Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Notices 9483 

2Maximum Per Diem Rates for the Continental 

United States (CONUS), 79 FR 48168 (August. 15, 

2014); see also www.gsa.gov/perdiem. 

permitted under § 655.173(a), i.e. the 

charge annually adjusted by the 12- 

month percentage change in CPI–U for 

Food. 

The Department determines the 

maximum meals component of the daily 

travel subsistence expense on the 

standard minimum Continental United 

States (CONUS) per diem rate as 

established by the General Services 

Administration (GSA) at 41 CFR part 

301, formerly published in Appendix A, 

and now found at www.gsa.gov/

perdiem. The CONUS minimum meals 

component remains $46.00 per day for 

2015.2 Workers who qualify for travel 

reimbursement are entitled to 

reimbursement for meals up to the 

CONUS meal rate when they provide 

receipts. In determining the appropriate 

amount of reimbursement for meals for 

less than a full day, the employer may 

provide for meal expense 

reimbursement, with receipts, to 75 

percent of the maximum reimbursement 

for meals of $34.50, as provided for in 

the GSA per diem schedule. If a worker 

has no receipts, the employer is not 

obligated to reimburse above the 

minimum stated at 20 CFR 655.173(a) as 

specified above. 

The term ‘‘subsistence’’ includes both 

meals and lodging during travel to and 

from the worksite. Therefore, an 

employer is responsible for providing 

(either paying in advance or 

reimbursing a worker) the reasonable 

costs of transportation and daily 

subsistence between the employer’s 

worksite and the place from which the 

worker comes to work for the employer, 

if the worker completes 50 percent of 

the work contract period. Upon the 

worker completing the contract, the 

employer is obligated to pay the return 

costs. In those instances where a worker 

must travel to obtain a visa so that the 

worker may enter the U.S. to come to 

work for the employer, the employer 

must pay for the transportation and 

daily subsistence costs of that part of the 

travel as well. 

As the Department has stated before, 

we interpret the regulation to require 

the employer to assume responsibility 

for the reasonable costs associated with 

the worker’s travel, including 

transportation, food, and, in those 

instances where it is necessary, lodging. 

The minimum and maximum daily 

travel meal reimbursement amounts are 

established above. If transportation and 

lodging are not provided by the 

employer, the amount an employer must 

pay for transportation and, where 

required, lodging, must be no less than 

(and is not required to be more than) the 

most economical and reasonable costs. 

The employer is responsible for those 

costs necessary for the worker to travel 

to the worksite if the worker completes 

50 percent of the work contract period, 

but is not responsible for unauthorized 

detours, and if the worker completes the 

contract the employer is further 

responsible for return transportation 

and subsistence costs, including lodging 

costs where necessary. This policy also 

applies to instances where the worker is 

traveling within the U.S. to the 

employer’s worksite. 

For further information on when the 

employer is responsible for 

transportation, lodging and meal costs, 

please see the Department’s H–2A 

Frequently Asked Questions on Travel 

and Daily Subsistence, which may 

found on the OFLC Web site: http://

www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/. 

Portia Wu, 

Assistant Secretary, Employment and 

Training Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2015–03596 Filed 2–20–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FP–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 50–271; NRC–2015–0034] 

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power 

Station 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Exemption; issuance. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is issuing an 

exemption in response to a October 31, 

2013, request from Entergy Nuclear 

Operations, Inc. (Entergy or the 

licensee), from certain regulatory 

requirements. The exemption would 

remove the requirement that a licensed 

senior operator approve the emergency 

suspension of security measures for 

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station 

(VY) during certain emergency 

conditions or during severe weather. 

ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID 

NRC–2015–0034 when contacting the 

NRC about the availability of 

information regarding this document. 

You may obtain publicly-available 

information related to this document 

using any of the following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2015–0034. Address 

questions about NRC dockets to Carol 

Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463; 

email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For 

technical questions, contact the 

individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

document. 

• NRC’s Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management System 

(ADAMS): You may obtain publiclyavailable documents online in the 

ADAMS Public Documents collection at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/

adams.html. To begin the search, select 

‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then 

select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS 

Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS, 

please contact the NRC’s Public 

Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 

1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by 

email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The 

ADAMS accession number for each 

document referenced in this document 

(if that document is available in 

ADAMS) is provided the first time that 

a document is referenced. 

• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and 

purchase copies of public documents at 

the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One 

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James Kim, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation; U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001; telephone: 301–415–4125; email: 

James.Kim@nrc.gov. 

I. Background 

Entergy is the holder of Renewed 

Facility Operating License No. DPR–28. 

The license provides, among other 

things, that the facility is subject to all 

rules, regulations, and orders of the NRC 

now or hereafter in effect. The facility 

consists of a boiling-water reactor 

located in Windham County, Vermont. 

