crayfish 65 85.2 2129 1849.3 September 2006 Unit 3 Gizzard shad 2072 2128.3 Unit 3 Golden shiner 9 34.8 Unit 3 Spottail shiner 9 34.8 Unit 3 Shorthead redhorse 9 34.8 Unit 3 Channel catfish 2870 3793.3 Unit 3 Flathead catfish 139 158.7 Unit 3 Green sunfish 9 34.8 Unit 3 Bluegill 1275 2.+06.2 Unit3 Smallmouth bass 17 42.8 Unit 3 Walleye 9 34.8 Unit 3 River craytish 217 136.3 Ci633 .+975.9 PBAPS 316(b)
20501.000 Final - Seplember 2007 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
Appendix 8 Continued. Location Common name Ex(!anded catch SE October 2006 Unit 3 Alewife 7 35.5 Unit 3 American shad 180 231.I Unit 3 Gizzard shad 2344 3618.5 Unit 3 Golden shiner 4 35.9 Unit 3 Spottail shiner 26 51.2 Unit 3 Spotfin shiner 49 92.6 Unit 3 Bluntnose minnow 32 103.0 Unit 3 Creek chub 12 47.6 Unit 3 White sucker 15 46.7 Unit 3 Channel catfish 376 399.9 Unit 3 Flathead catfish 223 325.0 Unit3 Rock bass 42 78.0 Unit 3 Green sunfish 43 78.9 Unit 3 Pumpkinseed 7 39.3 Unit 3 Bluegill 1590 3132.4 Unit 3 Smallmouth bass 4 35.9 Unit 3 Largemouth bass 4 35.9 Unit 3 White crappie 84 142.7 Unit 3 Yellow perch 4 35.9 Unit 3 Logperch 4 35.9 Unit 3 River cra~tish 204 184.7 5251 .f829.8 November 2006 Unit 3 Alewite 10 33.6 Unit 3 American shad 7 34.4 Unit 3 Gizzard shad 225 160.7 Unit 3 Central stoneroller 11 46.1 Unit 3 Golden shiner 7 34.4 Unit 3 Spottail shiner 11 46.1 Unit 3 Spottin shiner 7 34.4 Unit 3 Bluntnose minnow 3 34.7 Unit 3 Channel catfish 156 124.8 Unit 3 Flathead catfish 59 101.0 Unit 3 Rock bass 46 144.0 Unit 3 Green sunfish 103 323.4 Unit 3 Pumpkinseed 11 46.1 - -- Unit 3 Bluegill 2338 7126.2 Unit 3 Largemouth bass 84 250.1 Unit 3 White crappie 55 79.1 Unit 3 Yellow perch 11 46.I Unit 3 River cra~fish 109 169.0 3255 7146.5 Total for Unit 3 171399 173638.1 Total for period 331442 254389.3 PBAPS 316{b)
20501 .000 Final

September 2007 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
Appendix C Summary or efficiency tests conducted at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Outer Screen House. 2006. Efficiency Unit Release Species Number Number Efficiency Test Date Tested Location Tesced Released Recovered Percencage 4/24/06 2 E-F portal Gizzard shad 165 45 27.3% 4124106 3 E-F portal Gizzard shad 165 17 I 0.3'7o 7111106 2 E-F portal Gizzard shad 125 29 23.2% 7/11106 3 E-F portal Gizzard shad 125 61 48.8% 7118/06 2 C-D portal Gizzard shad 140 88 62.9% 7118/06 2 C-D portal Bluegill Ill 61 55.0% 7118/06 3 C-D portal Gizzard shad 140 77 55.0% 7118/06 3 C-D portal Bluegill 111 59 53.2% 9/8/06 2 H-J screen Bluegill 50 48 96.0% 918106 2 B-C screen Gizzard shad 50 48 96.0% 9/8/06 2 on C screen Yellow perch JO* 10.0% 9/8/06 3 J-K screen Bluegill 50 48 96.0% 9/8/06 3 E-F screen Gizzard shad 50 50 100.0% 9/8/06 3 on G screen Yellow perch IO* 10 100.0% 11113/2006* 2 J-K portal Walleye 5 5 I00.0% I II 13/2006* 2 F screen Walleye 5 3 60.0% I I113/2006"' 3 C-D portal Walleye/Crappie 6 5 83.3% I 111312006* 3 C screen Walleye/Crappie 6 3 50.0%
Fish were radio cagged and only counted as recovered if found in debris bin.
PBAPS ~16(bl
20501 000 Final* Septomt>ar 2007 Normandeau Associates, Jnc.
Appendi"D Length rrequencies (mm) of lishts impinged fishes collected at PBAPS, 2005-20116. 21 JI 41 51 61 71 81 91 101 111 Ill IJI 141 151 161 171 181 191 2UI 211 221 231 UI 251 s~1.,. N 30 -40 so 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 ISO 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 uo 250 260 Blueback herring I Alewife 42 14 2 I Amcric>n shad 181 5 14 20 39 41 26 14 6 Gizz:ird shad 5316 63 815 1267 1186 1224 460 Ill 48 41 23 IS 7 3 3 Ccn1rJI stoncrollcr I Common carp 18 2 2 3 Golden shiner 15 I 4 5 Comely shiner 53 j JO II 5 Common shiner I Spottail shiner 18 SwaJJow1ail shiner SpotJ1n shinc:r 44 4 13 Blumnosc minnow I Creek chub Mimic shiner Quillback 12 2 White sucker I I Nonhcm hogsuckcr II s Shonheau rcUhor>< 3 White ca1fish Yellow bullhca<l (00) 0 Channel ca<fish 2077 2 2J 177 318 349 234 162 149 153 17U 108 87 37 26 15 5 4 9 6 Mar1::incd maJtom I I Floabeac.I coufish 127 q 33 37 15 10 2 2 2 Mummichog I While perch 10 Siripced bass Rock boss 74 9 24 16 II Redhreast !tunfish I Grc.:n sunfish 82 4 14 18 22 9 I Pumpkinsccd 10 I I 3 2 Blucg<ll 3139 69 789 1176 602 250 135 52 27 Sn1allmoulh bass 27 3 I Largemoulh bass 33 14 2 White crappie 126 6 19 26 19 16 14 14 2 Black cr*ppie I Tes5Cll>ted dancr 29 12 10 Yellow perch 134 I 39 77 Ltimicrch Walleye 21J 12 6 IJ 17 21 13 JO Band.U donor I Grccns1dcd dancr J River cr:ivrish (00) 0 Tutuls 11967 8S 924 2242 2?8-1 1939 1766 820 360 270 272 198 16S 82 49 29 23 16 14 21 )? 27 21 34 PBAPS 316[t'I
20~1 000 Flnal Sep1cme>ar ?.O'J7 Normandeau AssociatH. Inc.
Appendix U Conllnut:d. 261 271 281 291 301 311 321 331 341 351 361 311 381 391 401 411 421 431 +u 451 -161 *111 4HI 491 Sill S~ecie.Jt 270 2HO 2!10 300 310 320 330 340 350 360 370 380 390 400 410 420 430 440 450 460 470 4HO 4!111 ~00 5lfl Bluch0<:k Alewife American shad 2 Gizzard shad CcntrJI stonerollcr Common carp Gulden shiner Comely shiner Common shiner Spouail shiner Swallowtail shiner SpOllin shiner Blunrnose minnow C1eek chub Mimic shiner Quillbaek While sud.er Nortl1cm hogsuckcr Shonhcad rcUhorsc White c011fish Yellow bullhead (00) Cha.Mel catfish Margined madtom Flalhcad catlish
~lummichog White perch Stripccd bass Rock bass RL"Clbrcast sunfish Gr~n sunfish Pumpkinsccd Bluegill Smo.llmouth ba.~s Largemouth hasi White cr01ppl4:
Black crappie Tcsrtell:ned tinner Yellow perch Logpcrch Walleye 25 13 II B.mcJed Jan~r Grecns1dcd darter River . :ra fish <00) Totuls 20 14 3 6 3 5 IL 6 3 6 4 5 3 f" BAPS 3160>1 20501 .000 Final
sc ~c rnba r :?007 Nonnanduu Associate., Inc.
ATTACHMENT I 40 CF-R § l.22.21(r) NPDES APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS FO'R FACILITIES WITH COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURES FOR PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION Prl'panxl for: EX I '\
-e * ~ :( ~ T.~ -n - . c,t' , : ,*. \
by URS Cnrporation October 2008
Ta hit* of Conknts
l. l~TJ-t(lf>l.*t~*r1flN ..................................................................................................... l I. I HHit *r .. \T<>RY l~E<JUllff\.fENT .............................................................................. I 1.2 F.\CIUTY DESCRIPTION & CI..\SSIFIC.\ I ION ......................................................... I 1.2. / Focilitr /Je.H*ripti1111 ............................. ... ........ ............... ............................. J 1.2.1 Focility C!o.nUirnti1111 ...... .... .. ........ ... .. ... .. ..... ... ..... .......... .... ... ... ... ......... .. .... I sot:nCE W.\TER PHYSIC.\L J),\T.\ l§l.!2.2llr)(2JI ........................................ ~
2.1 N,\lrn .H1vr: DrscRWIK1N ........ ...... ....... ........... ....... ...... .... .......... ...... .. ........ .. .... ... 2
!. 1.1 S11.w;11eltt11111a Ril'a.............. ..... ........... ............... .... ....................... .. ............ 2 1 1 HYDIWl.O< ilC. \l. & Gr:O~IORl'llUl.l)( ill'. \L 1'7E:\'ITRES .............. ............................ 3 l.2. 1 Susc111elllt1111<1 Ril*er........ ............. ......... ........... ... ...... ..... ................. .... ......... . 3 2.3 L<>C.\ rlU;'li.\1. l\l.\l'S ........ ... .... : ............................................................................. 4 J. COOLl'.'iG \YATER l:\tT.\Kl~ STRLCTl'RE DATA l*122.21(r)(J)I ................. '-'
J. l N.-\RR.\Tl\'E DESCRIPTION OF CONFl<IUR.'\TION ................................................... 4 J.2 LATITUDE'-~ LON('llTL:DE ............................. ........................................................ 6 3.1. I (Jt11er St-r£'£'1Jl1011.\'t.' ...................................... . .......... . .. ........... ..... . .......... .. ..... 6 J.J N:\RR:\Tl\'E DESCRIPTION l)F OPER.\TION ........................................................... 6 3.3. I [.'nits 213 ('H*'/S ........................................................................................... 6 3.4 FLOW DISTRIBUTION & \.V,\TER 8 ,\1..\Nl'E ................. ......................................... 8 J.5 ENGINEERING DRi\\\'INliS .................................................................................... ~ -'* COOLING \V,\TER SYSTEM DATA f§l22.2l(r}(S)f .......................................... 8 4.1 N:\Rl~i\TIVE DESCRIPTION ............................... ... ......... ..... ...................... .... ....... .. . 8
*.J..2 DESl<iN & ENtilNEERIN<l C..\l.CL'L.\TIONS ............................................................ l) -I..~ . I Lksign l11take Flow .. ...... .. .. .... .. ..... ... .. .. ........... ... ...... ........................ .......... <) -1.1.2 Thro11gh- Screen \/ef111*it_v ........................................................................... 'J
5. REl"ERENl~I~S ........................................................................................................ ll

6. ,\l"l'.\C'Hl\IEN'fS ................................................................................................... 12

l. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Regulatory Requirement
* -W CFR 122.2 l(r) wntains N~1tional Pollutant Dis.charge Elimination System ( NPDES) application requirements for facilities with cooling \Vater intake strnctures.
122.21 (r)( I )(ii) states that Phase II existing facilities must submit to the Director for

review the information required under paragraphs (1')(2), (J ). and (5) of 122.21. This information consists of physical data for each cooling water source, cooling water intake strudmc (C\VIS), and cooling water system utilized at the facility.
This document is intended Lu:
Fulfill the regulatory requirement for submittal of *I 22.2 l(r) information fur Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station tPBAPS), a Phase lI existing facility.
1.2 Facility Description & Classification 1.2.1 Facility Description PBAPS is a two-unit (Units 2 & 3) nuclear-fueled boiling water reactor electric power generating fa<.:ility with a generating capacity of nominally 2,304 megawatts (MW). Unit 2 begun commercial operation in June 1974 and Unit 3 entered commercial service in December 1974. The facility is located in York County, Pennsylvania on tht! west shore of the Conowingo Reservoir at River Mile lRM) l 8, about 5 miles upstream from the Pennsylvania-Maryland border (sec attached location map and aerial photograph). PBAPS withdraws water for its cooling and service/process water needs from the Conowingo Reservoir (also known as Conowingo Pool or Conowingo Pond: henceforth cullc<l the Pond or Conowingo Pond in this report) of the Susquehanna River through an outer intake structure located on the shoreline. Water flows through the screens of the outer intake structure, through two 3-acre intake ponds (one serving each unit). and then through an inner intake )itructure/pumphousc. These components supply water for once-through cooling of the main condensers and for plant services (process/equipment neeus). 1.2.2 Facility Classification PBAPS meets the regulatory definition of a Phase ll facility since it is an existing facility that meets the following four criteria stated in§ 125.9 I:
Ct is a point ~mm:e; o It uses cooling water intake structures with a total design intake !low of 50 million gallons per day (MGD) or more to withdraw cooling water from waters of the United States;

As its primary ;H.:tivily. it both gcm:rntcs and lra11smits electric power. or gcncralc!-1 electric power but sells it to another entity for transmission: and

It uses at least 25 pen:ent of w~11er withdrawn L'xdusivcly for cooling purpo~cs, 1rn:asurecl on an annual has is.
2. SOURCE \YATER PHYSICAL DATA (§122.11(r)(2)!

2. 1 Narrative Description
Regulatory requirement m l22.21 (r)(2)( i): "A nanativc de-;cription anc.l sl*aled <lrawi11gs showing the physical configuration of all source water hmlies used by your facility, including areal dimensions. depths. salinity and temperature regimes, and other dol'umentation that suppo11s your determination of rhe waterbody type where each cooling water intake structure is located ..,
2.1.1 Susquehanna River Tiu: Sus4uchanna Rivi..:r originates near Coopcrstf.? 1..Vn. Nc\V York at Otsego Lake and flows for about 444 miles to the Chesapeake Bay at Havre de Grace, Maryland (SRBC,
2005). Three hyclrocb:tric clams in the lower Susquehanna Riv\!r form a reservoir system stretching 32 river miles tHninly et al 1997). These are: Conowingo Dam at about R.M I0, Holtwood Dam at about RM 25, and Safe Harbor Dam at about RM 32.
Conowingo Dam. located in Maryland, creates the Conowingo Pond that extends about 14 miles upstream into Pennsylvania. PBAPS is located on the west side of the Su-;quchanna River within the Conowingo Pond at RM L8. The Conowingo Pond is nommlly maintained at elevations bctwct:n 104.5 and 108.5 feet (Conowingo Datum. which is 0. 7 feet below the more standard National Geodetic Vcrtical Datum of 1929). The Conowingo Pond has a surface area of about 9,000 acres and a design storage rnpacity of about 310,000 acre-feet, of which 71,000 acre-feet arc usable storage. Bathymctric contours of the pond (surveyed 1993) in the vicinity of PBABS are provided in Reed and Hoffman ( 1997). Measured from the edge of the intake bay structure in the Pond. the river wi<lth is about a mile and a qunrter. Depths to bouom sediments rapillly approach 15 feet (from the normal water surface elevation of 108.5 feet) within 250 feet of lhe PBAPS intake structure, aftcr which the bottom flattens out for about l.500 feet. The limit of tidal influence in the Susquehanna River is downstream of Conowingo Dam in l\farylaml. near the mouth of Deer Creek at RM 6 (Webb & Heidel. 1970). Thus, the PBAPS intake is located in a freshwater watcrbody. Historical temperature <lata fur the Conowingo Pond indicate that strong seusonal thermal stratification is absent (Normandeau.
- *2000; RMC. 1985). Water temperatures beuin to ~
rise in late winter to mid-summt:r and tht:n decline and are a kw Jegrces higher at the surface than al the bottom. Highest water temperatures are rcarhcd in summer nnd coincide with naturul low flow in the Pond. Increased flows from ~torm events flush thl.! Pond with cooler wmcr and reduce \vnter temperatures. Temperatures measured at the CWIS <luring the 2005-2006 impingement sampling events confirm this temperature trend.
,
2.2 Hydrological & Geomorphological Features
Regulatory rcquin:mcnt at 122.21 (r)(2)(ii): Identification and characterization of the source watcrbody' s hydrological and geomorphological features. as well as the methods you used to rnnduct any physical stuJics to ddermine your intake's area of inllucnce within the wnti:rbody and the results of such studies."
2.2.1 Susquehanna River The drainage area of the Susquehanna River encompasses parts of New York, Pennsylvanin nnd Maryland and covers 27.510 square miles (mi 2) (Hainly ct al. 1995). Thi.! river at the PBAPS intake is an impoundmcnt formcu by the Conowingo Dam. The reservoir bottom across the Pond at PBAPS is uneven (Reed and Hoffman. 1997). Depth to bottom (from the 1101mal water surface elevation of I08.5 feet) Jrops to 15 feet within 250 feet of the PBAPS intake structure. Shallows less than l 0 feet deep are located about I, 700 to 2, 700 feet from the intake bay stmcturc and about three-quarters of a mile from the intake bay stmcture near the opposite shoreline. The deepest part of the channel cross-section at PBAPS is ~tlong the opposite shore where a pool elevation over 25 feet occurs a few hundred feet from the bank. Sediments in the Pond consist of sand. river coal, silt and clay (Hainly ct al. 1995). The USGS divides the Pond into three subareas (Mt. Johnson Island, Middle Reservoir. Lower Reservoir) each with <liffercnt overall sediment characteristics. The PBAPS CWIS is located at the lowermost end of the t\It. Johnson lsland Subarea. Sand and coal content decrease from 45 and 30 percent. respectively. in Mt. Johnson Island Subarea to 5 and 2 percent, respectively, just above the dam in the Lower Reservoir Subarca. In contrast, silt and clay content increases from 18 and 7 percent. respectively. in the l\:lt. Johnson Island Suharca to 58 and 35 percent, respectively, above the dam. Setliment thickness also increases from the uppe1* to lower reaches of the Pond. Sediment thicknesses range zero to ten feet in the !\'It. Johnson Island Subarea. ten to 20 feet in the Middle Reservoir Subarea. and greater than 20 feet in the Lower Reservoir Subarea. No physical stu<lies were conducted at PBAPS specifically to determine the intake's area of influence within the waterbody for the purposes of this report. In accordance \.Vith the Proposal for Information Collection submitted and reviewed by the Dep~1rtment, PBAPS is subject only to performance stnndards for impingement mortality. A desktop analy~is was performed to define the approximate area of influence within the 0.5 fps velocity conlour. The USEPA considers this velocity to be a cit? 111111i111is value relative to significant impingement concerns. Based on the physical Jimensions of the outer screen -;tructure. the design intake flow. the minimum Pond water elevation of 104.0 feet and the bathymctry of the Conowingo Pond in the vicinity of the outer screen structure. the approach velocity at the outer screenhouse trash racks is computed l US ing v = Q I A) to be 0.39 fps. The design through-blade velocity of the !r:.ish racks is 0.48 fps anJ the velocity of the water in the pool between the trash racks *and the screens ranges from 0.44 fps ( i1111neJiately behind the trash racks) to 0.58 fps ( immediatd y in front of the screens). Tht*rdore. the hydraulic zone of influence ~1t PBAPS exists only between the trash racks
.I
and the 011ter scrcenbouse traveling water screens, specifo;ally within 4-ft of the screens. and Jocs 11ut extend hcyond the CWIS into the Conowingo Pnnd. 2.3 Locational Maps
Regulatory requirement at 122.21 (r)(2)(iii): "Locational maps.
Locational maps identifying the Conowingo Pond. the C\VIS and. the pumphouses arc proviue<l in Section 6 as Attachments.
3. COOLING \;VATER INTAKE STRUCTURE DATA rn122.2l(r)(J)J

3. 1 Narrative Description of Configuration Regulatory requirement at ~ l 22.2 l (r)(3 )(i): "A narrative description of the configuration of each of your cooling water intake structures and where it is located in the waterbody and in the water column."
The PBAPS C\VIS provides a continuous supply of water from the Conowingo Pond to Units 2 an<l .\ and includes the following major components:
Outer Screenhouse Stmcture o Twenty-nine (29) active trash nu.:ks o Twenty-four (24) through-flow traveling water screens

Two (2) Intake Basins

Inner Screenhouse Structure o Six (6) dual-t1ow circulating water traveling screens o Four (4) through-flow service waler traveling water screens

