ML19317E180
| ML19317E180 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 03/17/1977 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19317E175 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7912160060 | |
| Download: ML19317E180 (2) | |
Text
.
)
UN:TED STATES 7
4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f,%
. 1
)
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
% hiMfGf A.
%,...'.'..j' ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 39 TO DPR-38 AMENDMENT NO. 39 TO DPR-47 AMENDMENT NO. 36 TO DPR-55 DUKE POWER COMPANY OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1, 2 & 3 DOCKETS JOS. 50-269, 50-270 AND 50-287 Introduction By letters dated May 13, 1976 and September 1,1976 the Duke Power Company (the licensee) made application to amend the Oconee Nuclear Station licenses.
The license would be amended by revising Appendix B of the Environmental Technical Specifications.
The first application requested that the upper limit for pH of water discharged from the station be increased from 8.5 to 9.0.
The second application requested that the method of control of station chemical effluents be changed from a chemical inventory program to a chemical concentration monitoring program.
These changes involve Section 1.2 and Table 1,2-1 of Appendix B and are non-r'adiological in nature.
Discussion and Evaluation 1.
pH of discharge water:
In a letter dated September 29, 1976, which supplemented its May 13, 1976 application, the licensee described the calculational results obtained from a model it developed to predict the area that would be affected by high pH discharges.
The results indicate that for the worst case of mixing, the alkalinity of the effluent discharge would be dispersed to 8.4 mg/l as CACO 3 equivalent after 250 feet of mixing with the Keowee receiving waters.
For the average case, the effluent akalinity would be dispersed to 8.5 mg/l as CACO 3 equivalent after 30 feet of mixing. The average background alkalinity of the j
Keowee River is 7.5 mg/l as CaC0r equivalent.
As the area required for dispersion to a level close to background level is small in comparison to the thousands of acres of receivirig water available in Lake Keowee and the Hartwell Reservoir, we judge that this change of the uppe_r limit for pH from 8.5 to 9.0 is insignificant and the impacts are within levels previously analyzed in the FES.
l 391216o 060
,)
' By letter dated December 2,1976 the licensee submitted its dilution model which we have reviewed; we agree with the approach used and the results obtained.
2.
Chemicals usage:
The Oconee Final Environmental Statement (ES) dated March 1972, described the expected chemical usage at the station.
The expected levels of chemical ' usage were adopted as limiting conditions for operation (LCO's) in the present Appendix B Technical Specifications.
The ES originally identified these chemicals for the purpose of obtaining background information with the recommendation that the discharge concentrations of these chemicals be monitored once the plant becomes ocerational to determine what the actual levels would be.
Based on the monitoring which has been done and reported in the semiannual reports, no adverse effects on the environment have been detected.
Because it was not expected in the ES that the effect of these chemical releases would be detrimental to the environment and as no detrimental effects have been observed as a result of them we conclude that it is no longer necessary to keep the folic-%g in the Technical Specifications: lithium hydroxide, sodium hydrt,xide, sulphuric acid, floor cleaning detergent and laundry detergent.
Specifications on boren, hydrazine and pH are being retained since the environmental impact of these chemicals and parameters is dis-cussed in Section Vc-2a of the ES and the ES contains recomendations for their inclusion as LCO's in the Technical Specifications. The Technical Specification proposed by the licensee in its letter of September 1,1976, were modified by us with the agreement of the licensee to reflect the above changes.
In summary, the changes made in these amendments are consistent with the recomendations made in the ES.
Further, the Technical Specifications with these changes will be consistent with those of the existing NPDES permit.
Conclusion and Basis for Negative Declaration On the basis of the foregoing analysis, it is concluded that there will be no significant environmental imoact attributable to the preposed j
action. Having made this conclusion, the Comission has furthem con-cluded that ro environmental impact statement for the proposed action need be prepared and that a negative declaration to this effect is l
appropriate.
Date: March 17, 1977 1
___..._.