By letter dated January 12, 2015, 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML15013A426), 

Entergy submitted to the NRC the 

certification, in accordance with Section 

50.82(a)(1)(i) and 50.82(a)(1)(ii) of Title 

10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 

(10 CFR), indicating it permanently 

ceased power operations and that the 

VY reactor vessel was permanently 

defueled. 

II. Request/Action 

On October 31, 2013 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML13317A077), the 

licensee requested an exemption from 

10 CFR 73.55(p)(1)(i) and 73.55(p)(1)(ii), 

pursuant to 10 CFR 73.5, ‘‘Specific 

exemptions.’’ Section 73.55(p)(1)(i) and 

73.55(p)(1)(ii) require, in part, that the 

suspension of security measures during 

certain emergency conditions or during 

severe weather be approved by a 

licensed senior operator. The exemption 

request relates solely to the licensing 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
9484 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Notices 

requirements specified in the 

regulations for the staff directing 

suspension of security measures in 

accordance with 10 CFR 73.55(p)(1)(i) 

and 73.55(p)(1)(ii), and would remove 

the requirement for a licensed senior 

operator to provide this approval. 

Instead, the exemption would allow the 

suspension of security measures during 

certain emergency conditions or during 

severe weather by a certified fuel hander 

(CFH). Portions of the letter dated 

October 31, 2013, contain sensitive 

unclassified nonsafeguards information 

(security-related) and, accordingly, have 

been withheld from public disclosure. 

III. Discussion 

Historically, the Commission’s 

security rules have long recognized the 

potential to suspend security or 

safeguards measures under certain 

conditions. Accordingly, 10 CFR 

50.54(x) and (y), first promulgated in 

1983, allow a licensee to take reasonable 

steps in an emergency that deviate from 

license conditions when those steps are 

‘‘needed to protect the public health and 

safety’’ and there are no conforming 

comparable measures. (48 FR 13970; 

April 1, 1983). As originally 

promulgated, the deviation from license 

conditions must be approved by, as a 

minimum, a licensed senior operator. In 

1986, in its final rule, ‘‘Miscellaneous 

Amendments Concerning the Physical 

Protection of Nuclear Power Plants’’ (51 

FR 27817; August 4, 1986), the 

Commission promulgated 10 CFR 

73.55(a), stating in part: 

In accordance with § 50.54 (x) and (y) of 

Part 50, the licensee may suspend any 

safeguards measures pursuant to § 73.55 in 

an emergency when this action is 

immediately needed to protect the public 

health and safety and no action consistent 

with license conditions and technical 

specification that can provide adequate or 

equivalent protection is immediately 

apparent. This suspension must be approved 

as a minimum by a licensed senior operator 

prior to taking the action. 

In 1995, the Commission made a 

number of proposed rule changes to 

address decommissioning. Among the 

changes were new regulations that 

affected § 50.54 (x) and (y) by allowing 

a non-licensed operator called a 

‘‘Certified Fuel Handler,’’ in addition to 

a licensed senior operator, to authorize 

protective steps. Specifically, in 

addressing the role of the CFH during 

emergencies, the Commission stated in 

the proposed rule, ‘‘Decommissioning of 

Nuclear Power Reactors’’ (60 FR 37379; 

July 20, 1995): 

The Commission is proposing to amend 10 

CFR 50.54(y) to permit a certified fuel 

handler at nuclear power reactors that have 

permanently ceased operations and 

permanently removed fuel from the reactor 

vessel, subject to the requirements of 

§ 50.82(a) and consistent with the proposed 

definition of ‘‘Certified Fuel Handler’’ 

specified in § 50.2, to make these evaluations 

and judgments. A nuclear power reactor that 

has permanently ceased operations and no 

longer has fuel in the reactor vessel does not 

require a licensed individual to monitor core 

conditions. A certified fuel handler at a 

permanently shutdown and defueled nuclear 

power reactor undergoing decommissioning 

is an individual who has the requisite 

knowledge and experience to evaluate plant 

conditions and make these judgments. 

In the final rule (61 FR 39298; July 29, 

1996), the Commission added the 

following definition to 10 CFR 50.2: 

‘‘Certified fuel handler means, for a 

nuclear power reactor facility, a nonlicensed operator who has qualified in 

accordance with a fuel handler training 

program approved by the Commission.’’ 

However, the Decommissioning Rule 

did not propose or make parallel 

changes to 10 CFR 73.55(a), and did not 

discuss the role of a non-licensed 

certified fuel handler. 

