20440 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 4, 2012 / Notices 

IV. Further Information 

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of 

NRC’s ‘‘Rules of Practice,’’ final NRC 

records and documents regarding this 

proposed action are publicly available 

in the records component of NRC’s 

Agencywide Documents Access and 

Management System (ADAMS). The 

request for exemption dated July 21, 

2011 (ML11208C453), as supplemented 

September 28, 2011 (ML11286A143), 

was docketed under 10 CFR 50, Docket 

Nos. 50–338 and 50–339, and under 10 

CFR 72, Docket No. 72–56. 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 email to pdr@nrc.gov. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day 

of March, 2012. 

Jennie Rankin, 

Project Manager, Licensing Branch, Division 

of Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation, 

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and 

Safeguards. 

[FR Doc. 2012–8114 Filed 4–3–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. 72–1030, 72–55, 50–280 and 

50–281; NRC–2012–0085] 

Independent Spent Fuel Storage 

Installation, Virginia Electric and 

Power Company, Surry Power Station 

Units 1 and 2 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Issuance of an environmental 

assessment and finding of no significant 

impact. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jennie Rankin, Project Manager, 

Division of Spent Fuel Storage and 

Transportation, Office of Nuclear 

Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555. Telephone: 

(301) 492–3268; Fax number: (301) 492– 

3342; email: jennivine.rankin@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC or Commission) is considering 

issuance of a one-time exemption to 

Virginia Electric and Power Company 

(Dominion or licensee) pursuant to 10 

CFR 72.7 from the requirements of 10 

CFR 72.212(b)(3) and the portion of 

72.212(b)(11) which requires 

compliance with the terms, conditions, 

and specifications of the CoC. Dominion 

submitted its exemption request by 

letter dated July 21, 2011, as 

supplemented September 28, 2011. 

Dominion has loaded spent nuclear fuel 

into Transnuclear, Inc. (TN) NUHOMS®

HD Storage System (HD–32PTH) dry 

storage casks, under the Certificate of 

Compliance (CoC or Certificate) No. 

1030, Amendment No. 0. The licensee 

inadvertently reversed the upper and 

lower zones while preparing the dry 

shielded canister (DSC) loading maps. 

This resulted in five fuel assemblies 

being loaded into four DSCs with decay 

heat greater than the levels specified in 

the CoC. Dominion requests a one-time 

exemption to the 10 CFR Part 72 

requirements to continue storage of the 

affected DSCs with serial numbers 

DOM–32PTH–001–C, –002–C, –003–C, 

and –009–C in their current condition at 

the Independent Spent Fuel Storage 

Installation (ISFSI) associated with the 

operation of Dominion’s nuclear power 

reactors, Surry Power Station Units 1 

and 2, located in Surry County, Virginia. 

II. Environmental Assessment (EA) 

Identification of Proposed Action: The 

CoC is the NRC approved design for 

each dry storage cask system. The 

proposed action would grant Dominion 

a one-time exemption from the 

requirements of 10 CFR 72.212(b)(3) and 

from the portion of 72.212(b)(11) that 

states the licensee shall comply with the 

terms, conditions, and specifications of 

the CoC, to the extent necessary to 

enable Dominion to continue storage of 

the four DSCs in their current condition 

at the ISFSI associated with Surry 

Power Station Units 1 and 2. These 

regulations specifically require storage 

of spent nuclear fuel under a general 

license in dry storage casks approved 

under the provisions of 10 CFR part 72, 

and compliance with the terms and 

conditions set forth in the CoC for each 

dry spent fuel storage cask used by an 

ISFSI general licensee. 

The TN NUHOMS® HD dry cask 

storage system CoC provides 

requirements, conditions and operating 

limits in Attachment A, Technical 

Specifications (TS). The TS restrict the 

decay heat in lower Zone ‘‘1a’’ locations 

to ≤ 1.05 kW and the upper Zone ‘‘1b’’ 

locations to ≤ 0.8 kW. The applicant 

inadvertently reversed the upper and 

lower zones while preparing the DSC 

loading maps. This resulted in five fuel 

assemblies being loaded into four DSCs 

(serial numbers DOM–32PTH–001–C, 

–002–C, –003–C, and –009–C) with 

decay heat greater than specified in the 

CoC. The maximum decay heat of the 

misloaded fuel assemblies at the time of 

loading was 0.806 kW, which exceeded 

the Zone ‘‘1b’’ limit mentioned above by 

six watts. Currently, the five affected 

fuel assemblies have been in storage for 

a minimum of 2.5 years and have 

decayed to meet the required decay heat 

limits of the CoC. 

The proposed action would grant 

Dominion a one-time exemption from 

the requirements of 10 CFR 72.212(b)(3) 

and the portion of 72.212(b)(11) which 

requires compliance with the terms, 

conditions, and specifications of a CoC, 

in order to allow continued storage of 

the four affected DSCs in their current 

condition. This exemption approval is 

only valid for DSCs with serial numbers 

DOM–32PTH–001–C, –002–C, –003–C, 

and –009–C, at the Surry Power Station 

ISFSI. 

Need for the Proposed Action: 

Dominion requested this exemption in 

order to continue storage of four asloaded DSCs containing five fuel 

assemblies which exceeded the CoC 

decay heat limits at the time of loading. 

Dominion, with the assistance of TN, 

has provided an evaluation and thermal 

analysis which shows that the affected 

DSCs remain bounded by the system’s 

design basis limits and that the 

continued storage of the fuel in the asloaded configuration is safe. 

Dominion has considered an 

alternative to the proposed action, 

which would correct the condition by 

reloading the affected DSCs to be in 

compliance with CoC No. 1030. This 

would involve retrieving each of the 

DSCs from their Horizontal Storage 

Modules (HSM), unloading the spent 

fuel assemblies from the DSC, 

performing inspections of various DSC 

components, reloading the spent fuel 

assemblies into the used DSC or a new 

DSC (if there was damage noted on the 

used DSC) in accordance with CoC No. 

1030, performing the DSC closing 

procedures, and transferring the DSC 

back to the ISFSI for re-insertion into 

the HSM. 

Dominion estimates this alternative 

action of loading and unloading 

operations would increase personnel 

exposures by 250 mRem per affected 

DSC. In addition, Dominion states the 

alternative to the proposed action would 

generate radioactive contaminated 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 4, 2012 / Notices 20441 

material and waste during loading and 

unloading operations and disposal of 

the used DSCs if the DSCs were 

damaged during the unloading process. 

The licensee estimates the alternative to 

the proposed action would cost an 

estimated $300,000 for unloading and 

reloading operations of each affected 

DSC and also necessitate additional fuel 

handling operations. If the DSC was 

damaged during unloading, the licensee 

estimates an additional $1,000,000 for 

purchase of a new DSC and $200,000 for 

disposal of the used DSC. 

The proposed action is necessary to 

document the acceptability and safety 

basis for storage of the DSCs in the asloaded configuration, thus precluding 

the need to unload the four DSCs. 

Environmental Impacts of the 

Proposed Action: The NRC staff has 

determined that the proposed action 

would not endanger life or property. 

The potential impact of using the 

NUHOMS® HD dry cask storage system 

was initially presented in the 

Environmental Assessment (EA) for the 

rulemaking to add the TN NUHOMS®

HD Horizontal Modular Storage System 

for Irradiated Nuclear Fuel to the list of 

approved spent fuel storage casks in 10 

CFR 72.214 (71 FR 25740, dated May 2, 

2006 (Direct Final Rule), and 71 FR 

71463, dated December 11, 2006 (Final 

Rule)). 

The licensee submitted TN 

Calculation No. 10494–174, which 

performed bounding thermal analysis 

using ANSYS finite element software to 

evaluate the misloading events. The 

licensee concluded the maximum fuel 

cladding temperature for the as loaded 

DSCs remained below the fuel cladding 

temperature limit used in the Updated 

Safety Analysis Report dated October 2, 

2009. The NRC staff performed an 

independent safety evaluation of the 

proposed exemption and determined 

that loading of the spent nuclear fuel 

with higher than allowable decay heat 

loads did not exceed the structural and 

shielding design basis and that the fuel 

cladding temperatures are below the 

temperature limit at the time of loading. 

The fuel assemblies have since decayed 

to meet the CoC limits. There are no 

changes being made in the types or 

amounts of any radiological effluents 

that may be released offsite, and there 

is no significant increase in 

occupational or public radiation 

exposure as a result of the proposed 

activities. Therefore, there are no 

significant radiological environmental 

impacts associated with the proposed 

action. The proposed action only affects 

the requirements associated with the 

fuel assemblies already loaded into the 

casks and does not affect nonradiological plant effluents, or any other 

aspects of the environment. Therefore, 

there are no significant non-radiological 

impacts associated with the proposed 

action. 

Accordingly, the Commission 

concludes that there are no significant 

environmental impacts associated with 

the proposed action. 

Alternative to the Proposed Action: 

Because there is no significant 

environmental impact associated with 

the proposed action, alternatives with 

equal or greater environmental impact 

were not evaluated. As an alternative to 

the proposed action, the NRC staff 

considered denial of the proposed 

action which would involve reloading 

the affected DSCs as described 

previously. Denial of the exemption 

would result in an increase in 

radiological exposure to workers, a 

small potential for radioactive releases 

to the environment due to radioactive 

material handling, additional 

opportunities for accidents, and 

increased cost to the licensee. Therefore, 

the NRC staff has determined that 

approving the proposed action has a 

lesser environmental impact than 

denying the proposed action. 

Agencies and Persons Consulted: The 

environmental assessment associated 

with this exemption request was sent to 

Ms. Ellie Irons of the Virginia 

Department of Environmental Quality in 

the Office of Environmental Impact 

Review, by letter dated November 14, 

2011 (ML113180499). The state 

response was received by letter dated 

December 14, 2011 (ML120030312). The 

letter states that the proposed action is 

unlikely to have significant effects on 

ambient air quality, historic resources, 

surface waters, and wetlands. The letter 

also states that it is unlikely to adversely 

affect species of plants or insects listed 

by state agencies as rare, threatened, or 

endangered. Furthermore, the Virginia 

Department of Health considered the 

alternative to the proposed action of 

reloading the casks presents several 

risks, namely additional radiation 

exposure to workers and potential 

accidents that may lead to dispersal of 

radiation to the environment. Thus, the 

Virginia Department of Health states 

that it supports the exemption without 

reservation. The NRC staff 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 a 

critical habitat. The NRC staff 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. 

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 Environmental Assessment, 

the Commission finds that the proposed 

action of granting the one-time 

exemption from the requirements of 10 

CFR 72.212(b)(3) and the portion of 

72.212(b)(11) which requires 

compliance with the terms, conditions, 

and specifications of the CoC in order to 

allow Dominion to store spent fuel 

assemblies in DSCs with serial numbers 

DOM–32PTH–001–C, –002–C, –003–C, 

and –009–C in the as-loaded 

configuration at the ISFSI associated 

with Surry Power Station Units 1 and 2, 

will not significantly impact the quality 

of the human environment. 

Accordingly, the Commission has 

determined that an environmental 

impact statement for the proposed 

exemption is not warranted and that a 

finding of no significant impact is 

appropriate. 

IV. Further Information 

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of 

NRC’s ‘‘Rules of Practice,’’ final NRC 

records and documents regarding this 

proposed action are publicly available 

in the records component of NRC’s 

Agencywide Documents Access and 

Management System (ADAMS). The 

request for exemption dated July 21, 

2011 (ML11208B629), as supplemented 

September 28, 2011 (ML11286A115), 

was docketed under 10 CFR part 50, 

Docket Nos. 50–280 and 50–281, and 

under 10 CFR 72, Docket No. 72–55. 

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 email to pdr@nrc.gov. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day 

of March, 2012. 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
20442 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 4, 2012 / Notices 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Jennie Rankin, 

Project Manager, Licensing Branch, Division 

of Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation, 

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and 

Safeguards. 

[FR Doc. 2012–8111 Filed 4–3–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND 

HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION 

Proposed Information Collection; 

Comment Request 

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health 

Review Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and 

Health Review Commission (OSHRC) 

invites the public and other Federal 

agencies to comment on a proposed 

information collection concerning 

participation in conventional 

proceedings as part of our review of the 

OSHRC Settlement Part program. 

OSHRC will submit the proposed 

information collection request to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review, as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted on or before June 4, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit all written 

comments, identified by the title 

‘‘Paperwork Reduction Act Information 

Collection—Conventional Proceedings’’, 

by mail or hand delivery to John X. 

Cerveny, Deputy Executive Secretary, 

Occupational Safety and Health Review 

Commission, 1120 20th Street NW., 

Washington, DC 20036–3457, by fax to 

202–606–5050, or by email to 

pracomments@oshrc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Requests for information or copies of the 

proposed information collection 

instrument should be directed to John 

X. Cerveny, Deputy Executive Secretary, 

Occupational Safety and Health Review 

Commission, 1120 20th Street NW., 

Ninth Floor, Washington, DC 20036– 

3457; Telephone (202) 606–5706; email 

address: pracomments@oshrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OSHRC’s 

Settlement Part program, codified at 29 

CFR 2200.120, is designed to encourage 

settlements on contested citations 

issued by the U.S. Department of 

Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA) and to reduce 

litigation costs. The program requires 

employers who receive job safety or 

health citations that include proposed 

penalties of $100,000 or more in total to 

participate in formal settlement talks 

presided over by an OSHRC 

Administrative Law Judge. If settlement 

efforts fail, the case would continue 

under OSHRC’s conventional 

proceedings, usually before a judge 

other than the one who presided over 

the settlement proceedings. 

OSHRC has submitted for OMB 

review a proposed information 

collection from participants in the 

Settlement Part program. A copy of that 

information collection request (ICR) 

with applicable supporting 

documentation may be obtained from 

the RegInfo.gov Web site, http:// 

www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain, 

or by contacting John X. Cerveny, 

Deputy Executive Secretary, 

Occupational Safety and Health Review 

Commission, 1120 20th Street NW., 

Ninth Floor, Washington, DC 20036– 

3457; Telephone (202) 606–5706; email 

address: pracomments@oshrc.gov. 

OSHRC proposes to conduct a second 

voluntary survey of employer, 

Department of Labor (OSHA) personnel 

(decision makers), Authorized 

Employee Representatives, and their 

representatives, including attorneys, 

who personally participated in OSHRC 

cases between February 15, 2011 and 

June 30, 2012, where a total proposed 

penalty between $50,000 and $99,999 

was involved and where OSHRC 

Settlement Part Process procedures were 

not used. The cases would include those 

settled by the parties without an OSHRC 

judge conducting a face-to-face 

settlement proceeding, as well as any 

cases within the above dollar range that 

went to a trial on the merits. These cases 

would be considered part of a control 

group. Participant responses will be 

used for comparative purposes and to 

facilitate our understanding of the 

efficacy of the Settlement Part program. 

The proposed information collection 

instrument is a written survey 

consisting of a series of questions to 

determine participants’ level of 

satisfaction with OSHRC processes and 

outcomes. They are intended to take a 

respondent no more than 30 minutes to 

complete. The respondents may skip 

any questions that they do not feel 

comfortable answering, and are 

permitted to comment further on their 

experiences at the end of the 

questionnaire. 

OSHRC will submit the proposed 

information collection to the Office of 

Management and Budget for review, as 

required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

OSHRC invites comments on: (1) 

Whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the agency’s functions, 

including whether the information will 

have practical utility; (2) 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; (3) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (4) ways to minimize the 

burden of the information collection on 

respondents, including through the use 

of automated collection techniques, 

when appropriate, and other forms of 

information technology. Comments 

submitted in response to this notice will 

be summarized and included in the 

request for OMB approval of this 

information collection; they also will 

become a matter of public record. 

OMB Control Number: Not applicable, 

new request. 

Form Number: Not applicable. 

Type of Review: Regular submission 

(new information collection). 

Title: Survey of Participants in 

OSHRC Conventional Proceedings 

where between $50,000 and $99,999 is 

at issue. 

Description: Information collection 

required to evaluate the Review 

Commission’s Settlement Part process. 

Affected Public: Employer and 

Department of Labor (OSHA) personnel 

(decision makers), Authorized 

Employee Representatives, and their 

representatives, including attorneys, 

who have personally participated in 

OSHRC cases between February 15, 

2011 and June 30, 2012, where a total 

proposed penalty between $50,000 and 

$99,999 was involved and where 

OSHRC Settlement Part Process 

procedures were not used. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

500. 

Estimated Time per Response: 30 

minutes. 

Estimated Total Reporting Burden: 

250 hours. 

Obligation To Respond: Voluntary. 

Dated: March 30, 2012. 

Debra Hall, 

Acting Executive Director. 

[FR Doc. 2012–8124 Filed 4–3–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7600–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Investment Company Act Release No. 

30014; File No. 812–13778] 

Sunwest Rollover Member LLC; Notice 

of Application 

March 29, 2012. 

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’). 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with NOTICES