14996 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2011 / Notices 

Governor’s and the state Workforce 

Investment Board’s involvement in 

drafting, reviewing and commenting. 

Work-Flex Quarterly Report: 

Instructions 

Report for each waiver granted: 

1. Waiver (assigned by State) 

2. Date received 

3. Date granted 

4. Local Area(s) requesting waiver 

5. Purpose (brief statement) 

6. Regulation/statute affected. 

7. State-imposed conditions of waiver 

use, as appropriate. 

II. Review Focus 

The Department of Labor is 

particularly interested in comments 

which: 

• Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; 

• Evaluate the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; 

• Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

• Minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including through the 

use of appropriate automated, 

electronic, mechanical, or other 

technological collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology, 

e.g., permitting electronic submissions 

of responses. 

III. Current Actions 

Type of Review: Extension with minor 

revisions. 

Title: Work-Flex Plan Submission and 

Reporting Requirements. 

OMB Number: 1205–0432. 

Affected Public: State and local 

governments. 

Form: See above instructions. There is 

no form. 

Total Estimated Annual Respondents: 

5. 

Estimates Annual Frequency: 5 state 

plans annually; 20 quarterly reports. 

Average Time per Response: 38.4 

hours. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 960. 

Comments submitted in response to 

this comment request will be 

summarized and/or included in the 

request for Office of Management and 

Budget approval of the information 

collection request; they will also 

become a matter of public record. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 14th day of 

March 2011. 

Jane Oates, 

Assistant Secretary, Employment and 

Training Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–6427 Filed 3–17–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

Request for Certification of 

Compliance—Rural Industrialization 

Loan and Grant Program 

AGENCY: Employment and Training 

Administration, Labor. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Employment and 

Training Administration is issuing this 

notice to announce the receipt of a 

‘‘Certification of Non-Relocation and 

Market and Capacity Information 

Report’’ (Form 4279–2) for the following: 

Applicant/Location: SoloPower, Inc., 

Wilsonville, Oregon. 

Principal Product/Purpose: The loan, 

guarantee, or grant application is to 

expand operations and increase 

production capacity by opening a new 

facility in Wilsonville, Oregon. The 

NAICS industry code for this enterprise 

is: 334413 (Solar cells manufacturing). 

DATES: All interested parties may submit 

comments in writing no later than April 

1, 2011. 

Copies of adverse comments received 

will be forwarded to the applicant noted 

above. 

ADDRESSES: Address all comments 

concerning this notice to Anthony D. 

Dais, U.S. Department of Labor, 

Employment and Training 

Administration, 200 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Room S–4231, 

Washington, DC 20210; or e-mail 

Dais.Anthony@dol.gov; or transmit via 

fax (202) 693–3015 (this is not a toll-free 

number). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Anthony D. Dais, at telephone number 

(202) 693–2784 (this is not a toll-free 

number). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

188 of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 

Development Act of 1972, as established 

under 29 CFR Part 75, authorizes the 

United States Department of Agriculture 

to make or guarantee loans or grants to 

finance industrial and business 

activities in rural areas. The Secretary of 

Labor must review the application for 

financial assistance for the purpose of 

certifying to the Secretary of Agriculture 

that the assistance is not calculated, or 

likely, to result in: (a) A transfer of any 

employment or business activity from 

one area to another by the loan 

applicant’s business operation; or, (b) 

An increase in the production of goods, 

materials, services, or facilities in an 

area where there is not sufficient 

demand to employ the efficient capacity 

of existing competitive enterprises 

unless the financial assistance will not 

have an adverse impact on existing 

competitive enterprises in the area. The 

Employment and Training 

Administration within the Department 

of Labor is responsible for the review 

and certification process. Comments 

should address the two bases for 

certification and, if possible, provide 

data to assist in the analysis of these 

issues. 

Signed: At Washington, DC, this 14th day 

of March 2011. 

Jane Oates, 

Assistant Secretary for Employment and 

Training. 

[FR Doc. 2011–6402 Filed 3–17–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

Advisory Committee for Mathematical 

and Physical Sciences; Notice of 

Meeting 

In accordance with Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463, as 

amended), the National Science 

Foundation announces the following 

meeting: 

Name: Mathematical and Physical Sciences 

Advisory Committee (#66). 

Date/Time: April 7, 2010 8 a.m.–6 p.m., 

April 8, 2010 8 a.m.–3 p.m. 

Place: National Science Foundation, Room 

1235, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington. 

Type of Meeting: Open. 

Contact Person: Dr. Morris L. Aizenman, 

Senior Science Associate, Directorate for 

Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Room 

1005, National Science Foundation, 4201 

Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. 

(703) 292–8807. 

Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and 

recommendations concerning NSF science 

and education activities within the 

Directorate for Mathematical and Physical 

Sciences. 

Agenda: 

Update on current status of Directorate 

Report of MPS Committee of Visitors 

Report of NSF Advisory Working Groups 

Meeting of MPSAC with Divisions within 

MPS Directorate 

Discussion of MPS Long-term Planning 

Activities 

Summary Minutes: May be obtained from 

the contact person listed above. 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2011 / Notices 14997 

Dated: March 15, 2011. 

Susanne E. Bolton, 

Committee Management Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2011–6397 Filed 3–17–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2011–0060; Docket No. 50–271; 

License No. DPR–28] 

In the Matter of Entergy Nuclear 

Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy 

Nuclear Operations, Inc.; Vermont 

Yankee Nuclear Power Station; 

Director’s Decision 

I. Introduction 

By letters dated January 12, 2010, 

from Mr. Michael Mulligan, February 8, 

2010, from Mr. Raymond Shadis, and 

February 20, 2010, from Mr. Thomas 

Saporito, these individuals (collectively 

‘‘Petitioners’’) filed separate petitions 

pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Section 

2.206, requesting the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC or the Commission) 

take actions with regard to the Vermont 

Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VY). 

Mr. Mulligan requested in his petition 

that: (1) The radioactive leak into the 

environment of VY be immediately 

stopped, VY be immediately shut down, 

and all leaking paths be isolated; and (2) 

VY disclose its preliminary ‘‘root cause 

analysis,’’ and the NRC release its 

preliminary investigative report on that 

analysis before plant startup. 

Mr. Shadis on behalf of New England 

Coalition (NEC) requested in his 

petition that the NRC: (1) Require VY to 

go into cold shutdown and depressurize 

all systems in order to slow or stop the 

leak; (2) act promptly to stop or mitigate 

the leak(s); (3) require VY to reestablish 

its licensing basis by physically tracing 

records and reporting physical details of 

all plant systems that would be within 

scope as ‘‘Buried Pipes and Tanks,’’ in 

NUREG–1801, ‘‘Generic Aging Lessons 

Learned (GALL) Report,’’ and under the 

requirements of 10 CFR 50.54, 

‘‘Conditions of licenses’’; (4) investigate 

and determine why Entergy has been 

allowed to operate VY since 2002 

without a working knowledge of all 

plant systems and why the NRC’s 

Reactor Oversight Process (ROP) and 

review process for license renewal 

amendment did not detect this 

dereliction; (5) take notice of VY’s many 

maintenance and management failures 

(from 2000–2010) and the ROP’s failure 

to detect them early and undertake a full 

diagnostic evaluation team inspection 

using NRC Inspection Procedure 95003, 

‘‘Supplemental Inspection for Repetitive 

Degraded Cornerstones, Multiple 

Degraded Cornerstones, Multiple 

Yellow Inputs or One Red Input’’; and 

(6) require VY to apply for an 

amendment to its license renewal 

application that would address both 

aging analysis and aging management of 

all buried piping carrying or with the 

potential to carry radionuclides and/or 

the potential to interact with any safety 

or safety-related system. 

Mr. Saporito requested in his petition 

that the NRC: (1) Order a cold shutdown 

mode of operation for VY because of 

leaking radioactive tritium; and (2) issue 

a confirmatory order modifying the 

NRC-issued license for VY so that the 

licensee must bring the nuclear reactor 

to a cold shutdown mode of operation 

until the licensee can provide definitive 

reasonable assurance to the NRC, under 

affirmation, that the reactor will be 

operated in full compliance with the 

regulations in 10 CFR Part 50, ‘‘Domestic 

Licensing of Production and Utilization 

Facilities,’’ and Appendix A, ‘‘General 

Design Criteria for Nuclear Power 

Plants,’’ to 10 CFR Part 50, Criterion 60, 

‘‘Control of Releases of Radioactive 

Materials to the Environment,’’ and 

Criterion 64, ‘‘Monitoring Radioactivity 

Releases,’’ and other NRC regulations 

and authority. 

Mr. Shadis stated during a public 

teleconference with the PRB on March 

3, 2010, that the tritium leak is just one 

example of many maintenance and 

management failures at VY. All three 

petitioners raised a concern regarding 

what they perceive as the NRC’s failure 

to examine the deficiencies at VY in an 

integrated manner. This concern has 

met the criteria for review in accordance 

with NRC’s Management Directive (MD) 

8.11 ‘‘Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 

Petitions.’’ 

In an acknowledgment letter dated 

June 25, 2010, the petitioners were 

informed of the PRB’s decision to deny 

the request for an immediate cold 

shutdown of VY because the PRB did 

not identify any urgent safety concerns. 

The NRC also informed the petitioners 

that their petitions were consolidated 

per the guidance in MD 8.11. The 

consolidated petition was accepted for 

review for the following specific issues 

and concerns stated by the petitioners in 

the petitions and/or supplemented 

during the teleconferences: 

(1) Increasing concentrations of 

radiocontaminants in the soil and 

groundwater at VY, as well as an 

increasing area of contamination, are 

manifest on a daily basis. VY risks 

aggravating the contamination by 

continuing to run the reactor at full 

power while attempting over a period of 

a month to triangulate the location of a 

presumed leak by drilling a series of test 

wells in the affected area. 

(2) During the license renewal 

application proceeding, the licensee 

averred that it was unaware of the 

existence of some buried pipes, now 

uncovered, and it has yet to discover 

their path and purpose. 

(3) Entergy has, in 8 years of 

ownership, failed to learn and 

understand VY’s design, layout, and 

construction. This failure to 

comprehend and understand the layout, 

function, and potentially the interaction 

of the plant’s own piping systems 

constitutes a loss of design basis. 

(4) The NRC’s ROP has apparently 

failed to capture, anticipate, and prevent 

ongoing maintenance, engineering, 

quality assurance, and operation issues 

that have manifested themselves in a 

series of high-profile incidents since 

Entergy took over VY. The agency has 

repeatedly failed to detect root cause 

trends until they have, as in this 

instance, become grossly self-revealing. 

(5) The NRC should ensure that 

Entergy has adequate decommissioning 

funds. The tritium leak will increase 

decommissioning costs because of the 

need for site radiological examination 

and soil remediation. 

Copies of the petitions are available 

for inspection at the Commission’s 

Public Document Room (PDR) at One 

White Flint North, Room O1–F21, 11555 

Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 

Maryland 20852, and from the NRC’s 

Agencywide Documents Access and 

Management System (ADAMS) Public 

Electronic Reading Room on the NRC 

Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html under ADAMS 

Accession Nos. ML100190688, 

ML100470430, and ML100621374. Refer 

to NRC’s Management Directive 8.11, 

‘‘Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 

Petitions,’’ (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML041770328), for a description of the 

petition review process. Persons who do 

not have access to ADAMS or who have 

problems in accessing the documents 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.resource@nrc.gov. 

II. Discussion 

On January 7, 2010, Entergy reported 

to the NRC that water samples taken 

from groundwater monitoring well GZ– 

3 onsite at VY showed tritium levels 

above background. GZ–3 is about 70 feet 

from the Connecticut River. Tritium is 

another name for the radioactive 

nuclide hydrogen-3. Tritium occurs 

naturally in the environment because of 

cosmic ray interactions. It is also 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES