ML20037A638
| ML20037A638 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 03/01/1973 |
| From: | Schwencer A US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8003250648 | |
| Download: ML20037A638 (2) | |
Text
.
~
$6t'kU h4$A s
MAR 1 1973
}%
i Docket No. 5,0 ^t02' i
t \\,
Note to Files TELECON FROM J0FN HANCOCK - FLORIDA P0kTR CORPORATION (FPC) - REGrGING' CRYSTAL RIVER 3 FLOOD CONTROL REVIN PROPOSAL
,Mr. Hancock called en February 21, 1973 in regard to February 15, 1973
=eeting held with members of.the Technical Review group concerning the flood level question. The following infor:stion was obtained in this
. phene conversatien.
Apparently, the Technical Review staff indicated that resolution of the ficed level question requires one of 4 choices.
- 1) Florida Power Carperation accepts the staff's 33.4 foot value,-2) :he staff accepts Florida Power Corporation's 29.6 foot value, 3) a cc preciae value of-32.1 foot (appeared :.robably acceptable to the staff) or 4) the staf f would be willing to have its consultant proceed with a 6 :onth evaluation considering =cre historical floods and further evaluating the Dames and Moore evaluation model.
Mr. Hancock-indicated tha he was instructed by Mr. Hul an to reply no later than Septe=ber 16, 1973 with.a Flcrida Pcwer Cerporn:ic: tcp
=anagement decision as to how they wished to proceed with this ca:ter.
Mr. Hanecek crated that the top =anage:ent of FPC me: en this catter early this week and the FPC positicn is to-stick with the 29.6 foot; level. FPC accepts as reasonable that the staff =2y wish to further verify the basis for that value. FPC therefore wishes to proceed with alternate No. 4 and promote the AEC Regulatory staff study that would:
=ake use of the Dames and Moore evaluation =odel.
He indicated that PPC was concerned, however, that for the staff to allow its consultant-a 6 onth evaluation time does not see like the staff was i= posing the same priorities on its consultant as were being i= posed on FPC.
k~nen pressed for other reasons of the unacceptability of a 6 nonth study time, he felt that it would have cn adverse inpact en ec=pletica of the AEC licensing review schedule as they understand-1: frc= the AEC Project Manager.
8003 250 b
-- 2--
He indicated that FPC would be willing to delay their decision on plant codifications for an additional 60 to 90 days pending completion of this study.
I cautioned him that there would be no assurance that the study when ec=pleted would result in staff acceptance of FPC's 29.6 foot value.
In fact, the study could even result in a value higher than the 33.4 foot level that had been calculated by the staff. lie stated he was aware that the staff =ade no guarantee that further study of this matter would result in a reduction in the allowable flood level.
Original Signed By A. Schwencer A. Schwencer, Chief Pressurized Water Reactors 3 ranch No. 4 Directorate of Licensing O
@k cci AGianbusso Jiiendrie v
s RCDeYcung 9
- g\\p IIDenton
' "y P 3Ga=2111
\\>
Jdul:an liJFaul'. ner ECEuckley Ea sa.
CmCE >
g.g.{tgg 4 sunsawr > A.S.C.D.V.9.
9.F.?d
~
sa t > I.71.....V.... 02.I l
l
.....[-
Form AEc-Sl* iArv. 9 42, AECM 0340
- v. s. oorramurar ret:ma orrrs iste o..Js.m I