ML19326C934
| ML19326C934 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 02/17/1977 |
| From: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Jason White ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8004290564 | |
| Download: ML19326C934 (6) | |
Text
A J
t I
OCId kir a4..
-sist
(..;
i e
i FEB 171977 g
> ^
'W e.
l-
., g;j,, ~
x ' q.,x.j y 4
Oc,,
y,.3.;: g..
y b '..
.e
't -., '. ~gi -n n 5 we.wm' ; g 3 r, w.x h. m w
,v.,
~
,. *. ep i -jg g..
1
. ::7 L,.,
.4ea.
gfl.Li.m;A W e,;.geWFWN m
- [$ $.h Dochet;NdeE50-313 $n. M 5 9/ Q d Q ;,. A,[ $ 4 d @M M h A
..w
, u..a M
M M@ h Nk'! k 4?jJg%emRWMMy hb.>
fi:m T WwW f
and 5 &368.
h27 b
4 g
N. 5 @ $ e. M h'W-p#
Wh/
wS?S$;M.
iMygC/ T v,y cn.t. n:pp ' yp:q.* m%,.yw...d'L ; WMy%., n#.-.,: -- -,.. - + ;3e%ma 1 ~-.1 Mr. John C. White.1 &y @y n
.s.
u;
- ,a.
yngknw.e A
m W y.
~
- s. c 7'.%gy ? y;y.._,
7.s y p...
e, -
- v,. n ne 1
,~
- 2. *. %. -9 m,-
J K
Regional Administrator
^ ~
Environmantal Protection Agency - -
.~
Ession 6f r c_.
.. y.
.g m,41,
' ~., D'Wi.$.: -M7.+
^
1b00 Patterson, Suite :1100
- i Wi - ~
J.f.
..e.,a n 350 C, ',.
Dallas, Texas.75201 Y d
~ ~ '
. V' : XW ; T y1 * ':-
c,-
- z..
,Q&.
E&, y. '
4'
.~ 's.W#h 7, -
Dear Mr. Whites 0 " "
P n
y, / c c e. o M
,. ~ WGM s O
-! V.
4
,,% w,e g.%; y: n,v %f.. x -;;u g, -: wyq,..: w. 4 r.c y w w g g., w q. h a.f m :-
4
, The'Euclear7 egulatory Commission is nearing the completion of aits feview R
t c. - ' of the Arkansas Power and Light Company application for a license tok,.n operate Arkansas Nuclear One,' Unit No. 2.~.In accordance with NRC proce-dures for' implementation of thel National Environmental Policy Act," a Draft Environmental Statement (DES) was prepared and circulated for co==nt and comments were received from your office. - These connents suggesttthe need for closer coordination between NRC and EPA in the development of,. controls and monitoring for Arkansas Nuclear One.
j
~
In the past, NRC has included as a condition of our Operation License limits on the concentration of certain substances in the discharge and has imposed certain monitoring. requirements to assure protection of aquatic-biota.
Some of.those limitations and monitoring requirements have bean-duplicative of requir===nts in NPDES permits. In accordance with the~Second Memorandum of Understanding between NRC and EPA for implemeccation of:the ' Federal Water, Pollution. control Act, we would like to resolve water related issues
. f.. M. 7. 7
. cooperatively with EPA.'.
t A
o
,k.=,.,.
4( - w s j i
.[,
y
^
^ '
W' Our DES did not fully' spell out our. intent with regard to monitoring and control upon licensing of;ANO, Unit No. 2,~nor did your comments fully.
indicate the path EPA is following with regard to -identiified issues at JNO.. Both the DES and the EPA co-nants did, however, indicate _the need for additional stud 4=s at the site. I propose, therefore, that -NRC and EPA ~ work together:to. coordinate the developpant of controls'and manitor-ing for the_ station. Enclosed is a simmary discussion of.the-key.. issues
^
~
a ~
%which may warrant consideration.-
Y h
p s
.~
y-k THIS DOCUM.ENT CONTAINS P00R QUAUTY PAGES n.
. y....
C*
. ;n. c.~
~ Q, V. Y-
,* ^
.. +....
- cyr.WQ.
r
' orrtCay
. MM,,,, g
-tr 1
y.
~
- I p
/ x..
- summausk, eh
[7
.%~
^ '.
\\O t * -c - -
r '.
--p
+
y s
- ; y,gg.,
1
.Q
.l
-g.
m.<,,...-
a
+.
-~
.o
, 4.,.
,,4 Era AEC.318 (Rev.SS)) AECM 0240 W u. s. oovanmusur Pasunne orricas asu. sasses g hj 8004290 O
(
(
a m
. y,
=
I Mr. John C. Whita
- ,E
..- +
. (:s w., g e[nf d
,n
_ -..:s,..
..'y.
- e
+
mm,c '.. :.
.,5 g. :. ::w
.p
~
2. *. [ i'.& J.':, 'm'y[f. 'nn. Ah9fd
+.
3 e
Eqx ID IY
[/.w.,
- wt; e, f. m,. In
.,,s.
-m k
W@ah@D.Qth. v..iew o.f the limit.ed.co..ve.r.a ge o n g e: 4 g.y g ow.
e jemisting.. NPDES permit,'.we ;a,re.... prepared.to'incorpora.te
. ty,
- s...in
'y;qw s.
our711oense ;thatIIe : find i iedessaryj for' havironmentalI Eotd, tan tionsito M, E
.g%g.bArkansaaINuclea' 'Onaff Boweversit 'is ' desirable t h
E2' t
itionstXddh$h,,5%.We
~
r p
E-
- .together'to' " review thosa' areas whara further m g
If you are in agreement, then please let me know and I will arrange for s
staff to meet with you at your convenience.
my J' ] :%$ @Q.j[rr. /6 *.:,.--
^%.
,u ^
y:l ; * -
sincerely, cm
- v. m:
c
,,s,-
,, a, s-s,-.
,(.
a;>;.
- r
- c -
m a
- ., p. c,; s
-e
. _..,,, 3 3c; 3 m.,O.",,.3.' ;,
w Origin 1 S?gne.d byW,.e.w,.%.s"T%.C'
, y gy a.
x u x..
v.
.... lL R. Denton % ;t Dz-:idhin
-.n: x.C.
. m:"
W ~
,-r
.. m y,,.
+
.,,' + 9;:* '
. c.&. ~.
, u.$ -
- erm y*-:,
Barold R. Denton, Director M Division of Bite. Safety and h' -
~
Environmental Analysis' Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Enclosures Summary Discussion ces w/ enclosure S. Legro EPA
_ DISTRIBUTION Docket Files 50-313/368 NRR,Rdg ESB Rdg Er Rdg~ -
-~
HRDenton; DRMuller
- MLErnst, VAMoore~
RLBallard BJYoungblood SEchols_
^6 RBSamworth.
c'
- I.
.~(.'
- P I
\\
t
/1 o
1/ M,.
?--
y w.
1 i
.x fa - 0,...
,*2 DSE:ET:EsBa b:EP
.!.C @ad; I\\Echols Rballard DS E DSE:
E DE F/) D' =
~ '
ifiow7' -
t e$ tion
.a -
z-
.1fn f 77 gipnf 1ffff77 ~ - A l/27/77
. yff;/77 Forse ABC 313 (Rev.9 53) AECM 0240.
4 k u. s. movanwas.wr Paswvme ofrec.s e e74.eas-tse g
a l
-.y y
'e..qt@$g:-
l
(
~
(,
^
AQUATIC IMPACT ISSUES AT ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE hr, 8
1.
Intake Structure Impingement Losses The DES discussed impingement losses at the station (page 5-7).
It was estimated "that approximately 27.5 million fish (weighing 470,000 pounds) were impinged during the period from June 10, 1974 to July 29, 1975." The need for additioaal information to judge the acceptability of this loss was noted.
In commenting on the DES, EPA observed:
"There exists a potential for adverse environmental effects due to impingement, and.therefore, the impingement rate should continue to be monitored.
If future data indicate significant losses, then alternative intake structure design or modification to correct the situation may be required." The NRC staff concurs with the EPA comment.
EPA Region 6 staff has advised NRC informally that no 316(b) determination has been made on the ANO intake structure.
It is the NRC recommendation that EPA take an active part in the continuation of impingement studies at ANO and in any decision regarding the modification of intake structures.
P 2.
Chlorine Concentration in Discharge.
The DES concluded that since limited dilution of the dis:?.arge would occur in the discharge embayment, then a free residual chlorine
-~--
9 g
O
(
(
concentration of 0.5 mg/l as allowed by the NPDES Permit (issued
~ j December 16, 1974) could result in impact to aquatic biota (page 5-3).
k': I Based on review of several EPA studies of chlorine toxicity ( * ***"***
-}
h the NRC staff concluded that the limit of 0.1 mg/l total residual chlorine concentration in effect at ANO Unit I would protect aquatic biota.
The DES also commented that discharge of chlorine at the NPDES permitted
^
concentration might be a violation of State of Arkansas Water Quality Stendards which prohibit discharge of substances at toxic levels.
EPA's comments on the DES included the following:
" EPA concurs with NRC's recommendation that total residual chlorine discharge be limited to 0.1 mg/1, since the impact of this chlorine concentration on aquatic biota would be less than n chlorine discharge of 0.2 mg/1."
In accordance with Section 511 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the NRC staff believes that NRC should not impose limits different from those imposed in the NPDES Permit.
In view of the demonstrated ability of ANO Unit 1 to operate within the NRC imposed constraint,
^
the NRC staff recommends that the NPDES permit be modified to reflect the latest information on chlorine toxicity.
3.
Effects of Thermal Discharges
' Although the FES for Unit 1 and the Unit 2 DES did not predict specific impacts due to temperature changes, the NRC Appendix B Environmental t
Technical Specifications for Unit 1 have required a biological surveillance program to detect possible impact. Results of this program i
l
-~
p
m
~
(
(
3 il r
l reported by AP&L do include observations of unusual biological changes.
j y
These include a large number of deformities in larval fish, large
- U 4
.O numbers of parasites (hydra) attached to fish in the. discharge cove, I
i and a large number of dead, floating molluscs.
It canr.,t be s
concluded that these occurrences are related to station operation.
However, the NRC staff would like to see the studies continued until the possibility of ANO impact can be ruled out.
Since any corrective action at the station would ultimately involve EPA,' it is the IF.C staff recommendation that EPA be involved in the planning of the continuation of studies even to the extent of modifying the NPDES to incorporate the necessary study requirecents.
I e
e i
h 44
.*v, b '1
..1 s
(
i REFERENCES F 5 l
1.
Basch, R. E. and J. G. Truchan, Calculated Residual Chlorine
-i
-3 Concentrations Safe For Fish; Michigan Water Resources Conunission, Bureau of Water Mr.nagement, Water Quality Appraisal Section, l
September 1974.
2.
Basch, R. E and J. G. Truchan, Toxicity of Chlorinated Power Plant Condenser Cooling Waters to Fish, EPA-600/3-76-009, April 1976.
3.
Brungs, W.
A., " Effects of Residual Chlorine on Aquatic Life", WPCF, Volume 45, p. 2180.
1973.
4.
Tebo, L.
B., Jr., " Effluent Limits for Chlorine Power Plants" lette.r to H. Zeller, EPA Region IV, May 14, 1975.
5.
Water Quality Criteria 1972, A Report of the Committee on Water Qua11try Criteria, EPA-R3-73-033, March 1973.
6.
Quality Criteria For Water, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
~
1976.
9 9
4 9
9 O
.y.
-