[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 165 (Thursday, August 24, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51633-51634]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-21667]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, et al.; Nine Mile Point Nuclear 
Station, Unit No. 2, Environmental Assessment and Finding of No 
Significant Impact

[Docket No. 50-410]

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering 
issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-69, 
issued to Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, et al. (the licensee), for 
operation of the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit No. 2, located 
in Oswego County, New York.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of Proposed Action

    The proposed action would amend Section 3.10.8, ``SHUTDOWN MARGIN 
(SDM) Test--Refueling,'' of the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 
No. 2, Technical Specifications (TS), correcting an administrative 
error introduced when Amendment No. 92 was processed.
    The proposed action is in response to the licensee's application 
dated June 8, 2000.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    On February 15, 2000, the staff issued Amendment No. 91, converting 
the TS to the Improved Technical Specifications format and style. 
Amendment No. 91 was to be fully implemented by August 31, 2000; in the 
interim, the licensee will continue to use the pre-Amendment No. 91 TS. 
On March 2, 2000, the staff issued Amendment No. 92, which imposes 
requirements on the Oscillating Power Range Monitor (OPRM) system on 
both the pre-Amendment No. 91 TS and post-Amendment No. 91 TS. 
Subsequently, the licensee found that certain pages contain inadvertent 
administrative errors (i.e., numbering of sections) in that certain 
pre- and post-Amendment No. 91 pages differ for no technical reason. By 
letter dated June 7, 2000, the licensee proposed to correct these 
errors which were inadvertently introduced during the review process of 
Amendment No. 92.
    The proposed amendment involves administrative changes to the TS 
only. No actual plant equipment, regulatory requirements, operating 
practices, or analyses are affected by the proposed amendment.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The NRC has completed its evaluation of the proposed action and 
concludes that there is no significant environmental impact if the 
amendment is granted. No changes will be made to the design, licensing 
bases, or the applicable procedures at the unit. Other than the 
administrative changes, no other changes will be made to the TS. The 
proposed action will not significantly 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 occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there 
are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with 
the proposed action.
    With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed 
action does not involve any historic sites. It does not affect non-
radiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. 
Therefore, there are no significant non-radiological environmental 
impacts associated with the proposed action.
    Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered 
denial of the proposed action (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative). 
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 similar.

Alternative Use of Resources

    This action does did not involve the use of any resources not 
previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement related to 
the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2.

Agencies and Persons Contacted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on July 7, 2000, the staff 
consulted with the New York State official, Mr. Jack Spath, regarding 
the environmental impact of the proposed amendment. The State official 
had no comments.

[[Page 51634]]

Finding of No Significant Impact

    On the basis of the foregoing environmental assessment, the NRC 
concludes that the proposed amendment will not have a significant 
effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC 
has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the 
proposed amendment.
    For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the 
licensee's request for the amendment dated June 7, 2000, which is 
available at the Commission's Public Document Room, The Gelman 
Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington DC, and accessible 
electronically through the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room link at 
the NRC Web site (http://www.nrc.gov).

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day of August, 2000.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Peter S. Tam,
Senior Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate I, Division of 
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 00-21667 Filed 8-23-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P