Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 92 /Wednesday, May 13, 1998 / Notices 26653

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–285]

Omaha Public Power District, Fort

Calhoun Station, Unit No. 1;

Environmental Assessment and

Finding of No Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an exemption

from certain requirements of its

regulations to Omaha Public Power

District, holder of Facility Operating

License No. DPR–40 for operation of the

Fort Calhoun Station, Unit No. 1 located

in Washington County, Nebraska.

Environmental Assessment Action

Identification of Proposed Action

The proposed action would exempt

Omaha Public Power District from the

requirements of 10 CFR part 50,

appendix R, Section III.O, with respect

to certain unpressurized components.

Section III.0 requires reactor coolant

pumps be equipped with an oil

collection system if the containment is

not inerted during normal operation.

The collection systems shall be capable

of collecting lube oil from all potential

pressurized and unpressurized leakage

sites in the reactor coolant pump lube

oil systems. Leakage shall be collected

and drained to a vented closed

container that can hold the entire lube

oil system inventory.

The proposed action is in accordance

with the licensee’s application for

exemption dated September 30, 1997, as

supplemented by letter dated January

29, 1998.

The Need for the Proposed Action

The proposed action is needed

because it would be extremely difficult

for the licensee to design, install, and

maintain the specified portions of the

collection system due to location,

arrangement, equipment interferences,

and radiation dose as low as reasonably

achievable (ALARA) considerations.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The Commission has completed its

evaluation of the proposed action and

concludes that there is no significant

environmental impact associated with

the proposed exemption. The

unpressurized components at issue do

not present a significant risk of oil

leakage that could lead to fire in

containment during normal or design

basis accident conditions. The proposed

action, therefore, 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 (FES) for the Fort Calhoun

Station, Unit No. 1, dated August 1972.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on April 27, 1998, the staff consulted

with the Nebraska State official, Ms.

Cheryl Rodgers of the Department of

Health, 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 30, 1997, and

supplemental letter dated January 29,

1998, which are available for public

inspection at the Commission’s Public

Document Room, which is located at

The Gelman Building, 2120 L Street,

NW., Washington, DC, and at the local

public document room located at the W.

Dale Clark Library, 215 South 15th

Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68102.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day

of May 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Raynard Wharton,

Project Manager Project Directorate IV–2,

Division of Reactor Projects III/IV Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–12672 Filed 5–12–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket 72–1021]

Transnuclear, Inc.; Issuance of

Environmental Assessment and

Finding of No Significant Impact

By letter dated March 11, 1998,

Transnuclear, Inc. (TN or applicant)

requested an exemption, pursuant to 10

CFR 72.7, from the requirements of 10

CFR 72.234(c). TN, located in

Hawthorne, New York, is seeking

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC

or the Commission) approval to

fabricate five TN–32 dry spent fuel

storage casks prior to receipt of a

Certificate of Compliance (COC). The

casks are intended for use under the

general license provisions of subpart K

of 10 CFR part 72 by Duke Power

Company (Duke) at the McGuire

Nuclear Station (McGuire) located in

Cornelius, North Carolina. The TN–32

dry spent fuel storage cask is currently

used at Surry Power Station under a

site-specific license.

Environmental Assessment (EA)

Identification of Proposed Action: The

applicant is seeking Commission

approval to fabricate five TN–32 casks

prior to the Commission’s issuance of a

COC. The applicant requests an

exemption from the requirements of 10

CFR 72.234(c), which state that

‘‘Fabrication of casks under the

Certificate of Compliance must not start

prior to receipt of the Certificate of

Compliance for the cask model.’’ The

proposed action before the Commission

is whether to grant this exemption

under 10 CFR 72.7.

Need for the Proposed Action: TN

requested the exemption to ensure the

availability of storage casks so that Duke

can maintain full core off-load

capability at McGuire. McGuire Unit 2

will lose full core off-load capability in

August 2000. McGuire has proposed an

initial cask loading in September 2000.
26654 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 92 /Wednesday, May 13, 1998 / Notices

To support training and dry runs prior

to the initial loading, Duke requests the

delivery of the first cask by January

2000. TN states that to meet this

schedule, purchase of cask components

must begin promptly and fabrication

must begin by September 1998.

The TN–32 COC application, dated

September 24, 1997, is under

consideration by the Commission. It is

anticipated, if approved, the TN–32

COC may be issued in late 1999.

The proposed fabrication exemption

will not authorize use of the casks to

store spent fuel. That will occur only

when, and if, a COC is issued. NRC

approval of the fabrication exemption

request should not be construed as an

NRC commitment to favorably consider

TN’s application for a COC. TN will

bear the risk of all activities conducted

under the exemption, including the risk

that the five casks TN plans to construct

may not be usable because they may not

meet specifications or conditions placed

in a COC that NRC may ultimately

approve.

Environmental Impacts of the

Proposed Action: The Environmental

Assessment for the final rule, ‘‘Storage

of Spent Nuclear Fuel in NRC-Approved

Storage Casks at Nuclear Power Reactor

Sites’’, (55 FR 29181 (1990) ) considered

the potential environmental impacts of

casks which are used to store spent fuel

under a COC and concluded that there

would be no significant environmental

impacts. The proposed action now

under consideration would not permit

use of the casks, but only fabrication.

There are no radiological environmental

impacts from fabrication since cask

fabrication does not involve radiological

or radioactive materials. The major nonradiological environmental impacts

involve use of natural resources due to

cask fabrication. Each TN–32 storage

cask weighs approximately 100 tons and

is fabricated mainly from steel and

plastic. The estimated 500 tons of steel

required for five casks is expected to

have very little impact on the steel

industry. Additionally, the estimated 5

tons of plastic required for five casks is

insignificant compared to the millions

of tons of plastic produced annually.

Cask fabrication would be at a metal

fabrication facility, not at the reactor

site. Fabrication of five casks is

insignificant compared to the amount of

metal fabrication performed annually in

the United States. If the casks are not

usable, the casks could be disposed of

or recycled. The amount of material

disposed of is insignificant compared to

the amount of steel and plastic that is

disposed of annually in the United

States. Based upon this information, the

fabrication of five casks will have no

significant impact on the environment

since no radioactive materials are

involved, and the amount of natural

resources used is minimal.

Alternative to the Proposed Action:

Since there is no significant

environmental impact associated with

the proposed action, any alternatives

with equal or greater environmental

impact are not evaluated. The

alternative to the proposed action would

be to deny approval of the exemption

and, therefore, not allow cask

fabrication until a COC is issued.

However, the environmental impacts of

the proposed action and the alternative

action would be the same.

Given that there are no significant

differences in environmental impacts

between the proposed action and the

alternative considered and that the

applicant has a legitimate need to

fabricate the casks prior to certification

and is willing to assume the risk that the

fabricated casks may not be certified or

may require modification, the

Commission concludes that the

preferred alternative is to grant the

exemption.

Agencies and Persons Consulted: The

North Carolina Division of Radiation

Protection was consulted about the EA

for the proposed action and had no

concerns.

References used in preparation of the

EA:

1. NRC, Environmental Assessment

Regarding Final Rule, ‘‘Storage of Spent

Fuel in NRC-Approved Storage Casks at

Power Reactor Sites,’’ 55 FR 29181.

2. NRC, 10 CFR part 51,

Environmental Protection Regulations

for Domestic Licensing and Related

Regulatory Functions.

Finding of No Significant Impact

The environmental impacts of the

proposed action have been reviewed in

accordance with the requirements set

forth in 10 CFR part 51. Based upon the

foregoing EA, the Commission finds that

the proposed action of granting an

exemption from 10 CFR 72.234(c) so

that TN may fabricate five TN–32 casks

prior to issuance of a COC will not

significantly impact the quality of the

human environment. Accordingly, the

Commission has determined not to

prepare an environmental impact

statement for the proposed exemption.

This application was docketed under

10 CFR part 72, Docket 72–1021. For

further details with respect to this

action, see the application dated March

11, 1998, which is available for public

inspection at the Commission’s Public

Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW,

Washington, DC 20555, and the Local

Public Document Room at the J. Murrey

Atkins Library, University of North

Carolina at Charlotte, UNCC Station,

Charlotte, NC 28223.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day

of May 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Susan F. Shankman,

Acting Deputy Director, Spent Fuel Project

Office, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and

Safeguards.

[FR Doc. 98–12670 Filed 5–12–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket 72–1027]

Transnuclear, Inc.; Issuance of

Environmental Assessment and

Finding of No Significant Impact

By letter dated January 23, 1998,

Transnuclear, Inc. (TN or applicant)

requested an exemption, pursuant to 10

CFR 72.7, from the requirements of 10

CFR 72.234(c). TN, located in

Hawthorne, New York, is seeking

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC

or the Commission) approval to

fabricate nine TN–68 dry spent fuel

storage casks prior to receipt of a

Certificate of Compliance (COC). The

TN–68 cask is similar in design to the

TN–32 and TN–40 dry spent fuel storage

casks which have been approved for use

at Independent Spent Fuel Storage

Installations with site-specific licenses.

The TN–68 casks are intended to be

used by PECO Energy Company (PECO)

at the Peach Bottom Atomic Power

Station (PBAPS) located in Delta,

Pennsylvania, under the general license

provisions of subpart K of 10 CFR Part

72.

Environmental Assessment (EA)

Identification of Proposed Action: The

applicant is seeking Commission

approval to fabricate nine TN–68 casks

prior to the Commission’s issuance of a

COC. The applicant requests an

exemption from the requirements of 10

CFR 72.234(c), which states that

‘‘fabrication of casks under the

Certificate of Compliance must not start

prior to receipt of the Certificate of

Compliance for the cask model.’’ The

proposed action before the Commission

is whether to grant this exemption

under 10 CFR 72.7.

Need for the Proposed Action: TN

requests the exemption to ensure the

availability of storage casks by July

2000, so that PECO can maintain full

core off-load capability at PBAPS. TN

states that to meet this schedule,

purchase of cask components must