ML20083E313

Forwards Administrative Law Judge of PA Puc 831212 Recommended Decision Granting in Part, & Denying in Part, Application for Bradshaw Pumping Station

ML20083E313
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	12/23/1983
From:	Conner T CONNER & WETTERHAHN, PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC
To:	Brenner L, Cole R, Morris P Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8312290138
Download: ML20083E313 (30)

Text

. .

LAW OFFICES CDU.E T E.

GONNER & WETTERHAHN. P.C. >~ < ni c '~

/4=I ",15 e%"/"n x 3747 PENNSYLVANI A AVEN t'E. N. W.

N O Hg M . RADER w^sHIsoTos. n. c. aoooo Ic"d"y o o',"z. ., .. . 83 DEC 27 All:10 NO B ERT H. P L' R L December 23, 1983

,o,co m u w, mit m . = c ':R M M w.r.:.

GOC.E N J 1*St? ?

ggg ,

Judge Lawrence Brenner Atomic Safety and Christine N. Kohl, Chairman Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, Commission D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555

' Judge Peter A. Morris Gary J. Edles Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. Commission 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Judge Richard F. Cole Atomic Safety and Dr. Reginald L. Gotchy Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, Commission D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 In the Matter of Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2)

Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353

Dear Board Members:

)

On December 12, 1983, the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission hearing the casethe Adm concerning.the applicatien for the Bradshaw Pumping Station had tion issued in parta and recommended denied it decision in part. which granted the applica-received today, is enclosed. The decisien, which we _

=

Sincerely, x I e

3 1

,'f. i

/> .. /

O Troy B(. ..donner, Jr.

Counsel for Philadelphia-cc: Service List Electric Company 831229013805000352 gDRADDCK 831223 PDR

00CKETED

• 1^ CCMMCNWEALTH CF ENNSVLVANIA USNRC PENNSYLVANIA CUEL!C UT:UTY CCMMIE5iCN C. ECX .:c::=. m A: ISEUAG. Ca.171 EC .g December '.9. 1953 ac

.eec. s. ..:.se

..,.c A-;;';39f6

. v- - .2. . .v. -.

. .v.s. ,. .%. . . C_ n. 5 Application cf PHILADE'?H:A ELECTRIC CO"?ANY TO ECM !! Y.AY CONCERN:

Encl: sed is a copy of :he Ini:ial Decision of Ad=inistrative

'aw Judge Isador Kran:el.

If you de net agree vi:h any par: of :his Decision, you ay send vri::en ce==ents (called Ex:ee:icas) :o :he C:==1s sion. Specifically, an Orig:.nal and nine (9) copies of ycur exceptions FUST 3E RECEIVED SY CiE SECF_ ETA?.Y C? THE CC.v".ISSION IN RCOM 3-18, NORTH 0?? ICE SU1LD;NG, NORTH

!!RIE! AND COM".0L'EALI4 AVENUE, HARRIS 31*RG, FENNSYLVA.NIA in20, vi:hin f f:een (13) davs of :he da:e ef :his *.er:er because :he :1:e period is se: my law (56 Pa. C.S. 332(h)). If your excep:icas are sen: by mail, please use :he address shown a: :he ::p cf this letter. A c py Of your excep:i:ns =ust be sent to each party of record and :o the Ad:: is:ra:ive

• aw 'udge whose address is Pennsylvania Public :111:y C::=1ssi:n, 1310 Philadelphia Sca:e Office Building, ' 00 West Spring Carden S:reet, -

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19130.

• f you receive exceptiens frc: ::her par:ies , you =ay sub:i:.

vri::en replies to these exceptions in a :anner si lar :o ::a: s:a:ed above vi:hin :venty (20) days of :he da:e :f :his *.e::er.

Exceptions and reply excep: ions shall ebey 1 Pa. C:de 35.212,

. par:1cularly :he 50 page 11=1:.

Exceptiens should clearly be labeled as "EXCI?! IONS 0? (Na e Of Party) - (pro:es:an:, ce=plainan:, s:aff, e:c.)". Oc ne: label excep:icns as a "3rief" or "3rief on Excep:icns".

If no excep: ions are received vi:hin fif:een (15) days, :he decision of the Ad=inistrative lav Judge vill bec=:e final vi:hou: further C =:ission action. You will receive vri::en ac:ifica:ica if this occurs.

Very truly yours,

.ncis . ( (,, -.m(%U Le m

Certified Mail Willia H. Smith Receipt Re6uested

4 4

s .

t 4

s i

f 4* . ... ....

<, .. ... %/ . .-.-

• , .e....+. . . . . . . . ......g. ..

i f L %.8.3 4 * = . 4%t4 . . . 7.3 .. =.. ... 4. .' . ,.....,.

..OO...

i 4

ies 1

a F.. .

.... . ,, . = ._ .. ,.. ..

.. ' g.# g.

....*.y.'4. .. ....J . . O .b. .d .i .3. .J. g .1 ' , dr...a .e . .

.,y,,.,- . , . .,v,

. . .4.4..

;,, 44 ...e. . t s s d. e... ... g J .

... . .. s . ... ..e

. . ' . s....a . . . .

. . a ,,, , , ..r.

. ..se

.. ,.cn.a<..

. . . pt ..,... . . . ..a ,..d

.e.,_

w .

'scry eqt:1;:en en a site 2 ocated at the -

+,., .. .... . e . .. e. .. < . .. .. . .n....  ; s .. .. .. ..... s

v. ......e. ... : . a.a.s ,

. ' . . P .' t s . e a .' ~. .- .~.. s '.~. . ' ~r . .=. . x s C .~ . . . . . .

. A ... .. m-~~ n-*

v s. v.

.. v. 3.s m .e.r. . .c .. C

. . s.e

,a I

i t

4 t

5 I

1 l

1 l

4f '

t i

t e

i a

l I

i s

i t

f 3

l i

e.J. . e y ... ---

A3.s. v. L .. .% .s. v. L-4

.w 2-4..4s... a.4..Ve ..

. . +.2.e.e i

gf I

t t

4 1

I a

4 t

HISTORY OF THE PROCEE21NGS On March 8,1982, :he Philadelphia Electric Cc= pan e (hereinaf:er "PEC0")

filed an applicatien with the Co==issi:n pursuant to See:1cn 619 of :he penn-sylvania Municipalities Planning Code, 53 Pa.C.S.A. $106'9, alleging :ha: :he construe:ica of a pt=pheuse on 1:s land at the intersecti:n of 3radshaw and Moyer Roads in the township of Plu= stead, Eucks County, Pennsylvania is reasonably necessary for the convenience or welfare of the public. Applicant plans to construe: said pu=phouse to house pu=ps, =ctors and related equip-

ent in order :o supply water from the proposed reservoir to the East Branch of Perkio=en Creek. The pe=phouse would also be used to direc: water frc

the proposed reservoir to the nor:h branch of Nesha=iny Creek frc= which it would eventually be withdrawn for distribution to the public. k'ater which flows :hrough the East 3 ranch of the Perkic=en Creek will be withdrawn and pu= ped to the applicant's Limerick genera:ing station, which is being cen-strue:ed in L1=erick Township,, Montsc=ery County, Pennsylvania, where 1:

• gill be used to replace water which evaporates during the operation of said s:ation. Applicant intends to house four 5,000 gallens per minute elec:ric

=c:cr driven, ver:ical turbine-type pu=ps, piping switchboards, protec:ive relay, batteries, indicating and record.ng instru=ents, electrical switch gear, supervisory control facilities and other accessory eq,uip=ent in its proposed pu=p house.

This matter co=es before the Co==ission because, applican: has chosen not to proceed before the local authorities and has instead chosen to pro-ceed under Section 619. Absent a township variance fro: presently effec:ive zoning ordinances, the site is unavailable fer use as a pu=phouse unless an exe=ption is granted by the PUC pursuant. :c 33 Pa.C.S.A. $10619.

On March 25, 1982, FECO served a copy of its applica:i:n in the above cap iened nat:er upon the Pit =s:ead Teenship 5:ard of Supervis :s, the Flu -

... e ., .' . o v.. s '. . .r d- D ' .- ..a.. .d .. ~e,

.. C . . .' s s .' .- .. , . ". . e :.. .. - k s " w-".. . . ' C c ... '. e .= .' .- . c- . s , o n d . ' . e

... .As .

Cou,......y  : ..<..,

.. .......e e ..... ww ass <. . . . . .

By le::er dated June 15, 1982, Del-A.are, Unlicized (hereinaf:er

";el-Aware"), a bread based citi: ens crgani a:icn, scugh :: intervene in

. . e :-c0._e ap,.,.4co. . 4,.

. . . L,... ... .. . , . , . 2 4. ,

. .. : e ., , ,e s ., ..s.. .. .. . . e , a .i ., . ... <.

. 4..

...n._.,2...a.,

pe:1:10ners 'lal Sings:ed: and Colleen Wells, filed an Amended Pe:iti:n to in:ervene in the above captioned proceeding, alleging tha: the c:nstrue:1 n of ?ECO's preposed pumpheuse would cause direc:, in=edia:e, pecuniary and substantial har: to their aesthe:ic interests, :he quality cf : heir drinking wa:er, the value of their property, and their enjcy=ent ci :he natural and his:cric rescurces of the area. Fur:her=cre, : hey allege an interest in preven:ing the cany adverse safety, environmen:al, ecen: ic, anc heal:h ef-ie :s which : hey will suffer as a result of said construe:icn.

By way of answer filed July 28, 1982, PECO averred :ha; any interes:

Of pe:itioners in the Delaware River is ac: relevan: :o this proceeding and tha: there are only apprcximately fcur residences in :he immedia:e vi-cini:y of :he purphouse, no places of work, and no places Of recres icn. ,

PICO also denied : hat the construction of :he pumpheuse veuld cause any direct, i =ediate, pecuniary and substantial har to the aes:he:ic interest,

he quality of drinking wa:er, value of proper:y and enjey=ent cf na: ural and historic resources by intervenors Del-Aware, Singsted:, Wells er c hers.

?ICO s:ated that the proposed pumpheuse would in no way c:ns:1:u:e a public danger or crea:e any nuisance to a nearby resident.

On Septe=ber 1, 1952, peti:icners filed a Supplemen:al *:e:::andu: of I w

~ ._

. . . . .er,e..

.. .,e. . ge.. . .4 p e ,. 4 ... . e ., .. .,

. r. .... .e .~ e..e . c .. . .. ..e w.e.. . 4., ,

.c. .n_ , ap -

~

. . .< ., .. . .  ::ca

._ et,eg . c. e

<.. s ...,-ye.e...a1 . . v.e._.o.a..

. . . . . - .. :..- ~ . .. . ..., .

.s ,: . . . .. c :. : .e .

Pe:i:icn to Interveue. PECO subsequen:ly filed addi:i:nal Men::anda of

.... ..= a..

s e -. ...a .v.e. c. .a. . . a .. .-- ...s

.. .sa.,e w . . . . . e. -<. .:: ~ . . .... .. ....s

.c

.:,.e.2 e. .,v e .. e. . _4. , ..... .::,

. . . . - ...s .. . .

vn.. .a ... .,a . 3,. . . , , _ c, S 3 , . '. .e S. e . .d.. . 4 - .. c .' .. e .' .s' ". a . e . . . .. . c- . . e .. e. ' .. . '. e

. . e w - r . e. .- . e .a .a..e.

. .. ..as

. ,re ~. t. . .. e d. ~._..c e . ...e.-...'.<.<..u..-. ...- .<...

.3 .=.-.s....es .. a. e p n. s .a... . ' - ...c ".' anv a..'e.c. . . - . . '. .' ' e e ~. .' . . c .'. .

v.

s. v.

,..w

, 1932, .h e Co ..s ur e *

. . .U. . o c.- . a. .# *. ." e .... s v. _' ". a . 4. .-... **'e> a

.V..-...". 3, , _ C, .:3 '. as

". - . '. . e . '. . .. . e .. ..

• o n . .a ... .e .vene .

"s v. v.de. da.ed. . . .

decreed : hat :he Censuner Advoca:e veuld be a party to the abcVe captiened p cceeding.

vs .. v.,.,.,.

. .. 3 .s , .gn2 ,

a e.e.4 .... 4o,..

.. .. . . e.vene

. ".s .'c.'

.. '.v. .. 7 '.e.ds c.#

. . . . . ..e.x,

..... . .. . to .v .L. a d Ju d y Dc .. s. .. .. .e.<. c..w. ., .c. m .u.. ...a . - w. .w .,

.oe..cos,e. . .

Pennsylvania. Said petitica was denied; hewever, Ms:k Dc:ns: reich subse-c.uen:1y tes:ified on In:ervenors' behalf.

.s_ _ _.e_,.

r. ..

<.., a, 3- . e..s,

. . . cons.s.a,g a

n... o.z s.

e..es ,.:. ..

._a_ec .e .a. ..

=c v, were conducted July 30, 1982. A pre-hearing conference held en

, .v.

... - . . :. .n. , . E s t..3., .e e.i. <n *r8

. p ages C.: . e C ,..... ; e ; . e e.... .< , . . .

. . 3.. . s e .,., e.

3 . . ..

r i

V ' . e - . *. .. e .c

.- . E s " .' . .* . 5. - *. .t 1, S t. 0, p a g e s o. ' . e e. c . .' e.' . =.s . ' ~ ~.. . '. e . s-

. . .'.e.'..-..

..r.'.'

t v.a v, .' O , . c, S .'. , .v.a r ek.. .' 7 , 18 , .'l . and .' 3 , .' o. .n. ,

. 2, . - . . > .. --. , o'y~.: a' .

I a .. d.. .v.a v .'. ,

A,, , .' .' , .'6, a.d .'9, _'983.

. N e . c".s

. w.' . .. e .c. s c. . .- . e_ a... . s "- e . e L also en:ered into evidence. Briefs were filed by Applican: and In:ereveners.

i t v._v_3.Rv. O: -r.S

. i. . v_u.0hv.

~

. ~ . , ~ _. . ' . . - . . .*< i~e s

.~..c a..v_

l j

• /in en: Sever, Senior Vice President, "uclea: Power - FICO, testified

<.e.

..... ...-a....a.~

. ... ..5

. , ,8 4 .

arr. a .. . e s peea.<,..

.. . a. ...a .t 3.. . :.. e. . .. s .... . u. . e.

.eneeS..y

.. . . a.,

t i

I

- O m _ _- . .__ _ .

pursuan: :o 53 Pa.C.S.A. 510619. He s:ated : hat such a finding is necessary in order to exe=p: PECO fro: local :ening requirenents which designa:e the area R-1, Rural Residential Dis:rict. (Applicant State =ent-1, p. 1)

PECO seeks water to serve its Li=erick 2 site which it expects to have

erational in 1968. In order

o supply this water, PECO, toge:her with

he NWRA, intend to build a cement pu=phouse at a cost of $560,000 to house s four pt=ps. PECO chose concrete construction because it has an expected life of 40 years while all-=etal cons: rue: ion has an expected life of only 20 years and a construction cost of approxi=ately SS10,000. PECO will also landscape the property at an esti=ated cost of 55,000 (Affidavit Pp. 1, 2).

Construction delays leading to co=pletion of the Bradshaw Pu=phouse after Septe=ber, 1984 will result in costs of S100,000 for each =enth of delay plus increased energy costs for electric production a=ounting to an average of S6,000,000. (Affidavit Pp. 2-4)

The witness testified that the Delaware River Basin Co==ission (herein-af:er "DRBC") directed PECO and NWRA to create a joint water supply and re-quested that they sub=it a feasibility study. Subsequently, DRBC added the NWRA/PECO project to 1:s co=prehensive plan but deferred project approval, pursuant :o $3.8 of the DRBC Co= pact, pending sub=ission of final plans. In accordance with the National Environ = ental Policy Act (hereinafter "NEPA"),

DRBC prepared an Environ = ental I= pac: Sta:e=ent (hereinafter "EIS") covering its co=prehensive plan and sub=itted the EIS in its final for= to the Coun-cil on Environ = ental Quality (hereinaf ter "CEQ") . (Applicant State =ent-2, Pp. 2-4)

DRBC concluded that the proposed NWRA/PECO project, including the Point Pleasan: pu= ping station, would prove beneficial to the Perkio=en watershed and tha: the project would have no significant adverse effects on :he environ-

if#

nen:.2 ' DR3C considered al:e: natives such as :he Schuy1:all River and 31ue Marsh Reservoir. DESC cencluded, hevever, tha: the Schuylkill River could not provide the year round censurp icn which li:erick wculd require. I:

aisc rejec:ed Blue Marsh as a via~:le al:erna:ive due :: anticipa:ec needs fcr pcpula:icn grew:h and indus: rial expansien wi:hin :he :elaware River 3asin. !n addition, a portica of long :er: s:orage a: Blue Marsh is dedi-ca:ed initially fer icw flow augmen:a:1cn for wa:er quali:; centrcl in :he

_cwer Schuy14:1.,

n.,ver . 4a accordance with recc==endations c:. :ne Federal "a'a:er Pollu:4,cn Con:rel Ad=inistra:icn. DREC cen:inues to aver "tha: the preposed project wculd be a feasible and beneficial use Of wa:er resources in the Nesha:iny and Perkic en watersheds and no: detrinen:a1 to the Dela-ware River." (Applican: Sta:emen:-2, Pp. 2-4, 8, 9, 15)

PECO received per:1:r frc: :he Pennsylvania DER :o construct and =ain-tain facill:1es necessary for :he : ansfer of water frc: the Delaware River near Poin: Pleasant in Bucks Coun:y :c the Eas: 3 ranch of :he Perkic=en Creek. (Applican:'s Sta:emen:-2, ?p. 8, 9) DER considered al:erna:1ve water scurces and specifically found : hat "no feasible cos: effective al:ernatives

c the projec: have been iden:ified which would fulfill :he needs for the I

l

'roiec and effer significantly less effec:s en the envirenzen: cr public natural. rescurces." (Applicant State:ent-2, p. 19)

I The Nucles: Regulatory Cc==issien (hereinafter "NRC") specifically de-clined Del-Aware's reques: :ha: they assert jurisdicticn s:ating: "these r

=a::ers are all aspects of allocation decisicas which are entrusted :o :he i DRSC and which the h*RC is precluded f rc= censidering." (Applican: State-t i

i

--1/ DRSC identified te=porary adverst effec:s during construction as (1) sini=al wa:e evapera:icn which occurs na:urally, (:; effec:s upon fish life which were recedied by redesigning screens a: Pcin: Pleasan:,

and (3) li:1:ed bank ercsten which will occur un:il :he banks s:abili:e sc=e: ire af:er :he ini:ial phase of Opera:icn. Cr. ^32, 753) l

• r

=en:-2, p. 19)

Applicant nex: called Paul L. Har:en, General Manager - Enviren= ental Services Division of Radiatien Manage =en: Ccrporatien (hereinaf:er "EMC")

which inves:igates aqua:ic and :errestrial ecclegy and wa:er che=istry.

The witness :estified : hat, during the pas: 12 years, he has par:icipated in an aqua:ic ecological inves: iga:ica of the East Branch of the Perkic=en Creek, the Perkic=en Creek, :he Delaware River and the Schuylkill River near PECO's Li=erick genera:ing s:a:1cn and has gathered and analy:ed data regarding water quality, aquatic plants, benthic =acroinvertebrates, and fish. Based upon the afore=entioned studies RMC concluded that the net ef-fec: of the Point Pleasan: diversion would be one of a general i= prove =ent of aquatic life in :he Eas: 3 ranch. Increased turbidity at the point of diversien will not 'be lethal :o fish who will thrive just above and below

he diversion point. The new higher su==er flow will benefit aquatic life by providing =cre habi:a for fish. (PECO State =ent-4, 1-3, N.T. 822-827)

Diversien of 65 cfs to the strea= will cause te=porary scouring, sil-

a:ica and channel codifications which will las no =cre than a =atter of days or weeks a :ost. As the s:rea= in questien does not, duri g icw ficw 3

ccaditions, cover the full width of :he exis:ing channel, enlarge =ent of the strea= during aug=ented flow will re=ain confined within existing strea:

l l banks. (PECO State =ent-4, 4-5)

Applicant nex: called R. Ti=othy Wes:en, Associa:e Deputy Secretary i

for Pennsylvania DER Resources Manage =ent and DRSC Cc==1ssioner, who testi-fied that he has an extensive educatienal and work background in :he field l

cf water resources =anage=ent and water policy. (PECO State =ent-3, 1-3)

The witness stated that he directly participated in both DER and DR3C i

l reviews of the NWRA/PECO Poin: Pleasan: Project which included environ = ental h

{

l

assess =en: and c:nsideration of al:ernatives. *he wi: ness s:ated that wa:er wi:hdrawal fro = the Schuylkill by PECO at Li=erick weuld constitute consu=p-

iva use as the wa:er would not be returned :o the river. In c:her words, should Li=eri:k wi:hdraw 21 =gd, a corresponding 21 =gd loss would be ex-parienced dcuns:rea=. Such a wa:er loss would effec: water cuality and eini=u= strea= flow thereby diginishing the rivers' fish protection, recreation and wild-life value. (N.T. 4, 9-13) Di=inu: ion of the a= cunt of water currently available to the City of Philadelphia, due to consu=p-tive use by Li=erick, is not consistent with sound principle of wa:er planning and =anage=ent. (N.T. 15)

Weston stated that the Blue Marsh Reservoir is not a technologically feasible al:ernative because it is subject to recuired conservation re-lease and the Western Berks Water Authority holds an allocation for public supply use fro = the reservoir. A ce==1tt=ent to supply PECO's L1=erick plant frc= Blue Marsh raises serious wa:er =anage=ent policy proble=s'as PECO vould use virtually its entire water supply capacity. (N.T. 17-21)

The witness has no specific training or education of a scientific na-ture; he was educated at Harvard and worked as an attorney prior to beco=ing Associate Deputy Secretary for DER and DREC Com=issioner. (N.T. 914-916)

Applican: next called Robert Goodell, Chief Engineer - DRBC, who testi-find that the Co==ission (DRBC) has statutory power to alloca:e, pursuant to tha doctrine of equitable apportion =ent, waters of the basin a=ong ce=ber states. Applicable statutory authority prohibits projects having a sub-scantial effect upon water resources of the basin, absen: Co= ission (DRSC) approval, and grants the Co==ission power to .=odify or disapprove any pro-jact it de:er=ines would substantially i pair or conflict with DRSC's cc=-

prehtnsive apportion =ent plan. (PECO State =ent-7, p. 1, N.T. 999, 1,000)

OKBC has extensively discussed the Point Pleasant and Li=erick Projects.