In the final rule, ‘‘Power Reactor 

Security Requirements’’ (74 FR 13926; 

March 27, 2009), the NRC relocated and 

split the security suspension 

requirements from 10 CFR 73.55(a) to 10 

CFR 73.55(p)(1)(i) and (p)(1)(ii). The 

CFHs were not discussed in the 

rulemaking, so the requirements of 10 

CFR 73.55(p) to use a licensed senior 

operator remain, even for a site that 

otherwise no longer operates. 

However, pursuant to 10 CFR 73.5, 

the Commission may, upon application 

by any interested person or upon its 

own initiative, grant exemptions from 

the requirements of 10 CFR part 73, as 

it determines are authorized by law and 

will not endanger life or property or the 

common defense and security, and are 

otherwise in the public interest. 

A. The Exemption Is Authorized by Law 

The exemption from 10 CFR 

73.55(p)(1)(i) and 10 CFR 73.55(p)(1)(ii) 

would remove the requirement that a 

licensed senior operator approve the 

suspension of security measures, under 

certain emergency conditions or severe 

weather. The licensee intends to align 

these regulations with 10 CFR 50.54(y) 

by using the authority of a non-licensed 

CFH in place of a licensed senior 

operator to approve the suspension of 

security measures during certain 

emergency conditions or during severe 

weather. 

Per 10 CFR 73.5, the Commission is 

allowed to grant exemptions from the 

regulations in 10 CFR part 73, as 

authorized by law. 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 

other laws. Therefore, the exemption is 

authorized by law. 

B. Will Not Endanger Life or Property or 

the Common Defense and Security 

Removing the requirement to have a 

licensed senior operator approve 

suspension of security measures during 

emergencies or severe weather will not 

endanger life or property or the common 

defense and security for the reasons 

described below. 

First, 10 CFR 73.55(p)(2) continues to 

require that ‘‘[s]uspended security 

measures must be reinstated as soon as 

conditions permit.’’ 

Second, the suspension for 

nonweather emergency conditions 

under 10 CFR 73.55(p)(1)(i) will 

continue to be invoked only ‘‘when this 

action is immediately needed to protect 

the public health and safety and no 

action consistent with license 

conditions and technical specifications 

that can provide adequate or equivalent 

protection is immediately apparent.’’ 

Thus, the underlying purpose of 10 CFR 

73.55(p)(1)(i) will continue to be to 

protect public health and safety even 

after the exemption is granted. 

Third, the suspension for severe 

weather under 10 CFR 73.55(p)(1)(ii) 

will continue to be used only when ‘‘the 

suspension of affected security 

measures is immediately needed to 

protect the personal health and safety of 

security force personnel and no other 

immediately apparent action consistent 

with the license conditions and 

technical specifications can provide 

adequate or equivalent protection.’’ The 

requirement to receive input from the 

security supervisor or manager will 

remain. The underlying purpose of 10 

CFR 73.55(p)(1)(ii) will continue to be to 

protect the health and safety of the 

security force. 

Additionally, by letter dated October 

1, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML14162A209), the NRC approved 

Entergy’s CFH training and retraining 

program for the VY facility. The NRC 

staff found that, among other things, the 

program addresses the safe conduct of 

decommissioning activities, safe 

handling and storage of spent fuel, and 

the appropriate response to plant 

emergencies. Because the CFH is 

sufficiently trained and qualified under 

an NRC-approved program, the NRC 

staff considers a CFH to have sufficient 

knowledge of operational and safety 

concerns, such that allowing a CFH to 

suspend security measures during the 

emergencies or severe weather will not 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Notices 9485 

result in undue risk to public health and 

safety. 

In addition, the exemption does not 

reduce the overall effectiveness of the 

physical security plan and has no 

adverse impacts to Entergy’s ability to 

physically secure the site or protect 

special nuclear material at VY, and thus 

would not have an effect on the 

common defense and security. The NRC 

staff has concluded that the exemption 

would not reduce security measures 

currently in place to protect against 

radiological sabotage. Therefore, 

removing the requirement for a licensed 

senior operator to approve the 

suspension of security measures in an 

emergency or during severe weather, to 

allow suspension of security measures 

to be authorized by a CFH, does not 

adversely affect public health and safety 

issues or the assurance of the common 

defense and security. 

C. Is Otherwise in the Public Interest 

Entergy’s proposed exemption would 

remove the requirement that a licensed 

senior operator approve suspension of 

security measures in an emergency 

when ‘‘immediately needed to protect 

the public health and safety’’ or during 

severe weather when ‘‘immediately 

needed to protect the personal health 

and safety of security force personnel.’’ 

