[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 102 (Thursday, May 28, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29257-29258]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-14100]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket 72-1021]


Transnuclear, Inc.; Issuance of Environmental Assessment and 
Finding of No Significant Impact

    By letter dated April 9, 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 six 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 
Wisconsin Electric Power Company (WEPCo) at the Point Beach Nuclear 
Power Station (Point Beach) located in Two Rivers, Wisconsin. 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 six 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

    Point Beach was using the Ventilated Storage Cask, Model No. 24, 
fabricated by Sierra Nuclear, Corp. (VSC-24), however, they have not 
been able to load a cask for 2 years. The VSC-24 vendor is under a 
demand for information, and a confirmatory action letter regarding 
closure lid weld issues that prevents Point Beach from loading any VSC-
24s. To ensure future operations, Point Beach requires another cask 
option if they cannot load VSC-24s. TN requests the exemption to ensure 
the availability of storage casks so that WEPCo can continue operating 
the Point Beach Units 2 and 1 past March 2000 and late 2000, 
respectively, and to restore full core off-load capability. Three casks 
are required to ensure continued operation into 2001, and three 
additional casks are required to restore full core off-load capability. 
Therefore, to support the March 2000 loading, WEPCo requests the 
delivery of the first cask by December 1999. 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 six casks TN plans to construct

[[Page 29258]]

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 non-radiological 
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 600 tons of 
steel required for six casks is expected to have very little impact on 
the steel industry. Additionally, the estimated 6 tons of plastic 
required for six 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 six 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 six 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 cask 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 Wisconsin Public Utility Commission 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 
six 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 April 9, 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 Joseph Mann Library, 
1516 16th Street, Two Rivers, WI 54241.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day of May 1998.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
William F. Kane,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and 
Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 98-14100 Filed 5-27-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P