ML20054M766

Responds to ASLB 820601 Special Prehearing Conference Order. Federal Representative to DE River Basin Commission Made Qualified Concurrence in DE Commission 810218 Decision

ML20054M766
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	07/07/1982
From:	Sugarman R DEL-AWARE UNLIMITED, INC., SUGARMAN & ASSOCIATES
To:	NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8207140381
Download: ML20054M766 (21)

Text

0:

SUGARM AN & DENWORTH r rt Up AT To R N EY S AT LAW SuttC sos COBERT J. SUGARM AN

• suitc s eo. NontM AM cnicAN SulLDING g JOANNE R.DENWORTH 321' SOUTH BROAD STREET [ ~

GO87F37ddeo PHILAD ELPHIA. PEN NSYLVANIA 19107 (2:51 546-0162 ,

ROBERT RAYMON D ELLIOTT, P. C.*

CoUNSCL

...,....m....

July 7, 1982 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Re: Application of Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating Station, Units #1 and #2), Docket # 50-352 OL and #50-353 OL

Dear Sir:

This letter is filed on behalf of Del-Aware Unlimited, Inc.

in response to the Board's Special Pre-hearing Conference Order dated June 1, 1982, in which applicant the staff, and Del-Aware were directed to provide certain information to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board within 30 days after service of its Order.In reponse to the Board's Order, Del-Aware submits that the Federal representative to the Delaware River Basin Commission, Governor Sherman Tribbitt, made a qualified concurrence in the operative decision of the DRBC, that taken on February 18, 1981, and referred to in the Board's Order (sometimes misdated February 18, 1980). Moreover, the grounds upon which he did so qualify his concurrence expressly preclude reliance upon his doing so as the grounds for invoking Article XV of the Compact.

This conclusion is based on the fact that Governor Tribbitt expressly relied upon a letter from EPA, dated February 17, 1981, a copy of which was attached to Del-Aware's M9morandum on the Effects of Previous Decisions as Exhibit I,and is further attached hereto, in which EPA. stated that it anticipated that the CRC would review the impacts of the water supply system, and which in turn was based on advice EPA had received from the NRC, and was consistent with the letter written by Mr. Tedesco of the NRC btaff to Mr. Hansler of the DRBC on December 16, 1980, a copy of which is also attached to Del-Aware's previous memorandum as Exhibit F, and is also attached hereto.

Moreover, based thereon, the DRBC itself, in its February 18, 1981 Decision (copy enclosed) expressly qualified its approval, by making it subject to this Commission's consideration as indicated by Mr. Tedesco, referring expressly to not intending "to prejudice" the 8207140381 020707 PDR ADDCK 05000352 G PDR M dj

NRC in its consic eration of "all of the safety and environmental issues regarding operation of Limerick". (page 6).

The DRBC having expressly deferred final consideration, based on Mr. Tedesco's letter to this Commission, this Commission cannot now be asked to abdicate its responsibility based on the Compact.

Further, Del-Aware submits that Contention V-16 should reflect that the Corps of Engineers has now completed a draft of its salinity study, and through a Freedom of Information Act request subsequent to the January 6 hearing, it has now been obtained by Del-Aware. This study corroborates in somewhat modified form, Del-Aware's concerns. It was not before the DRBC at the time of its February 18, 1981 decision, and therefore this Commission cannot preclude consideration based on the DRBC decision.

Also, partly as an outgrowth of the salinity study, DRBC has proposed a change in the operation of the river, which presumably will lead to a change in the PEco permit. The 3,000 cfs value which is the shutoff for the PECo portion of the permit will apparently no longer be maintained, unless substantial new storage capacity is built (750 cfs), and instead, a different set of criteria will be substituted which will result in 3,000 cfs flow at Trenton only for certain droughts and certain upstreae releases. This may cause greater or lesser availability of water to the applicant, and will also affect the environmental consequences at Point Pleasant. These matters, too, have not been considered by the DRBC. (A copy of the relevant pages of the DRBC'S Level B Study, published subsequent to the pre-hearing conference on January 6, 1982, is attached hereto.)

Moreover, and in any event, Del-Aware submits that the Board should not treat the DRBC Compact as precluding its responsibilities.

A requirement by this Board that the applicant obtain water from some other source subject to DRBC approval, would in no way conflict with any portion of the Comprehensive Plan of the DRBC. The language of section 15.1(s)1 obviously precludes an agency of the United States from, e.g., ordering or authorizing a taking of water where such taking has not been authorized by the DRBC with the concurrence of the Federal member. However, the failure to approve a supplemental water plan which has not been determined as by DRBC to be the proper action by DRBC,but is authorized as a permissive action, in the Comprehensive Plan, is in no way a substantia 1 or other conflict with any portion of the Plan. Otherwise, any action by this Commission to disapprove or deny approval of any Limerick water supply could be considered as a substantial conflict with that portion of the Comprehensive Plan which permits the use of Delaware River water at Limerick.

I wish at this time, to take the liberty of expanding upon Del-Aware's previous point concerning the toxicity of Delaware River water to the Perkiomen and Schuykill Rivers, raised in Del-Aware's Motion for Reconsideration of the June 1, 1982 Order. As indicated on pages 69 and 70 of the Supplemental Petitions of intervenors, the contention itself was inadvertently omitted in the typing of those contentions. Enclosed is a copy of the corrective letter submitted by Judith Dorsey, Esq., counsel for LEA. Subsequent to filing our request for reconsideration on June 17, 198?, this omission was discovered, but perhys misled the Board in its initial disposition. As indicated on pages 69 and 70 (copy enclosed), the basis for the allegation of toxic impact on the Perkiomen and s

O Schuykill was expressly stated, although in the absence of the contention, it could be the Board may have missed the point that the Delaware River water toxicity would adversely affect the Perkiomen and Schuykill Rivers, by virtue of the transfer of the water from the Delaware River to the Schuykill and Perkiomen, on the basis of the information provided.

Moreover, Del-Aware requests that the Board take judicial notice that the discovery of toxic wastes in such rivers as the Delaware River has followed upon the completion of the earlier CP proceedings, and was not dealt with therein; although the toxicity has probably existed for many years, it was not essentially discovered until after 1975. (e.g. Compare Council on Environmental Quality, Sixth Annual Report (1975), pp. 350-55, with CEO, Eleventh Annual Report (1980) at 109-11.

We appreciate the Board's willingness to consider this matter.

S 1cere 1

\ t L,

\

Robert J. S garman Counsel for Del-Aware Unlimited RJS/nk Enclosures cc: Service List (Enclosures omitted to intervenors).

l l

t

(

l l

1

M ~

1;*.

. 4. ,1. .  :. i : :. :i*.h. t'.i.* . O*. ?.*.* :.*. t T. m : t: ; /( .;g:. y

..,.* s:': . . . - *

s.  : . . . g . 1 .. l . * :. -

r-w:c 4. r1..s... e .i t- c

.A FID 17 U31 -

I a rr.c t:ht : .c.. rr.an v. ir abi t t

~

l'.5. ' fm s r: en.cr -

1.el t.a r e h n e r l a r i n C..-e i t a l as.

fi..pa r t a t nt of Interier hust:1.n; s t o *: M13) i

{

• 103 "1." r. t r v r t . ?;.V.)

Vashington, IC L12!.0 Dear cove rner TribSit ts 76.* civersion os ..eter free slet Dela.are E N r at Point Flc.Ecr.t it a ec ;4sa; pioper si th.it has been a ennt rover si al i:nne f or nsny y.*:.rn. l.PA P..:gi ron I ll ,

t.eth befor c an.1.a t t e r the relaas.* of %c N:!'C Escint iv

• Di rec tor', f.cgat ive D.claration on August 25, 1 .t.ad ,t ha nacJ for lepact St a) : n.*n t. on t hentF.n. 930,

r. .n.it.s3.rojre uaE t, insols P l c.a r- -

j.og.'.tIa'.G'JRA a f ul! En.v.i,uid a:::anlal i s'C3 pro.L:tJs . On !;oveMier th 19.4 ':r. C.or;: D. Pa n:e, Chief of ETA l'ErTal

!TI's t,vironmental Impace. Lt nch, gave testirmny reaf fitring tha need for a -

full - - -

.- ---- -.E.l - .s lit.ever. LPA rerojniser the ci.tre nt drint. int v4.ter nee:!s cf Lncks and .

Mont;cmery "conties. In !:r. f .:n:o's test ir.s.iy ot Sun .ht; !!. h. ard..u

• edtd

' the nt cJ and p3r reve for ~ s r.-liable vas. r s.a; .1 : 'or f.urt! e n! ?.cnt.- : . ry

--cce nt i c s ." Ht furtt.cr affitrets out s e:si t:.unt to ure.2:q W th int s *.:= i s t s t . . *

• , tne publit. nd i s. a ev :rr.;rct.t ir the etsc:.; :nr anc. tr.p;eu:atation cf cost-ef fscrive and environmentally acceptable salutions.

Sin:e t.crenbur, EPA Negion 111 has tset with DR$C and P.nisylvar.i2 CEE several tic.cs to clarify cavirennental its son related to the I;eshaminy CrCek VJtershed Plan - Vate r Supply Plan. WMo. D- S$-[nCP_{$,,lg i ssues dis:ctstJ included ,

an analysis of flows to the :! orth Lranen treatary. -apelation ard vtter use proj n t i ens , wa t e r c.*i1* diva r i en r an troi t , .sta! the t ratir t un shi p of gne ThileJelphia Lice tric t'ompany Danct I;o-77 M CP as it relates to compenents of the trJ1A Dacket. As a result cf these a::::,ings out tecanical concerns involvieg the staff inc N'4RA orpora ted portion of the s.tr the neces prcpena! y cht. :rahaven been into remived f)o-hrt No. an1Nthe D-0 DREC ,dT 6CP(S).'.

Conseq.has --

uently,, the patc6fi W3The -- t it s to t.e der ived f ro a Ibc n avet*6cn of flaes f reraprop.tr with the Delaware groucelwater/ Riversurf sur ace water vtter supply to ?.udscutweigt.

nto t;;ewnt, and !bmtromnry any potential Countias, Q adverre 4 , pacts.

In regard to the r'.C0 Doeket No. D-79-52 CP, which involves etwpanents neces-sary f or the oweretion of the Li::erick nuclear f acility, severalenviromutal isj ucsfe~'E N i . ba a ld re s s7C'HuVe ve r', lollowinp. oer staternent of Hoveder

'18, we learned rh.it t he ,:fpC wi ll init ia.tr_ an EIS : sue,le :ent for the creratirig i

' ph i tf_c f. t he_ !. ine rid f e: i l i t y. EPA will enc.nrace the !;KC to. agt.us_ cur

~

coa: erns relative to water sujfD ,'~rT "v W .E . .he cae NiTIM already octui inquirie's to that ~ ef fRC~~i co.dit ional approval clause of Doct et Fo. D-79-52 CP, Wich has becri .rtd. d subse quen t to the :;ove.Scr 18 1. caring, r.aevs'the

. de:ision cantir. gent upon the outccse of the t!S. .

In su. mary, our substantive concerns with the f.VRA portion have been adJrsssed. **e vi ll ence. rape the :;2C to i rt

• ud e our c on:er.is with w.it a r supply in it s operational EIS for the (-ECs portien of the projr.ct. I trust this inf o;uatio. ' vill he use ful to you in year consid. r.icion of the two dacbets before you.

Sie erely cesk

, e

i. -

C, Illy . __

fact. J. Schra.

Ee;ional AJr.Ir.ist a tor

• Ex. I

( (

ui

• 1: :1.. * #1'

.r . . . i 1. . l ; .. : . :  : .  :) , .. 115

';,. s .. t, g; -

,.,...,.r.

i. . >. . 1 l'is!' ;r (1) 1.h e".Isic '

0. i i,entnet .

R. I'orple "CC: ACR5 (l'.)

R. 1."h r..o '

' TERA Mr. ler.-Id M. Ilansler 3, c,,. h.,i nt i r- '

IISIC Ewcutive Director g' r.el.iware !!!ver W. in Ccc.'ils s ton P. O. Box 7360

'4 cst Trensnn. New Jersey 08ti 8 ,

Ocar Mr. Ilansler:

This is in response to your letter of December 15. 1980 to Mr. Darrell Eisenhut concerning the preparation of an enviro.wantal impact statu.ent for the Limerick Generating Station (LCS) during the fiRC's operating license review.

As indicated in recent ennversations, the !{uclear Regulatory Comission will review the environmental impacts associated with the operation of the LGS, including those facilities that are required to support its operation. This review will specifically consider inicrmation and data that has bcen developed subsequent to the issuance of our Final Environmental Statement for the' construction perni t. Af ter completion ci this review both draft and final environmental statements wilF be issued.

Sincerely.

Robert L. Tedesco

- Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing i

i ~

L i .

' ~l[ . . . _ _ _

Q..._..___.___._....._ . _ . . _ _ . _ . . ... .... .

LB yl LB = i l A/D:L:DL Z,e;  ;LLM Air.mvence r RLTecesco -

Ex. F

' 2 / II .'30 12/ :: /80 -

i 12/{1f /80.:--....__..........._--.-..

==-..,' .-- . .

-=

)

d - l : '(/

r., , . -

s 3- .

g DOCKET NO. D-79-52CP DELAWAP.E RIVER BASIN COMMISSION Philadelphia Electric Company Bradshaw Reservoir, Pumping Station and Transmission Main Bucks and Montgomery Counties, Pennsylvania PROCEEDINGS This is an application submitted by the Philadelphia Electric Company (PECO) on August 2, 1979, for review of a reservoir, pumping station and water transmission line project. The applica-tion was reviewed for revision of the project in the Comprehensive Plan and approval under*Tection 3.8 of the Delaware River Basin Compact. Simultaneously, the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) considered an application (D-65-7 6 CP ( 8 ) ] submitted by Neshaminy Water Resources Authority (NWRA) to withdraw water from the Delaware River and pump it into the reservoir which is a portion of this project. .

The DRBC prepared an environmental assessment on the proposal by NWRA and included in the assessment the proposal by PECO for Bradshaw Reservoir, a pumping station and transmission main to East Branch of Perkiomen Creek.

The assessment concluded that an environmental impa'ct statement on the North Branch Water Treatment Plant (NEWTP) and a new environmental impact statement on the Point Pleasant Diversion Plan were not necessary. Accordingly, on February 15, 1980, the Executive Director gave notice of his intention to issue a negative declaration based upon the environmental assessment, in accordance with the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure applicable at the time. Numerous comments were received in response to the Executive Director's notice of intent and the Commission responded to the comments in a Final Environmental Assessment issued with the Negative Declaration on August 25, 1980.

A public hearing on this Comprehensive Plan revision and approval of this project under Section 3.8 of the Compact was held on November 18, 1980. Testimony was received from 77 speakers and written statements were received from 184 parties prior to the close of the hearing on December 12', 1980. Four of the five designated alternate Ccmmissioners were present at the hearing and each alternate Commissioner has received the complete record of the hearing.

4 9

g N.

~

\/ D-79-52CP 2

Applications must also be submitted to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources for permits covering the Bradshaw Reservoir _and waterway facilities, pursuant to the ~

Pennsylvania Dam Safety and Encroachments Act. .

Applications have been submitted to the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers for the project facilities. -

DESCRIPTION Purpose.-- The purpose of this project is to provide an additional source of cooling water for PECO's Limerick Generating Station.

Location.-- The general location of the project facilities is shown on Figure A attached hereto. More specifically, Bradshaw Reservoir will be located south'e ast of Bradshaw Road and northwest of the Danboro-Point P1Easant Pike-in Plumstead Township, Bucks County, Pennsylvania. The transmission main from the reservoir will parallel the Texas Eastern pipeline's right-of-way through Plumstead and Bedminster Townships in Bucks County to a point approximately 0.3 miles west of Route 113, then continue to and enter the East Branch Perkiomen Crec'< at river mile 92.47-32.3-11.3-23.8.

Service area.-- Bradshaw Reservoir and the transmission main will be used to augment flows in the East Branch Perkiomen Creek for downstream use by PECO's Limerick generating station. The reservoir will also store water for release to the North Branch Neshaminy Creek.

Design criteria.-- PECO is constr,ucting the two-unit Limerick nuclear generating station on the Schuylkill River in Limerick Township,, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. During low flow periods, the Schuylkill River cannot supply sufficient water to maintain full plant operations and PECO has requested, and the DRBC has approved, by Docket D-69-210CP, withdrawal, under c certain conditions, of water from the Perkiomen Creek and the Delaware River as supplemental sources of supply.

_. _ - w ....: . ._ .. .._ _ ,. . . .. _

k

,==*

\

r

' ~

-H'.- . D-79-52CP 3 The NWRA has agreed to deliver water to the proposed Bradshaw Reservoir for use by PECO in accordance with the Comprehensive

. Plan of DRBC. PECO will construct the Bradshaw Reservoir, booster pumping statien and transmission main to East Branch Perkiomen Creek. The capacity of the reservoir has been increased from 35 mg to 70 mg to provide additional reserve capacity. The maximum quantity to be pumped by the booster pump station to East Branch Perhiomen Creek is 42 mgd plus 10 percent allowance for losses or a total maximum of 46.2 mgd.

2 The proposed Bradshaw Reservoir is designed to accommodate

{ differing discharge flow rates, to provide water to allow the Limerick station to operate for one day without additional sources, i and to provide for settling of silts and suspended solids. It is not required for the safe shutdown of the reactors. The reservoir may also be used to store water for release by gravity to the

. North Branch Neshaminy Creek.

Facilities.-- Brad'shaw Reservoir wi-ll be constructed on a 28-acre field, will have a storage capacity of 70 mg and a surface area of approximately 18 acres. It will consist of four 900' long earthen dikes, varying in height from 5' to 20', depend-ing on ground contour, and have a maximum depth of 13'. The dikes j will be rip-rapped on the inner surface to prevent erosion and i will be constructed of impervious soil excavated at the site.

1 The bottcm of the. reservoir will be impervicus soil or compacted j material brought in from off-site. The reservoir is designed to have an 18 mg operating capacity, 46 mg for emergency storage and 6 mg for silt buildup. NWRA's pumping station at Point Pleasant will transfer up to 95 mgd of water from the Delaware' River to

, the reservoir and/or to a by-pass line to the North Branch Neshaminy Creek. A pump house on the westerly side of the reservoir will withdraw water from the reservoir and pump it through the transmission line to East Branch Perkicmen Creek.

The pump station will have several vertical turbine pumps to accommodate the various pumping demands. The station will be supplied by two separate electric power lines. A gated outlet at the pump house will feed water by gravity to the North Branch transmission main... Automatic.. controls will be installed to operate pumps and regulate levels and flows.

=.. . . . , ..

a e

.A

/

, .s

- - . _ . ~ . - _ . . _ - - . - - - _ _ _ - - _ - - , . _ . --- - - ___ . . . . _ --,-_-_-mx . - - - - - - - _ . - , _ -

D-79-52CP 4

./

The proposed 35,400', 48" diameter transmission main to the East Branch will parallel and form a cc= mon corridor with the Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation pipeline and discharge to the creek through an impact-type energy dissipater consisting of a concrete box and spur channel rip-rapped on the sides and bottom.

The main will not cross any significant streams and the only major road crossings will be U.S. Route 611'and PA. Route 413. Pipeline grade will generally follow the ground surface with a minimum cover of 3 feet. The main will be installed in a steel casing or enclosed in additional concrete at all road and stream crossings.

Air relief control and. blow-off values will be provided where needed and enclosed in concrete vaults.

Flou depth and velocity under maximum pumpage rates and median East Branch streamflow conditions will be below that which occurs naturally during flood periods and the higher velocity generated by pumping will be less than the erosion limits.

Under average streamflow conditions, it is estimated the minimum pumpage from mid-April through mid-November, will be 27 cfs. -

Cost.-- The cost of the reservoir, pump station and trans-mission main is estimated to be $8,700,000.

Relationship to the Comprehensive Plan.-- The Limerick Nuclear Generaring Scation was included in the Comprehensive Plan by Docket D-69-210 on March 29, 1973 and by Docket D-69-210 (Final) on November 5, 1975. The Point Pleasant Pumping Station, including Bradshaw Reservoir, booster pumping station and transmission main to East Branch Perkiomen, was included by Docket D-65-76(3) on March 17, 1971.

' FINDING 5 The proposed modifications to the Bradshaw Reservoir, pumping station and transmission main by PECO do not alter'the purpose of the project as currently stated in the comprehensive Plan.

The only significant change-"is the ' increase in the storage capacity of the reservoir.

? ."

• - Y* * *w **<*'e .n. . **.- . . . . =- e ,. .4 4

• s.

a

D-79-52CP 5

.J The DRSC prepared an Enviponmental Assessment, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the DRSC Rules of Practice and Procedure, Article IV, .and as directed by Resolution 80-11 to determine whether an Environmental Impact Statenent should be prepared for the NSWTP and to review the impacts of its related cceponents described in DR3C's FEIS of 1973 to see if that document needed to be updated.

The assessment also conciuded that subsequent documents support the conclusions of the FEIS on the Point Pleasant Diversion Plan, required by the NEPA of 1969 and issued by DR3C in February 1973, that the project is feasible and provides a beneficial use of water resources in the Neshaminy and Perkiomen Watersheds and is not detrimental to the Delaware River, provided that mitigating measures are implemented as listed in the FEIS under

" Conclusions," page 3. Consequently, the assessment recommended

, a " Findings of No Significant Impact" (Negative Declaration) on the NEWTP and recommended no supplementary EIS be prepared on the related components. e- ..- Y- ..

The water quality of the Delaware River is compatible with that of East Branch Perkiomen Creek and no treatment will be required for the inter-basin transfer.

The conditions of Docket D-69-210CP require that the with-drawal of Delaware River water at Point Pleasant for use at the Limerick Generating Station not reduce the flow as measured at the Trenton gage below 3,000 cfs (1940 mgd) and that such use will not be permitted .vhen the flow as measured at the Trenton gage is less than 3000 cfs (1940 mgd), provided that annually after pumping from the Delaware River has commenced, the rate of pumping will be maintained at not less than 27 cfs (17.5 mgd) throughout the normal 1cw flow season for the protection of aquatic life in Perkiomen Creek and its East Branch regardless of ultimate downstream cdnsumptive use requirements. During periods of high natural flow in East Branch Perkiomen Creek, pumping from Point Pleasant shall be kept at a level so as not to aggravate high water lev'els.

~ 'The revised project does not conflict with nor adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan.

In the course of the DRBC proceedings on the pending project, numerous issues have been raised regarding the operation of the Limerick Nuclear Generating Station, including the safety of said facility, evacuation planning in the event of a nuclear accident, and the need for new generating capacity in the PECO system.

e t

• 4

's* *.

, , y --

o

, s g ,7 a l

.s' D-79-52CP ,

f.. g 6

.

• t

'4

\ ' ,o l' ..,..

t)

These issues generally lit.tpyond th) statutory \jurpsdicti'on of DP3C, and DP3C has no authqrity or e'tpertise to rend 6r a decision en such questions. They.d.ssues;do, however, fall within,ihe and State proper agencies, jurisdiction ahf expertise particdlarly.the McclearjRegulatory of other Federal,ission Comm and the -

Pennsylvania Ptiblic Utility Ccemi'ssion. In rencering a decision s on the docket, the DPIC 'in no way* in,tends to prejudice or '"

influence the outcome of proce.edings in those,'. forums.-iIn particul m DRSC notes tnat prar to operatica cf Limerickr, PECO tust., apply, s for and obtain an'ophrating permit from the NRC'.- By 1,ette.r dadd j q December 16, 1980, the NRC has indicated.<ii,s intent to prepare j and complete a new or supplemenal Environgental Impact Stjtt,emeg,t I.

as part of the proceedings on the cperatinq permdt. DRPC helia.ves.

and expects that the NRC will address fuliy\$nd adequatEli ail'df

• g the safety and environmental issues regardir:g operation of 1,,

Limerick. In the event that review by c%her ; State and Federal f). b.

agencies results in a modification to tFe operatzon or the desiin  !

' of this project, DPIC has so conditionec[ this docket to $.ll'ow a'

reopening, reconsideration, and revisiog of d.is proiect'apprevb.1 '

as necessary. - -

I,*

r j 4 The GRSC will coordinate and confe.r_ with, the Nuclear Regt latory Commissien concerning all issues relem.d.t(to' provisions of water supply.  ;, *

.4 . 4 <.,< L

/ '4.. /

()

i DECISION 4 ,

5 s

The descriotion of the procosed ,fcroject in the Comore-I.

hensive ?Ya'n~is hereby revised to ag'ree with th'e [rc/ ject as '

described aove. .,

, a II. The project, as describef'abore',.with mcdifications specified hereinafter, is approved pursaant to Section 3.8 of the Compact, subject to the following ejnditions: ,;

A. All o 4/

times for inspectio'roject n by the facilities DREC. shall be av,ailable at'all

_n . :.

s -

B. ,sThe wit 5drawal of water from the DelawarefRiver at the Point Pleasant Pumping Station for diversion into the. East-P:bnch Perkiomen Cre'ek must confern with the schedule and -

l i:cnditions listed in DP3C Docket D-69-2'.0CP.

l , , h

• p+

C. FECO shall maintain a' minimum flow of 27 cfs (17.4 (incd) in the East Branch Perkiomen f Creek ap the proposed Bucks Road stream gage throu;5 h out the normaf. low flow period beginning with the day the booster station, commences. pumping and ending when pumping is no longer required for the; operation of the Limerick Generating Station. The rest of the' year PECO shall maintain a

.n minimum flow of 10 cfst(6.5 mgd). ,' -"

• - f , /<y 1 Ij j nv c_ '

o .

,i \

,'l 4 e 4(.

F _ q/ .

l ,

t Y l ,

. . . .pt '{ " ,O J - x -L ' i  % -

.. s

./ D-79-52CP . 7 g .

D. .All project facilities shall be operated at all 3imes to comply with all requirements of the DR3C.

1. w E. Sound practices of excavation, backfill, and reseeding shall be followed to minimize erosion and deposition of sediment in streams.

. F. Upon completion of construction of the approved project, the sponsor shall submit a statement to the DRSC, signed by the sponsor's engineer or other responsible agent, advising the Commission that the construction has been completed in compliance with the approved plans, giving the final construction cost of the approved project.

G. This approval shall expire three years from date below unless prior thereto the sponsor has expended substantial funds (in relation to the cost of the project) in reliance upon this approval. The project sponsor shall notify the DRSC, in writing, the date that Eonstruction of 'the project is started and the scheduled completion date within 10 days of that starting

'date.

i h. The area served by this project is limited to the service area as cescribed above. Any expansion be' yond this area is subject to review in accordance with Section 3.8 of the Compact.

I. The applicant shall develop a program to monitor

( all water supply facilities including storage and distribution -

! systems for leakage. The program must be approved by the Executive Director and the monitoring results shall be submitted within six months of this approval and thereafter as requested by the Commission. The applicant shall. proceed expeditiously to correct leakages identified by the monitoring. ,

l J. All above' ground facilities shall be designed end.

landscaped to complement the surrounding environment.

K. Operating schedules for pumping shall'be designed

• to eliminate rapid- fluctuations - of .the streamflows.

\ -

l L. The applicant shall be responsible for the operation i

of the project facilities in a manner that will insure compliance 7

with all streamflow and use limitations. The applicant shall arrange for the following items to be recorded, in a manner accept-able to the Executive Director, in the office of the DRSC in the l morning of each working day.

r a

g c .

l

,- r. y , , - , . - - - . - ~--.e

,n--. ,,,-e - , - ~ , - - . ,- - - - - . - . . , - -. . - - - - -

• ' ~

D-79-52CP 8

.e . .

1. The recorded daily average streamflow for the previous day in the East Branch Perkiomen Creek. -

2. The quantity of water transferred to East Branch Perkiomen Creek on the previous day. '

3. The estimated quantity of water to be trans-ferred to East Branch Perkicmen on that day.

In addition, the applicant shall submit reports, monthly, indicating all of the above quantities.

M. The applicant shall provide adequate detours during construction affecting local roads. U. S.. Route.611 and PA. Route 413 will be kept open at all times. A temporary road shall be installed when necessary to insure compliance with this requirement.

N. The applicant shall inspect and monitor the portion of East Branch Perkicmen Creek himmediately belcw. the discharge, at river mile' 92.47 - 32.3 - 11.3 - 23.8, on a .

regular basis and following any significant period of flood flo.ws.

If such inspection discloses significant erosion of the bank or bed of the East Branch Perkicmen Creek below the discharge, the applicant shall promptly correct such erosion, stabilize and revegetate any exposed portion of the streambank. Reports of such monitoring, and any corrective action taken, shall be filed with the Executive Director within two weeks of each inspection or action.

O. Nothing herein shall be construed to exempt the project sponsor frcm obtaining all necessary permits and/or approvals frcm other State, Federal or local government agencies having jurisdiction over this project.

P. The Ccmmis'sion reserves the right to reopen this docket at any time, and to reconsider this decision and any and all conditions imposed hereunder in light of further information developed by, or decisions rendered in, anding or future l proceedings conducted by other State and Federal agencies concern-l ing the developm?eht'a5d operation of the Limerick Nuclear Generat-ing Station and related facilities. The Commission may at any

- time modi,fy existing conditions, or impose additional conditions, _ _ . _ .

l upon the construction and operation of this facility to reflect

new or changed. information or to conform to requirements imposed l on the project by other agencies.

• i l

l G

6 am G

+

D-79-52CP 9 Q. For the duration of the drought emergency declared by the Corr.ission on January 15, 1981, or any subsecuent drought emergency, water service or use by the project sponsor pursuant to this approval shall be subject to the prohibition of those nonessential water uses specified in Commission Resolution No.

81-5 to the extent that they may be applicable and to any other e=ergency resolutions or orders adopted hereafter.

BY THE COMMISSION DATED: February 18, 1981

. a- ..

• e.

i i

I i

l

- . - - s.-- e. ~~ . - ..... =_. . -

. . . - . ed* * ..

... . . . . . . = . . - ~.  :'.'. .. . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

\

l l

O l

G G

,' 8 l a

• n 4 -ff 5 ef

- < w 2z =

z

- $9 y& a.

mo 2 b4 C- M g2 2 o D u s 9'-

E 2 '

c' o **

m s u =s w

e. . /

/

a 2

. e a .

y%

a s'> C s ;

2 T' Q E "/

== 8 hj 'Sg

,@G2[/

v*

W , 2 . =

h e N $ 0 $$

22 mm < . o< e b N2 ON W2 M g -

O "o *2 x kW[ h [C< -

O 8 'h O

>- EW at -) o

. O , a f

29 5 ;A -

a s

eg= /i 0 H Yo 2 y g -

< o se e g b g

= ' c$ */

. yN n 5

a N

< .. e m

E$f e2s C

%  % -- q n Hi .>

4) - ,

=W<

4 T

V /o

/ 2e

_Z

s / W

< .. 3/ g -

x o -

D '

/

W *

/

• 2 /

/ -

l .

/

-.. .__py oeo eerx'.cmen

1. g.v /

.g

- .___,._.; ..g+/*/'

s -

gg u se a 2 4  !

. ..,/.y . _ ._ .-.____--..g.g

.Gl 9 yga g, g g 3 a m. . _ . _ .

f so W O <-o aSE

/ G

\\ @p

' 6 Mi>-0 fd$2

/ Em 4 -

f O '

<H CJ

, a D i / = , ,

e 6

3 hc ,

70 3 '3 4 f

. U C. O Nk C

i l

~

^ ' '

II-2 U 'ceS D

~ D --

~

9%- ,.. . _ . , , . ,

TABLE 10

k. Preposto Sslectisn af Pslicy Sits ADJUSTMENT OF HODELED SALINITY-C0ffTROL FIAWS AT TRENTON Early during ths planning precs:s 75 possible altsrnstivs

• CACE TO ACCOUNT FOR UNMODELED FACTOR 3 (YEAR 2000) sets of policies were considered. These involved various combinations of Montague flow. Trenton flow for salinity Hodeled Salinity Control Flow

. control, and the three alternative targets for conservation measures. Table 12 shows 45 of these policy sets. The

[

at Trenton Cage, cfs* 2,690 2,940 3,400 other 30 sets have been eliminated during the study and selection process.

• Conservation Reduction, Depletive Use Below Trenton - 143 - 128 - 121 Table 13 shows 16 siternative combinations of diversions, minimum Montague flows with a variety of " rule-curve" operations.

Point Pleasant Project Diversion - 147 - 147 - 147 various objectives for chloride and sodium concentrations at river-mile 98, sustainable four-month flows at Trenton, and Yardley-Horrisville-Trenton the corresponding required e'inimum four-month "susener" flow Bypass, etc. - 60 - 60 - 60 in the Delaware River at Trenton in the year 2000. The Adjusted, salinity-control required minimum flows were determined with the aid of the flow at Trenton Cage, cfs. 2,340 2,605 3.072 mathematical salinity model, taking into account the projected

, rise in sea level, as well as the best available data on tides at the mouth of Delaware Bay. The Trenton flows

• These flows correspond,to flows of 2,700, 3,000, and needed for salinity control are for the four-month "susener" 3,475, respectively, in the October 1979 Draf t Level B period from June through September, but reflect year-round Report. The differences are due to rising sea level and legged effects of depletive use and storage on salinity in other refinements of the salinity model, the Estuary.

Alternative 13 given in Table 13 shows the level of flow

j. Alternative Delaware River Flows at Trenton, N.J. regulation necessary to meet the current DRBC standard for salinity control, an instantaneous maximum chloride concentration Based on the review of flow maintenance issues, the ranges of 250 mg/l (equal to 72 mg/l chloride at R.M. 98 as a 30-Of Delaware River flows shown in Table 11 were selected for day average) at the mouth of the Schuylkill River.

• the alternative plans. These are revised flows from those shown on the October 1979 Draf t Level B Report. These flows Column 9 in Table 13 shows the average four-sonth Trenton are for year 2000 depletive use projections and for a drought flow deficit below the required salinity-control flow.

of the severity of that of the 1960's. Column 10 gives the flow deficit rounded to the nearest multiple of 50 cfs. These rcunded flow shorteges range from TABLE 11 50 cfs for the highest (least . stringent) chloride / sodium '

objective considered with rule-curve operation to 1.600 cfs SALINITY CONTROL FLOWS. for the current standard.

As the parties to the 1954 Decree have considered certain assumptions in'the Good Faith discussions, to modify flows Salinity Control Flow at Trenton Cage, to provide for rule-curve operation as shown in Alternatives Alternative Plan Year 2000 Conditions 10,11, and 12, they have been used for planning purposes.

nus, the range of af ter-conservation flow deficits is .

NED Creater than 3.100 cfs s (from 50 cfs for a high 30-day chloride standard of Ho 20 mg/l at mile 98 to 750 cfs for a more stringenmedsty 2.300 to 3,100 cfs of 121 as/1). ~ nis latter chloride objective, that of the f

, Preferred Plan, would represent a major relaxation of,the EQ That possible with presently avail-able storage up to 2,300 cfs current instantaneous standard of 250 mg/l at mile 92.5, which is equivalent to only 72 mg/l as a maximum 30-day N

/_ -

. average at mile 98.

J

. 37

e. Entra ncy Flew Augmentation f rom Creund 4 R nking af Proitete Wit Pumptgt The syslustiva information and data were reviewed by the The Leve. B Study undertook a reconnaissance study of the potential for use of ground water contained in glacial drift Study's Plan Formulation Work Croup. The Group recognized thatt de po si t s to augment River flows. It was found that approximately 108 square miles of " highly productive" drift deposits lie --The quality and completeness of available information (

above Trenton. Of these, "high yield" deposits could yield varied significantly among projects; as much as 1220 cfs, of which 950 cfs would originate below

• New York City reservoirs (roughly 1 cfs per well) (Goodman, --Reconciliation of conflicting information, identification 1978). of all historic or archeological sites, and the presence of Additional studies and pilot programs would be needed to endangered species, as well as questions involving detailed engineering design cannot be answered until more detailed determine the feasibility and environmental consequences of studies have been done.

auch a plan. The Level B Study identified the following impacts of the project:

The Study's Plan Formuistion Work Group working with the Level B staf f ranked the projects in three categories of Economic--Es timated cost to provide 1220,cfs (788 agd) is er.vironmental and~ social impacts, as shown in Table 24,

$327.555/cfs; phased construction of wells would be practical; recognizing these reservations, administrative cost to oversee, maintain, test and operate system would be required.

The Cannonsv111e Modification, introduced af ter the Formulation Work Croup's ranking, is considered to be in th. "Least Environmental--There would be temporary, severe pumpage of Environmental and Adverse Social Impact" category, certain aquifers, but little effect on land uses. The visual impact of numerous well houses and transmission mains 5. Selection of Projects for Preferred Plan '

would be reduced by underground placement.

Af ter consideration of all potential projects, discussion Social--There would be possibic competition with farmers for among state environmental officials, and analysis by Cood irrigation waters. This system would encourage less extensive Faith discussants, the following 5 projects were included in development of flood plat =s. the Preferred Plant

3. Comparison of Potential Impoundments Francis E. Walter Hodification Prompton Modification Table 23 summartres the cost and augmented yield at Trenton Hackettstown f or 23 of the 26 potential impoundments. Herrill Creek (offstream storage)

• Cannonsv111e Modification Not listed, for reasons previously discussed are the Icedale, Evansburg and White Clay Projects. These projects have the following yields on a project-by-project basis:

The Herrill Creek Project, as shown in Table 23 was not analyzed from a cost and yield standpoint in identical Francis E. Walter Modification 290 cfs manner to that being used in the Environmental Assessment Prompton Modification 130 prepared by the DRBC. The Assessment lists 46,000 acre-feet Itackettstown 130 of usable water storage, a 200 cfs yield for 115 days, and a cerill Creek 220 ,

yea r 19 7 7 co s t o f $ 79,800,000. The data presented in Table 23, nnonsvill Hodification . 85 provided by the U.S. Army Corps nf Engineers, were based on earlier work, and is used so that all projects can As a system, the combin yield of these projects would be be compa, red on a common statistical base. app ximately 750 cfs. .

4 65 6

• 1

3. Propored Addittens rnd Amtad Anta tw thi Comprehynsive Pirn . --D21:vera Rivar st Montigui, New J1rs2y: not 1s:s thin 1750 cfs axespt during drsught geaditisns.

- - ~

Pertions of ths Prsistrad Plen would require additions and ,

--[The magnitude of conservation and thermal stress releases amendments to the Delaware River Basin Commission's Comprehensive from New York City Delaware River Basin reservoirs to enhance

• Plan. These are:

the Upper Basin's fisheries are not defined at this time).

(,a. Policy

(

' b) Drought"Conditien sing-dsought ==rning or d ht 11anning vill encompass conservation programs, New York City pnditinns.hggidDn3 Se levala 4" "-" Y^rk fit -

e Basin reservotra, the following releases and f et release schedules to maintain flows in the Delaware River at ,

the Montag"a E=0;. onu scheduling or Rev en d impoundments. Item DrouRht Warning Drought Condition 7,[(1) Design Drought--A drought of a severity of that nf the

--Hax. diversion by City of New York 600 mgd 480 mgd mid-10An'= eha 1_ht,used as the basis for all long-range flow maintenance plans. *

--Min. flow objective Del. R. at Montague 1650 cfs 1600 cfs 2)- Rin in Sea Level _The continuing rf== evel will be considered in projections of future flow requirements --Diversions by N.J.

for salinity control, water supply, and water quality. via Del. & Raritan Canal or other (3) Drought Operation--Releases from Commission-controlled transmission systema impoundments will be made af ter consideration of the combined 75 mad 60 mgd storage volume in the New York City Cannonsville, Pepacton c. Projects and Neversink Reservoirs, the amount of storage in other impoundments and the extent of salinity intrusion into the (1) Deleted Project--The Maiden Creek Project is to be Estuary.

deleted from the Comprehensive Plan:

(4) Conservation--Contingency plans shall be prepared by (2) New and Modified Projects--The following projects are each Basin state for phased implementation during periods of to be constructed or modified:

drought warning and drought aimed at reducing depletive use of fresh water by 15%. (a) Herrill Creek Project (5) Water Allocation--Under the Compact (Section 3.3) "The (b) Francis E. Walter Project Hodification (c) Prompton Project Hodification Conmission shall ...in accordance with the doctrine of (d) Hackettstown Project equitable apportionment... allocate the waters of the basin (e) Cannonsville Project Hodification to and among the states..." Consistent with this authorization the Commission will equitably allocate available water for (3) Projects Retained in the' Comprehensive Plan depletive use with consideration for each state's participation in flow management gapability through impoundments or reduction in depletive use. The Aquashicola. Evansburg Icedale and Newark Projects are retained in the Comprehensive Plan for future consideration.

b. Standards

~ ' ' - The Trexler Project is to be retained only if needed to peet (1) Salinit --A maximum 30-day average future water supply needs of Allentown and its environs.

• 121 mg/l of

• chlorides dud [o_r 67 ag/l of sodium,at,A ver Mile 98.

' " - - - - - - The Tocks Island Project is to be retained in the Comprehen-(2) Flow Maintenance aive Plan for consideration af ter the year 2000.

The Commission will give further consideration to the

-== Delaware River at Trenton, New Jersey: not less than 3100 cfs at all times. -

inclusion of the middle Delaware River as a scenic and -

recreational river in the Comprehensive Plan, provided that the rights of all of the parties to the 1954 Supreme Court i

Decree are fully protected.

69

~ +. .

s .

NOV 2 4 393; JUDrrn A. DORSEY t.Aw omcts 1815 WALYUT ST SUITE 1632 INTT.AnELPHIA. PA.19107 215 735.7800 To: Everyone on Service List From: Judith A. Dorsey Re: Coordinated contentions of Intervenors In the Matter of PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 I must offer my apology to everyone on the service list for having to send you the enclosed page under separate cover. As you might imagine, putting together and typing the contentions submitted today was a large task, and in a word, I goofed. .

The enclosed page was typed with the others, but somehow managed to get removed from the pile of pages before they were numbered (both contentions and pages themselves) .

Consequently I have given this a page number -- 69 1/2 --

and have also numbered the contentions as V-16a,-b, and -c, in order to avoid throwing off'the numbering system.

Please insert this page in.the appropriate place in your copy of contentions.

Again I apologize, particularly to Del-AWARE, whose' contentions were left out. I can only hope that this will turn out to be the only major error in the submission.

cerely, J dith A. Dorsey xc: Attached service list 4

( . .

69 1/2

. v3 .

v-16a ' Del-AWARE)

Operation of the intake will adversely affect water resources and the peace and tranquility and historic character of the Point Pleasant Historic District. This impact was not considered at the CP stage, and DRBC decisions were made before determination of the historic district to include the pump station site, and on erroneous information.

BASIS: Noise effects, construction activities, constant dredging maintenance due to debris and siltation because of location near Tohickon Creek. DRBC was erroneously informed that the project intake would be 8000 feet from the Tohickon .

mouth. Operation of the intake will draw down the pool and ruin it as a fish resource and major boating and recreation area. The DRBC ER was made before the intake was moved.

V-16b (Del-AWARE)

Applicant expects a 10% water loss and toxics are present in substantial quantity, and there is therefore a substantial risk of groundwater contamination and hydraulic saturation.

BASIS: EPA studies on toxics; DRSC permit on water loss.

There has been no evaluation of the likely impacts of seepage of water and toxics from Bradshaw Reservoir and transmission mains on groundwater level and quality.

V-16c (Del-AWARE)

The discharge of the water into the Perkiomen, and into the Schuylkill will cause toxic pollution and thus substantially and adversely affect fishing and drinking water supplies.

The discharge into the Perkicmen sill also cause destabili-

ation, flooding and otherwise adversely affect the Perkiomen.

70.

BASIS: epa water quality surveys show the Delaware River to be extremely toxic. There is no such showing as to Perkiomen or Schuylkill water. Applicant and DRSC have wholly failed failed to review this. EPA has made no determination, and DER's water quality determination in connection with the NWRA intake does not address Applicant's discharges and is under appeal in the Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board.

V-17. (Del-AWARE)

Construction and operation of the SCWS will cause the construction and operation of the joint venturer's system, and unlike the situation at the CP stage, is a sine qua non.

, Thus all the effects inherent in the construction and operation of the SCWS should be treated as impacts of Limerick.

SASIS: Since 1975, there has been drastic downsizing of the estimate of need for public water supply from the joint venturer's service area. Intiial service is now calculated at less than 7 MGD, going to NWRA's estimate of only 20 MGD in 10-20 years.

1 AS supplemental water, it will only be used in drought periods.

i The average daily use actually to be anticipated, therefore, is less than .7 MGD initially, and 2 MGD in 10-20 years, assuming l drought conditions 10% of the time. Clearly, the system, at

( a cos: of $35 million to 560 million, would be infeasible for 1

such volumes. Applicant expects to pay most of the initial capital and operating costs, based on a formula relating to NWRA's maximum daily use.

S