Notices. Issuance of environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact

4,107 words·~19 min read·/register/2006/06/05/06-5128·

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 50-277 and 50-278, License Nos. DPR-44 and DPR-56; Docket No. 50-354, License No. NPF-57; Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311, License Nos. DPR-70 and DPR-75] In the Matter of PSEG Nuclear LLC; Exelon Generation Company, LLC; (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit Nos. 2 and 3); (Hope Creek Generating Station); (Salem Nuclear Generating Station Unit Nos. 1 and 2); Order Approving Transfers of Licenses and Conforming Amendments I PSEG Nuclear LLC (PSEG Nuclear) owns Hope Creek Generating Station (Hope Creek), a 57.41-percent interest in Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (Salem), and a 50-percent interest in Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit Nos. 2 and 3 (Peach Bottom).

Exelon Generation Company, LLC

(EGC)owns the remaining interests in Salem and Peach Bottom. PSEG Nuclear holds the Facility Operating License, No. NPF-57, for Hope Creek, co-holds the Facility Operating Licenses, Nos. DPR-70 and DPR-75, for Salem, and co-holds the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses, Nos. DPR-44 and DPR-56, for Peach Bottom, and is authorized to possess, use, and, except for Peach Bottom, operate the facilities in accordance with the terms and conditions of the licenses. EGC is the other co-holder of the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses for Peach Bottom, and is authorized to possess, use and operate Peach Bottom, and is the other co-holder of the Facility Operating Licenses for Salem, and is authorized to possess Salem. Hope Creek and Salem are located in Salem County, New Jersey, and Peach Bottom is located in York and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania. II By letter dated March 3, 2005, as supplemented by letters dated May 24 and October 5, 2005, EGC submitted an application requesting approval of direct license transfers that would be necessary in connection with the transfer of the ownership interests held by PSEG Nuclear in Peach Bottom to EGC. By letter dated March 4, 2005, as supplemented by letters dated May 24 and October 6, 2005, PSEG Nuclear submitted an application requesting approval of direct license transfers that would be necessary in connection with the transfer to EGC of the ownership interests held by PSEG Nuclear in Hope Creek and Salem, and the transfer of operating authority from PSEG Nuclear to EGC. All of the foregoing requests for approval are associated with the proposed merger of Public Service Enterprise Group (the ultimate parent company of PSEG Nuclear) into Exelon Corporation (the ultimate parent company of EGC). Upon completion of the merger, Exelon Corporation will change its name to Exelon Electric & Gas Corporation (EEG). EEG will then restructure its organization. EGC and PSEG Nuclear also requested NRC's approval of conforming administrative license amendments that, in general, would reflect the transfers of the licenses, to the extent held by PSEG Nuclear, to EGC. No physical changes to the facilities or operational changes were proposed in the applications. After completion of the proposed license transfers, EGC would be the sole owner and operator of the facilities. EGC and PSEG Nuclear requested approval of the transfers of the facility operating licenses and conforming license amendments pursuant to Sections 50.80 and 50.90 of Title 10 of the *Code of Federal Regulations* (10 CFR). Notices of the requests for approval and an opportunity for a hearing were published in the **Federal Register** on August 2, 2005 (70 FR 44389, 70 FR 44397, and 70 FR 44398). One petition for leave to intervene pursuant to 10 CFR 2.309 was received on August 21, 2005, from Mr. Eric Joseph Epstein. By Memorandum and Order CLI-05-26, dated October 26, 2005, the Commission rejected Mr. Epstein's claim of standing and consequently dismissed the proceeding. The Commission directed the NRC staff to consider Mr. Epstein's contentions and supplemental filing dated October 7, 2005, as if they were “written comments” under 10 CFR 2.1305. The written comments have been considered by the NRC staff in connection with the issuance of this Order. Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80, no license, or any right thereunder, shall be transferred, directly or indirectly, through transfer of control of the license, unless the Commission shall give its consent in writing. Upon review of the information in the applications and other information before the Commission, and relying upon the representations and agreements contained in the applications, the NRC staff has determined that EGC is qualified to hold the licenses for Hope Creek, Salem, and Peach Bottom as proposed in the applications, and that the transfers of the licenses as proposed in the applications are otherwise consistent with applicable provisions of law, regulations, and orders issued by the Commission, subject to the conditions set forth below. The NRC staff has further found that the applications for the proposed license amendments comply with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations set forth in 10 CFR chapter I; the facilities will operate in conformity with the applications, the provisions of the Act and the rules and regulations of the Commission; there is reasonable assurance that the activities authorized by the proposed license amendments can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public and that such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations; the issuance of the proposed license amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public; and the issuance of the proposed amendments will be in accordance with 10 CFR part 51 of the Commission's regulations and all applicable requirements have been satisfied. The findings set forth above are supported by an NRC safety evaluation dated May 30, 2006. III Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 161b, 161i, and 184 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2201(b), 2201(i), and 2234; and 10 CFR 50.80, *it is hereby ordered* that the direct transfers of the licenses as described herein are approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. At the time of the closing of the transfers of the licenses from PSEG Nuclear to EGC, PSEG Nuclear shall transfer to EGC all of PSEG Nuclear's respective decommissioning funds accumulated as of such time, and EGC shall deposit such funds in external decommissioning trust(s) established by EGC for the respective units. 2. Before completion of the transfers of the interests in the subject facilities to it, EGC shall provide to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation satisfactory documentary evidence that EGC has obtained the appropriate amount of insurance required of licensees under 10 CFR part 140, “Financial Protection Requirements and Indemnity Agreements,” of the Commission's regulations. *It is further ordered* that, consistent with 10 CFR 2.1315(b), license amendments that make changes, as indicated in Enclosures 2 through 6 to the cover letter forwarding this Order, to conform the licenses to reflect the subject direct license transfers are approved. The amendments shall be issued and made effective at the time the proposed direct license transfers are completed. *It is further ordered* that EGC shall inform the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation in writing of the date(s) of closing of the direct transfers no later than 5 business days prior to closing. Should the transfers of the licenses not be completed by May 30, 2007, this Order shall become null and void, provided, however, that upon written application and for good cause shown, such date may be extended by Order. This Order is effective upon issuance. For further details with respect to this Order, see the initial applications dated March 3 and March 4, 2005, and supplemental letters dated May 24 (two), October 5, and October 6, 2005, and the non-proprietary safety evaluation dated May 30, 2006, which are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland and accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, *http://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, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 30th day of May 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. J.E. Dyer, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E6-8649 Filed 6-2-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 50-263] Nuclear Management Company, LLC; Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC)is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR-22, issued to the Nuclear Management Company (the licensee) for operation of the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (MNGP), located in Wright County, Minnesota. Pursuant to Title 10 of the *Code of Federal Regulations* (10 CFR) Sections 51.21 and 51.32, the NRC is issuing this environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact. Environmental Assessment Identification of the Proposed Action The proposed action would be a conversion from the current Technical Specifications

(CTSs)to the Improved Technical Specifications

(ITSs)format based on NUREG-1433, “Standard Technical Specifications General Electric Plants BWR/4,” Revision 3, dated June 2004. The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application dated June 29, 2005, as supplemented by letters dated April 25 (two letters), May 4, and May 12, 2006. The Need for the Proposed Action The Commission's “Proposed Policy Statement on Technical Specifications Improvements for Nuclear Power Reactors” (52 FR 3788), dated February 6, 1987, contained an Interim Policy Statement that set forth objective criteria for determining which regulatory requirements and operating restrictions should be included in the technical specifications

(TSs)for nuclear power plants. When it issued the Interim Policy Statement, the Commission also requested comments on it. Subsequently, to implement the Interim Policy Statement, each reactor vendor owners group and the NRC staff began developing standard TSs

(STSs)for reactors supplied by each vendor. The Commission then published its “Final Policy Statement on Technical Specifications Improvements for Nuclear Power Reactors” (58 FR 39132), dated July 22, 1993, in which it addressed comments received on the Interim Policy Statement, and incorporated experience in developing the STSs. The Final Policy Statement formed the basis for a revision to 10 CFR 50.36 (60 FR 36953), dated July 19, 1995, that codified the criteria for determining the content of TSs. The NRC Committee to Review Generic Requirements reviewed the STSs, made note of their safety merits, and indicated its support of conversion by operating plants to the STSs. For MNGP, NUREG-1433 documents the STSs and forms the basis for the MNGP conversion to the ITSs. The proposed changes to the CTSs are based on NUREG-1433 and the guidance provided in the Final Policy Statement. The objective of this action is to rewrite, reformat, and streamline the CTSs ( *i.e.* , to convert the CTSs to the ITSs). Emphasis was placed on human factors principles to improve clarity and understanding. Some specifications in the CTSs would be relocated. Such relocated specifications would include those requirements which do not meet the 10 CFR 50.36 selection criteria. These requirements may be relocated to the TS Bases document, the MNGP Updated Safety Analysis Report, the Core Operating Limits Report, the operational quality assurance plan, plant procedures, or other licensee-controlled documents. Relocating requirements to licensee-controlled documents does not eliminate them, but rather places them under more appropriate regulatory controls ( *i.e.* , 10 CFR 50.54(a)(3), and 10 CFR 50.59) to manage their implementation and future changes. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The NRC staff has completed its evaluation of the proposed action and concludes that the conversion to ITSs would not increase the probability or consequences of accidents previously analyzed and would not affect facility radiation levels or facility radiological effluents.The proposed action will not 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 action. With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed action does not have a potential to affect any historic sites because no previously undisturbed area will be affected by the proposed amendment. The proposed action does not affect non-radiological plant effluents and has no other effect on the environment. Therefore, there are no significant non-radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. Accordingly, the NRC staff concludes that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action and, thus, the proposed action will not have any significant impact to the human environment. Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action As an alternative to the proposed action, the NRC staff considered denial of the proposed action ( *i.e.* , the “no-action” alternative). Denial of the application would result in no change in current environmental impacts. Thus, the environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alternative action are similar. Alternative Use of Resources The action does not involve the use of any different resources than those previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for MNGP dated November 1974. Agencies and Persons Consulted On April 18, 2006, the NRC staff consulted with Mr. Steve Rakow of the Minnesota Department of Commerce regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official agreed with the conclusions of the NRC. Finding of No Significant Impact On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes that the proposed action 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 action. For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the licensee's letter dated June 29, 2005, as supplemented by letters dated April 25 (two letters), May 4, and May 12, 2006, and the information provided to the NRC staff through the joint NRC-Monticello Nuclear Power Plant ITS Conversion Web page. 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 01F21, 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, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/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 by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day of May 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Terry A. Beltz, Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch III-1, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E6-8651 Filed 6-2-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 72-31] Yankee Atomic Electric Company; Yankee Atomic Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation; Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Issuance of environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stewart W. Brown, Senior Project Manager, Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Telephone:

(301)415-8531; Fax number:

(301)415-8555; E-mail: *swb1@nrc.gov.* I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC)is considering issuance of exemptions to Yankee Atomic Electric Company (the licensee), pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 72.7, from specific provisions of 10 CFR 72.212(a)(2), 72.212(b)(2)(i), 72.212(b)(7), and 72.214. The licensee is storing spent nuclear fuel under the general licensing provisions of 10 CFR part 72 in the NAC-MPC System at an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) located at the Yankee Atomic Electric Station in Rowe, Massachusetts. The requested exemptions would allow the licensee to deviate from requirements of the NAC-MPC Certificate of Compliance

(CoC)No. 1025, Amendment 3, Appendix A, Technical Specifications for the NAC-MPC System, Section A 5.1, Training Program, and Section A 5.4, Radioactive Effluent Control Program. Specifically, the exemptions would relieve the licensee from the requirements to:

(1)Develop training modules under its systems approach to training

(SAT)program that include comprehensive instructions for the operation and maintenance of the ISFSI, except for the NAC-MPC System; and

(2)submit an annual report “pursuant to 10 CFR 72.44(d)(3) or 10 CFR 50.36(a).” II. Environmental Assessment

(EA)*Identification of Proposed Action:* The proposed action is to exempt the licensee from regulatory requirements to develop certain training and submit an annual report. By letter dated January 9, 2006, the licensee requested exemptions from certain regulatory requirements of 10 CFR 72.212(a)(2), 72.212(b)(2)(i), 72.212(b)(7), and 72.214, which require a general licensee to store spent fuel in an NRC-certified spent fuel storage cask under the terms and conditions set forth in the CoC. The proposed exemptions would allow the licensee to deviate from the requirements in CoC No. 1025, Amendment 3, Appendix A, Technical Specifications for the NAC-MPC System, Section A 5.1, Training Program, and Section A 5.4, Radioactive Effluent Control Program. CoC No. 1025, Amendment 3, Appendix A, Technical Specifications for the NAC-MPC System, Section A 5.1, Training Program, requires that a training program for the NAC-MPC System be developed under the general licensee's SAT program. Further, the training modules must include comprehensive instructions for the operation and maintenance of both the NAC-MPC System and the ISFSI. In addition, CoC No. 1025, Amendment 3, Appendix A, Technical Specifications for the NAC-MPC System, Section A 5.4, Radioactive Effluent Control Program, Item c. requires an annual report to be submitted “pursuant to 10 CFR 72.44(d)(3) or 10 CFR 50.36(a).” By exempting the licensee from the requirements of 10 CFR 72.212(a), 72.212(b)(2)(i), 72.212(b)(7), and 72.214 for this request, the licensee will not be required to either develop training modules that include comprehensive instructions for the operation and maintenance of the ISFSI or submit an annual report “pursuant to 10 CFR 72.44(d)(3) or 10 CFR 50.36(a).” The proposed action before the NRC is whether to grant these exemptions under the provisions of 10 CFR 72.7. *Need for the Proposed Action:* The requirements of CoC No. 1025, Amendment 3, Appendix A, Technical Specifications for the NAC-MPC System, Section A 5.1, Training Program, and Section A 5.4, Radioactive Effluent Control Program impose regulatory obligations, with associated costs, that do not provide a commensurate increase in safety. Granting the requested exemptions will allow the licensee not to have to:

(1)Develop training modules under the SAT program that include comprehensive instructions for the operation and maintenance of the ISFSI, except for the NAC-MPC System; and

(2)submit an annual report “pursuant to 10 CFR 72.44(d)(3) or 10 CFR 50.36(a).” Thus, the licensee will not incur the costs associated with these activities. *Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action:* The NRC has reviewed the exemption requests submitted by the licensee and determined that not requiring the licensee to:

(1)Develop training modules under its SAT program that include comprehensive instructions for the operation and maintenance of the ISFSI, except for the NAC-MPC System; and

(2)submit an annual report “pursuant to 10 CFR 72.44(d)(3) or 10 CFR 50.36(a)” are administrative changes, and would have no significant impacts to the environment. Further, NRC has evaluated the impact to public safety that would result from granting the requested exemptions. NRC determined that requiring the licensee to develop training modules under its SAT program for the operation and maintenance of ISFSI structures, systems, and components considered not-important-to-safety would not provide a commensurate increase in public safety associated with the costs. Therefore, allowing the licensee to develop these modules separately from its SAT program does not impact public safety. Also, NRC has determined that not requiring the licensee to submit an annual report specifying principal radionuclides released to the environment in liquid and in gaseous effluents does not impact public safety because the NAC-MPC System is a sealed and leak-tight spent fuel storage system. Thus, there should be no releases to the environment of either liquid or gaseous effluents from normal operation of the NAC-MPC System. The proposed action would not increase the probability or consequences of accidents, no changes would be made to the types of effluents that may be released offsite, and there would be no increase in occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. Additionally the proposed action would have no significant non-radiological impacts. *Alternative to the Proposed Action:* The alternative to the proposed action would be to deny approval of these exemptions. Denial of these exemption requests would have the same environmental impact as the proposed action. *Agencies and Persons Consulted:* The NRC prepared this EA. No other sources were used. Further, The NRC has determined that a consultation under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act is not required because the proposed action will not affect listed species or critical habitats. The NRC has also determined that the proposed action is not a type of activity having the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Therefore, no consultation is required under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Also, a draft copy of this EA was provided to the Massachusetts Radiation Control Program for review. The Massachusetts Radiation Control Program had no comments. *Conclusions:* The NRC has concluded that the proposed action of granting these exemptions and not requiring the licensee to develop certain training or submit an annual report will not significantly impact the quality of the human environment and does not warrant the preparation of an environmental impact statement. Accordingly, it has been determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate. III. 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 NRC finds that the proposed action of granting exemptions from the specific provisions of 10 CFR 72.212(a), 72.212(b)(2)(i), 72.212(b)(7), and 72.214 and not requiring the licensee to:

(1)Develop training modules under its SAT program that include comprehensive instructions for the operation and maintenance of the ISFSI, except for the NAC-MPC System; and

(2)submit an annual report “pursuant to 10 CFR 72.44(d)(3) or 10 CFR 50.36(a),” will not significantly impact the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined that an environmental impact statement for these proposed exemptions is not warranted. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of NRC's “Rules of Practice,” final NRC records and documents regarding this proposed action, including the request for exemptions dated January 9, 2006, are publically available in the records component of NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). These documents may be inspected at NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), O1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. 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.* Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day of May, 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Stewart W. Brown, Sr. Project Manager, Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. [FR Doc. E6-8650 Filed 6-2-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [File No. 500-1] In the Matter of Universal Medical Systems, Inc.; Order of Suspension of Trading June 1, 2006. It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Universal Medical Systems, Inc. (n/k/a Moray Way Holdings, Inc.) because it has not filed any periodic reports since it filed a Form 10-SB registration statement on April 24, 1997. The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above-listed company. *Therefore, it is ordered,* pursuant to section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the above-listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on June 1, 2006, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on June 14, 2006. By the Commission. Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. 06-5128 Filed 6-1-06; 11:37 am]

Connectionstraces to 12

Traces to 12 documents

CFR