ML20107F477

Testimony of B Aptowicz & Tj Kulesza Describing City of Philadelphia Water Treatment Sys & Relation to Emergency Planning.Related Correspondence

ML20107F477
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	11/02/1984
From:	Aptowicz B, Kulesza T PHILADELPHIA, PA
To:
Shared Package
ML20107F481	List: ML20107F477 ML20107F487 ML20107F507
References
CON-#484-914 OL, NUDOCS 8411060527
Download: ML20107F477 (15)

Text

.. . m. ..

.m"

" .c -;

.g...

.? . .{ .

_ , ~ 2

<x > - ) .- .c._ - -

~ -

. ..p'. '~

aIl ugl <

,. ~

City Statenent.li

~

J

. EMCc Novenber 2, ~1984

. gu,T m,, g,dpCND p s  ;

- UNITED'.STRPES OF AMERICA 00CKETED-

NOCLEAR REGUIA'IORY COMISSION #' -

. l BEFORE ,. 'IHE ATCMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARQg g -5 ,N@2 U.D  :.'..# '

Helen F. Hoyt, Chairman -

J '

_ 7. y . .

4 Richard F. Cole, Adninistrative Law Judge < '

~

Dr. Jerry Harbour,.Adninistrative Law Judge .

~

,.3 , V ':2 1 3, . ,Gn.the.

, . .. Matter.of:. .

_. c -

.4

= ;< -

._L

.t..

-Philadelphla El~ctric e Cmpany  :

Docket Nos.'50-352 O

(Limerick Generating Station Units 1 and 2)  : 50-353 [J { -

TESTIMONY OF ERUCE S. APIOfICZ AND 'ITENAS J. RULESZA, IESCRIBING THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA'S NATER

'IRFAIMENT SYSTEM AS IT RELATES 'IO EMERGENCY PLANNING Q.l. Please state your names, positions, addresses, and the purpose of your testimony. -

t 4,t A.l.

My name is Bruce S. Aptowicz, Manager, Water Operations, Water Department, City of Philadelphia. My name is Thomas J. Kulesza, Manager, Water Treatment Plants, City of Philadelphia. Our business address is One Raading Tower, 'Ihird Floor, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania-

~ 19102~. . , ,

The purpose of this testimony is to describe the Philadelphia Water

~

Department's treatment facilities in so far as is currently known to be pertinent to any energency planning to protect the water supply to the City of Philadelphia as may be associated with an accident at Limerick Nuclear Generating Station. -

l 8411060527 841102 PDR ADOCK 05000 1 .-

- ~ '

1 .

wy ,

.:.  :~ -  : - .

y j.Q.2. . .~. .

' ~

,Please N .

describe the!scurces _

' ,: of' raw water for'the City of Philadelphia ;

i water treatment plants.- . . .

.s .,s .

.si ' .. l5 y j , i.. ,

,g-.w .~t j .  ;.

\

, I ~ t t .

A.2. t'i .t .\?

• Philadelphia has thgee water trea

. . . ~

, t plants. These*are:/

a

• m - '

s ' .l.

r <

.l . - Samuel Ss Baxter' Water. Treatment Plant,.

9001 State Road. '

- ^ '

~ 2.

Queen Lane Water Treatment Plant >

. .:, . g =

Queen Lane and-Fox Streets.

1- -J ., ,; ..

13. , Belmont Water TreatmentmPladt

i

, . _ f 4 Maimnrit Avenue and Ford Road

.The Baxter Treatment Planti takes water fran the Delaware River. Its intake is located between Linden Avenue and Pennypack Street. The Queen Lane Plant takes water fran the. Schuylkill river. Its intake is 1

located at Ridge Avenue and School House Lane. The Belmont Plar.t takes 4

water from the Schuylkill River.

Its intake is located on the West'/

River Drive below the\' Columbia Avenue bridge.\ \

\

\

In Fiscal Year 1983, 44.8% of the City's consunptive water needs were met with Schuylkill River (Queen Lane and Belmont Plants) water and 55.2% with Delaware River water (Baxter Plant), including the supply to

~. -

~ . . -

Bucks County  ;

WaterJand;Sewi Authbrity. ' P6r[the Schuylkill River i ..

water, 55.4 ngd (40.0%) wre treated at the Beinent Plant and 87.1 mgd at the Queen Lane Plant (diD.0%). These figures ca"n vary fran year to year.

j Q.3. Please describe the City's water treatment facilities.