Without the exemption, the licensee 

cannot implement changes to its 

security plan to authorize a CFH to 

approve the temporary suspension of 

security regulations during an 

emergency or severe weather, 

comparable to the authority given to the 

CFH by the Commission when it 

promulgated 10 CFR 50.54(y). Instead, 

the regulations would continue to 

require that a licensed senior operator 

be available to make decisions for a 

permanently shutdown plant, even 

though VY no longer requires a licensed 

senior operator. However, it is unclear 

how the licensee would implement 

emergency or severe weather 

suspensions of security measures 

without a licensed senior operator. This 

exemption is in the public interest for 

two reasons. First, without the 

exemption, there is uncertainty on how 

the licensee will invoke temporary 

suspension of security matters that may 

be needed for protecting public health 

and safety or the safety of the security 

forces during emergencies and severe 

weather. The exemption would allow 

the licensee to make decisions pursuant 

to 73.55(p)(1)(i) & (ii) without having to 

maintain a staff of licensed senior 

operators. The exemption would also 

allow the licensee to have an 

established procedure in place to allow 

a trained CFH to suspend security 

measures in the event of an emergency 

or severe weather. Second, the 

consistent and efficient regulation of 

nuclear power plants serves the public 

interest. This exemption would assure 

consistency between the security 

regulations in 10 CFR part 73 and the 

operating reactor regulations in 10 CFR 

part 50, and the requirements 

concerning licensed operators in 10 CFR 

part 55. The NRC staff has determined 

that granting of the licensee’s proposed 

exemption would allow the licensee to 

designate an alternative position, with 

qualifications appropriate for a 

permanently shutdown and defueled 

reactor, to approve the suspension of 

security measures during an emergency 

to protect the public health and safety, 

and during severe weather to protect the 

safety of the security force, consistent 

with the similar authority provided by 

10 CFR 50.54(y). Therefore, the 

exemption is in the public interest. 

D. Environmental Considerations 

The NRC approval of the exemption 

to security requirements belongs to a 

category of actions that the Commission, 

by rule or regulation, has declared to be 

a categorical exclusion, after first 

finding that the category of actions does 

not individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. Specifically, the 

exemption is categorically excluded 

from further analysis under 10 CFR 

51.22(c)(25). 

Under 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25), granting 

of an exemption from the requirements 

of any regulation of Chapter I to 10 CFR 

is a categorical exclusion provided that 

(i) there is no significant hazards 

consideration; (ii) there is no significant 

change in the types or significant 

increase in the amounts of any effluents 

that may be released offsite; (iii) there is 

no significant increase in individual or 

cumulative public or occupational 

radiation exposure; (iv) there is no 

significant construction impact; (v) 

there is no significant increase in the 

potential for or consequences from 

radiological accidents; and (vi) the 

requirements from which an exemption 

is sought involve: safeguard plans, and 

materials control and accounting 

inventory scheduling requirements; or 

involve other requirements of an 

administrative, managerial, or 

organizational nature. 

The Director, Division of Operating 

Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, has determined that 

approval of the exemption request 

involves no significant hazards 

consideration because removing the 

requirement to have a licensed senior 

operator approve the security 

suspension at a defueled shutdown 

power plant does not (1) involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of 

a new or different kind of accident from 

any accident previously evaluated; or 

(3) involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. The exempted security 

regulation is unrelated to any 

operational restriction. Accordingly, 

there is no significant change in the 

types or significant increase in the 

amounts of any effluents that may be 

released offsite; and no significant 

increase in individual or cumulative 

public or occupational radiation 

exposure. The exempted regulation is 

not associated with construction, so 

there is no significant construction 

impact. The exempted regulation does 

not concern the source term (i.e., 

potential amount of radiation in an 

accident), nor mitigation. Thus, there is 

no significant increase in the potential 

for, or consequences of, a radiological 

accident. The requirement to have a 

licensed senior operator approve 

departure from security actions may be 

viewed as involving either safeguards, 

materials control, or managerial matters. 

Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 

51.22(b) and 51.22(c)(25), no 

environmental impact statement or 

environmental assessment need be 

prepared in connection with the 

approval of this exemption request. 

IV. Conclusions 

Accordingly, the Commission has 

determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 

73.5, the exemption is authorized by 

law and will not endanger life or 

property or the common defense and 

security, and is otherwise in the public 

interest. Therefore, the Commission 

hereby grants the licensee’s request for 

an exemption from the requirements of 

10 CFR 73.55(p)(1)(i) and 73.55(p)(1)(ii), 

which otherwise would require 

suspension of security measures during 

emergencies and severe weather, 

respectively, to be approved by a 

licensed senior operator. The exemption 

is effective upon issuance. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day 

of February 2015. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Michele G. Evans, 

Director, Division of Operating Reactor 

Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2015–03624 Filed 2–20–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES