ML19320A288
| ML19320A288 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 12/23/1975 |
| From: | Miraglia F, Youngblood B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19320A238 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8004210571 | |
| Download: ML19320A288 (6) | |
Text
..
Ei=EMM h
fb=
p.
=
Q)'
,z
[x
[ifa Esas Ef! VIRO'NENTAL I!4 PACT APPRAISAL BY THE DIVISI0tl 0F REACTOR LICENSING h_;;33-SUPPORTING A!4ENDitENT f!O. 8 TO DPR-51 h.
s &
CHAliGE NO. 8 TO THE TEC!!!IICAL SPECIFICATIONS P
ARKANSAS POWER A? D _LIGliT C0'iPANY
$l...;
AP. KANSAS _ NUCL, EAR ONE UNI _T l_ (At:0-1) g )
h.=i, f
y==
DOCK..T !!O. 50-313 U-O p _..
hD
.?.
Q g
"lll[f ENVIR0fqENTAL IMPACT, APPRAISAL, W
1.
Descrintion of Pronos_ed Action F......
.sE.
i;y letters dated July 8,1975, September 26, 1975, and October 9, 1975, f.rkansas. Power and Light Company (APSL) submitted proposed changes to the Technical Specifications Appendix B to License No. DPR-51.
The c.
APT.L proposed technical specifications included changes:
(1)inlimits
~
i on the concentration of chlorine in plant effluents; (2) in limits en chemicals, and (3) in nodifying the chenical nonitoring require:r.ents
=
to conform with the National Pollutant Discharge Elinination System (NPDES)
.Pernit (No. AR0001392) issued to AP&L by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
[f: :.:=j
.=:.
The proposed action vill result in the following:
~
Chlorinatten of Circulatina and Sanit_a_ry Uaste_Sy_ stas, a.
The current specification (2.3.1) will remain unchanged.
Since initiation
'of operation at ANO-1, AP&L has not exceeded the limits of the current
- pecification, nor ha: AP!.L reported any difficulty in operating ANO-1 in compliance with the specification.
APEL has not provided any neyt information not available at the tinc of the complete environnental review E
to support the requested chanee.
The staff review and evaluation is L!
based on the recomendations for protection of acuatic biota which U
have resulted froa nore exhaustive reviews of toxic effects (1.
' Mater h
Ouality Criteria,1972", A i'eport of the Cormittoo on Uater Cuality 1
Criteria, Mational Acadeny of Sciences, flational Academy of Engineering, Fashingten. D. C., 1972, and 2.
" Effects of Residual Chlorine on Aquatic Life", Millian A. Grungs, Journal WPCF, Vol. 45, Mo.10. Octotor 1973, O S
- *C E
- Cyrenaest >
- E
- :
Det t $.
4..
Nrn AFC-3 h Gev. %$ 3) AECM 0240 oro ces se e s as s.
s a s.a ea
=
n y.
These reviews include the references cited by the AP&L.
pages 2100-2193).
kes Eased on the recunendations in these documents the staff concludes that the discharge of chlorine without attention to the total residual concen-e 4'
tration produced has the potential to impact biota in Lake Dardanelle and, E
therefore, the current specification will remain in effect.
E::
k b.
Limits of Ccncentration of Chemicals in Liquid Effluents Fro.m_
7._ _-
L, Ap&L was issued an operating license on May 21. 1974. Operation since that date has resulted in numerous reportable unusual occurrences under the conditions of the current Environ'. ental Technical Specifications of s
As a result, APLL submitted proposed revisions to those that license.
setions of the environmental technical specifications which relate to i
water quality so that they are consistent with the conditions of the APLL has also proposed a general change g
NPDES permit issued to AP&L by EPA.
==
to have the reporting requirement for water quality fulfilled by providing i;RC uith reports which EPA requires under the NPDES.
g N
The staff has reviewed these requests for changes and in doing so reviewed G
the water quality effects at the station.
The proposed action will nodify the Technical Specifications (2.3.2, 2.3.3, 2.3.4 and 2.3.5) by removing E.::
existing limits on the concentration of chemicals in liquid discharges and incorporating by reference the requirenents on chemical offluents contained in cpp11 cable Federal and State permits, such as NPDES Pennit i:o. AR0001302.
The codified specifications have retained limitations on the total quantity of chemicals to be discharacd so that any change in chemical discharge practicas are subjected to an environmental review, c.
Chenical MonitorinctPro;;,r_aq The Leke Dardanelle water sar.pling for chemical brican rations. (Specification u
L 4.1.1.a) will M todified to reflect the changas cade to Specifications 2.3.2, 2.3.3. J.3.4 and 2.3.5.
d.
F.mmrt.ino Recuiremnts Specification 5.G.2 will now require copies of reports to State and Federal j
aoencies reoardino water quality ratters also be provided to NRC.
Envircarr,cptel_ Innacts of the Proposcd Action, 7
O.
- -1 Thrcunh the procedures crescribed by Specification 5.6.2. ArSL has reported H
30 (as of i:overber 2C,1975) incidents in which concentration linits in the s:ocifications have been excceded. These are t.;bulated in Table I.
Revicu n'f these reports indicates that tnere ere two causes for the cccurrences:
drainina of " neutralization _ tan!c and a paar location of the sanplinn station fcr intake water quality.
g
.. ~..........
O F F ec t >
e s = = a na r
- oaes >
8'S C*3 Se as4e a s a o.a se T.per. AlC.)l. t Re.. %5 3) AECM 02 9
3
~
TABLE I ARKANSAS NUCLEA'R ONE-UNIT ONE SLf9tARY OF UNUSUAL OCCURRENCE REPORTS RELATED TO WATER QUALITY REPORT DATE OF NO.
OCCURRENCE DESCRIPTION CAUSE 75-25 2/24 to Turbidity six occurrences 4/7/75 Conductivity. TOS 75-26 4/21 Turbidity 75-27 4/28 Turbidity 75-28 5/5 Sodium Nitrite, 0.25 mg/l* Turbidity Draining -
Ammonia,1.44 mg/1.
Neutralizing Hydrazine. 0.214 mg/1.
Tank (D.N.T.))
(Startup Mode 75-29 5/19 Conductivity, pH Ammonia, @.10 mg/1.
D.N.T.
75-30 5/27 Turbidity; Sulfate. 54 mg/1.
(nochem.disch.)
75-31 5/27 Chloride, 118 mg/1.
(nochem.disch.)
75-32 6/6 Annonia. 0.16 mg/1.
D.N.T.
D.H.T.
_ 75-33 6/5 _, _ _ Chloride,138 mg/1.
75-34 6/9 Conductivity; Turbidity, pH; Chloride, 99 mg/1, Amonia. 0.57 mg/1.
D.N.T.
75-35 6/9 Iron. 0.432 mg/1, D.N.T'.
75-36 6/16 Amonia. 0.11 mg/1.
D.N.T.
75-37 6/16 Chloride 65 mg/1.
D.N.T.
75-38 6/23 Chloride, 27 mg/1.
D.N.T.
75-39 6/30 Chloride, 27 mg/1.
D.N.T.
75-40 Cancelled notice of 7/8 incident pH; NH, 0.08 mg/1.
D.N.T.
75-41 7/23 3
75-42 7/30/75 Sodium nitrite 0.069 D.N.T.
75-43 8/4 Sodium nitrite 0.046 mg/1.
D.N.T.
Chloride. 37 mg/1., Ammonia. 0.025 mg/1. D.N.T.
75-44 8/13 Sodium nitrite, 0.026 mg/1; Turbidity; D.N.T.
Amonia 0.08 mg/1.
75-45 8/19 Anmonia. 0.1 mg/1.
D. N.T'.
75-46 8/26 Sodium nitrite 0.01 mg/1.
D.N.T.
3 75-47 9/3 Ammonia. 0.05 mg/1.
D.N.T.
75-48 9/26 Chloride, 65 mg/1.
D.N.T.
75-49 9/24 Turbidity 75-50 9/30 Sodium nitrite 0.023,mg/1.; Chlorides.
D.N.T.
29 mg/1.
75-51 10/8 Sodium nitrite, 0.023 mg/1., Turbidity; D.N.T.
Chlorides, 74 mg/1.; Amonia. 0.35 mg/1.
75-53' 10/23 Chlorides, 76 mg/1; Ammon'ia. 0.17 mg/1.
D.N.T.
75-54 10/28 Turbidity; Chlorides, 72 mg/1.;
D.N.T.
Ammonia. 0.17 mg/1.
75-55 11/5 Turbidity; Sodium nitrite, 0.023 mg/1.
D.N.T.
Chlorides, 49 mg/1.
75-56 11/11 Turbidity; Annonia. 0.22 mg/1.
D.N.T.
75-57 11/19 Turbidity; Sodium nitrite, 14 mg/1.
D.N.T.
- The numerical value following the parameter is the concentration increase above ambient.
'+ -
...,,. ~l
.z
=
5 L
=
The neutralization tank roccives demineralization regeneration uastes fron the systems which produce high purity make-up water and remove impurities iN EN _
from the secondary coolant.
Chemicals added include sulfuric acid, sodium hydroxide, ammonia' and sodium sulfate (FES p. 3-69).1 Boric acid, lithium hydroxide, and hydrc zine are added to the primary coolant (FES p. 3-69).
U Annonia and hydrazine are added to the secondary coolant system of ifnit I ME E (fed p. 3-69). Sodium nitrite is added to the closed cooling water systems j5 and any release of this material other than through leakage was not anti-cipated (Technical Specification 2.3.2).
The neutralization tank will also
[
receive the impurities initially present in the Russellville City water.
These impurities will be removed and retained in the demineralizers and 2
E then discharged to the neutralization tank during regeneration.
The con-centration of impurities in the neutralization tank will be substantia 11y' F
a
-higher than their concentration in the raw water.
The neutralizing tank is discharged into the circulating water and %us is greatly diluted prior k_
to entering Dardanelle Reservoir.
Measurement for compliance with the Appendix B Technical Specifications is made after dilution.
[...
==.
The neutralizing tank is drained at intervals of several days.
It was -
being drained during 24 of the 35 sampling periods in which chemical limits were exceeded and reported.
APal is limited by Specification 2.3.5 in the amount by which several water k
K quality parameters can be increased by plant operation. Compliance is k
determined by a comparison of intake and discharge quality.
For reason of ease of access APal located the station for sampling water at a point in Illinois Bayou away from the main intake flow.
AP&
t ved this would give a representative indication of intake g
i
\\I now appears that this is not the case.
A comparison, made by the staff, of water @aTi at various stations in the reservoir shows significant variation in several of the parameters for H
of the river than in embaynents such as Illinois Bayou. Turbidity is usually higher in thy which specifications are included.
Chlorides, and thus d
implicitly conductivity is usually lower in the embayments having large crough drainage area to provide significant direct flow.
The " intake" sampling statit n is showing more of an influence of quality of the water in Illinois i
Bayou than the water actually being drawn into the station. Apparently a substantial ' pert of the flow through the station is drawn from the nain stem 1
j of the Arkansas River.
While the drainage of the neutralizing tank nay contribute to tne turbidity l
conductivity, chlon Jes, and dissolved solids concentration, it is the staff vicu that the reporced occurrences regarding turbidity, conductivity $
a chlorides, and dissolved solids were the result of the location of t b
M sampling station giving an _ erroneous representation of intake water quality.
=
4 Cinal Environnental Statement on Arkansas Huclear One Linit 1 issued in Fe ruary 1072.
orrect >
sw awaine w
~k*
Oan >
- - + - - '
" ' " " " " ~ " " ' " * " " ' '
f ene AeC N
- t Re. 943 6 AECM 0240 C**
g5 (b
~
Thus, the pollution loading of the river is not increased by the amount 51 which the monitoring program suggests.
A change in the location of the intake sampling station would give a
[j!!
better indication of quality changes caused by station operation.
- However, sj:
AP&L has requested that the limits be removed from the spe ifications and nee c
that confoma0ce to NPDES Pemit No. AR0001392 requirements are sufficient.
Therefore, the staff has reevaluated the environmental impact of discharges to the river during the first year of operation.
~
R r
ti...
The Environmental Report submitted in support of the license application F "3.
(Docket No. 50-313) included an estimate of the quantities of chemical i
substances to be used and discharged at the station. With the exception of sodium nitrite, all 'of the substances for which occurrences were reported N,
have been reviewed and detemined to have acceptable impact (FES, Feb.1973).
h
!;o report of the use of sodium nitrite was made at that time.
Information
=8 -
in the Environmental P,eport and the FES famed the basis for the technical specifications.
n A t;etter understanding of chemical usage is now available based on operating experience.
=
The concentration increases due to chemical addition reported in the. FES b.
(Table 3.10, p. 3-67) assumed a continuous release and thus are in effect ill:
average concentrations. They are substantially lower than the actual con-centrations which result from the intemittent discharge of the neutralizing f
tank.
Comparison of criteria for the protection of public water supply, as was done for example for chlorides, should probably still be based on average concentration.
Comparison to criterie for protection of aquatic life, ho'tever, should also consider maximum concentrations'
]O
' T Y A
- ?
D The review reported in the FES (p. 5-23) has oeen ret nwby we Auff basis of concentrations reported in Table I.
The staff concludes that the concentrations reported in Table I are well below toxic levcis reported for prolonged exposure based on a comparison to data sumarized in " Hater Quality s
Criteria,1972". A report of the Committee on Mater Quality Criteria.
Mational Acadeny of Sciences, National Acadeny of Engineering, Washington, D. C.,
1972, and " Water Quality Criteria" Publication Co. 3-A of the Resources Agency of California, State Water Quality Control Board, Sacranento,1973.
Since (1) toxicity effects are dependent on both concentration and tme of exposure and (2) organisas are able to withstand higher concentrations for shorter exposure periods; the short exposure at several day intervals at AG0-1 further reduces the toxic effect of the reported discharges.
E The staff concludes that the concentrations at which the substances discussed have been discharged during operation to date do not interfere uith other uses o-f the waterbody. Tne staff concludes further that the continuation of existing limits is not necessary. The staff did retain the limit on the total cuantities of chemicals discharged so that any change in practices can be subjected to environ ~: ental review.
1 OP AC E &
,o. -
gayg g
~. - -. - - - -
~~" -
t orm MC.3 t t t Rev. 9 53 p AEC>t W43 o.o can to
- .esa samas4
_,;.?
y.
y~
' m;;; n;i w:
i i..
C s
v
.n
~
3.
Conclusion and Basis for Negative Declaration
[b All the changes to the Technical Specification, Appendix B described above anWassociated with thq proposed action involve nodification to
[.
s-li various chemical effluent monitoring programs or minor editorial clarifi-cations.
EEs The proposed action does not authorize any significant change in E-the types or amounts of effluents or an increase in power level.
The proposed changes will incorporate by reference the monitoring programs now required by State and Federal agencies to assess the environmental effects
['[
of AHO-station operation.
. Hone of the above changes associated with the proposed action involve '
La nor effect matters related to the safe operation of the plant.
k U
The. proposed action does not involve significant new safety infomation
.of a type not considered by a previous Comission safety review of the M
facility.
It does not involve a significant increase in the probability
==
or consequences of an accident, and does not involve a significant hazards consideration.
The Cocraission has also concluded that there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered
[..
by the proposed action.
On the basis of the foregoing analysis and the staff evaluation, it is concluded that there will be no envimnnental impact attributable to the proposed action other than that already predicted and described in the Comission's FES for AMO-1 issued in February 1973. Having made this i
conclusion, the Comission has further. concluded that no environmental impact statement for the proposed action need be prepared, and that-a
"=
negative declaration to this effect is appropriate.
~~m.
D@W TD'Y b
Jg [n 3
- =......
gg bJ F. J. -Miraglia, Project Manager Environmental Projects Dranch 3 Division of Reactor Licensing s
"e D. J. Youngblood, Chief E
Environmental Projects Dranch 3 f
Division of Reactor Licensing E
g.
'e e
4 1
A.
\\
C
- ,E -3
'R P3_
)_
Fi k t a/DM BJYo
. ood..
_4.
=
.2L12&75_..12/fd/75 f
~n f
.n.,,,uc.m ix..a.m u m m
._