ML20040A012
| ML20040A012 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 01/13/1982 |
| From: | Bivans E FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20040A010 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8201200173 | |
| Download: ML20040A012 (550) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:; UNITED STALES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION EEFORE TI-E ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ) Florida Power & Light Company ) Docket No. 50-389A (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, ) Unit No. 2) SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT OF EREST L. ENVANS (January 13, 1982) EREST L. BIVANS, being first duly sworn, deposes and says, as follows:
- 1. My name is Ernest L. Bivans. My business adJress is 9250 West Flagler Street, Miami, Florida. I am Vice President, System Planning for Florida Power &
Light Company (FPL). > 2. I previously submitted an Affidavit in this proceeding, dated August 5, 1981, in which I addressed certain business activities and policies of Florida Power & Light Company in which I have been personally involved, including FPL's activities with regard to the Florida Operating Committee (FOC) and FPL's planning and construction of its generation and transmission facilities from 1960 to the present. My experience with FPL and my technical background are detailed in that Affidavit at paragraphs 1-5 and 14.
- 3. At counsel's request, I have read the December 11,1981 Memorandum and Order of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in this proceeding.
8201200173 820118 PDR ADOCK 05000389 PDR g
1
- 4. The discussion on pages 33-45 of the Memorandum and Order focuses chiefly upon four documents from the 1960-1971 period prior to the formation of the Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group (FCG). The first two documents cited by l
the Board are: a letter dated November 3,1964 from Robert Fite, then FPL's President, to the municipality of Jacksonville inviting that City to participate in a long-range planning study (Exhibit 15); and a July 1966 Interim Report by a study group for an FOC Subcommittee on the "Long-Range Generation-Transmission Planning Study"(Exhibit 16). These documents should be considered together because the Study referred to in Mr. Fite's letter is in fact the "Long-Range Generation-Transmission Planning Study" which eventuated in the " Interim Report". In other words, the two documents concern one and the same thing---the long-range planning study which was begun but not completed. i l l l S. Then, as now, each utility developed and followed its own individual generating plan. The basic objective of the Long-Range Generation-Transmission Planning study was to compare the costs of the individual generation and transmission plans actually being used by the participating municipal and private utilities versus hypothetical alternative plans which would treat those utilities "as a single unit". The study was intended to be a first step in determining whether planning generation on a group basis might be practicable and beneficial, as compared to proceeding on an individual basis. However, this step was never achieved.
- 6. As the study proceeded, interest in the project waned. After the Interim Report was written, the participants did not deem it productive to proceed further:
l l the project was dropped and neither of the objectives stated in the Interim Report were pursued to completion. The Interim Report did little more than identify some hypothetical " single unit" plans which would have been subject to further study. None 1 l of the hypothetical plans even went so far as to indicate which utilities were to build 1 which units. The actual plans of the utilities involved were never analyzed for investment or production costs or compared against a " single unit" approach on these bases, nor were any transmission configurations costed. As FPL's representative to the FOC Subcommittee, it was apparent to me from the Interim Report that no tangible benefits from a " single unit" approach to planning had been identified. Moreover,I considered the data contained in the Interim Report to be so obsolete as to I be essentially useless at the time the Interim Report was issued. During the period 1960-1971, FPL was experiencing extraordinarily rapid load growth. The magnitude and unpredictability of this increase required FPL to change its load forecast and its individual generating plan frequently. The same phenomenon also affected, to some extent, some of the other utilities in the study. By the time the Interim Report was issued, the data assumptions contained in it largely reflected conditions which no longer existed and provided no useable basis for any planning decisions.
- 7. In sum, the " Interim Report" represented a preliminary effort to investigate whether joint planning of power production facilities might be beneficial if engaged in. This investigation was dropped by the participants and no such joint -
planning occurred. During the remainder of the period 1960-1971 and until the FCG conducted certain studies in 1976-1977, I am aware of no other serious further effort made by an FOC committee even to investigate the possibility of such joint planning.
~ . _ _ _ _ __ ___ . _ _ _ _ _ __
1 It was my view that the coalescence of a number of factors made such planning impracticable at the time. Conditions of extremely rapid load growth made accelerated decision-making on unit additions imperative. The experience of the long-J J range study indicated that at least several years would be involved even in the i preliminary stages of any joint plan before any recommendation as to construction of units could be developed. This was simply too long to wait before making planning decisions. Moreover, as I noted above, the obsolescence of the data in the meantime was a major additional problem. An equally difficult problem was the absence of any l mechanism, assuming joint planning had been adopted, for determining which utility l would build which units and how such a program could be coordinated. FPL's
' management was reluctant to cede the responsibility for decisions on such matters to a committee. My understanding is that a number of the other utilities involved shared I these views.
L
- 8. In its Memorandum and Order, the Board, citing the objectives of the a
j study, indicated that in the Interim Report "the mutual advantages of the utilities, for In fact, the both generation and transmission, could be laid bare for all to see". Interim Report contained no comparisons between possible joint plans and the utilities' individual generation plans, and no such comparisons were ever performed during the time period. Thus, whether the hypothetical plans calculated for the group as a whole, ) including those containing nuclear units, were advantageous or disadvantageous to particular members, even accepting the obsolete data in the Interim Report, could not be determined. And, contrary to the quotation above, no transmission plan was ever 1 4
completed. As Assistant Chief Engineer for FPL, I regarded the long-range study as a project which had been abandoned in mid-stream because it was not producing any worthwhile results.
- 9. The Memorandum and Order focuses upon two other documents from the 1960-1971 period. The first is a 1960 report entitled, "A Coordinated Plan for the 1970 Generation-Transmission Requirements for the Electric Utilities of Florida",
(Document 12). The second is a document described as having been submitted in 1963 to the Federal Power Commission by a Southeast Regional Advisory Committee entitled, " National Power Survey 1963-1980, State of Florida (Federal Power Commission Study Area 24) February,1963" (Document 13). I have no knowledge as to whether this document was in fact submitted to the Federal Power Commission.
- 10. With respect to the 1960 Report: "A Coordinated Plan for the 1970 Generation-Transmission Requirements for the Electric Utilities of Florida" (Document 12), the Memorandum and Order quotes from the third full paragraph on Page 6 of the Report. That paragraph reads, in pertinent part:
the major savings accruing through integrated planning will be in the field of bulk power supply-new generating equipment. The staggered installation of larger and more efficient units can become a reality only if participation in each unit is on an
" equalized (sic) reserve" basis. This means sale of capacity to and/or purchase from the reserve pool....
i I was FPL's representative on the planning committee which issued this Report and helped supervise the computer analysis used in it. This passage states a view as to how planning could proceed in the future. In fact, Document 12 does not, by its own terms, represent an effort at such planning.
- 11. The FOC utilities have never, to my knowledge, adopted participation in units on an " equalized reserve basis". I know for certain that FPL has not participated in any such arrangement. Nor, did FPL ever plan for or engage in " staggered installation" of generation units. Consideration of the recommendation quoted above consisted of the "Long-Range Generation-Transmission Planning Study" that, as I have described in paragraphs 4-8 above, was begun in 1964 and abandoned without being completed.
- 12. The Memorandum and Order goes on to say, with respect to Document 12:
The plan then sets forth a variety of options specifying the number, size, and location of generators required for each option. The 1960 Report (Document 12) did not in fact set forth various options for the size, number, and location of generating units. Instead, the Report, as did others like it, considered the reliability of the interconnected transmission system. Where utilities are physically interconnected and operating in parallel, electrical disturbances on one system can affect the systems of other utilities, Likewise, if a load imbalance occurs in one point in the interconnected system, due to emergency conditions, unbalanced loading of transmission lines, or other reasons, each utility's reliability can be
affected. To address these problems, it is desirable for interconnected utilities to conduct loadflow studies to assess whether their transmission plans will be adequate and reliable. In order to conduct such reliability studies, it is necessary to use as a postulate the actual generation plans of the utilities involved. The reason is that the purpose of such studies la to assess whether the interconnected system will be reliable when the utilities proceed to implement their individual power production plans. An individual generation plan must be decided upon by each utility before conducting such studies, if they are to be of any value in assessing reliability. In my prior Affidavit, I attempted to explain the above process by stating that in these studies each member's decisions on generation were taken as a "given".
- 13. Thus, the 1960 Report only contains one generation " option"---that is, the individual generation plans adopted by the members before embarking on the study.
No alternatives to the individual plans of the utilities were studied or suggested. What is assessed is the reliability of the interconnected system when those plans went into effect. The data in the Report, as I mentioned in my prior Affidavit, provided a useful input for the transmission determinations of individual systems and provided some flexibility in the location of generating units already committed within individual systems.
- 14. With respect to the 1963 document (Document 13), the Memorandum and Order is mistaken in stating that this document was " compiled" by engineers of FPL and others. The document indicates that utility engineers " complied" the data it
\ contains. The contribution of FPL's engineers consisted solely in the submission, upon
i I request, of FPL's independent planning data concerning its own system. FPL personnel did not participate in writing any of the text and the authors of the document are not indicated. The document is not a study. It simply purports to provide the FOC utilities' then current individual generation and transmission plans. It provides no enalysis of such plans. The Board recites the following language from this document: General: Coordinated planning of the generating and tran:> mission facilities of the four major utilities in the study area has been carried on by planning committees made up of personnel from Florida Power and Light Company, Florida Power Corporation, and Tampa Electric Company. At the present, there is a general plan in effect which is serving as a guide for expansion up to the year 1970. This plan is based upon the " single system" approach taking into consideration factors such as pooling of reserves, the sharing of units, area protection with inter-area transmission ties so that the expansion pattern would be one that is well coordinated among the participating companies. This statement does not accurately describe FPL's practices at that time, or at any time since. There was in fact no " single system" plan for " sharing of units" in existence among FOC members. Indeed, the statement is contradicted by the data provided in the document: none of the units were identified in the document as joint or shared units. FPL certainly participated in no such " plan". Similarly, FPL did not pool or share with other utilities its installed reserves. Nor was there any " single system" general plan in effect as a guide for expansion. To my knowledge, the utilities in the FOC made expansion decisions on an individual basis. This is how FPL's planning decisions were made. 8
l i l I
- 15. In making its commitments to or in formulating its plans for any of its generating units,, including St. Lucie Unit No. 2, FPL did not rely upon any of the FOC studies cited in the Memorandum and Order or upon any other FOC study. Indeed, it would have been contrary to the nature of those studies to do so. Eeah such study accepted as given the plans which the individual utilities had already determined.
They simply contained no information FPL deemed of significant relevance to determining whether to build generation or deciding upon the size, type, or timing of units that should be built.
- 16. By the same token, the FOC studies did not produce any " planning advantages" which influenced FPL's planning for nuclear generation in any respect, or which made it "more attractive" for FPL to plan for nuclear generation. The type of generation intended to be installed by a member was irrelevant to the planning studies performed by the FOC planning committee because those studies assessed only the reliability of the interconnected transmission system--for which purpose the type of unit installed did not make a difference. A unit required the same transmission regardless of whether it used nuclear, oil, gas, or coal fuel.
- 17. The Memorandum and Order contains the following statement with respect to my prior Affidavit:
One inference FPL might like us to derive from the Bivans testimony can not legitimately be drawn. Mr. Bivans states that individual generation plans of members were taken as a given. In a sense that is correct. However, the plans explored various generation options and this would have been very seful to members in solidifying their plans. Hence, we conclude that these studies did serve as guides by which members decided what mutual generation and transmission additions would best serve them.
Aside from the never-completed long-range planning study, the FOC studies did not explore various generation plans or attempt to develop a joint plan for generation additions. They concerned the adequacy of the members' individual transmission plans, given the specific, individual generation plans they had actually selected before each such study was performed. No alternative generation plans were considered. With respect to transmission, the studies served as useful inputs to each utility's individual transmission plans. However, the analysis of transmission was based on the specific generation plans of the members. There were no joint or " mutual" generation additions involving FPL during the period 1960-1971, and FPL determined its internal transmission additions to its system unilaterally as well. As I have noted above and in my prior Affidavit, FPL did not utilize the FOC planning studies as a " guide" for its own generation additions. Moreover, the facts of which I am aware suggest that other members did not do so either. As noted above, the Interim Report of the long-range planning study (1966) is the only FOC document which contains any generation
" options" different from the individual plans already decided upon by the members.
Below I have set forth an exhibit, prepared under my supervision, which compares
" Option 9B", the one apparently deemed most likely to yield promise by the Interim Report (Document 16), with the actual subsequent generating decisions undertaken by the utilities involved. This exhibit shows that the " plan" in the Interim Report was in fact not followed as to number, size, or type of units. The only units actually constructed by FPL that bear any resemblance to units listed in " Option 9B" are units to which FPL had already committed at the time that the Interim Report was prepared.
)
, I
- 19. The Mernorandum and Order states:
Fite says that FPL's interconnections did not cause it to
" postpone" bringing generating units on line. However, if others had postponed bringing their units on line, their demand for a portion of FPL's capacity would have benefited (sic) FPL.
Furthermore, Fite said that FPL "did not want" other systems to rely on interconnections in order to postpone units. However, he has not denied that FPL created conditions-- through foint planning--that permitted competitors to implement mutually advantageous delays in insta!!!ng units.
... There is no genuine issue of fact concerning the use of the studies for economic benefit.
4 I am not aware of any instance in which another FOC utility deferred a unit in order to rely on FPL's capacity. Moreover, in the circumstances that actually existed, it would not have made sense for such utilities to do so and FPL could not conceivably have benefited from any such deferra!. During the period 1960-1971, FPL was faced with extremely rapid load growth---the rates of growth are set forth in my prior Affidavit at Paragraph 15---and experienced difficulty in installing generation and transmission facilities to keep pace with increasing demand. FPL faced capacity shortages for this reason, and due to regulatory delays Iri its Turkey Point nuclear units, and occasionally was compelled to curtail service and shed loads. In these circumstances, FPL would have been severely disadvantaged by having FOC members defer installing units in order to rely on capacity from FPL.
- 20. It would be difficult to identify any " economic benefit" FPL experienced by "use" of the FOC studies. But it is clear that FPL experienced no such benefit with respect to its power production facilities. FPL did not engage in construction of generating units that were owned or shared jointly with other utilities, l
)
nor did FPL stagger or defer constructics of any units by reason of these studies. In fact, all of FPL's commitments to generating units since 1960 have been based solely on FPL's own load, and the plans, loads, or resources of other systems were not considered. At all times, FPL based its decisions to install generation on the principle that it would maintain its planned reserve margin through its own units, without reliance upon other systems. As I stated in my previous Affidavit, FPL did not build any larger or different pov er production facilities by reason of its interconnections or the aforesaid studies, or adopt any different timing of units, than it would have otherwise.
- 21. FPL participated in the above described FOC studies principally out of a desire to maintain reliability of the interconnected transmission system and a spirit of cooperation. The studies did provide an input into transmission planning and this was useful in maintaining reliability of service and avoiding transmission bottlenecks. As an engineer, I sought to maintain reliability as part of what I understood to be the Company's overall public utility obligation to provide reliable electric service, and I viewed participation in the studies as part of that process. I am aware of no other use of these studies. While FPL was then, and continues to be, willing to participate in theart.tical studies like the never-completed long-range planning study in a cooperative search for improved planning modes, to date no bencfits from such I
theoretical studies have eventuated. l
e FURTFER AFFIANT SAYrT_ NOT.
-, /&+-;'m
. /y/v/ w ERNEST L. BlVANS " ~
vh Subscribed and sworn to before me this /d day of January,1982.
,3Mi s
a t 42-tary Public
~
V NOTARY PllELIC STATE OF FLORIDA AT LARCE gMY COMMISSION EXPIRES JULY 11 1984 BONDED TH2O CENEIAL INS. UNDERWRITERS (SEAL) e
1
. I Exhibit cf Supplernental Sheet 1 cf 2 Affidavit to Ernest L. Bivans COMPARISON OF FLORIDA STUDY GROUP PLANS versus ACTUAL INSTALLATION DATES (JULY 1966 REPORT)
"OtE SYSTEM CONCEPT" PLAN 98 POSTULATED ADDITIONS ACTUALLY INSTAI I FD Unit Unit Fuel Size Fuel Size Yrar Utility Unit Tm (MW) Utility Unit Type _ (MW) 1968 UNA #1 F 430 FPL Turkey Point 2 HO 432 Turkey Point Diesels LO 13 Pt. Evergladss Diesels LO 13 JEA Ncrthside GT 1-2 LO 24 1969 UNA #2 F 650 TEC Big Bend GT 1 LO 14 UNA #3 F 540 Gannon GT 1 LO 14 JFA Kennedy GT 1-2 LO 26 Southside GT 1-2 LO 26 FPL Cape Canaseral 2 HO 432 Ft. Myers 2 HO 432 FPC Avon Park GT 1-2 LO 57 Higgins GT 1-2 LO 68 Crystal River 2 C 524 1970 UNA #4 N 730/760 FPL Lauderdale GT 1-12 LO 444 FPC Rio Pinar GT 1 LO 19 Turner GT 1-2 LO 39
.Pt. St. Joe GT 1 LO 19 TEC Big Bend 1 C 380 OUC Lake Highland Diesels LO 1 1971 UNA #5 F 650 FPC Higgins GT 3-4 LO 86 UNA #6 N 650 i'PL Pt. Everglades GT 1-12 LO 444 1972 UNA #7 F 700 JEA Northside 2 HO 275 UNA #8 N 700 FPC Bartow GT 1-4 LO 223 FPL Sanford A HO 419 Lauderdale GT 13-24 LO 444 Turkey Point 3 N 760 1973 UNA #9 F 800 FPC Bayboro GT 1-4 LO 227 UNA #10 N 800 TEC Big Bend 2 C 400 FPL Sanferd 5 HO 419 Turkey Pcint 4 N 760 JEA Kennedy GT 3-6 LO 217 1974 UNA #11 F 950 OUC Indian River 3 HO 345 UNA #12 N 950 FPL Ft. Myers GT 1-12 LO 682 FPC Intercession GT 1-6 LO 340 Turner GT 3-4 LO 142 Anclote 1 HO 556 TEC Big Bend GT 2-3 LO 130 Sh::zt 2 of 2 COMPARISON OF FLORIDA STUDY GROUP PLANS versus ACTUAL INSTALLATION DATES (JULY 1966 REPORT)
(Continued)
"ObE SYSTEM CONCEPT" PLAN 9 8 POSTULATED ADDITIONS ACTUALLY INSTAL I FD Unit Unit Fuel Size Fuel Size Unit Type (MW)
, Year Utility Unit m f.MW) T Utility l 1975 UNA #13 F 950 JEA Northside GT 3-6 LO 200 UNA #14 N 950 FPC Debary GT 3,5 LO 140 1976 UNA #15 F 1000 FPC Debary GT 1, 2, 4, 6 LO 268 UNA #16 N 1000 TEC Big Bend 3 C 400 FPL Manatee 1 HO 862 St. Lucie 1 N 842 1977 UNA #17 F 1100 FPC Crystal River 3 N 855 UNA #18 N 1100 OUC Crystal River 3 - 12 JEA Northside 3 HO 563 FPL Putnam CC 2 HO 290 Manatee 2 HO 862 l 1978 UNA #19 F 1200 FPL Putnam CC 1 HO 290 UNA #20 N 1200 FPC Anclote 2 HO 556 1979 UNA #21 F 1375 None ---- -- --- UNA #22 N 1375 1980 UNA #23 F 1450 FPC Suwannee GT 1-3 LO 156 UNA #24 N 1450 FPL Martin 1 HO 862 1981 UNA #25 F 1550 FPC Debary GT Uprating -- 100 UNA #26 N 1550 FPL Martin 2 HO 862 1982 UNA #27 F 190n UNA #28 N 1900 Fus! Types: N = Nuclear Utilities: FPC = Florida Power Corporation F = Fossil FPL = Florida Power & Light Company i HO = Heavy Oil JEA = Jacksonville Electric Authority ' LO = Light Oil OUC = Orlando Utilities Commission C = Coal TEC = Tampa Electric Company UN A = Utility Unassigned Unit Designation: GT = Gas Turbine CC = Combined Cycle (Gas-Steam Turbine)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ) Florida Power & Light Company ) Docket No. 50-389A (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant ) Unit No. 2) AFFIDAVIT OF ASTRID E. PFEIFFER (January 13,1982) ASTRID E. PFEIFFER, being first duly sworn, deposes and says, as follows:
- 1. My name is Astrid E. Pfeiffer. My business address is 9250 West Flagler Street, Miami, Florida. I am the Corporate Secretary of Florida Power & Light Company (FPL).
1
- 2. I hereby affirm that the attached documents are authentic copias of records from FPL's corporate files.
FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT. i
,x 3 .
.: flu? ( ! WL '
' ASTRID E. PFEIFFER j
/4 Subscribed and sworn to before me this 1 [ day of January, 1982. ,
Y.h b Notary Public
. ,t ..
l i (SEAL)
~
.., J [ l;l;;"'
I
. s .. r ... .:. w . 2 c < u:te.
FPL: 1/12/82 BEFORE THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
Florida Power & Light Company ) Docket No. 50-389A
)
(St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. 2) ) AFFIDAVIT OF ROBERT M. SUSSMAN ROBERT M. SUSSMAN, being duly sworn, deposes and says as follows:
- 1. I am an attorney with the firm of Covington &
Burling, counsel for Florida Power & Light Company ("FPL") in this proceeding. i
- 2. Accompanying this affidavit are copies of docu- I ments that were located in FPL's files. Copies of the documents were provided to counsel for the Cities on I September 8, 1981 in connection with discovery in the Cities' pending treble damage action against FPL in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
- 3. On page 43 of its Memorandum and Order of December 11, 1981, the Board quoted the following passage l from the Cities' Supplemental Memorandum in Response to Board Questions:
1
" Cities note that in September, 1981, fol-lowing their request in connection with the
, Gardner deposition, FPL provided Cities with additional documents, some of which appear to be planning documents. Cities have not yet analyzed these fully, nor have they had an opportunity to examine Mr. Gardner or other FPL officials in deposition concerning the newly received documents." To the best of my knowledge, the documents accompanying this affidavit constitute the documents referred to in the above passage.
- h. A.. . - - -
Robert M. Sussman i Subscribed and sworn to before me this /3 b day of January, 1982. NotdryPupic M 0. My Ccmmission Egires Jese 30, 1934 l l
s UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-389A
)
(St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. 2) ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing
" Objections of Florida Power & Light Company to the Board's Memorandum and Order of December 11, 1981" were served on the following persons by hand delivery or by deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class, postage prepaid this 13th day of January, 1982.
- Peter B. Bloch, Esquire Alan S. Rosenthal, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555
- Robert M. Lazo, Esquire Christine N. Kohl, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555
- Michael A. Duggan, Esquire Stephen F. Eilperin, Esquire College of Business Atomic Safety and Licensing Administration Appeal Board Panel University of Texas U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Austin, Texas 78712 Washington, D.C. 20555
*Ivan W. Smith, Esquire
- Docketing and Service Station Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Secretary
, Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 4 Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 I
*/ The planning documents identified in the Sussman affidavit I Eave been delivered only to those parties indicated by an asterisk.
Thomas Gurney, Sr., Esquire Robert R. Nordhaus 203 North Magnolia Avenue Van Ness, Feldman, Sutcliffe, Orlando, Florida 32802 Curtis & Levenberg 1050 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W. Robert E. Bathen Seventh Floor Fred Saffer Washington, D.C. 20007 R.W. Beck & Associates P.O. Box 6817 Benjamin H. Vogler, Esquire Orlando, Florida 32803 Ann P. Hodgdon Counsel for NRC Staff
- Robert A. Jablon, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Alan J. Roth, Esquire Commission Spiegel & McDiarmid Washington, D.C. 20555 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037 Charles R.P. Brown, Esquire Brown, Paxton and Williams William C. Wise, Esquire 301 South 6th Street Suite 500 P.O. Box 1418 1200 18th Street, N.W. Fort Pierce, Florida 33450 Washington, D.C. 20036 George R. Kucik, Esquire
! Janet Urban, Esquire Ellen E. Sward, Esquire l P.O. Box 14141 James H. Hulme, Esquire Washington, D.C. 20044 Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin &
Kahn William H. Chandler, Esquire 1815 H Street, N.W. Chandler, O'Neal, Avera, Gray & Washington, D.C. 20006 Stripling Post Office Drawer O Argil L. Toalston Gainesville, Florida 32602 Acting Chief Antitrust and Economic Analysis Donald A. Kaplan, Esquire Section i Robert Fabrikant, Esquire U.~. Nuclear Regulatory Antitrust Division Commission U.S. Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20530 Reubin O.D. Askew Greenberg, Traurig, Askew, Hoffman, Lipoff, Quentel
& Wolff, P.A.
1401 Brickell Avenue c s ej I Miami, Florida 33131 x - h '.N lli v J
\ QoJglas~-G.' Green howenstein, Newman, Reis and Axelrad 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Suite 1214 Washington, D.C. 20036 j DATED: January 13, 1982
m WRKEY POINT SIWATION REPORT
* # July 15, 1971 \ .
With Turkey Point Unit No. 3 scheduled for c=mpletion of ' construction about September 15, 1971, the preblem cf cb-taining the permits necessary to place the unit into operation becemes critical. The most important permit to be obtained is the Atomic Energy Commission operating license. The issuance of this license will, if either Government agencies or conservationists insist, be pre-ceded by a public hearing. The public hearing process can be utilized by . Government agencies or conservationists to obstruct and delay the issuance of the license. Therefore, consideration must be given to resolution of differences with Government and possibly also conservationists. The principal difference between FPL and the Government is the Refuse Act lawsuit. Its settlement would resolve Government opposition to the plant and to cbtaining the necessary permits. Its resolution wculd also strengthen our hand in dealing with ecnservationist opposition. It would also censiderably weaken the plaintiff's positien in Avery v. FPL et al. s we believe that the settlement of the U. S. lawsuit re-quires a plan for a cooling system for the Turkey Point plant. This plan wculd provide
- a. for a closed system by 1975
- b. a plan for interi= reduction of temperature and volume.
A thorough study of cooling system alternatives has deter-mined that a reservoir must be censidered for the ultimate closed system. The reservoir will require some 4000 - 5000 acrep of land. Interim reduction of temperature will re-quire dilution and possibly some spray modules. The land must come from Seadade either by negotiation or cendemnatien. Condemnation requires that a system be engineered, that it be feasible and economical, and requires a shewing that there is a reasonable likelihood of ebtaining the permits for the system. In order to make the showing of reason- ' able likelihood of obtaining permits, it is almost i=pera-
,( ; tive that the U. S. v. FPL be settled.
s e E I
- - ~ - - - . . . . -.- .
i O
/
I ,
~
A settlement of the U. S. v. FPL which centemplates obtaining the land by condemnation may be difficult en the basis of the uncertainty of the outcome. Negotiations with Seadade for the land present an alternative avenue toward the ultimate resolution. A further consideration in the Seadade negotiatiens is that the size of the tract could acce==odate a badly needed additional Dade County plant site. Some 6000 acres are needed for this purpose. If a settlement is negotiated with U. S. for the dis-position of the Refuse Act suit, serious consideraticn should be given to negotiations with pctential inter-vencrs fer the purpose of seeking their withdrawal frem opposition. The attached report discusses the above cenclusions in greater detail. 8 Robert J. Gardner
- July 15, 1971 e
l. O-l l l l 4
j .. s - i i
- TNTRODUC-!ON f Turkey Point , Unit 3 is presently scheduled for completion o 15, 1971. The following
(
- construction and fuel loading September discussion is an attempt to identify the many different economic, political and technical f actors aff ecting our ability to obtain A
the necessary permits to place the unit into operation. - chronology of the events involved in the plant co'nstruction is attached as Exhibit I. 1.0 PEPRITS A Several key per=its must be obtained before Turkey Point l Following is a brief' Units 3 and 4 can be placed into operation. discussion of the procedure for obtaining each of these and their status as concerns Turkey Point. 1.1 Atemic Enerev Ce :-/.ssion The princip,al permit that must be obtained in order to place Turkey Point Unit No. 3 into operation is the operating License The procedure for frcn the U. S. Atomic Energy Cor:mtis sion ( AEC) . The applicant (FPL) files with cbtaining this license follows. i t the Commissien three documents, the Final Safety Analys s Repor (FS AR) , the draf t Technical Specifications (Tech. Specs.) and an The AEC regulatory staff reviews all three Environmental Report. documents. In the course of the review, extensive revisions and additions are made by way of amendments to the FSAR and the Tech Statement Specs. The staf f prepares a draf t Environmental Impact and submits this to numerous other agencies for comment. N. I l .. . . _. _ _ _ _ . .. l l l - l i
m . Concurrently with the regulatory staff review, two other reviews by the AEC are taking place. The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) is conducting an independent review of plant safety features, and the Division of Compliance is perform ' ing inspection of the plant to determine that actual constructien is in accordance with the commitments made in the FSAR. D When the various reviews have progressed to the point where there is confidence that no major safety issues re=ain to be resolved, the . Secretary of the Commission issues a Notice of Intent t to Issue an operating License. This noties starts a 30-day peried In the event for imrvention and requests for public nearing. . that a me=ber of the public or another gover =ent agency so re-quests, the Coc: mission appoints an Atomic Safety and Licensing i, ' Board and the hearing process is ccmmenced. The Board is selected frem a panel of non- AEC employees. One me=her is an administrative hearing expert and two me=bers are experts in some field of reacter technology. When the ACRS has ccepleted a satisfactory review, it issues a letter to the Cornmission so stating. Upon completing its review, the regul,atory staff issues a saf ety evaluatien and the Technical Specifications. The Compliance Division, upon ecmpleting its review, reports internally to the Director of Regulaticn and the is issuance of the actual license is not made until their review satisfactorily completed.' s I 9
* ~
l Tha rsgulatory steff then prsperes a final Environmantal I incorporating coments from other agencies as well (~ , Impact Statement as replies by the Applicant. The " record" of licensing procedure now consists of the following documents: FSAR Staff Safety Evaluation ACRS Letter I Technical Specifications Environmental In: pact Statement In the event that the public hearing procedure is involved, i due process and discovery considerations can result in it being Enviren-an extended procedure, possibly as long as a year er more'. I mental issues, reactor safety issues, and pdlic health isrues i I can be raised and have been in several reacter hearings new in ( progress. } s. Status of AEC Licensing 1.1.1 In the Turk'y e Point case, the ACRS letter is written (Exhibit II) 4 and regulatory staff and Corpliance evaluation is expected to be complete September 15, 1971, the scheduled date for construction cec:pletion and fuel loading. There are no major technical problems outstanding. The con =tission is ready to issue the Notice at any time, however, we have asked them not to issue it until we have resolved the thermal issue with the Government. 1.2 Cooline Water Pemits cool,ing water permits represent the second major potential a source of delay in getting Turkey Point Unit No. 3 into operation. f , J
.O O
O
1,2,1 Dede county permits i Dade County requires two types of permits portaining to the i The Dade County Pollutien Turkey Point plant cooling system. Control Crdinance sets up discharge standards and includes a maxi-
! The Ordinance requires mum temperature requirement of 95 .
construction permits for pollutien . control devices and it provides for a Pollution Control Hearing Board which can grart extensiens of time for compliance. . The Dade ' County Public Works Department requires a
- construction r
permit, if excavation is involved. In lands under the jurisdiction l heprove-of the State of Florida Board of Trustees of the Internal 1 i i ment Fund (I. I. Board), the construction permit requires approval 1
! of the Metrepolitan Dade County Cennaission, otherwise such permits require the approval of the Public Works Department only.
4 l We presently have an extension of time until November 1,1971 for compliance with the Dade County Pollutien Control Ordinance i 0 We would thereafter probably not temperature limitation of 95 . After May 1972 exceed 95 in normal operation until May of 1972. 0 6 the Dade County Ordinance cannot be met with the existing cooling I canal system without curtailing load on the units by as much as 2/3 of the capability of the plant. } Dade County has approved a Card Sound Canal and dilution
) ^
0 with all system which will limit discharge temperatures to 95 ,! four units in operation. me dilution pumps are on site but we have l not released Bechtel to start construction of tne pump structure. i f 1 J i I, d 4 e
\
4
- 28. Dads Cun21 excsvation i,s halted at th2 north line of Stetion.
/ . County Public Works construction permits have been issued for that portion of the canal between the north line of Section 29 and the Mean High Water Mark (M1!W) . County Commission approval has been obtained for the completion of the canal but the approval .is l
l' conditioned upon receiving State and Federal pe:mits. 1.2.2 State Pemits The I. I. Board, which has jurisdiction over dredging in a l sovereignty waters of the State, has approved the dredging of the
. Card Sound Canal into Card Sound.
The Florida Air & Water Pollutied control. Department (FAWPCD) has not approved the Canal and dilution syste:n , and has stated they will not approve until Federal issues are resolved. Units 1 and 2 are operating under tergerary authority ( from the State pending processing of cperating license applications. Should Federal issues be resolved, the FAWPCD will probably require a public hearing before issuing approval. l 1.2.3 Federal Permits [ ! Issuance of Federal permits for the canal are currently sus-The first is pended 'because of two pending Federal proceedings. the Federal-State Conference on thermal pollution in Biscayne Bay, and the second is the lawsuit, U. S. v FPL, seeking to enjoin the operation of Units 1 and 2 and the construction of the Card Sound Canal. - The stated' Federal position in both those proceedings is that L the canal-dilution system is not an acceptable means of handling
, e..
i l l
r 4 the coaling water system from the Turksy Point plant end no
/ Federal approvals will be forthcoming without an acceptable supplemental cooling system.
..aent have i Extensive negotiations with the Federal Got ?
explored the engineering and technical aspects of numerous types of supplemental systems, and have reviewed the environmental The cu'rrent Federal position . impact requirements of such systems. has been set forth in a letter from the cepartment of Justice dated a April 2,19 71 '(Exhibit III) . The letter states that an interim period of operation with the canal vill be allowed, providing there su=mer of is an ultimate solution involving a closed system by the 1975. We regard the Federal position as being negotiable with
,' respei t to interim temperature and volumes, the date for the ultimate solution, and the details of the closed system.
The Federal permits that have to be obtained for the cooling i water system are Corps of Engineers dredgir.3 permit and discharge 4 The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Interior permit. In the only litigation must concur in the issuance of such permits. on the subject,. Zabel vs Tabb (Exhibit IV), the Court of Appeals j for the 5'th Circuit has upheld the right of the Corps of Engineers i to refuse to issue a dredge and fill permit on environmental grounds alene. The issue of whether they could also refuse discharge per-mits on environmental grounds alone is unsettled and is involved in the pending ' litigation. ( 9 i 1 4 i .
_2 . 0 ALnP ATr COOLING WATER SYS T S Since tne Federal-State Conference, FPL has been Engtgsd in f ' extensive investigation of alternative cooling water systems with respect to economics, environmental effects, and practicability. Possible types of systems are 31sted below: cooline Towers Dry Wet Mechanical draft Natural draft _Serav Pends. ' Piped ponds - Spray modules Ocean Outfalls Dees wells (- Cooling Reservoirs l Elevated reservoirs Excavated reservoirs j
' Excavated canal networks ' 2.1 Cooline Towers-2.1.1 Drv cooline Tewers identical in i
Dry cooling towers are essentially radiators, They have been used in principle to the automobile radiator. i Europe on medium-size plants and in the nited States on one or two and censequently very small plants. They are extremely expensive: They have been applied economically only in water-short areas. s I cannot practically cool to as low a temperature as other systems, ( [ I
. l l
l l l
-B-Unless consequsntly the turbine cycle is apprsciably affseted.
, this method is in[orporated into the plant in its initial design l
it is not possible to add later without rendering the turbine - inoperable during warm weather periods. There is no serious disagreement that dry towers are out of
' the question for Turkey Point. P 2,1.2 W et coolino Towers .
2.1.2.1 Natural Draft Towers Natural draf t towers utilize a massive structure 400 - 500 [ feet in. diameter and 400 feet tall to create a chimney ef"fect with which to draw air upward through a cascading stream of cociing water which induces evaporation and cooling. These towers are costly and unsightly and are generally not t. considered economic in southern climates since naturally warm h uid air does not resalt in much lif't. They have been utilized in salt water in England but not in the United States. Salt water drif t is potential adverse factor. 2.1.2.2 Mechanical Draft cooline Tewers Mechanical draf; cooling towers utilize fans to draw air upward through a cascading stream of ecoling water to cause cool-ing. These towers are not unsightly, cost less initially, but due
' to power censumption are most costly to operate. They have been In'the'large used in refineries in small sizes on salt water.
numbers which would be required at Turkey Point, the potential i l = l i i . 1
a S
-9. ,
l for salt wter drif t with resulting damage to the adjoining form 1 i i - land is considerable. 2.1.3 e :marv cooling towers have universally been rejected by power companies and their engineers for use on salt water as being . We do impractical and potentially harmful to the environment. not believe there is strong support for a position contrarf to this in the Federal Government at the moment (Exhibit V) . I 2.2 Sorav Pend , Spray ponds involve devices for sparying cooling ~ water into the air to induce evaporation and hence cooling. . 2.2.1 Piced Serav Pon?s In piped spray ponds an elaborate system of pumps and piping Thi.s is utilized to spray water into the air to induce cooling. is costly to operate system is expensive and in salt water areas, and maintain. Salt water drift is probably less of a problem than from cooling twers since droplet sizes are larger.
~
2.2.2 Serav Modules These devices essentially float a pump and piping on the pond surface. The pump picks up pond water and propels it through no=zles in the floating pipiry; into the air to induce cooling. The manuf acturers of this equipment have used political influence to cause' Government agencies to view these devices favorably. ( several companies have been strong-armed into installing them. t
There is little experience in their use in frssh water end none / . in salt water, consequently the economics of reliability, mcinte-The potential for nance, operation and replacement are unknown. high replacement costs in salt water areas affected by hurricanes such as Turkey Point is great. (Exhibit II) P _2 . 3 Ocean outfalls ocean outfalls are a possible method of' disposal of the cool-Tbs ecsts ing water and are practical and feasible en seacoasts. 8 for Turkey Point, being some 13 miles from the ocean, is ir:mense - being on the order of $100,000,000. The construction would involve a 13-mile ditch through Islandia National Monument with resultant Conservatienists ; disruption of the valuable bottom resources. ( oppose this method. _2 . 4 Deer Wells . Wells into the deep (1500 - 3000 feet) saline aquifers have
' been proposed as a source of cooling water per se or in combinatien with other systems. The objection to wells is the almost cceplete lly lack of knowledge of the deep aquifer which results in tota There unknown costs and effect en the hydrology of South Florida.
is no ass'urance of either the long-term characteristics or availa-bility of this source.
~
l e
' - ~ - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
. s .-
es strndpoint, voi.ra Turksy coolino Pewer i ability end cxpsritrn 5 econcmic, pract c cooling methods for an Temperature Trom of alternative reservoir. is consideration cooling water of cooling surface i s erious Point have centered w that on the4000most significant 4500 acres s sho nt presents the , calculation , This land requirememethod. needed. nting this obstacle to impleme veloped which servoir and rievated Re concept has been de with a dike s 2.5.1 face VII). An eleva ced reservoir sary cooling sur (Exhibit the neces lift pumps enclos1M by means of used for this involves can be water into it system pumps can also lifting the d for the dilutionvised whereby the An iod for dilution. The pumps e and a purchasescheme has been1de reservoir purpos during the interim around the be used and returns it
!(-- interceptor ditch a nd pumping system the bottem system to be seepage through allow the ditch and gates perimeter intercepts ys reservoir. -Spillwa spoil frem the interceptor i to the closed system. the a
operated as the dikes. See page through const met disadvantages . While technical is used to several mig! system has supplies inland. blic The may affect fresh water controllable, the pu volve his res ervoir appears to be interceptor pumps in of seepage and the problem problems, The lift pumps ial reliability v j be un con inced. and present potent
' costs operatins i
i r o
~
Spoi,1 areas muct bs diksd and provision made for the runoff of dredged material., Silt ennnot be allowed to get into the Biy. l . If the spoil area is inland, salt water f rom the dredging may affect the Tround water. cragline excavation is basically econemical but transpert of the material to the spoil area can increase the excavation cost 100 1 150%. 2.5.3 Canal Networks A network of. canals can' considerably simplify the spoil i disposal problem by permitting excavated material to lie along, the canal banks. The system would require 1.33 to 1.4 times the land area needed for cooling alone'. The canal network permits , the' necessary excavation to be done by the most econcmical method, ]
?
( since spoil can be place 3 on the t ank by dragline and no transport is necessary. The total quantity is minimized, and the unit cost is lowest since excavation can be limited to the meck for the most part. Bechtel corporation is presently engaged in engineering I ' such a system. 3.0 LAND CONSIDERATIONS IN RESERVOIR CONSTRUC"ICN The various land areas in the vicinity of the Tur. key Point site i
' consist c'f the site itself, Dade County Park property to the north and Seadade property to the south. The Dade county Park property to the north is not available for reservoir construction.
3.1 The hrkev Point Site On the Turkey Point site, about 1100 acres is available for (' 4 reservoir construction south of the access road and east of I i i
} ) .
4 a
' s.
Lind Ltves L-31. of this, 300 ceres is east of Grand Crnal. l north of the access road is not considered availtble because of d its. I - the cost of intercepting the access road with canals or cen u (F.xhibit VIII) About 1300 acres of land is available west of Ie31. _3 . 2 Seadade Pronerty The Seadade property consists of a large contiguous block of land extending some five miles due south of the *urkey Point site to Some four miles south of the Turkey Pcint Card Sound (Exhibit IX). site, the tract extends west to U. S. 1. It consists of about 8 20,000 acres. Seadade is a corporation owned by D. K. Ludwig, a It was originally billionaire oil tanker fleet owner and cperator. acquired by Ludwig with the idea in mind of building a seaport. Recently Ludwig has had This scheme was aborted by Dade County. ( several schemes for a "new town" type of multi-use development. Area A The preperty can be considered divided into five tracts. lies west of Levee L-31: Area B lies between Levee L-31 and the Card Area D Sound Canal; and Area C lies east of the Card Sound Canal. lies west of Levee L-31, and includes commercially valuable frontage and also includes f arsable lying between U. S.1 and Card Sound Road, Area E was recently acquired land between L-31 and Card Sound Road. Inc. Seadade may only have an option by Seadade from Flagler Systems, i on this property. the The area west of Levee L-31 must be considered unusable at present lime . It is conceivable that permission could be obtained I, from the Central & Scuthern Florida Flood Control District ( l
. s-to nove the 1.vss. The outcomo of cuch on sttmpt is unc3rtain and would in any event require considerable time.
An additional complication in the use of Seadade land is the question of whether construction would be allowed between the MEd and the shore line, and this question is complicated by the uncertainty of the location of the MEd on that property, e Considerable environmentalist pressure has recently been brought to bear against such construction and a recent Circuit Court Decision (July 12, 1971) has moved the bulkhead line back to the t This decision could of course be appealed. MBW wherever it is. ' 3.2.1 Seadade Necotiatiens various attempts have been made to negotiate the purchase of land from Seadade, the first of which was in 1968. Additional i' attempts were made in 1969 to obtain land for the Card Sound Canal right-of-way. In June of 1969 the Company filed eminent domain proceedings for a 660-foot strip of land through the Saadade An order of taking property to be used fer the canal (Exhibit X) . was obtained in October of 1968, which was ultimately upheld
.on appeal to the Florida Supreme Court.
In the spring of 1971 contacts were made and active negotiations were undertaken for an agreement which wculd involve a canal network type of cooling system which would jointly be used as waterways in a "new town" development. Negotiations are s currently suspended due to a lack of detailed design data of the
. .. t. ;.
i
residential canal network upon which to make a daterminatien of
/
/ , feasibility. 3.2.2 Peservoir Land Recuirements in Seadade Procerty - The . elevated reservoir concept discussed in 2.5.1 above requires about 4000 acres of land in the Seadade tract in Area e,
+
i.e., lying between L-31 and the Card Sound Canal, and extending 3 miles south of the Turkey Point site. (Exhibit VII) A canal network system containing 4000 acres of cooling surface 8 would require about 4600 acres of land. If land west of L-31 cannot be used, 4500 acres of Seadade land would be required (assuming , { utilization of 1100 acres of the Turkey Point site) . and assuming that land Assuming use of Seadade Areas B and C, scme 3 east of the center line of Twp. 58-40 lies below MEW, ([ miles of the Se'adade tract would be required. (Exhibit XI) 4.0 ACCUISITION OF LAND FCR COCLING PURPOSIS BY EMINIT* DC*e.AI'7 Acquisition of the land by eminent domada requires that there be a discussion by the Board of Directors of the need for land, and the location of the land, followed by a resolution. it must be surveyed by a The land ,must be located, i. e., registered surveyor. The need for the land must be substantiated by a demonstration that there is reasonable likelihood of obtain-the necessary permits for the f acility and that there be T e
minimal environmental impact of the f acility (ExhiMt XII) . ( In the context of land for a cooling reservoir at Turkey Point, the requirement for a demonstration of reasenable likeli- , hood of obtaining pemits presents somewhat of a Gordian knot. The ability to persuade the Governmental authcrities to grant permits for a reservoir system may te adversely influenced by the f act that condemnation is necessary to dtaintheland. The delay and uncertainty associated with these proceedings 8 render it difficult to make commitments with sufficient fim-4- nessito meet Gevernmental requirements, particularly where A further such commitments must incl 2de definite time tables. difficulty is the location or survey of the property where the ( location of ME4 is uncertain. 5.0 LEGAL REcUIRW.-.ENTS OF COOLING W ATER DISCRAROES Legal requirements fer thermal discharges and plant cooling systems materially affect the engineering design of a system, the choice' of alternatives, economics and land requirements. The f act that such requirements have been imposed at three levels 1 of Government - County, State and Federal - and no cne of these levels coordinates with the others, has been one of the key The factors in the present difficulties at Turkey Point. f act that legal requirements are both quantified and unquantified s i 4 9
-lu-is also a key dif f'iculty in designing a satisf actory alternat.ive cooling system.
~
5.1 Dade counW The Dade County Pollutien Centrol Ordinance places a require-
~
1 ment of 95 maximum af ter thorough mixing and pemits the T
- Pollution Control Directer to decide the point at which ccm-pliance is determined. The company is currently under a re-I quirement to meet 95 at the point cf discharge into Biscayne i Bay or Card Sound.
Dade County is supposedly also respcnsible for enforcing sectien. State requirements which are discussed in the next Dade County has decided,in effect, that no per se findir.g can i be made that discharges at 95 or less result in harm to the j aquatic enviren=ent. However, recognizing the possibility i i that such damage might occur, Dade County has required the order to i Company to fund an ecological study of Card Sound 12. I - I monitor the discharges. Such monitoring will assure that the I County is properly applying the State "no damage" requirement. i The monitoring program is to be in effect for one year i
- prior to operation of Unit No. 3 and two years af ter Unit No. 4 i
operation. i
=
1 1 ( ) 4 1-a e ' e
-n-S.2 state of Florida._
The current State of Florida requirement e:r. bodied in its i water quality standards is as follows:
" Temperature--shall nct be increased so as to cause any damage or harm to the aquatic life or vegetation of the receiving waters or interf ere with any beneficial ,
use assigned to such waters." The State was a participant in the Federal-State Conf erence on thermal pollution in Biscayne Bay in February 1970. The former g Chairman of the Florida Air & Water Pollution Control Boa'rd, Mr. Nat Reed, has taken the position that the findings and recemmenda-tiens of that conf erence (F.xhibit XIII) constitute the official pronouncement of the State with regard to the requirecents that cooling water discharges must meet in crder to conform to the State "no damage'* standards. S.3 Federal S.3.1 Wai'r Quality Standards . Under the Water Quality Act of 1970 and its predecessor statutes, the Federal Government does not technically set water quality standardss The States are responsible for setting the standards formerly by but they must be approved by the Administrator of EPA, the Secretary of Interior. Florida's standards have been approved. The Federal Gdvernment regards itself as a co-enforcer of State [ standards, and also has asserted the right to make an independent I e 1 l
intsrpretation of the State stsndsrds, prssumibly ovan if such interpretations conflict with the State's. While ths Federal Government does not "in effect" set standards, it can practically impose its will upon the environmental req'uire-ments of thermal discharges and cooling systems through three other Federal Statutes. 5.3.2 Cores of Eneineers Dredoine Permits . The U. S. Corps of Engineers is empowered by the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Act to prohibit construction in navigable waters er a to permit such construction only af ter specific authorization. - Cooling water systems involving canals entering navigable water must have dredging permits from the Corps of Engineers. The Fish & Wildlife Coordination Act required the Corps of k Engineers to consult with the Fish & Wildlife Se'rvice before issuing any dredge and fill permit which might affect fish and wild-life prcpagation, and the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of Interior have arrived at a written Memorandum of U' nderstanding govern-ing such consultation. As stated in 1.2.3 above, a recent 5th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Zabel vs.Tabb (Exhibit IV) upheld the right of ,he t Corps of Engineers to deny a dredging permit even if navigatien is not interfered with, if environmental values as determined by the Fish & Wildlife Service are adversely affected. Fish & Wildlife propagation considerations are not quantified, and their scope is dismayingly f ar-reaching. Discussions with k. r M 9 , e P l 1
- l l
1
Federal Government officials have revealed that the following i censiderations may be incorporated into requirements of the ( , cooling systems:
- 1. Volume of discharges
- 2. Volume of withdrawals
- 3. Fish protection in intake
- 4. Velocity in channels and at discharge points
- 5. Siltation control from dredging t
- 6. condenser cleaning methods .
- 7. Mixing of cooler and warmer streams
- 8. Radibactive constituents
- 9. Company advertising policy The lack of quanti 51ed or even written standards for Fish
{ s, wildlife values complicates system design, requires extended technical discussions and permits considerable bureaucratic obfuscation due to organizational inertia and politics. 5.3.3 Coros of Encineers Discharce Permits The same 1899 Rivers End Harbors Act prohibits tihe dis-charge of refuse matter into 3e navigable waters of the United This provision was States except by Corps of Engineers permit. inzge}/ n=glected by the Corps until it was discovered in the late 1960s
- by conservatienists seeking a tool for Federal acticn against environmental deteriorat' ion. No regulations governing the issuance of discharge permits existed until the spring of 1971.
( l I
The suit brought ,.by the Federal Governmsnt bgainst the Company in The legal I . March of 1970 ws.s largely based on the " Refuse Act". issue in this case is whether or not heated water is refuse matter under the Act. Should the Court hold in our favor, ro discharge However, if the Court holds that a permit permit would De necessary. is necessary, and the 1971 ::egulations are valid, then there would be direct Federal involvement in the standards applicable to the cooling water discharges and the cooling system design. I The 1971 regulations essentially give EPA, the Fish & Wildlife Service of Interior, and the Naticnal Oceanographic and At=cs-pheric Administration (NCAA) the complete say-so in the issuance of permits. EPA is empowered to interpret state water quality ( standards and Interior and NOAA can apply unquantified standards necessary to protect fish and wildlife. , If the discharge permit is not required, the Faderal Government can still impose its will by means of the Corps of Engineers dredging permit and the National Environmental Policy Act through the AEC operating license proceeding. A discussion of the latter consideration follows. 5.3.4 The National Environmental Poliev Act The National Environmental Policy Act, authored principally l by Senator Jackson, was passed late in 1969. The Act attracted little attention at the ' time of its passage, but since has been recognized as one of the most f ar-reaching pieces of legislation en ( environmental matters ever passed. . I' l e
'- W
~
-l J It requires that sve'ry "Faderal Action" b3 accompsnied by ) i . an Envir nmental Impact Statement, sets up the President's Council l / 1 4 on Environmental Cuality (CEQ) headed by Russell Train, and l requires that every Federal Acticn consider impact on both quanti- ) fied and unquantified values. The Act is so broad and sweeping f in its language that it can mean everything or nothing. Conser-1 i vatienists regard it as a base of attack on the issuance of any 4 Federal permit or license where the environment is involved, and even as a base of attack against Governmental projects as well. _ j The broad sweep of the statutory language makes it fraught with litig'atcry possibilities, the pursuit of which is being undertaken
~
with vigor by environ = ental interests. The meaning of the Act will not be kncwn with any certainty until years of litigatien have taken place. In the meantime, every Federal license and permit
- proceeding is subject to delay, obstruction and litigation en the I
basis cf the provisions of the Act. While dredge and fill permit proceedings have yet to see full-1 scale attacks, AEC license proceedings have been successfully turned to shambles by censervatienist intervenors exercising the terms I of the Act. a Since the Act requires an environmental impact statement, the i CEQ has issued a variety of regulations governing the preparation of the statements and their routing for comment. I The' draf t Environmental Statement issued by the AEC in the ' l ' Tutkey Point application proceeding has already received caustic comment from the Interior Department. (Exhibit XIV) i 1 1 e e
On2 of pressntly unde *.erminsd issues in the interpretstion of the Environmental Policy Act is whe:ther the Act permits raising i and disposition of environmental issues in AEC licensing proceedings. If the The current AEC regulations provide for such issues. then regulations are valid (and Company Counsel feels they are) if there are unresolved environmental questions such as the cooling , system at the time the operating license comes up for issuance, adjudicated Interior and EP.<. can intervene and have these issues Likewise, any conser-by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. k vationist group can have these issued litigated. The ef fectiveness of Conservationist intervention in the same proceeding, if it cannot be avoided, would be censidarably enhanced by Interior and EPA intervention. (.
- 6.0 CCNSERVATIONIST OPPOSITION Conservationist opposition has to a significant extent been responsible for the obstacles which presently exist to obtaining the permits necessary to bring Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 into operatien.
There exist three principal groups of conservationist opposition. 6.1 Leeal Conservation creanizations The uncontested leader of local conservatierist oppositica is James P. Redford, President of the Miami Chapter of the Isaac walton League, which along with Tropical Audubon Society, are the Redford is energetic leading local conservation organizations. ( and articulate. He has successfully organized many different local 7 GD 9 9
+
I f organizations into unified fronts of opposition and has had some He has no it.portant opposition among local significant successes. groups. He has been ef fective in marshaUing political support ! and has recently been named to the Florida- Air & Water Pollutien ( f 1 control Board. Redford has been active in attempting to marshall but the Federal political support of his opposition to Turkey Point, "
~
extent to which Federal opposition c:.n be attributed to his atte: pts is not known.
- The extent of Redford's relationship to radical national organi- 1 zatiens is not known, although we believe he is not a ra, dical in bd the sense of openly opposing development, pcrolation increase prograss.
- He does stand for extremely strict controls without a great deal of regard for their cost.
l Redford would like to be consulted and dealt wim en a sclutie to Turkey Poirt. Given a system incorporating the strict controls he has advocated, he may be amenable to marshalling considerable local conservationist support for such a system. 6.2 Radical National Envirnn?. ental creanizatiens The late sixties and early seventies have witnessed the rise to power of several radical national environmental organizations. These organizations have significant financial support from private benef actors, have disavowed scientific and technical approaches I I. to environmental problems and have concentrated their efforts on l The preminent organi-legal action and direct political lobbying. f i' zations of this type are Sierra Club, Environmental Defense Fund, i t 7
Fricnds of tha Earth cnd Business Mn for Public Intsrest. Loose all[ances ex'ist between these and a dozen others, and on
. specific issues considerable unity of action is achieved.
Of particular interest for Turkey Point is Friends of the . Earth (FCE). FCE's angel is reputed to be Robert O. Andersen, Chairman of Atlantic Richfield Oil Company. Its Executive Director is David Brewer, former militant head of the Sierra Club who left that organization following an internal dispute. The Washington Director is Joe Browder. Browder was fomerly Trepical Audubon Society's Executive Director in Miami, and prior to that i l was in news work. FOE's principal accomplishment has been the leadership of the effort which defeated SST. While in Miami, Browder led the fight against the Jet Port, (~ being assisted in this effort by Dan Paul, a Miami attorney. While in Miami, Browder had some knowledge of the Turkey Point situation but took no open part in cpposition. He had seme conversation with Company officials en the subject which reputedly ended on an acrimonicus note. Browder is a key figure in the litigation instituted against Company o,f ficers by Abigail Avery, a stockholder. Browder referred Mrs. Avery to Dan Paul, who she subsequently retained to bring the suit. A further complication in the Avery suit is Seadade. It is firmly believed that Ludwig is financing this lawsuit although 1' hard evidence is presently lacking. e e
Frisnds of ths Earth has rstainsd Myron Chstry to pursue Cherry has demanded ( , their interest in the Turkey Point case. participation in settlement negotiations between the Government - and FPL on behalf of his client, and has threatened intervention in the AEC operating license proceedings. (Exhibit .XV) . Cherry is noted for his pursuit of environmental causes on behalf of the Chicago-based Businessmen for Public Interest against the Consumers Power Company Palisades nuclear plant near South Haven, a Michigan. Cherry was successful in delaying the startup of the Bis otycsition plant for over a year by tying up the hearings. culminated in a written agreement with censumers whereby they will install cooling towers and other mcdifications.
~
FCE's tie-up with Cherry is typical of the alliance between the radical national environmental organizations and militant radical lawyers. There exists between the organizations and their lawyers a thread of community of background acquaintance end-association with the radical political and the radical The effectiveness with which these groups consumerist movements. have obstructed major power plant project requires that the mest studied cIsnsideration be given toward the manner in which they are dealt. (Exhibit XVI) 9 t'
~ .. _ _ . . .
EX7!IBI*S
/
I Chronology of Turkey Point Events
/ ,
II AEC Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards - Letter - June 18, 1971 III Department of Justice Letter - April 2,1971 IV zabel vs. Tabb, 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Decision. , f V An Evaluation of the Feasibility of Salt Water Cooling Towers for Turkey Point - Southern Nuclear Engineering, Inc. An Evaluation of the Powered Spray Module , VI for Salt Water Service for Turkey Point - Southern Nuclear Engineering, Inc. ,- VII Cooling Reservoir Plan - Brown & Root Drawing LO-lH VIII Turkey Point Plant Preperty Plan (
- IX Map of Seadade Property
' X . FPL Drawing - Discharge Canal to Card Sound XI Saadade Land Requirements - Canal Network XII Florida Supreme Court Decision - FPL vs. Seadade XIII Conclusions 4nd Recommendations - Federal-State Conference XIV Department of Interior Letter to AEC -
' March 25, 1971 XV Myron Cherry Letter - June 16, 1971 XVI Report from Jack Newman f
l
N. R. Kincaid R2v. 2/11/71 CHRONOLOGY of TURKEY Po1NT EVENTS Cyj-jjgj ;- T_
- t. .
7 June 1963 - Acceptance of General Electric bid on turbines intended for expansion at Cutler Plant (turbines used at Turkey Point when Cutler expansion thwarted). 7 August 1963 - Applied for necessary zoning variances for tne addition to* existing Cutler Plant , of two oil-fired units of 432,000 kw each. 9 Septe=ber 1963 - Contract signed with Bechtel Corp. for expansion at Cutler Plant (contract trans-
'ferred to Turkey Point when Cutler expan-sion thwarted). i 31 March 1964 . Metro Comnission ruled expansion would be
< permitted only on condition FPL use 100*
* : gas in these units. Cas was not available fn the quantity necessary. Consequently, FPL L=nediately sought another site in Dade County, which would be remote from population, be accessible to cooling
(, water and the transportatien necessary to
' supply fuel for the units. Turkey Point was about the last remaining section of waterfront in Dade County available for this expansion. Located 25 miles scuch of Miami, 5 miles frem the nearest dwell-ing place, Turkey Point was an ideal spot for expansion of the necessary generating facilities.- FPL purchased 1800 acres of land at Turkey Point and the site has sub-sequently been expanded to over 3500 acres.
26 May 1964 - FPL filed for an unusual use permit for the expansion of Turkey Point. 19 June 1964 *- Pprmit granted by Dade County. Community Itaders hailed the move by FPL as an unusual example of cooperation between industry and the coe= unity in selecting a site which would be free from inter-ference of human habitation. September 1964 - Began construction of Units 1 and 2. 1
. i 1
l t - R. ii. Fite, President, FPL, announced 28 January 1965 before Florida Public Service Commis: ion that negotiations were underway for a Nuclear Plant at Turkey Point. 15 November 1965 - FPL announced construction of two 760,000 kw nuclear units at Turkey Point to be Units 3 and 4, due to predictions of load , growth continuing upward in Dade County. Forecast for 1970 was that customers would use 2,360,000 kw, and despite expansion of Turkey Point Units 1 and 2. generatirg capability to handle Dade County load a would only be 1,286,000 kw - about half of that needed. By 1975, load in Dade County is expected to be 3,940,000 kw. It was obvious still more benerating facilities were needed to meet the expand-ing growth of Dade County and, consequently, plans and studies were undertaken. November 1965
- Dames & Moore, Consulting Engineers in
(- the Earth Sciences, retained to conduct geological and seismological studies. Also - the University of Mia=1 for meteorological studies. 26 March 1966 - Applied for Atomic Energy Commission permit. , Nkrch 1966 - Dr. W. S. . Richardson, University of Mia=1, retained to study hydrology of Biscayne Bay, completed study and concluded Bay is well flushed. 15 December 1966 - Applied for re-zoning because of certain changes in the Metro Zoning Laws with respect to nuclear power plants. 27 January 1967 - Letter from Department of the Interior, Fish & Wildlife Service, to FPL, question-ing Dr. Richardson's conclusions and expressing concern over possible delete-rious effects of warm water discharge - the first communication suerestingreceived possiblefrom a harf7 5 public arenev i I I , 1 1 I I 1
s . - l FPL immediately began a wide search for information on the subject since no f evidence existed that any of its plants l in 40 years of operation had caused harm.
- Re-zoning approved by Metro Co= mission,
'23 February 1967 22 April 1967 - Unit No. I went on'the line.
j - AEC issued construction per=its for Units l 29 April 1967 3 and 4 and construction began on nuclear ' units.
- FPL letter to Mr. Paul teach, Director, 25 May 1967 Dade County Pollution Control, advising him of the status of construction at
. Turkey Point and our desire to cooperate in carrying out the Dade County Pollution Control Ordinance including the applica- He was tion for variance, if necessary.
invited to visit Turkey Point to inspect the canal system and discuss the subject. (. 26 May 1967
- Letter from Mr. Paul Leach, Director, Dade County Pollution Control, to FPL, l acknowledging our willingness to obtain l
' any variances and removing any of his objections to the Dade County Building and Zoning Department's issuance of necessary construction permita.
- Mr. Richard O. Eaton, Consulting Coastal May 1967 Engineer, Dr. James H. Carpenter and Dr. Donald W. Pritchard of the Chesa-peake Bay Institute of Johns Hopkins University, retained to conduct studies of mixing characteristics of Biscayne Bay.
~
1 November 1967 - FPL letter to Florida State Board of I Health requesting an exception0 to exceed ! State temperature limit of 93 F af ter l reasenable mixing for a small percentage of time. Also, TPL consciement to take corrective action if there is any scientific proof that there is degra.
's, dation of the waters by increased temperatures after reasonable mixing.
l l I l l l 6 ' 1 l
4.. l
/ - FPL granted temporary exception to Florida 7 Novemter 1967 Air & Water Pollution Ccntrol Commission's water temperature limitations - "until the study being conducted by the biologists from the University of Miami is completed and the matter re-evaluated at that time"
- Letter from Mr. Lloyd E. Miller, 2.'
4 November 1967 President, Mangrove Chapter, The Izaak Walton League of America, to Florida Board of Health (copy to FPL) wherein he advocated:
- 1) That a means be developed that would '
force the Turkey Point cooling water to take a long cooling path before ? being discharged into the Bay.
- 2) That FPL dig an additional 8,000 feet of 100 foot-wide cooling canals.
In effect, Mr. Miller suggested, essen-f cially, the method FPL subsequently selected to handle the cooling water. 7 recember 1967
- Letter from Randolph Hodges, Director, Florida Board of Conservation, to McGregor Snich, stating that State Biological Report of area off present main Turkey Point discharge canal and within bulkhead line had some red algae (seaweed) but no attached sea grasses.
Further, that there was no sport or com-mercial fishing in the area. (Letter was in connection with FPL application for permit to dredge offshore channel outlet in conjunction with upland dredging and construction of main discharge canal.) 10 January 1968 - Bechtel Corp. retained to study methods of cooling discharge waters at Turkey Point. 25 January 1968 - Drs. James B. Lackey, Microbiologist, Professor Emeritus, Univ. of Florida; (, Charles B. Wurtz, Biologist, LaSalle l l l _ _ _ _ _ ~~ ' _ _ __ -.
College; and Joseph S. Davis, Marine ( Botanist, Univ, of Florida; retained to study plankton, grasses, algae and inver-cibrates in the Bay. Also - Mr. Roger Yorton, Chemist, Univ. of Florida, to conduct periodic chemical analyses. January 1968
- FPL active in assisting Univ. of Miami ,
in obtaining grants from AEC and Dept. of the Interior to conduct ecological studies. 1 February 1968
- FPL funds two-year graduate research project at Univ. of Miami to investigate b fish and larger marine animals at Turkey Point.
19 April 1968 - U. S. Senate Subecemittee on Air & Water Pollution (chaired by Senator Muskie) held hearing in Miami on "possible thermal g<lution" of the Bay by FPL's proposed ra.selaar plant at Turkey Point. Witnesses in Guded FPL's Chairman of the (' Board, McGregor Smith; County and State officials; scientists;. and the Izaak Walton League. Senator Jennings Randolph ot' the Committee visited Turkey Point on the day prior, along with Committee Aides and others. Senator Muskia was unable to make visit. Important point emphasized by hearing is that little or no researchLittle has been done on thermal effects. i' is really known. 25 April 1968 - Unic No. 2 went on the line. 5 MWy 1968
- Mr. Richard O. Eaton, Consulting Coastal Engineer, Drs. James H. Carpenter and Donald W. Pritchard of the Chesapeake Bay Institute of Johns Hopkins University retained to study mixing characteristics of Biscayne Bay, conclude strong possi-bility of recirculation when nuclear units This would put on line in 1971 and 1972.
possibly have cumulative effect en temper-k- ature rise of water. l - i 1 1
)
l I l
e 29 August 1968 - Letter from Mr. Paul Leach, Director,
' /' Dade County Pollution Control, directing FPL to make known within 15 days steps planned to correct violation of Dade County Code and time table for actions.
Also - that FPL could alternately apply for a variance before Pollution Control Board. e 10 Septenber 1968 - Discussion with Dames & Moore concerning feasibility of developing source of coolant water from deep wells. 24 Septe=ber 1968 - FPL contracts with Dept. of Coastal and a
! Oceanographic Engineering, Univ. of Florida, to study hydrological effects of several alternative sche =es of intake and discharge canal arrangements and dilution methods designed to alt =inate recirculation and ' excess temperature.
Dr. Robert G. Dean to supervise study. 27 Septe=ber 1968 - FPL letter to Paul Leach, Director, Dade { County Pollution Control, advising if variance was required in his judgment to treat the letter as an application for variance, 11 October 1968 - A. M. Davis and D. W. Matson of FPL visited Paul Leach to deter =ine require-ments for variance for. Turkey Point Plant and Cutler Plant. I 14 October 1968 - Meeting in Atlanta between John R. Thoman, Regional Director, Southeast Region, d Federal Water Pollution Control Ad=inis-tration, and Nathaniel Reed, then Special Assistant to Governor of Florida, and McGregor Scith and A. M. Davis of FPL, regarding possibility of handling cooling water at Turkey Point by means of canal with dilution discharging into Card Sound. FPL explained investigation of this method
- entailed a year long study of hydrological effects which FPL was prepared to have accomplished by Univ. of Florida. Both
(_ Mr. Reed and Mr. Thoman indicated it may be a good solution. J i
.f i
1
/
- 18 October 1968 - Public Law 90-606 (90th Congress, H.R.
551) enacted authorizing the establish-ment of the Biscayne National Monument in the State of Florida, and for ether purposes.
- Temporary variance request by FPL before 7 Nove=ber 1968 Dade County Pollution Control Hearing '"
Board until July 1969, at which time FPL to reopen before Board with plan to reduce te=perature of water to an acceptable level. Boa: . was given complete datails on the extensive er gineering, hydrological, hydrographic and ecological studies under I way. Board adjourned - no decision on variance.
- Conference at Turkey Point attended by 17 Nove=ber 1968 biologists frcm FPL, University of Miami, University of Florida, Florida Board of Conservation, Florida State Board of Health and Federal Water Pollution Control Administration. At this meeting,
- b. FPL presented the details of its biological research program and requested suggestions and comments frem the assem-Several sugges-bled scientific group.
tions were made and incorporated into the program.
~
5-7 December 1968 - President's Advisory Water Board hearing in Pollution Miami andControl visit to Turkey Point where Mr. Nathaniel Reed, then Special Assistant to Covernor Kirk, said that cooling towers were out and advocated an extended canal system as a solution to the cooling water problem at Turkey Point. On several other occasions, Mr. Reed stated that we needed an extended canal system.
- Hearing by Metropolitan Dade County 19 December 1968 Pollution Control Hearing Board on FPL temporary variance request. Board adjourned - no decision on variance.
(
-s -
I - 9 January 1969 - Hearing by Metropolitan Lade County Pollution Control Hearing Board on FPL l temporary variance request. Board adjourned - no decision on request. 20 February 1969 - FPL contract with Institute of Marine Sciences, University of Mia=i, to conduct Survey Study of the Biota of Card Sound. 20 February 1969 - Tecporary variance granted FPL by Metro-politan Dade County Pollution Control Hearing Board until 31 July 1969, at
- which time FPL to submit plan for reduc-ing water temperiture and schedule of construction.
1 April 1969 - Variance upheld by Metropolitan Dade County Co= mission on appeal. 30 April 1969 ,- Retained Mr. Robert T. Spear =an, Little Fin, Inc. , Riviera Beach, to conduct underwater photography survey is at Turkey Point. 14 May 1969 - New 5-member, all professional, Metro-politan Dade County Pollution Contrcl Hearing Board, appointed by Metropolitan Dade County Commissica, af ter abolishment of previous Board. 13 June 1969 - Dames & Hoore retained to further study hydrology of proposed 5 mile canal - to support their preliminary belief that canal posed no hydrological implications. 13 June 1969 - FPL held conference and presented plan for cooling water selected after exhaus-tive studies which were explained in detail. Conference included representa-tives from all County, State and Federal agencies. Concurrence in the plan and/or suggestions as to a better plan were solicitel from all. I-e
v .
-9 1
I - FPL filed petition in Circuit Court for 27 June 1969 condemnation of Seadade property recuired for cooling water canal to Card Sound,
- A written statement of the presentation f 30 June 1969 was forwarded to al conferees, as well as the Office of the Governer of the State of Flcrida, the AEC, the Dade County -
Manager, and the Regional Coordinator of
- the U. S. Department of the Interior, Atlanta. Concurrence in the plan was requested. To date only two agencies !
- have responded - the Corps of Er.gineers
- and the Central and Southern Florida 8 Flood Control District, both of whc=
concurred in the plan. 29 July 1969
- FPL presented plan to new Metropolitan Dade County Pollution Control Hearing Board along with construction schedule
' and request for extension of the temporary variance until July 1971 - time required to complete construction. ( Board recessed with no decision except to extend variance until 1 October 1969. 30 July 1969 - Depositions for Seadade conde= nation suit - Mr. Robert Gardner and Mr. Theodore Slack. 5 August 1969 - FPL contracts with Brown & Root to conduct cooling water study for Turkey Point Power Plant. Also, separate centract with Rader
& Associates, Miami, to study probles of handling the cooling water at Turkey Point.
5 August 1969
- FPL contracts with Dames & Moore, Consult-ing Engineers in Applied Earth Sciences, Atlanta, for Cooling Water Study for Turkey Point Power Plant.
6 August 1969 - Hearing before Judge Vann, Circuit Court -
) Seadade Condemnation Suit, i .
I j t Ti 1 1 ' i
- 10 -
! 6 August 1969
- FPL request for proposal frem Dames &
Nbore to study feasibility of construc-tion and hydrologic influence of impound-ing ponds to cool discharge water. 14 August 1969 - Hearing before Judge vann, Circuit Court - Seadade Conde= nation Suit. 15 August 1969 - Hearing before Judge Vann, Circuit Ceurt - Seadede Conde= nation Suit. 15 August 1969 - Deposition for Seadade Condemnation Suit - Miami - Mr. Robert O'Hara. " 18 August 1969 - FPL contracts with Florida Ocean Sciences Institute to conduct underwater photo-
-biological survey in Card Sound in the vicinity of the Model Land Ccepany Canal.
19 August 1969 - Hearing before Judge Vann, Circuit Court - Seadade Condemnation Suit, i l 20 August 1969 - Deposition for Seadade Conde= nation Suit - f New York - Mr. Loren Crow. ) 21 August 1969
- Depositions for Seadade Condemnation Suit -
New York - Mr. Herbert C. Gee and Dr. Charles L. Hosler. August 1969
- Following consultants retained to study meteorological effects of canal:
Dr. Mariano Estoque, Professor of Meteorology, University of Miami; Dr. John B. Koogler and Admiral Anthony Danis (U.S. Navy Ret.) of Environmental Engineering Inc.; Dr. Gordon E. Dunn, former Director, National Hurricane Center (1955-68). 2 Septe:ber 1969 - Hearing before Judge Vann, Circuit Court - Seadade Condemnation Suit. (.
?
e .e
s - 18 September 1969 - Metropolitan Dade County Pollution Control Hearing Board resumed hearing. Expert witnesses in the area of hydrol-ogy, hydrographic engineering and ecology tsstified in behalf of the. plan. Massive evidence was presented to the Board. Bcard adjourned with no decision except to extend temporary vcriance until . 3 October 1969. 22 September 1969 - Hearing before Judge Vann, Circuit Court - Seadate Condemnation Suit. 29 September 1969 - Hearing befc te Judge Vann, Circuit Court - Seadade Concemnation Suit.
- Metropolitan Dade County Pollution Control 2 October 1969 Hearing Board continued hearing which was to be confined solely to deliberatied by the Board and the possible taking of notes.
Meeting was adjourned with no decision except to extend variance until 14 November 1969 and order additional information on the feasibility of an ocean outfall method of discharging the cooling water to be presented at next meeting. 8 October 1969
- Order of Taking for Seadade property granted FPL by Circuit Court after some four months since initiation of condem-nation action in June involving drawn out court proceedings.
- FPL retains Bechtel Corp. and Rader &
9 October 1969 Associates to conduct further independent studies of the cost and engineering of an ocean outfall method for handling the cooling water at Turkey Paint - in for response to Pollution Board request more detail on method. ( 4 D e
( . 30 October 1969 - The County Attorney, for Dade County, renders opinion that the Metropolitan Dade County Pollution Control Hearing Board had no authority to grant approval of the FPL cooling water plan - this was a function of the Dade County Pollution Control Officer. Also, that the sole matter over which the Board had juris-diction at the time was the amount of time FPL was to have in order to co= ply with the County Code. This =eant that all the ti=e, ef fort argi exeense suf fered by FFL in presenting its clan ~~to the Board was dcwn g dr E !
~
7 Nove=ber 1969 - Order of Taking appealed by Seadade to - District Court. 13 Nove=ber 1969 - Metropolitan Dade County Pollution Control Hearing Board hearing resu=ed. FPL presented additional det.iled infor-(', mation on the feasibility of an ocean outfall via expert witnesses. Decision of Board was -
" Conclusion - This Board concludes that it is in the best interest of the public for Florida Power & Light Company to sub-mit a workable plan to eliminate the thermal pollution at the Turkey Point Plant through the Pollution Control Director prior to February 1,1970.
"It further concludes that it is in the public interest for Florida Power & Light Company to enter into an agreement for the construction of whatever system is approved by the Pollution Control Director pursuant to its workable plan prior to 1 April 1970, and that said agree =ent must provide for completion of said system prior to 1 July 1971.
(. i
- B 5
( ~ "It is therefore ordered that Florida Power & Light Co=pany is hereby granted an extension of time within which to comply with the thermal pollution pro-vision of the Dade County Code up to and including July 1,1971, the following conditions being attached thereto:
"That this exten' a shall cease as of February 1,1970, if prior to that date Florida Power & Light Company has not received approval by the Pollution Control Director of a workable plan for
' the elimination of thermal pollution at the Turkey Point Plant; that this exten-sion shall cease as of April 1,1970, if prior to that time Florida Power & Light Company has not entered into an agreement for the construction of what-ever facilities are approved by the Pollution Control Director for the the elimination of thermal pollution at (- Turkey Point Plant, and if said contract does not provide for completion prior to July 1, 1971." 14 Nove=ber 1969 - Bids received on construction of Southern Reach portion of cooling canal to Card Sound. 18 November 1969
- FPL plan submitted to Director, Dade County Pollution Control, via application for Pollution Control Permit with offer to fund an ecological monitoring plan a
mutually acceptable to his office, the State of Florida and FPL. 5 December 1969
- Plan approved by Director, Dade County Pollution Control, with following strin-gent conditions:
"1. The five (5) axial flew pumps spect-fied shall be so designed to have a capacity of approximately ,840 cubic feet per second, instead of 785 cubic feet
( per second as specified at 3.6 feet T.D.H. i t i a F e
1 "2. There shall be supplied one additional ( pu=p over the five proposed which shall be in a pla e and ready for operation so that regular maintenance may be acccm-plished on those in service without any loss in pumping capacity.
"3. An additional three (3) pumps shall r be supplied within six (6) months, upon notice by this office that such are needed to increase the dilution capacity by an additional fifty per cent (50").
"4. The Florida Power & Light Ce:pany a shall submit a plan for a system of water te=perature monitors to the Pollution _
Control Depart =ent to provide a satis-factory monitoring system which will
- provide the depart =ent with continuous infor=ation concerning a=bient conditions in the total cooling water system.
"5. The Florida Power & Light Company f' shall fund the necessary ecological and hydrological studies of lower Biscayne Bay and Card Sound commencing April 1, 1970, and continuing for at least one (1) year af ter all units of the facility are in operation. These studies, prior to initiation, shall be agreed upon by the U. S. Deparrment of the Interior -
Federal Water Pollution Control Ad=in-istration, State of Florida Department of Air and Water Pollution Control, Dade
' County Pollution Control Department and the Florida Power & Light Company."
- Construction Permit issued by Metro-8 December 1969 politan Dade County Public Works Depart-ment for Southern Reach of Canal frem our existing canal system to North Line of Section 28-58-40. (This does not cover entire system.)
l.
' - Mr. Nathaniel Reed, Chairman, Florida 8 December 1969 Departmen' of Air & Water Pollution Control, called TPL with message from Governor Kirk to the effect that Governor Kirk had requested U. S. Secretary of the interior Rickel to hold Federal-State Conference concerning Turkey Point Plant, in accordance with Federal Pollution -
Control Act. 10 Dece=ber 1969 - Announcement that Federal-State Conference (approxi= ate) on Turkey Point to be held in Miami on 24 February 1970. 8 Il Dece=ber 1969 - Letter of Intent issued B. B. McCormick
& Sons of Jacksonville to award them contract for constructing portion c f canal authorized under Dade County Con-struction Per=it - $3.5 million.
18 Dece=ber 1969
- TPL application for Class 1 Dredging Permit to Dade County Public Works Dept.
for intake and discharge dredging for I ( Cooling H2O System in Biscayne Bay and Card Sound. 19 Dece=ber 1969
- Pollution Control Per=it appealed to Metropolitan Dade County Pollution Control !! earing Board by Seadade and the Izaak Walton League.
5 January 1970 - Petition by Izaak Walton League to Florida Air & Water Pollution Control Commission to issue order prohibiting construction of TPL cooling water system unless Chapter 403 of the Florida Statutes is complied with. 14 January 1970 - Metropolitan Dade County Pollution Control Hearing Board hearing to act on appeal of Pollution Permit plus request to stay FPL construction. Board adjourned after listening to four hours of testimony by Seadade and the Izaak Walton League vith no decision. FPL agreed not to start ( construction until 1 February 1970.
- ( ~
19 January 1970 - Retained Dr. Cordon Cunter, Biologist, and Director of Gulf Coast Research Laboratory - to augment ecological study efforts. 27 January 1970 - Mr. V. D. Patton, Executive Director, Florida Department of Air and Water Pollution Control, letter to FPL advis-ing of new State Pollution Permit system to go into effect next 30 days which will require construction per=it frem his depart =ent for pollution control equipment. l 28 January 1970 - Dade County Comsission denies Izaak Valten l _. . League request to stay FPL construction j of cooling system canal authorized by I construction permit issued by Dade County l Public Works Department. 29 January 1970 - Metropolitan Dade County Pollution Centrol Hearing Board hearing resumed on (- appeal of FPL pollution permit. No decision after 3 hours of testimony on permit or stay of construction. Next meeting set for 12 February 1970. TPL told Board it planned to proceed with construction 1 February 1970. 30 January 1970 - Contractor notified to proceed with actual dredging by 1 February. 30 January 1970 - Letter to Florida Depart =ent of Air and Water Pollution Control from Izaak Walton League asking State to halt canal construction. 30 January 1970 - FPL letter to Mr. V. D. Patton, Executive Director, Florida Department of Air and Water Pollution Control, in response to his 27 January 1970 letter - (1) FPL would promptly file for State Pollution Permit when new system became ef fective; (2) meanwhile, FPL had followed all Dade (, County procedures (approved by the State)
l l in obtaining a Dade County Pollution
' Control Permit; and (3) that the 1 February 1970 construction starting date was dictated by the actual comple-tien date of March or April 1971, mandatory to supplying the public power l requirements of June 1971.
3* February 1970 - Seadade motion before Circuit Court to ' stay FPL cooling water system construc- , tion denied on grounds jurisdiction , rested with District Court. 4 February 19/0 - Proposal requested from engineering firms to study pends as a supplement to canal , with dilution. /.lso - to study use of deep wells as supplemental cooling to - r canal with dilution. 4 February 1970 - Mr. NbCregor Smith's letter to Governor Kirk requesting that he do nothing to delay the coming in of the nuclear r generating unit at Turkey Point before ( giving FPL an opportunity to talk to him. Also - information on the electrical
- _. power demands facing the Company, cur actions and the impact of further delays.
Further - our concern over Federal intervention. 6 February 1970 - Southern Nuclear Engineering Co. retained to augment, studies on the feasibility of utilizing cooling towers at Turkey Point. 9 February 1970 - Hearing before District Court of Appeals on Seadade appeal of the Order of Taking granted by the Circuit Court and en Seadade's motion to stay FPL construction e at Turkey Point. Co art denies motion to stay construction. No decision as yet on condemnation appeal. 12 February 1970 - Metropolitan Dade County Pollution Control Hearing Board resumes hearing on appeal of pollution permit and stay (, of construction. Hearing recessed until 19 February 1970. Testimony closed.
.- r -
I g 17 Februevy 1.170
- Letter from Florida Department of Natural l I Resources requesting further hydrographic '
i study relative to proposed discharge into l Card Sound. Professor John Michel, University of Mia=i, recommended since 1 Dr. Dean, University of Florida (normal state consultant) already involved with i FPL on other hydrographic phases of canal I l plan. Letter touched off by FPL Dade l County dredging permit application requir-ing State coordination. I a 19 February 1970
- Dade County Pollution Control Hearing J
. Board denies appeal to cancel FPL permit vissued by Dade County Pollution Control j
Officer and modified permit as follows: 1 - The studies requited by the said Order of the Pollution Centrol Officer shall begin no later than April 1,1970.
,. If any agencies set forth in the said
(, Order have not agreed to the studies by April 1, 1970, the Pollution Control Officer shall set forth a procedure for the said studies, and such shall be carried out under his supervision. 2 - That an interim report developed from such studi'es shall be submitted to the Pollution Control Officer for evaluation and approval prior to any testing or operation of the Florida Power & Light Company's Unit No. 4 (that is, the Nuclear Unit No. 2) . . 3 - That should such interim report indi-
' cate the need for such supplementary facilities to assure compliance with the I
Dade County Code, said facilities shall be designed and in construction within i
' six months of an order to proceed issued by the Pollution Control Officer.
I k i i . o
- District Court of Appeals upheld FPL 19 February 1970 Order of Taking for Seadade propertyexcept granted by the Circuit Court,that part vesting fee land required for storage of cuck and rock. Question of fee simple title or easement referred to lower court for rehearing.
24-26 Feb. 1970
- Federal-State Enforcement Conference Conferees included held in Miami.
Murray Stein, Chairman, Assistant Commissioner and Chief Enforcement Officer, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, Washington, D.C.; John Thoman, Me=ber - Director, Southeast Region, Federal Water Pollution Concrel Administration, Atlanta, Ca.; Nathaniel Reed, Member - Chairman, Florida Air & Water Pollution Com=ission, Tallahassee; and Vincent Patton, Member - Executive Director, Florida Air & Watar Pollution Commission, Tallahassee. (-
- Conclusions and recommendations of the conference were as follows:
1) Severe local damage has occurred to cht aquatic plant and animal population of ?ower Biscayne Bay due to the present heated effluent of the Turkey Point Plant of the ?lorida Power & Light Company. This constitutes pollution which is sub-ject to abatement under Section 10 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. It also constitutes pollution in viola-tion of the State of Florida's and Federal Water Pollution Control Administration's standards, particularly those provisions relating to damages caused by increases in temperature, and the anti-degradation statement.
- 2) Present measures taken toward abate-ment of this pollution are not adequate.
The proposed plan to take large quantities (' of heated water through a six-mile canal to Card Sound is not acceptable. J
N
\
- 3) Because of the selection of the site of the Florida Power & Light Co=pany plant at Turkey Point, considerable technical difficulties are encountered in the disposal of the heated cooling water. Consequently, considerable delays have been and will be encountered in abating the pellution. ,
- 4) The State of Florida, the Depart =ent of the Interior, and the Corps of Engineers shall coordinate their views before any permit is issued which will g permit the discharge of waters into Biscayne Bay or Card Sound.
- 5) Quality of the waters, including the biological balance of Biscayne Bay shall ,
not be impaired to the detri=ent of the full enjoyment and use of the Biscayne National Monument. l' The Florida Power & Light Co=pany 6) shall abate the excessive waste heat load being discharged from its Turkey Point power plant to the following levels: The monthly mean of the maxi =um daily temperatures shall not be raised more than 40F during the Fall, Winter and Spring (October through May), or 1.50F during Sumer (June through Septe=ber) . On the basis of existing data this means that existing discharges shall not exceed 900 F at any time.
- 7) The Florida Power & Light Company shall not discharge waters in such velocity and in such amounts or at such points at to change the hydrology of the receiving waters to the detriment of indigenous biota.
( t*, L
\
' The Florida Power & Light Ceepany l 8) shall report to the Conferees not later than 60 days from today on its proposal to meet the requirements specified above.
The conference may be reconvened by 9) the chair =an af ter consultation with the Conferees, or the chairman after such consultation may :all a progress meeting.
- Fetition for Rehearing filed by Seadade 6 March 1970 in District Court of Appeal.
- Institute of Marine and Atmospheric 10 March 1970 Sciences'retsined to make certain hydro-graphie determinationsProfessor relative John to FPL canal to Card Sound.
Michel to be principal investigator.
- District Court of Appeal denied Petition
(- 13 March 1970 for Rehearing filed by Saadade.
- Federal Government filed suit in U. S.
Preliminary 13 March 1970 District Court against FPL. injunctive relief sought regarding operation of Turkey Point fossil unitsan f 20 March 1970 - Motion for Intervention filed in U. S. District Court by Floridt Public Service Commission relative above suit. l
- Visit to Turkey Point with FPL officials I 20 March 1970 by Frederick A. Warren, newly eppointed f head of the FPC's office of Alsothe--Advisor l
on Environmental Quality. Ceorge Adkins and Robert Boyd of the FFC. I ( l s -- _ _ _-_ --
t 23 March 1970
- Meeting in Washington between Secretary of the Interior Hickel and FPL repre-sentatives concerning Turkey Point.
24 March 1970
- Hearing in U. S. District Court on U. S.
suit against FPL comnenced with Judge Atkins presiding. 25 March 1970
- U. S. District Court denies Federal Govern =ent a preliminary injunction to have FPL cease cor.struction of canal to Card Sound. Decision on remaining injunctive relief sought by Covernment -
withheld pending the hearing of furr.her ' testimony. Case continued to March 26. 25 March 1970
- Letterfromh.M.DavistoDadeCounty Pollution Control Officer, Florida Department of Air & Water Pollution Control, and F.W.P.C. A. - reques ting
('- conference to determine scope of Card Sound studies relative to Dade County Pollution Control permit for canal to Card Sound. 26 March 1970 - FPL testimony given in Federal suit. Case continued to March 31. 17 March 1970 - Petitiou for Writ of Certiorari filed in District Court of the State of Florida by Seadade to the Supreme Court of Florida. 31 March 1970
- Testimony completed in Federal suit.
Court scheduled trip to Turkey Point for personal view. k e . w
e l . i l l t' ' - Letter from F.W.P.C.A. declining l 31 March 1970 invitation to participate in scope l determination of Card Sound studies ., i ) as requested by A. M. Davis letter ! o.' March 25. 1 April 1970 - Judge Atkir.3, his Court Assistant, Court Reporter, attorneys from both sides, and representatives of FPL and j Gove rnment, visited Turkey Point. t Dr. Lackey and Mr. Purkerson flew over area with Judge Atkins as well asJudge accompanying him on boat tour. also toured plant.
- Letter from David D. Dominick, 3 April 1970 Cc=missioner, F.'4.P.C.A., to Harold L.
Price, Director of Regulation, A.E.C. , requesting "that consideration of A.E.C. Turkey Point operating license be held (~ in abeyance pending a clear determination by tre Department of the Interict and State of Florida that definitive progress is being made by FPL in resolution of water control problems at Turkey Point". 16 April 1970
- U. S. District Court denies remaining preliminary injunctivy relief sought by Federal Government at Turkey Point.
(Court previously denied preliminary injunction to stop canal construction . March 25.) Findings were that present warm water discharge causes some danage but it is minimal and retrievable - also that plans are in process to reduce temperature of discharge to a benign level by July 1971. Further evidence be heard at later date on "the large amount of heated water the units will i discharge when they begin operation in l i 1971 and 1972". L 20 April 1970 - FPL files motion to dismiss action en l all four counts of above case. l O e l e L. l l l .
~
- l
~
f . 22 April 1970 - A. M. Davis letter to W. E. Starnes, Florida Depa. tment of Air & Water Polluci,on Control, confir=ing verbal arrangements that Mr. Starnes would attend April 24 meeting with Dade County Pollution Control and FP&L to determine objectives of studies required by Dade County Pollution Permit for " canal-dilution cooling water system. 24 April 1970
- Letter from Florida Department of Air
& Water Pollution Control, declining g invitation to attend abcve meecing.
- Above meeting held and attended by
- 24 April 1970 Mr. Paul Leach, Director, Dade County Pollution Control, and FP&L represen-tatives. Results:
- 1) Fact established that data FP&Linhad Cardbeen
(, accumulating study Sound since March 1970.
- 2) Planning definitized for continuation of studies.
27 April 1970 - FP&L letter by A. M. Davis to Murray Stein, Assistant Commissioner, Enforce-ment, Federal Water Quality Administra-tion, and Nathaniel Reed, Chairman, Florida Air & Water Pollution Control Board, responding to conclusions and recemmendations of conferees of Federal-State conference on thermal problems in Biscayne Bay adopted February 26,19/0. FP&L proposed the following-
"1. The temperature of discharges from the Turkey Point Plant as of June 1971 will be limited ss follows:
k
=
l l
\
(
"a) The temperature at the point of discharge into Card Sound shall not 4
exceed 950F.
"b) The monthly mean of the maximum daily temperatures measured at any point cn the boundary of Biscayne National
' Monument, shall not, as a result of plant operations, be raised core than 40F. in the fall, winter and spring (October through May), or 1.50F. during
. summer (June through September). The Company will install an appropriate temperature monitoring system r.o provide assurance of compliance with the above ILnits and will make the records produced therefrom available to the Florida Depart-
- ment of Air & Water Pollution Control as well as to the Dade County Pollution Control Officer.
I "2. The Company shall fund an ecological and hydrological research program in Card r Sound to commence as soon as arrangements I can be made, which shall have the approval of Dade County, the State of Florida and the Federal Water Quality Com=i .le.., and which shall continue for at le.sst one year af ter Unit No. 4 goes into operation.
' The Company, pursuant to such funding, will provide such laboratory facilities as the research organization or any interested governmental agency shall s
require in connection with such program. 1 "3. The Company is now and will continue
. to conduct through an internationally i
- recognized independent firm of professional power plant engineers not previously con-nected with Turkey Point plant design and construction, a reevalustion of engineering j alternatives for handling the cooling waters.
1 In this connection, a pilot cooling reservoir l will be constructed. Since it is not known
t when or if affirmative results can be f . expected from this study, the Company proposes to submit certified progress reports concerning these studies to the Florida Department of Air & Water Pollution control at quarterly intervals, the first such report being submitted July 1, 1970. "
"4 The Company will, prior to June 1, 1970, apply to the Florida Department of Air & Water Pollution Control for a permit for the Card Sound canal and dilution system. The laws of the State g '
of Florida as well as the rules and regulations of the Department enable I the State of Florida to exercise a con-tinuing surveillance over the construc-tion and operation of the system and, as a result of the various research programs, to order such future modifi-cations as it may feel necessary to effactuate the purposes of these laws, ( rules and regulations. In this connec-tion, a report is in preparation by the University of Miami on the effects of the canal on the hydrology of Card Sound. This report will aid the State in evalu-ating our application.
"5. The Company will cooperate with all State and Federal agencies to insure timely issuance of such approvals and permits as are necessary in order to complete the Card Sound canal and dilution system on schedule.
"6. The Company is willing to meet from time to time as the conferees shall require to discuss modifications to this proposal as may be required in the public interest."
(
l I 27 April 1970 - Letter from R. C. Fullerton, President, FPL, to Secretary of the Interior Walter J. Hickel, forwarding copy above letter and expressing.FPL's enthusiasm and optimism over being able to devise a plan that: (1) more nearly achieves reco=mendations , of Federal-State conference, (2) offers nationwide of laboratory benefitsvitally to provide in form needed but obviously lacking infor-mation, and i (3) furnishing opportunity for Department of the interior and industry to worh together on preserving the environ-ment, concurrently with providing necessary industrial activities. e 4 May 1970
- U.S. serves Notice to Take Deposition of
(' FPL's James Coughlin and Robert Gardner in connection with Turkey Point suit. 19 May 1970
- Dr. Prager and Messrs. Hagen, Rogers and Haggre of F.W.Q. A. escorted to Turkey Point by N. R. Kincaid. Purpose was preliminary planning visit cencerning possible F.W.Q. A. plankton studies.
Visit had been requested by F.W.Q. A. despite current litigation. 27 May 1970 - Letter to FPL from Nathaniel Reed, Chairman, Florida Department of Air & Water Pollution Control, commenting en FPL plan submitted in response to Federal-State conference recommendations. Reed saw four problems that must be solved - (1) Velocity at intake must be controlled to protect Biscayne Bay, (2) Velocity at discharge must be controlled, (3) Excessive temper-( ature must be controlled, and (4) Plankton and larvae must not be destroyed in plant's cooling system. l 1 l l
~
- University of Miami (Professer John F.
- 27 May 1970 Michel, P.E.) completed study on hydro-grophic effect of canal with dilution system. Conclusions are that it will produce little effect No on shore line or significant bottom stability.
alteration in tidal flows and current No problem patterns is anticipated.is foreseen in keeping less than 2 feet per second at both However, addi-intake and discharge. tional numerical analyses and possibly a model study should be made for thh istake to insure the detail of design a required,
- Follow *up meeting held in offices of 28 May 1970 p,W.Q. A. , Washingten. D.C. , to 24-26, 1970 Miami Federal-February FFL State Enforcement Conference.
reported on status of its April 27,
, 1970 proposed plan of action made in ! response to conclusions and recommen- Brown &
dations of Miami conference. Root Inc. , University of Mia=1, and Johns Hopkins University gave details on engineering, hydrological and ecological studies, investigations and research under way or planned. Reed requested-that Brown & Root Nat furnish him, in writing, the detailed scope of work being performed F.W.Q.A. at Turkey requested it Point for FPL. allowed to run a plankton study at be Although the meeting Turkey Point. produced no resolution to the problem,it betterclosely definitized achieve FPL's efforts to the reco==endations more of the Miami Federal-State Conference, s a
i
- 1 June 1970 - Application for construction permit for canal with dilution cooling water system submitted to State in accordance with new rules and regulations of Departrent of Air & Water Pollution Control.
8 June 1970 - Arguments.made before Judge Atkins regard-ing FPL Motion to Dismiss all counts in Federal suit against FPL. No decision. 9 June 1970 - Deposition taken by Department of Justice from FPL's Dr. James Coughlin and R. J. Cardner. 10 June 1970 - FPL letter by A. M. Davis to Nathaniel keed, Chair =an, Florida Department of Air
& Water Pollution Control, directed at convincing him the FFL plan submitted in response to the Federal-State Conference
(- recommendations was sound and in the best overall interests of the people of the State of Florida. Observations regarding the plan, expressed by Mr. Reed in his May 27, 1970 letter, were discussed, point by point, including resolutions to the problems he cited.
- 11 June 1970 - Letter from Dr. R. C. Bader, Associate Dean, School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Miami, to Nathaniel Reed, strongly advocating further study of thermal effects since so very litti- is known on the subject--
if we are to make intelligent decisions in this country regarding thermal ef fects. ( e
-w- - -. w.
( f 17 June 1970 - Letter from Brown & Roor Inc. to Nathaniel Reed, Chairman, Florida Depart =ent of Air & Water Pollution Control, covering scope and status of their work at Turkey Point for FPL. They estimated that results would be available in approximately 6-8 months. 19 June 1970 - Formal request from Southeast Region, F.W.Q. A. , to conduc t plankton studies at Turkey Point during months of July, August and September. Team of 6 to 8 F.W.Q.A. personnel from Rhode Island and , Cincinnati laboratories to conduct tests. 22 June 1970
- Florida Supreme Court grants Seadade Industries Order Allowing Certiorary in condemnation suit. Oral agreement set down for October 16, 1970.
(
,24 June 1970
- FPL letter by A. M. Davis forwarding copy of Brown & Root report to F.W.Q. A. South-east Regional Director.
25 June 1970 - FPL letter by A. M. Davis to John R. Thoman to respo_nding to above F.W.Q.A. request conduct plankton studies. Point emphasized that the massive ecological study contained in FPL's overall plan of action proposed I for Turkey Point includes extensive study of plankton over a four-year period. l F.W.Q.A. urged to technically participate in dhis study as opposed to the short term, small scale plankton study effort described in their request. Further, that if current litigation was the purpose for their con-ducting this study, then it would be neces-sary for FPL to bring its legal people into the matter. I. t 9 e 1
- 31 -
4
- FPL letter by A. M. Davis to Dr. R. C.
25 June 1970 Bader finalizing administrative arrange-j mants for University of Miami to conduct an ecological study of Card Sound.
- Judge Atkins requests memorandum cpinien 26 June 1970 from counsel of both parties regarding FPL Motion to Dismiss all counts in Federal suit against FPL.
- FPL letter by James Coughlin to Nathaniel 29 June 1970 Reed, urging that the State of Florida participate in the July meeting to final-ize technical details for the ecological study of Card Sound to be conducted by University of Miami, 29 June 1970
- Same type letter as above to Southeast Regional Director, F.W.Q.A., urging
( F.W.Q. A. participation in meeting.
- University of Miami letter by Dr. R. G.
29 June 1970 Bader, Associate Dean, to FPL enclosing A.E.C. letter by Robert L. Holten con-cerning funding and other administrative
, aspects of Card Sound study.
1 July 1970 - Florida Department of Air & Water Pollution Control letter by V. D. Patton to Secretary of the Interior, Walter Hickel, reflecting fruitful steps under way to cetermine a satisfactory course of action at Turkey Point. 1 8 l o
~
1 l
< I 1
6 July 1970 - FPL letter by A. M. Davis to V. D. Patton, Executive Director, Florida Department s of Air & Water Pollution Control, forward-ing Southern Nuclear Engineering's evalu-ation and rejection of powered spray module,s for Turkey Point. Mr. Patton had - suggested this type of device be evaluated. , 7 July 1970 - FPL agrees to permit Depart =ent of the Interior to conduct plankton tests at
~
Turkey. Point. Complete scope of work to l be furnished FPL shortly.
)
7 July 1970 - Meeting at University of Miami to finalize
) technical details of Ecological Study of Card Sound. Conferees included represen- < tatives from:
I 4 Atomic Energy Commission I U.S. Geological Survey l (' Everglades National Park Dade County Pollution Control
' Florida Department of Air & Water Pollution Control University of Miami FPL
- Letter from F.W.Q.A. by Paul J. Traina 9 July 1970 furnishing scope details of plankton i
study to be conducted at Turkey Point. j Project to be under direction of Dr. J. C. Frager from F.W.Q. A. Rhode Island Laboratory. i i
! 16 July 1970 - Letter from Paul W. Leach, Dade County Pc11ution Control Officer to FPL, acknowledging f act that Ecological Study ' of Card Sound to be conducted by Univer-j sity of Miami fulfills condition 5 of
- the Dade County permit.
g l 2 1 1 1 a e
27 July 1970 - FPL letter by A. M. Davis to V. D. Patten, Executive Director, Florida Department of Air & Water Pollution Control, forward-ing progress report from Brown & Root on Turkey Point cooling water studies. Coples also sent to F.W.Q.A. Report showed construction pilot reservoir started June 22. 3 August 1970 - Letter frcm Judge Atkins, U. S. District Court, requesting memorandum from both e parties in Federal suit against U. S. 13 August 1970 - FPL letter to Florida Dept. of Air & n Water Pollution Control stating FPL was ce= piling additional data required for pending construction per=it application-- data to be forwarded at an early date. 24 August 1970 - FPL letter to Florida Dept. of Air & Water Pollution Control, forwarding repcrt from Brown & Root regarding status of construction of pilot reservoir, in-cluding photographs - also copies to FWQA. 31 August 1970 - Letter from Dade County Public Works Dept., requesting that recently approved bulkhead line be indicated as shoreline in Card Sound on FPL pending application for Class 1 dredging permit for intake and discharge of planned canal-dilution system. 2 September 1970 - Environmental Statement on Turkey Point Units Nos. 3 'and 4 forwarded to /.EC. 21 Septe=ber 1970 - Information concerning load and weather for Turkey Point Plant for period August 22 to Septe=ber 5,1970 furnished FWQA per tneir request of September 14, 1970. 4 5 e l
13 October 1970 - trofescer John F. Michel, University of Miami, completed Addendum to his May 1070 Technical Report concerning an Analysis . of the Physical Effects of the Discharge of Cooling Water into Card Sound at the Turkey Point Plant of the Florida Power
& Light Company. ,
16 October 1970 - Oral arguments made by Sekdace and FPL before Florida Supreme Court in condes-nation suit. Court's decision to be made subsequently. 19 October 1970
- AEC issued order extending Provisional Construction Permit completion date frem January 1971 to Julv 1,1971 for Unit-No. 3.
20 October 1970 - Dade County Public Works Dept. furnished additional information requested by the 4 Department and the State concerning Class 1 dredging permit application for l intake and discharge. 22 October 1970 - Application for permit to dredge intake and discharge submitted to Board of
- Trustees of the Interr.al improvement i
Trust Func, State of Florida. 26 October 1970 - Application for permit to dredge intake and ditcharge submitted to Corps of i Engineers. 27 October 1970 - quarterly progress meeting held on University of Miami Card Scund Ecology Study. Attendees included: Atomic Energy Commission Of fice of the Secretary, Department 3 of the Interior National Park Service Federal Water Quality Administration U. S. Geological Survey Dade County Pollution Control
,- University of Miami Florida Power & Light Company
30 October 1970
- FPL letter to Metro Dade County Public Works Dept., summing up the status of FPL's ef forts in engineering a system for continuous monitoring of discharge tempe ra tu re s . Information was furnished in conjpnction with FPL's Class 1 dredg-ing permit application pending before e Dade County, 2 November 1970
- Letter flrom Corps of Engineers, acknowledging receipt of FPL application for dreJging permit for intake and dis-charge. Also, that application will be i held without action pending their receipt of certification from the Florida Dept.
of Air & Water Pollution Control, as required by Section 21 of the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970. 3 November 1970 - Official notification received that Dade County Commissioners will conduct public hearing on November 17, 1970 at 9:00 A'! , regarding FPL Class 1 permit application to dredge intake and discharge. 4 November 1970 - Letter from Florida Board of Trustees of ; Internal Improvement Trust Fund regarding FPL application for dredging permit for intake and discharga, requesting:
- 1) That a portion of the dredging is located within submerged lands in private ownership which were conveyed under Trustees' Deed No.17780; there-fore, material dredged from this area will not have to be purchased.
- 2) That on October 27, 1970 the Trustees adopted a resolution requiring payment for all material removed from naviga-tional channels dredged on sovereignty land.
t e 7
t .
- 3) Suggestion that Deed No. 17780 be plotted on survey sketches and the amount of material to be removed be recalculated.
- 4) That Dade Caunty must issue permit for project before Trustees can -
consider the matter.
- David D. Dominick, FWQA Co=missioner, 4 November 1970 visited Turkey Point.
- University of Florida study on " Temper- i 5 November 1970 ature Predictions at Mouth of Planned Discharge Canal in Card Sound, Turkey Point Facility" confirms prior study predictions that discharge temperatures 0 into Card Sound will be below 95 .
12 November 1970
- Inform tion regarding circulating water flow provided Department of the Interier for months of August and September 1970, i
per their request.
- Permit to dredge intake and discharge 17 November 1970 granted FPL by Dade County Board of Commissioners - Resolution No. R-1347-70.
23 November 1970 - Shareholder's derivative suit filed in U.S. District Court against FPL and Chairman of the Board, Vice Chairman of the Board, and President. Suit pr.sys fer:
- 1) A preliminary injunction enjoining the Company from spending any more money on or proceeding with Turkey Point constructicn as presently planned.
1
- 2) That of ficers named be required to pay Company damages suffered as a result of Turkey Point planning.
Dade County construction permit for 4 December 1970 Southern Reach of cooling canal to north a line of Section 28-58-40 extended to December 31, 1971.
- U.S. District Court ordered the following 11 December 1970 regarding FPL Motion to Dismiss all counts in U.S. vs FPL case:
- 1) Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the first count of the Complaint be and the same is hereby granted and the first count of the complaint be and the same is hereby dismissed.
- 2) The defendant's Motion to Dismiss the second, third and fourth counts
- of the Complaint be and the same is hereby denied.
- 3) The following question:
Whether ' heated water' cr ' thermal pollution ' is ' refuse matter' within the meaning of 33 U.S.C. 407" is hereby certified to the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals as a controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion under 28 U.S.C. P 1292(b) upon which I believe an immediate appeal may materially advance the ultimate termination of this litigation.
- 4) Upon the filing by the defendant of an appropriate petition under 28 U.S.C. F 1292(b) and Federal Rule of Appellace Pro:edure 5, this cause and all further proceedings herein shall be stayed pending resolution of the interlocutcry appeal.
1
l 16 December 1970 - Permit to dredge intake and discharge approved by State Board of Trustees. 16 December 1970 - Application for State Certification for intake and discharge dredging submitted to Florida Department of Air & Water - follution Control. 22 December 1970 - FPL files motion for order staying cause and to require plaintiff to post secerity for costs in shareholder's derivative suit vs FPL. I 11 January 1971 - Court granted above Motion of FPL. 18 January 1971 - FPL letter to Nathaniel P. Reed with copies to Environmental Protecti7n Agency; Florida Department of Air & Water Pollu-tion Control; U.S. Depart =ent of the Interior; Geological Survey in Miami; and Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District; forwarding Brown & Root progress report indicating physical feasibility of constructing a raised cooling water reservoir. Also, that
' study is continuing to determine the engineering and economic practicality of an excavated cooling water reservoir in order to compare both methods.
20 January 1971 - Plaintiff filed a surety bond with the Court in the shareholder's derivative suit vs FPL. This action new permits case to continue, i.e., depositions to be taken both sides, answers to inter-rogatories, objections to interrogatories, etc. 22 January 1971 - Dr. Gordon Everett and Mr. Lee Purkerson of the Environmental Protection Agtney, together with Frank Carlson of the t
i , Department of the Interior, visited Turkey Point. A. M. Davis and J. Coughlin escorted the group. Carlson and Everett attended a meeting at the University of ' Miami on the hydrological and hydrographic aspects of the University of Miami study of Card Sound the preceding day, January 21. , 1 29 January 1971 - U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit Court denied FPL Petition for Permission to Appeal pursuant to the 28 U.S.C. F 1292(b) in case of US vs FPL. (Reference 11 December 1970 entry in Chronology I describing action by U.S. District Court concerning this appeal.) 2 February 1971 - Florida Supreme Court upheld FPL's condem-nation of Seadade property for canal. , 5 February 1971 - In the case of U.S. vs FPL, District Federal Court cedered and adjudged the following: 1 - That the Order and mandate of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit be, and the same is, hereby made the Order of this Court; 2 - That the defendant shall, within twenty (20) days of the date hereof, serve and file its Answer to the Complaint; and 3 - That a preliminary pre-trial confer-ence will be held in Miami before the undersigned, at which ti=e the Court will discuss with counsel any question concerning the pleadings, pending motions, probable length of discovery and the possibility of settlement of the case. I l
~
~ . -
l l 8 February 1971 - FPL met with Mr. W. V. Storch and Mr. Robert Taylor of the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District concerning the feasibility of utilizing a raised level pond as a part of the cooling water system. e I l
/
?
CXMiClE J ADVISORY COMMITTIC ON RCACTOR SAFCCUARDS UNJTCDwas,mucion. LTATESD.C. ATOMIC Sous Ef4CT4GY COMMISSION
- f
- 5
, June 18, 1971 "
Honorabic Clenn T. Seaborg Chairman
- U. S. Atomic Energy Comission Washington,,D. C. 20545
Subject:
REPCRT CN ::RXEY POINT NUCLEAR CE CRATING 3 AND 4 ,
Dear Dr. Seaborg:
10-12, 1971, the Advisory Cc=ittee l At its 134th meeting, June i , l on Reactor Safeguards complaced its review of th Turkey -Point Nuclear Generating Unitsb 3 and 4 at pow i up to 2200 W(t) .at the 127th,131st, and April and 1-3, 132nd 1971, Cc=ittee meetings of Nove 12-14, 1970, r. arch 4-6, 1971, 970 i. and at Subcomittee meetin;;s at the site on November 7,1 and March 19, 1971. benefit of discussions with representatives of Floridah Power l and Light Co=pany, Westinghouse Elcetric Ccrpor:tien, Eec te j Corporation, and the Regulatory Staff, and their consultants. The in 7 The Co:uittee also had the benetic of the docum its letters of January 18, 1967 and May 15, 1968. Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 are located in Dade County, h Florida on the west shore of Biscayne Eay approximately 25 c.iles sout They share the site with two oil and gas fired units. of Miami. , Each nuclear unit e= ploys a pressurized water reactor in a three-t loop nuclear steam supply systcm of essentially the same desig l as the H. B. Robinson Unit No. 2, previously revieved. l lined concrete cylinder with a fist base and a sha roof. The wall is prestressed with vertiest and horizontal d system. tendons;.the docia is prestressed with a three-way ten on 9 e k e e 1 l
s r_ d 4
. o i
June 18, 1971 l ' Itenorabic Clenn T. Scaberg l j During con:truction, the concrete in a portion i of the Unit 3 e cracks i
- containment building donc was found to contain extens v i
parallel to and at depths as much as 15 inches below the ou I
- surface. The applicant,
/ sultants, developed and Leptemented procedures for reroving the j
damaged concrete; repairing or replacing tenden sheaths, l; tendon 3 t wires, and reinforcLng bars da: h daged conclu- during the the reasons for the cracking have not The been establi j i measures have been taken to prevent hichtheir will recurren 1 - more frequent and more extensive surveillance be carried out, l nt program j will be able to perform its design function in the unlike y eve a of a loss-of-coolant accident. i The applicant states that he intends to operate U its J and 4 in such a manner as to assure t'aat caxi=u fuel rod linear pecer * . l does not exceed 15.8 K/f t at full reactor power of 22C0 AT(t). l Performance of the emergency core cooling system (ECCS) during j postulated loss-of-cociaac accidents has been T program, reevaluaced in ax-the light of results from the Co==ission's FLIch rs, g periments and analyses by the applicent and his nt contracto j and information developed by the Re5ulatory Staf f in receT 1 studies of ECCS. performance is satisfactory. b Conservative pressure-temperature i relationships should be esta - This =atter j lished to cover reactor start up and shut-doen.isfactory to the Regulatory
,should be resolved in a mannar sat l Staff.
l l The Comsittee reiterates its previous com=ents concerning the failures need to study further means of preventing common mode f from negating reactor scram action, and of design features tic- to 1 4 make tolerable the consequences of failure h design to scram durin ipoted transients. f ty of th,se e studies and to implement in timely fashion suc l modifications as are found to improve significantly the sa eThe { i the plant in this regard. f of the resolution of this matter. j a w I . i
- i i
a I i t 1 i 1
.m _ _ . _. . _ __. _ __
- e. ,
I 1 , I Monorable Glenn T. Ses1,org 13- June 18, 1971
/
. /'
i
- The applicant proposes to u:e a purging technique 'to control the
. buildup of hydrogen in the et,ntsinment that could follow in the i
unlikely event of a loss of coolant accident. Installation of l the purge syste:n should be completed prior to start of routinc operation. The Regulatory Staff should assure itself that the
- . design criteris for the system are consistent with those for other engineered safety features. ,
~
I An extensive integrated pro 2 ram for usessuring vibration of reactor 1 vessel internals and pri=sry system compenents is being carried out on several previously licensed pressurized water resctors. The.a N '* Connittee believes that sese confir=atory vibration =easorc:ents are desirable for the Turkey Point Units, as for all reactors. The 4 I Regulatory Staff should revice the results of vibration messurements on other plants with regard to their applicability to Turkey Point l r ' and should deter =ine the confir m tory measurc=ents to be made. Other problems relating to large water reseters which have been identified by the Regulatory Staff and the ACRS and cited in previous ACRS reports should be dealt with appropriately by the , Regulatory Staff and the applicant as suitable approachas are . developed. The Advisory Coemittee on Reactor Safeguards believes that, if due regard is given the itec:s mentioned above, and subject to satisfacecry cocipletion of construction and pre-operational testing, there is reasonable assurance that the Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Units 3 and 4 can be operated at power levels up to 22001G(t) without undue risk to the health and safety of l i the public. . l
- Sincerely yours,
/
gg[ ac \, Spencer R. Bush
. Chairman References
- 1) Supplement Nos.17 through 28 and 30 through 36 to the appli-cation and Final $stery Analysis Report
- 2) florids Power & Light Company letter dsted December 23, 1970
. ' Transmitting a report describing the distress observed in Turkey Point Unit 3 contain.:.cnt doc 4
- 3) T1orida Power & Light Co=psny letter dsted January 25, 1971 transmitting a report describing the concrete repisce=ent program for the Turkcy Point Unit 3 centsineene deze
. 4) Florids Power & Light Company ictter dated April 22, 1971 transmitting Security Plan for Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 .
s I 1 i i l t
m-.~. EXHIBIT I-
- = - us pryarfment of 3nctiec paqtastan,p.c. nsn
( .
- April 2,1971 'ik 0
.3 6 M0*N Willic:n C. Steel, Esquire McCarthy Stec1 Hector and Devis First Nation:1 Bank Euilding Mi mi, Florida 33131 .
Dear Mr. Steel:
The Department of the Interior has determined that Florida Pouer and Light Co=pany's latest plan The modifications to the of Biscayne Bay and Card Sound. plan proposed by the Depart =ent of the Interior are as follows: (1) Any settlement of this case would ence= pass all activities of the Company at the Turkey Point power plant site including operation of nuclear units 3 and 4. b By no later than June 1, 1975, the ccmpany (2) begin would operation of the Turkey Point powerWith-Pl ant on a co=pletely closed cooling system.draw to Biscayne or Card Sound would not occur except under e=ergencies created by a national crisis, a power failure throughout peninsular Flerida, or a reactor cooling crisis. ' (3) From the date of setticment until June 1, 1975, the company would operate the Turkey Point Power plant under the following interim criteria: Maxi:n=n tgerature of discharge at canal
-exits: 93.0 F.
Maximu:n te=perature rise of discharge atF.ganal 7.C ,
, exits over temperature at the intake:
4250 cfs. Maximum volume withdrawn from Biscayne Bay: - L .
d ! I
$3 /, , !
Maximum volume discharged to Biscaynn Bay through existing ena ls only: 1250 cfs. . Maximum volume discharged to Card Sound: 3000 cfs. Maximum velocity of current at1.5 any point in the fps. . cross section of canal exists: . L (4) The Company would install effcetive fish protection facilitics in canals and chcnnels. The co=pany would co= ply with all applicable (5) and state water quality standards and would federal J g obtain all necessary federal and state permits, t The Environmental Protection Agency has infor=ed us that it is in agreement with the foregoing preposals. We ask that Florida Power and Light Co=pany indicate as pro =ptly as possible its willingness to codify its proposal in accordance with the requirements outlined above. {, ' Sincerely, g
.)
f ' ,
/* %%
Shiro Kashiua Assistant Attorney General , Land and Natural Rescurces Division l I e e e t 6 e C. - e e I - ._ - - - - - - ^ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
p exmmT_ M9 EASEL e.TABB cue us rus. nem
- 3. Cunmerce C*18 Because M poundal eMects on ine state aaramerce resulting from destruc-
* *
- Alfred G. ZABEL and Daisd R. Rassen, tion of fish and wildlife from dredge and )
Fla nettfs Appences ese to fiD project on private riparian sub-m e ta- '* - aW wa ts. Cua l remon s. P. TA38. Colonet, Corps of Eartrwers, d 4 iters pastries E.ngineer. Flortda.Department of the gress District; to regulate has power such projects. USCA.under commerce clause
" Army, Jacuanvule.
Stasey
- 3. W. Secreta.r y of the Const, art.1. I 8. el 3.
**" Armyt and t'nited Statee of Anwrten. Namamewate g
Deu-4 u- The Submerged lands Act, by vest. No. 27553' Ing in states power to regulate tidelands Usted States Court of Appests. property except for purposes relating to "I Mfth Ctreutt. navigation, flowd control and hydroelec- *~ 2888 8f gm to jugy 1413;o. ' E " ment by C' ongress of its constitutional P' . Rehearing Denied Aug.1417"tL [58 powers over commerce to regulate use of submerged riparian property for con-nortag compel servation purposes. Subtnerged Lands , catan" Action by landowners to Act, il 1 et sea,3(a, b). 43 U.S.C A. Il 3*eretary of Army to luue permit to 1301 et seg,1311(a. b). e Court dredge and fill in navigsble waters of4. Nadgable Waters C=3s The United e of the bay for a trailer park. T'te Fish and WiWife Coordmation empre), srses of States District Court for the 311ddle trict of Florida at Tampa. Ben Krents-Dis-that atency, whether public
.Act requires
- or private. dredging and filling sub-orn' man. J,296 F.Supp. 764. granted land-merged lands under governmental per-1 r owners' motion for summary judgment and deniet mot. ion for summy judg- mit consalt wita Fish and Wildhfe Serv-g rd what ment by the United States ar.d its offi* Fian ice with view and Wildlife of conservstion of wi Coordina-g cars and appeal was taken. The Court resources. tion Act, i Ra) 18 USCA. I 6C(a).
, , , , of Appeals. John R. Brown Chief Judge.
gPN, beld that under National Environmentala. Commerce eMa . Felicy Art of 1969 and the FM and With respect to Fish and Wildlife
** Wildlife Coordination Act. Secretary of Coordination Act. Congress intended I II" Army could refuse to authorize dredge that Chief of Engineers and Secretary and fill project in aarigsble waters for of Army consult with Fish and Wildlife bM factually substantial ecological reasons Service before issuing permit under
{ sven though project would not inter. Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act f estrue. fere with navigation. flood control or for private dredge and fill operation. appen. I the production of power. Flah and Wildlife641. Coordination 662; Ititers Act. Il I s right 1. 2.16 USC.A. II
,g,,,, Reversed and undend. and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899.
I 10, 33 USC.A. l 403. /
,, ,g ,,y,,,,,3,,,,,,,,,3 L Canumeres M Although congressional enmaad Tant for dotarmining whether Con- that Chief of Engineers and Secretary of
- grisa has power under commerce classe Army consult with Fish and Wildife to protset wildlife in natigsbie waters Service before issuing permit ander and t1ereby to regulate use of privata Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act Property for that reason is whether thern for private dredge and fiu operation was is basis for the congressional judgment not in esistence at time permit was de-'
1 that the activity regulated has a sub- nied. correctness of decision with re-
. etantial effect on intarstata commerce. spect to graating of permit would be
( . USCA. Coast. art.1. l 8. ct 3. I j
m l _ r t (80 ITDI2AI. REFORT12,2d SIRII5 prese:
- 200 constitute deprivation of property mth. Injun.
l* determined by standards of the Fish and out due process of law. Fish and Wild. permi Tiia and life Coordination Act, (( 1. 2,16 U1 in LN Wildlife C< ordination Act. Wildlife Coordination Act, (( ! 2,18 C.A. Il 661, 662; Rivers and Harbors SL P- { UIC.A. Il 661. 662; Rivers and Har- Appropriation Act of 1899. l lo. 33 sse a bors Appropriation Act of 1899, i 10. USC.A. ! 403. 33 USC.A. I 403. T. Navfgetite Waters 8*7
- 11. Erninent Domatn det(10) harigable watars and underfying c'
P Before granting dredging permits land with respect to which landorter **"*[ ander Rivers and Harbors Appropriation sought permit for dredging au filing Atn Act. Army must consult eith, consider project to construct trailer court were dered l- andreceive,and then evaluate the recom- subject to parsmount servitude in the mandations of all other agencies articu- federal governicent which the Submerged ,
! lately on all environmental factors, and lands Act expressly reserved as an in.
I ,, g g;, in rejecting a pernit on nonnavigational cident of pomer incident to the commerce ,,,,, f grounds, the Secretary of the Army does clause, and denial of permit for factually damat not abdicate his sole ultimate responsi- substantial ecological reasons did cot tne tr buity and authority but rather is acting constitute a "taking" for public use with- the st Fish and USC.A.ConsL under contressional mandate. eat just compensation. . n wndlife Coordination Act (( 1. 2.16 art 1, { 8, et 3; Submerged Lands Act, ,,g,y
- UAC.A.11661. 662; Rivers and Har- (( 2(e). 3(d), 43 U.S.C.A. li 1301(el. was e 4 bars Appropriation Act of 1899. ! 10, 1311(d); Rivers and Harbors Appro- ,,,ia ,
33 UAC.A.1403. pnation Act of 1899. I 10. 33 UAC.A. by th. 8
- 8. Navtgeble Waters essa I 403- been Sa pestise %ede ese Pseum Under National Environmental Pol- teen ley Act of 1969 and the Fish and Wildlifef*' ***' W **aumann sad incres i* Coordination Act, Secretary of Army *~ aware
- could refuse to authorize dredge and fi!! _
tion f project in navigable wa'.an for factually and d 4 ecological reasons even John L. Briggs, U. S. Atty, Tampa. the i. embatantial y though project would not interfere with Fla, Glen E. Taylor, Acting Asst. Atty- evnns navigation, flood control of the produc. Cen, Shiro Kashiwa. Ant. A:ty. Geh- emy. tion af power. Fish and Wildlife Coordj. Edward T. Boardman. U. S. Atty., Tam-nation Act, [11,2,16 USC.A. (( 661 pa, Fla. David D. Hochstain. Roger L F. 642; Rivers and Harbors Appropnation Marquis, S. Billingsley Hill Attys . De9 Act of 1899, i 10,33 USC.A. l 403; of Justice. Washington, D.eC, for de . National Environmental Tolicy Act af fendants-appellants. 1963, il 101-2ct. 42 USC.A. (( 4331 Thomas M. Harris, Harris & Harris, !* 8 St. Tetersburg. Fla, for plaintiffs-ap- eC
,4347. .
- s. mtrouve hw and Freesdur. PaDus.
oce Frank Besoni, Tampa, Tla, amicus Befoes agency can regulate a party, enrias for Coastal Petroeum r Co. ([asta
! i. er, tt meat anow that party to be heard, Before JOHN R. BROWN. Chief l et ge 1s. coastatutnanat taw ests Judge, and TUTTLE and 1! ORGAN, Cit- near Where landowners appiring for per. cast Jodges.
alt to dredge and fillin navigable waters a. Ts ware given bearing before Corps of En. JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Jedge: ** gineers, the body empowered to traag It is the destiny of the Tifth Circuit er deny a permit, and were allowed to re- to be in the middle of great, oftentimes
]
An but findings and conclusions of Tish and explosive issues of spectacular public 12- m Wildlife Service before the deciding portance. So it is here as we ester in 6"' bm17, denial of permit without beantg depth the contemporary laterest In thef before Tiah and Wildlife Service did not l
~
i 4
;y
~_
8 201 zAZELe.TA33 I Ose se 43s r s4 tee atest - gust 15,1947, the L'alted States and l s
- preservation of our environment. By an officers. Defendants-Appellants. filed a
, injunction requiring the issuance of a motion to dismiss the suit for lack of
- permit to fa!!in eleven acres of tidelands jensd-Stion which was denied. The
' fs la the beautiful Boca Ciega Bay in ths t!nited States and other defendants then St. Petersburg Tampa, Florida ana for answered the complaint alleging lack of l ese as a comrneretal mobile trai'tr park, firisdiction and that the Court lacks the District Judge held that the Secre- power to compel a disentionary functionary, The United act by tary of & Army and h.: the Secretary of the Army.
the Chief of Engineers, had no power to StP.es and oLher defendants moved for g , eacept laterfennee summary judgment. Landholders. Zabel T consider with navigation. anythingThere being no such and Russell, also moved for sumrnary g obstruction in navigation, they were or- judgment.
- fter a hear:ng, the Dis-17.1969 grant-
trict Court, on February
- dered to issue a permit even though the 4 permittees acknowledge that "there was ed summary judg* rent for Landholders a-evidence before the Corps of Enginee's sad directed the See-et.ary of the Army esificient to justify an administrative to issue the permit. It granted a stay of ,
3 IT agency findios that (Ge) fib would do execution of the judgment until this ap-damage to the ecology or marine life on peal could be beard and decided. We in-
*1 b' W bottom." We bold that nothing in vert the summary judgments reversing W statutory structu-u compels the Sec- Appellers and rendering judgment for I
*1-ntary ta close his eyes to all that others the United States.
"= .
see or think they see. The establishment Landholders own land riparian to Boca 0- was entitled. If not requ!rvi to consider ecological factors and, being persuaded Ciega Bay, and adjacent land underty-
^- (* ing the Bay. It is navigable water of the by them,t.o deny that which might have been granted routinely five, ten. or fif* United States on h Culf side of PeninsA its length being tersed by Ptnellas taen years ago before man's explosive the Intracoastal Waterway, which enters increase s.ade aD. including Congren, Tampa Bay from Roca Ciega Ear and is :
awan of crvilisatica's potential destruc* thus an arm of W Culf of blazico. The tion from breathing its own polluted air Zabel and Russeu pioperty is located - pa. and drinking its own infected water and about one mile f rom the Intracoasta! Wa-87-the immeasurslie loss from a silent- g,f,37, epring-lika disturbance of nature's econ- ' B-emy. We reve-se. Landholders desire to dredge and fill J6 en their propesty in the Bay for a trailer P. y park, with a bridge or culvert to their pt- adjoining upland. To this purpose they de- first applied to the state and local au-Genesis: The Beginning thoritaes for permission to perform the ris. la setting the stage we dra v freely on work and obtairied the consent or ap-ap. the Government's brief. This suit was preval of aB auch agencies having ju-l lastituted by !.andholders, Zabel and risdiction to prohibit the work, namely c, - Rassell, on itsy 10, 1967 to compel the Pineuas County Water and Navigation Secretary of W Army to issue a permit Control Antboritt (which originally to l to dredge and fi3 in the navigabis waters J.cted permission, but ultimate!y issued
"*f l af Boca Ciega Bay. to Pinellas County a parmit pursuant to state Court order).'
D*
- On Au- .
I amar SL Petersbars. Florida- . ev o
.e.
.._, ,a .e
..~ m._r .
e, ., . ~ew. e
.e _to he+d
.v... ew we.es me..e I ,r ~s e, e _. ., C weier es.. sae ,*e .,
that
.t : 4,,e.n. z.6.i .. n.eu e .cr the 4.meist.on. t.s.frase.: en.e e 4 .Namens. C.w.a a.tt.awr. gla.CL s.e.ved ie eve.e4 mee Apo tsC1154 S 2d tSL The $4peeme .i ad.evue etr.as es that devat .t a. pre-e isn*
Co.es .i Flee =d. eve.veed chas devis snia ===ad be e taka.e .f pr.restr .t
- in hee.ene Zabei b.d bee. sog.need by the the ese e am e-m m
3
- m. _-.
430 YEDIAAL REPORTER. 2d SIRIIS a permit. Theyt M The continued opposition of the U.3. wed wouM m Trestees of the Internal Improvement Fish & Wildlife Service despite et. that h Seenw refuse the pern forts on the part of the applicants to l Tsod of w state af Tlorida. Central and Sooth Tierida T!ood Control Distnet,redoce the extent of damage leads me m y acknowedg t to the conclusson that approval of the 0* * '" O' 4
' and Board of Pilot Commissioners for
- would not be consistant with the hehnt to justdy the Port of St. Petersburt. w- cy finding that "ongress as expressed in the
! Landholders then applied to the Corps intent = an to the edeg Fish & Wildlife CoordinationFurther. Act. a, . of Engineers for a federal permitThe to amended.12 August 1958. l bot % n , m G I jensdiction and e ' perform the dreiging and filling. the opposition of the State of Tienda !
Pinellas County Water and Navigellon and of county authorities as described W permit on a
- Control Authortty (which originally re. in paragraph 5 above gives additioral Rivers and Har e jected permission, but ultimately issued a to my conc!vaion that the work HM, M Stat !
I support permit pursuant ta state Court order) Iasue'permats "# 5 caouaued to oppose the -rork as did the should not be anthemed.= an
- e Board sf County Commissioners of Pinel- The Division Engineer. South Atlantic **N' l las County, who also compnse the Pine). Division. Atlanta. "In Georgia, vie. concurred
" " .in" A 4 las County Water and Navigation Control that recommendation stating:
- Aethenty, the County Health Board of of the wide spread opposition to the pre.**"'
8 I Pinellas County, the Florida Board of posed work it is apparent that approsal ***** Conservation. and about 700 individuals af the application would not be in the ****# who filed protests. The f,*nited St.stes public interesL* The Chief of Engineer.
. Fish and Wildlife Service. Department concurred for the same reasons. Fmah. N Du-det of the laterior also opposed W dredr. the Secretary of the Army 8.1967. be. denied Jensdictson, the th application on February : "" "^
( iar sad ths because it "would have a distinetty bannful eHect on the fish cause issuance el the requested permat: " " E and wildlife resources of Boca Ciega 1. Would result in a distanet!v
} Bay." u eHect a W Rsh and wde % wn
- a Boca Ciega Bay, W use of p A public bearing was held la SL resources Would be inconsistent with th, by an md Petersburg in Nosember 1964, and on 2. O* to"rnm.
parposes of the Fish and Wildhfe Co. December 30,1966,6 District Engineer or smraN at Jacksonvi!!s. Florida. Colonel Tabb. ordination Act of 2958.as amended IItl6I' N 'Ed recommended to his superiors that the ES.C. 66g prmdm w,
/ Is opposed by the Florida Board application be denied. He said that"'The 3.
- M .
proposed work would have no materia) of Conservation on behalf of the Stat, e adverse effect on navigation-e but that: ** As this o
/ Board of Panellas County and it.eConnmatioce the Congres:
" Careful consideration has beenBoard of County
--===" Ns given to the general public interest in Ptnellas County, and og this case. The virtaany unanimous cP fecti h ould be contrary to the puWie
- 4. remedy for Position to the proposed work as es. g'''
pressed is the protests which were re-ceived sad as exhaustively presented Landholders then laatituted this tsw! m eg.,, at the public bearing have convinced to review the Secretary's determinata.se6ste < Ceeen emeeg ene e j me that approval of the application and for an order compelling him to sassela- w-
) would not be la the puh laterest, ,ve,ed me., e, e EE c.e,. a w eenry wetee a >st I ,
n ..d a mn te - . I^edholdece g ef tee 8eresteeg. the deemese apprehd c tea.e..sC.ei. sersait PneeGa . meu, 2u M** W is gene.ed .ad ae eee .e.e.d. 179 Se.:h3 g;& l ed see discoe.rme emeenessee herevuh?een erWeeve both shst R **W *** I* " Esbel v Pteeces Ceesty Water a Nee. L Thee e 413. '46 F.'C
] se nsense and that is **eW ** 'I"'
Cea. Aeth. Fla 39CA til Se.2d 37& aad
~
arrect saetenties. They wee seedet ,, ' * ***8d Aeuseer the Aetberity e eesteenee that
', g the relane eeended n turther proceedseen georg ge padletaan.
I on the app 4icettee, te e.Tyyd {t a ghance an estabiwh odenne erreet, she Dietrus J 8 i; e
.y e
-- - - _ _ _._ _ __ _ _ l 1
~
f a EARE1, v, TA3B 203 i ene e.ase rma nem a permit. They argrd that W proposed one if one is needed and can be lessi- 'O work would not hinder navigation and ly granted by the Congress? l I Le ef- that the 3ecretary had no authority to The Court granted summary judgment l eta te I refuse the permit on other grounda. for Landholders and directed the Secre-ds me They acknowledged that "there was evi- tary of the Army to issue the permit. 3' b dance before the Corps of Engineers suf- This appeal foDowed. 3 O' ficient to justify an administrative agen- The question presented to us is wheth-in & cy finding that our ill! would do dam- er m becret.ary of W Army can rtfuse CI ** age to the ecology or marine life on the to authorise a dredge and fill project in
'*#' bottant" The Government urged lack of navigable waters for factually substan-landa jarisdiction and supported the denial of tial ecological reasons even bush the # the pernut en authority of i 10 of the projut would not interfere with navira.
N' R.ivers and Harbors Act of 3! arch 3, tion, flood control, or the production of
"" isSS, 30 Stat 1121,1151, 33 U1C A. power. To answer this question in the i 403, giving the Secretary discretion to affir=ative, we must answer two inter-lande issue per:=its and en the Fish and Wild
- mediate questions affirmatively. (1) '
ed in life Coordination Act of 11arth 10,1934, Does Congress for ecological reasons
' 48 Stat. 401, as amended.16 U.S.C.A. have the power to prohibit a project on ,
t Pr ll 641 and 642(a), requiring the Secre- private riparian submerged land in navi-N11 tary to consult with the 7"sh and Wild- gable waters? (2) If it does, has Con- 8 i the life Service and stata conservation agen- gress committed the power to prohibit news cies before issuing a permit to dredge to the Secretary of the Army?
- na:ly, l and fC.
I The District Court held that it bad g l
- Janadiction, that & Fish and Wildlife [1. 2] The starting point here is the
*** Coordination Act was not authonty for actly Commerce Clause 8 and its expansrve denying the permit, and thatt reach. The test for detarmining wheth-Idlife ,'
"The taking, control or limitation in er CongT'ess haa & power to protect
- the use of private property interests wildlife in navigable waters and theby s the by an exercise of the police power of to regulate h use of pr' irate propet'ty
,g
- the government or the public interest for this reason is whether there is a j06 er general welf are should be authorised basis for the Congressional judgment
{ by legislation which ejearly outlines that the activity regulated has a sub-procedure which comports to all con
- stantial effect on interstate commerce.
stitutional standards. This is not the Wickard v. Tilburn, 1942, 317 U.S.111. case ber'- 125, 63 S Ct. 82, 89, 87 !=.Ed.122,135. m As this opinion is beint prepared That this activity meets this test la
,f the Congress is in session. Advocates hardly questioned.6 In this time of g of conservation are both able and ef. awakening to the reality that we cannot factree. The way is open to obtain a continue to despoil our environment and remedy for future situations like this yet exist,' the nation known. If Courts sait teanenal perpeem set serenmaatr. the 66es 1 *ne Cens=e skan han power to ree.
eente Commem nta reemen neceas and morree etre these meee taas et the Commeree Ctesee to pr*Caised States v. g amene the seeerni staten. and esth the Dartt.194L 312 tlA 100 g1 ECL 43L e Inham TrN s" CACeest Art.1, t 4, et x = x.zi , e
- 4. f ==A-adere ete Wete, e. State Eartoe L Comp een decomentauen of the eencern over esesteamental preWeme wesad eeresi Came es 187183 UA (18 Watu 61 he votomanosa but it is indirectly evt.
gg 71 LJ.A 798 eed f aired States v. Rieur deseed by the amesat el ever recest lees] e Reese taprenment Ca. 192% 289 UA g,
- ereeter. See Noteenal Emetreamental Pen.
g 41L 44 S.Ct 144. 70 t.IA 339 as ha.e. Psh.14, 91-190 (Jaa. ley Act of 1969 Ime the seese et the Teileral Geeernment 1, 1970), intre nece 24: Our Waters esse aseteeMe waters es emetret see ase.
- . -- ..m,-_ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _
1
4 3 430 TZDER.AL RIPORTIR,2d SERIIS do not, that the destruction of fish and Congress in the historic compromise over udI wildlife in our estuarine waters does the oil rich tide!anda controversy aban- ,,, g hace a substantial, and in some arcas a doned its power over other eatiaral re. uder Jevastating, effect on interstate con > sources by the relinquishrnent to the partit merce. Landholders do not contend oth states in the Submerged bnds Acto ,,,,,, erwise. Nor is ;t challenged that dredge By it they urge the Covernment stripped ,,,,,e and fii! projecta are activities which may itself of the power to regulate tide: ands power tend to destroy the ecological balance property except for purposes relating to plenar j and thereby affect commerce substan. (i) navigation. (II) flood control, art p,gt, , tially. Because of these potential effects (iii) hydroeJectric power. This rests on atlang g Congress has the power to regulate such the expressed Congressional reservation gm, , projects. of control for these three purposes over 2d 252 the submerged lands, tatle to and power 379U.k g sver which Congress rehnquished to the 230* Relinquishment of the Power states.' [2] hadholders do not cha!!enge the The argument assumes that when A al. existence of power. They argue that Congress relinguished title to the land the net 4 vest in 4 Dese t and Wetlands: Rev the Corps et Es- how and they are, subpret to the pron-sourres gisesre Caa Help !*revent Ther Destree, asses hereof. reare;sg eeef!rmed e, noe and Pollutase, E.R4. 91-917. Sist tanksbed, and tested 14 and assigned to to use,
/ ,
; Cor.s. 2d Sma. March la.1970, eu#e test the roepeenes States or the pusosa *h* (bj onl3 as este 26; Eawanee Order 11307. Feb. wm em Jane 5.1950, eentled taerete I 4. ISTO. 35 !.W. 243C: Catted Statse v. ender the is= et the rerpeente States of the T..
Ravigata. la which the land is leested, med the Rar.S Ctr. 12 0. 423 Fad is [Jan.21 F' ductie A' j respective gesatece, lomose, or soeeeuwe 1970): F. B. Eltiett Adverustae Ca. v. J Bill S Cir. IF*0. 4::5 FM 1141 [apra ha laserest thavef; brief sF l (b) (1) The Casted Statae seleases T 1 12*01: Chaema Committee for the the liters j a Bedsee faller v. Telpet S.D.N.Y.196p. and reLeesambes ease enad States and gg-302 FJaps '0S1 afra 2 Cir.1970. 425 persons aforesand. except as otheresse reserved heresa. a!! nsas, title and is- ** W d F2d 97 [No 42S-31 April 16.1970); t ' Natissal ad*ernesse Co. e. Meeterer, tenst of the Casted Frates, if aar it f dl. Or Cahf 19*0.1 cal 3d 39L 83 CaLRper. hea. La and te all easd leads lep*ove- Covernma 377. 404 P2d 32 (Jen. 30.1970): M ae, seesta, and naturel ressems * * ** . states tha
- The reseremose peenseen referved u j I Gibbse e. Desherr Beerd of Apieels.
Mann 19*0. 2531E.2d 347 (Jan. 20 states 43 C.2LCA. I 1311(4): the tidela sted po e ,i .# 197ol: Canternia e. 33 Beereconstk. *(d) Nothise la the chaste shag CD. Cat.1909. 307 FJupp. 922; Cree, ed o'ithia t j , Isso af APA Specal Comentre se En. aseet the ese. dmioneest. im pee ** meat. er restrel by er veder the coesu-I g ' But thi j j nroomretal Qeaher.13 Am.Bae News Na 1 March 127tL tutaneel methentr of the faited States el asad lands and waters for the perpeare rusee (et l of navientes or flood restrel of the ine purp f & 43 C1h l 130t u m b be **" P3T. of I e sental Od Cs6v. Leadee Steamship Owo-ere* Met !as Ass's. 3 Cir.1969. 417 F.
*d*"'****"*I***'**"I**#
** *N8***A*"** ' evertones, I "8* 'I 'A' C*d I """*8 ** **' eg 3d 1030. MC. cert denied.1970, 3r7 1
* * " * * * * ' * * * * * * ****"'I'I **I" U.L to reestate w impewe manentee, er to termae bec ac,til.ammSC S.CL p,,, SIL,,,25 !.E42d 92.
,,,,c,,,,
'n'o*e"d* '" O'*d *
- d le r?.
Cassed Staten. 5 C1t.1sGT,379 Fad 31& of peut e "**'*A; " "A*
,4* *'
- 7. T%e redeceshine promesse maesa. 43 The teru *materal romerees* is breedly g'** con:
CAC.A. B 1311(a) sed th): detteed is tactede hath th. minate med leastaa e: Ne Ieder,-
*ta) It is deterenteed and deelated to he in the pehlae laservet that (1) title "1"he teru *aatsrel resserres* iededse. Ura acwl.
to and eweership of the lande breesth withmet haatsee the generality theve*L L' pated sh martenhae estere eithin the boundstere eel, gas, and all other minereia, and fish. ohnap, erstere. elasma, erste. leantern Q of the respeedes Maates sed the materal veneerese withis serb lands sad watwa speces, kata, aan! ether marise massaal N M.. hret r,f}, and (2) the rieht med powee to maasse, and 34aat life het does met laciadoe.s te I administer, lease. develop and one the power. er the ese of water fee the esid Imeds and seteral reemereve sa La predeetase of perse;* seresdanse wuh appheeh6e Samas inw 43 UAC a.11301(e). I 4 I i (
I t F.A!EL v. TA3B 205 cu.en em rm see oro, ,
,er a2d the right and power to manage and found in the ;ombination of the Sub-go. use the land, it relinquished its power merged Lands Act and the Outer Conti-
- mader the Commerce Clause aseept in mental Shelf Act.s The adjacent states I he particulars (1), (ii), and (iii). It also were to be the " owner" of the resources te assumes that reservation of these thr - .nd reap exclusively the economic bene-ed enumerated aspects of the commeru fits of resources in the tidelands and da power implied that Congress gave up its have full control over manarement and to plenary poner over the myriad other as. exploitation. The Federal Government.
3d pects of commerca. See, s. g. Heart of on the other hand, was given exclusive on g Atlanta Motel. Inc. v. United States, ownership and control vis seis the states se 1964. 379 U1241,85 S.Ct. 348,13 led. la the Outer Centinental Shelf. " er 2d 258; Katsenbach v. McClung.1964. er 379 U.S. 2S4, 85 S.Ct. 377,13 led 2d Although it was easy to make this di-w 290. vision, the nature of the physical arsa of the controversy presented immediate op-A nice arrument can be contrived that erstional problem s growing out of the the net effect of these provtsions was to water. The Federal Covernment's tra-d west in the adjacent states [1] title in ditional concern with navigation, es-I these tidelands and their natural re- pecially on the high seas, its later but k 6 asurces and [2] [a] the exclusive power then quite extensive concern in flood to use, aploit and manage these lands control, hydroelectric power production. I l [b] only subject to the reserved power and the frequent combination of both un-of the Federal Government nrarcing (i) der trandirse projects of & Corps of . navigation. (ii) flood control, and (iii) Engineen, raised specific prob; ems call-production of power. Certainly, this int for accommodation of the (i) sweep-3 bnef synopsis of (1) and (2) (a) is ing Federal divesture and (ii) the con-
- g.
- W literal import of i 1311(a) (1) (2). tinued fulfinment of the Federal gov-Likewise, the reservation summand ernment's role in these activities. Thus. -
j es (2) (b) is literally v >ecified in 11311 for example the states' arc!nsive right l (d). On this approach, the Federal to trant exploration privileres, deter. Government turned over to adjacent mine the location and spacInt of develop-states the full management and use of ment wens or dri2ing platforms posed the tidelands resernnt osly those lim- prospects of maritime hazards. Without itad powen over commerce comprehend- imposing its on.n notions of how de-ed u.ithin the three particultrs. velopment ou ght to be conducted. restrict-ed, expanded, or controUed, the Federal
, But this arrument ignores both lam Government had to have, and reserved guage found elsewhere and the legisla-expressly this pwu enn to prohibit a M WFpose of the Act- The contro-drilling rig platform at a particular lo-may, often pressed with emotional ratica. These specific rsaervations elim.
overtanes, was over oil and gas and inated these frequent and extensive ac-whether the states were to reap the eco-WM u a mm M Mu m nomic benefits of development royalties venus national controvusy. and to rerstate the exploration and de-velopment or whether these benefits and Whatever remaining doubt there might these controls were to be exercised by be on this reading was expressly elimin-the Feders! Covernment as an adjunct of sted by lanruare in i 1314(a) which spe-taen newly declared " paramount nghts". cifically retains in the Tederal Govern- . United States v. California, 1947, 332 ment "all of its * *
- rights in and UA 804. 805, 83 S.Ct 20, 21. 92 led. powers of regulation and control of said .
382, 383. The Act and this relinquish- lands and * *
- waters it,r the consti-meat reflect the legislative compromise tutional purposes of commerce * * * "
g L es IT.S.C.a t 1331 ee met I l l l l L ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
l l l e 43017.DERA1. RIF0ETIF, 2d SERIIS a 20d rights in and powers of rerutation Proh 43 U.S.C.A. I 1314(a).' This section, and control of said lands and navigabe which encompasses and pervades the en- waters for the constitutional purpenes I tire Act, taakes it clear that Congnss Th of commerce. navigation, national de. and I t* Intended to sad did retain 41 fts consti- fense, and international affairs. all of attac tational powers oeur commerre and did which shall be par' mount to. het shall and not ruhnquish certain portions of the not be deemeo to include proprietary whic! power by specifically reserving others?' rights of ownership
* * * . Noth.
' / obs:r
- A3 of th2a la additionally borne out Ing in the Act was to be construed as capat by the legislative historyu and Ucited the release or relinquishrnent of any t* nit.
States v. Rands. 1967,389 U.S.121.127 r ghts of the United States arising cener 44 S.CL 265. 269,19 L.Ed.2d 329. 333: under the constitutional authority of the t Congress to regulate or improve navi. wate:
" Tina!!y, respondents urge that the gstion, or to provide for flood control, bbit
! Government's position subverts the or the produr*. son of power. The Act anani policy of the Sabmerged Lands Act, left congressional power over com. NSE which confirmed and vested in the merce and the dominant natigatiocal Nf2 States title to the lands beneath nari. servitude of the United States prec:se- mtr suble waters within their boundaries ly where it found them." " 288 and to natural resources within such gram lands and waters, tagether with the ngress clearly has the power under the right and power to manage, develop, Commerce Claue to regulate the use of *j i ! and use such lands and natural re- Landholders
- aubmerged riparian prop- ,
i sources. However. reliance on that Act erty for conservation purposes and has e la misplaced, for it estressly recot. not given up this power in the Submers- ' nised that the United States retained i
' nD its a;avigaticnal narvitude and ed LandJ Act.
- j
- Decause Cearvens did set give op aar et e it & "The United Statee setnise a2 its sev& its power over a2 of inteestate momem b saumaal someede and natta is and in i 1311 (see sete 7. eme e), ther en e
- p m of revelataes and <=euei et osad amt *[rellaquehed nascal* and the lamsta- .
leads and navigable waters fee the ese- men pornos et i 1314(en is inapplicabas h i sorgosaal purposes of commeree ases- To held +4herwise weeld neder the res- e sense. eausaal defense. see interse- ensnee of eenstatsuesal commem powee e caseal affnam a3 of which stau be pern- r in 51314 o) a =6 resterenen of the meest tas but ska3 not he deemed to Amp &sedJr petaaned poetre la i 131164). t
; insieda, peopnetary nsacs et eenernhap. Bet to held Gat it u an esphat reseren- a ce the natts of management. adeiam- ties of all esensem poem stees ne ese L ersnee. Inassas, ame. and development et nem seasiat The esenes ear he en- 6 the lando and sarursi remesms okach aseded and see sty ensnese La that it es- t are speeScally ressetised eee$rmed, eenes a semantunemal gewer that has
- estabbaned, and voeted in and annigued be heen eehagenhed but la shea44 not *
/
- to the respeente States and eraere 4r seed la each a ese as te needer se ermee- e smetaan 1311 ef the Odaw* wise esasee6 t l
i 48 UAC.A. I 1314(a). e e
- 88. "Than citia does est aseet aar et the 14 la in ersted that the retentsee la l 1214 Federna sementene a1 powers of reesta- a tan h timited to the ram aspects esta a :
i sea and amatret eeer om ema as
! sommerited La 31311(d) tr the werde state beendenes seem pe.ori, sg -
-t che summem peevel ekan he pare- tanee e=ee aseganen. esmoem. sades- e,,
! seest auw het ehan est be deweed es in- al defense, laternatfemal aftaare. Osm8 ee elude Irelingeished esshtsk* Bet we heev emetrel, and power peedoenee ebeve tae g
( alreed; aheet that the esemerenes et se eegenree im Canted States owns f.
) thsee three whech an espheitJr stated watee gewee? si
{ beesese ther an partiesiarty noseest te RAJtsp,Ne6 715. 83d Cens.1st Sem .e the sessianse of lead trias onder aset- (hfareh 2".1M3).1tS3 CACede cess. & ee 1 sable wateves deem est ispir that Cee- AdmaaNews, pp 13L% 1350. greemenal power evet uhee typre of ese-noses was emees the nette phoqueesed i i 1 J I 1 e
a- -.
)
i m 207 f F.ABE.I. T. TA33 Clee se 434 FJe ice its ci structures on or dredge and fi!! his own IV ^ * ' ^' **I*
,gj,, E I' Prohibitint Obstructions to Navigation beers read as tempering the outrig*tt pro-table blition by the rule of reasen against ar.
The action of the Chief of Engineers bitrary action, the Act does flatly forbid I de. and the Secretary of the Army under the obstruction. The ad:ninistrator may E of attack rests immediately on the Rivers grant permiss:en on conditione and con- , i shait and Harbors Act. 33 U.S.C.A. I 403. verse!y deny permission when the situs. tary
' which declares that "the creation of afiy tion does not allow for those conditions.
oth. * *
- to the navitable obstruction But the statute does not prescribe eb d as l any capaetty of any of the waters of the ther generally or specifica1!y what those tlnited States is prohAited." 88 The Act conditiotJ May be, The question for Es sing covers both building of structures and is whether under the Act the Secretary i
e of
,a ck the excavating and fillint in navigable may include conservation considerations k waters It is structured as a flat pro- as conditions to be met to make the prw trol.
hibition untaas-the unless beint the is-Act seawe of approval by the Secretary after posed proje:t scre; table. Until now om- l I recommendation of the Chief of Engi- there has been no absolute answer to 2nal meert ta The Act itself does not put any this question. In fact in most cases h under the Rivers and Harbors Act the restrictions on denial of a permit or the Courts have been faced orh with navigs- ' I ressors why the Secretary may refuse to tien problema.= se 3,s. 8. f. Sanitary the i grant a permit to one seeking to build s o! opment Ceest v. Caired States. 5 Cr, l 81 *De creatua of aar ekstroenes set af. 1967. 379 Fil 818. 9 Srmanway eachensed by Cesswet to the aangsh.e espeety of any of the 14. tandheklere ete aethertry holding thes waters of the Casted States is preatbat' tbs Seerstary n e,,,W mWsp
,g,,,,,,,,g,,,,,
*rg- aad is met be law m ,g,,,3,g,,,,,,,
""d " a==a * **'2d=* d = sate. Anem, ceserir. e.ne.es of re l rearr 13.19? So Chrty. Gen. Ops 410 whe*f. 9eer. delpham, been, eme, breth.
, ******** N '" "*** st 412. 415. 416: 311am 15esch Jecter
*# *"* **E U"** Clot 6 Joe v. Derm.193t GG App.D.C. 2%
' is6 Fal 133.130 (en settineeg,, for wheer-
"" .*en*tal m'entante nur. 'er othee harter gg water of the Casteil States. eessade ese Leezerstie seder the woe. hag of the stat.
W berhoe times. er wem se ete, see Creathosee e. Dwn. entre. pre herter Hoem ben been estaWohe4 es. date the ebasees wreeght by the Fish sad W 84 #88 MNumet ed bF the Chaef d E.neneers and anthertaed br the See. WQdlkfe Coordiastase Aet. entre- g g retary of the Army; and it shall ees be g leeful to asesente te ftil.' er la any ,g g
===*r en enter er emelsfy fee emerer. g gg g
*"I d **7 Doctne Power Ca 1940. 311 U.S. 377.
t
***** **' heter, esM bana. 4:3 40. 61 S.CL 29L 307. 331.EA 263.
inho. herbee d refuge. er inebeen gg wisbas the limits of est beesheesee, or g g , of the chaamel of ser eengshie water of ,g the Casted Staten, esiees the swa has ~ , g ""** ** 'I stem en eestred the waters for the per. r poswa sad nothensed br the Seceetary pese of eemmem. The powee Dews A'*# #"*' " '8
- feesa the stent se regulate, b e. te 'pce-eerm the rule by wk.ch namem a se ,
3, gm , , be se=erted.' %es tartades the pretee. noe of aseigshie waters le aspeesty as
.l 13. Tbe Caert recettty behl that eeJer tha won as ese. Thas powee of Coasteen to atmo erettee tegefleer with the Outer Cee-seenlate eemmern is se enfettered that Daettal 8 sett tands Act. 43USCA. les lodgment as to whether a structure 81233If). a permit mest be obesised be-le er is set a bandesace en esmeteeive.
tore e pmect een be berne se the Oster Its determesatsee is imeistne is char. Contiacetal $bett. Us ted States v. Rar. artee. The Federst Covernment has esses seen S. which fellemed the romaad esmazarise over the watee power inher-and trial en the eserita La Atasatis Dee ses la the flowing etseeek It is ineb6e e i 1 i l 1
i e i eso mm1, momne adsms 208 But a Creathouse la that it recognised ht the Covernr.- Dist. v. United States. 1925, 266 US. Corps of Engineers does not have to west de$. 45 S.Ct.176. 69 led. 332; Wia- particula navigstional blinders when it considers a I nanly ar consin v. Illinois, 1929. 278 U.S. 367. 49 permat request. That there must be a times et S.Ct.163. 73 led. 426 United States v. reason does not mean that tne reason has thwart o Republic Steel Corp, 1960. 362 U.S. 482eto 'oe navigability, tal pohci F 80 S.CL 484. 4 LEdJd 903. Another case holds that W Corps has d' Pd One very big eaception is United a duty to consider factors other than I, tion is s; States em rel. Creathouse v. Dern.1933 navigational. Citizens Committee for the **8" 239 US. 352,53 S.Ct. 614,77 led 1250. Hudson Vaney v. Volpe, S.D.N.Y.1969. f *f d i"*'i' There petationers sought a writ of man- 302 F.Supp.1083. aff'd, 2 Cir.,1970 I dami.s to comtcl the Secretary of War 425 F 2d 97 [No. 4*S-33. April 16,1970). p} T and the Cluef of Engineers to issue a There the District Court held that the tion Act8 permit to build a wharf In navigable Corps must consider a fi!! project in the and fiHio, watars. The Secretary. specifically find- context of the entire azpressway project permat), ing that it would not interfere with savi- of which it was a part rather than just The Supreme consult a gstion, denied the permit. considering the fill and its effect or. nan- vice.ie wi Coort held that mandamus would notgat is-2on. The reasoning was that the ap- mid!ife rt sua because the allowance of mandamus prevalof the Secretary of Transportauen tion as to
*ia confroned by equitable principles was necusary before a proposed cause- licensing j * *
- and it may be rt/used for res. way could be constructed. The causewar.
seJt it can l nor.s comparable to those which would along with the fi!! was an integral part sense and g lead a court of equity, in the exercase of of the expressway project.However, if incon gruo, a sound discretion, to withhold its pro. the Corps and Secretary of the Army ap- fact that I' taction of an urJoubted legal right'* proved the fill and the State completed it. considered The reason was that the United States the Secretary of Transportation, consid- esiuen, g had plans to condemn petitioners' tand ering the enormous expense of the fdt. ias of the for nae as a means cf access to a pro- would have no choice, other than approv- federal at pused parkway. adowing a wharf ta be The Army thus had ing the causeway. e such prey built would increase the expense to the exceeded its authority in approving the such factos t government since it would increase the till on only navigational considerauens 4 market value of the land and would re- since approval of the fill was effectual!! %, quire the government to pay for tearing approval of the causeway.58 heem er down the wharf- The importance of == o mica esse of pe=er en kneews parts of ee=- em e. The * *
- Then s thener ,
fee t he e se se ese tw tu ese er seeeem nem eestreL es- et e enneeWe atmo in to es is se breed es the easde of eemmerce
* *
- The penat he that esdasWe eeend b.
enese pneste peopeety; 'that the rue. Treeseec ese wetee he a emas eseiteWe servem wesere are sob >ect to entweel ytaseiee head that In espeWe of pneens eweersate te necos, sed stoffel to the breed revulersee el se emis te e esseehde
- E.selveses of npenas ewe- amenere, evented the Fede*et Geeere-etas4 teses of .
ese freen tre bese6ta withmet seeeeee. sheet The koloese eeadiDete to pe.a.t e, Genes le cettruly eitase the Gerees, shseetwe la meJ kee, se e6eseos cru- . of sne esi. q meet e enemnee - e tseeek , se tbs enema. of tse comme
- tg gg g.,3 g e
- poe m Ewe if then om se seet 8e gy, 3, ,,, ,% g, ,,,,,, g, y ' '
- I*
an&d that the seestNgtesest peeer of the 8"*****8***'""'**d* De*n es pnW M4-
't h r.
t's.ted Suin een im etere is usw.a to emetrel for emeteettem. 87 teetge- *****"*"***A**"** g
. AM etm.
d nas sempeeweet meets se em thee op. -Em g erottee of besta seJ sapeseemnt of the la The Ceert ==evetisar head that the saevies
, . wetee.3, itsett to trota the emboe Cerpe, enm appe=ent of Trees,e<<sooo .
en We ]. ley of the t'ented Statee ie the recess. le sees sogeneet essent be obtieseue N m e=eu . Seet. the effect of fE peeseca en the breet7 , pened e thee of esiesem en its essere. ***e*** e pbhnhti. Le the seene Just mased. 4. tot end oneseveeseen of estore! j divence a part of this ebees. Fteed protecties. Th teimme eness from the fact that 3 servem weasene=1 devoiepneet, rece ory of the the Semtart of Treenpeetstame le state- ~'~ ( eens of impreeeeeets tarengt enline. i t l 1 1 1
l 209 EA22:L v. TABB cite se saa rse ten no sp [5] The second proof that the Secre-Bet such circuity is not necessary. tary is directed and authertzed by the Covernmental agencies in necuting a Fish sad Wildlife Coordination Act to partrolar statutory responsibility ordi- corsider conservation is found in the 1*g- < narily are required to take heed of, some- islative histcry. The Senate Report oo tsste, effortuate and othr times not the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act thwart other ealid statutory governman-tal policies. And here the government. states:
"FinaIly, the nursery and feeding wide policy of environruntal conse'va- grounds of valuab;e crustaceans, such .
tion is spectacularly revealed in at least as shrimp, as well as the young of two statutes. The Fish and Wildlife Co-valuable marine fishes, may be affect-ordination Act ** and the National En- ed by dredging, filling, and diking op-vironmental Pokey Act of 1969." erations ofte a carried out to improve [4] The Fish and Wildlife Coordina- navigauon and provide new indusMal tien A:t18 clearly requirss the dredstng or residentialland. and filling agency (under a governmental * * *
- per: nit), whether pcblic or privata, to Existing law has quutionable appli-consalt with the Fish and Wildlife Ser. cation to project.: of the Corps of Engi-vice,'a with a view of conservation of neers for the dndgirr of bays and es-wildlife resources. If there be any ques- tsaries for navisstion and fiting pur- y tion as to whether the statuta directs the poses. biore seriously, existing law licensing agency (the Corps) to so con- has no application whatsoever to the sult it can quickly be dispel:ed. Common dredging and filling of hays sad estu-sense and reason dictate that it would be aries by private interesta or other non-7 '
iaccogruous for Congress, in light of the Federal entities is nari 2ble waters fact that it intands conservation to be under permit from the Corps of Engi-considend in priva'.e dredge and fill op-erstions (as evidenced by the clear word- seers. This is a particularly serious deficiency from the standpoint of com- , ias of the statute), not to direct the only martial fishing interests. The deeds-federal agency conearned with licensing ing of these bays and estuaries along
- such projects both to consuh and to take the coastlir.es to aid navigation and such factors into account.
wise esatselled or modified toe any pop 3 een1s required to emender ceaseceseos pose whatseet, indedtag aatsgenes and
- hHare gesanas a permat. Set tf the fDi dranssee, by ser department er aseary en skick the esaaewsr was se he beak af the Cented States, or by ear pebbe
*ese esapeeted at the time the permit er privete aseec7 eedet Fedeeml pee.
les the emesee st mee regnested, neve mat se license, seen deserement er
**med he en sanseceanee factece for eevocy Bret shall e=aet wit h the Treeetortunee to eenoder. De Coert tlaared States Mah and Vikikfe Sere-been he & Cwpe comid set bhad kaett are. Departzneat of the latener and es na tart and theret, eut off eens dare- with the head of the meetet esernmag h=ms of eastee= sues by gesansg a f10 haasarsnea e=ee the wddMfe re.
permat *ubout Treasoeciones e approval escrees of the parneolar State etere-el Ge enemewsy. ta the Legemodmeet. daereen. er other , et yggg q gg g g anstrel faci; Ley a to be conscrerted. eith i 8 etew to the eemsereenom of wddlife
- U M ie la* 91-194 4 CICA N researcos by preteenas noen of and E1*434I- damast to each resserees as we0 es it The y%h and R'bdnfo Mam proendtst ime the deteisement sad in-aeg metee 'I O "" "**
*Eaavat es bereaftse escred to ash-eartoe thi of thas esetoe (met appG- I *h emhiel. *beoever the watere et tar it Presumebly LandbeWere mest Stet eb mean e, etas, body of wetee are pre- sala the Corps of Eagweers' permit before a Bened er sothensed to be impeeeeed, beesmass a "pneste seeeet mader Federal hned. h chamael deeseeed. er the permas et thrones.*
amen er eske body of wetse erbe* esB F Jai.44
/
l l
210 ese FIDrnAL azPontra, td smrt ' 4 also to provide land fi!!s for real estate This interpretation was judicially ac. and similar developments, both by Fed. cepted in Udall v. FPC: eral agencies or other agencies under "Section 2(a),16 USC l 662(a) pro. permit from the Corps of Engineers, vides that an agency evaluating a li-has IIcreased tremendously in the last cense under which 'the waters of any , 8 years. Obviously, dredging setivity stream or other body of water are pro-of this sort has a profound disturbing posed * *
- to be impounded first e
effect on aquatic Infe, including shrimp sha!! e nsult with the United States and other species of tremendous sig. Fish and Wildlife Service. Department of the Interior * *
- with a view mificance to the commerical fishing in-dastry. The bays, estuaries, and relat- to the conservation of wildlife resourt.
es by preventing loss of and damage to ed marsh areas are highly important aa such resources * * **. Certainly spawning and nursery grounds for the wildisfe conservation aspect of the many enmmerical species of flah and project muat be explored and evaluat-shellfish."" ed." 1967, 387 U.S. 4h, 443-444. 87 S.CL l 3. Rep. No. 1981 85th Cong11 Sess- 1712.1~20,1s led 2d 869. 879. (July 28,1958). 1958 U.S. Code Cong. The meaning and application of the
& Admin. News, pp. 3446, 3443, 3450. Act are also ref:ected by the actions of This Report clearly shows that Con. the Executive that show the statute au-gross intended the Chief of Engineers thoriaes and directs the Seerttary to con.
and Secretary of the Army to consult sult with the Flah and Wildlife Service with the Fish and Wildlife Service before la deciding whether to grs.at a dredge and fill permit. inauing a permit for a privata dradge and la a 3feznorandum of Understanding fIII operation. J between the Secretary of the Army and n he seeau Report sies abeen bee m reopenibame. tartedtag the cues - enmae of the esmeem power la the use of diffenes owes. mes to enem esenerename etene tus la esta na saec taken et m eactient preeucense noe same is eme areas:
-yhe emeedorata paposed br this end at the fle44 eersainarweal east bin wenid remeer these defwenes med meet derectar es cernet Asseedtastr.
I beoe seeerst ester impenset adve.- Diemet Ensuwere of m U. g Army esses The ameedersta weeld peones Ceram of Eastence esau esordinate that etMIife cesserranea akaB recette wun e Re seest Direnere of
- Secretary of the Intenee ee fist and egeal sene derstsee with other festeren wt&dlafe, recreeth and pedletma pree>
In thy passeios of Feuevei estee m neue ammetated watt drogging. ful.es. seene devonspeest preersas has and escoestice operstases to be ces-weehi beve the offset of esmos flah docted mader permita sessed moder e and =tidhfe se the bassa of egeauty tape Act in m sangsbee wecere of the l with e.4,Os.ed emetret.
, re.-s,.e -rArrieepen. aangatsee.
la ser ester m Uested $u ten. end ther seed em.e,- e, to esche.e., shag ed,ee - eme reo pene'sma sheet in haghir de arehue and peeper, and ropessesta na eassatanee stich emet Derecesee mer prenda stjerette toeg aangha by eenserenden- 1 The Secretary of the Arup *tu se*k tote of the Natieef the edewe and consert of the Serevtarr 188a U.LCede Cess. & h News at of the lesener es difflemelt cos s if g Seh the Secretary of the laterise ednese gL that proposed operstases edl eeressee-v ot.ICits aber impa.c earerst resseme er m i L It in the poiers of the sere Seem rotated eenroseeet inetodsag the fish l ! tarise that these shed be feH easedese- and wadhfe end recreetase.1 valore i ' thee and eseperatene between their re- thereof, or will redere the esalitt of speetm Deperenceu es the ebe.e m seet waters le etelatme of acpterska epseesbet,, ere et eD eresassataosal ester esalier eraadarde. the secretarr beels. and it in thete etre that mask of the Aror la set 4ag en the reeea8 men efterte le the discharge of these for a perust 3,41 eerefour eessesse the e
l zAnz:. v. TABB 211 ole se oas r34 soo us se -F an- the Secnt.ary of the Interior, it is pr& eries, in reporting favorably on a bil!88 vided that, upon receipt of an application to protect estuarine areas which was el pro- for a permit to dredge or fillin navigable later enacted anto law.'8 As a result of r a h- waters, the District Engineer af the the effective operation of the Interde-at asT Corps of Engineers concerned is required partmental Memorandum of Understand-te Pro- to send notices to all interested parties, ing. the Interior Depart: rent and the d first including the appropriate Regional Direc. Committee concluded that it was not ' States ears of the Federal Water PoUution Con- necessary to prende for dual permits timent trol Adzrinistration, the Fish and Wild- from Interior and Army. a new life Service, the National Park Service The intent of the three branches has snourc* and the appropriate state conservation = been unequivocally expressed: The See-saq to resources, and water pollution agencies. retary must weigh the effect a dredge stainly The District Engineer is given the inatial and fill project will have en conservation of the respons bility of evaluating all relevant before he issaes a permit lifting the Con-b valuat- factors la reaching a decision as to gressional ban. ' whetner the particular permit involved The parauel of momentum as the three
' S Ct. abould be granted or denied. The Memo- braaches shape a national policy gets randum also provides that in case of con. added impetus from the National En.
flicting views the ultimate decisiin shall of the vironmental Policy Act of 1969. Public ' be made by the Secretary of the Army ens of after consultation with the Secretary of Law 91-190, 42 U.S.C.A. (( 4331-4347. sta au-the laterior. Thie Act essentially states that every
- e ta f federal agency shall consider ecological This Eaecutive action has almost a vir- factors whes dealing with activities dredge taal les.rtative imprimatur from the No- which may have an impact en man's vember 1967 Report of the Houn Com.
die r mattee ao Merchant Marine and Tiah. anvironment.88
- sy and Catted State, which wesid inefode
- odesacages sad beneSte d the opere.
tunes ta reianse to taa enouhaat less maar of ese Nsnon's estaanse ervem
- On Asesst 2. the Department of the .
et damage. tacindias a3 data peseesced !atenes filei a espolemeetal woort en . by the Seevetarr of the lateriee, maJ the bdL !s its repoet to the committee. ,
,, wG esther deny the permat er inciees J sera senditnaam in the permit es he den the Depertmoet etered that we beueee
' termaes to be le the pubhe latecost, that thas memorendum of sederstand. .
=, ,,weiene sa eneenee ad ..sirence m,ied.a. p- me we a.no,e solenan to the peebeese of pneettnae ,
,,,,e , amoe.aaee vsta water gsanary stamianis gy y serennemah&e impairement of the seteral esta blished la angedance esth la w.
* * **. rennerees of the Natnea o waterware and
,ud re and unmameet, and pneessas the 2L R.Regt esip, goth Cena., tat amen en penetos of the woum Is ese ocam
.has see-seeempaar R.R. *L pp. M. See slee me agwannt mann the Waee *
- av e abe SJtest New 1419. Jetr 11 Issi soth 8""*"'" I"
- f the
- Cens. 24 nees. Senate Ceemittu em Comme,ee ,eper n 5. m and EA 8*'****'*II*'d'*d8'*8'''''**'
e,e.1 **""*'# * *
- I I '"*
and
- 3. pe' 13-16 E.E. 23 wtth - E'""'***A.
bevame h act of august 3, 1988, 32 St. Its aewonen, roteresee end segaifteesee mer Sant C3 (Piet.I. sM5el. ' seek 33, .as e resett d the heruse g e,nd ,th,
" Die act "'m'*a*r*#** *
- I*ILbe need as the *Nattomal starr %, ,g E*==ut Ne7 Aes .f 1ses .
18 - nian.e4 des:t ,ee,se,i ,e,i,,eia,,, TCRPogK
** wkh roepect to the permat peerbises fee 4*ds*as filhas, and encarenee-o See. 2. "f%e perpanee of this act en:
; To declare a mattomal policy wksets eiH
- m'Eteesades of understaednst was ee- earencoge powevedee seJ esperab4e hae-
- g. 88"d late between N Seevetter of the Imrenee sad the Seewtarr of h ator. meer hesween esas sad kne eetironment:
Thee ageoement met forth the peluwe en peemere efforts which wG peveest er I
"g sad Peredores te be felle=ed reverdnet eitsaaste danese to time reeveemmeet am.I j the seetrel et demlgigg, $11 sg. She en- beoo,phere med stamslate th.e .e ee.heelth . Sed
.h.e waters .f . .e are of a.. , o ear,e q
-~ the es i
e I
m rrm:u:. trrentr, u sturs m in .has ne toi,y of me,ew, was 2+-Cau. coin **'""d'M'""'* liff' standi , of he seeisocal erewme end * * * * "r*2aas *f doktakk re- the se pensar to the .w. ***"** materal menem M De Cessnes receises tiist met thos t seJ te serabhah a Ceosed se Ee. perose sheeld emney a hesirkfel un,ee. of t Mreemental Quaisty. pecore has a re nee. eneet and that **'t ill i flf12 I eibdity to comenL e to the prm,eauen of DECLAR4710Y OF XA? loyal sed enhancement h C**8'm et setiennae, the es"ressest. ama dv: KNFlRoyJffyTAL POLICY 8 M um esteet p**'k' g 1 8et 3011al N Ceebnem emesising dimu nat to de fe
' (1) th* p*baa. noistieu. ud piib4w '
the profesad impset et of aumas's setanty of es.npoents se lave of the United States sisu be later. bf the inte miete a the saastal easiresseet, part.celaris the pmed and a%astmd La semdam dal; wuh the polices art forth (a tbas Act. preteead tafleeens of populatsee geeed, and III all egences of the Federal Cee. Are e I histWeemst meemertensaahea. esplantath and Ladustnal w, es-
****t "hM Laterdiari.
g passasew and espandsag techsenegical edeseeus and (Al stahse a erstemane. f, forther the enneel ampoet. D i 'aerF spprotch thaefs @ laamm the IaCL meegassaag totagrstad ese of the eatsmi and secul and mesetmanas et. amesm aed th env*reemental desigs seen of roerense etreamental esahty toofthe everall e,p mas, declares ens la plaansas and le decsame-makaag y fare sad deeelopeest 'wh mar km an iman = ma s
! j that it as the menseing pehey ta emep of .the ne. a **'"***
l 9 Fe mi coeme.r.L @ edemnfy am! Weg medes and l State andpub local seeernments skd other precederet in eeeseiidaftee esta the 4e sad pnvate sessaana. esecerned Comael se Eanmemetal Quaiary ee. g
% to ese aD prnetacek means sai h tabuseed by utie Il of this Act wheet areasures, tectedrag Osascal and tar ar wiD inante that poweredF eseeaanfled eni ---ranee, is a maasee emiestated to eevimeme*al sawninee and essees may asesee and promote me general wettace, he grees appmenate eessidersuem m to erence and maintain emedstions sed,, de-amasias sloss with segnesets and weiet maa and natum ese esist la peu, me=haient wasademaeas:
Mee harmeer, saJ fulful the seensk (C) tectodo le mry rmamendanes ** esseemic, and other estestemeets al pm. ** "'*# est sad futsee geocennees of Amenemas " " " * (bl la seder to carry set the polic9 #*
"** """8 '** ****ded es seemees art feeth La this Act, it as the costiessa maa envuesment a does toepeambauty of the Federal Genernmeet, *"'** * "
, ,, ,g _ " " * " * * *
with etber essestiel eensiderstases of se- "*I **"** I tiemal pehey, to impreee and esordiaste '"lltiest edee'en r esentessestal effects e Fodeent pians g, femenees.
,a g,, peer,g,as, y sad wbset emanet be evended steeh! the i
,,,,,,,g pseement be imeneenestel.
" (141) alternacree ce the propend se'
"= of each (1) feiflit the . . is ,
solattomahap serwe*e lerei
.; yomarettee se trussee of the eerwommest gg,) tee Ier semelang generenees; este, ehert term esos et mas's eerireemaet (2) assers $se aR Amerirtes and the'amatesance sad eeksecement predecuee. and eetheuestly et leag4ere predeettettr. and bestthfs1 , s,,,,,,mib6e and lereeneesth and eettersar p. easing enreeeedange; (,, obiet weeb3 (3) attais the **desa reage of ben. esensitsweta of esenerees netwo 7 fletal asee et the emewommest etcheen be basented La the preemed
, destedettee, risk to health ee selefT. er ebenh& it be implemem4 i
y other endausruble and esentended een. detailed ers'*mdC .
' Pner see to makiss est,ee,s.am redma erfical 411 ten im a m at hanteete. M6 ee* senemit out and estata the em****
N'"" ' tertL and satsett aspecte of est et aar Federst speer wheet has east theman herttage, and maastete, ob+'e' dhetiet by law w special esperusegn,,,,,,c,3 import ser nroemeet obseb asp-passable. as ee ,eope,,,,,, gCopues of such statemeet eeJ l perte diversity and eeriety of tedicaJual selvet ( ****# 3 the sammeets and
$nate, andetees of the ere'*
lacel esee-I (3) ochises a balance betwees pepe-ree one obiet es11 pov* pnate Feders6ates, wburb an setbensed te dr**d Intsen and renae att klah etsadsede of Hetag and a we6r d end ufem e.n.ememi erande= man.g .e nfe . .me u l b e 1 1 1
o m-i. -
- zABEI. e. TABB 213 cua..u rms orei
[6. 7) Although this Congressional tors. In rejectint a permit on non-navi-gational trounds, the Secre:ary of the command was not in existence at the Army does not abdicate his sole ultimate time the permit in question was denied. the correctness of that decision most be responsibility and authority. R.ather in weighing the application the Secretary detersuced by the applicable standards of the Army is acting under a Congres-of todar. The natior.at psticy is se. forth sional mandate to collaborate and consid. la plain terms in { 101 and the discla2mer of i 104(3) neither affects it nor the er allof these factors.es duty of a!! departments to consider, con-I To judge the ebb and flow of the na-salt, coCaborata and conclude. For we tional tade. he can look to the Report of bMd that white it is sti!! the action of the the House Committee on Government Op. Secretary of the Army on the recommen.
' erstions. Althevgh this perhaps lacks dation of the Chief of Endineers, the traditional standing of legislative his-Army must consult with, consider and tory,it certain!y has relevance somewhat I receite, and then evaluate the recommen-comparable to an Eaecutive Commission dations of all of these other stencies ar-tienlately on all these environmental fac- Report. On March 17.1970. it approved sees of this Act sad shall propose to the Ne'e 2Ma seed Pmsent set later thes July L W1-
) shad be meile availab6e to the Pree. . each messerse se mar be sensaary to
}
dest, the Cosen! en Eanreamestal bring these eethenty and poisnes inte e Quattry and to h pehlie as proeided see'e"estr with al.e istest. purposes and by mornee $32 et nite 5. Caared Strees pedums set fenh in this AM. [ [
- Cair and shall amoepaar the peepsent Sec. loL Nathang te Secosa 10: er I threest the ensnag agetey reeww pree, 103 shou is aar est affect the specifle
,m,,. statetory obliganess of any Fe6eral ageo-(D) stody, deveney, and desenho ap- er (1) to essapiF sith enteria er staed-l pregnate alterna.ives to -- - :f ards of emnreemental esehty. W m ee-seersee of aenee is any propeast *bsch e.dinate et seassit eith ear othee Fed-le,eie,e earvenited eeatheta concerosag ;
eral er State agener er (3) to set, er
- etternadw use of semilab4e ressereve t roere= fro- ea>as ~nor of ea o *e
, (Ei - the .e,idmde su ~me--ee - -f=== et ear .
is.g-r ge chareee, of es,reame.ta, othee Feieral et State aevect. , W end, where essa stest mth Set 1E The pelsews sad goals set ; the formga poi.fr of & Castasi States fant b nas An en nppimetary to . e 1 sed appregnate emppen to isinaneen, , name en fenk in e,sWas eethenasnens semeienness and progrene deegned to et Felpes seeeces ,
= = = - intersanseat emepersues to
,. Pshiie !.ae 91-190. Title L fE3 Stot. 950.
entisiparing and preessnet a doches C MC A. Il4331 4347. T la the geauty ed maahars oerid en-
**** 11. Fee Hke ressoas the fehemes disetsim-e, la the Flah and Midlife Act of 195i1 v3 IF) make semilsbee to States. eues- to Stat tils. 3r CSC A. H tes.r42j.
at ties mesiepenties, institauess, sad in-
'8 d"de*ik sence and saformassee one. somrweDr TO Stat. 1124.16 l'AC A.
fm! is restenas. manatasting. med on- g 1425 m set 4,fgs,e ; knaring the eesher of the eettreementi "THE RICHTS OF STATESMeth-4e (C) taitante and enhse avoingwel la- las la um Act (enteefuse TCa and 44 ; formanos in the piseeisc and da.ney- ame_;cd. Tee.;cs et chie nele: 13
- m. enterenen 713e 3 and sesel shau be mest et es=meree.enested preseets: tad (B) mesist the Ceeent en Eaeiree- eveatrued (1) to inteefere is est use-as. .
"'etal Quahty setshbeheel br 6atie 11 of see with the nghts of any Scare seder aE l thae An- the SebmerTed teeds Act iPuhhc I.a*
su + See. IGL A3 agences of the Fedwal 3L Listitrahird Ceege uss (43 sehnee is, Ceewoment shs0 terww their peoret taan 1301 sad meta-1303.13111315) th ly maratory sothentr. e,lainstrettee Pete. er othereme proMed by !s e, er te Is'$ set med eerrent poiaries and prece. augeeuede nor revoietory sechenry ever ed essee for the porpose of deterenseing floherwe eserewed 45 the States ettbec eu, ehrthee there are ser,Jefiewones se to- todicides.sy er eeneer intersrate een-ee. , ~
- thervia shach prohibit fau parts ;"
esp sesspeisere mth the perpenes and peert-g
=
e [ e 2 }
~ .
e 430 TIDIF.AL REFORTER,2d SIRIIS g and adopted a Report." based on a study any easy overconfidence and charges the made by its Conservation and Natural Corps with ever. increasing vigilance.'s Resources Subcoremittee, entatied Our [3] When the House Report and the Waters and Wetlands: How the Corps National Environ:nental Policy Act of of Engineers Can Help Prevent Their 1969 are considered tosether with the Destaction and Pol ution. (H. Rep. No. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and 91-917,91st Cong. 2d Sess. (1970)) The its interpretations there is no doubt that first sect'en stifies any doubt es to the Secretary can refuse on conservation . how this part of Congress construes the grounds to grant a permit under the Corps' duty under the Rivers and if ar. Rivers and Harbors Act. born Act. The section traces the histare cat interpretation of the Corps' power Y It * , under the Rivers and Harbors Act. Due Process commends the Corps for reactnizing eco-logical considerations under the Act to [9,10] Landholders next contend L protset against unt.ecessary fills and that the denial of a per: nit without a citas the instant case.82 But following hearing before the Fish and Wildhfe the temper of the times, the report cet Service is a deprivation of property with. due process of law. Administrative by bold fact black tne cautions arsinst e and etha mitmtwo w este bed I at ,The * * ** I
-ne heedias.of Corp et Eagsmnthe Itepert remia which e: RJtes M 9t-017. > 3. I sharged by Caerme vita .e dory to 1
presort the satwe's esesgsbie waters. E% dbmmhWwm 8 eheetswhee estea. aeries whethee to ap= peere appineenets for landfills deviiring b g h e, m W h & , g g , and esher wert te movigehne esteet 12 setsaftes. 9 trees aSd ef ber bedere Of e64 the prom wert M hn. set mangable water to incer!ae their ee-
- 8
* * " phasie se how the weet edt effect ad i N ** **"I'* art.eets of the pobles latewet. tacteding
* * * *
- N ***'I **'""O*"** met eely saccettee het sies esseeres-trGdhis air med enter esality eethene*
nroese view. Itstone estet. seeeegy. sad afe, one sa.I werer esents eesheews. ' et " pop latmet aem M h seense etee, b.scocie sites, ocesser. a3d I
*****E od er pobl6e laterent especes of the 4
- 27. *In 2003, the Corps reetoed ses ret *As-sneee to state that else Corps ta ese-waterway.' r Pt Rep. No. 91-817. .
eats e eenenes es appliennes :ee a pee =L to Aa the Ceemittee ewee it not Elk deedst dischets, ee de,esit seem. shookl the Cerve eessadet esamenstwa. elk er etadeet etbee settetttes afforces het 18 abeeld esee6det essee"enee to be f mae ssable wateau, stu ersteste "su sedasected by every dredge and nu pree ve6eeset facteen, seetedsag the effect of ert med piace m emedee of twiss othe-the paceacl eert ee maesgsnee. Ash wies os the applienst See, e. a. the med wildlafe, enese re sties, pellenee. eenhenes eceness, see the sement pet
- essenesses of the rust aseeme of tae ite-port and tta be44 feet trie reassmeede-
't he latecost - 33 CF1t 3.4.33H 4) enes t EU.* The Carpe a pplied then polert -he Carpe d Engioevee ebeeld Pr*
l when it recettir sopetet the effects of ,
, alt me farthet Isadfills se other neerseert and isod deeetesers to fH1 is a majev part la the Kettee e eersanet i
of Bors Chess Dat. seer $L Petecohors, other watereers eteetst in those tesse
- s Mt See Zabet s. Tebb, 296 F.5epew where the oppiweet sinreatmar pre'a (D C.ME.fA Tamps Die. Fek ha em'd 164 that the prettamed eset to r hT,19601, new as spreal to the t'.1 Caert of Appeens Ftrin cuests.42 F. - t. .re.d .-
*ith the pen.s tatmet, ineseding t8e mThe committee eeeeeenis the Corps M these weto steam" der sweetswag its breedet resposab h-HJten Nt91-017. 36 &
thee to poeteet ogsaaet aseeeeenary fille , 1
S?!E.54 EXHIBIT _ AN EVALUATION OF THE FEASIBILITY OF SALT WATER COOLING TOWERS FCR TURKEY POINT for Florida Power k Light Company - Miami, Florida by Southern Nuclear Engineering, Inc. Dunedin, Florida and Washington, D. C. February 1970 f
*~
^
y 215 UNITED ca. ST..ATIS ca ru IImRIL ore,3. v. EHELt.T law requires that before an agency can UNITED STATES es ret. Stephen J. A regulate a party. It must allow that party Appellee, l te be beard. Here. Landholders were ,, g, given such a hearing before the Corps of
. of Engineers, the body empowered to fleer, grant Josepts Proteauen Department. A. SMELLY. SupremeChief Probation Of.
the They were not entitled or desy a permit. Court. Second Judicial Department. and s
- to a hearing before the Fish and Wildlife Kings County, New York. AppeHant, mg Service because it is not "the one wh6 No. Sg2. Docket 33337,
.tian decides." 3! organ v. United States.1935, f m 2st U1468, 481. 56 S.Ct. tod. 912. 80 United States Court of Appeals.
l They were allowed to Second CJeult. f.Ed. 2283,1295.
- rebut be findings and conclusions of W Argued Nov.12.19ss.
I Fish and Wild ife Service before toe de. Decided June 30,1m. ciding body and thus were not denied due' peccams for lack of a hearir.g. i
,g,g Habeas corpus proceeding. The ot a M United States District Court for the d;ife ,gg, E****#".
Weinstem.District J, granted ofpetition. New York.30s F. Jack B. r Taking Wimat Compensation The ative Supp. 55, and the state appealed. Landholders
- last contention is that Court of Appeals. Irving R. Eacfman.
" their private submerged property was Cirrust Judge, held that where parties taken for public use without just com. failed to raise question of deference re-I
> pensation. They proceed this way: (i) quired to be given to determination of
,d the denial of a permit constitutas a tak. voluntariness of waiver of Mirsada lag sinen this is the only use to which the rights by state courts, it couki be as.
=
" property could be put; (!!) the public seed on appeal from granting of habe- .
use is as a breeding ground for wildlife; as corpus rehel that question of volun-j and (iii) for that use just compensation tary sWer was opened.to fullest aeru. , en is due, tiny by district judge. - tee *
-se. I Order modifitd and affirmed.
- i 01) Our discussion of this conten-
[ a f tion begins and ends with h idea that Hays. Circuit Judge, concurred and there is no taking. The waters and un- filed opinion; Moore. Circuit Judge, dis-I
- o. darlytag land are subject to the para, seated and filed opinion.
amount servitude in the Federal govern-l g, unent which the Submerged I, ands Act
, l arpressly reserved as an incident of 1. Criminal Law
- tis
. he
- power incident to the Commerce Clause. Under New York law, plea of guilty
* (See Part II empra). does not result in waiver of all nonjuris.
h*
*** dictional defects. (Per Esafman. Circuit Judge, with one judge concurring in re.
I ;
! Conclusion h w p l a st
$ Under New York law, where guilty j }
Landholders' contentions fail es all grounds. The case la reverted and since Wes %ws unsuccessful attempt to sup there are no questions remaining to be press confession. appeal is permitted save Fusobed by the District Court, judgment from pretrial suppression decision. (Per
** la readered for h Covernment and the Kaufman. Circuit Judge, with one judge
*" {
associated agent. defendants. concurring ta result). Code Cr.Pnc N.E I 813-g. Reversed and rende, red.
~~
l l l i 1 The following engineers of the Southern Nuclear staff ) l i participated in the development of this report: P Ray L. Lyerly, P. E. l Project Manager l n Gilbert M. Brown, P. E. W. Gordon Colledge, P. E. Walter J. Egin R. Paul Hancock, P. E. Arnold A. Katterhenry ( William A. Maxwell Walter Mitchell. III William L. Mullett Robert L. Schlegel ( i I f I I I----- . - - - , . - _ , _ __ _ _ , _ _ - - - - - - , - - - . . . . , , , . , _ _ , _ _
f . TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION II. DESCRIPTION OF COOLING TOWERS . A. General
- 1. Mechanical Draft Towers
- 2. Natural Draft Towers t
- 3. Dry Towers ,
B. Suppliers of Mechanical Draft Towers
- 1. Fluor Cooling Towers
- 2. Marley Cooling Towers I C. Suppliers of Hyperbolic Towers D. Additional Designers, Builders, and Users
- 1. United States l
- 2. Overseas t
III. POTENTIAL PROBLEM AREAS j A. Effects of Salt Water on Tower Size B. Operating Cycles C. Materials of Construction D. Harricane Wind Design E. Marine Growth in Towers F. Drift G. Vapor Plume Dispersion 11 4 I l l 1
< , , a .-
I f a ( TABLE OF CONTENTS (Condnued) i t IV. EXISTING OR PLANNED SALT WATER TOWERS A. Operating Towers in the United States 1
- 1. Chevron Oil Company
'I Z. Enjay Chemical Company B. Operating Towers Overseas l
i
- 1. Ingland a
Z. Sweden
- 3. Puerto Rico i 4. Trinidad
- 5. Australia
}
- 6. Panama 2
1 C. Recent Purchases I
; 1. Delmarva Power and Light Company 1 2. Venezuela i
D. Planned Unit V. COOLING TOWER SELECTION FOR TURKEY POINT i A. Postulated Design Bases B. Mechanical Draft Towers
~
l C. Hyperbolic Towers VI. COOLING TOWER DRIFT CONSIDERATIONS A. General l .i m i a 9
$ O t
t I .f
1 l l I f - TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) B. Amount of Drift Expected l
- 1. Measurement of Drift
, I
- 2. Drift Test Information i
- 3. Observations of Operating Towers 4.
Drift Guarantees by Cooling Tower Vendors a C. Transport and Deposition of Drift
- 1. General f
i D. Drift Research and Development j
- 1. Effort by Tower Suppliers
[ 2. Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
- 3. R&D Program Requirements VII. POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES OF DRITT AT TURK VIII. CONCLUSIONS A. Areas of Scificient Experience B. Areas of Mimmum Experience C. Area of Inadequate Experience iv l
l
i LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure II 1 Transverse section of Fluor mechanical draft tower - (Courtesy nuar Products Co. . Inc.) 11 2 Duor Type 70 mechanical draft tower (Courtesy nuor Products Co. , Inc.) H-3 Transverse section of Marley mechanical draft tower (Courtesy The Marley Co.) H -4 Marley Class 600 mechanical draft tower (Courtesy The Marley Company) H-5 Research Cottren Inc. , Hamon Cooling Tower Division. Hyperbolic Towers (Courtesy TVA) e IV-1 Hyperbolic salt water cooling towers at neetwood Station. England (Courte sy the L. T. Mart Company, Limited) V -1 Turkey Point site with mechanical draft cooling towers V -2 Turkey Point site with hyperbolic cooling towers VI-1 Experimental industrial dust drift data VH-1 Rate of emission of salt to the air as a function of drift rate l V O
~ ,
I. INTRODUCTION
? .
At the request of Florida Power 1 Light Company, the consulting firm Southern Nuclear Engineering, Inc. has performed a st'udy of the feasibility of using cooling towers to reduce the temperature of heated 1 salt water. The study centered about the technical factors involved in J a consideration of towers as a possible means of cooling the discharge l water from the condensers of the power-generating units at Turkey . Point, on Biscayne Bay. Cooling towers have been widely used for many years in a variety of t Notable among the applications , commercial and industrial applications. j is the use of fresh-water towers to cool the condenser water of power plants. Although cooling tow ra are in service at power stations throughout the l ble. An world, few use salt water, since fresh water is generally avai a adequate supply of fresh water is not available at Turkey Point for cooling tower service. The study involved an assessment of the state of the technology of salt-water cooling towers, and domestic as well as foreign sources were i used in compiling the information necessary to evaluate the feasibility of The methods of ob. towers for the specific application under consideration. reviews of the pertinent literatu e; meet-taining information were many: ings and extensive discussions with cooling-tower suppliers and users, both in the United States and abroad; visits to installations to observe actual salt water towers in operation; and visits to the Pacific Northwest Water J I-l w
.. , , _ _ _m _ _ ,__ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _
s bboratory of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration and to FWPCA Washir gton headquarters. As an indication of the engineering effort devoted to collecting, assembling, and evaluating this subject. Southern Nuclear devoted more than 800 man-hours of senior and pro. fessional engineering time. All of the organizations and people that we contacted, either by visits or by telephone, in both the United States and Europe, were most hnipful and generous with their time and irJormation. The consideration of cooling towers for Turkey Point is the result of a desire by Florida Po ver and Light Co. to consider all practical methods available to minimize the temperature of the water discharged i i to Biscayne Bay. This evaluation of cooling towers was based on the concept in shich the towers are located downstream from the condensers and cool the water before it is returned to the Bay. We have examined each of the general types cf cooling' tower: (1) the (wet) mechanical draft cooling tower, (2) the (wet) hyperbolic tower, and (3) the dry towe r. Primary emphasis was placed on their technical status with enly a cursory study of the economics involved. Thus, we have attempted to consider the feasibility of each of the three typ.es from the standpoint of various site requireme nts such as arrangement, hurricane criteria, climatic i conditions, environmental effects, and operating considerations, such as reliability and maintainability. l. 12
- H. DESCRIPTION OF COOLING TOWERS A. General The basic cooling tower types are either " wet" or " dry" and either J " mechanical draft" or " natural dr aft." Air flows through each type of r
I tower. In a mechanical draft tower, air flow is induced by fans, while the natural buoyancy of heated air is employed in natural draft towers. i I' As the name implies, in a wee cooling tower, the water and air are in I direct contact, while in a dry tower, the water is contained inside tubes. In a wet tower, the primary means of cooling is evaporation and the air temperature changes relatively little. In a dry tower, all the heat goes j into changing the temperature r,f the air flowing through the tower. For s a more complete description of the construction and operation of the i various types of cooling towers, the reader is referred to Ref. U-1.
- 1. Mechanical Draft Towers Wet towers, utilizing fans to provide the draft, have been used for many years and for a variety of applications. Only mechanical draft and even now, towers had been built in the United States until 1963, i
i the number of units of other types is relatively small. Mechanical draft j towers are inherently flexible and can be designed for a wide range of conditions. They are compact, as compared to natural draft towers. ~ i U.1 I
)
e c4
l l *
- 2. Natural Draft Towers As described in Ref. II-1, the natural draft wet tower consists of a packing at the base, surmounted by a very large tower which draws air upward by a chimney effect. Water flows downward over the packing, and is cooled by evaporation. The towers have a hyperbolic silhouette, giving rise to the connotation " hyperbolic." Because of their large size, wind loading presents an important design problem, and one that would be magnified at the Turkey Point site, where hurricanes must be con.
sid er ed. Commenting on their size, Ref. H.2 states, "They will be the dominit feature of s power station and may be visible for many miles. For this reason they are considered esthetically undesirable by some f people in certain locations." Another characteristic of the hyperbolic wet tower is its sensitivity to climatic conditions. For optimum performance, low ambient tempera. ture and high relative humidity are required,H.3 conditions which do not exist in tl.e South Florida area, particularly during the summer months.
- 3. Dry Towers At first glance, this type of tower is an attractive method of dis sipating waste heat from the production of electricity. It has been considered in at least two federal reports, As these reports point out, this method of heat dissipation has several important dis.
advantages, listed below. H.2
- a. There is very limitad (xperisnee with constructicn and operation of this type tower and no experience in the capacity considered
( necessary.
- b. Of all types of cooling towers, the dry type is by far the largest in size.
- c. If a dry tower is used, the condenser water cannot be reduced
- to as low a temperature. (Use of this tower would require ex.
tensive modifications to the turbine, condenser, and feedwater Additionally, and systems which were designed for cooler water. very importactly. the power output from the plant would be reduced by a relatively large percentage, necessitating the construction of additional generating facilities.) ' In a recent paper,U~4 Shade and Smith, of Gilbert As sociates, who have designed power plants using wet cooling towers, conclude that dry cooling towers are not feasible at this time, citing both economics and unsolved technical problems. They conclude that experimentation and developreent must continue. Other studies have reached the same conclusion.H-5,U.6 U noted that "There The Governor's Task Force on Nuclear Power Plants do not appear to be any large dry towers operating in the United States and the ene at Rugeley Station in England for a 120 megawatt unit has had considerable difficulty because of the complexity of this system." We have learned from another source
~
that the thermal performance of the Rugeley Tower system is well below the design performance, and the operators claimed it would be more economic to pump water 50 miles than to use dry towers. I The FWPCA is funding a research contract to provide technical information on dry cooling towers. More details on this are given in Attachment 3. 11 3
B. Suppliers of Mechanical Draft Towers
- 1. Fluor Cooling Towers High capacity mechanical draft cooling towers are manufactured The by the Fluor Products Company, Inc. , of Santa Rosa, California.
largest of their units presently available is the Fluor Type.70 double. flow cross. flow which is inustrated in Fig. II.1 and U.2. Figure U.1 shows the transverse section of the Fluor Type.70 cross. Cow tower and illustrates their typical configuration of structural members, louvers, fill, fin support, drift eliminators, fan stack, fan and motor drive assemblies, inlet manifold and valve, hot water basin, and cold water basin. Generany, the air Gow enters horizontally through the louvers of both sides, through the fill and mist eliminator sections, then turns vert 2cally upward due to the natural draft and the induced draft of , the fan section to pass through the fan blades and fan stack for discharge to the atmosphere. The hot water is pumped from ground level up to the inlet mani. These pumps satisfy fold by separate booster pumps located at the tower. only the pumping head requirements of the individual tower inlet manifold sy stem. The water then flows through the distributor valves and into the hot water basin. down through the fill section, and then, as cooled water, into the cold water basin for retum to the plant intake. U.4 l
t ( . Figure U-2 inustrates a five ceu salt water cooling tower installation which is located at an oil refinery. It has been in service since the fan of 1969. The specific construction details are discussed in the Fluor technical specifications of Ref. H-7, Those toners built for salt water cooling must, of course, employ different materials in some of the major c ompon ents. These are described as fonows:
?
s Structural Framework Treated redwood Fan Deck Treated redwood 4 Drift Eliminators Polyvinyl chloride (PVCi
~
Pa rtition Treated redwood j Casing Corrugated cement asbestos panels or fiberglass reinforced polyester 4 or PVC Leuvers Corrugated cement asbestos Fin . Wedge shaped PVC l i j hardware (anchors, joint connectors, Ductile iron, silicon bronze, nails, bolts, nuts & washers) stainless steel l Tan Stack Fiberglass reinforced polyester I
'd*"ifold Fiberglass reinforced sand filled i
iso.polye ste r Flow Control Valves Fiberglass with statniess steel hardware t I15 1 i
> I
\l e t' . I 1 3
- Treated exterior plywood Hot Water Basin Tan As s emblie s Tiberglas s blades. Hub and hardware hot dipped galvanized Reducers Cast iron Drive Shatta Stainless steel Electric motors of various types, Fan Motors with size ranging up to 200 hp The design of the Fluor units is such that the air velocity is approxi.
mately 10 fps through the fill section and approximately 33 fps through the fan s tack. A variety of technical articles were obtained from the Fluor repre-sentative and deal with a number of areas related to the design and operation
' of mechanical draft cooling water towers. References U-8 through H-12 deal with technical subjects such as water treating, fogging, cooling tower design, salt water service, cooling towe r hardware, wood deterioration and treatment, cross Dow vs. counter flow, and cold weather operation of a cross flow coeling tower. Additional detailed photographs of the Fluor Type-70 tower construction details were supplied during the study of their design, and can be supplied separately.
The tower materials are selected in part to reduce the magnitude of any fire hazard and its resultant damage. Is is understood that the Fluor Products Company has a color movie available to illustrate the flamability resistance of the self-extinguishing PVC wedge fill and other materials in e their design. II-6 1 l l
l 1 l e
- During operation of this unit, there will be some amount of water droplet carryover, known as drift, discharged from the fan stack.
The performance of the Fluor Type.70 has been described as being capable of 11rniting the drift, so as not to exceed 0.2 percent of the water circulated through the tower. A more detailed explanation of the effects of salt water drift from mechanical draft towers is presented in Section VI. While design improvements can be developed that will r'esult in a reduced drift value, the methods for measurement and analysis of this operati.ng effect have not yet been optimized and finalized, a
- 2. Marlev Cooline Towers Numerous sizes of mechanical draft cooling towers for both fresh and salt water service have been manufactured by the Marley Company of
(' Kansas City, Mo. The largest of their units available at this time is the Marley Class.600 double. cow cross Gow design which is illustr ated in Figs. H 3 and H 4. Figure 113 shows a transverse section of the Marley Class.600 double.now tower and illustrates typical component arrangement and tower construction. The figure shows major components such as the main strue. tural members, louvers, casing, splash bars and grid supports of the fill section, herringbone drift eliminators, fan stack, fan drive comhnents, hot water inlet mamfold and now control valve, hot water nozzles, basin and decking, and cold water concrete basin. f II-7
~
l
. b ~ ,
Basically, the air flow and water fall path are the same as previously described in Section U. B. (1) above. It is understood that the air velocity through the fill section and fan stack areas are also essentiauy the same as the make previously discussed, i.e. approximately 10 fps and 30 fps r es pe ctively. U.13.U.17 Various Marley technical reports and information sheets were obtained and present detailed data on such components as structural connectors, connector rings, and plates, fan blades and drive components, 4 grid all supports, tower illling, fan cylinder, drift eliminators, casing, mechanical equipment handling devices, louvers, and How control valves. Operating and maintenance instructions for the Marley Clas s.600 cross. flow cooling towerE*l were reviewed. Items such as startup and shutdown procedures, operating and maintenance information and schedules, tower trouble shooting tips, water treatment and spare parts are discussed. The specific construction details are discussed in the referenced Marley technical speciacations. For salt water cooling, some of the major components employ materials described as fonows: Structural Framework Treated redwood l Tre sted redwood Fan Deck Drift Diminators Treated redwood Partition Walls Treated redwood l Casing Corrugated cement asbestos panels i U.8 i i
. Louvers Corrugated cement asbestos Till Polyp ropylene Joint Connectors Glass reinfue .d polyester Ha rdwa re 31 icon bronze and stainless steel Tan Stack Glass reinforced polyester Manifold Ceilcote plastic Tan Blades Tiberglass blade Reducers Cast iron Drive Shafts Stainles s steel Tan Motors Epoxy encapsulated or totally enclosed The fan blades have a 28.ft diameter and are adjustable to match i
the motor which can be sized up to 200 hp. During operation of this unit, there will bewater droplets or drift discharged from the fan stack. The performance of the Marley Class.,600 has been described as being capable of limiting the drift so as not to exceed .) 0.2 percent of water circulated through'the tower. A more detailed explanation of the effects of salt water drift from mechanical draft towers is presented in Section VI. While design improvements can be developed that will result in a reduced drift value, the methods for measurement and analysis of this operating effect have not yet been optimised and finalizeds II.9 l l
~
,f C. Supeliers of Hyperbelic Towers f As mentioned previously, hyperbolic towers are not generally selected for climatic conditions such as exist in South Florida. Ctr main emphasis has been on mechanical draft towers, but manufacturers of hyperbolic towers were ala s contacted. In the United States two companies are prepared to These are The Marley Company. supply hyperbolic natural draft towers. Kansas City, Missouri and the Hamon Cooling Tower Division, Research. Cottrell, Inc. , Bound Brock, New .Ters ey. At present Thi Marley Company has seventeen hyperbolic cooling towers under construction or in operation in the United States. These have a maxi-mum height of 370 ft and, with one exception, are of a cros s flow design. All are designed for use with fresh water as makeup. The manmum flow of water for ar.y one tower is 292,500 gym at Harrison Station, Maywood, West Virginia. The maximum wet-bulb temperature for which thes e towers are designed is 73 F as compared to a Turkey Point design wet-bulb tempera-ture of 81*F. The Hamon Cooling Tower Division of Research-Cottrell, Inc. has the Some of the longest experience with concrete shell, natural draft towers. first towers of this type were built in Europe in the early 1920's. In the One in Pennsylvania United States sixteen are under construction or in use. has a cooling water flow rate of 265,000 gpm. The average flow in the United States has been approximately 200.000 gpm. In Europe a considerably P II-10 4 k
r . larger number are in operation; however, the flow rates are generally less than 200,000 gym. All of these towers are for fresh water service. See Tig.115 for Research-Cottrell, Inc. tnwere installed at Paradise Station of T. V. A. D. Additional Desirners, Builders, and Users
- 1. United States The above mentioned are the major suppliers in this country of large cooling towers for the utility industry. However, we received useful in. formation from the following firms who also serve this industry:
Ceramic Cooling Tower Company Lilie-Hoffman Cooling Towers, Inc. Pritchard Products Corporation
- 2. Overseas The organizations listed below were contacted directly (with one exception) for the purpose of obtaining information regarding design, con.
struction or operation of salt water towers. Central Electricity Generating Board (C. E.G. B. ) London, England The L. T. Mart Company Limited Weybridge, Surrey, England Bierrum as Partners Limited Harrow, Middlesex, England I II-11 i
)
4 The Davenport Engineering Co., Limited Bradford, Yorks, England 1 Tilm Cooling Towers (1925) Limited Richmond, Surrey, England S. A. Hamon* Brussels, Belgium N. V. Neratoom The Hague, Netherlands Dectricite de France Paris, France Maschinenbau-Aktiengese11schaft Balcke A. G. (Balche A. G.) Bochum, West Germany 1 Vereinigung Deutscher Dektrizitatswerke Frankfurt, West Germany i <l I Stadtwerke Neumunster Neurr mater, West Germany i Siemens A. C. T?'.angen, West Germany Mitsubishi International Corporation New York City English Electric Corporation New York City Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. New York City 4 Many of the firms had no experience with salt water cooling towers, but a substantial body of information resulted from the fruitful coctacts. This information is reflected in the following paragraphs, which describe some of the overseas organizations with salt-water tower experience, and
?
11-12 1 I J l 4 I 4 l 1 l i
1
. i l
l l
' in the sections of thir report that deal with actual overns a s tower instana.
tion s. The purpose of the following paragraphs is to set forth the relation. l ships between two foreign companies and two in the United States, and to mention the position that the C.E.G. B. in England has taken with regard to cooling towers. The L. T. Mart Company LLmited is a wholly-owned English subsidiary of The Marley Company (U.S.). A design orgar'zation. Mart represents what once was tle cooling-tower design division of the con-Mouchel sulting enf reering firm L. G. Mouchel & Partners, London. designed coslLg towers from 1925 until about 1965, at which time Marley Marley and bought its cooling-tower division and named it L. T. Mart. Mouchel had established an agreement whereby Marley sold Mouchel-designed hyperbolic towers in the United States, and the purchase of the Mouchel group by Marley was prompted by a Mouchel decision to get out of the cooling tower business. The Mart Company (or the people that comprise it) has designed salt-water towers of the mechanical-draft, as well as the hyperbolic, type. The S. A. Hamon organisation, of Brussels, is affiliated with l i Research-Cottrell, Inc. of the United States. Hamon has been in business j ! since 1905 and supplies hyperbolic and mechanical-draft towers. but its l limited salt-water experience appears to be only with the mechanical-draft type. I i H-13 ) l
- s A
I /"
- The C.E.C.B. operates generating plants in the United Kingdom that use a total of nearly 400 cooling towers. Two towers (at the Fleet.
wood Station) operate with sea water, and there are some brackish water installations. For years, the C.E.C.B. relied on outside engineering As organizations to design its towers, but now it does its own design. l stated in the letter that constitutes Attachment U-! to this report, the C.E.C. B. is ",,, prepared to co-operate, under certaLn conditions, with other utilities and consultants in the design of towers for other electrical ' utilitie s. "
=
H-14 a
l
/
- REFERENC ES H.1 Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, Northwest Region, Pacific Northwest Water Laboratory, Industrial Waste Guide on Thermal Pollution (revised), September 1968.
H.2 The Energy Policy Staff, Executive Office of the President. Office of Science and Technology. Considerations Affecting Steam Power Plant Site Selection, December 1968. H.3 Eric Aynsley, HT Research Institute, Environmental' Aspects of Cooling Tower Plumes, presented at the Cooling Tower Institute Meeting Jan. 26 28, 1970, New Orleans, Louisiana. H.4 W. R. Shade and A. F. Smith. HI. Discussion of Economic Con. siderations in Thermal Discharge to Streams. in Enrineerine Ascects of Thermal Po11ution, pp. 303 307, edited by F. L. Parker and P. A. Krankel. Vanderbilt University Press,1969. H.5 Cut Pollution At What Price? Electrical World, 173(3): 32 (Jan. 19, 1970). H.6 A. C. Thies, Water Quality and Power Plants, EEI Bulletin. 37(6): 201 (June July 1969). H-7 Fluor Products Company. Inc. , Technical Specifications Type 70 Induced Draft Crossflow Cooling Tower. Fluor Standard Redwood. June 1969. H.8 T. H. Hamilton. Fluor Products Company, Inc., Cooling Towers for Salt Water Service. H.9 T. H. Hamilton, Fluor Products Company, Inc., Cooling Tower Hardware. H.10 T. H. Hamilton, Fluor Products Company, Inc., Wood Deterioration l and Treatment, Mar. 16, 1967. I H.11 Fluor Products Company. Inc. , Study of Fogging Condition. l H.12 T. H. Hamilton, Fluor Products Company, Inc. , Water Treating, l Ma r. 16, 1967. H.15 I l
= .
l l
\
T o
- RITERENCES (Continued)
U.13 The Marley Company, Cooling Tower Fundamentals and Applicatica Principles. i U-14 The Erley Company, CRP Fan Blades, Report No.104. Apr.1,1967. , 11 15 The Marley Company CRP Diagonal Connectors and Shear Plates, Report No.103, Apr.16,1967. i U-16 The Marley Company. Class ReirJorced Polyester (CRP) Crid Fin i Supports, Report No.105A, Nov. 27,1967. U-17 The Wrley Company, Manual, Class 600 Industrial Cross-Flow Cooling Towers Operatior and Maintenance Instructions, Wrch 1969. U-18 Covernor's Task Force on Nuclear Power Plants, Nuclear Power I in Wryland. December 1969. U 19 Private Communication, t 1 U.16 i f i 4 e _ _ - - _ _ _ _ - ,e >, - - --- - ~ - - s.- w 4 - , -. ~n. ~ ,.._,
' ~
l 1 III. POTENTIAL PROBLEM AREAS The use of large salt water cooling towers presents a number of It is the purpose of this section to major areas of technical concern. touch on those areas that are pertinent to the design and operations of large sal wate r mechanical draft cooling towers. A. Effects of Salt Wate_r on Tower Size When considering the effect's of salt water on tower rating and design, one must recognize the fact that dissolved salts act as a vapor pressure Considering solutions depressant and retard the evaporation process. of the same vapor pressure and evaporation rate, a salt solution would have to be at a higher temperanzre or be exposed to a larger quantity of air than would pure water. The extent to which a given salt will depress the vapor pressure is However, a uni-almost directly proportional to the concentration. univalent salt such as sodium chloride of a given molal concentration would have less of an effect on the vapor pressure than an equal molal solution of an uni-bivalent salt such as sodium sulfate. Utilizing vapor pressure depression data from the International Critical Tables over a rather broad range cf temperature conditions and correlating with performance demand on a cooling tower, a relatively simple means has been developed to quite accurately compensate for this effect. For every 4,000 ppm of sodium chloride in the circulating water, the design wet bulb should be increased m -1 1 1 l i l l l i
6 8 s~ by 0.1 F. On a typical once-through process for seawater of approximately 0 35.000 ppm salinity, a tower should be rated for about a 0.9 F higher wet bulb temperature. This procedure may be used for other salts by comparing the molal content of these salts in a solution with sodium chloride of the same molal content correlated to ppm of sodium chloride. B. Operating Cycles Towers may be operated either as "once-through" or " recirculating" sy stem s. In a "once-through" system, water is drawn from a bay, river, or other body, passed thraugh the plant condensers where it is heated by 10 to 20 degrees, and returned to the source at about the original tempera. In a " recirculation" system, the ture after passage through the towers. It is water is returned from the tower to the condenser, then back again. heated by each pass through the condenser and then cooled by each pass through the tower. Salt and other dissolved solids will concentrate in the water if recirculating operation is selected. High blowdown rates must be used to Even if blowdown and other losses equal control their concentration. the rate of evaporation from the tower, the salt concentration will be double that of seawater; lower blowdown rates will make the concentration even higher. The salt content should be maintained at the lowest practicallevel to minimize its adverse effects. III.2 l l
Because of the large blowdown requirement (tens of thcusands of gallons per minute if the salt concentration in the tower is to be less than twice that of the sea) we doubt that the use of a recirculating system is advisable, particularly as there is some question as to the advisability of returning water with a salt content much higher than that of the original seawater to the point of origin. The present small salt water recirculating units typically discharge their blowdown water to an ash pit where it evaporates. C. Materials of Construction 1, i The selection of construction materials for salt water tower applications are somewhat similar to the selea in of materials for the remainder of the circulating water system. A detailed discussion of the preferred materials is contained in Refs. III.2 and III.3. A unique requirement in material selection is one that considers the corrosion effect of salt water in both an aerated and unaerated state. N III.3 I i G
Generally, aluminum, yellow brass, naval brass, carbon steele, and low grade of cast iron should be avoided. Menel, stainless steel, silicon bronze, and ductile iron perform reasonably wellin salt water service. Plastic materials such as polypropylene, polyvinyl chloride (PVC), and fiberglas s reinforced polyester are used as encapsulating mate rial panels, As for bolting slats, bar s, and in some cases as structura1 connectors. material, silicon 'oronze and stainless steel, such as Type 316, are generally preferred since galvanized bolts corrode rapidly in salt water. The continuous or intermittent wetting and drying operation Lefluences the selection of materials for numerous components. Wooden decking and structural members are examples of such service. They are exposed to the crystallization process of salt residue from evaporated water, which develops sufficient pressure to rupture wood fibers at the surface of the wood. This mechanism has a prominent effect on the life of thin wooden members, such as fill, mist eliminators, bars, and thin wooden panels. Generally, the tower vendors utilize a less absorbent material such as PVC, fiberglass, polypropylene, or corrugated cement asbestos for thin section components and panels to replace woods such as redwood and fir. Because of the corrosive nature of the circulating water, special consideration should be given to the protection of the mechanical equipment. Fiberglass fans are availabic and are recommended due to their resistance III-4 i l
to corrosion. Drive. shafts should be au stainless. AU bolting involved in the mechanical equipment assembly should be Type 316 stainless steel. Motor and gear support should either be of a corrosion resistant material or liberany coated with epoxy paint or its equivalent. The technical data of Refs.1U.2 and 1U.3 give more detailed discussion and special recommendations from tower vendors for such items as structures, fill, drift eliminators, louvers, casing, fan stacks, distribution system, hardware, and mechanical equipment such as fan blades, speed reducers, shafts, couplings, motors, and associated supports. It should be noted for salt water towers that questions of long term operating experience, maintenance, and the various component materials in i salt water service probably can not be adequately answered at this time, due to a lac.c of long term (20 to 30 years) experience with their operation. D. Hurricane Wind DeMrn All cooling tower manufacturers develop their basic design details to meet recognized standards such as the ASA Codes, ASCI, and Southern Building Code as applied specificany to hurricane wind and earthquake load c onditions . The normal design wind load used by most suppuers of large cooling towers is a basic 30 lba per square foot load which corresponds to a wind velocity of approximately 100 mph. This load increases n th tower struerure height as specified in the ASA Code. Earthquake loads are based on seismic u U1 5
zone and structural factors as described in the Uniform Building Code of . Ref. 1H-4. For the Turkey Point location, a design wind load due to a . 140 mph hurricane wind velocity is applicable. It is understood from tower manufacturers that the basic structure design approach can be strengthened . to adequately withstand the 140 mph winds which correspond to approximately 60 lbs per sq ft. It should be noted that Section IV B-3 references the exis-tence of a salt water tower ir. Puerto Rico built to a 145 mph wind velocity design basis. E. Marine Growth in Towers Growth of algae and other forms of life is a common problem in fresh water cooling towers. Chemical additives, primarily chlorine and chromates, There are generauy used in recirculating systems to kill these organisms. is little corresponding experience with seawater, since only a few towers have been operated. None has experienced water temperatures such as at Turkey Point where the water is particularly suitable for growth of marine or ganisms. It should be noted that some protective chemicals can not be used with a once-through system on Biscayne Bay where a chemical pouution problem would be created. F. Drift A sman amount of the water in a wet cooling tower is carried out in the air flow as a fine spray or mist. TLs mist (caued " drift" in this country and
" carryover" in Great Britain) will contain salt in the same concentration as H1-6 O
. l
/
- the water circulating in the tower, and may present a serious problem in There have been cases in the past its effects on the plant surroundings.
These when drift has created various problems even using fresh water. will be discussed later. " A major concern is the possibility that the salt contained in the drift will be carrted off. site and deposited there causing serious damage to plant lif e. Of equal concern is that it will cause operating and m'aintenance I such as fouling or corrosion of electrical and I problems in the plant, control equipment. The factors which in our judgement make is a concern are:
- 1. On-site meteorological measurements show that the wind blows almost continuously. The average wind speed is high by comparison with many other locations.
- 2. The wind is from the east a large part of the time, tending to preferentially carry the drift toward the west rather than dis.
persing it uniformly around the site.
- 3. As discussed in Section VI little is known about the drift itself.
The distance it will carry is determined primarily by the droplet We ' size - small droplets will be carried further than large ones. know of no available data taken on induced draft towers of current de sign.
- 4. An installation for Turkey Point would be many times larger than any existing salt water tower installation. Effects that are not obse rvable III.7 l
)
l
.: s....- ._;
~^ '- ~
. . ~ . - -- -- - - -
l l I e . l with a small imstallation may become quite prominent if the number of towers is multiplied by 25 to 100. The possible effsets of drift are discussed in more detail in Section VI. G. Vapor Plume Disperson I The large amoun: of water vapor emitted often partially condenses on leaving the tower, creating a cloud or fog. The extend of this plume is dependent on the weather conditions. Concern is often expressed that it l will reach the ground as a heavy fog, especially where mechanical draft towers are used, where their relatively low height tends to accentuate the problem. There have been cases where grour.d fogs have occurred as a result of cooling tower operation. Studies have been made to predict the extent of the cloud plume from cooling tower installatiens, and the f requency of fog formation. Although meteorological effects are outside the scope of this study, such a phenomenon must be considered. l III.8
/
I I l l _ a
, . _ _ _ _ ~ , _ . . . _ . . _ . _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ , _ . - _ _ _ . _ _ . . . _ _ _ ,
e
* (
KETERENCES 6
. i t
] 1 . T. H. Hamilton, Fluor Products Company, Inc. , Cooling Towers i ! m.1 Tor Salt Water Service, t I i m-2 T1uor Products Company Inc.. Fluor Technical Specifications. ,
' Type 70 Induced Draft Cross Tiow Coo 11ag Tower T70 3.001.
I ) m.3 The Marley Company, Cooling Tower Fundamentals and Application Principles. ] m.4 Uniform Building Code, International Conference of Building Officials, 6 , 50 South Los Robles, Pasadena Calif. I l 1 [ t , I . I j I l f I f i r i r I h 1 1 i d i s 1 i t f r I III.9 ) i f i . , I [ [
. f t
l I i l i [ ! 1 f
-. -. - ,~- __ _ , . . - - . , ~ , -.
j Itf. EXISTING OR PLANNED SALT WATER TOW ERS Worldwide experience with cooling towers using salt wat er has been limited. Tab!c A gives a list of salt water towers that we have been able to identify. The i f towers on which we obtained some specific information are discussed below. There are two towers in the Table, Lincoln Nebraska and Martinea, California, i l on which we were unable to obtain detailed information. A majority of these , I salt water installations have commenced operation since 1960. Of those starting up in 1968 and 1969, it is too early to draw definitive conclusions as to maintenance and se rvic e life. Note that all the experience with salt water towers are at i installations that are very small compared to Turkey Point. j A. Operatine Towers in the United States
- 1. Chevron Oil Company At the Chevron Oil Company, Perth Amboy, New Jersey, two towers with a total flow capacity of 27,000 gpm are in operation. A 12,000-gpm mechanical draft. Calloway tower (no longer manufactured) has been operating since 1958. The first major repair work was done in the fall of 1969. This is a cosed cooling system with makeup water containing 20,000 to 35,000 ppm salt. Design cooling range is from 120*F to 82'F, based on a 77'T wet bulb temperature. The tower has red-wood structure and fill. There are five :411s, each with an 18.ft diameter, six bladed fan. Originally, these fans were stainless steel but are now fiberglass.
Difficulty has been experienced with algae and fungus formation. Fungicide is used. A parking lot 100 to 150 yards away may get a drizzle from drift at times. New eliminators have been installed to reduce this drift. Relativelymore serious corrosion of carbon steel struc* ares up to 150 yards distant has been observed.
' It is necessary to clean sumps esery twelve to fifteen months.
IV-1 e s
~
l r
- The other tower at the Chevron Cil Company consists of two Fluor cells and three Foster %%eler cells installed adjacent to each oth e r. These have a combined flow capacity of 15,000 gpm and are similar These cells were in description and operation to the Calloway tower.
IV.1 installed in 1956 and 1957 ar.d have been in operation since that time.
- 2. Enlav Chemical Comeany Nearby at Linden, New Jersey, Enjay Chemical Company has installed a four cell Class 600 single flow Marley tower. This tow e r was placed in operation in July 1968 and has been in operation since then.
The flow rate is 22,000 gpm. Range is 30 F from 112 F to 82 F and the
# The cooling approach is 7 F, based on a wet bulb temperature of 75 F.
- system is closed. Makeup water with a salinity range of 13,000 to 14,000 The tower is operated at approximately ppm are drawn from the Arthur Kill.
18,000 ppm salt, as compared to the 27,000 ppm design value, due to some wastage of cooling water. The tower was designed for salt water service. Fittings are of silicon bronze and fill is "Enjay" polypropylene. Fan blades are of glass reinforced polyester. Fans are 22 feet in diameter, twelve bladed, turning at 156 rpm. Motor horsepower is 125 for each fan. Water treatment coc-sists of 300 pounds of chlorine per day and a suitable biocide as required. During initial operation, difficulties were experienced with exces sive drift. This was corrected when structural penetrations through the drift t IV.2 t l
~
( eliminators were sealed off. Since that time, drift has caused no mal. function to nearby structures or equipment. Switchgear and a transformer are located within 200 feet, while pipelines, railway tracks, and heat 1 i exchanger bundle storage are closer. The New .Tersey Turnpike passes , within 200 yards of the installation. No difficulties attributed to drift have i been recorded. i A recent article in the February 2,1970 issue of 011 and Gas Journal has a picture of this tower (not included). B. Operating Towers Overseas 1 / It is known that salt. water towers are in operation in England, Sweden, l Puerto Rico, Trinidad, Australia, Panama, and India. The information ( obtained on these towers ranges from reasonably. detailed for the English units to nothing for the installation in India. The following paragraphs present the information that has been obtained. All towers discussed operate in a closed. cycle mode, and all water flows given are in U.S. gpm. l
' 1. England Two hyperbolic, mixed flow, natural. draft towers operate with seawater in England. These towers have been in use at the C.E.G.B.'s Fleetwood Station on the Irish Sea since 1955. A pnotograph of the towers is reproduced here as Tig. IV.I.
l The Fleetwood towers ware designed by L. G. Mouchel as Partners (see Section II,D,2) and built by Fred Mitchell Ltd. The towers were 1 ( IV.3 e s .
a a r-
- approximately 38,000 ppm. The concentration factor is limited to this he value of about 2 by using an amount of blowdown generally equal to t Blowdown amoul' of evaporation - each about 0. 9". of the circulation.
is used for flushing ashes to ash lagoons. The nominal air speed through the towers is in the 3 to 4 ft/sec range in the summer, increasing to 5 or 6 ft/see in winter. The towers have operated satisfactorily. The treated Baltic redwood fin has held up reasonably wen in the salt water; the C.E.C.B. feels that present treatment standards would insure that the fin would have As mentioned above, the a lifetime as long as that of the station itself. fulin the Fleetwood towers extends downward below the top of the air Consequently, the fin is exposed openings at the bottoms of the towers. to sunlight which, during the summer months, promotes algae growth. The fin in more modern designs does not extend below the top of the air opening. The concrete structure is in very good condition after 15 years of servie s. At the time the towers were designed, a principal source of concern was the longevity of the asbestos-cement water distribution pipes. After 18 months of The pipes were coated with bitumen for protection. Despite this loss, the pipes them-operation, all of the bitumen was gone. selves show no detectable deterioration after 15 years of service. IV-5 l l l
~
g The most trouble actually occurred in the copper-bellows expansion joints of the circulating. system concrete culverts. The copper simply die. appeared. The copper bellows were replaced with rubber expansion joints . which are standard everywhere now . and there has been no problem since. Calvanized-steel handrailing on the outside of the towers has not given satisfactory se rvice. The railing has been re;ilaced twice, and a different material should be used. e With regard to the environment, the consensusis that the towers have not had a dele'terious effect. The sole apparent effect has been browning of grass within about 50 ft of the bases of t.je towers. This is attributed to blow.off through the air openings at the bases, which is accentuated in the older designs that have fill extending downward to the water surface. i Apparently, with this 250 ft high hyperbolic tower, there is no drift problem. Station equipment has not been affected, and cattle graze in a nearby field. Some time ago, station personnel planted grass in a filled area that was formed by accumulated ash in what had been an ash lagoon. The grass thrived and the area is now a bowling green . within 100 yards of the towers. It should be remembered that the Fleetwood installation is a small one, and there are indications that the C. E.G.B. is concerned about the drift from its current large stations . 2000 Mw(e) . that use freshwater tow e rs . Nevertheless, as stated in Attachment I with regard to dr2ft, the C. E. G. B. is ". . . . inve stigating this aspect furthe r as we have a keen t IV.6 9 I
- ~ .
- n f
- interest in building other salt water natural draught towers for larger units (than Fleetwood) in the fairly near future."
- 2. Sw ed e n The L. T. Mart Company of London designed a mechanical-draft, ,
The salt-water tower which has been in operation in Sweden since 1969. i tower " cladding" - presumably the shell - is fiberglass, but a substantial amount of wood is used also, along with "special materials." Information I on the tower is minimal, but apparently it is used by Esso Chemical A. B. , The tower design duty is to Stenungsund (on the west coast of Sweden). cool 77,000 gpm from 106 F to 66 F with a wet-bulb temperature of 59 F.
- 3. Puerto Rico At Penuelos, on the southern coast of Puerto Rico, Commonwealth oil Refining Company has a Fluor Type 70, five-cell, mechanical draft Installed in 1969, the tower was designed for cooling tower in operation.
salt water service. The anticipated salt content in the recirculating water is 50,000 ppm. The design duty is to cool 42,000 gpm from 115 F to 85 F at a wet-bulb temperature of 79 F. The tower is designed to withstand the stresses that would result from hurricane winds of 145 mph (55 psf) or from a " design" earthquake. The tower commenced operation in October 1969. using fresh water for makeup. One source of information indicates that the tower has been switched to salt-water makeup, while another says that the change will take place in the near future. IV 7 l 1
I
~
An additional tower is under construction in the same area. Commonwealth oil Refining Company, in cooperation with Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company, is installing a Fluor Type 70 tower designed to the same salinity, strength, and wet-bulb temperature as the one described above. [ The new tower will have nine cells and will cool 82,000 gpm of water from 112 F to 85 F.
- 4. Trinidad I The W. R. Grace Company has operated a salt-water cooling tower at an ammonia plant on the southern coast of Trinidad since the surraner of 1966. The three-cell, mechanical draft tower was designed by Slough, In essence, DeFlon, and Anderson, who have been absorbed by Fluor.
( the tower can be said to be a Fluor tower. The design duty of the tower is to coo 118-20,000 gpm from 115 F to 90 F at a wet bult te+nperature of 79 F. Makeup has been in the range 1000-1500 gpm. Fresh-water flow from the mouths of the Orinoco River results in some turbidity in the water at the plant site, and the water is also slightly less saline than pure seawater would be expected to be in the general region. The tower has Transite sides, redwood fill, and silicon. bronze fittings. At the plant site, a storage yard was located in a downwind direction When the tower commenced operation, the storage yard was from the tower. moved rather quickly to an area toward which the wind blows less frequently. IV-8
- ~ . .
~
Some carbon steel structures are located in a downwind direction, and these structures appear to have suffered a fair amount of corrosion as a result of operation of the tower. A sugarcane field, farther downwind but ' still on plant property, does not look as healthy as other fields in the area. Whether the poor appearance is due to drift from the tower or to lack of proper care (since it is on plant property) is not clear. S. Australia A salt. water tower was designed by the German firm Balcke A.G. i for the Australian Generating Board. Seawater is used for makeup, the approach is 8 F, the design wet. bulb temperature is 78 F, and the tower i cools over 13,000 gpm. The structure and fill apparently are wood, i though the Balcke organization is quite familiar with the plastics, coatings, etc. that are often discussed for use in salt. water service. The Australian J l tower, the location of which is not known, has a design maximum drift of 0.15 % A reduction in drift to 0.107. could be obtained by adding more i eliminators. A Balcke engineer said that he understood Britain's C.E.G.B. has contracted with the Australian Generating Board to design additional towers for salt. water service, i
- 6. Panama .
A salt. water cooling tower, believed to be a Marley Class 600, I has been used by Cia Panamona de Perez y Luz since 1960. The design IV.9 i . t
l i duty of the tower is to cool 18,000 gpm from 107 F to 95 F at a wet balb temperature of 83 F. , C. Recent Purchases
- 1. Delmarva Power and Light Comoany The Delmarva Power and Light Company has purchased a mechanical draft cooling tower system for a 150-Mw unit which will begin operation in the summer of 1971. The plant is located on a river which flows into the eastern side of Chesapeake Bay. The salt content is low, varying from almost zero to a maximum of 6000 ppm during low. flow periods. This .
tower will have five cells, operating in a closed (recirculating) cycle. Design now rate into the tower is 66,000 gpm. Criteria for locating the tower system is to give a minimum dis. tance of 500 feet to switchgear or electrical eqaipment.
- 2. Vene zuela The Marley Company has sold the Creole Petroleum Corporation in Amvay, Venezuela, a Clas s.600 salt water tower with a flow capacity of 80,000 gpm. The cooling required is from 120 F to 93 F, based on a 85 F wet bulb temperature. The tower has not been built.
D. Planned Unit A major oil company is planning for the installation of salt. water mechanical draft cooling towers at a large refinery located in Southwest Lottisiana. The closed. cycle cooling towers will replace the present IV 10
~-
e system of once-through use and return of brackish salt water from a local river of brackish water (~ 15,000 ppm average) which is connected ta the Gulf of Mexico. The use of a closed cycle salt-water cooling tower system will reduce the water pollution effects of the plant waste heat and hydro. such as cat crackers, carbon waste material rejected from plant equipment, At this time, the planning topping units, and miscellaneous heat exchangers. of the cooling tower units is in the stage of analizing the tower specifications The reworking of plart system and equipment location on the plant site. cooling water pumps and piping is also included in the scope of this project. The cooling tower equipment is considered to be two large mechanical draft cross. flow double. flow towers of ten cells per tower, for a total combined now of 250,000 gpm. The tower operating conditions were described as 120 F hot water inlet, 90 F cold water outlet, 81 F maximum wet bulb - which are very similar to the conditions for Turkey Point. Present plans are that the towers will not have the normal separate booster pumps located at each tower, but will use the existing plant water intake pumping station with additional higher head pumps working with replacement pumps for existing pump motors. The instauation of higher head pumps will satisfy the plant equipment pumping head plus the cooling tower pcmp head requirements. The towers will be designed for salt water salinity up to 20,000 ppm Nacl with blowdown of approximately 35,000 to 40,000 gpm. The rectr-e culated water treatment is expected to include chlorine shock treatment IV.11
l l l for algae control, biocide treatment for bacteria control, and no additional pH controlis thought to be needed for their application; however, scale treatment is required for a local wa ter problem of a high calcium ion c onc entration. It is thought to be av.te likely that secondary water treat. ment will be necessary before return of blowdown water to the river can be permitted. The towers are estimated to be approximately 300 ft long x 75 ft wide and will have 23.ft. diameter fans, each powered by a 200.hp motor and with air discharge through a 24.ft.high fan stack. At this time, the fill sections, mist eliminators, and fan design are to be of selected materials, previously discussed, suitable for salt. water service. The information as n the average yearly drift value guarantee, drift. distance data, water droplet sizes, and drift solids deposition expected was not available. The engineering data obtained included a proposed site of the two towers located in a wooded area clearing of approximately 400 ft x 600 ft. The plant site electrical substation, which provsdes the intertie between on. site and off. site power, was described as being located approximately 300 ft from the nearest tower. The proposed tower location is approximately J 400 ft to 500 ft from a large parking lot, 1000 ft from the administrative office building, and 2200 ft from the intake pumphouse. It was interesting to note that, relative to the salt. water treatment now in use at their plant for control of algae and marine life, in approxi. mately 200,000 gpm once.through flow, they are using a shock treatment IV-12 l
. g l
. . . - . m
't 1 f of chlorine three days per week in the amount af 3000 lb/ day during a 16. hour e
. period of chemicalinjection. The residual chlorides were maintained at l
1 less than 0.5 ppm. It was described that their initial salt-water pumping i ip operations, prior to the use of chlorine shock treatment, resulted in a i significant buildup of marine life, known as " spat," which was described d as growing clusters of very small oysters. j , I Relative to present schedule, tower specifications are expected to The tower units, j be sent out and bids returned by the end of March 1970. piping, and pump modifications are to be completed and the system in 1 operation by 1971. 2 l I ' l 1 1 REFERENCE i I l IV-1 W. W. Mitchell, Short of Fresh Water? Use Salt Water Cooling Towers, Chemical Engineering, p.181 (June 16,1958). 5 4 i 1 l I a 1 f e ( . IV-13 i i d i i . I . I d
^^
I - V. COOLING TOWER SELECTION FOR TURKEY POINT A. Postulated Design Bases To provide bases for evaluating the feasibility of cooling tower systems for Turkey Point, we have chosen a set of design conditions and requirements to approximate those which might ultimately be used. The condit:ons are tabulated below.
- 1. Turkey Point Site Unit 1 - 432 Mw(e) (fossil-oil) 2 - 432 Mw(e) (fossil oil) .'
3 - 760 Mw(e) (euclear-PWR) e 4 - 760 Mw(e) (nuclear-PWR) Total @ 2384 Mw(e)
- 2. Sea Water (Biscayne Bay)
Max. supply temperature = 89 F (summe r) Max. return rise = + 1. 5'T (summer) Max. return temperature = 90. 50F Salinity range - 30,000 to 35,000 ppm
- 3. Condenser Cooling Water ,
Total flow (4 units) = 1.9 x 106 gp, , e OT across condensers = 150 F l V .1 l l l
? *
~
- 4. Cooling Tower Operations Open Cycle Units operate year round Cooling water max. inlet temperature 104'F Cooling water max, outlet temperature 90. 50 F Max. wet bulb temperature 81'F ~
Max. dry bulb temperature 91 F Approach 9.5 F j Range 13. 5 F All structures are to be designed and constructed to meet the local Building Codes, supplemented by other requirements based on the exper. ience of the F. +da Power k Light Company. An important requirement is that the design (hurricane) wind wind speed shall be 140 mph. B. Mechanical Draft Towers A study of the conceptual installation of mechanical draft salt water cooling towers for Turkey Point was conducted in cooperation with two suppliers of large cooling towers. Both suggested approximately the same l number of towers and cells, i.e. ,10 towers with 10 cells per tower for a total of 100 cells. Each cell contains a fan m.sembly powered by a 200 hp electric motor. The construction of the towers would be similar to that discussed in Sections II and III. Fig. V.1 illustrates a typical layout of 10 towers with 10 cells per tower. f Each tower is approximately 75 ft wide x 400 ft long x 60 ft high. The layout V .2 W
/
shows each tower with its longitudinal centerline canted to an angular position / The string of towers are shown layed out along a of approximately NW.SE. 5 N.S line of approxirnately 1 mile length to the West of t e N.S discharge canal. A N.S inlet canal would serve as the hot water supply to a pair of 50f. capacity The predominate East wind would pumpt located on the NW end of each tower. carry the salt. drift deposits to the West of the plant site switchyards. C. Hyperbolic Towe rs I Hyperbolic natural draft towers similar to the towers shown in Fig. II.S. Inc. were proposed by the Hamon Cooling Tower Division at Research-Cottrell, F.xception was taken of the design wet. bulb temperature of 81'T and their These selection of six towers is based on a wet. bulb temperature of 80*F. Walls of these towers have a height of 490 ft. and a base diameter of 387 ft. towers are reinforced concrete thickened and strengthened to withstand the hurri. cane winds specified as 10 mph. $tructural members are reinforced concrete. Distribution pipes and is11 are asbertos. cement. With this construction the Lightning protection towers are fireproof and no fire protection is necessary. is provided. Undesirable features of these towers, other than the high capital costs, include the increased height and bulk which will dominate the landscape where they are installed. Nucleonics Week, Feb. 12, 1970, cites local opposition to the 400-ft-high " leviathan.like" cooling towers proposed by Public Service Dectric and Gas for their Newbold Island nuclear unit. A typicallayout of the hyperbolic towers for Turkey Point is illustrated in Fig. V.2. A rule of thumb for spacing is to separate the tower centerlines by 1.5 tower diam.te rs. The towers are shown in a N.S arrangement similar to that of the mechanical draft towers. V.3
i i I . VI. COOLING TOWER DRITT CONSIDERATIONS l A. General A separate discussion pertaining to loss and dispersion of sea water , from the large tower system being considered is believed warranted. Drif t from a wet cuoling tower, for the discus sion herein, is defined as all water leaving a tower in liquid form at any point above the basin. It does not include low elevation (pipe) leakage or liquid (droplets) formed by atmospheric cooling of the air vapor effluent after the mucture leaves the tower. This latter source of mist is termed fog here and will not be discus sed further, even though drift and fog droplets are sometimes i
^ t indistinguishable in the moist, warm air stream leaving a tower. One 1
primary diff erence between drift and fog, for this discus sion, is that the drift water is assumed to contain its respective fraction of solid and dissolved i tower water contaminants, while the fog is as sumed to consist only of high purity water droplets. However, it should be realized that fog may have an effect on the growth or disappearance of drift, and on the dispersion of any solids contained in or resulting from drift, especially if the solids are i hygroscopic, and vice versa. I 4 Historically, the percentage drift from cooling towers probably has I been reduced with time from the early days of tower use. Problems stem-ming from drift were probably nonexistent initially, appearing as more t i VI.1 i 1 1 e
o e e and larger towers were operated. Remedial efforts (drift or mist elimi. nators) were devised as required. Now, problems may reappear, as much larger towers (or groups of towers) are used, and more particularly where sea. water or water containing high concentrations of solids and/or solutes is being cooled. The salts (primarily NaC1) contained in sea or brackish water are among the most damaging natural materials known for both metals and vegetation. Any consideration of drift, and any effects thereof, must include severa1 interrelated aspects. In the beginning, these considerations must be separated into (1) how much non. gaseous matter leaves a tower as drift, and (2) where the released material ultimately comes to rest. The first is related to the tower water impurity concentration, tower design specifics, tower operating specifics, and weather conditions. Where the drift deposits will be determined by the height of the tower, site equipment layout, the sizes of ex2 ting drift dr aplets, the nature and size of the contained impurities or resultant solids, the wind speed, and other instantaneous weather condi. tions, such as the relative humidity and the temperature. These same latter conditions will determine whether the contained impurities alight in an adher. ing form, or whether any residue is dry and in powder form. Obviously, extremely complicated, interrelated and ever. changing phenomena are involv ed. VI-2 i
e B. Amount of Draft Expected f .
- 1. Measurement of Drift No method is known for measurement or test of tower drift in the VI-I range of interest here. The ASME code for cooling tower performance testing states. "No method for the direct determination of drift loss is VI.2
- available. " While adequate techniques may be developed, the facts are that.because towers have largely been either smaller or fresh water,no
+ accurate method has been generally required. After tower development progressed to the point that drift was below the typically guaranteed 0.2f. i 1 of the total water throughput of the tower, and as the drift serves to some l extent as blowdown, little neen existed for either further reduction in drtit l ] quantities or tests to prove that lower drift values had been attained. This is no longer the case for large, seawate r installations. Before such potential a installations can be evaluated in detail, it is necessary (1) to develop suitable 1 i drift test techniques and then (2) to show that these techniques will measure I 1 the low drift values required. J l Perhaps a look at the effects of various drift values on tower 4 6 J release is in order bere. Since the cooling tower flow rate (1.9 x 10 gpm) and salinity (est. 35,000 ppm contained salt) are set by Turkey Point plant I requirements and seawater concentrations, the amount of water and salt contained in the drift can be determined if the drift rates are known. Reference values have been calculated and are given in Table VI.1 for I i VI.3 9 1 I 1 i a s l l s 4
water ar.d salt losses. It has been shown that drift impurities are VI-3 essentially the same as those contained in the tower water. Table VI.1 RELEASE RATES FOR VARIOUS DRITT ASSUMPTIONS e Drift water,Ib/hr Drift salt, Ib/hr Drift salt,1b/vr Assumed driftd 0.005 45,850 1,665 11,700,000 0.01 91,700 3,330 23,300,000 0.02 183,400 6,660 46,600,000 0.20 1,834,000 66,600 466,000,000
, Based on 7000 hr/yr operation.
- 2. Drift Test Information An attempt was made to obtain actual drift test data for towers typical of the ones under consideration here; no useful data were located.
A few unreported tests have been run on relatively small towers, with indicated drift rates somewhat below 0.1%. In every instance, the request for data resulted in a reply of the nature that no adequate test procedure is available for accurate measurement of values below 0.1%. The most detailed literature information pertaining to tower drift reports work done in England in about 1950.U*3 While this work is quite old and some of the specifics have been challenged, several types of drift eHminators were tested, droplet size data are reported, and the insignifi-cant effect of eliminator use on drift droplet sizes was possibly demonstrated r in a simple manner. VI.4
' 1 Thsse dtta. which indicats most dropists leaving a tower at about 400 fpm air velocity conditions have diameters in the 200 500 mic ron range, are the most detailed found relative to droplet sizes. Work by Vl*4 at the Keystone power Illinois Institute of Technology Research Institute station discusses droplet sizes in the 10 50 micron range above those natural draft towe rs. These droplets could have formed from cooling effects on tower effluent (fog); however, one cooling tower vendor stated he would expect 95% of the drift droplets leaving their large, mechanical draft towers
' to have diameters in the 50 200 micron range.
- 3. Observations of Operating Towers Observations concerning drift from salt water towers have been However, since these towers were so described in Sections IV.A and B.
small compared to what would be required at Turkey Point, an investigation was made on some larger fresh water towers to determine if drift is physically observed. The situations described below, indeed. indicate tirat as tower size increases, the observeable drift increases. Public Service Company of Colorado operates several plants with mechanical draft cooling towers. Mr. Charles Waselkow, Manager of Production, states that even with periodic insulator washings, transmission line flashover has occurred. ~ A 500. foot clearance between transmission lines and cooling towers is maintained to prevent the problem. Anothe r interesting observation occurred when the company installed drift eliminators in an existing 8 cell tower. Diminators were installed in seven cells, and the eighth was unchanged. It was found that there was no appreciable difference in drift between the unmodified cell and the ones with eliminators added. VI.5 s f . ? I
x Another report of ope ration of a forced. draft tower in the, Appalachian region states that misting occurs commonly around the tower, said to be drift, not condensatien. In sub freezing weather, there is minor icing within 300 feet of the tower. An Oklahoma cooling tower installation, operating with brackish well wate r as makeup, reports no pr(ilem with salt. (Salt content of the water is normally about 6000 ppm. ) Some drizzle out to a distance of 100 yards is reported from this 120,000 gpm installation. The operators reported in a private communication that the drift could cause problems if the electrical substation were nearby. It was stated that another nearby station with similar salt content definitely has a' drift problem, with drizzle extending out several hundred yards. A midwestern utility with fresh water cooling towers on a 400 MW 6 plant indicated that they observe a drizzle out some several hundred yards. This drtit has caused them some problems with a nearby substation. A western utility reports that the drift causes a drizzle which extends out to a distance of 150 yards or more.W.6 1 ( ' Hyperbolic towers generally do not exhibit noticeable precipitation or other signs of drift because the height of the tower generally allows it to disperse over a wide area and to evaporate before reach the ground.
- 4. Drift Guarantees by Cooling ~l'ower Vendors e
Typically, cooling tower specifications contain a drift limit of 0.1 to 0. 2%. Howeve r, few, if any, towers are tested after construction VI.6
~
. ~
Towe rs to ascertak whether this specification has indeed been sata.sfied. are generally operated without questior as to the drift unless on-site If remedial steps are problems occur or off. site complaints are heard. necessary, typically, eliminators are added, or, if already installed, leakage paths which allow the eliminators to be bypassed are sealed. Only a few seawater or high solute content towers have been operated in this country, none of which even approaches the size of the installation which would be required for Turkey Point. Thus, the absence or presence of dnft problems in those present towers has but little significance. In order to obtain the best bases for drif} estimates, three domestic cooling tower suppliers were contacted and asked to state the All minimum dnft value they would guarantee. for their equipment. suppliers replied and indicated that lower guaranteed drift values could be provided for certain specific applications in utility service. C. Transport and Deposition of Drift
- 1. General As discussed above, very little is known relative to economically attainable drift reductions. In addition, little is known about drift droplet sizes and drift behavior, for given tower situations and weather conditions.
s VI.7 i e
- 1 I
l
)
r
- Therefore, the transport properties of fog. drift-salt from a large tower installation can only be estimated, even after the drift rate is known or a s s umed.
Data have been obtained for droplet sizes, possibly from fog, VI-4 above the Keystone station natural draft towers. These few data indicate droplet sizes in the 10-50 micron size range, as determined by an outfitted helicopter. This work also has revealed, as would be expected, interaction between the airborne water and stack gas SOz. Similar effects and the fos sil-fueled would be expected between the drift, the fog, the salt, plant's stack emissions at Turkey Point. It is not known whether or not the Keystone droplets were growing, shrinking, or depositing. The possible behavior and effects of water and water vapor released VI-4 written by large cooling towers are discussed in this Keystone report, during an investigative program funded by the National Air Pollution Con-trol Administration (NAPCA). This report contains statements such as:
"One aspect of major environmental importance in this context of (we:) cooling towers is inadvertent weather modific ations.
" Local fogging and winter icing (in northern states) can be a hazard with towers, especially forced-draft units under certain weather conditions.
"The formation and initiation of clouds, although very dependent on prevailing weather conditions, is another aspect requiring consideration (for large cooling tower in st .U ntio ns ). "
VI-8
'J s
P i Southern Nuclear has access to proprietary atmospheric disper-i sion data for elevated release of industrial effluent particles having diameters generally less than 3 microns. A plot of these data, taken over an entire month, is shown in Fig. VI.1. The shaded area covers all of the many Weather data, taken data points, taken by two different investigators. simultaneously, were used for standard analytical dispersion relationships to compare analytical versus experimental results. The analytical deposi. tion rates were generally a factor of 2.0 higher, but with the two converging for distances greater than two miles. These data may be of use to estimate 1 salt drift transport and deposition.
- The Chilton work concerning drift eliminators was discussed
= earlie r. This same work included a small amount of effort related to drift ' d epo sitio n. Probably the only significant aspect of these latter data is the indication that the drift droplets escaping the chevron. type eliminators appeared to have the same size distribution as did the droplets when elimi-nators were not used. However, the applicability and validity of such conclusions have been questioned. ( VI-9 I
1 a e l
- Based on observations at operating towers, comments by tower vendors, and simple analytical relationships, it appears that, for the 20 400 micron diameter droplets expected to leave a typical tower, all droplets would either deposit or evaporate within a few hundred feet of a tower, under most sets of weather conditions. This would leave an invisible plume of residue, generally salt particles, traveling with the wind. Based upon the water droplet size estimates of 20.400 microns, the salt particle diameters would probably be in the 5-100 micron range, with the majority being in the 5 50 micron range. Particles of this size can be carried by the wind and dispersed over large areas.
D. Drift Research and Develocment e
' Effort by Tower Sueoliers 1.
While it appears most wet tower vendors perform some drift eliminator tests and equipment modifications as their tower designs change, or as the need arises, there does not appear to be any large effort in progrest. If the drift is to be reduced to a point far below presently indicated values, then a concerted effort will be necessary to develop methods for measuring drift as well as for reducing it.
- 2. Federal Vater Pollution Control Administration As discuss ed in Attachment 3, information available from the i
FWPCA Arlington, Virginia offices and from a visit to their Pacific North-west Water Laboratory at Corvallis, Oregon indicated thst the FWPCA is t VI-10
e
- not presently conducting or supporting work directly concerned with the measurement or control of drift. Laboratory personnel are, however, well aware of the problems involved and of the present state of technology.
- 3. R&D Program Requirements Insc'ar as was learned, there are no significant seawater.related programs under way to either (1) investigate methods for greatly reducing drift, *(2) develop an improved, industry. accepted drift test procedure, (3) determine drift transport behavior, or (4) determine the effect of salt Such work is obviously drift on plant life, or indeed on the local ecology.
needed. The statement given above is not intended to indicate that little or no tower R &D is in progress; the opposite is the case. It was learned that numerous tests or programs related to tower materials, component strength and stress, fill geometries, fan / stack design, and over.all tower performance improvement are underway continuously within the industry, , generally in the suppliers' shops or laboratories. A discussion of the required research and development may explain why tower suppliers or operators have not, as far as is known, already undertaken such programs. Referring to the many variables involved, drift and its transport are extremely complicated phenomena, e Cooling tower vendors do, however, perform eliminator tests and/or make eliminator design changes as required for their specific applications. t VI.11 O e
4
- Tirst, a very sensitive, generally applicable, industry-approved procedure for drift determination must be developed. Some thought has been given to this problem and a solution is believed to be possible However, checkout of the respective theories, the procedures and the equiprnent is not a small task. An installation which contains at least one large mechanical draft cell and one large natural draft cell, the former typical of the largest units available today, would be required for an adequate test program. Freedom to stop, start, and operate the towers as desired would be necessary. An activation analysis technique may be necessary to prowde high enough accuracy.
Modification must be possible, as equired, to the tower fill, elimi-( nators, operating conditions, etc. After an adequate drift test procedure is available, a program to develop very high efficiency drift elimination equipment should get under way. Once again, this will require very large natural as well as mechanical draft units, perhaps the ones used for test procedure develop-ment. Obviously, additional test equipment will be required for investiga-tion of the several fundamentals involved. In this latter equipment, air and water flow rates, droplet sizes, instantaneous relative humidities, and specific elinintor designs shouldbe provided and/or tested and then altered as de sired. The detailed objectives of this work would be to determine the i V1 12 l l }
,e
s
.-~ ,
l'
- lowest drift rates feasible and the conditions and equipment required to achieve such rates.
Presumably, the effort discussed above win not result in the complete elimination of drift. Therefore, concurrent work, but possibly using different towers or tower simulators, should be undertaken to determine the transport properties of the fog. drift. impurities leaving a very large tower or a group of towers. Seawater drift should he investigated specificany and in detail, for both northern and southern (USA) locations and climates. For example, while icing or freezing of drift droplets may occur in the north, formations of a wet, sticky substance from the drift may occur in the south. Existing tower instauntions may be available for use as a source of drift except for seawater tests. After all of the irformation discussed above has been obtained and evaluated, perhaps the over.au effects of a very large seawater tower instauation (about 1/10 that considered here for Turkey Point) should be determined by operation for a few years. Such a system should preferably be one whose demand is not as constant and for which public dependence is not as great as for a large power plant. We believe that if a program of this nature were undertaken, the data could be available for utilization within 4 5 years. l
- VI 13 I
i l l
REFERENCES VI.! The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Atmospheric Water-Cooling Equipment, Power Test Codes PTC 23.1958. VI 2 J. C. Campbell, A Review of CTI Work on the Measurement of Cooling Tower Drift Loss, presented at Cooling Tower Institute Summer Meeting June 16-18, 1969 Washington, D. C. VI-3 H. Chilton, Elimination of Carryover from Packed Towers with Special Reference to Natural Draught Water Cooling Towers, Trans. Instn. Chem. Engrs., Vol. 30 (1952). VI-4 Eric Aynsley, IIT Research Institute, Environmental Aspects of Cooling Tower Plumes, presented at the Cooling Tower Institute Meeting Jan. 26 28, 1970, New Orleans, La. VI.S C. Waselkow, Design and Operation of Cooling Towers, in Engineering Asoects of Thermal Pollution, pp. 249 281, edited by F. L. Parker and P. A. Krankel. Vanderbilt University Press (1969). VI.6 Private Communications. 4
- e VI.14
- I f
VU, POTENTIAL CCNSEQUENCES OF DRIFT AT TURKEY PCINT An available information indicates that any large salt water cooling tower system of current design will emit thousands of pounds per hour of salt into the air. This salt will be contained initially in water droplets leaving the tower as drift. The total amount of salt emitted is dependent on the amount of drift (pounds of water per hour) and the concentration of salt in the water being cooled. Assuming normal sea water (35,000 ppm total I salts) is used in the tower, the amount of salt emitted into the air is shown i as a function of drift rate in Fig. VU-1. If a recirculating system is used, f both the salt concentrdon in the water and the amount of drift salt will be correspondingly increased, with the exact increase being dependent on the l blowdown rate. i As mentioned previously, there is no definitive information on the l ! size of drift droplets expected to leave a given tower. Various estimates i However, the have been made, falling in the 20 500 micron size range. water will tend to evaporate from each droplet, decreasing its size, but Particles generany leaving the salt as an airborne particle or particles. from the tower will be carried weH aloft in the airstream, and win be transported by the winds, dispersing both verticany and horizontally until they finaHy settle to the gound at some point away from the tower. i VII. ! l _ _ _
- Because so little is known about drift, only an estimate can be made of the deposition in off site areas. If one uses the experimental industrial dust data shown in Fig. VI-1, at one mile (the approximate site bdundary distance) the deposition rate per square meter is about ! x 10' of the source, or about 1 x 10 per square foot. As suming 0. l. drift, and normal seawater in the towers, the source is 3. 3 x 10 lb/hr (Fig. VII-1) l and the average fallout rate at one mile is 3.3 x 10 lb/(hr)(sq ft), or for a year, almost 3 lb of salt per square foot or 66 tons per acre at a distance of l
a mile from the towers. Lower as sumed release rates will result in pro-portionately lower deposition rates. If a drift rate of 0. 05 is as sumed, which, is probably more realistic, the deposition rate would likewise be halved, but l l
' would still be greater than 1 lb of salt per square foot or 22 tons per acre per year.
I f I It must be emphasized that the salt may not drift exactly as did the dust, and that the fallout data presented are not known to be absolutely applicable. I The object is only to show the magnitude of the problem that probably would exis t. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) has published VH- 1 a recommended guide for prediction of dispersion of atmospheric pollutants. The applicability of this recommended analytical procedure may be question-able for seawater drift investigations. However, the procedure was used to estimate, once again, the deposition rate of salts on off-site areas. Using i VH-2 l l t l l
1
~
l _ l
- an annual average diffusion multiplier of 1.0 x 10~ sec/m , a drift rate of 0.10%, and a deposition velocity of 0.'01 m/sec, a deposition rate at 2000 meters (slightly more than 1 mile) of about 0.2 lb/(ft )(yr) or 4,4 tons per acre per year was obtained. This is only about 7% of the rate estimated by simple use of the industrial dust data. Irrespective of the approach taken, it appears salt deposition, both on-site and off-site, will be heavy.
It is well known among cooling tower users in the utility industry that the towers should be located at some distance from switchyards, trans-mis sion lines, or other electrical equipment. Flashovers have occur red as a result of drift depasition on insulators and bushings. A high salt content drift would undoubtedly contribute to the problem and frequent cleaning will be necessary for such components. Some tests have been run on insulators operating in a salt-fog atmos-phere. The effect of the salt fog (salt content up to 8%) is to lower the V voltage a given insulator can withstand by 60 to 70%.High H-2leakage current, arcing, and flashover are caused by the salt deposited on the a insulators. The effects in the plant would not be limited to flashovers and electrical problems. The highly corrosive nature of the salt spray would lead to increased maintenance and decreased reliability of electric service. Thus, the on. site effects of salt drift are equally serious as off. site eff ects. VII. 3 O e
l l
. 1 l
)
Relative to off. site effects from large salt water cooling towers, a special task force reported the following to the Governor of the State of Maryland:
" Water drawn from the Chesapeake Bay might be considered for use in cooling towers. With modern design, the spray carry-over can be reduced to 0.2 percent of the cooling water flow.' For a tower system, the circulating water flow could probably be approx.
imately 3000 cubic feet per second and the spray carryover might be 6 cubic feet per second. Bay waters off Calvert Cliffs have salinities ranging seasonany from 12,000 to 17,000 ppm. At a salinity of 15,000 ppm, the spray carryover could amount to 210 tons of salt per dav.* There are no observational data on such systems since large towers have not been used with salt water. Observations with smaller towers have shown significant local fan-out of salt. It is interesting to note that Lf one half of the emitted salt is deposited locany, ground water supplies might be contam-inated. With an average rainian of 5 inches per month, the soil and ground water might have the fonowing concentrations as a function of fauout area: Area Ground Water Salinity 1 square mile 8,400 ppm 10 square miles 840 ppm 100 square miles 84 ppm "Along the same line of speculation, the remaining airborne salt might be mixed into the air flowing across Calvery County. Ifit were dispersed in a band of air 40 miles wide and 1650 feet high (the mixed layer of the atmosphere on a typical day - less mhnng would occur with inversions) which was flowing at the mean summer wind speed of 6 knots, the average concentration of airborne salt would be 12 ndero-grams per cubic sneter. Some feeling for what this salt concentration
- Original document was not underscored.
VH-4 l l
. represents may be obtained from the observations of Woodcock (1953,1. Meteorol. , 10,362-371) that such concentrations of l
salt were observed over the ocean when a Force'7 wind (32-38 l . mph. moderate gale) was blowing. The changes in the local ground water and atmosphere caused by using Bay water in cooling towers appear to be unacceptable. " Until quantitative information is available on the minimum drift attainable from salt water towers of improved design, this conclusion must be given serious consideration as applying to an installation at the Turkey Point site. REFERENC ES VU-1 Recommended Guide for the Prediction of the Diseersion of Airborne Effluents Maynard Smith (Ed. ). Sponsored by ASME Committee on Air Pollution Controls, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers. VU-2 Private Communication. VU- 3 Governor's Task Force on Nuclear Power Plants, Nuclear Power in Maryland, December 1969, t VU-5 l .- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Vill. CONC LUSIONS l Based on the results of our survey of the existing technology of salt water cooling towers and on the operating experience of a limited number of units, we are concerned that a cooling tower system of the magnitude required for Turkey Point could have consequences on the environment that would be totany unacceptable. We believe that salt water cooling towers can be built to give satisfactory service for certain requirements and in certain locations notably in the smaller sizes and applications not subject to potential environmental problems. The installations now in service on salt water are 20 to 100 time s smauer than what would be required at Turkey Point. We conclude that i substantial research and development is required to develop the necessary information before an acceptable cooling tower system could be specified for a large power plant using sub-tropical salt water. A. Areas of Sufficient Experienc e
- 1. The thermodynamic performance of towers can be predicted with a degree of confidence that assures proper heat rejection capability.
- 2. Mechanical draft towers are modular in construction and thereby capacity can be achieved by adding cells. There is extensive experience in the utility industry with the large size double-flow towers with multiple cells as illustrated in this report. The largest tower facility in salt water service d
is only 5 cells in size. Turkey Point would require about 100 cells of similar siz e. VIII.1
I a 3. To accomme,date the Tu rkey Point situation, six hyperbolic towers would be required of the largest size that the suppliers are currently prepared to offer. There is demonstrated design, construction, and operating experience with ?ewsrs almost as large in fresh water service. It should be noted that these 500 ft. towers present a potential inter-ference to the operations of the nearby missile base and Homestead Air Force Base. This should be investigated.
- 4. Although economics was not within the scope of this study, we learned that the cooling tower suppliers are prepared to submit conventional.
fixed price bids for salt water equipment. Regarding the relative economic s, of mechanical draft towers and hyperbolic towers, it was the general opinion of knowledgeable people in the cooling tower industry that the chmatic conditions at Turkey Point favored mechanical draft towers. With respect to dry towers, they are neither economic nor feasible. One spokesman said that cry towers are "beyond the pale of economic consideration". B. Areas of Minimum Experience ]
- 1. The materials of construction currently selected by the suppliers
= of both mechanical draft and hyperbolic towere appear to be suitable for salt water service. However, with the exception of the metals, none of these materials has been in use in warm salt water for sufficiently long enough periods of time to be assured their real lifetime is adequate. In particular, there is a question regarding the serviceable lifetime of the treated wood. i VIII.2
e
. 2. The cooling tower suppliers were unanimous in saying they could furnish equipment that would meet Florida Power and Light.'s hurricane cri?*rion of 140 mph winds. However, it should be noted that their general experience has been to design to lower wind loadings. As far as we could 1 earn, with possibly one exception there are no large towers of the types discussed in this report that have been designed and constructed to 140 mph criteria. However, it.is believed that the suppliers can suitably meet this requirement with an appropriate design and development program.
- 3. All of the operating salt water towers on which we gathered i definitive infohmation use some type of water treatment to inhibit or minimize marine gre rth in the towers. Some type of treatment would probably be raquired for towers at Turkey Point; however, it is net possible at this time to properly appraise this situation. It is concluded that a suitable engineering solution can be reached on this point during the time period of other research and development.
C. Area of Inadeeuate Experience Drift represents an outstanding problem area. Simply defined, drift refers to the water carried up the stack in fine droplets and released to the atmosphere. In salt water cooling towers these droplets contain salt. The problems are (1) how much salt comes out of the cooling towers, (2) what is the size of the area over which this salt is deposited, and (3) what effect does the salt have upon the surrounding environment. VIII-3 i f
n including pl.nt and animal life, and soil and struct ures of the area. The cooling tower suppliers are willing to guarantse a maximum limit of drift from their equipment; however, the industry possesses nu accur t a e standard method for experimentally measuring drift. and therefore rt present d if
- guarantees are probably not too meaningful, particularly at low values.
The significant problem is that even operattag within the guarant eed drift values for currently operating towers, the amount of salt coming out of the Turkey Point cooling towers is calculated to be fro m 20 to 400 tons per day and area deposttion rates are potentially prohibitively high. Prtor to building a salt water cooling tower as large as that r equired for Turkey
- Point, substantial research. developmr nt, and prototype ng will be testi d
requi red. There le no such research development and testing being carried out at this time, or even contemplated. It is judged that a program to do this job would require a minimum o' 4 years and s
. everal million dollars.
VIII-4 O 4
Table A INFORMAL LIST OF SALT WATER COOLING TOWERS . Water fle . U.S. spm Im atten Oe me r ITypol It anae: Aporeach W R.*F htMJm Comeneas e Perth Aenbey. M. J. Chevrea 068 Co. I S.000 tot.for 2 ennte ... 20.21.000 Fleer Ceep.f reeser Wheeler; tenechanical draftl Il yeer o ahe, me wate r t re ateneas, me growth prettema;t 5% ble. deen Perth Ambey. N. J. Chevyen Ott Co. 82,000 (S sette) 33:S;77 < 2 5. 000 G. W.Ganneway;redweed.12 yese e (mech. draft.seenter fleet end; 0. 8% delft guere.ees; pare 6ol res t reesee nen Neb. Pub.Per. Sy e. 34. 000 (larger until 13:13;(7) Cre=ad water Thee tergee ==4e wee belle le 1990 ) LlaceIn. Neb. e emeller enee to 1910 20:32 l7) Mechee Rteer Eet, cemettutten 1958.19 Beemment. Tesee Gelf 5 stee Us. Co. 57.100 water Lladen. M. J. Enjoy Chem. Co. 12.000 30:7:7S 67.000 The Marley Co.;lt sneathe old; (mech. draft. crees flewl delft me probleme Marttaen. Caltf. Shell Oil Co. ... ... 800.000 Ne longer operating after 1969 Fleetweed. Eastand C.E.G.B. 60.000 each i S:20.50 34,000 l.G.Meechet & Perseere/ Fred thype r bellc. nat. draft. Mitchell led. semeneratel opere. mined. flow) t6en 89%S; weed Ibil, comerete shell; e,6% ble= deen; eastef aceery opere. toen;enetreamental esteste mat Steneag eends Sweden Esse Chem. A.B. 77.000 40.7:59 ... Designer The L.T. Mare Co. Led; leech. draft) e. _ relet operetten 1969; weed fall. fiberglees shell SO 6:79 50,000 Flee, Preemete Co.: eemmenced Peevelee. Puerte Rice Commonwealth Ott 42.000 Refining Co. (mech. draft etees flew) *Peretten 4969 en feesh. water
' ensbesp.e=tethed or well selsch to satt water; deelgaed to with, etsad 145 mph w6nd ($$ peft Pene lee. Puerto Rice Comm.Oti Ref.Co. 02.000 27;6:79 50.000 Fleer Predens Co.: onder coe.
b Plateborgh Plate imech. draft.c rees fle.) eerecteoa; w6thetend tel emph wtad Glaeo Tree 6 dad W, R. Grace Co. 38 20.000 IS:ll:19 ... Deelsnere Steegh. th f loa. and dmech. deeft) Andereen; seenmenced operateen leesthorn ceaet) 1966; weed fate. Treme6te eedes, entneen bronse 16ettege, obveeme de6te effe**e. Aust relate Aes. Gen. Board > 85.000 7:8:70 ... palche A.G.. Germany; commenced
'Peest6en abeet 2 yeare age weed (mech. draft) fell and strocesse; dee6gn mee.
dr6ft 0.13% Panama Cia Penomena de 88.000 12,82:01 ... The Marley Co.; commenced Pe re e y f as e (meth, dr aft) operaeten 1900.
4 4 [ t {55 er I I '. s g e ; i
- r i ;
a i a - i w i i c 1 e g i i rar r .N . q
\a\ 3[;@N-}Id!i,r...Jfrri m: E I
GW: v
'Irkw, h Wt
, .a - e, J
- a, -
Iy
=
u E ek.f Tw% % .ri.e v4.X . J_. :
?%<';FtQ ..
o k g f-
! T h T- . ), ,. hb A'.j[5 I 5 ,7 g l - .. r :t . w t gd 4:
i i.s na Jl
- Sar8e-r 'g ;
f-Y r 7.-rc '. .yp M w N.y e O': g __
's . *A l t.f. . .
3
! >cornhara,,~ / M,w. g; j rg tmx-Qnd .n.[hdI2Nh ish.)t eXTQg; ,, C sm-: w6k.m 2: y j Tz Q.
f[3 h mr!T *1k J, ;f$.:b. $${,fkh 'd' W- -
%' - wM . s hW 3'%djpff"n I n a_ i tit<i!i i
- q-A
- x. y- g- ,, - . r; 1 i
i
'g3 -- bg
- \
g - W d ;;I = i m r4 gbgq:4
~ '
b:t [' Ig[
. .i .;.
I ,," whs~m ~.
^
~
i.-
't AM = V
---/ -FN' $_th5, ._,
ld.. I ;
- r - -
g i t :v: I g gi . E !=,! : I. !
% Q3 *I* f 6 -
*d a i.
b i l
)
li l I yL; L _
}i j * -
1 ' Y f r e r * !j 3n w o T v
, , {.
S' .. 2 t 7' e ). : f a 0 r
' $- 3m D
'p *
- : ,s E m l
". ~.%
f a
&La f.
' / . , -
.-,,_ h c h
- u. c n
. i n
a 5': fay= - L
..$ 3mL
' > n I h
+
p
. : T %
N r-c e M o
'e -
T mw . C 0 7 m ;. . 2 s g 1 ;~s'r T. a a, t e c p j;e &"A'!
- . u y T
5 h u d s o r r u- w ,
.$=7 2 P o u
m g; e_ .s.
.s k
r o l p"p mSn^l2-
-. ' a,.j u F
- s. l
_ g F
. 2
- . .._ y E-
=-
- : s I
- . e I
'r 7
"3 L :
2 .w t r u g f, o i 0 , .
._t.
. C F AmW- .
ll
---n--- --
.f II
- I"l'-i !! !! ![!i !
!!! ij
! ei 2 E kl!fil l l ,
; i f 5 ?c rl - t
; ! J ., a . il g L
- i ,
j 6- E-I il I, . e T t
- 8
.. i is .; l ic
- r. '
L'J ' j t !
. li n l
i : DjGi . .i h ._ lIl. A' i.
/'M '
[%!!!!i ,Jr.' 7 - }?s e-
.s%3g fl , c w uJ i .
!l
- . p[WM.t eL L~ 2 e
__ M e, s' ' %~ I:1 It
/'Y !
r .,i W g f i
- - 4.N ! -
Ma gu[I!!']; it %= l
!.!f l il p%
i Q L K[ {il/ i fp I Fil
-i g s i!j
.I z u i.!: !
L"k
,,ssssa'",.- . !
\ .
!N be**'iL !b !!!
3@.. - m@1M ' r~
"%- Q 52sq% D g ;i i e
i n,. m -
~.- i 6 8! % ! m ll [I ,
b I II(M; t . . . .f %
'"! g D_ D% j '
i e.. ! i 4.r;.. i 9 ..:. is I I!!: E! I!!!.a!!.!.,l!s I N ' i.
!!l u.
3 JI i I;. .i li!I y
!I !!! j~g: E 8*I II:
. 1 l
1 i[
.J i ~I si!
. l- !! l[jl 1 j
s: -- r} g> l!.Il
. s; . .
t - l q . ,. , . i i :;. Wa I:ral*
.v.i, t
g 3 ; j:j - t-d ! d l
, . .' i; i i .
, t ,s j ll jt I !
' f- ,! I
- t. s t >
f i
'W' i .
Q- - et
%Qf' 01
< ?. M, 6 a : 2:
._7 y
- F r;
L-s 8%'%: jlp- j' L:_ i il
!t 3I r-- #i i :.ig;s {l - ::1'.E,j:f!.
cI ::i s s i '
=
% O I
- =r
/
, y;y I
- Q-e
/ l -
'a c ll..!,
w, ,- , , i I_. i ii. ; :s
!! gj y1l w
]3 1 -
e
- e e r .!
M . , ,
-r l-t W *p "
ese55'
'l\ '
- 1. I ;
li ! !
./
1- l% 7 O o J . %. ' ll 5 i r si
=, _
ll /
/
H il r I !Ild i!: i 3 % %
- g. s
.r rl18 i.-
e A .. i In 1 I. s:
- f I s _s ;
'l 3
!- !!:!!!,!! T!i!e[
I! 3:l n 3 l5 l .I r!!I -
!i sii II:n ;' . ; ad I II: .
4 0 swsyse.cnayB: V#* c lsygd trai, r4 w] uym, h.
# a ll%'"
IIhElk G gEd!pa bm eu,, ma-= _ s
, 3.\
>)1 ww .;,9
- hh: , ' a ik\
IE0 . 8,1,A$syd _ W % : .2 -
.$, ^ =E . >, e Y-.Y.
%- #k-e.
2 w,. a hy . b.2 5 E 1 a m. 1 a.4' - . e:~~'g, 3 y y . . tb N,*
. q bj . ' ::5 g
- 51 1 4.$ !E
" - I-
. , t
'[ j,- ,' j , .
- k. Ig i
- c. e n y, -? .g
$If n 0
~~ a. h, u
,r 7 ,
- n. t c 15 bra ,O l'
; A <(~
g . g. -
- msu .
z
~N-: s ;._. '
J h -
$--g% ;2
[ A
~
nw -._m. in.aed.epap g hra l n a cw; g i L .e.v :ah o i 6 i e . J
~
l l l l 1 ( .
-. m .
'"W
- y -- , , ;
(g .. pod Sr .:
- "" z
. . -Q*.
.cP .c.
7-f4i >c 1;ge.$& f . 7- E s W. ,d : @.- ' %s'F
- .m . . , -
-t p- _ _ , j_wy-u ! -s 4. #
l
>\ h.
( l f._g ~ I - 4 J*- ;t. ' -
~
3 - g..,. s -
': A l . ".4 w '%-d._ -
q ([ .
- 7
, _p 4g -
gv ,.
~
g.
- g. -4 xwo
,a v:
, ,: g
[ E* h .P 5
. N ge
&1'Y W;- M S : f a 'KY R JEf (f2 S J. Y_Waj...'\
~
S. bj.
% " T. CY .,,,, s _E- A M s cg -= ,2.v* .
~
7d'a. * .i - Courtesy TVA, Paradise Plant i Fig. II-5 Research - Cottrell Inc., Hamon Cooling Toser Division. Hyperbolic Towers 4 L___ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _
m l
/
l f~
. 's l
g - ' { ..el ?'
' . . . . l A!ll -
l Mh ', i - ff9- a
~^
bi ( . . . . l
;rhYpf- -Q*
andhp n
;- i- ~ , ,
,h P '
ATiwsmae;. a a : <7
'o rt ~-
?EF4 hj'f k
gi- . .;
. N. %
\ ,
t m Lt~ _- _. _ __ d
. Courtesy the L. T. Mart Company, Limited Fig. IV-1. Hyperbolic Salt Water Cooling Towers at Fleetwood Station, England l
)
l l i b e CAoE R s inc. g
':THERS o
[ DADE g CouwTY
,,s ,
. .[
HOMESTEAC \\ B AY F RONT n..,.. ,\ 22
- . . . e. n e... , , ~ _ 5 " 1ss ~ st
[- o S[ 3 PARK to $ # fi #5 ff h,7 t' #- u. .- is - 'f p eme=T \ CthTER uuts or u Twawlteission et,e % g g bwes. e > a \\, :
; u e
c 04 -- ausn.=s va . jf c
\\ an..s e*
* -- e"n
- s'.Z'O r @ g Q *e ,
uweta ,- COM&IRVCTIChe -' [] c - soc ipu=.n . . . . / g Tuwege cowstaucticu j stemeestie W Gate f[ laiet 4 ce eei - A i a Mechselset Draft Caesime Tower #
~
f
' \
g Appf en , g 400'leng a70' wide Olsenerge q C8"*' to Cene poo Te.e, g ),
- wn su so Te. ore 100 Colle Total < ,/ h a = rarT l
[ ' '. i i ' T 57 $ toi t- T $8 5 4 3 SEA.0Act. g'
' IN0uSTRtES N 8Si tt % Ce Twt 1.1. Fuk0 Tat STAT 10F FLCet0A Tig. V- t Turkey Poitte site with mech .ical tran c: ,,,y, I
I
-e
- __-,_ -- S ol
--.,/ ' FA' e As gg *2C
.. - e . . . , __ =
- ' !g : 1 as , , , . 'S.
.i 3
e d b
\\
'N a \\, : 2,
- h. 1'ut?
-I 'gg o'
_ . i t . ,, m s'.'0!.'."Ar ue .. M-nc d CoastTev4TH>s lI
~' Y 1
m
. . .,n.om. /
l.. .
.(uu.i,,
ot. co 5 ... i,..., c... v
! / A+4
-: r e *o aM
- = s N
; ; wr rw6
, ;c c ii.s 4
e
- v. .m -[
....... t oi c...i moo e tooo 4Cd 414. s 500'118 l ,
/ ____
j scata iw rutT
" } t GW T 57 5 b a i-
__ } f 7061' T SS S 4 3 e SEA C ADF.
# lHOUSTRIES l
172f % Os Tut LI. FU"O rwt ST *T
- C' 0" Tig. V.2 Turkey Point site with hyperbolic cooling towers.-
O
I 2.0 , , g j
. g g i
i i i i 1.5 - - f as
, i ! .m t 2
I
.m
' / .
t
$ / b
=
0 l s = l . 1 1'
$ l.0 - - l 3 i
, t
- i i -
e I l 9 t x i 1 - l e ;
=_ i s
i
' I .
o 0.5 - - t f
?
i' l I I I lll//////// 0 I I O 400 000 1600 2000 3000 l Distence From Source , meters l-( Fig. V1 1 Experimental industrial duet drift data. l l h t 2 , i i k
! I i ! + \
l i s i I i
. . - . , - - - - . . - , - . - . - . . .. , . . . . . - - _. - - . ~ ,, .
. , . . ~ . _ .
r 4 4 g I e I I E I E I I I I 1 1 E I I I l E - 1 1 jl I I
,E .-
s c '4 i ' q r . *. . 1 d es
, - e.g <- - r +4 - .m's .
=
a . - PE - - / Mi - . 9 z g r i . - ' . p :. Q3 v, 1M ; '~ h 's . . u-[-t .- 3 4.s.g . ./ n.;:t_ =-L ;_ y e . _ . - 1 . 1 . a i A.. L a ?* 1 ' / . . ' ~ la - u'. ' -- . - , a i 4-o ; T 4 u 3 . _ ._ me > .. -J/ L w ._ E E - ,4
' '"tf i : n m . r-s t ^= N, r.** i (+~ ^\ w V .% ~ teMM/
* * . -v T-:r? t ;='. n.'h T E:h == 4 =W4 rEfu ,---W^ .W~LW=
7 i,. i=
'k2-.+- - = - _- -E'-i+:.3 _ =- =- .~ -~.sk& . - - _. :-L-3_~.__'.'_==s.y---,c.w_.;_--~_.;-
------._ _ - . -____p.- ,r..-
+ - - - . =,,,-=
~ . ..-- . - _--
e.p'-- .l
' IO gg. , , * ,
_-.z 4 --_ .3:_ u n -- (--g s 2
, & , a ;.,~ sa p--aaF. >s__ _ - . 4 _;m 1_--
-c r
.- - -. a
- - g4 n .c. ,3, yz,s1,w_+
.- - y'...&.,, , - - . -
2 f YM .- '- +,rd +-'. e a 3 =g . _. .-I N>N. -9 N M-'~~5Yhi M - Nii- M b EE:I
% tit-=-2.n-:: == . =; .E =-E= =~= =~f = =-51_= ~2? = = =Qy':5=LM:-L i+4.:-. . =t'=~
0 W26 ?JM~~~f.,.?.
, 1 ,t^S%5's:r $._g a .3 .. _ _ Qf,4 .,mf3f.,.-_. _.
m 3 f,, &,,.g M-M
^
. =- --
_./-- , = -,..-.- - _=.-- m .
-r. -
___ _-.s . - - _,.. . - =.-----..-
-- --.=
_ f' _ _ - - . --- W~ m 1r _ _ _ _ . 3 ' O 10 m.i y - _? r 9't.L.4f f p y M ' " =__M- ~ ' 5-Q,*';J.w m]-7*7 . mmmwramw I b_wI-.;M M W d k.Nd1--b-7i~N +_u m na.a N b2yN =w=w m [ --
=E.
'=-f+ = 223=W~-X-?i =-? ' T==5. E=CE5=_--% ' _ M--2=2= ~-- = i-L+~T.-__ ===r=.' .- r.- ^._ ;
'N b k b^ M k MY W T[+D F M WR=C,5' Q Q-]H C= nit Q & & -
III .. as 7-
- . . . 7 3.-&_ . ~_&.~.a n_ .~..N w - i ,. .-a; %se F=. -
s '_4 br1 =e_ _c_ iim - c. - _-
'.LG._.~~~~..-*&~~.~_~a~='
^- . ' . W +.: '".- n.:.%. . h 5..5- T
- =_.n. = 1.:. . .". . ~d. .iR.~
-.7. ~ .- - "@ f i 1" *~ .. M ;*.~.[~ 1. - da * . . . {-: C. 'i 4.]
**."~~Wt*L'_~'.'.Y..~_~.'.T.". ".r . ' ~;
* * ~
' ~' "I.. ~'""I ..
' . -' "' ' ' " ~
108 0.0 01 0.01 0.1 1.0 Drift Rote , % Fig V H.1 Rate of emission of salt to the air as a function of drift rate. t D. 0, I
.m ATTACHMENT 1.
CENTRAL ELECTRICITY GENERATING SOARD
)
3Y J 9 :"C L
.;r. . alter %itchell, &J$
outham uclear i.ngineering Incorp.,
.P.O. Ecz 10, Dunedin, W8'd'" HOW58 slorids, U. .. A.
24 Catheoral Place Loncon EC4 Ti T.e e:mone IlF CITY 1202 f.at 23C3 r y-.41a w-= ua r C r ref C#/102.l..W.*d Your ref Cate 13th Febr.:a:j,1970.
Dear Sir,
S.turni Drnu.et ,:ooline Towers den ., ate r , er hutien Further to our telepM 9 cooling towers with sea call on Jedne.dsy on the u:e of natural draught p r==1s e d.
, I have unearthed the folloring infernation a.s
.'he C.4.~.B. has only one station sleetwood, with snis type of totter.
.'here, two towers each i30 ft. hign, 216 f t. base disnoter,120 ft. tnroat dia: ster, ith a five inch snick shell, provide cocling for three JC 2.; sets.
4:.cn tower cools 3 m.g.h. Imperial from 25.J.oc / to 21.10 0 at 10 C wet bulb vic 7b nlative hunidity. t Se towers are packed with Baltic hed: rood which is preserved with a copper /ccr:me/ arsenic solution to an earlier C.E.G.3. standard '.o in u:e. that currer.tly The tinber hr.s been fa.ind to withstand the seawater conditions last the full lire of the station.reasonaLly well and we are confident that with mor
.'ho tinber is supported in precast conente frenework. Griginally sulphate resisting casent .ra:
used for the concrete, but in co==cn with all cooling tower suppert stmetures the cover provided was less than that nomslly used in n nforced concrete work.
.unrisingly ma under these very ar" ous good cireanstances condition after 15 the precast years concrete atmeture is reported to be in very operation.
I an afraid we have very little infor:satics on t$e~carrycter cf salt waIer fron the tower plume onto the surrounding countryside. l'his in itself is , almost certainly a good indication that the olhi.nators fitted to these to ers are working very effectively as re would sure*.y have hai stany lect.1 prote:ts if significant pollution had been occuring. 3e are investigating this aspect fiarther as we have s keen intenst in hiilding other salt water nature 1 irsent towers for larger units in the fairly near future. Tha towers vers originally designed by L.G. L'ouchel & Partners who have sincenolef who t theexist. langer c,2 cling tower design field and um built by irsd Zitchell Ltd. A1 1 cent. ...
s 2-
.'.t prc: cat the C.".G.D. uni.orte.kes its own sc:icr. of cooli.x tcr:er:, but you :say be intere:tod to les.rn ths.t we are pre :ared to co-ope. ate,ur./er certair.
cocaitit r.s, itn o'.ncr utilitics end consulte.nts in tne design cf tcwers fcr etacr electric:.1 utilitic:. Ir. the U. . towers . re built by:-
' lier:as (: Pt.rtr.e rs A.td. ,
'the Davenport incincering Co. ti..,
167 I= peri:.1 urive, L'arris atree t, 3r /. ford, Yorks. Harrtra, Adlesex,1112 7EP. and sils Cooli=c .'oners (1925) Ltd., Ch:ncerj house, Fartshot, Rich:.cnd, Jurrey. or whos tils cooling .'owers (1923) it! end .,avenport incueerinC -o. L :.. both heac consider bh desip es:pertise. :rcs our telephone call en eincade I un/.orstand snas you are am re or the liason Cr-ani stion cf Selcius ar.d the SCC orgerisation or Irence. Both or whcc are well este.blished cocling teser desipers and contractors. I tmat this inforcstion helps you with your immedicto pecble=s, but please do not nasitate to est in touch vita us again or to visit us if se c&s be of any tL%er assistance. Yours faithfully, l A. I.J. WF.iAM for Civil Ingiseer. Pa7 Al-Z
t ATTACHM ENT 2. .
..e.................
t L. T. W ~ , .,s.. .._. . . _..-a.-..-- - - . .
....e e . . e ....
.. ., e ."...' !..*f. . ' .' :.
C~P/JEC Thursday,12th Tebruary, ,1970.
<;.f$ *
'.'. Mi t ch e l l . E s q . .
Southern helear Engineering,
< Jp ' ' -
\
P.O. Box 10. Dunedin. ,[ @. @ 9~0-Agf
.s Flocida. 33524 n..'.' Ybp#
c.g.1.y# Dear Mr. Mitchell. ~ Q#5* *# I was very interested to receive your telephone call this af terncon concerning your worries with your 2,200 nu station for the Florida Power and Light Company. I confirm our discussion concerning the Fleetwood Cooling Towers which are the two natural draf t towers that have been working on sea water for the las t 15 years. The water for the circulating system is drawn from a dock which is nor .a1 sea water having no f resh water river content at all. In the circulation a certain amount is evaporated in the Cooling Tower, and I have been informed by the Station s taf f that they maintain their circulating water at a concentration just below twice that of the nor=al sea water make up. The ponds, diagonal columns and shell were constructed in reinforced concrete
, using British Sulphate Resisting Cement, which is similar to your Type V Cement. De splash bars are of timber and as it will be seen from the p'c otograph enclosed, that they are present over the full height of the air opening. During the su::mer months algae forms on the splash bars due to the suns rays, but this has not occurred in the present design where the packing is always hidden f rom the direct rays of the sun. With regard to dasage to the country side through precipitation of concentrated salt water on the ground, this does not occur, as the present standard of eliminator screens installed in the towers is such that the size of droplet passing the screen will not reach the ground af ter leaving the top of the tower 300 feet above the ground. They are so small, that even in our high hu=idity conditions, the droplets evaporate before reaching the ground.
IJ: mediately in the vicinity of the Towers there is some da= age due to the blow off of the water that is experienced with these old type packings, the damage does not extend more than 50 feet f rom the towers.
/Aabestos c o i i. i r: . T r. w . r# r. i . - . . s e. . .e..' 2 x . i .4 i x c. It : r: v i e :
A Z .1
6 e V. Mi tenell, Es q. , Thursday 12th February,1970. Adesto . ccAnt pipc . h+rc used in t..sse tou.r. for distributing tne wat.: and as there was soca worry about the lifc of ts.sse pipes, they were dippsd in bi:u.*4n as a pratuction. In fact, t. 6 1.itu -n washed cf f witnin 18 cent.ts of sne towers being put to wo:k, but last Septccer, when I inspected t'.e towers af ter 15 years, no deterioration in the asbes tos pi;,es was datactab!c. Two troubles were experiencea with tnc circulating systa=, tad first was corrosiwn of the ecpper bellows pieces used in the expansion joints in the concrete culverts. Today we would use rubber expansion joints which would avoid this trouble.
"he secord trouble concer7ed the handrailing outside the towe r this was cade in steel standards
- 1 steel tube'd havily galvanised.In f act in the 15 years tne handrailing has had to be replacaw twice and either concrete handrailing or preserved ti .ber handrailing would be used on a future tower.
The cceros ton of the galvanisec s te.1 r.andrailing resulted f roci the blow of f f ro:n tne base of the tower bring deposited on the handrailing, and the salts building up from the continual deposit and drying process. I a:n enclosing a copy of Chiltcrn Paper cascribing experi ental work ( that west into the work of Coolin; Tower eliminators in this country, and as it is the only copy I have I would greatly appreciate receiving it back af ter you have s tudied the contents. The desjgn duty of each of these towers was the geol 60,000 l'SGPw. from 84.8 T to 70 F when the atmospheric dry bulb is $4.0 T and the wet bulb temperature 50.2 T which is 75: humidity. hring the las t cwo years, we have installed in a Swedish Che=ical Works a ticher mechanical draf t Coolicg Tower that is working on sea water. In this tower the whole of the cladding is fibre glass sheeting and a lot of special sacerials have to be used in mechanical draf t cooling cowers, vnich is not the case with natural draf t cooling towers. Yours sincerely, h Ab d 7 k, A2 2
ATTACHMENT 3. e= Information frem the Federal Water Pollution Contro! Administration A visit was made to the TWPCA headquarters office in Arlington, Virginia, where we were provided with a copy of the volume "Research, Development and Demonstration Projects, Vo?. 3. Jan.1969." The volume lists some 140 TWPCA contracts and grants. Cf these programs, two which were considered to have direct, though limited, bearing on the problem at hand, were as follows:
- 1. A $170,500 contract
- awarded in December 1968 to the Dynatech Corporation of Cambridge, Mass,.
i entitled "An Engineering and Economic Analysis of Condenser Discharge Waters in Thermal Power Plants."
- 2. A $27,799 grant (total program cost $92,241) to the Oregon State University, Carvallis. Oregon, awarded in September 1968 for a project entitled " Thermal Plume Dispe rsion. "
T%7CA research programs are carried out, and research centracts administered, in five laboratories throughout the country. The Pacific s Northwest Water Laboratory at Corvallis, Oregon, has responsibility for work on cooling towers and related techniques. A vssit was made to this laboratory to discuss both their in house programs and work done by A3 1
a i 1
. outside contractors for them. Their pertinent contract work is as follows (data as taken from TWPCA Research and Development Project informa-tion sheets):
- 1. A $135,062 contract with R. W. Beck and Associates of Denver, Coleuco, awarded in November 1969, entitled "Research on Non-Evaporative Cooling Towers for Thermal Electric Generating Plants." The project Is described as follows: The " objective of this research contract is tu provide technical information and data on dry type cooling towers with the expectation that such cooling towers may become economically attractive to the utility industry. It is proposed to carry out an on-site inspection of dry type cooling towers that are now in service. Operating and maintenance expenses will be derived and presented in a form that is useable by design and utility operating engineers.
Attempts will then be made to optirnize the operation of non-evaporative cooling systems of substantially larger in-sta11ations. A final report will be prepared."
- 2. A $13,039 contract with E. Bollay Associates of Boulder, Colorado (now believed to be a part of Edgerton, Germeshausen and Grier, Inc.), awarded in May 1969, entitled " Theoretical Evaluation and Development of a Criteria to Determine s
A3-2 9
W Inadvertent Weather Modification i.n the Vicinity of Cooling Towers." The project scope is quoted as follows:
"il.) Provide a theoretical basis for estimating fog poter.tial from cooling tower plumes. This will be accomplished using a computer model of cloud growth, p'ume movement, and fog formation.
- 1 i
"(2. ) 1: sing the results of the numerical model studies, actual case examples will be studies. Furthe r mo r e.
a handbook summary will be developed to identify critical meteorological parameters for evaluating potentia 11nadvertent weather modification in the vicinity of cooling towers throughout the United State s .
"t 3. ) Computer simulation will be used to investigate means of reducing adverse effects (such as seedin; the plcme to alte r the dropsize, etc. ). "
The Carvallis laboratory has been working on cooling techniques for about one year. Their in house programs include:
- 1. The development of a mathematical model for computer use which will predict the pertormance ci natural dratt cooling towers.
- 2. A study of cooling ponds with emphasis on radiation cooling etfects and the development of a plastic covering for such ponds which has desirable properties as regards controlling heat radiation into and out of such ponds.
- 3. The preparation of a report on the " Economic Aspects of Thermal Pollution Control in the Electric Power Industry."^ '
s A3-3 l l
n in addition, a report was prepared for the laboratory on " Cooling Towers and Weather"^ by Dr. Fred W. Decker, an Associatc Professor of Physics at Oregon State University, and a consulting m e t eo r olo gi s t. The Corvallis laboratory has made no studies of their own on the dritt problem and do not know of any techniques they could recomrnend for the quantitative measurement of fresh or salt water drift. They believe that the commonly accepted figure of 0.2% for drift is higher than actually occurs and that 0,1% should not be too difficult to attain. With properly engineered towers. drift as low as 0.002% was not considered impossible. A3-4 1 l
--- ^ =- --- __ ___ - - .
REFERENCES A3 1 A. C. Christianson a sd B. A. Tichenar, Economic Aspects of Thermal Pollution Centrol in the Elec:ric Power Industry, Working Paper No. 67. Federal Water Pollution Control Adrninistration, USDI, Pacific Northwest Water Laboratory. September 1969. A3 2 F. 'W. Decker, Report on Cooling Tower s and Weather to Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, Oregon State University, February 1969. O 4 A3 5
.1. r Supplamsnt No. I to SNE.54 I" -
EXHIBIT w AN EVALUATION OF THE POWERED SPILAY MODULE TOR SALT WATER SERVICE FOR TURKEY POINT for Florida Power & Light Company l 1 Miami, Florida k W So=> c-e N4: lear Engineering, Inc. Mis 1t., s !srica, and Washington, D. C. May 1970 i e O e
f . FOREWORD 1 This report is submitted as Supplement No. I to our previous report "An Evaluation of the Feasibility of Salt Water Cooling Towers for Turkey Point", SNE.54, February 1970. About 150 man-hours of senior and professional engineering time were devoted to this task. The work was performed by Arnold A. Katterhenry and Ray L. Lyerly, P.E., Project Manager. 9 E G l
( l TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 l I. Introdu ction II. Spray Cooling III. The Powered Spray Module Design IV. Application of Powered Spray Modules to Turkey Point N. V. Experience with the Powered Spray Module VI. Evaluation VII. Conclusions 1 i l u
x . r i t I I l ' i ILLUSTRATIONS AND ATTACHMENTS [ 4 e l i i . i l Figure t
- 1. General arrangement drawing of PSM.
- 2. PSM installed in a discharge canal.
I
- 3. PSM in operation. {
Atta chment I'
- 1. PSM unit specifications. ,
I
- 2. PSM pump motor specifications. (
i ! l
- 3. B. F. Goodrich Cutless rubber bearings (2 pages). >
c I 1 i e 4 iii I 4 ) (
)
'1 k
---~. ~ . , - - ,,v,-- y- -. ,vw , ,,y.. -,, , . , ,., -- , - -- -- m,-w , - -
-,tv - -
+
l l
/ .
I. INTRODUCTION At the request of Flo rida Power and Light Company, Southern Nuclear Engineering, Inc., has investigated the Powered Spray Module
- for possible application in cooling condenser discharge water from the Turkey Point plant. The powered spray module consists of a pump and four spray nozzles forming an independent assembly which floats in a canal, lake, or pond. As applied to Turkey Point, a number of these units would be placed in the condenser cooling water discharge canal to cool the water leaving the plant before it is returned to the bay. Each j l
unit would draw water from the canal and spray it into the air where it j l would be cooled by evaporation. We have gathered information on spray cooling for power plants from various sources to provide background data and have visited the Ceramic Cooling Tower Co. to see the PSM and learn more of its design, l
)
development, performance, and operational experience.
- Powered Spray Module, or PSM is the tradename of a product manu-factured by the Ceramic Cooling Tower Company, Fort Worth, Texas. .
l l 1
\
U. SPRAY COOLING Spray systems have been used for more than half a century for J power plant and industrial cooling, with the majority of spray installations We know of only one power plant having been put in service decades ago. spray cooling system which has been built in recent years and this is at the Canadys plant of the South Carolina Electric and Gas Co. Spray I The water to be cooled cooling is basically a form of evaporative cooling. is sprayed into the air in droplets providing a large surface area in contact with the air. The lower limit of cooling by a spray system is the wet-bulb 'l t tempera:ure of the air; however, a close approach to the wet bulb temper. . ature is not generally practical. Several manufacturers offer nozzles for spray pond cooling applications, Typical all of which state sirailar thermal performances in their literature. spray nozzle inforrnation is given in Table 1. Table i TYPICAL FDCED PIPING SPRAY POND NOZZLE DESIGN DATA Nozzle elevation above pond surface 5 ft. 7 psi Water pressure at nozzle 50 spm Flow rate per nossie 104*F
' Water temperature at spray nozzle about 14'T Cooling range l
l 81'T Wet. bulb temperature 2 I
. l I
l
I A large area is required for a spray pond. Various handoooks and manuf acturer's data show that the pond surface area required is 2 to 10 I square feat for each gpm of flow, depending on pond shape and size, l On this basis, a total area of climatic conditions, air lanes, etc. 4,000,000 to 20,000,000 square feet would be required for the Turkey This would be a field 5 miles long and 150 feet to 750 feet Point Dow rate. wide, requiring about 40,000 nossles. We have not been able co locate 8 A tremendous amount of piping would any spray ponds of such large size. The 4 be required to distribute the water to this large number of nozzles. power required by the pun ps for the system would be of the order of 25,000 horsepower or more. Engineering handbooks
- state that typical spray pond installations experience large losses due to fine droplets being carried away by the wind (drift). They further state that these losses can This represents a drift loss equal or even exceed evaporation too ses.
i exceeding I?. of the condenser flow rate. (This amount of drift is 10 times l higher than the nominal drift from a mechanical draft cooling tower as I discus sed in SNE.54. ) The handbooks recommend construction of a
! louvered fence around the spray field to minimise drift effects.
Spray ponds using salt water would probably be unacceptable because We of the large amount of salt which would be put into the air by drift. do not know of any spray cooling pond, for utility or industrial service, that utilizes sea water. r
- Marks' Mechanical Engineers Handbook, Theodore Baumeister, editor, Sixth Edition, 1958, page 9 102.
Chemical Engineers' Handbook, John H. Perry, editor, Third Edition, 1950, page 1647, 3 l l i
n - r III. THE POWERED SPRAY MODULE DESIGN The Powered Spray Module consists of a pump, four spray nozzles with interconnecting piping, and plastic coats. Figure I shows the general arrangement and installation of the PSM. Specifications for the PSM for fresh water service are given in Attachment 1. In operation, the unit Doats in a canal, pond, or other body of water with only the tops of the Hoats, the pump motor, and the four spray nozzles exposed above tue surface of the water. The pump draws water from the canal about two feet below the surface and pumps it to the nozzles where it is sprayed bto the air. Figure 2 shows a PSM installed in a discharge canal and Figure 3 shows it in operation. There are severalimportant differences between a PSM and a con-ventional spray cooling system. The PSM does not require the large amount of fi. zed pipi=g which carries water to the many spray heads in a conventional system. However, the PSM has the attendant disadvantage that the cooled spray continually mixes with the water being cooled, thereby reducing the bulk water temperature, and as a result the heat dissipation capability of each succeeding downstream unit is slightly reduced. The PSM has a large now from each nozzle (2500 gpm), and large size drops,* with the spray pattern extending to a higher elevation and a larger diameter by comparison with the usual spray nozzles. With
- Information was requested from the vendor on the droplet sir: distri-bution; however, specific experimental work on this subject has not been performed. ;
4
f , larger average 4:oplet sizes there is probably less drift; however, there is insufficient engineering data available to predict the amount of drift. As l
" mentioned later in this report, some drift was physically observed.
The main parts of the PSM are the motor and pump assembly, floats, piping, and nozzles. The piping also serves as the structural " backbone" of the a s s embly. No valves are required in this design. The motor is a 75 hp,1200 rpm totally-enclosed fan cooled unit. Operating voltage has been specified as 440V, but other standard voltage ratings can be supplied. General Electric, Louis Allis, and U.S. Electrical Motors are potential motor suppliers. Attachment 2 is the vendor's speci-f fication sheet for the motor for fresh water service. The pump is assembled by the vendor using hydraulic components designed and manufactured by Cascade. The pump has a vertical shaft with an upper radial-thrust bearing and a lower radial bearing. Both bearings have a design life of 100,000 hours. (representing a lifetime of approximately 20 years for Turkey Point service.) The upper bearing is a grease-lubricated double-row ball bearing, and the lower bearing is a water lubricated B. F. Goodrich "cutless" bearing, described in Attach-m ent 3. It has a rubber bearing surface and is designed for operation in water containing sand and other particulate matter. The pump shaft is directly coupled to the motor by a flexible coupling. The pump impeller is the axial flow type, made of cast iron, as are the straightening vanes, bowl, and bearing housing. With no screen on the pump suction, the 5
l inlet is virtually wide open except for the straightening vanes. The water I I . l inlet is underneath the Hoat, about two feet beneath the surface of the l I ' water, and at least five feet above the bottom of the pond, based on a minimum water depth of seven feet. 1 l The floats are made with a fiberglass-polyester sheu filled with I expanded-in-place polyurethane foam. The center float, which carries the motor and pump, is the largest and is internaHy reinforced with steel. The other floats are not reinforced. Each nozale consists of a section of 6" cast iron pipe with a downward pointing cone centered above the end of the pipe. The nozzle is definitely non-clogging, being capable of passing 1-}" to 2" diameter particles. The piping and fittings are all flanged cast iron with bitumastic coating inside and out. Fiberglass piping was said to be available as an alternate for salt water service. However, a PSM has not yet been constructed using Ilberglass piping.
~
According to the vendor, yeriodic maintenance of the PSM consists of mAdhg grease to the motor and pump bearings, probably semi-annually. For major maintenance, the pump and motor unit may be removed from a PSM without disassembling or removing the PSM from the water. A " typical" proposed PSM parallel-series instauntion is shown on Figure 1. The thermal performance is predicted as foHows: 6 (.
r (1) A 5 mph wind is assumed blowing across the canal. A correction for the increase in wet-bulb temperature as the air flown from one unit to the next is taken into consideration in the vendor's computational model. (2) Using the wet. bulb temperatures at each unit and the known temperature of water in the canal, the temperature of the spray returning to the canal is determined from the vendor's experimental data. (3) The spray water and the canal water are assumed to mix perfectly before reaching the next downstream units. The performance of the next group of parallel units is predicted on the basis of the mixed bulk water temperatures. Because the wet-bulb temperature of the air increases as it flows across one parallel unit to the next, the cooling effectiveness of downwind units decreases. Generally at least four PSM units can be placed in parallel across the width of the canal without losing too much performance. Similarly, as the water flows from one group of parallel PSM's to the next, its temperature decreases. Therefore, the amount of heat dissipated by each PSM also decreases, and the water temperature approaches the wet. bulb temperature approximately exponentially. For Turkey Point conditions, the temperature differential, which is proportional to the cooling capability, is 238 (1040 water temperature minus 81* wet. bulb) 7
r at the first module. At the last module, (90. 5 water temperature) the ( , temperature differential is only 9. 5*, a decrease of 60%. This illustrates the substantial decrease in spray performance that results when the water temperature approaches the wet-bulb temperature. l l l 8 i 4 e e
~
e IV. APPLICATION OF POWERED SPRAY MODULES TO TURKEY POINT At Soutnern Nuclear's request, the vendor prepared estimates of PSM requirements for the Turkey Point plant. These estimates were for flow rates of 560,000 and 1,900,000 gym, corresponding to the flows from Units I and 2 only, and all four units. Other design data are shown in Table 2. Table 2 TURKEY POINT DESIGN DATA Condenser outlet water temperature 104 F Temperature of return water to hay 90.5 P Design wet-bulb temperature 81*F The existence of a large discharge canal of 160 ft, minimum width was a s sumed. PSM's were assumed to be placed in the canal in four parallel rows. PSM requirements for Turkey Point are shown in Table 3. Table 3 PSM DESIGN FOR TURKEY POINT Units 1,2. 3, & 4 Units 1 & 2 560,000 gym I,900,000 gpm Condenser cooling water Number of PSM's required 220 744 16,500 55,800 Total horsepowe r Total MWe' required 14 47 Cana11ength required 1. 7 miles 5. 6 miles I l
< 9
. 1
n
/ .
As Table 3 shows, the existing condenser cooling water discharge canal would be grossly inadequate for a fun. scale PSM instaHation to serve all four Turkey Point units. Almost the fuH length of the Card Sound canal (now under construction) would be required by the PSM sy s tem. About 47 Mw would be required by the 744 PSM's 'n a fun scale installation at Turkey Point. The electrical power supply equipment would stude a stepdown transformer to reduce the 240 kv switchyard supply to a suitable distribution voltage, and one or more distribution lines to carry the power to several intermediate stepdown and control locations. At each of these intermediate locations, there would te a t transformer to step the voltage down to the mate r s altage, and a motor starter for each PSM. Remote control, either automatic or manual, would be from the plant, and would require miles of control cabling. There would be no piping, valves or water distribution system required, except for the canal itself. The vendor supplies only the spray module unit itself. The customer supplies an other portions of the system including the control equipment, motor starters, electric cables to the units, mooring anchors and cables, and field assembly and installation. 10 O o l l I i
. m ~
( . V. EXPERIENCE WITH THE POWERED SPRAY MODULE Only one PSM has been built to date. This unit is currently installed in the discharge canal of the Handley station of the Texas Electric Service Company located near Tort Worth, Texss, as shown in Figures 2 and 3. The canal is 75 to 100 feet wide and several miles long. Neither the plant at one end of the canal nor the fresh water lake at the other end can be seen from the PSM installation. Tishing and boating in the canal are not permitted. The one PSM unit now in existence has been operated inter-mittently over a six. month period for demonstration and test purposes. There have been no endurance tests of the prototype pump nor the entire as s embly. ( The vendor's thermal design of the PSM system is based on experi-mental thermal performance data taken over a tro. year period. A single test nozzle was operated and data was taken on air wet-bulb temperature, ; wind velocity, and temperatures of the water leaving the spray nozzle and i of the spray returning to the water surface. From this data, a family of j l curves was constructed which shows, for various wet. bulb temperatures, the returning spray temperature as a function of the temperature of the water leaving the nozzle. This data has been checked on the operating PSM, as shown in Figure 2. It can be noted that the intermediate float has a funnel and thermocouple which collects a spray sample and measures its temperature. Southern Nuclear has not evaluated the thermal data in ( detall since it is considered proprietary by the vendor. We have seen some of the results of the test data and they appear to be reasonable. l l 11
-. . . .- ~ . . .. --. -. . ___ _ - . = .=_ -- , .
.~. ,
i i l a
/ '
In a recent discussion (May 22, 1970), the vendor stated that they had i no firm orders for PSM's, but had quotes out on a large number, and 2 indicated they expected to receive some orders very soon, including a e I small scale installation expected to be placed in operation later this ! year at a generating plant. , , i i i 1 9 e l f f i l l 4 i 1 l 4 1 i l 12 4 I J e i J i . l l I , i e 1 I
. .. -- , , , , , , , , --- . . - - - . . . . - - - - - ~ . , - - , -,,, . , - , . - - , . . . . . . . , - - - ~ , . , - .,- . - - - - - - - - . . . . , , - , . - - . . - - ,
( . VI. EVALUATION A. Th e rmal Southern Nuclear has not evaluated the experimental test data, performance curves, or calculational methods in detail. These items are considered to be proprietary by the vendor. Those.who have done this work in the vendor's organization appear to be well versed in this type of analysis on the basis of years of cooling tower design and test work. Our appraisal is that their experimental performance data is probably valid. Thermal performance of the system (as designed and quoted by the vendor) is warranted. and a performance bond is avan. able at a small additional cost. The basic warranty condition is stated ( as follows:
"If there is a deficiency in thermal performance of the system, Ceramic Cooling Tower Company will furnish additional PSM.4 10 75 units in a mutually agreeable quantity to increase performance to the de sired level."
However, even with this warranty the customer would still bear the arpense of the additional field installation cost plus increased electrical consumption. B. Mechanical and Electrical It should be noted in Figure 1 that the only moving parts of the PSM are an the pump and motor assembly. While this is a simple device assembled from standard parts, it has not been proven either by field 13 1 l l
n . - ( experience or by endurance testing. The unit must operate under adverse conditions, including continual drenching of the motor by spray from the two adjacent nozzles. Corrosion and deterioration can be expected to be a problem, particularly in the electric circuits and connections. In view of the minimum amount of operating and test experience in fresh water, and no experience in salt water, we do not believe there is sufficient technical evidence to permit an accurate assessment of the system's lifetime operating and maintenance characteristics. This infor-mation is necessary before the PSM could be considered for Turkey Point use. Standard requirements for power plant components are high relia. bility, low maintenance, and a long lifetime, all based on a substantial background of test and operating experience. C. Severe Weather Considering next the capability of the unit to withstand severe weather conditions, there is again no experience to use as a basis for judgment. The one unit which has been bt.ilt is installed in a relatively n. row and protected canal. The Turkey Point site, however, is known to be subject to occasional hurricane conditions and summer squalls are frequently experienced. The pipe serves as the structural member of the PSM. It is supported by floats at seven points along its length, ' and as such there is little stress in the pipe under quiet water conditions. Under wave action, however, it is possible for some floats to be completely submerged while others are completely out of the water. Also, there may be considerable 14 l l
m I VII. CONCLUSIONS I r i i We believe the PSM .s an interesting and potentially useful concept. It is inherently simple, flexible, and adaptable to existing plants without extensure modifications. PSM's have the advantage of being modular, 1 whereby capacity can be increased by adding more units. Further, units not in service do not use any power, or otherwise impair normal operation of the plant. Because a large canal and/or pond area is required, it is concluded that the use of PSM's at Turkey Point would require completion of the i Card Sound Canal. The present discharge canal system would not provide sufficient area.
. We have developed the following conclusions from our survey:
A. Areas of Minimum Exterience
- 1. The thermal performance of the PSM system can probably be predicted with reasonable accuracy, though verification in an operating system would be necessary.
- 2. The materials of construction proposed for salt water service appear to be suitable; however, with the exception of metals, none of these materials have been used in warm salt water for sufficiently long periods of
- time to be assured their reallifetime is adequate.
16 i . I I l t l l 1
~
m - I . 3. The totally-enclosed-fan-cooled motor, with only a single vent hole for entry of salt, should be reasonably durable, so long s a it does not become submerged. Electrical gear, such as cabling, junction boxes, etc. can be made to operate in the salt water spray environ-ment; however, maintenance would be higher than that normally required for a fresh water or dry environment. B. Areas of Inadequate Experience
- 1. No PSM has ever been designed or built for salt water s e rvic e.
- 2. There has been no long term continuous operation of I
a PSM in fresh or salt water to prove the reliability of the motor-pump assembly or its components, especially the bearings. While this is a simple device, a high degree of operational reliability and low maintenance must be proven.
- 3. Structural adequacy of the unit under severe wave action has not been determined. At present, there is no evidence on which to judge, particularly since a PSM has never been built using such materials as the fiber.
. glass pipe recommended' for salt water service.
17 i J I 1 l
.m
- 4. Drift represents a real problem area. Que stions which must be answered are: how much salt is dis-persed into the air by the drift, over what area is the salt de' posited, and what effect does the salt have upon the surrounding environment?
C. Potential Use Due to the potential advantages of the PSM spray system, the vendor's future progress should be monitored with respect to operational experience, large scale usage, and salt water deployment. l 18 i 1
=
e
, m I 8
.i."
I I I ! 1, I u! .;-4' id
;i 11 Il li '
- s. <
I!I , .ll1 i
- g N,i 31 1
lI l ll ' , , ' 11 s
, sllfl in I 3 g!:
it ti I g/f g5 1 ) ..!'. i> l
\_,-O/,l'if h ;
j j gg
; si . 1:
Q{] =p,E\ - 3M! 1
'd ir ,
.- i
- L 4.s ( - - =
i, l' y 1 vi l 3 e',
- 1. , ,
1 1 i /% al *- ~. .P - > . i
;i.,I
.li;
--7
. : --- 2 - , is, t
- lI [w IlJ I
'i
)l$l i f M i
i e f 5 l! ll Yli' i g C l lH i1 '
, il "1
M i ( ) !tl l bp - l ~
/ 'i,, ,
2 4 7' s? -@tsu l ,,, II;I riii g a
'f'*?~^.~ t '\ \ $
':Af, (
I V inbn 2 (fI
,.e m- y .
) l,:
~
e l ,'w' .. j5 ' l If g lli - ['*M;'. m s! e /.
'd L ~% !. li
- 1. c
. c g '
7 " ,' t ;; / N U
)
{. i. ' .' r, = f I 1 l
-[J,1 1/..'
l [s k 7 $ l l Id '),'[
,ig F l
\w'pno,i
,- l I
i.e i l:i 7
- ' L:' 1 , Y
' l' :.
11
\ n jiI u
.._.- N p l{ N s I
13 i
@@{@ijlM -2.2b j 4
n ,- w415 ' ma .n .4.:n Eh ;
^
+ kvW::.,e.
% w. h i-s M m.g p&MM n'
'. 5l
- .- %.-g'iif-['l
,1. -
' ymM%g 7p
%? kfD*4E%"$yQgQ(W ~{bh hJk
. - .- - . n c ::. 4 ' . g. c:-- - . - -
,-=.,.+@.=-E7582M$,.E1OI.SID 0 -dG5 d.. .. ..
. .. .- +a.: '. :
- = =. - _ -- d::h-e--
% us.R . X..% :.. .... .; .. n. : %: .. . . -
i 6 -- 'p. - M -
-wn. . - -
, x. $~_ . :~.91~?L : .- '
L:m .-1
- Q-- w m_ WW'bV&& .Tk v- .P.1"4 r c m.
L -
%"f:$'R-+[$.r..
-;-;M ' L*
.? .
<w y'~ ~ $__
p2 . f e frYrkh:.*~%.s':2
~~ w > y y2%.,44,-P. ~h: .f?. 'W.~a
..r p ..n*-
> S-
_ ' 7~.
~, . , f, h x.~ .-.. ' y ~ - y h. - ,fRW,%
t , aQ pibM A- QV u.mp--T W(g-s.y
~
a i F ,-em :2 W-e4 %" ,,.g..
't
. s -
Photograph by Southern Nuclear Courtesy Cerarnic Cooling Tower Co. Fig. 2. PSM installed in a discharge canal. l l l e I l l l e
3025
=:- = , $ni CERAMIC coouNG TOWER e nebs.d.ary COMPANY el flR$7 90RTH CORPOR 4TICM L%
B a P. O. k es Ton Wonk. Teun i6101 817.u N 105 POWERED SPRAY MODULE SYSTEM UNIT SPECIFICATIONS
- MODEL PSM-4-10-75 CT-45-0-32 L BASIC COMPONENTS Each PSM-4-10-75 unit consists of three primary sections as fonows:
I PUMP SECTION - one req 2 ired per unit consisting of: one, electric motor - one, float - on*, propener-type hot water pump.
- SPRAY NOZZLE SECTION - four required per unit, esch consisting of
, one, spray nozzle defle. tor - one, riser assembly, - one, float. l HEADER PLPE SECTION , ne set required per unit, consisting of: six pieces, header piping with integral flanges - one, pump discharge j tee, - one set, bolt, nuts, washers, gasket and miseenar:cus hardware. l IL HYDRACLIC AND MECHANICAL PERFORMANCE DATA - 75
- 1. Brake horsepower per unit - 10,000 GPM
! 2 Pumping rate per unit
- 2,500 GPM
- 3. Pumping rate per nozzle - 20 ft.
- 4. ApprMmate height of spray pattern above water level
- 5. Appr* ate individual spray pattern diameter at water - 40 ft.
level.
- 6. Approximate rectangular surface area at water level, - 40' wide x 160' ic:
required for one PSM-4-10-75 unit - 7 ft.
- 7. Minimum water depth IIL GENERAL MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS
- 1. Electric Mctor - Dripproof standard, recommend TEFC.
See CT-45-0-33. 2 Pump - Cast iron propener, straightening vanes, bowl, and bearing housing. Carbon steel propeller shaft. Grease lubricated double thrust ball bearing at top of shan. Water lubricated, cutless rubber radial bearing at bottom of shaft. 3 Floats - Expanded-in-place, polyurethane foam with structural steel elements, encapsulated in fiberglass reinforced polyester resin sheu. Cast iron center hub, bearing chamber in pump section float. 4 Netzle - Cast iron decector cone.
- 5. Piping and Pipe Fittings - Class 22 Cast iron piping with intergal flanges.
- 6. Hardware - Stainless steel, bolts, nuts, washers and miscellaneous hardware items.
U
^
1 25 wtusta ATTACHMENT I 1 2
m 5
* -e .
NJ-f
. M. .
ND}'4s'k3Lp. . l 1 ~~~*
.$f'%.,
.&j% T; r*
-is .-
?. g
^ .. *iC) t m '
'4
, e,'[D; "
1*%i V.
E' ,w j
? I '1
.~ k [ ,,-
.g .-
jli
- d :, ' 3-4.2[kk b^Tre 3 :4 a ...
. , ;.1
' ': w
- gh' i )
~
dh l_.' .
.- m
- J' i p
g r
,, . .lfg
)
- ~ - .. . <,
4
-:..O ' (g
.- , a r_ i %
$p{
g,.
" .g E
- ... I, i E' .yi g -
'- & j gf - p ) [l j
' ~
,.,.'. ? .
sy, , .
% h" -
*l k t.' I a
C' g r 1i! .
- " ., e y 9
e, ,
]
-Y j c- ,. & i
,, .. ~ . _ b,5-pp.i-( h' ,,
+
s, R.' . 2%K t 5 ' a i
- n. c _ _ .
G l l l l
~
mE==
, ~
I24 CERAMIC COOUNG TOWER COMPANY
. s.m er rinst vonix contomstrox CT-4 5 3 3 C ~aE P. O. Bes t:5 fors Wonk. Taas 76101 817.U:-6105 CERAMIC COOLING TOWER COMPANY FORT WORTH TEXA' POWERED SPRAY MODULE PUMP MOTOR l
SPECIFICATIONS Following specifications apply to any proposed PSM system if special TEFC motors are furnished.
- 1. 75 HP,1200 RPM. TEFC-Special, vertical, solid shaft meter.
- 2. Winding description includes:
Class B insulation Non-Hygroscopic insulation 2 polyester dips plus 1 epoxy dip & balie. (
- 3. Special wire enamel. ._
- 4. Moisture seal between conduit box and motor.
- 5. Weep holes in all parts for condensate drain.
6 All cast iron frame.
- 7. Weather resistant acrylic-alkyd coating on frame, l
- 8. Shaft water slingers above and below bottom bearing.
- 9. Re-greasible bearings.
10 Corrosion resistant fan and hardware.
- 11. Sba.'t run-out limit for close-coupled duty.
1 l 1 ATTACHMENT 2
. .....e 1
l
USEG FOR CUTM95 BELEENGG i f B. F. Goodrich Cutleu rubber bearings can be used in sny underwster location, where safe operating loads perrrut, and =here water or other liquids, chemical or otherwise, can be piped to thern,if the bearings are not submerged. ,%rne 1
- of the more cominon uxs are- l PUMPS , ,g,, ,,g g ,,g g,,, ,, ca,,3, ,,a ,,,g, Twbine and ocher.verucal pumps of all types and sines longer wear. (Separire but:enas avadable for manne gob-canoas),
Dmigwg anJ other hansoncal pumps indudang those ham-dlang sand, urnent saucce and osee dnamens KYDRAUUC SUCTION DREDGLS Cudess banngs have been used for over 2* mrs in *cerical CunerhnJ beinags subin to impul was and bean una, turbines of the ruction type. Todar susnes aggeessung N '" " "8' se,wniMionhorse po esareoperanag ahrhue branags.
.[
INDUSTRIAL PROCESS EQUIPMENT MAR!NE HELD B. F. Goodr ch Cudeis rubber besnags han induny. ids Cudess rubber branngs han been favored for over a appbcacion. Therever ncer tubncared banags may be quarte century as maan shaft beanngs, in mem tubes. for used. Cedeas banags =iu soin snaft scanng and beineg saua and tvRers in power boats cif ewry saa and cians fran spect' bona to che lugest nssels, induding both cus- lubne.anoa problems Type:I cammples of the cremendow!r
=uie and vaned fields of use are: Agitators Whers, Wer er band and wagoing rypes of dredget Treatment. Sewage Trnunent. Elevaror Boot PJers.
B. F. Goodnds Cudess rubber hennags are niso =uisir Tbcienen and Class Aers. amed in pwnpa aboard shap-ama condenser and circula. (
- HARD $UUACT STARING M The shaft is carned on the sand perncies or ceber abras.ves I'* Shaft re:ation gnada abraines ber=cen two non-yieideg MtTAL SHAFT meenia, embedding abrasives in beanng surface f.esui::
[ ,'
- premasure = car of both shaft and bearag' b ar aosa"" -
- h. ,l ,. . . . . .. . . . ,
i* x /. s '> METAb SH AFT SAND HARD SUtFACE BE ARING t
'#'4ry B o M U y CUTLt$$ Rulett SEAT!NQ
,Pires.les of sand oc sde are depressed inno the soir. resil. ems
\.
embber surface The reunon os the shaft rous these pas. N .. . ' g N SAND edes free, asd imeo the longirvJimal grooves. where they ese carned se2y by lubricanng aier-==th shaft econng j g
=d banns nr tus re ars==ie wATtR Gnoovt Sori sueste i.
ATTACHMENT 2
~
n r cne.rtc!ru nlTirCC M ARIMGS
d s A - B. F. Goodrich CUTLESS RUEDER BEARING SIZES 1.The bronze shei! hennngs Usted below are carried in stock for immedisce dd""7 5P"4Menge banags. longe or sonn. can be funnded on STOCK SIZES short ecoce.
- 2. Banagi =ich shells of steel, stainless ircel. alum num. monel metal and MARINE AND asher metals, can be furnished. Shg5tf y large O D 's are required for sp;ic GENER AL INDUSTRIAL BEARINGS beanags. Ses separate sheet for 8anged beanngs.
(Weie, Lebricated . Cil Resinaine) 3. For bronze sheu bennegs of same nommal dimensions as stock sizes bsind bdo= but wth smaller ! D. clestance, acc stocked, see page 2s. [ 0
* ^[dj Y) f ,d-- )
- e. is 3
_9 i
* - 1 11\.v 7_
k ad ^ g As. Joe cm assene. g a 4- __ w =-g a e C a e C e Ihme m.se a mens was as same ema-
- m. a was m h c.e
.. ses m. an m .. ed. am a% LBJ em 6mes es *.ee ha - woem mens. ====. =a= m me sam mm. su case
.LaJ
.n. e teme.m e.
c j% 2% 3% II %
% % NATWE. .
% 4
' % t% 3 Jh 24 33 EAd . ..
3% % % taandt ... 11 % % 4% EArY .. % 1% seat 1. . th 3%
% 3%' 3% % 3 3 3% 12 % 8 ear 2. . . . . .
8% J % 1 est e' 3 4 12 % en EaY at. . I 5% 4 % In NeCI . . .. 4% 13 % % 8% EtPt s . ... 1 t% mcz1NG. . 3% 9% I 2 4 % 3% 4 33 % sitet e . . 4% % 1% setCTat . . 71 % 10 etr5tv . t% t% perCafNt Su 4% 1% 9% 4% % l% 3% 4% 13 % % 10 % tteet . ... 7 4% % 3% NEGLfCT . . 4% se % 10 50 . . . IE IM peeGeQ . . 3% 1% 1% 5 % 3% 4% I4 M II% eld *eAF 3 % 1% ML4GMsC9 . . #4% % 12 % nasec . . . . tu 2 5 % 2 peepestw . . 3% d% 15 % 10% COMET. . l% 2% NEMUNE . . . . 3% 44 1% 2 3 % 4% 3 33 % 17 % t%Q. .. % 2 Ntast . 3% 1% th 5% 3% 3% 15 % to t er . . . . . . 3% % 2% Nf 57. . . . .. ISW % 20 eveCY . . . . 1% 2% pewftA . ... 3% JS 5% 2% 3% % 2% 4 J le % 28 ustna. .
% 2% pessJ . . . . .
2T% Es*CCS .. 1% 2% 3% 4 5% 14 % e % 2 setedD . .. te% % al ENE . 1% 2 sesesseC. . . . 4% 3% 1% 2% 4 % 2% 3% 17 % 29 % EF * . . 2% seC2'Y. . . 4% 1% 2% 4% % 17 % % 33 % EMT.. . % 3 'seCM . . . 4% 3% Du@er . . 1% 2% 4% SW 13 og 33g 7 % 2% peCE. . . . . . 4% CP .. ... 4% 2% 4% 3% 18 % 23 9% 2% F % 3% ,eGGaac ... t0% 39 M...... I% 2% F% A 3% seGGasoLY . 4% en % N ..... 4% en % 43 % f% W FM M 4 peg *u ,1,9 N ..... % =% G,m,is. . . % .% % % o a -.-- > 2* = .
% o
' .* 20
'."tr?. : : : L A :%
4% eG=.. NCed . . . S 4% 20 21 50 % 60 % 2% 3% 4% 98C5007. .. 3% F esos . . 9 % 4% F 21 % % 73 21 2*% Notve. . .. SM ENOsa . . . . 3% % 3 3% F 22 % 43 sctAN. . 2% 9, 4 NoanAD . .
% 70 Zu 3% % 3% 7 '22%
avanns .. pg % e seCa*As . . . .
% 42 %
esAsas . . 2% 3% m . .- s . . . 3% F 23 2% 3% ato % 3 FM 24 % F1 esattD. . . % 4 esoseuPL1 . 3% seanose . . . 2% 3% to FM % 70 2% 3% 10 % % 3% secos . . . . . 6 14 Martsas .... E- cc a7C*" e E"y aLi?g g.,as Snga ATTACHMENT 3 (Continue a .h 5 7g - r- _L*f '" '# O - __
- u. . .
I IIt'l A 18 t) E P. ti t tl T T I 1! /" .
' '?'h s '
EXHICIT I
. ..s;,@.
%+ .i.&,
.... .:,s..,r: . ,.. r.l.
, ; .,..y>i.p. , e. !.:Q!
. . . . . r. . .. . ,;. ,.. .: : .
0}/.7*!-l',
- 3. . ,.*.i... . , K,,.G,; .
i
. . . s':?.u::. '.1?} ,'h iM. ;,,s.!;ii i
., + ',,. g. ,. ,,
v' ' ,,k. + ,,,, , ...,>,..'., . >.,.;.e '.i., ,..;. . ,.. .,,.g.
., g , . . , . _ _ _ .,.,.....,,y.,,
.. , ,.. ,.,.,p. 8. .4 . p....
,....,..,.....t,.,.,..,.,,,.
'% or
.e.i z,.4.. e.. ,e.s.;.t . 3 '. t i. ;.. ., ,,, ..;,
., ... . . , ;,. :. ,,, ......t.
; .'. . . . a. A..
...s rQ n ~ .".s ..
.* : ,s. l G, T % C =.;. . . ... . Q'Wt E r., , a. '.*.C,'
,+' .t~;*;* .
2"t+'O.,5,./2.6.F, N. . .'.}N. '
.,k'A5.')..'/.M.5
.> S,.3.'!.?.
~
- f. ,h$h, - l.,h$;k.i $h. ,
, W, b,,k:',.S'$k.$.h..: %* ~.h.
. ,6.y.
' . :.',.e*, ' ,.:n ;kh$,,'tr',
. ':. ; .a. ,t..'..,..
p
' i.,w>'.p:[f. ;,,.
, . u;.';;.9m:
,,f.,%..
.,../*. '*
t .'Q: , M.y.N$.
>i;
, M . , .2. .
+ . ;;.1 . . . m.y. . .y..,.,
. v.
.8e:.. w. . . oc n
- ,r. . .3 . :,r. ,.. . . . . . ;;,nb,y*m;v q., m , %..;, c .. , ,
..v:, .
S9M.;h..'+NJ.9*,,?,'g;ier,..'S.)',kf;$.'.i'.jN
$ , J, ,- e .
*;v,m* * < - %
.a
- a. ;. ., yL p ,.
*. {','.h.,.'!.
+: .
,T.N.
u
,;/d r . .;p c ':p *:;. ,.:.';,
.. , .. .,, V.
- n :,
'?- Y.
W. .
,: .i.'fil4,
. .. .\', g>*
's' y -. s., .
!;h.,: y{..C ..a t ,y;'? * ,.* 'M".A.!
9 *:'..'.
. *';'?.:
.' y; ~ .t ;:,,,! y?
.,),:. 'T,1,..f*$,,f,g.:.'L' us,.f,.:
t
',i,,:,V;; -.: ..!;,.p..Q,.h.). **.* /, t. ,rn
.:.. r. i .* *
.;.. p .e ,... .t p ,;,m
.,.s.
z
. ,c . .
y.. .~_ .
. . . ..,.. ,. 9r.t:, .*. ,
o
?l. %.-.. ........
~
'f'd
*ll ?
k~1 qs,. '& SA'^... blsoea :..;.:,&W N.I,. l . .. L.. ,
,h,% ,Y y
+ ,
- ch a, ' ,,',.., y..,-.
. y~ ),. ; ; . A . ,
MAY 201971 m ;;,,, ,-
,e Structure g ., '. ,..
FLORICA POWER 8 LIGHT COMPANY Tu n n pomipewtn pt n i
' I.v', COOLING RESERVOIR P'JAN '
SINGLE RESERVOIR
~
. - '4550 ACRES
. 1
,, f - --- B R OW N & R O O T . I N C.L O'-lH e
6 l l l
g '
* . *.o. Ze E'es :....,.
~;% m g . .. P 'p l* ... ee.
~ n.n..y.;:.
,J.8r . %. *. S . 9 %.;',4.(.g.*.
e, : . . .
..o.,,. :... ..*.i .
.*- ... .;.=4e. p;. ry.. q ?s.t
. .:v. .. ?. .s
.. S.w. . ,t.j: '*m.
e..
,a J.9 ...3~
. .. n .,.
.. :<-:J * . . . .
n' *:;* ?.y 'l,e
.. e. . o '. ..../. ..,*:?.g':f(.'trp,?.A.yllp".ah;,f.Q.;*9..:a?..?.
~.
?:: N.
r -
.:T <;.:. *f.
.f
.ec k..
- o :. . . - . v;.
.f. *:r. : W*.
y ..a .6.e.G. #.%..c.*2 >.s.wk .,.. .,. A.h. : . n ..M.~ .
- .4T.?p":
*e
- 2" ..'..,, . . .. f.
i i eC. . 5 .i. .m.
.< :,f. . s 4.;, e.Ss t .. . r- .
s F.. .* .' gg .' .;'M. ., W.
. FM,. .W .r.Y
- O.. . . ~-
... -
- c.. . ..
~ .-{y4 . . *c r. 'e.. W'a, R
,4. ..g.
,~<nk.:;.s ::.4:?:
. . > . .~
L*:z...A,+. itM . :.w, -y.
.. .:.i.q .}~.e.N:.y w- . s .6 .;.'s. ~,-:
. . . ..- . ..... . _. .. ....,... ... . ;.r..~ ..:a . ..
. . u n, ,. . , , . . . .c. . . . . ..
r.... ... u,.
.....a......
s .. ..,. . . a. _..s.....- .
.r. ...,...c.
s.... m. . .
.u-
,../.o,,4....*.r.- a. .
-2 n.. w._..
. . , . .. =w.?s. ?. ; e., ;.~.e . .-. e.
.:.n. . . . ..
- v. .,
.. a.. . . . .;.,.,.,. .: ; . ..y .
/. 4..
.. v, ,. w
. . . . . .... ... . :;.. .t.. .......r. .w.a. :. ,. : .m. . . .u s. .,+. . ..i. ..7. . . . .: . ,. : .. ::,. 1.- .. ..
. . . .,. .s.. %:. ... ...:..,...,:.....,.
. .: . g . <.a.>; c. . . ,- .~ .%~.6.&.
. . 5.y;. s. ge,... .:
'7 . ..Q. 7' ;}1: r;:
s
.Q *'*:..
. * :.i;. . . .. . y.n
- . .*(...... * *
.-..:" ..'s,. .!i,G'o*?i;:$; .;.~
* -' ~ . ' ~,?C; C'}.%q=f=~.&#; .$. ..s&. . h. n. r*/ ~ Oi-:.Y ., .- -fl.;M h!.:*L
. .x.
$e tem &a , '.' . *. A L
..~ .
1, .C.;4,,-. _ 3; .. . -T 'Q:v.~.
- . - -0 e:=t-;.-.-2 ,:e ;~?; . a
~. . . k * .f. . ;.q.seJ l .4.. . . . ' >
s p.g p.y t .
< ?. .~. .i. %. O.~. 1,:..:..
... Q - T..d. .. *: M.. . .
$.g,", , , , . V.) w. ... ...
# s,
.., .. .= . ..
.. .. 1... .
. : , . . .*c n?.: ...-.' y;M. .
*.. ~. ..:.:. ..t.;. .,,:.
6..s
. . >s .e. $::; - ?. . .~. l . .
a.. . .: . -
^
W'>*fg,,e s Q. .P'-*s' . r,, J. . .. ' s.
..t.".'.*
, c: ~J.
. . =. .h,
\
t *
- :... g. : 7 *.t::e
; .* a!.;,:[. . .-:.~_;;. .
.rhWe :C ;A '.
-X '_..%. J : .* .*
.1.: .;.. za ..- j; : ;'.f?3 = -.
6" o %.. U;? ; ..,, , > s,
- A * . . p *& . : n.
..,... 6 . . r . .J. ./t -..; . v.: ,.a... : ?
- r. :-3. ,c ,M,. es v r. .
..n a
.u.. .. ;. ~. , :. . . :.a~.' r. .,z.;. .
-sm...
- ::. ',.-9.:,. .
;.s;
.....n. :
<n n.ho<r,y.
1
.s; w a s
..'r.
.i..s... <t 1.~..: a.* in.?L..a.. ,Ly.w.:
( .n.............=
?. ;..y:. ,. .:
e ;:. .: .. r. p.t .
.- c ..
, .. : . .. ,q3 s . t.~;.m. . . z a c .s N
ny, T,* g .
- A ;: .
.y .?:...-: *.
. . ,. , '. .. ,: v... v. ,;. x.
. ; .s
* *,.r <
,....c,...
..'. +
O, .:.c.y. ;--: . ... .'.w....... Q, ,,J.h.. g s ;.
.n;
. ? - . ?.:. ,t..h.,.;q .s: .*%.
p:
.t .:.;:1:
.y*.H.m
.9.. . e.
,,W=*s .w~
.y.N . .p, . s.g . a .. .
.m..O. m . . .. ;
< v.9. d 2* e b'.' 'o 4 :.% s, _.~; N,:..*..--..T .' :: "**
*,b. *# ..
*2.'- ..w '.*,- ..;* c. t. er e.O..;;
n.'.s ; 3 w * $..a. - *.n,.. s ::.t . . .. e. . .; %y: . Qe.r.,.$. acu m .' W. ..o h ...h:.:; b.
>s:4 ' . .y dt.*.".
c .
.~W.';;c. ,. . , - , ..
rc%-
; :?
L.*&..v.[.'.
-g:O:;,.'%*: &;-
. *w v . c O; Qb V w -ih r'Or. t:.<:
- i .%. ;- :,:. %,e*..: 'C'. . ..'.:" .:
~. ,,.,..e...; , :.. .;. ...- *. M. '..m :
.wx es.,,~r.s.>q< s
- t. ,,
. e:
s. W s r
. te.W:s
.. .s, .
-~.c. ..c. .
v
.*)
v . . n . ..
..z.y--w:
.s,4.,.,.
.,-._,._o .
L .,*. c .;,-3.u,L:.:.r;-w:.w. .:o.r? .v...T.1
- M. +:?.h y.1 y;> . :: .Q .
.s.:,r *.v. - /* . .-7 . . . . . .
T%.r4e *. . .y~..h. (. ap.U.n. . 7- r, -
; ! q* . .e ,.. .. .
.S . . 1- . .=* : .p.C. :
- n.,
Nw .f4,,,.F,* .,* . .*. ;,. .- - a ..t.4 t . . g,, 6
~
- 5[ * *k
- a. u.*mr'L.
.. . ...a.
. ,*g
- j.
p i.*:
." E.
. ,..=tc f,...p:
g F ..c...- n.? ?- ;,, . s-. . . )n, % c. n f,,. . W ?N&., n,.+. Gc.. .-, M s . . > d,.oi. hg . . ..n . . M. e k ns,..:..:%. .%. . a
- .,w... M. < ,q.:.::,7.c u...
- o. ,
- ..w.
. .. s. .. I r. . . .~ *,:S.-- . .,.n, . -
..v, a . . . s .._.
.r. *.' . *%l
.. . . . .w::;:., ;.
.>...s..-.
..., . ... . ,~s.
wi,
...h....
- r. ..
3 . ..r. ......
~.h t.. ....:. . . .. . .
* - * %. 7-. ?: fd, ' f-=.'~afg.
. ..s ..h.
m.. pr. E Y.* 8Y-4 g$:$; .g'f-J, . . .. . . .. o~' ? #44f.,y r o k
$ h.r.g $ 3t h arm ,4 i
f.*$k W* 4 4 '4- /.&~ 'b T . ,.,f ; ** ?. ."f. ,
.: - . ,-/r*-
.-ti .*- 4
.- .Q... .~.
f~N 3 .* w .: ....C.:..T. y: - [s:..,.,. . ..,.y v -. r.,. r y ,41. .':.1...... M;-} M( e%,.3.. ;.A:ar
.?:.;~.a.e. 1,.
'.,:.5 3 Y.v:
w., . P .,'..V lw:.. . . ..;: .:.-r.-
. . 9 . ,.
- , -s. c' :: :p: s a.. . , 3e s..i:g
%.,~. .. ,.i. r. .# . .
S . r. - . . ...:. . . 1.W.~ T. ;+. . -
. ;?.y v.--."
- i. ;:;#y.a a.. ..?-% .
. .; . ~.,. . %> . ..
. j . .. '
.n.
~. .;.* ' W. -
, . 1:Y. ,:i.Y'. - s4.*. ; { * - :$. *~; &.-7.%T%: ......
- g. . .<C. >y .LV.,, .
N . ..T.' . nJ .&; ,,.,'i.i ;.t. ..:. .-
.. * *-c 4 :.g.~- . ...,e.1,.:. .-:,-; u,.-
; . .;'?;'.. ~~* s v*-
' - ~ ,
q . .s.v.. .e..i -*;. c. m. I
.s t
. . 4. a% e _. , m, ..
.m..- e,s .r. .m:r-
- - - -. M. . m _
.. --~. .
mm,,. .c4 uW u. .M :~~ * ( &. ..E,!..fTi'. W 3 **O.
.-5..;$ . . .N.
.?,7. ,... . m. .
N'-' m...I**W~. w .. . w
. . .p..,.
. ,. .-i. 4~
? :- .. *. ,,- /. ..,-P
. . :- ; s. .s ..*:. . . .n...:. a. ; -
ot ; ~.'.%m. g . . ' - J::,2f.s',n;!:3 .: 1U r. : ,N.c::*.*h' . : *.:. i I.
. p . . . .
w -~- - - - - - . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ __
3 eD ,.,% d I
~'5cvi FA R
- ANO
'l
[q 1 "20 4
?? s e_- - - - - - - _
_- ___s e 14.L___e_- AGAtsa Cs77 Cadd&7~ *** 2( 3 '3I* w . I C,e,'d, o f u= . e Sta p "M d, Govt
'\ t
*g A !
# i wem 30 g 29 8
south DADE f h q, g FAams i we.
=p g tr O A 4 l O' M gi ss*i
] / l y . . D
/
sn OL us 8 32 i
% 31 1
h - g 1 u U C
. o 1 '
\ i 3 m-9 ? J ?' , *'*? 7gg ~i T $6 6 4303 liet ,/ f uoceu i.we 1 5 // CO M P ANY -- - SEA CAct - 8 INCuSTRIES I ,
?
4
A .s EXHIGIT M77TF - l .c . g o S COUNTY 8 DADE n -]A [a HDutsi m n eiyy,,,7 Ju
.N
^ * * ** x
*\ e .... , q wp PARK h
I ' h
~ bb=r C4
, CtW7tm u wgg g, Uw*e's""*'"
- \ 9 e
'" Q {M e= .
xa 1 g
?u T'a[w$"
" 'l':.4* , e*
"#I Est trlw& _
Switchivano Cow %f c$ A e 4 - Y As < - Q
~%
m bans e s a .4 / uhoseceggy ,q Ve t b u b. o 34 b,
~: 9 o
-a.
e (
~
l scabs ew Fact l y s'T. 8 f 7041' 3 SEA OAng, l e IN DUST Ri gg ANI P4cpERTY ptAN rang os WE I.T. FUND DAOE CCONTY, FLCRICA at ST&T1 OF FLottOA RCetCA powgg ( g gg7 ggw,, y T.10, im gyg 7, iG. h e i 1 e
' 'i
- r. -
- g. .- : ,
//
P. -. . [.1 . .* I..'0~i.. E
._ i' M, dy it. :QJ ; .. -
?,',.J.m.j~jah"
.n i bA-- A I" E~)'
L,,L_!,w._.a - i .
= ,.
_i;i .i l s---+- - i;-.
...r,,Q -)
sr
<( ll 7MiiI# i Di
^
f,'.- M~~$ w i 7 ._; - .; .r..s -l 6 . i..f l %m,/.
.b.M].
..: .(
_.Lf'#"" wl t
~
'.W./, m.o.e.h n.t .t ? ' : %- -
< ... '_1_mk. s s_a ~ .
.. Oh . VA 1.1.l .,L
!' )L-N l~,',d;;drPf' I h, 6#4 en, -< i i
;I..h:..yL.s(b._N.
L
- m. . _ _xm tZ :. ..1 :1- ~ W L, .
_1 r. & W G 5-,, J,. 4.%I -lj 1
, J- *
- a .- i0 n'
- 1 L_ ~=. I ~~ )' ,, l" 7tf I
'. t. .
ir+ v Ft L1_ L._h...J . I Tlid ,. j -i '. i) D .
~
!V ,, i ..l. . a 'i,s,/ r gi n
, I -
f
; ( J.ln.,a.. I ,, = l J
mF-J - d _
;/:
! W '/
i L.;p='
.i n ..
- i. i :
;L- l. .
;. . f i
ig - i I 7,9;j jl-r- - n. gL - 3 m I" .,
\,sl.
l..} e s m, .'Q ,. ' .; f-- - - p -- i ~~- i Q '- l l-r e 9""_gg,_ i- . ; u.g g mi4 A, ,\
, y " ew n o .
':4.yl. s_. 1
't.. l .. .
. wy yg,
>q '- " ?. C. - __
~
M., ; i & 7,j j t2
--\ .u
-t l .. . . ,4 .. p44 ., ,-
$^
ha
' f(f fCV ~
~
t
. l.
i hi,
. b6 -Qf? n 1 a
-/
m ' bg. , !f
)/
' * *
- I, _
/
b
. 'i n j . i - a i.
1
. -d, -n Blue
- Turkey Point Plant Site
.. j .
- i. I i r= 3 '~~
'/ Yellow - Seadade Property Area A Green - Saadade Property Area B
~ ~
- r. e. -- l = . (". s# ~#
. - 88 m '
Red - Seadade Property Area C Orange - Seadade Traparty Area D t ! ' A% , ' ,
' < Gray - Seadade Troperty Area E
' ) l (, ,I I a l- m v%
! n 1 i y _,j_ 9.i / t. ._
[ , i l
*ll
. . . . ,0 *4" * ? .". .*.J " *.i #4' O.T.T "" '*.".':
~
' * .^ ~'i'.". ~ ***J ' ' ;.,".lll.", %. .'O. .
. .'.?.".
".4"."," :. .h. *. 7, L. *4.".L".'
.. ."..-u,.~..
". ."." ".'. "." ".T7. .. ".'O.' lll...u.
. .%%.,'*J,f
".".m..-w..". - ..,
. "..w74 .A.f~ ...
.. . w. 0I.$. 4 4 W.
4....-...... N N . M .M % 80.l. 9 4 6. M M . M . l
- 6 %.E9 l 1 I
3 I l e n N , . . .
.. ; g m s d.=
$ . N ,,,,a-4 i' <
s q !
% A i
i.
- M) -
; 3
=
I
- b. : P .ds'n h N
- I
. . N t8t' s
_s ri.
..g S*
i f, .;;it8 g
.O '
. J i
8 i I O I S $ -. rs l 1 4 y k ? Y
- t.socA
4 a EXHIBIT me n. e 'M r.7':.7. f.::" *
- n. /
+
.u . -
- 1 = 0 ..e-a.e==.-==--
e': \ = U *= Y s Y' ==Y - - t \
> 3 0
0 N D l'
%s E ' *;; $* l N, . w G '.T - w e W=
m:#9)7,C ._
~%
s;
- 5 ,, (
-----W y . .e \ \spn<
94
. , .,.. Il
, , , , _ : l I i. 6 s. ,,,%j
. . . . . -- a s ,. _
a l . ,= 4,; I, h I fg "" t!! EiM.3.,*!
-e j
I i 1s e a h
=-.
l._ d
. s ~
hl: 4 ga - sei.
\
(. '. 3 ee aa s,ds . ._
\ g l i e eel e 3 da t.
i f l l ! \ I, ., l
- - v.' "_': . L.T.*.':
' ' , " E'
- cno ect c "* w caso mac
- a. a m.=w' e as EENevops P%At
====t -
. g,,..gn==N,- n.oaca powen a se<r cceam ;
Mf;y =pr.=q .2,t) .. e.==
**, %'.,. / - -.
"*l.. q w =1.. - . . - -
c.smo 9 0 e
T .. ~I .
;h,,,,,,_. [ /
J - l,; _W. _.. a : .
. (, .i, r ;] a~n -+
w--_ ,# _._. . - _. 9:' ,. e .
.,; . =
T:. =M T-i9f@yT i;?!^ oi f u$2 ./.cmam -7L n.dit .3 :::, . ~.. AI a.)4,4,Iu.x ,
%f'
..J.\.L 6[
- p .. d C : y f im ,< r t A -
%~~ ~ %
&-W s re., . A Ii ! * *
- .M.w D ..i .L i..; s Au h
.Ef k 's
_.Ir 9mimpAS
..e . . ..;-4 . .wi ..
W ', I .J 11 1 ---.J.I I i I -. i-1w a~,- l n,n -l t, e . I 4. . .4 .- J .. l J._= -l ' ' - 3;.sV u . yg'w'It ' _Ll_J~ _2.1.-L- . . + 5
-. L - ./
.z e w: ,
l2 j
- 3. _.
a , ., . j 4, ,. .
., u &/
J
; f. #J A:; . l .. I ,, mt - Bde. : : ;: r:
-w g
*
- a e e
~
r-
- n. .
3 . r a (g;m.
/j=
e t a . ^ a .<,_tg
~ ' : 1- ..
l , m s ,_r g%.A '.
.; s . .
- i. ;
Y w . . ,
.- \
.,R ..- &,. -.
j aWA.a - w i ,.;
/} . ,
- t
, - ) ., . , ._
.1 :, c=
, , 2
%gt s n
i a /,g3 l~ i i
~
\\
li
- L M d hl5r h; Q gd hl %w m '/
W (M Q
/
.M *E M ,f. ' M,
~
, ,. . LI. .
j.i # V L e $' _ o. . W / f I
.,s
'i... . ,
i l
.l.
l l.[ / LEODfD
- Turkey Point Plant Site
} Blue Yellow - Seadade Property Area A l
l I i, j l e l
,h f ."I-5 ,' Green - Seadade Property Area B
- Seadade Property Area C 4[-3/
I I
- ' [, # ~M "
Red {- a f f. Orange Gray - Saadade - SeadadeProperty AreaEE in s. . a. se en Property Area l {* s
@' /
V < 1 Cross- ~ Canal Network Land l
- I ' Hatch Required la M _ .n h, nen / /-
i ; . . .
! se e
b S S ,3 I ;;a J TIr) : A!;.1, ar
.) , l'::*T.!, It::Til. TIM : 2::11'110:; 'JO l'7L1: i:i'M:1'.i:II P.
3'21,ua T,uTnitt'i: l;:J .
- J1: 'DIC SUl*l.C;0 CGlt::T OF FLO: 1DA .
"JA15UAT3 TUI'M A. . 10 1 q g., B
- 31.
4,1 '#',,
>#[
SEADADE. I!;DUSTRIES, I:C., : . a Florida corporation, :
. . EXHISIT_
Petitioncr, * *
. '. =
CASE No.39,557 vs. ~ FLORIDA PO'iCR 6 LIGHT CC:GANY, a Florida corporation, .
~
. Respondent. :
Opinion filed February 3,1971 . Writ of certiorari t'o the, District Court of Appeal, Third District for Helliwell, Melrose and Dewolf and Brigha:n & Brigham, Petitioner James H.l: weeny,III and McCarthy. Steel, Hector & Davis, Dennis G. King.for Respondent - t r Copies tot * . I . Mr. McGregor Smith ' Mr. R. H. Fite , Mr. R. C. Fullerten . Mr. F. E. Autrey . Dr. James Coughlin
- Mr. A. M. Davis Mr. Norris Kincaid Mr. W. I.. uilliams .
Documentary Files '
- g. J.Gardner 2/4/71
* . C RLTON, J. :
i., This eminent domain case involves the authority of a. Utility te secure conde::nscion of adjacent lands prior to gaining ultimate approvs1 by appropriste cuthorities of the project for . which the land is to be condemned.' Circuit Court, D:dc County, entered an order of Takin; in behsif of the Utility, Florids in Power & Li:;ht Coepony, granting to it a fce simpic interest properties ncinhborin;, its Turkey l'oint facilitics for the purpose i
m .. I of constructing and maintaining a discharge water drainage , canal 4;5 miles in 1cngth and, including access and related arens,
. 660 fccc in vidth.
On petition for writ of certiorari addressed to that
/
Order, the District Court.of Appeal, Third District, affir=ed the taking, but required modificatien of the quality of the title for approximately 430 of the 660 feet width given in fee simple. See
! 323 So.2d 46 (3rd D.C.A. Fla. 1970). We have tcken jurisdiction in order to resolve a ' conf 1ict betuce: the District Court's opinion and our previous decision in Robert' son v. Breeksvi11e &
Inverness nailtmv, 100 Fla.195,129 So., 582 (1930). See Article V, Section 4(2), Florida Constitution. The District Court's opinion sets ,out the multiple issues operative in this cause. These issues will not be detailed , or discussed here sase to the extedt appropriate to our treatment of the case. Briefly stated, the situation is as follows. The Utility operates electrical generating facilities just north of petitioner Seadade's unimproved marshland fronting to the East on lower Biscayne Bay and Card Sound. The Utility proposes to cool two new generators by drawing water from Biscayne Bay, circulating the waters through the generating ficilities, and then discharsing the waters through a canal into Card Sound. The canal would cut through Seadade's property for a distance of 4.5 miles. Seadsde had attempted to resist the taking on numerous grounds, all of which center on the related propositions that the canal project docs not comport with public interest, and that condemnation cen-stitutes a gross abuse of discretion by the, Utility. . l
- - 21 -
e e _ _ _ ____ _,v.
i
)
1 \' f ,
~
of the U. S. Department of the I'nterior, and uould seriously adversely affect the flood control program and salt unter intrusion prevention program of the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District. Before the proposed canal project could be under-taken, the l'ctitioner must obtain approval for the i ' program and the discharge of the effluent into the water of Biscayne Bay from the follouing Agencies and Boards: ,
- s. The U.S. Atomic Energy Commission
- b. The U.S. Department of the Interior c.,The Florida Anti-Pollution Control Board 4
- d. Dade County Anti-Pollution Control .
- a. Central.and Southern Florida Flood Control I District ,
i ' " Petitioner has not been granted approval, permit or license by any of the above-ncmed Agencies and Boards, and in fact has been specifically denied approval by cma of the abeve-nam:d Agencies, and, therefore, is not in a position to undertake the proposed canal project." . Seadade points out that in the case of Robertson v. , Brooksville & Inverness Railvav, suora, this Court held that a railr'osd was not enti.ticd to pursue condemnation proceedings leading to a taking of land over which a pipeline to a waterhole was to be constructed, when it had not secured the right to use the waterhole. In that case it was said:
- 'TBefore asking the court to condemn a right ! of way for a pipe lins to the waterhole, the railway company should have first secured by purchase or contract the right to take water therefrom, or should have purchased the land on uhich theuster is located, i '
or failing in this, it should have acquired the sa e ( , by condemnation, either in a previous action, or by condemnation thereof in this same proceccing by which it seeks the right to reach it with its pipo line. On the case made by the answer, the court is , asked to allow the exercise of the vast power to eminent domain to give the railuay company access to unter which it has no present or pro:pcetive right to u:c, and which it cannot use without cce.ittin, an unlawful trespass. As ue understand them, the au:ho-
. ritics do not countenance any :uch exercise of pouar'."
129 So. at 586, 100 Fla. at 205. " i I , j . s . 4a
- s e
y m-- ~ m
a
~
I - l .
^
, , Scadsde.also relics upon a recent case decided by the Third District Cot;rt of Appeal a feu daps af ter its Sendade decision; in City of !!! ar-i Ecach v. Mani f oti, 323 So.2d 759
, (3rd D.C. A. Fla.1970), the District Court held that a City was not entitled to bring condemnation proceedings for the taking of l 3
I property for a road uhen it ha'd failed to secure permission of i j the State Road Department in advance. From the holdings in l RobertsonandH$nilou, Ses* d ade draus the conclusion that the Utility was not entitled )o bring condamnation proceedings before i 1 obtaining approval for its discharge project. i The Utility's response is three-fold. First, it asserts that the canal is necessary to its operation of the Turkey r
; Point facilities. The Utility currently operates two gas and oil- '
~
fired pouer generators at Turkey Point, a site located about 25 miles south of the City of Miami on the louer reaches of Bis-cay 6e Bay. These generators are the prime source of electric pcuer fer Dade County. According to the Utility, it has been un- ' able to keep pace with power demands since 1960. In 1960, the peak load in Dade County approximated *800,000 IC1, whereas the 1 ' Utility only had a generating capacity of 500,0b0 }31 As of
- 1969, the Utility was sustaining a 2,000 000'13 lead whereas its 3
generatin; capacity vac limited to 1,200,000 IC1
, i The difference is made up by bringing into the County pouer generated elsetecre,,
a practice that involves economic penalties and probicms of re-liability. To avoid chase pensitics and problems, and meet its '
, responsibilitics, the Utility constructed its c::isting facilitics
~
consisting of tuo generating unf,ts of 432,000 1 1 each at Turkey Point; similarly, this is why it is'now constructing two 760,000 10! I gg.ne p. ar t I'meh v. ISnfim,, 323 So.2d 759 (3rd D.C.A. Fla. lij/0) is noc relev.ane to jtart:,iliction, but only to the merits of this case.
- ~
. 5 -
f e e e em. .m .*
- 6 9
4
( nucica.r. fueled units duo for operation in 1971. The Utility i'nforms us that every pouer plant hac a cooling and circulating unter system for thc condenser coolin; system which is necessary to the process of generating cicetricity. N \ ,l The Utility has had to consider precisely what type of system would be approprictc for its neu generating facilities; these would require a circulation of 1,E00,000. gallons of water per
~
l ; minute, and the heat transfer involved would raise the temperature l l of this water by as much as 15' Farenheit. The existing facilities use water taken directly from Biscayne Bay; after circulation through the system, this water is discharged back into the Bay at i a point fairly close to the point of intake. It was realised that it would not be desirable, either from an engineering o'r an environ-mental standpoint, to use the present intake-discharge c'c oling , system for the ne : facilities. '.!ere this dona, more heated water would be circulated into the Bay than the Day could handle; that is to say, the Bay temperature would rise progressively without there being' sufficient heat transfer throughout the Bay to cool the discharge waters before they were brought back into the system. This cumulative temperature rise would reduce'the efficiency of the plant and at the same time endanscr the marine life in the i Bay.
- l. . .
Alternative methods of securing cooling were examined. Cooling towers, cooling ponde,, spray ponds, ocean outfall, deep wells and closed circuit air cooling systems were all rejected for one or more of the follouing reasons: (1) excessive coses; (2) existing technolo;y was insufficient; .(3) no c::perience was. available as to reliability or maintenance at scale required; (4) danner of salt intrucion into underlyin fresh unter; (5) severe operational difficulties. ' The one viabic solution, onc
. c, .
1
. I I I
- i J,
} ( -
- - which was expected to achicyc desirabic results while avoiding -
j 1 the probicms of the other alternatives, was to modify the exist-l ing intshe-discharge system by utilizing the waters of Biscayne ; i This Bay for intche and, the waters of Card Sound for discharge. 1, would eliminate the temperature cumulation problem of direct t discharge into Biscayne Bay. By the cima water particles dis-i . ! charged into Card Sound reached the intake point in Biscayne Bay, i they would have lost heat 'sufficiently to again be efficient ? coolants. Accordingly, a canal was designed to achieve the proper f distance betueen intake in the Bay and discharge in the Sound. The Canal route fell across Sendade's lands, and so condemnation ' " i proceedings were commenced by the Utility. . j e Second, the Utility asserts that it has conformed to all statutcry requirements regarding ccndsmnation and taking.
$351.01 provides that the president and directors of a
? Fla. Stat. l 1 utility may appropriate lands necessary to the business contecplaced 1 by the charter. Follouing determinatiesthat the canal was essential t } 'and necessary, thise corporate officers of the Utility adopted Subse-l l formal resolutions ordering that proceedings be begun. f quently, a petition in conde= nation was filed under J}a. Stat. 2
$73.021(1), setting forth' the Utility's authority, the use of the ~
f
' property' to be condemned,' and the necessity of the use; the i
i ' - l petition included die statement of good faith intention to cen- .
- struct the project as required by Fig. Stat. $73.021(2). Seadade was summoned under F13. Stet. 573.031 to show cause why the canal
] land should not be taken. Concurrently, the Utility sought pessss-1 l Stat. $74.011; sion in advance of jud; ment as provided for by Fla. l oo. E 1 1
. . 7 l
4
- i -
9
- y-,- . - . - -r,--,w- -. , , ,,9 - , - - .-#,,,-- - - - < - - , - ,- - - ,- - ,.
' m m
$74.031.
a Declaration of Taking was filed pursuant to g. S_rjLt. Hearings on the Declaration were entertained by the Circuit Court, G74.051, and subsequently, Dade County, in accord with g. Stat. title by Order of that Court, upon paymant of proper deposit,
$74.061.
of' the condemned land vested in the Utility under F1_a. Sect. Third, 'the Utility caintains that the condc= nation pro-cess may not be disturbed unless the landowner can demonstrate Adams v. Housins fraud, bad faith or gross abuse of discretion. Autherlev of Davtona Beach, 60 So.2d 663 (Fla. 1952), Inland uater-Jacksonville, 38 So.2d 676 (Fla.1948); i way Develocc-ent Co. v.
~
Wilton v. St. John's County, 98 Fla. 26, 123 So. 527 (1929). According to the Utility, Seadade has failed to demonstrate the existence of any of these conditions. i Fla. The District Court, 323 So.2d 46 (3rd D.C.A. 1970), held that the Circuit Court had properly entered its Order of Taking; that the Utility demonstrated both necessity, and that its taking was for a valid public purpose; that the fact thdt the Utility needed to secure permission froct various agencies before it could put its project into operation, and use the canal it sought to condemn, was not significant so far as the condemnation proceed-ings were concerned; and that fee simple was an appropriate quality of titl'e for the canal and its access roads, but that an easement i or term of years was appropriate for the remainder. ,,
~
We agree with th: District Court's rulings on all of these issues, except for the holding that che necessity for the approval of the cooling system project was not significant in cen-demnation proceedin?,s We have consistently hcid that even though s. s
,._._y_ - -- __ __
~ -
. . n statutory" requirements regarding condemnation
~
and taking appes: prohibited h h
~
to have been satisfied, the action vill be c ert rotmSe, or Johns
~
if a gross abuse of discretion is cpparent 07titon v. suerg), County, g; nnherte:en v, DroAsville & Inverness Pv., f time and changed or if t can be shos$ that' because of the passage o (2abel v. Pir elics con'ditions, the public interest will be impaired Con. Auth.; 171 So. 376 (Fla.1965)). A utility County Uater & Nav. the right to does not have within the discretion accorded to it, Similarly, it does not act in violation of the public interest. ii have within the discretion accorded to it the right to ac*. prec p - i ed. ( tously when the public interest has not been ascerta n Article II*,, Section 7, Florida Constituti5n, contains shall e a declaration that the protection of our natural resources The protection of resources, beins a be the policy of the State. ideration
~
policy of the State, is an appropriate matter for cons We think it logically follows that if tak-in condesation cases.
~
ing and condemnation is sought in furtherance of a condemning d independent authority's project affecting natural resources, an the project authorities guarding the public interest must approve i before it can be put into operation', it is within the blic discret onary power of the judiciary to require that hsafeguarding ity. This is inof the pu I . interest be demonstrated by the condemning aut or keeping uith traditional doctrine recently re-announced Pfiller, CO: by this Court in The Cans! Autherf tv of the State of Floric'a v. ' 16, 1970: No. 39,468, filed December -
.o-e
. 9- ,
e l
~ - _ _ _ _ _ _
"In order to in::ure the property ri ,ht: of th
*
- citizens of the State assin:.t abu:e of the condemn-irrg authority's power it is icterative that the neeer.si tv for the exercise of the eminent demain pouer be ar.ccrtsined and c:tsblished. This is ulti-mately a judicial oucction to be decided in a court of competent jurisdiction. Wilton v. St. Jchns County, supra; Spsfford v. Brevard County, 110 So.
e
*451 (Fla. 1926); .*tobertson v. Ercoksville & I. Ry.,
129 So. 582 (Fla.1930)." In a proper case, the judiciary may require, first, that the condsoning authority reasenhbly demonstrate that the regu-
, lations and requireme}cs of the indspendent authoritics can and will be met; second, that conde:::nscion and taking in advance of project approval will not result in irreparable danage to natural resources and environ =ent, should the independent authoritics decline to approve the proposed' project.
~
The reasoning behind these requirements becomes apparent when the following factors are considered in this case. ' he U,tility seeks to secure conEezens. tion of a considerable pcrtien of land for use "in the public interest"; specifically, it seek: to excavate and construct a discharge canal. But if, for ecologi-cal reasons, the various agencies concerned, or any one of them,
. should decide that discharge into the Sound is not "in the public interest," then there if the oossibility that' the canal cannot be l I
utilized if the adverse decisica is upheld by a court of competent jurisdiction. This leaves the Utility in the au'.cward position of (.
- i
.having to demonstrate " necessity' without really being able to show
" necessity" until it ha: secured the required approvals of the agencies. On the other hand,. as the nuclear-pouered facilities appro '
, completion, the need for a cooling sy: tem becomes urgent. It would be unreasonsble to allow cansi can'struction to begin only after til permissions have been granted since this 'would needicssly postponc the benefits. of the completed facilitics, which would stand idla and unter.ted until ce=pletion of the c5nsl. , A rational balance nust be r.t 10 -
~
( - between protection of the public interest in'our natural resources under Article II,.Section 7, Florida Constitution, and the comple-tion of public works which are also in the public interest. This b'alance is struck through our decision today. By requiring that the Utility,'as a condemning authority, reason-ably demonstrate that the regulations and requirements of the appropriate agencies can and will be met, the public interest is safeguarded chile a rational scheme of construction and develop-ment is allowed. Further, by requiring a demonstration by the
. Utility that condemnation in advance of project approval will not lead to irreparable damage to natural resources should approval
' be denied, the public interest is again safeguarded. A reasonable e demonstration by the Utility, and a'ny condemning authority, that it ca'n satisfy these two requirements will not be overturned un-t lest the adverse party meets the burden of presenting " strong and convincing evidence" to the contrary as required under Rott v.
City of Micni. 94 So.2d 168 (Fla. 1957). In the instant case, Seadade has contended that, if carried through, the proposed project vill harm the Card Sound ecology. The contention has merit in that it cannot be denied I that a disruption of the indigenous biots is inevitable when immense amounts of heated waters are constantly flushed into tha S'o und. But the prime ecological issue is the extent of the dis-ruption, not whether disruption is to occur or noc. 'See United States v. Florida Pouer & T.taht Conemnv, 311 F.Supp. 1391 (S.D.
~ Fla.1970), in which the United States District Court having jurisdiction over the Sound denied a motion for a preliminary injunction to halt dir. charge from the Utility's present opera-tiont; the District Court recognized th$t some harm occurs, but
/
s e I i \ _
- n ,.
i . 2 held that' no irreparabic dama;c was demonstrated. The local,
. , State and Federal authoritics ultimately concerned with the Utility's nucicar project are still in the process of determinin
't he pernissible temperature icvels for discharge waters, but frem
,~
testimony and exhibits contained in the record, it does not appear likely that the concept of water circulation and discharge
- itself will fall from favor.
In cor view, through the proceedings below the Utility has demonstrated sufficiently that it can adjust its discharge temperatures by various means if necessary,' sc that even if its proposed discharge temperatures are found to be unacceptable, adjustments are possibic, and compliance will be forthcoming. . i Seadade bases its objections to the project on the assertion that, anv intake-discharge system is ecologically unacceptable and therefore not in che public interest; in so doing, it has failed i to overcome the Utility's demonstration that compliance is possible since the anhibits and testimony show that discharge l vill likely be permitted, the only issue with outside authorities being the acceptabic temperature range of discharged waters. Moreover, although the Utility has , not formally demonstrated that irreparable harm will not result from the excavation and flooding of the canal should no discharge be allowed, it appears from the exhibits and testimony that a sufficient showin; was made that irreparabic harm uould not result. , As was noted earlier, the conflict giving rise to our jurisdiction stems from a clash between the District Court's holding that consent or approval of a condemning authority's project by outside autho'rities is not an issue in condemnation YJud,, ment on the question of discharge from the nuclear facilitics was withheld pendin; further prer.:ntation of evid:nce. Similarly, nothin; we say enday is to rcficct jud:mont on theiacucs which may be raised rea,ardina, the propot.cd di:,charat.: our decision 4 is lisatted to the propriety uf the condemnation proceedin;c.
- 12 -
- a me
~ .
g-
- procc'eding:, and this Court': holding in Roberteen v. Brockeville
& Invernarn Ev., r.unts, to the.cffect that a condemning authority cannot proceed without a right of u:c. We now resolve these con-flicting decisions by holding that where independent governmental agencies charged with safeguarding natural resources cu:t ultimately approve a project involving condgmnation, the condemning authority must demonstrate a reasonable probability of obtaining approval, and it must also demonstrate that the condemnation will not re-
- sult in irreparable hqtm should the approvals be den'ied. Cases of this nature are to be distinguished from those cases akin to I Carlor Co. v. City o f Mi ami , 62 So.2d 897 (Fla. 1953), wherein it was said: .
"It is not necessary that a political sub-division of the State have money on hand, plans i and specifications prepared and all other prepara-tiens ne c e t sa- *-- d -- =d' * *
- construction beferc
- it can determine the necc ed'.y for tahing private
. property for a public purpose." 62So.2d at 502.
Carlor was concerned with the progress of the con-demning authority's preparations in advance of condemnation, a matter soleiv within the responsibility of the conde=ning authority. licre, instead, we are concerned with condemnation powers in con-nection with projects having a direct effect upon our natural resources, uhich cannot succeed, or have any practical value, save if the proposed project receives the approval of authoritics charged with safeguarding the public interest, and stich are
- external to and independent of the condemning authority.
We find upon consideration of the c:<hibits and tesci-mony adduced below that the Utility has successfully met the rc - quirements announced'in this opinion. Eccause the District
~ *
- 13 -
. , . 1
\
l -
. Court in effcet reached the result we have co.mc to tod y, and because uc concur in all other aspects of the District Court's opinion save as modified by this opinion, the writ heretofore issued in this cause must now be discharged.
It is so ordered. ROBER"S , C .J . , MKINS and DRDi(Rctired) ,JJ. , and
*110DGES, Circuit Judge, concur ERVIN, J . , concurs specially with opinion 6
e e 4 9 e e o e e 14 e
% a.
e
" ~ , ..
^
( * .
- ERVIII, J., specially concurring:
- A Q u.J,.N.t +:n M u nc; W t y ,
2+ % % iope u e
.. M r.on
,t.he cond<. oer4 w. com&4 2nt.ly Ger.oubMmTyttrcct>.wh scred.mnd-,a r.ot.m-mM .in tho.nesoff rFopiu+en.
agppr.opr'i d.cly co
' i d described If riorida Power ig in fact denied the requ re governschlai permits, signifyi$g there are pollution or ecological inazards, and is unable to go forward with its proposed canal plan, it will own a strip of laEd in fee simple through the middle of
- Seadade's prcperty which it cannot devote to the use originally r contemplated and for which purpose only eminent domain was t
authorized to be brought by ricrida Powcr. This would create a problem unnecessarily disadvanting to condemnee and inimical to ' Cn I its future'use of its tract of land considered as a whole. the othwr hand, condemner would own title to lands which it could ' Moreover, in not devote to the use for which it was condemned. any event, in order to protect the public. interest, consurmation of the right to excavate the canal ought to be held in abeyance in ,these proceedings until the described permits are secured. This potential problem can be read,11y and easily avoided
- if this court were to hold, as I feel it should, that the fee
~
simple t.itle to the condemned land taken by the condemner is a 1 defeasible fee unless and until the required permits are granted to condemnor. The condemned unexcavated canal land and c:her lands if the condemning body taxon would then return to the condemnce were unable to obtain the necessary authori:ations (described in the majority opinion) from pollution control agencies. In the event this were to occur, the conderace should be required te it received from return all the condemnation money awarded that the condemnor within a r.hort period of time, perhap: wi t.hin
. 1s.
e-
- -- -m - r -- - - ,
s . thirty days from the date the described necessary permits were unquestionably and irrevocably denied; otherwise, title absolute in the condemned land would vest in conde=nor. This equitabl' method of handling should be referred to the trial judge for implementation in these condemnation proceed-ings,' depending upon future eventualities. cases have been decided where equity has intervened in comparable situations to relieve against the harshness and hardship of unnecessary and abortive legal results and to restore, as far as possible, the
=
status quo ante, , we are peripherally involved here with a. subject of new ' dimension in modern society, i.e., pollution and ecological a hazards that appear to pose a very ominous threat t.o the public welfare. The courts should keep pace with modernity and not follow old concepts that ignore realities and equities involved in coping with this new dimension. The object of this special opinion is not to suggest any delay in the affirmance of these proceedings for the condemnation
~
'of the subject lands for the canal use, etc., or to in anywise thwart realization of the condemnor's project, but only to do equity I
by stipulating conditions rendering title to the conocened land . defeasible in the event the project fails because required permits
~
relating to subjects of pollution and ecological hazards are
' irrevocably denied.
Except as herein otherwise suggested, I agree to the conclusion reached by the majority. , CAnl. TON and AD1: INS, JJ., concur - i D nt.7, J. (actired): I do not dir.aqree with the ob .crvationn of Justice Ervin in the r.necini concurrinq oninion but I find nn authori ty in the courtn to ilo what in nuepp nteil. There are nany t acetu to the gwohlem which r.houhl lv ciuristlers el atal &ce.ulveil by the 1.cq i . l . t sit ..- nn L t hi c. at i t ti . 3 c, .,
, , n ,
,K,70 l
EXHIBIT Y
.. . . CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
' I *
' FEDERAL-STATE ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE
. 815CAYNE BAY, FLORIDA FEBRUARY 26,1970
- 1. Severe local demoge has occurred to the aquotic plant and animo!
population of lower Biscoyne Boy due to the present heated effluent of the lurkey Point Plant of the Florido Power & Light Company. This constitutes pollution wh.'ch is subject to abatement under Sectt on 10 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. This also constitutes pollution in violation of , the Slote of Florida's and raderal Water Pollution Control Mministration's . stonderds, particularly those provisforu relating to demoges cavied by 4 l Increases in temperatures; and the anti-degradation statement.
- 2. Present measures token toward abatement of this pollution are not a t
! Mequate . The proposed plan to take large quantities of heated water through a six-mile canal to Card Sound is not acceptable.
- 3. Beciwse of the selection of the site of'the Florida Power & Light Cornpany pimt at Turkey Point, con 1derable technical difficulties are being I encountered in the disposal of the heated cooling water. Conseque ntly, co-siderable delays have been and will be encountered in abating the pollution.
- 4. The State of Florido, the Department of the Interior, and the Corps ;
of Engineers shall coordinate their views before any permit is issued which .
. will permit the discharge of waters into Biscoyne Boy or Card Sound.
(more) f
~* ~
- l 1
I
, . . , , - ._ m- - - - . - - . _ . . . - . - , _ _ . _
t i .
- 5. Quality of the waters, including the biological botence of Biscoyne f
f " Boy shall not be irrpoired to the detriment of the full enjoyment and use of the
- Biscoyne National Monument.
i I 6. The Florido Power & Light Company shall obote the excessive weste heat food being discho sed l' rom its Turkey Point power pl'ont to the following j levels. The monthly mean of the monimum daily temperatures shall not be raised 2 more thes 4*f during the foll, winter and spring (October through May) or 1.5'F i 1
- during summer (June through September). On the basis of existing dato, this l
meons thof existing discharges shall not exceed 9(fF of any time.
- 7. The Florida Power & Light Company shall not dischorse waters at su'ch vel;;ities, in such*omounts, or of such points so os to change the
? hydrology of the receiving waters to the detriment of indigs .ous biota. )
- 8. The Florldo Power & Light Company shall report to the conferees I
not later thcn 60 days from today on its reposal to meet the requirements specified above.
- 9. The conference may be reconvened by the chairman off er consultation with the conferees, or the Chairman offer such consultation may call o progress meeting. ,
HI 1 ' ) , l l 1 i l I i 1 i 1 4
n p:P .^ , gxumg7_- W -
. '., j I$f. United States Dgartinent of the 2ntermr q .g .
A '.l ,, g,s. .. (ly,*.,4 fgf;;-
,"-}/[ / OrtIcr. Or TIfr. .sr.(:::gr.s1:y WAMilwicy.y D.C. Wou g.7 L? <4<,,ll.,f' r
I - m ,d ' ,. > 25E ' 2 - f . Y(Ub r . j \' 9' ,( l
, 1
Dear Mr. Priee:
LLLLtp,' * - - f j ' In reply to your lat.ter'of December 23, 1970, we are f
. pleased to submit our comments on the Cormienion's Draft Dateiled Statement ca the Environmental Ccnsid-j . erstions Related to the Propoced Operation of Turkey l l Point Units 3 & 4 by the Tierida Pousr end Light i
! Company and the Company's Environmentc1 Report, dated t November 15, 1970. L'e appreciate tha extension granted } us to complete our review. [ Section 102 of the National Environ. ental Policy Act i of 19G9 requires that ". . . all cgencies of the rederal i Government shall . . . include in every recommendatien i or report on proposcis for . . . majcr rederal actiene j significantly affecting the quality of the human environ- ( ment, a detailed statement . . . on the envircnmental impact adverr.e envircamentc1 effcets uhich cannot
, be avoided . . . alte'rnatives . . . relationship between local short-term uses . . . and maintenance and enhcnce- L ment of long-term productivity, and any irreversible and irretrievable cc .mitment of resources . . . involved in <
the proposed action snould it be implemented." As indi- l i
.cated in Appendix I (enclosed), we conclude that the
- Commission's draft environmental statement on Turkey ,-
Point Units 3 & 4 does not adequately meet these ' ~ ~ ' n' rwquirement,s,. , . 1
. . _ _ . - - \
We do not agree with Florida Power and Light Company's _ position that concern fcr adverse effects of plant opera-i tion is unuarranted er that the environmental effects of
, , ,the proposed operation cannot be detcrnined. It would j '
appear that the Company's interpretatien of its own lim- l ited studies is the principal basis for the Commission's ! environmental assecament. The Departe:nt's interest in seeking injunctive relief i ' in the Courts (United Statec v Florida Po'.'er and 1.itht, , 1 U.S.D.C., S.D. Fla.) is based on our concern for main-7 8 taining the integrity of a valuable esa.uarine system O 1473 i i e r l 1 i
= ,- -
e - .-. -' - , - - - -. --v -, , , ~ - ~e- -- - , -+--
, . . - . . .- ,. . _ - _. . - - . - _ . - ~_.
4 * > s i - + 2 1 ( . containing at Icar.t 033 specie: of pinnto nnd nnirals . r
- ce2 dom found eltcuhcre in the couthcastcrn United Statec.
j The establichment of Diccoyne National !!onumant attests to and involvc= a ness of this arca.f.overn cntal recognition of the uniqua- . t l .
- In our judgment the Commission's draft statement is
- deficient because it lacks project cpecifications and i
operation critoria, nogisets the effects of the opera-tion of all four unit. together, subordinates alterna-1, . tives to e onec-thrcuch cooling s,ystem to the size of the financial invectrent, conter.pletcs subjecting a valuable environment to.use as a "tect tube" for long-i l term thermal pollutien studies, and omits revicu of !a - water quality standards and other environmental protec-tion criteria. ] In summary, the Department of the Interior considers'
- the draft environmental statement to be incomplete. He i
recommend that the draft be revir.ed to include complete and specific details of the propoced structures and opercting criterir and plans for the protection of natural ~ resources. , i
- Hembers of the Commission staff have been in contact
(* ..with us on technical aspects of the problem. I believe ( we will mutually benefit by continuing information exchange on the Commission's draft environ = ental statement. { Sin erely yours.' i
- i
/4//
/j Tb!/ s.f? N ./iM t Ji-/..w i
eccretary of the Interior
" Mr. Harold L. Price Director of Regulations
, .. U. S. At,omic Energy Commission 4
Washington, D. C. 205L5 1, - 1 - Inclosure
- j . .
- 2 . .
j , ] . k ] . r a I I I l. l 2
- w. w w -
T--*- " 't h--s:
*^P"---^m 7i - - ^ ^'r.Yva- -1 4- M N '7-3---'= -C * - p ----w-9 e* C
^
e -
. *. *0.i ;. .
y *g. .'. . , 9:;.' : ' .
. . APP).1! DIX 'I ,
I - Synopnis of Cctesent: by the Department of the Irterior on A.E.C. Draft Environm:ntal Statement .
, in Saticfying Requjrcments of Section 102 of the '
National Invirorcental Policy /.ct of 1969 1 1. EnvironmentalIm7ac'.
- a. No comments are included on the long-term
- potential for detrimental eff ects on the environ- '
ment of continuous release of low-level radio-activity, its concentration in marine organisms, and the probable offect on humans who routinely
, eat marine oxganisms collected in the vicinity of the effluent canal. '
s . *.
- b. The statement implies that radioactivity re-leased wil'1 be only a fraction of permiscible .
level but'does not specify the probable range of
, amounts. Special precautions and levels of per-missible radioactivity for cafcty of persons using company property are also missing.
4, -
- c. Losses of fish and crabs may be much greater at intaken for units 3 and 4 than now experienced at
. units 1 and 2 because of higher current velocity.
A sustained velocity of 2.4 fps is far in excess of
- the generally recotnended limit of 1.0 fps fcr fish
- ' protection. !!easured velocities in the intake cross-secticn may be considerabif greater than the average calculated value depending on the design of the intakes and position of the circulator pumps within them. The draft should identify types of devices to prevent fish frem being drawn against the screens and to keep humans out of the areas of hazardous h.igher current velocities. .
.d. No comments are provided on composition.
quantity, neutralization of products and methods
, of disposal of cicaning chepicals that may be hazardous to humans or other biota.
4
/
11}73 e
- g . *
. I, 9 -
; __ =_ _
l 2
'e. Tossil-fueled unit: 1 and 2 precontly emit I. - culf ur and nitrugen oxid:: to the atmosphere. Thcir effect on the environment in the presence of gaceous '
radioactive westco is not discussed.
- f. Details are lacking on the location and design of th'e intake and discharge structuroc, discharge canal, rise of water level and temperature in Card Sound, rceirculation betueen Cerd Sound cnd Biscsyne .
Eay, and circule. tion in Biscayne Bay to demonstrate that all enviror. mental effects have been censidered.
. ,g. The'dcaft identifies expecte'd temperature rise in water passing through the condensers but does not point out that its discharge into Card Sound at 5.8* T. above aubient uater temperature is in
. violation of the stendards establiched under the Tederal Water Pollution Control Act and the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970. The FedercI-State conferees in February, 1970, recob= ended that TP & L limit the ter.perature rice of its dis-charge so as not to exceed 1.5* T. from June through*
. September and 4.0* T. f rom October through liay of the monthly mean of the dci2y maxi =am uster temperc-ture, with the maximum tenpcrature at the di: charge
( point not to exceed 9C* T. at any time.
- h. Results of all published studies of temperature effects en biota of Biscayne Bay are not included with applicant's report. The statement points out the problem of dif ferentiating betueen ef fects of continuous and intermittent exposure to elevated 4- water temperatures but does not identify the nature of cignificant effects to indigenous organisms expo' s ed to temperatures in excess of 91.4* T.
- i. Consulting biologists for FP G L do not provide data and statistical analyses to correborate their
. . i, .
categorical statements of no significant impact on
~
~
l ,the environment. . i The Card Sound study identified in applicant's I 3 Appendix I was a survey, largely visual, and not a quantitative sampling effort to compare populations
- of flora and fauna in different ecosystems.
f%
- e
\ .
7
,e- c,-- -- - - . - - - - , - , .
m ~~ 3
~
(~ - . k. I f ,.. it intcgrated rtudy of the ecology of Card Sound i: to caticfy the objcetive of an investiga-tion (p.'14, paregraph G), then epon:crs are unlikcly to roccive meaningful rcruits. ,
- 1. The dre.ft requires more data for a cenparative evaluation of the reacibility and envirorcental effects of the various cooling methods.
~
- m. Since the pr'oposed dilution dcas not include foiced mixing of heated offluent and te=pering
. water, the heated effluent may remain stratified and enter Card Sound at a higher temperature than
/- . predicted.
~
. n. Contrary to the statement on page 9, paragraph 4, that "The' University of Flcrida is conductin; a study of mixing and fluching in Card Sound","the information available indicates the study only -
focuses on tidal interchange.
- o. On page 10, para raph 5, th'e meaning of the
, word " adequate" is not cicar. Adequate for what?
( 2. Unavoidable Adverce Environmental Effects
- a. Use of Card Sound as a " mixing zone" for heated effluent violates water quality standards of the aren and jeopardizec a valuable estuarine environment.
- b. Effects of start-up on the biot. by t'r ansport of silt from mouth of canal and its .edeposition in Card Sound are not identified.
- c. Substantial numbers of plankton, fish eggs, and small fish entrained in the cooling uater uill not survive passage through the system. The statement
. , , , does not include a discussion of kill in the system, its impact on the biota nor methods of reducing
' losses. , ,
. 3. Alternatives
{ a. Information is lacking to evaluate feacibility 3 of alternatives to base and peak loading of the j a* Turkey Point plant in relation to the remainder of the TP S L generating system during the censon and to onec-through cooling at the site. t '
~
I1
* . . t i
4 f
- i Th$ final parar,raph in item C, page 23, appscrs
'b. in the cection
. to contradict on =<.rlice stator.ent l
that cic.vatcd cooling' water ponds had b,ecn rejected.
* - c. Applitant reiects alternatives to a once-through i i '
, cooling :ycten Icrcely on the grounds of insuff c er.tte natives ensystem the area. Uith the fcte of a v41uutic -
~ estucrine ct 'staho, the utility should further Opera-explore the fcaaibility.of these alternativec.
tion difficulties in a .m.tngreve cuasp did notprevent prevent i 3he initici plcnt construction nor would itfurther explor [ alternatives such as spray modules, ' The uet coolinf. teuers, effectiveness of /
. deep wells, and cooling ponds.these alternativas would also h the loss of mangrove swamp, a valuable fish and wild- -
' life habitat.
- d. Anothe'r cltsrnative is to reducs decand by restricting promotional advertising'of electrical
- appliances.
. . . . and Relati om?.in het"?cn Lo -1 Short-ter . Uses liaintene.ne: or L-i -Icrm "rechmT.m" 4.
t Section 2 ignores 'the thrust of the Government nasc3y, that concern the which led to .the filing of the law suit , damage to. southern Discayne Ecy and Card Sound facility will resulting altcr from operation of the Turkcy Point
; the character of a valuable estuarine system.
- 5. Irreversible and Irretrievable Committents of Resources
- a. There is no mantion of alteration of natural drainage at Turkey foint by the construction of
, discharge canals.
b.. statement indicates that use of the The draftTurkey Point area for power gensratien provides for
?. a broad range of benefits. ' It does not, houcver, identify the probable effects of commits.cnt of in Card a
Sound resources by exposure to increaced heat
. 10,G25 cfs effluent discharged into the sound at
~
a velocity of 2.5 fps.
.f .
1 i - .
. r e
l l 1
. n m
. . ~ - .
- 5
- c. Studicc et the r.outh of the Crand Cant.1 have
- demon:ttt:ed chantc: in the botto:r, crd biots f r om
~
operatiot of the pro:ent plant. Continued dinchcrca from an cx;,anded p2r.nt into Card Sound still li::cly
. . produce the ecce t'jpe of hect and erocion induced
- damage. Furthercore, addition of nutrients from plankton entrained in uctcr uithdrat:n frem Cir.ccyne
. . Eay and hilled in pa::cge through the plant could irretrievcbly alter the biologic chcrecter of the cound.
e J - s e i l . e ( e b
- N
/4 e S
e o G S 4 0
/
j i o r%:::::T_ 'y \['- v" ! / h3 CDat>1oTT. h*1LL & E>f ERY ~J
',. 'd g; B : 0 ;p ,.
t - iiiwest uorenoc s'"'y c .uco..u. oi. .ocos
......... ...... ..... .... m g
,,[,,",7,, ,,
~
June 16,1971 Norman A. Coll, Esq. ' Scott,1:cCarthy, Steel,
. IIcetor & Davis Illth Floor
- First l'.ational Bank Buildin6 Hiani, Flcrida 33131
Dear Mr. Coll:
So=e ti=e ago, I infer =ed you that I had been retained by Fries;d: of the Earth to represent its interest in cennection with the resciution of certain enviren= ental problers arising from the intended operation of Florida Pcuer and I.i.,ht Cc pany's Terkey Point power plants. I understand that your firm is counsel to Florida
$ Power rto Light Co=pany and you are aware that fre time to time tre have had conversations concerning this =stter.
During our conversations I infor=ed ycu, (e.nd we have also informed the Atcaic Enerir.r Cc=nissicn, the Otpartment of Justice and representatives cf other interested par-les) that the interest of Friends of the Earth was in cahing certain that srund environ .cntal planning be a pri=ary cbjective and equally
~
iz:crtant in the ulti= ate resciutien of .:hcre and how to Gener-ato pcuer. Additionally, as I infor=ed you, Friends of the Earth wished to see FPLI. install zero radicactive waste systems, and in licht of the current cmergency core ecoling system prob' ens, Friends of the Eart.h wants to assist in mahinc certain that all l I safety phobic =s are resolved prior to any cperation of the sub-I ject plants. It is our understanding that the several conflicting interests involved that is, the intere ts of the adjcining land-owner, the intercsks of adjoining industry, the intercsts cf ' low-cost production of electricity by FP&L, and the interests of the Department of Justice in enforcinc certain federal leciclatica has rc:ulted in a serics of nesetir.tiens touard resolving the dispute. Y t l l l l l S i t - - _ _ _ . ._.
/ !!orman A. Coll, Esq. June 16,1973
( . Earlier thi: year, Friend of the Earth acl;cd to have it: input, from an envirennental tandpoint, considered directly in the cour:c of these necotiations. Although our reque:t uns made to the Atomic Encrcy Cc =1:: ion, the Depart =cnt of Justice and to you, and although Friend: of the Earth uculd have thcusht that all interected partics uculd have welcomed the advance input of an environmental organization, our request uns not met uith a
- favorable respense. Instead, in effect, Friends of the Earth tra told that the negotiation: uere very delicate, thrt Friends of the Earth should not interfer with them, and that in the end the matter would be resolved to the satisfact,ien of all parties.
I am afraid that ue cannot accept such an assertion and do not intend to do so. It is our pcsition that the critical
' time for recognizing and resolving all of the vested interests, including the environ = ental cbjectives of Friends of the Earth, is now, before any formal agreccent 1: reached. Teuard that end, I had earlier requested of you that FP1L cc =it to Friends of the Earth that no final resciutien of thic matter uculd be enter-tained by FPL: L unless and until the pro;fosal was submitted to Friends of the Earth and its cbjections, if any, were registered.
Neither I ner Friends of the Earth have heard frcs ycu since that telephone request, and I assume that it has been re-
. jected.
Friends of the Earth was, and is still, interested in resolving this matter anicably; heuever, Friends cf the Earth's interest is co-extensive with the public interest and that in-terest cannot be avoided by negotiations behind closed doors. l l
. Accordingly, Friends of the Earth does not intend to accept as' final any settlement a6reement which is arrived at with-out its participation; and if any scttic=ent agreement results in inadequate protection Of the environ =ent or inadequate resolution of safety censiderations, Friends of the Earth will exercise what-ever legal rc=edics it may have to see that the settlement is set aside and effective and adequate environmental and safety con-trols a} e required to be installed at the Turkey Point Units.
t Although Friends of the Earth does not intend to i=pese its desiren unreasonably on any party, we once 'again cake a re-quest to be permitted to participate in the necotiatiens. Absent a reasonably sincere and pre =pt respense frca FP&L, the Department of Justico and the Atemic Enargy Co=sission, we will be faced ence b h l
- l l
o
I June 16, 1971 Ilormsn A. Coll, *E q. r /
- i - f
[ again with the situation in,envircr.r. ental cnd that is, having to public initiateintere:t croup: and enter-f often find thensclve:tain coctly and time-consuminc liticaticn in an effort to ' matters forward and which could sincerc havear.d ccency been re:olved industry ccrlier civen straicht-cecperation. Since ely yours Myrpo :;. Cherry t k MMC / cam
- cc: Joseph Bra der Howard L. Shaper James A. Glascuu William F. Ragan David D. Comey O
e 9
@m
4 afUCLEAR ECONOMIC TAC NRS I i ) i C.E. Westinchouse_ l 10,980 10,776 Beat Rate 15,000 19,772 Megawatt-days (ther:nal) per ton - 1st core 614.3 x 10 6 809.8 x 10 6 BTU per lb. U - 1st core 24,489 20.000 Megawatt-days (thermal) per ton - eq. core 6 I 6 1003 x 10 819.1 x 10 BTU per ib. U - equil. core , 56,000 75,000 ph (elec) per lb. U - lat core 75,000 93,000 ph (elec) .per Ib U - equil, core S8 bbis 129 bbis 1 lb U has heat centent of (1st core) 130 bbis 160 bbis 1 lb U has heat content of (eq. core) C.~' ;, , : e 83 bbis 110 bbis
/1 lb U has elec. conton't of (1st core) 110 bbis 136 bbis I' 1 Ib U has elec. content of (eq. core)
I N (above assumes 15% loss in efficiency between 10,800' BTU per kwh and 9200 BTU /kwh) 2/N.U '/ ?
,. l$0 ~
), s'l Kh'~
( ,
,e
/
1k / L
, l '-
i I i
~~- - - - - - . . - __ _ __ _
- 7---,y.._- . _ _
' * ' "
- m-w- - - - - , _ _ _ _
2
. . RJG 6-39-65 1
BREATEVEN NUCLEAP FUEL COST * (7000 hours /yr) ) i i I ' Dif ference in capital cost - Oil vs. Nuclear $ 40/kw / Annual Fixed C:2erges - Difference Oil.vs. Nuclear ' Capital , Bonds $20 9 4.6% .92 stock $20 9 10% 2.00 Income Tax 2.00 Taxes & Insarance 9 2.0% .80 Depreciation 6 3.0% 1.20
$ 6.92/kw or 1 mill i
011 Cost / year /kw
$ 20.00/kw 1 - kw x 7000 heurs x $1.95 or 2.9 mills 683 kwh/bb1 bbi i
$ 13.08/kw I
Breakeven nuclear fuel cost or 1.9 mills I J r i ] 1 J 4 4 5 I i 5 J i 5 i i i
- -<~-----,-.-er> , mew a ---n, , - - . - , - - - - -w.,- ,,-----------~e------ - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - . -
------r .-------c- - - -
F1.ORIDA POWER Q . GHT COMPANY
' nann.orrsc1 cowssvonosucs wurio Miani, Florida eats Nove=ber 11, 1965 carisa v. J. W. Keck W. H. Rogers Mr. McGregor Smith s
, George Einsnan ,
ameer. Evaluation of Engineer-Constructor , Preoo s al s Messrs. Keck, Rogers and I have made an evaluation of i the Bechtel and Ebasco proposals for the Turkey Point Nuclear Project. The items considered are shown below together with estimates of the amounts of money which f avor Bechtel. Teck __ Reeers Kin sea.n
- 1. ~.ontinuous construction at Turkey Point by one contractor.
(a) Direct costs to FP&L for $ 50,000 $30,000 $50,000 clearing, moving, etc. (b) Possible labor problems 25,000 - - if separate contractors. i
- 2. Restrictions and contingencies in Ebasco contract initially 150,000 150,000 150,000 and after three months.
- 3. Desigs, equi ut, and con-struction features where Bechtel program is superior 200,000 150,000 125,000 to Ebasco.
i 4 Nuclear power plant construc-l tion experience--Bechtel, six 100,000 100,000 200,000 plants in U. S.; Ebasco, none.
- 5. Difference in completion dates.
l
- 6. Stronger and more experienced - - -
staff (included in No. 4 above). 500.000 500.000 500.000
- 7. Price difference.
Totals $950,000 $980,000 $1,050,000 TM 'a m/ p -;y-.
i
.e FI ORIDA POWER O . .GHT COMPANY p<renorrice costarou:cuce l saca,o.e o
uvs ceaam te w r.o., aussier. 2 (. " The coc:posite of the totals above works out to about
$1,000,000. On the above basis, we unani:nously rococzne=d that the contract be awarded to Bechtet.
W
&cn h Geor5e Kins: nan
.Vice Pren dent f~
cx:std upgjg.
#f 13 % ,*-
,9 ar_.
l
RJG 10-26-65
/
COMPARISONS OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANT BIDS Thousands of $ Westinghouse ( M.s y. Pkg . }~ Babcock & Wticox__ Westinghouse _ Babcock & witcox _ 021/770.4 General Electric ~ e #g 790/741.2 797/747.3 Bechtel 760/722.4
# Bechtel Bechtel Bechtel Ebasco 760/722.4 G.E. G.E.
Westg. 808/768.5 [FEysco Bechtet Ebasco neheat Bechtel _A N a. -+_ tbn-nehea t )
;),vp s n/ = * \
_ -16,-800 16,800 22,700 f Resctor 22,700 f 16,605 14,620 14,620 16,038 44,355 44,355 Turbine 16.038 ' #/ # # , 37,069 38,738 38,738 3h069 sub-total 29 b.3 " JY*" 32,680 ;Q ro f 24,763 32,780 6/38 30, 21-3 28r705 nalance of 33,869 / 64d,N Plant - g 4/43 .,,e' 65,774 65,276 66,778 69,118 7 ,518 6/38 6 B2 . */5' 72,607 - Tota 1 72,178 4/43 .
/' jlfN 86.68 95.68 i
91.05 87.35 94.48 93.06 93.\4 ' 90.94 4..w-net s t ** 81.90 81.30 86,13 3 86.54 89.06 88.51 [, ) *
$/kw-gross
- 5 (#
e 'b' 6/38 6 flow 38" G.E. turbine .!p 'j. 3 g S turbine .' 5 4/43 a 4 flow 43* G.E. "^ 5
- tism - no escalation .7 f
S
- 36G a ,7 6
fosa e y/
-4 l
9-20-65 RJG l l = ECONOMIC ANALYS!5 I f i
- 1. Did utility select a nuclear unit over a fossil unit on bas s o(As oppo power cost projections alone? nuclear industry develcpment,etc.)
things as pollution, 2. What was method of power cost comparison?
- a. What load f actors were used?
- b. What plant life was used? if any?
c. What discount rate was used, , d. What capital dif f erential was assumed?
- e. What fuel costs were compared?
- f. What fixed charge rate was used, and how arrived at?
ffect en
- 3. Has utility cond6cted a total system study comparing the esay, 20 vaars,; of total rystem generation costs over the next, ?_
various combinations of nuclear and fossil plant additions l r l 4. Does utility have a long-range plan involving additional nuc ea additions?
- 5. What is utility's outlook for future nuclear additions?
FINANCING facili-1. Has utility used accelerated depreciation on its nuclear ties? If so, what method?
?
2. Has it used the guideline 20-year life for nuclear f acilities i acceler-3. What regulatory problems has utility encountered in us ng ated depreciation? 4. Has utility any other comments en depreciation methods? If so, 5. Has utility any special financial arrangements for fuel? what are they? . EVALUATION I would be interested in the process by which the What utility deter-features did it mined what it wanted in a nuclear f acility. What weight was insist on? How valuable were the consultants? given various factors in bid evaluation? FUEL PURCHASING & ADMINISTRATION nt i 1. Did utility cons 1 der a comprehensive fuel management arrangeme (i.e. one where the utility pays only a kwh price for fuel?) 1 1 1 i
~
- 2. What considerations led utility to sdept its present fuel arrangs-ment? (And thereby to reject the comprehansive arrangsmsnt.)
- 3. Has utility experienced dif ficulties in administering its fuel arrangement? If so, what?
- 4. Has utility achieved its anticipated fuel costs? If not, why not?
- 5. Is utility considering any changes in fuel purchase arrangements?
If so, what and why?
- 6. If utility is satisfied with present arrangement, and said arrange-ment has met all objectives, please describe this arrangement. In this connections
- a. Who is ore supplier?
- b. Who is fabricator?
- c. Who is reprocessor?
- d. What shipping arrangements are used?
- e. Is a computer program used? If so, is it a generally available program? Could it be made available to other utilities?
- f. Ecw many pecple are used tn administering fuel arrange-ment? What are their classifications, duties?
- g. What are the duration and terms of the various fuel supply contracts?
l
- 7. What accounting procedures are used to account for fuel? Were these prescribed by Utility Commission, TPC? Are Obey approved by these consnissions?
R. Present fuel adjustment clause in utility's rate schedule excludes Dresden powet from consideration in calculations. What does util-ity anticipate will be the fuel adjustment arrangement for nuclear fuel? (see attached fsel adjustment clause.)
- 9. What is utility's prediction concerning future nuclear fuel costs?
If changes are anticipated, what factor or factors will cause the change? LICENSING
- 1. How did company conduct its licensing application?
J
- a. Who conducted various surveys (population density, t
i 3 background-rtdiological, seicmological, hydrological, etc.) own staf f, university, consultant?
- b. Who actually prepared application documents? Suppliers, contractor, consultants, own sta f f ?
- c. How was application presented in Washington?
- d. How was utility represented in hearings?
Would utility make any changes in way it handled its e. license application? A. E. C. RELATICNS
- 1. Has utility any comments on the conduct of its aff airs with A.E.C.
Washington staf,f and field staff? i PERSONNEL
- 1. What is utility's nuclear power organization?
- 2. How did utility " educate" itself in nuclear technology? Eire college-trained nuclear engineers? Bire men from nuclear industry?
Train existing personnel? i
- 3. If utility-trained personnel in its existing technical staf f, what methods were used?
I in effect for utility's
- 4. What technical training procedures are now technical staff?
staff? If
- 5. Is utility satisfied with technical competence of itJ not, why not and what changes should be made?
- 6. What procedures were used to train operating personnel?
- 7. Would utility make any changes in those procedures?
J PUBLIC RELATIONS
- 1. Has utility encountered any particular public relations problems regarding its nuclear facilities?
- 2. What has company done by way of a P. R. Program?
- 3. Does company maintain a special staf f for nuclear public relations?
l What is utility's
- 4. Does utility have a visitor center at Dresden?
l thinking on this? i l l l
.* 4-
?
FtTEL MAC LING
- 1. Has the General Electric fuel handitng design proved satisf actory?
- 2. If not, what about the design has been wrong? What design changes have been, will be, or should be made?
If not, why not?
- 3. Have fuel reloading time objectives been met?
4. What changes or improvements in fuel reloading procedures have been, , will be, or should be made? WASM DISPOSAL
- 1. What arrangement does utility have for solids waste disposal?
- 2. If utility has a contract with a waste disposal company, who is that company?
- 3. What are unit costs of waste disposal?
4. What is annual volume and cost of waste disposal? I I I e
RAA 6 '-6 5' * . l
. e/ ' i' . . *~'
~
- l. ' 4
> . OI CONVENTIONAI. VS. NUCLEAR
-fg[,7,**
/
( REVENUE REQUIREMENTS - $ (MILLIONS) , 30-YEAR BOOK LIFE 4 2
$110 M Noelear Plant
$70 W Increase Over Increase Over Conventional conventinnal Amount Conventional Plant Amount YEAR
( 30-Yr. '. Straight-Line (20-Yr. Sum of Year's Digits (30-Yr. Straight-Line Depr. for Taxes) Depr. for Taxes) Depr. for Taxes) I~ N, fe $ 18.2 NI $ 6.6 /4 Y,w $ 14.8 * \ $ 3.2 1 $ 11.6 > /w 13.9 3.6 I 5 10.3 16.2 5.9 13.7 5.0 12.6 3.9 10 8.7 i 4.3 11.1 4.0 11.4
' 15 1.1 1
8.6 3.1 10.2 4.7 20 5.5 4.1 **
- 3.9 6.1 2.2 8.0 25
/7 ,...... ,.
s
~
, FLORIDA POWER O l *HT . COMPANY is 4 4 muterries coacecrouco.cc 3
** Miami, Florida
*^" March 4, 1965
- '" R. H. Fite i
" Mr. McGregor Smith
""" George Kinsman
* "" Nuclear Poser Plant P-oiect As background infor=ation in our consideration I am attaching of design tabula-and equipment for our nuclear power In project,tions showing the addition, separate power plant projects, both U. S. and f oreign. A third breakdowns are shown for U. S. and foreign projects.
tabulation shows the manufacturera, architect-engineers-constructors, architect-engineers, nuclear consultants, and fuel fabricators who have been connected with the projects listed. Based upon our own experience with conventional plants, I think we should carefully consider using the same general plan of buying equipment and selecting the architect-engineer as we have been using. I am giving below the reasons why I think we should discuss the pros and cons of this method. Reccene dations for Consideration 4
- 1. That we do not take bids from manufacturers acting as prime contractor for entire plant.
- 2. That we do not take bids from architect-engineer acting as prime contractor of entire plant.
3, That we do not use Bechtel or Etasco to evaluate bids. 4 That we do use a method similar to that we have used on recent / conventional plants: (a) Take bids on the nuclear (steam) portip. / (b) Take bids on the turjaine-generator. (c) Take bids on fueI" supply and fabri' cation. (d) Take bids from architect-engineer on a turnkey or ceiling basis for design, procurement of other equipment (except fuel) and construction.
%s s ar- -
f .. O e
7LORIDA POWER Q ! .3HT COMPANY vert =cenct coxtsvon:sucs
- t toe. mon we co.,ss to ev. m l
- 5. That we do retain a nuclear consultant not connected with any manufacturer or architect-engineer to evaluate proposals on the equipment, design, fuel supply (initial and lon6 range),
fuel fabrication, construction, and advise us on the above f items as well as on AEC permits, licenses, operators' licenses, staf fing, training, and other matters peculiar to nuclear plants. Reasons fer Reecm:endations
- 1. Em 2. If a manufacturer is the prime contractor, he has to tie-up with an architect-engineer. If an architect-engineer ,
j is the prime contractor, he has to tie-up with a manufacturer. We can't be sure of getting the lowest bid on both with this y arrangement. This is a very time-consuming and expensive procedure as we found on Port Everglades Nos.1 and 2 and in the end, one way or another, we pay the costs of the expensive proposals. { t ,
?
The contingency item put in may be larger than if , i each is acting independently.
- l In many cases neither the manufacturer nor the architect-engineer wants.to tie-up with the other for fear that while he himself might be low, he might lose out because his partner is high. This has happened more than once.
i
.' - The current exception is Westinghouse who prefers to bid as prime contractor because in addition to the reactor they make more plant components than others including turbine-generators, condensers, heaters, pumps, electrical items, and they also went to tie up the fuel supply for ten years (G.E.
offers this, also), ded* (f as-e %s
FLORIDA POWER O l JHT COMPANY mtwnce cenassee oce.cc urs co w w m
.w.nce.
Where a manufacturer is the prime contractor, we lose the advantage of coc: petition on all equipment the manu-facturer himself makes. In the nuclear plant, this would include not only the many mechanical and electrical equipment ' items but also the turbine-generator. More important, we lose competition (twelve suppliers) on the fuel which, on a G. E. unit, will amount to about $35,000,000 on an 800 au plant.
- 3. If an architect-engineer evaluates bids from prime contractors, he himself is barred from bidding on the design and construction.
No architect-engineer wants to do this work as they would much k~ prefer to bid on the bigger package of design and construction. In addition, if Bechtel did the evaluation it would eliminate
- them, and they have built more nuclear plants than any other firm.
4 On Port Everglades Nos. 3 and 4, Cape Kennedy No.1, and Turkey Point Nos.1 and 2 we have a sound basis that gives us competi-tion on all equipment and design and construction. We also have incentive contracts on design and construction. We can get the same results on a nuclear plant by using the same method plus , good cecpetition on the large fuel supply item. ,
- 5. Nuclear consultants have been used and are used on many of the nuclear plants built, on order, or under construction (even where the utility does its own design and construction work and has its own nuclear enginuring department). Cases in point are Consolidated Edison, Southern California Edison, Connecticut Yankee, Pennsylvania Power and Light, Public Service Electric and Gas, Jersey Central, Consumers Power, and R6chester Cas and Electric. i 1 . A, m. -
4 0#0 TC g Georg insman Vice President ~y 9
, i9 A 4-f,Jlft?%n cl g 2F- -... l
, 4hid . . . .
l l l l
GK 3/22/65 f NUCLEAR PC77G F503ECTS ) SLWARY l UNITED STATES AND FOREIGN Manuf a cturer P oicets Kw General Electric 10 3,805,0t0 Westinghouse 9 2,300,000 Allis Chalmers 3 141,500 Babcock & Wilcox 1 275,000 Combustion 1 17,500 Atomics International 2 94,500 General Atomics 1 45,000
; Atomic Power Dev. Assn. 1 65,900
< ; Atomic Energy Comunission J 29.566
, 29 6,773,900
< Architeet-Encineer Proieets Kw Sechtel 7 1,259,000 f Stone & Woot.ter 5 1,251,000 Gibbs & Hill 3 654,000 Sargent & Lundy 3 868,500 Burns & Roe 2 1,340,000 Kaiser 1 ~29,500 Jackson & Moreland 1 17,500 Pioneer 1 66,000 Commowealth Assoc, 1 65,900 Atomics Internation.1 1 12,500 Ebesco 1 160,000 Own 3 800,000 Local J 256.666 29 6,773,900 4 e O h 1
I GK 2/22/65 tNITED STANS { Utility Ku h Architect-Encineer . Comorwealth Edison #1 210,000 GE Bechtel 185,000 W Stone & Webster Yankee Consolidated Edison 275,0So B&V Consolidated Edison Consumers Public Power 82,000 AI Bechtel Conauzers Power Compar:y 75,000 GE Bechtel 67,000 W Stone & Webster Shippingport Pioneer Setv. & Eng. Northern States Power Co. 66,000 AC 65,900 APDA Cateorwealth Detroit Edison Bechte:. PG&E - Hts:boldt 52,000 CE 22,000 AC Sargent & Lundy Elk River REA W Stone & Webster Carolinas-Virginia 19,000 17,500 Cceb. Jackson & Moreland Puerto Rico AI Atomics International Piqua - Municipal 12,500 AEC FIR, Hanford 860,000 CE Burns & Roe TVA - A!C 29,500 - Kaiser 490,000 W Stone & Webster Connecticut Yankee Sargent & Lundy Dairyland REA 53,500 AC Philadelphia Electric 45,000 GA Bechtel Jersey Central 540,000 GE Burns & Roe Niagara Mohawk s ( Niagara Mohawk 525,000 BE Los Angeles 490,000. W Stone & Webster 395,000 W Bechtel So. California Edison GE Sargent & Lundy Comorwealth Edison #2 793.000 SUMwARY - CCED STATES Proiects Ku Manufacturer 7 2,995,000 General Electric 6 1,646,000 Westinghouse 141,500
, - 3 Allis Chalmers 1 275,0n0 Babcock & Wilcox 1 17,500 Combustion 2 94,500 Atomics international 1 45,000 General Atomics 1 .65,900 Atomic Power Dev. Assn. 29.566 Atomic Energy Comission J 5,369,960 23
( e m, w
-_oem--
3 I i S' MARY - WITED STATES (continued) f Proiects Kw 1 1 Architect-Ecrineer 6 859,060 Bechtel 1,251,000 Stone & Webster 5 3 868,500 Sargent & Lundy 1,340,000 2 Burns & Roe 29,500 Kaiser 1 1 17,500 Jackson & Moreland 66,000 1 Pioneer 65,900 Connonwealth Assoc. 1 1 12,500 Atomics International 866.666 Own J 5,309,990
# 23
( h 1
i
' ~
,, ,_ l
- , CK 2/32/65 i
l ( FORETCN Utility Architeet-Encinear Kw h SELNI - Italy 255,000 W Cibbs & Hill SENN - Italy 160,000 CE Ebesco i Tarapur - India 400,060 GE Bechtel Chooz - France 259,000 W .Gibbs & Hill ' West Cerzany 250,000 CE Local Spain 146.nno W Gibbs & Hill 1,464,000 SLWARY - FCP;1g! Manufacturer Proieets Ku Ceneral Electric 3 816,000 Westinghouse 1 654.ono 6 1.464,000 ( Architect Ensineer Proieets Kw Gibbs & Hill 3 654,000 Bechtel 1 400,00o Ebaeco 1 160,000 Local 1 250.666 6 1,464,000 i i i j l' I i i e 1
. , _ _ . . ~m.,
CK 2/22/65 NUCLE /? PC'.tB F1RTTS I MANLTACT'JDS General Electric . . . . . . Boiling Water Westinghouse . . . . . . . . Pressurized Water Allis Chalmers . . . . . . . Boiling Water Babcock & Wilcox . . . . . . Pressurized Water
- Combustion . . . . . . . . . Pressurized or Boiling Water Atomics International . . . Organic or Sodium General Atomics . . . . . . Cas ARCHITECT-ENGINEERS-CONSTRUCTORS Bechtel Ebasco Stone & Webster
, Burns & Roe United Engineers ) I Jackson & Moreisnd) Pioneer Cilbert ( Kaiser 6 ARCHITECT-ENGINEERS (NO CONSUUCTION) Sargent & Lundy Gibbs & Hill NUCLEAR CONSl",TA'TTS Pickard-Love Associates S. M. Stoller Associates FU_EL FABRICA* ORS Westinghouse Ceneral Electric Babcock & Wilcox Allis Chalmers General Atomics Atomics International Sylvania-Corning National Carbon Nuclear Material & Equipment Corp. United Nuclear Corp. Aerojet-General Corp. i Olin-Mathieson I i l 1 I
c,m ELECTRIC niemC umm GENERAL - COMPANY sAtts (~ 4:ee west puots: steser, mumi, esosion :::s4 .ve6 enone 44s.74s4 osvisiote July 12, 1965 TUILEZY F0DfT rJCIDA FIANT CUR TROP. 132- % 019
/8
~
.l f
Mr. Ikcrogor Smith Chairman of the Board FIERCA PCWER AND 1EHT COGANT F. O. Box 3100 Miami 1, FIDECA
Dear Mr. Smith:
The attached copy of Mr. Graham's paper entitled " Nuclear Fuel Cost Trends Under Private ownership" will prove of intarast to you, I feel certain. Eay yreeman called and wanted me to call your attention particularly to (' pages 6 and 7. You will remember our discussion in the car going to Turkey Point last week during which you expressed concern over the available known reserves of uranium. Ray has noted that on pages 6 and 7, Mr. Graham makes the point that the proven rasarves of uranium are not greatly different free oil and gas - this despite a constant search for fossil fuels, whereas exploration for uranium was carried on only a relatively short period during the 1950's. The key point is that whenever uranium has been sought, it has been found. The information set forth in Mr. Craham's paper is the basis of CE's business p1=nine in the nuclear field. It is the result of many years experience and affort and of the best and most considered judgant. The figuras in tais paper are backed up by facilities and a scientific and technical organization which are all in place and by both short-term and long-ra=ge progrens of research, development, and expansion of manufacturing plants. Ve will welcome the opportunity to pursue in any desired depth and detail any aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle. 3 ,carely, D D. E. Straley DES /m 8
-m.
h 1
\
I CO3T 127.;LY3I3 TCP- 'p,. 7/It/63 l p>TC"1M s 7; T 7Li rD 3 50,' % vu **?r:LLJ t-'. s 5? - , . 5 31,720,000 /
- 8. {lr. !.T A P STEAM SYSTEM 12,600,000
- II. ****?!! E-GENEP ATOR 11,385,000 III. CC::TPJCTOR 'S TIXED SUM INCLUCE S :
*.. Engineering -. -
'[
- 2. Mette Of fice Services /
- 3. Construction Equipment & Tools to ~'
support all Contractor's Labor gA y 4. ::en-Manual Personnel statien at site.
- 5. Consumables ,
)$g QN sj 6. Field Of fic,e Expense %#
's 7. Temporary Buildings & Shops $l 8
[/ '\7.. ..e Purchased Utilities 3 4
. $ h ,
I[ CCt;TPACTCP'S FIELD LABOR 2,200,000 Hrs. Manhour Target - 16.060,000 Manhours x $7.30/Hr. 50/50 Share Overrun Maximum Share 5800,000 All Underrun to FP&L 8,000,000 V. SUBC0!CRAC'"0R' S WCPJ - ESTIMAn (Includes Equipment, Labor & Materials in Place) *
- 1. Placement of fill and compacting
- 2. Plant Building Architecture Features ~"-
- 3. Roads, Parking Areas, Fence _
- 4. Onsite Rigging & Hauling of Major *M< ~ ] /s6 h C,e te Large Equipment ~
- 5. Containment Liner Plate #,
[ ^~
- 6. Insulation 3 g *, ,,ef p;jrp y ..
- 7. Painti.ng
- I"'"
- 8. Water Treat:nent Building S P' e y e * *
- c.
7,000,000 V-A. 0"HER SUBCCNTRAC**S - CUT OF SCOPE - ESTIMATE (Includes Equipnent, Labor & Materials in Place)
- 1. Demucking, fill, dredging canals, clearing & grubbing
- 2. Dewatering
- 3. Piling
- 4. Of f site raw water supply
- 5. Of f shore Discharge Lines (1100 f t.)
- 6. Concrete Batching & Hauling 24,830,000 VI. BALANCE OF PLANT ECUIPMENT & MA"'ERI ALS (Condensers, Heaters, Pumps, Motors, Concrete, Steel, etc.)
2,000,000 , VII. FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY (Taxes, Engineering, Permits, Licensing) TcTAL $125,605,000 l 4
EBASCO SERVICES INC0RPCRATED CON $rRUCTORS UTILITY CO N S U LT AN Ts = cNGINEERs
- TWO RECTOR STP.EET NEW Y O AM E N Y sama ar se acer-Lismaso.a r ettenct
.. . .... May 4, 1968 Florida Power & Light Courpany F. O. Box 3100 Miami, Florida 33101 Attention: Dr. James Coughlin, Vice President Centlemen:
In response to your invitation " Basis for Engineer. constructor Bid for 1973 Nuclear Plant" dated January 1,1968, we are pleased to submit four (4) copies of our proposal for undertaking engineering and construc. clon services and for providing various temporary buildings and facilities, construction equipment and tools for your Hutchinson Island, 850 Pts Nuclear Power Station. Our proposal is comprised of two volmes containing (1) a proposed form of contract, and (2) appendices which describe the plant we are offer. It combines a _ ing, the scope of our services, and a proposed schedule. Fixed Sun with an incentive. type Man-Hour Target for construction 1. shot, the Fixed Sun includes the following: Engineering / Rome office Services
- Fee Construction Equipment and Toolr Nonnanual Personnel Consumables and Of fice Supplies' Temporary Butiding and Shop' Temporary Facilities ,
We shall perform these services and provide those itema in the manner and to the extent set forth in our proposal for the Fixed Sus of $ M, , OOC W
. s
' . ' , 1 SERVICES EBAS..f'O
-2 Florids Power & Light Company d automobile
'This amount does not include all risk builders' risk an In the time available, we were unable to get a fira quoca-
.] insurance. We shall advise you of the addition to the tion for this insurance. P Fixed Sum vben we obtain the quotattoo.
the fixed _ Upon the completion of the plant, we propose to adjust to be based unen the deviation of the Sun. Up or down, in an amount from the
~actuale man hours of labor
" required to const.rucLthe'. plant.
Z..ho p urs. As We propose a Man-Hour Target o b I f Man-Hour Target. F1/J Sua and certain explained in our proposal, labor included in the items of work have been excluded from the Man Hour T rget. s for the plant will e . Materials and equipment and certain other it be furnished for your account. nts. We believe a full We truac our proposal meets your requir Accordingly, after understanding of it is essencial to your e aluation. er you and your associates have ] our general presentation on May 6 and awe would appreciate an opportunity had an opportunity for careful r+viewur proposal and answer any of your to meet with you furthe? to discuss questions relating to it. Very truly yours, _ .
- .y, ,/ M #AM O
.V uu:rr pt W l
1 00,O 3> I " e I
}
l f. t . . I e A i i 1 1 7/1/68 I RHF i 1 1 1 ALTERNATE BESTE1. PPCPCS AL l 1' I f 1. Fay Bechtel fixed amount of $10,000.000 i 'l ) 2. Target of $62.2 million for rest of plant . except 3 J turbine and steam system, which have already been purchased and land and FPL entire costs -l and down Bechtel to share 50-50 up to $5,000,000, to $5,000,000 overun of $62.2 million target i 4 .l i I . i i f I f 1 4 l 4 i i I i l 4 I I I l 1 i
-v --
*yn--u-- e,wwe--e-*'"e--le--'yv 'r-+w1vv- w- w ---w-- -m----+- --w r m ---me*
I Bechtel Corporation Post Othee Bos 607 - 190 Shacy Grove Road . Ganthersburg. Maryland 20760 June 24,1968 Mr. Robert H. Tite, President norida Fower k Light Company P. O. Box 3100 Miami, norida 33101
Dear Mr. Tite:
This supplementary proposal is submitted as ad revision dated June 20, 1968, at to ou of your 850 MW PWR Nuclear Power Generating Station to be locate Hutchinson Island, Florida. , The following revised alternate arrangement is offered for a Balance o Plant Target Price: Bechtel Corporation proposes to establish a Target for Price engi- of $72,210,0 for the Balance of Plant including a fixed sum of $10,000,000 d neering, Home Office and Fee, but excluding the turbine.ger.ar nuclear steam supply system. Company and Bechtel Corporation will share onofa overruns 50/50 basis or in overrun or underruns to the Target Price in the first $5,000,000 in Bechtel's part c pi i ation. underruns up to a maximum limit of $2.500,000 Under the foregoing arrangement, Bechtel will work as partners with Florida Power & Light Company to design, procure and construct a complete and operable 850 MWe PWR Nuclear Power Generating Stat Hutchinson Island No. I with no adjustments to the Target Price except for changes required by the Atomic Energy Commission after the date of this letter. We sincerely appreciate this opportunity to submit additional material related to our proposal for your review and consideration.
. Very truly yours, BECHTEL CORPORATION
}?. O. '
H. O. Reinsch Manager of Business Development HOR /jem Power k Industrial Division l l
s BECHTEL CORPORATION '
, ENGINEERS CONSTRUCTORS two twesty susN staaet . SAN FR AN CIS CO , CAU FORNI A .
=~~* ..u.
July 12,1968 .e .... c.u. . . P Mr. Robert H. Tite, President Florida Power & Light Company Post Office Box 3100 Miami, Florida 33101 i
Dear Mr. Tite:
Bechtelis pleased to submit this revised proposal for engineerirg, procurerrant and construction of your forthcoming 850 This offering is based on ths design of a unit as described in Bechtel's Scope Document dated April,1968, including Addendum 1 thereto dated June 4,1968, transmitted to Florida Power le Ligl.t Company 14, 1968, and Atomic Energy Commission by a letter datec Junecriteria as of the date of this letter, and-theem ateaws systam
- d ^ - 5 9 2:- ' ph-:: e. T:h r nf ' 1 % E.
We have reevaluated the schedule for this project and are confident that a May,1973, commercial operation date can be achieved. Bechtel's current experience with this particular nuclear steam supply system will expedite the early submittal of the PSAR to the Atomic Energy Commission. Bechtel proposes a fixed lump sum price of $ /&,4 'Is.u ( which includes the following: ,g,3' ,,,.. /,eg,m _ v4J Lu. % l ltB,15,,,sy G 3 2,m' (a) Engine e rtn.g The engineering costs required to provide the scope of work as outlined and defined in the scope docuinent dated April,1968, and Addendum 1 thereto dated June 4,1968. (b) Home Office Cost The cost of providing the followiag home office services: e G
=
YECHTEL COULPORATION l July 12,1968 Mr. Robert H. Tite Estimating Procurement, including Inspection and Expediting Construction Management i Welding Consultant l Planning and Scheduling ' Labor Relations I General Services (c) Construction Eculement and Tools Bechtel construction equipment and tools required for support of Bechtel labor, including third party rental, and operated and maintained equipment. The intent of this proposal is to give Bechtel the right to select con-struction equipment on either a bare rental or operated and maintained rental basis, at their sole discretion. Maintenance of this equipment, on and off expenses and freight are included. Tools arsi equipment required by subcontractors are excluded. Concrete mixing, batching, transportation and refrigeration equipment are excluded from this fixed sum, but included in the price of Item 20, Page 7, of this letter. A standard tool list is attached as a supplement to this letter (Attachment #1). (d) Non-manual _ Personnel Turnishing an adequato number of Bechtel non-manual personnel stationed at the project at all times throughout the duration of construction. This will include all person-nel assigned to the field organization that are not covered by building trades, union affiliations, or agreements, with the exception of vendors' representatives or service perse - nel that are furnished under the major equipment purchase orders. This category of non-manual personnel would include surveyors, start-up coordinator and such local hires as watchmen or guards, timekeepers, clerk-typists, secre- , taries and so forth. (e) Cons umable s Consumables as listed on Attachment #2 I S
~ . -
s 8ECHTEL COP.POR ATION Mr. Rc,bert H. Tite July 12,1968 (f1 Field Office Expense Telephone and telegraph, office furniture and equipment, office supplies, reproduction f acilities, and relocation t ' expense for Bechtel's non-manual employees. ' (g) Temporary Buildings and Shops ,
- Cost for erection and removal of Bechtel's field office which includes 1000 sq. ft. of space for Westinghouse and Combustion Engineering on-site erection supervision personnel, on-site warehouse, change house, and miscel-laneous shops. A warehouse near the railhead at Fort b ? Pierce is also included. ?
The following is a listing of the temporary buildings included: Construction Office Carpenter Shop Building Change House General Warehouse - Time Office on-site Guard Office Offsite Warehouse Air Compressor Shed I Pipe Shop Tool Shed Electrical Shop Miscenaneous Sheds Maintenance Shop Temporary working bays and au temporary buildings required by subcontractors are excluded from this fixed sum, but inclu-ded in the target dollars for subcontracts outlined on Page 4 of this letter. Maintenance Labor for au buildings and shops is excluded from this category, but included in the field manhour ta r get. (h) Insurance
' Liability for any loss or damage wiu be limited to the insurance coverage carried by Bechtel which win consist of $20,000,000 Builders Risk coverage. Payrou insurance Property Damage and Public Liability insurance for those people in the fixed sum are included.
Bechtel's Builders Risk is $5000 deductible coverage with the deductible amount being a reimbursable item and to Florida Pe,rer k Light Company's account. Also, Bechtel's Buildsrs Risk cpverage wiu not cover the area surrounding nuclear fuel storage, and win cease on start of fuel loading into the reactor. a
r 3 9ECHTCL CORPORATION l i Mr. Robe rt H. Tite July 12,1968 o Marine insurance for equipment or materials being delivered to the jobsite by water is excluded. (1)
- Purchased Utilities The cost for purchased utilities:, namely, water and electricity, which costs are not to exceed local com-me rcial rates. Florida Power k Light Company will
- supply a construction power substation on the site that will furnish sufficient power to satisfy construction r equireme nts.
U) Er
! A fixed fee covering general administrative costs and p rofit.
Bechtel further proposes a field manhour target of /,4 n[(/# manhours for Bechtel manual labor. This manhour target is based on a 40. hour woricweek and actual hours paid, including showup time and casual overtime to cort.plete the project as described in the scope docume nt. Should it be necessary to place the project on a scheduled
- overtime or shiftwork basis, the manhour target will be appropriately adjusted.
Bechtel further proposes a target of $ H, f te Uf for the cost of subcontracting certain phases of the project in conformance with our normal practice on Florida Power & Light Company jobs. The method to be used for issuing subcontracts will be based on low cost, regard-less of whether the advantages derived are to Florida Power & Light Company's benefit or to Bechtel's benefit from a cost standpoint. These major items will be subject to mutual agreement. The scope of the subcontracts included in this target are further defined by Attachment 4 to this letter, entitled " Subcontract Scope Definition". Bechtel's offer is based on a 50/50 sharing of over-runs and under-runs of the manhour target atx1 the subcontract dollar target with Florida Power & Light Company. Bechtel's participation in the cumulative effect of the over-runs or under-runs will be limited to $ /, a's(,ut This proposal excludes State and local sales and use taxes, all costs connected with environmental studies which include geology, seismology, hydrology, meteorology, land use, and population studies. M '"
*M'**':;_ . L . .d; d i d . . .1L.. - :- ^ 8+ e-
i DECHTEL CORPOP.ATION July 12,1968 Mr. Robe rt H. Tite The fixed sum and the manhout target for field labor include construc-tion craft labor and supervioloa which may be required in connection with decontamination necessitated by any failure of Bechtel's work to conform to good engineering or construction practices, providing that no special licensing of Bechtel personnel is required. Florida Power & Light Company has expressed a desire for certain alternates to be included in this proposal. The effects cf these alternate r features to the base proposal, provided the decision is made prior to design engineering, are as follows:
- 1. Bechtel would conduct environmental studies in geology, seismology, hydrology, meteorology, land use, and 6 population studies required by the Atomic Energy Com-mission for PSAR and licensing of the unit for Hutchinson Island site for a $75,000 increase to the fixed lump sum.
2 Deletion of the process computer results in a decrease of
$140,000 from the fixed lump sum and 20,000 manhours i from the field manhour target. f
- 3. Provide steam turbine driven in lieu of motor driven main s
boiler feed pumps for no change in the fixed lump sum or field manhour target.
- 4. Provide for the complete installation of Bay No. 4 to the switchyard as outlined in Addendum No. I to the scope docume nt. This would require an increase of $15,000 to the fixed lump sum and a 10,000 manhour increase to the field manhour target plus an appropriate adjustment to the subcontract dollar target.
- 5. Provide alternate arrangements of the main transformer units as follows:
(a) The installation of two (2) 500 mva, 3-phase main transformers in parallet, in lieu of one (1) 1000 mvs for Unit No.1, including foundations, high voltage connections, isolated phase bus connections and con-trol wiring connections, will not require any adjust-ments to the fixed lump sum or the field manhour target. (b) Installation of four (4) 333.3 mva, single-phase main transformers, (one being a spare), in lieu of one (1) 1000 mva, 3-phase main transformer, including foundations for four (4) transformers, and high voltage, isolated phase bus and control connections for three (3) transformers .only, will not require any adjustments to the fixed lump sum or field manhour target.
s i EECHTLI. CORPORATION , I Mr. Robert H. Tite July 12,1968
- 6. Changing the transmission tower tension design from 50,000 lbs per conductor to 20,000 lbs per conductor pull results in a decrease of $1500 from the lump sum and 500 manhours decrease from the field manhour ta rg et.
- 7. Changing the switchyard bus to integral web aluminum buses in lieu of copper tubular buses will not require '
any adjustments to the fixed lurnp sum or the field man-hour target.
- 8. Provide for the installation of the 4.16 kv and 6. 9 kv switchgear with a 12 inch blank section between each cubicle to provide physical separation between the i breakers for an increase of $10,500 to the fixed lump sum and a 3500 manhour increase to the field manheur target.
- 9. The installation of a 25-pair #19 AWG submarine cable for the control of the water well system in lieu of micro-wave multi-channel control equipment requires an increase of $11,100 to the fixed lump sum and a 3700 manhour increase to the field manhour target.
- 10. Delete the engineering from Bechtel's scope for providing the layout design of the service and auxiliary yard build-ings with Florida Power k 1.ight Company providing this layout design retaining the same building volumes as presently included in Bechtel's Scope Document results in a decrease of $22,000 from the fixed lump sum.
11 Delete the switchyard relay design from Bechtel's scope. This will decrease the fixed sum by $7300. 12.- Provide manual startup labor to cover a project schedule slippage of 6 reonths for an' increase of 3203,000 to the fixed lump sum and a 16,000 manhour increase to the field
. rnanhour target.
- 13. The take-out price for the pile foundation in the event another type foundation is proven to be more feasible will be a decrease of $642,000 from the fixed lump sum, and an appropriate adjustment to the subcontract dollar target and Bechtel manhour target. The working included in the pile take-out is fully described in Addendum No. I to Bechtel's scope
' du:ument.
O l
d l BECHTEL CORPORATION July 12,1968 Mr. Robert H. Fite
- 14. Provide construction water for a period of one year for no change to the fixed lump sum or the field manbur ta rget.
- 15. Deletion of the off-site raw water supply from Bechtel's scope would result in a decrease of $38,500 from the
' fixed lump sum, and an appropriate adjustment to the '
subcontract dollar target.
- 16. Deletion of all consumables from Bechte!'s scope of from the supply would result in a decrease of $405,000 fixed lump sum.
- 17. Provisions to store nuclear fuelif delivered as much as six months prior to the schedule delivery date will require an increase of $9,600 to the fixed lump sum and a 4600 manhour increase to the field manhour target.
- 38. To provide the engineering studies and estimating services to provide order of magnitude estimates on Hutchinson Island, Unit No.1, requested by Florida Power & Light Company as described in the alternate section of addendum No.1 to Bechtel's scope document would require an increase of $150,000 to the fixed lump sum.
- 19. Deletion of Builders Risk Insurance from Bechtel's scope would result in a decrease of $323,000 from the fixed lump sum.
- 20. Bechtel willinclude the cost of furnishing all ready-mix to the concrete for the project for an increase of $ /, a~#; (6 *r subcontract target price.
Bechtel proposes to purchase all equipment, material and supplies as agent of Florida Power & Light Company on a reimbursable basis, except that material and equipment included in the fixed lump sum. Bechtel will secure a11 the necessary permits and licenses required to All costs connee-do business in the state of Florida as a contractor. ted with the processing and obtaining of building, construction or opera-ting permits and licensing from the AEC or other agencies of govern-ment, including lowal, city, country or state, will be the responsibility of Florida Power & Light Company. e
BECHTEL CORPORATION July 12,1968 Mr. Robert H. Fite PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE Based on the turbine-generator providing turbine cycle heat rate not in excess of 10,246 Btu /kwh under the conditions shown on Westinghouse Heat Balance No. CT 21405 dated February 2,1968, and the nuclear steam supply system providing an output of 2570 thermal megawatts at the steam generator outlet nostle with a pressure of 815 psia and 99. 8% steam quality and the NSSS auxinary power requirements not exceeding 22,480 hp, Bechtel guarantees that the generating installation win pro-vide a net station heat rate of 10,935 Bru/kwh at the low side of the main power transformer at a grose generation of 856,000 kw at the generator terminals, with throttle steam conditions of 765 psia at 513.1 T and a back pressure of 2. 5 in Hg abs., with all extraction heaters in service and zero per cent make-up. It is understood that this net station heat rate is the only guarantee of equipment performance made by Bechtel hereunder. The net station heat rate guaranteed above shau be deter-mined and demonstrated by means of a test consisting of not less than 200 hours of uninterrupted operation at the warranted terminal output of the nuclear steam supply system and turbine-generator guarantee point. The demonstration test shan be performed within the first 18 months after the reactor goes critical and at a time to be designated by the Florida Power k Light Company. g We appreciate having been extended the opportunity to work with your people in an effort to better establish the scope of this revised proposal to Florida Power 8: Light Company. It is our sincere desire to continue our long association with you, and should Bechtel be selected for engineer-ing, procurement services and construction for Hutchinson Island, Unit No.1, we would be prepared to develop mutually agreeable contract terms and conditions. Very truly yours, H. O. Reinach Vice President HOR:mz I l
S l . ATTACHMENT 4 t SUBCONTRACT SCOPE DEFINITION The following description of subcontract work is based on Bechtel's 20, 1968, base and includes proposal as described in Bechtel's letter %d of-:k and 6the Junea!! s neces sa
'. auch neces sary construction equipment and rnaintenance, fuels, lubricants, tools, consumables, surveying, and all necessary temporary facilities, supervision and administration, and all en and off charges associated with .
that work. Subcontractor costs for insurance, permits, legal, general administration, overhead, profits and fees are included. Costs for all LW s i ow representatives associated with all work is excluded and assumed to be part of plant "rMWo'its. Costs ass'ociated with this portion of the work is based upon hechtet specification, analysis and contract award of the work through normal Florida Power & Light CompanySuch approval pro-adjustments cedures, all within the proposed schedule of the project. as would be mutually agreed upon to the following subcontract work would be subject to appropriate manhour and dollar adjustments.
- 1. Provide labor "and material to install two (2) 1100 feet long,108-0" diameter off-shore circulating water discharge lines, including all temporary and permangnt oiling, earthwork, cribs, and abutments, includ-ing cowatering, if required.
- 2. Provide the site preparation within Bechtel's scope that is outlined as Florida Power & Light Cornpany's responsibility in Section A,
' Page A-13, Item 6, of the Scope Document which includes the neces-sary survey work, site clearing and grubbing, demucking, digging and/or dredging the intake and discharge canals, and providing fill i material from a borrow area which is defined as the existing Big Mud Creek boumled on the east by Highway AI A and on the west at the intersection of Big Mud Creek and the Indian River, including dewater-ing, if required.
The method of site preparation is based on using the area south of the plant for construction laydown area and preparing this lay-down area (which includes demucking) for future plant expansion usage. The work includes the following: 2,000,000 c. y.
- 1. Till Demucking 500,000 c. y.
2.
- 3. Digging the discharge canal ,160,000 c. y.
Dredging the intake canal 4 20,000 c. y. 4.
- 5. Stripping the borrow area of muck ,
200,000 c. y. Clearing and grubbing 100 acres 6. A
b. e Attachment 4 ( Cor.td. ) Subcontract Scooc Definition 3; Earthwork includes all hauling of material from the stock pile, placing and compaction of all fill material from elevation +2 to final grads, excluding fine grading. This work includes all structural excavations required within the compacted backfill and Cost for soil testing that required for pipe and conduit trenching. is included.
- 4. Plant architectural features and services, including the costs of materials and instauntion on concrete block, stucco, precast concrete, roofing, doors, acoustical ceilings, tile, sashing, glaz-ing, metal partitions, plaster, los ers, millwork for all permanent buildings as described in the Scope Documect. This work includes the instauation of all sanitary facilities such as showers, lavatories, urinals, washbasins, septic tanks, or other permanent sewage plant equipment. This work includes the instauation of all heating and ventilating equipment and appurtenances for the service and office buildings and control room, together with those requirements for Installation of minor yard buildings and the turbine area facilities.
an other duct work and appurtenances (excluding piping and electrical
- appurtenances) for all other facilities are included as a part of this w ork. Installation of the elevator is included as part of this work.
- 5. Dewatering includes installation and removal, operation and maintenance of all dewatering equipment required for scope of work defined in Item 3 ab ove., . Dewatering is excluded for the intake and discharge *-
~ "' * "
sealwell structure s.
- 6. Piling includes the material and instanation of all foundation piling, bridge pile, temporary barge unloading dock piling, temporary and permanent sheetpile, including tiebacks and concrete caps as described in Scope Document. This work excludes any piling associated with off.
shore circulating water lines, raw water supply or site preparation.
- 7. Offsite raw water supply includes material and instauation of weUs, pumps, pipeline, trenching, fences, foundations, roads, grading, well field, control cubicles and structures as described in the Scope Docume nt.
- 8. Roads, parking areas, fencing includes material and installation of au paving, subbase, Jrading, bridg handrail, road markers, as described in Scope Document. This work includes installation of all temporary roads together with maintenance of those roads during the project construction period.
8 e
Attachment 4 (Contd. ) Subcontract Sc ooc Definition
- 9. Turbine-generator erection includes installation of all components of the turbine-generator as supplied by Westinghouse. This includes an on-site rigging except for that included in item 10 below.
- 10. On-site rigging and hauling includes furnishing of temporary materials requirtd, instauntion labor, equipment to =tnload from barge, place in storage, and move into place the reactor vessel and head, core barrel
- and internals, steam generators, pressurizer, generator stator and main power transformers. The intent is to cover those items that cannot be transported across existing bridges due to dimensions or I weight. ,
- 11. Containment liner plate includes material and instanation of plate, I penetrations, stiffeners and supports, prime coat, dome trusses.
and liner plate inserts. This work excludes locks and hatches. Vacuum box testing, and radiograph work are included.
- 12. Storage tanks includes materials and instanation of diesel oil, conden-sate, ground level raw water, elevated treated water, clean water storage, and refueling water tanks. This excludes au field erection of fabricated parts for tanks supplied on the C. E. contract.
- 13. Tendon instauation includes handling and placing, buttonheading, stressing and gressing. This work includes necessary scaffolding and hoisting. The cost of the tendon system is excluded as this system will be procured on a matorial account.
- 14. Installation and materials for an insulation and tagging as described ;
by the Scope Document, including the installation of insulation materials supplied on the C.E. or Westinghouse contracts.
- 15. Painting includes materials and labor for surface preparation and appucation for au field painting described by the Scope Document.
- 16. Labor for pipe and tank radiography, sonic testing, magnifluxing and dye checking as described in Bechtel's Quality Control Manual, fis1d procedures.
- 17. Labor and materials for installation of fuel pit liner and associated testing and checking.
- 18. labor and materials for installation of rip rap and slope protection as described in the Scope Document.
4 e e
j Attachment 4 (Contd. ) Subcontract Scoce D-finition
- 19. Labor and materials for installation of transformer deluge system and appurtenances to point of supply.
- 20. Testing laboratory services for concrete and reinforcing steel as described by Bechtel's Quality Control Manual, field procedures.
I k
- e +,
Bechtel Corporation Post Office Bdx 607 "d 190 Shsdy Grove Road " Gsithersburg. Mstyisna 20760 June 20,1968 1 Mr. Robert H. Tite, President Florida Power & Light Company
- P. O. Box 3100 Miami, Morida 33101 4
Dear Mr. Tite:
i in g, Bechtel is pleased to submit this revised0proposal MW PWR for eng neer procurement and construction of your forthcoming hinson Island, 85 nuclear power generating station to be located on Wtceed in Bechte!'s L. including Addendum 1 thereto dated e[- y/ This offering is* based JI Scepe Document dated Apriyl June 4, 14, 1968, and Atom c
~ N *-rr t -i: A on the des 2"--
transmitta11etter dated June
! criteria asM December 15,g L..p : :- e y:- mag 68,
, i r ; ~ w e c. nt
/
g fident/ , f2 We have re. evaluated the schedule Moperationfor date. this project f and f )/ that the work as outlined in the alternate 50. item 'V i h this ' sc/ye u t ( accomplished providinggv 14WFo'mme With the current Hilormatf=~hna' experience Bechtel i i thathas w t fU, [ D-particular nuclear steam supply system, we are of the ' op . ,n,onEn early submittal of the PSAR to the AtomicThis may require be accomplished. ortions of the work prior to obtaining ,a construe. ve u
, f +.
Florida l liin order to achie T O k tion : to release certain pernut trom the Atomic Energy Qp)$ yy ( Commiss ohdtion
@ ,,,g g 5.fJ li6b h;sy p-t
/
Bechtel proposes a fixed lump sum price o W($7t{ecawhich includes ,4 ~6-w the fellowing: (\ *""
' I~J (a) Enginee ring ,- -
The engineering costs required to providedated the scope ) of work as outlined and defined in the scope document April 1968 and Addendum 1 thereto dated June 4,1968.
,L - - - ,
'. ("fp 1wO
--w
'g .- f5. .
( /.w, .- w - 4 I i
M A**
. . . y'
.r s ,k p , , {,.tr s" -j BECHTEl. CORPORADON , (N f 2- ,
June 20,1968 Mr. Robert H. Tite, President
- 0% I (b) Home Officehost l The cos(Uof providing the to owing home office services:
w
" .gy, stimating [j ~k, - c'^ -
Procurement }\,
.), / Construction Management
. g Welding Consultant q Planning and Scheduling A Labor Relations kC General Services Construction Eculpment and Tools _
(c) ts
- J5echtel construction equipment and tools required for 2 support of Bechtellabor, including hiaintenance third party rental.
. ,,and operated and maintained equipment.
kl,* g this egggmand off _u-eexpenses t-in s t>ortation and freight g- ,f are iexcluded. Concrete midr. batte S Wrill be con- g angd ref ,tipEs.gggment mea J reimburs able v sidered as a material cost which' A 3v item to Florida Power & Light Company's account. lh h % standard tool list is attached as a supplement to this letter (Attachment (1). (d) Non-manual Personnel _ Tyrnishing ofThis all willinclude Bechtel non-manual personnel st ttoned all personnel assigned
% M the project. i-d Io'the field organization that are not covered by building j' ,
trad s, union affiliations, or agreements, es or servicewith theg l personne y
. 3 egaf vgdo_r.f representga ,
~ (,' >
$ ,$ that are furnished under the major equipment purchase This category of non-manual personnel would ,#
orders. include surveyors, startup coordinator and such local T'
+b hires as watchmen or gdards, timekeepers, clerk-typists, K, N ,
secretaries and so forth. s (e) Consurr ables _ [.p g,, Consumables as listed on Attachment #2. ?
1 1 I SECHTEL. CORPORADON Mr. Robert H. Fite, President June 20,1968 (f) Field Office Expense Telephone and telegraph, office furniture and equipment, , office supplies, reproduction facilities, and relocation expense for 3echtel's non-manual employees. (g) Temporary Buildines and' Shoes Cost for erection and removal of Bechtel's field office I which includes 1000 sq. ft. of space for Westinghouse and Combustion Engineering on-site erection supervision personnel, on-site warehouse, change house, and miscel- . laneous shops. A warehouse near the rauhead at Fort ip Pierce is also included. { i h #j.f The'fonowing is a listing gf the temporary buildings pg/ " , . included: tr L +: / .
, Construction Office Building Change House -
pW e t
. General Warehouse - on-site Time Office Offsite Warehouse Ouard Office .
Pipe Shop Air Compressor Shed Electrical Shop Tool Shed Maintenance Shop Miscenaneous Sheds Carpenter Shop ,, w h , .,. , - 7 47/./ d-N ' ( Temporary working bays and a b ' ' s required I by subcontractors are excluded, temporary,dbor a .a nu _ for au buildings and shops is 'telude_d frorn this category, but I cluded in the field manhour target. (b) Insuranc e Liability for any loss or damage win be limited to tt.e insurance coverage carried by Bechtel which win consist of $20,000,000 Builders Risk coverage. Payron insurance Property Damage and Public Liability insurance for those people in thpt.d. sum are included. e I e
. l l
l BkCIITEL ColumADON Mr. Robert H. Tite, President June 20,1968 Bechtel's Builders Risk is $5,000 deductible coverage with the deductible amount being a reimbursable item and to Florida Power & Light Company's account. Also, Bechtel's Builders Risk coverage will cease upon nuclear ~ fuel being delivered to thegt. f Marine insurance for equipment or materials being l delivered to the jobsite by water is excluded, j (1) Purchased Ntilities. 8 The cost for purchased utilities; namely, water and electricity, which costs are not to exceed local com-
, mercial rates. Florida Power 8r Licht Comeany TJ1
[MsupplyiDafurnishconstructien eower substation on the site that sufficient power to satisfy c c n s uuction t[f. i re @
. g a) ra
- 6 .c A fixed fee covering general administrative costs and ,"p4t '>
P rofit, g i
.. ge s -
Bechtel fe proposes a field manhour target of d b 2 o ese f '.' manhours for both Bechtel manual and all subcontract labor.' *f . This manhour target is based on a 40-hour workweek and actual -Ie hours paid including showup time and casual overtime and hours /' . worked by subcontractors to complete the project as described in f P) the scope document. Should it be necessary to place t'e mject . , '- on_a scheduled.orsrtime or shiftwork basis, the manhour target
~ '
/
dill be appropriately _adjusted.
. --r Bechtel's offer is baald es a 50/50 sharing of over-runs and under-runs of the manhour tu
- eith Florida Power & Light Company. Bechtel's pgidpations,4 ver-runs er under- '"
runs will be limited\ tobl ,800,000.~/, rnd) ' -c 8 ***1-3--T _ As_
~
%__ \.
<- -s
?- an ao ed incer. . . ;a t c .,
e a c, ., . ,.a apstccmp. ,6 award this important project to Bechtel Corporation, we are pleased to offer the following alternate contract arrangement: (1) A manhour target of b/,*** manhours for furnish- [\ ing all the engineering, home ofitee and support O,/ 1
t i . u BECHTII. CORPORATION I f June 20,1968 Mr. Robert H. Tite. Presider.t l services, and Bechtel field non-manual personne 1 as described in the fixed lump sum portion of theBechtet will " base proposal, Sections a, b ad d.
~
be reimbursed for au homed'.and Fieldbranch non- office labor costs in accordance with Attar"a-+ manual win be reimbursed at payron costs, including payrou taxes, workmens compensation insurance, vacation, ha'11 day, sick leave benefits, and social g benefits in accordance with Bechtel's standard policy. A field manhour target as described in the base (2) proposal aof 1 ciae .3 - manhours. g with an equal sharing in 4 (3) A fixed fee of $3,6.00.,000 d savings or over-runs of Items 1 and 2 above,.lizrdteustment o to accumulative douar adj$$ 4?.2 eso/ Sr furnishing ida ( (4) A guaranteed maximum of f '-the fonowing, with Power k Light's account: (a) {.onstruction Eculement and Tools _ Bechtel construction equipment and tools required for support of Bechtellabor, including third party rental, and operated and maintaine'd equipment. Maintenance of this equipment, onequipment Tools and and off expenses re-and freight are included. quired by subcontractors are excluded. Dewatering, cone. ste mixing, batching, transportation, and re-frigeu.Lon equipment are excluded. (o) _ Consumable Supplies Consumables as listed on Attachment F2 (c) Field Office Expens e_ Telephone and telegraph, office furniture and equip-ment, office supplies, reproduction facilities, and i relocation expense for Bechtel's non-manual employees. O e l 1 1 1 i
BECHyIL COP.POPADON
.6-
. Tune 20,1968 Mr. Robert H. Tite, President .
Temoorary Buildines and Shops (d) Cost for erection and removal of Bechtel's field office which includes 1000 sq. ft. of space for " Westinghous e and Combustion F.ngineering on-site erection supervision personnel, on site warehouse. A ware. change house and misceDaneous shops. house near the railhead at Fort Pierce is also included. e , Temporary working bays and all temporaryj build- j ings required by subcontractors are excluded. Maintenance labor for all buildings and shops is
~ excluded from this category, but included in field g manhour target. -
u :. (e) Insu r a nc e_ b 'O Liability for any loss or damage will be limited to j , the insurance coverage carried by Bechtet which Builders Risk coverage. / i will consist of $20.000,000 ] Payrollinsurance, Property Damage and Public Bechtel's Builders Risk Maximum are included. coverage will cease upon nuclear fuel being delivered to the site. Bechtel's Buildere Risk is $5,000 deductible lcoverage item with the deductible amount being a reimbursab e and to Florida Power k Light Company's account. Also. Bechtel's Builders Risk coverage will cease upon nuclear fuel being delivered to the site.
\
Marine insurance for equipment or materials being delivered to the jobsite by water is excluded. (f) Purchas ed Utilities _ The cost for purchased utilities, namely water and electricity which costs are not to exceed local com-Flo mercial rates. supply a construction power substation on the site
BECHTEL CopOP.ATION Mr. Robert H. Fite, President 7- June 20,1968 / that will furnish sufficient power to satisfy construc-tion requirements. L /, urther effort to demonstrate Bechtelbrporation's si.ncere desire to continue and strengthen our working relationship with Florida Power
& Light Company on thi e important project we are pleased to offer the q ,
.i
- followine additional
_- alternate contractual _arracrement.
] Bechtel Corporation proposes to establish a Balance of Plant Target price of $72.210g000 which excludes the turbine generator and nuclear '
i steam supp1~y system, and includes a fixed sum of $10. 000. 000 for i engineering Home Office and Fees. Bechtel win share on a 50/50 g basis over and under-runs to this target price up to a limit of $1,800,000 with Florida Power and Light Company. { Under this contractual arrangement Bechtel will use its best efforts to {
.l i t work as partners with Florida Power k Light to design, procure and ',
construct the complete and operable forthcoming 850 MWe PWR nuclear
.c 4' -
power to ments generati.ng the contract station termsHutchinson Island No.1, for scope changes. 87 o without M ^' # #ang 7 ' adjusi-[*C,
,N, (D no.u ~ --heAwar L_au]u' k.
wm &
\ secnteva .
e-p.gesponsiEllity inf furtner defmed in tne yer.em }t, Consideration Sectica of the Scope Document.and Addendum 1 thereto; however, the field manhour target the following items: ( Site clearing, demucking and fuling (including compaction) of
. all plant areas, roads and temporary roads to elevation + 2 ft.
MLW and construction laydown area to + 10 ft. MLW. Florida g
* ' Power & Light Company will also be responsible for dredging w
and excavation of all canals, ponds, and borrow pitsp7 jY Etock piang sufficient materiaLacycent to tne power play.t - ch a ,.d.e.. :EEo MQdshe dJrade to 'ilevation +D
'(
V btLw and roads to the' required'eievaMof + 5 ft. MLW and N MQ' (b) The offshore circulating water discharge lines.
, (c) Concrete batching, refrigeration and truck tra:2 sport to the fo rms.
~
This proposal excludes State and local sales and use taxes, all costs connected with decontamination, and environmental studie s which include geology, seismology, hydrology, meterology, land use, and populatied studies, and all additional costs for scheduled overtime or shift work.}
\ . l I l . BEcgrEL COPJCPATION 8- . June 20,1968 Mr. Robert H. Tite, President ! Florida Power k Light Company has expressed a desire for certain alternates to be included in this proposal. The effect these alternate features have to the base proposal are as follows: r
- 1. Bechtel would conduct environmental studies in gaology, seismology, hydrology, meteorology, land t.s e, and population studies required by the Atomic Energy Commission for PSAR and licensing of the unit for the Hutchinson Island site for a $75,000 increase to the fixed lump sum. b 2 Deletion of the process com t r results in a decrease of lump. sum and 20,000 marbours
$140,000 from tne txe .
fro _m theTld manhour target.
- 3. Provide steam turbine driven in lieu of motor driven main .
boiler feed pumps for r.o change in the fixed lump sum or I field manhour target.
- 4. Provide for the complete installation of Bay No. 4 to the i
switchyard as outilned in Addendum No. I to the scope / . document would require an increase of $15,000 to the ' fixed lump sum and a 10,000 manhour increase to the field manhour target.
- 5. Provide alternate arrangements of the main transformer units as follows:
(a) The installation of two (2) 500 mva, 3 phase main transformers in parallel, in lieu of one (1) 1,000 mva for Unit No.1, including foundations, high voltage connections, isolated phase bus connections and control wiring connections, will not require any adjustments to the fixed lump sum or the field m,an-hour target. (b) Installation of four (4) 333.3 mva, singts-phase main transformers, (one being a spare), in lieu of one (1) 1000 mva. 3-phase main transformer, including ' foundations for four (4) transformers, and high voltage, lanlated phase bus and contui connections for three (3) transformers only, will not require any adjustments to the fixed lump sum or field manhour target.
DECHTIL CORPORATION 9 June 20,1968 Mr. Robert H. Tite. President
- 6. Changing the transmission tower tension design from 50,000 lbs, per conductor to 20,000 lbs. per conductor puu results in a decrease of $1. 500 from the lump sum and 500 manhours decrease from the field manheur ta rg et.
- 7. Changing the switchyard bus to integral web alu.h.
buses in lieu of copper tubular buses will not require any adjustments to the fixed lump sum or the field manhour target.
- 8. Provide for the installation of the 4.16 KV and 6.9 KV switchgear with ,12 inch blank section between each cubicle to provide physical separation between the breakers for an increase of $10,500 to the fixed lump sum and a 3. 500 manhour increase to the field manhour targ et.
9. The installation of a 25 pair i19 AWG submarine cable for the control of the water weU system in lieu of micro-wave multi-channel control equipment requires an increase of $11,100 to the fixed lump sum and /a 3,700 rnachour increase to the field manhour target. 10. Delete the engineering from Bechtel's scope for providing the layout design of the service and auxiliary yard budd-ings with Florida Power & Light Company providing this
!ayout design retaining the same building volumes as presently included in Bechtel's Scope Document results in a decrease of $22,000 from the fixed lump sum.
11. Delete the engineering from Bechtel's scope with Florida Power k Light Company providing the switchyard relay design results in a decrease of $7.300 from the fixed lump sum. 12 Provide the installation of two (2) 1100 feet long,10'-0" diameter off-shore circulating water discharge lines for an increase of $172.000 to the fixed lump sur. and a 130,000 manhour increase to the field manhour target.
i l BECHTEL CORPOPATION l Mr. Robert H. Tite, President June 20,1968
- 13. Provide manual startup labor to cover a project schedule
- slippage of 6 months for an increase of $203,000 to the fixed lump sum and a 16,000 manhour increase to the field r manhour target.
s 14 a .ge th r oject schedy he a1* m gm. s chedule w .' s 6 sam p condnions as propsed in o r' TeT "~iita' _o( agt wou. r e'sult a'decre se of , I' ,000 f om e fi.xe~ lufnp / sum. k
- 15. The take-out price for the pile foundation in the event another type founuation is proven to be more feasible win be a decrease of $642,000 from the fixed lump sum and a 295,000 manhour
- decrease from the field manhour target. The working included C
in the pile take-out is fully described in Addendum No. I to j Bechtel's scope document. l t
- 16. Provide construction water for a period of 1 year for no change l
1 I to the fixed lu.ap sum or the filed manhour target.
- 17. Deletion of the off-site r.w water supply from 25echtel's scope
' would result in a decrease of $38,500 from the fixed lump sum and 36.500 manhours from the field manhour target.
- 18. Deletion of all consumables from Bechtel's scope of supply would result in a decrease of $405,000 from the fixed lump sum.
- 19. Provisions to store nuclear fuelif delivered as much as 6 months prior to the schedule delivery date will require an increase of $9,600 to the fixed lump sum and.a 4,600 manhour increase to the field manhour target.
- 20. To provide the engineering studies and estimating services to provide order of mja /pde estimates on Hutchinson Island, Unit No. requested tiy Flor d(Power & Light Company as etion of Addendum No. I to de scr[ bed the alt!trniee
~
would require an increase of Bechtel's'se %docum
$150, to e fixe v.p sum.
l .
- 21. Deletion of Builders Risk Insurance from Bechtel's scope would result in a decrease of $323,000 from the fixed lump sum.
l l l
l I 3ECNT1.L CORPORAT1W June 20,1968 Mr. Robert H. Fite, President - 11
- 22. Provide the site preparation within Bechtel's scope that '
is outlined as Florida Power & Light Company's respcasi. bility in Section A. Page A-13, Item 6, of the Scope Docu. ment which includes the necessary survey work, site clearing and grubbing, demucking, digging and/or dredging , the intake and discharge canals, and providing fin material from a borrow area which is defined as the existing Big Mud Creek bounded on the east by Highway A1A and on the wtst at the intersection of Big Mud Creek and the Indian R iv e r. i Two methods of provid'.ng this site preparation is being offered as fouows: (a) This method of site preparation is based on using the area south of the plant for construction laydown area and preparing this laydown area (which includes demucking) for future plant expansion usage. The work includes the fonowing:
- 1. Fin 2,000,000 c.y.
I 500,000 c.y.
- 2. Demucking Digging the discharge canal 16 0,000 c. y.
3. Dredging the intake canal 420,000 c.y. 4.
- 5. Stripping the borrow area of muck 200,000 c.y.
' 6. Clearing and grubbing 100 acres
'I 9 The total cost of providing the site preparation as described manhours.
abovei#4,a34,,awhich includes j gl,e, es (b) This method of providing the site preparation is based on utilizing the area between Big Mud Creek Highway A1A, and the plant as the construction laydown area which would not require demucking prior to the fuling operation in this area. The work includes the fonowing: p p, 2,000,000 c.y. - 1 Fin Material 350,000 c.y. ' Y I4 2. 3. Demucking Digging the discharge canal 160,000 c.y. [ Dredging the intake canal 420,000 c. y. tj f4. 4
1 l 4 l i i BECHTEL CORPOPATION Mr. Robert H. Fite, President 12- June 20,1968
- 5. Stripping the borrow area of muck 200,000 c.y. /
- 6. Clearing and grubbing 87 acres <
- 7. Clearing 16 acres /
ne total cost of providing the site preparation as described above is# Ijl],oso which includes // f oe. manhours. , The fonowing conditions apply to each of the above methods:
- a. The muck removed in the demucking operation for the plant areas and the stripping of the borrow area will be spoiled in the adjacent swamp area of the property adjoining the plant site proper.
I b. No demucking is required or included for the dyke areas./ d of the discharge canal. .
- c. The slopes of the plant site area on the north side of the plant bordering Big Mud Creek will not require rip rap and therefore rip rap is not included for this area.
1
- d. The spillway areas for the relief spill of the discharge canal will only be cleared and grubbed and no excavation is included as it is considered that this will act be
( necessary.
- e. The intake canal will be dredged from its intersection of the intercoastal waterway to the mouth of Big Mud Creek and the dredged materialin this area win be spoiled over the side in the Indian River.
Bechtal has a prior committment on subcontracting the site preparation as described above and Florida Power k Light Company's acceptance of this alternate must be based on i honoring- this prior committmenD S o me me e i I P w
Op n [. - p Bg'CHTE1. CORPORATION f%* .d.).y'x.. s e gf g g
, f')';/ ' _ gp 0g
[g f S . 196
< ~~
L Mr, Robert H. Tite Bechtel propos es to_ Mas e all e-f r-y. . material and supp i.es as agent of Florida Power & Light C'ompany on a reimbursable basis, except ~ thaTTrintrTaTEd equipment inclu ed in the fixed lump surr Bechtel win secure all the necessary permits and licenses required to do business in the State of Florida As a contractor. All costs connected with the prseessing and obtaining ofhilding, construction or operating permits and licensing from the AEC r other agencies of government, including local, city, country or state, will be the responsibinty of
~~
I Fforida Power & Light Company. _~ m Bechtel proposes to subcontract certain3. awf the troieet in con-formance with our normal practice on Flor {da Power & LigbRompany ' jobs. Tae basis to be used on issuing subcontracts win be based on low cost regardless of whether the advantages de' ived are to Florida Power
& Light Company's or Bechtel's benefit from cost standpoint. These major items win be subject to mutual agreemegt, however, they generally include the fonowing: \ /, M ~I^*w-da-w a, u. %' W .
f
\
. . . g
, s f s,. -
t' M
.- Plant Build.ing.6 7.shiteFeatur es.
]# AUr. n hDewatering-= @ AU ~gf4 [
- bN k
/ /
/ Piling. k 2t._tSco Cfp Offsite Kaw Water Supply pystem I
{h
, Offshore Discharge Lines.h b %2%
- re Roads, Pa'rking Areas Fencing e [/0 ,,9
[' Turbine Generator Erectic. - - I fW f site Rigging and Haulle . talor Equipmei.t ' And?. *
$U CEaETnt'Ijner Plate i
bo. ' J- torage Tanks (refueling water, diesel oil,' condensate, ground level raw water; dy 3.,(,f' elevated treated water, or other storage q- hi tanks that are too large ass,embled to p [
' trans po rt) dTendon Ins lation d
ef wInculation ipe & equipment M O Painting s% h lat . f.'!Ct - 3 p
~
o
\
s
- 1 1
% h 1 A \
k
, s_ ,
s B ECHTEL. CORPORATION Mr. Robert H. Tite June 20,1968
. PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE Based on the turbine-generator providing turbine cycle heat rate not in excess of 10,246 Btu /kwh under the conditions shown on Westinghouse
- Heat Balance No. CT 21405 dated February 2,1968, and the nuclear steam supply system providing an output of 2,12Lthermal megawatts at the steam generator outlet nozzle _with a pressure of 815.esta and 99. 8% steam quality and the NSSS auxiliary power requirements not exceedin_g 2_Z,480 hp.
Bechtel guarantees that the generating installation will provide a net station heat rite of 10,935~139kwh at the low side of the main power i l transformer at a'Tios s generation of 856 000_kw at the generator terminals, with throttle steam conditions of 765 psia at 513.1 F and a back pressure of 2. 5 in Mr es., with an extraction neaters in service and zero per cent make-up. It is understood that this net station heat rate is the only guarantee of equipment performance made by Bechtel here-under. The net station heat rate guaranteed above shall be determined and demonstrated by means of a test consisting of not less than 200 hours of uninterzspted operation at the warranted terminal output of the nuclear steam supply system and turbine-generator guarantee point. The demon-stration test shall be performed within the first 18 months after the ' reactor goes critical and at a time to be designated by the Florida Pcwer
& Light Company.
We appreciate having been extended the opportunity to work with your people in an effort to better establish detail and perimeter of scope which established the basis of this revised proposal to Florida Power k 1.ight Company, it is our sincere desire to continue our long association with you, and should Bechtel be selected for engineering, procurement services and construction for Hutchinson Island, Unit No.1, we would be prepared to develop mutually agreeable contract terms and conditions. Very truly yours, 1,
.)M 6kJ H. O. Reins ch Manager of Business Development Power & Industrial Division i
i 1 a 1
,=
ATTACHMENT f1 SPALL TOCLS
. l d ?
Adzes Calipers, Micromater Anvils Car hovers Augers Cement Joining Tools J Ames Coats, Rain , 4 Ears, Bucking up Concrete Floats. Steel a
- Ears, Clav Cutters, Bolt
~
Bars, Crow Cutters, Wire , i Bars, Pinch Cutters, Pipe Bars, Elvet Busting Cutters, Tube Bars, Wrecking cutters, Tin Snips Balts, Safety Dolly, Rivet , Sinder, Load Chain Drills, Elect. (Under i") '$ P Drills, Breast ! ( Blocks, Rope and Cable i Blocks, Chain Drills, Yankee Rand . 1 1 Blocks, Snatch Edgers ] 4 Blocks, Tackle Emerywheel Stands K Boots. Rubber Fletters traces Flaring Tools 1 Brands Forges, Blacksmith or Rivet Buggies, C'oncrete Forks a Bull Points fullers Calipers, Tube Gads 4 Calipers, inside Gauges. Drilling Calipers, outside Gauges, Tealer 4 1 a e. l
( ATTACHME!;T #1 SMALL 70015 - Cont 'd Ladders, Extension Causes, Vire Ladies, Halting Causes, Center C e s,Aleafte
-* Levels, Hand Guns, Paint Lights, Plood Machinist Straight Edges Hanner, Sledge Hansner Hand Mattocks Mauls Ratchets Nuts, Die Ba ts , Rain Rickeys Picks Bods, Brick-lertar Planers Places kes Boods, Sandblasting Fliers ~
Books, Timber <, ant Plumb Bobs Pcts, Melting Books, Packing Pots, Fire Horses, Mason Fuller, Nail Bose, Ester k se, Air Pulleys Bose, Welding Pumps, Small Band Irons, Caulking Punches, Back Out Irona, soldering Peches, Bob Punches, Casket Jacks Reamers, Pipe Enives Drsv Knives, Putty Rakes Ladders Step Salamanders e
/.
l e
. t' ATTACHMCIT fI SMALL TOOLS - Cont'd Toegs, Chain Seve, Wood Hand Sews, Rocksew frames Tongs, Pipe 3
.c Se- ;., Rand Tongs, Beater j i Torches, Blow l Scrapers Torches, Cas Screw Drivers Trowels, cement i Screw Stop Shackles Truck,s, Rand j Sheaves, Steel Vises f l Shovels, Band Vhrelbarrows - Rubber Tired Signs Vire Twisters Spades Wrenches, Rigid Pipe Spikes, Marlin Wrenches, Monkey Stamp Steel Wrenches, Spud 5 Stocks, Pipe (To 2" Inc.) Vrenches, Crescent 7 Wrenches, Socket d Stoves. Oil Stoves, Electric Wrenches, Ratchet Tachometer I Tempers (Band) 2 Tarpaulins Tapes, Steel haasuring i I 1 Taps. Pipe Tinsnips ) l Tongs, Rivet Tongs, Stick i i i j i
w-- - -- ,, --
~ , .
ATTACHMENZ #3 . Cm: SUM.AELE SUPPLIES i Consumable Supplies are those supplies consumed during the progress ; of the work which are not directly incorporated into any work of a - 4 tempora ry or permanent nature. The following list, although not all-inclusive, is considered to be representative of the type of items capable of being Consumable Supplies. . 15 is understood that several items in this list have multiple a and uses and, therefore, in specific situations may be classified i as materials of construction or Consumable Supplies, depending on actual use. Acids Carborundum Blocks
'Adhe s ives Chalk, Marking Alcohol Chamois Babbitt Clarps, Cable Bags Water Cleaning Compounds Barrels, Water Clips, Cable Barrels, Trash Chisels ,
Batteries, Flashlight Cloth, Emery Belting Cloth, Straining , Belt Dressirs Coal and Coke Bits Connectors, Bose Blades, Cutting Cotter Keys B roome Crayons, Marking Brushes, Paint Creosote Brushes, Varnish Cups, Water
. Brushes, Marking Dies Bolt Brushes, Dope & T1ux, Brazing Vire Dies, Pipe ;
i' Cans, Gas Dippers Cans Oil Drills, Shank ; t Drills, Twist ' Carbide ; i t i i i j ] - I l
ATTACI:MZ27 #2 i . Cat:St?MArLE SU7 PLIES - Coct 'd I Drills, Star Eeys Lock Electrode Holders Lan terns Entr.ctor, Screw Letters, Steel (A to Z) Files Lighters, Tlint Tilters Line Chalk Flashlights Line, Masons Tunnels Lugs, Solder Fuses Mcps Gasoline Masks, Gas Glasses, Goggle Mandrel, for Bole Savs Glasses, Bood 011, Lubricating Globes, Flashlight 011 Cutting Globes, Lantern Oil, Diesel Gloves, All 011 Tuel Glue 011. Stones Clycerin Padlocka Cogsles Pails Graphite Paper, Sand Grease Paper, Emery GrindLng Compounds Feste, Solder Backssv Blades Patterns, Pipe Layout (Lae) Randles, All Pins, Drif t Boods Welder Pluss, Plumber Kerosene Punches, Center Keys, Chuck Eags, Viping S O O I l l
\
i A77/472C;7 #2 CONSt*Attl SUPPLIES - Cont 'd Respirators Supplies First Aid
/
Rollers Wood Supp1fes, Wash Room , Rollers, Pipe Tacks Rope, Staal Taps. Fish-Elect. Rope, Manila Taps', Rolt Rope, $11rts (Wire or Manila) Tips, Cutting Rope, Vire Tips, Welding Savs. Bole Twine I Screens, Sand Water Drinking Screws Waste and Dispensers Shields, Face Wedges Sleeves, Taper Shank Wheels, Cutting Soap Wheels, Crinding
*
- Soapstone Wheels, Emery Stencils. Ntambers 4, Letters RCTIE: Welding rod is to be furnished by the owner.
Startup lubes, fuels, greases, and cleaning or flushing chemicals, etc., to be furnished by client. l l l I i _ . - - - - , --,
- ~ .
- ATTACHMENT #3 SCEDU1Z CF RIIME3.5A31I CCSTS r;'C17""l*,DIC OTTTCE SEltVICES Owner shall reimburse Bechtel for all costs and expenses incurred by -
Bechtel in the performance of the services and in accordance with ! Rechtel's established policies and practices. Such costs generally include but are not limited to the following: Favro11 and Related Perscenel Costs Costs and related expenses incurred by Bechtel in accordance with its established personnel policies, including all salaries and wages of personnel engaged directly in the performance of the services, and all / esiployee benefits and allowances for vacation, sick leave, holiday, and social and retirenant benefits, all payroll t.:xes, premiums for public liability and property damage liability insurance, Workman's Compensa-tion and employer's liability insurance and all other insurance pre-miums measured by payroll costs, and other contributions and benefits , imposed by any applicable law or regulation. Indirect Costs . An amust equal to seventy five per cent (757.) of the costs described in paragraph above to cover the indirect cost to Bechtel of maintaining and operating established offices, which indirect costs are not charged to
' the service as direct costs and shall not duplicate such direct costs. v' Travel, subsistence and relocation of personnel engaged in the performance of the services.
Other Direct Costs a) The cost of all materials and supplies used in the performance of the work. b) Costs for reproduction of plans, specifications, reports and other data, and for computer service at Bechtel's es tablished rate, models and the like. c) All long distance consnunication costs. d) All costs associated with consultants, subcontracts, and other outside services and facilities. 1 l . I i I I l 1 1 1
w -, , 8 Brown & Roor,Inc. Gwynaces.cona zau S. -
, orrica s. evo., rem., T1 .ca.6 ....6, April 15, 1968 Dr. James C. Coughlin, Vice President
- Power Plant Engineering and Construction Florida Power & Light Company Post Of fice Bos 3100 Miami, Florida 33101
Dear Dr. Coughlin:
i 9 in response to your invitation, we are pleased to submit the attached I an 850-MW Nuclear Steam Turbine proposal to design, engineer, and construct Power Plant to be located on htchinson Island, Florida. The description of the proposed plant is generally in accordance with
" Florida Power & Light Company 1973 Nuclear Power Plant, M0,000 KW, Pla Description" dated January 31, 1968, The contractual structure of our Proposal set forth in our attached Proposal.
is generally in accordance with Florida Power & Light Cc-pany's 23, " Basis 1968,for Engineering-constructor Bid for 1973 Nuclear Plant" dated January g as more fully set forth in the Proposal. We take this opportunity to express our appreciation andfor forthe theopportunity cooperation of preparing and submitting a proposal for this project, We believe received from your staff during the preparation of the Proposal. that there are several features of our Proposal which should be highlighted briefly for your special conside*ation:
- 1. N yLorporation vill be associated with us in all licensing ICS matters and in engineering, des
- gn and construction of the nuclear ..f eatures.
CorporationTas an unmatched ability in licanaing matters, as demonstrated by their record on behalf of Carolina, Power &Jight Company, Commonwealth Edison Company, Florida Power Corporation-and _- - mothers.
- 2. Chicago Bridge & Iron Company will be associated with us in the design, f abrication and erection of the steel reactor containment vessel, The engineering which will be surroundad by a reinforced concrete shield.
costs, consumables, construction equipment costs, and construction aanhours for this subcontracted work is included in the Timed Sun and Manhour Target. For your information in bid comparison, the material cost of this portion of the project will be $ 3 f oo,oce.oo . 4 1 e
i BioWN & ROOT.mc.
' Dr. James 0. Coug511n, Vice President Florida Power & Light C.ompany April 15, 1968 Page 2 .
- 3. The construction phase of our work will be performed by our wholly-owned subsidiary, Mid-Vallev, Inc., under National Agreements '
with substantially all of the Building & Construction Trades Unions of the ATL-CIO. 4, k*hether work is to be sublet on a lump sum, unit price or cost reimbursement basis, veTave incTided 'in the fixed Sum all costs of engineering and construction equipment whether incurred by Brown & Root, Inc. or any subcontractor and we have included in the Manhour Target all actual hours of work which we anticipate vill be performed Inc. on the project whether perf ormed by aerployees of Brown & Root, or any subcontractor.
- 3. As a direct result of our Saf ety Program we enjoy a eurrent experience credit of 207. on Workmen's Compensation and F.mployer',s lis-bility insurance premiums on all our construction personnel. Because of the large volume of our construction operations, we receive a sub-stantial Premium Discount on Workman's Coc:pensation and General 1.ia-bility insurance. Since Florida Power & Light Cot:pany will be reimburs-ing the payroll costs, including premiums on insurance attributable to the construction labor in the Manhour Target, this discount may result in an additional savings in cost to you' in the range of $150,000. Also, in view of the extended duration of this project we are w g,a aco to arrange for a retrospective rating plan for this project, if you prefer, which may result in even larger savings. _
- 6. We propose to utilize our electric powered hydraulic dredge on the hydraulic dredging and filling operations, and this equipment will substantially reduce the construction costa. This dredge provides
), its own substations, which will be connected directly with the Florida j Po gvtight Company's 13.2 KV system.
For performance of the vora in accordance with the Scope of Work set forth in our Proposal, we propose a Fixed Sum of 7 Ameer,, m ////o,, faar Iwndred n/rr*h-+.co Theu na 2 ($13 92_000.0o) to cover the vposal, anc ocr hanhour Target costs defined in Paragraph I. C., of our defined in Paragraph I. C. of our Proposal is 2_ 980 CCC actual manhours. g[D C O , c c r.
/% V9 %
> 9 (o oce l
l l l
BROWN &Roor.e c. I Dr. James C. Coughlin, Vice President Florida Fover i, Light Company April 15, 1968 Page 3 For e Alternates and Take-outs discussed in Paragraph I. F. of our Proposal, we' Tollowing:
- 1. Cocouter inat allation Reduce the Fixed Sum by the amount of 889000,0o
, and the Manhour Target by _ /o, rk manhours.
- 2. Design of Buildings Reduce the Fixed Sum by the amount of / 35 750.co
- 3. Desirn of All 1telavine on the High-Voltare Sides of the Main Power and Start-Ue Transfermers Reduce the Fixed Sum by the amount of / 24, o co .c o
- 4. Steam Turbine-Driven in lieu of Motor-Driven Boiler Feed Pw::es Increase the Manhour Target by 8.SCO manhours.
- 5. Well Jater Svstem Reduce the Fixed Sum by the amount of /24 2Co.eo
, and reduce the Manhour Target by /7 Boo manhours.
- 6. Main Power Transformers a) Increase the Manhour Target by /3.000 manhours for two (2) 500,000 kva transformers.
b) Increars the Manhour Target by 22 ooo manhours for four (4) 333,333 kva transformers.
- 7. Additional Switchyard Features Increase the Fixed Sum by the amount of //C 6co.cd and increase the Manhour Target by _ 2 6_ oo e manhours for the addition of boys 4 and 5 to the switchyard.
e
I
. 1
. . . . 1 Bnown S Roor.tuc.
I Dr. James C. Coughlin, Vice President Florida Power & Light Company April 15,1968 Page 4
- 6. Aluminum versus Cooper Switchvard Bus 1 occ manhours for ;
Increase the Manhour Target by substitution of field welded aluminum bus for 'a threemanhours (3) bay switchyard. for sub-Increase the Manhour Target by 7 000 There stitution of field welded aluminum' bus f or a five (5) bay switchyard. vill be no increase for substitution of bolted aluminum bus. I l j
- 9. Transmission Pull-of f Towers \
Increase the Fixed Sum by the a=ount of -o- _, and increase the Manheur Target by -c-nachour s.
- 10. Circulatine-vater Discharee Lines Increase the Fixed Sum by the amount of ddS _ CCC oc and increase the Manhour Target by po see manhours.
Our Tized Sum includes the premium cost of the insurance which we provide at described in Paragraph I.G.(7) of our Proposal except for (1) premiuns based on payroll f or personnel included in the Manhour T and (2)' premium cost of Builders Risk Insurance. We are advised that "All Risk" Builders Risk Insurance, covering the interest of Florida Power & ( Light Cearpany, Brown & Root, Inc., Mid-Valley, Inc., and subcontrauers in l property which is a part of or intended to become a part of the project, i wherever located within the United States and Canada, including up to
$1,000,000 coverage during transit by watercraf t on inland waterways (including Indian River) land or air conveyances, with deductible of $1,000 each loss except that deductible for loss by windstorm, flood or wave wash vill be $50,000 each loss, is available to us for an annual cost of $0.15 perincluded
$100 of 4
final empleted value including owner furnished materials. We have not the premium cost on the Builders Risk Insurance in our Tixed Sun stated above because of the large number of options in the selection of perils, exclusions and coverage. It may well be that a more reasonable and more economical form of insurance with =mwwr= coverage limits, restrictions of the hazards insured, and certain other modifications, consistent with policies issued to the electric utility industry through Lloyds of london or the Ituelear Energy Property Insurance Association, can be obtained at O
. s
~
r% h e- e c
#c
/
3 iq ie . j
. sabw & Rocr...,c.
t , ( 1 */ r - h Dr. James C. Coughlin, vice President e c )O O N o Florida Power & Light Corpany c (, j CJu April 15, 1968 U j [ .: C, We vill be glad to discuss this matter with that this be a substantially reduced cost. you in detail, and for reasons which we vill explain, Bovever, if you decide that i m cost can webeurgethe added policy describ f discussed without delay.above is the et prudent policy to purchase, the prem u and we vill provide this policy. to our Fixed Sum gste nu=her as compared
. We propose to la vet' ion share Any) or actually overruns worked or uncerruns on the project & in the aggre of manhours of cons get adjusted as provided herein, onhthe Q 7. basis of theof Brown h with the Manhour
- Root, Inc. absorb og-EcTai/of any overrun and receivinged would be used underrun. Actual our s number cf manhours saved or overrun smaltiplied fits, by adjust:nent vill be t time hourly wage rate (exclusive of fringe bene) of all constructio the average straieht
~
aid
. prealian pay, taxes , insuranTaiGiT oth"eTpayroll The sTiaring in overrun or costslab by the aggregate aanhours worked on the project.fo A ooo ms.k ow1 underrun vill be /,W/f d de
/ l and we We appreciate the opportunity of presenting this proposa
, would be pleased of the project.
Our people will be available d date of Mayat1,your 1968. convenien out any details , etween now and the conteglated awar very truly yours, CO*
. BROWN & ROOT, INC.
l fC # c' e g\.l . N (.. {o
- T Barry . Austin
,/ Sen* r Vice President (ho -
HGA/ab 4
]* % w* Q
*'i[
- r % .6Ww :
5 g
~
am G A nm - e
. _ . . - _ _ _.. 1 - - . _ = - . - - . . - - _ _ _ - - - - - . - - - . . . - . n _ 7/24/60 JC If0TCilINSON ISLAND J g .// FINAL
SUMMARY
OF ENGINEER-CONSTRUCTOR BIDS BROWN & ROOT BF:CitTEL EBASCO
$ 9.300,000
$ 8,150,000 $ 9.750,000 Fixed Sum 33,000,000 32,000,000 30,000.000 Dollar Target
$ 42,300,000
$ 38,150,000 $ 41,750,000 Sub-Total A
( 50/50 to ) ( 50/50 to ) Sharing Over/Under - ( 50/50 to ) ($ 5,000,000) ($ 4,000,000) ($ 4,000,000) 2,000,000) Dollar Target ($ 2,000,000) ($ ' 2,500,000 ) Maximum Shore ($
$ 31,730,000
$ 31,730,000 Nuclear Steam System $31,730,000f*
22,600,000 22.600,000 22,600,000{' Turbine Generator 26,830,000 26,830,000 26,830,000 Plant Eoulpreent & Materials 2.000.000 2.000,000 ! 2.000.000 $ 83,160,000 (p," FP&L Other Costs $ 83,160,009/ $ 03,160,000 . Sub-Total B $125,460,000
$121,310,000 $124,910,000
$148/KW TOTAL PLANT COST. A&B $143/KW $147/KW o
s e
% 9 i
. _ . _ _.__ _m . . _ _ _ _ .m._. _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _____ m. . _ _ _ - _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ .
. _ _ . . . . _ _ _ . _ . . .m__ . _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ __
, 7/24/68 JC 110TCilINSON I SIAND FINAL
SUMMARY
OF ENGINEER-CONSTRUCTOR BIDS J g #1
~-
E BASCO DECirTEL BDOWN & ROOT 0 rixed Sum $ 8,150,000 $ 9,750,000 $ 9.300,000 L Dollar Target 30,000,000 32,000,000 33,000,000 Sub-Total A $ 38,150,000 $ 41,750,000 $ 42,300,000 Shating Over/under - ( 50/50 to ) ( 50/50 to ) ( 50/50 to ) Dollar Target ($ 4,000,000) ($ 5,000,000) ($ 4,000,000) Maximum Share ($ 2,000,000) ($ 2,500,000) {$ 2,000,000) Nuclear Steam System $ 31,730,000 $ 31.730,000 $ 31,730,000 4 Turbine Generator 22,600,000
- 22,600,000 22,600,000 Plant Eoulpment & Materials 26,830,000 26,630,000 26,830,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 "
i FP&L Other Costs .
Sub-Total B $ 83,160,000/ $ 83,160,000 $ 03,160,000 $
TOTAL PLANT COST, A& B $121,310,000 $124,910,000 $125,460,000
- $143/EW $147/KW $148/KW t
i 9% 4
7/34/6?
. JC COST 12*ALYSIS FOR PUTC'?!MSO;t ISLAUD 850,000 Kw !"JCLEa.R PLA?:7 - EBASCO Acreement
$ 31,7 30,000 *"
I. NUCLEAR STE AM SYSTEM [1
. p II. TU P3 !NE-CINE RATO R $ 22,600,000 III. CONTRACTCR' S FIXED SUM INCLUCES: ,
S 8,150,000 ,#
- 1. Engineering
-l 2. Home Office Services
- 3. Fee IV. CONTRACTOR'S B ALANCE OF WORX INCLUCE9 - TARGET? $ 30,000,000
- 1. Construction Equipment & Tools to 1
support all Centractor's Labor
- 2. Non-Manucl Personnel stationed at Site
- 3. Consumables
- 4. Field office Expense
- 5. Temporary suuldings & Shops ,
- 6. Purchased Utilities . .
(The following include Equipment, Labor &
~
Materials in Place s) , 7. Demucking, fill, dredgLng' canals, clearing & grubbing . ( 8. Placement of fill and compacting
- 9. Plant Building . Architecture Features
- 10. Dewatering a . 11. Piling 3
- 12. Offsite raw water supply
- 13. Roads, Parking Areas, Fence
- 14. Offshore Discharge Lines (1100 ft.)
- 15. Turbine Generator Erection
- 16. Cnsite Rigging & Hauling of Major Large Equipment
! 17. Containment Liner Plate
- 18. Storage Tanks
- 19. Tendon Installation
- 20. Insulation
- 21. Painting
- 22. Contractor's Field Labor 1,595,000 hrs. S $7.30/Er.
( $11,643,000) 50/50 Share Overrun & Underrun Maximum Share $ V. BALANCE OF PLANT EOUIPMENT & MATERIALS- ESTIMATE $ 26,830,000-(Condensers Heaters, Pumps, Motors, Concrete. Steel, etc.) VI. FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMP ANY $ 2,000,000 (Taxes, EngLneering, Permits, Licensing)
$121,310,000
' ICTAL $143/xw 1
4
;i i t,T,Y JO CC5* M7.t??is FOR p/TC!ITSC'" IFRED EJO,000 Fh **JC!.nM PIR:7 - EBASCO AcreePent 8 , $ 31,7 20,C00 - I, stCLEAR STT.A:4 SYSTEM a
S 22,600,000 II. TC Rf **:r-CINIRATO R CCYTRACTCR's r*y.ED se:.' TrCte:Es $ 8,150,000
. III.
- 1. Ingineering =
- 2. Hr e, office Services ,
- 3. Tee IV.
CONTRACTOR 'S E A* ANCE CT troR:< INC_tOrg - TApsET, $ 30,000,000
- 1. Constructicn Iquip=ent & Teols to support all Centractor's Labor n
- 2. Non-Manual Personnel statiened at Site
- 3. Consumables
- 4. Field office Expense
- 5. Te porary Buuldings & Shops
- 6. Purchased Utilities (The following include Equip =ent, Labor & ,
Materials in Places)
- 7. De=ucking, fill, dredging' canals,
- clearing & grubbing
(, 8. Placement of , fill and cc=pacting
- 9. Plant Building . Architecture Features
- 10. Dewatering
- 11. Piling
- 12. of f site raw water supply
- 13. Roads Parking Areas, Fence
- 14. of fshore Discharge Lines (1100 ft.)
- 15. Turbine Generator Erection .
- 16. Onsite Rigging & Hauling of Major Large Equipment
- 17. Containment Liner Plate
- 18. Storage Tanks
- 19. Tendon Installation
- 20. Insulation .
- 21. Painting *
- 22. Contractor's Field Labor 1,595,000 hrs. S $7.30/Mr.
($11',643,000) 50/50 share overrun & Underrun
. Maximum Share $
V. BALANCE OF PLANT EOUIPMEN5 & MATERIALS- ESTIMATE $ 26,830,000-(Condensers. Heaters, Pymps, Motors, Concrete, Steel, etc.) .
$ 2,000,000 VI. FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY' *
(Taxes. Engineering, Permits Licensing)
~ ' $121,310,000 TOTAL $143/gw I
t I
J 0 7/2 y/4k n:
,h d ft %~ / .C t aQ_
i EA m.Aw/ 4 FIZip.'
~
~ ~
=~
~
~ ~ ~ 54 ;W ! g a;;WKfk.
~ ~ L~ i i saJ isi.;~ L~ch t h # J L A ~ _.
1 3l u_ l k . . ..
~
.ht%Ld -#z A.i
~
~~ ~
(
~
x w_k s%3MA. 3 .
. f _.
I k . N ~%
. . .E.ii: 6 Bd.L 60 E d.I. A d k a sg 9 m J tt m .Ceaas S p 6A a tL pyg A tL,a.%. ext & M vm
. ,e a o ~ t-l l
l O
D
- j ' !'
- - - - ~ . . [. .
- 7/17/63
- JC CCST A 4 LYSIS FCR
! MUTC':! S^N ISLA:3 3 50,000 MW WCLEAR PIANT
!TCLEAR S EAM SYSTEM $ 31,730,000 I.
TUP 3 ::*!-CI':E PATO R $ 22,600,000 I I'. III. _CCNTPACTOR'S FIXED SW. INCLUOE S :
$ f C,3 7C.C 0 0 i
- 1. Engineering
- 2. H0me Office Services I7'#N'T .
- 3. Fee I
IV. CC::TPACTCR ' S B ALANCE CF WORK INCLUCES - TAPOET- 33,0CC,000 l 1. Constructien Equipment & Tools to - i i support all Centractor's Labor Q, C,0c c, 0:: C'
- 2. Non-Manual Persennel statiened at Site
- 3. Censumables
- 4. Field Office Expense
- 5. Temporary Buuldings &,Sheps
! 6. Pur. chased Utilities (The following include Equipment, Labor & Materials in Places) y
- 7. Demucking, fill, dredging canals, d clearing & grubbing \g
- 8. Placement of fill and ecmpacting 5
(
- 9. Plant Building Architecture Features
- 10. Dewatering q 'ps")A-
- 11. Piling // ek
- 12. Of fsite raw water supply 8
- 13. Roads Parking Areas Fence
- 14. Offshore Discharge Lines (1100 ft.) g, -
- 15. Turbine Generator Erection g.
- 16. Onsite Rigging & Hauling of Major T p Large Equipment g
- 17. Containment Liner Plate h* .p
- 18. Storage Tanks //j
- 19. Tenden Installation a*
- 20. Insulation M
- 21. Painting
- 22. Contractor 's Field Labor 1,595,000 hrs. S $7.30/Hr.
($11,643,000) 50/50 Share Overrun & Underrun Maximum Share $ V. BAI.ANCE OF PI. ANT EOUIPMEN"' & MATERIALS - ESTIMATE $ 26,830,000-t (Condensers, Heaters, Pumps, Motors, Concrete. Steel, etc.) i M $ 2,000,000 VI. FLORICA POWER & LICHT COMPANY (Taxes, Engineering, Permits, Licensing) MTAI, (llc' t ) Q E ' ";;*' ~ 1 1
F
's 7b >p 2 j u:i x e 8, R L 6v.
B 7,m.6' ic,3 7c,cer hr.ect M m 9,750,ect a c,m m _L3, as en p. ~ m : ht), ; 2 2,mm . t}i,75e,m 3f, m y e. s 3, uc;m (37,e : ) .
- O *
- O N m Meee*M mm y egapawh
- - - . - - * = -
* =
e W 6 6e mm- e ( e-O # 4 6 @ G e
,e-.
6
+ . _.
DRATT . y \f
~
/ ]@
> 1
. / JC
.L 6/27/68
{ ESTIMATED TOTAL PLANT COSTS PRELIMINARY SU MMARY OF BIDS ($ MILLION) All site work, canals, fill. . off-shore ceoling water. piping and pillng (Includes W materials, labor and 5.50 5.50 5.50 equipment rental) Lump Sum 11.65 (Adjusted all same basis) 11.90 15.55 Construction Hours (2,020,000) (3,003,000) (Adjusted all same basis) (2,538,000) 18.56 14.77 21.93 Construction @ $7.31/hr. * \' sfr \s 35.96 35.82 39.08 Sub-total I Balance of Plant Equipment 27.00 27.00 27.00 and Mat'erials Est. 62.96 62.82 66.08 31.73 31.73 31.73 NSSS (less computer) 22.60 22.60 22.60 Turbine -Generator 2.00 2.00 > 2.00 FPkL Allowance 119.29 119.15 122.41 e Total Plant Cost t u s/ ($140 /KW) ($; ; ;*?) ($140/KW) I l g . 0 O a 5 L _ ~ .
7 / *./ ~,3
'ge '*
- a'T! !M 7-U?' SYEUM
_ FT PJ4
$31,730,000 $37.30/KW
*A'F37::E-GENE?ATOR TIPJ4
$22,600,000 $26.60/KW CONTRAC OP 'S TIXED St'M
- 1. Engineering
- 2. Hoce Office Services
- 3. Construction Equipment & Tools to support all contractor's Labor site
- 4. Ncn-nanual Personnel stationed at -
- 5. Consumables
- 6. Field Office Expense
- 7. Te=porary Buildings & Shops M
- 8. Builders Risk Insurance $70,204,000
- 9. Purchased Utilities SS2.60/KW
- 10. Tee r fiPd 57% of. Total Plant i
$15,874,000 $18.70/Kw ALL SUBCONTRACTOR (Includes Equipment,
- S WORKLabor & Materials in Place)
- 1. De=ucking, fill, dredging canals, clearing & grubbing
- 2. Flacement of fill and ccmpacting
- 3. Plant Building Architecture Features
- 4. Dewatering .
- 5. Piling
- 6. Offsite raw water supply
( 7. Roads, Parking Areas, Fence
- 8. Of fshore Discharge Lines (1100 ft.)
- 9. Turbine Cenerator Erection
- 10. Onsite higging & Hauling of Major Large Equipment ,
- 11. Containment Lines Plate
- 12. Storage tanks
- 13. Tendon Installation TARGET
- 14. Insulation $12,000,000
- 15. Painting $14.20/KW
- 16. Concrete Batching & Hauling TARGET 10% of Total Plant
$12,000,000 $14.20/KW Share 50/50 overAJnder to TARGIT CONTRACTOR'S FIELD TABOR TARGET $12,000,000 1,638,000 Hrs. $14.20/KW
$12,000,000 9 $7.30/Hr. $14.20/KW 107. of Total Plant Share 50/50 over/tJnder to TLORIDA PCWER & LIGHT COMPANY (Taxes, Engineering, Permits, Licensing) ESTIMATED
$2,000,000 $2.36/KW ERIALS _ ESTIMATED
- $29,000,000
_BAIANCE OF PIANT EQUIPMCIT & MAT $34.16/KW (Condensers, Heaters, Pumps, Motors, Concrete. Steel, etc.) EST. AT CcST 23% of Total Plan-
$27,000,000 $31.80/KW
$123,240,000 TOTAL PLANT $145/KW
e FOrrEli WilEELEll CollPOllATION
)
Engkrets . Ma n ufact u rern . Const rurs orn
- est FIFTH AVENt'E. NEW YORK. N. Y.10019 ". .'::.",1*.l.*'"..'!..:.:.".:.:.:.** * * " "
- June 20, 1968 Niff te O) e Mr. R. H. Fite, President Q Florida Power and Light Company ,O Q l P. O. Box 3100 .
Miami, Florida 33101 I
Dear Bob:
CAM CDERATUG ZW.*E.NT
}VR LOO W UNIT WC PFICPCSAL 0 79799
% are attaching our proposal covering the design of a steam generating unit for a turbine having a mMmm capability of 430 W. As I mer.tioned to you in our last meeting, this boiler, based upon heat input, is approxi-matehr 59% of the size of the unit we now have on order with you for the -
730 W turbine. W have also incorporated in this design all of the engineering concepts including design stresses and tube materials that were included in the 730 W boiler. Le price for the equipment as described in the at* ached pro-posal, fob cars, y'-* ** *~e delivm of ee-mn earMer at ycur nearest plant site rail siding, anc inclucag conscruction supervision, sez-rices of start-up engheers, and erection of nfractory, insulation and pipe lagging is ECHT MILLION 7 SE. EN HUNLRED THOUSAND IDU.1RA . . . . . . . . . ($8,700,000) / W will also offer for your consideration a duplicate steam generating unit for one year later delivery at a price of HET NTUTCN SII HUNORED DEUSAND IDLLARS . . . . . . . . . . ($8,600,000) The abeve prices are firm fer sea-L*1ed 9"v- -r dates, stated later, with the exception of tne u.si.adation of refractory, 2msalation and pipe lagging which is based on the folic #2g Adjustable Average 02arantmed Labor Rate Man Hours
$6.00 per hour 34,100 1st Unit............................
$6.00 per hour 328,100 ,
2nd Unit............................ i As indicated above, the installation of refractJry, insulation and pipe lagging is based on an adjustable field labor rate of $6.00 per hour. The
t . . ... 2 June 20, 1968
...-.u.. n, ..n MR. R. H. TI"I, FRESITC TICRICA MIR AND LIGHT CO.
0-2-79799 erection prices, therefore, are subject to acust=ent (increase or decrease) due to any changes in this specified labor rate occurring after the date of this quotation. b total aQustment (increase or decrease) ef t be limited to the labor rate actually paid at the time the installation work is em:pleted multiplied by the actual hours worked, but in no event to excees the guaranteed man-bours specified for the units . For purposes of adjustment, the labor rate actually paid shall consist of and include Straight tire labor rates, insurance, taxes, velfare, subsistence, pensions, travel allowances and such other benefits applicable and paid at the site at time of installatien. In ad ition,'if any overtime is performed at the request cf the l Purchaser and/or if the Corpcration find.s it necessary to pay overtime premium to attract field labor in sufficient c::mber and quality to perfor:n the installation work in accordance with scheduled coz=it=ents made in our proposal, such additional over-time pre =1um costs shall be paid by the Purchaser. All prices ccatained in this quotation are exclusive of federal, state, ( or local taxes. Our firm prices are based upon the following shi cing
~-
schedules u Secend Dr.it First Unit December 1,1970 Shipment of stractural steel........ .Dece=ber 1.1969 March 1,1971 Drum **;=.nt. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March 1, 1970 The remainder of the equipment will be shipped in an orderly fashion to meet a scheduled ccaumercial operation date of A=ril 1,1972 for the first unit and one year later for the second un.;. These dates can be inet only if we are permitted to start the engineering design July 1,1968, and have a full release for prochietion by Octoberex- l_.
$. As I mentioned to you, we would be willing to li=1t finaraa posure to a =h of $50,000 to cover the engirmering between July 1 and October 1,1968. If you are not able to release this unit in accord-ance with the above dates, we would do everything possible to maintain a s wh schedule, but because cf possible prior cam:itments, we might not be able to delay shipment in direct preportion to the date of your release.
I can assure you that if you are able to release us for engineering on July 1,1968, we will hold the shcp space available for the abcre ccm=ited deliveries up to October 1,1968. The Go- ral Cendi+* am ."4ehed to oc ereM for the 730 MW unit would apply a s quctation. i l
ed., .. . . . u a June 20,19SS
. no . .. n - 3 MR. R. H. ETE, FRESIT.NT T t,CA PC' AIR A.C LIGHT CO.
0-2-79799 The desi,;n of this boiler is such that it could be started from a cold condition to fall pressure and te perature in 2 3A hours, and from a hot or bottled-up condition to ful.1 pressure and te::perature . in 1 hour. 'a'e must point out, however, that we believe the turbine restrictions would require somewnat longer starting periods. If you have any questiens regardi.ng this quotation, I would be pinased to discuss these with you. Very truly yours, l lL,J. IM
- AI Ealsey F. Scith Sales Manager Eastern Region
.~
)
cc: Dr. James Coughlin ' s
,[
( Florida Power and Light Coq:a- , P. O. B:at 3100 Miami, norida 331c1 N g # ( 1 /
/
/t r !
y -
/ 4.9 .
,. '. O ,,, # ,
%k...
. 4
*O h /
- w, 6 g..
f v.
'y
,e t,< ,v h @4 s
f.,4g . 8,f L ,
)
l
I, *IC/P/DI f 4 -/ -i - d 5 G kn,- L- l /9 2.5 k er 7 Y
&d F p .,,es. .~ . c-.d we.M , f, 0 0 s., O s_,
sy0 0,$> s u rnsnA-aW /da W /2 2 u F r[e h.s ,6h ,
, 2,3 % aos 6Mr -
n u t. w s Q ,7 - => yi2,--- n..~
<. ~ 6 a s . , , - ,7 i u
.r' , 0 -
C,,s /~., fm p/ /(6 - /d-y1, . uA / 4 >
- c. ~ ,. . u._,
2,Oce O~ ~ Eu
/ O,. 4 oO , O o.)
' ba le j b=f,*c>- .r d e>~
/Q, 4 O O, W ( Y ~7 C O
/, C O u, woa /J w 2[ 60 o, = 3 3
// den h W O b U) (O se y
. 2, s . ., -
[faL 6at 1 k 2, e .o .*,, e o u D. L . . u -
- s o, n _, a- ~
p.A de , C,.,' t./ C / s4-U*w fO Y h' -_ $fe e ( /9'y ~ /es W E' 4 m u. <
w
- i ,
* ,e . .. %
94, e,,zi ;/..! - p l
" l
- ,;:' f-C. 5 %~
t QO I i FL0nIDA%g POWEP(g( / a dGET CO . P.O. s013100 waw, rtonica miei November 16, 1967 JP r Combustion Engineering, Inc. . Windsor, Connecticut 06095 Gentlemen 1967, meeting, the Board of Directorsdof At its November 13, this Company authorized its of ficers to firm up a tentative cr er(herein for an 800 Megawatt nuclear reactor i us to be a nuclear steam system and fuel therefor fer an approx l - mate 800 MW turbine and hereaf ter referred to as such a nuc earfor ins steam system and fuel therefor) early 1973. It is our intention to firm up such an erhr frem you at the 7 rice or prices agreed upon today by you and us o be inserted in - a final or firm contract or contracts subject tos (1) Your and our representatives working out toofour the supply suchsatis-a faction as quickly as possible, nuclear steam system and fuel therefor that fully meets the scope of our specifications in the matters and (2) The preparation and concurrent execution by you and us and delivery as quickly as possible of all :nntracts re-quired between us in the matter and specifying in a final or firm contract and alse containing all of and conditions hereaf ter negotia-the agreements, terms, ted by you and us and ef fective between you and us and mutually agreeable to you and us at the time of such execution. We advise you as above because of your representation in to order us that you need to and are willing to start engineering work to meet contemplated delivery dates, however, both you and we are.
. t D
4 l r e e sg\
. vw s
e a e w 1
, , mn . n:. . =
L, p
. ~\ ,
j %4, q\+ * ,, \s > y - s . s ,\ ,,
,,-- t g , e
\ '
s<# . - >- %
;\ -
u . . . , t, J. , N3 h, % .
% \
November 16, 1967 combustiopjEngineering.Inc.
- w .
~r ,, '
N 4 _ , ,t - ssed intention and the
,' in complete agreement that our above expre\ intended fina l, or fi
,4 y f
- 1
\ t^ will not be.censidered final or firm until and unless both o ,
the corditjens set out in (1) and (2) above are fully performed and complied ,with by both you and us. g '
'i
,The Cowpany and its representatives will work with you so as satisfy the conditions above set forth.
' L ~~*iv La a
~ Je above correctly states the understanding between us ia ce matter please so indicate in the space provided below and
\*{j return the original of this letter to us.
V,ery truly yours, _ 3 g '
\ '
..\ .
,, ( hf,, . bs ,
\,
~
> Robert H. Fite /
'3
' - _ President & General Manager s
s The above correctly and fully states
- s. the understanding between us in this satter s
Ccmbustion Engineering, Inc. t I e . gy, & l ..,, ( ; L /. - . - . Execut e vice President 4 k.
+ g 4
' y
- I
, O \
w k\
- . , i s
(4 x .
- s 4, . , , - s
- i* *A s _
,, e s s ,
- ,\ _ .
.. .s . .
% 64 1 i %:
",' q s< h<
s
+ -o ,% .Am
%n- p , 0 .,
A 's- ix - 1
- g. '
Y s.'
- g % i
\ ~ f*
I
% _,4 *
- i N
s.
-c - * . .
i; - *
.' 's "h.
, 4\ -
, , \% '
- 7:
e, s 3
,~
%. ' } + . -
N'.'s / E19 ,
- g. 9-29 67 a
StM%PY CT 1977-73 CT5 T'MW 7 d tions and find-of this memorandum is to summarise the recommen d 9/15/67. aCeneratin The purpose t on 1972-73 I ings containe; in our repor rating units to be 13I'clie',Stuart area. installed in 1972 and thereaf ter; one in the North a
- ting of approxi-
~~~~In North the North it is recommended that"~~~~~~~ the,Lehtj5, site, consisFlagl mately 2400 acres, he acquired in preference to the upon being able to: for increasing the 4
e lt from taking ;
- 1. Obtain approval from the State and local authoritie into the ocean.
cooltag water fram the Intracoastal and dischargLng n TP&L and Flagler supply of cool-2. Construct a small boat inlet as a joint project betwee nerating units / County as a public facility so as to insure an ad are added. nd a design which l I 3. Engage the University of Florida to study and to: ibutable reconme will eliminate a) any beach erosion problems attrAn ocean discha b) A small boat inlet and jetties. I last circulating When the higher The recommendations in Bechtel's report i ion costs.were ter based supplyonly costs,on p water costs and did not include land or transm ssland and then the Lehigh site is more economical for a pow as sumnarized on page 3. for an ultimate The plant layout and circulating watersatts. design is adequate development of $000 sw for both fossil and nuc1*st itial site development and the Stuart Ares While the Salerno site will cost more for both init is some 15 mile transmission than the Rutchinson Is1.nd site, As additional generating units are added, sav West Palm Beach ioad area. transmission line costs will more than of f set k the Salerno site These However, f actors beyond engineering hinson considerations Island site. may ma e unacceptable and result in the selection of the Hutc factors are: t therefore, 1 The site lies southeast of the towns of Salerno and Stuar ,from the d six miles the prevailing winds will carry the pitme The stack would be approxLaately two miles from Salerno an
- from Stuart. l tion centers 2.
AEC siting criteria and proximity to possible major popu a that may develop in the Salerno-Stuart area. 3 I e e I l 1 l
g
. 2 that would
- 3. Possible improvements and enlargement of the Stuart Airport impose stack height limitations.
4 Possible objections from the Hobe Sound communtry on Jupiter Island. selection of the Hutchinson Assuming that these factors result in theshould be noted that all of the transmiss Island site, it Even though this is the narrowest part of the tiver be-cross the Indian River. tween Fr. Pierce and Stuart, it is still approximately ese and one-half miles from an aesthetic standpoint. wide. The crossing may invoke protest P The Hutchinson Island site consists of approximately 1150 acres, The of which site is about two siles is ocean frontage and 1000 seres, mangrove swamp. adequate with sufficient cooling waterItavailable for asthat is our opinion ultimate development of this site 5000 sw for both fossil and nuclear units. iles will meet the AEC nuclear siting criteria, since it is located about Highwayeight A-1-Am I southeast of Ft. Pierce and about ten sites north of Stuart. traverses the tract with r.auseways to the mainland at Stuart, Jensen and Ft. Fierce. The incremental site development and transmission costs for Salerno and Hutchinson Island are summarised vs page 3. 1972 "ntt It is recommended that the 730 av unit scheduled for service in the Spring of 1972 be installed on the Lehigh site for the following reasons: l 1. 37 the Summer of 1972 the estLaated peakInload the of 1500 event of av an in the North outage will exceed its total generation by 429 sw. of one of the Cape Kennedy 400 av unita, the load will axceed the re-maining generation by 829 av.
- 2. The 1972 transmission requirements will be less than for a unit located l in the Stuart area, of f setting the higher site development costs, as shown on page 4 the rapid growth rate on
- 3. The past 1967 Summer peak loads indicate that It this trend continues
! the system north of Ft. Pierce may be decreasing. j and the 1972 Summer load in the North should be only as high as 1200 mw, there will be enough transmission lines to deliver the excess power in the North to the balance of the system. 1973 Unit Following the 1972 unit installation in the North, it is recommended that the unit, either fossil or nuclear, scheduled for service in the Spring of 1973, be installed in the Stuart area for the following reasons:
- 1. A unit in the Stuart area vill be strategically located to supply the By the Summer of 1973 the West West Palm Beach end West Coast loada.
Palm Beach area load will exceed the generating capacity of the Riviera Plant by 221,000 kw and the West Coast will exceed the capacity of the Ft. Myers Plant by 247,000 kw.
- 2. The 1972 and 1973 transmission requirements will be lessinthan for the transmission other plana studied, deferring approximately $2,100,000 lines, as shown on page 4.
. PVS /Zi.2 9 29-67 t ~
1 i I'tCPLT7A1, COSTS 7tActu ECACH vs. LEw!CM 1 (Thousands of Cotters) tehieh Flatter Beach 1st 2nd Total 2nd Total 2 Units let 2 Units tie tt Unit i' M M 12C0
- 1200 2740 - 2740 Cost of Site 350 3850 5130 3500 2880 2250 Cooling Water and Fill - 1800
- - 1800 Small Boat intet 17e5 E E E E 220 1 Flant switchyard 8645 8075 570 7195 2470 9665 Subtotal Ease Base ?ase Incremental Transmission ,1,2]O E 1750 Lines 570 8645 11415 8075 8445 2970 Total .
l INCPCdITAL COS*S S ALDNO vs . _CO81NS ON ISW"J (Thousands of Dollars) Mutchiesen Island Salerno 1st 2nd - Total 1st 2nd Total 2 Unfts i Unir Unit 2 Units M Unit 1500 - 1500 1500 - 1500 Cost of Site - 2750 2750 2000 2000 750 3 Cooltog Water and Fill -
- 800 Drawbridge and Access Road 800 y 770 1000 4
780 220 1000 Plant Switchyard 4280 970 5250 5080 970 6050 Subtotal 190 3339 3529 & Incremental Transmission Sase Base Base Lines (Assumes 1972 unit at Lehigh) _ 4470 4309 8779 5080 970 6050 Total Base Base Incremental Transmission 2981 =758 Base 1777 tines (Ass m s 1972 unit _ -, Stuart area) 5250 4280 970 6857 3951 10808 Total 1 l I e l l
4 - ,. Hys / Eta
~
9-29 67 J .4 1972 A?S 1973 t,' NITS i M'NCM1?G O'l ISLMO vs . Levi *H a (Thousands of Dollars) i Hutchinson Hutchinson i Lehigh Island Island 1977 _ 1972 R
- P 1 Cost of $tte i 2,000 2,000 Cooling Vater end Till 3,500 U 790 780 Flant $witchyard M l 2,780 2,780 5,075 Subtotal I 7.&73 Transmission Lines g 7,473 10,253 10,253 9,320**
4 Total - 1972 . i
- 2nd Unit Hutchinson Rutchinson Island Island Lehigh 1873 1073 1973
.f 3,500 75 0 Cooling lister and Fill 2,000 j
g 2:0 Flant $witchyard 780 l j 5,075 970 Subtotal 2.780 ! 4.545 M i Transmission Lines M 8,380 9,620** 15.089 Total - 1973 i 19,873 25,342 i 17,700 Total - 1972 sad 1973 i '
- Assad that both sites will be purchased. Not needed for let unit.
** Small boat inlet at a cost of $1.800 not included.
I 4 4 .. I t 6
ea ... :.' rs h.r
.- [. r- = .? e..~
i,' J
- i' Q:u
.za 14.
's '
L.,i' = hr , , ;- a 1 J.-?'. .
..:. ; /.;,%:.;. i I
STAyCC.15DHE"; E, Q ,W3%
,-1 ' , , . -...,:M7t.1.. _ * .e- y
/ 'c,p V. - ' %. %pfr( .,49.,_l'
, .T _,
.w 2,RyA}
s h-i
, **"f'*q-(c #,~f
. . .d. &j ( _ "'.d . g.)sJ,WJ'( .-f% r ~
<- o s
E. :: 3,
.t
.s.,- w, , .
- . . ..~,.
(, .w e > >. = .s ,, kW ,, f ' "y 8j ~ 5o -- kQ,n,,".f..<<$*h I ay!/--
- :. -:- .h..iv'.:>:c,(pa
. . . . u m s,n eN ,
'5- .ia (- \ FLAGLdR SE:ACW [
- w. 3 p,\'gl'4 ,w- m'-I uc. .;.
....-a y.;
j.
~ '
.-4.- Q y M k8 l
>a.3. !E'W_-l .
e
. 9A av Idd,.,.-:,S 'id. .-50m, ' .' 6 . , -j s
>)LEHIG$ k
- -- o-r' 4 0 -
="3 '
' y. ',: y pw %-
i 3, g,- . .
- i. . y / be Au5
- . C r -f t . , , -
-\
- \ .< 5 '"* '7 s
kN'v.h'b \ \ -h-
.*f~d d, $ M / M3,.1(h
- g. 4 ----
M.M'm/ji. 7-Mi gg:N h- _ k kh j ~[ ,h
- _-?[,ALs h'k ,, -
E kGr_c.rG.4.-5 q.]. .~ . g g:L:-
.ng c %-. 91- A. 4%, y " '\, - ,
4 . 55[M14[ -k_.f i'7Ms.1 l
. ,T . -
>N.g}* ,h
@.~~n~'% . .
'";l . _
..h,*!E2), ~.l.}?f?;-LT*
. . w ., . _ .
Qff ? e i, ._
.y.
- ev. ,r. ;.. -
. -. Z Wc.. _*::rm',. .
b h' '~ G
., . L. ,
. /,ce,< 10 A P'*4, - ' ' *
~
' ' MME,66%f .,', -) -l ,..
q- ~ c ' .4 g;:.y-ry( s, . . g ,"gy.,,T , g .\'
, .g.,
.. .. e 4.
.<u OM u s. - -
\,
~
ve.Lus.t -
% sgt.
- o. SVRTCHLM .a
.(
ri
'4:.. ,Q ' " -
.f p S, tb W $ ., ' Ms ,. i\
-4.4.
.s c'( -
#a, _ -- .
.i,\
.,.s !i . r m , ro s a A ._-3v )v-s g .
Le .1.\t -i . . .: d. - 'iD , a me_ '
.g b-kk _Dhd -) \ j. kM
eq. .w vm mu pyg ~ s' d..g "' q!rV. = -
..__. ~ -
.) ,$ 4 ,
- i. , ,[ _ e. M ,':".'1,&'*-' j( . t
.n m - ., ,
t J g,, w).p c--p . ,r i ~_" . - m * - b , y..4 +4 " " e%, v. Y , }_.
. *;.r
.n . ,
< r1
'.1; 2-6 \ r N. 29,k.7
.7 eJ.b.
-r
%c:s ,,-Aw.u,.
) ,,..v., .j ' ' . . > . ..w
, .- ,. C, - t,e u_,,s .s- ,
.~ -
,s ,
v , -
,. ,/
a-n. x w ;, s.f r T; .. 1_. y~yv-g ra, _ 0 ,.
- w. , .~s,
.~*
n *.
.a
.3 %. __ f -
=s g.-
'!sh*%%w-{E :. U '_"~ eg~ ' ,%.,..
,y nC
..rw.n tg[MH.*Q *-
O C Eq] i; Ls y,- g t
= - ~
- gd . q c
y., .e
.- . - i .. .i, . p i =r - ch3,w+
t g , 9 o . I Q;N'"-M,S w fj j T -Q} . .- c v ,
@ [t K 7 r-~-- F N A . w W, % , . ' g ' ( f.A'M .
s t- _7 4 . [ ,,,, v , c ; f=m-_-w-m p q .. 7 - c -: . c.. o.
- nn ..a . ,,
a - ..
% e 4, _guTcHtfdN,oA N
[k: , s..u._n;i.N/ Mr eme ;.. ::[3 . -- MMU2 _. bf~'v\
.y- .g' ss p o
-_ s
.mrtuv ;\.f . i. - -
,f 4 4 s._, m.sit.gs p
2.
# 0 0
]" ,
4 W 3.dl ( .
- - 4 ;
- ---\ . . -
~
c . p- ? "&,,\ -f. ~
/
f.h r=.-;,h,>yn D-- k ,'DE-? /d- h6
.)f)W#4hhf gM..? :
b<' W):P ,M.
- -7: n.'\*h
- '.k \
-m.ei.9
*~' 9 '
~$'^h...}:-f.-&f
- .- w: c. %. 4 , r.s . . ~: '- W -
V aum, 9
%%e ,W;,% .,, ja , -- l 'wa#
. ~.-envvvi
..j .- co/3rr Q,hO ' .h
- Vp. 1f I *L %' gP t g.
-i 9 . (. - 4/
gA f ,g r , ',, y ,
%..' . -]. ? - .c -.7 g s.5 _CI a
- v '!h* %. .sf " 3' ; %. - QT
.+4.:mp g;ggg s
.~
- ,u :
n . . uaw'~
-b kh w-hb e.
. h."--
< .h
.s
\ h.I 'g m m)r N-. !., d. J.< k h >m . A . .r. m4 ) . Q' N .
- c. ,y .a
~. .
- -- s
- . g. u.,,-
k, h 4 - x~ w
'b
.~. -
. g _ _ - g, - vy,g.gn .
g a %~ ,, w; -
** ' N. \
_M$ , %~h( i M idM'd#,k. . c ~ MM _
- - - vf ' ' 5'
S l
- l 4
\%) N
\ #$#$.-
V f
] \'\' ,
..~.
.. \ \m \ . -
- u- .
-).L>
s#
- \> t g \.
- . I (d,_....-- ,
\ ,
f a f l f 4-;f N.). -
,,/
1 t >y/ t,
\'r.,
w .-
,Lt w i Q w swo o*
e
\
\ d i j ,. \ .
mme \ s t ae. c..e. vt c...$ ; g o ,- 6
- y!::j .,. ' g\( ',
- s. y
.. ( ' Vi w \,r
..... i s.
- l, - it. ',s.
* .'. e r
- ;;6 -
i e, \;i C . .: M
> 'd A,t.-
\
s
. .' ' \
p ::.}',,,y' ----
'~ ' d. T (i, ,w, ' .?
ti . ..:t /- ..
- Atuati N-
}k.' i-s 1 '
A - /:d* 9, Q i?. )\l!,1.. S.W.:
'N9 c c ff ( 1
> .\u 9 .. rz#- n %.
p j \ .\ # c s.. '
- i
\
./1j3',.(2'..*..p.>:s;&Q\\\i
- s.- --
- - s .s , ,
9 aartsi.= ( ye , .4
.. ,/ , % (
g', h, - ' . *Ei'j e s f.. E Yh*- c s' *, \... u~ p, .;..p% id # ',i,..'t / b, !
. i _ +. - .. ....- s j h\ -
s
\s <f y -, r.=:t- : .s
\.g. . g, . ~- A 4 . 22. e-
- - g
.. y g ...
g\ =,- QU',. "( , 6' \ s
,. (/
' ./j \, g:..\ I
.-~
~
q
//] }
. v.
gg
.a \ n,,' \ -
g N I
! l/ ..
' i
.N
(\ k:; 'i: k. pi D i !, ! '. 5 - (h,13.[3}\\{
'^ I I 0..,,e ' ,i \, ,
w . ,. n ,-
,.' * ~
\^ \
- s. s
-~
{,
*- S ,m ' , ,u . um i.., u,
,, .* *. av ,, N GWY 2 P'FL s .s *f ' y" - =A. s. .;r.:;s...
f. g <;,.2 g
,./ r%.
s
*C 4e =
~
==-**
e .
?
"d 'i ?-Q l P. AT E P a0 ~
4 8
! .. 4, .
~h ,,4 bJj
~ s ym, ..m
.*+.
V, > g,t .- .
,* m =
=
MO
\
Ji*, \'s\
/ /
/o/ -%2\
o \ 1
\
j l {CO N
\p -
/)
l: (/W,hPx ,
\
t WV\\ .3
+ \
\
7
\
O.
.q xV /
1 e = === 0 88id'C 88 4 W % O M e O N a
e e b
'\ ' \
s ss. si , ~ . s.
\
d-(- j\
,/ \ '.'
/ '__. )[L_ J ,
/ ' l
\ \ 7~~ "
,' . L ........ N( , " ":,
~'
\ %
N't %N_ f
\V
.. ( N, (N _
s. m -s N I g , e,
.'N.
3 s* N /4
\
e. Lg v sN
-w \ . I N~ )
l
"' e ,
.w...
\j
~~ .
/ /
=::r ,-6'i
/
\
i 1
^
N:: i b. I ; s D i
,y '/
el x / . _
%r.-
. a.
e g
\
\
' \ . ,
% % 1 m.
\ -s.
k
*ir" ,
,R'
- i g' d
= l p -
p- (i s- -- -
)
\(
N agree ( a
%sfi'
%A.-
s /* NT , s / J O # j ho% , \ ,. / - ..
- ..% goq
% 1.. \ f\ -
s** ,* s.
% 1 8 ,
* \ Ni
'S. \ ! 4,
's,. ... s h.s\ s.
~.. -% (
- s h k,
.N g /
NNf '
\
). s i
; g gs . 1'9[
'7 4'\i,.= ,
.#4 s
\- .
./
, ,/
,, /
\ / ._
Nere **%easi M e
i 1 . i h i 4 , I e j ___-
~
b
. G E O R G t ta tratt a
. ..se= l f
... ..m.o N , ,.
f
- . .. . <no f .f i,- , ......
... ...... o . _ A
[- J /
.u . . au ( L ..... .
us i n." = l ,,,, , (,W N,, F " "*d }/ 3 ., Q j ,m... o (,
/ _, /
r
~
q l 6 7 S,UVC CAR /
-l'.
-w1
-.4 s
y_ ;
..q..mr/ t q..g , ,
.,~T
--)
# f""';
hJf J ,)
,/ o p.
!. c / i sn.. i % i p i e O m i
/
\ / \ Y
\ ,
.e..e
_4 1 I l l l l
. - - . , - , , . . , , , - , - , . , . . , , - . - - _ , , - - - I
I l i i
's.
I W ,Q
...... t cau.a a= . /
j~ tJ
'\. \
.awt a mg /&) .
c
\
\,
n _.a .ut ary
< u. = g =\
p 2 ( = & u .1t, 9 \ Mar.,= + 7 :m's \ I *:** "=4n
'r \'"
b
- aiv r wret :re .. evioot usme -
?_-\jF T.% T J r - N 1 o uttmost\g-- g,"'.sy . en g
~~ s'.i" % plagle.r- Beach juttuiu pALATK A . - twe M b.O 5 --(1 --j'by7 k.og;t=g. \rLacLt= - staen
- w ~a -
! . g .... .. s wN o. ..
MILL i NC:T3 A . sol.LY carrona staen o
; carroma n.p,g I. ..... )- ' mat oa*=ot a I. .10%ANC mututt j g Q D6twaTER
-Q. - i }g \ >
T. I won - - - = me- 2
, , , , NJ
- saurpac W74\ _
E.d. DS
, /..,..
P('* u. ~ il -
. . . A. e%
$J,y,T x.., (- -s y ,.h,?ea? t..
r "hk5y ;,cy- g % T.c.,ca a
/
~ , . . _ . . .
i m f f
. .. J - ^ . ...
. e. m ev..e ~rat. K 2^!L'E"
.,,. a c.et CLta. Laat" l, , _,,
. .. .. .m t
*I g. ut.S NE
..u...
A.a- _
-~ l......j s
- u. . -
h
,\ 1 =..
2 , .m.=vm.. l l
- I I
l l 1
' - a g $r.
__\ ,
%;, *, \naGLt.Le S t at.ry,y; l
~ '~..
l a o..o.e
- %:n M @,',.".".u..u o f .
i
.9 sg4jgt.=w'o...se u..swu O
-d w /. N.o ^
y i HSANF Wt -g **7,*,7 \y su.ct. \ 'b ta=.cac ' a 'r 7,, \ h
=
} -
r 2 m-/-A m(,i- .,
~
C, ,a.9 -
* \
-- = 3 . . . . e t., $Na 1
5 mo "l"f*
- are= ,,=, ,
CA 8"E 7-- - *****8'
!l_ l $3, C Th.
-~ '
., ca ..
,,,, i . , _
f" au.'7"",7*",[,,y&. T*.
,7::IIIT.r"- ,
I
%Al'?.:"uO
'k
} 3
. n u.. .A.u, l
%.g , ,,,
- l
, .. .; s I s a
*) _l
..N &
I~~ p$[ N U '*. T Qg Sh8 " E " , j ,q
%.- + na.s w
,e %
t ,yI'64{ 0 *m=e ( .u a N.**dt Em E#C8
*t/*;;k, , Tau.%.a _. I= h
\ owe a te:.eare *".
87 ** ,, W+ch OSof'1
****I
(***Q , l ' , cuai . one.ti, .e.\..l / p ,,og,,,, j r-.* {,h p%. ., slan.1j t et gf l I
.e k $..sa./Cf*f7 0
*
- s#g Ca l .s es
, ., j a..C,. , pig )\
,e J'tB.
.-we. ma .n .n _sv s,t,*---~*g*,, _
..As c...
/AM ~fi
. .. s -
T.r s, g .. . n n _ \ ,.s f*w :=, i
.T
=
Cddhtv cp.4P4 7 Me g., i et l 6[etM ELEwovo. souf. e
.a.6 I
g p*g g > ~7E (a.CE l
' '" C" ' '1 . .. 1 1
w K.'.*a L .)d i
~
f
., .au.. L_ _ _
_, .D:iSw"'***** fy
.aAss # i
% sua caa:pr h .e..n O mL t m ,uon
+
--m sM.e
_f i
*h ,
List.no N
.s.u 9
U.D W) w_ e lawi
.g-e fg .s 2.f.,-
- p- *
- s aa sv v.a.s .gs.o. Ls.g
- ns s sse. 6= .="
- ee n, v. s sse. u.c ,
D
- s uem W.it.4 tp.0 CAa.s.t . we. . u.L a.s y .
- u.iw.n. e
= .
- La,s
- -= PL.aaman
.., u .
.S' e . .
%T
- .s...s 0 ' O. gg e,,g g l /[f
)-
Swa s'..PW m.es . u.oe. :o.,se.utto. eu. '4".c. 8L E0 g g m..c no . . a ,. . w.so f es.n.a. es.a . s etn , ... or.amo. mes co.
=~-. - - co - /
<<?Fufore.Pewer d
Plmrd Sdes g M.N # SLSS?AtCN ANC TRAN52SSCN SYS*EM
"' * **" FLORtCA PCWER 8 UGHT CCwfoi Y matassoas e.ess e 5,,n3 E3913 K
@ ..w m. m A 6 W & m g@ M O W Ge .W
@ O M -6e O @
1 1 'l 4 8 * > ene , C . 5 5 m . + 1 i i o m 1
, g-
? \
, 4 .'
5 4 .I V. ' - l %, ; W* l 90d' mes to. ClF4 M' W es WOI i P,uk 9 X i
)
- O i
1 C I m e., e am. MM e D C t C s 1.,
+
59 60
.h 4 - . . .. .
l
,e %'.
i ,j ., ,
--:' OR ~ . p ,. , , . 6
. . r
,!;EM rtoman powsga 25sar cor4PANY - .
- .p-- ---.s IUILO P.O. DOI 3100 antaani, FL0 mica 33t91 November 16, 1967
. P Combustion Engineering, Inc. .
Windsor, connecticut 06095 1 Gentlemen 1967 meeting, the Board of Directors of At its November 13, tentative order nd this company authorized its of ficers to firm up afor an pproxi-us to be a nuclear steam system and fuel therefor h afor an a nuclear mate 800 *cf turbine and hereaf ter referred to as sucfor installation and o steam system and fuel therefer) early 1973. t the It is our intention to firm up such an order from inserted you a in price or prices agreed upon today by you and us to be a final or firm contract or contracts subject ton Your and our representatives working the supply outoftosuch our a satis-(1) faction as quickly as possible, nuclear steam system and fuel therefor that fully d roets the scope of our specifications in the matters an (2) The preparation and concurrent execution by you and us and delivery as quickly as possible of all centracts re-quired between us in the matter and specifying the d price or prices agreed upon by you and us today to be inserte in a final or firm contract and also containing d all ofan the agreements, terms, ted by you and us and effective between you and us an mutually agreeable to you and us at the time of such execution. to us We advise you as above because of your representation i ork in order d we are that you need to and are willing to start engineer n e
a
,1 .. ;
,I I
1 November 16, 1967 combustion Engineering, Inc. f l in con:plete agreement that our above expressed intention and the
, intended final or firm order does not become both of final or firm will not be considered final andor(2) firm untilareand above fullyunless performed 4
the conditiens set out in (1) j and complied with by both you and us. 1 1 The Company and its representatives w1lk work with you so as
' to timely satisfy the conditions above set forth, '
j If the above correctly states the understanding between usd i in the matter please so indicate in the space provided below an return the original of this letter * ~, to us.
, very truly yours, J
' N, * ,
(' . A
\ ~ C W. f ,j I
/
. Robert H. Fite #
President & General Manager ! The above correctly and fully states
' the understanding between us in this matter i
Combustion Engineering. Inc. l, t . el ' - <. - meeu W vice President t J f I i 4 o
. . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ ~
MA 4213 I - D I
. i e
i t BOILING WATER
. REACTOR DESIGN ;
fix Aw s .,. h . i
~
'$h' , T .;' l .
@S..
I
~
? -
, eq- a . ..
; yn". y ,
~
i j& !MNg --
' u-t-;:- . . _ . -
- E
}~
1 GEN ER AL h ELECTRIC _ _ - _ _ = = - e , i , I i l I l t
S ee ..,,, d** M b-@*sw A*
* '?. I e- FLC.. 4DA POWER & t !GHT COMPANY SNTEA4FFH;E CoRRESPoNoENcE Miami, Florida
.... September 1,1967
. .. .. Mr. McGr e go r Smith
- v. Mr. R. H. Tite
.. James Coughlin ma sse a v, N V
{ A brief report on the status of nuclear proposals for our 1973 unit. A. Nuclear Staam System and Nuclear Fuel Bids -
-. _ _ _ j 1.
B k W's Nuclear Steam System and Tuel bids have been received. ' 12..[
- 2. G.E. wi" submit their bids around Septembe/ /
3. C.E.'s bid is in and they extended its validity date to October 1.
/ - 4.
Westinghouse will confirm their bid pric s by September 15
/
B. Nuclear Turbine - could decide as late as December, G.E., per our request, confirmJ d that wnd stil' meet our commercial service date
- 1967, on a G.E. nuclear turbine of May.1973. /
Westinghouse's purchase orderestnuclear tes t turbine at October 1.19_67. is the l'at for 1973 service. for to substitute a conventional turbin a date and await their reply. / We have asked Westinghouse to ext ud C. Economic Evaluation of Nuclear vs. Oil and Evaluation of th I have done considerable thinking and planning on the proper h fou r method to our evaluation of nucleaf vs. oil for 1973 and an evaluation b nuclear bids. / Along this line. I requested of the four nuclear manufacturers that they structures an engineer-constructor and obtain a quotation covering the equipment. ti and construction for a complete nuclear plant incorporating nuclear steam suppIv. h th cost figures for total plant for both the nuclear and oil-fired units to make proper selection. / d k pips .. . w
l-w Mr. R. H. Tite Page 2 September 1.1967 Sub s eque ntly, All four nuclear manufacturers agreed to pursue our request. hd Harry Reinsch of Bechtel called me to state that BkW and C.E. app system. / him for the " balance of plant" quotation to go with their nuclear steam t l plant Reinsen is very concerned about our obtaining sound il for our 1973and objective t costs unit. necessary to make the correct d low nuclear decision plant quota- or. nucle and fictious because they could submit non-firm anIf this was the case we would ' tions that would fall far short of actual costs. / not have factual data to make the prudent decision. i f Reinsch has proposed that we engage Bechtel(or l fossil, utilizinganother the enginee choice) to perform a ecmplete eva.luation.of nuc ear vs.He argues that one evalua-four nuclear steam supply bids we have received. factors, labor f ates, tor would apply the same pricing basis, adjustment l steam sup-productivity factors, etc., in an equitable manner to same d plant on the all nuc ear plies basis. auf compare the total nuclear plant to an oil fireHe and be mislead unless we had true facts to work with. . tly Bechtel has provided this same service to about seven uti purchased study. nuclear units.Bachtel utilizes their computer [ program, plant co loading schedules and fuel costs to make a thorough evaluatioff. ae Reinsch was unsuccessfulin his attempt to get permission from his ment to perform this study for us at no. charge. and complete same by October 15. h past year precludes
. The change in the nuclear marketing position over / te the manufacturers' paying for such an evsluation. il and, The results of such a study would guide us in deciding on If '
nuclear if nuclear, on the manufacturer. s or construction. , whatever for the balance of plant equipment, strucMre nd then take our decision was nuclear, we could select the manufacturer ahe remainder o competitive bids from several engineer. constructors for t the plant, including construction. # of Our first decision (nuclear or oil) must be made relatively soon be , the lengthening of schedules on today's market decide on the engineer. constructor / ndations I would like to review this with you and offer my thoughts and rec at your earliest convenience upon year return to the offi s
.TC: AP
.* M4 1' IGHT COMPANY Fu IDAporn POWER &
orrics commaseouosucs Miami, Florida e.es August 11, 1967 fj [ ......
- v. ,
&44r. R. ke Jame s a ghlin
/ I wo. ,
\ ,
/
reposals for,a'1973 unit is: A brief report on the status of b 1. All four water reactor manufacturers will subrIit bids by Septembe r 15, 1967 for our evaluation. We%ve asked r steam that supply they bid to our scope et supply for the nu: sis. We have and fuel. This puts all b.ds on the sa:r.e s in their scope of asked for price adders cr takeouts on it supply that differ frotn ous. We
- 2. There is no change in the turbine sie ation for a 1973 the Westinghouse unit.
nuclear have until October 1,1967 to chang believe we could get an ex-turbine to a conventiosb.1 turbine, n Westinghouse by supplying a litt le tension of this date fro: .s a threa because Straley told me G.E. pressure, using G. E. would have no trouble supplying nuclear turbine for 1973 with an order late this year. Com stion can meet our May,1973
- 3. Westinghous e, G.E. an
- commercial date for a ucles unit but BkW cannot.
ids will be on the order of two
- 4. I fully expect that all nu lear e Turkey Point units 3 and 4.
times the price we paid r I will be available Monday to assist you in any way you wish. JC:AP s Mp pf k Tggc O C
.rne ftst's
.ma ma c:sw j
.res m' I I
l l I . PM 7/31/67 MIMOPANDW. TC FILE nuclear steam
SUBJECT:
Current status of proposals fot;1973-Westinchouse Nuclear Turbine _ system for the - A Today I talked with Jim Coughjitabout status of thethe Briefly, various situa-pro-
- posals for a nuclear steam system for 1973.
tion is as follows: ! WESTINCNCUSE d fuel i I have turncd over to Jim the complete nuclear steam anHe also has the proposal previously submitted by Westinghouse. Jack Gray was here on July 24. , 1967. prices submitted on May 19,we discussed his proposal and he prom and submit a revised propesal in several weeks. Indications are follow this with Gray and keep the ball rolling. Westinghouse will that if we can make a decision by October 1st, i be able to supply the equipment in time for ccmercial operat on in May 1973. i He BABCCCX 8, WHCOX Coughlin and rite talked to Claude Huey by phone this hmorn Floridang. said B & W will prepare a proposal on the same&specs W to give as t eCoug Power Corporation reactor. will furnish any further information needed to enable BThere i us a new propasal. furnish a reactor in time for comercial operation in May 1973. h CCMBUSTION ENGINEERING Charlie Waddell has confirmed by letter dated July 28. that t e previous proposal for a nuclear steam system for 1973 would beI h extended for a further period of 60 days. to proposal to Jim Coughlin who will follow it with Cottbustion line with as any changes in engineering specifications to bring it inCombustion can d proposals from the other manufacturers. Charlie equipment in time for comercial operation in May 1973 but rior Waddell states in his July 28 letter that this is subject to p sale. GENERAL ELEcrMC ld want Dewey Straley was alerted a week or 10 days ago that we wou proposals on a reactor to operate the 1973 Westinghouse her a turbine. He said G.E. would be glad to bid and that he would put togetHe ind proposal as quickly as possible. Coughlin be shipped in time for comercial operation in May 1973. will follow this matter with Straley. A Dr. Coughlin CC: Mr. Smith _--. l
~ *
/w'T L . 3.?c - rf Mr. S f'h E J~ Ga,chee j
/_9_12 as.W .
w t % c w G ,,.,o w dens & c d , ws 7!y w,
-d L. L/ %r c~,/n nm te-c' 6Gw i 4 b ~ ' 4 4. p..:,1 L7 w cL N Lr- . A 7
n,. tc e-.7e 6.- / k pJm / /~ /m i.-.: t'. ( L e t/a w c/ ,vwe.- c s)
- q My L f e d .- - /e S s d e m e f ~ A- , d L ak ie v [ Haws-
-C s.--,, h >
7'c4 m c69 h- lL,c
~
L n p-,. J. , ,. -_ y ,,, ,,, ), z
*.- m b .s Leo-.<. pG I2 u- , /1, s cm / J n .=_" -
- y. i>,,,, ,4'.s.
sf,~;-/4 .. : ..
~
7 .: aL i,. ,/A - 1/ / L d,- e.m--a d wJ.-, .- c- 7 2. m st~/e'cd {v 4. ds Y- c 7 G k 4 c.7% r w to' 4 wo -A -d y-an d //- i d e . k 6 a u
. u - ,,,. m '7.2 _ , f ,. H L- . .
1 -
)
e O
* * )
) _ . )h _
4 fMM:,' es ts hhh .es - g O e v, . ',, e. n . :-e . . .. :s, % POWER. PLANT LEAD TIME LENGTHENS, NEARLY SIX YEAR $ FOR HUCLEAR I The tios needed to get a commercial power plant into aperstian is stretching out: the esti-metes range from fin to elmast six years far e suelear plant sad slightly less for a fossil-fueled er bydro plant because of sic:pler licensing precedures. As recently es last August, suelear-plant lead tune was being astunated as $2 msnths. The meressing tog between arderuig a picnt ' and get'ing it on the line is attributed primarily to neianuelear espects: tabine, bei!ar and pressure- , vessel prod.ctico, and en inadequate supply of manual labor in many areas. A spokes =n et General Electric's Power Generation Div.,in Schenectady, N.Y., says a now takes few years to produce the lege twbines needed le hauclear plants being cedered. **me're quoting sh;pzes: in 1971 in d ' fine to meet service for 1972 en turnice units for nuclear plants; f ar fossel-lueIed plaats k takesi a year less," be said. "The larger sizes now being coped for appear to regaire langer installation j ltume, too," he added. The fact that the $chenectady plant is strike-bound doesn't help. Westing- {g house seys it is la somewhat better pcsition and cua ship turbines in mid-19'O, bd the con; car's estput et its Large Twbane Div. la Lester, Pa.,is limaed to sena or eight a year. An enesotive of en East Coast architect engineermg firm breaks it down this way: six manths f to prepare specifications,recei e and study bids and oward contracts: four yees to obtain delivery of a turbine, one recr to instoll it and three er los months la testing and licecstag. Another s-e thmks it is a battieneck taas op between twbines and boilers, with the 1stier a slightly mare critz 1 kem. He says il bis company took en order today le a convvaticos!" plant. It would estierte aper-etson 'a 1971, hat for e nuclear plant even 1972 would be questionable. A thed c:hstect-esqueer points out that a pervately-owned utility company aury be able to cut a few months from the esgo-tist ons time, whereas a puble power company must othere to rigid rules in seeking and publi-cuisg bds whicA trad to lengba that part of the schedule. And within this ent-ell contert. the General Electric Atomic Pmr Equipment Dept. et San Jose. Calif., said R la no langer accepting crders le aveleer plaats f ar operatian in 1971. WESTINGHOUSE SETTLES ON SIX REACTOR SIZES, WILL PUBLISH PRICE 5 Westinghouse tod.y announced limita en sizes and secpes d suelear power-plaat reacts: R will oUer, thereby joinmg Ceneral Electre in standardization (NU Wk, 8 Dec '66,1). The Pitts. bwgh4msed company also said t is preparing, and will p4lish early next year. e definitive prze list of the su: lear steen supply system and f uel. This is the Westinghouse range of reactor sines: two-loop plant,1,540 Wwth and 1.605 Mwth guaranteed outpd and appranimate net power rottag of 480 530Wwe on a reheat cycle: three-loop,2.275 Mwth and 2.370 Wwth (700 755Mwe); few-toep, 2,965 Wwth end 3.090 Mwth (9301,040Wwel. Each loop consist s d a stec:n ger.erator, pua:p and latecannected pip.ng.These best eatpd choices depend on which of two stea:n gese-star sizes la choses by the customer,44.430 sq ft or 51,500 sq f t heat-erchange surface mes. The smatier generator produces the to=er thermal output la each d b loop classifications. In addition, steen pesswe;rovides the stility custaner with a range d Wwe choices. By lowering the steam pressee, see beat een be entracted from the recetar. The customer thus sacrifices some effe:esey is anser to achieve a higher Le ratag. Westinghouse's queanteed rotmgs me based as stoca pressure at the stum generstar d 780 pain when supplied by feed water at a temperstwe of 430 F. All d these optinas will be spelledout la b company's prme list. ITALY APPROVE 5 HUCLEAR SUPPLY SHIP, J APAN MAY SWITCH TO A T ANKER The holians, who have been talking about nuclear. powered ships and subrarines since 1958. eppes te be on the way to getting a Navy lagtstac-suppet vessel powered by en $"-Lth reactor. The Japeese, who also have lang thought of putting the stom to sea, may drop plans f ar e $17.5-milline nuclear creenographic ussel (NU Wk. 21 July '66. 7; 25 Aug 8. 8 Sept, 6) is levar of con-verting e sned oil tosker te nucleet power, et e cost of 310 million. Co. Aheed in Rome. Italias Deferse Meister Roberto Trenelloni and Weister of Industry and Commerce Giulie Andreotti this week signed en intragovernmental agreeme<tt c:lhs; for cons:ruc. Cerrn .. =.4-..a330 waa see d.e eke te6s b, me Geo.-M;tt, e s..h.ed la . ee sb.d se.. M. Y. t003s Att e+es
- e . .a,..e e . . te.. .h es me see,.e .
O 9 O
,_ ._ ~ _ . . . . - . ~ . ._. . _ . . . - . - . .- . _ - .
2C
, .. . 0/29/67 i
I i COMPARISON OF NUCLEAR AND O!L PLANTS l MAY.1973 COMMERCIAL OPERATION 1 As sumptions _ i
' Nuclear Plar.t (808 MWE Gross) on 1973 dollars costs $133/KW i Oil Plant (730 kWE Gross) on 1973 dollars costs $90.50/KW t Capacity Factor is 80% for both units . s'
,/' y Fixed charge rate on CapitalInvestment is 15% per year i t '
i {'t V 4 Total Generation Costs e i 4 49 ' Nuclear Oil Mills / KWH Mtus /KWH l i 2.85 1.94 Capital ' f 3.69 III
- 1. 65 J ,
Fuel 0.40 0.35 l Oper. In Maint. , 0.10 Nuclear Insurance r 5.98 ' Total 5.0y i i ! (1) Oil at $2.40/ bbl. or 38.8 cents /million Btu I ,a I l i i
! r
( i I [ l 1 t i ! ( l l
.l
~ .
3C
- 9/28/67 CALCULATION OF BREAKEVEN COST OF OIL i
Comb. B&W G. E. W Capital Cost Differential . Nuclear . Oil $/KWE 42.50 54.50 62.00 53.50 i Breakeven Oil Cost (Cents /Million BTU) i j $4.90/KW Capital
= 1.0f /M Btu Fuel III 8. 7 11.1 12.6 10.9 f
Nuclear Fuel f/M Beu 16.0 17.0 15.5 17.0 Nuclear Insurance. Oper. k Maint. Penalty on Nuclear 1. 5 1. 5 1. 5 1. 5 r Total 26.2 29.6 29.6 29.4
, Adjusted for Heat Rate
- s27.7 32.4 32.4 32.4
- A nuclear unit could be justified if oil costs in cents /Million Btu exceed q
these values. l Oil @ $2.00/ bbl. = 31. 0 Cents /Million BTU j Oil @ $2.20/ bbl. = 34. 4 Cents /Million BTU Oil 8 $2.40/ bbl. = 38.8 Ceots/Million BTU l l 4 (1) 1.0 cents ,10. 400 Btu ,7000,l[.,x I x Y'- = $4.90/KW l M Btu KWH Yr 100 cents 0.159. i
_ -. . . __ .- . .= _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . - _. _ -_ ._=_ i , . JC
'
- 9/28/67 1 1 i a 1973 OIL FIRED BO!LER UNIT t
COST ESTIMATE _ l 1 (5000) 1' A. Present Day Costs I 13,700
- 1. Bouer '
11,500 l
- 2. Turbine Generator 28,000
- 3. Balance of Plant I
1,000 j Constructor Fee Contingency 2.800 J 57,000 1 i Sub. Total 1
- B. Other Costs
) l Service Building 500 1. 1 150
' 2. Fresh Water Supply
- 3. Circulating Water System 2.000
; 1,200
- 4. Fuel Oil Terminal
; 200
- 5. State Sales Tax i 150
- 6. FPL Engineering 50
- 7. Startup i 4,250 Sub. Total 1
C. Escalation
- 1. Boile r Turbine Generator 1,400 2.
j 3.400
- 3. Balance of Plant i
4,800 4 Sub. Total i Total Capital Cost 66,050 D. i Electrical Output MW Gross 730 i
$/KWE Gross 90.5
-1 4 4 T l i i
-q c-, - "- - . _ ,
r w.- ,
' ;n.
.5 _
s . m s
\ ',
a e h .1 ,
,/ . , * ,
,9/28,/67 Ls '
),, '
; f ;
h. NUCLEAR PLANT COMPARISON t 1973 /- I 3 jThousands of Dollars) (L s o a , w
'.g C ornb.
23 A. Present Day Costsy h/
.=-
x ~[#3 ,3 W) dq, c,ig 3$,qc.c , 2, A4
- 1. Nuclear S*eam System g gc,pec ge,csee i ye ,c en ,40,'400 46,500 3&,450
- 2. Turbkne Generator 1,000 1,000
- 3. Balance of Plant [.38,9001,000' 1,000 Construc*.rr Fee 4,000 4,600 3.800 3,900 Co-ting e ncy 101,755 96,250 3%.# 89,331; 96,147 s
Sub Total v B. Other Costs .qe+ 500 500 500 500
*i. Service Building $ 150 150 150 150
- 2. Fresh Water Supply 2,500 2,500 2.500 2,500 300
- 3. Circulating Water System 300 300 300 500 500
- 4. State Sales Tax 500 500 500
- 5. FPL Engbetring
- 500 500 500 250 t 6. Licensing & AEC Permits 250 250 250 200_
- 7. Sta rtup "
200 200 200_ i
- 8. Training 4,900 4,900 s
4,90.0 4,900 Sub. Total 106,655 101,150 101,647 Total Plant Present Day C'ests 94,231 C. Escalation 4,600 5,100
),060 4,850
- 1. N,uclear Steam System 2.200 2,200 2~,200 2,200
- 2. Turbine Generator 8,500 9,800_ 8.100 8,200
- 3. Balance of Plant 16,600 15.400 13,460 15.550 Sub. Total Escalation 123,255 !!6,550 107.691~ 117,197 D. Total Compared Capital Cost 808 808 808 Electrical Output MW Gross 80,8 152.5 144 131 145
$/KWE Gross 2,440 2,570 2,468 2,381 Thermal Megawatts Nov. 15 Oct. 16 Oct. 20 Proposal Validity Date
. ~ . . .
i T
1
. s t
(0 - Y [ tD9iM-R@ v hw BOILER DIVISlo,.' ATLANTA, GEORGIA s October 4, 1965 Florida Power and Light Company 25 South East Second Avenue a Miami, Florida Attention: Mr. G. Kinsman Vice President Re: Nuclear Steam Supply Systems Alternate A Alternate B B&W Preposal No. A12-5A No. A12-5B Gentlemen: We are pleased to submit this Proposal and prices for 3 Nuclear Steam Supply Systems in response to your request. This proposal is separate and distinct frcm our previousas Alternate No. 3, 23, 1965, I quotation submitted on JuneNuclear Steam Sapply System, B&W Propo We propose to furnish a Nuclear Steam Supply System, pounds 9,740,000 designated of steam pp: Alternate A, which will producehour at 825 psia and 558 F w We expect that this capability will feedwater at 440 F. produce a gross electrical plant output of approximately 775,000 KW. We also expect that the future stretch capa-bility of the Nuclear Steam Supply System will be sufficient to produce an 11 per cent increase in gross electrical plant output to 855,000 KW. This submission is made in accordance20, with our Proposal 1965, revised and Specifications A12-5A dated Septe= der October 4,1965, for the sum of: Seventeen Million Eight Hundred Thousand Dollars --
$17,800,000, including the services of a construction consultant.
e ee ,ge
. a
~
,k THE BASCOCK & WECOX COMPAP.
AfLA!!f A, CEf.;RGI A October 4,1965 Mr. G. Kinsman We also prcpose to furnish a Nuclear Steam Supply Syctem, designated Alternate B, which will produce 9,450,0C0 pounds of steam per hour at 825 psia and 558 F when supplied with feed-water at 440 F. We expect that this capability will producewe a gross electtical plant output of approxi.ately 757, coo re.al Steam Supply System will be sufficient to produce a Ed. 790,000 5 per cent ,, increase in gross electricalplant output to This Alternate E submission is made in accordance 20, 1965, with our Proposal and Speci.fications A12-53 dated September revised October 4,1965, for the sum of: Sixteen Million Eight Hundred Thousand Dollars -- a
$16,800,000 including the services of a construction consultant.
The above prices are subject to progressive terms of payment, and are based upon shipments f.o.b. rail cars Florida City, Florida and f.o.b. barges Biscayne Bay area, Florida. The price a*.d ter-ns quoted in this Proposal are subject
, to acceptance by the PURCHASER within a period of 30 of Proposal.
We trust that this Preposal meets with your approval and we will be pleased to discuss it further at your convenience. Respectfully submitted, THE BABCCCK & WILCOX CCMPATY i Atlanta. District Sales I
. A.
C. L. Huey District Manager CLH:jk i
jNil d L Q. (C-t A fM il rt y g kABL"MNUEbLqq BOILER DtvlSION y Atlanta, Ga. Y N' June 23, 1965 s 2 ' 9 h i Florida Power & Light Company 25 S. E. Second Avenue / ha M?.ami, Florida i Mr. G. Kinssah Re: Alternate #3 Nuclear Steam Supply System Attention: B&W Proposal A12-5 Gentlemen: We are pleased to sub=it this quotatien alternate #3, in response to your request. with a We propose to furnish the Nuclear Steam Supply System: pounds of s capability of prgducing 8,780,000 440 F, which
' 625 psia and 556 F when supplied with feedwater at includes; The reactor vessel including internals and nuclear instrumentation fixtures; control rods and control rod drives, NVT specimens, neutron source, fuel handling crane and special tools; primary pu=ps, drives and piping; two once through steam generators; pressurizer including relief valves; primary loop process instrumentation; nuclear incere instrumentation, controls and panel; feedwater valves, steam and feedwater flow nottles and controls; and engineering censultation during core loading and initial operation for the sum of Twenty-one million five hundred fifty-four thousand collars
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $21,554,000 f.o.b. cars Florida City, FloridaThisincluding the serv".ces price is subject to of an On. ton consultant.in ac:ordance with the Price Adjustment adjustment 11, 1965 Clauses contained in our Freposal No. A12-5, dated Jw-This quotation is subject to the Performance N arantees and General Conditions contained in our Proposal A12-5, dated June 11, 1965 and the revised attached Erection General Conditions.
\
THE BASCOCK & WILCOX CCadANY
- sian oi6. Atlanta, Ga.
M . G. Kinsman June 23, 1965 Florida Power & Light Company In addition, we would specify the functional requirenents only for the following auxiliary systems which are to be furnished by the Purchaser: I Reactor coolant make-up system ; Purification system ' Chemical control syste: Sa=pling system Decay heat removal Intermediate cooling water 8 Poison injection Fuel pool cooling Radioactive waste disposal The Company's review of the Purchaser's engineering and drawings would be limited to deter =ining if the designs fulfilled the functional require =ents. The shipment of the first steam generator could be expected
- in 30 months, the reactor vessel in 31 months, and the second steam generators in 32 months after receipt of an order.
The price and terms quoted in this proposal are subject to acceptance by the Purchaser within a period of 30 days from the date of this quotation as set forth under Limitations of Proposal. In the 4 5 tnt that you desire to proceed with this alternate, we will stanit a revised proposal including General Conditions. Respectfully submitted, C. L. Huey District Manager D e e l l l
. pr.. . . ,
,!.l. Cf.'iERA1. CCNDITICNI ESETIC?T CO*iDITIC'IS - CC'iSTRUCTIO's CC';SULTA?!T
- 1. Censtruction Censultant The Cc:pany will furnish an experienced can er men, including travel and living expenses, to advise the Purchaser regarding erecticn procedures and quality standards for the equi; ent furnished. The C:nsultant shall act as the Company's representative at the site for purposes of reviewing drawings and bills if =aterial, and for general coordination of equipment installatien ec=patible with the Cc=pany's shipping schedule. The lu:p Su: price i s based upon the field work starting thirty (30)
=enths frc= receipt of order and co=pleting en date of fuel loading, which is expected to be no more than eighteen (18) m nths frc= start of field work. Any ti=e spent en the site beyond date of fuel leading will be fer the Purchaser's account at the Co=pany's per die: rate of $120.00.
- 2. Cenelete Erectien by Purchaser The Purchaser shall furnish all erection later, tecls, rigging, cranes, trucks, and facilities required to unl:ad, handle and erect the equip ent furnished hereunder. The
( Ccepany has special tools available for rental upon request. 3 Facilities For Censtruction Cenruitant The Purchaser shall furnish a suitable effice and effice equi;:ent and clerical assistance at the erection site for the Cc=pany's Construction Consultant. 4 Date Construction Censultant Shall Reeert The Construction Consultant shall report for duty on the day requested provided the Purchaser gives notice in writing at least thirty (30) days in advance of the date Consultant shall be required. 5 Verk Dav The normal work day (or shif t) of a Construction tonsultant shall be 8 hours per day, Monday through Friday, ex:1usive of holidays. Any hours expended in excess of the ner:al work day or any work on Saturdays, Sundays, er holidays shall be censidered overti=e. Overtime work snall not be perfer:ed without a written order from the Purchaser. All overti=e cf s w .i mu A12-5 8, a..
@ Babcock & Wilcox l
l l O
i i - ,
.s Es' GE"EL , CONLITION3
- l,; .
i% ..
. ERECTIC" CONLITIONS - CONETP_'CTIO" CC"IULT A"? (Cent 'd) 5 Verk Day (Cent'd) the Construction Censultant shall be paid for by the
, Purchaser in addition to the centract price at the rate of the difference between the established basic rate and
; cne and one-half times this rate. The basic per dier rate is $120.00.
I
- 6. Erecticn Verk-anshit Ne warranty, express er 1: plied relating to erection i verk=anship shall be 1: plied frc: the furnishing of ~
Ccastruction Consultant's services hereunder. Any defective
, erection verk=anship. whether discovered in the ccurse cf erection or subsequent theretc is to be re=edied at the Any
- expense of the Purchaser and/or his erection centracter. additio arising cut of defective erecticn verk anship shall te authorized by the Purchaser in writing and shall be paid for by the Purchaser at the Cc:pany's established basic per die:
rate. ] L n == .i . 4t2-5
@ Babcock & Wilcox I
A 1
-m-- , ,- - ,
w -- a-.- ,b
o ,,/
$ f $ /7 gry } - /U9"
$b ,.l b <.0 8 1 p
i j u;.. ; Qj 4% l W ' W 'i !( /I f
,Q , /s /,, '
W : I i a: -
'lo %Yyfin-
~
A2 n w V 15 0 W27 17) ' _'s'
, ~
/ .t '/ .i
'p /> ,, - ,
y, 9 p-ff/ . , , ! d,::tw m ".33)/$
,t
' / # +/Z T .
w i r. _ , c4 h I
%t Q ^ i l . I! _ l ! [3 t% /ffV y i s' gp,
~ f fG /-{ b
.s y , ,,
. . . y r3r y ll _/hjcf I i I/ ._ ; I I i;!iI! IIl[}\lIi '. jgTfL V M:C ' : $:44/if /A,14% ' '; 'fa #"> n a
~
ww , yo l
-.' M" l.
,v, 2l .- ,
,6 3 h ;J ; i!,, . .i :. i .:
h rig - W 'h vv '/f4 7 ! ' Ii. h I 2 :. / . .X' ; pfD . jf y 2 w '_)(j $ I; >> i;;.it ! . i iiil: ! i j . i .3 : c, ' / , fA !
~-
4 i , 'il i iill ' t i i l l i l l l l I I(,'Fg/) [ . !' \l \
~
m h
!' = #,, g . . i : ' i i e if a'f iI M ii11 0 i id M : //
ll i .- @ .ilil.i A S 2 b y illi )/a," / i 7 3 ' l i ; l fi f 'f ' ' , f , ll Ilin llttilllil'i~ ii f 1 ,,
/l l i gTff LJ i l l l i l l37J4 ' W : l l . C h "/ , C T/ b i
! I l ' T /2G . i l l ! ' y_ s 6 ' m . i ) C "), '/' pU i /_ l * ' L_ .
! I li i.i!iil .il i fl t !X'i l i i ! I l I,, 8/V E' 9 4 W,.-76
/ l I h/;f LT/W iP-o P1o -n/I 7 .'11ii 6dr#
! W Pj g r v i i i n ,', i l : , l i , /\ h(I t i .'J.
2
' i i . l l l ; i l ll
/ l
- ,. ' ! ! ! i l l i l 6' 1 ' ' i t i,.L.', 11 ' tiltili.- ; jvit -j _ l l l
. \ l fi;:i.'
lilliiii,P l:9 fi M ilillIlillillll6 V / ,
/
l !!i ' ' l i i l l i l 4G/'f i l ! I l l i l l l i l l l l l l l l l l i l ' 4 '
- j h ty /
/
I l lit n'lllif f i/,lili!titillllltIlillti,
' t V. M fi f % ilillitil!.ii!!i !!'l tll11 WV/ h I
.I ii.li t l's . . L \ /,'d t l' .i& R F fillilliii!ill'l i i i/ 6 : !/. ' i l '!f' till;i!illi!i.! !; .
6 \\
' - 'R
! i, 4I ,
ili'lili i t Li l l i ! : l l i l ' ' !. d,
\ I+';c)) '/ /71/W4 e$r ; Mill i /;, //. '/W' i i,
- 1- r, .
'<.,;: .; 1 ;
l ,, / D ' g ;f) I i i, i-g: g ,sv: i
< i .l.:!r, :i ., .:. .
.i
- l l
I
- su cuic urit:114.
. GENERAL ELECTRIC ,.
3 ,tg3 COMPANY
. Tatsenons sa3J4s4 DIVl33oN asso west etactes sisest, miams. Pto ssoa 33:34 November 8,1965 FLORIDA POWER AIC LIGHT COMPANY NUCLEAR STATION ;f 5 / /,!
OUR PROP. 132-04019 2 JW N$ Y' g y vfd fof P, g !r Mr. McGregor Smith chni~an of the Board , FIDRDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY P. O. Box 3100 Miami 1, FLORDA
Dear Mr. Smith:
In confirmation of our meeting of November 8,1965, we are pleased to revise our quotations on the Nuclear Boiler System and Turbine Generator unit. The Turbine Genere. tor unit will be the same as quoted in my letter of October 25, 1965 and corrected October 27, 1905, for a total
- of ------ $15,97 7,088.
The Turbine price is based on our Conditions of Sale as covered in my Iceter of May 27, 1965. The Nuclear Boiler System vill be essentially a duplicate of the Dresden Unit 12 we are furnishirg Cot:xnonwealth Edison This Boiler Coc:pany System willfor be cocxmercial operation in February 1969. guaranteed for a steam flow to produce a guaranteed electrical outpt.c of 731.7 We g-oss. D e Boiler System is expected to produce a
-av4-m of 808 We gross within three years from initial co::::ercial operation.
The price for the Boiler based on a warranted output of 731.7 We is ------ $17,350,000 and is a firm price. We are offering. the D l
a . *
-l
. GE NER AL C ILECTRIC OUR PROP. 132-04019 PAGE: 2 Nuclear Boiler System at this price providing that Florida Power and Light Company will pay the General Electric Company $57.2/IG and the Bechtel Corporation $29.3/lG (total $86.5/1N) as additional==v4--
power is demonstrated over and above 731.7 E'e gross up to a of 808 ige gross within a three year period. The scope of the Nuclear Boiler System will be the same as covered 1 in my letter of May 21, 1965, except that the new RCIC system shall be substituted for the isolation condenser system. Based on a conanercial operation date of April 1,1970, we would normally desire progressive payment on the Nuclear Boiler System of 2-1/2*. for 36 months starting April 1966. However, you have indicated that you would not desire to make payments before obtaining the construction As an alternate to meet your permit which is expected by January 1967. requirements, progressive terms of payment could be modified so that Florida Power d Light Company pay 57. per month of the purchase price for 18 consecutive months starting February 1,1967. These progressive payments result in a total of 90*. of the purchase price prior to the time of shipment. Payment of any part of the purchase price which remains unpaid at shipment shall be made as follows: 507. - 30 days after shipment 507. - 60 days after shipment. The Nuclear Boiler System and the Turbine Generator unit need to be released for design and manidacture by approximately April 1,1966. It may be possible to proceed with engineering without com.itting for major components such as the vessel, turbine generator rotors, turbine shells and generator stator frame and on this basis we would expect there would be a W4-= of cancellation charges up to January 1,1967. The above proposal is based on the General Electric Company's taking responsibility for the Turbine Generator unit and the Nuclear Boiler System and Bechtel's taking the responsibility for the balance of plant. Conzaonwealth Edison Company's Dresden Unit #2 is scheduled for commercial operation on February 5,1969 and is moving along on schedule at the present time. Hearings for the construction permit will be held in December 1965. rased on a commercial operation date i l
= ,- ,
1 GENER All3 ELECTRIC OUR PROP. 132-04013 PAGE: 3 i of April 1,1970, this would allow approximately 14 months from the inicial operation of Dresden #2. We believe that this amount of time should assure a construction permit by January 1967 or earlier and will have a nucher of advantsges to Florida Power and Light Company throughout the scheduling of Turkey Point #3. Very truly yours,
. E. Straley j
DES /m j j j i i i 1 1 I t 4 l l
~
i s i i 1 i e
~
suCmc unun GENER AL h ELECTRIC C0MPANY s Aus DjVl$lQN eles w3ST 7;AoLER Sitfif, mi Amt, FlotioA 22t 3d . , 78tf PnONI d43 7434 October 25, 1965 FIIstCA PGTER A!D LIGIC COMPANY NUCIE.A1 STATION T23:51 CENZitATCR QL'OTATIDN OG P1 LOP. 132-04019 Y,. ss 'l)y , b l
-~
Mr. Md:regor Smith Ah y Chairr.an of the Board FI4RCA PG.TR AND LCIC COMPANT
. F. O. Box 3100 utami 1,FCECA
Dear Mr. Smith:
Ve are supplementing our quotation of May 27, 1965 with the following non-g reheat steam turbine-generator for nuclear applications. Turbina: one (1) 770,217 LN,1800 RPM, tandem cocipound four flow, non-reheat steam turbine with A3-inch last stage buckets designed for staara conditions of 950 PSIC, saturated with 0.28*. moisture, 2.5a Hg. Abs. =wust pressare end 0.5'. ==tr=rp while extracting for five (5) stages of feedwater heating. 1800 RPM, Cenerator: one (1) direct driven, 3-phase, 60-cycle,18,000 volt', conductor cooled, synchronous generator rated 950,000 KVA et 0.85 power factor 0.58 short circuit ratio and 60 pounds hydrogen pressure. Exciter: One (1) excitation systaa. Scandard one (1) set of standard accessories as defined in Handbook Accessories: Section 4710 and 4712 in affect this date. Special Accassories: Special accessories included in price: (1) A by-pass system up to 25'. of flow to main steam valves. (2) Bigh performance initial pressuzs controller .and backup controller, motor operated. O
. 1 1
GENER AL h ELECTRIG lir. incCragor Smith October 25, 1965 Page 2 (3) Weatharproofing for normal temperatures. (4) Cu-Ni tubes -
- a. Use of 90-10 Cu-Ni tubes in the- lubricating oil coolers. # *
- b. Use of 90-10 Cu-Ni tubes in the alternator cooler.
- c. Use of 90-10 Cu-Ni tubes in the generator coolers is standard; however, the use of brackish water mandates the use of double wall tubes in the stator pure water coolers.
(3) Provisions for automation (accomplish desirable remote control for nuclear application - does not taciude logic diagr e'u) . (6) Electro-hydraulic control. (7) Fill, drain, and vent connections for flooding turbine with decontaminating fluid. (8) Piping of stop and control valve stem outer leakage to steam packing exhauster. (9) Extra blower for steam packing exhauster. (10) Solenoid actuation for hydraulic thrust bearing wear
- detector device.
, (11) Tamperature recorder to read bearing the.mples.
1 (12) Electronic transmitter and receiver for hydraulic oil pressure - and for bearing oil pressura. (13) Extra electric raeha=ater fer control room. (14) One line drop compensator. (15) N==f== excitation limit equipment. 8 (16) Field Tangerature indicator-trana=f tter. (17) Generator neutral enclosure. (18) Neutral grounding equipment. t O e l 1 4 -
GENERALh1&ICTRIC Mr. McGregor Smith
. October 25, 1965 Page 3 (19) Three capacitors and lightning arresters for lightning protection.
(20) Closed ventilation system. TOTAL FR ICE ------------------------------------- $16,038,080. The terms and conditions of sale in our original quotation of May 27, 1965 apply. The following heat balances dated 10/18/65 describing the cycle of the unit in this quotation are attached. 349EB139 - WO Flow - 9,852,659 lb/hr 349BB138 - Rating Flow - 9,383,485 lb/hr 349EB140 - 9,000,000 lb/hr - Proposition outline number 119C6283 also is attached for your information. Na look forward to discussing this quotation with you at any time. Very truly yours, i -
.. turf .
. z. seraley DES /m e
1 l 1 e
~ -
suCruc urion GENER AL h ELECTRIC CCMPANY g ,ggs s dise WIST PLAotta STREET. miami. PLoIISA 33134 . . . T E L E r n oset 443 7434 DIVISION October 25, 1965 FIDEILA 70.D AE LI::HT CCKFANT NUCIZA1 STATICN Ol'R FRCP. 132-04019 ] JM Mr. McGregor Snith
' Chair an of the Board FIDRILA PO.B A D 1.ICHT CCMPAFf P. O. Box 3100 Mf =f 1, FIDEI:A
Dear Mr. Smith:
The following information will alter our proposal on the Nuclear Boiler System (" quoted on May 21, 1965, and on the Memorandum of A Proposed Basis for A Nuclear Fuel Sale ginn to you October 22, 1965. Accompanying this letter is a propcsal on a revised design Turbine-Generator - i.e. a TC4F43". We offer a plant with an expected c pacity of 771,400 W Net /808,112 W Cross, valves wide open. Regarding the Fuel quotation - we now offer the same arrangenent as proposed but at 1.65 mils per WHR on a levelised basis. Our esiculations indicate this reduction to be worth $3,400,000 using 80% load factor and a 11% levelized capitalization figure. Regarding the Nuclear Boiler System quoted fa my May 21 letter at $23,189,000 - we now offer the revision in size as noted above for $21,500,000 subject to escalation or $22,700,000 on a FIRM price basis. All other factors to be as quoted in my letter of May 21, 1965. Mr. Kent and I look forward to discussing this offer with you this Thursday scruing. Tours very truly,
)37 DES /m l's3Vf
.E
,1 Straley s
11 9 7;61 3
,7 h l=F h.e s p fr f ' .I J b# j/ 7 Y s
J J
l l
. MEMO:
Conference in San Jose, California with Mr. McGregor Smith, l l Florida Power and Light Company <
)
DATE: september 24, 1965 I Ceneral Electric Company Representatives: Mink Kant - VP - Electric Utility Sales Division Dewey Straley - Miami Office Jin Young - VP - Atomic Products Division George Stathakis -- Marketing Manager - Atomic Products Equipment Dept. Leo Schanz - Sales Manager - Atomic Products Equipment Dept. Jack Dunn -- Sales - Atomic Products Equipment Dept. Larry McEuan - Manager - Buclear Safety Engineering George Roy - Manager - Proposal & Warrancy Engineer.ng The conference began with the purpose of pursuing in a random fashion a nu=ber of questions from Mr. Smith. Many points were resolved and we believe Mr. Scith lef t with more confide =ce in our Company's ability to design and furnish a nuclear unit for his Turkey Point site. The discussion covered the following poista:
- 1. Mr. Smith asked for a written statement setting forth our willingness to offer a levelized fuel contract in M11s/EWhr. It is desired that this
' quotation be so expressed as to indicate our intention Suchtoannever allow this arrangeme=t is quoted price to exceed any future fuel quotation.
entirely satisfactory to us provided, of course, that the termination of this fuel contract would result 14 our recouping any funds pend!.ng under the levelizing feature which we hm off ered. Mr. Smitt stated that this, of course, was his understanding and intent if in fact the fuel contract was ever terminated. Later during a discussion with Mink Kant and the writer, it was pointed out that good business dictated that we arrive at a saatually agreeable means of determining the residual level of fuel at any point in time. This should be a method which is generally recognized and could be referred to an outside consultant for determination in event of difference of opinion between Florida Power & Light Company and CE. No definite answer was given on this point, of course, because the final decisica rests with APED.
- 2. Regarding the escalaticn of the fuel pricas,14o Schans expressed our willingness to restrict the escalation to 75". of the contract rather than the original 90" quoted. Mr. Smith was satisfied with this, provideg the timing start with the shipment of the fuel. ', 4,4M Nd
- 3. Regarding the capacity factor under which the plant will be operated and which affects the cost of the fuel, Mr. Schm expressed the intent of the
[ l
l Page 2 I General Electric Company to make no changes in the present quoted price l provided the plant was operated within a band of 60-100". of capacity. Es further stated that at loads less than 6C"., we should mascually deter =ine the responsibility. That to to say whethat it is predominately caused by General Electric product, design, work =anship, or installation = or on the other hand whether the plant outage was result of Florida Power di Light actions or other actions beyond the control of the General Electric Company. Mr. Smith expressed agreement with this provided we restricted the effect of this change to the carrying charge on the fuel investment. Mink Kent injected a note of caution against too hasty a decision in this case, stating that in the future this nuclear unit might ba lightly loac'ed at night principally due to the need to keep fossil units on the line, at least at a = f n f a r= spinning reserve level.
- 4. Regarding the effort to be expended in obtaining a license, Mr. Smith noted that the Atomic Energy Commission would be primarily intere2ted in the reactar and the containment building and therefore he vanced all of the help from the General Electric Company available. We called to his attention that we would indeed be of great assistasce to him in this area and that inaamach as this was a duplicata of the Dresden design, we did not expect any graat trouble obtaining an AEC license. It was made clear, however, that the obtaf ntng of local approvals would remain the responsibility of Florida Power and Light. Again, however, we would assist in any way in which we might be requestcd. Larry McEwan spoke briefly ou the details of working through the different sections of AEC organization and contributed in general to the confidence in our ability to obtain a license. Jim Young called to
( ter. Smith's attention that the architects and engineer was not as ceperienced in acting as the primary laadar in obtaining these licenses. George Stae =1ri a stated that regardless of the final determination Mr. Smith would make as to the primary contractor, that we would pref er to take the land in obtaining the license. It was pointed out that the normal time to obtain these licensts runs about one year. Jim Young arpressed our pleasure with the votk done by Mr. Smith toward safeguarding the area and creating a recraational landmark for south Florida along with the installation of this plant. This La the type of public relations effort that has ' clearly paid off in so many other nuclear installations. Mr. Smith stated that he una not anticipating any trouble fran the local authorities in obtaining approval for the installation of the plant. He further called our attention to the great difficulty he has had in designing large fossil plants to comply with the recently enacted Date County Ordinance on pollution. S. Mr. Smith expressed an interest in a maintenance and/or operating contract l for a period following installation until his people could be judged competent l to take over. We believe that he was pleased to hear of the considerable affort that is pisnned and included in the price quoted for training his people in operation, safety, and other important aspects of running a nuclear installation. , We stressed that this trainin, would start from 2 to 3 years before operation f and the schooling basically done at our San Jose plant, bewaver, from time to time groups of operating people wou;d be sent to existing operating nuclear installations for on-the-job training and experience. e J
\
l J i
Tcse 3
- 6. Mr. Smith was considerably worried about the effect on fish sad shellfish and in f aer wild lif e in general as result of any increase in radiation levels around the plant. Larry McEwan went into detail on this problem and explained l the steps that have been taken in depth to contain the radiation,Inand those fact, the releases that do occur are under absolute control condici ss.
level of radiation in the discharge canal can only be seas ed by extremely sensitive inatrumentation. Mr. McEwas stated that studies
- wther plants, and indeed measurements of conditions at Dresden, for fastance, asve fallen far short of the estimated values originally anticipated. These values are only a fractional part of the permissible levels in the AZO guides. ,
- 7. gegarding the radiation on the condenser, Mr. Smith expressed a desire to operate in such a manner as to naintain half load while a portion of the condenser was being cleaned. George Roy told of work in this regard at the
, Humbolt Bay plant and the problem is being studied. We are certain that it can be done. It merely requires certain shieldine be accomplished. i
- 8. Mr. Smith stated that in his opinion the balance of plant price we had quoted was grossly out of line and he questioned our estinates of these installation charges. George Stathakis asked if he preferred a turnkey proposition from the manuf actur ers. Mr. Smith said no, this would not be his preference if we have a reasonable attitude on the assu=ption of responsibility, partirularly as to the fuel warranty. In other words, he would feel confident to install this unit as he has in the past with fossil units, that is to say, the A&E acting as prias contractor. Following up Mr. Smith's statement about the balance of plant being high, Mink Kant asked for a brief run-down on the major cost fa, tors which made up their estimates. Mr. Schau pointed out that the lower p' essure required a mch larger turbine, turbine foundation, and turbine building. Coorge Roy remarked that the flow was some 307. higher than on high pressure units which increased the size of the piping, pumps, canals, etc.
The largest factor, however, was the size of the containment building and the strength f actors utilized in this design. Mr. Roy also sentioned that the torus was a huge piece of equipment and that further the radiation vasta disposal facilities were in addition to that required on a fossil plant. All of these factors would indeed indicate a more costly design than the high pressure fossil unit. However, Mink Kant elected to remain in San Jose to work with our group there in an effort to determine why our estimates should be out of line.
- 9. Iao Schant and Mink Kant asked that we be allowed to obtain from sechtel and Ebasco a firm price quotation on the balancs of plant items. Mr. Smith asked that we not do this at the moment because he is concerned for his negotiations with thsm. He did agree to let us know sometime during the week of the 27th if some means could be worked out for us to run a check with these two on our pricing. Dewey Straley is to contact him toward the end of the week for this approval.
- 10. Mink Kart proposed to Mr. Smith that we start immediately to discuss with his operating people the simplicity of our design end the ease of operation as expertenced with the Dresden plant. Specifically, we would like to bring Mr. Brad Cox, Man ager of Installation & Service Engineering, Chicago to Miami O
O
o Fage 4 i for discussion with Mr. Kack and his associates. Mr. $mith expressed an interest in this and wwld assist us in setting up this meeting. l l
- 11. Mr. Seith stated that ha m now studying the installation of nuclear units for alternate years. he said that it now looked as if a nuclear unit added each year would throw them into base loading proble=s veich did not look desirable. ile further stated that with this in mind he would entertain an option on a second unit. This was in response to 1.ao Schans' asking about his interest in a second unit. Mr. Schans pointed out the loss of savings in providing a second unit which did not follow izzediately with the first. 1 This question was lef t for further discussion. Jack Dunn asked if the size :
we had quoted was such that Mr. Smith approved. The answer was that a i quotation on the optimum desigs was vtat he desired. He did state that ) further fossil units would be 600 W and that he anticipated installing a l 400 W st Cape Kannedy in 1968 or early 1919, and another 400 W at Fort Myers in IS69 prior to the installation of this w. lear unit.
- 12. Mr. Smith was concerned aNaut uranium reserves. He specifically asked why a report had been issued recently stating that there was an inexhaustible supply of uranium whereAs other reports he read pointed to possible shortages.
George Stathakis answered this by stating that the 1 mown reserves of uranium
. are adequate for our optimistic projectiore through 1985. He further reviewed with Mr. Smith the fact that uraniun was sought only in a 4 year period and that basically whenever it was desired, uranium reserves have been located.
Be told the group that the basic reason for the " inexhaustible report was the fact that in the future everyone expected the fast breeder reactor to
- . take a predominant role. In this reactor, plutonium is used which is generated in the uranium enriched reactor. The difficulties in going imediately to plutonium reactors was in the safety and the control problems inas
- :uch as the plutonium unit reacts meh faster than the uranium reactor. Mr. Smith wondered if plutonium fast breeding reactors were really coming into the picture or did we merely dream of them. George Stathakis stated that they definitely are coming in response to a supply and demand situation. However, he pointed out if we do develop cheaper sources of yellow cake, then the plutonium vill probably be delayed.
- 13. Regarding our participation as a supplier to an architect-engineer acting as a prime contractor,14o Schanz stated definitely that we would be pleased to do this. We would, as George Stathakis said earlier, act as " lead" in the licensing effort, however, the prina contractor - with the ultimate authority in the design of the containment building as well as many other sensitive facets -
would of necassity have to retain responsibility. Dewey a r ey 9-29 65 e l
.}}