It has concluded that the Schuylkill River alternative would deplete water available to the City of Philadelphia. Furthermore, a =unicipal or industrial surface water user cannot buy, sell, or trade its " legal entitle =ent." More water is available frem the Delaware River. Fever downstrea: users exist along the Delaware; therefore, water withdrawal at Point Pleasant would not have the sa=e downstrea effect as water withdrawal fro: the Schuylkill (PECO State =ent-7 Pp. 2-7, 1,000-1,003). Withdrawal fro: the Schuylkill might be feasible were a reservoir put into place upstrea fro: Li=erick.

(N.T. 1,022)

The witness stated that it was his opinion that the Blue Marsh Reservoir is also not a feasible alternative due to the increased water supply needs of the Western'Berks Water Authority, replace =ent of consu=ptive water uses in the Schuylkill River Basin and throughout the entire Delaware River Basin, the need to provide adequate flow-aug=entation in the Lower Schuylkill River in light of a significant number of waste dischargers between Iimerick and the Fair =ount lam, and, releases to meet other withdrawal needs in the pro-ject area and to meet =unicipal and industrial water de= ands in the Lower Schuylkill Basis. (PECO Statement-7, Pp. 8, 9, N.T. 1,016-1,020).2/

Applicant next called Robert A. Steacy, since 1978 employed by Borquard Associates, a registered professional engineer specializing in civil engineer-ing, hydrology and hydraulics, who testified that he disagreed with Mr.

Hershey's testi=ony regarding erosion and flooding on the East Branch of the Perkic=en. The witness believes that aug=ented flows will not increase the incidence of flooding on the East Branch of the Perkio=en. In fact, DRBC i= posed as a condition to its approval of the diversion, a li=itation on PECO aug=entation of the East Branch. In order to assure ce=pliance with 1/ Said conclusion regarding feasibility is not based on water used by one Limerick unit.

his IL=1:ation, a standard s:rea: guaging statien will be ins:alled and main-

sined sligh:ly dcunstrea= in the Bucks Re ad area by :he J. S. Geological Sur-vey. (PECO Sta:ezen:-6, Pp. 1-3)

The witness s a:ed that eresion, if anv, would no: be =aterial ci:ing 3:ader and Kina, Handbo,ok cf Hydraulics (6th Edition). Augmented flows will ne: increase veloci:y :o he ex:ent tha: :he curren: size, shape or con:our of the strea will alter. (PECO State =ent-6, Pp. 4, 5, N.T. 1141-1142, 1242)

Applican: nex: called John Eric Edinger, Ph.D., a self-e ployed consul-tant, who testified that his fir specializes in hydrodyna=ics, environmental hydrology, the analysis of water quality data and wa:er quality modeling.

(PECO S:atement-5, p. 1) The witness holds degrees in civil engineering, ma: hema:ics, environmental engineering and water resources and physical ocean-

-egraphy and has : aught courses in civil engineering and wa:er resources. The wi: ness has acted as consultant in :he area of water quality and sa:pling to a number of fir =s. (PECO Statement-5, Pp. 1-3)

Mr. Edinger tes:ified that he has read intervenor witness Hershey's re-por: and disagrees with Mr.. Hershey's conclusions : hat (1) the transfer of nu:rients frc: the Delaware River to the East Branch of the Perkic en will have an adverse effect on the latter strea=, and (2) as a result of :he East Branch water diversion, there will be a decrease in exygenation or reaeration. Edinger wstates that Delaware River detri:us will be elimina:ed-by a bottom intake with a fine screen.3/ Measure =ents of total suspended solids (hereinafter "TSS") are currently Icwer in the Delaware River :han in the East Branch of the Perkiezen. (A lower measurement was ob:ained at monitor-ing stations at the headwaters at the =outh of the East 3 ranch). Due :o the jf De::1:us - any fragmen:ary material; was:e; disintegrated =a::er; debris.

fact that the channel will deepen af:er diversion, reaera: ion in channel reaches will not increase :o de:ri=en:al levels. In fact, reaeration may i= prove with greater flow. (PECO Sta:c=en:-5, Pp. 4-6, N.T. 1259-1297) n=ervenor's Testimonv Intervenor called as its firs wi: ness Mark Dernstreich, Ph.D., an an:hropologist, who testified as :o wha: he believes are the detri=en:a1 effec:s of the diversion upon the co== unity, property owners and residents of Bed =inster Township and :he i==ediately downstrea= township of East Rock hill. Approxi=ately 8 households will be affected in Bed =inster Township with an additional 10 affected households in East Rockhill Town-ship. (N.T. 15, 16, 25-28, 59)

The witness presented a petition signed by 100 residents of Bed =in-s:er Township who oppose the Point Pleasant project for econe=ic, safety, recreational and environ = ental reasons. (N.T. 15, 28, 29)

The wi: ness assu=ed a =aximu= water pu=page of 23 =illion gallons per day (65 cfs) with a concurrent discharge of the sa=e a=ount of water into the Branch Creek.1'/ Maxi =u= pu=page would occur (6) =onths of the year;

! for an addi:ional two =enths of the year (one on either side of the six l

=enth period) pu=page will be less than :he =axi=u=. He also assu=ed flooding would occur based upon intervenor's witness Hershey's testi=ony.

The witness also based his conclusions on infor:ation fro: PEC0's LGSEROL.5/ -

1 1 The witness, himself, possesses no technical expertise. (N.T. 33, 3 7-39, 43, t .

l 44) if The 23 =illion gallon figure assu=es operation of only Li=erick No.

1. Should L1=erick No. 2 also operate concurrently wi:h L1=erick

No. 1, 46 =illion gallons per day would consti

ute the maxi =u=

pu=page figure. The 65 cfs figure would re=ain constant at either pu=page figure.

l 5/ Li=erick Generating Station Environ =en:al Opera:ing License, Section i 5.1.3.3, East Branch Perkio=en Creek: Diversion. (N.T. 42, 45) l l

Dr. Derns: reich concluded the depth of :he water woul: approxica:ely double or :riple and the width veuld deuble. Therefore, drainage problans would arise which veuld seriously affec: vegetable gr: vers in :he area.

~The recrea:icnal value of :he stream w:uld decrease and safety risks :=

children w:uld increase as strea flew was increased. (N.T. 29, 63-65, 69). .

In:ervenor next called Jane Hess, real estate broker in central, northern and nor:heastern Bucks County since 1965, who testified that the pumphouse would do=inate the landscape thereby lowering the rural appeal of the area and, therefore, real estate values (N.T. 104, 106-111, 115).

The witness was also concerned by the fact that the State Department of Da=

Safety classified the area C a small area of significant hazard. (N.T.

