51068 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 164 / Thursday, August 23, 2012 / Notices 

APPENDIX—Continued 

[32 TAA petitions instituted between 8/6/12 and 8/10/12] 

TA–W Subject Firm 

(petitioners) Location Date of institution 

Date of 

petition 

81864 ............. IS One, Inc./E&R Industrial Sales (Workers) ......................... East Syracuse, NY ................ 08/07/12 07/30/12 

81865 ............. Sihi Pumps (Workers) ............................................................ Grand Island, NY ................... 08/07/12 07/31/12 

81866 ............. Acme Electric (Company) ...................................................... Lumberton, NC ...................... 08/07/12 08/05/12 

81867 ............. Phoenix Services (State/One-Stop) ....................................... Sparrows Point, MD ............... 08/07/12 08/06/12 

81868 ............. CCC Information Systems, Inc. (State/One-Stop) ................. Cerritos, CA ........................... 08/07/12 08/06/12 

81869 ............. Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. (Company) .............. Simsbury, CT ......................... 08/07/12 08/06/12 

81870 ............. Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. (Company) .............. Windsor, CT ........................... 08/07/12 08/06/12 

81871 ............. Fusion Contact Centers (Workers) ........................................ Santa Maria, CA .................... 08/08/12 08/06/12 

81872 ............. Sykes, Inc. (Workers) ............................................................. Langhorne, PA ....................... 08/08/12 08/07/12 

81873 ............. Legacy Custom Plastics LLC (State/One-Stop) ..................... Clearwater, FL ....................... 08/09/12 08/08/12 

81874 ............. Parkway Knitting (Workers) .................................................... Hillsville, VA ........................... 08/09/12 07/23/12 

81875 ............. Darly Custom Technology, Inc., Engineering Design and 

Drafting Department (Company).

Windsor, CT ........................... 08/09/12 08/09/12 

81876 ............. Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. (Company) .............. Overland Park, KS ................. 08/09/12 08/08/12 

81877 ............. Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. (Company) .............. San Antonio, TX .................... 08/09/12 08/08/12 

81878 ............. Harsco Metals (Workers) ....................................................... Warren, OH ............................ 08/09/12 08/07/12 

81879 ............. Wheeling Corrugating Company (Union) ............................... Beech Bottom, WV ................ 08/09/12 08/07/12 

81880 ............. RG Steel, LLC (Union) ........................................................... Wheeling, WV ........................ 08/09/12 08/07/12 

81881 ............. NCO/APAC Teleservices (Workers) ...................................... Greensboro, NC ..................... 08/10/12 07/26/12 

81882 ............. Sabritec (State/One-Stop) ...................................................... Irvine, CA ............................... 08/10/12 08/09/12 

81883 ............. United Steelworkers (USW), Local 9477 (State/One-Stop) ... Baltimore, MD ........................ 08/10/12 08/09/12 

81884 ............. New CIDC Delaware Corporation (Company) ....................... Cambridge, MA ...................... 08/10/12 08/06/12 

81885 ............. NCO Financial Systems (State/One-Stop) ............................. Getzville, NY .......................... 08/10/12 08/09/12 

[FR Doc. 2012–20765 Filed 8–22–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

Copyright Office 

[Docket No. 2011–10] 

Remedies for Small Copyright Claims: 

Additional Comments 

AGENCY: Copyright Office, Library of 

Congress. 

ACTION: Notice of inquiry. 

SUMMARY: This is the second request for 

public comment pertaining to a study 

undertaken by the U.S. Copyright Office 

at the request of Congress on the topic 

of adjudicating small copyright claims. 

The study will assess whether and, if so, 

how the current legal system hinders or 

prevents copyright owners from 

pursuing claims that have a relatively 

small economic value and will discuss, 

with appropriate recommendations, 

potential changes in administrative, 

regulatory, and statutory authority. At 

this time, the Office seeks additional 

comments on some of the possible 

alternatives. The Copyright Office also 

announces two public meetings 

following the comment period, to be 

held during November 2012 in New 

York and Los Angeles, respectively. 

DATES: Comments are due September 

26, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: All comments and reply 

comments shall be submitted 

electronically. A comment page 

containing a comment form is posted on 

the Office Web site at http:// 

www.copyright.gov/docs/smallclaims. 

