ML20054K611
| ML20054K611 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 06/28/1982 |
| From: | Chan E, Hodgdon A, Lewis S NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8207020375 | |
| Download: ML20054K611 (24) | |
Text
.
,,On-M[
06/28/82 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-352
)
50-353 (Limerick Generating Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
NRC STAFF'S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF LICENSING BOARD'S SPECIAL PREHEARING CONFERENCE ORDER I.
INTRODUCTION On June 1,1982 the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board issued its "Special Prehearing Conference Order" in this operating license proceeding.
Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 9 2.751a(d) and the provisions of the Board's Order the NRC Staff respectfully requests reconsideration of the determination discussed below.
II.
STATEMENT OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION l
The Staff requests the Board to reconsider its determination that an l
l expedited hearing is required to consider environmental impacts resulting,
from certain changes in the Point Pleasant Diversion plan. Order at 89.
It is the Staff's position that the expedited hearing ordered by the Board is unnecessary and inconsistent with the Commission's regulations j
l implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended
("NEPA"). 42 U.S.C. 6 4321, et seq. The Staff also believes that the l
Board incorrectly determined that it has the authority (1) to stay construction of the Point Pleasant Diversion, or components thereof l
[
l 8207020375 820628 PDR ADOCK 05000352 Q
PDR g
L
. (Order at 89) and (2) to order changes in the location and design of these components to mitigate environmental impacts.
Id. at 88.
III.
DISCUSSION A.
Effect of Permits and Certifications Issued By Other Agencies On Board's Authority To Direct Changes In Ccmponents Of The Point Pleasant Diversion The Board believes that it is necessary for it to give adjudicatory consideration to the operational effects of changes related to the Point Pleasant Diversion which have occurred since the construction permit review. On this basis, the Board infers that NEPA requires it to deter-mine whether mitigation of any adverse environmental impacts of the Diversion is necessary.
The Point Pleasant Diversion, by means of which cooling water would be brought from the Delaware River to the Limerick site, is subject to the overlapping jurisdiction of a' number of state and Federal agencies, including the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC), Pennsylvania Department of Enviroamental Resources (DER), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps).
The Staff believes that the Licensing Board's determination that it is necessary for it to hold an expedited hearing on j
the operational impacts of certain changes in the components of the Point Pleasant Diversion is based upon a misperception of the NRC's role in determining the location, design, size, and other characteristics of these components.
I
t 3-The Point Pleasant intake is located approximately 40 miles from the Limerick site and will be used to supplement water from the Schuylkill River for normal operational needs.I/ The Limerick plant is not dependent upon the Point Pleasant Diversion for safety-related water supplies. As described in the Licensing Board's Order, DRBC has the responsibility for allocation of the water resource represented by the Delaware River and its tributaries among competing uses. Order at 70-71.
The DRBC has approved the Point Pleasant Diversion for inclusion in its
" Comprehensive Plan" under Section 3.8 of the Delaware River Basin Compact.2_/ As part of its approval process, DRBC prepared an environmental impact statement of the Point Pleasant Diversion, which considered the potential environmental impacts of the project.3/
The Licensing Board has approved the concept that the NRC Staff, in performing its environmental assessment of the impacts of Limerick operation, need not reassess the ' impacts of the Point Pleasant Diversion ab initio, but may adopt the " underlying scientific data [ developed by DRBC] and inferences drawn from it through the exercise of expert
-1/
Philadelphia Electric Co. (L,imerick Generating Station, Units 1
~
and 2), ALAB-262, 1 NRC 163, 169 (1975).
-2/
See Affidavit of Gerald M. Hansler, Executive Director of DRBC, attached to " Applicant's Objections to Special Prehearing Conference Order" (June 17,1982).
-3/
" Final Environmental Impact Statement:
Point Pleasant Diversion Plan, Bucks and Montgomery Counties, Pennsylvania" (February 1973);
" Final Environmental Assessment for the Neshaminy Water Supply System" (August 1980).
, scientific evaluation of the data." Order at 68. The Board did, however, determine that "the NRC must exercise independent judgment with respect to conclusions about the environmental impacts" and must weigh these impacts in its cost / benefit analysis of operation of the Limerick facility. M. The Board also determined that the same weight would be given to the findings of the Corps on the pending application of the I
Neshaminy Water Resources Authority ("NWRA") for a permit to construct an intake structure at Point Pleasant and to discharge dredge and fill material in connection with construction and maintenance of the intake.
M.at72.
The Board considered whether conclusive effect attaches to the decisions of the DRBC and the Corps. With respect to DRBC, the Board -
focused on Section 15.1(s) of the Compact, which provides that no other Federal agency may take any action "with regard to water and related land resources in the Delaware River B'asin" which "substantially conflicts".
with the provisions of a Section 3.8 approval if the Federal member on the DRBC concurred in that approval. The Board provisionally concluded that the effect of this provision is to bar the NRC from reevaluating the DRBC decision to allocate water to the Limerick facility but not "from considering all environmental questions arising from the diversion."
Id.
at 70.
In order to determine with greater certainty the effect of Section 15.1(s), the Board directed the parties to the water issues in this proceeding to advise it as to whether the Federal member can be deemed to have concurred in the various DRBC decisions approving the Point Pleasant Diversion. M.at96. With respect to the Corps, the Board concluded that "[t]here is no statutory provision precluding NRC
t
, from performing its NEPA duties with regard to matters considered by the Corps."
Id at 72.
The Board did not discuss in its order the possible effect of any certifications or permits which DER may issue.
The role which the Board's Order contemplates for the NRC with respect to the approval of the Point Pleasant Diversion is not consistent with the role assigned to this agency by the relevant statutes and materials implementing and interpreting these statutes. The principal responsibilities for the issuance of permits or certifications for the PointPleasantDiversionariseundertheCleanWaterAct.1/
Section511(c)(2)oftheCleanWaterAct,El states:
(2) Nothing in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (83 Stat. 852) shall be deemed to (A) authorize any Federal agency authorized to license or permit the conduct of any activity which may result in the discharge of a pollutant into the navigable waters to review any effluent limitation or other requirement established pursuant to this Act or the adequacy of any certific.ation under section 401 of this Act:
(B) authorize any such agency to impose, as a condition precedent to the issuance of any license or permit any effluent limitation other than any such limitation established pursuant to this Act.
The Commission has articulated the manner in which 5 511(c) is to be appliedinNRClicensingproceedings.5/ The Commission has stated:
-4/
33 U.S.C. 9 1251, et seq., formerly the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
5/
33 U.S.C. 1371(c)(2).
-6/
See " Policy Statement on Implementation of Section 511 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act," Appendix A to "Second Memorandum of Understanding and Policy Statement Regarding Implementation of Certain NRC and EPA Responsibilities." 40 Fed.
Reg. 60115 (December 31,1975).
s 4.
Alternatives a.
Neither alternative cooling water intake structure location, design, construction, and capacity, nor alternative pollutant discharge systems will be considered by NRC pursuant to NEPA (1) if and to the extent that conditions imposed as a part of the license or permit for the facility or activity pursuant to section 401(d) or section 401(a)(2) of the FWPCA require that a particular alternative be adopted, or (2) if and to the extent that a permit or determination with a condition requiring the adoption of a particular alternative has been issued for the facility or activity pursuanttosections208(b)(2)(C)(ii)and303(e)(3)(B),
318, 402 or 404 of the FWPCA.
d.
NRC will not require adoption of an alternative pursuant to NEPA in order to minimize impacts on water quality and biota that are subject to limitations or other requirements promulated or imposed pursuant to the FWPCA.
This division of responsibility between NRC and EPA has been applied in adjudicatory proceedings before the NRC to give determinations by EPA (or a state to which permit issuance authority has been delegated under the Clean Water Act) conclusive e'ffect.7_/ The Commission in Seabrook, emphasizing that one of the purposes of the Clean Water Act was to avoid unnecessary duplication of environmental reviews, also held that the NRC i
l should accept EPA's assessment of the aquatic impacts of the intake and discharge systems for that facili,ty and should factor that assessment into its cost / benefit analysis.0I
-7/
Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-78-1, 7 NRC 1, 23-29, affirmed, New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution v. NRC, 582 F.2d 87, 98-99 (1978); Tennessee Valley Authority (Yellow Creek Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-515,8NRC702,712-715(1978).
8f 7 NRC 1, 25-26.
r
.., The analysis of the effect of Section 511(c)(2) on this proceeding is complicated by the fact that the " permitting" agencies have yet to take action with respect to the Point Pleasant intake and the related discharge of dredge and fill materials. Analytically, there appear to be two agencies whose determinations must be treated as conclusive by the NRC. An application by NWRA for a permit for the Point Pleasant intake is presently pending before the Philadelphia District, Corps of Engineers, under 1) Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899,9/
and2)Section404oftheCleanWaterAct.El Thus, the Corps' permit will be both for the intake at Point Pleasant and for the discharge of dredge and fill materials in connection with the construction and main-tenance of that intake. The Corps' determination under 6 404 with respect to the dredge and fill discharge will be binding on the NRC.
To the extent that the Corps' permit specifies or requires a particular location or design with respect t'o the Point Pleasant intake that determinationwouldlikewisebebindingontheNRC.El I
9/
33 U.S.C. 6 401, et seg.
Section 10 (33 U.S.C. 5 403) vests in the l
Secretary of the Irmy the authority "over the creation of any i
obstruction...to the navigab.le capacity of any of the water of the United States".
--10/ 33 U.S.C. 91344, which delegates to the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, the authority to issue permits for the discharge of dredge and fill materials under the Clean Water Act. The Chief of Engineers, therefore, stands in the shoes of the Administrator of EPA for purposes of Section 404.
H/ 33 U.S.C. 5 1326(b).
, It is our understanding that the DER is the agency responsible for the issuance of certifications under 9 401 and permits under 6 402 of the Clean Water Act with respect to the Point Pleasant Diversion. DER has asserted that it has the responsibility for issuance of a % 401 certification in connection with the 5 404 discharge permit application presently pending before the Corps. DER has withdrawn, for procedural reasons, the $ 401 certification previously issued with respect to the Point Pleasant intake and has not yet reissued that certification.I2/
It is possible that DER determinations may specify or require a particular location or design of the Point Pleasant intake.
Such determination would likewise not be subject to NRC review.
The DER also has responsbility for issuance of the 6 402 discharge-permits required in connection with operation of the Point Pleasant Diversion.E/ Under either 6 401 or Q 402, DER may establish limitations or other requirements with respec't to the intake and dredge and fill discharge at Point Pleasant which this Comission may not redetermine.
Thus, although the Board may not be currently precluded from consideration of alternative discharge and intake locations and designs, it appears that the likely effect, of permits and certifications to be issued by DER and the Corps will be to determine conclusively the location and design of the Point Pleasant intake and associated dredge
-12/ See Amended Notice with respect to the Section 401 certification for the Point Pleasant Diversion, attached to letter of February 11, 1982 from Robert J. Sugannan to the Board.
13/ See Environmental Report, Chapter 12, which indicates that these permits have not yet been received.
r 9_
and fill discharge.
In these circumstances, it would appear appropriate, if not legally required, for the Licensing Board to await the completion of DER's and the Corps' pennit proceedings before requiring consideration oftheseissuesintheLimerickproceeding.E With respect to DRBC, the applicant has provided the affidavit of Gerald M. Hansler, Executive Director of DRBC, with attachments, which demonstrates that the Federal member can be deemed to have concurred in each of the decisions leading up to the DRBC's final approval under Section 3.8 of the Compact to include the Point Pleasant Diversion in the Comprehensive Plan.
As noted above, the effect of that concurrence is to preclude any other Federal agency from taking any action which would "substantially conflict" with the provisions of the Section 3.8 approval.
The Board agrees that, on these facts, conclusive effect would attach to DRBC's decision to allocate water from the Delaware for use at the Limerick plant, but did not accor'd similar deference to other aspects.
of DRBC's approval.
In view of the affidavit of Mr. Hansler, which indicates a wide scope of approval by the Federal representative, we believe that this information warrants reconsideration by the Board of its determination limiting the ar,eas in which it will give effect to DRBC's determinations.
-14/ This is not to say that these permits (with the exception of certifications under 6 401) are required prior to issuance of operating licenses. Waiting until the Draft and Final Environmental Statements have been pr'epared by the Staff will, however, maximize a
the chances that DER and the Corps will have completed their reviews.
. The Board appears to believe, however, that if there is "new" information brought to its attention which allegedly bears upon the wisdoin of other agencies' approvals of the Point Pleasant Diversion, the Board would then have the responsibility and authority to determine whether changes were needed in components of the Diversion. Although
{
there have been many allegations by Del-Aware to the effect that there is new information that was not considered by DRBC and has not been brought j
to the Corps' attention, the Staff understands that the same matters i
raised by Del-Aware before this Board have also been raised by Del-Aware l
beforetheCorps.3E/ It appears to the Staff that the proper agencies to consider any such new information are the Corps, DRBC or DER, the agencies with principal responsibility for approval of the Point Pleasant project. The Staff does not view the alleged existence of new information as arguing for Board consideration of mitigation measures, r
where it would otherwise be advis'able for the Board to await the completion of the reviews by these other agencies.
B.
Inconsistency Of Board's Order With Commission's Regulations Implementing NEPA The Commission's regulations implementing NEPA (10 C.F.R. Part 51) call for the preparation of a Dra'ft and Final Environmental Statement (DES and FES) with respect to, inter alia, issuance of full power reactor operating licenses. Section51.5(a)(2). The DES is to be circulated to Federal agencies which have "special expertise or jurisdiction by law with respect to any environmental impacts involved and which are l
15/ See Supp'ement No. 1 to notice of receipt of NWRA application (February 8,1982). A copy of that supplemental notice and the initial notice of receipt of application are attached.
i l
r authorized to develop and enforce relevant environmental standards" (Section 51.24(c)(1)) and to " appropriate State and local agencies authorized to develop and enforce relevant environmental standards" (Section 51.24(C)(3)). The distribution of the DES is to include a request for comments on the proposed action and on the DES.
Section 51.25. The FES is to "make a meaningful reference to the existence of any responsible opposing view not adequately discussed in the draft environmental statement, indicating the response to the issues raised." Section51.26(b).
The regulations also specify the manner in which the DES and FES are to be used in the Commission's adjudicatory processes.
In any proceeding in which a DES is prepared, it is to be made available to the public at-least fifteen (15) days prior to the time of any " relevant hearing."
Section 51.52(a).
Furthermore, in any such hearing "the position of the Comission's staff on matters cov'ered by this part [Part 51] will not.be presented until the final environmental impact statement is furnished to the Environmental Protection Agency and commenting agencies and made available to the public." M. The Staff is required to offer the FES in evidence in any proceeding involv,ing an application.
10 C.F.R.
Sections 51.52(b)(1) and 2.743(g).
It appears, however, that the Board's Order would require the Staff to present its environmental evaluation of identified areas of impact in l
~
advance of the issuance of its DES. Order at 89. The Board has directed PECo to advise it and the parties by July 2, 1982 of the proposed schedule for commencement of construction of the Point Pleasant Diversion. H. at 88.
12 -
Assuming that PECo indicates that construction is expected to commence prior to the scheduled date for issuance of the DES (May 1983), the Board would require the Staff to present testimony on the environmental impacts alleged in the contentions listed at page 87 of the Board's Order prior to issuance of the DES.
I_d_. at 89.
d In view of the procedural complexity of the specific issues involved, entailing matters within the expertise of a number of other interested agencies, the Staff believes that the proper course is that contemplated by 10 C.F.R. 6 51.52:
(1) preparation of a DES on the facility, (2) receipt of comments of Federal, state and local agencies with expertise on the relevant areas of environmental impact, and (3) consideration of these comments in its FES.
In this case we believe that the course apparently contemplated by the Board - with the Staff taking a position and presenting testimony on these environmental issues prior to the preparation of an FES - would be inconsistent with 10 C.E.R.
5 51.52.
Consideration of the role of other agencies in the review and approval of the Point Pleasant Diversion bears out the wisdom of the more deliberative approach which the r,egulations envision.
It can be expected that the comments of such agencies as DRBC, the Corps, and DER will be of significant assistance to the Staff in the preparation of its Limerick FES. Additionally, the Staff's environmental review would be assisted by the results of consultations which the Corps has instituted in its permit proceeding.
These consultations include those with the National Marine Fisheries Service ("NMFS") under the Endangered Species Act of 1972, as
.a
t
. amended,El and with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) under the Historic Sites, Buildings, Objects,andAntiquitiesAct.E/ Advice from the NMFS, SHP0, and ACHP would be most relevant to the contentions regarding (1) the impact of the Point Pleasant intake on short-nosed sturgeon and American shad and (2) the effect of construction and operation of the intake and pumping station on the Point Pleasant Historic District.
The Staff would expect this advice to be reflected in the documents supporting the Corps' permit.
C.
Board's Authority to Stay Construction of Point Pleasant Diversion The Board appears to suggest that it has the authority to stay construction of the Point Pleasant Diversion in order to preserve its -
opportunity to review the operational impacts of the alleged changes prior to commencement of construction. Order at 89.
Presumably, the Board also believes it could stay' construction based upon the results.of the expedited hearing it has ordered. This conclusion is inconsistent withtherecentdecisionoftheAppealBoardinMidland,El which the Board acknowledges to be controlling (Order at 85-86), that a licensing t
l l
board presiding over an operating, license proceeding does not have the authority to stay activities under a previously issued construction permit.
16/ 16 U.S.C. % 1531, et seq.
-17/ 16 U.S.C. Q 461, et seq., sometimes referred to as the National.
Historic Preserva Hon Act.
-18/ Consumers Power Co.
(Midlaid Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-674, 15 NRC
, slip op. at 3 (May 5, 1982).
..n_.__
14 As discussed above, the NRC does not have basic " approval" responsi-bility with respect to the Point Pleasant Diversion, but rather is required to factor the environmental and other costs associated with the Diversion and attributable to Limerick into the cost / benefit analysis for Limerick operation.
To the extent that this was done at the construction permitstage,El the Licensing Board would be precluded from reviewing construction of the facility (except as related to the capability of the plant to operate in a safe manner) and from issuing any stay of that
)
construction. Under Midland, the Board would then be limited to a consideration of whether to authorize or refuse to authorize the is-suance of operating licenses for the Limerick units.EI That juris-diction does rot confer upon the Board any authority to stay construc -
tion of elements of the Limerick facility previously approved.
4 IV.* CONCLUSION For the reasons developed above, the NRC Staff respectfully requests the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to reconsider its determination that an expedited hearing be held on the operational impacts associated with changes related to the const,ruction of the Point Pleasant Diversion.
The Staff also requests the Board's reconsideration of its underlying deteminations that it has the authority (1) to order changes in the location and design of components of the Point Pleasant Diversion to
-19/ See Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2) ALAB-262, 1 NRC 163, 170-175 (1975).
2_0/ ALAB-674, supra, slip op. at 3.
0
t
.., mitigate environmental impacts and (2) to stay construction of the Point Pleasant Diversion. The Staff believes that the Board should modify its Order to provide that the admitted issues related to the changed operational impacts of the Point Pleasant Diversion be considered as part of the Staff's customary review of new or changed environmental impacts of operation conducted as part of the operating license review and documented in the Draft and Final Environmental Statements.
Respectfully submitted,
/
Stephen H. Lewis Counsel for NRC Staff jv}t io6 L
Ann P. Hodgdon Counsel for NRC Staff Elaine I. Chan Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland I
this day of June 1982
%m
()So]
UNITED STATES OF At1 ERICA l
NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0 tit 11SSION BEFORE THE AT0tilC SAFETY AND LICENSING ROARD In the Itatter of
)
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC C0l4PANY Docket Nos. 50-352
)
50-353
)
(Limerick Generating Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SEDVICE I hereby certify that copies of "fiRC STAFF'S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF LICENSING BOARD'S SPECIAL PREHEARItJG CONFERENCE ORDER" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk. through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 28th day of June 1982:
Lawrence Brenner, Esq., Chairnan*
!!r. Edward G. Bauer, Jr.
l Adninistrative Judge Vice President A reneral Counsel U.S. fluclear Regulatory Commission Philadelphia Electric Company Washington, D.C.
