Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 42 / Friday, March 2, 2012 / Notices 12887 

February 6, 2012, and included the 

opportunity for restorative rest for the 

HRO staff. 

The exemption request specifies that 

the exemption is not for discretionary 

maintenance activities. The exemption 

request states that the exemption would 

provide for use of whatever plant staff 

and resources may be necessary to 

respond to a plant emergency and 

ensure that the units achieve and 

maintain a safe and secure status and 

can be safely restarted. The exemption 

request also states that maintenance 

activities for structures, systems and 

components that are significant to 

public health and safety will be 

performed, if required. The NRC staff 

finds the exclusion of discretionary 

maintenance from the exemption 

request to be consistent with the intent 

of the exemption. 

In its exemption request, the licensee 

committed to maintain the following 

guidance in a Millstone site procedure: 

• The conditions necessary to 

sequester site personnel that are 

consistent with the conditions specified 

in this exemption request. 

• The provisions for ensuring that 

personnel who are not performing 

duties are provided an opportunity, as 

well as accommodations, for restorative 

rest. 

• The condition for departure from 

this exemption, consistent with the Site 

Vice President’s (or his designee’s) 

determination that adequate staffing is 

available to meet the requirements of 10 

CFR 26.205(c) and (d). 

When the exemption period(s) ends, 

the licensee is immediately subject to 

the scheduling requirements of 10 CFR 

26.205(c) and the work hour/rest break/ 

days off requirements of 10 CFR 

26.205(d), and must ensure that any 

individual performing covered work 

complies with these requirements. 10 

CFR 26.205(d)(3) requires the licensee to 

‘‘look back’’ over the calculation period 

and count the hours the individual has 

worked and the rest breaks and days off 

he/she has had, including those that 

occurred during the licensee-declared 

emergency. Hours worked must be 

below the maximum limits and rest 

breaks must be above the minimum 

requirements in order for the licensee to 

allow the individual to perform covered 

work. Days off and hours and shifts 

worked during the licensee-declared 

emergency and the exempted period 

before and after the declared emergency 

would be counted as usual in the 

establishment of the applicable shift 

schedule and compliance with the 

minimum-days-off requirements. 

Granting these exemptions is 

consistent with 10 CFR 26.207(d) Plant 

Emergencies which allows the licensee 

to not meet the requirements of 10 CFR 

26.205(c) and (d) during declared 

emergencies as defined in the licensee’s 

emergency plan. The Part 26 Statement 

of Considerations, page 17148 states 

that, ‘‘[p]lant emergencies are 

extraordinary circumstances that may be 

most effectively addressed through staff 

augmentation that can only be 

practically achieved through the use of 

work hours in excess of the limits of 

§ 26.205(c) and (d).’’ The objective of the 

exemption is to ensure that the control 

of work hours do not impede a 

licensee’s ability to use whatever staff 

resources may be necessary to respond 

to a plant emergency and ensure that the 

plant reaches and maintains a safe and 

secure status. The actions described in 

the exemption request and submitted 

procedures are consistent with the 

recommendations in NUREG–1474. 

Also consistent with NUREG–1474, 

NRC staff expects the licensee would 

have completed a reasonable amount of 

hurricane preparation prior to the need 

to sequester personnel, in order to 

minimize personnel exposure to high 

winds. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

exemption request from certain work 

hour controls during conditions of high 

winds and recovery from high wind 

conditions. Based on the considerations 

discussed above, the NRC staff has 

concluded that (1) there is a reasonable 

assurance that the health and safety of 

the public will not be endangered by the 

proposed exemption, (2) such activities 

will be consistent with the 

Commission’s regulations and guidance, 

and (3) the issuance of the exemption 

will not be contrary to the common 

defense and security or to the health 

and safety of the public. 

Consistent With Common Defense and 

Security 

This change has no relation to 

security issues. Therefore, the common 

defense and security is not impacted by 

this exemption. 

4.0 Conclusion 

Accordingly, the Commission has 

determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 

26.9, granting an exemption to the 

licensee from the requirements in 10 

CFR 26.205(c) and (d) during severe 

wind events such as tropical storms and 

hurricanes and bounded by the entry 

and exit conditions of the exemption 

request, by allowing Millstone to 

sequester individuals to ensure the 

plant reaches and maintains a safe and 

secure status, is authorized by law and 

will not endanger life or property and is 

otherwise in the public interest. 

Therefore, the Commission hereby 

grants DNC an exemption from the 

requirements of 10 CFR 26.205(c) and 

(d) during periods of severe winds at the 

Millstone site. 

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 August 31, 2011 (76 

FR 54260). 

This exemption is effective upon 

issuance. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day 

of February 2012. 

Michele G. Evans, 

Director, Division of Operating Reactor 

Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2012–5148 Filed 3–1–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. 50–338 and 50–339; NRC– 

2012–0051; License Nos. NPF–4 and 

NPF–7] 

Virgina Electric and Power Company; 

Receipt of Request for Action 

Notice is hereby given that by petition 

dated September 8, 2011 (Agencywide 

Documents Access and Management 

System (ADAMS) Accession No. 

ML11256A019), as supplemented by 

letters dated September 8, 2011 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML11334A152), 

and October 21, 2011 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML11308A016), Thomas 

Saporito (the petitioner) requests that 

the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC or the Commission) 

take action with regard to Virginia 

Electric and Power Company’s (the 

licensee’s) North Anna Power Station, 

Units 1 and 2 (North Anna 1 and 2). The 

petitioner requests that the NRC: 

(1) Take escalated enforcement action 

against the licensee and suspend, or 

revoke, the operating licenses for North 

Anna 1 and 2; 

(2) Issue a notice of violation against 

the licensee with a proposed civil 

penalty in the amount of 1 million 

dollars; and 

(3) Issue an order to the licensee 

requiring the licensee to keep North 

Anna 1 and 2, in a ‘‘cold shutdown’’ 

mode of operation until such time as a 

series of actions described in the 

petition are completed. 

As the basis for this request, the 

petitioner states that: 

(1) On August 23, 2011, North Anna 

1 and 2, automatically tripped offline as 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
12888 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 42 / Friday, March 2, 2012 / Notices 

1Notice of the United States Postal Service Filing 

of a Functionally Equivalent International Business 

Reply Service Competitive Contract 3 Negotiated 

Service Agreement, February 24, 2012 (notice). 

a direct result of ground motion caused 

by an earthquake centered in Mineral, 

Virginia, approximately 10 miles from 

North Anna 1 and 2. The licensee has 

not determined the root cause of this 

event, nor has it explained why the 

reactor tripped on ‘‘negative flux rate’’ 

rather than on loss of offsite power. 

(2) Subsequent to the earthquake, the 

licensee initiated various inspection 

activities and tests to discover the extent 

of damage to the nuclear facility, but 

these inspection and testing activities 

continue and remain incomplete and 

non-validated. 

(3) The licensee had set an overly 

aggressive schedule for restarting North 

Anna 1 and 2 that was based on 

economic considerations rather than 

safety. 

(4) The licensee needs to amend its 

licensing documents, including its 

licenses and the updated facility 

analysis report. As a result of ground 

motion experienced at, and damage 

sustained to, North Anna 1 and 2, due 

to the earthquake of August 23, 2011, 

which is greater than the licensee’s 

design and safety bases, North Anna 1 

and 2, are in an unanalyzed condition 

and current licensing documents are 

erroneous and incomplete. As a result, 

the licensee cannot rely on them to 

provide reasonable assurance to the 

NRC that these nuclear reactors can be 

operated in a safe and reliable manner 

to protect public health and safety. 

(5) The licensee needs to conduct new 

seismic and geological evaluations of 

the North Anna 1 and 2, site that are 

independent. These evaluations should 

ascertain the degree and magnitude of 

future earthquake events and address a 

‘‘worst case’’ earthquake. 

(6) There are numerous issues with 

the seismic instrumentation at North 

Anna 1 and 2, including lack of free 

field instrumentation, issues associated 

with conversion of analog data to digital 

data, issues with lack of on-site 

personnel with sufficient training in 

seismic measurements, and potential 

skewing of ground motion data due to 

the location of the ‘‘scratch plates.’’ 

(7) Retrofitting of North Anna 1 and 

2, is required due to damage to North 

Anna 1 and 2, from the earthquake of 

August 23, 2011. 

(8) There are concerns with the 

impact of the August 23, 2011, 

earthquake on the North Anna 1 and 2, 

Independent Spent Fuel Storage 

Installation (ISFSI) including the fact 

that 25 casks weighing over 115 tons 

were not supposed to shift as much as 

4.5 inches during a predicted 

earthquake, validation of the integrity of 

the seals inside the spent fuel casks, 

assessing whether spent nuclear fuel 

storage facilities could topple or 

otherwise sustain significant damage 

resulting in a release, and assessing 

whether the licensee’s emergency plans 

adequately addressed damage to the 

ISFSI as a result of a severe earthquake. 

(9) The petitioner is concerned that 

the licensee cannot be trusted to 

communicate reliable information to the 

public or the regulator based on the fact 

that the licensee in the 1970s failed to 

promptly disclose the discovery of 

geological information and was 

subjected to a monetary fine for the 

violation. 

The request is being treated pursuant 

to Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR) 2.206, ‘‘Requests 

for action under this subpart,’’ of the 

Commission’s regulations. The request 

has been referred to the Director of the 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. As 

provided by § 2.206, appropriate action 

will be taken on this petition within a 

reasonable time. The petitioner met 

with the NRR petition review board on 

September 29, 2011 (transcript at 

ADAMS Accession No. ML11332A046), 

and November 7, 2011 (transcript at 

ADAMS Accession No. ML113530035), 

to discuss the petition. The results of 

these discussions were considered in 

the PRB’s final recommendation to 

accept the petition for review and in 

establishing the schedule for the review 

of the petition. 

A copy of the petition is available for 

inspection at the Commission’s Public 

Document Room, located at One White 

Flint North, Public File Area O1–F21, 

11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), 

Rockville, Maryland 20852. Publicly 

available documents created or received 

at the NRC are accessible electronically 

through the NRC’s Agencywide 

Documents Access and Management 

System (ADAMS) in the NRC Library at 

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 or 301–415–4737, or 

by email to PDR Resource@nrc.gov 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd 

day of February, 2012. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Eric J. Leeds, 

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2012–5150 Filed 3–1–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

[Docket No. CP2012–17; Order No. 1261] 

International Mail Contract 

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Commission is noticing a 

recently-filed Postal Service request to 

enter into an additional International 

Business Reply Service contract. This 

document invites public comments on 

the request and addresses several 

related procedural steps. 

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 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section as the source for case-related 

information for advice on alternatives to 

electronic filing. 

DATES: Comments are due: March 6, 

2012. 

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: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

II. Notice of Filing 

III. Ordering Paragraphs 

I. Introduction 

On February 24, 2012, the Postal 

Service filed a notice announcing that it 

has entered into an additional 

International Business Reply Service 

(IBRS) contract.1 The Postal Service 

asserts that the instant contract is 

functionally equivalent to the IBRS 3 

baseline contract originally filed in 

Docket Nos. MC2011–21 and CP2011– 

59 and supported by Governors’ 

Decision No. 08–24 (IBRS 3 baseline 

contract). Id., Attachment 3. The notice 

explains that Order No. 684, which 

established IBRS Competitive Contracts 

3 as a product, also authorized 

functionally equivalent agreements to be 

included within the product, provided 

that they meet the requirements of 39 

U.S.C. 3633. Id. at 1–2. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES