ML19317G589
| ML19317G589 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 11/02/1971 |
| From: | Morris P US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Rodgers J FLORIDA POWER CORP. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8003200634 | |
| Download: ML19317G589 (4) | |
Text
__
,/
g
'e UNITED STATES g l. 1 ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
.{
4
' g,,
p WASHINGTON. D.C.
20545 November 2, 1971 Docket No. 50-302 Florida Power Corporation ATTN: Mr. J. T. Rodgers Nuclear Project Manager 101 Fifth Street South St. Petersburg, Florida 33701
Dear Mr. Rodgers:
On the basis of our review of your statement as to the reasons why construction should not be suspended pending completion of the NEPA environmental review for the Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Plant, we find that we need additional information to complete our evaluation.
The specific information required is listed in the enclosure.
It is our intent to evaluate the statement and additional information and to make a determination relating to consideration of suspension of construction with all due dispatch. Therefore, we request that you forward your reply in time to reach us by November 15, 1971.
Please contact us if you desire any discussion or clarification of the material requested.
Sincerely, J
Peter A. Mo is, Dir ctor Division of Reactor Licensing
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information cc: w/ enc 1.
Edgard H. Dunn, Vice President
& General Counsel 101 Fifth Street South St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 8003200C W N
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 3 NUCLEAR PLANT DOCKET NUMBER 50-302 1
1 We are concerned about the environmental effects that might result from l
high water temperatures in the discharge channel of the proposed cooling system for Crystal River Unit 3.
This concern was also identified in a
]
letter of October 4,1971, fran the Fish and Wildlife Service to the AEC, a copy of which we forwarded to you previously.
The Crystal River Unit 3 cooling system consists of a once-through system drawing sea water from the open, Gulf of Mexico through intake canals and discharging water back into the Gulf through discharge canals. The design cooling water flow through the condenser results in an approximately 170F rise in the temperature of the cooling water at the end of the plant discharge canal. Florida Power Corporation (FPC) states that the cooling water condenser and piping for Unit 3 are being installed presently and that the installation of these components aithin the plant proper will preclude the possibility of redesign ut cue condenser system to affect a reduced temperature rise.
If a reduction in the temperature rise is required, additional means of cooling the condenser discharge flow will be incorporated through the use of external or add-on components to the main cooling system facility. FPC has identified four salt-water cooling design alternatives that might be used to reduce the temperature rise. These alternatives include (1) dilution of discharge water, (2) open spray cooling, (3) cooling ponds, and (4) cooling towers.
It is our present understanding that excavation of the intake and outfall canal extensions and construction of the intake and discharge structures for the once-through cooling system has not yet started.
Provide the following additional information with respect to the cooling water system:-
1.
Describe the type of material that will be removed in excavating the intake and outfall canal extensions. How much material will be displaced ? Describe your plans for disposal of diis material and its impact upon the surrounding environment.
2.
Demonstrate that excavation of the intake and outfall canal extensions and construction of the intake and discharge structures does not foreclose any of 'the four cooling alternatives identified in your s ta t emettt, i.e., dilution of the discharge water, open spray cooling, cooling ponds, and cooling towers.
q, DISTRIBUTION Docket File AEC PDR Local PDR DR Reading DRL Reading PWR-4 Reading C. K. Beck M. M. Mann S. H. Hanauer F. Schroeder R. S. Boyd R. C. DeYoung T. R. Wilson R. W. Klecker DRS/DRL Branch Chiefs F. W. Karas J. Scinto, OGC A. Schwencer H. Faulkner G. Blanc L. Rodgers
o 2 -
~
3.
Provide information that shows that excavation of the intake and outfall canal extensions and construction of the, intake structures and discharge structures will not affect the technical feasibility or economic practicality of later cdoption of each of the four alternativt cooling methods listed in Item 3.
4.
Describe the impact of an approximate delay of eight months in commencing excavation of the intake canal extension or the outfa ll canal extension, or both, upon the availability of the plant for commercial service and upon project costs.
e