112, 113)

On cross-examination, the witness stated that area property values in-creased when Nocka=ixon das was built due to the recreational value of the

-lake. created. (N.T. 130-131)

Intervenc: next called Jonathan Phillice, a self-employed engineering censultant specializing in water resource quality and quantity for the past eigh years, who testified that the Schuylkill River has =cre water avail-able than anticipated. Therefore, Limerick could be served from the Schuyl-kill. Another viable alternative is the Blue Marsh Reservoir, which fills naturally thereby allowing one to avoid pu= ping costs. (N. T . 133, 156-158 )

He understood that no alternate sources, however, would be available to applicant absent DRSC approval. (N.T. 200, 201)

Intervenor next called J. Tobv Tourbier, Consulting Research Director cf the University of Delaware 'a'ater Resources Center and Adjunc: Assistant Professor, Department of Landscape Archi:ecture and Regicnal Planning - Uni-

tersity Of Pennsylvania, who :es:ified :ha: the prep: sed ;;npheuse is totally in::=pa:ible with R-1 use. He s:ated : hat increase fi:w and f;eeding would adversely affe:: :he envirenzen: even :h ugh :he ; s" I 5 s:a es ::herwise.

., a . .

..-..s;

---

-;<e ;- e ,.., .w. ..e ..g s -.. o. e --~4.~ : --~-,a...-

. . e..;e; c a-..4 *.- es.

cx e. . . .

_;, a e,

,-, 3..a, -,,.a)

Intervenor next called Willia: J. Marra::c, Philadelphia Water Cc==is-si:ner, whc :estified tha: the City is ex:re ely flexible in :ha: it can shif: 1:s wa::: intake between the Delaware and Schuylkill Rivers. For

his reason, it could forego sc=e of its Schuylkill River enti:lenen so

ha: Li:erick right purchase :rea:ed water frc: the ci:y f:r use in its

--e,

.g ope..-.4,,s.

( .,s.... , ,

Se-acg , ;e6, ar-e) _.ne witness sta:ed that un-

rea:ed wa:er =ight be available to Li:erick but :ha: ne decision had been =ade as ye; as to whe:her said :rea:ed or un:rea:ed water would be se;d er given :o PECO. (N.T. 402, '03)

Intervenor nex: called John T. Harshev, Dire cr of Enviren= ental

-r:up Research Ins:itu:e, who testified, based upcn his ex:ensive back-ground in environmental research and analysis tha: :he ?cin: Pleasant ro-I jec: is nc: environ =entally sound.6/ The vi: ness, gether with Mark Dorn-i s reich, "irkland E=erson Hershey, Andy 3 ass and Maria :ecker s:udied the .

Iss: 5:anch cf :he Perkiocen in :he vicini:y of :he discharge :o de:er=ine its present charac:er and :he i= pact of the proposed ischarge. The wit-ness' testi=0ny is based upon his own observations, :hese of the listed people and of others who are no: lis:ed, bu: who volunteered :' ane. (N.T.

-co, -,0-. e 3)

--6.

Mr. Hersney holds a S.S. in electrical engineering and an M.S. in

echnical wri:ing frc= Rensalear Polytechnic Institu e. He des no:

5:1d a chemistry degree; he has :aken ne p:s:-gradua:e course in

=e-4--. -gf. r9

\e 4 . *. . c. , -9Je

- , o , * * ,J s/

d-

4 The witness concluded that diversion wculd cause flooding if the pu=ps were not stopped before bank-ficw is achieved er 112 cfs. Said flooding would adversely affect land use and value. Scouring (continucus abrasien) would occur where the strea= turns due to the higher velocity .

The witness centends that ERCL's esti= ate regarding icw and high ficws and strea= width,' depth and velccity increases underesti=ates what will actually occur after diversion (N.T. 537, 538). Effects upon fish include destructi.on of newly laid eggs as they will be swept fro = the nests and destroyed by the turbulence, destruction of plants which are part of the food web and an absence of oxygen generation. (N.T. 567-569)

Intervenor next called Edwin J. See=er, Jr., independent geological consultant, who testified that he is experienced in the areas of sedi=en-cation, stratigraphy (the relationship of sedimentary beds), diato=s, and soil =echanics. (N.T. 1315-1318, 1321) The witness stated that he investi-gated the East Branch of the Perkio=en Creek as to its susceptibility to eresion. (N.T. 1346) He cencluded that additional water in the creek due to diversion would increase erosion above and beyond the nor=al erosion in-volved in the strea= bed. (N.T. 1347) Erosion of banks will occur where the strea= bends. (N.T. 1351)

DISCUSSION Applicant requests authorization to construct and operate a punphouse in an area zoned R-1, Rural Residential District. In order to grant applicant's request, the Cc==ission =ust conclude that: (1) the Public Utility Cc==ission has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject =atter pursuant to the Municipal:*1es Planning Code (hereinafter "MPC"), 53 Pa.C.S.A. $10619, and (2) said pe=phouse is " reasonably necessary for the convenience or welfate of the public" in light of enviren= ental concerns which the Cen=ission =ust

c:nsider pursuant to the Environ = ental Rights A=end ent, A: 1, 527.

Jurisdiction The Co==ission =ay grant exe=ptions to local zoning restrie ions, :hereby per=i::ing construe: ion of a building on a site where it wvild otheruise be prohibited, pursuant to 53 Pa.C.S.A. 510619 which sta:es:

This ar:icle shall no: apply to any existing or pro-posed buildinr, or extension thereof, used or to be used by a public utility corporation, if, upon peti-tion of the corporation, the Pennsylvania Public Utility Co==ission shall, af:er a public hearing, decide that the present or proposed situation of the building in question is reasonably necessarv for the convenience or welfare of the public. (e=phasis sup-plied)

Applicant, a public utility, proposes to build a pcmphouse and extensions thereto. The Cc==ission previously deter =ined that a pu=phouse is a " building" wi:hin the =eaning of the MFC. Re Philadelchia Suburban Water Co=canv, 54 Pa.

PCC 127 at 131 and 132 (1980). While thc question =ay become = cot where the public utility involved is granted a variance to local zoning restrictions, such is not the situation in the instant case. Therefore, the Co==ission has jurisdiction over the instant application for an exe=ption.

Reasonable Necessity having established jurisdiction, the question before :he Co==ission then beco=es whether or not the proposed building si:e and extension are " reasonably necessary for the convenience or welfare.of the public." This question requires careful consideration of Art 1, 527 which provides that:

The people have a right to clean air, pure water, and

~

to the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic and esthetic values of the environ =ent. Pennsylvania's public natural resources are the co==on property of all the people, including generations yet to come.

As trustee of these resources, the Co=nonwealth shall conserve and =aintain the= for the benefit of all the people. (e:phasis supplied)

This section is self-executing only as it applies to this Public C:ili:y

C:==issien's regula:1on of a u:ility's own conduct which is within the a=bi; cf :he regulatory jurisdiction of :he Cc==issien as created by statute and direc:ly affects :he environ =ent. Scrouzh of Moesic v.

Pennsvivania Public

111:

Cc==1ssien, 59 Pa. Cc==onwealth 335, ;29 A.2d 1237 (1981). However, i:s ter=s are no: absolute and a :hreefold :es: applies in reviewing enviren-

= ental cases:

a.) Was there co=pliance w1:h all applicable statutes and regulations relevant :o pro:ection of the Co==onwealth's Environ =en:;

b.)

does the record de=enstrate reasonable effort to reduce the environ =en:al incursion to a mini =u=;

and c.)

does the environ = ental har= which will result from the challenged decision or ac: ion so clearly out-weigh the benefits to be derived therefrom that to proceed further would be an abuse of discretion?

Borouch of Moosic, suora.

Adoption of this section "has not shifted applicant's burden to affir=atively support an application for a certificate of public con-venience to public utility co==ission but, once adverse i= pact of certificate sought by applicant upon such constitutional interests is raised by protestant or intervenor, then applicant's burden is intensified, and co==ission and re-viewing court =ust be satisfied that, in:er alia, there was co=pliance with l applicable statutes and regulations relevant to protection of Co==enwealth's 1

public natural resources." Co==onwealth Decart=ent of Environ = ental Resources

v. Co=menwealth Public Utility Co==ission, 18 Pa. Co==onwealth 555, 335 A.2d i

• 860 (1975), affir=ed, 473 Pa. 378, 374 A.2d 693 (1977).

The initial environ = ental proble= presented by the Poin: Pleasant p u=p-house is the loca:1on of the Li=erick Nuclear Generating Plan:. Had the Li=erick facility been located at the es:uary rather than its present location, a fresh water source for cooling would n'ot be necessary. It is L1=erick (units 1 and possibly 2) that will use the lion's share of the water pu= ped by the l Point Pleasant project.

Li=erick's water use is consu=ptive in : hat wa:er e - EL -

, ._= - _ __ - .

pcnpsd fro = the Point t

cools the generating systemPleasant c pumphouse . co Lime will evaporate and will not be returned as it

, Ln order to meet Limerick's water consu=ption to the water cycle .

struct a pumphouse to house and needs, PECO seeks to con-proposed project, operate four pumps.

As part of the pro-

' East Branch of the Perkiomen pumped ts proposed reserv Cwater o ir t o the will be to applicant's Limerick reek from which it will be withd rawn and of the Neshaminy Creek c from whi hgenerating to the station and

\

the public. north branch it will be withdrawn rfor dist bution to i Applicant's witnesses stated that and slightly increase stream fl the diversion will raise ow but water levels detrimental environmental that neither flooding no r eff substantial opinion, the overall biologicalects would result . therefrom In fact, in their quality of by increasing rather t 'han di i the watershed will impro ject m nishing aquatic life. ve there-in 1981 subject DRBC approve d to express conditions whi h the pro-impset on the c surrounding area and maintain will fl lessen environ = ental Said approval, however, was b ased upon a ow levels at a safe rate.

prepared by AEC in 1973 and a study DRBC prepared in 1973

, a study I culture, Soil Conservation Servistudy prepared by the U. S. Dep artment of Agri-least ce in 1976.

five years old at the time of DRS All of these studies were at C's approval and do rsnt anvironmental factors which not reflect cur-applicant's chief witness on the imay, indeed, varyFurther, . substantially ssue of flooding the banks Branch cannot be considered of the East e= ployed since 1978 by Bourquard Aanceimpartial he has been expert witness sin ssociates, the same consulting firm that 9erfor=td the initial environ = ental studie s in this project.

-Protestants principle witness Hersh i

'udad that said water diversiey, an electrical engineer ,

con-  !

on would adversely affect the environment in c ma

ha: (1) would occur if the pumps were no:

s:cpped before tank ficw or 112

fs is achieved, (2) scouring would occur where :he s: reams turn, (3) strea wid:h, depth and velocity would increase, anc (4) fish vculd die because newly laid eggs would be swept away by :urbulence, plants which are par: of

he food web would be des:royed and oxygen genera: ion vould en:. be abs Hewever, John T. $ershey's broad sweeping testi=ony =ust be given li -

=ized weight because Mr. Hershey by reasons of his background, cannot be censidered an exper:

in the area of hydrolcgy and hydraulics, which exper-tise has a great deal of bearing in the resolu: ion of the environme na tli s-sues. On :he other hand, the credible :esti=ony from protestants re=aining wi:nesses regarding the unexplained failure of PECO to fully explore w ater supply alternatives such as :he Schuylkill River, through the use of the Blue Marsh Reservoir or utilization of the City of Philadelphia's abundant er wat supply raises serious questions in terms of the three part test in Borough of Moosic v. P.U.C.,

suora, placed upcn the applicant.

Fur:her, when one considers applicant's own testimony that in the event of flooding, pumping would cease with the a::endant possibility tha: the u:ill:a: ion of the L1=erick plant might be threatened by sudden interrup ions in 1:s water supply, raises further questions about the project. PECO's fail-ure to take fully into account a possible long ters threat to water supply .

needs for Limerick by PECO's failure to insure alternative sources of wa:er supply whether they be from the Blue Marsh Reservoir and/or the City of Phila-delphia, raises serious questions about PECO's long range strategies wi:h re-gard to Li=erick.

On the other hand, it is the opinion of the Ad inistrative Law Judge tha:

en environ = ental issues, except the issue cf flooding and ercsion, such as asthetics and effects upon plant and fish life in the s:reas, the applicant has met its burden of proof regarding environ = ental i= pac:s under See:1on 619 .

~hus, the ALJ accepts as full the beneficial aquatic effect y credible the testi=eny of Mr that will occur s on the food chain related e to th. Har:tn re and cannot agree with the witnes augnented flow in that area to the contrary .

s Hershey's sweeping testi=ony (A-l. , pp. 1-l.)

On the other hand, Mr. Har=e n's testi=ony that cause the stream to the aug=ented flow will n exceed its bank and flow ot supported by citations of either r out into the flood plain , is not parative studies regarding other ecent studies perfor=ed by PECO or by com-part of the record but were not si=ilar projects which could have b een =ade As indicated above, the testimo in hydrolegy and hydraulics ny of Mr. Steacy, despite his back ground been an e=ployee of Bourquard A, =ust be viewed with so=e question since he has ssociates, the very consulting fir the conclusion that excludin m that reached such as flooding and erosion and assugronmental the possibility affects of ser ficial to the life of the strea m.

res all that the project would be ene-b witness and his statementsHe thatcan hardly be considered an i

= partial flow does not the U. S. Geological Survey co=pletely erase doubt on this vital i will =onitor the ssue.

Therefore, applicant has in the (A-6, pp. 34-)

garding environ = ental issues under Sec i=ost part carried , re- its burde t on 619.

concarned with exactly what enviro Since the Co==1ssion must be actsndant erosion, can be expected fronmental proble=s g and the related to flo East Branch of the Perkiomen= the operation of four pumps ein th Thus, one cannot conclude that atone cannot napprove as presented.the applicatio tant of flooding in the East P this time, in light of doubt as to the ex-pu=phouse and four pu=ps a are reasontheblerk1 pump, thatomen, the in the vicin fare of the public. y necessary for the conveniencewel- and Since it appears that applicant cannot presently use all o nrt-

4 . .

four pu=ps because Li:erick-2 has no: been appr:ved by this C:::issi:n,. the application as originally filed should be rejected especially since Line-rick-2, even if eventually approved, is ac: to be expected to be " n-line" un:11 198S.

Since environmental effects rela:ed to flooding as well as the effec-

1veness cf DREC's propcsed water flow =enitoring system are in doubt a

he present, the Ad=inistrative Law Judge concludes that at this time only one pump is reasonab1v necessarv under Section 619, while reserving a deci-sion on the second pu=p until experience with :he one pu=p operation enables one to sort out the conflicting evidence related :o flooding and erosion as presented in this case. Should applicant show, af:er opera:ing one pu=p for one year that environmental effects regarding ficoding and erosion are not substantial enough to outweigh a second pu=p benefits, the second pu=p should be approved. Should applicant find it needs a third and fourth pu=p in the fu:ure due to approval of Limerick-2 cr for other reasons, it may apply to the Co==ission for approval of said pu ps after additional studies. It =ust, however, show by substantial evidence, tha: the benefit to be derived there-fro =, take the third and fourth pu=ps reasonably necessary in light of en-viron= ental effects.

At the same ti=e, in order to insure the viability of Limerick-1, PECO must i==ediately file an amended application with DRSC :o insure al:ernative sources of supply, whether it be from the Blue Marsh Reservoir or from the City of Philadelphia in the event that interruption of water supply occurs because of fleeding or erosion.

At the same time, it should be cade very clear that the approval of this application in no way is to be considered an approval for the purpcse of per-

=1: ting the applicant to include the total cost attendant to the construe:Lon

f the building and the lan d scaping within its is =y intention to grant the tion. application subjectrate base at a ne.future It ci In sc==ary, it to the aforementioned restric-is the opinion of application should be e the Administrative L aw Judge that one pu=p at Bradshaw o Reserv this iapprov ti=e with d only inthis part at the a=ount of flooding and erosi r to be monitored for approval of tcd only after the on with approval of one year to determinee th effects the second pump to be per=it can be assessed with greaterof flooding and erosion -

assurance. At on the East Perkiocen pumps may not be installed .

this time, stream the third and fourth 1.

Applicant is FINDINGS OF FACT a public vice to customers. utility engaged in providi

2. ng electrical ser-Arplicant seeks to 3,000 gallons per minute construct a cement pu=pho pumps and~related equipmentelectric t cal motor driven, ver i use to hou in order to turbine-type voir to the East Branch of supply water from a propo 3

the Perkiomen Creek .

sed reser-Applicant will pump wat

tplace water which ev er to its Limerick generati 4 aporate during the opera ng station to Limerick 2 has i it ware approved not been approved by the Ction .

of said station

, applicant does o==ission (PUC) . Even

til 1988 not expect Limerick 2

5. to be on-line

Applicant proposes const

' ha intsrsection .

ruction of said pumphouse of Bradshaw efeatial District. and Moyer Roads, whichon is land it owns

5. zoned R-1, Rural Applicant petitioned fo r eint to 53 Pa.C.S.A. 510619 an exe ption from local z alleging reasonabl e oning ordinances necessity.

O

7. .

Applicant agrees to landscape the visual unacceptability. site of the pumphouse to 8

ninicize

9. ORBC controls water source allo Projects having a substantial effcation among states. its member basin are prohibited and the DRBC h ect on water resources the of ject which it determine would subst as power to codify

, anyorpro-disapprove apportionment plan. antially impair or conflict with OR3 C's 10.

11. The DRBC directed that PECO and hvR A create a joint water supply DRBC has considered alternative w .

kill River and Blue Marsh Reservoi ater sources such as the Schuyl -

that:

r and rejected said alternatives st ating a.)

The Schuylkill River cannot provid round consumption Limerick requires e the year b.) ,

The Blue ternative Marsh Reservoir a viable is not al-anticipated needs due to populatioas y it has been earmark dustrial expansion within the Del n and in-B: sin and to provide low flow aware River 12.

River in accordance with FWPCA rwater quality co r Schuylkill egulations.1/

DRBC concluded that '

beneficial to the 5eshaminy and Perkithe proposed version would be Point Ple tha following precautions we omen watersheds and not detrimental re observed:

a.)

Fluctuation North of EastCreek Branch Neshaminy Branch Perki omen Creek and ing, be kept to a minimum , caused by pu=p-Annually after rate of pumping will be maintained than 27 cfs in the East Branch and

, the at npumping ot less of the Perkiomen regardless of ultimthe main stem consumptive use requirements. ate downstream i high natural flow in East Branch PDuring periods -f '

level so as notpumping from Point erkiomen C' k, shall be k Pleasant ept at Refer to pages 30 and 31 afor a dets.ilto aggravate high water le description Perkiomen Creek.on the water e or the flow conditions establ

}f Fcderal Water Pollutior ministration Control Ad

~ ,

b.)

The pipelines fro the ?oint Pleasant pu= ping station to the Bradshaw Road pu= ping station and fro: :here to the Nesha=iny and Perkic=en Creeks be buried using proper sedi=enta:ica con-trols and greund cover replace =ent to nini=1ze the effect on the environment.

c.) The above ground facilities (control houses, transfor=ers, sheds, etc.) be designed to co=-

ple=ent the structures found in the area.

d.) Arrange schedules so as not to begin any con-struction during the wildlife reproductive season, roughly spring through =id-su==er, e.) Develop operating schedules for change of pu=pages to eli=inate any rapid fluctuations.

f.) Design the intake tructures (for velocities, fish screens, etc.) to prevent the entrain =ent of fish.

13.

The Pennsylvania DER has issued per=its for the construction and

=aintenance of the facili:ies necessary to transfer water fro the Delaware River near Poin Pleasant in Bucks County to the East Branch of the Perkic=en '

Creek.

14.

DER considered alternative water sources but found "no feasible cost effective alternatives to the project have been identified which would fulfill the needs of the project and offer significantly less effec:s on ene enviro n-

=ent or public natural resources."

15.

NRC declined Del-Aware's request that they assert jurisdiction stat-ing that allocati'en issues are entrusted tc the DRSC.

16.

The East Branch of the Perkic=en may be susceptible to changes in its present configuration due to several types of factors, i.e., the gradual effects of the long ter:  !

change in =edian flow, and the adjustment or reaction to the increased frequency of flood flows.

17.

If this application is approved erosion =ay result in the widening of the strea=, particularly in the vicinity of =eanders and curves, where the

s:rea: will impac: :he present banks wi:h par:icular fcree.

18. East Eranch sides or banks are relatively highly susceptible to erosion in that they consist of sil:y loa of the Ecw=ansville classifica-

-: ion, which are classified by the Soil Ccnserva:ic Service as high;y suscep-

ible :c erosion. Mcreover, an accurate analysis of erocability of the Eas:

3 ranch silty loa =, taking into accoun: the in:eraction of the varicus cc=-

ponent of fine silts and clays, has never been condue:ed.

19. The East Branch is already experiencing slu= ping of 1:s s:reas banks, caused by undercutting and sliding into the stream, which indicates tha: the strea= bed is highly erosive.

20. Applicant's case did not fully provide a basis for concluding that erosion would be =ini=al.

21. Applicant's witness, Mr. Steacy assumed that erosion would no: occur at less than bank full stages and :herefore did not investigate erosive effects at less than bank full stages.

22. There exists the possibility of substantial erosion of the bankc of the East Branch of the Perkiomen over an extended period of time from in-creases in the =edian flow.

-23. There exist the possibility of additional substantial arosion would be caused by the increased frequency of flood flows exceeding presen; annual floods at or near the pu= ping stations.

24. While Applicant's diversion would be theoretically li=1:ed in cine 4 of flooding or high flows in the East Branch, the proposed li=itati:.4 caf not be sufficient to prevent increased frequency of flooding.

25. The increased flows projected from the Point Pleasant water diver-sion would produce on balance relative improveme.nt in aquatic life in :he Eas: Branch of :he Perkiomen.

2o.

o The ncise effec: of :he purpheuse c::rs will ne: in:erfere with :he use of priva:e property in the area.

~

27. PECO's designing and landscaping is not cut of har:cny wi:h :he sur-

unding envircncen: so as : everc::e :he need for :he facili:y.

23.  ?ICC has failed :: ful'y explore alterna:ive wa:er supply scurces for Li erick in the even: :ha: :he diversion projec: canne: be u:ili:ed to the ex:en: anticipa:ed.

29. PICO has failed to consider u:ili:ation cf the wa:er facili:ies and wa:er supply of and frc= the City of Philadelphia.

30. There is adegaate water in Slee Marsh Reserveir en a fir: and en-ticips:able basis :: provide for One unit a: Limerick.

31. While applicant's witnesses, Wes:ca and Geodell :es:ified : hat they would censider alloca:1cn of subs:antially all :he water supply capacity of Blue Marsh :o one user to be undesirable, and predic:ed : hat DR3C would be relue:an :: make such an alloca icn, : hey ad=itted :ha: the DRSC has no:

been asked to make such an alloca:icn, and further ad=it:ed : hat :he DRSC is

aking the Blue Marsh water availabe for censu=ptive use to indus: rial users.

32. While applicant's witnesses Westen and Goedell were relue:an: :o i

l provide any wa:er frc= 31ue Marsh :o applican:, be:h Westen and Geodell in-dicated tha: i: if necessary :o do so, they would cencur in per=itting up :o 20-257; of :he available of the Blue Marsh capaci:y to be utiliced for Li:erick.

i Twenty-five percen: of this snoun would be apprcxi=a:ely 1800 cfs days, which would equal about 40 percent of the needs of one uni at Li=erick in the worst drought year records, assu=ing =axt=u= consu=ption :hroughou: that period by Li=erick.

33. There is no reason to suppose :, hat the DREC or Pennsylvania DER

would refuse :: p evide additional wa:er fr:: 3'ue . "ars' :: Limerick in :he event tha: .such supply was necessary in order f:: *irerick : cpera:e.

l. 0 . Although applican:'s wi: ness Westen :es:ified :ha: :he Schuylki'.'.

,s_s.e, <s ...,,.,f

. ..<~... . e,,se-, a _

c ..: . .. e . .. s- e c .' . ' . *. .; .- a. . c

=.'.e

.- . c~~..s u e-

. .... .u..e - ..< c . _ ,. ...,.....,a_... 4... .v . . <.. -:a-.,

.a. <. s .. ,

. ,. f.<<

- - -.. -. ... . . .=. .... ..- - .~....e. <

. . a..

all, bu: ra:her of :he Delaware estuary.

.. ..ne . .

.. es.. ... ....e. . use. c e ..

.. . < _ e .< g ., .a -c..

. .-. . . . . e . . .e :., a . .,. .. . ,a_,

.c u..a . g ,-u e - c ...sa , w <..

<s

. .he

. C.<.. . . . .... u. s a .. c ' ' - c a ' .~ - - ~ . . ' =. .* _ '. .' ' .4 . .. _' . ' ~ . .

3 .

the Schuylkill 3.iver. Philadelphia has indica:ed i:s wi 'ingness :: ake arrangeren:s er concess' ens so as te ave c :ne use :. ..; eg . c, :ne en:1:le_ .

i

_ e ,. ,. ,

. .... e , ex,. . . s.. o . . ' a... '.7 .c . *. e , c . e .. . e.' a. .' -.ab'e:s .e'a.e' ... .-..e a'o.

a use..

. >. . .c..'

. . . . a n a. '. a.. . e=e... w.' . n' . *.. e C .f

. ' . " c .' '. ' . '...'-a ' e ' ,. '.. ' a a .. A ~ o ' ' .*

. . .4 .- . .'. o ..s

-. .. 5.e .n <_. e .1.~

a  :

ku a s . .o . b e e.. c-. ...=. .' d e . e.d '.v .

.h. e a- , ' d .a- .. . .

43. '- nile be:h applican: witness, Wes: and Goedel:. cen:es:ed :he legal righ:s of the Ci:y of Philadelphia to =ake a transfer of its enti:le=en: :o applicant, neither of the provided any basis for ignering :he relevance of

_ :he City's pes 1:icn, and in fac: Mr. Wes:en conceded tha

he City might be

able to p.: vide waiver er release of any clai=s :ha: i: =igh: have, which l .. ... .. 2, a.

. e e , e, a..,. . o p .r_CO ' s t.a r s * . ea: "- s e 4.a.

. .e. s ^#

.. . '.. e . '.. .'. . s .~., .# ^

ces ..-

s. ea

.. . . . er s.< --a.. s.

L i

l CONCLUSIONS OF !AW i

3

.he Co _4ss.4c . a has <u s .. .sd< .<-- ...a e..e

.. . . ... e ..s.e

. .e.-.. ._...e . . . . -..d . e . . .

I

! parties to the applicant pursuan: te 53 Pa.C.S.A. $10419.

2. Ccnstrue:ica of ~he ce=en: purpheuse and appur:enan: s:ruc:ures, i

..<.u.

. . . . c..e c..- . w'.' yen

. r" rs .4 s . e a s o n - *.1.v, a e

. e e .c s .- . , .- . . '. . .' s . .' . e .' - . .b. e .

l- convenience and welfare of the public under :he :hreef:1d :es: se: forth in

r- .. .,w.

.. ..:...,....<r. ,. .. . . ..2.a<

. . . . . . . . ... e......

< < .. .. . . .__,u.,.-...

. - _ - . c e. a . u-_ _,.

weal:h 335, -:^ A.2d 1:37 (1921).

t I

l

e e

.5L... .eALibA*,

. .e V neA.sym y) .,

.* &a LA-

1. Tha: :he applic: ion of Philadelphia Elec:ri  :::pany d:cketed a:

A-00103956 be and is hereby appr:ved as lini:ed, sub'e:: :: the f:ll: wing res:ri::icns:

A.

Tha: flue:ua:1:n Of Eas: 3 ranch Ferki::er. Creek and Scrth Eranch Seshaciny Creek, caused by pumping, be kep: to a mini:::. Annually, af:er pc ping frc: :he Delaware has cc:=enced, :he rate of pumping will 'ee main:ained a: no: less

han 27 cfs in :he Eas: 3ran:h and the sain s e=

cf the Perkic=en regardless f ul:1:a:e d:vnstrea consu:p:ive use requiremen:s. Curing perieds Of high na: ural flow in Eas: 3 ranch Ferkic en Creek, pumping frc: Point Pleasan: shall be kep: :: a level so as not to aggrava:e high wa:er levels.

3. That the pipelines frc :he Fein: Pleasan: pu: ping sta:1cn to the Bradshaw Reaf pumping s:a:i:n and frc:

there :o :he Neshaminy and Perki::en Creeks be buried using preper sedimen:atica centr:ls and ground ccver replace en: :o minicize :he effec:

on the envirennent.

C. That :he above ground facili:1es be designed ::

c plement the struc:ures found in the area.

). That operating schedules be developed for change .

of pt=page :o eli ina:e any rapid fluctuations.

E. That in:ake strue:ures be designed to preven: .

he entrain =ent of fish. j

[u F.

.That the site be ,lanescaped in a =anner :::pa:ible with the surrounding area a: applican:'s expense. 's

=.

G.

If, after one year of opera:ing one 5,000 gallen per minute electric =c:cr driven vertical :urbine E

ype pu p,.no significant adverse enviren=en:a1 -

effects presen:, a second pu:p. vill be appr:ved after presentation of evidence as te the absence of significan: adverse effects. E i

H.

Any additional pt=ps =ay only be obtained by ap-  ?

=

plicant by way of an entirely new applicati:n

.followed by full evidentiary proceedings.  ;.,

i

'.=i e

1 I

I. The granting of this application shall in no way be :onsidered approval by the Cen=1ssion fer :he purpose of permitting the applicant to include the total cost a:cendan: to the constructien of the building and landscaping vi:hin i:s rate base at a 'uture ti=e.

J. PECO shall i= mediately file an anended applica-tion vi:h DRBC to insure alternative sources of

' supply, whether it be fro :he Blue .Marsn Reser-voir or item the City of Philadelphia in the event that interrup; ion of water supply occurs because of flooding or erosion.

A ISADOR KRANZEL 4 Administrative Law Judge DATE:

/7, / f h 3 e