ML19319A960
| ML19319A960 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 11/10/1976 |
| From: | Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Goller K Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7912300250 | |
| Download: ML19319A960 (2) | |
Text
4 i
e I
l MEMORANDUM FOR: Karl R. Coller, Assistant Director for Operating Reactors, bOR 1
FROM:
Darrell C. Eisenhut, Assistant Director for Operational Technology, DOR SUMECT:
RESPONSE TO LETTER FROM DUKE POWER COMPANY 'IV NRC DATED SEPTDIBER 29, 1976 CONCERN 1HG PROPOSED CIIANGE TO APPENDIX B TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR OCONFZ NUCLEAR STATION PLANT NAME: Oconce Unito No. 1, 2 and 3 DOCKET NUMBERS: 50-269, 50-270 and 50-287 RESPONSIBLE ERANCH: Operating Reactors Branch No. 1 PROJECT }WIAGER:
J. Neighbors TEQDGCAL REVIEW BRANCH: Environmental Evaluation Branch i
TARGET DATE FOR COMPLETION: July 15, 1976 STATUS: EEB review continuing in a letter from W. Parker of Duke Power Company dated May 13, 1976 an amendment to the Appendix B Technical Specifications was requested for Oconee Nuclear Station. We reviewed the proposed amendment and found that we could not complete our evaluation without further infornation.
i j
Our concerns were expressed in an August 2, 1976 letter to the licensee as follows:
jl
{
"The technical specifications, as they are nov vritten, stipulate that all water discharged from the vastewater collection basin shall have a pH between 6.0 and 8.5.
This specification was insed on our FES conclusion that the pH in the holding pond should be within the range of 6.0 and 8.5 (FES, page 95). They stated no reason for the change, except to say that it would be consistent with chmaical effluents as stated in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendment of 1972, nor did they describe the environ-l mental impact of the chango. Under the second memorandum of under-I standing between NRC and EPA, the NRC is obliged to review its technical specification water effluent limits with the objective i
of obtaining consistency with the NPDES Permit (Federal Water
}
Pollution Control Act). This can only be done, however, after j
a HEPA review of the impact has been done, if the change warrants such a review. The FES for Oconee describes the pH of the Keovee
Contact:
W. Pasciak EEB/ DOR MIM' 27903
'/
eva A-=
- DATt >
Foran AFe.)l3 (Rev. 9 53) AECM 0240 W u. e. novsRNeeENT PRINTING QPPICEB 1974 838956
-'912300 $ W f
pe e.
A
.j NOV j e ip,- =I Karl R. Galler i
.}',
.?
River to be approximately 6.6 and the annual reports indicate the 8 to 7.0, indicating the river is
.pH to be found in the range of 5.The impact to the aquatic biota of water rele isildly acidic.
at pH values higher than what naturally occurs in the river was
'~
The pH limits are already somcwhat out-not evaluated in the FES.
side this range, thus an increase in the limit requires a NEPA i
i i
review."
In A request for additional information was enclosed with the letter.
response to our' August 2.-1976 request the licensee sent a letter to 29, 1976 where they state that they developed B. Rusche dated September theoretical models for the effluent discharge plute based on eddy dif-fusion, mixing length, entrainment, and width growth models in turbulent The results of their models indicate that only a small area near flow.
the discharge point will be affected. The licensee neglected, however, Furthernore, of to describe their models and the assumptions in them.
the five specific questions that were asked of the licensee in the August-2 letter concerning possible impact to the aquatic biota in the vicinity of the discharge, none were answered in the licensee's reply.
Before we can complete this evaluation, fully detailed descriptions of their models inust be provided; and the five questions of the AuBust 2 3
letter must be addressed.
i C r!.W.
':Mhe 1ctrois G.
ir.annut Darrell G. Eisenhut Assistant Director for Operational Technology i
Dirici~ ef @araHng Ranctora i
cc V. Stello DISTRIBUTION:
A. Schwencer
/ Centra 1,liles
}
B. Grimes EEB Reading R. Ballard D. Eisenhut E. Adensam D. Davis
.T. Cain W. Pasciak
'l J. Raect J. Neighbors j
, ()
y EEB/0T/,Dr
,EEBI 7DORi
/D _,_ _AD
/ DOR _
EAdhnsam DEisc$ hit-
.,,.c.,
e WPasci sva A-=
- q
.._1/8/76 11/k_/76. _ _
11/p /76:
e 11
/7 l __
l DATE M W u. s. novannusar Paint >=e o,riers seta.ese see Pseum AaC stb (Rev.9 55) ABCM 0240
+
5