ML19329A221
| ML19329A221 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 07/21/1976 |
| From: | Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Goller K Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7912300264 | |
| Download: ML19329A221 (3) | |
Text
...
4 4
' jut. ? 1 1976 J
, n w:w s.- -.
Earl R. Goller, Assistant Director for Operating Reactors, DDR RESPONSE TO TAE NO. ORB-1-241 WHICH REQUESTED AN EVALUATION OF A PROPOSED i
APPENDIX B TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGE POR OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION PLANT MAME: Oco.
Es No. 1, 2 and 3 DOCKET NUMBERS: 50-2 50-270 and 50-287.
RESPONSIBLE B parating Reactors Branch No. 1 PROJECT MANAGER: Cary C. Zach TECHNICAL REVIEW BRANCH: Environmental Evaluation Branch TARGET DATE FOR COMPLETION: July 15, 1976 4
TAR NUMBER: ORB-1-241 STATUS: REB Continuing This memorandum is in response to TAR No. ORB-1-241 which requested a Isview of a proposed Appendix B Technical Specification change to the pH discharge limit for oconee Nuclear Power Station Units No.1, 2 and 3.
We have re-viewed the basee for the existing limits and find that the proposed change cannot be evaluated without further information. Before the evaluation can be made, the licensee will have to provide the informatica for an environ-mental appraisal. Ecclosure 1 describes what is required.
The technical specifications, as they are now written, stipulate that "all i
water discharged from the wastewater collection basin shall have a pH between l
6.0 and 8.5"j, This specification was based 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).
The utility has requested that the upper limit on the pH be raised to 9.0.
They state no reason fr the change, except.to say that it would be consis-tent with chemical effluents as stated in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendment of 1972, nor do they describe the environmental impact of the change. Under the second memorandum of understanding between NRC and EPA, the NRC is obliged to review its technical specification water effluent limits with the objective of obtaintne consistency with the NPDES Permit (Federal Water Pollution Control Act). This can only be done, however, after sa NEPA review of the impact has been done, if the change wartcuts such a review. The FES for Oconee doccribes the pH of the Keowee River to be ap-
~
proximauly 6.6 sad.the annual reports indicate the pH to be found'in the range of 5.8 to 7.0, indicating the river is mildly acidic. The impact to the aquatic biota of water released at pH values higher than what naturally occurs in the river was not evaluated in the FES. The pH limits are already somewhat outside this range, thus an increase in the limit requires a-NEPA review.
P J
['3
_ - _; L p
tjDl^ 'IY W T 5 W I* h i
S D'
N ' YE *
- orrecs >
N $2N A Y !l M-JYh wvi j
DAYS >
.we l
Fose ABC.518 (Rev. 9 55) ABCM 0240 :
N > W u. e.oovummes-ort enmtme orricus sers.one. nee IM i
s..
jM* *** 26L.
l
(
/
i
/
JUL L 1 a76
- 2.-
Karl R. Go11er A
.s.
This review was performed by W. Pasciak of the Environmental Evaluation c-o T~
Branch.
. l '.
, ; n-1
.Orid31 nG2d CY
~ Darrell G. Eisenhut'
^
D. G'. Eisenhut, Assistant Director for
,.c Operational Technology Division of Operating Reactors Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation s.
Enclosures; As stated e
u cc V. Stallo DISTRIBUTION:
D. Eisenhut..
X Docket NR't/ Reading D. Davis A. Schwencer.
EEB/ Reading G. Zech B. Grimas -.
._J.
s R.' Ballard I
E. Adensas T. Cain W. Pasciak J. Reece 4
e A
21:
I}--
h t
a
_,an.
,~a,
\\
6 Anc.us (m p.m Anoa 02#
L-
.,....<-x O
l ENCLOSURE 1_
l ICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGE
/
INFORMATION REQUES*IED - OCONEE TECHN
/
pulations which are intolerant s
f Identify all important aquatic species pobe found in th 1.
to high pH levels and may indicate data sources.
ce of species identified in 1 above, d
Describe the distribution and abun anfor determining distribu l
2.
l and the sampling methodologies ethods of estimating I
Indicate confidence limits, and reference m w:
dance.
distribution and abundance.
lations identified additional impacts to the species popu h impacts.
l Estimate the Describe methods used for estimating t e
{
3.
in 1 and 2 above.
b ve, propose a sampling pro-If data are not available for 1 and 2 a od include this progra 4.
gram to collect the information an of the Technical Specifications.
i nificant, propose a permanent If the impact determined in 3 above is s gdition for inc S.
environmental surveillance con Technical Specifications.
l f
i-t M-l
_.