Nuclear Management Company, LLC; Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2; Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, 28889-28890 [E6-7572]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 96 / Thursday, May 18, 2006 / Notices
The proposed amendment would
have revised the Facility Operating
License to change Technical
Specification 3.6.1.3, Required Actions
A.1 and B.1, to add closed relief valves
as acceptable isolation devices provided
that the relief setpoint is greater than 1.5
times containment design pressure
The Commission had previously
issued a Notice of Consideration of
Issuance of Amendment, published in
the Federal Register on August 30, 2005
(70 FR 51381). However, by letter dated
May 5, 2006, the licensee withdrew the
proposed change.
For further details with respect to this
action, see the application for
amendment dated June 27, 2005, and
the licensee’s letter dated May 5, 2006,
which withdrew the application for
license amendment. Documents may be
examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the
NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR),
located at One White Flint North, Public
File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
Publicly available records will be
accessible electronically from the
ADAMS Public Electronic Reading
Room on the Internet at the NRC Web
site, https://www.nrc.gov/readingrm.html.
Persons who do not have access to
ADAMS or who encounter problems in
accessing the documents located in
ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR
Reference staff by telephone at 1–800–
397–4209, or 301–415–4737 or by e-mail
to pdr@nrc.gov.
27, DPR–42, and DPR–60, issued to
Nuclear Management Company, LLC
(NMC, the licensee), for operation of the
Point Beach Nuclear Plant (PBNP),
Units 1 and 2, located in Manitowoc
County, Wisconsin, and the Prairie
Island Nuclear Generating Plant
(PINGP), Units 1 and 2, located in
Goodhue County, Minnesota. Therefore,
as required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC
is issuing this environmental
assessment and finding of no significant
impact.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day
of May 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Bhalchandra Vaidya,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch IV,
Division of Operating Reactor Licensing,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E6–7573 Filed 5–17–06; 8:45 am]
Section 50.71(e)(4) requires licensees
to submit updates to their FSARs
annually or within 6 months after each
refueling outage provided that the
interval between successive updates
does not exceed 24 months. Since the
units for each site share a common
FSAR, the licensee must update the
same document annually or within 6
months after a refueling outage for each
unit. The underlying purpose of the rule
was to relieve licensees of the burden of
filing annual FSAR revisions while
ensuring that such revisions are made at
least every 24 months. The NRC
reduced the burden, in part, by
permitting a licensee to submit its FSAR
revisions 6 months after refueling
outages for its facility, but it did not
provide in the rule for multiple-unit
facilities sharing a common FSAR.
Rather, the NRC stated, ‘‘[w]ith respect
to the concern about multiple facilities
sharing a common FSAR, licensees will
have maximum flexibility for
scheduling updates on a case-by-case
basis’’ (57 FR 39355). Allowing the
exemptions would keep the updated
FSARs current within 24 months of the
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50–266, 50–301, 50–282, and
50–306]
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
Nuclear Management Company, LLC;
Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and
2; Prairie Island Nuclear Generating
Plant, Units 1 and 2; Environmental
Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is considering
issuance of exemptions from Title 10 of
the Code of Federal Regulations (10
CFR), section 50.71(e)(4), for Facility
Operating License Nos. DPR–24, DPR–
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:06 May 17, 2006
Jkt 208001
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed actions would exempt
the licensee from the requirements of 10
CFR 50.71(e)(4) regarding submission of
revisions to the updated Final Safety
Analysis Report (FSAR). The updated
FSAR at PINGP is called the Updated
Safety Analysis Report (USAR). Under
the proposed exemptions, the licensee
would submit updates to the updated
FSARs once per fuel cycle, within 6
months following completion of each
PBNP, Unit 1, refueling outage and
within 6 months of each PINGP, Unit 2,
refueling outage, respectively, not to
exceed 24 months from the last
submittal for either site. PBNP and
PINGP are two-unit sites, each site
sharing a common updated FSAR.
The proposed actions are in
accordance with the licensee’s
application dated October 12, 2005.
The Need for the Proposed Action
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
28889
last revision, while reducing the burden
on the licensee.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed
Action
The NRC has completed its evaluation
of the proposed actions and concludes
that they involve administrative
activities unrelated to plant operation,
and therefore there would be no
significant environmental impacts
associated with the proposed actions.
The proposed actions will not
significantly increase the probability or
consequences of accidents. No changes
are being made in the types of effluents
that may be released off site.
There is no significant increase in the
amount of any effluent released off site.
There is no significant increase in
occupational or public radiation
exposure. Therefore, there are no
significant radiological environmental
impacts associated with the proposed
actions.
With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed
actions do not have a potential to affect
any historic sites. They do not affect
non-radiological plant effluents and
have no other environmental impact.
Therefore, there are no significant nonradiological environmental impacts
associated with the proposed actions.
Accordingly, the NRC concludes that
there are no significant environmental
impacts associated with the proposed
actions.
Environmental Impacts of the
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed
actions, the NRC staff considered denial
of the proposed actions (i.e., the ‘‘noaction’’ alternative). Denial of the
application would result in no change
in current environmental impacts. The
environmental impacts of the proposed
actions and the alternative action are
similar.
Alternative Use of Resources
The proposed actions do not involve
the use of any different resources than
those previously considered in the Final
Environmental Statement for PBNP,
dated May 1972; in NUREG–1437,
Supplement 23, ‘‘Generic
Environmental Impact Statement for
License Renewal of Nuclear Plants
[regarding PBNP],’’ dated August 2005;
and in the Final Environmental
Statement for PINGP, dated May 1973.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy,
the staff consulted with the Wisconsin
State official, Mr. J. Kitsembel of the
Public Service Commission, on April
E:\FR\FM\18MYN1.SGM
18MYN1
28890
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 96 / Thursday, May 18, 2006 / Notices
24, 2006, and with the Minnesota State
official, Ms. D. Pile of the Commerce
Department, on April 26, 2006,
regarding the environmental impact of
the proposed actions. The State officials
had no comments.
Finding of No Significant Impact
On the basis of the environmental
assessment, the NRC concludes that the
proposed actions will not have a
significant effect on the quality of the
human environment. Accordingly, the
NRC has determined not to prepare an
environmental impact statement for the
proposed actions.
For further details with respect to the
proposed actions, see the licensee’s
letter dated October 12, 2005.
Documents may be examined, and/or
copied for a fee, at the NRC’s Public
Document Room (PDR), located at One
White Flint North, Public File Area O1
F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),
Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available
records will be accessible electronically
from the Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading
Room on the Internet at the NRC Web
site, https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.html. Persons who do not have
access to ADAMS or who encounter
problems in accessing the documents
located in ADAMS should contact the
NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone
at 1–800–397–4209 or 301–415–4737, or
send an e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day
of May 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Carl F. Lyon,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch III–
1, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E6–7572 Filed 5–17–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
[Investment Company Act Release No.
27317; 812–13156]
Van Kampen Asset Management, et al.;
Notice of Application
May 12, 2006.
Securities and Exchange
Commission (‘‘Commission’’).
ACTION: Notice of application for an
order under sections 6(c) and 23(c)(3) of
the Investment Company Act of 1940
(the ‘‘Act’’) for an exemption from rule
23c–3 under the Act.
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
Van Kampen Asset
Management (the ‘‘VK Adviser’’), Van
APPLICANTS:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:14 May 17, 2006
Jkt 208001
Kampen Funds Inc. (the ‘‘VK
Distributor’’), Van Kampen Senior Loan
Fund (formerly known as Van Kampen
Prime Rate Income Trust) (the ‘‘VK
Trust’’), Morgan Stanley Investment
Advisors Inc. (the ‘‘MS Adviser’’),
Morgan Stanley Distributors Inc. (the
‘‘MS Distributor’’) and Morgan Stanley
Prime Income Trust (the ‘‘MS Trust’’,
and, together with the VK Trust, the
‘‘Trusts’’).
SUMMARY OF APPLICATION: Applicants
request an order under sections 6(c) and
23(c)(3) of the Act for an exemption
from certain provisions of rule 23c–3 to
permit certain registered closed-end
investment companies to make
repurchase offers on a monthly basis.
FILING DATES: The application was filed
on January 25, 2005 and amended on
December 29, 2005 and May 5, 2006.
HEARING OR NOTIFICATION OF HEARING: An
order granting the application will be
issued unless the Commission orders a
hearing. Interested persons may request
a hearing by writing to the
Commission’s Secretary and serving
applicants with a copy of the request,
personally or by mail. Hearing requests
should be received by the Commission
by 5:30 p.m. on June 6, 2006, and
should be accompanied by proof of
service on the 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
Commission’s Secretary.
ADDRESSES: Secretary, U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549–
1090; Applicants, c/o Charles B. Taylor,
Esq., Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher &
Flom LLP, 333 West Wacker Drive,
Chicago, Illinois 60606.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Shannon Conaty, Senior Counsel, at
(202) 551–6827, or Janet M. Grossnickle,
Branch Chief, at (202) 551–6821
(Division of Investment Management,
Office of Investment Company
Regulation).
The
following is a summary of the
application. The complete application
may be obtained for a fee at the
Commission’s Public Reference Branch,
100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC
20549–0102 (tel. (202) 551–8090).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Applicants’ Representations
1. Each of the Trusts is a closed-end
management investment company
registered under the Act and organized
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
as a Massachusetts business trust. The
VK Adviser and the MS Adviser, both
investment advisers registered under the
Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the
‘‘Advisers Act’’), serve as investment
adviser to the VK Trust and the MS
Trust, respectively. The VK Distributor,
a broker-dealer registered under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
‘‘Exchange Act’’), distributes the VK
Trust’s shares and serves as the VK
Trust’s administrator. The MS
Distributor, a broker-dealer registered
under the Exchange Act, distributes the
MS Trust’s shares. The VK Adviser, the
VK Distributor, the MS Adviser and the
MS Distributor are all direct or indirect
wholly-owned subsidiaries of Morgan
Stanley. Applicants request that any
relief granted also apply to any
registered closed-end management
investment company that operates as an
interval fund pursuant to rule 23c–3 for
which the VK Adviser, the VK
Distributor, the MS Adviser, the MS
Distributor or any entity controlling,
controlled by or under common control
(within the meaning of section 2(a)(9) of
the Act) with the VK Adviser, the VK
Distributor, the MS Adviser or the MS
Distributor acts as investment adviser,
principal underwriter or administrator
(collectively, the ‘‘Other Trusts’’).1
2. The VK Trust’s investment
objective is to provide a high level of
current income, consistent with the
preservation of capital. The VK Trust
invests primarily in adjustable rate
senior loans made to corporations and
other borrowers. Under normal market
conditions, the VK Trust invests at least
80% of its net assets (plus any
borrowings for investment purposes) in
adjustable rate senior loans. The VK
Trust may also invest up to 20% of its
total assets in senior loans that are not
secured by any specific collateral, senior
loans made to borrowers located outside
the U.S. (provided no more than 5% of
these loans or other assets are non-U.S.
dollar denominated), and in any
combination of warrants and equity
securities incidental to investment in
senior loans, junior debt securities, high
quality short-term debt securities,
credit-linked deposits and Treasury
Inflation Protected Securities (or other
inflation-indexed bonds issued by the
U.S. government, its agencies or
instrumentalities).
3. The MS Trust’s investment
objective is to provide a high level of
current income, consistent with the
preservation of capital. The MS Trust
1 All entities currently intending to rely on the
requested relief have been named as applicants.
Any entity that relies on the requested order in the
future will do so only in accordance with the terms
and conditions of the application.
E:\FR\FM\18MYN1.SGM
18MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 96 (Thursday, May 18, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28889-28890]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-7572]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-266, 50-301, 50-282, and 50-306]
Nuclear Management Company, LLC; Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units
1 and 2; Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2;
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering
issuance of exemptions from Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(10 CFR), section 50.71(e)(4), for Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-
24, DPR-27, DPR-42, and DPR-60, issued to Nuclear Management Company,
LLC (NMC, the licensee), for operation of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant
(PBNP), Units 1 and 2, located in Manitowoc County, Wisconsin, and the
Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant (PINGP), Units 1 and 2, located
in Goodhue County, Minnesota. Therefore, as required by 10 CFR 51.21,
the NRC is issuing this environmental assessment and finding of no
significant impact.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed actions would exempt the licensee from the
requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(4) regarding submission of revisions to
the updated Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). The updated FSAR at
PINGP is called the Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR). Under the
proposed exemptions, the licensee would submit updates to the updated
FSARs once per fuel cycle, within 6 months following completion of each
PBNP, Unit 1, refueling outage and within 6 months of each PINGP, Unit
2, refueling outage, respectively, not to exceed 24 months from the
last submittal for either site. PBNP and PINGP are two-unit sites, each
site sharing a common updated FSAR.
The proposed actions are in accordance with the licensee's
application dated October 12, 2005.
The Need for the Proposed Action
Section 50.71(e)(4) requires licensees to submit updates to their
FSARs annually or within 6 months after each refueling outage provided
that the interval between successive updates does not exceed 24 months.
Since the units for each site share a common FSAR, the licensee must
update the same document annually or within 6 months after a refueling
outage for each unit. The underlying purpose of the rule was to relieve
licensees of the burden of filing annual FSAR revisions while ensuring
that such revisions are made at least every 24 months. The NRC reduced
the burden, in part, by permitting a licensee to submit its FSAR
revisions 6 months after refueling outages for its facility, but it did
not provide in the rule for multiple-unit facilities sharing a common
FSAR. Rather, the NRC stated, ``[w]ith respect to the concern about
multiple facilities sharing a common FSAR, licensees will have maximum
flexibility for scheduling updates on a case-by-case basis'' (57 FR
39355). Allowing the exemptions would keep the updated FSARs current
within 24 months of the last revision, while reducing the burden on the
licensee.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The NRC has completed its evaluation of the proposed actions and
concludes that they involve administrative activities unrelated to
plant operation, and therefore there would be no significant
environmental impacts associated with the proposed actions.
The proposed actions will not significantly increase the
probability or consequences of accidents. No changes are being made in
the types of effluents that may be released off site.
There is no significant increase in the amount of any effluent
released off site. There is no significant increase in occupational or
public radiation exposure. Therefore, there are no significant
radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed
actions.
With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed
actions do not have a potential to affect any historic sites. They do
not affect non-radiological plant effluents and have no other
environmental impact. Therefore, there are no significant non-
radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed
actions.
Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant
environmental impacts associated with the proposed actions.
Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed actions, the NRC staff considered
denial of the proposed actions (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative).
Denial of the application would result in no change in current
environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed
actions and the alternative action are similar.
Alternative Use of Resources
The proposed actions do not involve the use of any different
resources than those previously considered in the Final Environmental
Statement for PBNP, dated May 1972; in NUREG-1437, Supplement 23,
``Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear
Plants [regarding PBNP],'' dated August 2005; and in the Final
Environmental Statement for PINGP, dated May 1973.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, the staff consulted with the
Wisconsin State official, Mr. J. Kitsembel of the Public Service
Commission, on April
[[Page 28890]]
24, 2006, and with the Minnesota State official, Ms. D. Pile of the
Commerce Department, on April 26, 2006, regarding the environmental
impact of the proposed actions. The State officials had no comments.
Finding of No Significant Impact
On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes
that the proposed actions will not have a significant effect on the
quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined
not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed
actions.
For further details with respect to the proposed actions, see the
licensee's letter dated October 12, 2005. Documents may be examined,
and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR),
located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available
records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on
the Internet at the NRC Web site, https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.html. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter
problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the
NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737,
or send an e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day of May 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Carl F. Lyon,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch III-1, Division of Operating
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E6-7572 Filed 5-17-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
