Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2011 / Notices 17715 

The report characterized a variety of 

issues ranging from policy issues to 

communications improvement 

opportunities. The complete report may 

be found under ADAMS Accession No. 

ML101680435. The GTF determined 

that the NRC is accomplishing its stated 

mission of protecting public health, 

safety, and protection of the 

environment through its response to 

groundwater leaks/spills. Within the 

current regulatory structure, the NRC is 

correctly applying requirements and 

properly characterizing the relevant 

issues. However, the GTF reported that 

there are further observations, 

conclusions, and recommendations that 

the NRC should consider in its oversight 

of licensed material outside of its design 

confinement. 

The EDO appointed a group of NRC 

senior executives to review the report 

and consider its findings. Over the past 

several months, the group has been 

reviewing the GTF final report, 

including the conclusions, 

recommendations, and their bases. They 

identified conclusions and 

recommendations that do not involve 

policy issues, and tasked the NRC staff 

to address them. They have also 

identified policy issues, are developing 

options to address them, and will send 

a policy paper to the Commission 

discussing those options. 

The NRC held a public workshop on 

October 4, 2010, with external 

stakeholders to discuss the findings of 

the GTF report and to receive input on 

the potential policy issues. In addition, 

a request for public comment was 

published in the Federal Register (75 

FR 57987, September 23, 2010). These 

efforts help to ensure the NRC is 

considering the right issues on which to 

focus its attention as it moves forward. 

The transcript from this meeting is 

available on the NRC’s Web site at: 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/fact-sheets/buried-pipestritium.html. 

III. Conclusion 

Based on the information summarized 

above, the NRC staff concludes that the 

activities requested by the Petitioner 

have been completed, with the 

exception of preventing the restart of 

Vermont Yankee. Therefore, NRR 

concludes that the Petition has been 

granted in part and denied in part. 

Related documentation includes an NRC 

letter to Entergy on increased oversight 

dated April 8, 2010, ADAMS Accession 

No. ML100990458. 

As provided in 10 CFR 2.206(c), a 

copy of this Director’s Decision will be 

filed with the Secretary of the 

Commission for the Commission to 

review. As provided for by this 

regulation, the Decision will constitute 

the final action of the Commission 25 

days after the date of the Decision 

unless the Commission, on its own 

motion, institutes a review of the 

Decision within that time. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27 day 

of January 2011. 

For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Eric J. Leeds, 

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

ATTACHMENT TO THE FINAL 

DIRECTOR’S DECISION; DISCUSSION OF 

COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED 

DIRECTOR’S DECISION FROM THE 

LICENSEE, AND THE NRC STAFF 

RESPONSES 

By e-mail dated December 21, 2010, 

ADAMS Accession No. ML110050341, the 

licensee provided comments on the proposed 

Director’s Decision on the Petition filed by 

Congressman Paul Hodes pursuant to 10 CFR 

2.206, ‘‘Requests for action under this 

subpart.’’ The licensee’s comments and 

corresponding response from the NRC staff 

are provided below: 

Comment 1: 

Section II, ‘‘Discussion: 

a) GZ–3 is actually located approximately 

70 ft from the Connecticut River. Actual 

distance depends on river stage. 

b) The highest reading from any 

monitoring well has been 2.52 million pci/L 

(measured on 2/8/2010) from monitoring 

well GZ–10. 

c) On June 8th, Entergy reported a leak in 

the reactor building (June 8th was the date 

that RHR relief valve leakage was discovered. 

This required a 4-hour notification to the 

NRC). 

The NRC Staff Response: 

Revised the Director’s Decision to reflect 

the comments. 

Comment 2: 

A. The Tritiated Groundwater Remediation 

Process: 

a) Monitoring well GZ–15 was utilized for 

groundwater extraction from July 28, 2010, 

until September 2, 2010, and again from 

October 28, 2010, until November 8, 2010. 

b) As of December 21, 2010, Entergy has 

pumped 307,000 gallons of groundwater. 

c) About 298,000 gallons of water was 

shipped offsite for disposal and 9,000 gallons 

was returned to the station’s liquid 

radioactive waste system for in-plant use. 

d) Evaluation of continued extraction is ongoing. 

e) On March 23, 2010, Entergy installed an 

extraction well (GZ–EW1). (The well was 

installed on 3/23 and placed in service on 3/ 

24). 

The NRC Staff Response: 

Revised the Director’s Decision to reflect 

the comments. 

[FR Doc. 2011–7453 Filed 3–29–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. 50–338 and 50–339; NRC– 

2010–0283] 

Virginia Electric and Power Company 

North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 

2; Exemption 

1.0 Background 

Virginia Electric and Power Company 

(VEPCO, the licensee) is the holder of 

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–4 

and NPF–7 which authorizes operation 

of the North Anna Power Station, Units 

1 and 2 (NAPS). The license provides, 

among other things, that the facility is 

subject to all rules, regulations, and 

orders of the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC, the Commission) 

now or hereafter in effect. 