/ .

./

2

• l I

m ; _.. .,

Q. , _.... -' ~ .. , _ .-:g-L. "-

. , ,' _. . . J.?cf

.' : .. .-~ - ..- . ," - S r I

.- a.

s x3[ . .

. ..f '

-g . ,?.

'thesei are de$cribed- fully in[tYeanhblet[ "How .WaNer . in hhi1*1ph}.n : '

r

- "is ~ Treated and' Distributed," on pagis' 3, 4,~ 11,;13, & 15. - City -

. Exhibit "A" However, ,'wWtional pertinent information not indicated ,in:

~~' the patriphlet is: ,

?

~

,  ; .s, a -

- s. _ .

.s ,

- " ~

s The Torresdale Plant'.has been renamed the ~

~

- Sanuel ~ Treatment Plant.

.c. .

n a.

l .' yG . - - ,

x .,

l.

~

.J Chlorine and chlorine dioxide can be added to the water prior to the raw water .

sedimentation basins at Baxter and Belmont.

Carbon can be added prior to the raw water basin at Belmont. O I

Chlorine can be added to the raw water at the influent to the raw water basin at Queen Lane.

, , The rhted capacity'of the Baxter' Plant >

'is now 310 mgd due to the replacement of 15 corwentional sand filters with dual

. media filters. (See 0.4 & Q.5 below.)

Alum is often used at the Queen Lane Plant instead of ferric chloride.

a 3

s.

o

,e - ,- _ ., , ,,--.--.-.e9.- ,-,,---,...,,.m-e rm- e--~ tv-- .

-r.. - *

m. . ;

n- .

,x

,c.

Qi4. [

Wettiare the capadikies!6f' .water treatment' plants? ' '

, ~

w ' ' -

/ l A.4.

'The design capacities- (for-water treatment plants only, npt the pumping

stations), based on state

, s environnental requifements, 'are as follows:

, y -

~, ~-

' ~

Baxter 310. M3D

~

,. Queen Lane 120 M3D -

-[

w.,. .

." . : Belmont

'78 MGD'

, , ,f -

z The design peak capacities are:

Baxter 423 MGD '

O Queen Lane 150 MGD '

Belmont 10 8 MGD Due to raw water pumping constraints, actual pe capacity' at Baxter is 350 MGD, not 423 MGD.

• Sf f

The potential tieatment methods needed to remove radionuclides to acceptable levels could significantly reduce treatment plant capaci-ties. For example, if recycle is required to, in effect, treat sone or all the water twice, the capacities are autanatically ra4M propor-tionately. Or, if increased detention times are required to pennit' longer periods of settling, capacities would likewise decrease.

Q.3.

Please describe what is meant by' design capacity and peak capacity.  !

A.S.

The design capacities are calculated based upon the number of filters, their surface area, and a flow of 2 gal./ min./sq, ft, for conventional l

4 '

1

N, .o

. :7

-t 4'

-filters and '4 gal./ min./sq. ft. for dual media filters. These' rates - ,

are pursuant to the Pennsylvania Department of Envirornnental % sources

- filter design criteria. _

T The peak <-alw ities'are based upon hydraulic limitations. However, at the Baxter Plant hydraulic. limitations ort punping frca the raw . water . '

~

basin to the plant is the critical factor. Only about a 350;mgd',

~

~

v '

average raw water feed rate can be sustained. Backwash and in-plant ~ -

losses reducc the estimated maximum average output of the plant to about 330 mgd.

Q.6.

Are the water treatment plant capacities ever limited by plannai main-tenance needs and unexpected failures?

s A.6. Yes. .

Q.7.

Provide sane exanples of the frequency of these occurrences and their impact upon the water system.

3 ,

A.7.

Frequently sections of the plants are taken out of service for routine -

preventive maintenance or to effect repairs. For'exanple, at the Queen Lane Plant each of the four floc / sed basins are taken out of service for routine cleaning and maintenance, one at a time, each for about one week's duration during the fall and spring. This limits plant capacity to about 120'ngd. At Belmont all four floc / sed basins, two at a time, are taken out of service each fall and spring for about a one week e

5 -*'

e  ;

v. .. - . -

5 :' -

• a '-

- ['

w , ,

..,2

~<

+  :

y ' period.1 Thus,:for~two', week'c dtr tion Belmont'a capacityjis limited.to

~

r -

(

, about '55 or-6'O myi dananding upon which two basins are out of' service. l Under anergency conditions, -these-basins can be blaced back into ser-

.- .vice, in most cases, within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. At Bax'ter, floc / sed basin '

. , .t .: .

clieaning does not generally limit capacity'due to the raw water punping

' l rate- limitatio'ns. <

e s

.. As?far.as unscheduled a2tages, several. filters are often not available Y'

' o

.. .. t .

~e '?i~ '

at each plant'for easons including but not limited to valve or.

underdrain failures or structural leaks. In fact, it is almost a cer- '

tainty that at any given time several filters will be out. Usually an outage of a filter results in a directly proportionate reduction in outputi.

s',

Q.8.

Are there other planned or unplanned outages that affect storage or output?

A.8. Yes, unplanned outages at the reservoirs, raw water basins, and finished water conduits are a possibility. All of these nust be taken l

out of' service for inspection, repairs and cleaning,'although' on a less y*.

, frequent basis than the plant facilities. However, the impact of these outages on systen capacity is greater than the previously discussed outages because of the difficulty in restoring the capacity to full service, and the time it takes to accanplish this. The significance of such an outage muld be a function of the available warning tian.

6 ' " '

.; n ,- - ' q. 3 ; :a. ~. . . . .

~  : ~.

i

. Q . 9, -

~ If the raw water basins d' Queen Lane and/or~ Belmondhar =na ~oon , f,. , ., . .' 'l m . . . . -

• = hated due to an airborne pitune,. could they be drained and refilled?.

~ ' .. . . .

A.9.

- If the Schuylkill niver snd the Queen Lane intake were- not' contaminated :

, t ..

s ' l

. 4. . -

buttheWaswaterbasinwas,theQueenLanePlant'could,'tihroughv$1ve-

- ~ . ~ '

, x , n -.

_,r-  :..

operations,; be; fed ~directly frc.za?the' raw water (intake bypassing:the raw- ,

water basin h acuever,'due.to piping limitations the~ capacity of the' . '

- 9

,z plant would be .limited

- to approximatelyi.80.MGD.c .c .

. v.. s.

.t. .

~

,_ , ;v , _

, ~ '

.u ,-

. .y;;.n , .

a ,3 -

.; .=.

If the raw water basin was full at the time of the event, approximately one-third of its contents could be discharged to the sewer system (to the City's Southeast Maste Water Control Plant using existing plant piping.) .

Due to elevation limitations the lower two thirds of the contents of the raw water basin would have ,$o I

- gt be pH to the sewr system. There are no on-site pumps to perform this function There is also the concern of contamination of the sludge at the bottcza of the basin in terms of both being disposed and/or recon *=hation of water used to refill the basin. Routinely

,g

~ '

9 I

e l

f l

\

l. -

7

.o

- - ,__ ,, . , , , , _ , . _ _ - , . . - . _ , , . , _ - , - . - _ _ . - , . . _ , , , , _ _ , , . _ _ . , , . - . . _ _ , . ~ _ _ , . . . . - , , , , , . -,,,_,...,.,,_,___,,,,,.7-,--__.

n, ,c.-

, , , , -e.- ._

.e .

.a ,

m' ,

q .

.y the ciudge is removed fra 'the. raw water basin ct Queen lane. through o -

dredging contract let approhtely every fifteen years. The sludge -is

'punged by the contractor to an on-site-lagoon with the overflow super-

- natant being discharged to the sewer systs. If the sludge is con

- s s taminatedl this would not be an ' acceptable disposal ~ method,. -Draining j oftherawwaterbasinwouldmost'likelyrequireseveral'weeksfdueto pumping and sewer capacity limitations. We have no cxperience with the '

.c removal, of contamina.ted sludge) - '

P  ;

, , ,e , ,

At Belmont the plant could be fed frcm the raw water intake directly and the contaminated raw water basins discharged to the sewer system (the effect upon the Southwest Waste Water Treatment Plant nust be considered).

The contaminated sludge might also have to be removect.

The mmal dig _1 practice is to remove each of the two raw water 1

basins frcza service and flush the sludge to the sewer system every 3 or 4 years. 'Ihis cleaning process normally requires at least a month and may very well not be an acceptable disposal means in the event of con-tamination.

I Furthermore, at Belmont while the valve changes are being made to feed -~

the plant directly fram the raw water intake, the high service would be out of water.

The time period to make the valve changes would depend upon when the crisis cccurred as well as difficulties encountered in coeration of the valves. However, it mild undoubtedly be a minimum of several hours.

+ "

l I

L

_, a- , . -

v: -

c hij !

• f_

') } !* L

,... 'gQ,10

Are you, able to menant on the-l issues of. water'decontamiriation asso-

..cd ciated:with radionuclides?

,f

/-

Adf j ~/ '

., t -

7! m.

K.10.,

r .

At tb present sime'the Water Department has no specialized. expertise 1 -

in' the area.of treating water for. the removaltof radionuclides in the

- + s. '

.c event of a' release of radionuclide's that results in contamination.of~

', ~

' h watersheds that supply the Citiy's water. The Water Department also

~~

i1 ~A

< . .N . : , , . ,..: . c .. N 4

has noiexpiertise in the'first 'stageiof contingency. nuclear tiremtmente c '

planning; that is, the estimation of the specific radionuclide, the duration, and the concentration actual mass 'ag/1) not merely disin-tegrations (pel/1) in the raw water and the required removal rates needed to assure the protection of the public.

~.

The City also has no knowledge of the effects upon the water treatment

• \ plant sludges.regarding acceptable disposal methods due to con-tamination at various raw water concentrations and removal efficien-cies. hhesesludgesincludetherawwaterbasinsludgesateachplant as well as floc / sed basin sludges which are normally discharged to an on-site lagoon at Baxter, the; City's sewer system at Belmont and' to' both an on-site lagoon and the sewer system'.at Queen Lane.

t (These sewer systems are connected to the City's Southwest and Southeast Water Pollution Control Plants, respectively.)

! The filter bm.ckwash sludge at' Baxter is discharged to the raw water hasin at Baxter and to the City's sewer systen at Queen Lane and Belmont.

t It is of concern that discharge of these sludges in the nor-i- mal method could cause further contamination of Baxter's raw water J. .

t 9 -

L

n, .

4 y . z.. . ,_ Y ' '

j - .; -

o ..d - - __

besin, contamination 'of'Baxter'O sludge lagoon and/or contamination of' the Southeast and Southwest Pollution' Control Plants _(including their

?.

• ...Jges) . - -

s 1

y G- .

. p '

,.c 4 City Water Dep' artment personnel have had; numerous; meetings' and . informal

/ discussions with both PECO 1;hrsonnel, their consultants and rt=nev1 wealth officials with regard to decontamination. 'Ibe City has

. . .. , '~

. M '

' ' g .. . _ ~

.also' reviewed the 711mitied 'information and documaiits made afallable by

-~

PECO, the Ccanonwealth and the MIC Staff with regard to this area.

The information available appears to address radionuclide removal in very general experimental terms and not specifically in terms of the radionuclides nor concentrations which may be involved in a Limerick s

incident, nor in terms of the renovals which can be %ted under 'n' Phil_

• 1rhia's specific water quality and contamination concentration considerations'; nor in terms of the specific application points, equip-ment to be used, sludge removal and disposal problems, etc., involved in implementing alternate treatment methods at Philadelphia's plants.

Thus, although of general interest, the information contained in these articles'is by no means sufficient to understand the contaminants involved and treabnent techniques needed in the event of a Limerick incident.

T m methods mentioned by PECO's consultants, NUS, verbally at a meeting with the Water Department were activated carbon for I-131 removal and lime-sode ash softening for Sr-90 removal. They stated that other

.10 *-

p - ,.

.t _

,. .: g;; o.

, .. .c, ,

- ii - '

radionuclides were of no. concern. Thic is contradictory to previous PBCO testimony which indicated that Cs s d - h h w ent d more. severe incidents. An alequate energency plan would also need a .

list of these.and any other significant contaminants and nethods of

. renoval. '

The teC Staff has also stated that for sane accidents same or allof the water would need to,be softened twice, resulting in r 4 M Y

through@t.' This process raises' questions as' to supply ' capabilities and advance designing needs.

Even the inglenentation of the two (activated carbon and lime-soda ash) methods are not. routine and many specific questions arise. sane of' these questions which are initially apparent are:

Tipeofactivatedcarbonwhichshouldbeused for most efficient renoval of I-131. This choice would require lab testing as would the other aspects which follow.

j ,

Determination of the inost efficient applica-tion points. For example, carbon can be added at the raw water. influent in the event of an energency. However, will the deposited carbon in the raw water basin release I-131 as an equilibrium phenonmenon when the concentration in the raw water decreases?

e

• L

,. ~; .g. .  ; - .. -  ; .- :. ,..

~ -

How mch carbon should be' aMad ct'ench appli .

.~  : y ~

cation point chosen?' Is.there adeg.aate mixing -

.l (also applicable to aspects of lime-soda ash treatments)? >

- # w

~

7 .

. 'Where and how to feed soda ash.- How much lime

_ a'nd soda ashiare.needed for what levels.of;-

)

. ~ ,, .

.c.

contamination? .How to control feed rate?

At what raw water concentration is a two stage lime-soda ash precipitation needed? How to control feed rate? Can it be done by uti-lizing two points in the plant or is repeat precipitation of entire water supply needed?

How can repeat precipitation, if needed, be m-slished?

P Can the plant's sludge removal systems handle' the type and quantitles of sludge generated?

Need they be disposed of as contaminated wastes? If so, how can they be removed, transported, and to where?

f l

l

[2,

-u-

-- q, T'

.- ~

How and wherelcan acid be added to reduce the ~

^

'EpHaftertreatment?

• l

. . j mere should chlorination be perforned due to -

its inefficiency as. af disinfectant ati 'high ~

pH's? ', ' '

e -

-~

., ,; , ~ ,

Will chlorine- .' addition affect I-131 removal-

., g. - -

because of the fornution of iodine containing trihalonethanes? '

These and other questions which will need to be addressed as part of the contingency plan which should be devalW. 'me developnent oQ,a plan would require a ccmiplete analysis now of possible taw water con-taminants, removal rates based upon actual lab tests, and emergency considerations of treatment plant capabilities, logistics and limita-tions.

s v, y 'Lg -

Besides the lack of expe;rtise in the area of removal of radionu the Water Department does not have ' expertise in the use of the lime-soda ash softening since it does not use this process at all. It also does not have expertise to conclude that these t'e processes (activated carbon and lime soda ash) are the only and/or most efficient available or that 1-131 and Sr-90 are the only t e radionuclides of concern, as has been postu uted.

More analysis of the types of radionuclides and 13

u

m, - - - - _

.sc , . . . _ .

. .. . - 8

.. v. .

u.- .

2 - .

9 - - the applicable; decent

amination' process must be done. for other con :

7 ,

3 -

Finallyi. due' to the'.ocaplexity of the problem.and the need for quick 2' '

.~.- action in'the event: of' contamination of the water, a complete written plan must be developed now., 'Ihis plan must e available and capable of being able to be understood by laymen.in the field'of water treatment.

^

f ,

6' ,- ' '

The plan must also address the problem of testing of raw and finished -

water to determine what level of treatment is needed and to evaluate finished water contamination level. Effective planning distates that this be done before an incident. In order to initiate a response inne-diately and avoid unnecessary reliance on PBCO during the course of,an

~

gt accident such a plan must be in place now. '

Q.ll.

Does the infonnation and testimony fran the earlier NRC proceeding pro-vide adequate indication of contamination in either the Delaware or Schuylkill Rivers during the period of less than one montn fran the

. occurrence of a release?

A.ll.

No, the infonnation provided in the testinony addressed the con-centrations of Cesium 137 and strontium 90 in terms of picocuries per

! liter at various probabilities or excedence for time periods ranging fran one month to 5 years after the occurrence of an incident at Limerick.

The expected concentrations during the first month for these and other possible contaminants, such as, but not limited t.o, I 131 were not addressed.

14 L

r. . _=

e ,

f

.Q312.

• Does this conclude your 'testilinony?

~

• I A.12. Yes iti does. -

p' .. ). .

)

j..i.- -V- .t

/ i'

., i.  !.

't *

,1' gs  : >

t f

• e e

d ,

s v

I ' m'

~ :; * * "

r f ,

s e

+

e 4,

I i

\ \

x x e

6 9

,P P e

9 e

/ ,. , /

15