The Web site interface requires 

commenting parties to complete a form 

specifying name and organization, as 

applicable, and to upload comments as 

an attachment via a browser button. To 

meet accessibility standards, 

commenting parties must upload 

comments in a single file not to exceed 

six megabytes (MB) in one of the 

following formats: the Adobe Portable 

Document File (PDF) format that 

contains searchable, accessible text (not 

an image); Microsoft Word; 

WordPerfect; Rich Text Format (RTF); or 

ASCII text file format (not a scanned 

document). The form and face of the 

comments must include both the name 

of the submitter and organization. The 

Office will post the comments publicly 

on the Office’s Web site exactly as they 

are received, along with names and 

organizations. If electronic submission 

of comments is not feasible, please 

contact the Office at 202–707–8350 for 

special instructions. 

Public Meetings: The public meeting 

in New York will be held in the Jerome 

Greene Annex of Columbia Law School, 

410 West 117th Street, New York, New 

York 10027, on November 15, 2012 from 

9:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. and on November 

16, 2012 from 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. The 

public meeting in Los Angeles will be 

held in Room 1314 of the UCLA School 

of Law, 405 Hilgard Avenue, Los 

Angeles, California 90095, on November 

26, 2012 from 9:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. and 

on November 27, 2012 from 9:30 a.m. to 

3:30 p.m. The agendas and the process 

for submitting requests to participate in 

or observe one of these meetings will be 

published on the Copyright Office Web 

site no later than October 15, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jacqueline Charlesworth, Senior 

Counsel, Office of the Register, by email 

at jcharlesworth@loc.gov or by 

telephone at 202–707–8350; or 

Catherine Rowland, Counsel, Office of 

Policy and International Affairs, by 

email at crowland@loc.gov or by 

telephone at 202–707–8350. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

At the request of Congress, the 

Copyright Office is conducting a study 

to assess whether and, if so, how the 

current legal system hinders or prevents 

copyright owners from pursuing 

copyright infringement claims that have 

a relatively small economic value 

(‘‘small copyright claims’’ or ‘‘small 

claims’’), and to recommend potential 

changes in administrative, regulatory, 

and statutory authority to improve the 

adjudication of such claims. The Office 

published a general Notice of Inquiry in 

the fall of 2011 and received numerous 

comments regarding the current 

environment in which small copyright 

claims are (or are not) pursued and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 164 / Thursday, August 23, 2012 / Notices 51069 

possible alternatives to address 

concerns about the current system. See 

the original Notice of Inquiry, 76 FR 

66758 (Oct. 27, 2011), and comments 

received in response thereto, which are 

posted on the Copyright Office Web site, 

at http://www.copyright.gov/docs/ 

smallclaims/comments/. The Copyright 

Office also notes the roundtable 

discussion on small claims sponsored 

by George Washington University Law 

School (‘‘GW’’) on May 10, 2012. The 

GW discussion covered topics ranging 

from constitutional considerations to 

the definition of a ‘‘small claim’’ to 

potential features of a streamlined 

adjudicatory process, and included the 

participation of both the Copyright 

Office and the Patent and Trademark 

Office. See http://www.uspto.gov/blog/ 

director/entry/ 

uspto_co_sponsors_ip_small. 

At this time, the Copyright Office 

seeks further input concerning how a 

copyright small claims system might be 

structured and function. Accordingly, 

the Office seeks responses on the 

specific subjects below (some of which 

were identified by the Office in its 

earlier Notice), including from parties 

who did not previously address those 

subjects, or those who wish to amplify 

or clarify their earlier comments or 

respond to the comments of others. (The 

Office has studied and will take into 

consideration the comments already 

received, so there is no need to restate 

previously submitted material.) A party 

choosing to respond to this Notice of 

Inquiry need not address every subject 

below, but the Office requests that 

responding parties clearly identify and 

separately address each subject for 

which a response is submitted. 

Subjects of Inquiry 

Assuming a system for small 

copyright claims is created: 

1. Nature of tribunal/process. Provide 

a general description of the small claims 

system you believe would work best. 

Should it be a streamlined process 

within the existing Article III court 

structure, or an alternative process 

administered by the Copyright Office, 

the Copyright Royalty Judges, and/or 

some other type of tribunal? If an 

alternative process, should it include a 

right of review by an Article III court? 

Should the process be adjudicatory in 

nature, or instead consist of, or include, 

arbitration or mediation, or be some 

combination of these? (See below for 

more specific questions on review/ 

appeals and the potential role of 

arbitration and/or mediation.) 

2. Voluntary versus mandatory 

participation. Explain whether the small 

claims process would best be structured 

as a voluntary or mandatory system. 

Should a prospective plaintiff with a 

claim that meets the small claims 

criteria retain the option of choosing the 

existing federal district court process 

instead? Should a defendant be 

permitted to opt out of the small claims 

forum in favor of federal district court? 

If one or both parties’ participation in 

the small claims process is voluntary, 

what incentives—such as damages 

limitations, attorneys’ fees awards, or 

other features—might be instituted to 

encourage voluntary participation by 

plaintiffs and/or defendants? 

3. Arbitration. Explain what role, if 

any, arbitration might play in the small 

claims process. Should matters be 

decided through some sort of 

specialized arbitration? Would such 

arbitration be binding? If so, how would 

the arbitrator’s award be enforced and 

under what circumstances, if any, could 

it be set aside (and how might the 

Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. 1 et 

seq., apply)? How would arbitrators be 

trained and selected? Are there any 

existing arbitration models that might be 

especially useful as a model for 

arbitrating small copyright claims? 

4. Mediation. Explain what role, if 

any, mediation might play in the small 

claims system. Should parties be 

required to participate in mediation 

before proceeding with a more formal 

process? Would it be useful to offer a 

copyright-focused voluntary mediation 

service? How would mediators be 

trained and selected? 

5. Settlement. Please comment on 

how the small claims process might be 

structured to encourage voluntary 

settlements in lieu of litigated 

proceedings. Should a plaintiff be 

required to make a settlement offer to a 

prospective defendant before 

proceeding with a claim? Should the 

defendant be required to respond? 

6. Location of tribunal(s). Could the 

small claims tribunal be centrally 

located, or should there be regional 

venues? If centrally located, where 

should it be? If in multiple locations, 

what should those be? 

7. Qualifications and selection of 

adjudicators. Who should the 

adjudicators be? If the small claims 

system is a streamlined process within 

the Article III court structure, is there a 

role for magistrate judges or staff 

attorneys? If it is an alternative process, 

what qualifications should the 

adjudicators have, and how should they 

be selected? 

8. Eligible works. Are some types of 

copyrighted works more amenable to, or 

in need of, a small claims system than 

others? Should the small claims process 

be limited to certain classes of works, 

for example, photographs and 

illustrations, or should it be available 

for all types of copyrighted works? 

9. Permissible claims. Discuss the 

types of claims that could or should be 

eligible for the small claims process. For 

example, should the process be limited 

solely to claims of infringement, or 

should it be possible to bring a related 

claim arising out of the same dispute, 

such as a Lanham Act claim? What 

about an infringement claim that is tied 

to a contractual issue, as in the case 

where the defendant is alleged to have 

infringed by exceeding the terms of a 

license? Should issues of copyright 

ownership be amenable to decision 

through the small claims process? What 

about a user’s claim that a takedown 

notice contained a material 

misrepresentation in violation of the 

Digital Millennium Copyright Act 

(‘‘DMCA’’), 17 U.S.C. 512(f)? 

10. Permissible claim amount. 

Assuming there would be a cap on the 

amount of damages that could be sought 

by a plaintiff or counterclaimant in the 

small claims process, what should that 

amount be? What is the rationale for the 

cap proposed? Should there be any 

independent analysis of the damages 

claim by the tribunal? Should it be 

permissible for a copyright owner to 

pursue multiple claims in the same 

proceeding provided that, either 

individually or, alternatively, in the 

aggregate, they do not exceed the cap? 

What if, during the course of the 

proceeding, additional infringements 

are discovered such that the plaintiff’s 

potential damages exceed the cap? What 

if a defendant asserts a counterclaim 

that exceeds the cap? 

11. Permissible defenses and 

counterclaims. Discuss what limitations, 

if any, there should be on the types of 

defenses and counterclaims that could 

be decided through the small claims 

process. For example, could a defense of 

fair use or independent creation be 

adjudicated through the process? What 

about defenses or counterclaims arising 

under the DMCA, such as an assertion 

that the plaintiff’s claim is subject to 

one of the safe harbor provisions of 17 

U.S.C. 512(a) through (d), or that a 

takedown notice violated 17 U.S.C. 

512(f)? To the extent such defenses or 

counterclaims were not subject to 

adjudication through the small claims 

process and would require removal of 

the action to federal district court, 

would this provide defendants with a 

means to ‘‘opt out’’ of the small claims 

system in a substantial number of cases? 

12. Registration. Should registration 

of the allegedly infringed work be 

required in order to initiate a claim 

through the small claims process or, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
51070 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 164 / Thursday, August 23, 2012 / Notices 

alternatively, should proof of filing of an 

application for registration suffice? 

Should the process permit claims to be 

brought for unregistered works? Should 

the registration status of a work affect 

the availability of statutory damages or 

recovery of attorneys’ fees, assuming 

such remedies are available through the 

small claims process? 

13. Filing fee. Discuss the merits of 

requiring a filing fee to pursue a claim 

through the small claims process and 

the amount, if any, that would be 

appropriate. Should the filing fee vary 

with the size of the claim? Are there 

existing standards that might be 

informative? 

14. Initiation of proceeding. Explain 

what would be required to initiate a 

proceeding. Should some sort of 

attestation and/or a prima facie showing 

of infringement be required of a 

copyright owner with the initial filing? 

Should a copyright owner need to 

establish a prima facie case of 

infringement before the defendant is 

required to appear and, if so, how 

would it be determined that this 

requirement had been met? By what 

means would the defendant be served or 

otherwise notified of the action? Should 

a defendant that is sued in federal 

district court for copyright infringement 

be permitted to transfer the matter to the 

small claims tribunal if the plaintiff’s 

alleged damages are within the small 

claims damages cap? Should a party 

who has been put on notice of an 

alleged infringement be able to initiate 

an action by seeking a declaratory 

judgment of no infringement? 

15. Representation. Describe the role 

of attorneys or other representatives, if 

any, in a small claims copyright system. 

Should individual copyright owners be 

permitted to be represented by an 

attorney and/or a non-attorney advocate, 

in addition to appearing pro se? Should 

corporations and other business entities 

be permitted to appear through 

employees instead of attorneys? 

16. Conduct of proceedings. Describe 

how the small claims proceeding would 

work. Could the process be conducted 

by paper submission, without the 

requirement of personal appearances? 

Should the tribunal have the option to 

hold teleconferences or 

videoconferences in lieu of personal 

appearances? Should non-party 

witnesses be permitted to participate 

and, if so, by what means? Should 

expert witnesses be permitted? Should 

the tribunal have any sort of subpoena 

power? Should there be an established 

time frame for adjudication of the 

matter? 

17. Discovery, motion practice and 

evidence. Explain what types of 

discovery, if any, should be permitted in 

the small claims system. For example, 

should depositions (either oral or by 

written question), requests for 

production of documents, 

interrogatories and/or requests for 

admission be permitted and, if so, to 

what extent? Should motion practice be 

allowed and, if so, to what extent? What 

types of testimony and/or evidence 

should be accepted (e.g., written, oral, 

documentary, etc.), and what standards 

of admissibility, if any, should apply? 

18. Damages. Describe the damages 

that would be available through the 

small claims system. Should damages be 

limited to actual damages, or could 

statutory damages also be awarded? If 

statutory damages were available, 

should they adhere to the existing 

statutory damages framework of 17 

U.S.C. 504(c) (subject to any cap 

applicable in the small claims system), 

or could an alternative approach be 

adopted, such as a fixed amount to be 

awarded in the case of a finding of 

infringement? 

19. Equitable relief. Describe the 

equitable relief, if any, that should be 

available through the small claims 

system. Should the small claims 

tribunal be able to grant declaratory 

relief, issue an injunction to halt the 

infringing use of a work, impose license 

terms (such as for the continued 

distribution of a derivative work) and/ 

or award other forms of equitable relief? 

20. Attorneys’ fees and costs. Explain 

how attorneys’ fees and costs might be 

handled within the small claims system. 

Should a prevailing plaintiff and/or 

defendant be entitled to recover its 

attorneys’ fees and costs? If so, should 

such fees and costs be awarded 

according to the standards that have 

evolved under 17 U.S.C. 505, should 

they be awarded as a matter of course, 

or should other criteria apply? Should 

there be a limit on the amount of 

attorneys’ fees that could be sought and/ 

or awarded in the small claims system? 

21. Record of proceedings. Describe 

the record of proceedings that should be 

kept by the tribunal. Should decisions 

of the tribunal be rendered in writing? 

Should they include factual findings, 

legal explanation and/or other analysis? 

Should the records be publicly 

available? 

22. Effect of adjudication. Explain the 

nature and effect of a small claims 

adjudication. Should a decision of the 

small claims tribunal constitute a final 

and enforceable judgment (subject to 

any further review or appeal)? Should it 

be published and/or carry any 

precedential weight? Should it have any 

res judicata or collateral estoppel effect, 

or should it be limited to the specific 

activities at issue and parties in 

question? 

23. Enforceability of judgment. With 

respect to monetary judgments and any 

equitable or other relief awarded by the 

small claims tribunal, through what 

means would such remedies be 

enforceable? Should there be any 

special procedures for enforcement? Are 

there existing judicial or nonjudicial 

resources that might be useful in this 

regard? 

24. Review/appeals. Should there be a 

right of review or appeal and, if so, 

under what circumstances, and by or to 

what body or court? What would be the 

appropriate standard of review (e.g., de 

novo, clearly erroneous, abuse of 

discretion, etc.)? Aside from any 

applicable filing fee, should there be 

any conditions for seeking review (such 

as posting of a bond)? Should a 

prevailing party in a review or appeal 

process be entitled to recover its 

attorneys’ fees or costs? 

25. Group claims. Should multiple 

copyright owners or a trade association 

or other entity acting on behalf of 

copyright owners be permitted to 

pursue multiple infringement claims 

against a single defendant, or multiple 

defendants, in a single proceeding? 

Should there be specialized rules of 

standing or procedures to permit this 

within the small claims system? 

26. Frivolous claims. How might the 

small claims system deter frivolous and 

unwarranted filings? What measures— 

such as the awarding of attorneys’ fees 

or other financial sanctions, or the 

barring of copyright owners that have 

repeatedly pursued frivolous claims 

from further use of the small claims 

process—might be taken to discourage 

the assertion of bad faith or harassing 

infringement claims, defenses and 

counterclaims? 

27. Constitutional issues. Comment 

on whether a small claims system might 

implicate any one or more of the 

following constitutional concerns—or 

any other constitutional issue—and, if 

so, how the particular concern might be 

addressed: 

a. Separation of powers questions 

arising from the creation of specialized 

tribunals outside of the Article III 

framework, including how a right of 

review by an Article III court might 

impact the analysis; 

b. The Seventh Amendment right to 

have a copyright infringement case tried 

to a jury, as confirmed in Feltner v. 

Columbia Pictures Television, Inc., 523 

U.S. 340 (1998); 

c. Constitutional requirements for a 

court’s assertion of personal 

jurisdiction, in particular when 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 164 / Thursday, August 23, 2012 / Notices 51071 

adjudicating claims of a defendant 

located in another state; and/or 

d. Due process considerations arising 

from abbreviated procedures that 

impose limitations on briefing, 

discovery, testimony, evidence, 

appellate review, etc. 

28. State court alternative. As an 

alternative to creating a small claims 

system at a federal level, should the 

statutory mandate of exclusive federal 

jurisdiction for copyright claims be 

altered to allow small copyright claims 

to be pursued through existing state 

court systems, including traditional 

state small claims courts? What benefits 

or problems might flow from such a 

change? 

29. Empirical data. Commenting 

parties are invited to cite and submit 

further empirical data (in addition to the 

anecdotal and survey information 

already cited or submitted to the 

Copyright Office in connection with this 

proceeding) bearing upon: 

a. Whether copyright owners are or 

are not pursuing small infringement 

claims through the existing federal court 

process, and the factors that influence 

copyright owners’ decisions in that 

regard, including the value of claims 

pursued or forgone; 

b. The overall cost to a plaintiff and/ 

or a defendant to litigate a copyright 

infringement action to conclusion in 

federal court, including costs and 

attorneys’ fees, discovery expenditures, 

expert witness fees and other expenses 

(with reference to the stage of 

proceedings at which the matter was 

concluded); 

c. The frequency with which courts 

award costs and/or attorneys’ fees to 

prevailing parties pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 

505, and the amount of such awards in 

relation to the underlying claim or 

recovery; and/or 

d. The frequency with which litigants 

decline to accept an outcome in state 

small claims court and seek de novo 

review (with or without a jury trial) or 

file an appeal in a different court. 

30. Funding considerations. Aside 

from filing fees, by what means might a 

small claims system be partially or 

wholly self-supporting? Should winning 

and/or losing parties be required to 

defray the administrative costs of the 

tribunal’s consideration of their matter, 

in all or in part? If so, by what means? 

If the system consists of or includes 

arbitration or mediation, should parties 

bear the cost of these alternatives? 