The facility consists of a pressurizedwater reactor located in Louisa County, 

Virginia. 

2.0 Request/Action 

Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR), Part 50, Section 

50.46, ‘‘Acceptance criteria for 

emergency core cooling systems [ECCS] 

for light-water nuclear power reactors,’’ 

requires that each power reactor meet 

the acceptance criteria for ECCS 

provided therein for zircaloy or 

ZIRLO TM cladding. Appendix K of 10 

CFR Part 50, ‘‘ECCS Evaluation Models,’’ 

requires the rate of energy release, 

hydrogen generation, and cladding 

oxidation from the metal/water reaction 

to be calculated using the Baker-Just 

equation (Baker, L., Just, L.C., ‘‘Studies 

of Metal Water Reactions at High 

Temperatures, III. Experimental and 

Theoretical Studies of the ZirconiumWater Reaction,’’ ANL–6548, page 7, 

May 1962). 

Both of the above requirements 

require the use of zircaloy or ZIRLO TM

cladding. The licensee proposes to use 

Optimized ZIRLO TM as the cladding 

material and therefore is requesting an 

exemption from the requirements. 

In summary, by letter dated May 6, 

2010, (Agencywide Documents Access 

and Management System (ADAMS), 

Accession No. ML101260517), the 

licensee requested an exemption from 

the requirements of 10 CFR 50.46 and 

Appendix K to 10 CFR part 50. The 

reason for the exemption is to allow the 

use of Optimized ZIRLO TM as a 

cladding material. 

3.0 Discussion 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the 

Commission may, upon application by 

any interested person or upon its own 

initiative, grant exemptions from the 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

17716 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2011 / Notices 

requirements of 10 CFR part 50 when (1) 

the exemptions are authorized by law, 

will not present an undue risk to public 

health or safety, and are consistent with 

the common defense and security; and 

(2) when special circumstances are 

present. These circumstances include 

the special circumstances that 

application of the regulation is not 

necessary to achieve the underlying 

purpose of the rule. 

Authorized by Law 

This exemption would allow the 

licensee to use Optimized ZIRLO TM fuel 

rod cladding material at NAPS. As 

stated above, 10 CFR 50.12 allows the 

NRC to grant exemptions from the 

requirements of 10 CFR part 50. The 

NRC staff has determined that granting 

of the licensee’s proposed exemption 

will not result in a violation of the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 

or the Commission’s regulations. 

Therefore, the exemption is authorized 

by law. 

No Undue Risk to Public Health and 

Safety 

The underlying purpose of 10 CFR 

50.46 is to establish acceptance criteria 

for adequate ECCS performance. By 

letter dated June 10, 2005 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML051670408), the NRC 

staff issued a safety evaluation (SE) 

approving Addendum 1 to 

Westinghouse Topical Report WCAP– 

12610–P–A and CENPD–404–P–A, 

‘‘Optimized ZIRLO TM’’ (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML062080576) (portions 

of this topical report are non-publicly 

available because they contain 

proprietary information) (the report 

with the proprietary information 

removed is available at ADAMS 

Accession No. ML062080569), wherein 

the NRC staff approved the use of 

Optimized ZIRLO TM as a fuel cladding 

material. The NRC staff approved the 

use of Optimized ZIRLO TM as a fuel 

cladding material based on: (1) 

Similarities with ZIRLO TM, (2) 

demonstrated material performance, and 

(3) a commitment to provide irradiated 

data and validate fuel performance 

models ahead of burnups achieved in 

batch application. The NRC staff’s SE 

for Optimized ZIRLO TM includes 10 

conditions and limitations for its use. 

As previously documented in the NRC 

staff’s review of topical reports 

submitted by Westinghouse Electric 

Company, LLC (Westinghouse), and 

subject to compliance with the specific 

conditions of approval established 

therein, the NRC staff finds that the 

applicability of these ECCS acceptance 

criteria to Optimized ZIRLO TM has been 

demonstrated by Westinghouse. Ring 

compression tests performed by 

Westinghouse on Optimized ZIRLO TM

(NRC-reviewed, approved, and 

documented in Appendix B of WCAP– 

12610–P–A and CENPD–404–P–A, 

Addendum 1–A, ‘‘Optimized ZIRLO TM’’) 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML062080576) 

demonstrate an acceptable retention of 

post-quench ductility up to 10 CFR 

50.46 limits of 2200° Fahrenheit and 17 

percent equivalent clad reacted. 

Furthermore, the NRC staff has 

concluded that oxidation measurements 

provided by the licensee illustrate that 

oxide thickness (and associated 

hydrogen pickup) for Optimized 

ZIRLO TM at any given burnup would be 

less than both zircaloy-4 and ZIRLO TM. 

Hence, the NRC staff concludes that 

Optimized ZIRLO TM would be expected 

to maintain better post-quench ductility 

than ZIRLO TM. This finding is further 

supported by an ongoing loss-of-coolant 

accident (LOCA) research program at 

Argonne National Laboratory, which has 

identified a strong correlation between 

cladding hydrogen content (due to inservice corrosion) and post-quench 

ductility. 

The underlying purpose of 10 CFR 

part 50, Appendix K, Section I.A.5, 

‘‘Metal-Water Reaction Rate,’’ is to 

ensure that cladding oxidation and 

hydrogen generation are appropriately 

limited during a LOCA and 

conservatively accounted for in the 

ECCS evaluation model. Appendix K 

states that the rates of energy release, 

hydrogen concentration, and cladding 

oxidation from the metal-water reaction 

shall be calculated using the Baker-Just 

equation. Since the Baker-Just equation 

presumes the use of zircaloy clad fuel, 

strict application of the rule would not 

permit use of the equation for 

Optimized ZIRLO TM cladding for 

determining acceptable fuel 

performance. However, the NRC staff 

has found that metal-water reaction tests 

performed by Westinghouse on 

Optimized ZIRLO TM demonstrate 

conservative reaction rates relative to 

the Baker-Just equation and are 

bounding for those approved for 

ZIRLO TM under anticipated operational 

occurrences and postulated accidents. 

Based on the above, no new accident 

precursors are created by using 

Optimized ZIRLO TM, thus, the 

probability of postulated accidents is 

not increased. Also, based on the above, 

the consequences of postulated 

accidents are not increased. Therefore, 

there is no undue risk to public health 

and safety. 

Consistent With Common Defense and 

Security 

The proposed exemption would allow 

the use of Optimized ZIRLO TM fuel rod 

cladding material at NAPS. This change 

to the plant configuration has no 

relation to security issues. Therefore, 

the common defense and security is not 

impacted by this exemption. 

Special Circumstances 

Special circumstances, in accordance 

with 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), are present 

whenever application of the regulation 

in the particular circumstances is not 

necessary to achieve the underlying 

purpose of the rule. The underlying 

purpose of 10 CFR 50.46 and Appendix 

K to 10 CFR part 50 is to establish 

acceptance criteria for ECCS 

performance and to ensure that cladding 

oxidation and hydrogen generation are 

appropriately limited during a LOCA 

and conservatively accounted for in the 

ECCS evaluation model. The wording of 

the regulations in 10 CFR 50.46 and 

Appendix K is not directly applicable to 

Optimized ZIRLO TM, even though the 

evaluations above show that the intent 

of the regulation is met. Therefore, since 

the underlying purposes of 10 CFR 

50.46 and Appendix K are achieved 

through the use of Optimized ZIRLO TM

fuel rod cladding material, the special 

circumstances required by 10 CFR 

50.12(a)(2)(ii) for the granting of an 

exemption from certain requirements of 

10 CFR 50.46 and Appendix K exist. 

4.0 Conclusion 

Accordingly, the Commission has 

determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 

50.12, the exemption is authorized by 

law, will not present an undue risk to 

the public health and safety, and is 

consistent with the common defense 

and security. Also, special 

circumstances are present. Therefore, 

the Commission hereby grants VEPCO 

an exemption from certain requirements 

of 10 CFR 50.46 and Appendix K to 10 

CFR Part 50, to allow the use of 

Optimized ZIRLO TM fuel rod cladding 

material, for NAPS. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the 

Commission has determined that the 

granting of this exemption will not have 

a significant effect on the quality of the 

human environment as published in the 

Federal Register on September 2, 2010 

(75 FR 53984). 

This exemption is effective upon 

issuance. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day 

of March 2011. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2011 / Notices 17717 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Joseph G. Giitter, 

Director, Division of Operating Reactor 

Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2011–7455 Filed 3–29–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

[Docket No. A2011–11; Order No. 702] 

Post Office Closing 

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This document informs the 

public that an appeal of the closing of 

the Ida Post Office in Ida, Arkansas has 

been filed. It identifies preliminary 

steps and provides a procedural 

schedule. Publication of this document 

will allow the Postal Service, petitioner, 

and others to take appropriate action. 

DATES: Administrative record due (from 

Postal Service): April 6, 2011; deadline 

for notices to intervene: April 18, 2011. 

See the Procedural Schedule in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for 

other dates of interest. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

electronically by accessing the ‘‘Filing 

Online’’ link in the banner at the top of 

the Commission’s Web site (http:// 

www.prc.gov) or by directly accessing 

the Commission’s Filing Online system 

at https://www.prc.gov/prc-pages/filingonline/login.aspx. Commenters who 

cannot submit their views electronically 

should contact the person identified in 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section as the source for case-related 

information for advice on alternatives to 

electronic filing. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, 

at 202–789–6820 (case-related 

information) or DocketAdmins@prc.gov 

(electronic filing assistance). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is 

hereby given that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 

404(d), on March 22, 2011, the 

Commission received a petition for 

review of the Postal Service’s 

determination to close the Ida, Arkansas 

post office. The petition, which was 

filed by the Committee to Save Ida Post 

Office (Petitioner), is postmarked March 

16, 2011, and was posted on the 

Commission’s Web site March 22, 2011. 

The Commission hereby institutes a 

proceeding under 39 U.S.C. 404(d)(5) 

and establishes Docket No. A2011–11 to 

consider the Petitioner’s appeal. If the 

Petitioner would like to further explain 

its position with supplemental 

information or facts, the Petitioner may 

either file a Participant Statement on 

PRC Form 61 or file a brief with the 

Commission no later than April 26, 

2011. 

Categories of issues apparently raised. 

The Petitioner raises the issue of failure 

to consider the effect on the community. 

See 39 U.S.C. 404(d)(2)(A)(i). 

After the Postal Service files the 

administrative record and the 

Commission reviews it, the Commission 

may find that there are more legal issues 

than the one set forth above, or that the 

Postal Service’s determination disposes 

of one or more of those issues. The 

deadline for the Postal Service to file the 

administrative record with the 

Commission is April 6, 2011. 

See 39 CFR 3001.113. In addition, the 

due date for any responsive pleading by 

the Postal Service to this Notice is April 

6, 2011. 

Availability; Web site posting. The 

Commission has posted the appeal and 

supporting material on its Web site at 

http://www.prc.gov. Additional filings 

in this case and participants’ 

submissions also will be posted on the 

Commission’s Web site, if provided in 

electronic format or amenable to 

conversion, and not subject to a valid 

protective order. Information on how to 

use the Commission’s Web site is 

available online or by contacting the 

Commission’s webmaster via telephone 

at 202–789–6873 or via electronic mail 

at prc-webmaster@prc.gov. 

The appeal and all related documents 

also are available for public inspection 

in the Commission’s docket section. 

Docket section hours are 8 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except on Federal government holidays. 

Docket section personnel may be 

contacted via electronic mail at prcdockets@prc.gov or via telephone at 

202–789–6846. 

Filing of documents. All filings of 

documents in this case shall be made 

using the Internet (Filing Online) 

pursuant to Commission rules 9(a) and 

10(a) at the Commission’s Web site, 

http://www.prc.gov, unless a waiver is 

obtained. See 39 CFR 3001.9(a) and 

3001.10(a). Instructions for obtaining an 

account to file documents online may be 

found on the Commission’s Web site or 

by contacting the Commission’s docket 

section at prc-dockets@prc.gov or via 

telephone at 202–789–6846. 

The Commission reserves the right to 

redact personal information which may 

infringe on an individual’s privacy 

rights from documents filed in this 

proceeding. 

Intervention. Those, other than the 

Petitioner and respondent, wishing to be 

heard in this matter are directed to file 

a notice of intervention. See 39 CFR 

3001.111(b). Notices of intervention in 

this case are to be filed on or before 

April 18, 2011. A notice of intervention 

shall be filed using the Internet (Filing 

Online) at the Commission’s Web site 

unless a waiver is obtained for hardcopy 

filing. See 39 CFR 3001.9(a) and 

3001.10(a). 

Further procedures. By statute, the 

Commission is required to issue its 

decision within 120 days from the date 

it receives the appeal. See 39 U.S.C. 

404(d)(5). A procedural schedule has 

been developed to accommodate this 

statutory deadline. In the interest of 

expedition, in light of the 120-day 

decision schedule, the Commission may 

request the Postal Service or other 

participants to submit information or 

memoranda of law on any appropriate 

issue. As required by the Commission 

rules, if any motions are filed, responses 

are due 7 days after any such motion is 

filed. See 39 CFR 3001.21. 

It is ordered: 

1. The Postal Service shall file the 

administrative record regarding this 

appeal no later than April 6, 2011. 

2. Any responsive pleading by the 

Postal Service to this Notice is due no 

later than April 6, 2011. 

3. The procedural schedule listed 

below is hereby adopted. 

4. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, 

Cassandra L. Hicks is designated officer 

of the Commission (Public 

Representative) to represent the 

interests of the general public. 

5. The Secretary shall arrange for 

publication of this Notice and Order in 

the Federal Register. 

PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE

March 22, 2011 ....................................... Filing of Appeal. 

April 6, 2011 ............................................ Deadline for Postal Service to file administrative record in this appeal. 

April 6, 2011 ............................................ Deadline for the Postal Service to file any responsive pleading. 

April 18, 2011 .......................................... Deadline for notices to intervene (see 39 CFR 3001.111(b)). 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES