Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20150759 Ver 2_Applicant Draft EA Comments_20160817Cardinal Energy Service Financial, Management, & Energy Supply Services 2308 Wheeler Rd. Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 August 17, 2016 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Energy Projects Washington DC 20426 Reference: Comments regarding Draft Environmental Assessment Greetings; Cell 919 602-6125 ac iven5 a cardinatcnergy.com Project No. 9842-0006 Ward Mill Hydroelectric Project Mr. Ray F. Ward The Applicant has reviewed the Draft Environmental Assessment Issued by the Staff on July 18, 2016, and offers the following comments. Section 2.0 of the draft Environmental Analysis (ED) beginning on page 8, the staff presents the Proposed Action and Alternatives. On page I and 12 Section 2.3 included the Staff Alternatives. In the initial paragraph of this section, the staff indicates that they do not propose to include the proposal to implement an erosion control plan. Mr. Ward filed the Shoreline Management Plan. and the Sediment Management Plan to document the minimal risk and the historical operation of the project, as well as to move the licensing process forward. Mr. Ward maintains that the erosion risk remains low and that the operation of the project does not pose a significant risk to the stability of the shoreline. The requirement of a specific plan is excessive and the applicant agrees that this should not be included in the license. Likewise, the applicant's original proposal to install a gauge at the project if the USGS gauge is discontinued was included as a response to the other parties. The applicant agrees with the staff alternative that the operation as a run of river project, as assured by regular monitoring and the operation of the float switch, makes this unnecessary. The applicant believes that the Impoundinent Drawdown and Refill Plan filed by the Applicant is sufficient, and that the requirements of the Staff Alternative are inflexible, overly restrictive, and not consistent with safe operation of this project. Specifically; A. Emergency Drawdown - It may be necessary to conduct emergency drawdowns when the flow is below 60 cfs. Emergency drawdowns may be required as a result of equipment failure, personal injury or risk of personal injury, or a situation which causes a risk to the risk to the project. The applicant believes that it is unreasonable to impose the specific drawdown provisions in an emergency situation. Therefore, the applicant proposes that the drawdown provisions exclude emergency situations. B. Drawdown. Limit - The proposal to limit the drawdown rate to I foot per day, and the overly restrictive refill provisions are unnecessary and improper. In 2012 the Forest Service studied the impact of drawdown and refilling of the impoundment at a period of low flows. This was discussed in the application and included on page 21 of the Draft EA, as shown below. In August 2012, during low flow conditions (i.e., inflow to the project was 42 to 45 cfs; 87 to 88 percent exceedance flows), Cantrell et a]. (2014) conducted a demonstration impoundment drawdown and refill study at the project to evaluate river stage and water quality (discussed below) in the impoundment and tailrace. During the drawdown (two generators operating), which lasted 2 hours, water depth in impoundment dropped about 3 feet, and water depth in the tailrace increased about 0.7 feet. Impoundment refill (one generator operating) lasted about 20 hours, during which water depth in the impoundment increased by about 3 feet and water depth in the tailrace decreased by about 0.7 feet. The applicant believes that this study demonstrates that a relatively rapid controlled drawdown of the impoundment (3 feet in 2 hours) will impact the water level in the tailrace by only 0.7 feet with limited adverse impact in the environment of the impoundment or the tailrace. Likewise, the impoundment was refi conducted by the Forest Service the impoundment was dropped by 3 feet in 2 hours and the tailrace rose only 0.7 feet. The impact of the Staff Alternative of limiting the drawdown to 1 foot per day on the tailrace would be minimal. In addition to the operational issues, the applicant objects to the limitation on the drawdown for safety reasons. As discussed in the application, the drawdown process begins with the running water through the turbines, until the water level is approximately 4 feet below the top of the dam. At that point, it is necessary to go onto the dam above the first gate and begin pulling the gate boards out of the gate with a special hook for that purpose. From a safety standpoint, it is best for the operator to stay in position and remove boards until the water level is reduced sufficiently, rather than have to engage in this repeatedly over several days. The applicant believes there should not be a specific limit on the daily drawdown of the impoundment because: 1. the site experiences significantly greater natural variations in the water level without adverse impact, 2, the studies conducted by the Forest Service did not show significant adverse impact form much the studies with greater fluctuations in water level, and 3. The safety of the operator is at greater risk if the drawdown is prolonged. C. Refill. The applicant believes that the operation of this project requires flexibility in the refill of the impoundment, and points to the results of the information supplied by Interior, and by the recent load flow information. On pages 26 and 27 of the Draft EA states: Cantrell et al (2014) demonstrated that the water quality was generally good in the project impoundment and the tailrace during the demonstration drawdown and refill study (study) conducted under very low flows. In the tailrace, DQ did not decline below the state standard 6.- mg/L and water temperature did not exceed the state standard 84.2°F, including during refill when no flow (other than leafage) was released to the tailrace. The applicant believes that this actual study by Interior shows specifically that at flows between 42 efs and 45 efs the water quality of the water in the tailrace is within of the state standards. While the applicant recognizes the importance of maintaining sufficient flow in the tailrace and operating with at least 60 efs when possible to maintain the water quality below the dam, the applicant believes that it is also necessary to maintain or restore the water quality in the impoundment after a drawdown. Under a restrictive refill prevision, the impoundment could remain at the drawdown level for weeks waiting for sufficient flow to replace the boards and raise the level of the impoundment. As the USGS gaga graph shows, there have been many hours and 2000 days during the summer of 2016 r that the flow has been below 60°" Qu 1 cfs. Under the proposed restriction for refilling only when the flow is at or above 60 efs, there may be many days when the impoundment would have to U 100 remain drained. If the operator 0 had the flexibility to refill the U impoundment the water quality in 20 both the impoundment and the tailrace could be enhanced. USGS 03479000 MRTRUGR RIVER HEAR SUGAR GROVE, Jun Jun Jun Jun Jul Jul Jul 04 11 18 25 02 89 16 As an example, had the impoundment been lowered on July 18 2016, as shown on the graph, the flow would not have been sufficient to refill the impoundment for well over a week. Thus, the boards would have remained out of the gates, the impoundment would be drained, and the existing flow would have been going through the gates. On the evening of July 27 a storm in another part of the watershed increased the flow at the gage from 46 efs to over 1,100 cfs in 3 hours. There would have been no opportunity to replace the gate boards and the flood would have -rushed through the gate, filled the impoundment temporarily with the gates open, then drained the next day as the flood subsided. Only after the flow returned to a flow between 60 cfs and 100 cfs; would it be safe to replace the gate boards and refill the impoundment. Considering the small size of the impoundment, the fact as discussed above that the water quality is not compromised at the 45 cfs level, and benefits to the environment of the impoundment when refilled, the applicant believes that it is appropriate for the operator to have the flexibility to refill the project. The applicant proposes that the license require the operator maintain an Irripoundi-nent drawdown and Refill Plan in conjunction with the agencies, and that the plan reflect the environment of the tailrace and well as the impoundment, as well as the functional operation of the facility. The applicant believes that the plan previously filed does that and should be approved. Sincerely Andrew C. Givens For: Ray F. Ward, applicant 9