ML20054L291
| ML20054L291 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 07/02/1982 |
| From: | Sugarman R DEL-AWARE UNLIMITED, INC., SUGARMAN & ASSOCIATES |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20054L286 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-CP, NUDOCS 8207070351 | |
| Download: ML20054L291 (70) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:--
*g -
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION In re Philadelphia Electric Co. : Docket No. 50-352 CP Limerick Generating Station : 50-353 CP Units 1 & 2 : REQUEST FOR SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF CONSTRUCTION PERMITS PURSUANT TO C.F.R. $2.202 and $2.206 (a) INTRODUCTION Del-Aware unlimited, Inc., on its own behalf and on behalf of its members, hereby requests that the Construction Permits No. CPPR 106 and CPPR 107 issued to Philadelphia Electric Company (PECo) for construction of its Limerick generating station be suspended or revoked unless PECo submits a Supplemental Cooling Water Supply (SCWS) l plan which avoids the harmful consequences of construction and l operation of PECo's planned SCWS. The portions of the SCWS here have never been considered nor permitted by this Commission. The planned SCWS would bring water from the Delaware River to the
- Limerick facility on the Schuylkill River. Delaware River water would I
be withdrawn through intakes and a pumping station and combined transmission main at Point Pleasant, Pennsylvania, to be built because of Linerick and financed and controlled primarily by primarily by PECo but under the nominal ownership of the Neshaminy Water Resources Authority (NWRA), a county authority. i 8207070351 G20702 DR ADOCK 0500035
.a .
Water from the combined transmission main would flow in part to a PECo reservoir, and would be delivered by pipeline and discharged to the Perkiomen Creek, withdrawn downstream and piped to Limerick. The SCWS would be utilized during frequent low flow periods in the Schuykill River, the primary cooling water source; it has been estimated this would occur 183 days in the average year. The SCWS construction impacts were not evaluated during the CP proceedings nor included in the permit because the ASLAB concluded that the Point Pleasant pumping station would be constructed in any event for local water supply purposes. Thus, only the incremental size of the Point Pleasant portion of the SCWS was considered in the application for the construction permit, and the permit relates only to the elements following PECo's rewithdrawal of the water after floating it down the Perkiomen. The Point Pleasant diversion construction impact as such was not evaluated in the decision on the construction permit or any decision by any other agency involved in review of portions of the Limerick facility. Since 1974, there has been a dea change in population trends and water consumption in the local area, which has reduced the need and desire for supplemental drinking water to a relative mere trickle. As a result, PECo has admitted that it could no longer state that the SCWS would be built without Limerick (Prehearing Conference in Operating License proceedings, January 6, 1982). The contract between PECo and 2
r - NWRA executed in 1980 reflects the total dependence of the project on Limerick. The result is that, in essence, PECo is planning to cause construction of a critical portion of the facility without a construction permit. Moreover, since the use of Delaware River water by Montgomery and Bucks Counties would occur only with the subsidy from electric rate-payers effected through the contract, the substantial negative environmental impacts of the NWRA's proposed water system would be, in fact, caused by PECo construction. These severe secondary effects have also not been evaluated. Moreover, substantial changes in the SCWS design have been made since the Construction Pe rmi t'q ' issuance. Also, unanticipated harms from construction and operation of the SCWS have been discovered. Finally, there are elements of the project on the East Branch of the Perkiomen attributable solely to PECo that were never evaluated. Most recently, the Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission determined that construction of Limerick's Unit 2 is not in the public interest. With only one unit in operation, Limerick's supplemental water needs are halved, and the justifications for incurring the immense and numerous harmful primary and secondary effects of the diversion also i dramatically diminished. Ti:is emphasizes the need to consider
- Limerick's SCWS, and its alternatives, integrally with the power faci 1*ity itself -- something that has never been done.
3
. =
In these circumstances, for PECo to continue to build Limerick without a permit for the SCWS would violate the terms and conditions '. of the Construction Permits, as well as regulations requiring a permit
- for construction. The ASLB, in its Special Prehearing Conference
- Order dated June 1, 1982, noted that construction impact should first be considered by Staff. (Order, pp. 83-87).
1 i All of these harms involve hazardous conditions and other facts i i sufficient to require, pursuant to 10 CFR S2.202, action to suspend the Permit in light of these hazards unless and until an acceptable j SCWS is provided and permitted. l II. DEL- AWARE'S INTEREST Del-Aware Unlimited, Inc. is a citizens group organized to encourage the sound management of water resources in the Delaware l Valley, and in particular of the Delaware River itself. Del-Aware has
- over three thousand members in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. The interests of these members would be severely and adversely affected if l the Point Pleasant diversion pirject or any portion of it were constructed. Fishing, canoeing, and other recreational pursuits would be hampered or destroyed by the diversion. Members' water quality for
{ drinking and commercial uses would be impaired -- both water. in the i main stem withdrawn downriver and supplies in Bucks and Montgomery Counties using diverted water, and also groundwater drawn from wells l 4 polluted by seepage from the transmission mains. Members live in and visit the village of Point Pleasant and along the transmission mains. They would be adversely affected by construction and operation of the l 1 4
facility. Point Pleasant is a small historic village; the pumping station would be a noisy and unsightly aesthetic blight located not far from the village center; its construction would adversely affect a National Historic ' Landmark and important Indian archeology site. These interests of Del-Aware and its members will be damaged severely by the construction of the Point Pleasant diversion for use as supplemental cooling water supply for Limerick. They will be protected by the relief sought herein, as provided in 10 CFR S2.202. For these reasons, and the interests of the members in the other harms set forth herein, Del-Aware Unlimited is an , appropriate party to pursue this Request. III. FACTUAL BASIS FOR REQUEST A. Facts as Found by Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board in 1975. The Construction Permit proceeding for Limerick Units I and II was concluded by the Appeal Board in 1975. The Board determined that the Point Pleasant diversion project would be built with or without PECo's participation, that therefore only the incremental effects attributable to expanding the diversion to accommodate Limerick's water use needed to be considered, and that these impacts (solely of increased water withdrawal) were small. The Board described the study process as follows: 5
,. s Without independently reviewing their underpinnings, the Limerick FES adopted the cost / benefit findings and conclusions contained in the DRBC impact statement on the Diversion project. The DRBC, of course, had not attempted to apportion the economic and environmental costs of the project below, however, the applicant and the staff introduced evidence which reflected that portion of the overall economic and environmental cost of constructing and operating the Diversion which would be attributable to Limerick participation (Tr. 5122-31; Lyle, following TR. 5847; FES, p. 1-3).
On the basis of this evidence, the staff was of the view (1) that the additional environmental costs of enlarging the size of the pipeline and extending the facilities to the Perkiomen (to enable the Limerick plant to become a beneficiary of the project) were small. (1 NRC, at 171) Accordingly, the Board did not include the Point Pleasant pump station, or the transmission lines in its decision or the construction permit. The Board accepted this analysis, addressing itself first to the Point Pleasant Diversion (PPD) in the context of the Tocks Island compensating proposal, it stated
... insofar as the Tocks Island alternative is concerned, it was enough to evaluate the environmental impact of enlarging the Point Pleasant Diversion to make that alternative available to the Limerick facility. (NRC, at 182)
Tile ASIAB.. also noted that the PPD issue was common to the non-Tocks alternatives because Point Pleasant was a common feature. (id., at 185 n.33) The Board noted that the staff had analyzed the DRBC DES without engaging in any independent review of the PPD (id., , at 1711). It also stated that based on its analysis as to 6 1
one portionjof the project which might be said to be used principally to carry water to the Limerick Generating Station, [it) found additional support for the DRBC conclusion that the probable adverse impact of the Diversion, at least that portion attributable to the Limerick plant, would be minimal (ibid. ) " (id, at 186) The ASLAB then approved this conclusion on the basis of its review of the record, which, of course, had no independent analysis of the PPD...-(ibifil) Consistently with this reasoning and the record, there was no decision by ASLAB to include the physical elements of the PPD in the Construction Permit, and the Commission has never approved it or any part of it. Thus, the description of the project and its water supply system includes only the Schuylkill and Perkiomen and refers to the Delaware in a footnote as an " indirect source" (NRC, at 167 n.5). -And nowhere in either the application nor the permit i~s there an approval of the Point Pleasant facilities. B. As Now Planned, the SCWS-Includes the Point Pleasant Pumping Station and Combined Transmissiori Main as Inherent Elements. In contrast to this basis of the 1975 decision, PECo is now the project sponsor without ghome the diversi,on would -" - - - -
- s-dramatically downscaled, and Bucks and bbntgomery Counties would find their water elscwhere but for PTo's needs. Accordingly, financing and control arrangements have been made which reflect the fact that the diversion is effectively P E o's.
First, the SCWS functionally includes all diversion facilities, fran the withdrawal of water in the Delaware River intakes to its 7
delivery a Limerick. The SCWS is a single functional' unit despite the ' fact i that portions of it are not under formal omership by PEo. As PIro recent-ly characterized it, "The reservoir is an integral part of the'icint Bucks County, Philadelphia Electric Ccnpany water diveirsion plan . . . (Emphasis added) (Application to PaDER 12/13/81 No. D09-181 Attached as Exhibit A) . PIro's participation is no.y critical to the construction of the j Point Pleasant pumping station and canbined transmission main, and is a sine qua non to the existence of the proposal Delaware River diversion. PECo now has primary control of the construction and operation of the pumping station and combined transmission main. This is evident in the February, 1980, contract between i PECo and NWRA, which affords PECo. virtually complete control over the construction of the diversion facilities, and in which , virtually the entire burden of construction
! PECo assumes 1
financing. The pumping station.and combined transmission main must therefore be considered as an integral part of PECo's SCWS i system bringing water via pipeline and the East Branch of the Perkiomen Creek f rom the Delaware to the Limerick site. i The contract establishes the financial dependence of the project on Limerick, in dramatic contrast to the facts , assumed or proved in the CP proceedings and the Deci sion of - the
- ASLAB.
Under the contract, in fact, not only is PPCo the effective sole sponsor of the pumping station and combined 4 transmission main, but, in addition, PECo makes the entire NWRA water diversion system possible. Thus, environmental effects f 4 attributable to the NWRA system as well as Point Pleasant are inextricably tied to the other health and environmental hazards of the SCWS, as discussed in Section II. E., infra. 8 l
r That the project is effectively directed by PECo is clear from the provisions of the PECo-NWRA contract allowing PECo to make virtually binding " recommendations" on design and almost all other elements of the work, and requiring monthly written reports by NWRA to PECo during construction. See,
" Agreement Between the Neshaminy Water Resources Authority and Philadelphia Electric Company for Construction and Operation of Water Supply Facilities" (February 12, 1980) (Attached as Exhibit B)
Section 3 of the contract provides: COMPANY [PECo] shall have the right to review the construction scheduling, design, drawings, specifications, vendor selection, and designs for major equipment purchases for the CONTRACT PROJECT [ pumping station and combined transmission main] and to make recommendations to AUTHORITY [NWRA] based on these . reviews. AUTHORITY shall act in accordance with such recommendations l whenever COMPANY advises AUTHORITY in l writing that failure to accept the l recommendations would adversely affect the reliability, construction cost, operating f cost, or construction of CONTRACT PROJECT, provided that no such recommendation by COMPANY shall require AUTHORITY to violate its obligation to comply with all public , bidding requirements and any applicable laws. PECo's financial responsibility for the pumping station and combined transmission main is also established clearly in the contract. The NWRA pays nothing, unless and to i the extent it uses water, and then only in proportion to use 1 l instead of in proportion to its reserve right. Pursuant to Section 6 of the contract, PECo is to pay capital costs t 1 proportionate to that percentage of allocated withdrawal not 9
used by NWRA. That is, PECo pays 100 percent of the capital costs attributable to the 46 mgd it has been allocated, whether or not it uses the full 46 mgd, and in addition, pays the portion of capital costs attributable to NWRA's 49 mgd allocation, unless NWRA uses some water, in which case it only pays in proportion to its highest actual use. Fixed operating costs are .also borne primarily by PECo, PECo's share being " determined by the ratio of (a) COMPANY's ultimate capacity of 46 mgd to (b) COMPANY's 46-mgd plus AUTHORITY's maximum utilization . . . ($6.B.) Moreover, PECo is to reimburse NWRA for its capital 4 cost at current street market interest rates, though the Authority borrowed at historic low interest rates, thus directly subsidizing the Authority's costs for its separate , system. ($6.A.) In addition to PECo paying a disproportionate share of the project costs and thereby subsidizing NWRA's participation, it provides the volume necessary to make construction of the pumping station feasible. (Even with Unit 2 disapproved, PECo has the option under the contract of continuing participation, in which case its economic subsidy would remain critical). Thus, NWRA no'r estimates a cost of 80C to $1 per thousand gallons as the wholesale price, with PECo's disproportionate share of construction and operative cost. Based on PECo's proportion, it appears, that wholesale costs without PECo's participation could exceed $2-3 per thousand gallons, exceeding alternate public water supplies by a factor 10
- of five. In these circumstances, it is clear that if PECo used an alternative, source of supplemental cooling water, the Point Pleasant Diversion simply could not be built.
As noted previously, much of the current situation is I attributable to changes in population and use. In part, however, the extent of the project's dependence and tie to PECo was known in 1972-74, but not disclosed to the NRC. The NWRA, PECo, and the DRBC recognized l the interrelationship, but never disclosed it. Thus, whatever the validity of the Appeal Board's
-reliance in 1975 on the incidental character of PECo's use in causing Point Pleasant to be built, that is simply no longer the case.
It is clear that the significant public health and environmental issues necessitating review of the Construction Permit cannot be shunted aside merely because of the financial 1 costs and inconvenience that may be caused the permit holder. For one thing, the financial costs are minor compared to the health and environmental risks. Furthermore, PECo has long recognized that the SCWS was an integral component of its Limerick facility and that the impacts of its construction and operation would cause public concern, and PECo accordingly i withheld information on the S C' J" and attempted to separate it t i from the Limerick plant in the permit and review process. This is disclosed, by recently discovered documents, to reach back to the planning stages for the plant in 1969. For example, Montgomery County officials did not even know of i 11 i
i the large planned use ~of water until a meeting not with PECo , l but with the DRBC. Mr. Howlett of DRBC stated the average 35 million gallons per day consumptive use of the plant. Mr. Jenkins [of the Montgomery County Commissioners) was extremely surprised to learn that this amount of water was involved with the Philadelphia Electric facility. He stated that at a public meeting about a month ago when Philadelphia Electric announced its plans to the local communities no mention was made of the amount of water that would be consumed by such a plant. DRBC Memo, Goodell to Howlett (11/4/69)
~ .--
Similarly, PECo requested that DRBC keep its application to that agency for water allocation a secret until the Construction Perr. i t was secured. A DRBC Memo recording a meeting with PECo notes the request: Philadelphia Electric Co. intends to submit its application for the nuclear plant on February 15, 1970. Normally, it takes 15 to 18 months for review by AEC and issuance l of a construction permit. The utility does not wish to have public disclosure of its i forthcoming application to DRBC prior to that date, even if this might mean no significant financial participation of DRBC in the feasibility studies. DRBC Memo, Goodell to Howlett (1/5/70) PECo's willingness to pay money to keep the SCWS water needs from being considered jointly with Limerick indeed supplies ample evidence of its propensity to avoid full disclosure at the Construction Permit stage, and, equally, to understate its role in Point Pleasant. This attempted division of the water supply question from the construction permit 12
c , - review process explains some of the difficulty the Atomic Energy Commission and the DRBC encountered in attempting to coordinate their decision-making processes. If the applicant for the DRBC and AEC permits had not concentrated on partitioning the process, Point Pleasant could have been fully explored at the CP stage. A similar propensity was demonstrated in 1978, when NWRA was preparing an Environmental Report,. issued in 1979. During six months of 1978, Hershel Richman, the environmental
. legal consultant for NWRA, contacted PECo personnel in an effort to obtain information on alternative cooling water sources available to PECo and other information pertinent 'to a complete review of the project. Finally, the NWRA wrote in frustration, noting Mr. Richman's efforts and the fact that the report would be finalized in a printed form.
Because our self-imposed deadline for the completion of our environmental report is drawing near, we regret to advise you that we will not include in our reports the following issues: A. Philadelphia Electric's alternative to ! the Point Pleasant Pumping Facilities. l i B. Environmental ' Impact upon the
- Perkiomen resulting from the discharge of ,
water from the Point Pleasant Pumping l Facilities into the East Branch Perkiomen. C. Bradshaw Reservoir. I Letter from R. Flowers, Ex. Sec., NWRA, to V. Boyer, PEco (10/10/78)
, l_
- Even ;urrently, in 1980, after arranging for a preapplication meet-
) ing and accolpanying NWRA to visit the Corps of Engineers, regarding the Sec-l ( tion 10 and 404 permits, PFro avoided shcwing its hand as an applicant. i i 13
)
(Exhibit G). . Yet PIro calls it "the joint . . water diversion plan." (Exhibit A) PECo thus appears to have chosen and caused many prior incomplete considerations of the project. What evidence or agreement it addressed in 1972-73 to convince the Board that its utilization of Point Pleasant was incidental is not known, but its good faith is certainly not entitled to be assumed. However that may be, it is clear that, under the present circumstances, proceedings for modification of the permit are necessary, and revocation pending an acceptable modification is required. C. The intake for the supplemental water system has been substantially altered since the construction permit proceedings, and the alterations will cause detrimental impacts and additional impacts not ascertained. Even if the CP need not be revoked pending approval of a, viable SCWS because it was not covered in the CP, changes in the SCWS require this result. Since the Point Pleasant project was not included in the construction permit, obviously I Since the rationale for its
- its impacts were not evaluated.
exclusion no longer obtains, it must now be evaluated and its impacts considered, the CP set aside unless and until the permit is amended to consider it. Since the construction permit proceedings, the intake structure for withdrawing Delaware River water for the Limerick facility has been redesigned and moved. Initially located on the river bank, the intake was moved into . a pool in the Delaware River formed below the mouth ,of Tohickon Creek and above a wing dam. Objections to the intake location were 14
presented by Del-Aware Unlimited, citizens, and other citizen groups before the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. At issue were the effect of the intake construction and operation on fish spawning and nursery grounds in the pool, on the Delaware Canal, a National Historic Landmark (under which pipelines would be placed by blasting the Canal), and on the historic village of Point Pleasant, an eligible Landmark. The pool is an important habitat for such fish as the commercially valuable shad and may be a critical habitat of an endangered species, the short-nosed sturgeon. Following presentation of these objections, the NWRA withdrew its intake design and submitted revised plans on January 22, 1982. The new intake designs will cause different,
- but still adverse, effects. No environmental studies of the i
new intake location have been prepared or filed. The plans appear to contemplate additional blasting in the extremely hard hornfels riverbed -- blasting which even under the withdrawn design caused concern substantial enough to lead to review of blasting impacts by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources. At the same time that substantial hazards appear imminent from the new construction plans, no substantial expenditures have been made on the SCWS, and construction has not begun. The SCWS could be replaced by an alternative supplemental cooling water source without significant_or unfair financial impact on the permittee. Under the circumstances, 15 l
the revocation of the construction permit is equitable as well as necessary. D. The SCWS would cause substantial health and environmental impacts which were not recognized in issuing the 4 construction permits. Because of its being considered incidental, the health and environmental hazards of the SCWS were not considered in the construction permit proceedings. They are considerable. First, the SCWS is planned to lose ten percent of the
. 46 million gallons per day it transports to evaporation,
-seepage, and leakage. While the percentage loss -in each of these three categories is not separately estimated, the system's planners contemplate introducing up to 4.6 mgd of polluted Delaware River water to the groundwater of Bucks County. Bucks County relies on groundwater as its primary source of public drinking water and other water needs.
Pollution by toxic chemicals has already forced the closure of several major wells. The cumulative impact of this groundwater i contamination would be severe, introducing as much as 50 l billion gallons of polluted water in 30 years of operation. The consequences of groundwater pollution are particularly serious as the toxins cannot be flushed by storms or other high water conditions, as is tne case with surface water pollution, but create a poisonous plume which travels through the aquifer f unt;il perhaps ' discharged by hydraulic pressure at a spring or, more,likely, withdrawn at a well, i l 1 16 i
PECo's unnecessary use of Delaware River water as supplemental cooling water would have two primary public health impacts on the millions of water users downstream from Point Pleasant. One, if it diverts cleaner' river water, the withdrawal would concentrate industrial effluents and other pollutants in the river, reducing drinking water quality. This would affect not only users drawing directly from the river, but also those relying on well water in the unconsolidated sands and gravel which typify the geology of the lower basin l and which are recharged largely by river water. If it diverts
' polluted Tohickon Creek water, which enters the Delaware just above the intake's planned location, it will cause pollution in the Perkiomen and Neshaminy Creeks.
Also, the withdrawal will affect the intrusion of j salinity from the Delaware Bay. During low flows, the salt line has pushed fresh water far enough upstream to affect the ecology of the estuary and has approached water supply intakes. ( As the Point Pleasant diversion is designed as supplemental water for both Limerick and the NWRA, withdrawals would presumably be greatest during low flow, and the impact of basin-wide drought would be exacerbated. Withdrawals of spring , flows to refill the proposed compensating reservoir (Merrill Creek) will cause upstream migration of salt water at a critical time for oyster spawning. The Corps of Engineers has a found that spring flow reductions adversely impact the oysters. t. 6 17
E. The SCWS may be unnecessary; even if deemed necessary,'less damaging alternative sources exist. No basis exists to suggest that this Commission would approve the presently unreviewed SCWS. The need for the Point Pleasant SCWS is not established.1 First, even assuming PECo were to be granted an operating license, PECo will probably only operate one reactor at the Limerick site. This Commission's staff has suggested Unit 2 may not be completed. Absence of need has caused PECo's commercial paper to be derated. Moreover, the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission determined on May 7, 1982, that construction of Unit 2 would not be in the public interest and has effectively prevented construction by refusing to approve financing necessary for continued construction. When this decision is put in final form, PECo's cooling water requirements will be reduced by one-half, according to PECo's answers to interrogatories in the above proceedings. P.U.C. Dkt. No. I-80100341. This would obviate the need for a supplemental system on the scale or expense of Point Pleasant. Second, with and especially without Unit 2, alternative, less damaging sources are available in the Schuylkill basin which would avoid the 28 mile diversion from
- the Delaware and the accompanying need for construction of the pumping station and transmission main, and the accompanying adverse effects. For example, the Berne reservoir was offered l
to PECo by General Public Utilities as a source. This could supply the two-unit maximum need of 46 mgd, and could easily i accommodate one-unit operation. Other reservoir sites exist
- 1 The projected supplamental need in the service area has dropped substantially in the last decade, causing plans for treatnent and distribu-i tion volune to be cut in half. Recent population and consumption data sug-gest the need still remains exaggerated. See NWPA, " Environmental Peport on i
the Nechaminy Water Supply Systcm (Feb. ,1979) p.1-5; U.S. Bureau of the l Census,1980 Census. l
' * ~
throughout the Schuylkill basin. In light of the increased environmental harm and health hazards caused by changes since the Construction Permit review, even those alternatives considered in any prior proceeding must be reconsidered in order to determine and compare the new cost-benefit ratios and account for the increased health and environmental costs accompanying the changed project. This is especially true with only one unit in operation, as smaller, less harmful supply sources could be developed. F. Construction of the SCWS will cause construction of a large, unnecessary public water supply system with substantial negative impact on the public health and the environment.
- 1. Construction of the SCWS will cause construction of a 40 million gallon NWRA system; otherwise, a 40 million gallon NWRA system would not be built, at Point Pleasant; nor would a system using a PPD.
As described in Section I.A., supra, the pumping and combined transmission main must be considered an integral part of construction of the SCWS because of PECo's control and financing of these elements, notwithstanding NWRA's nominal ownership. In addition, this same subsidy by PECo of the pumping station and transmission main construction and operation require that the impacts of the entire NWRA system be i ! considered integral parts of the SCWS. It is the PECo subsidy r which makes the over-sized, unnecessary and burdensomely
- expensive NWRA system possible. Without PECo's construction of the SCWA, the proposed NWRA system would not be built and none of its accompanying negative effects would occur. If NWRA were to build any system, it would only be a local system supplied locally. This dependence was not considered at the l
i 19 1
~
construction permit proceedings, and did not exist as far as the record shows. The negative impacts must be evaluated in order to accurately project total costs and benefits. The contract contains a subsidy from PECo that makes construction of the diversion attractive. However, there is a risk built into the subsidy's costs formulation that could suddenly remove the subsidy and put economic pressure on the NWRA and Bucks County to increase consumption of water. Applicable regulations have the same result. The consequence is that the subsidy encourages construction of the facility without regard to need, and that same subsidy includes the risk of sudden financial responsibility and creates an incentive for regulatory requirements that buyers be found for substantially all the allocated water. If this occurs, the service area will not have voluntary access to a supplemental supply, but will be required to purchase diversion water constantly. Efforts at land use planning will be undercut in an area of high quality farmland important for its agricultural productivity, historic significance, and use as a recreational area by adjoining urban areas. Residential and commercial users now on private or municipal wells will be required to use more expensive, lower quality diversion water. The contract makes NWRA's share of capital and fixed operating costs based on maximum daily utilization. The fact that the share is based on the maximum utilization over the history of the project adds a unique risk, contrasting with the NWRA's probable lack of need for the water, viz., if NWRA ever 20
uses an extremely large amount of water, it must continue to pay that portion o[ the pumping station costs, whether or not it again has a need for such a quantity. In other words, though water use has its peaks and valleys, capital water costs will remain high, in proportion to the maximum daily utilization. To pay for these constant high water costs, disproportionate to need, the NWRA will presumably seek to sell water in constant volumes. Regulations controlling water use in the area to be served by the proposed project suggest that it will indeed be able to secure constant-volume contracts from the municipal authorities that are the primary retailers of water in the area. The Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) regulates all expanded or new withdrawals over 10,000 gallons per day (gpd), that is, any well of magnitude adequate for public supply, as 100 people using 100 gallons per capita _ per day would use 10,000 gpd. DRBC regulations prohibit any new or expanded use of groundwater where surface water is available. j Section 6 (d) of DRBC Resolution 80-18 requires that an applicant for a new or expanded use shall demonstrate that: Opportunities to satisfy water requirements on a timely basis from existing available supplies and facilities have been explored l and found infeasible. As soon as the Point Pleasant diversion is constructed, any new or expanded use of water could and probably would be required I to use diversion water. 21
Additionally, any . new or expanded withdrawal over 100,000 gpd must, through DRBC S3.8 review, conform to the Comprehensive Plan. DRBC Resolution 80-18, $12 (c) . The Comprehensive Plan has been amended to include the Point Pleasant diversion and NWRA distribution system. Since any withdrawal of groundwater taken in lieu of surface water available from Point Pleasant could be construed to conflict with the Comprehensive Plan, it could be prohibited by the DRBC. The DRBC could and presumably would consider whether the financial stability -o f the Point Pleasant element of its Comprehensive Plan were jeopardized by the lack of a natural market for the water supplied. It is important to note that the DRBC regulations may work independently of the maximum daily utilization cost formulation to require greater use of the system than currently planned. The municipalities, in turn, are empowered to pass the high volume of water and its costs on to individual business and residential users. Municipal auth'orities can lay water mains and require hook-up and use by any adjacent property owner, and assess the property owner for the cost of the main. 53 P.S. $$47408, 47461, 66602.1, 66610. Hook-up may be required notwithstanding the existence of an adequate private well. Clark v. Millcreek Township Water Authority, 38 Pa. Commonwealth 566, 387 A.2d 933 (1978). Additi'onally, municipalities may relax zoning ordinances and induce growth in order to secure the customers 22
c -
. . . s l
1 necessary to pay the increased water costs. In order to pay the cost of-the system passed to municipalities under the DRBC l i regulations, the hook-ups and. purchases would presumably in fact be required. The required hook-ups would cost water users the price of distribution mains plus the higher costs of Point Pleasant water, estimated at as much as two times the cost of present supplies, but in fact probably even more expensive. See, Pennoni Associates, Inc., " Central Bucks County Water Supply Study" (1977). (These costs may be avoided to some extent by water users under the provisions of the PECo-NWRA contract, discussed above, but only by passing the costs to electric rate payers, and not by any actual reductions in the extreme financial cost of the project considered as a whole.) In summary, the NWRA has been lured out on a limb, pursuing the temptation of a low- or no-cost pumping station. However, it has not evaluated the likelihood of the limb's collapse, or the true need to be out on the limb pursuing the free pumping station. These considerations and their associated effects on the environment and public health must be taken into account, since . the permit holder has caused this arrangement to come into existence, and the obligations ! entailed are bound up with the construction of the SCWS, which
- would be pursued in connection with the permit.
l 2. Construction of the SCWS would foreclose utilization I of available less expensive and higher quality water supply. Alternative preferable sources of public water supply l exist for prospective NWRA customers. To the extent i withdrawals are necessary to meet actual need for supplementary 23
supplies, they can be met using alternative sources, either existing intakes on the Delaware or untapped groundwater reserves, or conservation in the service area, or some combination of the three. For example, Bucks County has the option to purchase quantities of water through Philadelphia's Torresdale intake in excess of even the current inflated 2010 projections of need. Groundwater availability is being reevaluated by the Delaware River Basin Commission. In many areas, the problem of supply is simply one of inter-municipal transport. For example, Horsham Township's authority has reserves in excess of 100% of present use, and indeed has in emergencies sold water to adjacent Hatboro. Also, numerous existing reservoirs and reservoir sites could be developed as water supply sources. PECo's construction of its SCWS and financing of the shared pumping station and combined transmission main portions I ~ of the SCWS will cause unnecessary and (because of the maximum daily utilization formula and regulations discussed, supra) unnecessarily constant use of Delaware River water. Construction of the SCWS would foreclose the use of the alternative sources of supply. First, the structure of DRBC Resolution 80-18, discussed supra, would require the Point Pleasant Diversion to be used if constructed. Second, the costs imposed on Bucks County would prevent any other system from being developed. Rental payments to NWRA now total almost
$2 million dollars per year. Considering present high interest rates, NWRA plans to issue another $20 million in bonds before 24 A3
\
beginning construction would almost double debt service on the ', project. Depending on the extent of " profit" paid by PECo to , the NWRA, which under the contract is dependent on water use a on this single ; rates and market interest rates, payments ! supplemental water system could use a substantial portion of s the county's total budget.
- 3. The SCWS/NWRA system would impose harm and hazard on the public.
- The construction of the SCWS/NWRA system would create hazards to public health and general welfare. The transport of 49 mgd to the central Bucks and Montgomery County area is projected to entail a ten percent loss by seepage, leakage and evaporation, thereby polluting groundwater. The water which is delivered to the North Branch of the Neshaminy will pollute that stream; some will continue through a " flow augmentation" f
plan to flow the stream's entire length. The diversion will i also introduce Delaware River water and its array of heavy metals and other industrial poisons to Lake Galena, a major recreation area. Finally, many of the Delaware River toxins i cannot be casily removed by treatment and would remain in the water delivered as drinking supplies -- heavy metals serve as a categorical example. To the extent the water can be treated, the toxins would still exist in the sludge, posing a continuing problem and threat to groundwater near any disposal site. ' The NWRA system would locate a treatment plant in the middle of a productive farming area, run distribution lines in the four directions of the compass, and, through the financial
- 25
pressures to generate revenue for the massive system, encourage or require use of the water. This area is already threatened with unduly rapid and sprawling development. Gradually, over the last two decades, efforts at directing and controlling development in this area have been fruitful. The NWRA system would be a disaster to those tenuous successes. Farmland preservation is a critical problem in the
- United States. Unconsolidated development consumes 3 million 1
l acres of prime farmland each year, gradually crippling U.S.
. agricultural productivity and raising the prospect of the scountry being a net food importei- some time in the next century.
l Farmland loss is accompanied by a variety of other I environmental harms, as the destruction of prime farmland increases fuel, pesticide and fertilizer use. Farmland loss means the destruction of social systems and historic places, l the nation's heritage. The causes and consequences are detailed in numerous studies, such as the comprehensive National Agricultural Land Study done by the Council of Environmental Quality and the Department of Agriculture. The impact in central Bucks County and the damage that would be i done by construction of the SCWS can be seen in the mapping and description of remaining farm areas in Bucks County Planning Commissioner's Bucks County Master Plan. Aside from the effect on land use through the proposed NWRA Neshaminy system, construction of the Perkiomen Creek transmission main may provide water, in excess of natural 26
+ ' .
- i. !
local occurrence, to the rural farm area traversed by the SCWS l pipe and the East Branch of the Perkiomen, and thereby cause t I the accelerated and unnecessary destruction of farmland. This , use of the water was proposed by representatives of Bucks County in discussions with DRBC and PECo in planning the project. This is an especially critical matter considering the probable deletion of Unit 2. Construction of a system will double the needed capacity and would make available the excess water to provide land development en route, and would put pressure on PECo to sell this oversupply, perhaps even at a l loss which would add additional artificial growth inducements, in order to recoup costs. See, e.g., DRBC Memo, Goodell to Howlett (2/25/70).
~
cb ; 4 i G. Summary The Point Pleasant Diversion was not proposed as a i part of Limerick's construction in 1975 and was not studied or i approved as such. However, as indicated in the foregoing pages, as a result of the changes in economics and needs for 1 l local water supply, there is no doubt that the Point Pleasant j Diversion project would not be proposed today but for Limerick, j and the PECo-NWRA contract shows conclusively that the Point Pleasant Diversion is a PECo undertaking for Limerick. Moreover, Point Pleasant will have significant adverse environmental impacts which were not considered as impacts of i Limerick in 1975 because the Point Pleasant Diversion i construction was taken as a given. f 27 1
-_ _ ,--- - , -.,,---_ -..-.- - .- , . - . , , . . _ . . - _ . - , - - - - - _ . _ . . _ _ - - ~ _ _ _ _ _ ~ . _ _ _ - -
The NRC regulations must be consulted to determine how to deal with a construction permit which does not authorize that portion of the undertaking, and the rationale for which did not consider the PPD's adverse effects. IV. ARGUMENT AND ACTION REQUESTED A. Action Requested Based on the facts as set forth above, under applicable laws and regulations, Del-Aware requests that the Commission take action:
- l. to require that PECo submit plans for an acceptable supplemental water supply system, and that those plans be reviewed as provided in Commission regulations.
- 2. notifying PECo that if such plans are not submitted within six months its Construction Permit will be revoked or at least suspended until such plans are thereafter submitted and approved, and
- 3. order that PECo not take any steps to construct or facilitate , directly or indirectly, the construction of the SCWS as described herein, including both the PECo and NWRA portions of the SCWS, until such plans have been submitted and approved.
A. Revocation Is Required by the commission's Regulations and Decisions. The June 1, 1982 decision of the ASLAB makes it clear that commission consideration of the PPD is warranted. The Board decision is clear and is law of the land. However, Del-Aware also provide independent support for this conclusion, and also for the requirement that the Commission now consider de novo all construction impacts of the PPD. Recognizing that conditions might arise requiring revocation or suspension of permits, this Commission has provided:
"Any persom may file a request for the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation,
~
y, 7 } ,
, y y
4 Director of Nuclear Material ' Safety and { Safeguards, Director, Office of Inspection ! and Enforcement, as appropriate, to i i
- institute a proceeding pursuant to $2.202 to modify, suspend or revoke a License, or for such other action as may be proper. . .
. The request shall specify the action j requested and set forth the facts that constitute the basis for the request." [10 i CRF T2.206(a)]
l The Commission has provided a broad basis for the institution of proceedings to revoke a suspend a license, I namely the allegation of "potentially hazardous conditions or other facts deemed to be sufficient gained for the proposed \ action. . ." [10 CFR $2.202(a)] In re Public Service Company of Indiana, Inc. (Marble Ilill Nuclear Generating Station Units 1 & 2), 10 NRC 613 (1979) t i the Commission specified the grounds required for action under , SS2.202 and 2.206. The facts described above clearly require modification, revocation or at least suspension of the permit under the standards applied by this construction i Furthermore, proceedings to consider the Commission. environmental effects of the SCWS, not considered in the I Construction Permit review, are required by the Construction Permit itself.' The three Marble 11i11 factors are present here. First, there is a clear nexus between the construction problems and the issues raised, as they are one and the same, namely, the choice of.an unpermitted supplemental cooling water scheme and method of delivery. i Secondly, the issues here raised include a " major change in facts material to the resolution of major 29
~ - . . . - - - . - . - - . - . . _ . - - . . - - - - . - _ - . . - . - - - - . - .
environmental issues". This was the standard appl'ied by the D,irector as the threshold point requiring reopening of safety hearings, and it was adopted in the Marble Hill decision as the standard for requiring consideration of a request for mo,dification, revocation, or supervision of a permit under 10 Y C.F.R. 2.206. (Ibid. at 615, n.3) (Section IV(B) of this Request deals with the third issue ,- pp. 32-35 infra.) As discussed above, major changes in the facts material to the resolution of crucial environmental issues have occurred since the construction permit was issued. Reduced population growth rates and high costs made the NWRA system no longer an independently viable scheme. Thus, the PPD is now a part of the PECo construction project, not covered by the permits. The Point Pleasant project became a functional element of the Limerick Plant. PECo has agreed in the contract with NWRA to build i the pumping station and combined transmission main with few risks of Bucks and Montgomery County users paying more than in proportion to need. This results in non-economic decisions by Bucks and Montgomery Counties to use Point Pleasant diversion water, because it prevents consideration of the fact that the economic and environmental harm is severe and completely out of scale with any claimed benefits. Possibilities for increased water supply from potential or existing sources in scale with actual needs have been ignored as a direct result of the 1980 contract. Additionally, notwithstanding this basic subsidy effect, the contract is not wholly risk-free. The most obvious 30
risk is that NWRA costs will, through the maximum daily
. utilization formula or a reckuction in prevailing market interest rates causing a recalculation of the subsidy, be substantially higher than anticipated and that, as a result, land use planning for farm, historic, and open land preservation in the NWRA service area will be disrupted as water consumption and new customers are encouraged in order to pay for the greater portion of the project costs.
Moreover, the PPS itself has changed. The intake has been moved and redesigned, the most recent plans being those submitted to the Corps of Engineers on January 22, 1982, and the effects of its construction and operation are unknown. The incorporation of the NWRA water supply system into the PECo SCWS alone entails such a substantial change in . the project as to require revocation or suspension of the construction permit pending submission and CP approval of an SCWS. The NWRA system is economically infeasible by itself, a unnecessary to meet public water needs, environmentally harmful, and disruptive to land use planning in the proposed - service area. The addition of these ill consequences to the construction of the SCWS completely alters the NEPA cost-benefit balance and invalidates the conclusions of cost-benefit acceptability of the Construction Permit, Section 1.I. The rule stated by the NRC as applicable to this situation is that when new information clearly mandates a l change in result, environmental impact decisions must be 31
reconsidered.' 'In re Georgia Power Co. . (Vogtle Nuclear Plant, Units 1 & 2) 9 NRC 582, 585 (1979). B. The Issues Raised were not Adequately Considered in t the Initial Permit Review. Regarding the Marble Hill third factor, the issue clearly received inadequate consideration in the initial i proceedings, as it was explicitly ruled out on the basis that i Point Pleasant would be built with or without Limerick. l Virtually all of the issues raised here were not even identified in the initial permit review. To the extent they were identified, they were not adequately considered. In the Initial Decision and Decision on the Construction Permit, the only SCWS issue raised was that of the planned Bradshaw Reservoir. Information on the reservoir was found " unsubstantiated by any field surveys or technical i l reviews, was at best ' qualitative and subjective', and was not all inclusive." The & cision recognized that this single 4 component of the SCWS would " add to the overall environmental impacts of the facility in a yet undetermined amount." In re Philadelphia Electric Company, (Limerick Units ~l & 2), 1 NRC 163, 198, 199 (1975). . The applicant's Environmental Report prepared in ] 4 conjunction with the construction permit proceedings (ERCP) does not adequately address the concerns raised here regarding the effects of construction of the SCWS. Indeed, many of the effects go wholly without discussion. The SCWS is mentioned, 4 but only briefly described, or alluded to through reference to 1 DRBC proceedings. (ERCP $$3.4.3, 5.4.6) Though understood in 1973 to be limited to the reservoir 2
- and " Point Pleasant diversion project to the extent that its facilities are used for Linurick Generating Station", this understanding must ha nodified to reflect the nujor factual changes arising from the 1980 NWRA-PECo contract j
to include the entire Point Pleasant diversion.
. _ _ _ .- . .. .- -- 3 2_- _ . . _--_ _ .-
- _ - . l -- -,
, j The effect of the injection every day of up to 9 p million gallons of polluted Delaware River water on groundwater is not considered, nor are the effects of salinity intrusion, :
i nor are the impacts of construction of the intake and pumping l l station on the village, canal, river channel and pool, aquatic life, and water quality, all of which impacts are, in any case, I i different now that the intake has been redesigned, requiring i review of any conclusions made based on now-abandoned plans. i Additionally, the ERCP pre-dates the objections made f water transport through the East Branch of the to the Perkiomen, and therefore does not consider those objections. l The Final Environmental Impact Statement (November, 1 t' 1973) (FEIS) on which the Construction Permit is based is deficient regarding current construction plans, as it lacks information and analysis of factors made central by changes in the project financing that have occurred since preparation of the FEIS. Within the section on the environmental impacts of site construction, the subsections on land use and water l impacts are limited to discussion of effects at the generating facility itself, FEIS $$4.1, 4.2, notwithstanding the more appropriate scope of analysis given electric transmission I rights-of-way extending from the facility, FEIS $4.5.1. Intake i designs on the Schuylkill and their effect on fish life \ were-l l considered, but analysis of the SCWS intakes traced back only to the intermediate withdrawal point on the Perkiomen and did not consider the intake at the Delaware, where water will be taken for transport via Perkiomen Creek. FEIS $3.3.2. As the i l e i 33 I
I ., , .,
. ~ . -
. i
. i of land use and water impacts must ,l scope of analysis appropriately extend to the effects of the full SCWS, and land use changes of water deliuery to both Limerick and Bucks and Montgomery County users, it is clear that the limited review of 1973 must be extended to correspond with the current realities of the financing and construction plans.
No alternative sources of supplementary water supply are discussed, for example the many reservoir sites in the Schuylkill Basin, based on DRBC advising the applicant that Schuylkill water was not available as it had been allocated. Even if Schuylkill Basin waters had been allocated at some time, supply is available now; for example, the Berne reservoir, offered to PECo by General Public Utilities after GPU plans changed and it became unneeded. No alternatives have been considered in light of the probable deletion of Unit 2 and i S0 percent reduction in water needs, i Moreover, full allocation of existing flows does not preclude development of additional storage, and that storage can be developed, especially if only half as much water is needed. The applicant's statement of DRBC policy should not I terminate analysis of alternatives. DRBC's position, if indeed an unbending blanket statement, should not terminate analysis. In the FEIS, the intake alternatives considered are restricted - to alternative intake designs for the Perkiomen Creek, ignoring questions of water source. FEIS S11.2. p 34
,' The Board described the study process as follcus:
Without independently reviewing their underpinnings, the Limerick FES adopted the cost / benefit findings and conclusions contained in the DRBC impact statement on the Diversion project. The DRBC, of " course, had not attempted to apportion the economic and environmental costs of the project below, however, the applicant and the staff introduced evidence which reflected that portion of the overall economic and environmental cost of constructing and operating the Diversion which would be attributable to Limerick participation (Tr. 5122-31; Lyle, following TR. 5847; FES, p. 1-3). On the basis of < this evidence, the staff i was of the view (1) that the additional environmental costs of enlarging the size of the pipeline and extending the facilities to the Perkiomen (to enable the l Limerick plant to become a beneficiary of the project) were small. (1 NRC, at 171) i Accordingly, the Board did not include the Point Pleasant pump station, or the transmission lines in its decision or the construction permit. ? i The Board accepted this analysis, addressing itself first to the Point Pleasant Diversion (PPD) in the context of the Tocks Island compensating proposal, it stated
... insofar as the Tocks Island alternative is concerned, it was enough to evaluate the environmental impact of enlarging the Point ,
Pleasant Diversion to make that alternat~ive available to the Limerick facility. (NRC, at 182) The ASIAB also noted that the PPD issue was common to the non-Tocks alternatives because Point Pleasant was a common feature. (M ., at 185 n.33) The Board noted that the staff had analyzed the DRBC DES without engaging in any independent review of the PPD (M. , i l at 1711). It also stated that based on its analysis as to 34 (a) 1
.---a - - - - . - ~ , - - -
- - - - - , - . , , v. - - - . , . ---4. -
- - - , , ,,--,.w-,.,. m ---. , . - -
, --- -,,,,,,.w,,_
.. . l.
-)
one portion of the project which might be said to be used principally to carry water to the Limerick Generating Station, [it] - found additional support for the DRBC conclusion that the probable adverse impact of the Diversi on , at least that portion attributable tc. the Limerick plant, would be minimal (i bi 1. ) " (id, at ]86) The'ASLAB then approved this conclusion on the basis of its review of the record, which, of course, had no independent analysis of t:1e PPD -(ibilh) Consistently w.th this reasoning and the record, ., there was no decision by 4 SLAB to. include the physical elements of the PPD in the Construction Permit, and the Co:ronission has never approved it or any p' art of it. Thus, the description of the project and its waf.er supply system includes only the Schuylkill and Perkiomen and refers to the Delaware in a footnote as an " indirect source" '(NRC, at 167 n.5). -And nowhere in either the application nor the permit i's there an approval of the Point Pleasant facilities. 34 (b)
l , C. The Conclusions of Other Agencies Cannot be Engraf tcd to t.TC's Con-stniction Fevies. The ASIAB did not, as previously shosn, independently evaluate or approve the PPD. It Iray be contended, hoaever, that decisions of other agencies have provided the necessary consideration of the Point Pleasant diversion. This is not valid, both because the NRC cannot be agencies, and because the project has foreclosed by other changed. While other agencies and commissions, operating under l different statutory responsibilities, have reviewed portions of the Point Pleasant diversion proposal, these conclusions cannot be grafted on to the analysis of other regulatory , decision processes, notwithstanding any, adequacy for the purposes for which 'ey were prepared. Regulatory responsibilities have by Congress to achieve specific aims. been delineated Jurisdictional responsibilities may neither be surrendered to agencies perspectives. United nor homogenized with other Radion Corporation of America, 358 U.S. 334,.338-339 States v. (1959); FTC v. Texaco, 555 F.2d 862 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 974 (1977); Sierra Club v. Alexander, 484 F.Supp. 455, 464 (N. D. N . Y . ) , aff'd without opin., 633 F.2d 206 (2d Cir. 1980); Sierra Club v. Corps of Engineers (Westway) (S.D.N.Y. f hrch 30, 1982) Thus, since there was no independent evaluation by the Board, Construction Permit proceeding may be deened to have accepted those of another agency, they are deficient. _. and DRBC approved construction conditional on
- 1. AEC subsequent full review of diversion impacts.
L The failure of the NRC to consider the cooling water delivery c. onent of the Limerick Generating Station construction permit is not mitigated by the review of any other 35
agency. First, the NRC would remain legally responsible under the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. $4321 et seq., to assess the impact of any and the whole of any activity permitted. When t.ro agencies have NEPA responsibilities relating to the same project, the NRC has obse.ved that one agency does not yield to another, but "both must evaluate the environmental consequences of the entire project and both must determine independently whether NEPA has been satirfied. In re Tennessee Valley Authority, (Phipps Bend 18-2), 8 NRC 533 (1978). But, even if the rule were otherwise, no other agency has in fact reviewed the impact of the SCWS. The Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) is the only other agency that has granted a permit related to the diversion and its permit was 1imited to the question of allocating water for use by the SCWS. The DRBC pointedly made no evaluation of this Commission's finding as to the overall public interest [ balancing and evaluating the SCWS. Moreover, the DRBC decision was expressly conditioned on the NRC fully reviewing the impacts of the SCNS. In l l considering the question of whether to allocate water for l Limerick's supplemental cooling water, the DRBC, in Dkt. No. D-69-210 CP (3/29/73) first noted the impasse that had been t reached through the lack of integration in the regulatory i proceedings on SCWS construction by the then Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) and proceedings on allocation by the DRBC. The AEC in its draft EIS, as the DRBC decision pointed out, 36 l
\ . . recommended permitting construction only with the condition i that water be in fact allocated; before water was allocated, no further action would be taken by AEC. DRBC was troubled by making a decision on water allocation for the project without a review of the full project -- the same full review halted by AEC, pending determination of the allocation question. The DRBC concluded that it would decide the allocation issue and satisfy NEPA by viewing AEC as the lead agency and "by making any water allocation specifically contingent upon the acceptance by AEC of the environmental impact statement prepared and filed by the lead agency." In its final Decision (11/5/75) on the same Docket No. D-69-210 CP, the DRBC continued the condition that its allocation approval was, at p. 1, " subject to a final environmental impact statement" to be prepared by the AEC. This basis of the Final Decision continued to be the understanding of the DRBC at least through the end of 1980, as assured by NRC in a letter from Robert Tedesco to Gerald Hansler (12/16/80): As indicated in recent conversations, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will review the environmental impacts associated with the operation of the LGS [ Limerick Generating Station) including those facilities that are required to support its operation. This review will specifically consider information and data that has been developed subsequent to the issuance of our Final Environmental Statement for the construction permit. After completion of this review, both draft and final environ-mental statements will be issued. (Exhibit D) 37
I . This letter indicates not only that DRBC in conversations and by wTitten con-finration relied on NIC's revice of SCWS impact, but also that the NPC itself recognized the incmpleteness of the revica trade in the construction proceed-ings, and the substantiality of infonration developed folloaing the construc-tion revica. This recognition ties to the recognized need for revica follow-ing rajor factual changes, as discussed above. Pased on these factors, DRBC expressly conditioned its final C. der on approval by the NIC. (See Final Order 2/18/81 pp. 5-6) V. THE CONSTRUCTION PERMITS REQUIRE CONSIDERATION OF THE NEW PLANS AND IMPACTS NOT CONSIDERED IN THE PRIOR CONSTRUCTION REVIEW. that major The Construction Permits themselves require factual changes regarding construction plans and impacts be begin s . The Permith state, in considered before construction Section 3.E: This facility is subject to the following additional conditions for the protection of the environment: At least two weeks before engaging in a(3)construction activity which may result in a significant adverse environmental impact was not evaluated or that is that significantly greater than that cvaluated the in the final Environmental Statement, applicant shall provide written notification to the Director of Licensing. . unexpected harmful effects or (4) If damage are evidence of irreversible detected during facility construction, the applicant shall provide an acceptabic analysis of the problem and a plan of action to eliminate or significantly reduce the harmful effects or damage. for initiating this evaluation is The respon'sibility permit holder by the Pe rmits placed ^ af firmatively upon the 38
themselves. Thus, as major changes have occurred, PECo would be required to raise the issues related to those changes before beginning construction, or be in violation of the relevant permit conditions. The relief herein requested thus does not create any hardship for PECo, as duties to initiate similar proceedings have already been imposed. Thus, PECo is required to initiate consideration of the environmental harms and other negative effects discussed herein immediately prior to or during construction. Consideration of these same issues in the context of a permit modification proceeding would provide greater flexibility in adapting to hazards indeed anticipated in the permit. The relief requested does not impose any undue burden on the permit holder, as no expenditures for construction have been made and in fact complements PECo's duties under the permit. Also, the SCWS is a distinct component that can be replaced and redesigned without any major revisions or delay necessary at the generating station site itself. PECo itself anticipated no harm from deferral of the SCWS, as it took no overt action to accomplish it until 1980, and took until 1980 to file an Environmental Report with the DRBC on the compensating reservoir, while continuing construction on the station itself. CONCLUSION The construction of the SCWS would entail a vast assortment of negative impacts proven unnecessary or unnecessarily large, or unacceptably destructive and hazardous, 39 __. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . i
as would be determined by a cost-benefit analysis incorporating consideration of the full costs, as set forth herein. The construction at the intake site would destroy fish habitat and damage the historic village and canal. The withdrawals would cause violation of water quality standards and deplete downstream water supplies. Construction of the pipeline would affect groundwater quality and disturb streamflows and stream ecology. The financial obligations undertaken by PECo and NWRA, and the requirements of DRBC regulations, would cause the construction of the NWRA system, a system of harmfully inappropriate scale. This would have substantial negative impacts on the environment, agricultural productivity, historic character, and sociologic structure of central Bucks and Montgomery Counties. Finally, half the need for the system will probably be eliminated, upon the final order of the P.U.C. deleting Unit 2, thus opening up other alternatives. For the foregoing reasons, Del-Aware Unlimited, Inc, respectfully requests that Construction Permit No. CPPR-106, CPPR-107 granted Philadelphia Electric Company herein be immediately revoked or suspended, unless and until an SCWS is proposed and approved under 10 CPR $2.202. Ee.pectf 21 y submitted, ki Robert J. Sugarman Counsel for Del-Aware Unlimited OF COUNSEL: l SUGARMAN & DENWORTH - SUITE 510 121 South Broad Street Phi?idelphia, PA 19107 (215) 546-0162 l James M. Neill,Esq. Box 511 Dublin, PA 18917 40 l
I) esc 2 i nti on and hu unse - of the Bradshaw Reseboir . I. Descrintion A. Location - The Bradshaw Reservoir is to be located in Plumstead Township, Bucks County, Pennsylvania, at the intersection of Bradshaw and Moyer Roads. The reservoir is an integral component of the joint Bucks County, Philadelphia Electric _ Company Ulster diversion plan approve'd by Delawa.re_ River
~
Basin CEiscioli-(DREC) ~ Docket Number $y.932CP and
- Dr6$~ 76 CP-(B). The cite iSMt 2' 5 miles ~ ~
southwest of the Point Pleasant Pumping Station and the Delaware River. The Reservoir is on the drainage divide between the North Branch of the Neshaminy Creek and the South Branch of Geddec Run. B. Design - The Bradshaw Reservoir will be built on property,
, approximately 28 acres, OUned by the Philadelphia Electric Company. The reservoir will have no drainage area except the water surface of 18 acres.
The reservoir will be constzmeted of compacted earthen dikes. The dikes will form a square reservoir about 900 feet on a side. The project will be essentially a balanced cut and fill operation. The area to be the reservoir bottom will be e2cavated down to such an elevation that the removed i_mp_ervious material will be sufficient
,o t form the required djkes. The bottom of the reservoir will be a minimum of either 3 feet of existing impervious material or 2 feet of a To5 pated-maiefial_;mpp[ielto' the si te Trom an external source. The dikes will be made by coc-pacting the excavated material and will vary in height from about $ feet to 20 feet due to the
, e oniours of the exicting ground. The sloping faces l of the d3kes will be 6entle with" a rise of 1 foot in a horizontal run oL2.]$_ feet and 3 feet for the outsi de and waterside s'l opes respec tively. The outside surface will be evenly graded and seeded with appropriate ground cover to provide for erosion protection. The waterside surface will l be faced with stone riprap to mitigate erosion due to the fluctuating water levels. Control of the quality of all materials will be closely monitored as will the compaction methoda j used during construction so that the water 1ight- , l (i, f Jae_c.s of--the-reservn i r_will])e a s sure_d. . Built into the western dike of the reservoir there i . will be a structure which will contain a cated 0] ou tlet feeding the gravity transmission main kn0 leading to the North Branch of the Neshaminy Creek. The struc ture al so will house four 11.3 mD alectric notor <lriven, vertical turbine-type pumps. These Ddu. bit A
o
~ -
the East
- pumps will deliver PECo. 's waterFour to pumpa l Branch of the perkiomen Creek. and partial loado I will car 2y the maximum demand, reduced number -
j will be pumped efficiently with aRemovable traoh racko will be of pumps. at the entrance to the ntructure to prevent debrio from fouling the pumps or being panned to eitherStop loga of the czteko cupplied. no that dewatering can be accomplished if main-tenance is required. . There will be no monitoring instruments installed in the dam due'to the moderate size of the (6.5 reservoir, psi and the maximum water depth being 15 feet max. pressure). .There21co_will be the no emerjgen y rural nature warning system for_the_ dam _due_toThere__ar_e_no_structur ' o f the site. flooding by a dam failure.
. in the reservoir, which can occur
. Eigh due water levelto pumping at Point PleasantRedundant or excessive rain-fall, will be controlled in several ways.
automatic controls will be provided to shutdown ihany operating supply pumps when a predetermined h g wa ter level occurs. Signals will be included to inform the pumping station operators of reservoir elevations so that they may take early action priorTo t o automatic shutdown to regulate pumping rates. lower reservoir water levels and accomodate exessive d rainfall, water will be wi thdrawn by__ opening _the gate ou tl e t t o th e gra v i ty_ma i n f e e_di ng th e D e shaminy Crc ~ek or T>i starting the Bradshaw pumps to deliver
~~
7 water to the Perkiomen Creek. A fence will surround the reservoir property to and the unused area of I prohibit unauthorized access,the property will be landscaped. f 1 with the surrounding area. i l Construction of the reservoir is scheduled to begin l May 1, 1982, with a completion date set for J l
-OctiobeF~171983 t l
Size The capacity of the Bradshaw Beservoir will The be f C. approxitnately 70 million callons (MG). l reservoir was sized to meet minimum operating l requirements, to provide a limited amount of stora6e silt buildup. l for emergencies and to accommodate The. capacity breakdown is as follows: Quantity Volume - Purpose _(MO}
,(Acre-Ft}
18 $$ for operating capacity 1h1 for emergency stora6e h6 for silt buildup 6 y total capacity 70 216
pumps will deli ver PECo. 's water to the East Branch of the perhiomen Creek. Four pu=po will carry the maximum demand, and partial loado will be pumped efficiently with a reduced number of pumps. Removabic traoh racko will be installed - at the entrance to the stnicture to prevent debrio from fouling the pumps or being paused :.a either of the creeks supplied. Stop logs will be provided so that dewatering can be accomplished if main-tenance is required. There will be no moni toring instruments installed in the dam due'to the moderate size of the reservoir, and the maximum water depth being 15 feet (6.5 psi
- max. pressure). There._a.lso_willgno emergenyy warning _ sygem for_the._ dam._due_to the ruial nat_ure o f the sits. There_ar_e no_ structures subject to flooding by a dam failure._
High water Icvel in the reservoir, which can occur due to pumping at Point Pleasant or excessive rain-fall, will be controlled in several ways. Redundant automatic controls will be provided to shutdown any operating supply pumps when a predetermined high water Icvel occurs. Sicnals will be included to inform the pumping station operators of reservoir c'levations so that they may take early action prior t o automatic shut down to regtdate pumping rates. To lower reservoir water J evels and accomodate exessive rainfall, water will be wi thdrawn by_ opening _tlle gated outlet to the gravi ty_ main _f_eeding__the Neshaminy Creek or7y starting the Bradshaw pumps to deliver water to the Perkiomen Creek. A fence will surround the reservoir property to p) ahibit unauthorized access, and the unused area of the property will be landscaped in a manner compatible with the surrounding area. Construction of the reservoir is schedtded to begin May 1, 1982, with a completion date set for
-Odtober~171983 C. Size - The capacity of the Bradshaw Reservo'ir will be approximately 70 million gallons (m) . The reservoir was sized to meet minimum operating requirements, to provide a limited amount of stora6e for emergencies and to accommodate silt buildup.
The. capacity breakdown is as follows: Quanti ty Volume [MG) [A_cre-Ft.)_ Purpose _ 18 $$ for operating capacity 14 6 114 1
- for emercency storage
_6 J for silt buildup 70 216 total capacity
2, ; *,i. :' -
. , -3 The operating caybicity is the equivalent of one day'n minimum pumping rate (27 cro) ao established in the Delaware River Basin Commission's docket proceedings for the protection of aquatic life -
in the Perkiomen Creek and its East Branch through-out the nonnal low flow season. The emergency storage is sufficient to supply the max 12num one d ay requirement of PECo. for power purposes (65 cfc). The capacity reserved for silt buildup amounts to a depth of 1h ft. , II. Puroose . . ,. The Bradshaw Peservoir is tie point of discharge for the water pumped from the Delawara River by and through the combined facilities consisting of the Point Pleasant intake, the pumping station, and the combined transmission main. At this reservoir the water will be divided and flow either by gravity to ihe North Branch of the Nesha2niny Creek or under pump pressure to the East Branch of the Perkiomen Creek. , The two main purposes of the reservoir are; tha distribution of the water to Bucks County and to Philadelphia Elactric Company (PECo.), and the accommodation of the differe'nt pucping rates of. the Point Pleasant pumping s tation and the Bradshaw panping station. . The distribution of the water pumped from the Delaware River to the reservoir wi'll , vary over the life of the project. During the initial few years of operation, approximately 75% of the water pumped to meet the forecasted water needs (63 MGD maximum) vill bePECo. by delivered to the East Branch.of the Perkiomen Creek for use By 2010, slightly ovei $1% of the forecasted water (95 MGD) de' livered to the reservoir will be routed to the North Branch of the Neshaminy' Creek for use by Bucks County.
, ~ It is planned to une the sted gravity outlet and the multiple pumps installed at the Bradshav Reservoir pumping station to distribute the combined inflow to the reservoir. .
The accommodation or balancing of the different discharge flow rates at Point Pleasant and at Bradshav vill be satisfied by providing a vo'lume in the reservoir between pre-established elevations suitable for storing water when the inflow exceeds outflow and capabic of supplying water for short time per'iods when outflow is greater then inflow. G i _, . _ _ __ - .-- - -
_ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _m .m ..__ _ _ _ . . _ . . .- _ _ _ _ _ _ -~ - - - - _
.,b.'
; . s
; J t
4 . i ' AGRP,t*:4ENT 1 ! Hl;'IMEEN Tile 71ESilA!!INY WATER HESOtJnCE!; AttrilOliLTY AtJ O PillIADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY 4 FOR Tile CONSTRUCTION NID OPERATION i OF WATER SUPPLY PACILITIES i i
+#
'lHIS AC. T EEWP, mula this_ thy of [3 1930, by and Mtw, n the NEsitN11tN WAL174 IFSWIOS AU11031'IY, a n.orticipal, aut t ority cruated purstunt to the Municipal Authorities tct of 1945, Ibylestown, Pcensylvani a (hereinafter called AITiliOR' TY), and the PttilADET.PHIA EIECTRIC OMANY, Philadelphia, Pennsylwinia (hereinaf ter c111eu the m: PAW) : '.
W I T N E S S 1* T H: - ~- IMEREAS, the AUniUHITY heretofore has acgaised certain land a 3 constructtd mrtain resenuirs, dans and other facilities for the p upose 5f fhed control, recmation end vater supply; and - hifEPE45, in cx3nnection with t.he AUIMORIW[ water supply prograir the Atti10RIW pmsently plans to acquire and construct a ptnping station, wat
' and trans.ission rnins,.'a water treatrent plant for the purpose of furnishing wat i
s l to nunicipalities, runici, tut authorities, other piMic tr.atlies and public util - I
; t.ies (ths "iLitez Pro,Nt*i; .ind
.1 ulEins, 'h:4 AU111oRI'rt proposes to finance anJuir.ition and <.un - r.tru.; tion of the 'fater "toject froat available funds of the hUillORITY ccquirM .j l fron prior financings and a prorosed bond insin or bond issu=s of the Atmlom s and NilEIEJG, the Matar Pmject, together with witer supply f:.-ilitid 4 hmtofore or hercaf ter acrp ired or annst. net'ed by the 7.UDO91W h'erein . ire c feml to as the "ter.h.vniny trater Sipply Systern"; and tratSitEAS, the kUsi 1RITY pro;oses that the lhter Pmje ct'h? acquir. i . . . .
~
Q g.g*.*.. ., . . . . . O* C
v -
, p. ,
anel sun..t u. ted in ph.. i.. .o roPtiani ius thir se.arlu : of furnishirv) winter i tN pbli.: with IM first ph,r.e in inclimb a pimpire; r.tation, water trane i miins and a water Imatm*nt. plant &sI txxl U in a manner to ionnit expansior nipplene nt.it. ion in tM future in r,nler to provide greater capicit.y as nee < (tk "Firut Phase Project."); and 7 un:los, the First Phase Project; incitxles a ptmping st.ition 2 oa the Iblaware River at Point Picasant, Pennsylvania (the" Point Pleasant i Station 7 and a force rnain (the"acmbined Transmission Mairf; capable of deli Ibl.raatu Riwr wa.er to a p;oposed tuservoir (the "Dradshaw Rnertoir') 1c near Dradshaw Ibid in Pitmst e '. 'Ibeship, Backs Cot:nty, Pennsylvania; and NERFAS, CDPANY requires a stpply of raw water for moling ; b.as at its electrical genereting plant near Linerick, Pennsylvania; and MEREAS, the Iblaware River Ibsin Ccr: mission (*ORBC')has deter that UM:PANY may utilize the f1rus of the Schuylki' River, the Perkicnen Creek, and the Delaware River as a water st1[ ply for CDMPANY's Lirerick Ccr. ing Station in accordanm with DRBC Docket Decision 1b. D-69-710 CP, Varch 1973, and sgplerrented ibvtmler 5,1975, - NGf, 'UE!""", the parties hemto each intendin'; te be legal > lb;;und, agree as folloss- ,
- 1. Cnnstruction of First Phase Project At1I110RITY thall construct or cause to be constructed as part , i Pirnt Phase Project the Point Pleasant Pimping Station, the rcrrbined Trans
; mission Plin, and apportenances (the "CariPACP PInJELT") capable of ptzrpin i
s:ater fmn the Ibl Matv Rivar to the propmed Bradshaw, Idservt ir.
'De OLTRMT pin]ECP will be a part of the First Phase Projec which provi&s for the delivery of Iblaware River water leycnd the Bradshi
! Ieservoir to the Wrth Branch of Neshaminy Cwek and to the P,v.t Dranch o?
,kionen Creek. The Point Pleasant Pu:rping Station will tako va.ar frczn the wan: Riwr and ptzrp this water thrn xjh the Corrbined Transmission F. tin to D;
- f. haw Ibserwir, a urrall :durage reservoir itsnired for flos regulation. 'It '
water fic.u will diviale at the Dradshaw Raservoir with water for A'JnKaI'iY 1 miensed to flos by gravity through the tbrth nmnch Transmissica Miin to t I'v.1 vainy's North Drar.ch.rhannel entering jtst testrtwn,of State Ibuta 4'13.
+ -
, .o
. . r. .
.g... ......,,.,,,,...................2 ,n. . ,, ;.,z_ 3. .
- . - - + . . + . - M
Ir ., W.it es. going. d to the II .id h.u Itr.1;etvisir lyy ?.tnUGtLW to bte released to AffiliORI fson the fir.ulub.N nrnenoit will lx rele.ased witbut c! urge to ALTUiOI;IW. Water for ttse by Qt4PANY will be pmpm1 by C PNIY from the Brad.ht:w Peservoir throiyh the 1; ant Hr. inch 74.unmission Ibin to be critisfructed by CCrMW, to the l'erkloren's n2st Drorch ch..nnel. h conbired Transmission Pain, which normil will deliver water to the Biodstow Tbservoir, shall be' designed in such a trar. tJat the Bradshaw Deservoir can be bypassed for the delivery of water to the brth Dranch Transtrdssim min. h Marth Branch Transmission Main and certal other water facilities to be cxanstructed as a part of the First Phase Project are not the subject of this Agreerent and are the sole responsibility of AUniORITY. h Dradshaw Ibservr ir, its integral pt sing station and the East
- Branch Transmission Pain are the sole responsibility of CDENW.
'Ihe Tbint Pleasant Pirrping Station shall consist of a water int al conplete with self-c1 caning screens to prohibit debris from entering; an inta) cxnduit to convey the water fran the intake under the Pennsylvania Canal; a raultiple-tuy reinforced concrete pts:p structure essentially below grade, foun.
on nibsurface rock; and a ptsrp house crected on top of the ptrp structure to provida a weather t.ight enclosure for the protection of tquipent and p rsona h punp house and structure shall be protected 'fran ficrxlire, and be accessib' during a 100 year fJcxx1. 'the ptuping station shall include sufficient vertic. wet-pit turbine p;rrps to ddliver, as required, the water capac ties set forth in Paragraph 2 Inlow and one additional pmp which shall Le conside:rd 4. spar'
'Ihe Corbined Transmission 141n rhall be an undergtound pipeline denigred to withstand normal operation conditions and tran,sient pressure conditicns. All piping traterials and their installaticn shall conform to l applicable lauric:in Uater Ebits Asr.oci.ition standards to.assitre a suitab'e and tuliabic systcni for the intended service.
- 2. ycity C _
of WNmn PinTrcr
'Ihc contmplated itltinute capacity of the bMTER P!nFLT shall re the stun of thd capleities . m.s1 for C(MANY anc N' * ~ TW at sich fu%-
tbm as the constnction shall be fully renpleted. CD"PnrY's ulti. Tate capact uhal'1 to 46 PGD, AUntGR17Y's citimate capicity shall b2 49 ITD, an1 WNER P;O g.
~ - - - - ~ ~ .....,..w.1,... ~ .v . .. y -~ - ..- ~ . n ,-.
. . . n o s. . u: ~ . . .
.. l}
,.. t
.tict's str.ites:tal.ited intimts capicit.y nhall lxs 'J5 Im.
*lle initial c,ilucity of tic Firut. Ph.se Project shall Fenn the ult.imte rupicity re w:rved for tTT@NW, 46 IGT, plus an aircunt determired attrism.
1> revisions shall d sign in he reasonably recpiired by NTlHORIW at this Line. le incitxhd in the First Phate Project to enable tM facilities to be expanded Initial to the tuntcmplated ultinuta calucity of tie Water Project (95 MCD). construction shall incitxie the (ts:plete wata intake structure, cxrplete in-sta11ation of tle intake cornhtit und2r the canal, all wrk associated with the ultimate ptzTp structure, the ccstpleta discharge nanifold and about 1600 feet of a 'n". capacity Canhined Transmir.ston Ibin leading away from the ptre structurr lh reroining facilitics nial tle rirt of the train it .d : ball !>3 sizul f. the initial capacity requirenents. Tne Dradshaw Feservoir will be built by OMPNW and ruy l>3 utilized by TilDHORITY as part of its transtnissica. systen at
'no cnst to Aur10RITY. OMPANY shall ctordinate const.tetion of the Bradshaw Paservoir with the construction of tie First Phase Project so that the Bradshas
- lbsenoir and facil.ities will te corpleted and operatianal phen
- need.51 b] the :
First.Fhase Project. The contenplated intinute design capacity of the WTULCR l'rOJECT an the capacities reserved therein for NJ111oR'ITY and for CO*.PNW,respectisely,are subject to chruige by the rurty desiuing such change giving written notim of such change to the other party at any tine prior to tle ccripletion of final i design p:ovided smh ebnge shall not delay the conpletion date set forth in Paragraph 3 below. Pronptly upon notice of such change in ultinate (Nign capacity an authorized neruin, the parties shall agre e upon changes in Attach-mint I to ruflect nw financial obligations of the partied. In the event that party gives notice of such a chan'Je, all costs incurred in altering tie i engineering wrk perforred prior to the rotice of change thall be torn. solel; by tle party giving such notice. ,
- 3. Ibsip and Cbastruction AUniORITY shall use its best efforts to ccrplete th CmTRrr P)!WCr so as b have it' available for operation not later than April 1,1981 CtrT!wY rhall have the right to review the construction schediding, design _
l dr.iwings, spx:ifications, ven.hr selection, and desi ns 'for trajor c<pdgm:nt
~... .
g ,
.i...c ,... m .., .. 6 ,..r., . . . .
_,...1.. ... . . . . . . .
... lI ,
<: Il.- ..
purcha,eu for the CCN11;* *r **::'.;;rr t.ad to sr.t: r:'tmucrxbtlens to I.tn10 uW lu .ed en tim
- revicvs. ..*' F110R1W ch011 act in amordaness viOT such recomen d.itions wht never 00NPAW advises NF11KA11W in Orlting that fa. lure in ocmpt i
the recomenlations wit 1d adversely affect the m11 ability, construction. cost op. rating cost, or wnstruction schedule of Lutfruct PIOJECr, provided that n sixh reconvndation by CQ1PNW shall mIuire htfillORIW to violate its oblig-ation to couply with all public bidding requirenents and any opilicable laws. During the period thath the COmVCr PIOTICT is laing desigred an constructed, AUniOR1W shall infonn CDPNN ronthly in writing r+f the 0%Tr!UC Plnner status incituling any rnssib1e variatlon in the scheduled crrpletion date. (D. TAW shall in invited to 'puticipate in all CDNTPMI IIQJECT neetin m1ating to design, costs or schedules.
' Cu1PNN shalt nave the right to inspect all records associated I
with the GNTRACT PInTECP, including those of contractors, subcontractors, an eagineers and,to inspect any work in progress to assure conpliance with con-struckicn standards and specifications. , e 9= A11DIORIW shall .pply 11 a Lively runn:-: .- Ltain all pe.r-mits and other regulatory approvals for the construction and cpration of the CUTTPACP PIGIECT so that the CDTTRACr PIOJECT will te conplete and cperable within the tire specified in this Paragraph 3. In the ev'ent'that requirut op J prcnals are not obtained and the PICJECT cannot promel, CDPAW agrees to re burne AtmCRIW for COMPAAPs proportionate share, bred on ultifrate PIQJECr capacity, of all costs related to the PInTECP.
- 4. Operation. ,f AtrnORIW nhall operate and r:nintain the CONTRTCP PlOJECT 50 as '
d211ver water to the Dr.vlshirs Reservoir at the Lines and in the epnntities ru quimd by GwAW, up to the nuximtrn quantity reserved for CUON#' :. tee in . accordmco with Paragraph 2 above. ALTHIORIW rhall notify CDIPAW of equipuunt fai' lure or r il-firctions, pu outages, ripply shortages, runpower problerrs and all other developsmnts encountered'during the operation of the currRACT PPaTFCr tihich could adw=rrely af fect the reliable r.upply of water to the Bradshaw re:tersuir'.
. i p., f . *
..-. ~.; .~ . - :. , r. .n : , . , - .. .. , .,- :-
. . . .. . _ . . . . a ..
b' ,'. I s..'
.. . *- - , t.
. - . t .
- f.;. : v, . ,,.Y i. , ' G .
- f i. '; :,;', . . s . . ..; l i h % .' .'. l
~, p. (.
o ,q . *: . g ,. . , s .' ..
- s. , ._ s
,. . . . ._s s.
. , *e., . . . ,. . . . . .
t
. . . .......>.....t,.*,. ..
...3 .
In the event that such -
- - &velopents (Wadverooly,_ ff6ct*o,r ; ' seriously 'thre,at.en. . -
. ,. . .a... . . ;; c . . e .. * . .. .; . s t.: ..
wate .t st.. *..
.. . .v.-
to so affect the r.ellnble.'cupply of. . . C. EPEN ',
?,, t . ...e.'.- r!:r to thu -Bradshaw Pes.ez;voi.
. ; 3. 3 -
. . , ~ .s -. s
. . .s
. rmy to the extent .m. .
permitted ..
. . s ..
>~;., ,. by.Q1ru'and
- a. . . . . . . , . s.1.r with'th
- u.(.. . c....Aa;W.i s cons.e w
>a -
,. s.
'.. s .
shall. not unreasodably be.;withh'eldi,tako: e..,.r.v, such(ceti
,s .
,y. ..,. n ..
s.. .- . . ,. , . . ..3,.,.,.,;.., , , w ,, .....i. .:~ ...; rrent failuzes or malfunctions. . u. ~ sr : su . ,..,l power otgtages,}.'su
- v. . . . . n ." y. . -
.c. ;
.je ..t.........,..,..43 c s; .
lens and all other develop..ents enco
..i
.tc,g.,,d re duri'ng th,e operatio;n ,e., . g f.<. the o,. CUCR .i. ;i,J o.*
- . .,. w:
..., .::s s .. .
Pm. T ECT as is necessary , * . ; . r., t'o maint'ain such'Itpply.N'. 't N i.'2' , ',hD' V' i ';.':.H. i
. uD . ..
.m...:p. .. e .,. .n.
.. z. v. .
u . ..o ,, .. , s. . >. sp v ALTDORIW shall'not ,. . . . e, b,11able to*CU@AW,'or
- c. . . .s . w.v t. d .. , : ' . ;,,; .. ., v g , * .,.i. . ;; .g:, . 3.. - ...~;.
= . : . . . .. . s.
s . It for any d.snage, los,s or denus'is.a. rising out of tl u operation,;p> .i..rra nt.e.mn:n .. or m.mir of 'the faciliHod 'norifur'ariy. damget,loss'or
- .s.9. r.y.>m c..a.y....r. . '
. . x,sslenwuls whatsmver in.
. M.... m. . .;.w . u. ...v..
~
..q;. '. .i ;& ,Q '. a' & .n ,,9, y. :D.'. .%
.'; $ '..M.;.
. r.t y, ::F.:.3.
. s or .
case of failure or Inadcquac. y 'o . . f the ing puhp;.Y. 3 1. . facilities,,' Cb..nbined Trans- , mission thin. .
. .E J: f
- i.
' I~'s l't:,.
.".c,. e,i
% t . % d . 1~.-Ps.L .' '. ;*
- M..
' . n. : t , . .
" 7M. .;g- , % .
,4 '. - v . .o - '
. 3 , , . ;.. n Future Chnstruction . A ,'...c~. W'3.,,.3' O Q.A ...-l.D 'g". ',t 8 9, '
5.' d., .h., .,. . :7' O;,e',y.:
< ,:s.<
- a. ... . st s. :. . . . - ;.e . s i ' AUniORIW covenants t'd conple.te,the contenplate4 h*ATER PR"UECT a
.- . 'r'.] ',*;y Q .. ." . .
. . ;', ' . .
- x **,t _
- rtsuired for'puzIoses of furnishing
- water.t.o'the.p'ublic s .. ... . .
provided tha't' the_ ** .. .
.: .+: s..t ; .c ; ,. :: irable' . .. . . . .
des or necessary ;n y n.3 AUmORIW' reserves the right' to enlarge'i*or,.nake
. ? @,M NO . any?. .
.'i . i'? ' . ;';.. ?.' s . . .
additions or,. . ,irrproverunts and any necessdry or; desirable deletlons td the con
. W j'>
..s ,U.....c.i. w,-. ... ,... .,2 tenplated WJER PIQJECT at any tine follcMin Lifci ..'g;the.. initialt oper[. ion of th
.. ... . . s s
. .Q f WW.2,1,T)& Q':
Pht.se Pro'jech to reflect revised riee'uo s ' fithe'public~
~ in a man.ner s3 so as rnt to
,s. .. ..
c... . 2...u. ,<.,;t rw r % G..y..<.s
't g.s y...,Y. .m. nv.. .f . .. ., .
, interfere with the requi, red supply.: .m .
of F.:atarj,,o!.,h.e' v< en . , , Brad.,shaw .
. ., 2 P.asmoir. ' .- Chars
.> . . . . . . L .c.a
.n, . x.- rr provided for herein shall. not .m.s.n.a. be..reaseinc.sl;. x y ;.'. ..cos '. .t. ..n: of any -. . such
- . . v .-..:..s& :. yy...d ~>.J.., .to. refle;ct; the. . -.
. . a. . . - .s- .
ac111tions br, inproverrents unle.ss aps:.:p' ,cnMPnN has,_pr.ioz[
>.a to their inplementation,'
s.- -c yu* r :*n. . a.*. writing both' approved said additio;n,s or.aa.hp.. . .m.2rprovennnts,and accepted th
. . e. . .:3, p. 1... -
costs associated therewith. Cn@nu sh,/ 3 . , 7.the 3 right to review proposed
. .. . , 3 all,have
*a_ *\ '.-.*.
,, *N.; e..f. c
. , a. . . ' ..
construction involving such additiohs 4.,r ,..'.)u '.s, i . ~.- .; '*inproven)ent
.:.: :es. z:.
- m. -
.s.!..yu W., ..s..
. .. .,wd,,. .. ., .
\- .
s . . ,. in atras Where he proposed constructionjeould, adversely a,ffeet t'ie supply of _ ,. . ,,$' c;;'.i G -:el.: Q .'.t. I \ w4tir to the. Bradshaw Feservoir. Incomendations%henever CO PNN advises'/sUDIORIW M 4
,. ; '. Alm.
e c .'
;' f, r !ORIW : M...*s.
shall.act
. .q.;.,n;;h*.%, -t.
in accorchnce
. '.;\..
7 4. trit . s .p.-
~
..Ihat
\with such failtire t1
. . .I . *'.: y h s.$.(*f)'[. N i1 M I',} 5. '
\i .
accrpt the ieconnendations would adversely:affd,ct'the ' reliability, cc3stncti-
> .. ,... . .,.,.>..w . n j ,; 4 t -., My@ . ;M Q. ~: < .
- \.
cost, operating cost, oc construction,;, schedule:.~ ..of C0b7R'Cr PIQ7ECP, provided
. .y.; . Ty ~ v- . ,. , 2 [g',y 2 (fff, .,. . & ,
that no such reconmenchtion by COMPNN'sha11're,h.3.,h;9quiru,A te its
.i, W ......
.m, C - i,P . '. W ?.N,
.- . . . 8.. : . . . . ' .
. t, chligatiori k..conply with'all. public biddin,g'Urecelltununts ,f.. f f . . ,,and any qpljcuble
;; - . . s . 9, . ' .
., .,.p.qq
. ;* 1 . , ,t r . q .. -
\
I""5 ' O '. , . ,, . . y ,, . ,, , c
, , ... s. ... .. *. .
m pI . Y.-si.T,s. .; .*., a
.i .]; '.; ' .
\. .
n .. . .s.
- 5.. .
) 3 .a .., , .o; :. ,,~, .,i
, , .y , . ,. .r; ~. ..;..o.,...
p,r. . m ._ .. .., , . : , .. (.,A., -,s,., .,,.,.,s. ,,
.t.,.
,.,. ,..s_
-..g . c, . . , ,
, ..:a
- - - - --- -__ .___- .g-: ,3.. _. ,s . , u:.n. .r .- s., - . . s .. . .-
o
, , ....%- x.. . . . . *
.... ~ - u ., .*~ ..
... .. .s.... + . . . . , . . ...,4 ....
_ . . .s
. 5
.,g > ,. .,. .. . e .
.,. . -l i .,.- , ,. i. 4 ,.,,, i .,.,s ' . ,,*i..6.
, .., & 3. s O.j : a g. 8-r...p.*N.. -. ..c, . .i .. . : .ll
.f. . , - , . .
. . .. .g .s.,.'. ... . . ,
.. ,i.
< , , - ',,; .s ..
. . ' .'T n , .,. 3.
,.....s.... 9? .
,r .t,*...
- 5. . *'y l, :
e ,. ; . ... . ... ,. . . . ,. ,,. n, ..', ;.. ..a, .:w ,. x ., , ,.
... ...s... .,
.e....
.a . . , . *
..e. : ..s . ,, .m, ,.
.r*..1.:e . . e
- , . .. ? ., = ,, s....s... ;r. .. : .v. 3 ~.
.
- c
.s.. -
....., . . te..
,0.xtputation. of Service.Charg.t..
e es
- N , g; .. . , , ,. . *U
.e.d 6..
* ' t( .y- -41o !f 4.*. ; i? p.. . * .>,q..$.: . . .,'.e.n.(. ...~'** ;*' .' - ,. .,-*:.',.:1';,6;,;y
.~ c. g,;. .. '4
'"t . .g '
~
q, ,..,,.,r % :.~. ...*?
".. . - '.e . . t I.br .t.ha; ' serv. . ices,, pro y 5 i
;. . . . . ' . J.~
t ." . -
;. ;.'. n. , - . ,., .: yw.
. s . '.,~n,'vid.s.,.d.
p
,,.s y ..i.3 .yy;. :,y?
.yby et !.AU..DD.n.RIT.Y.
r, e .
. t, u..n
. ~ :. . ..
i., CnPA'N l.% . U .A . , ' I agrees D
,',to pay .AUIJ.s'. '
portions thdrt'of shich,; RITY(thec
,d.i are direcKly, applicable or'M.*P,At@ld.;,1.M.'M/f/'. f/ ~{p.7 M,
.' clbedkalo .
. ; y *g ., . L <, 1.f l v. . ,g ..eg,,qr . , ; . _,7,. n., p ; r,'qc. n. r f. ia .1, p cqt. :.'.e n : .
. .?. . 5 4 ' .A. .,.. -Capita 10Investr6nt-(bsts.of (IImucr PInHX7P.f. 'Iha.j,., . c.a.. p..ita18
._.y ' :
c. e
., . t. -' '< - ;.. ;
. g..T . . ,
. . . a. .
'isl, w}'. ' y.inv.estmen ' , . ,. .;f ,s.- W '.-. u.g;(l.i..n i.,". e it m .. hall in ' general'. .
cIuisiticn includ
. ' ti. .? I'l 'E.h 'L.. L',, . 1,y W 14, and construdtioln?fl $.6)and 6 :::.W'.?.&.yj.',.'.1 : s:?,' G.tfe :
.S ; .. >. c . ,.
in. place in. operating'bondition'for
.s- *:- -. ..:.; . <..s.
.. ...vo., w. A r t.+.%.:n. . ,....o.- . y, m> ' y, .,.c:R v-
, *J. ' . .a -. .. ' i T ' . purToses f
'p'm,8eliver,ld : wathe at the 3 lriitial ;.n Caig!n. m s< n #c. ,s.. .e . . , .apici
.;*a.. ,. .,- ~. t. .s.A .:p. m.m(.aqh
; :n +
- . ,,t.4r 9,:.y:'o.v;.- c .s ,::q;$js +V v..; . < as v a -
c
...& a .
zibove @ Types?o,. '.n..;.4 , , f ' costs :are.all'. 9, w
- w. 3 ' A., ; +;',s i ..;e sIucifi. ed, in;.PMa:gra:p.:hT. .
t .
. . o. . ~ . . %. . e &,
s*
. Wi;r,"t. .. . y;, T
- i.t.,Me . . 1,.,[4.u Q W 2 wjr.m N.
- IW . , i,..
~ g.. ,
s .. y!s Attadm ;o,.p.. O.e. Ahe' h, retd and'rnada a'parth
.4,. 4 .
- 1. 's.* . ?~.set .forth attach'ed b . .' ' 'd.}.I,(d.hy:;l /k;nt. I "_.t % y N /; @ *j. %g r /
,,. [J ' k J. I,p,p,I[,;
. r
.'. {', f ,f.gi .i 'Ef.g . ,'. .r.t;>;
gf,
- v. .f :. ; * , e hercof. , s. .,';> f'n.M.
Tel py; 49.y1;.g).w a
.ath .;
- .', yv.
, + g.; hen a capi,ta,.l,' Iq:v.e=.=,.
w.#.n.r m .<-J:
\.:w.. < .9-
~ . - ; .,
.c . ,7, ,',y, . stmnt costv.~ cons. . . v is. ts of.a, s .n.expenditu,re(
y,
,". .: r. g ,.-; . < : ~ - .:
r.
- .u.s . -
. ,y s!
- .',.*%... n .F .n;tj ..W ~ rus'Mv.*r v::. .... :- 'q...,. '
- ..> ' ..i.t j;: :: which
'; is applicabletto, the:C,Q7rRACT a PICTECT and7*.also toQ;
- ~; .
' . e.y . .- . . .. . . u. <-
. ..,. .>s. ,. .g. ! s:J.. y , .5; ..e
. . p.. , . n. . r., . .e..,. ~., ..e..-.;...,.,.. . . .
~*Poth'er 'facill'tles '. a ,.@.a'u'IT,*. the distribut of .AUnio ~ cost.
e ,
, , . . . . .;; ;t . .h. .; ' . v Q.;. ?,y,,; * . y 4. . ? ,.
. . 2 .
. . . . s ...c.;. 9 ,.a yq.:
s PJnTEX7FJan 1l s
'. - s-g. '.f'letWen . .g the'
, ; .. n. - CII, v. . ,'f s"s.p m;',n.'d Athe 4
;' other . . fa,cilitics
';Fr
. ,. ,.s. . y'sh6.
vf g ;. . .
. g g ,.g:
.{ f. :..., g*. s. s., i .. -,5,,.,. j ..
b 't. . be on the bas,is of' th ,. n . ca c:. l
- ~., :..,w ;. G . y ,.'{ s?q Q*QQ;,s ratio pital'investent ,of the,.g. costivi ,1 a
..d:
,1 ? ' of the CWrRACT.PJaTECT to.lliat of, the~other ', facilities.'-h J.
.' c ! 2 ; .. .
4 ;.. 9 .< 3 ;..*. t ., .f.:3.s'j .,t.,.,., o;.Wf.,,;.J
. Rg .
/. c, N .
?.N?. ..: . i;;*+;A1 ,, .W .,
- s.s
. .y
,g r. ,,;, a' n .. . .c.dc.p
% . f .
f.'" CDNPANY shall , payr kts -t '
,e u J .y, ;.J. . n . .' mke such 9 %.I
- .W.'= w;W.%M;.,c.enth J
. .>G.; .. . ..necessary to.ano
,. . .s . - .. se . a wp s.. , ..p,6, a
, ,,1. , s g.N' .* ,; .e y
..,.v, :.." . .w:
*b; G '%",J7Jproportionalishare'of'.the: capital: investment of the 00VrRV'r
; .,.' .e : . ::t Q ,
. , . - '$ Q:Q,Q,'N ?1] *'. .O . O :,3 ; , :.. ~
* ' F ' W;.InTErr , fo'r';a phrlodtim of[Q'Q. fib.in[Nie;;;'aUallabilit,y
~
'.c e ep - ., , . . .>
- n, ~
. .~ cu p .c,u thes's .3; %,'&v .1., . . s.Apd A 'turmination d
. , g t.
..' Bredshaw .. ...<...<y lbse.rvoir ,, - .. f.,4 to,f.
- s. 3 . : i ..~g.:.';,y(J: \1 * '.,;y -.,
- .- i
. ;\
. . y t :A. . - -
A next bond .,; issue,...;...~. used!;.':ihter : * .? ~. 511apor' financing the'3,CmrLCr 3.. . . , . . . . ., PIGTE~P, which bdnd.'is.. e.,.!p ::. .y. % % sue shall ikfor it
..:, t, 'A . o }*,(l'. e. .
a,....f\ .8...i.em s.' e , ,
- A:. .. .. ,V 'y- r. T ' .
. - >a k.~M.~35 years; .c,
., . s .
, .s
!. n ..
. i'-
.q:L %:,. . Y.g::.n. xsa ,.p.,. :. . .' : . ', c .
, .c.,:
". , ... ~ . .;3. a. v.. ,t.c J f; , .-. r. 3.. . u,! .
'Ihesr; at:orti.. zattoq . . . -
payments ,sh .
. ~
,c? g'., tv. :... , s . . ;g. all. be u.niformlannus1'pash
.c.
s- : 1& f., . .i o .-
-. 'i.
.. which shall i,g i. ncl.uS5:in
.-. . P,. vs.- , ... t.eres st.s.hst.t(a -
.'ho.yrate'cqual ,a..ti e ret s
- 5. .
4 . 4.. li ?.*.,.. i* . . ... .. \
- ", interest' [ ate l usin. ,P,:5 't;i e.,.p;,.... g"..,. ... .e.w v. w.. :;n
. *>. ~.. . . ,' street.rnethod
. s.:., s .
thE.;, . .',;..c .
' N' ' ydd9o ' f the local Cobrment Unit Dibt Act 52 of 1978, of
'.a.
* ? ' e.;.l.,i+l.t-g;: .'.<
. f-: - + .y tr , . -
i .\
. . AlmiORITY's acw b,ond iss. . ue(s . .s s . ,..
,;i*- ' ' .1; . -
. K %.! .
[;Q~ . lq*:a. ;);.;used to t bti tpt le'ss
, , . .) . , T h ejeE k ~s-than sI 9 .y. ,r
'. 4 . .. .-.- .. w 4 .
CDIPANY'1. I 'oportion,al ~; v . <.- share of,c'apital liw.estmnt as set s.. ...a;,.... ..,.n.
..,s. -
. , ' ' 'c - '. forth in, Attac! rrent I shall bi datermined by the ratio of (a) t
. . .: . , . ,- :., .. ! s.
.] U ,:
' ~t ~.
' uh.'t. .-l' -7 .!l . ,.t - . *0'.~, '. .!
.$.f. ~ .
' .f.....
. .s
- +
;ye,.. -n ..
. . t. . . . :. .
e.~ . a '. o ; . :.. . ~ . . . . . a s ::.s, ..: r .
--....... e,,, , ,. . * *-- : y;' *; ,-n s . i
o
., , ,. . .'y .
. i . ,;
.c -
' P. ' 4 ?.b WMER PJQlFL'T'c ultirnta capacity of d5 HCD m. inus' At,m..lo.
.- .. . . . . .. .. . . . . ; , ;. 'c.'
mutntan adly utilluttlen to (b) *the UAIER PirOICf's conte.1
.. p .s . ,.. . . _ . l C G . w" ', ' '.. . =.' :
platal ultiruta.-- capacity (95 MG)). s. 'Iho'ruxi.mts- :1
' ally utill
.,n...~1
. . . .. r... .. ..
zation, cbfined as the largest igantitylof,q , v..
. . . . . . !.s.ater
.t> . . .S<it.?.d by AtmioRI'rY fztra the, Delaware during a 24; . hour 'c period,c..h 7 .,
, , . . gQ onm established, 'sha, ll be used for all. stbsupent applid.
1 r*: r.. .
. . . ,. .s luynents hereunder,~until it is ext eded, wh>reup.on the ";lp, . .
r
'.q "
- 4. : , ( ,-2;?f new higher value of mx,imtzn daily utilizaticn shall'ba' user'
. , , . . 4.:... .
."1 . E,9f,'
, ' not to exceed AlmOttITY's .'
ultimte capacity' of 49 HGD.;.7.!,.[
.. :. .,;f.'- , .1
+
be nddiM, .. v. ,.or 'dd 1 aew [c'thejustea in~mhimtun
. a. w n daily, the ' case'ofl e.1nergency w..
# or' abnormutilization shal
- * . .L l ' i. .'ij 'i sc " ,2 f .' ' If. , .~... J. ' ',*N i. .
sitmtiorgor conditions .at Pese'rvoir. PA-617p or in the Nort Branch channels' t6st. re.arn anryor. act.mstream - if sid:h Tc'servol .
,o. . ,,
. when such hitmtioris . -) or,'conditiins can inY alleviated
. ' . - T.-
punpages frorn the Delaware ~ Rinr and when such pugages a're
. ~ .
not rede for water supply purposes. ' 'Jhe rate of such; I emrgency punTuges shall not belof, sufficient nugnitaxle,, 1 Y., . ,. y . s; nor shall the pmpages be ofguch duration,'as to: adversely
,' *! : ;. . r .; .
affect COMPANY's.hility to' supply. raw water to the Lineric}
~
. . v s .. . .s :.- . . ,
. . 'Cenerating StatIor$,%ein.neM. VNile stx:h'energency .
' i L'i.! ,h d . .;i ..' : . .
punpages shall'not h,pply iniestablishing capi'al investnnt
.z:..M . c . : : .'-
. costs and fixed operating costs, the volune of these ptrpagi
.- ,-.:. r/ ; . .
a
'shall t= taken into'a6munt in detennination of the costs *
.. [. %. . U ', 'l '.c. '
specified in SubsectiJns.
.,.y (C), '.(D),,.'and -(b) of Section 6.
. -o...,. .. :s ,... . .
j H. Pixed Qwrating Costs of COJrmCT PTOECP. .Timel oreratiry .
-i
' costs will includa ~ :~ the;f. *f,bilo.fing [ actin 1 costs: wages o
; permnent c. .. erat.irig foi)pfa .nd 'ad. .rtin' . at'
- taff; insur. e
.s -
c and bond prtsnluns;' . o,f , fi. . . . .ce sipplies; and tic cost of non-proce 1 . J.r . noterials and stpplies(sused Iri a hontal year. Any applicable l 3...s N p .s wal estate' taxes or Iuyidntsfiri 11cu of taxes, which ull1. le
~
, * ' .y l j._ ,
l ; based on the real csUito hssessnent as of the tinu of the sig _ , .:;.:y, c. ing of this Njreenent,-will besi.ncitybt - in the fimi optratin. g 'he
.e ::, . ,
.\ - '.
tg. . .
.. , j , .. ..
': * : ' 7 .:. . .m. .~.:.~~.~ .
.. _ n * *.'.% 'h * ' *' M. ' ' N ' ~~* .- O *** M #,.,m# ~1 . ~ ~ .
.Y
'l I r . 4 unitn nrul will In .s11or:nted tire ntsu:t ure(s) upon ubish they Istrs a*:nt s<.es1. !ic Mx11 ole A of At:tachnrnt II, attached i Ivntto innd m& a put hereof. AtincluTY will apply for all applicable tax tuptions in order to ninimize rosts. CrJ7NA
, I i . psoportional chare at them costs will be determirhd by. the.
t i ratio of (a) CII4PNN's ultivute capacity of 46 MD 'to (b) 00ft ,
, PNN's 46 ND plus MEDRITY's mxi-'asn utilization as descritx i
I -
'i n Schedule A of Attachnent II.
- C. 1
- tility aial Coverreent Agency Charge for CIXTTRACF PBDJDCf. 'i*s chirge will In the sin of tir' fo'.] cuing items:
(i) Minirun Charg. The mininun charge will to the total 4 of all mi.nirun charges payable to utility cx:rpanies arf '
, or govemrental agencies.' CIyfiWY's 9roportiorni share of these custs will be determined on the swe basis as the charges inposed, that is: In propottion t mximtra (peak) usage,, actual usage or standby capacity during the period, whichew.r is applicable.
(ii) Additional (Large. She acklitional charrje will be { the total of all charges payable ,to uti'.ity crrputies ancVor goverrrental acencies Ic'ss those. charges dascribed in Paragraph 6.(C)(i), f , (XrPMY's proportional share of these costs will be d2termined by the ratio of (a) the total sultre of water delive ed to OT4PMY to (b) the total volma 6311vered, each during the billing p=riod. This charge shall not incitx*.e any cnsts for the cupply < 1 of t' ? water it. elf fran any -*m +r$n'.a1 ag ncy aa later describad in Paragraph 10.
- D. gintenance and Ibpair Costs of CIXITDACT PTGFf'_f. Mdnten-ance and repair costs will be the costs of miintsiining the j equiprent and facilities in excess of the norul recpe of l operating costs as set forth in At tachnent II. Cnemy's proportional sharu of these costs will in determinal trf 9
. e e
*====.e I****=*M- et e.p
& f* 'g, y 9,j .;,p e g g ., n.* W.. a s. .. . s f.*.5.1 di al.s 9. a g ,." . -.M
.. l .
3alin of (a) llys intal wiimt of W.ntter delivered to CDMP/Jr. to (b) tius total voltms of water aslivered, eacts f rom h
- hto or init tal r.etvhn.
e E. 3urating costs of tutt:W;r_ l'in)irr. Operating costs wil". bi the total cur rent cmt of cy ration, exclixting rived CWrating Cocts and Maintetnance and Tupdr Cbats as define ain e, as cet forth in uc.hedule D of Attadumnt II. CII+- PANY'n proportional clure of those costs will be detentiin-by th< ratio of (a) the total volume of water deliverwl te CDMPnr.* to (b) the total soltzre of water delivrued, each during 'he billing period. F. Finaneirv. and }bnagelnent Tee. As ccxrpensaticn to AtInf0RI' for finan ing and runaging the portions of the faci l' ties or ccritone its to be used for CDMPnn's benefit in deliver ing water to the Bradshaw Peservoir, ODMPRn agrees to pa an anntnl fee of $65,000 in qu- terly paynents cxxmencing with the effective datn of this Agreertent. 5his' annual fee shall be adjusted upward or dowruard,
~
every five years on the anni sersary d ' ate of th citective dat d this ?.m.nt in $ccordaned with the folicwing:,
, a) 50% of the fa will be crsnsidered to represent cmp 2nsation to AUniORITY staff pe*3onnel and will b subject to an increase or decrease by an anount' erptivalent to the percentage of charge in the All Ite::s, Constzrer Price Index for h11 Urban Cr.snstriers published by the U. S. D'partnent of Tabor, Eureau c Ialor Statistics in the ibnthly Iabor Ibview. She base index will be the January 1980 IndEx'and the Ir dex for use in detennination of the p;rcentage c'unc will be that for January of the caler lar year in thi
, an adjustymnt is to be rnade.
i l
. 1 e, e=> ,,-me , .. - ' ' "
h . g. b) ',D'A of Iln fm will In finn and not subject. to aljts cent. c) %e adjistal annual' fee to Ic tried for the msuing live ye.sr pariod rhall in the stun of the arrounts ' cal enlated , in It.ons a anel b alove. d) Should tie specified index le discontinued or should the Insis of its calculation le substantia 11" prxlifi proper inches will be r.ubstituted by nntual agree c of ALTHORITY and OmPNN.
- 7. Rewrds and Audits.
AtB110RITY uill ruir.tain, in accordance with generally ac&pted accounting procodares, accurate records and locks of account shosing all charges, disburserrents, and exInnses grade or incurre by AUnioRIdunder this Agreenent. CC4PMN shall have the right at its expense to have its
* ~
'erployms or designated representatives examine and. audit suc.h reoards and -
books of accotrit. for any preen 11ng year or ye.us a ot in exceed a fi. M.or periev1. COMPNW will rv* ru ni ImRTW, within ihrm unnths of mch millt, of cuiy exmption or objection to any itan of such records and books of account in the period covered by such audit. Any adjustient equired by such ! . exmption or objection will b3 irade retromtively anr1 will be reflected 'in the subseqtent normil paynent by COMPNW on the normit paynunt date. 8 Sclelule of Payimnts. Billing of COMPAvt by AUnORITY under this Igreererst shall f.e nah for the quarterly p2ricxis ending March 31, June 30, 5cpturber 30, and D.wnler 31 of each year. 11111s shall be rendered the lant working (by of the nnnth folloaing the close of the billing period. %e billing shall be the sun of the appropriate charges thscribed in Item G. (A), (B), (C), (D) and (E), and ja accordmcn with the applicable provisions of this97 recmsrt. Billi ig will conmnce with the first billing dr.e subsegtent to the avaUability of
- i
.a..a: s.. 2. . a u; w d.ki i ;.L&.e = u :*
_-.~.. -
--- - -- ;-- - - - ~:. m- , .
l
<: 1
- u. iter at 11radn16w n retvint euwl erniHuiu for 11e riuration o[ this Agreem:nt.
If rTrexn f. ills to mike itn sjturictly paynr:nt within 30 day.s af ter the bill in ren&mi, AU11KWtw will riot.ify UNPMW In writing ard a; ply an interest . mtn taulty of 1.25'1 frse smrith. In de event that (nTNN falls to tra'dits apurterly paywnt within 99 days af ter the hill is rendered, \ Unio"IW has $h right to withloid water until payrrent is male, providex1 that NmORlW notifii (nv.PN# of such irTending actlon via registered trail at least .1 busiress days prior to sida action.
- 9. mlaw,$re River nisin ('rwinission Contract.
It 13 understcod that AUDIORIW will enter into a contract with . tha DiBC for the use of Delaware River water and that said contract' chall not
, include the use of water to le delivered to CDPNN hereunder as CCIPAYf is rolttired by the DRBC to enter into a r. parate contract for such tee. Said contract lut. ween AUniOR1W and DIOC shall rot adversely affect the supply of water to CDMPMN, rt<Iuire any paywnts by (DPNW to either AUD80PrN or DM3C
~
or increase the (nst to CIP VN.
- 10. gter S!crtag. ,
In the event tht soltrre of water that han le pmped frrxi the mlawaru River is restricted by regulatory action or other causes 16 yond the control of AUniOR1W to an anount insuf ficient to satisfy the needs of AUnf0RIW anr1 CII4PNIY, except as otherwise determirul by appropriate regulato authority, the available Delaware River water will be shared by AUmOR1W and (nTun in the sare proportion as their recpectisu caIncity entitic:ients umle
! . ,...,raph 2 hereof. Th!? prea.rision shall noti Ic construed to n end er sur.;de I r.cnt *% niv Dxket DMidans as see rnreg H p m ,7prh 11,
- 11. utter the.
COM"KW saall use the water delivered by HATER PinTECT for cnly those purposes approve ( by the D10C in Docket Dxision No. 'D-69-210 CP, Mmh 29, 1973, and supplerrentJd iknurrber 5,1975. ' l* . = - - - - - . . . . = . . . . _ , , , . . . _ -. .
l
. . ,8 .
j . , 1 .
'l l
I
- 12. ,'D t m,of, A)tn Ei.nt.
' thin Agrtesrent shall ront inue for an initial term extending k0
) p ars fita (M availability of wat er at Dradshaw Ibservoir, ard thereafter fo radditiorul tet11s of five years each gun writ. ten rotim of intent to continte ' i the Agrtswnt given by (U1PNW to AUDOR1W 'at least one yair prior to the en t 4 i of the tNn current inm; provichd tht CDMPNN miy terminate this A frmra nt . tr,on 12 nonths a:1vance written notice to AU110RITY follcuing t.ermination by a; segulatory agency having jurisdiction, or folloaing such regulatory agency's 1
~
rufteal to grant, any limms, Irirmia, an'rovals or other authorizations Jc riited for the constrmtion or oport...lon of the I.iererick Cenerating station 2 and facilities related thereto, including but. not limited to the Brixlshav reservoir and tk T:ast Branch Transntist.Jon Ibin. In the event of such temin-
.. tion of this Agrcent by rPNr' prior in the enf 11. i rial term, mic
.4 shall pay to AUnOMITY suf ficient funds to retire COMPRE's proportional shut i
- I Jof the capital inwstant of the First Phase Project. In the event that the ,
~t$
3
;,lTDiORITk chill thrive rewnue fruh utili:.ation of the COMPAW's forner Share of the First Phase Project's capacity prior to the end of the stated initial team of this Agreerrent, AUDDRIW shall rehburse CO1"NU for the capital in-wstrent utilized. Ibinburr.enent shall in in proi rt-loni m > the actual usage o j . CCiPNW's capacity to the ultisnte capacity provided for CD!! PAW.
1
- In the event the Cn1PNW tenninates this Agrcerrent for any trason i
LM AUnl0R'IT? shall have the right of first refusal with respect to any sale by the OT1PKN of (M nradshaw Tbser.uir arx1/or the T:ast nranch Trens:nicsion , niin uruhr such inzme, and conditions as may in set forth in a lona file offer l puithase the mservoit and/or the main which the CurN& deciars to 4 Tept. { In tk event. that hin10'dW fails to errrcise its first mfusal right and the OMwW tirs not cxtstrm,tn tk sales agrewent with any third party, the AUniORITY's right of finst refusal shall apply to any future inna fif.e offers I nomived by the CG4 PAW which it desites to accept. CutrNN shall give ! AUn30RITY notice of any sud: of fer to purchase setting forth all (Mtails of tPt. offer, and AtmlORTW shal1 hr..e 90 days to exercise its right of first refusal. Any cwh sale by the (nvnn t,> the AUdf0RIW shall be nibject to any recessar) tigulatory approvals. e .
-n- .
.. .p..
_ . . _ . . _ _ _ . ._._.__.._.._,.......m.... . 1 m .. - . , , - ,, .y. _.+ . - . - . _
, .-i_ -m
I . l I 3* I.h.*2.*.1.LY".*} Q A rurty shall int le consialeted in default in the parforranm of its ibligations hereunder, or any of Orrn, to the r:xtent that perforrance of e.shii (bligations, or any of time, is PreventsEl or delayed by any cause, exir,t or fottiru, which 'n 1s yond the ruas;ona. bits ccatrol t., ach ,a.ty. It is the intent of the parties that Atn1101dTY shall keep (IDP,wY inforned of any event tJdth rray delay its perforrer.ce of tJn wirk (including causes within the con-trol' of AtnllORtTY) and, to that end, will advise LIDPANY, within a.rcasonable tim, of any such occurrence. .
- 14. Arbitration.
All quwtions in dispute uruler this Agreement shall le subditted to a ihm1 of Atbitration consist _ing of one representative appointed by AUniORITY, cine rei,rteentative appointed by CCFANY, and one reprmentatim appointed by the tua representatives. The dwision of the rajority of the roard of Arbitratior. shall be final and binding on both turtles. . 'Ihe costs of these proceedings hall Le apportioned by 'the Board of Arbitratix.n.
- 15. Entire Agmenent.
'I1ds Agreenent, including Attachnents and ,II hereto contains the entire Agrtwent of the parties with resp?ct to the subject rratter. Any representat. ions, prmises, or conditions not incoziorated in this Agreemnt or in the , Attachment s hereto chall not be binding on either pat ty.
I f, . 7asigmrunt.
'Ihis Agtt rent shall not be a= signed by citi r party without the prior written apprrival of the other which approval shall not be unreascnably uithheld; provided that this Agrecarent shall be assigned by the AUn!ORITY to I (bunty of Intnks to the extent nr ussary to pemit i + County of Bucks to cpers and rn intain the tfater Project, the Ducks County Board of Carnissioners havinc.
signified their approval of this Igreenent and acceptance of th3 terros and mnditions by joining in the execution of this Agree. cat.
-14
* - - - - - * ' =- - . . . . . .
b 17 F.I,fa tit iye; Dit ri. 11v- (Yt9*ANY r;h. ell file a stipy of this Ivpetsent with the Pennsyl-ta hblic Utility Cm ai nton privrptly upo1 the carcution he:ref; the 3La day af tt r noch filing stw11 le the ,,rr,,,+1...,. . 4-$c hereof unless prior to r.uch ibite prniel* nps u r. hall in instit.utn1 mi prtsvided in Scotion 507 of the Pennsyl vania Piblic Utility Gxh, 66 Pa. C.S. A. 5567, and in ,the event of the in-siltution of such proownlings, then this Igre<rrent shall becere effective only after approval by the Pennsylvania Public U'.111ty Co: mission. IN WPDJESS 1.IEREOF, the parties nave hereunto caused th's Agrewe to In duly emeuted by th. ir proper officials on the day and year firrt above writ tren. NCSIWIINY WATER IU2XXJRCES At7DiORITt
- Dy__
thairran
- AITIST:
. rs .
PilIINEIFitIA EIECDIC CCISKff Dy MM
' V. S. Doyer (/
,- AYn257: Sr. Vic.e President
* ~
Lu
' /-)>'O.>lu)
~~L. .s. nin:br Secretary
;~PPAGED by the Ducks County Baird of Cannir.sloners this O day of, h / g.. - , 1980.
[4,~ -[. l./aw m/ an 37 n'7
,, n- . -
. . .s i, O g ,4 9 s , c s
48 , r l l
. lb(,a
,fyn.m ,
'., . ( %,
- 15-
.. i.. d .. :: ;.-.. ..,
a.. k . ..-.. i a;a:
- . ~ - , - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - . _ . - - . _ _ .
. o
,f.. .
I At.t.w:h.is nt I I .% vet I caf 2 t.ipital Inmstwnt As of Tutte Wter in Available ~ at. Bradshaw Teservoir . t Investirent, Point PJe<ctint Piriping Station: i Intle Strts.btre j Intd4e Conduit j . Punp SLincture , Punps t. Ibtors Electrical Irptiprmnt l
- t lbchanical DIutpmnt i .
Tnstrttrr nt.s T. Controls Discharge mnifold
- Miscellaneous Inprovejrents Cc..bined Nin to Bradshaw II.,ndscaping, ro,ds t. Irprovestents Iand & Rights-of-Way St,$rt-tp Costs
> Ihgineering & Contract Mninistration 1 R gulatory Approvals 4 Icgal, 7dninistrative & Fiscal recs , 4
- Prior runding Allodance '
- Operating Bq>2nse Ibserve .
C.mP7M's proportional share of capital inwstrent shall be the product
'of the parcentage below and the total capital investmmt.
PIOJErr's ultir:nte capcity - AU1110RMk's max. daily utilization
- FinHX.T's ult.imate capacity 1
' ow/m's topital inwstnent = % x total capital investrent i
*As d2 fined in Paragraph 6. (A)
.?
1 i t L I - i i ' e ?, )
~
^
- -... . . . .. . . _. . . . . . . '.1 1.' i',.: ,-. h; i. .. , y . . . . . i... . . . ....:.la...... g
.h .
- At tacturent I tilcot 2 of 2 capital invsit ent D3 fin,i,1 i, Lins _of 'n-nts_
St,irt.-up rosts. %cm errsts shall inr:1ude r.ervices by co'nsultants, chji~nGrW,tRIIniciarts, bdorers, and others, cither in the serrranent employ or temporarily engaged by Alfl110RITY or COMPANY, who shall be assir,ned to a ;sist in the initial operation of PIGECT, he co.ts shall ineltale travel and e>q-rv,es for individoals where applicable. %e costs of smterials and utilities,'plus cuerhead costs shall be inclucix1. It is anticipated that. the initial cperation hereunder shall e.xtend fc.r a period not exceeding six weeks unless loth' parties agree to a longer start-up p2riod. o$inwring 1. Cont ract Mninintmtion. %In item r. hall cover c> penlitures
~
for FIMiing; pteliminary .uffTnal d2 sign; nurveying and tropping; stbsurfa inwstigations; special studies, inwstigations and reports; administration, observation and resident inspection of construction; and othere such costs rnlated to the develornent of contract. plans and specifications and to the - application of these plans and ciecifications to construction. Ib (buts associated with preparing applications, Ti~gulatory Approvals.1ing said opplications and obtaining permits or approvals for PFTE shall b2 included hereunder. The termits and approvals incituled shall be those obtained by the AtM110RPW from the various governrrental dgencies. Costs shall include engineering work, envirunacntal assessrrents, cost (studies, report writing, pri. . ing costs, and other r i
.r e r. %e costs for local typu wnstruction permits obtained by .. u,.c.octors f r. hall not be included hereunder, but shall be included in the direct costs for specific plant coyonents.
Iep1, 7d:dnistrative f. Pint-al Costs. Costs incurred by the AUIh0RITI ' for legs 1,' administrative, and fiscal cerviacs slu11 be incitded. %e costts rmy result frna engaging outside persons or firns, or rnay repret.ent costs occurring within Aln110RPN to provide the subject services. Prior Ismding A11cuanm. mis aucuance shall incitr3e interest on charges incuHiirby Al.'.1iORITY TTom the dates on which expendit.ures are trade until the tifre that water is available at the Bradshaw reservoir for engineering, constact.fon, and other emenaitures rnade by AtirHORITY associated Nith the PIGIDCT. The costs on which the interest charges accrm chan be tru2 cnsts of PinJECr and shan be items of capital investwnt included uni'er other stbacmunts. %e interest rate rhall be the sme as the interest a . . u: .n the overall capit.-1 in.estnent as described in Paragraph f.(A). g,2 rat c3 .w.nre Tbserve_ 8 "his resc:;.n ch .11 he e .t:.blished in the rmnth pirmding the (blivery of yator to the Bradshaw Pesersuir based upon : Imitually agreeable esthrnte of the working capital r.ecessary to provide
'entugh cash to cover tue PinTlX'r cxsts <*escribad in Paragraph 6(A), (B),
I(C), (D), and (E) for the period between quarterly payr.cnts. 1,
-17
-'-9.,s. ,,, ,
? -b -r-- v.-r- ~~ ~ _ . . . ~ s.--w
...........-----r-
_ ___ . -~.~ s:~.
ll M tiidme*nt 1I (%rtt1W.T PirulCr
.% wlisle of (hsts .
COMPN W's
?ctual P11> portion (Ltd,PMN Cr>st of Cost Ox3t Schedule A - Pim! Operatlry (bs ts*
Wages Innurantn F. Ik al Premims of fice Supplies lists rlais E. Stqplies (Non-Process) Tbal Est at e ".' axes
'Ibta1
- Prep 3rtion:
CG".PNW tilthate Cipacity, = . 00:5'NW Ult.tr. ate Capiscity plus ALTDiORTW's Ibx. Utiliwst-lon, riot to , ru<ctel AUnORIW's ultimith capacity of 49 MGD. Schhtle B - Operating Cosb* *
.si .
'Jbtal iiti
, ** Prop >rtion:
(nvPKW Volturu Tbc'd =
'Iotal VohnrilEilvWed .
t u 4 I
-1 B-
-~.--.c..~.. . ......a.~ . .. a,6 , . .: ,, 4 . , i ;', .. : , , .. . . . . .,..
L.
, . ~ . .- . . . . . - . - - - - .= .,..-. . . . . ei s , , ..! ' f, t GCNEltA1. DI SCittt*P10N OF Ti1E TEftMS OF POINT PLfEANT PUMP 1NC .%TN; i FACILITIP.S ACIW.tWilT WIT 11 PHITADt11 HI A LLtCT141C COMPAN7 eo
- 1. Term of eigreement in 40 years.
# 2. NWRA will finance and construct project.
I
^ 3. NWRA will own all facilities and lease them to County of D
- 4. County of Bucks will operate facilities or their designee.
- 5. Philadelphia Electric Co. will ultimately use approximate 1-i
' the capacity. (46 NGD) , i
- 6. Bucks County will ultimately use approximately 51.5% of th (49 NGD)
- 7. Total capacity is 95 HGD.
t
- 8. The capital cost of the project will be amortized over the term of contract and Philadelphia Electric Co. will pay 10 amoritization of capital cost less the maximum daily volum pumped for North Branch treatment plant.
i
- 9. Water pumped by Bucks for emergency'use will not count as daily volume.
- 10. Phl1adelphia Electric Co. will pay NWRA $65,000.00 annuall 1MRA administrative and finance cost.
i
- 11. Philadelphia Ele .:tric Co. will pay all operating cost on r j as capital cost in number 8 above.
j
- 12. Philadelphia Electric Co. will pay' utility cost on ratio (
J
- 13. Philadelphia Electric Co. will contract separately with DI j purchase their water from Delaware river. Bucks will tras i water thru the Point Pleasant facilities to Philadelphia i l Companies Bradshaw Reservoir.
I
- 14. Philadelphia Electric Co'. will construct and pay all cost!
- Reservoir. and their Perkiomen transmission main.
l 15. Bucks may use Bradshaw Ecservoir at no cost to ' Bucks. [ NWRA has first option to purchase Philadelphia Electric C. I 16. j facilities (Bradshaw Reservoir and Perk. main) at end of . i when no longer needed by Philadelphia Electric Co. i 17.' If Philadelphia Electric Co. terminat'qs contract they mus- ~ proportionate r. hare of all costs.
- 19. Bucks is not responsible for damage of P)illadelphia E}ect' 7
equipment' or other Philadelphia Electric facilitics cu'ch for failure by Bucks to deliver water to a-Bradshaw. - . ,I , i r i I s
, y .m- - - ,,e..m_. _ _ e. -
.,m, -._. ._ _ , _ _ , . . . . . - ,. , - _ . . , . . , . _ . , . - . , . . ,%. _ _-,
e
~ : = -- - --
*^
? ..% . W k :.N . ?i.Q..$ '.% 8:V.n ' ; . M .:s* * * '
. g,4 ... s.~ . ;~e:W s.v~ e . ,..
., . Dde .
RO
.v,t ..,.UTING*AND;T.RANSMITTAt.' SUP -
, . .~.... n . ,. 3-19-80 .
3; (Nasrae. offhce syrnbnf. rc, carn number, initials Date , bt,lkimg, hency/ Post) * !
'CII EE.GEG DIVISION
,4 7.c*. ion _ ,
FUa , Note arud Return For C8mrence Per Corrversation f, sReque!!cd Appuval For Coerve+Jon Prepare Repty {!sttiste For Your In'orination See Me Ccar.rrie nt lavestigste , S4 nature
, ,C l ardhation JustHy LMARES POINT Pl.EASANT DIVERSION PROJECT ETC.
573 _ l!ap.en Didinson,Ch afydr. Isr. PECO called to set _ _ _ k'ed , 2 April 1980 1000-1200 to visit PD0 for pre-y appifcation discussion re: subj ect above.Mr. Boyer,
., Mr. Allen and one other f rom PECO would come alon;;.
k Neshaminy water ren. Auth. will have Mr. Flowers, 3 exec. director. ,Mr. Richman,their environmental M at ty. , and Mr. Borqua rdt their engrg consultant. o , . 8 I indicated that Ch,Pennitn,Ch NAPEN-E and 2 to 3 l~ c others vould likely participate from CoE. Th Authority is the applicant and this will be essentially an info exchange session for all "M. ,,r.-.._,,, cy furnY chief permits, 3N --- -
,,JMyt!milar cienran:es, en , actionsszt. . va!s, concurrences, dispesals.
i t0M: (Neme, org. symbol, hency/ Post) Room No.-Uldg. 1 JOHN BURNES i Pt.one No. 4833 i d 3 -34 OPTIONAL e OGLt 41 (Rev. 7-76) i ren e m ,: dy us4 f *um (41 Cf FQ IC'-IlJO6 l
- l l
I Fxhibit'C
\
l
/- /
e .. E. H.BOUROUARD AS S O CI ATES, I N C. I., sup*Lv WAT CR HCSOURCCE ENGINCCRINC roooo co tcos emosreva waa rs *ts e o. 6,, o n .L 14 00 R.wooten svastr ca=n a asas wa.es wais m =sr.ouvets is .., wo z e r . s,.e . . . .. e e si un a s~ a n t - e v o== ==t r a ee vomantec sv uo.e s. H a = = o* ee u .e a. P a. wros oi,onec a vuoie s
, ra uno i s.ua awc r svuu.s e 17 o. ruvemo =tuvat svuois e vet (PHUNC 8787: 2 3 ss- s ho 5 April 4,1980 R oy E. Denma rk, J r. , Chief, Permits Branch, _
Philadelphia District, U. S. As ny Corps of Engineers, Custom llouse, Second & Chestnut Sts. , Philadelphia, Pa. 19106
Dear M r. Denma rk:
Appreciated your cooperation and assistance at the meeting last Wednesday when we discussed the Neshaminy Wate r Supply System and Philadelphia Electric's water system for the Limerick Plant. Our files contain a pamphlet titled " Applications for Dept. of the A rmy Pe rmits for Activities in Wate rways" which is dated 1 October 1974. Also, we have an extract from the Federal Register of July 'i 5,1975, Volume 40, No. 144, Part IV, titled " Permits for Activities in Navigable Waters or Ocean Waters", to which two sheets are attached entitled "Section 404 Permit Program". During the Wednesday meeting, you stated that a court case in 1975 had extended the scope of the Corps '.pe rmit activities. If there a re new or revised publications which update the above, would you please send us copies of same? Thanks again for your kind assistance. Sin ce rely, d*f E. II. Bourquard EllB/bs , COPiL L E (MT
'i - l4 D O
~. g - i L
- MECHANICAL E!;011;EERI!;0 DIVISIO!!
I;2-1 2301 Market Street . Point Pleasant Water Supply Facilities and Associated Systems Agenda for Meeting with COE - April 2, 1980 by the
!!cchaminy Water Resources Authority and Philadelphia Electric Company
- 1. Introductory Remarks
. 1. Purpose of meeting - to describe project and present current status.
- 2. Introduce participating persons from IIWRA and PE.
II. Historical Background - events leading 'up to joint effort.
- 1. Limerick Generating Station
- a. Closed recirculating cooling water system on SchuvMD G-
- b. Makeup water altematives - receboirs, wells, and pipelines
'25 *>o.OOqd cal /odn - T o mucH Oor well
- c. Proposed plan - combination pipelines and open channel flow - withdrawals from Schuylkill River, Perkiomen Creek, and Delaware River
- d. Reviewed with DRBC and DER - 1969, Feasibili ty Report, March, 1970.
1:eshaminy Water Supply System
? 4 2q.}- M9 0 5 gp# Reservoirs P beh we Com . vd syc (o 4 3 p o p (.
i yd g 9
.#, m 9s -
, b. Intakes and pumping stations es I' o
- bp oE W.\\, + B.#J 4 a q q
~20 mgei p tyc.
- c. Treatment plant
- d. Joint project commencing 1970.
III. Description of Project
- 1. Point Pleasant intake, pumping station, and combined transmission main.
- 2. Lake Galena 3 !; orth Branch water treatment plant
l 9 t.i ..* .*. l I III. Dencription of Project [ Continued) . 14 Public service transmission mains
$. Bradshaw Reservoir -0.vncA s. ole PE - 16 a t g u, p e, ,
(2 . Perkiomen transmission main - 6uri ed - w M Iotlow r ww ci,3,\ ,,,b e g e = >cliwe. c ov e sdo 7 East Branch Perkiomen Perkiomen intake, pumping statich, and pipeline ' A 3" CC2 O.V]6 - WomW
- 8. lower
() . Schuylkill intake and pumping station IV. Femits and Approvals - Status of negotiations with regulatory agencies, including NRC, DRBC, DER, COE, etc. for authorization of project. p,, - g [ N d a h. kNink
.'E Tleasanto bTaw 6 inI.7d.aoa\
b eve. 3. B (d ~ (M <c 1-c ~; O" "g E e, - Nedpumping station, and combined transmicalon main g!-{ 042C[c%c %,, cg
' oW*\ or obd 2. Public water supply facilities, including trr.atment plant and T""
- V * * ' "
" b".4 d i o *i st C . so eke service mains Oc s. e4 4* Bradshaw Reservoir and Ferkiomen transmission main 3
1.4 Limerick Generatin6 Station a) Schuylkill intake and pumping station b) Perkiemen intake and pumping s tation
- $. Miscellaneous pemits a) Stream crossings - DER b) ' Highway crossings - ICT c) Soil and Sedimentation Control Plan - DER V. Schedule _
.hY NN\J C A 1. ' Point Plcasant facilities - service date, start of construction, i'k at d\ic d to, , engineering time, and app'ications for outstanding pemits.
;bt. au6; \l $
**d C 59'd0 2. Public water supply system L
,c a
3 Bradshaw Feservoir and Perkiomen transmission main o 14 Schuylkill River intake and pumping station
$. Perkiomen intake and pumping station 4
c.- T: ' L o me w Cv e c \c
. . S .- .
i. Il VI. Envircr= ental Studies - brief review of considerations. . k .
- 1. Limeri ek makeup supply system from Delaware River
- a. Water quality
- b. Stream flows
- c. Terrestrial biology
- d. Aquatic biology .
- e. Historical investigation
- 2. Neshaminy Water Supply System VII. Miscellaneous
- 1. Agreement between Bucks, fMRA, and PE
- 2. Merrill Creek reservoir VIII. General Discussion and Questions 19'f 5 - 3'd C;,uid C m .4 oh l\t Scd cu\ck Eh&\ _ Ahe, kEC , E(S. ho r L%e , i ck (vAick meded disetchows.1 [ Abe. cw\ u c 9\ ReAravd te \ct a
bmvMow Ly de w b5 ?-u \ \ i c s c % 'd owber NEM . Caw \ c-c.s s, m g w ii\ kc. by c.r sud tow t' kAc N dl - M (\ wcc h gyy m ,*4 , Handouts - Statement by DER (R. Timothy Weston), May 30, 1979 Q and A by PE, May 21, 1979 Metrorandura by G. M. Hansler, February 11, 4 1980 WHD/dac April 1,1980 e L
* ,, 0 ,. .
~'
NWSS FIELD TRIP 7/23/80 Bob Flowers INRA Frank Cianf rant Corps of Engineers Alan Kurtz B.C.M. John Burnes Corps of Engineers Ron Eller Corps of Engineers Thomas G. May Betz, Converse, Murdoch E.ll. Bourquard EllB W. IIaines Dickinson Peco William C. Major INRA Engineering E.!!. Bourquard ?NRA Engineering
=
0 e e L
, - - - - - - - j-_-----______ _,_.__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ ____
..e . . . . A*
Q '
....i i. ':
- 3. ..1 : ;
. .i - Lli .,.s.<- ,
; a. .i 1 I>i P ;r (1) [, . i f !A
- l. h '" I iic D. i ,eritnit y P., 1%rple "CC: ACRS (16)
R . 1. h si.e TLRA
'4r . Gerr ld M. Han ,l er ,-- N5!C 3,,,,q,,,,,,,.,,,.
Lsecutive Directar _
.' g~
f,el.iivare ;' t ver ~. ;i n Ce . il s s ion P. O. Box 73(10 West Trenson, b Jersey 08ti2fl
Dear Mr. llansler:
This is in response to your letter of Decenter 15, 1980 to Mr. Darrell Eisenhut concerning the preparation of an envirc.m, ental impact statt.rnt for the Limerick Generating Station (LC5) during the 'iriC's operating license review. is indicated in recent conversations, the Nuclear Regulatory Cocaission will revie.i the environrcental ir.ipects assr;ciated with the operation of the LGS, 1 -luding those facilities that are required to support its operation. This
._ view will specifically censider information and data that has been developed subsequent to the issur.nce of our final Environmental Statanent for the construction penai t. Af ter cor.pletion of this review both draf t and final environmental statements will be issued.
,' Sincerely, Robert L. Tedesco Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing 1
{'u. (_ Sl .a l ~ n! . --} c I e f7
. _ . . . . I..l. Vt . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ . . . _ . . _ .
t3 Q/ ..__g{,il LB = ' A/D:t:DL
.Xe1c.LLM E n.ancer RLiocesco -
' 2 / gl 10 12/ .- /80 12/{ [/B0 ~~~ ~ -'
~ T -- "- -
-. _ edtibit D .~ : '.' '. : -
c _-_ ---_--..-.r-._ . - - - - - -
. w 4
,4 c 4'. *"'1 - <
.~
<4 h -Ada E,Lw_4"U %
,1..
t gf C
<i- ,
t;
'q ;, w. *j
- g. ,*b r.%, ,*wVa s :: .h" '
%., a . , .;;.i ~
a *T, g ' y:s , .- r . ,, , ., ; n-,; 3. ' M,6,'t fL,'s.c 7. L;;,3 : ,w t
. < g . ' a , 3 *.;,y,.,.;w:%.e Q<:..s,,.
.e , y r :. ~.. a 4
(x w, *.Q :t .s. ;?.A: _g ? f nfic.'N nq\.n
- ." Jy 9, q .n}u.-:.n g [r.y;y ,,; q t s:pfj; . ,.1 y % :. Q.y,'7,;,n
.* ,M
- g .:p" a qq"gy} . t?C^U .;f _ G' "QKp; g,: B yph&y wr:t
*45diu ,J7
- fe h4 W y..P,ryiQ;w.:%-41-Q %9e vf E Q ,.a
.;W ; 4 7 - 1 3 0.2~ ..s ,&.1r -
. W .q,
-Q,b
$v. .
l " k P df D W G W 6 5?,2 L '. C %...., &... %e..anpn,b.;G4f, P C O.- - }
-i c A&
hg[NM@hh[i,%Q" W;Qz . . q%- fy . -:Q'O w,t. [&+, 917051ARb ;,% x* 4
,g@y agd'%:i .
t
^E h Di,N N U
. t s j $hhThkNE[O'hklMh;MNi[l((hh[
hh : ! <ae4wm* m @47q"1ug,, hhhhhh ie- .#cr,4/w3.s%c
- m. M. %m, o.2,2 .
. . & ,., m : a h '
a-m 224h - c w%% % - e. w . w%. * ; p.. gm y.. L u , m.c m s:ep A. m(.- c e!mMN W .ev. W a ,- w pa F,' "' '"' k pw; tem @N.% '2
- h.
- M%(4&Wmpgqwxmp,w I
{ t; i
? h .h MM82 Q g%g(1. 8'g w" i u%m c MQ;g;& n s@f.
Q, f . rta~e 2%g,Q y'a % @s[ ":$ # b'M* N,*" w@ nwstv4:. Bh.p.. nA ,Ad :? if , .
,<M. M aypR.;
"n. ' M *.N C jfg j$m p%y49;jf% l U2M3, '
h ,t 1 W h:Qff&]df
;@fi'6f2 g/ h h i SUGARMAN & DENWORTH SUITE 510. N. AMERICAN Bl DG. 6 hd h "
i 121 S. BROAD ST, f% 3h PHILA., PA 19107 ^h'6N we.
- W p$
~ rfc$y); y Director, Office of Nuclear I' C
~
Ms Reactor Regulation h% U.S. Regulatory ComtiSSion M" Washington, DC 20555 Nn E b p. gg t JP _ p i ;.? M I.74M N/ s' y g , u QQ f& Q@iw aQ?i sq%wffg%f5k k,
%-h%
?
Mkaf{Mga+%,1@7:ef~w$smg$;"6QMg W
%4 S h'N
/wq 0cs vvfw f 0 k.l wNYb'$q Y b k h ,N . q ~ ~ m m v W f g p m
m
& 'L * ?& Ll W f M $ dI & i2.t h* $ $ f % *'
4 *i'@p"
- s &;, S% V h M@Y;ik h & OQ$Q;l W W HM W % @ % G M % W -
.e q .y yW tamph .% 46%s#e@%G MMMf% QMapqu M6%id%MWit& w4MMn3 < :
s @y$ e _+ a 4=59%p#n 4- .' myg@g,Mh Ji%M:w@yn%mgh.x,g@mpnaqaNessw qwg:s waH u ad p ~ E 2 %sywge .x g ;te.sh;bMr%ypm 4 @pfy m u:6 mmeAe 4)W edg(g$h musnd ;. ~ Y e f k Yh hhhh mf% n c Y w$ $ bhh b k h ,N . g h. e w e m.k h k; g ; g bhkhbh
$hhhk$hhhgmwmm$emenn$hYh na Q ;}}