ML19309A033

Util Comments on AEC Des.

ML19309A033
Person / Time
Site:	Crystal River
Issue date:	01/17/1973
From:	FLORIDA POWER CORP.
To:
Shared Package
ML19309A030	List: ML19309A029 ML19309A033 ML19309A036
References
NUDOCS 8003240866
Download: ML19309A033 (42)

Text

.-a .r .. . . . . ..,-~,.:r -~:: ..w l

<^

~'m

,wa wu, w {) yfL. &/-

h bh 7 i D JhD es C 7, )

6 o ED,:,#$ r' y y:::.s

.N

. T'

@s N l l

6 ELORIDA POWER CORPORATIOL CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 3 NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT

.AEC DOCKET NO. 50-302 l

l l

Florida Power Corporation ,

Comments on the Atomic Energy Commission Draft Environmental Statement.

l l

l

,m ,

^

'i - .

i-

-;q, r.:

c

~6)

Q\d 'y;' ' ..g:s%.

yp-

%l<<Ls lf -

January 17, 1973 l

(

8003240 ((

z.

~

. . . -..;- .. . ~ . . c: +- .. :..

m .^

~4; -%

l TABLE OF CONTENTS Comment No. Subj ect 'P g 1 INTAKE WATER TEMPERATURE 1 2 SOURCE OF INTAKE COOLING WATER 10 3 EXTENSION OF DISCHARGE CANAL 32 4 LIMITS OF PLANT THERMAL DISCHARGE -

^

l INFLUENCE IN THE GULF OF MEXICO 34 5 PREDICTIONS OF THERMAL PLUME SIZE 37 6 DILUTION FOR CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT #3 40 I

D 9

e

• O

+

e

- _m .y _ . -..

- -. ,~ - - ~ . . - ~ : ~ . s x, ,a O

, . '3 .i

1. INTAKE WATER TEMPERATURE .

4 In Appendix D of the AEC Draft Environmental Statement, a comparison was made of the intake temperatures.at the Crystal River plant and'those recorded at Cedar Keys,

' Florida. The conclusion drawn therein was that the temperatures recorded at the two locations were comparable. sThe effect of this conclusion was that of establishing the maximum intake temperature with which the environmental impact was assessed. Due -

to srrors in the data considered, we believe that the conclusion drawn is incorrect.

The bases for this position are stated in subsequent paragraphs.

, Concern was previously expressed by the AEC about the intake temperatures at. Crystal- ':

River. _ Af ter the Crystal River Unit #3 Environmental Report was published, a question was directed to Florida Power Corporation asking for the ambient intake water temperature data from Units 1 and 2. The answer to this inquiry was published in Volume 4 of the Environmental Report.(Question 4). Included within this response was -

a table listing the daily average intake temperatures for the year of 1971. Some of the data included for the month of September was in error. This error was discovered when the information was again reviewed in conjunction with the Draft Environmental Statement published by the AEC.

The Crystal River Plant operations computer logs the intake temperature at the condenser hourly or upon operator demand. Temperature monitors are located in each of the four intake pipes at the condenser of each plant. The plant computer monitors each device and calculates an average hourly temperature and prints this on the daily log. At the end of the day, the computer calculates a daily average and also prints this value.'

l The temperature of the intake water is limited to very slow changes because of  !

.the heat capacity of the cource - the Gulf of Mexico. After reviewing the data -I available for Units 1 and 2, it is concluded that summer intake water temperature '

changes within a given day never exceed 4*F. Because the Gulf of Mexico has such an enormous heat capacity, any hourly temperature. change greater than one degree is highly suspect. As a result, we have reviewed all of the summer data available j and have concluded that any data which has such changes are erroneous. Such changes may have occurred due to the loss of calibration of the temperature sensors or similar equipment malfunction *.

The attached data sheets represent, in our judgement, the best data available to indicate intake temperatures at Crystal River. As you may see upon review of this data, the maximum average intake temperature is 89'F. Also attached, for your convenience, is a copy of the table included in Volume 4 of the Environmental Report within which the erroneous data occurred. The values previously reported for the Period during parts of September and October of 1971 are considered to be in error.

During this period, numerous hourly changes in excess of 8'F have been noted. We conclude that this is beyond the realm of possibility for a body of water like the Gulf of Mexico wAth an intake canal configuration like that at Crystal River and with the quantity of water involved. .-

• Plant operations and maintenance personnel originated corrective action at the time in 1971 as a result of normal evaluation of operational data to measure plant performance. Data plots were not modified, however, resulting in error l of reporting.

• I

- - - , - - - - -,. ,,n, , , , , , - , , , , -,n-- - - - , - , - - , , , . - , . , , , - , , .,.-,,,-ry,,- ,,m,v ,,,-.,-----,.-,n

r n.sz a a..  : . x. ~- .

~ . c ~ + 4 - - M, ~

, 7 .m As may be seen upon inspection of the attached data, the higher temperatures are not reached very frequently. The table below indicates the frequency of occurrence of temperatures'between 850F and 890F.

Temperature-  % of Time in Which the Temperature (OF) is Below the Given Temperature 89 99.2 88 98.1 87 96.5 86 91.3 85 -

86.3 In the AEC Draf t Environmental Statement reference is made to data published by the Coast and Geodetic Survey for Cedar Keys, Florida. The maximum temp ' '

erature shown was 92 F. It was assumed that this data was comparable with that at the intake of the Crystal River Plant.

Upon investigating the means by which data is recorded at Cedar Keys, it was concluded that these data do not necessarily provide a reliable source of useable information. This is due to the fact that the sensing device is located on the county pier at the end of C Str"a.tl along a channel which is in an area of extremely shallow water. The shallow water (approximately 1 ft. deep)2 is subject to strong radiation heating which influences the temperature recorded quite drastically. This effect becomes more apparent when one compares the temperature recorded at Cedar Keys with that recorded l at St. Petersburg. St. Petersburg is approximately 100 miles south of l

Cedar Keys. One would expect, therefore, that the summer Gulf of Mexico l water temperat'?res would be generally higher at St. Petersburg than at i Cedar Keys. The data indicates, however, that during the periods repor Cedar Keys typically recorded a higher temperature than St. Petersburg.ged, In contrast to the conditions at Cedar Keys, the water for the intake at Crystal River comes from considerably deeper water

• Thus, one would expect a considerable difference to be observed between-the two locations.

In conclusion, we feel that the information available* does, 'in fact, lead to the ccuelusion that 89 F0 is a reasonable maximum daily average cooling water intake temperature at the Crystal River plant.

, 1 Private communication with Mr. Hubbard'of the USC&GS Office, Rockville, Md.

2 USC&GS Chart 1259 (1:80000).

3 USC&GS Publication 31-1 (Third Edition 1968).

• Note Question 2 herein which addresses the source of intake cooling water.

1 I

1

-~ _

.- .. .. -.. -- . - .: ..  : .a .