Six (6) Circulating \\later Pumps

6 Servit:c Water Pumps

8 High Pressure Service Water Pumps

2 Emergency Service Water Pumps

3 Outer Screen \\lash Water Pumps

2 Inner Screen Wash Water Pumps

2 Fire Protection Pumps The outer screenhouse stmcture i:-.- apprmimatcly cl-80 feet long and-:12 feet high:-The
~tnu.:ture occupies the water rolumn from the ~urface down to the level of the bottnm of the trash rucks. at an elevation of 84' -0"' (Conowingo Datum). The operating !1oor level of the screcnhouse is at elevation I 16'-0" (ConO\vingo Datum) um! is enclosed with walls and a roof. To prevent large debris an<l ice chunks from entering the intake, there are 29 active trash racks with 1.4-inch wide hy J-inch deep steel bars spaced 3 Vi inches on center on the fai.:e of the outer intake structure. Divers manually dean the trash racks periodkully whrn nci.:<kd and i.:ollccted debris is disposed of offsite. Stntdlll\~s for a previous automatic raking system with a manual i.:olb:tiun system an: still in plac~ . .24
-I
traveling water screens ( 12 per unit) are located approximately 44 feet inboard of the trash racks. Each screen. must recently rebuilt by Hawco Screens. Jnc .. is I0 fci:t wide with a Y~-inch square opening mesh. Debris, including fish. is removed from the screens by a high-pressure spray-wash system on the ascending side of the screens tn !-iluici:ways (one per unit). The debris from the screens is collccrcd in dumpsters and disposed of off-sitc. No fish ure returned from the outer scrccnhouse structure to the Conowingo Pond. Water !lows rrum the outer scrcenhouse structure into two intake basins (one per unit) hdorc reaching the inner scrccnhouse structure. Water from the basins enters the inner scrccnhouse structure through eight bays (4 per unit). Si.'!(. of the bays. each with their uwn traveling scn:cn. direct the water to six circulating water pumps (3 per unit). These screens are dual-entry. single-exit (dual-flow) traveling screens, originally manufactured by FMC, with 1/,-inch by l/z-inch opening mesh. The remaining two bays (one bay per unit) have four traveling screens installed (2 per bay). which arc a single-entry, single-cxit (through-flow) design. The water pumped from these two bays provides service water to the units. Debris, including fish. is removed from the screens by a high-pressure spray-wash system on the ascending side of the screens to sluiceways (1 per unit). The debris is collected in dumpsters and disposed of off-site. Approximately 47 feet downstream of the inner dual-flow and through-flow screens are the six circulating water pumps (three per unit) and six* service water pumps (three per unit). respectively. The pumps that withdraw water from the intake structure and their design flow rates are shown in the following table. TABLE l - PBAPS INTAKE PUMP DESIGN CAPACITIES Operation Number of lnstulled Pumps Design Flow (gpffiT Condenser Cooling 6 (3 per unit) 250,000 each Service Water 6 (2 ;.md l spare per unit) 14,000 each High Pressure Service Water 8 (4 per unit) 4,700 each Emergency Service Water 2 (common to hoth units) 8. 000 each Outer Screen 'Nash J ( J per unit and 1 common to 4.400 each~ both units) Inner Service Water Screen Wash 2 ( l per unit) 475 each Fire Protection 2 (I electric and I Jicsel 2.500 each --
<lri ven)
I** . . .. . ... . .ire: ( hesc flow 1.:.1p.11.;111cs ..
. b.1~t:d . . ... .s 1.1tmg~. .1!1d . on tlu.: pump manutadu11::r ~ . Jo not .11. .....:ount lu1. . du.11 . ope1..111011 head !ms. pipe c.:ap;11.:ity. and other "as-huilt" l'ondition.~ .
2 These pumps withdraw water from the l'ondenst.'r disl.'harge (not the intake). The <lcsign intake flow. which takes into account operntion of 1he pumps tabulated above and other factors. is stated in Section 3.3.
3.2 Latitude & Longitude Regulatory requirement at *122.21(r}(J)(ii): "Latitude and longitudl.! in dcgrcl.!S, minutes, and seconds for each of your the rnoling water intake strw:rures." 3.2.1 Outer Screenhouse Latitmk: J9u *-l-5" 36.. N . Ie: 76" 15' 5_c1 .. "' L011g1tlll n 3.3 Narrative Description of Operation Regulatory requirement at ~ 122.21 (r)(J)(iii): "A nmTative description of the operation of each of your cooling waler intakl.! structures, including design intake 11ows, Jaily hours llf opcrntion. number of days of the year in operation and seasonal changes, if applicable." 3.3.1 Units 2/3 CWIS The Units 2/3 CWIS operates to provide a continuous supply of water from the Pond to PBAPS for once-through cooling of the main 1..:ondensers. when co11dcnscr cooling is required, and for other plant service water needs. The six circulating water pumps are started up as required for condenser cooling during plant startup to gencrntc electricity and shut off when no longer required. Certain operational measures at PBAPS result in flow variations. Through most of the year (April through October), all six cin;ulating water pumps are in operation. However. in the winter months (late November/early December through fvlnrch) lower water temperatures in the Pond genernlly allow for two pumps (one per Unit) to be shut down. Once a year. for appruximatdy one month. one unit is shut down for rducling an<l nwintcnmKe, leaving only three pumps in operation for the other operating unit. The various service water pumps are started when necessary to meet the normal and cmcrgen1..:y plant demands during plant operation or shutdown, nnd shut off when no longer required. Normally. lwo service water pumps per unit run to supply water ror equipment and building cooling, to water treatment facilities for production of domestic an<l Jcmineralizcd water, and for washing of the traveling screens in the inner scn:cn structure associated 1,vith the 1..:irculating water pumps. One service water pump per unit is an installed spare. Nornwlly. the other scrvkc water pumps (i.e .. the high pressure and emergency service w::itcr pumps) and Fire Protect ion Pumps are maintained in standby for operation as necessary only during plant shutdown, in the event of an emergency, or required testing. Each pump bay is provided with a sluice gate, which may be dosed in the ~vent of high or low water lewis in the Pond. The outL'f and inner traveling v.;ater screens are normally operared aurom:.itically. but can be opcratl.'d 111a11ually from local control panels. In normal (automatic) operation. rotation of the screens is activated by preset timers ror a preddcrminc<l time as set hy 6
duracion timers. and. additionally. hy a set pressure <liffercmiul across chc screens. During automatic opcracion, required pumps and valves arc scartcd/opcnc<l to provide wash water tu che screens. For the outer screen structure. che wash water is supplied from screen wash pumps thac take suction frnm the cooling water discharge pond. After the tr:ish is sc*p:mltcd from rhe w:ish w:1ter. rhe wa.~h wall'f flows to a sump lm.:atl!d in the trash pit and is pumpc<l to the Pond. For the inner screen strw.:turc, wash water for the circulating water screens is supplied from the service water pump discharge headers. and wash waler fur the scrvke walcr sn1.:cns arc suppl icd from screen wash pumps that take suction from the st:recn strul'lurc. Fur Lhe inner screen structures. the trash is scpuratcd from the wash water and the wash water is returned to the intake water flow using sump pumps located in the trash pits. Intake !lows are cakulatcd based on pump run time and design pump capacity. Heated water is provided from the circulating water system discharge canal through a recirculation gate for freeze protection of the CWIS in the winter. Also, an air bubbler system is provided for the outer screen structure for breaking up smfacc ice formation at the inlet side of the structure. Units 2/3 CWIS design intake flow. conservatively based on design pump capacities (ex.duding installed spare pumps, pumps that operate under shutdown, emergency, or testing conditions only, and pumps that do not increase intake flow requirements) and ma."<imum operating demands, is shown in the following table. TABLE 2- PBAPS DESIGN INTAKE FLOW Operation Ocsi~n fncake Flow (MGO) Condenser Cooling Water 2,160.0 Scrvice Water 80.6 High Pressure Service Water o* Emcrgem:y Service Water o' Screen Wash O' Fire Protection o* 1 Total Design Intake Flow 2.240.6 I .. Exdudi.:s ~hutdown. t:tll<;f
' ., ,, pc' nods et:n~y .. ind (C~ltne lf::I ., > -
The PBAPS Units 2/3 CWIS operates to supply water to support facility demand in line with its power generation and process needs. 7
3.4 Flow Distribution & Water Balance
Regulatory requirement at 122.21(r)(3 )(iv): **A !low <listribution and water halance diagram that includes all sources of water to the facility, recirculating !lows, an<l
<lischarges. ,. A s<.:hcmatic diagram showing the t1ow distribution and water balance that indmlcs all -;ourccs of water to PBAPS. recirculating flows . and disdrnrges is provided in Section 6 as an Attachment. 3.5 Engineering Drawings Regulatory requirement at *122.21 (r)(3 )l v): .. Engineering drnwings of the i..:ool ing water intake srn11.:ture." Engineering drawings of the Outer Intake Screenhouse. the Intake Bi.lsins and the Inner Intake Scrcenhouse arc provided in Section 6 as Attaduncnts.
4. COOLING '\VATER SYSTEl\I DATA [§122.21(r)(5)J

4. 1 Narrative Description Regulatory requirement at *l22.2l(r)(5)(i): "A nan*utive description of the operation of the cooling water system. its relationship to cooling water intake structures, the proportion of the design intake flow that is use<l in the system, the number of days of the year the rnoling water system is in operation and seaso11al changes in the operation of the system, if applicable)."
The once-through cooling water system at PBAPS consists of the CWlS, a supply conveyance network to the main condensers and other equipment requiring raw water for non-contact cooling or other processes, and a discharge conveyance network to dissipate \vaste heat and disclrnrge waslc\V:ltcr into the Pond through a uischargc strnctun.! or other outfalls. During normal operation. approximatdy 96 percent of the design intake flow is used for condenser cooling with the remainder used for plant services. Non-contad cooling \Vatcr is pumped from the CWIS through the main condensers, where it becomes heated, and then <lischargcs into a discharge pond and canal that flows back to the Conowingo Pond downslrcam of lhc intake. The c..lischargc pond and discharge canal also provide a place of discharge for heated water from the Service Water Sysrcm. the High-Pressure Service Water System. and the Emergency Service Water System. and other process wastewatcrs. Helper cooling towers arc installed in the discharge flow p:lth. but arc bypassed (the ct11Te11t PBAPS NPDES permit does not require them to be operated). The discharge canal is oriented parallel to the shoreline. The discharge structure consists of one rectangular l"ixcJ opening \.Vilh three regulating gate11 that are controlled by differential water level measurcmcnrs to maintain a <lisdiarge velocity of 5 tu 8 fps. This is intent.led to l'nhancc mixing uf the <lischarge wi1h the ambient water ~ind also to prevent immature fish from enterine: the canal nml being
~ ~
cxp<N;<l to potential tlu.:rmal shock during plant opcrnlion.
Screen wash "vatcr for the outer screen structure. <lcrivc:d frum Lhc <lischarge canal, is discharged to the Pond via Outfalls 002 and 005. Virtually all intake water is for norH:onsumptivc use at the plant. allowing for minor evaporative losses. approximately one per cent. PBAPS is a base-load plant that is availahk to operate year round. Either unit could be in shutdown mmk or opcrnli11g: at kss than 100 percent capacity as a result of maintcnam:c outages. reduced electric demand. or other factors. Based on annual operations from 2001 through '.WOo, the PBAPS station's average net facility capacity utilization rate was 93.5%. Typically, cooling water demand is kss during the winter months (late November/early December through l\farch) due to colJer intake water temperatures. Cooling water system operation generally coincides with electric power generation with additional operating time needed before plant startup and after plant shutJown. 4.2 Design & Engineering Calculations Regulatory n:quircmcnt at *I 22.2 l(r)(5)( ii): **Design and engineering calc:ulations prcpurcd by a qualified professional un<l supporting uata to support the description requin:<l by ~122.2l(r)(5)(i). The information provided to support the above description was derived from the references listc<l in Section 5. 4.2.1 Design Intake Flow PBAPS has a design intake flow of 2.240.6 rvIGD (sec section 3..1). The 'iource waterbody for the PBAPS CWIS is a reservoir. In accordance with the Proposal for lnformation Collcccion submitted and reviewed by the Department, PBAPS is subject only to performance standards for impingement mortality. 4.2.2 Through- Screen Velocity The through-screen vdocity was calculate<l using formulas adapted from Pankratz ( 1988): V =: Q I WD
OA

