Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 84 / Friday, May 1, 1998 / Notices 24197

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–387 and 50–388]

Pennsylvania Power and Light

Company; Susquehanna Steam

Electric Station, Units 1 and 2;

Environmental Assessment and

Finding of No Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of amendments to

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–44

and NPF–22, issued to Pennsylvania

Power and Light Company (PP&L, the

licensee), for operation of the

Susquehanna Steam Electric Station

(SSES), Units 1 and 2, located in

Luzerne County, Pennsylvania.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed action would amend

the Technical Specifications (TSs) to

increase the Rod Block Monitor (RBM)

flow biased trip setpoints and also

change the RBM channel calibration

frequency and allowed outage times.

The proposed action is in accordance

with the licensee’s application for

amendment dated November 27, 1996,

as supplemented by letter dated

February 12, 1997.

The Need for the Proposed Action

The RBM was originally designed to

prevent fuel damage during a Rod

Withdrawal Error (RWE) event while

operating in the power range in a

normal mode of operation. The RWE

analyses originally assumed that the

RBM automatically actuated to stop

control rod motion. This automatic stop

of control rod motion is the sole design

basis of the RBM.

As a result of rod drift events at SSES,

the RWE is currently analyzed without

taking credit for the RBM to stop control

rod motion. The results of these

analyses are operating limits that

prevent fuel damage from an RWE

without the need for an RBM system to

automatically actuate to stop control rod

motion.

The licensee considered that the RBM

system was no longer needed and could

be removed from the TSs and in 1996

requested approval from the NRC to

remove it. The NRC decided that an

acceptable alternative was a proposal to

raise the RBM setpoints to reduce its

operational impacts. This proposed

amendment is about raising the RBM

setpoints.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The Commission has completed its

evaluation of the proposed action and

concludes that the RBM was initially

considered as a system that would

prevent fuel damage during an RWE

event while operating in the power

range in a normal mode of operation.

However, the licensee’s results of their

analyses show that the RBM is not

required to prevent fuel damage and the

staff agrees with this.

Further, it is noted that with this TS

change, the licensee will find the need

to do fewer control rod pattern

adjustments and a reduction in nuisance

alarms. In addition to this, the change

should reduce operator interaction with

the system (reducing possible man-tomachine interface problems).

The TS changes 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 staff considered

denial of the proposed 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 similar.

Alternative Use of Resources

This action does not involve the use

of any resources not previously

considered in the Final Environmental

Statement for SSES, Units 1 and 2.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on February 18, 1998, the staff

consulted with the Pennsylvania State

official, S. Maingi of the Bureau of

Radiation Protection, 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 November 27, 1996, as

supplemented by letter dated February

12, 1997, 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 Osterhout Free Library,

Reference Department, 71 South

Franklin Street, Wilkes-Barre,

Pennsylvania 18701.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day

of April 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Victor Nerses,

Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate

I–2, Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–11621 Filed 4–30–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 72–22]

Private Fuel Storage, L.L.C.,

Independent Spent Fuel Storage

Installation, Skull Valley Indian

Reservation, Tooele County, UT,

Notice of Intent To Prepare an

Environmental Impact Statement and

Conduct Scoping Process

Description of Proposed Action

Private Fuel Storage, L.L.C. (the

applicant) submitted an application,

dated June 20, 1997, for a license to

construct and operate an independent

spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) at

the Skull Valley Indian Reservation in

Tooele County, Utah. The license, under

the provisions of Part 72 to Title 10 of

the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR

part 72), would authorize the applicant

to receive, possess, store, and transfer

spent nuclear fuel from licensed

commercial U.S. nuclear power reactors

in dry storage systems. A notice of

consideration of issuance of a materials
24198 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 84 / Friday, May 1, 1998 / Notices

license for the proposed Private Fuel

Storage Facility (PFSF) was published

in the Federal Register on July 31, 1997

(62 FR 41099).

Environmental Report

In connection with this proposed

action, the applicant submitted an

Environmental Report in accordance

with the requirements specified in 10

CFR part 51 and pursuant to the

National Environmental Policy Act of

1969. The Environmental Report is

available for public inspection at the

Commission’s Public Document Room

in the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street,

NW, Washington, DC, and the Local

Public Document Room at the

University of Utah, Marriott Library,

Documents Division, 295 S. 1500 East,

Salt Lake City, Utah 84112–0860.

Environmental Impact Statement

In accordance with NRC regulations

specified in 10 CFR 51.20(b)(9), NRC

has determined that the proposed action

is a major federal action that warrants

the preparation of an Environmental

Impact Statement (EIS) on the

construction and operation of the

proposed ISFSI.

NRC will first conduct a scoping

process and, as soon as practicable

thereafter, prepare a draft EIS for

comment by the public and other

agencies. The draft EIS will be the

subject of a separate notice in the

Federal Register. After receipt and

consideration of comments, the NRC

will prepare a final EIS.

Public Scoping Process

The scoping process for the EIS will

be used to:

(1) Define the scope of the proposed

action which is to be the subject of the

EIS.

(2) Determine the scope of the EIS and

identify the significant issues to be

analyzed in depth.

(3) Identify and eliminate from

detailed study issues which are

peripheral or are not significant.

(4) Identify any environmental

assessments and other EIS which are

being or will be prepared that are

related to but are not part of the scope

of the EIS under consideration.

(5) Identify other environmental

review and consultation requirements

related to the proposed action.

(6) Indicate the relationship between

the timing of the preparation of the

environmental analyses and the

Commission’s tentative planning and

decision making schedule.

(7) Identify any cooperating agencies,

and as appropriate, allocate assignments

for preparation and schedules for

completion of the EIS to the NRC and

any cooperating agencies.

(8) Describe the means by which the

EIS will be prepared, including any

contractor assistance to be used.

The NRC invites the following

persons to participate in the scoping

process:

(1) The applicant, Private Fuel

Storage, L.L.C.;

(2) Any person who has petitioned for

leave to intervene or who has been

admitted as a party to the proceeding on

the license application;

(3) Any other Federal agency which

has jurisdiction by law or special

expertise with respect to any

environmental impact involved or

which is authorized to develop and

enforce relevant environmental

standards;

(4) Affected State and local agencies,

including those authorized to develop

and enforce relevant environmental

standards;

(5) Any affected Indian tribe; and

(6) Any person who has requested an

opportunity to participate in the scoping

process.

Participants should submit written

comments on the EIS scoping process to

Dr. Edward Y. Shum, Environmental

Project Manager, Spent Fuel Licensing

Section, Spent Fuel Project Office,

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and

Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555. To

be considered in the scoping process,

comments should be postmarked by

June 19, 1998.

Participation in the scoping process

does not entitle participants to become

parties to the proceeding to which the

EIS relates. Participation in the

adjudicatory proceeding is governed by

the procedures specified in 10 CFR

2.714 and 2.715, and in the

aforementioned Federal Register Notice

(62 FR 41099).

Public Scoping Meeting

In accordance with 10 CFR 51.26, the

scoping process may include a public

scoping meeting to help identify

significant issues related to a proposed

activity and to determine the scope of

issues to be addressed in an EIS. As part

of the EIS scoping process related to the

applicant’s proposed action, NRC will

conduct a public scoping meeting at The

Ballroom of the Little America Inn, 500

South Main Street, Salt Lake City, Utah

84101, on June 2, 1998, at 6:30 p.m. The

meeting will include a briefing by

Private Fuel Storage, L.L.C. on the

proposed ISFSI, a briefing by the NRC

on the environmental review process

and the proposed scope of the EIS, and

the opportunity for interested agencies,

organizations, and individuals to submit

comments or suggestions on the

environmental issues or proposed scope

of the EIS. Persons may register to

present oral comments by writing to Dr.

Edward Y. Shum, at the aforementioned

address, or may register at the meeting.

Individual oral comments may be

limited in time, depending on the

number of persons who register.

Comments presented at the meeting will

be considered in the EIS scoping

process.

Summary

At the conclusion of the scoping

process, NRC will prepare a concise

summary of the determinations and

conclusions reached, including the

significant issues identified, and will

send a copy of the summary to each

participant in the scoping process.

For additional information about the

proposed action, the EIS, or the scoping

process, contact Dr. Edward Y. Shum at

the aforementioned address or by

telephone at (301) 415–8545.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day

of April 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Charles J. Haughney,

Acting Director, Spent Fuel Project Office,

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and

Safeguards.

[FR Doc. 98–11620 Filed 4–30–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No.

23127; 812–10988]

TCW/BQA Enhanced 500 Limited

Partnership, et al.; Notice of

Application

April 24, 1998.

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange

Commission (‘‘SEC’’).

ACTION: Notice of application for an

order under section 17(b) of the

Investment Company Act of 1940 (the

‘‘Act’’) for an exemption from section

17(a) of the Act.

SUMMARY OF THE APPLICATION:

Applicants seek an order to permit

certain limited partnerships to transfer

their assets to corresponding series of a

registered open-end management

investment company in exchange for the

series’ shares.

APPLICANTS: TCW/BQA Enhanced 500

Limited Partnership, TCW Emerging

Markets Fixed Income Total Return II

Limited Partnership, TCW Large Cap

Growth Limited Partnership, TCW Large