Jump to main content.

Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc., Indian Point Nucl

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

 

Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc., Indian Point Nucl



[Federal Register: March 8, 1995]









NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION



[Docket No. 50-247]

 


Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc., Indian Point Nuclear 
Generating Unit No. 2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No 
Significant Impact



    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is 
considering issuance of an exemption from Facility Operating License 
No. DPR-26, issued to Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. 
(the licensee), for operation of the Indian Point Nuclear Generating 
Unit No. 2 (IP2) located in Westchester County, New York.



Environmental Assessment



Identification of the Proposed Action



    This Environmental Assessment has been prepared to address 
potential environmental issues related to the licensee's application of 
September 19, [[Page 12788]] 1994, as supplemented on January 13, 1995, 
and February 3, 1995. The proposed action would exempt the licensee 
from the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, Paragraph 
III.D.1.(a), to the extent that a one-time interval extension for the 
Type A test (containment integrated leak rate test) by approximately 24 
months from the February 1995 refueling outage to the February 1997 
refueling outage would be granted.



The Need for the Proposed Action



    The proposed action is needed to permit the licensee to defer the 
Type A test from the February 1995 refueling outage, to the February 
1997 refueling outage, thereby saving the cost of performing the test 
and eliminating the test period from the critical path time of the 
outage.



Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action



    The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action 
and concludes that the proposed one-time exemption would not increase 
the probability or consequences of accidents previously analyzed and 
the proposed one-time exemption would not affect facility radiation 
levels or facility radiological effluents. The licensee has analyzed 
the results of previous Type A tests performed at IP2 to show good 
containment performance and will continue to be required to conduct the 
Type B and C local leak rate tests which historically have been shown 
to be the principal means of detecting containment leakage paths with 
the Type A tests confirming the Type B and C test results. It is also 
noted that the licensee, as a condition of the proposed exemption, will 
perform the visual containment inspection although it is only required 
by Appendix J to be conducted in conjunction with Type A tests. The NRC 
staff considers that these inspections, though limited in scope, 
provide an important added level of confidence in the continued 
integrity of the containment boundary. The NRC staff also notes that 
the IP2 Containment Penetration and Weld Channel Pressurization System 
provides a means for continuously monitoring potential containment 
leakage paths during power operation. The change will not increase the 
probability or consequences of accidents, no changes are being made in 
the types of any effluents that may be released offsite, and there is 
no significant increase in the allowable individual or cumulative 
occupational radiation exposure. Accordingly, the Commission concludes 
that there are no significant radiological environmental impacts 
associated with the proposed action.

    With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed 
action does involve features located entirely within the restricted 
area as defined in 10 CFR part 20. It does not affect nonradiological 
plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. Accordingly, the 
Commission concludes that there are no significant nonradiological 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.



Alternatives to the Proposed Action



    Since the Commission has concluded there is no measurable 
environmental impact associated with the proposed action, any 
alternatives with equal or greater environmental impact need not be 
evaluated. As an alternative to the proposed action, the NRC staff 
considered denial of the proposed action. Denial of the application 
would result in no change in current environmental impacts.



Alternative Use of Resources



    This action does not involve the use of any resources not 
previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for the 
Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 2.



Agencies and Persons Consulted



    In accordance with its stated policy, the NRC staff consulted with 
the New York State official regarding the environmental impact of the 
proposed action. The State official had no comments.



Finding of No Significant Impact



    Based upon the environmental assessment, the Commission concludes 
that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the 
quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the Commission has 
determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the 
proposed action.

    For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the 
licensee's letter dated September 19, 1994, as supplemented by letters 
dated January 13, 1995, and February 3, 1995, which are available for 
public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, The Gelman 
Building, 2120 L Street NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public 
document room located at the White Plains Public Library, 100 Martine 
Avenue, White Plains, New York 10610



    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day of March 1995.



    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Ledyard B. Marsh,

Director, Project Directorate I-1, Division of Reactor Projects--I/II, 
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95-5612 Filed 3-7-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M

 
 

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.