Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 102 /Thursday, May 28, 1998 / Notices 29257

core instrumentation that is not in use)

is small enough to preclude achieving a

critical mass. Because the fuel is not

enriched beyond 5.0 weight percent

uranium-235, and because commercial

nuclear plant licensees have procedures

and features that are designed to prevent

inadvertent criticality, the staff has

determined that it is unlikely that an

inadvertent criticality could occur due

to the handling of special nuclear

material at a commercial power reactor.

Therefore, an exemption from the

requirements of 10 CFR 70.24 in

selected cases will not have a negative

impact on the safety of personnel during

the handling of special nuclear

materials at commercial power reactors.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The Commission has completed its

evaluation of the proposed action and

concludes that inadvertent or accidental

criticality will be precluded through

compliance with the Fermi 2 Technical

Specifications, the design of the fuel

storage racks providing geometric

spacing of fuel assemblies in their

storage locations, and administrative

controls imposed on fuel handling

procedures.

The proposed exemption will not

result in an increase in the probability

or consequences of accidents, affect

radiological plant effluents or offsite

dose, or cause any significant

occupational exposures. Therefore,

there are no radiological impacts

associated with the proposed

exemption.

The proposed exemption will not

result in a change in nonradiological

effluents and will have no other

nonradiological environmental impact.

Accordingly, the Commission

concludes that there are no significant

environmental impacts associated with

the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Since the Commission has concluded

that there is no significant

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 exemption,

the staff considered denial of the

requested exemption. Denial of the

request 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 related to the operation of

Fermi 2 dated August 1981.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on May 7, 1998, the staff consulted with

the Michigan State official, Dennis

Hahn, of the Michigan Department of

Environmental Quality, 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 April 27, 1998, which is available

for public inspection at the

Commission’s Public Document Room

located at the Gelman Building, 2120 L

Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the

local public document room located at

the Monroe County Library System,

3700 South Custer Road, Monroe,

Michigan 48161.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day

of May 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Andrew J. Kugler,

Project Manager, Project Directorate III–1,

Division of Reactor Projects III/IV, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–14102 Filed 5–27–98; 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 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
29258 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 102 /Thursday, May 28, 1998 / Notices

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 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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No.

23198; 812–10942]

Boston 1784 Funds, et al.; Notice of

Application

May 20, 1998.

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange

Commission (‘‘SEC’’).

ACTION: Notice of application for an

order under section 12(d)(1)(J) of the

Investment Company Act of 1940 (the

‘‘Act’’) exempting applicants from

sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act,

under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act

exempting applicants from sections

17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act, and

under section 17(d) of the Act and rule

17d–1 under the Act.

SUMMARY OF THE APPLICATION: The

requested order would permit certain

registered open-end management

investment companies to invest excess

cash and collateral in affiliated money

market funds in excess of the limits in

sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act.

APPLICANTS: Boston 1784 Funds (the

‘‘Trust’’), and all other registered openend management investment companies

and series thereof that currently or in

the future are part of the same ‘‘group

of investment companies,’’ within the

meaning of section 12(d)(1)(G) of the

Act, that includes the Trust, and

BankBoston, N.A. (‘‘BankBoston’’).

FILING DATES: The application was filed

on December 31, 1997, and amended on

May 20, 1998.

HEARING OR NOTIFICATION OF HEARING: An

order granting the application will be

issued unless the SEC orders a hearing.

Interested persons may request a

hearing by writing to the SEC’s

Secretary and serving applicant with a

copy of the request, personally or by

mail. Hearing requests should be

received by the SEC by 5:30 p.m. on

June 15, 1998, and should be

accompanied by proof of service on

applicants, in the form of an affidavit or,

for lawyers, a certificate of service.

Hearing requests should state the nature

of the writer’s interest, the reason for the

request, and the issues contested.

Persons who wish to be notified of a

hearing may request notification by

writing to the SEC’s Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, SEC, 450 Fifth

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549.

Applicants, 2 Oliver Street, Boston, MA

02109.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathleen L. Knisely, Staff Attorney, at

(202) 942–0517, or Nadya B. Roytblat,

Assistant Director, at (202) 942–0564,