- an. , -

^

a- *- -

SUMMER TEMPERATURE DATA YEAR 1972 Day June July August September -

1 80 83 85 81 2 79 84 84 81 3 79 85 85 81 4 79 85 85 82 5 79 86 86 82 6 . 80 86 86 83 7 81 86 86 83 8 82 85 86 82 9 82 83 86 82 10 83 --

86 81 11 83 --

87 80 12 82 83 86 80 13 81 -

84 86 80 14 --

84 86 --

81 15 82 85 86 82 16 - --

85 83 17 -

84 85 84 18 81 84 85 85 19 79 83 85 -

20 -

82 85 85 21 79 82 85 -

22 81 82 85 -

23 -

83 83 -

24 -

84 81 -

25 -

84 80 81 26 -

85 79 82 27 -

85 79 82 28 -

85 80 82 29 82 86 81 83 30 83 86 82 83 31 85 82 O

e 4

,- n -w , -

e

. , . . . . . .e. . . . . . . . . ~ - ..

~ . :.: . . - M- +wwa + ,

LI i .;"\E .

SUMMER TEMPERATURE DATA

, YEAR 1971 Day- June July August Septembaz:

1 79 86 85 86 2 80 86 85 86 3 80 86 85 84 4 81 85 86 .84 5 82 84 86 84 6 83 84 85 84  ;

7 83 85 86 - R 8 83 85 87 -

9 83 84 87 -

10 84 84 86 -

J 11 84 84 86 -

12- 83 85 85 --

13' 83 85 85 --

)

14 -

86 85 - -

l 15 85 86 84 81 l 16 85 86 81 82 l 17 -

86 80 82 l 18 86 87 81 -

, 19 96 88 83 -

t 20 66 87 84 -

1 21 86 86 85 -

22 {

85 84 86 -

l 23 84 83 86 - l 24 83 83 86 -

25 83 83 86 -

26 83 84 86 -

27 85 85- 86 -

28 85 86 86 -

29 85 86 86 --

30 85 86 87 --

31 85 86 l

l 1

. ~

. ~ .. ~ a , -. . ,-.

. r:- w a.,

a Ak.a..

,n

. . . ;3 4

SUMMER TEMPERATURE DATA YEAR 1970 '

~

Day June July August September 1 79 83 -

85 2 78 84 -

86 3 79 85 88 86 4 79 85 88 86 5 78 85 88 86 6 79 --

87 86 7 78 85 87 85 8 79 86 87 87 9 80 - --

86 10 80 86 83 -

11 81 '

87 81 --

12 82 86 81 86 13 83 86 81 86  ;

14 83 85 -

85 .

15 83 86 83 -

16 83 87 83 -

17 83 87 85 84 18 85 -- -

84 j 19 85 87 -

85

)

20 86 86 --

85 1 21 87 85 - -

22 87 -

84 -

i 23 87 --~ 83 - l 24 87 -

82 -

25 86 84 82 -

26 85 84 - -

27~ 84 86 83 -

28 -

86 83 --

29 --

87 85 84 30 f 83 87 84 -

31 87 84 e

l l l j

~..

c. -++

.?-

~'

S11MMER TEMPERATURE DATA YEAR 1969 Day June July August September ,

1 82 86 86 82 2 82 86 86 82 3 83 85 86 82 4 83 86 -

83 5 84 86 84 83 6 84 87 -

83 7 83 88 -

83 8 84 88 85 '

9 85 88 85 -

83 10 85 89 86 83 l 11 85 89 84 83 l 12 85 89 -

82 l 13 85 87 -- --

l 14 85 87 --

80 l 15 85 86 82 80 l 16 86 85 82 80

, 17 87 --

84 81 18 88 -

83 81 19 88 --

84 82 l

20 37 --

85 82 21 86 -

86 82 22 - --

86 81 23 - -

86 82 24 -

85 85 82 4 25 87 85 83 82 26 88 85 , 83 82 27 89 85 84 81 28 88 85 83 81 1 29 -87 86 83 80 30 87 86 -

78 31 86 82

.:... .- - 4-4 L &...

.,m. - -

k SID0fER TEMPERATURE DATA YEAR 1968 '

Day June July August September 1 81 85 88 81 2 81 85 88 --

, 3 81 85 86 83 4 81 84 86 84 5 --

84 85 85 )

6 --

82 86 85 l 7 --

82 87 86  !

8 82 88 86

. 9 --

83 87 85 10 81 81 88 86 11 82 80 88 85 12 83 81 88 84 13 85 82 88 84 14 85 83 88 83 15 --

84 88 82 16 85 85 89 82 17 84 85 89 82 18 84 85 89 82 19 84 86 89 83 20 83 86 89 83 21 84 86 89 82 22 85 86 89 81 23 85 86 89 81 24 86 87 89 80 25 86 87 89 80 26 86 87 88 80 ,

27 86 88 87 81 28 85 88 83 81 29 84 88 81 81 I

. 30 84 89 80 81 31 89 80 ,

i 1

b 4

4

_ c. , , c_ f c ., - . , . w ,-w

, N '-

SUMMER TEMPERATURE DATA YEAR 1967 Day June July August September 1 83 86 84 86 2 82 85 84 86 3 82 86 85 84 4 82 85 86 82 5 82 -

86 81 6 81 --

84 81 7 82 86 84 80 8 --

85 84 80 9 -

85 85 81 10 -

84 85 82 11 --

85 85 82 12 -

86 84 82 13 -

86 81 81 14 81 85 81 80 15 82 84 81 79 16 82 84 81 79 17 -

83 '83 79 l 18 - -

84 80

-l 19 82 82 85 79 1 20 82 -

85 80 l 21 82 84 --

81 1 22 83 84 -

81 23 83 84 84 81 24 83 84 83 80 25 83 84 84 80 26 84 84 85 79 27 85 84 86 79 28 85 86 86 80 29 86 85 86 79 ,

30 86 84' 86 77 31 -

84 86 O

- - - . , , - -.--,p.

,. a. ,&

~ s~ w. e '

FLORIDA POWER CORPORATIONJ _

, :Crystc1 Rivar Unit 3 j Envir nmentcl R: port Volume 4-(Excerpt)

4. Provide a table and figures showing data on the ambient intake temperature, the estimated temperatures in the discharge canal from Units 1, 2 and 3 under full load operation, and the percent {

frequency over the year that these temperature conditions will exist *.- l j

l ANSWER:

CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 1 INLET TEMPERATURES 1971 b

'F U w u k E o 8 0 2

e c  : . s s e e .i.

8 1-w x e K

< z

1. B 1 # & t 8 8

> m n < us o z o

1. 60 -

< 68 63 74 79 86 85 86 < 81 80 65

2. -

72 64 -

80 86 85 86 81 65

3. -

72 64 -

80 86 85 84 82 65

4. -

64 63 64 81 85 86 84 - -

64

5. -

62 63 63 82 84 86 84 83 76 64

6. -

61 63 69 83 84 85 84 83 75 64

7. 60 -

62 61 71 83 85 86 89 82 76 -

8. 59 -

60 60 69 83 85

' 87 88 82 74 67

9. 60 -

58 61 73 83 84 87 90 81 71 68

10. 61 -

57 62 73 84 84 86 11, 91 80 70 69 61 -

58 64 74 - 84 84 86 92 78 68 70

12. 62 -

59 65 77 83 85 85 -

76 67 70

13. 62 -

60 67 77 83 85 85 -

76 67 70

14. - -

61 68 74 84 86 85 82

' 77 -68 70

15. - -

65 69 74 85 86 84 81 78 68 71

16. - -

66 70 73 85 ' 86 81 82 78 68 71

17. - -

71 73 85 86 80 82 79 68

18. -

64 72 -

86 87 81 -

80 69 71

19. - -

64 73 76 86 88 83 78 70 - 67

20. - -

63 73 77 86 87 84 .- 76 70 66

21. - -

60 74 78 86 86 85 -

76 69 67

-22. - -

60 75 80 85 84 86 76 68

23. -

65 61 76 80 84 83 86 -

77 77 66

24. -

63 60 77 79 83 83 86 77 78 65

25. -

63 64 77 79 83 84 86 77 65 65 t 26. -

64' 65 76 80 83 84 86 77 62 65

27. - -

66 64 77 81 85 85 86 76 63 66

28. -

67 63 78 82 85 86 86 77 64 67

29. -

64 78 82 85 86 86 92 79 65 67

30. -

65 78 80 85 86 87 81 66 , 68

31. -

63 79 85 86

. 77 69 Notes:

means data not retrievable blank means data not available due to down time *

• (These questions were responded to in the Environmental' Report en other pages therein not included here.) _ -

9_

T

1. • Ig v eemg4 4 "% % .C A s, ,O ,b o  % y .h J ek yd#re.W 4*Annew

,-  ;,  ?- ' ].'

~ 2. . SOURCE OF INTAKE COOLING WATER ~

d l

-1 Upon reviewing the AEC Draft Environmental Statement, one general

. observation noted was that there was a consistent implication that the  ;{

intake cooling water for the plant was being taker " rom the shallow  ;

nearshore region south of the existing intake ca* dtructure. This implication, we believe, is incorrect and has r d in erroneous conclusions concerning the potentisl environment. .uspact. -l The cooling water for the Crystal River Plant is drawn in through an intake canal which extends westwardly from the plant for approximately 8.9

, miles. - The southern dike of the canal extends about 2.2 miles beyond the -

shoreline while the northern dike' extends approximately 7.5 miles beyond the shoreline. The canal was dredged prior to 1966 to a minimum depth of 15 feet, and the bottom width of the canal varies from 150 to 225 feet.- The point nearest shore at which water can enter the canal is at the end of the southern dike. At this point, the bottom width of the canal is 150 feet and the depth is approximately 15 feet. The average depth of the water in the natural marine area adjacent to this point is estimated to be 6 feet.

In order to determine the area from which the bulk of the intake water is drawn, an investigation of existing data was made and, additionally, a

, preliminary study of the area flow pattern was made. The results of these efforts confirm what one would intuitively expect, i.e., the bull,of the intake water comes from offshore rather than from the shallow area s along -

the shoreline. This conclusion is strengthened from the fact tha'. the average depth in the area adjacent to the end of the southern dike is approximately 6 feet whereas the depth of the canal is at least 15 feet. Additionally, there exist several rows of oyster reefs which lie roughly perpendicular to the '

canal dikes. (See Figure 1 attached) These reefs retard flow and thus =4n4=4ze the flow of water from the shallow area out into area near the mouth of the i~

intake canal. The effect of these reefs will be most pronounced at low water conditions when the concern is ' greatest with regard to the' removal of water from the shallow region.

The results of salinity studies made in the area adjacent to the intake canal indicate that the water does not come from the shallow areas near the shoreline. The attached Figures 1 and 2 appeared in the July-September,.1972,

, Environmental Status Report published by Florida Power Corporation. As can be j

seen, the salinity measured in the shallows (station 1) is, on the average, about 7 ppt below that measured in the intake canal (station 4). Likewise, the

measurements made at stations 2 and 4 show considerable dissimilarity. Only measurements made at stations 3 and 4 show close correlation. Thus, the

! implication of these measurements is that the bulk of the water entering the i

intake canal is coming from offshore. Little, if any, water is being drawn j from the shallow areas adjacent to the shoreline. .

The following is the report by the Marine Science Institute of the University of South Florida describing the preliminary study of the intake canal area flow pattern.. This research team will continue their investigation

' in this area as an ongoing task in the environmental research program at Crystal River.

1 l

- .l

- _ ,; - .:,g , . .

% ^

-3; d

c '3 C,v gV d, .

.~

t y uans4

.. v. ,

,s.

Q; 'l'.4.,

b *b .* *%. 's!

• i *b*~

c_  % R

_ -9 )

. ,. ., ---< s svar:04 4 -

. 5, u

':: e?, O I. ~ ~~s p g svario=

station if g, -)

station a 'O M O

~5.

.. - uansu qsg

,,fq

' .i f*. . \

~

oyster reefs ,

E

i. ' .

i ,.

7' f%, <

M

.zi. 4 -

Vsy9

.* M iVg \.

,g . . -

7( y N

. r '.. ; . c- Ob~0 Figure 1. Map of Crystal River area showing co!!ecting stations.

28 26 24 -

N_ _

22 20 ^

O 7 18 f 16 F 14 .

2

.J

<t 12 U)

• 4 STATION 1

.l0 va STATION 2 EsSTATION 3 8

6 4 .

2 JUL'.24 AUG 4 AUG' 18 SEPi 2 SEPI 13 OCT 6 Figure 2. Salinity at the collecting stations on the sampling dates.

J l

i l -u- w .-ww

_ . . . . _ / _

. . _ . . _ - _ . , - - . c.:V A. .a s ,e_- _ . _ -osi as T A 44-m @- 4.2

,^ .

g 7 .'  ;

TECHNICAL REPORT NO. 2 on INDEPENDENT ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY OF THERMAL EFFECTS OF POWER PLANT DISCHARGE Preliminary Data on the Nature of Flow in the Area of the Intake Channel of the Crystal River Power Plant ,

Dr. Kendall L. Carder 2

Principal Investigator ,

by Kendall L. Carder Ronald H. Klausewitz Bruce A. Rodgers i

l 1

9 O

9

., - . y; . . ug .y , a p m .

^

.. . N .g ABSTRACT

^

At the request of Florida Power Corporation an investigation was begun into the flow in and surrounding the in,take channel for

. . o their power plant at Crystal River. The end objective of the study will be to determine the source (s) of water which finally reaches the condenser tubes. For the purposes of this ' preliminary study the' sources were defined in three zones of origin and a preliminary description of the flow with respect to these zones was determined.

.=*

O 4

e 4

9

, y . ;g _

~

" ~

. -g w.

S .-

PROCEDURE On January 6 and 7,1973 an initial investigation 'nto the flow in and adjacent to the intake channel for the Crystal River power plant was performed. On January 6 measurements were made during the late phases of a flood tide to high water, beginning at 1435 and ending at 1626. On January 7 the measurements were made during the late phases of an ebb tide to low water, beginning at 0911 and ending at 1025. The tides are shown in Table 1.

The weather conditions were dense fog on both days. The wind was from 202* and varied from light to negligible on January 6 to fif teen to twenty m.p.h. at noon on the 7th. The survey on both days was begun at Marker 23 on the intake canal and progressed toward the plant with station locations at each northern chan'nel marker and at a point south of that channel marker by about .00 yards. At each station current, temperature, and salinity were recorded with depth. Current measurements were taken with a Model 721 Marsh-McBirney inductive current meter. Salinity and temperature measurements were made with a G.M. Mfg. and Inst. Co.

Model RSS-3 salinometer.

The Mata is presented in the accompanying figures and is discussed in-the following section of this report. The water sources of the bounded intake canal and, consequently the plant inlet, are discussed qualitatively as " areas" described below. .

No quantitative data is yet available but is projected as a goal of future studies.

~ ~

~-

, -N ,

/ .

Table 1 Tide Times at Marker 32 3 January 6, 1973 Time Range (m)

High 1603

.74 Low 2123 January 7, 1973 .85 iti;h 0303 1.34 Low 1015 S

S

r ,

a, m a p.w y 1,[ a ,gg

, , - .- W '

/ ,1 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION For the purposes of this preliminary survey, the waters surrounding the intake channel will be divided into three areas

^ "

Area 1 is shown on Figure 1 and includes all the water regions bounded on the north by the' south bank of the discharge spoil, on the west by the last Gulf-ward string of oyster bars, and on the i

\

east by shore; Area 2 includes all the water from the west boundary of Area 1 to an imaginary line drawn south from inlet channel

~

Marker 21 (also the present physical end of the north inlet spoil) and bounded on the north by the north inlet spoil bank; Area 3 includes all the water bounded on the east by the west boundary of Area 2 and a line north through Marker 21 and unbounded on 1

the north, south, and west into the Gulf of Mexico.

The currents with depth are shown in Figure 2 for station .

I pairs in and just south of the intake channel. These velocity vectors indicate that most of the water entering the channel during flood tide is from Areas 2 and 3, and that entering during ebb tide is mainly from Area 2. The interesting thing to note is the. difference in current behavior at Markers 29 and 31 during ebb tide. The plant is able to maintain an eastward flow against the ebb tidal tendency. Figure 3 shows bottom current vectors in the intake channel (Station A @ 20' depth) and due south of 4

j the channel (Station B @ 4' depth). The velocities ;outh of the ,

I channel (at the boundary between Areas 1 and 2) are quite small o

6

_- . .~

. .. *g r;. -.s . m, 1 . a

}j _ ~

9 westward during ebb tide ' (<14 cm/sec) and more than twice that magnitude eastward during flood. These data also indicate then that most of the plant source water is from the week.

Salinity'and temperature contours are shown for flood and ebb tides on Figures 4 and 5 respectively. These data also indicate that the water taken in during flood is primarily of gulf origin (S>28 o/oo) while on ebb it is more transitional (S*24 o/oo) in origin. In each case these measurements were taken near the later stages of ebb and flood, so that the contours approximate the furthest extent of each feature.

The vertical temperature and salinity sections along the channel axis shown in Figures 6 and 7 and along a parallel line south of the channel shown in Figure 8 are indicative of the location of the major flux into the channel during ebb tide. The lower salinity, higher temperature water occurring at Marker 29 suggests that er. .rainment of transition water - (Area 2) is greatest at this location. Relatively little water seems to be coming from east of Station 11, probably due to the oyster bars and shoal depths inherent to that region.

Vertical temperature and salinity sections along the channel axis and along a parallel line south of the channel are shown in Figures 9, 10, and 11 for flood tide (for station location see Figure 1). They indicate a rather classical wedging of cool, ,

saline gulf water beneath warmer, less saline transition water

. residual found at the surface at Station 10. The only departure 4

I

., . -17

x < - , - - ; n .:.t w .a ; ;

3 * ~

from the classical case is found between Markers 25 and 29. A glance at a batnymetric chart sheds some light on this apparent 1

upwelling phenomenon, Figure 12 indicates a rather shoal bank which lies south of Marker 25, perpendicular to the direction of the tidal wave. This tends to force transitilon water north into

~

the channel on flood, causing a region of convergence at Marker 25.

This constricts the inflow of gulf water somewhat, forcing a portion of it south where is appnars at Station 4 of Figure 11. The ,

l quasi-jet at Marker 25 tends to force more water shoreward than the pumps can pass through the plant causing some of the water to flow south of the intake spoil as seen in Figure 4.

Since 30.1 o/oc is the highest salinity observed during this I

survey, it is assumed to be representative of gulf shelf waters during this measurement per!.xi. At Marker 31, the vertical mean salinity is 26.2 o/oo at ebb tide and 28.7 o/oo at flood tide.

This also suggests that during flood the intake water is primarily of gulf shelf origin, and during ebb it contains only 10% more water of river origin.

These preliminary findings indicate that most of the water consumed by the plant is drawn from Areas 2 and 3. This was anticipated to a large degree since the water of Area l'is retarded in its access to the plant intake channel by high (shoal water) friction and oyster reef barricades. ,

+

6

~~ ~

isi t c. ,

, + - iAna

., .. .N- J- 4.

-t

, J' )

s'

.A hydraulic model of the' intake region and supportive dye

. ent.rainment studies are really necessary to shed much additional light on these extremely preliminary results.

I 5 -

i e

G d

e a

e 4

1 4 i  ;*

19-

_ _g,, g g ) '8 u ' Mip V '

, /*

! -,- _5 I 'c I ', s . '!i

1. g l.,.pl. n s

s t;

b

o _ * * -

s. ,

8

.s

,, s '$  :# . .P *'

', s/ s .. ah_, , .

, ,',.'  % p """ ;.%

e a

, ,f, ,

1.**

-p/Ih

\

b+4@ N % ,<

~

, u y -

, . . .c . i

.%g ,#

j  % 0 3 w r a ,

p .,

. -4

~..,,

T S  : *p. w, w '+, ,

Q ,f[

% 's

,jir .l < .ee w j e , / / - - -

.2.

> m~<~q.g @Uh-.n.q

% ,'\ ~ i

• j aO. 4

( g i @=

, --u -

4si . . N, -

/ s Y/ < 'a@= =

x i

.e a

s  :

8

's @ 90 I =

o ,. oo g f D -

~y e\ .u ,

- e .

,N e4 N s,

s ,e s . I

, D e.\. - <

,2:e, t, .e. I s%

. l s, I

\' , .

I j

g,-

' \ \ -

.. . 's:, o (. to .

l '

4

.,. .. e / ,

., en

.~

.f -

'?

s l '

/. 4' 4

/ _

77 .

. . L . . .;

a m-.

, ,- _ .. , . , , _ . a:. .e. _;..... ., , e c.w - %a , , ; a i .- ;

E 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5-

. . 7 c_ Y \. . .

.e . \ . .e .

i

/

r l

E . . ..

E..e , . .: . . . j l

l

)1

g. . . .

. o e \ e ,

w . l \ . ..

g w..e \ g..k; . .

\ u 2

2 E

\ 5 o

• N-

)

6. i. e w

n 4 lio G 4 w G V8

}

u . \. .

..a

~

2 I

e F. l m a w . .. u..u 8 . .u .

3 1

]

u 2

u w I 4 . .

- E .. i I 2 y c w j f f f f I f f f f f I t o a e o a e y o a e o a e w

b e

D 9

• e e

S *mP l

• l

-r -

- , . , . ,..v.,,.,..._-_,.._,,._.,,_y 9y ,,n, ,,y,. ,-v,.y- .,y, -..--9,e,-

, es, - -( r,t i i.:', ,

I I I i 8 I I I I I

- g. . 1 -

l

/ \

. g. . - -

/ 1 0 0 > \

i

/

Y l

. o_. ,. . . .

7 I. . O-- e.-

0-t I I

- o ' . .. .

b d .

R L

)

• / ..

l

,. 1 o-- O

- o. . ~ =

- i g.

J -

1 -

l

. v .. .

_1

. o- e.. p ,

g .

. I j }

o- a

/ 4 y n m .

O a p ' oa

• p -z 2 e f 3

. o- D 1 ., D .

/. g..i .

I I f I f

• I I I f I

? 2 -2 2 o d S 2 2- 2 o O

su e

e l

22- -

w w. -g ,- - - - -w w

a b u- .

I I

1 I .

l .

6 i

Figure 4 -

. =.

sT . . , . . ..,

'7 I

A.1._ . . . . .

. . .,S .. ...

q. , >. ~ a,. - - -

... ..  :... \

l }.r.' k ; ,i s} As '

/ . *;

,- *. ...'-_ ,. -- l R . .'

-Q. .- 1 l -

N .,g'h,(3 g,ge.- -

.* 0 .. .t- .,g f. r- *:.,l1 :,C.

. .,i

- . J A. *- .

sgs 9

c-

.9* h'*. H -

• 7~.

4..->. ,. c ..f'.

I

,4' } 6 ,g 6

,s, ,

\\p ' I'

" ~ ~ ~

p'1 q9 e

.,s. ' j. t..

,s- -

.g.ss

..o0

's ....s.......

.,r

._ 4v ....g.-

.1

~'f s yd.BA...,:..,'.5  :..

. s.

% . t s  %

l .

) .

s s

• >,s s

) ,

'*r g *^

,.. ,[+ . \'( ,f, ,Mh j /

l' g- '. - t,T, i h 3 s.,

• i s,j

. \ \

.* V.

1. . ... .. ... ... ..,...s.

...R.w-

..>f,..... . .

}

• e< \f

. f. /.

lI '

%;.) '

\s.' O';'

i

• f, #' l'

- s  %' ./

i I 't C

' . '1v'#. .

s ).' /,

,...- . .. m.L.e- '

(' . 1

'( h <g

i . ( * /,\ ' k, .

l -

. y ,

t !

. .* - . .. ) , ..- .

'. t' i

.\ i l

. .. ....-^ ~~

t / sy \\f ,s

..\

.... .._. - - % ._.m._ .~.-e.._

-23 f r J . .

y I .

9 t

o Figure 5 ,

l

'l -

~-n) . , ...C8.

i ,.

t .. .. . . .

.. . .a o

o -

l s M , ~ 1 . v , .,,

/ ..

. , j . . . .... ......-

.~.

\ ,.,6 y,3g : .

.- q.  :.

l

.\.,,; {'.). d~k;:f

.. -s... .

.c

...o..

a

/...&

$ gg

• . =sy .

. :p =..

• • • w.

. N.- 0,,s .' , ' , aqp ,O \'-t* 4 ..

,)I . ,5 Y \ -

h' - .

g * ' ' ~.. , ,r

. g...g- -

. y . ., a y

. ,j .

' . c -{. _ wb: . *

.. ( *) ,' ,, #

+'

1- g g s I)* .*

g 5 g 5 .

{ .,, \. W

.. ',,f f sr****

r ,

.~ ,

y I

3 L i g

\ 'i -

\ f

....!.. p' .y t ,3 M,p, -

) , Q ....... -

' g;'.s,ss

.p .

.,  ? Q*

s, gI l

14 I ad . 4

. .. .** r J.

o k ,

. . .. 4.t

e.

. 9p

'{ t

, ,r -e.-

.- 1 =<

~

~

.}'

e t

. .* t

. . - 4. g

• . ,,.,,,e.'==*=..sass -

f .

j ,

.\ . . . ' *

'j'

',n h.

u- "* - - - - = ~ . . . . . - . . . .

_24_ .

I

..-4 "M 6 e  %

6 4 e 5 6 *

. e e

I

! I i

1 .

+ .

e m.

• O N e m

\

\

t i

T.

e

• O N

.\g .e.i - ,

g C T

,5 g

• 1 n -

e

' E $

w M

i $ae Z

N 4

M 4

. A O

e *

. N . .

k =

0 E

, D st: -

w I g A M '

M 2 P*

tt u%

W pb E

• g i 5 w-

= e

. E d e

=

i =

! k Z

• U i

i t t t t t 1

0 # O n O k N W l w A

25-

. . m ,

a i . . .

4 I

6 i

i e

i -

1 -

I I

4 I

o. ,

e '

N o

e N

I n O N . -

q e e N N O 5 .

N . 5 N g i

N 33

• 00

' H

~>

l

<n 2

9 p.

4

>=

en E

O

. te.

to N

• l a

l N * >

e >-

m " E 3

,$ <n E 9bs e y b 4

2 g}

E W

i . < 0

, U N

• il l N

j. o e o e

o >

. NW W

,I i,

, ) 0

- ~

! 86 99 J' l1 3 i i - ' >

_" Eh -

0 -

N 3 -

2 _

' 4 0

I i i 2

0

.

• k .

s 5

y 2 _

' ~

e

~ _

' 65 9

1 9_

1

~ -

~ g4, -

g _

V_

e I . . i . .

8 e

r 0 u g

6 i 2 F 9

C 5 ,

, . E ,

R U

T A

R Y E 3 T P 7 IN M /

I L E S T /7 f

A3 E S 7 I B / E E7 D M D I

U I / T N T1 B B N B 0 B O E g E I g T

A -

T S

2 . . - - . -

0 5 0 T 5 01 1

E E

F I~NI 1

4 a

0 i 4 e

- I o

2 e

N '

8 e m

e i

) \ t, 9 E 2 -

S 4

1 8 '

a

~

C l =

l ys u

ti t

8 h.

?

N - , _

p i

8  !=

s

.r a "?

w - \ 8-4' \ s:

5 I N- O d

" h O d

g 5

i iA , ,,,,

. O e , ,

e

23 CHANNEL MARKERS USED 25 FOR STATIONS 23 33 s 3 g g 9

O - -

28.5 5 -

30D 294

+

295 t-13 -

, )

I w 15 - -

e 4

23 - -

FEET -

. FLOOD TIDE SALINITY ,

I/6/73 s

i . J Figure 10 e

i o

9 s, y 9

/ .

O 8

e

/ '

N

\ -

q -

,N

• i W I

~ ' S

/

N _

O .

W

- - H

.g

4. N

• /

o c.a

$ *s

. u

>=

V\ a a

D 2

~

f  !

J 3 0P-m

- p w%

V 8

y N-O O 5 a2 3

O a O

y O e

N

\,, ,  %)-

O O 9 W ~

w i b l . . k

0 "

9 * ~'9-l 6' 0 ~E I"4.-- ::::=

~

k.,24,,$$

o

. -? s gg r 0' ' ' f s

u- -: t -2t

• p , , &, *

,,20 4" R"f t g seC r" E ~,9  %#

-4'9 3rAQ ) piling R u t \,

\

r.- %, .1 4 Spa,I Areas 1.ii . .

2 0 4 n .,

B gr-1

, s

~~ .

f

• . .::: 3 . , *. .

, s s-  ;:: * .-

\

s

s. -

, 6 2, . . q,,4 O p '-

2 i S i. 2 1. i II

\i(i

' Areas  :

8 6 \ 10 \i .5

• 5 .:

$ ] ;. .

s ..

y,;"'O

ll S 3 l ,..; ,s y 7

i  !.: 3 Ii! . ...

.i C^ *J '

II i. i Doghead

~

9 l's *

.b .

.'. D'**'W Gap :

I3 9 AM . .

i::

7 4-5 ::.:

g

=.  :

, I *

.. 7

n. Ard 15 IO

• -* - -k;.:

7~

A ' '-

7 4 ,, 'O. Af G 4  : '~

s ,

8 6  :

,. Spo,iArea IO Kqe W,,6 G \ 1,, y: .

e .: un -

.'ds. privately maintd) 7 Il e 1.';.".:. 79,3Spoil

. 4s ' I2f 'j t R"ck' 1 '""' II

-w-------'y--y(

~" G gs y-. Area ., I " r c,... a .]e $n n

my\

s Q y

.'_'?2 __.

- _ _o_

,orted dredged 7

_q R 9 m;

in -

. .>.4

' Rgo '- -

S fear 1966 12 "180 qd'lg))a "4 -

ll:

Sppil Area eg ,, , ,

Fl 9 4sec [2fgn,g, g S .

c \qf, l } hm 8  :.

<- 2 V\ g 4ce 3

~:'t.

o % 3

~

9 I3 \1:, %

7 7 1 5 is 4 4 7

Q ,j: W 3 '

j,p.:o:; %

i.i S og _

6 y I? y

• 3  !!

i "" n IO ,. j { ll o g Du Figure 12 l -

, s

3. EXTENSION OF DISCHARGE CANAL The AEC staff proposed the modification of the existing discharge canal configuration in presenting various alternatives which supposedly were i designed to reduce the projected environmental impact of Crystal River Unit 3.1 The basis for the modification on further direction from the AEC staff was to extend the present canal until heated water from the plant in excess of 95'F was prevented from reaching the shoreline. Calculations have been made to ascertain what canal modifications would be necessary to achieve this '

condition. The assumptions used in the calculation are:

1. The mav4== average intake temperature is 89'F. (Thus the isotherm in question is the 6*F isotherm, i.e. , 89 + 6 = 95) .

2. The acreage encompassed by the 6*F isotherm is 439 acres.* (Based on the Asbury-Frigo calculations made by MSI.)

3. The plume configuration predicted by the MSI computer model is correct.

Calculations of the plume size and shape under existing conditions for three units have previously been made using the MSI computer model of the discharge area. Additional calculations have predicted a change in the plume shape with the addition of a sea wall on the north side of the discharge canal.

Since the Asbury-Frigo plume size calculations were more conservative than the MSI computer model at higher temperature isotherms,it was decided to map the acreage predicted by the Asbury-Frigo model for the 6*F isotherm onto the plume shapes predicted by the computer model. Additional conservatism was achieved by matching the entire acreage (439 acres) predicted by the Asbury-Frigo method with the contours for flood tide conditions as shown in the attached drawing.

(The Asbury-Frigo calculation,has determined that 439 acres are contained within the 6*F, above ambient, isotherm. This includes both ebb and flood tide conditions. Field data and our computer model verify that the two plumes overlap

'only in part. Thus, the assumption of a flood tide 6*F plume a-ea of 439 acres is conservative by a substantial margin.) As a result of these considerations and assumptions it is concluded that if a sea wall were constructed on the north side of the discharge canal and extended out to the end of the existing dike on the south side of the canal then cooling water from the plant with temperature in excess of 95'F would be isolated from the shoreline. Of course this would not prevent water temperatures along the shoreline from reaching 95'F from natural solar heating which probably does occur.

The impact incurred from the construction of the proposed sea wall would include the complete destruction of the area taken by the sea wall and the area dredged to construct the wall. This amounts to about 6.2 acres in the area ' '

adjacent to the present discharge canal. Additionally, increased turbidity of the water due to the dredging operation has the po.antial of adversely affecting the marine grasses in the area. There exists some cancern by the Company as to the ability to obtain the necessary State permits for dredging for such an alternative, although we do not see this as an impossibility. .

1 Draft Environmental Statement, Section 11.1.6.3, p. 11-16.

• Note the attached Question 5. herein describing additional analysis of thermal -

plume sires.

~.,,

' S

/ l f

& l o l I

h ll ll t

/

I I I o / g r' I \

(

~~' , g

- /a.g '% l .I f

pi i:i:s): i b '*}{- ;

I l

. o' 'g:::'ii:

i h))  !

l W ty '" ..

f S ;iy .

% /: $

ho 8 .:. . I

. . . ...i:: /

db I

/

i

=

l!!! ; ......... $!fI QbF. &:s O)

. ch. ll (89'F 6 )" j

% / l 9

. ]'

%g a w w</

• V l 1

- 1 y* l Discharge Canal Extension To Eliminate 95*F Cooling _

Water From Interaction With Shoreline

- 11

A 'u & & w

/~ 5

4. LIMITS OF PLANT THERMAL DISS -RGE INFLUENCE IN THE GULF 0F MEXICO The Draf t Environmen*al Statem. t included numerous figures depicting the pro-jected region of thermal influence for Crystal River Unit 3 (See section 5.3.2.4.1 and Appendix D). In these figures, especially those relating to flood tide conditions, the low teme- .re isotherms extended far to the north of the dis-charge canal. Some isotnerms even extended into the Cross Florida Barge Canal area. Published experimental evidence indicates that much of- the region north of the discharge canal is not influenced by the effluent from the plant. This data [

implies, therefore, that the elevated temperatures observed in this region are l due to sources other than the plant. The most probable source is solar radiation.

In the area adjacent to the discharge basin at the Crystal River plant, the l depth of the water increases very gradually as one proceeds from shore. This )

is a characteristic of the Gulf Coast of Florida from Tarpon Springs to St.

Marks. Most generally, the shoreline is covered by only a few inches of water at flood tide and is exposed at ebb tide. In the extensive shallow areas, the effects of solar heating may become very important in determining the water temperature depending on the time of the year, weather and atmospheric conditions. , ,, , ,

The process of actually measuring the temperature at various points in the plant cooling water discharge area in the Gulf of Mexico and developing the resulting isotherms has been accomplished and is documented. However, our work to date has not accomplished complete understanding of the separate effecto of the plant effluent and the heating caused by the solar radiation in the discharge area.

However, it has been observed that on flood tide conditions, low temperature isotherms developed from field data extend far to the north of the discharge area. This effect is noticeable in Figure D.7. of the AEC Draf t Environmental Statement. Our model predicts a much more limited influence to the north by the thermal discharge. l l

Since it has been suspected that there is a strong influence by solar heating on the water temperatures in shallow near-shore locations in the area, an in- ,

vestigation has been made to ascertain the extent of the effect of the thermal l discharge in the shallow area north of the discharge canal. Flow measurements in the area adjacent to the Cross Florida Barge Canal indicate that the effluent from the canal is flowing down into the thermal discharge area to the south.

Since the source of water effim .'s from the canal is the Withlacoochee River (salinity about 15 ppt), there is a noticeable intrusion of low-salinity water in the thermal discharge area as shown by our field data.

~

Typical salinity levels in the discharge canal at the bulkhead line are approximately 26 ppt. The attached figure

• indicates the salinity contours for a flood tide condition. As can be seen, the extent of the influence of the effluent of the barge canal is very pronounced. The lower salinity regions to the north represent areas where the effluent from the plant can be concluded to have little or no' influence. Contrary to this are the large low temperature isotherns from field data which extend to the north of the discharge canal well into the low salinity areas. The salinity of the effluent of the barge canal is on the average around 15 ppt while that from the plant is around 26 ppt. Since the salinity distributions in the area are governed by the tidal currents, the effluent from the barge canal and

• Figure D.12 of the Draft. Environmental Statement

, .- , u -r

, fm -3 the effluent from the plant, it is concluded that any area with a salinity below approximately 21.5 ppt is being strongly influenced by the effluent of the barge canal with little if any influence by the thermal discharge. As can be seen in figure D.12 of the Draft Environmental Statement, the general area north of Drum Island has salinities at or below 21.5 ppt. Therefore, it is concluded that the higher temperature water in this area is due primarily to solar heating and not due to the plant, thus further. verifying our model results.

l

~~

. ' , 4 6

?

6 ,

g ph g g

sb ~

A g

g p

~'

E e,

A G

( R1 fl A~ E s A Ho i -

- C F C E

G S, L A

J  ! t , k .F e .

yC f

A H

O ,

C C

A .R U

e

- t N S

- G A S jD t

- A n C C{ .

g

• H R a . - C .E e .. S f D

A% w

• f

,' I D

i l I T

- D

/ k' /p O

,, O L

F

. a ,,

9 3 - ' A

% E

% - R S

D

• O r A M_

s ,

, E G

, R A

l P

• i w c S

L A

N

%g y

g S

I D

,I's?

MG E

E t

f A

1 ,

l i

T B Y ,

• A 1 t

'g, D

l i

f

, dg I Y

F S

S O

.f -

sf T

l l

i t

4 w l

'$ -I E

L M

w .-

. M A

S

' E

~M f

"- LA f

, C O

• 'eH

+ At

./ m

~u t l

2 1

- d .

_ n 4 *

. w0 .  ;

t

. m P

m. -

c r'  :

- - - r v

tO Q'

I

- y .

^ ^

5. PREDICTIONS OF THERMAL PLUM 2 SIZE The AEC staff has made, numerous calculations cf the projected size o'f the thermal plume _for Units 1, 2 and 3 at Crystal River. The results of these calculations and the discussion of the techniques used to arrive at these predictions are given in Section 5.3.2.4.1 and Appendix D respectively of the Draft Environmental Statement.

a The thermal plume size predicted in the AEC Draft Environmental Statement is in significant contrast to our earlier predictions using our field data and computer model. Further verification calculations have been made by our research team from the Marine Science Institute of the University of South

Florida (MSI) of the plume size using the method proposed by Asbury and Frigo.

During the course of our Asbury-Frigo analysis, we contacted and received suggestions from Mr. Art Frigo of Argonne National Laboratory who originated the method in conjunction with Mr. Asbury. Ihe resultant curve is attached.

A mathematical fit was made of the data points.

Calculations were made (using the Asbury-Frigo technique) of the predicted size of various isotherms considering Units .1, 2 and 3 operating at full power.

The results of these calculations are included in the attached table. Also included in the table are the values calculated by the AEC and published in the AEC Draft Environmental Statement, and those previously calculated by the MSI computer model. As can be seen, the Asbury-Frigo values calculated by NSI are substantially lower than those calculated by the AEC.

I The attached table also indicates (as discussed in previous questions herein) that the MSI model results are lower than the HSI-Asbury-Frigo values at the

, higher temperature isotherms. On the other hand, the lower temperature (2 3*F) isotherms comparison shows exca11ent agreement. Further, our field data supports some lack of conservatism in model predicted higher temperature isotherms.

MSI is currently modifying their computer model to incorporate additional detail in order to resolve the discrepancies noted. In the meanwhile, we are willing to concur with the greater value of either the MSI Asbury-Frigo analysis or the HSI thermal model.

Recognizing the large discrepancy of thermal plume acreages (see attached table) as accomplished by the AEC and included in the AEC Draft Environmental State-ment, we conclude that the main reason for this discrepancy is due to the limited data available to the AEC staff at the time of their writing of the Draft Statement and to the fact that Asbury-Frigo curves were plotted for both.

flood and ebb tide conditions. The use of two curves necessitated dividing the already sparse data for the two conditions which increased the difficulty of obtaining reasonable predictions from the method.

t e

e I

l l

COMPARISON OF ESTIMATED THERMAL PLUME SIZES AEC- ,

i Temperature Battelle Estimate

• MSI Estinate** MSI Estimatet of Isotherm Frigo Method Frigo Method Computer Method

(*F) (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) 1 4600 1741 1774 s 2 3500 1350 1357 3 -

1012 1021 4 2300 776 466 5 --

601 229 6 1500 439 ,

115 9

7 --

304 44 -

& 8 950 195 25 ,

i' 128

• 9 - - -

4 10 500 63 --

11 1 57 --

% )

• Draft Environmental Statement p.5-15.

• • Based on the attached Frigo type curve.

tTechnical Report #1 on Independent Environmental Study of Thermal Effects of Power Plant Discharge.

1 - Submitted by Ron Klausewitz of the Marine Science Institute (MSI) to Florida Power Corporation, August, 1972. <

4 i

.o

• P f

9F d *= . ~ q.; ,..

'br '  ! .1 s. =s..

,[ . *.'..* .* .~

• ** ~

~,**h'2,..*~..~e.--.*.-.~.~*g*,*;*,.',J..-.*s.**

. .ti . . . [ . .**h 4 .. {. . . . . .. . , . . . . . y . ;. .. ..- .. ... i-. .. . . . ; . g. . r " '-

t. . . ._.~~ *.

.. .i.  ;.. . .4 -. p ..... ... 3.. a . u ;.._ g ... ;.  : L .,  :. : . . . ' *

._._.g. .:

..j . ..- -.....;.. .

.g..g ......... .

7..

, .,i. _

. ., .I; .

4 c..

g

. . . . . . . ....l,.. . . ... .

, . l .

3 l;_

. .igi l l .  ! i ml t .!I .i 3 p _ . .

i

.- i. . [..i ..[ ,1. .l, - .

+

,.7,.

6: ,. t.

, I ,. ., .. t a, .

...., j .j ..i _i t ,q y..i.-

• _. - (, 7 r- .-----r--

.l:

i

~

1 l' 5 1: Ii 1

! E y' , , _ _ ,,,

l- f i ,

! i:

..i,..,.

o e y-, .a.- n,

,Y nn .'

-- r' i '.. --- . ,

i t i , ,.

~

t. ., il 1._.i i i i t- . *

. -1 la i '? I '; l -

• {i.r i t. ,

6

. t ,. .- ,

i. . . . . . . .

_1'

. 4.. i , .- .L I . . 1 . .i . .; __ .

L,t[ - ;, . : ! . ;. . . . . . ..

i_.;i

+- - . - I i  :

It t- y ,, .. v . -

• • _.i. e1 .

a i.,t. , r ,

i i 'I. t 4_. - . . i i l i :i i  ! .I'if.-t

- ~,i!:--

-h

. .i. g. .,.. ,

. .- ,.S.,.! .._l,. .-

.i .

.i l-

. i .. :L:

I .{. e ,T, ..

g-.. ,

v.

g .

.. . . .}- .

r .

-b

.z - '

g. . . e*

. _ . f, ' '

. . . . 1.llg'

..i!

, l L.. . . . . L,. . ' ' . > > t * * * '

t . ++ i , . . , i;; i . .  ;

o i . i . !6l; ; ! ! i i-

.t'- -

-t i .

. t l4 y .* t. .

J. .i

~ j l } . -l

. .j

• l l. !.

l 1-

p. .g, .. . j ..u.._. 4 l j.j.q_. __ . . . . y .

. _ q __ _ g... _'.. ..

j.. , ; g. .

• i-  !  !

~

l l 4 ,

~"' {- ,; , . -

.; . l~ -i  ; j i .a. - ,

. , r i

~ .

4 t

.t ..__

• . I- -j. . . t t '

,i I!

s 9

i -

t ,

S, 1 e

.. . . .. ... --. . -....._. . . _ . . . . =

. ..t_ -

. . . . _ __. ;_..x .__... . . s .. _.  ; .. i.

..; ._m..a.

.- j.. -

. 9. ;  ;  ; _ ._, ._ .u_;.. _.; ,

g 4,

j...3 l '

,i. y' l f .

e..

_17- .

g .

I- . ._,,.I.._ _1_ .I 1; .

. _ ; i i i i I:: -

! ..  : y

. . . . j '. .... :s ____I__ L.{. .* ! ~ !L.' . .. .-l _ ..

l 4 i

.l..

i

, . . . . . \

.L > -

.. ..;....w-. . .a . . > . .

.3. .. i. . .

Ia - ..

8 e  ! . I 2

• j ,

w 5 1 '..

t

,._.tI' t.

i. !. 4

• s l

6 l

...I. 4.

- i I

, . . . -7.

.__.,;..f*4 S

• I t

• I 8

. . t. . . l.

8 4 l l

-

• i t .+ .'l . l . . . .. , .

. . .,_.._ _t.

6 i g i t . . .

j

,'s

• i * *

• i 8

, g j.  !.

i. .

. ..s* ......_..- .*

• l t

. . l .. . .

6

}

sg

e. .-..,._.m.. . . .

9,

. . t. .. . . . . . .. . .. , . . . . .. ...~!..... .a

> i . *

.: . L. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..: . . . 4 .. . . .

L

. . . . -- _ z. . . . . ,

O

' . t. . . . ' . . .

! ! !  ! j $ * *

. . :. ,3 - . : ;. .. .,. . . , . . . . .

. .i.

. i .

.t .-

. I.

4 . .

4

. .t 4 e . . . . .

1

? g . ,i a - .  ; ,!

l l

..-.a, u l - e, ~.

t . . *

. L .A.

.e% * . t *6 *: ., g i g g . . . . . ,- - , . - . . .g . .

...L..-.

l' w

Q -

. .. .. e. y .. . .

. .A x ._ c .. -

~

.- - . - - . .a w a n . -

Q

6. DILUTION FOR CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT #3 The description of ths dilution alternative for Crystal River Unit #3 presented in the AEC's Draft Environmental Statement is misleading in several areas.

The document lists adverse factors of this alternative as:

"(1) the temporary effect of dredging the dilution canal,". This effect o will be essentially non-existent, since the dilution canal will be upland, and construction can be done without adversely affecting the water quality in the intake and discharge canals.

"(2) mechanical stress on planktonic organisms in passing through dilution pumps,". This is entirely misleading. The dilution pumps are unscreened pipes, 66" in diameter, containing impe11ers with blades each less than 2' long.

These blades rotate at 109 rpm and have a cutting edge of >l". Relatively large clearances exist throughout the pump. Thus, me:hanical stress on plankton would be restricted to very large organisms such as jelly fish.

"(3) entrapment of fishes on the dilution pump screens.". Since there will be no screens, stress on fishes will be restricted to possible contact with the impeller blades, and due to the velocity of the water through the pumps versus the speed of the impeller, only very large fishes (>12") might be subject to such stress, although no information concerning the impact of dilution pumps on fish is available.

Thus the dilution alternative has considerably fewer drawbacks than one might first suspect from reading the AEC's Impact Statement.

There are three obvious advantages to using dilution rather than other alternatives for Crystal River Unit #3:

1. Suddenly removing the heated water resulting from Units 1 and 2 from the shallow areas north of the discharge channel would cause a similar impact as resulted when Units 1 and 2 were first started up, since the ecosystem has had 6-8 years to adjust up to ll.5*F above ambient cooling water discharges from Units 1 and 2.

2. No wetland or water dredging or blasting would be required.

3. A certain flexibility exists with the use of multiple dilution pumps, since effluent temperatures can be maintained more or less constant when one of the Units is shut down for repair, etc. by lowering the dilution flow.

I i .

, _