ML19308E154

Forwards Comments on Des by Soil Conservation Svc.Forest Svc to Communicate Comments Directly to AEC Upon Des Review Completion

ML19308E154
Person / Time
Site:	Crystal River
Issue date:	10/30/1972
From:	Tschirley F AGRICULTURE, DEPT. OF
To:	Muller D US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
References
NUDOCS 8003240659
Download: ML19308E154 (3)

Text

AEC DISI'RIBUTION FOR PART 50 DOCKET MERIAL (TEMPORARY FORM)

CONTROL NO: 5951 l

4,.

1 pig ENVIRO FILE j

FROM: Department of Agriculture DATE OF DOC:

DATE REC'D LTR MEMO RP2 OTER f

Wechington, D.C.

20250 I

Frcd T. Schirley 10-30-72 10-31-72 X

TO:

ORIG CC OTER SShT AEC FD3 E

SEN2 LOCAL PDR F

3 Mr. Daniel L Muller 1 signed j

CIASS:

g/PROPINFO INPUT NO CYS REC'D DOCET 50:

i 1

50-302 DESCRIPTION:

Ltr trans the following:

ENCLOSURES: DOA(Forest Service) Comments on Draft Enviro Statement for Crystal River Plant Unit 3....

i

~

j (1 cy encl rec'd) h,hMI

((}

NH H yg g

PLANT NAMESt Crystal River Unit 3 FOR ACTION /INFORMATION DL 11-1-72 BUTLER (L)

ICF(FECER(L)

SCHEMEL(L)

KNIGHI'ON(E)

W/ Copies W/fCopies W/ Copies W/ Copies CLARK (L)

STOLZ(L)

ZIEMANN(L)

YOUNGBIDOD(E) i W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies

'/ Copies COILER (L)

VASSALID(L) '

CHITWOOD(FM)

- AN(3)

W/[opies W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Comics KNIEL(L)

H. DEIEON DICKERfE)

W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies INfEPJ!AL DISTRIBUTION bG FIL3E TECH REVIEW VOLLMER MS WADE E

MEC FDR HM4DRIE DENTON SHAFER F&M CGC, ROOM P-506A SCHROEDER GRIMES F&M BROWN E

87fZING/ STAFF MACCARY GAMMILL SMILEY

$6. WILLIAMS E CASE LANGE KASTNER NUSSBAUMER M.GOULBOURNE L GIAMBUSSO PAWLICKI BALIARD A/TIND BOYD-L(BWR)

SHA0 FINE LIC ASST.

3RAITMAN M UNG-L(PWR)

KNfH SERVICE L SALTZyAN SKOVHOLT-L STELIO ENVIRO PASON L

P. COLLINS MOORE MULLER WIISON L

PLANS HOUSTON DICKER MAIGRET L MCDONALD BEG OPR TEDESCO KNIGHTON SMITH L

DUBE OPPILE & REGION (2)

IDNG YOUNCBICOD GEARIN L

MORRIS CINAS PE0J LElJER DIGGS L

INFO C. MILES

/

6 STELLE 3ENAROYA TEETS L

8 003 240 de LEE L

REGAN EXTERNAL DTSTRIBUI' ION

-LOCAL PDR Crystal River, Fla.

1-prIE(ABERNATHY)

(1)$ NATIONAL LAB'S[NNb 1-M-SAN /IA/NY 1-NSIC(BUCHANAN) 1-R. CARROLL-0C3 GT-B227 1-GERALD LEIlDUCHE 1.ASLB-YORE /SAYRE M-R.-CATLIN,A-170-GT BROOKHAVEN NAT. LAB wCDWAD/H. ST.

1-CONSUIAuriS 1-AGMED(WALTER K0 ESTER, 16-CYS ACES HOLDING NEWMARK/BLUME/AGABIC Pm C 427, GT) 1-RD... MULLER...F-309GT

s.

,~.,

e.

SMs.,

~*

7, ;., - i r

-e

.3, r e. ' ' ~~

50-302

--._--. : =---.,

c-

.c

:2;

/ N

'dc, c.r ;\\ ? N S

ff

(~. !

0 na:.a n J

October 30, 1972 OCT311372>$

g t1 n: !; n.I c;71: :1 U-Et;.aaic y

/N Mr. Daniel R. Muller

ain sums g of Director of Licensing

/

cP 8Y Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C.

20545:

Dear Mr. Muller:

We have had the draft environmental impact statement for the Florida Power Corporation's Crystal River Unit No. 3 reviewed in the relevant agencies of the Department of Agriculture.

Comments from the Soil Conservation Service, an agency of the Department, are enclosed.

The Forest Service, also an agency of the Department, has not yet completed its review. Forest Service will communi-cate with you directly if it has comments.

i r

Sincerely,

~

"P fi FRED H. TSCHIRLEY Assistant Coordinator Environmental Quality Acti'.ities Enclosure

.~

,s Sotl Conservation Service, USDA Comments on Draft Environmental Statement prepared by Florida Power Corporation and U. S. Atomic Energy Commission for Crystal River Unit 3 (Operating License Stage).

The Environmental Report consisting of five volumes prepared by the Florida Power Corporation and the Draf t Environmental Statement prepared by the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission for the Crystal River Unit 3 has been reviewed by the Soil Conservation Service.

The report is no doubt correct when the statement is made on page V-16 that a ground water withdrawal of less than 1 million gallons per day (listed in the AEC Report as 0.6 MOD) will have a negligible impact, but the analysis seems to over state the situation by referring to a recharge area considerably larger than that contributing ground water to the plant site. A more meaningful comparison might show the probable amount of ground water entaring the area of th,e power plant balanced against the other points of major ground water withdrawals,- natural or man-made, from the same source.

The increased velocity in tha discharge canal resulting from the Unit 3 addition is discussed on page V-64.

Mention is made of the probability that the resulting canal scouring will produce turbid water conditions.

Elsewhere, in the report (pages 'V-14 and V-102 for axample) it is stated that the discharge canal is to be enlarged, but it is not clear what effect the enlargetent will have on the velocity in the car.al.

If the enlargement reduces the velocity to a non-scouring magnitude, this should be stated in Section V.

However, in the event that turbid water conditions will exist even af ter canal enlargement, the impact of ths occurrence should be either outlined in Section V or aa explanation should be presented in Section VIII of why it cannot be avoided. We suggest that the mechanics of degradation of stream channels is reasonably well understood and that design parameters exist that when applied to proportioning canals for the movement of water, essentially a-.1 scouring is eliminated in the resulting product.

i I

1 l

l

.-