20555 2301 !!arket Street Philadelphia, PA 19101 Dr. Richard F. Cole
- Adninistrative Judge Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission fiark J. Wetterhahn, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Conner and Wetterhahn 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
l Dr. Peter A.11 orris
- Washington, D.C.
20006 Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission tir. liarvin I. Lewis Washington, D.C.
20555 6504 Bradford Terrace Philadelphia, PA 19149 tir. Frank R. Romano l
Air and Water Pollution Patrol Janes li. Neill, Esq.
61 Forest Avenue Associate Counsel for Del-Aware Ambler, PA 19002 Box 511 Dublin, PA 18917 Judith A. Dorsey, Esq.
Limerick Ecology Action Joseph H. Ilhite III 1315 Walnut Street, Suite 1632 11 South tierion Avenue Philadelphia, PA 19107 Bryn t'awr, PA 19010
Walter W. Cohen Environnental Coalition on Nuclear Consumer Advocate Power Office of Attorney General Dr. Judith H. Johnsrud, Co-Director 1425 Strawberry Square 433 Orlando Avenue Harrisburg, PA 17120 State College, PA 16801 Robert W. Adler Thomas Gerusky, Director Assistant Counsel Bureau of Radiation Protection Comonwealth of Pennsylvania, DER Dept. of Environnental Resources 505 Executive House 5th Floor, Fulton Bank Building P. O. Box 2357 Third and Locust Streets Harrisburg, PA 17120 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Steven P. Hershey, Esq.
Director Law Center North Central Pennsylvania Emergency Management Beury Building Agency 3701 North Broad Street Basement, Transportation & Safety Philadelphia, PA 19140 Building Harrisburg, PA 17120 Sugannan and Denworth John Shniper Suite 510 Meeting House Law Building & Gallery North American Building Mennonite Church Road, 121 South Broad Street Schuylkill Road (Route 724)
Philadelphia, PA 19107 Spring City, PA 19475 Donald S. Bronstein, Esq.
Robert L. Anthony The National Lawyers Guild.
Friends of the Earth of the Third Floor Delaware Valley 1425 Walnut Street 103 Vernon Lane, Box 186 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Moylan, PA 19065 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board
- Alan J. Nogee U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission The Keystone Alliance Washington, D.C.
20555 3700 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19104 Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Panel
- W. Wilson Geode U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Managing Director Washington, D.C.
20555 City of Philadelphia Philadelphia, PA 19107 Secretary
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Willian A. Lochstet ATTN:
Chief, Docketing & Service Br.
119 E. Aaron Drive Washington, D.C.
20555 State College, PA 16801 Charles W.. Elliott, Esq.
123 N. 5th Street, Suite 101 Allentown, PA 18102 R bplu H. M Stepheh H. Lewis Counsel for NRC Staff
e DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PHILADELPHI A DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS CUSTOM HOUSE-2 D & CHESTNUT STREETS PHILADELPHt A. PENNSYLVANI A 19106 APR198; m men, messa to NAPOP-R-80-0534-3 NAPOP-R-80-0813-3 l
Mr. Robert L. Tedesco Assistant Director for Licensing j
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commiasion Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Mr. Tedesco:
This is in regard to applications from the Neshaminy Water Resources Authority for Department of the Army permits to construct water diversion structures near Point Pleasant, Bucks County, Pennsylvania.
Inclosed for your information are two public notices for the proposed work s
near Point Pleasant.
Sincerely, 1AMAGL 1
.I ROY E. DENMARK, JR.
2 Incl Chief, Permits Branch as stated W
,f I
/
\\
.S e
TitlS Ib hoi A PAID AUVtETISEMENT DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY O#
PHILADELPHIA CHSTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS CUSTOM HOUSE-2 D a CHE9tNUT STREETS PHILADELPHI A. PENNSYLV ANI A 19106
- a
..,~.,,,, n NAPvP-R-60-0534-3 6 April 1981 PubLIC NOTILE Notice is hereby given that the Neshaminy Water Resources Authority, 4259 Swamp lsvad, Doylestown, Pennsylvania 18901, has applied for a Department of the Army perr.it to construct a water intake structure in the Delaware River and under the Pennsylvania Canal, 600 feet downstream of the junction of Tohickon Creek and the Delaware River, State Route 32, Point Plesant, Bucks County, Pennsylvania.
The applicant's plans provide.or constructing a watet intake structure consisting o. cylindrical wedge-wire screens and support piping that would be loc ated on the bottom of the Delaware River and would extenu approximately 2QR feet channelward from the existing normal water level.
~
The plans also provide for constructing 3 conduits, each r:easuring 4 2 i t.c h e s epth in diameter and 250 feet in length that woulc be buttea at a mini ~.um s of 4 feet b(low the bed of the river and would esanect to the preposec water intake structure.
The plans also nravidt for e*cavattoi anM.ubic yards o:
material by dragline method durit.g the trenching opera. ion.
After the 3 conduits are installed the trench would be backi.lled with suitable material an.'
190 ubit sards of rw-rap would be deposit eil on t he river baar-for protection
. gainst erosion. The plans also provide for installing 450 linear feet of 60 inch diameter conduit at a minin.um depth o t 24 feet below the bed of Pennsylvania Canal. A temporary earthen cof terdan. would be utilized during the construction and trenching of the proposed 60 inch diameter conduit crossing under the Canal.
After the conduit is installed the trench would be backftlled with suitable material to pre-existing Canal bottom elevations.
The applicant's stated purpose of the proposed project is to extract water f rom the Delaware River for a drinking water supply system serving central portions of Bucks and Montgomery Counties, Pennsylvania, and for a portion of the cooling water system of an electric generating station et timerick, Pennsylvania. The location of the proposed work is shown on the attached plans.
The Delaware River Basin Commission is considered the lead agency for the u"erall project. The Delaware River basin Commission has prepared an Environmental Impact Statement (1973) and an updated Environment _al Assessment (1980) for the overall Point Pleasant water diversion project.
In addition, the Nuclear Regulatory Conaission is pteparing an operational Environmental Impact Statement for the Limerick generating station which will resiew the environmental impac ts associatea with the optration of the generating station including those tacilitics that are required to support its operation.
A portion of the project site (Pennsylvania Canal) lies within an area which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
This office will evaluate the probable impact of the proposed work on hidtotis resources within the permit area.
1
NAP ( -R-60-0$M-3 Nenhar in: Water Resot.rces Authority Comments on the work described above should be submitted, in writing, to the District Engineer at the above address within 30 days of the date of this notice.
The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the probable impact of the work on the public interest. That decision will reflect the national concern for both protection and utilization of The benefit wntcn reasonably may be expected to accrue impo r '.a nt resources.
fr om the work must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. All factors which may be relevant to the work will be considered; among those are conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns, historic values, fish and wildlife values, flood damage prevention, land use, navigation, recreation, water supply, water quality, energy needs, safety, food production, and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people. No permit will be granted unless its issuance is fous.d to be in public interest.
The evaluation of the impact at the work described above on the public interest will include application or the guideltnes promulgated by the Administrator, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, under authority of Section 404 (b) of the Clean Water Act.
Any person may request, in writing, to the District Engineer, within the comment period specified in this notice, that a public hearing be held to consider this application.
Requests for public hearings shall state, with particularity, the reasons f or holding a public hearing.
In accordance with hection 401 of :he Clean Water Act, a Water quality Certificate is necessary f rom the Pennsylvania Departnent of Er.vironmental Resources. Any comments concerning the work described above which relate to Water Quality Considerations should be sent to this office, with a l
copy to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Bureau of l
Water Quality Manar' ment, 187 5 New 11op.' St ract, Norristown, Pennsylvania 19401.
The processing of this Departt.ent af t he Arm / ;.c rmit upplicattun is under the statutory authority of Section 10 of the River and !! arbor Act of 1899 and i
Section 404 of the Clean Wa ter Ac t.
i FOR 111E DISTPICT ENGINEER:
ef EMAid 1
ROY E. DEN'4 ARK, J R.\\J Chief, Permits P, ranch l
i 9
L
R S00534 4
(\\NEW JERSEY
.c,.c..,..o,
.v c..t...
PL"' -.,
C.,,e.a'.a'.e".>>*.">'.'m*....<.............
j e "..'... <.. t. e.,.....,.
e.s, etus =t
.o e.-
g,,g, i
- o........
6..............s.
..t.,
, et G
...ca..tes.. esc e,
,,in.
...... n...
..u e.,,
__J
... 3. o.
- 3. n... o..
g 5+
@. c....e,..... i.. t.c,a,.
s
.....t,....
I non t s t eww s
l
~e
+,J,+,
y PENNSYLVANIA s cuatt p
a y
g
,,t.,
e y.,,,,,,
Ptast <eeG
,E f'
l C. s,
,-..w, g
j
,$,T A f ir e.
g, s%**
\\
}l*' n
[
VICINIT Y MAP e
j
~
gt g
3
]
g 4
.c.it e,,esei, ie o mits.
g g
d s%.< r. c'e s.c.. t et.==ic'
,.ae
.o...,io, es..
)
] 6;.% kCy,
y"l
- =
6 I
5 f
Ny of
$U l~'(47" CON 3Jif 3
o co N
l E
-dy 3
~~
a v a-en y
-i
~
y'O
, l f'~,,J N,, g k
,M
/
I
~~
m 3i H!
o aw
- i. 9 n., sou~ f l a.yl;:a k
4 w/ e c,
j t.
o:s t 1 :i n.
p...J o
g el
-- /p/
a assc u k +
.,,,.,u
. < \\\\ J
..V-(_a/
fe
-)
u g A mi j
- /
j
)
- 1. t.? 'Oh I
{,y A.
e
,oc n
Ytuppaavi s'oca i
r,a.sr.
......<,m.m, sent
- rit, 5
~
7 C(ee.. it l
I' 8"9 h.
- '**'A'rj.'e,'.',73
_ 25,,*81L ' 't' 'O i
l l
N_..__
- vit o,..,". I N
- 4 Y1 q, l'
,t..,--
xl'
,, " rA,........-
PEN NSYLVANI A NEW JERSEY M re;c a s com v ws, t.: c a.
cousi y l
Nf 6 *t
~
CEL r+ A h!
HILER
\\
- n. ee m
i e
\\
s l
- c. me. pap s
s
.o.........,,... u,,
u,,,, u _._
i
\\.......t,,ne.t._._
i
.p m.
- f a f ntan schf r%
i r-1 asst we.'
G
/
.. d-
...c au:r c.r.cm,
g ',4 _ _ /
nI3 i
DA & C l
5*of
- .......,,,,,i.....,
N E SHA%NY v.ATER SUPPLY SYSTEM
...v.,u
.n........,....
,.o.., e., n t'
i-t = 's e
C POINT PLEASANT co. '
u......
r-wm.c. _ _ _
31,c c,
.. e ", "
PUMPlNG STATION
.w i n c...i.e.,
.sc c, 3.i.
c,
..c.. a.....
.....c.
WATER INT %KE
. x...
- .< e,
,e.% r % r=
,o se o
.e...n..=.. c...t c.c s. =t
__ 2 c
.v= a si.
,c ai i,e : c.
sr. e.* 'EI' PLUv5 TEA 3 TCPWNS D i
U$.*r.[t
[.I c ',
8JCi'S COUNTY, Pt.NNSYLVt.NI A
,,5, s u s t,,,,
,,.o
.s...est s,.a.i.e,o.
..,t.
s...,
e sei =6e ce.,
8
[
3_ _ _
1 800534 x &
g u f
- 2' C O* T s'T {TYP) 2 5 eq r 9 ll s;
]
) -
U CI! I iTD
~
TDbD r% tap [ $CRf f %
INTAKE SCREEN t.R R AN GE M E NT es to a
.o e
o._.
,r e w._..-
[*'
E
%1Aa6 $"=ttN
(%
,. s i t N *s LsG s
n
- _ <c n-
,jg q
' ""1 ii i jn{
}
i.
(
I MI
[
1 $
r
+
a 7
n p
I s
'I I
g' I
ij ki!I f
,i l
s
-- w g ;
E h *, CONFS PL ACf D 24* FLANGE LT UPSTRE AM AND DCwNSTREAh.thD$ OF air SA: mea $M D r 51 R.86T OR ppt IhTAmt ARR A)
INTAKE SCREEN DE 1 AILS
(
e o
a
??m.
...a w-scat t.= s ta v W,N u.w m ATER Lf vf L FL 68 0
}
AIR B ACa mA$M DISTR DJ10R P PE 3
e 1tt atLL SC.*f F h l
-.. ;.?,.
S'.-.
i 7
/
\\
pi ta sof tew
-~--k g.
D d>
y ry i
\\
NESH/W N( W AT ER SUFPLY SYSTE M l
-- u[h POINT PLEASANT
{
2_".M
_ O O
PUMPlNG STATION I
IN TAKE SCREENS s
' r
- c o w.t
"'UM STEAD TOWNSE P E w AuEn iu., t ;t1..
d JC # 5 COUNT Y, P ENNSY t..AN. A
,n g
g
""5 swet seno
- n.r
, '/ \\
(/
d'/ ',1 /
)
T111S IS NOT A PAID ADVERTISEMENT s
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PHILADELPHI A DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
/
CUSTOM HOUSE-2 D & CHESTNUT STREETS PHILADELPHIA. PENNSYLVANIA 191oS 9 February 1982 o.
set,esetato NAPOP-R-80-0534-3 Supplement Number 1 PUBLIC NOTICE This is a supplement to the public notice bearing the above number issued 6 April 1981 concerning the application by Neshaminy Water Resources Authority, 2875 Old York Road, P.O. Box 378, Jamison, Pennsylvania 18929, for a Department of the Army permit to build a water intake structure in the Delaware River, at Point Pleasant, Bucks County, Pennsylvania, as more fully described in the basic notice. Notice of a public hearing was issued on 10 August 1981, and the hearing took place on 15 September 1981.
The applicant has made engineering revisions in its plans, as shown on the attached drawings numbered E-1 and E-2 dated January 1982. The revisions in brief are:
1.
Relocate the intake structure 45 feet further channelward in the Delaware River.
Place three intake pipes (42 inch diameter) under the Delaware River 2.
6 feet apart instead of 22.5 feet apart.
Relocate the intake pipe crossing under the Pennsylvania Canal 3.
approximately 18 feet northward, and increase the diameter of this pipe from 60 inches to 72 inches.
4.
Lower the pump sump and the entire length of intake pipes f rom invert elevation 58.00 feet to invert elevation 53.75 feet.
Change the designation of the minimum water level elevation of the 1
5.
Delaware River from 68.0 feet to 70.0 feet.
j The stated purpose for revisions 1 through 4 is to increase the operating efficiency of the water intake facility and to lessen any environmental impact.
The Revision number 5 reflects up to date hydrologic information and data.
purpose of the intake structure and its capacity are unchanged.
M
.. f fc OGER L. BALDWIN Lieutenant Colonel, Corps of Engineers f
District Engineer l
l b
Q2cV O u
u
o s
NEW JERSEY}
4,,,
4 0. it e.it,=0.caTv 0.Ntas N
PLI AI A"
- e l
f
& g(3TA g
@ G Aa AS,10w ARD Cm vgn n(AD,00s SSS point PLE ASANT, P(Nes$YLvANIA feeSO PROJECT,p
@ asN$wAP. GRAHAM 4 wiCMELEmovgm 'OAD,80I 3ST,P0isst PLE ASANT, Pt tsN$YLVANiA Is,30
+
s j
t
+
e
@ n,As,c4 ARLES 4. 4 J0 Ass C.n0&o,e0s Se, point PLEASANT,et.NsvLvamAtesso g
iv g e wrustm g sc,. ioca,ta cc A
,uaia.o.. NNiTLva.A i.. 0
,0,.
ess&L,0st?
/
'c &
4-L...
s
(
muu..a sTATio I
.0.,0 p
.A t
,iNec g
t, L 4,
-/
C t
s 0,
g 4~!
I n, '
g,0m.AT Mp-- $ _____ 0 e T,<INE,
y j
J:
.r-s A
(
11 r:
VIC I NIT Y MAP' h
~,
8 u#
',f U
4:'
>f 0
g,,a,',Av t c
[-
.. g 1
n s
c,.L.... u,A.,0....
,c w
3
.0u.c.,,,ic,At oL~y f;
,p N !
', p.
5 o
k h@ l}
I [Y g,: h.%k I !f $$ hih! Ol
. i c p4r' %
e L
o m
yc i
- n d
a
@ 4.$,?
~
t[ E Gl l
<n 5 to a
- l
' hy k
2 v
kE y,)Y,'
? y '=0A0 0%. lpll E
La 1
u<
Access
}l 2/
a.
to 3
,/ [,,
t i j
I %.T -
g 3 - 42' 01 A CONou,T $
,,,,,g, p
g INTARE SC8lEEN AS$EWBLY TfwPOAARY P'JespiNG uAx. *Af ta L Evit (L iO3 STOCNDsLE ARE A-PLAN
$TAtl0%
w i00 e'
50 0 t00 v
2 oc Lc..ri, CON =As 3
P EN NSYLVANI A NEW JERSEY
.s E
5 Sucas C OUNTY NupeT E R DON COUNTY N
_ tow p&t.
' ? --
~
RIVER "' *~ "
j DEL AWARE Man matte Lf vtl EL 103 0 e
'M-jf t 60$ 0 Mau watta LEVEL EL 1030 3
g s
}
CetGINAL GROUND LINE l -
IF/
4 EL OS O N04WAL MATER LEVEL EL. 72.e -
e N
T gqnygg g ham w&TER LtytL EL.70 0]
,(
j T2" Da A INTANECONoulf}
m \\ msmA>
Ul IN v E RT i
l 42"DI A CONouff 3 h iNTARE $CREEN ASSEW8tY f t S3 TS INVERT EL. S$ TS f
INVERT EL. 53 75 OATuu 40 Detsenet movin mt.at ova.tifies wre >..oe at.Aten PROFILE NESHAM!NY WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM Ltytt Lfu r7 S moni DavaL comuo r acavate. sees c.r.
POINT PLEASANT acca Escatafie.
T54 CY 100 0
t00 900
.., er
.cate - e :T PUMPING STATION l
.. c.,. a...
0c..
... e,
.. m
..ia ca..t cnoisi
,,,,,c. L WATER INTAKE r0 0
=0
. A.Titii. u.oe. cam PLUMSTE AD TOWNSHIP co..c. incavat.0
....c.,
.cALa iN par' noca escavatic.
ese Cr s&cu eia esos c v.
BUCKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA age, i,g g sisTtu PyaPCSt e t.sstTALL ATIO. Os satta.uPPLY
(*l*h D atues i. v 0. Of is t9
e i
8 ' 6=- 4 2 " C o n Duf t (TYP)
' I e
) e=
I'l e1l l r
,l s
SE /{*
\\'N I i l*s
's h,
' /, /
i l
','s, as* Eteow itvPi FLOW l l l l
tNTAmt SCnEEN t i v P)
L_
INTAKE SCREEN ARRANGMENT es as to is so e o sc.Ltin cert tt4" 4
_40"SCREEh, LENG7M lNTAKE SCREEN g
/
ule Illhlli _ g h d dlj!
i
.i s
E ND CCNES PL ACE 0 INTAKE SCREEN DETAIL AT up5Tataw ANo I
DO*NST RE AM ENOS OF IN1 Au[ ARR AY I
- SCALE Im Fit?
u N uuu WATER LEvEt Et TO O Ft ffO 40" Dia INT AK E SCREEN AiPRAP f
CH ANNEL BOTTow q N
I I $Y1
(
Ib l
APPR0x ROCK LsNE
, y m
NESHAMINY WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM Station 4 2" Dia C c Novit - J l
STEEt Casino POINT PLE ASANT PUMPING STATION
.r, u aEouCE.
INTAKE SCREENS ENLARGED INTAKE DETAll PLUMSTEAD TOWNSHIP BUCKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
'O
_o
'L _ _' _T. J." "
E a 63
'~.