TW .,, K
\.vhcre: V =through-screen velocity in feet per second (fps) Q =flow rate in gallons per minute (gprn) WO = water depth in feet (ft) OA. =proportion of screen open area to total sacen area TW = nominal s~recn tray wiJth in rt 11
K =constant= 396 for through-flow sc.:recn: this provides unit conversion anJ accounts for a reduction in the scm.:n open area due to lypil:al screen features (e.g .. boot seal at lh~ bot tum of the scn:cn. mesh support frame. de.) and: OA = (W x L) I ((W + D) x (L + <l)) where: d =screen horizontal wire diameter in irn.:hes (in) D =screen vertical wire diameter (in) W =width of screen opening (in) L =vertical length of screen opening (in) Allhough the normal water lcvd of the Pond at PBAPS is between 104.5 feet and 108.5 feet (Conowingo Datum), the lowc~t the Pond can be without causing the ~hut down of the Muddy Run facility is 104.0 feet (Conowingo Pond Management Plan 2006). Therefore, this water elevation was used as the design minimum low water level in the through scre1.:n-veludty calculation. The design inputs and calculations of the through-screcn vdodry are provided in Section 6 as an Attachment. The results of these calculations show the maximum through-screen velocity at the outer screens at the design intake flow is conservatively estimated as 1.21 fps at a Pond elevation of I04.0. The information provided to support the above description and engineering calculations was <lerivcd from the references listed in Section 5. I0
5. REFERENCES 1-lainly. R.A .. L.A. Recd. H.N. Flippo. Jr .. and G.J. Banon, 1995. Deposition an<l Simulation of Sediment Tri.lnsport in lhc Lower Susquehanna River Reservoir System. US Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Rcp011 95-4122.
39p. Kennedy. Robert H.. 1998. United States Anny Corps of Engineers Water Quality Tcd111ieal Note l\*IS-03. Businwi<le Considerations for Water Quality Management Importance of Phosphorus Retention by Reservoirs, July 1998. I 2p. MDNR (Maryland Department of Nntural Resources). 1985. Invemory of Mnryland Dams and Assessment of Hydropowcr Resources. Power Plant Siting Program. June 1985. Normandeau (Normandeau Associates, Inc.) 2000. A Report lm the Thermal Conditions and Fish Populations in Conowingo Pond Relative to Zero Cooling Tower Operation at rhe Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (June-October 1999). Pn:pare<l for PECO Energy Company. February 2000. Olcm, H. and G. Flock (eds). 1990. Lake and Reservoir Restoration Guidance Manual. 2nd Edition. EPA 440/4-90-006. 326p. PADEP (Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection). 2003. Implementation Guidance for Section 95.6 Management of Point Source Phosphorous Discharges to Lakes, Pond, and Impoundments. Bureau of Water Supply and Wastewater Management. Document No. J9l-2000-010. March 6, 2003. Rt:cd. L.A. und S.A. Hoffman. l 997. Sediment Deposition in Lake Clarke, Lake Aldred. an<l Conowingo Reservoir. Pennsylvania and Maryland, 1910-93. United States Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 96-4048. l4p with plates. RMC ~RMC Environmenrnl Services). 1985. Water Quality Studies Relative to Objectives I to 3 of Artidl! 34 for the Conowingo Hydroelectric Station (Project No . .+05). Augu:-.t 1985. SRBC (Susquehanna River Basin Commission). 2006. Draft Cl11mwi11gu Pond ivlanagcmcnt Plan. Publication No. 242, April 2006. SRBC (Susquehanna River Basin Commission), 2005. SRBC Overview. URL:htrp://www.srbc.net/gcninfo.hrm. /\.cccssed February 2005. Webb & Heidel. _1970. Maryland Gcologirnl Survey. Report of Investigations No. 1J - Extent of Brackish Water in 1hc Tidal Rivers of J\.faryland. 1970. lI
6. ATTACHl\tENTS Site Locarion/Topographic Map (USGS Topographic Quadrangle Base iYfap)
Figure I - Cooling \Vat er Intake Stn11.:ture Layout Aerial Photograph ( USGS TcrruServer) Bathymctric ~'lap (Recd an<l Hoffman. 1997) Schematic of W<1ter Flow. Exelon Nudcar. Figure Number NPDES-1. Rev I. October 2,.i. 2007 Outer Scrccnhnuse Drawingv No. l'vl-18-62. Sheet I. General Arrangement IO' X 33' Travdin 0u Water
~
Screens, Hawco Screens. Inc .. September 25. 1992. Drawing No. M-18-64, Sheet 1, Traveling Water Screen Data Sheet, Hawco Screens. Inc., January 15. 1993. Drawing No. 6280, Sheet C-100, C. W. Screen Stmcture Bottom Plan. Bechtel. 1976. Drawing No. 6280. Sheet C-10 I. C. W. Screen Structure Bottom Plan. Bechtel. February 23, 1971. Drawing No. 6280. Sheet C-102. C.W. Screen Structure Sections, Bechtel, August 26. 1971. Drawing No. 6280. Sheet S KC-289. Screen Structure Trash Collecl ion Area. Bechtel, July 1967. Inner Screcnhnuse Drawing No. NE-259-1, Sheet I, General Arrangement Traveling Water Screen Du;1J Flow With Curved Divertcr Plutes. FtvlC Corp., December 9. 1996. Cakulo.Hions of Through -Screen Design !11tnkc Velocity for Peach Bottom Atomic Pmvcr St:uion Outer Scn::c11huuse. prepared hy URS Corporation. Fort Washington. PA. Rev. 2. I~
..... ___ ~---_ ..........----***- . - --------------------------------*------*--*-----*--****-------- r*1 ______\ I Pf.~115Yl ~-..-114 (, I--*--~--,..
21) FEET rl~}t:.~F:!-Jtt.:: A
U~PfJ. IJf 1 .::;CS 7 5 MINU'E fGP(;(j?.<FHIC *.tA?S: ! 1\1U\'I0*10 QL'/IUR/INCLE. PA:
!li~5. l"!*!~r;Pf.;1*;;:0 l S'l1); .VM<C:FIEl.D Qt'.~Df'MNCU".
i',!., : .,i~:;. r' l1Gir.f'r:'*ISE': 1*ii:*~ &: 1975; D~*_r.;
~jl,!,'\ ; '~VJt"jl £. i"A ~.'0. ' 1\*)9, *-.t)'"lr:'.J/,i,l~Q 1~~\A *]i..,.\ :-~ 1 ~.~tK**~L *~il ~ Pl', i *.J'i~
. - --- LU a: _)
<2 u.
('.) z:; g u
,. :_ .,,.., ... ...... .......... \r' ...... ,... _... .:.. ....
I
,\ ) 1:XPl./\SATIO~
\
.... _...,q,, - a - IW.'PTllttlBOrmM.iNFn!T, Af ~ *.. O:t)UfAl.1'U'JL[lJ.V,,rJJS c*n11acrla:anl. 11 *l.i. ~.ww
(
... :.* **~ .. @ l)Lq,\."lctlJM'llMW11n<l1'f, I' TIIOU ;1'NIU I W l+l!T ' .*.:,{**** ........ . ; ' ,J , ,
.* ... ... r***
~ ~!
_..;
,; C** ...f I*.
_,..,. I*
,... ! .. r .. I .*\**,,\ .. IJI '*- -* * ' * ' ,: ,... 1: *'!' ..... .l,. ,.. ... ,I ... . \ r~: . . . *,I . ' . ~. ., I* \ I 1~ :.~~-- ..'j_ ___,~~--. *---~'--- ~~::_;~.: ;:---- ---
I ..
.. * .., ! . . ..*.*-.-* --- W'cr >>'
r*.
*.- ...
j*l'l *
..' '* . ;. .. \ ' ,. I I " I \ \ i .*.. -* -- ,,, \ I ------ ------ ---- --- ---- --- ------- - *-- '** \ -1 **,:.... ',. '
1\ , I
, ** ~ J I I I
I ( .. \. I
~ . ..
__.,.. * !' .\..
.-_,.__ -.,..
,._~
. . . _ ..... I . . .\
--- ----=----- ._ --- _!____-~*-kr~~~ *--- -**--* .... ...... ... "':::!._ ~.
DEl"TH FROM THE NORMAi. WA'niR SIJFFAC:E (IOM.5 FEL:"Tl fl) UOlTOM SEDIMENTS, CONOWLNGO RESERVOIR, PE:-HSYLVA.'lllA AND M1\R't'l.A.'IO, \'J9J Ry I !oyJ ,\. J:crJ oJ :i.*cn ~\ I loff:um 1~197
0 ~/!*,, e
.,U2 .:r1 ,i ;1,Quo.c11:...J GPO ~ :::f.-' ' ~u UCil'.I c.PO Eva~a1ion Lo:.ses Ill LO L~.; ,V!J{t GPO Ouif.11601 E*1apo;a1ion +
Cr..:;hng tJ:i R1v11:r TOWEll!i S1orn1Walilr Ou;f.:111;; e iiiM-C.12 Cc.o1ino Warer i..~..L-----l Screer. 1.Vas.n (5ervie.e Oicliarga Par.ti GPO Wa1erTra*1a1ir:.o Screens)
.1GU,CO.\*J0i"1 Condens.er S1ormW<tliJr GPO Coo11ng
"'"*
l~WO GPU Uni:l*r'omt CPO Dr:1inSump 2 '!01 *.)(* t.lal;a:Jp WaterS}..ia GFO
~ G?u Misc. P1ant Users
.?.. 5Ul1GPQ CPD Gf'D Loss.as 13;:.1J:ji1 GPD Pump Lube Wa1ar Schematic ol Water Flow N.-,1es:
SW : Storm W&16r Revision Exelon Nuclear Legend CT
Cuoiin\) T.:>wer Dates Peach Bollom Atomic Power Station GPO "' Gal;un3 Per Ony Point ul Ch<rmical AocJ1tic..n LLF.\l'VSF =Low-le\*el Radwas:e 5~1Ji!lge Facili11 Della. York Cuunl . P1:nns*;l*1ania
-.
ta Samr,::ng P.:ir; '= 0\1ring T&s.;ir,g. 8 Hour&: r.01 usvJ d:.;ring 1ypical opera:ion Line Drawing NPDES Permit Number.
<;;) O>ilfall Uumber ** =Duling TaL'1tng. 24 HtHJrG: nc1 ut>itol d""1ng 1ypic".al "P&rari'-.n PA 0009733 F1a1.pa1n ~<.~ ..~==!~~~~:~:,~~! add1uun (additives l~tad in t.toou:a i, Jab Number: Fi um Number - \ 1 :~rnai.:1 F<ou\t: 11127120U7 212812005 20242531.00001 NPDES- 1
.-*--*------- -*----*----- '
. ---'--**
I_;~::'";--****
1 .~..*:.*..:..::-*;***1
' '* I I .
I !! !, !I l i.
.**
. ! !! ~".'. I! :~~ .: ;
ii ' . . . I I' . , "! i ;I,I.
~ *:II * " ,,Ii __ ,_.....
I
~: !. ":""'?".'-'-.1-.:i **- ' I ___. ... -
t.... ";',*. - -
* .. * : t" J!W; l ..~. . ' : I ~ : ~ ,: I ~ ~~!=*. ; .-.

.. '* . ...... .... *~I \
J., 'j ,i I
. -- -- !
____ J'
- . --------*-*-------------* -* . - ... - .. ___ ***----- -**
,J llZ-=-in~ DAT : 0 1 g 3 Cl IK'D ElY: '71{_1~_-:::..:J,':f..~ s r.rf!enit lnr.. f--o-PA-w-'r~=-o.:....'(:-'-n,;::.-..-=--='4-.,r-P-rr-(:-<-+---i IHL(: T. '\/ s f) II *r .\,__r*~-)l_1_J_EET V*-*-~-*---_,. ._,;_ _ 1 APPENDIX III. TRAVELING WATER SCREEN DATA SHEET PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION UNITS 2 AND 3 OUTER SCREEN STRUCTURE SCREENS PURCHASE ORDER I BW660813 SPEC. t 6280-H-18 DESIGN FLOW 67,000 GPH DIFFERENTIAL HEADLOSS1
\ or CLEANLINESS 100\ .04 FT. pp 75\ .08 FT.
50\ .21 FT. 25\ . 88 FT. WATER DEPTH AT DESIGN FLOW 20'-0" NORMAL HIGH WATER DEPTH 24'-6" MATERIALS a SHAFTSt HEAD/FOOT ANSI C1018 I TYPE 30455 FRAME WORK1 CARBON STEEL CHAIN AND ROLLERS1 ANSI Cl045 SIDEBARS/ NON-LUBED 17-4 Ph SS PINS, ROLLERS, AND BUSHINGS SCREEN PAHELS1 NUMBER/ DIMENSIONS 39 PER SCREEN 24" I 10'-0" HATERIALS1 FRAHE1 CARBON STEEL HESH1 14 GA. 3/8* SQ. OPEH 304 SS HAX. DEFLECTION AT 5' DIFF. .482 IN. GEAR REDUCER BY PECO MANUFACTURE a WESTINGHOUSE TYPB AND SIZE HELICAL GEAR 54Q SPEED RATI01 304.1 t 1 SPROCKET RATI01 8 I 55 SCREEN TRAVEL SPEED1 5/10 F.P.H WASH WATER1 264 GP~ I 80 l?SI 294 GPM @ 100 PSI WEIGHT' COMPLETE ASSEHBLY1 27,800 LBS. SCREEH PANEL1 229 LBS. CHAIN1 20.2 LBS. PER FT. DIMENSIONS1 DEPTH OF WELL 32' -0" WIDTH OF WELL 11'-2" LENGTH BETWEEN SHAFTS 33'-0" SCREEN TYFE AND SIZE 10' K 33' 6 TOOTH 24" PITCH DR!VERt BY PECO HA.NUFll.CTURER WESTINGHOUSE Rl?H/HP 1800 RPH/ 2 HP 900 RPH/ 1 HP
---------
rn I:i __
1_l_
-:.*.I
~*
~.*
-.
r- _,.__ _J___ __ ._::
~ ':
t*** - - - - - -- -
- ---- *, .. *
.. ! *, . .'
-!'*. ..1
_;
.I .. I ...; . -*-..,,. - *-- . ' .i -- -'*-*..:.~.: *I . I '. I I .,
j., ! I 'l11 -,- ;~_~:*..:-.. ~~*.*;*'.:=. **-=*...!-****,
****r.:::* .~*r**.* *i I [ ... ! .
l,1-f:*:- : I
;.:; :--* "r'-* :i ~~:_:....I :-*- "
11 j i * 'I *,f .111--I*'
.!! - ii-**-*- I .. -. -r' 1'1 __ ;*:1!1 i~.'*-:::-'~~::.:-.1t*I*
I I .*] I I
' ,-r'- *( **- ! ~ - ., :i*
11 ,_:_'. *
'~ -:-; ' ::,;-- :;::)-: *-.'.~-.~-::~*~-.-* ~.~* __:i*' ** j**- . :j *- , . - . *- '.-_ I
J_
.Ll.. J *--:::---* I' *'
I*
r I I I'.
;:
i~lI
*' *_,'* ;;; .... .. .. , ~ ~ 1 .,
2' ~:;
~t ?r:*1 r*:**
LJ
/ ' i; _.
j.
,: I
! ~ ~! - ~

** ;! ,, ~
l
,;
I'
.,'* I* ..'l ' ~
I
,___________ -*---- ------ --* ------ ------------*-**p-- .. .. _ J
URS CORPORATION Fort Washington, PA EXELON GENERATION COMPANY Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 316{b) Project PEACH BOTIOM THROUGH-SCREEN VELOCITY PREPARED FOR Exelon Prepared By: Date: Tcre~a Jack. P.E. September 2 t. 2007 Senior Engineer Reviewed By: Date:
,J1Jt1ll11 Posey, P.E. September 24. WOi Projl!Ct Manager Approved By: Date:
John Dnym,.n. P E. September 2*1. ::!007 Pr.,Ject Engineer Rev. Date Prepared by Aev'wd by Approvad by 0 10/3;07 TAJ JLP JMO 1 10/24/07 RdS JLP JMO 2 11/28.07 RdS JLP JMO 3 Page 1 of 5
Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 316b Project THROUGH-SCREEN VELOCITY CALCULATION Calculation Purpose: C:.ilcul:.1te the dr.:;ign lilrow]h-scrnen *mt1Jt:ily fer the Pn;ich Bollom cuter coolil'g waler intake slruclure. Calculatlon*ObJecllves:
1. tcientify the screen physical p:immelers and design intake flow rale .
2 Calcul:ite the proportion al open screen arua 10 semen surf,u;e ar"ea.
3. Calculate the design through-screen veloc1ly al the Outer CWIS under the listed assumptions.
System
Description:
TI1c Exelon Pench Bollom Atomic Power Stalion is :i nominal 2.304 MW boiling waler reactor alomic generating slalion with two active operating units (Units 2 and 3). Cooling water for lhe once-through o:ondcnser cooling system 1s wilhdmwn from the Conowingo Pond of the Susquchm1111-1 Riv1ir by six CW pumps and discharged alter use to the Cunowingo Pond downstream al the CWIS. The cooling water intake is localed on the shoreline of lhe Conowingo Pond. TI1e water llo'Ns lhrough the outer screen structure into two 3*ar.re intake basins ;md then through the ori9in:il, inner intake structllrr.. 29 active tr;ish racks on lhP. outer screen structure prevrml ice and large objects from entering the outer screer.house
itructure. There me 24 through-flow traveling water screens in the outer screenhouse.
Calculatlon Methodology: The through-screen velocily will be calculnted using lormulas ndriplcd from P;inkmtz. 1966. V =0 I (WO
OA ' TW

K) (Formula 1) whme:
a = llow rate in gallons per minule (gp1Tl) V = through-screen velocity in feet per second (fps) WO =water depth in feet (ft) OA = proportion of screen open area to total s :reen :irca 0 TW : nominal screen tray width in fl K = ccnstar!I' ~ 396 for through-new scr~en tor unit i:onvarsion :mrl redur.tion of screen open area due to typical :;creen lcalurcs and OA - iW x L) i (1.W + D) * (L + d)) (Formula 2) whr.re: d _, screen horizonlul (shule) wire diamr.ter in inches (in) D ~ si;reen vertical ('Narp) wire diameter (in) W : width of screen opening iin) L = vertical length al screen opening (in) P.1qe 2of 5
Peach Bottom Atomic; Power Station 316b Project THROUGH-SCREEN VELOCITY CALCULATION Design Inputs:
1. Pump Design Ci.lpacities:
L)nil No. 2 Circuta1ing Pump 360.0 MGO 556.!)2 els 250.000 gpm (Rel. 5) Unit No. 2 Circulalir.g Pump 3GO.O MGD 556.92 els 250,000 gpm (Ref. 5) Unit No. 2 Circul:uing Pump 360.0 MGD 556.92 cfs 250.000 gpm (Ref. 5) Unit No. :J Circulating Pump 360.0 MGD 556.92 els 250.000 gpm (Ref. 5) Unit No. 3 Circulating Pump 360.0 MGD 556.92 els 250.000 gpm (Ref. 5) Unit No. 3 Circulating Pump 360.0 MGD G56.:l2 els 250.000 gpm (Ref.5) Service Water Pumps 80.6 MGD 124.75 els 56.000 gpm (Ref. 6) TOTALS 2240.6 MGD 3466.3 cfs 1,556,000 gpm peach Bottom Mnx Withdrawal Rate 2240.6 MGD
2. Number of 5creens 24 (Ref. 2)

3. Nominal Water W1thdmwal Rate [per screen) 64,833 gpm

4. Screen Widlh 10.00 feel (Ref. 2)

5. Screenhouse Floor Elevation 84.0 feet (Ref. 3)

6. Minimal Dus1gn Water Elevation 104.0 feet (Ref. 7)

7. Water Height (Depth) 20.0 feet

8. Mesh Size (Square) 0.375 inch (Ref. 2)

9. WireSizo t4 Gauge (Ref. 2)

10. Wire Width (Avg) 0.0800 inch (Rel. 4)
Assumptions: t . The minimum Pond level (below which Muddy Run would shut down) of 104.0 feet is used to calculate the design through-screen velocity even though the minimum purmilted water height for the Conowingo Pond is 100.5 feet.
2. No clmngos to as-built conffguralion alter dates of references used.

3. All twen1y-lour active intake screens are normally in service and 100% clean.

4. All pumps normally operate al their design capncil}' ratings.

5. Assume that the design flow is split evenly between all intake screens.

6. The constant for Fnrmuta 1 includes units conversion (gpm to els) and other screen .ractors.

7. Check velocity for worst-case scenario. with maximum no. of pumps for each unit operating.
References Used:
1. Page 78 nnd 79 of Screening Equipment Handbook. 2r.d Edition, 1995. Tom M. Pankratz.

2. Drawing M*18*64_:;111_00001, TWS 011ta Sl1eot. 1115193.

3. Drawing 6280, Sheets C-100-102, CW. Sl:reen Structure (Bollom Plan, Top Sliib Plan, & Seclions). Bechtel 1971-1976.

4. Stnndard Handbook tor Mechanical Engineers, eight edition. p. 6*45

5. Design Basis Document: Cirr.ulatir:g Water and Cooling Tower Syr.tcm. P-5*22. Revision t 4. PECO Nuclear

6. Design Basis Document: Service Water System. P*S* 17, Revision 9. PECO Nuclear

7. Conowingo Pond Management Plan. April 2006. pg. 22.
Summary and Concluslons: The calcul.1ted design through-screen velocity for the Peach Bollom Ouler CWIS is 1.205 fps Page3of5
Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 3 I 6b Project THROUGH-SCREEN VELOCITY CALCULATION Calculatlons:
1. Screen Physical Parameters and Design Intake Flow Rate Formulas Used:
none Given: 0= 64.833 gpm per screen Screen (curer): D=d= 0.0800 in W=L= 0.375 in WO= 20.0 It K= 396 TW= 10.0 ft Calculate: NIA
2. Proporrlon of Open Screen Area to Toter Screen Area Formulas Used:
Formula 2 Given: screen parnmetcrs as above Calculate: Oulor Scrcenhouse OA ~ IW x L) I !iW + D) * (l + d)) ~ 0.6793 Page 4 of 5
Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 316b Project THROUGH-SCREEN VELOCITY CALCULATION ca1culatlons: cont.
3. Design Through-screen VP.loclty at Outer CWIS Formulas Used:
Forrnula 1 Given: screen pnramelers .1s above and calculnled :;crecn open area proportion Ca1cula1e: V = QI (WD ' OA ' TW ' K) = 1.205 fps
- -----------------~----
ATTACHMENT II STATIS TI CAL ANALYSIS OF IMPINGEMENT AT PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION, 2005-2006 FOR PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION Preptm:<l for: by URS Corporation Ocrobl:r ~008
Table ol' Contents 1.0 Dl'tl'l"lllinafinn of l>i<it'l'l'l't Populalion.'i ............................................. \I l~u:lmu*i11 JI. J 1.1 Ba:.i..: S1a1is1i..:s ................... .... ........ .... .. .... .... ... ........... ... ...... ... ..... .... .... .. .. .. .. .... \11:1..:hmo.:11111-1 1.2 l i it 1anl .,had 1()nn1~11111;_1 ,*,*pl*d ia11111n J ........... .. .... ... ... . .. ............ .. .. .. ................ \11ad1111l'fll 11-2 I .\ 1-{,*maining lrnpingt'llll'lll ... .... .. ... ... ... ........... ... ... .... .. ....... ... ....... ...... ... .. ... ......... \11 ;1d1nk*n1 11-.1 2.0 Kl*~rcssion .\11:1lysis ......................................................................... \ttach111l*nt 11*-' 2.1 l'npub1i1HI 1 ......... ... .. .. ....... ... .......... ............ .... .... .... .... ....... ... ................. ... .... :\ll.11.:h1110.:111 ll-I l l 1'11p11bri1111 II .......... ................... ....... .. .... .... ... ..... ... ... .............. ..... .......... ........... \11:1d11111.:111 ll-K J.O .\dclitinnul .\nulysis ......................................................................... \ttncluncnt 11-9 List of Tables L1hlc I To.:sts of 1111r111alit)* f11r raw and 1r:111sf11rrm:d impint!Cllll'lll lllllllhL*rs from Lni1s 2 and J ~ ho\\ ing l11g"' 1ran:.f11n11ati1111s \\ere ~uo.:o.:c~~ful in alt:iining a n11r111al di:.tributi1m .... ............. ..................... ..... ........... ...... ... .. ....................................... \11:10.:h111cnt 11- 1 l'ahle 2 t- 1\:st: Pain:d Two Sample liir Means fur Cnits 2&J at l'BAPS 11\ugust 211. 20115 - No\o.:mhcr 17. 20!16) .... .... ...... ................... ...... ..... :...................... ........... \11;1d1mt*111 11-2 T.1Mt.* J TL*sts of normality for raw and tran~li1rnll'd gizzard shad impingemL'nt data
.l11ming 1ransf11rniati1111s \Wrc un~uco.:cs:>ful in allaining a 1111r111al di~1riht1ti1111.
PB.\PS (,\ugu1'1 29. ~11115 - :\ugust .Ill. lllll6, ............. ....................... .... ....... .. l\lla.:111111.'nt 11-2 TahlL' 4 Two-samph: K11l111llgllfllV-S111irn11v m1n-para111clric tcst tiir llifli:rL'lll.'l'S shPwing fall ( 20115) i111pi11gc111L'nt difli:rcd fr<1111cH*ry111 her .~1.*asnn ... ... ............... ........ .. \t1ad11110.:111 11-.1 t'.tbli: 5 lli:*-1:riµtiw *,1:11isli1 *s t)ir ~**:t::1111al giu:mt !-.hall i111pingL"mc11t :ll PB.\PS 1.\11g.11~1 2'1 . .'.Oil) - .\11gu~1 .ill. 21111(11 ....... .......... .... ..... ............... .......... .. ......... ............. r\11ad1111.:11l ll-:1 ralilc h l)l':*.:riptiw ~1a1i~1io.: s . :\nal)'sis or Vari;11IL L'. allll l31;11li:1n111i 1111~1 hoo.: tc*~I l\1r all 0 imping.:ml'lll l'.'<l't.:pl fall 2005 gin.ml ., had ;1gai11.,1 ,,*a:;on. PH. \PS (.\11~11.~1 .~lJ.
~ 1105 - . \11g11sl JO. 20tlh I .... ....... ..... ........ ..... ...... .. .......... ... ........... .... ... .......... .... \11.1d11111~ 111 II-.\
T.1lih: 7 To.:, rs llt normality ti1r r.1w :1111l 11 :111,f11r111,*d 1'11pula1i1111 I a11d II d : lla~cts :.1!11\\ i11g 111;.? 11 ; lran~1*111111ali1111s ,,._.,*.: 'llO.:l'l',,ful in a11:1i11i11~ .1 1i.1rn1al di,1ril1111iu11 ..... .. ... \11ad1111.:11t II l !':1111.: :'l Ell\ ini111m:nlal and *'lra1i1111al *.. iluL 11:.0.:d i111L'['.l'*-.i111; a11.il~*;j, cl'B .\l'S
. \11g11:-.1 -~ 'l. -~(l<l.:'i ** ~o\ o.:111h.:r I 7. ..'.Olltil .. .. .... .. . ....... ... .. ...... ... ...... ..... .... .......... \11.1d11111*111 11-:i 1'.1lik H.:,.:r'.: ')1cp\\i ~\' .\l111l ipk* Ro.: ~ r,..,.,j ,111l<.: *.111t -. 1 ~ 11 11!0.: !\11111h,*r11f< i1//:11d .'i h.1d lmpin~*. L*d Durint: the Fall 2fl05 tl',1pul :11i1111 f). .. . . .. ....... ... ..... .... ... ... .. .. . .. ... .\1l.1d1111,*111 ll- 1 T.1hle Ill lk\lT.\*.' S11*p\\i.*.* ~ .\l 1Ji1 ipll' l~.:1'.r1*:..:;i1111 Hl*,1111, rnr 1'c 1 i:ula1i1111 II. .. .............. \11 ao.l11 a.-111 11 .:-;
T,d*I.: 11 l.illl'.IC rl'gfl'~ .\i1 1 11 ;t11:d1.,i.\
tl11!.! .,,1 l 1i1p11la1i11n II\*~ . illlli1id11,lf 1*ar: 1111l'f,*1~ '.1i1h t'l'~Ull i11~ I( \ ; 1IUl'~ . ........... :.. .......... ........... .. ............ ....... .... . . ...... . . . ... *\il:i.:h111l'11f fl.;.;
Lil*l1: I.: ~-i11111111 . 1r ~ 1alik* ft*r 1n11l1iph: r,*grl"*'i1111 :111:dy-.i' l'ct\'.1.*1:11 RS -.pi:*: iL"i .111d
*.'t1\ll\ 111111.:111al :11:d "l1l'J:11ic111:d \;1ri:1bll':i li1r hll ~1)0) .11 lho.: l'B:\li . .\lullipl1*
I\: *. ;1!11,*, :11\: *:ak11l;11,*d ln:11111rnl1iplo.: r,*;.:1\*,,j.,11~ i 1 k"i'j11;i*:11i11~: lhl' . :1ri.1'1k:-
!i** h d h*1 1*:1d1 ... ,_.,.,;L"'* *1 !1ik I~* -..Ill.IL ::r,* *:.1k11l:1ln l 1n*11 1 lin,-.11' r.* ~*11*. ,i**n*;
,*1*. h-.: 11 11 nl'i11 :.*~*111,* 1tr : 1t111il'~' r :: 1'd a *. !11~:k' *.;111.1l'k-... . .... .. ........ . \11 .::1\1111:111 II 11
List of Figures Figure I Density anJ bn.'< plors 11f Unir '.!and 3 ( l11g 111 ) impingcmenr numhers shnwing similariries in distributinn ................................................................................. Arrni.:hmcnt 11-1 Figure 2 lkgrcssion Plot of I log ml impingement numbers as a F11ncti11n of through snL*cn wlodty for P11pulmi11n I. Dashed lines represent 95% rnntidcm:e interv:1ls ... Allad1mcnt 11-7 Figure J lkgres!'ion Plot oft lngw) impingement numbers as a Function of P1111l dcvati1in. 1hrn11gh screen velodty. and Dissolved 11."<ygen individually for Population II. DashcJ lini:s represent 95% i.:onfit.leni.:t! intervals ............................................ A!lm:hmenr 11-8 II
l.O Determination of Discreet Populations I. I Rasic Statistics To <ktcrmine whether impingement from Units 2 and 3 rnul<l be analyzed together. numbers ~-ere first st<m<lardizcd to a sampling pcrio<l of 24hr. i.l<ljusled for sub-sampling and colkction gear dfo:icncy (Appendix A. Section A.3.4 ). Since impingement numhcrs at each unit did not follow a normal llistribulil>n ca'-=h dulasc\ was log 111 transformed to cnsur(! normality (Table L. Figure I). Data from both units were combined and ln::atcd as one population since no statistical diffcrem:I! between i111pi11gcmcnt by unit was seen when data 1,vcrc compared using a paired t\VO sample for mean t-tcst (Table 1). Table I Tcsl'i of norn1111ity t'or raw and transformed impingement numbers from Units 2 and .1 showmg I021 0 trans ~ormatmns were success f u I .m attmnm2 a norma I ti'1stri.h utmn . tlnit 2 t.loe,,,) Unit l Unit J Hoi: 111 i Unit 3 N <lf c:1scs 104 104 !04 104 Sk~wncss 5.716 O.J9J 4.911 OASll Kurtosis .18.469 (J.Ol)J 2X.J6fl -11.229 Sh11piro-Wilk TL*st for Normality SW Statistk: O.J22 0 .980 0 ..168 0. 97~ SW P-Vulm: <(1.11111 ll. lll9 <IJ.0111 0.066 I>' i\j?ostino-Pcarson K! Tcsl for Normality K! 156.5 2.9:!4 I JlJ.J 4.45~ P-Value <0.001 11 . 23~ <0.001 ll. I 08 5 en 4 r
'\ '-
Q)
..0 II r E /' -c I~
3 c:
Q) 3
,* /
I I
/
l 8 2 E Q) O> l-,_-!J I
\ .:.

... )
c: I
*a E
C> 0 1 0 I l
\ \ '** i/ UNIT ...J Unit 2 -1 :...: Unit 3 50 40 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 Count Count Figure l Oensity :md box plots of l!nit :? and-~ t log 111 ) impingement numbers showing si111il11riliL*s in clislributiun. ,:\ttad1111e11t 11-1
Table 2 t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means for Units 2&.1 at PBAPS !August 29, 2ll05-N1m.'mber l7. 2006) 1LOG1n) Unit 2 (l.OG1n) Unit 3 ivlcan UNX61 l.91127J Varia1h.:c ll.81255-i 0.8:i I 7<1lJ Observations 104 10~ Pearson C11rrcla1i11n II Ji I 0908 Hypothesized Mean Difforen1.:e fl df 103 t Stal - 11 . 1604~ t Cl'iti.:al t\\'O-tail l.'JlU2M rrr <=ti two-tail O.M72H5 1.2 Gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedimmm) The total number of impinged gizzard shad was analyzed separately from other species hccause its overall abundance was the primary driver of impingement totals throughout the study, and spccific:ally during the fall of 2005. Neither untransformed gizzard shad impingement data nor transformed data sets were found to follow a normal distribution (Table 3). Table J Tests of' normality for raw and transformed gizzard shad impingement data showing transformations were unsuccessful in attaining a normal distribution, PB.\PS IAugust 29,
- *- "005 - ,.\ ueust JO "01ki)
Gizzard. (log 10 ) Gizzard I.Gizzard shad shad shnd)J -~Gizzard shad 4 ~Gizzard shad N of cuses 82 82 82 82 H2 Skewness 3.431 0.311 5.122 2.182 1.124 Kurtosis 12.:nx -1.143 27.964 *t283 0.544 Shapiro-Wilk Test for Normality SW Stutistic O.-l46 fl. 92l) ll.287 0.664 0.879 SW P-Valuc <0.1101 <ll.001 <II.Oil I <II.Oil I <0.00 I D' Agostino-Pearson K2 Test ror Norm111ity K1 lU.62 lJ.7J4 120.3 47.58 15.09 P-Value <0.00 I 0.0119 <0.00 I <(l.1101 <lUlOI Since nonnality could not be a11ai11c<l. the data were analyzed using a (11011-paramcrrk) I wo-sample Kolmogoruv-Smimov test to test the potential diffcre111.:cs in seasonal impingement. The results showed that fall 2005 gizzard shad IM differed from all other seasons. and therefore should be an~llyzed separately to determine any relationship with independent variables (Table 4).
.\1tach111cm H-2
Table_. Two-sample Kolmogoro\*-Smirnov non-parametric test for ditl'crcnces showing full (1005) impingement dilTered from C\'erv other st*ason Fall Winter Spring Summer Fall 1 Winter . 1 Spring . 1 1 Summer . 1 1 1 Tahlc 5 Descriptive statistics for .seasonal giz:t.:ard sh11d impingement at l'U:\PS (.\ugust 29.1005 -
.- \ ugust ..m "006 I Fall Winter Spl'ine Summer f l'mmt \kan 3,281.33 .is 2.15 11 12 l.IH 66.HI 1-i ."itandard hrnr XX7.2X fl. 73 (J.:19 28.!15 Swndar<l Deviation 5.952.ll8 2A2 l.34 I 04.1)6 v.irian..:c J:U27.21fi.09 :U4 I. 79 11.016.52 Kurtosis 5.J7 11.57 -1.47 1.28 Skcwm.*ss 2.J7 1.26 0.46 1.58 95% Contidcm:c lnh:rval 1.788.20 1.62 ll.X5 60.110 1.3 Remailling lmpi11gement The remaining data (all impingement excluding foll 2005 gizzard shad) were analyzed Lo assess whether Lht:rc was a scacisric:.il difference in mean impingement within chis dataset between seasons (fall 2005 I fish other than gizzard shad I. winter 2005/06, spring 2006, summer 2006 and fall 2006). Normality was attained using a logro trnnsform*1tion (sec Tablt! 7). A.NOV A analysis sho\vcd that no one sc*1son differed from all othl!r seasons, allowing the remaining IM data to be evaluated as a single population (Table 6).
Table 6 Descriptive statio;tks, An11lysis of Variance, and Honft:rroni post hoc test for all impingt'mcnt cxt~c11t full 2005 gizzard shnd against season, PBAPS (August 29, .!005 - August JO, 2006) (wI o F*n II., 105 c* ll cscr1pt1ves ~or 1mp111gcml*nt Gnmps
.
Count Sum
-* ..izzard s ha d )
A*rnr11ee Variance Fall -l5 7,.!fl.'i.9 160.20 .HAJ5 Winier 11 625.8 56.89 2. <Jliei Spring I '2 472.9 J9AI 706 Summer 14 2.llY4.9 1-N.M 11 .1-is
- -
Anulvsis of Vari1111l'tl Suurre of Variation SS <lf i\IS* F P-v11l11e F crit lktwecn Groups 202.896 J (17.6J2 2."6 0.04 2.72. Within Groups l.7:-B.253 7K ~2.K6l ~ 1.986.14~ XI
, \ttaChtllL'lll fl-J
Bonferroni Matrix of Pairwis~ Compari~on Prohuhilities Fall Winter Sprint! Summl'r t'all* I Winter o.mo I Spring 0.0:!8 I I Summer I O.llliJ 0.026 I Therefore. two scparate populations of impingement Jata exist and were used in subsc4ucnt mrnl yscs: I) Population I. consisting of gizzard shad impinged during fall 2005. and 2) Population II, comprised of all other impinged fish and gizzard shad collecLcd in seasons other than foll 2005. 2.0 Regression Analysis Environmental rnnditions may have an crfcd on impingement at the PBAPS. Stepwise multiple regression analysis was used to determine if indepemlent variables potentially associated \.Vith fish abundance and distribution were correlated with impingement and could potentially explain variahility in observed impingement rates. Environmental and operational variables used in this analysis arc given in Table 8. Before performing the multiple regression analysis. the data for each population were log-transformed to satisfy assumptions for normality (Table 7). Table 7 Tests of normulity for raw and transformed Population I and II datasets showing log 10 t rans tiorma t'ions were success tiu I m ' ' a norma I d'IS t r1'bU f IOD
' a tt amme ropulatlon [ llothol Population I Pooulation U (loe,.,J Pooulation II N of casi:s 45 45 82 82 Skewness 2.J6ll -0.0'.!9 2...1-40 -O.O.l'2 Kurtosis 5.J65 -1.0.:n 7.12.l -0.551 Shapiro-Wilk Test for Nonnalitv SW Statistii: O.filO 0.9(>.\ 0.715 0.9X9 SW P-Value <ll.0111 0.159 dl.0111 0.691 O'A2osti110-Pc11rson K1 Tt*sl for Normulitv K! 35.650 2.040 58.950 1.260 P-Value <0.lllll !U60 <<l.00 I 0.5.11 When testing the relationship between variables. an R-squarecl (R 2) value was calculah:d, in addition to lhe p-valuc. This value measures 1he amount of variation lhat can be explained by a particular variable. In gcnernl, a higher calculated R1 value indicates a stronger correlation between thl:! inckpendent variables (e.g .. river tlow) and the respon!'lc variable (e.g .. impingement). and vice-versa.
Becm1se statistical analyses showed that two separate populations exist within the impingement dataset, regression analyses were performed on cach population scparntdy. A reverse stepwise regression was performed. where each of the variahles was rcmnved llllC hy one (in increasing Utlkr of importance) an<l lhe statistical results for 1hc remaining variables was observed.
.'\1tacl1111c11t II--~
Table H Environmental nnd operational mlucs used in regression analysis IP81\PS Angusl 29, -* - .-
'1105- NoHmhcr 17 iot16l Through Pool Daily Pool Screen Water Dissolved Turbidity River Elcrntion Elc\*ation A Vcludty Temperature Oxygen 'S"'*chi How Oate en) tftl t.!.e.!L (oC) Ima/I) Depth, ftl (t*fs) ,'{/ J0/20115 107.ll J.2J 0.91!4 29.tl 7.6 -Ul78 l)/6/21105 I llX.fl l.7X fl.966 26.1 9.0 I.I I 2. lJ611 lJ/21120115 I Oh. 6 2.26 0.855 27.0 7.0 ll.X -U29 9/2.l/2005 1117.<i 2.12 0.-+'J.1 25.X 7.5 1.2 J . 7flfl lJ/ !.8/ 2005 1117.X 1.711 flAXlJ 23.0 7.4 tl.9 2.573 l)/ J0/ 2()05 l1J7.I 1.07 11.504 22.-+ X.3 I.II J.567 I O/.V2!Kl5 1115.5 ..
l.60 ll.541 2J.X 8.3 I.II -Ull6 111/5/1005 1116.6 2.-J.ll 11.51-~ 2..u1 X.5 I. I 4. 736 I0/6/'21105 1117.0 2.00 0505 I 0/ I ll/'20115 lllf1.X 1.115 11..:'i I fl 19.2 7.8 11.2 29A..il I 0/ 12/211115 J()7J\ 2.32 fl.X IJ 20.I 8.0 O.X 21.774 I OJ 13/2005 I08.0 2.J I 0.807 211.407 I O/ I X/2005 1118.2 1.95 fl.XO I 16.4 11.9 30.387 I fl/ I lJ/2005 1llX.-J. 1.82 0. 793 16.X 9.4 11. 9 26.190 10/20/~005 I 08.4 l.J5 fl.9*IO 16.1 9.5 11.9 23.757 lf)/:!l/21105 108.1 2.-+9 0.965 1..i.1 4.3 I.II 21.158 I 0/1A/2005 I 09. I 1.57 0.927 l *t9 9.5 11.9 19.317 I 0/25/2005 I 08.9 2.21 0. 915 IJ.8 10.4 0.8 2'2.971 I fl/26/2005 I OX. I 2.55 11.963 15.5 4.8 1.0 44.276 I 0/271111115 llJ8. 9 2.84 0.932 11.J 11.9 11.7 81.246 10/28/21105 111.J J.80 0.852 10.9 10.5 0.7 11s.1.m I fl/ J l/:!005 109.:i 1.88 11.912 8.9 11.1 0.5 58.320 11/1/2005 109.3 2.16 11.918 I 0.0 II. I 0. 7 47.572 I l/2/21Kl5 1118.l) 1.44 0.935 Ill. 7 I I. I 0.7 40.53.5 11/3/2005 1mu 2.46 ll. 959 I 0.7 10.9 0.8 J6.IJ6 I 114/20115 IOX.5 1.45 0.947 11.7 10.8 0.9 33.926 1117121105 IOK.J 2.JO ll.955 12.2 9.1 I. I 28.522 11/8/20115 108.6 2.24 11. lJ..W, 12.4 10.8 I. I 25.664 I 119/2!Kl.5 I 117.8 1.89 0.974 12.7 10.2 1.1 24.158 I/ I 0/200.5 IOX.4 l.4J 0.951 I .lO I fl. I 1.0 2J.940 I/ I 112ll05 JOlJ.11 !UU 11.931 I 2.-J. 9.9 I. I 2*k282 1/14/2005 IOX.6 2A2 II. 943 I 1.2 10 ...i 1.0 36.476 I /15/20115 108.:i 2.99 fl. 'l.511 12.11 111.2 I. I J.1.161 II l<iCOll5 108.4 11.91 11.951 11.5 I I .fl 1.J J0.07.5 II I 7/2ll05 I llK.4 2.llfi
-
0.951
- - 11.0 -- 10.6 - 1.0 J0.572 Ii IX/ 2005 IOX.:'i .!.65 11.9.+X 111.5 10.6 1.0 45.'223 112112005 I 09.J 2.J5 0.613 7..5 12.1.l I .J 54.IH9 I/ 2:U:! Oll5 I 09 .0 2.1 lJ 0.619 7.lJ 12.0 11. 9 .+6.729 112312005 109.0 1.68 0.619 7.8 11.6 1.0 41.660 I I 2812tlll5 I OX.J 2X.! ll.6J7 ~.O lJ. 7 ~(i.*J}l) 11291211115 107.fl 2.61< fJ.{i75 5.J 12.8 1.5 25.173 (Continued ... )
i\1tachrnc11r lki
Table 8 (Continued) Em*ironmental and operational \'lllues used in regrl!ssion analysis ( PB f \PS ,\ ueust -'9
_
*---- ... 'f I05 - INO\'Clll h er 17 'lflfl6l Through Pool Daily Pool Screen Water Dissolved Turhidity River Ell!\':ttinn Ele\ at ion J. Velocity Tcmp~ruturc Oxygen 1Secchi Flow Date* !ft) (ft) 1fos) ,~c, (miUI) Deoth, ft) (cfsl 11/J0/11Kl5 11 lR.4 5.:lll 0.6J6 5.7 12.X I ..! 50,661 I 2/ l/2005 11.\.5 6.J8 11.524 X.2 11. l) I. I 194.375 12/2/.!!Ml5 11 *~.5 1.69 11.CiOJ 9.J I I. 9 11.5 .!1~1.118 I 2/.'i/21105 111 .2 2.15 11.5 711 X. I 12.fl 11.6 IJJA76 12/6/2005 I lllJ.lJ 2.19 ll.5 1JX 4.X IJ.7 11.5 7J.655 12/IJ/'.!0115 lfl:U IA7 11.628 1.5 1 .u1 . I.II J0.613 12/20/2005 1mu 1.55 11.641 J.5 14.4 ll.>3 31,790 12/27/21105 IOX.I un 11.6-B 1.9 IJ.1:1 u J..tl97 l/J/20116 107.2 J.07 0. 999 6.2 IJ.2 0. 7 77.925 I /10/2006 106.6 2.24 1.028 7.1 12.J 2.5 62.195 I 11712006 I 07. I 2.91 I .IKl6 3.2 14.Y 0.8 !06.014 l/24/21Kl6 JOX ..i 11.fil{ 11.950 . J..7 IJ.2 0.6 1114.607 1/Jl/21Kl6 1117 ..\ I .6J 0.995 4.8 12.9 1.2 51,8J9 217/2006 108.2 0.75 0.6..N 0.4 2/141'.!IKl6 107.0 2.40 0.673 1.7 14.2 1.7 -N.200 2/21/21Nl6 1117.0 1.60 0.672 J.9 12.6 1.4 36.5110 2/28/21106 1117.2 2.89 0.668 J.O 13.~ 1.2 26.llKI J/7/2006 1117.7 1.40 0.654 J .3 IJ.4 1.6 19,0IKI J/14/21K16 107.9 ll.Ci6 0.647 12.6 12.6 IA 25.41KI V2 l/21Kl6 1mu 1.55 0.1100 6.0 12.6 0.4 38.51)(}
J/2812<Kl6 1117.9 1.55 0.971 7.J 11.9 1.2 23,200 4/4/2006 IOX.5 0.97 0 . 9-tK IJ.9 12.8 0.8 20.2110 4/llV21Kl6 IO!U 2.(13 0.962 16.1 10.6 0.11 26500 4/2512006 1117.2 1.33 l.OOJ 15.5 9.7 0.8 59. l<Kl 5/2/2006 I07. 7 1.71 0.1)!12 17.0 11.2 0.8 J4.51KI 5/9/20116 1118.2 1.70 0.961 19.J 8.J ll. 9 19 . XIKl 5116/2006 107.6 I.IX 0.9116 19.ll 7.*i 0.8 .U.lllll 5/2J/21Kl6 107.7 0.65 11.981 16.4 9.2 IUI 27.JIKI 5/J0/21M)6 1117.8 2.17 0.976 22.5 9.J I. I 19.51Kl 6/L.V:!fl06 1117.7 1.29 II. 9lt! 21 .0 lU! II.~ 29.71NI fi/2 0/ 2006 1117.6 1.71 11.986 24.J :u 11.9 16.8110 (i/ 27121 x)(, 1118. I I .<1:-S 11.962 25 .2 7.8 0.4 XO,OllO 7/6/21Kl6 1117.8 2.J2 0.lJ78 M.21Ml 7/I 112 (1()6 I08.0 I.JO 11.%11 24.7 8.1 11.5 J6.500 7118/21Kl6 107.2 0. 95 I.llOJ 2~U X.4 11.X J-UllMI 7/2.5/20116 107.2 I.Il l I.Om 21U - 6.8 - 11.X 3.\ . 9!Nl X/l /10116 107.4 2.31 11.992 . 29.1 7.5 I. I 22. 7011 X/8121106 IOX.4 1.61 0.951 30.2 6.3 0.9 14.500 XII 5/20116 1117.7 2.J2 0.981 28.5 7.4 ll. ') l).4011 X/ 2 I/ 2111l6 106.8 .:i.45 I.II IX 28 .1 7.7 I. I X. 200 XCIJ/2006 1117 .7 l.IJX 11.981 27.J 7.1 1.0 18.1100 Allachmcnt 11-6
2.1 Population I l\'lttltiplc n:gression analysis rcs11lt1.*<l in a highly signifkant cnrn:lariun bl:lwccn TSV and Iog 111(# gizzard shad impingt:u) <luring fall 2005 tTahlc 9) The plot of log 1,,(# gizzard shad impinged) values incllllkll in the n:gression analysis for Population I versus TSV is shown in Figure 2. The cocffo:icnt of determination (R 2) generated by the lim:ar n.:grcssion model (0.63) indicates that approxinwtdy 63 percent or the variation in log 111(# gizzard sh<uJ impingc<l) can be accounted for by TSV
'f11ble 9 Reverse Stepwise Multiple Regression Results for the Number of Gizzard Shnd lmpingt.-d - . ti IC r*a II "00-IJ urmg ~I PllPU Ia f IOU II .
Std Std Step EITcct Coellicient F.rnlr Coef Toi. elf F 'P' Removed River Flow () II -0.0 I I 11.0::!X 12 I 0 .001 ll.97*i I Pool Elevation 0.026 O. IS1 0.042 0.111791 I o.m Cl . X~X 2 \Vatcr Temperature -0.021 0.0~ -0. 123 0.17155 I 0 .279 O.<iO I .1 l>issoh*cd Oxygen -0. IJ 0.1 IJ -0.252 0. 19291 I 1.321 0.259 4 Turbidity ISecchi Depth) 0.5J6 OA5 I 0.137 0.711392 I 1.412 0.24.l 5 l>nily Pool Elevation A -0.156 0.122 -11.166 055414 I I AH 0.21 6 Through Screen Velocity J .*.JOM 11.tiJX 0.721 0.6718 I J7.5J <:11.110 I --- 4 y = 4.4212., - 0.737(1 R: =0.6J I.+ c 0
~ 3 3
a. ., ~,....,,,.
\. *j 0 " _...,....... ..,.
a. 2 _..,,/° *.
(!) 0_J 1 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 Through Screen Velocity Figure 2 Rl*gn*ssion l'lot of 11og 10) impingl'lllcnt numbers as a function of th.-ongh scn*en H'lodty for Popul:1lion I. ll:lshcd lines n*prcsl*nt 115% cunlidcm:c intcrrnls. i\ltad1111l'ilt 11-7
1.2 Population 11 A stcp-\vise multiple regression am1lysis was performed lo determine if environmclllal variables were ~otTelated with impingement using the Populutinn II i111pi11ge1m.!11t clatasct. Although three variables were statistically significant (Table 10). there were no strong IX correlated relationships between observed impingement rates and thesi: variables. The W value of the most significant vuriuble wus 0.09, and the two most significant variahlcs combined (pool clcvut ion and TSV) had a cod'fidcnt value of upproximi.llcly 0.15. indicating that only 15 percent of the rnriation in i111pi11ge111cm coul<l be explained by these two variables collectively (Table 11, Figure 3). Tnhle IO Reverse *stepw1se 1MI' IR u t~gressmn Resu Its tior Popn Iahon
U Std Std Step*
i-:rrect Col*mclcnl Error Coef Toi. df F 'P' Rcmon~d -* Dnily Pool Elevation A -0.015 0.064 -1>.028 0.77189 I 0.057 0.812 1 River Flow () () ll.155 IU37J8 1 ll.784 ll.J79 2 Water Tempeniture -o.on (I.fl 15 -O.J53 0.17998 I 2.158 o.1..i6 3 Turhidity ISecchi Depth) -0.274 0.182 -0.178 11.74126 I 2.27 0.137 -l Pool Elevation 0.1110 0.061 0.2 llJ O.J97*n I 1.8.U 0.0117 --- Through Screen Velucity 0.646 0.3 llJ 0.22 ll.XX.141 I -l.lllJ7 0.017 --- Dissolved Oxygen -0.126 0.054 -0.561 0.18264 I 5.535 11.05 --- Tuhle 1l Linear regn>Ssion analysis - (log 10 ) Population II vs. individual pnrnmeters with resulting Rl values. Std Std 11(2 Effect CoetTicient Error Cod Tolerance t Tuil) R1 Pool Elevation 11.116 0.042 0.294 I 2.751 IUI07 0.09 Through S1:n:cn Vdodty 11.772 0.317 0.263 I 2AJ5 0.017 ll.07 Oiss11lvcd Oxygen -0.05 0.1125 -0.225 I - I. 995 ll.115 11.115 3,......,,......,,......,___,--,--,--,-/~_--,___,3,~.....---.--.----.-~.---,---, ~~,~~--,.~--.,...---~
....... .., ,, CJ ** .,. ... .* ' / .. J .. . --
j :11J510610710810!l1101111121131141150.4 : l=L~'---'--'---' 0.5 0.6 07 OB 0.9 Tilrnugh Screen Velocity 1.0 0'-----'----"'-----' 1.1 0 5 10 15 Figure 3 Regression Plot of !lo~ 111 ) impingement numbers as 11 Function of' Pool elernlion, through screen ,*elocity. and Dissolved oxrnen indh*idunlly for Populution II. D11shcd lines represent 115% confidence intenuls.
\ftadllllL'lll 11-8
3.0 Addition.al Analysis All RS spcdes/groups were also examined separntdy in an alCcmpt to discern any ~orn:ln1ion betwcc:n a p~1rticular spccics' i111pingc:mc11L rati.: and any of the cnvironmcnt~tl vnriablcs tested. The fall 2005 .'ieason ~: ncompasscc..145 sampling events, clue in part to an effort to sample intensivi:ly through the Amcrkan shad migration period. Therefore. during this particular season there is generally :.t wide Jistrihution in the values of tes!L'd environmental variables. making it useful for regression ;.111alysis. Ead1 species was tcstcJ through multiple regression analysis against several environmental variilhlcs (sec Table 8). No significant correlations 1,R1 > 0.50) were found between any of the RS species (other than gizzan.l shad) and the variables tested (Table I 2). Other seasons were subsequently tested in an effort to Jctcnnine if any significant relationships could be obsl*rveu. The results, however, arc unreliable due to small sample sizes and substantial number of *'O" values mu...l arc not prcscnrcd here. Ti1hle 12 Summary table for multiple regression analysi'I hetwccn RS species and environmental and operational variables for Fall 2005 at the PB.\PS. Multiple Ri values are calculated from multiple regressions incorporating the ,*ariables listed for each species, while Ri values are cakulnted from linear regressions between impingement number and a single variable. Col'lli* Std Std 'fnlt'r* p Multiple t:m-ct
,____ dent lfrror Cud 11nce t 111uil) H' R! .\mcrk11n Sh11d Throu_!!h Scrci:n Vclm:ity 1.217 0. ):!~ 1),41_1() 0.1.11.15 J.7'11 ll.00 I ll.12 0..12 Turhillilv tScl*chi 1k01h) -0.SM 0.2J4 -0..111~ 0.1195 -2.41 o.n11 0.03 Bhwl!ill Tcmpcraturc -0.120 11.llJ -1.ll(I() 0.2*'3 -4.15 11.000 0.fXl5 Dissolved Oxygen -0.29 11.()9 -0.825 0.143 -3.213 ll.IXl.1 0.01 0.41 Turhidilv ISl'l'chi J1:11lhl -11.ll45 O.J.W -0.351 0.'.I')') -2.7S5 O.fHJX 0.114 Channel C:iUlsh T*'lll(ll'l'alurc ll.113 ll.ll I I tl.J5H I :!.~H2 ll.Otl7 ll.ll8 tUI!
Tmhidit.,, cSccd1i ll..:111h1 -11.9/h 0_:!4-1 -ll.51l'l I .045 IJ.\lllll 0.06
<..:omclv shiner 1111 variahlcs r,*~ullin!! in p<ll.ll.'i Giuard sl111d Throu~h S,-rccn Vdo.-ity -1 ..:;x1. 11.:10*1 ll. 7'.l<> I l(hl I ll.000 o.ciJ 0 .11)
Luri:l.'moulh h11ss 1'11111 Elcva1hu1 I) 07 5 ll.*l:!) D.-1..ix O.'l:!J J.J"~'.I IJ.lN):! tJ.l)l) 1).J Dailv Pool F.h:\;ili1111 :~ 0 .0)5
* *' **~*' -ll.I! -ll ...i<iJ 0.11!3 11.illll 0. 10 Sumllmoulh hnss Tc111pcrmur..: -0.llJ:i ll.O I I -ll.81 y () 2% -J.21)'.I li. l~).i 1).()1 0.:!5 Dissoln:J 0:<\'l!l'll -0. I l"T 0.0.\.l -IJ.ll IJ ll.211h -.1.57~ tl.flll I 0.11:! \\'alll'n' Thmu,\!h Sc1wn Vi:J11~* i1y U7 ... IJ.]51 0.5 IJ.%1 .1.lJlll I J.1)()1) ltl 2 Daily Pool Elc\:niou :\ -0. l+l D.11111 -ll.) ll.ill*l -1 .14-1 l).llJ:i ll.02 tU7 Riwrrli111* I) I) 11._"\.'.\ll O.lillf1 2.511~ 0.ll 1-i 11.01 Whitt' Cra1>1Jie Tcmpcratun: -U .ll.J.3 (l.ll I (i -J l.7()lJ tU'lh -! .f\15 ll.ll u fl.O I fl . 15 Dis:."/ w d On '.!Cll -0.0lJ; IJ.fl.Jl) I) 5.1 ll.2% -1.955 () l):il( I) 22 i\tt;1d1111cnt ll -l)}}

v t e Letter Sequence Other
EPID:L-2018-RNW-0012, Avilsbility of Peach Bottom SLR Application and Opportunity to Request a Hearing (Approved, Closed)
Initiation Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request Acceptance, Acceptance, Acceptance Supplement, Supplement, Supplement, Supplement, Supplement, Supplement Administration Questions 27 September 2019 27 September 2019 Answers 2 May 2019 30 May 2019 6 June 2019 12 June 2019 12 June 2019 Results Approval, Approval, Approval, Approval, Approval, Approval Other: CLI-22-04, Change Letter to Peach Bottom Subsequent Renewed Licenses March 17 2022 Rev 1, ML18179A457, ML18214A383, ML18282A029, ML19007A282, ML19007A326, ML19029B121, ML19142A369, ML19182A112, ML19205A206, ML19240A300, ML22096A298
MONTHYEAR2019-04-08 [Table View]

ML19007A326

Text

Subject:

References:

Enclosures:

Dear Mr. Barron,

SUMMARY

1.0 INTRODUCTION

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

1.0 INTRODUCTION

7.0 REFERENCES

Dearborn,

Dear Mr. McDonnell,

1.5 REFERENCES

2.5 REFERENCES

3.1 BACKGROUND

5.1 REFERENCES

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

3.0 CONCLUSION

SUMMARY

Description:

Navigation menu

Search