31. Evaluation of small claims system. 

Should the small claims system be 

evaluated for efficacy and, if so, how? 

Should it be subject to periodic review 

or adjustment? Should it be launched 

initially as a pilot program or on a 

limited basis? 

32. Other issues. Are there any 

additional pertinent issues not 

identified above that the Copyright 

Office should consider in conducting its 

study? 

Dated: August 20, 2012. 

Maria A. Pallante, 

Register of Copyrights. 

[FR Doc. 2012–20802 Filed 8–22–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–30–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 50–316; NRC–2012–0199] 

Indiana Michigan Power Company, 

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit 2, 

Environmental Assessment and 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC or the Commission) is considering 

issuance of an exemption and an 

amendment to Renewed Facility 

Operating License No. DPR–74, issued 

to Indiana Michigan Power Company 

(the licensee), for operation of Donald C. 

Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit 2 (CNP–2), 

located in Berrien County, Michigan, in 

accordance with §§ 50.12 and 50.90 of 

Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR). In accordance 

with 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC performed 

an environmental assessment 

documenting its findings as follows: 

Environmental Assessment 

Identification of the Proposed Actions 

The proposed actions would issue an 

exemption from certain requirements of 

10 CFR, Section 50.46 and Appendix K, 

regarding fuel cladding material, and 

revise the Technical Specifications 

document, which is Appendix A to 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

DPR–74, to permit use of a 

Westinghouse proprietary material, 

Optimized ZIRLOTM, for fuel rod 

cladding. The licensee will be 

authorized to a peak load average 

burnup limit of 62 gigawatt-days per 

metric ton uranium (GWD/MTU). 

The proposed actions are in 

accordance with the licensee’s 

application dated September 29, 2011, 

as supplemented on July 25, 2012. 

The Need for the Proposed Actions 

The proposed actions to issue an 

exemption to the fuel cladding 

requirement of 10 CFR 50.46 and 

Appendix K, and to amend the 

Technical Specifications to permit use 

of Optimized ZIRLOTM clad fuel rods to 

a peak rod average burnup limit of 62 

GWD/MTU would allow for more 

effective fuel management. If the 

exemption and amendment are not 

approved, the licensee will not be 

provided the opportunity to use 

Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel design with a 

peak rod average burnup as high as 62 

GWD/MTU; the licensee would thus 

lose fuel management flexibility. 

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed 

Actions 

In this environmental assessment 

regarding the impacts of the use of 

Optimized ZIRLOTM clad fuel with the 

possible burnup up to 62 GWD/MTU, 

the Commission is relying on the results 

of the updated study conducted for the 

NRC by the Pacific Northwest National 

Laboratory (PNNL), entitled 

‘‘Environmental Effects of Extending 

Fuel Burnup Above 60 GWD/MTU’’ 

(NUREG/CR–6703, PNNL–13257, 

January 2001). Environmental impacts 

of high burnup fuel up to 75 GWD/MTU 

were evaluated in the study, but some 

aspects of the review were limited to 

evaluating the impacts of the extended 

burnup up to 62 GWD/MTU, because of 

the need for additional data on the effect 

of extended burnup on gap release 

fractions. All the aspects of the fuelcycle were considered during the study, 

from mining, milling, conversion, 

enrichment and fabrication through 

normal reactor operation, 

transportation, waste management, and 

storage of spent fuel. 

The amendment and exemption 

would allow CNP–2 to use Optimized 

ZIRLOTM clad fuel up to a burnup limit 

of 62 GWD/MTU. The NRC staff has 

completed its evaluation of the 

proposed actions and concludes that 

such changes would not adversely affect 

plant safety, and would have no adverse 

effect on the probability of any accident. 

For the accidents that involve damage or 

melting of the fuel in the reactor core, 

fuel rod integrity has been shown to be 

unaffected by extended burnup under 

consideration; therefore, the 

consequences of an accident will not be 

affected by fuel burnup to 62 GWD/ 

MTU. For the accidents in which the 

reactor core remains intact, the 

increased burnup may slightly change 

the mix of fission products that could be 

released, but because the radionuclides 

contributing most to the dose are shortlived, increased burnup would not have 

an effect on the consequences beyond 

the consequences of previously 

evaluated accident scenarios. Thus, 

there will be no significant increase in 

projected dose consequences of 

postulated accidents associated with 

fuel burnup up to 62 GWD/MTU, and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES