ML19329A138
| ML19329A138 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 02/07/1977 |
| From: | Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Goller K Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19329A141 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7912300157 | |
| Download: ML19329A138 (2) | |
Text
&
[Qgy [ ~j
~i FEB 7 1977 i
i N
l HD10RANDUM FOR: Karl R. Coller, Assistant Director for Operating
}
-Reactors, DOR FROM:
Darcell C. Eisenhut Assistant Director for Operational l
Technology, DOR f
SUBJECT:
NIENDHENT TO OCONEE UNITS 1, 2, 3 APPENDIX B TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS RE: pH OF WATER AND CHEMICALS DISCHARCED FROM THE STATION PLANT NAME: Oconee Nucicar Station, Units 1, 2, and 3
[
DOCKET NUMBERS: 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287 RESPONSIBLE BRANCH: Operating Reactors Branch No. 1 PROJECT MANAGER:
D. Neighbors i
REVIEW STATUS: Review Complete l
This memorandum responds to two separate requests for amend:nents to the Oconee Nuclear Station non-radiological environmental technical specifi-cations. The first proposed amendment involved an increase in the;pH of water allowed to be discharged from the wastewater collection liasinfr6m 8.5 to 9.0, and was made in a. letter from W. Parker of Duke' PoUeiCdapany dated May 13, 1976. The second proposed amendment involved ~a' change in the method of control of station chemical effluents by instituting a moni-toring program for chemical concentrations discharged from the station and eliminating the chemical inventory program for chemical usage. This pro-posal was made in a letter from W. Parker of Duke Power Company dated j
September 1, 1976.
i i
When we reviewed the proposal dated May 13, 1976 we found that we could f
not coopicte the review without more information. In memoranda dated August 2, 1976 and November 10, 1976 we specified the information that was needed.
In letters from W. Parker of Duke Power Company dated
- September 29, 1976 and Decceber 2, 1976 the licensee submitted this l
information and an assessment of the impact likely to occur because of this change. We have reviewed the licenace's submittain and found them to be adequate.
Our review'of the proposed amendment dated September 1, 1976 indicated that, except for certain minor modifications which we have made, it is acceptable. The licensee has agreed to our modifications.
I l-I s
Contact:
W. Pasciak, EEB/ DOR prHC 27903
.s I
j orrecs > -
}
l eunmaus k pars >
Form AEG318 Sev. 9 53) AECM 0240 W u. s. oovsanuswr enmn=e orrecss een.eae.see t-
,7 912 30 0 /g7 r
4
-Karl R. Coller i' Our reviews indicate that with regard to both of these proposed amendments, that they will not change the analyses of the environmental impact of operation of the f acility previously made by the staff. As no change in environental impact is expected to occur a Negative Declarations is ap-propriate for this action. Enclosure I contains the modified amendments and our basis for a Negative Declaration.
s Darrell G. Eisenhut, Assistant Dire-8;or for Operational Technology Division of Operating Reactors I
.Enclosura:
l As stated
'i i
cc':
V. Stello DISTRIBUTION:
G. Lear
- Central Files >
mi
.n D. Neighbors ha p,g,.yt,,
B. Grimes EEB Reading D. Eisenhut E. Adensam l
D. Davis W. Pasciak i
l 1
I i.
1 i
MWR
/
l EEB/pT/ R EEB/,QT@K EE h h R[ AD/0hk o,,,c.,
j Bbr[m
.,_DEQ ya[9
- br EAdc m
..m...,;
_12 ? 7 121. llk l fl]k
.42]
h ess= >
Foran ABc.)ls (Rev 9.S AECM 0240 W u. s. novenama=v enintsme o,r/ css nova sae. tee - .}}