ML20054G218
| ML20054G218 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 06/17/1982 |
| From: | Conner T CONNER & WETTERHAHN, PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8206210282 | |
| Download: ML20054G218 (80) | |
Text
-
e NTED CORRESPONDENC3 32 Jgg 38 N1:06 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BeforetheAtomicSafetyandLicensingBosrdh,gsh, EP.Ah0d In the Matter of
)
)
Philadelphia Electric Company
)
Docket Nos. 50-352
)
50-353 (Limerick Generating Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
APPLICANT'S OBJECTIONS TO SPECIAL PREHEARING CONFERENCE ORDER Preliminary Statement On June 1,
1982 the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
(" Board" or
" Licensing Board")
in this case issued its Special Prehearing Conference Order, 1/,which followed the Special Prehearing Conference held on January 6-8, 1982.
The Board has allowed ten days following service for the parties to respond with objections in the nature of a
request for reconsideration pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
S2.751a(d).
Applicant's objections will address two major areas of concern.
- First, Applicant submits that the Board lacks authority to stay the construction of the Point Pleasant Pumping Station or Bradshaw Reservoir.
As discussed below, Applicant has, furnished the affidavit of Robert A.
- Flgwers, 1/
The opinion was served on June 2,. 1982.
h
/
8206210282 820617 PDR ADOCK 05000352
~
O PDR
Executive
- Director, Neshaminy Water Resources Authority, which states that NWRA intends to proceed with the construction of the pumping station without regard to Limerick in order to meet the water supply needs of Bucks and Montgomery Counties.
Further, Applicant has furnished the affidavit of Gerald M.
- Hansler, Executive Director, Delaware River Basin Commission, to indicate the concurrence of the Federal representative in the DRBC decisions culminating in its final approval of the Point Pleasant project.
Based on this new information and the discussion below, the Board should find that it does not have authority to stay construction at Point Pleasant.
The second area of discussion involves individual contentions which Applicant believes should not be admitted.
While recognizing that a number of the contentions arise in areas for which information is being submitted on an ongoing basis, Applicant respectfully submits that a number of other contentions allowed by the Board are nonetheless impermissibly vague or relate to matters which are properly raised at the construction permit stage or have been decided by other agencies.
Argument I.
The Board Should Find That It Lacks Jurisdiction To Stay Construction At Point Pleasant.
The Board has intimated'that interim measures might be taken to halt construction of the Point ~ Pleasant diversion until completion of the Staff's environmental review and
1 2/
litigation of water contentions.
The Applicant is concerned about the possibility of such
- steps, which apparently would involve a stay of construction of the Point Pleasant Pumping Station and Bradshaw Reservoir.
Initially, Applicant must emphasize the fact that the Neshaminy Water Resources Authority ("NWRA")
is a totally separate legal entity, which is neither a party to this proceeding nor subject to the jurisdiction of the NRC.
While the Board correctly determined that components of the project which will be utilized solely by NWRA may not be
-,/
Applicant wishes to call the Board's 3
- reviewed, attention to the fact that NWRA, not Applicant, was the applicant before DfdC seeking permission to build the Point Pleasant Pumping Station and was in fact the entity authorized by DRBC to construct and operate the facility in d!
With respect to the Docket No.
D-65-76 CP(8).
relationship between Applicant and NWRA, Applicant is not
" paying for the intake." -5/
In fact, Applicant will pay a charge based upon water usage.
In any event, the Board clearly lacks jurisdiction to stay the construction activities of NWRA.
2/
Order at 89.
3/
Order at 81.
J/
In particular, see Docket No.
65-76 CP (8 )
at p.
8.
Copies of this and other relevant docket decisions are attached.
_ 5_/
Order at 74.
4
4
- l Moreover, the Board lacks authority to veto'or suspend, l
in effect, the approval granted by DRBC for the Point Pleasant project.
In this regard, the Board has requested information regarding the concurrence by the DRBC. Federal representative in the earlier docket decisions culminating in the final approval for the project. -6/
As indicated in the attached affidavit of Gerald M.
- Hansler, Executive Director of
- DRBC, the Federal representative in fact participated and concurred in the previous docket decisions pertaining to Point Pleasant. -7/
The concurrence of the federal representative at every stage of the project precludes this Board by virtue of Section 15. l ( s ) of the DRBC Compact from acting at variance with the provisions of DRBC's decisions and certainly precludes the NRC from halting construction authorized by DRBC in its dockets.
In evaluating the preemptive effect of DRBC's decisions, it should also be noted that DRBC's environmental review has been endorsed by the federal courts.
In Delaware Water Emergency Group v. Hansler, 536 F.
Supp. 26 (E.D. Pa.
1981), aff'c without opinion, No. 81-2622 (3d Cir., March 19, 1982)
(apy attached), the Court exhaustively reviewed each of the many contentions raised by plaintiffs that 6/
Order at 96.
-7/
These docket decisions are attached for the convenience of the Board.
Mr. Hansler explained that the Federal representative abstained in Docket No. D-65-76 CP(3),
March 17,
- 1971, but did not file a
notice of nonconcurrence and later voted in favor of the project.
- environmental impacts had been improperly ignored or given insufficient weight.
The Court rejected each of these arguments and found that DRBC had fully complied with all statutory requirements under NEPA.
Given the final approval to proceed by the agency designated by Congress to exercise plenary authority and expertise in the
- matter, which approval now has the imprimatur of the federal courts, the Board would lack authority to hold up construction so that environmental impacts can be considered in yet another forum before the NRC.
The decision of a
federal agency with primary jurisdiction over the matter, approved by the Courts, should not be effectively stayed by another agency.
8/
The public interest demands the prompt completion of the Point Pleasant Pumping Station to serve the area's water supply needs as determined by DRBC. -9/
The Board also stated that the scope of its review over Point Pleasant was enlarged because no assurance could be
-8/
It is noted that the contentions admitted by the Board are completely unsubstantiated.
Even where there has been a clear violation of NEPA, the federal courts have ruled that a halting of construction is not necessarily justified.
- See, e.g.,
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
v.
NRC, 606 F.2d 1261 (D.C. Cir. 1979);
Sierra Club v.
Interstate Commerce Commission, 11 E.R.C.
1241 (D.C.
Cir. 1978); Realty Income Trust v.
Eckerd, 564 F.2d 447 (D.C.
Cir.
1977);
Essex County Preservation Association v. Campbell, 536 F.2d 956 (1st Cir. 1976).
In each of these cases, the Court found that NEPA had been violated, but declined to halt construction.
9/
See Docket No. D-65-76 CP (8) at pp.
5, 9.
~
1
' given that the Point Pleasant Pumping Station would be built 10/
by NWRA without regard to Limerick.
However, as stated in the affidavit of Robert A. Flowers, Executive Director of
- NWRA, NWRA intends to proceed with construction in any event. -11/
DRBC has thoroughly considered all environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of the Point Pleasant Pumping Station and has carefully weighed
.possible adverse impacts in its cost / benefit analysis.
The position stated by NWRA makes it clear that the licenting of Limerick will not create environmental impacts which would not otherwise exist.
A second reason exists why the Licensing Board may not interdict construction activities at Point Pleasant.
As the Board noted, its jurisdiction is limited by the Notice of Hearing issued pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.105 which, in this
- instance, relates solely to the issuance of an operating license for Limerick. -12/
The Board has stated that it lacks jurisdiction to consider alleged environmental impacts attributable to construction.
Enforcement or amendment of construction permit conditions, including those for the protection or enhancement of the environment, lies within the authority of the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, 10/
Order at 74.
-11/
A facsimile of the a'ffidavit of Mr.
Flowers is attached.
The executed affidavit will be filed and served upon receipt.
ll/
Order at 83.
who alone "can exercise his authority to stay a construction activity which may cause significant adverse impact not previously evaluated, until the NRC Staff can complete its evaluation of the changes. " 13 /
This analysis by.the Board of the Director's authority to stay construction under'the construction permit is simply irreconcilable with its conclusion that certain " interim actions" may be taken by the Board "to protect the status quo." 14/
The Board should therefore disclaim such authority.
II.
Certain Contentions Should Be Denied 1.
Supplemental Cooling Water.
Contention V-14, as rewritten by the Board, deals with esthetic impacts of the Point Pleasant Pumping Station.
These alleged impacts are clearly associated with its construction rather than its operation since hillside clearance and the use of embankment materials are quintessentially construction matters.
In any event, DRBC fully considered csthetic impacts in granting its final approval to NWRA to construct and operate the pumping station. 15/
i 13/
Id. at 85.
i 14/
Id. at 89.
Applicant does not at this time express any views on the validity or appropriateness of any possible action by the Director of NRR.
i 15/
See Final Environmental Assessment for the Nesl)aminy Water Supply System
("DRBC FEA")
at p.
2-34 (August 1980).
Thus, DRBC specifically found:
(Footnote _1_5_/ continued on next page).
5 E
Contentions V-15 and V-16a, relating to alleged adverse impacts on fish resources and recreational activities in the area of the intake structure, underscore the fact that unnecessary,, duplicative environmental review is being sought by Del-Aware. -16/
The intake structure location is
(
s s.
. l 15,/
(Continued) e I
N
\\
Adverse astheti'cd of the intake structure are not considered significant s
since the structure would have a low
" hen set into t'he river bank.
profile w
l Asthetics of the pumping station site kould not be adversely affected since tne arcr
-tural' design of the proposed structr
_s compatible with the charactm. of the community.
Although Del-Aware has cited the determination by the Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Officer that Point P1easant may be eligible for listing on the National Register, the Board has expressly determined that
" changes in the recognition of the historical value of areas which may be impacted by construction" are outside its jurisdiction.
Order at 86.
As noted in earlier pleadings, both DRBC and the Corps of Engineers have recognized their duty to comply with the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 with regard to the directive from the Pennsylvania Office of Historic Preservation that a determination of eligibility be requested for listing the Point Pleasant historic district on the National Register.
See DRBC Docket No.
65-76 CP ( 8 )
at p.
2 (February 18, 1981).
-16/
Preliminarily, Applicant must correct the misimpression which apparently exists regarding Applicant's Answer to the contentions.
The Board noted that Applicant did not address Contentions'V-16a, V-16b and V-16c.
Order at 97-98.
Those three contentions were not contained (Footnote M/ continued on next page)
one of a number of items presently being examined by the Corps of Engineers within its jurisdiction under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C.
5403.
No permit for the construction of the intake structure can or will be issued to NW'.tA unti-1 the Corps has completed its Environmental Assessment of the project. -17/
The Corps Of Engineers has requested the views of the M/
' Continued) in the original filing by the coordinating petitioners, but were listed on page 69 which was forwarded under separate cover by a
letter (undated, but received November 30, 1.981 by NRC Docketing and Service Branch) from counsel for LEA.
For whatever reason, undersigned counsel for Applicant never received the letter and did not learn of the missing page until after reading the Board's Order.
A copy was obtained from the NRC Public Document Room.
17/
As rhe Board is also aware, Del-Aware and its counsel in this proceeding are also pursuing this precise issue before the Corps.
The Court in the Delaware Water Emergency Group case ruled that the Corps' consideration of intake structure impacts would adequately satisfy the requirements of NEPA even though the presence of shortnose srurgeon in the vicinity of Point Pleasant was unknown prior to DRBC's final approval of the project.
The Court stated:
The concern appears to be primarily as to the design and construction of the intake facility.
This facility is presently being studied by the Corps of Engineers and requires permit approval by the Corps of Engineers, as well as final appro-val by the Executive Director of
. DRBC.
536 F.
Supp. at 46.
The Court noted that, in view of its statutory obligations, "the Corps of Engineers will be required to assess this latest information," and added that "NRC may also consider it in preparing an FEIS for an operating permit."
M. (emphasis added).
4
National Marine Fisheries Service
("NMFS") with regard to any possible adverse impact to shortnose sturgeon in the area and will also consider the views of other State and federal agencies as well as private commentors in determining whether the location of the intake structure as proposed will adversely impact fish resources in the area.
Obviously, the NRC would approach this item in the same
~
manner and, presumably, receive copies of the same opinions from NMFS and other commenting agencies which the Corps had already considered.
It is extremely doubtful that the NRC, which certainly has no special ichthyological expertise, would differ from the conclusions reached by the Corps. By the same token, Del-Aware should not have a second bite of the apple to litigate the issue of the intake structure's location.
The same considerations dispose of Contention V-16a.
All esthetic impacts, including any noise in the operation of the pumping station, will be considered by the Corps of Engineers.
Clearly, the Corps is the agency with greatest expertise to consider whether dredging maintenance activities will be unduly disruptive of local tranquility.
It is difficult to understand how the NRC could reach different conclusions or impose different conditions regarding these particular alleged impacts. 18/
18/
This contention likewise lacks specificity or basis.
No showing whatsoever is made that any unusual noise (Footnote M / continued on next page) l l
l
Contention V-16b, relating to alleged seepage of water and toxics from the Bradshaw Reservoir, is another example of a water contention which is completely lacking in factual basis.
Del-Aware has alleged that a
"10%
water loss" represents a " substantial risk of groundwater contamination and hydraulic saturation."
No basis for this figure is given.
In fact, the only 10% water loss determined by DRBC was the evaporative loss during conveyance from the Delaware River via the North Branch Neshaminy Creek and Perkiomen Creek. 19/
The mere allusion to unspecified " EPA studies on toxics" clearly does not provide specificity or basis to the claim that toxics exist or will be introduced via the Point Pleasant diversion.
As to the Bradshaw Reservoir in particular, no mechanism is described which indicates how or to what degree water will seep from the reservoir or how seepage will cause groundwater contamination or hydraulic l
saturation.
The contention also wholly ignores the consideration of water quality by DRBC at every stage of the project and by H/
(Continued) level will exist or that dredging maintenance will in any way affect the peace and tranquility of the Point Pleasant area. In fact, while possible environmental impacts from periodic dredging were considered by DRBC, it found no threat to the area's tranquility.
See DRBC FEA at pp.2-33 to 34.
lj/
See DRBC FEA at p.
2-35.
DRBC fully evaluated this particular impact and found it to be~ insignificant.
4
the NRC at the construction permit stage.
As noted in Applicant's earlier pleading, 20/ water quality issues were comprehensively considered by DRBC in adding the Point Pleasant Diversion to its Comprehensive Plan and reexamined again in its 1980 Environmental Assessment.
In particular, DRBC considered all possible environmental impacts created by construction and operation of the Bradshaw Reservoir, including possible water quality problems. bI No problem of seepage or risk of groundwater contamination and hydraulic saturation was found by DRBC.
The fact that DRBC, after considering all possible water quality issues, had nothing to report as to impacts from alleged seepage demonstrates that it found no indication of any such problem.
-22/
Additionally, all water quality matters related to Limerick were reviewed by by the NRC Staff in the FES at the construction permit stage. 23/
2.
Probabilistic Risk Assessment.
The Board has indicated that the general contention relating to I
l 2_0/
See Applicant's Answer at 79-82.
i 21/
See DRBC FEA at p. 2-50.
22/
See generally South Louisiana Environmental Council, Inc:
v.
Sand, 629 F.2d 1005, 1016 (5th Cir. 1980);
i Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
v.
TVA, 367 F.
Supp. 128, 131 (E.D.
Tenn. 1973), aff'd, 502 F.2d 852 (6th Cir. 1974).
l p/
See Applicant's Answer to Supplemental Petition of Coordinated Intervenors at 80 n.140.
j l
i l
probabilistic risk assessment ("PRA") is admissible, subject 24/
The Board, however, declined to rule to specification.
on the admissibility of the 32 individual PRA contentions, directing the parties to negotiate and prepare specific PRA contentions.
For the reasons outlined in its previous Answer to the contentions, Applicant takes the position that probabilistic risk assessment is not part of the licensing process and does not, therefore, give rise to litigable issues in this proceeding.
It is clear that even if the PRA model is adjudicated, the Commission will still have to evaluate the actual plant.
Only if the Commission decides that a PRA i
analysis is the only evaluation of the plant which needs be considered (i.e.,
in lieu of the regulatory requirements and guides), would the issue be appropriate.
Applicant again requests that the Board obtain guidance from the Commissioners as to the proper policy for the use of the PPA's.
Until the scope of the Staff's use of PPA is determined and particular contentions are admitted, all discovery on PRA contentions (including informal requests) should be held in abeyance.
3.
Quality Assurance.
In the discussion of its reasons for admitting Contention VI-1, the Board candidly 24/
Order at 112.
recognizes that the contention is deficient in lack of specificity and articulated bases.
The Board does not apparently disagree with Applicant's conclusion that the contention merely constitutes a
generalized attack on Applicant's Quality Assurance Program during the construction phase.
The Board nonetheless chose to admit the contention because of the Board's special concern for quality assurance.
It is submitted,
- however, that a
licensing board's sensitivity to a
particular r,ubject does not transform an otherwise vague and unacceptable contention into a proper issue for litigation.
Although the language of the Board's decision regarding this contention practically implies sua sponte consideration by the Board of Applicant's Quality Assurance Program, certainly no basis has been shown for the specific findings required under 10 C.F.R. 52.760a for sua sponte review.
The Board should not, by way of admitting an overly broad contention tantamount to sua sponte consideration, assume general oversight of Applicant's Quality Assurance activities.
This authority has been delegated to the Staff.
The Appeal Board has explained the respective duties of a
licensing board and the Staff in considering matters pertinent to licensing as follows:
Under the Commission's regime for operating license proceedings, a
Licensing Board's role is li~ited to m
resolving matters that are raised either by the parties or by the Board sua
i sponte.
All other matters that must be considered prior to the issuance of the requested operating license are the responsibility of 'the Director alone.
10 CFR 2.760a; Consolidated Edison Co.
(Indian
- Point, Units 1,
2 3),
(1976). gj*
ALAB-319, 3 NRC 188, 190 Under this
- standard, licensing boards are not authorized to admit nonspecific contentions merely because the subject matter is o'f special interest or the mere possibility exists that the basis of a properly specific contention might be discovered later.
The Board in the Perry proceeding made this important distinction when an intervenor sought to stay the case until alleged construction deficiencies could be investigated.
Specifi-cally, the petitioner alleged that the Licensing Board "may not license Applicant until this Board is satisfied that the construction complies with all legal requirements."
The Board explained the error in this assumption as follows:
This statement is incorrect in detail and in generality.
Our responsibility is to uphold the laws and regulations of the Commission and to decide our cases fairly.
We certainly are not sworn to certify that construction is either acceptable or unacceptable.
In
- addition, our responsibility is to adjudicate contentions raised by the parties plus important safety and environmental issues which we raise sua sponte, pursuant to Commission 25/
Duke Power Company (William B.
McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-669'(March 30, 1982) (slip op, at 2 n.1).
i j regulations.
We will not decide whether
" construction complies with all legal requirements" unless that issue is raised by an admitted contention or incorporated within a
sua sponte issue. 26_/
This Board should likewise not permit intervenors to roam at will through Applicant's Quality Assurance Program in the hope that some litigable issue at an indeterminate point in the future might be discovered.
Nor should the
- Board, in
- effect, exercise such general oversight ltself. 27/
In the Comanche Peak proceeding, the Commission expressly rejected the theory that the Licensing Board may use its power of sua sponte review as a management tool to control the general course of the proceeding.
The Commission stated:
The use of a
board's sua sponte authority as a potential case management tool may be easily disposed of.
The Board has confused its inherent power to shape the course of the proceeding, discussed at length in Offshore Power, supra at 201-208, with its limited authority under 10 CFR 2.760a to shape the issues of the proceeding.
The Commission wishes to make clear that the 26/
Cleveland Electric Illuminatine Company (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 & 2), Docket Nos. 50-440-OL and 50-441-OL, " Memorandum and Order" (March 2, 1982)(slip op, at 2).
27/
If the Board nonetheless determines that sua sponte review is required, it should formally determine so in a separate order and advise the Commission of its action.
Texas Utilities Generatinc Company (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-81-24, 14 NRC 614, 615 (1981).
17 -
l latter is not a substitute for or means to accomplish the former.
Indeed, taken to its logical conclusion, the Board's proposition could lead to the routine supervision of the staff's safety review until such time as the Board could evaluate the adequacy of the results of that review.
- However, the
~
assertion of' a
board's sua sponte authority to monitor or otherwise manage the course of a proceeding is not an appropriate use of this power granted licensing boards.
Accordingly, the apparent need to expedite a licensing proceeding or monitor the staff's progress in identifying and/or evaluating potential safety or environmental issues are not factors which authorize a board to exercise its sua sponte authority under 10 CFR 2.760a. M/
Thus, the Board should not admit an impermissible contention so that it may exercise, in essence, sua sponte authority to
" monitor the Staff's progress in identifying and/or evaluating potential safety or environmental issues (emphasis added]."
This contention should therefore be denied.
4.
Emergency Planning.
The Board has deferred a
decision on the admissibility of the emergency planning contentions except for Contention VIII-10, which it has admitted.
This contention relates to the adequacy of emergency plans for the evacuation of prisoners at Graterford Prison.
Applicant submits that the Board erred 28/
Texas Utilities Generating Company (Comaache Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), ~ CLI-81-36, 14 NRC 1111, 1113 (1981) (emphasis in original).
8
~
u
O.
in admitting "the Graterford Prisoners" as a party to the proceeding.
The evolution of the actual party admitted by the Board is certainly unusual if not unique.
On September 18, 1981, the National Lawyers Guild, Philadelphia Chapter
(" Guild")
filed a petition to intervene in this proceeding, stating, inter alia, its concern "with emergency planning for the Limerick plants in the event of an accident, particularly as such planning relates to Graterford prisoners."
Pursuant to the Board's Order of October 14, 1981, the Guild furnished the affidavits of five Graterford prisoners, which stated their concern with evacuation in the event of an emergency at Limerick.
The affiants authorized the Guild to represent them in this proceeding, but did not themselves seek party status either individually or as a group.
-29/
Without deciding the Guild's standing, the Board determined that "the Graterford Prisoners" would be admitted as a
" consolidated party" in lieu of the
- Guild, which it designated as the prisoners' counsel.
The Board's action in substituting the Graterford prisoners for the Guild as the entity seeking admission as a party is not authorized by the Commission's rules for intervention, which clearly require that the individual seeking party status must himse_lf file a
petition to intervene.
Under no tenable interpretation of the
-29/
Additional affidavits along the same lines were filed by the Guild on December 3, 1981.
_.19 _
Commission's precedents may individuals or a
group be admitted as parties on the basis of a petition filed by another organization seeking party status for itself rather than the individuals or group whose interests it purports to assert.
The concept that the actual intervenor's identity may be determined after responses to the petition is anathema to the Commission's Rules of
- Practice, the Administrative Procedure Act and due process.
The Board should therefore deny _the petition of the Guild and dismiss "the Graterford Prisoners" as a party to the proceeding.
Conclusion For the reasons discussed more fully above, the Board should amend its Order to withdraw its stated intention to consider a possible stay of constructica at Point Pleasant.
It should also deny the contentions discussed above and dismiss "the Graterford Prisoners" as a
party to the proceeding.
Finally, the Board should seek further guidance from the Commission regarding the PRA contentions.
Respectfully submitted, CONNER & WETTERHAHN, P.C.
Tror A nner, Jr.
U Mark J. Wetterhahn Robert M.
Rader Counsel for the Applicant Of Counsel:
Eugene J.
Bradley Philadelphia Electric Company 2301 Market Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101
]
June 17, 1982
- 9 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t- ~ ~. i. :r 7 ;. c.Q l[,,,f.Ap' '
In the-Matter of
)
)
Philadelphia Electric Company
)
Docket Nos. 50-352
)
50-353 (Limerick Generating Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicant's Objections to Special Prehearing Conference Order," dated June 17, 1982 in the captioned matter have been served upon the following by deposit in the United States mail this 17th day of Ju e n
1982.
Judge Lawrence Brenner Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Docketing and Service Section Judge Richard F. Cole Office of the Secretary Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Board Commission U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C.
20555 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Stephen H.
Lewis, Esq.
Counsel for NRC Staff Judge Peter A. Morris Office of the Executive Atomic Safety and Licensing Legal Director Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 W
g
-. ~ -. - - -
n w
Atomic Safety and Licensing Philadelphia Electric Company Board Panel ATTN:
Edward G. Bauer, Jr.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Vice President &
Commission General Counsel Washington, D.C.
20555 2301 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19101 Mr. Frank R.
Romano 61 Forest Avenue Robert W. Adler, Esq.
Ambler, PA 19002 Assistant Counsel Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Mr. Charles B.
Taylor DER 24 West Tenth Avenue 505 Executive T suse Collegeville, PA 19426 P.O.
Box 2357 Harrisburg, 7,1 17120 Mr. Robert L. Anthony
- 103 Vernon Lane Thomas Gerusky, Director Moylan, PA 19065 Bureau of Radiation Protection Department of Environmental Mr. Marvin I.
Lewis Resources 6504 Bradford Terrace 5th Floor, Fulton Bank Bldg.
Philadelphia, PA 19149 Third and Locust Streets Harrisburg, PA 17120 Samuel & Clarissa B.
Cooper P.O.
Box 16 Director Colora, Maryland 21917 Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency Judith A. Dorsey, Esq.
Basement, Transportation and 1315 Walnut Street Safety Building Suite 1632 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Philadelphia, PA 19107 John Shniper, Esq.
Charles W.
Elliott, Esq.
Hy Mayerson, P.C.
123 N.
5th Street Meeting House Law Bldg. and Suite 101 Gallery Allentown, PA 18102 Mennonite Church Road Schuylkill Road Mr. William Lochstet Spring City, PA 19475 119 E. Aaron Drive State College, PA 16804 Steven P.
Hershey, Esq.
Community Legal Services, Inc.
Mr. Alan J. Nogee Law Center North Central 3700 Chestnut Street Beury Building Philadelphia, PA 19104 3701 North Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19140 Mr. Steven Levin 11 Beard Circle James M.
Neill, Esq.
Phoenixville, PA 19460 Box 511 Dublin, PA 18917 4
~
Donald S. Bronstein, Esq.
Robert J. Sugarman, Esq.
1425 Walnut Street Sugarman & Denworth Philadelphia, PA 19102 Suite 510, North American Bldg.
121 South Broad Street Mr. Joseph H. White, III Philadelphia, PA 19107 11 South Merion Avenue Bryn Mawr, PA 19010 W. Wilson Goode
~
Managing Director Dr. Judith H. Johnsrud City of Philadelphia Co-Director, ECNP Philadelphia, PA 433 Orlando Avenue State College, PA 16801 Ann P.
Hodgden, Esq.
Elaine I. Chan, Esq.
Walter W.
Cohen, Esq.
Counsel for NRC Staff Consumer Advocate Office of the Executive
' Office of Attorney General Legal Director 1425 Strawberry Square U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Harrisburg, PA 17120 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 2.
Robert M.
Racer Counsel for the Applicant e
e
- i i i enW
..g...;y...............,...
FC? 7"E TMIFC CIFCUIT e
N3. 81-2622 l
l DELAWARE WATEP EMERGENCY GPOUP, PUCKS l
COUNTY ACCC2CN SOCIETY, BUCTS COUNTY LAND USE TASK TORCE, LIMERICK ECOLCGY ACTION, i
CENTRAL PUCKS CLEAN EMERGY COLLCCTIVE, l
l DELAMARE SHAD TISHERMAN'S ASSOCIATION, 1
INC., McBRIEN THOMAS W., JR., KINSMAN, l
CRAHAM and KINSMAN, MICHELE C.,
his wife.
BANNING, RITA, IITIER, PHYLLIS and' TOWN 3 HIP Cr SUCKIMHAM '
Accellants, vs.
HANSLER, 0ERALD M.,
individually and as Executive Director of the DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSICN and DELEWARE RIVER BASIN
~
COMMISSION, and PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY deft.-intervenor and NESHAMINY WATER RESCURCIS AUTHORITY deft.-intervenor Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 80-4372)
Argued March 15, 1982 Eefore: ALOISERT, VAN CUSEN, and GARTH, Circuit Judces.
JUDGMENT ORCER After consideratien of all contentions raised.by appellants, and for the reasons set forth in the district court epinien by the Henceable Conald W. VanArtsdalen, celaware Water Emercenev Grece v. Hansler, Civ. No. 80-4372 (E.O.Pa. August 17, 1981); it is ADJUDGED ANO CRDERED that the judgment of the district court be and is hereby affir:ed.
Costs taxed against appellants.
BY THE COURT, b/ fr eW Ci7c'ul-Juege Attest:
(?
/ *l U AWL 1
Chief $s::w,
C. err DATED:
March 19. 103:
4
.I RELATED CORRESPONDEN(B UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-'d l
In the Matter of
)
c; JUN A11:55
)
Philadelphia Electric Company
)
Docket Nos. 50-352,i
)
50-353 N,.45U-
- 3""'"a (Limerick Generating Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
AFFIDAVIT OF GERALD M. HANSLER STATE OF NEW JERSEY )
i
)
ss:
COUNTY OF MERCER
)
GERALD M. HANSLER, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says:
1.
I am the Executive Director of the Delaware River Basin Commission.
In this capacity, I am the individual in charge of the preparation and issuance of the Environmental Assessment and Negative Declaratien issued by DRBC in connection with Docket Nos. D-65-76CP (8) and D-79-52CP, issued on February 18, 1981, which granted final approval by DRBC under Section 3.8 of the DRBC 1
Compact for the Point Pleasant Diversion Plan.
I am personally familiar with the records of the DREC in these proceedings.
1 2.
Except as noted hereafter, I certify that the Federal representative has participated and cencurred in each of the docket decisions leading up to and culminating in the Commission's final Section 3.8 approval to the Point Pleasant Diversion Plan, to wit:
Docket No. D-65-76CP (2), dated January 25, 1967 Docket No. D-70-242CP, dated January 29, 1971 Docket No. D-65-76CP (3), dated March 17, 1971 Docket No. D-69-210CP, dated March 29, 1973
.?
_2_
~
Docket No. D-69-210CP (Final), dated November 5,1975 and Docket No. D-65-76CP (8), dated February 18, 1981 Docket No. D-79-52CP, dated February 18, 1981.
- 3. 'The Federal representative abstained from voting on Docket No. D-65-76CP (3), without prejudice, at the request of the U.S. Environ-mental Protection Agency so they could further evaluate the environmental impacts of the project within that docket.
A notice of "noncurrence" was not-thereafter filed by the Federal representative as provided for in Subsection (s) 2 of Section 15.1 of DRBC's Compact.
Further, the Federal representative supported the project at a later date when the Federal Commissioners to the DRBC voted in f avor of Docket Nos. D-69-21CP (Final),
dated November 5,1975, D-65-76CP (8), dated February 18, 1981, and D-79-52CP, dated February 18, 1981.
Girald M. Ednslfr Sworn to and subscribed before me this 15th day of June,19 82.
/ftzW
/
Notary Public of New Jersey My Commission Expires November 18, 1985 h
n
~
RELATED CORRESPONDENGt
..u
.;-(..
32 d"l p t.h..--
FACSIMILE 33
- Nf UNITED STATES OF AMERICA I d,5 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'2Aldy~.
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of
)
)
Philadelphia Electric Company
)
Docket Nos. 50-352
)
50-353 (Limerick Generating Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
AFFIDAVIT OF ROBERT A.
FLOWERS Robert A.
Flowers, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says:
1.
I am the Executive Director of the Neshaminy Water Resources Authority and have been authorized by NWRA to make this affidavit on its behalf.
2.
In Docket No. D-65-76 CP (8), issued February 18,
- 1981, the Delaware River Basin Commission gave final approval under Section 3.8 of the DRBC Compact to the construction of proposed modifications to the Neshaminy Creek Watershed Plan, which included construction of the Point Pleasant Pumping Station and related transmission lines, which -will furnish supplemental water supplies to water-short areas of Central and Bucks Counties.
a a
- \\
3.
These components constitute a
portion of the overall Point Pleasant diversion plan, which was approved in Docket No. D-65-76 CP (8) and Docket No. D-79-52 CP, also issued ;on February 18, 1981.
The latter decision granted final Section 3.8 approval to the components of the Point Pleasant diversion plan applicable to the Philadelphia Electric Company.
4.
NWM is committed to construct the Neshaminy Water Supply System authorized by Docket No. D-65-76 CP (8) with or without Philadelphia Electric Company.
/s/
Robert A.
Flowers Sworn to and subscribed before me this 16th day of June, 1982.
/s/
Irma R.
Backhouse Notary Public My commission expires June 12, 1986.
[ SEAL)
O FACSIMILE
DOCKET NO. D-69-210 CP DELAWARE RIVER DASIN COMMISSION
~
Philadelphio Electric Company Limerick Nuclear Generating Station Limerick Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania PROCEEDINGS This is on opplication submitted by the Phijndolphin Electric Company to the Delaware River Basi.3 Commission on March 5,1970, for review of a proicci to withdraw surface water and discharge wastewater used in the operation of a proposed nuclear-fueled steom-electric generating station consisting of two nuclear units. By letter dated July 30, 1971, the Philadelphia Electric Company amended its original application to include emergency shutdown wolor supply. Meanwhile, a special public hearing on the project, together with the concurrently pending Newbold Island project, was held by this Commission on July 16, 1970. This hearing was for the stated purpose of receiving testimony on the effects of these two projects on the water resources in the creo.
Le opplication was reviewed for inclusion of the proicct in the Comprehensive Plan and approval under Section 3.8 of the Delaware River Basin Compact. The opplicant hos also filed two apphcotions, for on industrial waste permit covering efiluents from the proposed station and for o stream encroachment permit for intake and ouf foll structures, with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's Department of Enviionmenici Resources.
(Po DER). Lese are expected to be forwarded to the Commission under Administrative Ag. cements, offer action 'ay the department.
An application for a construction permit is pending before the Atomic Energy Comminion as Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353.
CCMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESCRIP TION Purcose -- The purpose of this project is the construction and operatiers of a nuclear power plant with two units having a not electrical capacity of 1100 megawatts each, with circulating cooling water for the sfcom turbines to be funnidied from cooling towers with makeup water to be drawn from the Schuylkill River or Perkiomen Creek.
location -- The project will be located on a 587-ocre site on the east bank j
of the Schuylkill River, in Limerick Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, about i.7 miles south of the nearest part of the Borough of Poristown. A water inicke i
structure will be located on the Schuylkill River or river mile 92.47 - 40.22 and a blowdown and liquid weste discheroe structure will be located or river mile 92.47 - 47.94 An additional water inicke structure will be located on Perkiomen Creek of river mile
- 92. 47 - 32.3 - 10.5, from which water will be pumped by pipeline to the power plant site.
{V 311 A
2.
Service Arco -- The Philadelphia Electric Company will be the sole owner of the Limerick project and the power developed at the plant will be distributed s
throughout its service creo. The power will cIso be uvailable for transmission to other creas via the Pennsylvanio-New Jersey-Moryland Interconnection.
Physical footures -- (c) Facilities: The main facilities at the site will be two reac_ tor buildings, two turbine buildings, two hyperbolic cooling towers, admin-istrative building, service buildings, fuel handling building, and water treottnent building.
Trie principal structures involved in the cooling water system are:
(1) Water intoke structures, both on the Schuylkill River and on the Perkiomen Creek to furnish non-consumptive needs and makeup water to cooling towers. The opplicant states that these intake structures will be designed, installed, cperated and maintained in accordance with oil state, federal and Commission requirements.
(2)
Two hyperbolic natural-d4 aft cooling towers, each approximately 475 feet in diameter at the base and 500 feet high.
~
(3) Pumping stations and aipelines to move the required quantities of water.
(b) Water Requirements: The water requirements of the plant are made up of consumptive, non-consumptive, and emergency shutdown use as follows:
/
Consumptive Use Non-ceasumotive Use I unit 2 units I unit 2 units Normal Ceerating Avercge rote - cfs (msd) 27 (17.5) 54 (35) 10 (6.5) 20 (12.9)
Maximum rate - cfs (msd) 33 (21.3) 65 (42) 12 (7. 8) 22 (14.2)
Emergency Shutdown
- Average rate - cts (mgd) 31 (20)
Maximum rote - cfs (mgd) 38 (24.7)
ACTION BY ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION STAFF Tne applicant, in accordance with established procedures, hos applied to the Atomic Energy Commission for a construction permit (which would ultimately be followed of'c later sfoge by on operoling permit). During the course of the proceedings before the AEC, staff concluded that it would not be appropriate to assume at this time that 'ho large quantiti'es of water required by the project would necessotily be ovoilable from the Tocks Island Dom and Reservoir which has been designed by the Corps of Engin-eers but is still awaiting clecronce from the CEO. Accordingly, the AEC Director of Licensing, on November 30, 1972, wrote to the applicant stating:
3 y
- (Emerriency Shuidown the - Eis use assumes both coolinre towers knocked out by YdC k
'l "In view of this uncertainly, you are requested to furnish evidence of a firm commitment, not contingent on the opproval of the Tocks Island project, from the Delaware 4
River Bosin Commission to allocale the required amount of water for plant operation. The reguietary staff will not recommend that a construction permit for Limerick Generating Station be issued until all oppropriate and necessary permits, certification, and allocation to assure on odequate supply of water have been obtained from the Delaware River Basin Commission."
Effect of NEPA -- The opplicant, thus borred from further consideration by the AEC, pending resolution of its water supply problem, thereupon pressed this Commission for favorable action upon its long pending opplication for opproval under Section 3.8 of the Compact, upon which a special public hearing had been held in July 1970 In view of the NEPA, however, the Commission, as o federal-interstate body, cannot opprove the project until the full disclosure provisions of NEPA have been satisfied.
in December 1972, a draft environmental statement was circulosed by the AEC sicff in accordance with cpplicable guidelines..This Commission and 12 other federal, state and local ogencies have been requested to comment on the draft statement (o document of some 500 pages). Such comments have been prepared by this Commis-sion's stoff and are about to.be cpproved by the Commission for forwarding to AEC.
O The AEC draft statement of December 1972 concludes es follows:
"7.
On the basis of the enolysis and evoluotion set forth' in this Statement, offer weighing the environmental, economic, technical, and other benefits of Limerick Storion,
- Units 1 and 2, egoinst environmental costs and considering available alternatives, it is concluded that the action coiled for under NEPA and Appendix D to 10 CFR Part 50 is the issuonce of a construction permit for the facility as described subject to the following conditions for protection of the environmen t... '
"8.
Tnis Draft Environmental Statement has been prepored based upon the assumption that the Delaware River Dosin Commissica will issue o permit for allocation of an odequate water supply for the Point Pleasant Diversion pioject.
Scrious questions have been raised concerning ibis assumption.
We have concluded that until the question of water avail-ability is resolved, we will not continue the licensing process further than issuing the Draft Environmental Statement and evolucting the resulting comments."
i V
i 90/ N-
'j Q
4 5
j'f It is thus clear frcm lho AEC letter of Novemb Delowere River Cb.in Commission to act u concluding
- k colling upon the opplication before this Commission before o final environment y aspects of the y
will be prepared.
9 a
mpact statement
/
proceed under NEPA in the obsence of a
'n Section 102 of NEPA.
moy lawfully Section 5(b) of the CEO Guidelines in the environm c statement under j
bring that process to o conclusion unless this Commission first ssment process will not J
c s.
l of some form of action which would comply wi I
s ommission resolve the legitimate concerns of AEC.
spirit of NEPA and also n
i uniquely complicated type of project under considerationihe problem I
is involved and the major federal actions signific, where more than one ogency human environment are divided but inter-related omong the invo CEO Guidelines for the preparation of Section 102 stater.;ents u ved agencies. The l
have suggested the use of a " lead agency" concept r these circumstances CEO hos advised as follows:
l "Whichever procedure is f' llowed, the two critical o
tions inherent in the provisions of Section 5(h) cre:
considero-of the entire project; and (2) preparation of the 102 sta irreversible action with respect to the pr f- -
Ass'n v. Stans, 23 ERC 1418 (10th Cir.
See Upper Pecos s
pending, 40 USLW 3444 No. 71-1133, Mar. 6,1972. "
- the legal and administrative constroints which have b pro;eeding, given of such consideration in such a way that its ac on, and to act in light
~
under Section 102 of NEPA.unless and until on environmenta o environmental effect opprovals which are required under the Delowere Rive may proceed, and by making any water allocation specificalln Compact before o acceptance by the CEO of the environmental impact stateme ty contingent upo the lead agency.
irreversible in its effect on the human environIn the Commissio n
major nor particularly in view of the unique inter-relationship of the AEC as the proce'eding before this Commission.
o agency" with t
i
- Some cose, 452 F. 2d 1223, certioiori granted but di challenged was withdrawn.
smissed as moot offer action
N I
t/oM
5.
FINDINGS s
According to the Commission's projections of water demand throv0 out the basin h
, and of the available water supply, there would be insufficient supply without the Tocks Island Reservoir to meet the needs of the opplicant together with other basinwide needs.
(See staff report, " Water Demands in the Delowere River Bosin as Related to the Tocks Island Reservoir Project - November 1971", and Section 2-3.4 of the Comprehensive Plon,Section X,4Yeter Quality Standards for the Delowere River Bcsin.)1The doctrine of eovitable opportionment would not permit the opproval of the water supply aspects of the cpplication under such circumstances, unicss other corrpensating sources of water supply are developed To require the opplicent to await the outccme of the environmental and economic assessment of the Tocks Islcnd project which is currently under way, however, could greatly prejudice the public interest in hcving adequate electric power supplies available to meet the antic-ipoted demand. Since it will be several years before the project will ocluolly need a water supply, and the Tocks Island questions con mconwhile be resolved one way or the other, it would be both equitable and prudent to perrnit the project to proceed, given the safeguard of an alternative source of water supply if Tocks Island were not to be available.
Within this fremework of decision, the Commission finds:
Sources of Water Suooly 1.
Schuylkill River Schuylkill River water et the plcnt site may be used for nonconsumptive use whenever r) the effluent dischcrged back to the river meets all cpplicable water quality stenderds.
Schuylkill River water et the plant mey be used for consumptive use when flow (not including future cugmentctions of flow from Commission-sponsored projects) es measured at the Pottstown gege is in excess of 530 cfs (342 mgd) with one unit in operation end 560 cfs (362 mgd) with two units in operation with the following exceptions:
(c) ihere shall be no withdrawals when river water temperatures below the Limerick station ore cbove 150 C except during April, May and June when the flow as measured at the Pottstown sage
-is in excess of 1791 cfs (1158 mgd).
(b) Use of the Schuylkill River will be limited to a withdrawal ihot will result in on effluent that meets all opplicable water quality standards.
The constroints on nonconsumptive use of Schuylkill River wnter oie necessary to prevent violation of total dissolved solids, strecrn quality objectives and cIIlucri qualily requirements of the Commission's water quality regulations. The constioint on. consumptive use of Schuylkill River water is to protect water qucntity and woler qualily below the limerick Storion. Both sets of constraints would be suspended in the event of any operational emergency requiring a shutdown of the plant.
d 5
=-
g,
- 2. Perkiomen Creek i
Perkiomen Creek water may be used when flows os measured at the Grolerfoid gage are in excess of 180 efs (116 mgd) with one unit in operation and 210 cis (136 mgd) with two units in operation, exclusive of any water pumped from the Delowere River.
The constraint on the use of Perkiomen Creek water would permit the use only when tRe flow at Groterford was above the long-term medien flow of 150 cfs.
- 3. Delaware River The Delaware River, cs cugmented for the purpose of water supply by upstream reservoirs may be used via the Point Pleasant pumping facilitics, o pipeline, the East Branch of Perkiomen Creek and Perkiomen Creek with the limitations that such use will not reduce the flow as mecsured at the Trenton gage below 3000 cis (1940 mgd), and that such use will not be permitted when the flow as measured at the Trenton gege is less than 3000 cfs (1940 mgd), provided that ennually citer pumping from the Delaware River has commenced, the rate of pumping will be maintained at not less than 27 cfs (17.5 mgd) throughout the normal low flow secson for the protection of aquatic life in Perkiomen Creek cnd its East Branch rescrdless of ul.timcte downstream consumptive use requirements. During periods of high naturcI flow in East Brcnch Perkiomen Creek, pumping from Point Pleascnt shcIl be kept et a level so os not to oggravate high water levels.
y lhis constraint would prohibit the use of the Delawcre River wafer when such use wculd reduce the flow in the river at the Trenten sage below 3000 cfs, whi:.h is required to meet the salinity objective in the estucry of 250 mg/l at mile 92.47 (mout' of the Schuylkill River).
Other The facilities, techniques and procedures for the disposal of liquid, solid and gaseous westes, as described in the cpplication end supporting documents, and their effect on water quality, and the adequacy of the applic=nt's proposed progrcm of monitoring the environment cenrior be evolucted without cn environmental impact statement
[
required by low.
DECISION
- 1. Full consideration of the project, es described above, including Compre-hensive Plan cddition end section 3.8 review, is deferred pending the completion of on environmental impoet statement as required by law.
11. The water supply features of the pioicct nre condilinnally opproved.within the limitations of the abovo Findings, cnd subject to tho following conditions:
I Approval is subject to cil condiriens imposed by the United States c.
Atomic Energy Commission end the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources,
- t.
and it Is subject to further review cnd modifications in cecordance with the findings of on environmental Irnnnet etnf r*m, nt, inr wn' ich 'hn A rnmie Fnarm, f~amm *..ien i t he 1 _
- b. Whenever the ficw constraints cited in the clieve Findings prevent the opplicent from operating the plant at full load, the oppliennt shall operate the plant only at such percentones of full load as the available water supply allows, as determined by the Commission.
Prior to January 1,1977, the Commission will, in its sole discretion, c.
determine the adequacy of the then existing storage fucilitics on the Delaware River or its tributories together with odditional stornge to be built to supply oil needs (includins the applicant's) for water supply frorn that source by the year 1980. If the Commission then determines that the storage will not be adequate for all projected needs of the basin, the applicant will build or cause to be built, or its own expense, at a location opproved by the Commission, for service in 1980, o reservoir of sufficient storage copocity to assure the water supply needed for consumptive use by the Limerick plant, during periods when such use would reduce the flow in the Delaware River at the Trenton gage below 3000 cis. Storage and release of water in such facility will be under the Commission's regulation, of the expense of the opplicant.
d.
Beginning one year prior to the first commercial operation date of Unit I at the Limerick plant, the opplicant will pay for metered quantities of water withdrawn thereafter at the several locations described above. The price of waters so taken from the Schuylkill River, Perkiomen Creek, and the Delowore River will be determined in accordance with the Commissions'.woter supply policy, heretofore adopted or os may be amended hereafter.
Ill. Prior to any use, withdrawal or taking of water pursuant to this decision, the opplicant shall re-submit the project pursuant to Section 3.8 of the Compact, and
, f- -
this decision shall not be construed to commit the Commission to any particular final action nor will such action be tcken unless ond until it is justified by a finbl environ-mental impact storement.
BY THE COMMISSION DATED: March 29,1973 e
W y
yerA I
.,)..
DOCKET NO. D-69-210 CP (Final)
~
9^ 1.
DELAWARE RIVER DASIN COMMISSION
^
Philadelphic Electric Company Limerick Nucicar Generating Siction Limerick Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania PROCEEDINGS This is on opplication submitted by the Philadelphia Electric Company to the Delowore River Basin Commission on March 5,1970, foi review of a project to withdraw surface water and discharge wastewater used in the operation of a proposed nuclear-fueled stcom-electric generating station consisting of two nuclear units. By letter dated July 30, 1971, the Philadelphia Electric Company amended its original opplication to include emergency shutdown water supply. The oppli-cation was reviewed for inclusion of the project in the Comprehensive Plan and cpproval under Section 3.8 of the Delowere River Basin Compact.
A special public hearing on the project was held by this Commission on July 16, 1970.
This hearing was for the stated purpose of receiving testimony on the effects of the project on the water resources in the creo. A second public hearing was held on January 23,1974 to hear addi-
\\
\\
tional testimony on the project.
.s R,
u
'i The project has been opproved by the Pennsylvanic Department of Environmental Resources,
' out it is withholding its permit until the project is opproved by the Delewore River Basin Commission.
- m. 2-J-
- .. =.
The Atomic Energy Commission (now Nuclear Rcoulatory Commission) was responsible os
~
lead agency, for preparing the Environmental Impact Statement. It decided to stop proceedings until this Commission gave adequate assurance that on adequate water supply would be available for the project. As o result, this Commission opproved the project for withdrawal of surface water subjeet to conditions,os specified in Decket D-69-210 CP on March 29,1973 (herein " decision of March 29,1973"), subject to o final environmental impact statement.
The Atomic Energy Commission filed its Final Environmental impact Statement with the Council on Environmental Quality in. November,1973 and issued on Initial Decision authorizing the release of the construction permits on June 14, 1974. The Final Environmental Impact Statement hos been oppealed through the Nucloor Regulatory Commission ("NRC") procedures of review by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ("LicensinD Board") and the Atomic Sofety nnd Licensing Appeal Board (" Appeal, Board"). The decision of the Appcol Board become administrativciy final on May 23,1975 and appeal therefrom is now pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Meanwhile the project is under construction.
The application is now again before this Commission for fino! decision, consistent with the
(
findings and conclusions of the decision of March 29, 1973.
n
D-69-210 CP (Final)-
Shtct 2 Proceedings Q
The present phase of Commission consideration was initicled when the Commission published notice of intention to act upon Docket No. D-69-210 CP (Supplemer.t No.1)of its July 31,1974 meet-ing, and objecUons were filed by the Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power (" objector"). The Executive Director acting under the Administrative Monvol, deferred further consideration by the Commission, and scheduled on adversary hearing on the objections. The Chairman of the Com-mission oppointed Honorable Sidney Goldman as hearing examiner, and Judge Goldman conducted a hearing upon the objections on August 14, 1974. At the hearing, o voluminous record of rele-vont documents were marked in evidence by consent, including pertinent parts of the testimony taken before the Atomic Energy Commission (now Nuclear Regulertory Ccmmission).
The hearing examiner has submitted on able and scholarly report. It was duly served upon the opplicant, the objector and counsel to the Commission. Pursunnt to the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the objector filed objectiens to the report, requesting oral orgument before the Commissien. Meanwhile on August 18, 1975 Judge Goldinen, by letter to the Ex.ecutive Director, re,~ ted that he had thoroughly reviewed the objections and found no reason to amend his The Commission heard oral orgument by counsel for the objector and the opplicant on August report.
27, 1975. The Commission's decision on this espect of the cose is incorporated below.
~
I DESCRIPTION t
Purpose.-- The purpose of this project is the construction and operation of a nuclear power plant witn two units having a net electrical capacity of 1,055 megewetts each, with circulating cooling water for the steem turbines to be furnished from cooling towers with make-up water to be drawn from the Schuylkill River or Perkiomen Creek.
l.ccation,--The project will be located on a 587 acre site on the cost bank of the Schuyl-kill River, in Limerick Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, about 1.7 miles south of the nearest part of the Borough of Pottstown. A water inloke structure will be located on the Schuylkill River or river mile 92.47 - 48.22 and a blowdown and liquid weste discharge structure will be lo-cated at river mile 92.47 - 47.94. An additional water intoko structure will he located on Perkie-men Creek at river mile 92.47 - 32.3 - 10.5, from which water will be pumped by pipeline to the power plant site.
Service orec.-- The Philodelphia Electric Company will be the sole owner of the Limerick The project and the power developed of the plant will be distribuleJ throughout ils service creo.
power will also be availabic for transmission to other orcos via the Pennsylvanio-New Jersey-Mory-s land interconnection.
V
D-69.-210 CP (Final)
Sheet 3 D'escription O
Physical features. (c) Facilitics.-- The main facilities of the site will be two reactor e
buildings, two turbine buildinos, two hyperbolic cooling towers, administrative building, service buildings, fuel handling building, and water treciment building.
The description of the coo' ling water system and the proposed operating water requirements remain as described in Docket D-69-210 CP, March 29, 1973. A copy of that Docket Decision is attached hereto for referencc.
Other facilities of mojor concern to this Commission because of potential substantial effect on the water resources of the Basin are os follows:
- 1. Water intake structurcs-The intake structuic pioposed for withdrawal of water from the Schuylkill River will permit water to enter the front and sides ihrough trosh bors. The water then posses through traveling screens into o pipeline to the pump station. The intoke on Perkiomen Creek will be similar but the pumps will be installed in the structure housing the intakes.
Both structures are designed to limit the velocity of the water opptcoching the traveling screens to o maximum of 3/4 foot per second.
- 2. Westewater dischorce structurc-The wastewatcr dischoige structure wili be of
'[
the multi port diffuser type. Westewater will be piped to the center of the Schuylkill River and then q
flow into a 30 inch diameter diffuser pipe beoding toward the shore. The diffuser pipe will have 400 one inch diameter outlet holes to insure rapid mixing and will be installed in the river bed.
Liquid westes will be discharged vio this diffuser outfall and will consist of the follow-ing:
- a. Licuid radioactive wastes (radwestes) will be handled by four basic equeous li-quid collection and treciment subsystems and on ervisonment discharge subsystem. The collection and treatment subsystems are: (1) the equipment-drain subsystem for low-conductivity westes(high-purity water); (2) the floor-drain subsystem for high conductivity wasics; (3) the chemical-drain sub-system for solution westes; and (4) the laundry-drain subsystem for cleaning ogent wastes.
Tonks, equipment, and piping that contain liquid rudioactive wastes are en-closed within redweste areas in buildings or tunnels and are shielded where acquired to permit operation, inspection, and meintenance. Any equipment thnt handles potentially radioactive water located outside the plant building structures will be enclosed within water-tight dikc struc-In the event of lecks, spills, or overflows from this equipment, sumps would collect liquid tures.
from each such dike structures, and the liquid would be either drained by gravity to the liquid rod-
. waste system for processing or would be released to the storm sewers if, offer testing for Gross radio-activity, these liquids met the criteria for release to the environment. Any spillage, leakage, or overflows that occur within the building will be contained in the building, thus assuring no re-leases to the environment.
L.c
)
4'c M
Sheet 4 D-69-210 CP (Final)
Description - Ciquid radiocctive westes s
Normally, aqueous liquid rodwestes frorn the Limerick Station would be released cnly from the !cundry drain subsystem. These liquids will be diluted with cooling-tower blowdown before being released to the Schuylkill River. The resulting concentration of any rodwestes dis-charged into the river will be less than one percent of the maximum permissible concentration (ex-ciuding tritium) of I X 10 7#Ci/ml. specified in the AEC regulations (10 CFft 20). The amount of liquid radio-octive wastes discharged will normally not exceed 0.00545 mgd.
- b. Cooling tower blowdown. Consumptive evaporative losses of water in the cool-ing towers will require overage blowcown of 13.0 regd. Because the dissolved solids content of Schuylkill River water is considerably higher then that which would be drown from the Perkiomen Creek, the maximum increase in dissolved solids content is expected to occur os a result of blow-This down discharges to the Senvylkill when 100% of make-up water is drawn from that stream.
increase in concentration is e.xpected to overage about 11.6% iust below the blowoff discharge pipe or 50 mg/l (430 mg/l to 480 mg/l). However, this concentration will be diluted by flow from the Perkiomen further downstream so that overoll overage increase in concentration et that point will amount only to 4%.
s When the measured flow at the Pottstown Duge is less then 342 mgd (530 cis) when one unit is operating or 362 mgd (560 cis) when both units are operating, make-up water will taken from Perkiomen Creek. Water taken from Perkiomen Creek will ha dissolved solids and therefore the bicwdown will have lower dissolved solid r
).
critical low flow in the Schuylkill River, the blowdown willincrease the dissolved solids concentro-tion in the Schuylkill River cpproximately 2.5%.
The thermal effects of blowdown would be most critical at extreme low flow peri-It is estimated that mid-summer blowdown would have o temperature of 90 F, chout ods in summer.
6.2 F obove the river temperature of 83.80F ond ther heet odded to lhe river would be about 0.027
~ x 10 BTU per hour which is only about 0.17% of the weste heat handled by the cooling tower sys-9 tem, 99.83% of which would be discharged to the atmosphere. The discharge of blowdown would be from a submerged pipeline with outiars spaced to effect rapid mixing with approximately half the flow of the river. For the design low flow of 149 mgd (230 cis), os measured at Pottstown, the
' heat content of the blowdown would raise hof f the design flow, 74.5 mgd (115 cfs), from its back-ground temperature of 83.8 F to cbout 84.9 F.
c.
Chemical odditives. Various chemicals would be odded to the water in the storion for quality control and for control of fouling organisms on hcot-exchanger and piping surfaces. The regeneront westes from the plant make-up water dcmincrolizing system would be discharged to the river via the blowdown system. The added solids content of Ihe dischame woler duc to the use of chemicals will be about 324 pounds per day. This would odd on incremenial dissolved-solids con-centration of 3.0 mg/l to the 13.0 med (20 cis) discharge fiom the sta' tion. After mixing with the seven-day, ten-year low flow of 149 mod (230 cis) os measured at Pottstown, which is expected to have o maximum dissolved-solids concentration of 500 mg/l, the mixture would have o maximum concentration of 500.29 mg/l. This increment of dissolved solids added by the Limerick plant would
..(
have no measurobic effect on the water quality of the Schuylkill River.
.},
%A a
fI D-67-210 CP (Final)
Sheet 5 Dascripti:n 75
~
d.
Sanitary sowoge wastewater: A small scwoge trcotment plant will be con-structed to serve the personnel at 'the site. The maximum sewage flow will occur during construc-tion end is estimated to be 37,500 gallons per day. During construction, the treatment plant will operate os a corUoet stabilization plant, and then, when serving only the permanent personnel, it will be operated using the extended aerotion process. The plant is designed to remove 85% of the BOD 5 and 90% suspended solids and the treated effluent will be chlorinated for disinfection. The sewoge treciment plant is not of sufficient size to require a Delaware River Bosin Commission re-view; however, the treatment plant hos been reviewed by the Pennsylvenic Department of Environ-mental Resources. The Pennsylvanic Department of Environmental Resources has approved the pro-ject, but is withholding its permit until the industrial weste discharge permit is issued.
- 3. Other wastes.-- These. westes include solid and gaseous radioactive westes (red-westes) as follows:
a.
Solid redwestes. Solid rodwestes would include spent demineralizer resins, evcporotor bottoms, weste sludges, filter elements, contcminated equipment, and paper, rogs, plastic sheeting, and other meterials used in decontemination and contemination control. These solid wastes would be placed in contoiners cppropriate for the different types of waste materials, as cpproved by the U.S. Department of Tr=nsportation (D.O.T.) for off-site disposal. All evcporotor bottoms would be immobilized before being placed in containers. Loaded containers would be moni-
['
tored for radiction levels and stored in a :pecial crea until shipped to en off-site disposal facility.
'Q Solid westes would be disposed of by licensed contractors in accord =nce with regulcrions of the A.E.C., the D.O.T. and the Interstate "cmmerce Commission (l.C.C.).
- b. Geseous rodwestes. The gaseous rodwestes of the proposed Limericx storion w.-
of concern to the Delowcre River Bosin Commission because of their potentici for conteminating the water resources of the Basin-vic follout of particulate redwestes corried by the gaseous westes, or by absorption of the geseous westes by surface water or rain iciling within the Bosin.
The potential sources of gaseous rodwestes include the main condenser off ges, primcry containment atmosphere, reactor building atmosphere, and gases from chemical laboratories and building services.
Off gos removed frorn condensers would consist of air that icoks into the con-densers, radiolytic' hydrogen, radiolytic oxygen, and radioactive noble gases (krypton and xenon).
Radioaclive hydrogen and oxygen would be secombined to form water, which would be returned to the. plant.
l
)
l 94/A l
p m
-l o
D-69-210 CP (Final)
Sheer 6 Description g
The radioactive air would endergo o delay time of at least 30 minutes to'ollow decay of short-lived isotopes, such es nitrogen-13, nitrogen-16, and oxygen-19.
The remaining geses--oir, krypton, and xenon-would be cryogenically liqui-fled and distilled to separate the krypton and xenon from the air. The separcied krypton and xenon would be stored to allow redioacti<e decay. After decoy time sufficient to insure that only the long-lived krypton-85 remains, the stored gases would be released to the atmosphere under controlled conditions, vio e vent located at on elevation opproximately 200 feet above local grade elevation.
Release of radioactive gases would be at a rate such that the levels of sodioactivity in these gases would be significantly below the AEC regulations (10 CFR 20). The design of the gescous rodwesic system is bcsed on limiting the off-site whole-body dose levels to one percent of the level allowed (500 mrem) by the AEC regulations (10 CFR 20).
4.
Domestic werer sucoly-The permanent domestic water supply will be taken from the surface water river intakes. The water will be trcoted and chlorincted as necessary. Two small wells will be used during construction. The total withdrawal from both wells is less then 100,000 gallons per day and therefore does not require review by the Delaware River Scsin Commission.
- 5. Dredoing-As pcrt of the construction of both intakes, a small cmount of streem-bed excavation is necessary.
~. -1 FINDINGS The findings in the decision of D-69-210 CP on March 29, 1973 are reoffirmed with respect to the availebility of water supply, except ther the Commission by vote of July 31, 1975 hos elimincted the option of relying upon Tocks Islcnd wcter supply.
The final environmentcl impact statement prepared by the Atomic Energy Commission end filed with the Council on Environmental Quality contained the following summary of environmen-tel,impccts:
"The Limerick Genercting Station end its substetions are expected to occupy 85 a.
of the 587 acres of form and wood land in the site, requiring the clearing of only a few ceres of woods. The cdverse effect of the loss of this faimland and wild-life habitct is not grc=t since this acreage is on insignificant peiceniege of the land committed to these uses in the icgion. Some construction cetivity in the form of site excavction at the location of majoi con ponents of the station hos clready been accomplished. About 7 ocics of land will he clcored foi o coiri-dor fpr construction of a transmission line inom the substations to existing Ircns-mission syste ns. Land cctivities will be sichilized cnd sceded ivith native trees and grosses."
i \\
W2.4
o D-69-210 CP (Final Shut 7 Findings R.
- b. "The use of two natural draft cooling towers to dissipate the waste hear from the Limerick station will result in the consumptive use of water by evoporotion and drift at a maximum rote of 65 cubic feet per second (cfs) (estimeted overage annual rote of 54 cfs). The opplicant has ieceived a conditional permit from the Delowore River Bosin Commission (DRBC) to withdraw this water from the Schuylkill River and/or the Perkiomen Creek, ougmented as necessary by water from the Delowere River. This allocation of water for consumptive use was made by DRBC offer full consideration of the water resources of the Delowere River Basin in comparison to the present and projected future needs for municipal, in-dustrial and recreational purposes."
- c. " The intoke structures in the Schuylkill River cod Perkiomen Creek have been designed to limit velocities to less than 3/4 foot per second in order to minimize demoge to fish and other oc;uatic bioto by impingement on intoke screens and entrainment in the cooling water system."
- d. " The cooling to.wer blowdown water will be discharged through a submerged diffuser pipe in the Schuylkill River. The maximum surface excess temperature is expected to be about 10F in summer and 3oF in winter. The thermal effect of the discharged water is insignificant."
'n
- e. " Chemicals may be discharged from the plant as water solutions, principally in the cooline tower blowdown, or es vapor drift from the cooling towers. The chlor-inotion system proposed by the applicant should result in a total chlorine residual concentration (maximum) of 0.2 ppm in the cooling tower blowdown. Chemical deposition from the drift is expected to be insignificant."
- f. " Construction of the Limerick Generating Station is expected to produce tempor-ory adverse impacts from increased automotive traffic and construction noise. The modern industrial buildings should have very littic adverse visual impact because of the screening available from naiural vegetation. The cooling towers are the most visible of the plant structures, and the thermal plumes from these towers are not expected to increase significantly ihe formation of fog or ice."
- 9. "The cr;nstruction of the plant is expected to result in ihe employment of rnere than 2,000 peopic in the three years of maximal activity. It is estimated that 70% of Ihese workers will commule f om neaiby population centess and the others will <cside in the arco. Local business and school popviolion will incicase, but community facilitics appcor to be adequate to accommodule she expected growih. The total increase in the number o. peirnoneni residents ofter com-f pletion of construction is expected to be less than 500."
(* ' 3 N
i j
D-69-210 CP (Final)
Sh:et 0 Find.ings l
j T
1
- h. " Unoccupied land on the site will be made available to the public for recico-f tional purposes and a public information center will be esicblished. Therefore, the educational and recreational impact within the community is beneficio!".
1
- i. "The risk associated with occidental radiation exposure is very low."
- j. "No significant environmental impacts within a 50 mile radius are expected from normal operational releases of radioactive materials. The estim6ted dose to the population within 50 miles from operation of the pinnt is 33 men-rem /yr, c-which is less then the normal fluctuation in the 1,200,000 man rem /yr back-ground c'ese this population receivn."
- k. "The conculated radiation dose to the thyroid of a child fiom radiocciive iodine vic the atmosphere posture - cow-milk pathway is within the guidelines of the Atomic Energy Commission for "os low as practicable" emissions of radio-octivity from nuclear power plants.",
The proposed project is designed to produce o discharge meeting the effluent requirements and stream quality objectives, os set forth in the Water Quality Standards, of the Delowere River Basin Commission.
The project does not conflict with nor adversely offect the Con >prehensive Plon. It pro-vides beneficial use of the water resources, is financially and physically feasible, conforms to accepted policy, and does not adversely influence the present or future use end development of the water resources of the Bosin.
Objections and Report Thereon by the l
Hearing Excminer l
The Report of the. bearing examiner referenced above, found four issues reised by the objections to the docket decision proposed for action on July 31,1974:
- 1. Did the objections os filed specify "particularly the grounds thereof" os required by the Administrative Monval, Sections 2-3.10 and 2-3.11 ?
l l
- 2. Does the environmental review process os to water availchility and the disclosure of AEC's Final Environmental Sionement and DRl3C's Point P.lcosant Diversion Environmentul Impact Siulement justify.
the Commission's proposed de' cision (Docket No. D-69-210 CP (Sup-plement No.1) -- Exhibit 10 for Identificolion) under Section 3.8 of the Delowere River Basin Compact and under NEPA?
e,-
l
.- u-ov-etu a (t moi;
. Objrcti::ns end Report----
Shut 9 9
- 3. What is the stolus of AEC's Final Environmental Statement in view o the then pending appeal - i.e., in regard to the " finality" of the FES for purposes of NEPA in light of the CEQ guidelines?
- 4. In light of the cohclusion reached with respect to the previous issues and the initial Decision by AEC on June 14, 1974, is DRBC still free to consider the " river follower" mode of operation in its Docket decision?
After thoroughly considering the briefs and argument on the first issue, Judge Goldman concludes and recommends that one of the four objections filed by the Coalition was spec enough to alert the Commission as to the Coalition's principal complaint; namely, that not.mtil the Commission hos considered a specific reservoir site to meet the needs of the f.imerick Stat during low flow conditions, and has subjected the site to the environmental review requir
)
NEPA, may the Commission lawfully approve the application. Having determined that this ob-joction met the requirements of the rule os to specificity, the report of the hearing examiner p coeds to deal with each of the remaining three issues and concludes and recommends that the Commission "may proceed in regular course with the proposed decision in Docket No. D-69-210 (Supplement No.1)." A copy of the complete report of the hearing examiner is port of the C mission's file in this cose, as is a stenogrophic transcript of the crol orgument of counsel.
The merits of the cose turn on the viability of what is described as the " river follower" mode of operation of the power plant. The " river follower" mode moy be defined as the mode re-Q quired by condition "b" of the dec'sion of March 29, 1973, that is:
- b. Whenever the flow constroints cited in the above Findings prevent the applicant from operating the plant at full lood, the applicant shall operate the plant only at such percenreges of full load es the availablo water supply ollows, as determined by the Commission.
Counsel for the Coolition asserts "that the record does not support the citernative of a river fol-lower." Accordingly it,is his argument,thot the project may not be opproved under the require-ments of NEPA unless and until o site for supplementory reservoir storage (condition "c" in the decision of March 29, 1973) is selected and subiected to o NEPA onelysis. The opplicent con-tends to the contrary; that the river follower mode of operation is icosible, and that the issue of supplementary storage is a separate one to which the applicant would oddress itself by separate
. cpplicction to the Commission in due course.
The Commission's consideration of the issuo thus posed ut this time suggests the need to restate also condition "c" of approval stated in Docket No. D-69-210 CP, decided March 29, 1973, as follows:
I l
i M
-. =
~
v-or-M u u v n~o 05jsetions and Report---
Prior to January 1,1977,.the Commission will, in its sole discretion, determine c.
O the adequacy of the then existing storage facilities on the Delowere River or its tributories togetherwith additional storage tobe built to supply all needs(including the opplicant's) for water supply from that source by the ycor 1980. If the Commission then determines that the storoge will not be odcquote for all projected needs oflhe Dosin, the applicant will build or cause to be built, et its own expense, of a location opproved by the Commission, for service in 1080, o reservoir of sufficient storage capacity to assure the water supply needed for consumptive use by the Limerick plant, during periods when such use would reduce the flowin the Delowere River at the Trenton gage below3,000 cis. Storage and relcose of water in such facility will be under the Commission's regulation, at the expense of the applicant.
At the time of the March 29, 1973 decision, the Tocks Island Dom and Reservoir was o possible source of odditional water supply storage from which the depletive nu:ds of the Limerick Station could be satisfied along with other needs of the Basin. Tlio future of the proicet was then in a state of uncertainty, which has since been resolved by the Commission vote of July 31, 1975.
The opplicant is willing to accept water availability limited to the river follower mode of cperation. The objector contends that such a mode of operation would be uneconomic and that supplementory storage is on inseparable part of the project.
The Commission here deals primarily with issues of water supply, and not with issues of nuclear generating plant economics. From this point of view alone, on the basis of Judge Goldman's
^
report and recommendations, and Commission's independent consideration of the record and argument ed before it, this Commission may conclude that the viability of the river follower mode is on issue in the first instanco for the applicent itself and then for the Nuclear Regulutory Commission. The NRC decided, through its Appect Board decision which become final on May 23, 1975, that the Limerick Station could proceed to construction. This decision, which offirmed in part and reversed in part en initial decision of the NRC's Licensing Board included certain conditions as to water availability, to which there will be further reference below.
For present purposes, this Commission may begin with the contention of the cpplicant that the river follower mode is feasible, and that the opplicent is willing to proceed on that basis. N ever-theless, under this Commission's powert and practice pursuant to Section 3.8 of the Compact and '
Article 13 of the Compact, conditions may be imposed as part of any project opproval. In that con-text, this Commission's concerns transcend the issue of " river follower" viability. This Commission, like the NRC, prefers to ovoid the secondary effects of ordering a reduction or interruption of power Generation in low flow periods. To that end, the Commission may well ultimately find it necessary to call for supplementary water supply storage to make up for depletive uses by otomic fueled power plants in the Bosin.
7
- Q
)
D-69-210 CP (Final)
Sheet 11 Obiteriens and Rep:rt----
m The objector contends shot the Limerick Station "would supply cpproximately 2,300 a
megowetts of power, would supply the capacity for opproximately 50% of the Philedelphia Elec-tric system's base load." Besed upon dato furnished by the applicant, however, it cppcors that Limerick Unit No. I will be only 10% of Philadelphic Electric's generating capacity in 1981 and only 2% of the'PJM interconnected capacity at that time (T'oble i following).
TABLE 1 Generating Ccpocity of the Philedelphio Elecif c Company i
and the PJM Interconnection.I_/
Philadelphia PJM L
Electric (MW)
(MW)
(1)
Present Generating Cepocity (cs of May 31, 1975) 7,508 41,810 (2)
Commercial Operction of
{',
Limerick Unit 1 (May 1981) Y 9, 971 53,341/
3
% Limerick to Total 10.6%
2%
1 Source: Philcdelphia Electric Company 2 The net capacity of ecch of the Limerick Units is 1,055 MW.
3 These date include the Summit nuclecr fueled generating stction, which later information indic=tes will not be built.
The Commission is concerned, however, with the cumulative effect of a mendeted shut-down or reduction of generation of all power genercting stations under the river follower option, in the Besin. As shown in Tcble 2, the five generating sictions under the river follower option (Limerick, Summit, Hope Creek, Gilbert end Martins Creek) could all be shut down simultaneously end still have sufficient generating capacity including interconnections and reserves to meet the load. Moie-over Martins Creek ciready hos the use of Lake Wallenpoupack and this source could conceivcbly be mode ovellobic to other utilities.
An effective use of the resources of the Bcsin demands that supplementary storoue, as needed for all other generating stations should be coordincted and planned with refescoce.to the Master Siting Study of Major Electric Generating Projecis, Delaware River Basin, 1972 - 1986 (December 1971, es revised through 1975). From the viewpoint of water supply, e torci of eight generating sta-tions is involved. Five stations, using 86 cfs (including Limerick), are or may be, subject to the
(
3000 cfs operating conditien by provisions inserted into the Sections 3.0 dockets. Three of these five
'l stations, using 70.7 cfs, cre owned by the same three companies that nwn the thice sintions which have not been made subject to the 3000 cfs flow constraint, Sclem, Eddystone and Edge Moor.
l
$7A
j (J
, ):cet 12 TA::LE 2 Y Acc.
Acc. bent g
Picat Cop.
Ccp. es N
Plant Acc. Plant Est. Comp.
Comp.
os percent Est. PJM PJM perc,t g Commeny Picnr Ces.
Ces. by Ccx:eny Cao.
Rese rve of CcTo. Coo.
Cea.
Reserve of PJM C,7 sew rw r~.v ocreent rrw oe. cent il (2)
(3)
(4 (5)
(6)
(7)
(8)=l5)/(6)x 100 (9)
(10)
(lit =; :Wim l'4 775 PP&L Mctrins Cr. #3 600 800 NA NA NA Accumulated Ccp.
8CO 41810 30.9 1.9 777 G PU Gilbert 130 130 6688 13.8 1.9 PP&L Mcttins Cr. #4 800 1600 6237 55.2 25.4 Accumulcred Cap. 1730 45203 26.3 3.8 Limerick #
1055 1C55 9971 11.4 10.6 781 PECO Sox.mit 'I (
CPL 2
655 655 3364 28.9 19.4 PEC O Su.rmit il 115 IIS 9971 11.4 I.1 Accumulated Ccp. 3555 53341 21.5 6.'7
?a2 PECO Limerick #2 1055 2110 10904 15.6 19.4 PSE&G tic,:e Cr.1 3./
990 990 11:84 20.2 8.8 1
ACE Hcpe Cr. #I I10 110 2257 18.0 4.9, Accumulered Cop. 5710 58477 26.9 9.8 2/
990 1930 12174 19.9 16.3 3
734 PSE&G Home Cr f ACE Hepe Cr, f2 Ito 220 2547 17.0 8.6 DLP Su.mit #27 655 1310 4019 22.9 32.6 PECO Summit f2 115 230 12050 l '.. I 1.9 Ac cunutot ed. Cap. 75c0 62757 23.9 12.1..
1/ Compiled fron co:= furnished to C?.3C by Delcwcre River Basin Electric Utility Group, September 22, 1975, end.YAAC Repor*, April 1,1975. Note that these data will cFon;;e over tir e cs the Utilities adapt their plans to changing conditions and, technology; for exceple, the Suminit Generc:ing 5:dtion (included chove) has been withd.:wn within recent d ys.
2/ Joint ownenhip - DPL (95%); PECO (15%)
3/ Joint owneroip - PSE&G (99%); ACE (10%)
~
e l
t e
~
O
.O
,g
[]
N
D-69-210 CP (Final)
~
Sh'eet 13 Obigeriens and R2 port----
These three stations have on eficctive depletive use of 10 cfs. It is reasonable to assume that if these companies decide to build water supply facilities to meet the requirements of the docket decision for one; project, they could satisfy similar requircraents for all of their projects easily and economically at the some time. For exemple, Philadelphia Electric Company could readily odd storage space to yield 3.9 cfs for PECO's Eddystone station to any facility provided to meet the 54.3 cfs needed by 1.imerick.
The Commission recognizes that over time changes will be made in the utilitics' plans for some of these generating stations; some may be abandoned and others added. (See Master Siting Study, June 1975). For exemple, very recent information indicates that the sponsor hcs abandoned its pre'sent plans for the Summit storion. The dato are sufficient, however, to illustrate the cumulo-
. tive effect of the river follower mode on available power generating capacity in the Bcsin, were five stations to be operating under its full constroints. The Commission concludes that the river fol-lower mode is a viable alternative; but it still requires further consideration in the context of overall Bosin water resources management.
Following its action of July 31,1975,.on the Tocks project, the Commission has undertaken a comprehensive reexamination of the basic water supply elements of the Comprehensive Plan.
Studies now in progress are reevaluating the base flow criterio (including the flow of 3,000 cfs at Trenton); the drought frequency planning ossumptions; and the priorities to be occorded competing r -
uses under the ne.< conditions of water supply. The results of these studies could substantially in-fluence the Commission's judgment as to the extent of the need for supplementary water supply stor-oge to make up depletive uses by the utilities.
In the present cose the Commission by its decision of March 29,1973 prescribed the condition that prior to January 1,1977, the Commission will, in its sole discretion, determine whether addi-tional water supply storage is required to meet the opplicant's needs, and that the opplicant will pro-vide such storage, if required, for service in 1980 (see Text of condition "c" quoted above). While that condition reflected the context of uncertainty as to the future of Tocks Island, the some condi-tion is now pertinent to the outcome of the Commission's current reassessment of its entire water re-source management plan without Tocks Island.
In the. proceedings before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission which followed this Commission's decision of March 29, 1973, o similar water availability condition was included as Section 3.E. (8) of the Construction Permits. That condition requires lhe appliennt to toi<c such measures as may be necessary to assure, the ovallobility of compenseling wuler stologe copacity at the time of initial operation, as may be required by this Commission, and to submit a schedule to accomplish this ob-jeclive. On December 19, 1974, the opplicant did submit such a schedule, following review and _
recommendations by DROC staff, as follows:
The chedule is based on meeting three significant dures:
1.
December 19, 1974, the date when the schedule should he presented T-to the AEC Director of Licensing (os per the AEC Construction Permit for the Lim-b erick Generating 5 otion).
[
I D-69-210 CP (Final)
-Sheet 14 Obicctions and report
- 2. January 1,1977, the lotest date the DRBC has scheduled for o decision on a decision on the need for o cooling water supply reservoir (as per DRBC Docket for Limerrek).
- 3. April,1981, the dote when the Limerick plant will begin commercici operation.
The schedule is devided into phases as follows:
- 1. Site Selection Studies.
The objective of this phase is to select the three most promising sites for further study. Factors to be evoluoted in these studies are cost, environmental impact, and land acquisition and relocation problems. O ly reconnoissance-type field work would be scheduled.
- 2. Evoluction of Prierity Sites.
The scope of work and timing for this phase is to select a site, design the project and have ready for transmittel to the proper egencies by January 1,1977, all required data reports and cpplications needed to obtcin clecrcnce for construction. DRBC estchlished this date os the latest dote to determine the need for the reservoir. Some field surveying, sub-suricce exploration cnd on-site environmental studies will be required for this phase.
- 3. Land Acquisition. Lcnd acquisition could begin after selection of the preferred site. However, there is clways the pessibility that the site may not be acceptchle to the state and federal reviewing egencies.
4.
Project Review, Environmental Review, and issuance of Permits by Responsible Agencies. A period of 16 months beginning Janucry 1,19/7, is shown for this phase. To meet this schedule, the environmental report mt.st be submitted soon citer this date. A draft Environmenici Impact Statement (EIS) by the lead agency, the review thereof, preparction of a final EIS, and the Council of Environmental Ouclity Review ccn be cccomplished during this period. All necesscry permit cpplicctions will be filed as early as possible during this phese.
- 5. Preconstruction Engineering.
Detailed engineering and dato collec-tion will proceed concurrently with the Environmental review described as Phase
- 4. The work for this phase will include topographic surveying, sub-surface ex-pioration and dctoiled design of project facilities to produce the engineering plans end specifications required for contract bidding. A bidding ocried is cheduled to follow immediately the review period (Phase 4).
s D
fddk m
D-69-210 CP (Final)
Shtet15 Objections and report
.3
- 6. Construction. A period of 30 months is shown on the schedule for construction. Procurement and installation of the electrical and mechanical equip-ment is the critical item during this phase. However, it is expected that manufac-turing, i_nstallation and testing of the equipment con be completed prior to January 1,1981. This will permit reservoir relecscs to be available, if needed, in the summer of 1981.
- 7. Filling of the Reservoir. A period of five mon.25 is allowed for the first filling, ofter completion in January,1981. This will permit the commercial operation of the Limerick plant scheduled for April,1981, with sufficient water availoble to meet cooling requirements for the summer of 1981.
It remains to determine what, if any, environmental ical world value would be vindicated by insisting upon a reservoir site selection now, including NEPA review, reiner then following such a schedule es above. The Commission concludes that all of the requirernents of NEPA have been satisfied and cpproval of the opplication con proceed at this time.
DECISION
- 1. The project es described inDocket D-69-210 CP and supplemented above, with the modifications included in the docket decision of March 29,1973 and specified hereinciter, is y
hereby cdded to the Comprehensive Plan.
- 11. The project is cpproved pursucnt to Section 3.8 of the Compcet, subject to the follow-ing conditions:
Approval is subject to all conditions imposed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory a.
Commission (formerly the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission) and the Pennsylvanic Depcrtmint of Environmental Resources.
- b. Whenever the flow constraints cited in Docket D-69-210 CP (Findings) prevent the cpplicent from opercring the plant et full leed, the applicent shall operate the plant only at such percentages of full load cs the evcilable water supply allows, cs determined by the Commis-sion from time to time.
Prior to January 1,1977, the Commission will, in its sole discretion, deter-c.
mine the odequccy of the then existing storege facilities on the Delowmc River or its tributaries together with cdditional storage to be built to,pply all needs (including ihe applicant's) for water supply from that source by the year 1981. If the Commission then detennines that the stor-age will not be cdequete for cll projected needs of the Basin, the applicent will build or cause to be built, at its own eApense, or a location oppioved by the Commission, for service in 1981, i
a reservoir of sufficent stoioge capacity to essure the water supply needed foi consumptive use by the Limerick plant, during periods when such use would reduce the flow in the Deluwaic River et the Trenion gage below 3,000 cis. Storcyc and release of water in such fccility will be under the Commission's regulction, at the expense of the cpplicent.
v
- nn T
~
0-69-210 CP (Finni)
Slieet 16 Dccisicns d.
Beginning one year pridr to the first commercial operation date of Unit 1 or the 1.imerick plant, the applicant will pay for metered quantities of woler withdrcwn thereafter at the several locations described above. The price of waters so taken from the Schuylkill River, Perkiomen Creek, and the Delaware River will be determined in accordance with the Commissions' water supply policy, heretofore adopted or as may be amended hereafter, The facility shall be available at all times for inspection by the Delaware River e.
Basin Comm,ss,on.
i i
- f. The facility shall be operated at all times to comply with the requirements of the Wcter Quality Standards of the Delowere River Bcsin Commission.
- g. The Philadelphia Electric Company shall maintain records of suspended solids dischcrge and shall furnish a record of net quantities of suspended solids dischoice to the U.S.
Army District Engineer et the completion of each six month period, or at such other frequencies as the District Engineer may require.
- h. The discharge of the westeweter shall not increase the natural temperature of the receiving waters by more than 5 F (above the overcge daily temperature gradient displayed during the 1961-66 period), nor shall such dischcrge result in c stream tempercture exceeding 870F, except within en essigned hect dissipation crea consisting of one-half the streem width and 3,500 feet downstream from the discherge point.
- i. Sound practices of excavetion, beckfill, and reseeding shcIl be followed 9 minimize erosion and depcsition of sediment in strecms.
- j. The turbidity stenderds for the Delowere Piver, es estchlished by the Deleware River Bcsin Commission, mcy not be exceeded outside of mixing cacc:, es described herein: o dis-tence of 100 feet upstreem cnd 500 feet downstrecm and 1/2 of the stream width et each dischcrge and intake structure during their construction.
- k. The Executive Director of the Deleware River Besin Commission mcy direct o
- suspension of streembed excaverion operctions whenever in his judgment the operations are not being conducted in cccordance with this approval, cic adversely cifecting weier quality, or cre harmful to the pcssage of cnodromeus or cctedromous fishes.
- 1. Upon completion of ccnstruction of the cpproved project, the sponsor shall submit a statement to the Deleware River Bcsin Coinmission, signed by the sponsor's engineer or other responsible ogent, certifying to the Commission under oath, that the construction has been completed in complicnct.with the cpproved plans and giving the final construction ecst of the opproved project.
N
$ 28-
Shaat17 I
D-69-210 C'P (Final) l D cisions.
r Any future requirements imposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency m.
shall supersede the requirements of this approval insofar os they impose more stringent treatment criterio.
This approval shall not take effect unless and until the opplicant shall file with I
n.
the Commission its undertaking signed by its duly authorized officers and in a form opproved by General Counsel to the Commission, accepting and agreeing to the conditions "b" through "m" c'oVC.
o
~111. The Executive Director is authorized to issue a water quality certification in accordonce with Section 401 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.
BY THE COMMISSION DATED: November 5,1975 e
f 9
Ns 9
.c..
DO CK ET NO. D-65-76 CP (2) 7 s 2
D ELAWARE, RIVER BA!! N COMMISSIO N Bucks and Montgomery County Commissioners kesheminy Creek Watershed Project ~
Ebeks and Montgomery Counties, Penne.
Proceedings This is on application submitted on behalf of the Commissioners of the Counties of Bucks and Montgomery, Pennsylvenio by the Bucks County Planning Commission on mvember 10, 1966 for review of a watershed develepment project. The opplication wcs reviewed for inclusion vf ~
the project in the Comprehensive Plan as requested by the sponsors. A public hearing on this project was held by the Delowere River Bosin Commission on Jcnuary 25,1967.
This project supplements the Neshc.niny Creek Watershed Work Plon, Docket No.
D-65-76 CP, opproved by the Delaware River Bcsin Commission on October 26,1966, which wcs developed with the assistence of the U. 5. Soil Conservation Service and the U. 5. Forest Service. Also consulted were the U. 5. Fish end Wildlife and Agriculturuel Stebilization one Conservation Services; the Pennsylvenic Departmentsof Forest and Waters, Hecith, and Highweys; the Pennsylvanic Game end Fish Commissions; end the Delowcre River Basin Commission.
3 Comprehens:ve Plan Description Specificolly, the proposed plan is that described in Chepter X, entitled ' Recommended Plan of Development", in a study " Report on the Weter Resources Study of Nesheminy Creek Bosin and Vicinity, Bucks and Montgomery Counties, Pennsylvanic", dated Mey 1966. This report.wes prepared by E. H. Bourquerd end Associctes es consultants to Se Department of Forests end Weters, of the Commonwecith of Pennsylvenio, et the request ci the Commissioners of the two counties.
The "f:ecommended Plan of Develcpment" should be considered in conjunction with the
" Watershed Work Plen, Nesheminy Creek Wctershed", which was cpproved for inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan of the Delcwcre et the October 26 meeting of thq Commission. This Work Plan expands in somewhat greater detail the flood control, recreation, and land treatment portions of the Recommended Plon.
According to the " Work Plan", the project was briefly described es follows:
" Purpose.
The purpose of this project is the develepment of the wcter,
resources of the watershed, including conservction land trectment, flood control, recrection, and municipal and industrial water supply by mecns of dems, reservoirs, pumping stations end perks.
~d
v
)
D-65-76 CP (2)
Sheet 2.
" Location. The Nesheminy Creek watershed is located in Bucks (86 per cent) cr.d Montgomery Counties, Pennsylvania, and the mouth of Blesheminy Creek is loccted et river mile 115.63. Of the ten dem structures propcsed, nine would be in Bucks County and one in Montgomery County. Two county parks end two pumping stations wculd
- ~
o'so be locoted in Bucks County.
" Physical Fectures. ine protect wou!d include both structurcl and land trectment rnessures. Eight structures would have the single purpcse of ficod preventien; two struel.nes would have flood prevention, water supply, end public recrcotional purposes.
" Doms would contre! 118.4 sq. mi. of the foiel 232.8 sq. mi. of the wetenhed, providing 20,705 cere-feet for floodwater storege, 2,077 cere-feet for sediment,1,288 acre-feet fcr recreational development, and 6,100 acre-feet for municipal end indvstrial water supply.
"The project would be scheduled for development over en eight year period."
O A comperison of the two reports will show that the " Recommended Plan of Development" includes details of the following which cre not explcined in the " Work Plcn" of the Soil Con-servation Service:
1.
A County Park et Reservoir PA-617 consisting of 1336 ccres es cempered with 682 acres. This means that Bucks Ccunty is developing e park cimest twice the sice of that c=lled for in the Work Plen.
2.
A' County Park et Reservoir PA-620 consisting of 1189 ocres, insteed of 493 acres, es described in the Work Plen.
3.
A pumping stetion loccte. on the Delowere River in the vicinity of Point Pleasant, to pump suppi, mental water into the Ncrth Bronch of Nesheminy Creek for weter supply, low flow ougmentation and to maintain a stcbie 365 acre summer recreation pool in Reservoir PA-617.
Initial design is for e cepocity of 18 mgd to 1985, when it would be increcsed to 26 mgd.
Usee' ole run5ff from the 15.8 sq. ore mile watershed cbove PA-617 will be
' ' ~
fully utilized prior to any taking from the Delcwore River.
O-4.
A pumping srction located on the Delcwore River in the vicinity of Yerdley, to pump supplement =1 water into Core Creek for water supply, low flow ougmento!!on end to rrointain a stcble 166 acre summer recreatien pool in
~-
Reservoir PA-620.
(*(g
?
~..]
D-65-76 CP (2)
Sheet 3.
Initial design is fer cep=' city of 70 mgd to 1985, when it would be increased to 105 mgd.
\\
~
Use=ble runoff from the 9.57 scuore mile watershed cbove PA-620 will be fully utilized prior to any taking from the Delewere River.
5.
Incorporation ei the existing Springfield !. eke, e rese voir owned by the Philadelphic Suburhen Watyr Compeny into the ove:cll system of management in the Nesheminy Creek Bcsin.
Cost. The of teched teble lists all fectures of the " Recommended Plan of Developnnt.t",
together with their estirneted cests. Annual meintenence end operating costs cre estimated et
$175,000, not including electric power cests or chcrges for pumping wcter from the Delowere River.
Relationship to the Cemprehensive Plan. The project cdvances the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan by providing 20,705 cere-f eet of ficodwater storege,1,288 cere-icet for recrection development end 6,100 cere-feet of municipal end industrial water supply.
Findings The "Wetershed Work Plen", developed by the Soil Conservelien Service, estimaled thet evercge ennuel benefit cceruing to the structurel mecsures would be $1,227,507, including
$248,488 for floedwater demcge reduction, 5125,306 for changed lend use, 5495,000 for recrection, 5233,1c8 for water supply, 5104,525 for secondcry benefits, end 521,000 for incidental recreation benefits. The rctio of the everage annuci structurcl benefits to the estimated overcge ennuel cost is 2.1:1. Although the " Recommended Plen" gives no enclyses of benefit cost retics, it is not expected ther it would very much from 2.1:1.
Water diverted from the Delcwore River through the propesed pumping stctions would, offer non-consumptive use, be dischcrged to strecms tributcry to the fresh water secticn of the Delcwcre esfuery.
Decision 1.
The project is hereby added to the Comprehensive Picn,Section IX, es described chove, subject to the following exceptions cnd conditions:
No specific ccmmitment is mcde by the Delewere River Ecsin Commission e.
as to the cmount of water alloccted for diversion from the Deleviere River or to operctioncl schedules. These will be determined at some future date by contractuel arrangement between the sponsors end the Deicwcre O
River Bcsin Commissicn.
's b.
Addition of the project tc the Comprehen:,ive Plan does nct constitute e prior cllocation of weier to the sponsors.
- MA-
)
l D-65-76 CP (2)
Sheet 4.
t 1 i
Methods of cost sharing for water diversions from the Delowere River c.
will be determin ed in accordance with Delowere River Bosin Commission 3olicy, to be established.
2.
Approval of each unit of this project is required pursuant to the Compact, but is deferred until final construction and operation plans for each of the project units have been completed, opproved by the Pennsylvania Water and Power Resources Board, and submitted for review by the Commission.
BY THE COMMISSION
. DATED: January 23, 1967 M
e l-b
e M5-76 CP (2)
ESTIMATED COSTS AND GENERAL ALLOCA r!ONS Total Fa cility 1.a nd And Flood Control Re c r e a tion All cation of Total Costs Dy. Purpose Estimated Cons t ruction 11 rloca tion Cost Sha ring Cost Slu ring Com ponent e of Plan Co s t s Costs Co s t s Flood Centrol Water Supply Recreation S. C. S.
Othe r S. C. S.
Other
$1,000
$1,000
$1.000
$1.000 51.000
$1.000
$1.000
$1.000
$1,000 51.000 3 E R V O!F.S
..t u t ti-Pu r po s e:
I PA 617 3.850 1,840 2.010 855 1.350 1.645 525 330 95 1.550 PA 620 2.480 900 1.580 960 600 920 410 540
,J 905 sub-Total. Mulit-Pur se 6.330 2.740 3.590 1.815 1.950 2.565 935 870 110 2.455 71ood Control.
PA 610 665 255 410 665 255 410 1%\\ 6I1 850 380 470 850 380 470 P A - 612 235 120 115 235 120 115 PA-6 84 2.465 1.095 1.370 2.465 1.095 1.370 ISO 270 PA 615 450 180 270 450 PA 616 1.265 270 995 1.265 270 995 PA-621 265 150 115 265 150 115 IN\\ 625 415 175 240 415 17 5 240 iub-Total, Flood Control 6.610 2M5 Mjli 6.610 2.625 3.935
.a1. Reservoirs 12.940 5.365
- 7. 57 5 8,425 1.950 2.565 3.560 4.355 110 2.455 ILAW ARE RIVER PUMPING FACILITIES Point Pleasant 1.150 1.140 10
- 1. 150 Yardley 1.480 1.470 10 1.480 tal. Pumping Facilities 2.630 2,610 20 2,630
- CREATION FACILITIES At PA-617 2.000 1.025 975 2,000 290 1.710 At PA 620 3.165 935 2.230 3.165 245 2.920
.al. Rec reation Facilitie s 5.165 1.960 3.ZCS 5.165 53S 4.630
.al. New Facilitie s 20.735 9.935 10 H00 8.425 4.580 7.730 3.560 4.855 645 7.055 RINGFIEl,D 1AKE
- 2. 5 3J2) 2.360( '
170 2,530 and Total. All Con.ponents 23,265 12,295 10.970 8.425 7.110 7.730 3.560 4.855 645 7.085 IIIAll costs rounded to nearest 55.000 (2) Trended original cost based on ENR Construction Cost Index. less depreciation.
A
~,,
/
D OCI' E T N C, D 7 6 C P (3)
DELAWARE RIVER DASIN COMMISSION s
Commissioners of. eks County _
Point. Pleascnt Pumping Station Bucks County, Pennsyivnnio PROCEEDINGS This is on cpplication submitted on behalf of the Commissioners of Bucks County, Penn-sylvania, by the Bucks County Planning Commission, Division of Natural Resources, on June 9, 1970 for review of a project thet would amend the Neshominy Creek Watershed Plen (presently in the Comprehensive Plan) involving the Point Pc=sent Pumping Station, o fecture of the Water-shed Flan, cnd for opproval of the project pursuant to section 3.8 of the Compact. Althovah the application described water needs throuch the veer 2020, oction by the Comtni~tm M ": C e coverFv - ter needs eniv to 1995. The cpplicction was reviewed for inclusioFof the proicct in tNmprehensive Plen, but review for approval under section 3.8 hes been deferred until sub-mission of fincl definite piens. A public heering on this project wcs held by the Delaware River Basin Commission on June 24, 1970.
The project emends the Nesheminy Creek Watershed project, Docket D-65-76 CP (2),
which wcs cpproved for inclusion in the Comprchensive Plan by cetion of the Commission en
'9 January 25, 1967.
On Deccmber 8,1970, the Pennsylvenic Weter end Power Resources Bocrd opproved c provision =1 allocction to Bucks County of wcter to be taken from the Delowcre River of Point Pleasent and Yardley for public water supply in emeunts es shown below:
To 1980 To 1990 To 1995 Average withdrawal 5 mgd 15 mgd 35 mgd Mcximum withdrewal 35 mod 60 mgd 75 mgd This action took cognizence of the fcct that, irt " ~'lir_ct. ion to the'Cemmission7 Bucks County i
Ghed included in its project plcn previsions to pump udditienal ku~entitics of water from the
~
v-Delowere River et Point Plcesent for wetor quality cucmentatien :n the Nesheminy wolershed cnd I
for industrial end municipel wcter supply in Montgomery Ccunty via Pc.kiemen Creek. The over-ell withdrewels foreseen by Bucks Coenty emount to 105 mgd in the year 1980,135 mgd in 1990, and 150 mgd in 1995, es shown in Appendix A.
An environmentcl stetement for this project hcs been prepored and processed in eccordance with the Nelional Environmental Policy Act.
COMPREHENSIVE P!.AN DESCP.irilCN O
Purpose. -The purpose of this pg i_s_Lo cmc.cd that pcrtion of previeusly approved Nesheminy Watershed project described es followC'c pumping stction located en the Delewere
'~
River in the vicinity of Point Pleasent, to pump supplementul weier into the North Brooch of Neshcrainy Creek for weier supply, low fivw ci gmenictim, oad to meintcin a sinhle 365 ocre f5$ b
A
~'
D-65-76 CP (3)
Sheet 2.
1 suinraci recreation pool in Rescervoir PA-617. Initial design is for o capacity of 18 mod to 1985, when it would be increo:cd to 26 mgd." Although not included in this epplic= tion, it is proposed thct the pumping facilities located ot'Yordley would be changed from en initiel c=pocity of 70 m;d, as previously cpproved by the Commission, to o ecpocity of 5 mgd to meet 1995 demands c'nd the water allocation frem the Delowere at Yordley would be reduced from 105 mgd in 1985 to 5 mgd in 1995.
Location.--The location of the pumping station will remain the some os thet described in the Comprehlnsive Plon. Locotion of the pumping station, force mein:, and gravity fieve conduits included in the project are os shown in Scheme ill of a detailed report on this project prepared by E. H. Bourquard As ocictes, Inc., entitled "Fecsibility Study for Point Ple=sent, Pennsylvanic Pumping Facility, March 1970," referred to below cs the Bourquard Report.
Physical features.
(c) Design criteric.-The following changes in the original Nesheminy Wctershed prcjet cre noted.
- 1. An upwards revision in the projected mcximum wcter needs for the Nesheminy Water Resources Developraent Progrcm from the initici cpplicction of 18 mgd to the year 1985, with e design of 26 mgd thereciter;Q6 mgd in the year 1973, increasing
<O to 100 mgd in the yect 1995. The:e increcscs cre lergely cecounted for by two chenge: in the preg.am; nemely, the inclusion of the water needs of the North Penn cree in Montgemery County cnd previsien for cpproximetely 28 mgd for low flow cugmentetion to impreve streem water quality in the Nesheminy Besin.
- 2. A n w r lement in the Point Plectent Pumping Station proposal is the inclusion cf supplying 'O med e the Northecst Branch of the Perkiomen Creek in order to meet the recue:ted cochng needs of the Philcdelphic Electric Compcny's propesed nuclect genercting plant at Limerick, cnd {ne potential wcter supply needs of the Penn Ridge cree through which the N_crthcost.Erench of tne Perkicmen Creek flows.-
- 3. The mcximum tcking roles for Delcwcre Piver water under the r vi:ed pion from Point Plecsent end 'fordley would then be es indicoled in tcb!cs in Appendix.'
etteched hereto.
The locations end clignments of the scheme preposed cre shown epproximenely on the prelimincry plcn of the Bourcuerd Report entitled, " Point Pleo: ant Pumping Facilities Feesibility. Study Scheme Ill."
~
(b) Fccilitics.--This scheme provides for o pumping :totion et Point PI'ce:ent with the cepecity end Icycut to hendle cll the required pumpege of the Delewere River water to the Nesheminy Basin, plus the prepo:cd pumpcsc into the Perkiomen Creek Gosin. A 66-inch hon:-
mi:sion mcin, con:i: ring of 14,000 fer t of cencrete pre:wre pipe and 5,300 feet of concret e
' culvert pipe, would convey the forci pumpoge from the Point Plecscnt Sletion to the tenninus
i*.
i.
1
~
D-65-76 CP (3)
Sheet 3.
N of this moin, neer Bredshew Roed, where the pumpage wnuld be divided. The Nesheminy pumpege would flow by grcvity through a 60-inch concrete cuivert into the North Branch and on to Reservoir PA-617. The Perkiomen pumpage would flow into e 35 n,g open-storage reservoir, from where it would be pumped by mecns of e 46 mgd cepecity station through 30,300 feet of 42-inch concrete pre:sure pipe to the stort of the Perkiomen wetershed, from which point the pumpage would flow by gravity in 6,300 feel of 36-inch concrete culvert pipe to the Ecst Brench of Perkiomen Creek.
Most of tl$e water pumped to the North Branch of Nesheminy Creek will return to the Delaware River. Some will be lost through consumptive wcter supply use end through evcporation frem Reservoir PA-617, but these losses cre expected to be smell.
All of the water pumped to the Perkiomen Creek for ccoling needs of the Philadelphic Electric Company genereting plcnt at Limerick will be le:t by evcporction to the atmosphere in cooling towers et the plent. The consumptive cooling wcter needs have been estimated by the compeny to overcge 35 mgd with pecks up to 42 mgd. Thus, by 1976 water mu:t be ovcilable et the rates of 35 mgd evercge, and 42 mgd mcximum during the :vmmer.
Co:t.--The estimeted in'itici construction is $8,380,000. The chlorinction fccilities recommended in this docket would cost en cdditional $250,000.
Relationship to the Comprehensive Plen.-This project is en cmendment of ti,e Nesheminy A
Creek Watershed Plen, presently inciuded in the Ccmprehen ive Plen. It is ci:o relcted to the proposed Limerick Nuclecr Generating Stetion, for which the Commis: ion hcs under consideration on cpplication for cpproval pursvent to section 3.8 of the Compcet.
~
FINDINGS In generci, the water of the Delewere River is compctible with thet of the North Brench Nesheminy Creek end Ec:t Brcnch Perkiomen Creek. An cree cf incompctibility is the colifcan count, which is quite high in the Delewcre end will n che chlorinotion nece:: cry et the pumping station so es to protect the quclity of the receiving strecms until cenditions improvc.
The mcjer environmentcl impcet of the Point P!ecsont diverrien would be from increcsed strr.cm flows couted by pumping. This would stchilize the condificns of the strecms if the weter level fluctuction: resulting frem the pumping were kept to e minimum. The incrected flow would cl:o provide the low flow cugmentation to Ncsheminy Creek to mcet the streem qvclity stcnderds cf Pennsylvenic cnd the Delewcre River Bc:in Commission. Water-be:cd recrectional oc!Ivitie.s mcy benefit from the increcsed water evailcbility.
A tempercry cdverse effect on the envircoment would be the :cer on the landsecpe ccused by constructinn of the fccilities end Icying of the pipelines. With cdequafe planning, the duretion of the pipeline sects can be held to o minimum. The puriping f:.:lilifics would be located, ecc.crding te present design, undergreund with enly tren. formers end a :mell
- b control station chove ground. The cbove ground facilific: would be designed to bicad with
- i surrounding: cod need not ccuse meicr :urfnce blemish. Ncise frc n the pumping sterions would be et c low level es the mcchinery would be below ground level.
VS/k
2=
D-65-76 CP (3)
Sheet,1.
During a severe drcught, the commitment to furni:h water from the Delaware wou!J cou:e additional drowdown of the upstream re:crsoirs (Tocks I:lond, Beltzville, etc.). This, however, would be consi: tent with the planned use of these reservoirs as outlined in the Commission's Comprehensive Plan.
There is sufficient storege end copebilities in the Delaware River to meet the 150 med maximum withdrawa; necd: of the Point Plecsent diversion without impairing the water quality and levels in the lower Delewere.
l The proposed Point Pleesent diversion would be beneficici to the Nesheminy and Perkiomen watersheds and would not be detrimental to the Deleware it conditions of operction imposed by the Commission cre observed.
The project does not conflict with nor cdversely oficet the Comprehensive Plon. 11 provides beneficiel development and use of the water resources, is physicelly'fecsible, conforms to cecepted public policy, end does not cdversely influence the present or future v:e end development cf the w=ter resources of the Besin. The project es proposed provides the leest cost clternctive mecns of meeting the wcter requirements on c timely bcsis.
DECISICN O
- l. Subject to the provis' ions of section 3. of the Comp =ct, the project c: described cbove is hereby cdded to the Comprehensive Plan, section IX.
!!. Conside:rntion of this project for cpprovel pur: vent to section 3.8 of the Compcet is deferred until :vbmis: ion of final definitive plcns. Ilie following prcccutions shcIl be ~
observed in the design of the project:
All conditions imposed by the Pennsylvenic Weter end Power Resources c.
Becrd shall be met.
b.
Fluctuction of Ecst Brench Perkiomen Creek cnd North Brcnch Nesheminy Creek ceu:ed by pumping shcIl be kept to e minimum. The pumpege to Perkiomen Creek shcIl be meintcince et c level of 50 percent of mcximum pumpege fer the yeer 1973 throughout the low flow sec:en, regcrdless of ultimete downstreem consumptive use.
During periods of high naturcl flow in Ecst Branch Perkiomen Creek, c.
pumping from Point Picosent :hcIl be kept low enough so c: not to oggravete high water
- levels,
- d. The pipelines from the Point Plcesent pumping station to the Cred:h,cw Road pumping station end from there to the Nesheminy and Perhiomen Crceks shcIl be buried.
In excevoting end beckfilling the trenches for these pipelines, proper soil sesctien practice:
h shall be follov.ed to en:urc regrcwth of vegetction. Provisions, cccepfchle to the Commissica, shall be inc!vded in construction specifications to insure that stream bed: cre protected hem siltc! ion during construction. Apprcpriate !cnd:ceping and planting shcIl be pericimed to
9 D-65-76 CP (3)
Sheet S.
i minimize the effect upon the e.visonment, end construction specifications shcIl include requirements, cceeptchie to the Cc,mmission, for prcper seeding and picccment of topsoil.
c.. The chove ground facilities (control houses, tren:, formers, sheds, etc.)
shcIl be designed to complement the structures found in the creo.
- f. Delaware River water shall be chlorincted as necesscry at the Point Plecsont
. pumping station to reduce the high colifenn count to en eccepicble limit.
lit. Prior to commencement of project operation, the sponsor shcIl enter into c water purchese contract with the Delowere River Besin Commission.
F2Y THE COMMI551ON PATED: Merch 17,1971 9
i e
R e
e
APPFNDIX A
's' M /d F iUM Th K7NG lt.A TE.';
FOR DE.'.d?.7 AnE n.ivnn T//.TEP Maximum Rate of Tahinn, MCD Pumpint Facilitien and Service Area 1990 I995,'
_1980 Point Plear: ant Pompin:: Facilities Upper Bucks County Arca Average Daily Rate x 2 =
30.4 41.0 46.4 Ground Water Supply
'7. 0 70 7, o Net Peak Demand 23.4 34.0 39, Central Montgome ry Count'y Arca
- 5. 4 18.0 25.
Average Annual plus 25%
28.8 52.0 64.
Total Peak Rate O
Water h hwer Resources Ed. Relcace
- 1. 5
- 1. 5 3,
subtotal 30.3 53, 5 66.
Wate r Lo s s e s, 10 %
- 3. 0
- 5. 4 6.
33.3 58[1 Maximum Rate for Water Supply 7,4.,
29[0 Water Quality Augmentation 24.3
- 27. 5 Les s. W. & P. R. B d. Relea se
- 1. 5
- 1. 5
- 1. 5 Net Water Gunlity Aur; mentation
- 22. G
- 26. 0 27.5
' Cool. Water, Electric Plant-Peak 42.0
- 47. 0 Ih,0 Subtotal 64.8 68.o
- 69. 5 W a t e r Lo r. s e r:.,
10 %
- 6. 5
_'f;,9_,,
- 6. 8 71.3
- 74. 8 7 f.
Maximum Rate for Other Purposes 104.6 13.3.7 l'I 9 Mai:imum 11 ate for Phmping Facilitien 105.
' 135 l!iU Say
.is b.
4 * * *:.. '
Menimnen Ita!c i,f T ihinn, MCl)
Cuml.ei..ng F.icilitie n.inil Conn' uni. r 1980 1990 1 98.".i Ya rdley_lpyint: F; cilities Lower Buchs. County A rea Average Daily Rate x 2 49.4 64.2 71.4 Ground Water and Other Sourcen
- 14. 8 15.7
_15. 3,..
Nc: Peak Demand 34.6 48,5
- 56. 1
~
Easte rn Div. P!.ila. Suburban Co.
Peak Month 28.86
- 33. 1 35.3 Cround Water and Other Sources 19.8 19._8 19.0
- 9. 0, 13.3
- 15. :
Net Pcah Demand 3.1 3.1
- 3. ?
W. & P. R. Bd. Minimum Release
- 3. 5
- 3. 5 J.,,!
Irrigation in Nechaminy Basin Sublotal 50.2
'68.4
- 70. ;
. Water Losec c, 10 %
- 5. 0
- 6. 8
- 7. -
55,2 75.2 C6.
Peak Ucage Rate Flow f rem Upstream W. & P. R. Bd. Minimum
- 1. 5
- 1. 5
- 1. 5 22.8
- 26. 0 27, 5 Wate r' Quality Augm.:ntation Waste Water Inflow 22.3 33.8 39.6 13.0
- 13. 0 13.0
. Minimum Stream Flow
- 59,6 74.3 G1.
Total Upctream Flow
-4.4
- 0. 9 Net Water Required 0
- 1. 0 Say Utili/.in;; : torage in exiuting Sprint;fielil 1.ahe f
116'/a of A ve rage D.iily Deinant)
o
)
l l
DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION Bucks County Commissioners Nortli Branch Water Trectment Plant Borouch of Chelfont, Bucks County, Pe.
PROCEEDINGS This is en cpplication submitted on behalf of the Bucks County Commissior.nrs by the Bucks County,Blonning Commission on December 14, 1970, for review of a proposed water ireciment picat. The applicerion wcs reviewed for inclusion of the '
project in the Ccmprehensive Plcn. A public hecring on this project wcs held by the Delewere River Basin Commission on January 29, 1971.
The project was cpproved by the Bucks County Plenning Commission on November 25, 1970, cnd by the Nesheminy Wcter Resources Authority.
The project was elected with the Delcwcre Vclley Regional Planning Commission.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESCRIPTION Purpose.-The purpose of this project is to construct a proposed wcter filtrction plent with cn initial cepecity of 20 mgd, expendcble to en ultimate cepacity of 120 mgd, for serving the wcter supply needs of the Central Bucks and Centrel Montgomery County crecs.
Locatien.-The project will be loccted in a section of Forest Perk, whien is located et the confluence of the Ncrth Branch of Nesheminy Creek cnd Pine Run in the Borough of Chclfont, Bucks County, Pennsylvenic.
The preposed plcnt is to be leccted et river mile 115.63 - 40.0 - 0.75.
Service crec.--The crees to be served by the plant cre shown en Exhibit No. 2 titled, "Nortn Branch Weter Treciment Plcr.t Wcter Service Areas contained in the Report to the DRBC on Preposed North Brcnch Water Trectment Plent, Nesheminy Creek Wetershed Project, Bucks County, Pa.," deted December 7,1970, prepered by E. H. Sourquerd Associates, Inc.
Physicci fectures.
(c) Design criteric.--Ecsed on the foreccst supplementcl surfcce wcter requirements, the cesign ecpecity of the proposed plant i> to very frnm 20 mgd in 1980 to appreximately 100 - 120 mgd in the year 2020.
4/$
l m
l D-70-242 CP Sheet 2.
(b) Focilities.--The initici instcIlotion will be entirely conventional,
- consisting of rectcngulcr, reinforced concrete sedimentclion and filtration units, chemical storege end cpplication unirs, centralized control center, end cppurtenant office, laboratory, shop, and gerege fccilities. Sedimentation bcsin end clarifier sludge will be treated by retention in logoons. Filter backwesh water will be recycled, ofter clarification, to reduce required logoon size and to conserve water.
Two low-heed dems will be constructed on the North Branch and Pine Run in order to impound water for tne pinnt intake structures. Pine Run will be rechanneled where it posses through plant property.
Cost.--The tent:tive proiect cost is estimated for the initial 20 med, module of the proposed tre=tment picnt is cpproximately 56,000,000.
Rele tionshio to the Comorehensive Plen.--The proposed North Brench Water Treatment Plent is to be insteiled in orcer to permit implementction of the Nesheminy Creek Watershed Project, which wcs included in the Comprehensive Plen by Docket No. D-65-76 CP. Supplemental wcter supply, recrection, cnd streemflow cugmentetion facilities were added to the Nesheminy Creek Wctershed Project by Docket No. D-65-76 CP (2), dated Janucry ?5,1967.
FINDINGS The proposed project is designed to produce e dischcrge meeting the effluent requirements end streem quality cbjectives of crticle 2-1 of Section X--Weter Quality Stenderds, of the Ccmprehensive Picn.
The project does not conflict with nor adversely effect the Comprehensive Plen.
It provides beneficici use of the water resources, is fincncicily and physic =lly:fecsible, conforms to cceepted public policy, end does not cdversely influence the present or future use and deveicpmer t of the v -ter rereerces # the ecs:n.
DECISION The project, es described cbove, is hereby cdded to *he Comprehensive Plen, section IX, subject to the following conditions:
Approval is subject to all conditions imtesed by the Pennsylvanic c.
Depcrtment of Hecith.
- b. Final plans fer construction of this project must be submitted to the Delcwcre River Besin Commission for review, in ecccrdence with section 3.8 of the Ccmpcet.
CY THE COMMISSION DATED: January 29, 1971
$8Y
v u.8; c
s s
?
4
. M ;l ; ;g g f,
j ;.*.
,/
DOCKET NO. D-65-76CP (8)
DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION Neshaminy Water Resources Authority Neshaminy Watershed Plan - Water Supply Bucks and Montgomery Counties, Pennsylvania PROCEEDINGS This is an application submitted by the Neshaminy Water Resources Authority (NWRA) on July 5, 1979 and referred to the Commission, pursuant to an Administrative Agreement under Sections 2-3.4 (a) and 2-3.7 of the Administrative Manual - Part II, Rules of Practice and Procedure, by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PADER), for review of the following components of the water supply plan:
Point Pleasant Intake and Pumping Station; Combined Transmission Main; North Branch Trans-mission Main; and North Branch Water Treatment Plant Intakes and Service Areas.
The application was amended with the submission of details of a revised Delaware River Intake Structure on September 23, 19E0.
The application was reviewed for revisica of the project previously included in the Comprehensive Plan and approval under Section 3.8 of the Delaware River Basin Compact.
Simultaneously the Delaware River Basin-Commission (DREC) considered an application submitted by Philadelphia Electric Company (PECO) to receive water from the Point Pleasant project and convey the water to Perkiccen Creek.
The DRSC prepared an environmental assessment (February 15, 1980) on the proposal by the NWRA for the North Branch Water Treatment Plant (NBWTP) which will withdraw water from Pine Run and/or North Branch Neshaminy Creek and associated components including the Point Pleasant Pumping Station.
The environmental assessment also included the proposal by PECO for the Bradshaw Reservoir and force main to the East Branch of Perkiomen Creek.
The assessment concluded that an environmental impact state-ment on the'NEWTP and a.new environmental impact statement on the Point Pleasant Diversion Plan were not necessary.
Accordingly, on February 15, 1980, the Executive Director gave notice of his intention to issue a negative declaration based upon the environmental assiessment, in accordance with the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure applicable at the time.
Numerous comments were received in response to the Executive Director's notice of intent and the Commission respcaded to the comments in a Final Environmental Assessment issued with the Negative Declaration on August 25, 1980.
g D-65-76CP (8)
- 2 A public hearing on this Comprehensive Plan revision, including the amendment dated September 23, 1980, and approval of thi's project under Section 3 8 of the Compact was held en November 18, 1980.
Testimony was received from 77 speakers and written state-ments were received from 184 parties prior to the close of the hearing onlDecember 12, 1980.
Four of the five designated alternate Commissioners were present at the hearing and each alternate Commissioner has received the complete record of the hearing.
The PADER has approved the withd:awal of surface water for the NBNTP from North Brr.nch Neshaminy Creek, and from Pine Run, and has approved a diversion of surface water from the Delaware at Point Pleasant to the No'th Branc'r Neshaminy Creek.
PADER's water obst: actions ar.d water treatment facilities permits for the UBWTP are awaiting completion of the detailed construction plans.
Applications have been submitted to the U.
S.
Army Corps of Engineers for the project facilities.,
The Delaware (Pennsylvania) Canal has been designated a National Historic Landmark.
The intake conduit from the Delaware River to the pumping station must cross the Canal.
The Pennsylvania Office of Historic Preservation has determined that the proposed project will have an adverse effect on the Canal and has directed federal agency must consult with the Advisory Council on that a Historic Places.
The Pennsylvania Office of Historic Preservation has also determined that the proposed project will have an adverse effect on a potential historic district.
Accordingly, the State Historic Preservation Officer has directed that a federal agency must request determination of eligibility for listing the historic district on the National Register of Historic Places.
DRBC, by letter dated August 28, 1980, requested the Corps of Engineers to implement the procedures in accordance with applicable federal regulations.
The Corps of Engineers agreed to comply with the requirement of the Nr*ional Historic Preservation Act of 1966 in a letter dated January 27, 1981.
DESCRIPTION Purpose.-- ihe purpose of this project is to incorporate revisions to the Neshaminy Watershed Project currently in the Comprehensive Plan and to approve under Section 3.8 of the Compact the plan of surface water withdrawals and related facilities for the NBWTP.
The project will provide supplemental water supplies to water-short areas of central Bucks and Montgcmery Counties.
. ~.
~
D-65.-76CP (8) 3 Location.-- The locations of the facilities to be constructed remain essentially the same as that described in the Comprehensive Plan and are shown on Figure A attached hereto.
More specific locations of the intake and discharge facilities are as follows:
Facility River Mile Pt. Pleasant Intake (Delaware River) 156.87 m
Pt. Pleasant Discharge (North Branch Neshaminy Creek) 115.63-40.0-11.2 North Branch Water Treatment Plant Intakes (Ucrth Branch) 115.63-40.0-0.7 (Pine Run) 115.63-40.0.45.05 The final design location of all the project facilities are detailed on plans included in the report entitled "3.8 Application to Delaware River Basin Commission for Point Pleasant Pumping Station, Combined Transmission Main, North Branch Transmission Main, North Branch Water Treatment Plant, Western Transmission Main, Southern Transmission Main" dated June 1979.
The NEWTP, also known as the Chalfont Plant, will be located at the confluence of Pine Run with North Branch of Neshaminy Creek in the Borough of Chalfcnt, Bucks County, Pennsylvania.
The western transmission main will essentually parallel the Reading Railroad Line through New Britain Towr. ship to the County Line to supply water to Montgomery County purveyors.
The southern transmission line will extend across Warrington Township to supply water to that area.
The Point Pleasant Pumping Station will be located just off Pennsylvania State Route 32 and just south of Hickory Creek in Plumstead Township, Bucks County, Pennsylvania.
The combined transmission main will extend from the pumping station to PECO's proposed Bradshaw Reservoir near Bradshaw Road and Texas Eastern Pipeline Right-of-Way.
The North Branch transmission main will extend from Bradshaw Reservoir to North Branch Neshaminy Creek near Pennsylvania Route 413.
Service area.-- The NEWTP is designed to supply water to water purveycrs in portions of (central) Bucks and Montgomery Counties.
The service area is delineated on a plan titled "Neshaminy Water Supply System" and identified as Document No. 12 in the 3.S application report dated June 1979.
t D-65-76CP (8)-
4 l
The water delivered to PECO for transmission to Perkiomen Creek will be available for use at the Limerick Generating Station which will assist in serving the electric power demands of PECO's service area in southeast Pennsylvania which is tied into the PJM system serving Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland.
Physical features.
Design criteria.-- Previously the NENTP was originally a.
' designed and inclucec in the Comprehensive Plan to be a 20 mgd plant to be in operation in 1980, to be expanded in steps up to 100-120 mgd by the year 2020.
Reduced population forecasts and more detailed analyses have reduced the size of the projected plant.
The applicant now proposes to construct a plant with a capacity of 10 mgd at standard filtration rate (20 mgd at high rate) with planned future expansion to 40 mgd by the year 2010.
The water demand and the Supplemental water required from the NBWTP are shown in the following table for each ten year period of the project.
During low flow periods in North Branch Neshaminy Creek, the water treatment plant will depend on water withdrawn from the Delaware River and pumped into the headwaters of North Branch Neshaminy Creek released from North Branch Reservoir (Lake Galena), and then withdrawn by the NSWTP intake at Chalfont.
The maximum amount of water pumped from the Delaware at Point Pleasant for public water supply (year 2010) will be 48.8 mgd with 39.5 ngd to be available for the NEWTP.
Approximately 4 mgd is estimated for evaporative and seepage losses.
In addition, the PADER, in consultation with the Pennsylvania Fish Commission, has established special conditions in the State's water allocation permit requiring the maintenance of streamflow in the Neshaminy Creek downstream of the NBWTP, in order to conserve'and protect aquatic habitat and instream uses.
The PADER conditions require maintenance of a minimum flow of 5.3 mgd between March 1 and June 15, and 2.75 ngd the remainder of the year.
These PADER streamflow maintenance requirements replace stream-flow augmentation provisions incorporated in the original project, to augment Neshaminy Creek flows for water quality improvement via additional dilution.
With the adoption and implementation over the past decade of more stringent treatment requirements on municipal and industrial discharges, such flow augmentation for water quality no longer appears justified.
A lack of interest by and financial commitments from communities and agencies responsible for wastewater treatment has resulted in elimination of the water quality-flow augmentation feature of the Neshaminy Basin project.
When natural flows are above the minimums specified above, up to 10 mgd (when available) will be withdrawn frcm Pine Run and up to 15 mgd (when available) will ce withdrawn from North Branch Neshaminy Creek for the NBWTP.
o g
D-65,-76CP (8) 5 Forecast Supplemental Water Demands of Central Bucks and Central M'ontgomery County Areas Average Annual Demand, MGD Service Area 1980 1990 2000 2010 Central Bucks Total Water Needs 13.4 17.1 19.9
. 22.6 Local Supply 10.7 12.2 14.0 15.3 Supplemental Water 2.7 4.3) 5.9 7.3 Central Montgomery Total Water Needs 18.1 24.6 29.8 32.9 Local Supply 10.8 14.I 14.I 14.I Supplemental Water M
10.5 15.7 18.8 Total Supplemental Water 10.0 15.4 '
21.6 ~
26.1 i
Maximum Water Demand. MGD 1980 1990 2000 2010 Central Bucks Total Water Needs 20.1 25.6 29.8 33.9 Lccal Supply 17.4 18.3 Supplemental Water 2.7 7.3_
20.9 23.0 8.9 10.9 Central Montgomery Tc'al Water Needs 27.0 36.9 44.6 49.3 Local Supply 19.7 21.I 21.I 21.I Supplemental Water 7.3 15.8 23.5 28.2 Total Supplemental Water 10.0 23.1 32.4 39.1 6
e e
4
j.-
6 D-65-76CP (8)
Point Pleasant Pumping Station will also withdraw Delaware River water and discharge it into PECO's Bradshaw Reservoir for conveyance to East Branch Perkiomen Creek and use at Limerick Generating Station when necessary.
The maximum quantity pumped by Point Pleasant Pumping Station for PECO has not changed and remains at 42 mgd plus 10 percent allowance for losses or a total of 46.2 mgd.
The maximum taking rates for the Delaware River water under this revised plan from Point Pleasant will be as indicated in the table marked Figure B attached hereto.
b.
Facilities.-- Structural components of the Neshaminy Water Supply System are as follows:
1.
North Branch Water Treatment Plant A new 10 mgd standard rate (20 mgd high rate) water treatment plant will be located on a 29-acre site at the confluence of the North Branch and Pine Run.
Treatment facilities will include a 5 mg finished water reservoir and a 5 mg filter wash water reservoir, three impervious sludge storage lagoons, a high lift pumping station, a filrer gallery, chemical feed and storage build-ing and auxiliary facilities.
North Branch Intake Dam The North Branch Intake Dam will be approximately seven feet high and would consist of four steel roller gates that will be closed under most conditions.
The dam will form a pool and divert water to the raw water intake line for flow by gravity to the treatment plant.
The roller gates are designed so that they may be raised out of the channel during high flows.
Pine Run Intake Dam The Pine Run Dam design and operat,on is identical i
to the North Branch Intake Dam, except that it will consist of two roller gates forming a dam approximately four feet high.
t The combined amount of withdrawal at both intakes will vary depending upon the amount of treated water required for service area demands; however, the withdrawals will be coordinated with streamflow to maintain at least the minimum flow require-ments downstream of the intake facilities.
1;
m D-6 5-7 6CP (8) 7 Rechannelization About 1500 feet of Pine Run, from its confluence with the North Branch of Neshaminy Creek, will be rechanneled.
This operation essentially will move a segment of Pine Run approximately 150 feet east of its present location to improve the siting characteristics of the stream and treatment plant.
Rechannelization will allow diverted water to flow by gravity into the plant by creating greater channel depth in the vicinity of the intake site.
The banks of Pine Run in the affected area will be recontoured and lined with rip-rap to prevent erosion.
Similarly, the banks of the North Branch Neshaminy in the vicinity of the intake will be stabilized.
Sludge Lagoons Three sludge lagoons will be used to store sludge generated at the plant.
Each lagoon vill be lined.with an impervious soil blanket and have a net capacity of approximately 1,150,000 gallons at a depth of five feet and occupy a gross rectangular area of 140 x 220 feet.
The expected amounts of sludge produced by the plant will be approximately 9,000 gpd when the plant is supplying 10 mgd of treated water and 18,000 gpd of sludge at 20 mgd capacity.
Solids content of the sludge is 3
ft /yr estimated at five percent, accumulating at a rate of 850,000 at the 20 mgd water supply capacity.
It is planned to include sludge dewatering ecuip-ment in the future based upon the actual volume and characteristics of sludge produced during initial plant operation.
Construction of the facility is envisioned within three years of startup and will eliminate the need for sludge lagoons, except for emergency purposes.
The dewatered sludge produced by the treatment plant will then be hauled to an approved landfill.
Service Area Transmission Mains The finished water delivery system, consisting of four transmission mains varying in size and length from 18 to 36 inches and from 13,850 to 30,300 feet respectively, will radiate to the north, south, east and west from the treatment plant.
Municipalities will have access to the finished water at specified "take off" points.
Four transmission mains, appurtenant to the NEWTP, are planned to distribute treated water to water purveyors in Bucks and Montgomery Counties.
The southern and western trans-mission mains will be constructed initially.
The northern and eastern mains will be added as the demand increases.
s D-65-76CP (8) 8 2.
Point Pleasant Pumping Station and Intake Point Pleasant, Pennsylvania is located on the Delaware River near the mouth of Tohickon Creek.
Normally, slow moving water characterizes the river at this point, and the pumping station infake will be located near the river bottom approximately 700 feet downstream from the confluence of Tchickon Creek.
The proposed intake structure was revised as a result'of the environmental review from the conventional surface intake with travelling screens to a below the surface welded screen intake.
Two rows of screens will parallel the river.
Each row will contain 12 screens and each screen is 40 inches in diameter and 40 inches in length.
The screens will be connected to a gate well on tne river bank by three 42 inch diameter pipelines.
A 60 inch diameter pipeline will run from the gate well crossing under the Delaware Canal to the pumping station located between the Canal and Route 32.
The dredging of an entrance channel has been eliminated and the only excavation required is that for the con-struction.
Future maintenance dredging should not be required.
The revised intake structure, near the bottom of the river away from the bank, will reduce the risk of entrainment of fish, particularly of ycang and small species.
The pumping station wil.
have two separate electric supply lines for emergency service.
The pump capacity of Point Pleasant pumping station is designed to meet the maximum demand in the year 2010.
Three of the pumps will have capacity to meet the projected maximum demand rhrough the year 1990 leaving the fourth pump available as I
standby even during maximum demand.
At that time the projected demand will be reviewed and a change in the pump capacity will be considered.
l t
l Combined Transmission Main A 66" diameter Combined Transmission Main, designed to convey the total withdrawal from the Delaware River will start from the Point Pleasant Pumping Station, cross under Pennsylvania Route 32, and traverse a relatively steep slope (22 percent grade) for 1000 feet then continue along the approximately 2.5 mile l
right-of-way to the 70-million gallon Bradshaw storage reservoir.
The pipeline will be placed below ground and construction would require blasting of rocky overburden followed by a cut and fill j
operation.
The combined main will be capable of routing municipal l
supplies directly to the North Branch Neshaminy Creek via the North Branch Transmission Main or to Bradshaw Reservoir simultane-1 ously.
A constant source of water supply will be available should the Bradshaw Reservoir be emptied for maintenance.
Water may also be supplied directly to the Bradshaw pumping station for transmission to the East Branch Perkiomen if the reservoir is out of service.
e
f, D-6 5-7 6CP (8) 9 North Branch Transmission Main The Morth Branch Transmission Main, a 42" diameter pipeline 5,600 feet long, will extend from Bradshaw Reservoir to the eventual poin' of discharge to the North Branch Neshaminy Creek near the inc=_section of Pennsylvania Route 413 and Bradshaw Road.
Design of the discharge structure includes the use of an energy dissipator to reduce the erosive effects of the discharge.
The pipeline will be constructed by the cut and fill method adjacent to Bradshaw Road through relatively undeveloped farmland.
Cost.-- The overall cost of this project is estimated to be
$34 million.
Relationship to the Comprehensive Plan.-- The Neshaminy Creek Watershed Plan was included in tne Comprehensive Plan by Docket D-65-76CP, adopted by the Commission on October 26, 1966.
This plan was supplemented by Docket D-65-76CP (2), adopted January 25, 1967, and Docket D-65-76CP (3), adopted March 17, IS71.
The NBNTP was added to the Comprehensive Plan on January 29, 1971 as described in Docket D-70-242CP.
FINDINGS The proposed modifications to the Ne.shaminy Watershed Project do not alter the main purpose of the project already part of the Comprehensive Plan.
The only significant change is the decrease in the quantity of water needed to meet projected demands in the service area during the life of the project.
The proposed project is designed to relieve areas that have experienced water shortages and to provide an adequate water supply to areas that would not otherwise meet future demands.
Recent population and land use studies have projected an increase in population for the service area that would, in the absence of the proposed project, continue to use an over-subscribed ground water resource.
The proposed project provides a surface water supply alternative to areas which have relied almost 100 percent on ground water.
D-65-76CP (8)
~10 The Neshaminy Water Resources Authority regional.public water supply project has been planned and designed in a manner to, encourage the orderly provision of water supply services in a manner consistent with sound conservation practices and comprehen-sive planning in the region.
Water Allocation Permit No. 0978601 issued by RADER established a continuing framework to assure imple-mentation of the project in a fashion which assures efficient use of the water derived from the project, equitable distribution of supplies among water supply systems and communities in the region,
.and detailed accounting of water distributed to various water supply systems served by the regional project Special Condition No. 9 of the allocation permit issued to NWRA requires each public water supply agency purchasing water from NWRA to apply to PADER for a
" subsidiary allocation."
Policy and Guidelines for Review of Applications for Subsidiary Allocations, as established by PADER, specify requirements for obtaining such subsidiary allocations, including:
1.
A demonstration that water from the regional project is i
reasonably necessary to serv,e the present and future needs of the retail system; 2.
Subm ssion of an adequate program to encourage water i
conservation by residential, commercial, and industrial customers; 3.
Implementation of an adequate, systematic program of monitoring, repair, and preventative maintenance to detect, correct, and, where possible, prevent leakage in transmission and distributien lines; 4.
Review of consistency with water supply, wastewater management, environmental and comprehensive plans in the area; and 5.
Review of any adverse environmental impacts arising frca the subsidiary allocation which were not assessed as part of the overall project review and approval.
The Policy and Guidelines establish a clear procedure for submission and review of subsidiary allocation requests, including notifica-i tion of DRSC, the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, the respective county planning commission, other retail water systems within NWRA's service area, and affected municipalities, with the opportun,ity to comment and consult on the applications.
8
.~
D-65-76CP (8)
'11 The DRBC prepared an Environmantal Assessment, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and with the DRBC Rules of Practice and Procedure, Article IV and as directed by Resolution 80-11 to determine whether an Environmental Impact Statement should be prepared for the NBMTP ana to review the impacts of,its related components described in DRBQ's FEIS of 1973 to see if that document needed to be updated.
The assessment concluded that NBWTP would impose few significant adverse impacts on the environment and those few adverse impacts could be largely eliminated by making changes in the project.
The assessment also concluded that subsequent documents support the conclusions of the FEIS on the Point Pleasant Diversion Plan, required by the NEPA of 1969 and issued by DRBC in February 1973, that the project is feasible and provides a beneficial use of water resources in the Neshaminy and Perkiomen Watersheds and is not detrirental to the Delaware River, provided that mitigating measures are implemented as listed in the FEIS under " Conclusions," page 3.
Conseque'tly, the final assessment n
reccmmended a " Finding cf No Significant Impact" (Negative Declaration) on the NEWTP and recommended no supplementary EIS be prepared on the related compenents.
The water quality of the Delaware River is compatible with that of the North Branch Neshaminy Creek.
Subsequent water quality data has shown that the chlorination of the Delaware River water at Point Pleasant as included in the Ccmprehensive Plan is not necessary and it has been deleted from the project.
The full 95 mgd may not be diverted at certain timos.
Diversions at Point Pleasant for water supplied to PECO is limited by the flow in the Delaware River falling below 3000 cfs (1940 mgd) at Trenton.
(See conditions of Docket D-69-210CP - Final.)
A diversion of 95 mgd represents less than 5 percent of the low flow and would represent a drop in the river stage of 6/10 of one inch at the Trenton gage.
The applicant has agreed to cooperate with the U.
S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and the Pennsylvania Fish Commission to construct intakes which will equal or surpass an EPA-approved intake design.
The intake conduit from the Delaware River intake structure to the pumping stati'on crosses a portion of a wetland area adjacent to the bank of the Delaware River.
The intake valve chamber will be located in this wetland area.
The valve chamber and proposed fill around the chamber will permanently alter less than 1/3 acre of wetland area.
The intake conduit crosses between two wetland areas and construction activity may temporarily disturb a small portion of both vetland areas.
Proper control of construction activity can minimize the impact on the wetland areas.
s D-65-76CP (8)
'12 The DRBC contracted an expert consultant to independently evaluate the blasting impacts of the proposed project.
The consultant concluded that:
...with minor exception, the rock (argillite and diabase) will tequire blasting in order to install the pumping station and pipelines.
However, it is our opinion that the blasting can reasonably be controlled in both rock types so as to result in no noticeable damage to the nearby structures or water wells."
The revised project does not conflict with nor adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan.
DECISION I.
The description of the proposed project in the Comprehensive Plan is hereby revised to agree with the project as described above.
II.
The project, as described above, with modifications specified hereinafter, is approved pursuant to Section 3.8 of the Compact, subject to the following conditions:
A.
All project facilities shall be available at all times for inspection by the DRSC.
B.
All project facilities shall be operated at all times to comply with all requirements of the DR3C.
C.
The withdrawal of water from the Delaware River at the Point Pleasant Pumping Station for diversion into the East Branch Perkiomen Creek must conform with the schedule and conditions listed in DRSC Docket D-69-210CP.
D.
The withdrawal frca the Delaware River shall not exceed a maximum of 48.8 mgd for use by NWRA plus a maximum of 46.2 mgd for use by PECO (withdrawal for PECO is further limited by condition "3" above).
E.
The applicant shall make no wastewater discharges from these project facilities into the surface waters of the basin.
F.
Sound practices of excavation, backfill, and reseeding shall be followed to minimize erosion and deposition of sediment in streams.
t
' D-6'5-7 6CP (8) 13 s
G.
Nothing herein shall be construed to exempt the project sponsor from obtaining all necessary permits and/or approvals from other State, Federal or local government agencies having jurisdiction over this project.
H.
The project sponsor shall pay for surface water use in acco? dance with the provisions of DRBC Resolution No. 74-6, as amended.
I.
Upon completion of construction of the approved project, the sponsor shall submit a statement to the DRBC, signed by the sponsor's engineer or other responsible agent, advising the Commission that the construction has been completed in compliance with the approved plans, giving the final construction cost of the approved project.
J.
This approval shall expire three, years from date belcw unless prior thereto the sponsor has expended substantial funds (in relation to the cost of the project) in reliance upon this approval.
The project sponsor shall notify the DRBC, in writing, the date that construction of the project is started and the scheduled completion date within 10 days of that starting date.
K.
The area served by this project is limited to the service area as described above.
Any expansion beyond this area is subject to review in accordance with Section 3.8 of the Compact.
Subsidiary allocations for any portion of the included service area shall be subject to the provisions of the PADER approval as listed on page 10 hereinbefore.
L.
The applicant shall cooperate with the U.
S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and the Pennsylvania Fish Commission to construct intakes which will ecual or surpass an EPA-approved intake design critr-ia.
Final design or the intake facility is subject to the apprvval of the Executive Director of DRBC.
M.
The applicant shall conduct a monitoring study on the operation of the intake facilities and shall take any mitigating steps that the study indicates necessary.
N.-
Construction excavation and maintenance dredging in the Delaware River must be performed between November and March to reduce the potential for impact on migrating juvenile i
and adult shad.
O.
The applicant shall monitor the fishery resource of Lake Galena and sha]l manage the resource.in consultation with the Pennsylvania Fish Commission to maintain the best practical fishery.
l l
l
s
. D-6'5-76CP (8)
- 14 i
P.
The applicant shall augment flows in North Branch Neshaminy Creek sufficient to maintain a minimum of 5.3 mgd from March 1 to June 15 and a minimum of 2.73 mgd the remainder of the year.
Streamflow will be measured at the Pine Run and North Branch intakes.
7 The applicant shall develop a program to monitor all water supply facilities including storage and distribution systems for leakage.
The program must be approved by the Executive Director and the monitoring results shall be submitted within six
' months of the date this project is placed in operation and thereafter as requested by the Commission.
The applicant shall proceed expeditiously to correct leakages identified by the monitoring.
R.
The applicant shall adopt and implement, to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, a continuous program to encourage water conservation in all types of use within the area served by this allocation permit.
The applicant will report to the Commission on the actions taken pursuant to this program and the impact of those actions, on or bef' ore March 31 of each year.
S.
The applicant shall monitor the ecology of that portion of North Branch Neshaminy Creek from the point of discharge at river mile 115.63 - 40.0 - 11.2 to Lake Galena on a regular basis and shall file a report every two years describing and explaining any changes that occur.
In addition to the regular inspections for monitoring the ecology, the applicant shall inspect the stream banks for erosion following any significant period of flood flows and shall promptly correct such erosion, stabilize and revegetate exposed portions of the streambank.
Corrective action taken shall be fully explained in each two-year report on the ecology.
The Executive Direcror may curtail or suspend the operation of this project if significant ecological impacts degrade North Branch Neshaminy Creek as a result of this project.
Operating schedules for pumping shall be designed to eliminate rapid fluctuations of the streamflow.
T.
Final architectural design for all above ground l
facilities shall be designed and landscaped to complement the surrounding environment.
I U.
Construction of the Delaware River intake and intake i
conduit shall be controlled to minimize the impact on existing wetland areas.
Excavated material shall not be deposited in the wetland areas.
Construction material or equipment shall not be I
stored in wetland areas.
I I
~
D-65-76CP (8) 23 V.
The applicant shall provide adequate detours during construction affecting local roads.
River Road (PA.
Route 32) shall'be kept open at all times.
A temporary road shall be installed when necessary to insure compliance with this require-ment.
Construction of the project sha]l be carried out in a manner that; will not prevent or impede the access and operation of emergency vehicles.
In particular, access to and from the buildings serving emergency vehicles in the Chalfont area shall be maintained at all times.
W.
The applicant shall retain an archaeologist for the period of excavation, construction and reconstruction for the intake, pumping facilities and transmission lines.
The archae-ologist shall follow the scope of work listed in Appendix No. C of the applicant's Environmental Report on this project dated February 1979.
All records prepared by archaeologist shall be available to the DRBC upon request.
X.
The blasting shall be performed utilizing the controlled blasting techniques in close conformity with the guidelines provided in the Appendix of " Report on Evaluation'of Rock Excavation and Impact of Blasting for the Proposed Point Pleasant Pumping Facilities, Point Pleasant, Pennsylvania" dated 20 May 1980, for DRBC by Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc.
1.
All blasting operations shall be monitored with the aid of seismographs to check the limiting vibration criteria for ground and air vibrations.
The vibration readings shall be taken with the aid of one or more seismographs as required on the nearest structure.
2.
A pre-blast survey shall be conducted of all surucrures within 1000 feet of the blasting area to satisfy the regulations of the Pennsylvania Explosives and Blasring Laws.
3.
Water systems and wells shall be surveyed prior to blasting as to their conditions and the quality and quantity of water to satisfy the regulations of the Pennsylvania Explosives and Blasting Laws.
The specific capacity of all wells shall be determined prior to blasting.
4.
Prior to construction, test blasts shall be monitored to determine the propagation characteristics of rock mass, and ground vibration produced at the nearest residential structure.
This will help design blast charges for the project.
n O
D-65-76CP (8) 16 Y.
The Executive Director of the DRBC shall act as Stream Master and has authority to regulate the operation of this project.
NWRA is responsible for all costs incurred by DRBC in fulfilling this obligation as Stream Master.
NWRA shall arrange for the following quantities to be recorded, in a manner acceptable to the Executive Director, in the office of the DRBC in the morning of each working day during periods of declared drought warning or drought emergency or whenever directed by the Executive Director.
1.
The recorded daily average streamflow for the previous day in Pine Run and North Branch Neshaminy Creek immediately downstream of the Water Treatment Plant intakes.
2.
The recorded daily average streamflow for the previous day of the Delaware River at Trenton.
3.
Quantity of water transferred to the North Branch Neshaminy Creek on the previous day.
4.
Estimated quantity of water to be transferred to North Branch Neshaminy Creek on that day.
In addition, the applicant shall submit reports monthly, indicating all of the above quantities, the quantities withdrawn by the NEWTP, and the quantiries released from Lake Galena.
2.
For the duration of the drought emergency declared by the Commission on January 15, 1981, or any subsequenr droughr emergency, water service or use by the project sponsor pursuant to this approval shall be subject to the prohibition of those nonessential water uses specified in Commission Resolution No.
81-5 to the extent that they may be applicable, and to any other emergency resolutions or orders adopted hereafter.
SY THE COMMISSION DATED:
February 18, 1981 4
o
.,is o*S w
.g Ef)
%A Cw
~~
~3 u*
t 2
w 28 x
v) ~
\\
t.
G n
<Q R
/
~
SE 2
/
bs 88 E
/
ag a s w
O c.
9m c.
E.,
y5
/
E
,/? <
/.
~
O C
c
/
5 5G<
/
<O
/
mc$7 h Yo I>
E
/
o 7
=
cwe O,
t
/
0 OC 2-/
<m2
'r -'
CWD k
2.
(D C6 0
v C'
a I
0 os o=
Q Er "O
Op 1-n m
=
eO z
s W
R c5 A/
=2
= E!
W5 4
N sg'O E3 o
z o--
0 0-OZ c
4
>E g8 zg A
./ s m2 d
C- "
D N==E9 cy 1
-8 L
g a
m-
-g
/
W 7 o
e Gg /
3G
+ZM E$/
E
-r --
C e-C W
cd wh 3h a
e e 3
/O H
H lj(
E e
/ zC U
~
i 2
- S "G
/
[h s
A I
w
/
/
,\\'
z
/
/
0 ee g
.8 C'd!..!..
///
O t/O H s m
Oz O
O EC
.d
/'
d9 O
$8E W
5 $N Ed3.
/
/
Ed O
/
'z O
w<
g oc 0
/
3" O
2 C.
/
I C O
/
c.
< p w <
/
Y' O $
C O
/
!, '1 22 I
No/
55 ax
//
J Y,!
1 j
FIGURE B Forecast Supplemental Water Needs Neshami*ny Water Supply System and Philadelphia Electric Company
~
i Average Daily, MGD Maximum Daily, MGD Service' Area or Agency 1981 1990 2000 2010 1981 1990 2000 2010
]
Central Bucks County 2.7 4.9 5.9 7.3 2.7 7.3 8.9 10.9 Central Montgomery County 7.3 10.5 15.7 18.8 7.3 15.8 23.5 28.2 Minimum Flow Releases (l) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 Water Supply Needs 13.5 18.9 25.1 29.6 15.3 28.4 37.7 44.4 Water Supply Withdrawal (2) 14.9 20.0 27.6 32.6 16.8 31.2 41.5 48.8 Philadelphia Electric Co. (2) 38.5(3)38.5(3)30.5(3)38.5(3) 46.2 46.2 46.2 46.2 Total Water Requirements 53.4 59.3 66.1 71.1 63.0 77.4 87.7 95.0 l'
(1) Minimum release of 5.3 MGD shall be maintained from 3/1 to 6/15 and 2.73 MGD shall be maintained during the remainder of the year (Neshaminy Creek).
~
Average daily release for the year is 3.5 MGD.
(2) Incl'udes 10% for water losses in transit.
(3) Average during the pumping season (6.5 MGD average during the non-pumping season).
O h
- ar
-~
~
n - l i sf/
~~
c*'.
.'t
~
?-
~,
t O
DOCKET NO. D-79-52CP DELAWAP.E RIVER BASIN COM_ MISSION Philadelphia Electric Company Bradshaw Reservoir, Pumping Station and Transmission Main Bucks and Montgomery Counties, Pennsylvania PROCEEDINGS This is an application submitted by the Philadelphia Electric Company (PECO) on August 2, 1979, for review of a reservoir, pumping station and water transmission line project.
The applica-tion was reviewed for revision of the project in the Comprehensive Plan and approval under*Yection 3.8 of the Delaware River Basin Compact.
Simultaneously, the Delaware River Basin. Commission (DRBC) considered an application [D-65-7 6 CP ( 8 ) ] submitted by Neshaminy Water Resources Authority (b&UUO to withdraw water from the Delaware River and pump it into the reservoir which is a portion of this project.
The DRBC prepared an environmental assessment on the proposal by NWRA and included in the assessment the proposal by PICO for Bradshaw Reservoir, a pumping station and transmission main to East Branch of Perhiomen Creek.
The assessment concluded that an environmental impa'ct statement on the North Branch Water Treatment Plant (NSWTP) and a new environmental impact statement on the Point Pleasant Diversion Plan were not necessary.
Accordingly, on February 15, 1980, the Executive Director gave notice of his intention to issue a negative declaration based upon the environmental assessment, in accordance with the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure applicable at the time.
Numerous ccmments were received in response to the Executive Director's notice of intent and the Commission responded to the comments in a Final Environmental Assessment issued with the Negative. Declaration on August 25, 1980.
. = _ -..
A public hearing on this Comprehensive Plan revision and approval of this project under Section 3.8 of the Compact was held on November 18, 1980.
Testimony was received from 77 speakers and written statements.were received from 184 parties prior to the close of the hearing on December 12, 1980.
Four of the five designated alternate Commissioners were present at the hearing and each alternate Commissioner has received the complete record of the hearing.
G s
De
v
.., o
~
~
~
,D-79,-52CP 2
r Applications must also be submitted to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources for permits covering the Bradshaw Reservoin and waterway facilities, pursuant to the Pennsylvania Dan Safety and Encroachments Act.
~
Applications have been submitted to the U.
S.
Army Corps of Engineers for the project facilities.
DESCRIPTION Purpose.-- The purpose of this project is to provide an additional source of cooling water for PECO's Limerick Generating Station.
Location.-- The general location of the project facilities is shown on Figure A attached hereto.
More specifically, Bradshaw Reservoir will be located southeast of Bradshaw Road and northwest of the Danboro-Point Pleasant Pike-in Plumstead Township, Bucks County, Pennsylvania.
The transmission main from the reservoir will parallel the Texas Eastern pipel'ine's right-of-way through Plumstead and Bedminster Townships in Bucks County to a point approximately 0.3 miles west of Route 113, then continue to and enter the East Branch Perkiomen Creek at river mile 92.47-32.3-11.3-23.8.
Service area.-- Bradshaw Reservoir and the transmission main will be used to augment flows in the East Branc'h Perkicmen Creek for downstream use by PECO's Limerick generating station.
The reservoir will also store water for release to the North 3 ranch Neshaminy Creek.
Design criteria.-- PECO is constr.ucting the two-unit Limerick nuclear genera:Ing station on the Schuylkill River in Limerick Township,, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.
During low flow periods, the Schuylkill River cannot supply sufficient water to maintain full plant cperations and PECO has recuested, and the DREC has approved, by Docket D-69-210CP, withdrawal, under certain conditicns, of water'from the Perkiomen Creek and the Delaware River as supplemental sources of supply.
=- - _. - _ -
u._
O e
e a
AMA-
~.
j D-79-52CP 3
The NWRA has agreed to deliver water to the proposed Bradshaw Reservoir for use by PECO in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan of DREC.
PECO will construct the Bradshaw Reservoir, booster pumping station and transmission main to East Branch ~Perkiomen Creek.
The capacity of the reservoir has been increased from 35 mg to 70 mg to provide additional reserve capacity.
The maximum quantity to be pumped by the booster pump station to East Branch Perkicmen Creek is 42 mgd plus 10 percent allowance for losses or a total maximum of 46.2 mgd.
The proposed Bradshaw Reservoir is designed to accommodate differing discharge flew rates, to provide water to allow the Limerick station to operate for one day without additional sources, and to provide for settling of silts and suspended solids.
It is not recuired for the safe shutdown of the reactors.
The reservoir may also be used to store water for release by gravity to the North Branch Neshaminy Creek.
Facilities.-- Bradshaw Reservoir wi-ll be constructed on a 28-acre field, will have a storage capacity of 70 mg and a surface area of approximately 18 acres.
It will consist of four 900' long earthen dikes, varying in height from 5' to 20', depend-ing on ground contour, and have a maximum depth of 13'.
The dikes will be rip-rapped on the inner surface to prevent erosion and will be constructed of impervious soil excavated at the site.
The bottcm of the. reservoir will be impervious soil or compacted material brought in frcm off-site.
The reservcir is designed to have an 13 mg coerating capacity, 46 mg for emergency storage and 6 mg for silt buildup.
NWRA's pumping station at Point Pleasant will transfer up to 95 mgd of water from the Delaware ~ River to the reservoir and/or to a by-pass line to the Norrh Branch Neshaminy Creek.
A pump house on the westerly side of the reservoir will withdraw water from the reservoir and pump it through the transmission line to East Branch Perkicmen Creek.
The pump station will have several vertical turbine pumps to accommodate the various pumping demands.
The station will be supplied by two separate electric power lines.
A gated outlet at the pump house will feed water by gravity to the North Branch transmission main... Automatic.. controls will be installed to operate pumps and regulate levels and flows.
_.. _..,. =..
.w 9
~'
'~
D-79-52CP 4
/
9 The proposed 35,400', 48" diameter transmission main to the East Branch will parallel and Ecrm a common corridor with the Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation pipeline and discharge to the creek through an impact-type energy dissipator consisting of a concrete box and spur channel rip-rapped on the sides and bottom.
The main will not cross any significant streams and the only major road crossings will be U.S.
Route 611 and PA. Route 413.
Pipeline grade will generally follow the ground surface with a minimum cover of 3 feet.
The main will be installed in a steel casing or enclosed in additional concrete at all road and stream crossings.
Air relief control and blow-off values will be provided where needed and enclosed in concrete vaults.
Flou depth and velocity under maximum pumpage rates and median East Branch streamflow conditions will be below that which occurs naturally during flood periods and the higher velocity generated by pumping will be less than the erosion limits.
Under average streamflow conditions, it is estimated the minimum pumpage from mid-April through mid-November, will be 27 cfs.
Cost.-- The cost of the reservoir, pump station and trans-mission main is estimated to be $8,700,000.
Relationship to the Comprehensive Plan.-- The Limerick Nuclear Generating Station was included in the Ccmprehensive Plan by Docket D-69-210 on March 29, 1973 and by Docket D-69-210 (Final) on November 5, 1975.
The Point Pleasant Pumping Station, including Bradshaw Reservoir, booster pumping station and transmission main to East Branch Perkiomen, was included by Docket D-65-76(3) on March 17, 1971.
FINDING 5 The proposed modifications to the Bradshaw Reservoir, pumping station and transmission main by PECO do not alter the purpose of the project as currently stated in the Comprehensive Plan.
The only significant changeis the increase in the storage capacity of the reservoir.
. + _
e-e
~
~
s D-79-52CP 5
~-
s
' The DRSC prepared an Envi;onmental Assessment, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the DRSC Rules of Practice and Procedure, Article IV, and as directed by Resolution 80-11 to determine whether an Environmental Impact Statement should be prepared for the NSWTP and to review the impacts of its related compenents described in DREC's FIIS of 1973 te abe if that document needed to be updated.
The assessment also concluded that subsequent documents support the conclusions of the FEIS on the Point Pleasant Diversion Plan, required by the NEPA of 1969 and issued by DRBC in February 1973, that the project is feasible and provides a beneficial use of water resources in the Neshaminy and Perkiomen Watersheds and is not detrimental to the Delaware River, provided that mitigating measures are implemented as listed in the FEIS under
" Conclusions," page 3.
Consequently, the assessment recommended
, a " Findings of No Significant Impact" (Negative Declaration) on the NSWTP and recommended no supplementary IIS be prepared on the related components.
The water quality of the Delaware River is compatible with that of East Branch Perkiomen Creek and no treatment will be required for the inter-basin transfer.
The conditions of Docket D-69-210CP require that the with-drawal of Delaware River water at Point Pleasant for use at the Limerick Generating Station not reduce the flow as measured at the Trenton gage below 3,000 cfs (1940 mgd) and that such use will not be permitted when the flow as measured at the Trenten gage is less than 3000 cfs (1940 mgd), provided that annually after pumping from the Delaware River has commenced, the rate of pumping will be maintained at not less than 27 cfs (17.5 mgd) throughout the normal low flow season for the protection of aquatic life in Perkiomen Creek and its East Branch regardless of ultimate downstream ccnsumptive use requirements.
During
~
periods of high natural flow in East Branch Perkiomen Creek, pumping from Point Pleasant shall be kept at a level so as not to aggravate high water levels.
The revised project does not conflict with nor adversely affect the Ccaprehensive Plan.
= =. -.
In the course of the DRBC proceedings on the pending project, numerous issues have been raised regarding the operation of the Limerick Nuclear Generating Station, including the safety of said facilit.v, evacua. tion.clanninc in the event of a nuclear. accident, and the need for new generating. capacity in the PECO system.
l l
l
n, s'
.D-79-52CP
~
~
6 These issues generally lie beyond the statutory jurisdiction of DRSC, and DRDC has no authority or expertise to render a decision on such questions.
These issues do, however, fall within the.
proper jurisdiction and expertise of other Federal and State agencies, particularly the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission.
In renderinc a decision on the docket, the DRSC in no way intends to prejudice or influence the outcome of proceedings in those forums.
In particular, DRBC notes that prior to operation of Limerick, PECO must appif for and obtain an operating permit from the NRC.
By letter dated December 16, 1980, the NRC has indicated its intent to prepare and complete a new or supplemental Environmental Impact Statement as part of -the proceedings on the operating permit.
DREC believes and expects that the NRC will address fully and adequately all of the safety and environmental issues regarding ope. ration of Limerick.
In the event that review by other State and Federal
, agencies results in a modification to the operation or the design of this project, DRSC has so conditioned this docket to allow a reopening, reconsideraticni and revision o: this project approval as necessary.
The DRSC will coordinate and confer with the Nuclear Regulatory Ccamission concerning all issues relevant to provisions of water supply.
DECISION I.
The description of the proposed project in the Compre-hensive Plan is hereby revised to agree with the project as described above.
II.
The project, as described above, with modifications specified hereinafter, is approved pursuant to Section 3.8 of the Compact, subject to Ehe following conditions:
A.
All project facilities shall be av,ailable at all times for inspection by the DRSC.
1 B.
The withdrawal of water from the Delaware River at
(
the Point Pleasant Pumping Station for diversien into the East Branch Perkicmen Creek must conform-with the schedule and conditions listed in DREC Docket D-69-210CP.
l I
C.
PECO dull maintail a minimum flow of 27 cfs (17.4 mgd) in the East
- Branch Perkicmen Creek at the proposed Bucks Road stream gage throughout the normal low ficw period beginning with the day the booster station commences pumping and ending when I
pumping is no longer recuired for the operation of the Limerick Generating Station.
The rest of the year PECO shall maintain a minimum flow of 10 cfs (6.5 mgd).
t
~. '
~
/
D-79-52CP
~
7 D.
All project facilities shall be operated at all times to comply with all requirements of the DR3C.
E.
Sound p: actices of excavation, backfill, and reseeding shall be followed to minimize erosion and deposition of sedimenc in streams.
F.
Upon completion of construction of the approved project, the sponsor shall submit a statement to the DRSC, signed by the sponsor's engineer or other responsible agent, advising the Ccemission that the construction has been completed in compliance with the approved plans, giving the final construction cost of the approved project.
G.
This approval shall expire three years from date below unless prior thereto the sponsor has expended substantial funds (in relation to the cost of the project) in reliance upon this approval.
The project sponsor shall notify the DRBC, in j
writing, the date that Ecnstruction of the project is started and
~
the scheduled completion date within,10 days of that starting date.
H.
The area served by this project is limited to the service area as cescribed above.
Any expansion be' yond this area is subject to review in accordance with Section 3.8 of the Compact.
I.
The applicant shall develcp a program to monitor all water supply facilities including storace and distributien systems for leakage.
The program must be approved by the Executive Director and the mcnitoring results shall be submitted within six months of this approval and thereafter as requested by the Commission.
The applicant shall. proceed e.peditiously to correct leakages identified by the conitoring.
J.
All above' ground facilities shall be designed and landscaped to complement the surrounding environment.
K.
Operating schedules for pumping shall be designed to eliminate rapid fluctuations of the streamflows.
L.
The appl.icant shall be responsible for the operation of the projbet facilities in a manner that will insure compliance with all streamflow and use limitations.
The applicant shall arrange for the following items to be recorded, in a manner accept-able to the Executive Director, in the office of the DRSC in the morning of each ' working day.
,..(.v m
8 e
e 4
_ -. _ ~_ - _
s
~
D-79-52CP 8
a 1.
The recorded daily average streamflow for the previous day in the East Branch Perkiomen Creek.
~
2.
The quantity of water transferred to East Branch Perkiomen Creek on the previous day.
3.
The estimated quantity of water to be trans-ferred to East Branch Perkiomen on that day.
In addition, the applicant shall submit reports, monthly, indicating all of the above quantities.
M.
The applicant shall provide adequate detours during construction affecting local roads.
U.
S.. Route.611 and PA. Route 413 will be kept open at all times.
A temporary road shall be installed when necessary to insure compliance with this requirement.
N.
The applicant shall inspect and monitor the portien of East Branch.Perkiemen Creeksb= ediately below.the discharge, at river mile 92.47 - 32.3 - 11.3 - 23.8, on a regular basis and following any significant period of flood fle.ws.
If such inspection discloses significant erosion of the bank or bed of the East Branch Perkicmen Creek below the discharge, the applicant shall promptly correct such crosion, stabill:e and revegetate any exposed portion of the streambank.
Reports of such monitoring, and any corrective action taken, shall be filed with the Executive Director within two weeks of each inspection or actiCn.
O.
Nothing herein shall be construed to exempt the project sponser frca obtaining all necessary permits and/or approvals frem other State, Federal or local government agencies having jurisdiction over this project.
P.
The Commis'sion reserves the right to reopen this docket at any time, and to reconsider this decision and any and all conditions imposed hereunder in light of further information developed by, or decisions rendered in, pending or future proceedings ccnducted by other State and Federal agencies concern-ing the developm'eht and operation of the Limerick Nuclear Generat-ing Station and related facilities.
The Commission may at any time modify existing conditions, or impose additional conditions, upon the construction and operation of this facility to reflect new or changed. information or to conform to requirements imposed on the project by other agencies.
e e
4 e
e 4
4 4
D-79-52CP 9
Q.
For the duration of the drought omergency declared by the Cercission on January 15, 1921, or any subsequent drought emergency, water service or use by the project sponsor pursuant to this apprcval shall be subjer: to the prohibition of those nonessential water uses specified in Ccemission P,esolution No.
81-5 to the extent that they may be applicable and to any other emergency'resolutiens er orders adopted hercafter.
3Y THE CCP.M'SSICN DATED:
Februarv. 18r 1981 9
e
[?
9 ce 3,
c l
-o 4=
w
~
mO 1
m c z s$
o$-
5o d'
un
/
G
~
/
'e ea W
~Mjy P8
$5 a
/
s E
O C
/
g gC
/
"$ O < y>
h e
r k
o@a
/
G o
/
w O
< w2 a
t v
/
Ed c a c) a o&
E
/
a o
/
o 2 /
bk Z
Ew l
'4
% egi
- n O es i ~u)
)
e c0
'O C$
W E
Q2 l
o 23 aG M
O j
OI 7 m
a w=
4 M
p5
/
Z 3
2 O
~,
$ <3-f o
o em
/
c S
9a g=
o o
a ym
/g e
g J
w2 c
o b"
r s.,
/
a a
~
a E
D g22 Q9
~
9 5-
~m w
<g eu u
c:
o E l hb g
UJ
+ZM
~8i p
e-a
,s QN c
~
U s e<
%)
ay fo~
=
/2C
.=
N 2
.C o
a v
~
fI) m
/
W
/
=
/
h
/
/
/
/
ga e/gf o/o
,p e s
-i
- - /,> n
-8
- o ~s (N
'O2 u
%g: E s
~ / "p/A._.-
82 O
o<
- c. <
y Q
Qm-i 1
S
(
'/
go a
sSe p
sEPO Ed3
-v e
/
Eb C
c-du o
f o
/
) "c O
6e Q
=
c.
/
cO
< p u
N Ne<
(.
ee l )!
o s.,
xe os
- a. O C
x
.)
Mm n2,
- 1 M
a s's
.a O
j
FIGURC D Forecast Supplemental Water Needs Heshami'ny Water Supply System and Philadelphia Electric Company u-Average Daily, MGD Maximum Daily, MGD Service
- Area or Agency 1981 1990 2000 2010 1981 1990 2000 2010
.)
Central Bucks County 2.7 4.9 5.9 7.3 2.7 7.3 8.9 10.9 Central Montgomery County 7.3 10.5 15.7 18.8 7.3 15.8 23.5 28.2 Minimum Flow Releases (l) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 Water Supply Needs 13.5 18.9 25.1 29.6 15.3 28.4 37.7 44.4 Water Supply Withdrawal (2) 14.9 20.8 27.6 32.6 16.8 31.2 41.5 48.8 Philadelphia Electric Co. (2) 3 8. 5(3) 3 8. 5(3) 3 g,3(3) 3 8. 5 (3) 46.2 46.2 46.2 46.2 Total Water Requirements 53.4 59.3 66.1 71.1 63.0 77.4 87.7 95.0 t
(1) Minimum release of 5.3 MGD shall be maintained from 3/1 to 6/15 and 2.73 MGD shall be maintained during the remainder of the year (Neshaminy Creek).
~
Average daily release for the year is 3.5 MGD.
(2) Inc1*udes 10% for water losses in transit.
(3) Average during the pumping season (6.5 MGD average during the non-pumping season).
9
A~
o(*lat y/.
/
DOCKET NO. D-79-52CP DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION Philadelphia Electric Company Bradshaw Reservoir, Pumping Station and Transmission Main Bucks and Montcomery Counties, Pennsylvania PROCEEDINGS This is an application submitted by the Philadelphia Electric Ccmpany (PECO) on August 2,-1979, for review of a reservoir, pumping station and water transmission line project.
The applica-tion was reviewed for revision of the project in the comprehensive Plan and approval under-Yection 3.8 of the Delaware River Basin Compact.
Simultaneously, the Delaware River Basin. Commission (DRBC) considered an application (D-65-7 6CP ( 8 ) ] submitted by Neshaminy Water Resources Authority (NWRA) to withdraw water from the Delaware River and pump it into the reservoir which is a portion of this project.
The DRBC prepared an environmental assessment on' the proposal by NWRA and included in the assessment-the proposal by PECO for Bradshaw Reservoir, a pumping station and transmission main to East Branch of Perkiomen Creek.
The assessment concluded that an environmental impa'ct statement on the North Branch Water Treatment Plant (NBWTP) and a new environmental impact statement on the Point Pleasant Diversion Plan were not necessary.
Accordingly, on February 15, 1980, the Executive Director gave notice of his intention to issue a negative declaration based upon the environmental assessment, in accordance with the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure applicable at the time.
Numerous comments were received in response to the Executive Director's notice of intent and the Commission responded to the comments in a Final Environmental Assessment issued with the Negative. Declaration on August 25, 1980.
A public hearing on this comprehensive Plan revision and approval of this project under Section 3.8 of the Compact was held on November 18, 1980.
Testimony was received from 77 speakers and written statements,were received from 184 parties prior to the close of the hearing on December 12, 1980.
Four of i
the five designated alternate Cornissioners were present at the i
hearing and each alternate Cc=missioner has received the complete j,s record of the hearing.
p la 5
a g
i _. _, _..
.J.C.....
.__._._l.___,
~
e' D-79-53CP 2
Applications must also be submitted to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources for permits covering the Bradshaw Reservoir,and waterway facilities, pursuant to the Pennsylvania Dam Safety and Encroachments Act.
~
Applications have~been submitted to the U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers ~for the project facilities.
DESCRIPTION Purpose.-- The purpose of this project is to provide an additional source of cooling water for PECO's Limerick Generating Station.
Location.-- The general location of the project facilities is shown on Figure A attached hereto.
More specifically, Bradshaw Reservoir will be located southeast of Bradshaw Road and northwest of the Danboro-Point Pl'e'asant Pike-in Plumstead Township, Bucks County, Pennsylvania.
The transmission main from the reservoir will parallel the Texas Eastern pipel*ine's right-of-way through Plumstead and Bedminster Townships in Bucks County to a point approximately 0.3 miles west of Route 113, then continue to and enter the East Branch Perkiomen Creek at river mile 92.47-32.3-11.3-23.8.
Service area.-- Bradshaw Reservoir and the transmission main will be usec to augment flows in the East Branc'h Perkicmen Creek for downstream use by PECO's Limerick generating station.
The reservoir will also store water for release to the North 3 ranch Neshaminy Creek.
Design criteria.-- PECO is constr,ucting the two-unit Limerick nuclear genera:Ing staticn on the Schuylkill River in Limerick Township,, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.
During low ficw periods, the Schuylkill River cannot supply sufficient water to maintain full plant cperations and PECO has recuested, and the DRSC has approved, by Docket D-69-210CP, withdrawal, under certain conditiens, of water <from the Perkiomen Creek and the Delaware River as supplemental sources of supply.
= - -
O e
..,o,
~.
- y D-79-52CP 3
The NWRA has agreed to deliver water to the proposed Bradshaw Reservoir for use by PECO in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan of DRBC.
PECO will construct the Bradshaw Reservoir, booster pumping station and transmission main to East Branch Perkiomen Creek.
The capacity of the reservoir has been increased from 35 mg to 70 mg to provide additional reserve capacity.
The maximum cuantity to be pumped by the booster pump station to East Branch Perkiomen Creek is 42 mgd plus 10 percent allcwance for losses or a total maximum of 46.2 mgd.
The proposed Bradshaw Reservoir is designed to accommodate differing discharge flow rates, to provide water to allow the Limerick station to operate for one day without additional sources, and to provide for settling of silts and suspended solids.
It is not required for the safe shutdown of the reactors.
The reservoir j
may also be used to store water for release by gravity to the North Branch Neshaminy Creek.
Facilities.-- Bradshaw Reservoir wi-ll be constructed on a 28-acre fielc, will have a storage capacity of 70 mg and a surface area of approximately 18 acres.
It will consist of four 900' long earthen dikes, varying in height from 5' to 20', depend-ing on ground contour, and have a maximum depth of 13'.
The dikes will be rip-rapped on the inner surface to prevent erosion and will be constructed of impervious soil excavated at the site.
The bottem of the. reservoir will be impervicus soil or compacted material brought in frca off-site The reservoir is designed to have an 13 =g operating capacity, 46 mg for emergency storage and 6 mg for silt buildup.
NWRA's pumping station at Point Pleasant will transfer up to 95 mgd of water from the Delaware River to the reservoir and/or to a by-pass line to the North Branch Neshaminy Creek.
A pump house on the westerly side of the reservoir will withdraw water from the reservoir and pump it through the transmission line to East Branch Perkicmen Creek.
The pump station will have several vertical turbine pumps to acccmmodate the various pumping demands.
The station will be supplied by two separate electric power lines.
A gated outlet at the pump house will feed water by gravity to the North Branch transmission main... Automatic.. controls will be installed to operate pumps and regulate levels and flows.
e a
h e
7' D-79-52CP 4
^
/
' The proposed 35,400', 48" diameter transmission main to the East Branch will parallel and Yorm a common corridor with the l
Texas Eastern. Transmission Corporation pipeline and discharge to the creek through an impact-type energy dissipator consisting of a concrete box and sp,ur channel rip-rapped on the sides and bottom.
The main will not cross any significant streams and the only major road crossings will be U.S.
Route 611 and PA. Route 413.
Pipeline grade will generally follow the ground surf ace with a minimum cover of 3 feet.
The main will be installed in a steel casing or enclosed in additional concrete at all road and stream crossings.
Air relief control and blow-off values will be provided where needed and enclosed in concrete vaults.
I Flow depth and velocity under maximum pumpage rates and median East Branch streamflow conditions will be below that which occurs naturally during flood periods and the higher velocity generated by pumping will be less than the erosion limits.
Under aver:ge streamflow conditions, it is estimated the minimum pmapage from mid-April through mid-November, will be 27 cfs.
Cost.-- The cost of the reservoir, pump station and trans-missicn main is estimated to be S8,700,000.
Rel:tionship to the Corpfehensive Plan.-- The Limerick Nuclear Genera:Ing Station was incluced in the Comprehensive Plan by Docket D-69-:10 on March 29, 1973 and by Docket D-69-210 (Final) on November 5, 1975.
The Point Pleasant Pu= ping Station, including Bradshaw Reservoir, booster pumping station and transmission main to East Branch Perkiomen, was included by Docket D-65-76(3) on March 17, 1971.
FINDING 5 The proposed modifications to the Bradshaw Reservoir, pumping station and transmission main by PECO do not alter the purpose of the project as currently stated in the Ccmprehensive Plan.
The only significant change ~is the increase in the storage capacity of the reservoir.
9 8
m.
O 6
s 5
D-79-52CP
~'
2 The DRSC prepared an Environmental Assessment, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the DR3C Rules
.of Practico and Procedure, Article IV, and as directed by Resolution 80-11 to determine whether an Environmental Impact Statement should be prepared for the NSWTP and to review the impacts of its related cc=ponents described in DREC's FIIS of 1973 to see if that document needed to be updated.
The assessment also concluded that subsequent documents support the conclusions of the FEIS on the Point Pleasant Diversion Plan, required by the NEPA of 1969 and issued by DRBC in February 1973, that the project is feasible and provides a beneficial use of water resources in the Neshaminy and Perkiomen Watersheds and is not detrimental to the Delaware River, provided that mitigating measures are implemented as listed in uhe FEIS under
" Conclusions," page 3.
Consequently, the assessment recommended
, a " Findings of No Significant Impact" (Negative Declaration) on the NSWTP and recommended no supplementary EIS be prepared on the related components.
The water quality of the Delaware River is ceme.atible wit.h.
that of East Branch Perkiomen Creek and no treatment will be required for the inter-basin transfer.
The conditions of Docket D-69-210CP require that the with-drawal of Delaware River water at Point Pleasant for use at the Limerick Generating Station not reduce the flow as measured at the Trenton gage below 3,000 cfs (1940 mgd) and that such use will not be permitted when the flow as measured at the Trenton gage is less than 3000 cfs (1940 mgd), previded that annually after pumping frca the Delaware River has commenced, the rate cf pumping will be maintained at not less than 27 cfs (17.5 mgd) throughout the normal low flou season for the protection of aquatic life in Perkiomen Creek and its East Branch regardless of ultimate downstream c6nsumptive use requirements.
During periods of high natural flow in East Branch Perkiomen Creek, pumping frem Point Pleasant shall be kept at a level so as not to aggravate high water levels.
'The revised project does non conflict with nor adversely i
~
affect the Comprehensive Plan.
\\
= _ =.... -.
In the course of the DRSC proceedings on the pending project, numerous issues have been raised regarding the operation of the Limerick Nuclear Generating Station, including the safety of said facility, evacuation planning in the event of a nuclear accident, and the need for new generating capacity in the PECO system.
e 4
i
-r
,s
~
a
/
.D-79-52CP 6
These issues generally lie beyond the statutory jurisdiction of DRBC, and DR3C has no authority or expertica to render a decision on such questions.
The issues do, however, fall within the proper jurisdiction anu expertise of other Federal and State agencies, particularly the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission.
In rendering a decision on the docket, the DRSC in no way intends to prejudice or influence the outcome of proceedings in those forums.
In particular, DRBC notes that prior to operation of Limerick, PECO must apply for and obtain an operating permit from the NRC.
By letter dated December 16, 1980, the NRC has indicated its intent to prepare and cceplete a new or supplemental Environmental Impact Statement as part of-the proceedings on the operating permit.
DREC believes and expects that the NRC will address fully and adequately all of the safety and environmental issues regarding operation of Limerick.
In the event that review by other State and Federal agencies results in a modification to the operation or the design
, of this project, DRBC has so conditioned this docket to allow a reopening, reconsideratien7 and revision of this project approval as necessary.
~
The DR3C will coordinate and confer with the Nuclear Regu1atory Commission concerning all issues relevant to provisions of water supply.
DECISION I.
The description of the proposed project in the Compre-hensive Plan is hereby revised to agree with the project as described above.
II.
The project, as described above, with modificatiens specified hereinafter, is approved pursuant to Section 3.9 of the Compagt, subject to Ehe following conditions:
A.
All project facilities shall be av,ailable at all times for inspection by the DRSC.
,._....s..
l B.
The withdrawal of water from the Delaware River at the Point Pleasant Pumping Station for diversion into the East i
Branch Perkiomen Creek must conform with the schedule and conditions listed in DRBC Docket D-69-210CP.
C.
PECO dvdl maintain a minimum flow of 27 cfs (17.4 mgd) in the East' Branch Perkiome.n Creek at the proposed Bucks Road stream gage throughout the normc1 low flow period beginning with the day the booster station commences pumping and ending when pumping is no longer recuired for the operation of the Limerick Generating Station.
The rest of the year PECO shall maintain a minimum flow of 10 cfs (6.5 mgd).
~
/
D-79-52CP 7
D.
All project facilities shall be operated at all times to comply with all requirements of the DRSC.
E.
Sound practices of excavation, backfill, and reseeding shall be followed to minimize erosion and deposition of sediment in streams.
F.
Upon completion of construction of the approved I
project, the sponsor shall submit a statement to the DREC, signed by the sponsor's engineer or other responsible agent, advising the Ccamission that the construction has been completed in compliance with the approved plans, giving the final construction cost of the approved project.
G.
This approval shall expire three y. ears frem date below unless prior thereto the sponsor has expended substantial funds (in relation to the cost of the project) in reliance upon this approval.
The project sponsor shall notify the DR3C, in the date that 'enstruction of the project is started and d
- writing, the scheduled completion date within,10 days of that starting date.
H.
The area served by this project is limited to the service area as cescribed above.
Any expansion be' yond this area is subject to review in accordance with Section 3.8 of the Compact.
I.
The applicant shall develop a program to acnitor all water supply facilities including storage and distributien systems for leakage.
The program must be approved by the Executive Director and the mcnitoring results shall be submitted within six months of this approval and thereafter as requested by the ccamission.
The applicant shall. proceed expeditiously to correct leakages identified by the monitoring.
J.
All above' ground facilities shall be designed and landscaped to cceplement the surrounding environment.
K.
Operating schedules for pumping shall be designed to eliminate rapid fluctuations of the streamflows.
L.
The applicant shall be responsible for the operation of the project facilities in a manner that will insure compliance with all streamflow and use limitations.
The applicant shall arrange for the following items to be recorded, in a manner accept-able to the Executive Director, in the office of the DR3C in the morning of each ' working day.
lf lfQ) c
~
8 D-79-52CP 1.
The recorded daily average streamflow for the previous day in the East Branch Perkicmen Creek.
2.
The quantity of water transferred to East Branch Perkiocen Creek on the previcus day.
3.
The estimated quantity of water to be trans-ferred to East Eranch Perkicmen on that da.y.
In addition, the applicant shall submit reports, monthly, indicating all of the above quantities.
M.
The applicant shall provide adequate detours during construction affecting local roads.
U.
S.
Route 611 and PA. Route 413 will be kept open at all times.
A temporary road shall be installed when necessary to insure compliance with this requirement.
N.
The applicant shall inspect and monitor the portion of East Branch Perkicten Creek.irrediately below. the discharge, at river mile' 92.47 - 32.3 - 11.3 - 23.8, on a regular basis and following any significant period of flood fic.ws.
If such inspection discloses significant erosion of the bank or bed of the East Branch Perkicten Creek below the discharge, the acclicant shall. crc.netiv correct such ercsion, stabilize and revegetate any exposed pcrtion of the streambank.
Reports of such monitoring, and any corrective action taken, s"=
'e filed with the Executive Director within two weeks of each inspection or acticn.
O.
Nothing herein shall be ccnstrued to exempt the ro"ect spcascr frca chtaining all necessarv. t.ernits and/or e
a approvals frcm other State, Federal or local government agencies having jurisdiction over this project.
P.
The Cc= mis'sion reserves the right to reopen this docket at any time, and to reconsider this decision and any and all conditions imposed hereunder in light of further information develo;ed bv! or decisions rendered in, pending or future proceedings. conducted by other State and Federal agencies concern-ing the developneht and operation of the Limerick Nuclear Generat-ing Statica and related facilities.
The Commission may at any time moc,ity, existing conditions, or impose ac.,.citiona_, concations, upon the construction and operation of this facility to reflect new or changec information or to conform to requirements imposed on the project by other agencies.
D e
a
w
.. a D-79-52CP 9
Q.
For the duration of the drought emergency declared by the Commission on January 15, 1981, or any subsecuent drought emergency, water service or use by the project sponsor pursuant to this approval shall be subject to the prohibition of those nonessential water uses specified in Co==ission Resolution No.
81-5 to the extent that they may be. applicable and to any other emergency ~ resolutions or orders adopted hereafter.
BY THE COMMISSION DATED:
February 18, 1981 e
I M e
h g.
i e
i i
i i
e i
j i
i I
a i
l 8
i o
w - -
.<e,
-.-r
y.
r
.A i
5 w
E8
=
m
$
E 4. x 4 m y 9 W ss 8 5<e n d' 0n 2 o$ E G 4 f / = cc em w <= A / ^M2 P's O' f s E O 3c5 C / m. / < O< C 5 R5 7 R ode k 2 / "a / < m2 Ok d / OB s = / Q e Q Oo E / o 2 z p 2 s y / =2 ? / M C O2 4 s.,h $ m9 b W = Q k2 m 0 cQ o p-Oh O' am O, YQ h @m w2 + "2
- /
/ S C 26 0 O { $ a #f Qg Q cm / c l' O o gm = b Eb ,h, / _R c /= - c o m 2 ~~ s., p e a 5 'w d5b 5 z m 5-G "a ~ m e /" 55 c W + z -- < ] p m c= = H e 3 w CW' /ze5E v m s< I 3 0 e W
- /
s = / h / / / ///' ..-:=:~-:.'/,// {*g"1 l 'OE Ub: Og0 < /c G$ .Q o & w. l a ~~ dk O ./ ke sr = ms Em-a / / O p*# d5 o o / 3# e o C / = -} c O= / , d 5% Kr O e m 3 D o Z C l e4 X 1 n r, 1 U g H s $O 11-2, n.Sa J
- M u L-
- x..
f$ s .= O .===sa~--~~'-' %y "