Virginia Electric and Power Company; Receipt of Request for Action, 18874-18875 [2012-7434]

Download as PDF 18874 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 60 / Wednesday, March 28, 2012 / Notices at: www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/policymaking/schedule.html. * * * * * The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (e.g. braille, large print), please notify Bill Dosch, Chief, Work Life and Benefits Branch, at 301–415–6200, TDD: 301– 415–2100, or by email at william.dosch@nrc.gov. Determinations on requests for reasonable accommodation will be made on a caseby-case basis. * * * * * This notice is distributed electronically to subscribers. If you no longer wish to receive it, or would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301–415–1969), or send an email to darlene.wright@nrc.gov. Dated: March 23, 2012. Kenneth Hart, Technical Coordinator, Office of the Secretary. [FR Doc. 2012–7539 Filed 3–26–12; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 50–338 and 50–339; NRC– 2012–0075; License Nos. NPF–4 and NPF– 7] tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Virginia Electric and Power Company; Receipt of Request for Action Notice is hereby given that by petition dated October 20, 2011, (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s or the Commission’s) Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML11293A116); as supplemented by a letter dated November 2, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML11308A027); and an email dated December 15, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12060A197); Paul Gunter, Kevin Kamps, Thomas Saporito, Paxus Calta, Alex Jack, Scott Price, John Cruickshank, Eleanor Amidon, Erika Kretzmer, Lovell King II, David Levy, Hilary Boyd, G. Paul Blundell, Erica Gray, Edmund Frost, and Richard Ball (the petitioners), request that the NRC 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 petitioners request VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:29 Mar 27, 2012 Jkt 226001 that the NRC suspend the operating licenses for North Anna 1 and 2, until the completion of a set of activities described in the petition. As the basis for this request, the petitioners state several concerns which are summarized as follows: (1) Prior to the approval of restart for North Anna 1 and 2, after the earthquake of August 23, 2011, the licensee should be required to obtain a license amendment from the NRC that reanalyzes and reevaluates the plant’s design basis for earthquakes and for associated retrofits. (2) Prior to the approval of restart for North Anna 1 and 2, after the earthquake of August 23, 2011, the licensee should be required to ensure that North Anna 1 and 2 are subjected to thorough inspections of the same level and rigor. (3) The licensee should be required to reanalyze and requalify the adequacy and condition of the Lake Anna dam after the earthquake of August 23, 2011. (4) The licensee should be required to reanalyze and reevaluate the North Anna Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) due to damage caused by the earthquake of August 23, 2011, and ensure that no threat is posed to public health and safety by its operation. (5) The licensee should ensure the reliability and accuracy of the seismic instrumentation at North Anna 1 and 2. (6) The NRC staff made hasty decisions about the restart of North Anna 1 and 2, and gave priority to economic considerations. The long-term action plan was not even complete before the NRC gave authorization to restart. (7) Regulatory commitments are an inadequate regulatory tool for ensuring that the critical long-term tasks identified in the NRC staff’s confirmatory action letter (CAL) dated November 11, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML11311A201), are completed. (8) The NRC should provide greater access to certain documents concerning North Anna 1 and 2, which are stored at the University of Virginia. (9) The licensee needs to address the possibility of both boildown and rapid draindown events at the North Anna 1 and 2, spent fuel pool. (10) The long-term storage of spent fuel in the spent fuel pool at North Anna 1 and 2, and at the North Anna ISFSI poses challenges to the public health and safety. (11) ‘‘Hardened on-site storage’’ strategies for spent fuel should be used at North Anna 1 and 2. (12) Concerns exist about age-related degradation at North Anna 1 and 2. PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 (13) Concerns exist about the response of North Anna 1 and 2, to a prolonged station blackout. (14) The current emergency evacuation plans for North Anna 1 and 2, need to be revised to reflect the possible need to evacuate a larger area than that identified in the current emergency planning zone. (15) Concerns exist about damage to the structural integrity of the spent fuel pool structure at North Anna 1 and 2, as represented on pages 41 and 42 of the NRC staff’s technical evaluation for the restart of North Anna 1 and 2, dated November 11, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML11308B406). (16) There are concerns about lack of compliance at North Anna 1 and 2, with a public law requiring storage of potassium iodide in areas surrounding a nuclear reactor. The request is being treated pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Section 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 (NRR). As provided by 10 CFR 2.206, appropriate action will be taken on this petition within a reasonable time. The petitioners met with the NRR petition review board on December 12, 2011 (corrected transcript at ADAMS Accession No. ML12033A025), and February 2, 2012 (corrected transcript at ADAMS Accession No. ML12047A240), to discuss the petition. The results of these discussions were considered in the board’s final determination to partially accept the petition for review, as communicated to the petitioners by letter from Eric J. Leeds, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, dated March 16, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12060A090), and in establishing the review schedule. A copy of the petition is available for inspection at the Commission’s Public Document Room (PDR), 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 available online through ADAMS in the NRC Library at https:// 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 PDR reference staff at 1–800– 397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by email to PDR.Resource@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day of March 2012. E:\FR\FM\28MRN1.SGM 28MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 60 / Wednesday, March 28, 2012 / Notices For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Eric J. Leeds, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change [FR Doc. 2012–7434 Filed 3–27–12; 8:45 am] 1. Purpose BILLING CODE 7590–01–P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34–66642; File No. SR– NYSEArca–2012–19] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Commentary .01 to NYSE Arca Rule 6.35 March 22, 2012. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ‘‘Act’’) 2 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,3 notice is hereby given that, on March 9, 2012, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ‘‘Exchange’’ or ‘‘NYSE Arca’’) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to proposes to [sic] amend Commentary .01 to NYSE Arca Rule 6.35. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, the Commission’s Public Reference Room, and www.nyse.com. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements. U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). U.S.C. 78a. 3 17 CFR 240.19b–4. The Exchange proposes to amend Commentary .01 to NYSE Arca Rule 6.35 to allow certain cross trades effected on the Trading Floor to count toward the Market Maker’s appointment trading requirement and to make nonsubstantive changes to NYSE Arca Rules 6.35, 6.37, 6.84, and 10.12. Under NYSE Arca Rule 6.35, a Market maker is required to effect at least 75% of its trading activity (measured in terms of contract volume per quarter) in classes within the Market Maker’s appointment. Commentary .01 to NYSE Arca Rule 6.35 clarifies that a Market Maker’s trades effected on the Trading Floor to accommodate cross trades executed pursuant to NYSE Arca Rule 6.47 do not count for or against the Market Maker’s 75% requirement, regardless of whether the trades are in issues within or without the Market Maker’s appointment. The Exchange is proposing to amend Commentary .01 to NYSE Arca Rule 6.35 to allow a Market Maker’s trades effected on the Trading Floor to accommodate cross trades executed pursuant to NYSE Arca Rule 6.47 to count toward the Market Maker’s 75% requirement, regardless of whether the trades are in issues within or without the Market Maker’s appointment. Transactions of a Market Maker should constitute a course of dealings reasonably calculated to contribute to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market.4 Market Makers located on the Trading Floor, when trading in option classes other than those to which they are appointed, must continue to fulfill Market Maker obligations for that class as if they were appointed to such class. In addition, when present anywhere on the Options Trading Floor, with regard to all securities traded on the Trading Floor, not just those to which they are appointed, Market Makers may be required to undertake the general obligations of a Market Maker at any time in response to a demand from a Trading Official.5 The Exchange believes that a Market Maker engaging in such trading is fulfilling Market Maker obligations in addition to providing liquidity to the market and the opportunity for price improvement, and it is appropriate to encourage such activity by counting it toward the 75% requirement. In addition, the Exchange notes that the proposed rule change is similar to NYSE Amex LLC Options Rule 923NY(i), which permits all floor trades executed by Floor Market Makers [sic] a designated Trading Zone, not just those to which they hold an appointment, to count toward the Market Maker’s 75% requirement. While NYSE Arca Market Makers are not appointed to a designated Trading Zone, they are subject to certain Market Maker obligations in all classes of options while located on the Trading Floor. As such, NYSE Arca believes that counting all floor trades, executed to accommodate cross transactions, is consistent with the application of NYSE Amex Rule 923NY(i) when calculating compliance with the 75% ‘‘in appointment’’ requirement. NYSE Arca is also proposing nonsubstantive changes to NYSE Arca Rules 6.35, 6.37, 6.84, and 10.12. The Exchange proposes to replace the term ‘‘Primary Appointment’’ which is not a defined term with the word ‘‘appointment’’ as it is used elsewhere in NYSE Arca Rule 6.35. 2. Statutory Basis The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) 6 of the Act, in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),7 in particular, in that the proposal is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Specifically, the proposed rule change will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market by providing an appropriate incentive for Market Makers to provide greater liquidity and the opportunity for price improvement on the Trading Floor, thereby benefiting all market participants. B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not 1 15 2 15 VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:29 Mar 27, 2012 4 See 5 See Jkt 226001 PO 00000 e.g., NYSE Arca Rule 6.37(a). e.g., NYSE Arca Rule 6.37(c). Frm 00090 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 18875 6 15 7 15 E:\FR\FM\28MRN1.SGM U.S.C. 78f(b). U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 28MRN1

Agencies

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 60 (Wednesday, March 28, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18874-18875]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7434]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339; NRC-2012-0075; License Nos. NPF-4 and 
NPF-7]


Virginia Electric and Power Company; Receipt of Request for 
Action

    Notice is hereby given that by petition dated October 20, 2011, 
(U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's or the Commission's) 
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. 
ML11293A116); as supplemented by a letter dated November 2, 2011 (ADAMS 
Accession No. ML11308A027); and an email dated December 15, 2011 (ADAMS 
Accession No. ML12060A197); Paul Gunter, Kevin Kamps, Thomas Saporito, 
Paxus Calta, Alex Jack, Scott Price, John Cruickshank, Eleanor Amidon, 
Erika Kretzmer, Lovell King II, David Levy, Hilary Boyd, G. Paul 
Blundell, Erica Gray, Edmund Frost, and Richard Ball (the petitioners), 
request that the NRC 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 petitioners request that the NRC suspend 
the operating licenses for North Anna 1 and 2, until the completion of 
a set of activities described in the petition.
    As the basis for this request, the petitioners state several 
concerns which are summarized as follows:
    (1) Prior to the approval of restart for North Anna 1 and 2, after 
the earthquake of August 23, 2011, the licensee should be required to 
obtain a license amendment from the NRC that reanalyzes and reevaluates 
the plant's design basis for earthquakes and for associated retrofits.
    (2) Prior to the approval of restart for North Anna 1 and 2, after 
the earthquake of August 23, 2011, the licensee should be required to 
ensure that North Anna 1 and 2 are subjected to thorough inspections of 
the same level and rigor.
    (3) The licensee should be required to reanalyze and requalify the 
adequacy and condition of the Lake Anna dam after the earthquake of 
August 23, 2011.
    (4) The licensee should be required to reanalyze and reevaluate the 
North Anna Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) due to 
damage caused by the earthquake of August 23, 2011, and ensure that no 
threat is posed to public health and safety by its operation.
    (5) The licensee should ensure the reliability and accuracy of the 
seismic instrumentation at North Anna 1 and 2.
    (6) The NRC staff made hasty decisions about the restart of North 
Anna 1 and 2, and gave priority to economic considerations. The long-
term action plan was not even complete before the NRC gave 
authorization to restart.
    (7) Regulatory commitments are an inadequate regulatory tool for 
ensuring that the critical long-term tasks identified in the NRC 
staff's confirmatory action letter (CAL) dated November 11, 2011 (ADAMS 
Accession No. ML11311A201), are completed.
    (8) The NRC should provide greater access to certain documents 
concerning North Anna 1 and 2, which are stored at the University of 
Virginia.
    (9) The licensee needs to address the possibility of both boildown 
and rapid draindown events at the North Anna 1 and 2, spent fuel pool.
    (10) The long-term storage of spent fuel in the spent fuel pool at 
North Anna 1 and 2, and at the North Anna ISFSI poses challenges to the 
public health and safety.
    (11) ``Hardened on-site storage'' strategies for spent fuel should 
be used at North Anna 1 and 2.
    (12) Concerns exist about age-related degradation at North Anna 1 
and 2.
    (13) Concerns exist about the response of North Anna 1 and 2, to a 
prolonged station blackout.
    (14) The current emergency evacuation plans for North Anna 1 and 2, 
need to be revised to reflect the possible need to evacuate a larger 
area than that identified in the current emergency planning zone.
    (15) Concerns exist about damage to the structural integrity of the 
spent fuel pool structure at North Anna 1 and 2, as represented on 
pages 41 and 42 of the NRC staff's technical evaluation for the restart 
of North Anna 1 and 2, dated November 11, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. 
ML11308B406).
    (16) There are concerns about lack of compliance at North Anna 1 
and 2, with a public law requiring storage of potassium iodide in areas 
surrounding a nuclear reactor.
    The request is being treated pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Section 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 (NRR). As provided by 10 CFR 2.206, appropriate action will 
be taken on this petition within a reasonable time. The petitioners met 
with the NRR petition review board on December 12, 2011 (corrected 
transcript at ADAMS Accession No. ML12033A025), and February 2, 2012 
(corrected transcript at ADAMS Accession No. ML12047A240), to discuss 
the petition. The results of these discussions were considered in the 
board's final determination to partially accept the petition for 
review, as communicated to the petitioners by letter from Eric J. 
Leeds, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, dated March 16, 
2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12060A090), and in establishing the review 
schedule.
    A copy of the petition is available for inspection at the 
Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), 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 available online through ADAMS in the NRC 
Library at https://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 
PDR reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to 
PDR.Resource@nrc.gov.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day of March 2012.


[[Page 18875]]


    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Eric J. Leeds,
Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2012-7434 Filed 3-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.