ML20063G875
| ML20063G875 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 08/25/1982 |
| From: | Bradley E PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC |
| To: | Schwencer A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8209010195 | |
| Download: ML20063G875 (12) | |
Text
_
e a
h e
~
PHILADELPHlA ELECTRIC COMPANY 2301 M ARKET STREET P.O. BOX 8699 PHILADELPHIA. PA.19101
- ^ " f,[,*,",^,,",' "' ' "
- 121st e414ooo
.ss.
EUGENE J. BR ADLEY assoceave es=emas counsas DON ALD BLANKEN RUDOLPH A. CHILLEMI E. C. KIR K H A LL T. H. M AHE R CORNELL PAUL AUERBACH assestant osman A6 counse6 EDW A R D J. C U LLEN, J R.
THOM AS H. MILLER. J R.
GR ENE A. Mc K ENN A
.ss,s,.......s.,
August 25, 1982 Mr. A. Schwencer Chief Licensing Branch No. 2 Division of Licensing United States Nuclear Regul.atory Commission Washington, D.C.
20014 Re:
Limerick Generating Station Units 1 & 2 Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353
Dear Mr. Schwencer:
In response to your letter dated July 9, 1982, requesting additional information on the Point Pleasant Diversion Plan, there is transmitted herewith a document entitled Description of Point Pleasant Diversion Plan In Response to NRC Request Dated July 9, 1982.
The document includes a general description of the Plan, a summary of any revisions made since the issuance of Construction Permits in 1974 and an assessment of any changer in impact associated with each revision.
Each alternative considered, involving location and/or design, has been discussed along with the reason (s) why the alternative selected is considered to be the best.
In accordance with Section 50.54(f) of the Commission's Regulations an affidavit relative to the Company's response is filed herewith.
Boc)/
8209010195 820825 P7R ADOCK 05000252 A
i i
1 i,
t Mr. A. Schwencer Page 2 August 25, 1982 4
f I
1 j
As requested by yo'ur letter, we will keep you advised of any future changes to the Plan.
If you require any j
additional information please contact us.
Very truly yours, 3
W
)
1 i
i') j / )
/'
.: w.. " 'j
\\
Euge e J.l,Bradley
/
/
/
EJB:db cc:
See attached list I
1 l
t i
l I
Judge Lawrence Brenne'r cc:
Judge Richard F. Cole Judge Peter A. Morris Troy B.
Conner, Jr., Esq.
Stephen H. Lewis, Esq.
Mr. Frank R. Romano Mr. Robert L. Anthony Mr. Marvin I. Lewis Judith A. Dorsey, Esq.
Charles W. Elliott, Esq.
Mr. Alan J. Nogee Robert W. Adler, Esq.
Mr. Thomas Gerusky Director, Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency Steven P. Hershey James M. Neill, Esq.
Donald S. Bronstein, Esq.
Mr. Joseph'H. White, III Dr. Judith H.
Johnsrud Walter W.
Cohen, Esq.
Robert J. Sugarman, Esq.
Mr. W. Wilson Goode Acomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Docket and Service Section l
l l
l l
f 1
I LIMERICK GENERATING STATION Docket Nos. 50-352/353 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY DESCRIPTION OF POINT PLEASANT DIVERSION PLAN IN RESPONSE TO NR-7 REQUEST DATED JULY 9, 1982 Background and General Description The purpose of the Point Pleasant Diversion Plan is to provide water to both Montgomery and Bucks Counties and supply water for the Limerick Generating Station.
The system will also provide for the augmentation of flows in both the North Branch Neshaminy Creek and East Branch Perkiomen Creek.
Basically, the components included in the Point Pleasant project given Section 3.8 approval under Docket No. D-65-76 CP(8) comprise the Neshaminy Water Supply System, while the components approved in Docket No. D-79-52 CP will supply supple-mental cooling water to the Limerick Generating Station.
A number of components will be utilized jointly for both purposes.
It should be noted that all of the components except the North Branch Water Treat-ment Plant received prior environmental review and conditional Section 3.8 approval years ago.
The current docket decisions thus approved the final design and operating conditions of the entire project.
The project components, as identified by DRBC in its Final Environmental Assessment issued in August 1980, are as follows:
1.
Point Pleasant Pumping Station and Delaware River Intake Facilities.
2.
Combined Transmission Main from Point Pleasant to Bradshaw Reservoir.
3.
Bradshaw Reservoir.
4.
Bradshaw Reservoir to North Branch Neshaminy Transmission Main and Release Facilities.
5.
Lake Galena Reservoir.
6.
North Branch Water Treatment Plant, North Branch and Pine Run.
7.
Western and Southern Transmission Mains for Treated Water.
8.
Bradshaw Reservoir to Perkiomen Transmission Main and Release Facilities.
Thus, Philadelphia Electric and NWRA share the use of the Point Pleasant Pumping Station, Combined Transmission Main and Bradshaw Reservoir.
The Point Pleasant Pumping Station will draw water from the Delaware River by means of an intake located approximately 245 feet from the river bank and consisting of 12 submerged, cylindrical, stationary wedge wire screens.
The pumping station will have a with-l drawal capacity of 95 million gallons per day ("mgd") and is designed
2 to draw water sufficient to meet the existing and future supple-mental water requirements for the Neshaminy Water Supply System and to provide supplemental cooling water for the Limerick Gener-ating Station.
The Combined Transmission Main, which will convey the water withdrawn from the Delaware River by the Pumping Station, will run from the Station underground for approximately 2.5 miles and will connect with the 70 million gallon Bradshaw Reservoir.
The Brad-shaw Reservoir is a relatively small reservoir designed to distri-bute the water to the counties and to the Limerick facility.
It is not required for the safe shutdown of the Limerick reactors.
The Perkiomen Transmission Main, which will be constructed and operated by Philadelphia Electric, is a 48-inch and 42-inch dia-meter pipeline 6.7 miles long connecting the Bradshaw Reservoir and the East Branch Perkiomen Creek.
The other components are part of the Neshaminy Water Supply System.
In essence, the system would distribute treated water via transmission mains into the various subservice areas in Bucks and Montgomery Counties.
The North Branch Water Treatment Plant will be located on 29 acres of land at the confluence of the North Branch Neshaminy Creek and Pine Run in Chalfont Borough, Bucks County, Pennsylvania.
The plant will treat and distribute water from the natural flow of the North Branch Neshaminy Creek and Pine Run as supplemented by Delaware River water conveyed from the Point Pleasant Pumping Station, and will have a capacity of 20 mgd initially.
The water delivery system from the treatment plant consists of four trans-mission mains radiating to the north, south, east and west, although initial construction would include only the western and southern mains.
Each of these project components has now undergone a full environ-mental review as required by NEPA and related environmental statutes.
Following early docket decisions and initial studies, the Point Pleasant Diversion Plan was approved by DRBC in Docket No. D-65-76 CP(3) on March 17, 1971, thus adding the project to DRBC's Comprehensive Plan, but deferring Section 3.8 approval until consideration had been given to the final plans for construction and operation of the system.
No appeal was taken from this decision.
Subsequently, a full environmental review as conducted by DRBC, which reviewed environmental data furnished by NWRA's technical con-sultant and other information provided by federal, state, and local agencies.
Projected water supply needs and the environmental impacts of the proposed system and alternative systems were thus fully analyzed by DRBC in its FEIS issued in February 1973.
1 The FEIS concluded that the proposed project "will be beneficial to the Neshaminy and.Perkiomen watersheds and not detrimental to the Delaware River," providing that specified measures to mitigate adverse environmental impacts were undertaken.
The FEIS critically examined each of the five elements required for consideration under Section 102(2) (C) of NEPA, 42 U.S.C.
54332(2) (C), and appended the major l
1 1
3 substantive documents or extracts thereof upon which it had relied in its findings, including the views of public and private com-menters.
