ML19329A272
| ML19329A272 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 06/30/1978 |
| From: | Knighton G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Reid R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8001020846 | |
| Download: ML19329A272 (4) | |
Text
y 4
e JUN 3 0 B78 HENORANDUM FOR:
R. Reid, Chief, Operating Reactors Branch #4, DDR FRai:
G. Knighton, Chief, Environmental Evaluation Branch, DOR 4
REVIEW OF NON-RADIOLOGICAL EINIRONfiENTAL TECHNICAL
SUBJECT:
SPECIFICATION #iENDMENT FOR OCONEE 1, 2, 3 PLANT iW1E: Oconeetnits 1, 2, 3 0-269) -270, -287 DOCKET NUMBERS: \\( W.
RESPONSIBLE BRANCH
- 4 PROJECT MANAGER:
M. Fairtile TAC HUMBER: 7210 i
REVIEW STA11]S: EEB Review continuing i
By letter dated December 2, 1977 to HRC, Duke Power Coupany requested an amendment to their operating license for Oconee Nuclear Power Station, They requested temination of their non-radiological Units 1, 2 and 3.
special study requirements on the basis that their review of the results of these special study programs indicated that no major adverse environ-mental impact has occurred or is likely to result from operation of the In addition to this, they requested that the environmental sur-station.
i veillance programs be terminated, in effect, eliminating the entire non-radiological ETS.
On May 31, 1978, W. Pasciak and H. Fairtile met with members of the Duke N wer Company staff to discuss their proposal. We informed them that it will be necessary that some environmental surveillance programs Le designed i
for the entire operational life of the plant. As such, their request to teminate them on the basis that " technical specifications are not con-sidered necessary nor desirable," without an adequate evaluation of pro-We infomed gram results justifying the action, could not be accepted.
j them that the "special studies" could also be teminated if sufficient This analy-analysis of the results were presented to justify temination.
i I
i sis should include certain specific infomation supplementing their sunnary In responsa to their request that we transmit a list describing reports.
this specific infomation to them, we include the enclosure containing the It should be pointed out that their analysis should not be restricted list.
to the list presented, but include all the assessments to support their i
l request.
% GEORGE W. KNIGHTON 78103025 i
G. W. Knighton, Chief Environmental Evaluation Branch T{
Division of Operating Reactors Enclosurc i
As itated I
j i__
orries
- i
.om rs:
See paae 2
""ttn taett-Wrpasciak rEEB/ DOR NRCM hhbb ha s. somi'esserr psitesvisse orricas tore-sam l
NRC PORM 318 (9-76) 8001020f
u:
c I
JUN 3 0 B78 i
R. Reid '
i i
cc:
V. Ste11o l
B. Grimes DISTRIBUTION:
D. Eisenhut i
M. Fairtile Central Files E. Mensam EEB/ Reading j
G. Knighton W. Pasciak l
1 i
i l
I I
i I
I i
)
r-1 I
i i
i i
_EE.B/ DOR EEB/ DOR E T f
orric s
- l
$c-,'91.k.,/)tg TJyQ An 4 / J6 /lB_
4# /78
__h]1#/78
.., s *
- us s.eovannusuv en~iwysme orricas seve 2 a
}
NRC FORM 313 (9 76) NRCM 0240 l
_ Enclosure SPECIFIC INFORMATION TO BE INCLUDED IN THE LIC ASSESSMENTS SUPPORTING THE TERMINATION OF NON-RADIOLOGICAL SPECIAL STUDIES AND ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEILLANCE PROGRAMS 1.
On an annual basis, compare the fish impingement and entrainment to the studies of fishing catch rates for all age classes and impor-tant species defined by the FES to determine whether the plant is kill ing an amount of fish comparable to that killed by fishing.
(E.g.,see Reference 1.)
2.
Regarding fisheries studies, on page 117 of the FES, it is stated tha "It is clear that to determine ecological significance of condenser e fluents, the observed effects must be related to the population dynamics, and regeneration times of the aquatic organisms prese affected areas.
Additional information is needed before expanded, de-tailed assessments of impacts on terrestrial and aquatic biota in and around Keowee Lake and Hartwell Reservoir can be made."
The effects of both condenser-effluents and intake effects should be compared to population density determined in these studies.
3.
In-the paper (p. 492) discussion populatioE dynamics of young-of-the year fish in a ; reservoir receiving heated effluent," you conclude th "Because changes from the fish populations resulting from heated ef-fluents from the Oconee Nuclear Station are still occurring in the Ke e
O 6
m
. e ep-w
-2h r -
+
i Reservoir, the total impact of the plant's operation on young fish stocks cannot yet be assessed. _...
The decline appears to be due to heated water."
Elaborate on this conclusion end describe wheth or not it is premature to draw conclusions as to the impact of opera tion of the plant.
i
Reference:
1.
Mathur, D., P. G. Heisey, N. C. Magnusson.
Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Pennsylvania. Impingement of Fishes at Soc. Vol. 106, No. 3, May 1977.
Trans. Amer. Fisheries e
e gp: ' J*
..u....
'~
.:.....'