[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 26 (Monday, February 9, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 6584]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-3167]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-247]


Consolidated Edison Company 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 the requirements of 10 CFR 
50.60 and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G, 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

    The proposed action would exempt the licensee from the requirements 
of 10 CFR 50.60 and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G, to allow the use of the 
methodology, or its equivalent, specified in Appendix G in the 1996 
Addenda to Section XI of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers 
(ASME) Code (the 1996 methodology) for developing pressure-temperature 
(P-T) limits.
    The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's 
application for exemption dated October 7, 1997.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.60, all light water nuclear power reactors 
must meet the fracture toughness requirements for the reactor coolant 
pressure boundary as set forth in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G. Appendix 
G of 10 CFR Part 50 requires that the appropriate requirements on both 
the P-T limits and the minimum permissible temperature must be met for 
all conditions. The P-T limits identified as ``ASME Appendix G limits'' 
require that the limits must be as conservative as limits obtained by 
following the methods of analysis and the margins of safety of Appendix 
G of Section XI of the ASME Code. The Codes and Standards as specified 
in 10 CFR 50.55a references Section XI of the ASME Boiler and Pressure 
Vessel Code refer to Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3 components of 
Section XI, Division 1, and include addenda through the 1988 Addenda 
and editions through the 1989 Edition. The proposed action is needed to 
permit the licensee to use a methodology specified in the 1996 edition, 
or its equivalent, for developing the P-T limits for Indian Point 2.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed 
methodology specified in Appendix G in the 1996 Addenda to Section XI 
of the ASME Code (the 1996 methodology) for developing P-T limits and 
concludes that there will be no physical or operational changes to IP2.
    The Commission has evaluated the environmental impact of the 
proposed action and has determined that the probability or consequences 
of accidents would not be increased by the proposed action, and that 
post-accident radiological releases would not be greater than 
previously determined. Further, the Commission has determined that the 
proposed action would not affect routine radiological 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 would not affect nonradiological plant effluents and would have 
no other environmental impact. Therefore, 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 that there are not significant 
environmental effects that would result from the proposed action, any 
alternative with equal or greater environmental impacts need not be 
evaluated.
    The principal alternative would be to deny the requested action. 
Denial of the application would result in no change in current 
environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action 
and the alternative action are identical.

Alternative Use of Resources

    This action does not involve the use of any resources not 
previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for Indian 
Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 2, dated November 1976.

Agencies and Persons Contacted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on December 2, 1997, the 
staff consulted with the New York State Official, Jack Spath, of the 
New York State Research and Development Authority 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 October 7, 1997, which is 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 27th day of January 1998.
    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Jefferey F. Harold,
Project Manager, Project Directorate I-1, Division of Reactor 
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 98-3167 Filed 2-6-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P