I In addition to the Neshaminy Water Supply System, the FEIS also considered the components of the Point Pleasant Diversion Plan re-lated to the supply of supplemental cooling water for the Limerick facility.
DRBC concluded at that time that the withdrawal of water from the Delaware River under the proposed Point Pleasant project was the best alternative for meeting the supplemental cooling water needs for the Limerick Generating Station, and that the diversion of such water from the Delaware River would not have significant adverse effects on the environment under the specific conditions imposed.
Except for the decision to reduce the diversion at Point Pleasant from 150 mgd to 95 mgd, there have been no significant changes in the Point Pleasant project since that time.
Only final design and operational details have been added.
No challenge to the adequacy of the 1973 FEIS was made.
The application for Section 3.8 approval of the Limerick water supply elements was conditionally approved in Docket No. D-69-210 CP, dated March 29, 1973, based upon the conditions set forth in the 1973 FEIS.
Following the completion of an environmental review #cr Limerick by the AEC, including a full adversary hearing and judicial review of the licensing decision by the Court, DRBC took partial final action.
In Docket No. D-69-210 CP(Final), issued November 5, 1975, DRBC in-cluded all Limerick water supply components in its Comprehensive Plan and gave final Section 3.8 approval to construction of the intake and diversion structures for the facility on the Schuylkill River and Perkiomen Creek, subject to specific conditions to mitigate poten-tially adverse environmental impacts.
In 1979, both NWRA and Philadelphia Electric applied for final f;cetion 3.8 approval with regard to the design and construction of the various components of the Point Pleasant project which had already been conditionally approved by DRBC.
Each application was supported by an Environmental Report, complementary reports by public agencies and private studies.
This entire compilation of environmental data was considered by DRBC in preparing its Final Environmental Assess-ment issued in August 1980.
Prior to its issuance in final form, the Environmental Assessment was circulated to numerous consulting agencies, which reviewed and commented upon DRBC's technical analysis and conclusions.
Be. sed upon a full review of the record of these applications and the earlier docket decisions, including all comments received from agencies consulted and interested members of the public, DRBC issued a Negative Declaration on August 25, 1980, in which it concluded "that circumstances have not changed concerning the Authorities water supply system and the overall Point Pleasant project to such an extent as would require the preparation of another Environmental Impact Statement."
The Final Environmental Assessment responded to 14 categories of environ-mental concerns raised by the commenters such as water quality, impact on aquatic biota, conservation, impact on growth and development,
,4 esthetics, archeological and historical sites and consideration of project alternatives.
i Following public hearings, DRBC granted Section 3.8 approval.
This was appealed by intervenors to the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and thereafter to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Both courts sustained the action of DRBC.
Identification of Changes in Design of Point Pleasant Diversion Plan Components (1)
Delaware Intake Structure, Pumphouse and Combined Transmission Main - The NWRA will construct, own and operate facilities con-sisting of an intake and pumphouse, to withdraw water from the Delaware River at Point Pleasant, Plumstead Township, Bucks County, Pennsylvania, and a water transmission main.
- There, the NWRA system will deliver part of the water for its needs and part of the water will be diverted to Limerick.
The current design, capable of serving both the public and Philadelphia Electric, provides for an intake utilizing 12 state-of-the-art, submerged, cylindrical, stationary wedge wire screens to minimize environmental effects.
Initially, a shore line intake with traveling screens was considered, but it was changed to utilize wedge wire screens which represent the best technology available.
Initially, the total withdrawal from the Delaware was 150 mgd per day which has been reduced to 95 mgd.
NWRA has reduced its re-quirement from 104 mgd to 49 mgd.
Limerick's needs remain a maximum withdrawal of 46 mgd.
A 72-inch diameter reinforced concrete pipe (changed from an initially considered 60-inch diameter) will convey water about 500 feet from the intake screens, under the Pennsylvania Canal and will terminate at the pumping station located inshore of the Canal.
The pumping station will be designed to resemble a barn and will be land-scaped so that it will blend with its surroundings.
From the pumping station, water will be pumped inshore about 2.5 miles in an underground water transmission main to Bradshaw Reservoir.
The main will be 66 inches in diameter for the first 1600 feet and 60 inches in diameter for the remainder of the distance.
(2)
Bradshaw Reservoir - The reservoir will be built, owned and oper-ated by Philadelphia Electric.
It will have about 18 acres of water surface and will store about 70 million gallons of water.
Initially, the reservoir was planned for 35 mgd.
The reservoir will be essentially square, built in an open area by the con-struction of compacted earthen dikes varying in height from 5 to 20 feet depending on the slope of the existing terrain.
A pumphouse will be built into.the western dike.
It will contain a gated outlet feeding a gravity pipeline for NWRA use and pumps to supply Limerick's need.
i
,~-
5 (3)
East Branch Perkiomen Creek Transmission Main - From Bradshaw, Limerick water will be pumped through an underground trans-mission main extending west almost seven miles to the East Branch of the Perkiomen Creek.
The main will be 48 inches in diameter for 12,400 feet and 42 inches in diameter for the remaining 23,000 feet to the Perkiomen Creek.
Originally, the entire line was 48 inches in diameter, but in analyzing the final design, we found that 23,000 feet of the line could be reduced from 48" in diameter to 42" in diameter.
While the reduction in environmental impact cannot be considered sig-nificant, this change does reduce the construction impact of the pipeline to some degree.
The transmission main will par-allel an existing gas pipeline, utilizing a common right-of-way.
The main will not cross any significant streams and has only one major highway crossing.
This route was selected to minimize environmental effects.
The water will discharge through an energy dissipator into the East Branch of the Perkiomen Creek about 0.4 miles upstream from the Elephant Road Bridge crossing.
Water for Limerick will then flow about 22 milec down the East Branch to the main stem of the Perkiomen Creek and to an intake at Graterford, Pennsylvania.
The maximum proposed pumping of Delaware River water into the East Branch is 71 cubic feet per second ("cfs").
The effects of this additional flow were examined and considered to be beneficial to the ecology of the stream since a minimum flow will be maintained during low flow periods and rapid changes in flow depths and velo-cities avoided.
During high flow periods, water will not be pumped into the East Branch Perkiomen Creek.
6 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS OF CHANGES Changes in the Point Pleasant Diversion Plan described above reduce any potential adverse environmental impact.
1.
Wedge Wire Screens and Relocation of Intake (a)
Reduces the visual impact of the intake by eliminating the large structure at the edge of the stream.
(b)
Reduces the impact of fish impingement and entrainment--
DRBC Docket No. D-65-76 CP(8).
(c)
Eliminates the dredging of an entrance channel and future maintenance dredging--DRBC Docket No. D-65-76 CP(8).
2.
Reduction of Withdrawal Rate The decreased need of NWRA for withdrawal of water from the Delaware nukes the difference available to other users in the Basin.
3.
Bradshaw Reservoir The only change here is the lengthening of the reservoir by 350 feet.
The only effects of the change would be to convert presently open agricultural land containing a small stand of trees to a reser-veir and the fact that the increase in the bank dimensions would pro-vide some further limitation in the visual quality in the vicinity of the site.
Given the benefits to be derived by assuring a reliable supply of water for Limerick and to maintain flow in the East Branch of the Perkiomen Creek as required by the DRBC, we believe that the reservoir size increase is a net benefit.
Maintenance of minimum flow in the East Branch of the Perkiomen Creek will generally im-prove the quality of the associated environment.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED In addition to plans involving a joint pumping station at Point Pleasant, alternative sources of makeup water for Limerick Generating Station were considered.
However, the Point Pleasant plans proved to be most feasible.
The designs considered are discussed below.
Three separate plans were considered for removing water from the Delaware River at Point Pleasant.
The first was for combined PECO and NWRA pumping and transmission facilities between Point Pleasant and reservoir PA-617 (Lake Galena).
PECO would then pump its share of the water from the lake to the East Branch Perkiomen Creek.
Plan number two involved each user having its own transmission main from Point Pleasant, minimizing the combined use of facilities.
The third plan called for combined pumping and transmission facilities at Point I
.7 Pleasant to some common point along the route (near Bradshaw Road) where the flow would be divided.
The third plan, which includes the reservoir, was chosen as being the best because of the flexi-bility of operation provided by the 70 mg storage reservoir, which would allow the pumps at Point Pleasant to operate within a more officient range than if required to meet a specific and/or fluctu-ating demand.
Also plan 3 had the lowest unit water costs, and average annual costs.
Three possible locations for the reservoir were considered, the first being on the headwater of a tributary of Geddes Run, the second on the headwater of the North Branch Neshaminy Creek, and the third being on a level area near the drainage divide between these two streams.
The last alternative was chosen to eliminate the possibility of a siltation problem by its location on high ground thus eliminating any drainage runoff into the reservoir.
The need to build an expensive. spillway on a small dam was eliminated, and the amount of land covered by the reservoir was the smallest of the three alternatives.
Three transmission main routes from Bradshaw Reservoir to the East Branch Perkiomen Creek were examined.
The first was a direct route between Bradshaw and the East Branch Perkiomen Creek.
The second was a right-of-way along the existing Texas Eastern Corpor-ation right-of-way.
The third was an abandoned right-of-way owned by the Tuscarora Pipeline Company.
The second option proved to be most feasible because the common corridor minimized land use and reduced environmental impacts.
CURRENT DESCRIPTIONS OF THE PROPOSED POINT PLEASANT DIVERSION' PLAN CAN BE FOUND IN THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS I.
Point Pleasant Intake, Pumping Station and Combined Transmission Main Document By Date Environmental Report NWRA February 1979 Application to DRBC NWRA July 5, 1979 Environmental Assessment DRBC2 August 1980 Docket Decision No. D-65-76CP(8) DRBC February 18, 1981 Application to COE NWRA July 18, 1980 Public Notice (revised)
COE3 February 9, 1982 II.
Bradshaw Reservoir, East Branch Transmission Main and Energy l
Dissipator Document By Date 4
Environmental Report PECO July 1979 Application to DRBC PECO August 2, 1979 j
Environmental Assessment DRBC August 1980 Docket Decision No. D-79-52CP DRBC February 18, 1981 L
8 Document By Date Application to DER PECO April 2, 1981 for stream crossings Application to DER PECO December 16, 1981 for Bradshaw Reservoir Application to DER PECO January 6, 1982 for energy dissipator 1 Neshaminy Water Resources Authority of Bucks County 2 Delaware River Basin Commission 3 United States Army Corp of Engineers 4 Philadelphia Electric Company Details of comparisons of alternatives considered can be found in the documents previously noted under the description of the plan and in the documents listed below:
Alternative Document By Date Point Pleasant intake Point Pleasant Pumping EHB*
March 1970 and combined trans-Facilities Feasibility mission main Study Location of reservoir Point Pleasant Design EHB March 1972 Report #2 East Branch Perkiomen Point Pleasant Design EHB December 1971 Crcok Transmission Main Report #1
- E.
H. Bourquard Assoc., Inc.
1400 Randolph Street Harrisburg, PA 17104 e
d a
s*
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ss.
COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA V. S. Boyer, being first duly sworn, desposes and states that he is Senior Vice President of Philadelphia Electric Company; he is authorized to execute this affidavit on behalf l
of the Company; he has read the foregoing Description of Point Pleasant Diversion Plan In Response To NRC Request dated July 9, 1982 and knows the contents thereof: and the statements and matters set forth therein are true and correct, to the best of his knowledge, information and belief.
V. S. BoyeV I
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 25th day of August, 1982.
GNLicE IA$ -
Notary Public PATRICIA D. SCllOLL Notary PubLc. Philadelphia. Peitakt;hia Co.
My Consmissbg Einres Ichuary 10.1%6 j
4