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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 92 /Wednesday, May 13, 1998 / Notices 26655

begin promptly and fabrication must

begin in the summer of 1998. The TN–

68 COC application, dated January 23,

1998, is under consideration by the

Commission. It is anticipated, if

approved, the TN–68 COC may be

issued in 2000.

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 may 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

nine 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–68 storage

cask weighs approximately 100 tons and

is fabricated mainly from steel and

plastic. The estimated 900 tons of steel

required for nine casks is expected to

have very little impact on the steel

industry. Additionally, the estimated 9

tons of plastic required for nine 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 nine 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 nine 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, if a COC is issued and

fabrication of the casks occurs, 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

Pennsylvania Department of

Environmental Protection was consulted

about the EA for the proposed action

and had no comments.

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 nine TN–68 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 72–1027. For

further details with respect to this

action, see the application dated January

23, 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 State

Library of Pennsylvania, Walnut Street

and Commonwealth Avenue,

Harrisburg, PA 17105.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th 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. 98–12674 Filed 5–12–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Number 07003085; License Number

SNM–2001]

Public Meeting To Discuss the

Decommissioning of the Babcock and

Wilcox Shallow Land Disposal Area in

Parks Township, PA

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Public meeting.

SUMMARY: This notice is to inform the

public of a meeting to discuss the

decommissioning of the Babcock and

Wilcox (B&W) Shallow Land Disposal

Area (SLDA) in Parks Township, PA.

The meeting will be held on May 27,

1998, in the Leechburg High School

Cafeteria on Siberian Avenue, in

Leechburg, PA. The meeting will begin

at 7 p.m. and will end at 9:30 p.m. The

meeting will consist of a facilitated

discussion, followed by an opportunity

for comments by interested members of

the public.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The SLDA

is located in Armstrong County, PA,

approximately 23 miles east-northeast of

Pittsburgh. The SLDA consists of ten

waste disposal trenches comprising

approximately 1.2 acres surrounded by

a 40-acre fenced buffer area. The SLDA

was formerly owned by Nuclear

Materials and Equipment Corporation

(NUMEC) which also operated the

nearby Apollo Nuclear Fuel Fabrication

Facility. In the 1960s and 1970s, the

SLDA was used by NUMEC to dispose

of radioactively contaminated (primarily

uranium and thorium) and nonradioactive wastes in accordance with

NRC regulations at 10 CFR 20.304. NRC

rescinded 10 CFR 20.304 in 1981. In

1967, Atlantic Richfield Company

(ARCO) purchased stock in NUMEC and

then sold it to B&W in 1971.

In September 1994, B&W submitted

several remediation alternatives for the

SLDA to NRC. B&W’s preferred

alternative was to stabilize the waste in

place by covering the buried waste with

a soil and synthetic cover and isolating