ML19289C484
| ML19289C484 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 01/02/1979 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19289C472 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7901120250 | |
| Download: ML19289C484 (4) | |
Text
.
/
UNITED 5TATES y'
"g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N i
wasHimaTom, o.c.2 ossa t
/
%-*.... /
Q VIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL E
THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 21 TO LICENSE NO. OPR-5 (UNIT NO. 1)
AMEN 0 MENT NO. 45 TO LICENSE NO. OPR-26 (UNIT NO. 2 AMEN 0 MENT NO. 21 TO LICENSE NO. OPR-64 UNIT NO 3 CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC.
INDIAN POINT UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 DOCXET NOS. 50-3 AND 5 M POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK INDIAN POINT UNIT NO. 3 DOCKET NO. 50-286 Introduction By letter dated July 13, 1977, LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby and MacRae, as counsel for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (the licensee), requested an amendment to Facility License Nos. OPR-5 and DPR-26 for the Indian Point Station Unit Nos.1 and 2.
- However, since the receipt of this letter the December 5,1975 application, which requested that the Indian Point Unit No. 2 Environmental Technical Specifications (ETS) be replaced by the site ETS for Indian Point Unit No. 3, has been approved. Thus, the letter dated July 13, 1977 from LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby and MacRae, as counsel for the Power Authority of the State of New York (PASNY) contains the application that is discussed in this environmental impact appraisal. These amendments would modify the ETS for environmental sampling stations for drinking water.
Also, by letters dated March 22, 1978 frtri Consolidated Edison and PASNY the licensees have requested an amendment to the ETS to revise the submission time period for the radiological and non-radiological annual report.
790112CASO
. The amendment includes the deletion of the Verplanck well sample location and the addition of the New York City Aqueduct as a sample location (tap-water), because the latter would be more representative of'the area's drinking water. The New York City Aqueduct is currently the major source of drinking water for the area. Since well samples from two other sample locations, Camp Smith and on-site, will continue to monitor ground water, tht: licensee states that it would be difficult and unnecessary to select another well in the particular area.
Evaluation The staff has reviewed the proposed deletion of the Verolanck well and substitution of the New York City Aqueduct tap water as a drinking water sample location in Environmental Technical Specification 4.2.
There are three wells sampled by the licensee for the purcose of monitoring the radioactivity in drinking water:
the Verplanck well, Camp Smith well and one well on-site. Measured levels of radio-activity in water samples taken from these wells are given in Table 1.
These data from Annual Operating Environmental Reports for the years 1970-1976 show no significant change in the measured radioactivity over the seven year period. These data also show a consistently higher measured value in the samples from the Verplanck well than from the other two wells. The proximity of this well to Trap Rock Quarry, which has a relatively high natural) radium content, is probably causing this higher radioactivity. Because of this and the fact that there was no significant change in the measured radioactivity over seven years, we conclude that there is no sigaificance to the consistently higher gross radioactivity in the Verplanck we11 samole.
3 Earlier hydrology studies by the staff' and the licensee show that the natural ground water ficw and potential plant effluents is toward the Hudson River, away fran all three well samole locations. The Verclanck well and the majority of other wells in the Verplanck area have been sealed and the major source of drinking water is the New York City Aqueduct.
The licensee will continue sampling the on-site well and the Camo Smith,
well to detect any significant increases in ground water contamination.
1.
Consolidatec Edison Coccany - Indian Point 1 Semi-Annual Reports 1971, 1972, 1973 - Well Water Descrictions 2.
Final Environmental Statement - Related to Oceration of Indian Point Nuclear Generation Plant Unit No. 2, September 1972.
3.
Consolidated Edison Comoany of New York, Inc. - Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 2 Final Facility Description and Safety Analysis Report, Section 2.5.
. Therefore, we conclude that the sample of tap water from the New York City % educt is an adequate replacement for the Verplanck well water sample for the purpose of monitoring the drinking water for the Verplanck area, and that the Verplanck well sample location may be replaced by a New York City Aqueduct tap water sample location in the Environmental Technical Specification 4.2 for Indian Point Station Units 1, 2, and 3.
The licensee has also reque::ted an amendment which changes the submission time period for the radiological and nonradiological reports from 90 day s to 120 days.
Based on the large volume of data the ifcensee is required to evaluate, we believe that this change is acceptable.
Furthemore, our Appendix I guidance letter to the licensee dated April 11, 1978 would allow until May 1 of each year (essentially 120 days) for the submission of the radiological report.
Conclusion for Necative Declaration We have reviewed the proposed Environmental Technical Specification changes associated with this amer.dment. We have found that the environmental impact of operation of Indian Point Unit Nos.1, 2 and 3 under these specification changes will be no greater than that evaluated in the Final Environmental Statement for Unit No. 3, that the changes will not significantly affect the cuality of the human environment, and that a Negative Declaration is aporopriate.
Conclusion We have concluded, based on the above considerations, that the Verplanck
,1 well sample location may be replaced by a New York City Aqueduct tap water sample location in the Environmental Technical Specification 4.2 for Indian Pcint Station Units 1, 2 and 3.
We also have concluded that (1) because the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered and does not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, the amendment.does not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner; and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: January 2, 1979
Table 1 Well Water Sampics )I
~9 (10 u Cf/ml) Gross Beta TL.
Indian Point Site Verplanck Camo Smith 1970 2nd Half 8.5 6.7 8.2 1971 1st Half 9
6 6.3 2nd Half 6.5 23.5 3.5 1972 1st Half 9.2 29.3 10.0 2nd Half 6.4 24.2 4.7 1973 )
1st Half 5.4 13.6 7.4 2
3rd Quarter 11.2 15.8 5.1 4th Quarter 23.5 14.1 6.7 1974 1st. Quarter 4.9 15.7 1.4 2nd Quarter 4.84 6.29 1.64 3rd Quarter 6.6 8.8 3.8 4th Quarter 4.3 8.2 2.8 1975 )
1st Quarter 5.3 9.9 2.6 3
2nd Quarter 4.3 12.6 2.2 3rd Quarter 8.23 4.78 4th Quarter 8.0 5.92 1976 1st Quarter 6.83 3.64 2nd Quarter 6.46 2.57 3rd Quarter 6.89 2.32 4th Quarter 8.22 3.42
- 1) from Semi-Annual Reports 1970 through 1976
- 2) change in Recording Policy
- 3) closing of Verplanck Sagling Well
_......