Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC; Issuance of Director's Decision, 66492-66493 [2012-26926]
Download as PDF
66492
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 214 / Monday, November 5, 2012 / Notices
I. The Commission expects that the
NRC staff and presiding officers (and
any other reviewing officers) will
consider and resolve requests for access
to SUNSI, and motions for protective
orders, in a timely fashion in order to
minimize any unnecessary delays in
identifying those petitioners who have
standing and who have propounded
contentions meeting the specificity and
basis requirements in 10 CFR Part 2.
Attachment 1 to this Order summarizes
the general target schedule for
processing and resolving requests under
these procedures.
It is so ordered.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day
of October 2012.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
ATTACHMENT 1—GENERAL TARGET SCHEDULE FOR PROCESSING AND RESOLVING REQUESTS FOR ACCESS TO SENSITIVE
UNCLASSIFIED NON-SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION IN THIS PROCEEDING
Day
Event/activity
0 .........................
Publication of FEDERAL REGISTER notice of hearing and opportunity to petition for leave to intervene, including order with instructions for access requests.
Deadline for submitting requests for access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI) with information:
Supporting the standing of a potential party identified by name and address; describing the need for the information in
order for the potential party to participate meaningfully in an adjudicatory proceeding.
Deadline for submitting petition for intervention containing: (i) Demonstration of standing; (ii) all contentions whose formulation does not require access to SUNSI (+25 Answers to petition for intervention; +7 requestor/petitioner reply).
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff informs the requestor of the staff’s determination whether the request for access
provides a reasonable basis to believe standing can be established and shows need for SUNSI. (NRC staff also informs
any party to the proceeding whose interest independent of the proceeding would be harmed by the release of the information.) If NRC staff makes the finding of need for SUNSI and likelihood of standing, NRC staff begins document processing
(preparation of redactions or review of redacted documents).
If NRC staff finds no ‘‘need’’ or no likelihood of standing, the deadline for requestor/petitioner to file a motion seeking a ruling
to reverse the NRC staff’s denial of access; NRC staff files copy of access determination with the presiding officer (or Chief
Administrative Judge or other designated officer, as appropriate). If NRC staff finds ‘‘need’’ for SUNSI, the deadline for any
party to the proceeding whose interest independent of the proceeding would be harmed by the release of the information
to file a motion seeking a ruling to reverse the NRC staff’s grant of access.
Deadline for NRC staff reply to motions to reverse NRC staff determination(s).
(Receipt +30) If NRC staff finds standing and need for SUNSI, deadline for NRC staff to complete information processing and
file motion for Protective Order and draft Non-Disclosure Affidavit. Deadline for applicant/licensee to file Non-Disclosure
Agreement for SUNSI.
If access granted: Issuance of presiding officer or other designated officer decision on motion for protective order for access
to sensitive information (including schedule for providing access and submission of contentions) or decision reversing a
final adverse determination by the NRC staff.
Deadline for filing executed Non-Disclosure Affidavits. Access provided to SUNSI consistent with decision issuing the protective order.
Deadline for submission of contentions whose development depends upon access to SUNSI. However, if more than 25 days
remain between the petitioner’s receipt of (or access to) the information and the deadline for filing all other contentions (as
established in the notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing), the petitioner may file its SUNSI contentions by that later
deadline.
(Contention receipt +25) Answers to contentions whose development depends upon access to SUNSI.
(Answer receipt +7) Petitioner/Intervenor reply to answers.
Decision on contention admission.
10 .......................
60 .......................
20 .......................
25 .......................
30 .......................
40 .......................
A ........................
A + 3 ..................
A + 28 ................
A + 53 ................
A + 60 ................
>A + 60 ..............
Notice is hereby given that the
Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC or Commission) has
issued a Director’s Decision with regard
to a petition filed by Eric T.
Schneiderman, Attorney General, State
of New York. The petition, dated March
28, 2011, was supplemented by a
transcript of a public meeting held on
May 9, 2011, between representatives of
the petitioner and the NRC. The petition
concerns the operation of the Indian
Point Nuclear Generating Units 1, 2, and
3 (Indian Point), owned by Entergy
Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC (Units 1
and 2) and Entergy Nuclear Indian Point
3, LLC (Unit 3) and operated by Entergy
Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy or the
licensee).
The petitioner asked the NRC to take
immediate action and issue an Order
requiring the following actions
regarding Indian Point Nuclear
Generating Units 1, 2, and 3, that would
staff determinations (because they must be served
on a presiding officer or the Commission, as
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket Nos.: 50–003, 50–247, 50–286;
NRC–2012–0265: License Nos.: DPR–5,
DPR–26, and DPR–64]
WREIER-AVILES on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
(1) identify the violations of paragraphs
F and G of Section III of Appendix R,
‘‘Fire Protection Program for Nuclear
Power Facilities Operating Prior to
January 1, 1979,’’ to part 50 of Title 10
of the Code of Federal Regulations (10
CFR), ‘‘Domestic Licensing of
Production and Utilization Facilities,’’
which exist as of the date of the petition
(March 28, 2011), at Indian Point Units
1, 2, and 3, (2) compel Entergy Nuclear
Operations, Inc. (Entergy, or the
licensee), and its affiliates to comply on
or before September 20, 2011, with the
requirements in paragraphs F and G for
all fire zones in Indian Point Units 2
and 3, and any Indian Point Unit 1 fire
zone or system, structure, or component
that Indian Point Units 2 and 3, rely
upon, and (3) convene an evidentiary
applicable), but not to the initial SUNSI request
submitted to the NRC staff under these procedures.
[FR Doc. 2012–26762 Filed 11–2–12; 8:45 am]
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.,
Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC,
and Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3,
LLC; Issuance of Director’s Decision
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:30 Nov 02, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\05NON1.SGM
05NON1
WREIER-AVILES on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 214 / Monday, November 5, 2012 / Notices
hearing before the Commission to
adjudicate the violation of paragraphs F
and G at Indian Point Units 1, 2, and 3,
by Entergy and its affiliates.
As the basis for the petition, the
petitioner (1) cited the population
centers adjacent to the Indian Point
facility, (2) described past investigations
by both the NRC’s Office of
Investigations and the Government
Accountability Office on fire barriers,
most specifically Thermo-Lag and
Hemyc, (3) stated his belief that the NRC
staff has not been aggressive in resolving
fire barrier issues or in taking
meaningful enforcement action toward
Indian Point, (4) focused on the
exemptions to Appendix R to 10 CFR
Part 50 that the licensee submitted in
March 2009, that rely upon operator
manual actions (OMAs) in a large
number of fire areas at Indian Point, (5)
stated his belief that the regulations do
not authorize OMAs as a means for
protecting a redundant system from fire,
and (6) referenced the accident at the
Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant
in Japan resulting from the March 11,
¯
2011, Great Tohoku Earthquake and
questioned whether plant operators
would be physically capable of
performing these duties. Finally, the
petitioner expressed his belief that (1)
the NRC should reserve exemptions for
extraordinary circumstances, (2) the
NRC should not approve the
exemptions, and (3) Entergy has not
made a serious effort to comply with
Federal regulations.
On May 9, 2011, the petitioner and
the licensee met with the NRC’s Petition
Review Board. The meeting provided
the petitioner and the licensee an
opportunity to provide additional
information and to clarify issues cited in
the petition.
The NRC sent a copy of the proposed
Director’s Decision to the petitioner and
the licensee for comment on July 2,
2012. Comments were received from
both the petitioner and the licensee and
are addressed in an attachment to the
final Director’s Decision.
The Director of the Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation granted the
petitioner’s request, in part, with respect
to identifying violations of fire
protection requirements at Indian Point
and developing a schedule and date for
full compliance with the applicable
regulations. The petitioner’s request to
order full compliance by September 20,
2011, and conduct an evidentiary
hearing before the Commission to
adjudicate the violations was denied.
The reasons for this decision are
explained in the Director’s Decision
pursuant to 10 CFR Section 2.206 (DD–
12–03), the complete text of which is
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:30 Nov 02, 2012
Jkt 229001
available in Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS) Accession No. ML12240A077
and is available for inspection at the
Commission’s Public Document Room,
located at One White Flint North, Public
File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland, and
from the ADAMS Public Library
component on the NRC’s Web site,
http:www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html (the
Public Electronic Reading Room).
A copy of the Director’s Decision will
be filed with the Secretary of the
Commission for the Commission’s
review in accordance with 10 CFR 2.206
of the Commission’s regulations. As
provided for by this regulation, the
Director’s Decision will constitute the
final action of the Commission 25 days
after the date of the decision, unless the
Commission, on its own motion,
institutes a review of the Director’s
Decision in that time.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day
of October 2012.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Eric J. Leeds,
Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2012–26926 Filed 11–2–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
[Investment Company Act Release No.
30252; File No. 812–13740]
Van Eck Funds, et al.; Notice of
Application
October 25, 2012.
Securities and Exchange
Commission (‘‘Commission’’).
ACTION: Notice of application for an
order under section 17(d) of the
Investment Company Act of 1940 (the
‘‘Act’’) and rule 17d-1 under the Act to
permit certain joint transactions
otherwise prohibited by section 17(d) of
the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act.
AGENCY:
Applicants
request an order to permit certain
registered open-end management
investment companies to co-invest in
Covered Private Placements (as defined
below) with each other and/or with one
or more affiliated private investment
companies.
APPLICANTS: Van Eck Funds, Van Eck
VIP Trust (formerly known as Van Eck
Worldwide Insurance Trust) (each, an
‘‘Existing Investment Company,’’ and
together, the ‘‘Existing Investment
Companies’’), Global Energy
Opportunity Partners LP, Global Energy
SUMMARY OF APPLICATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
66493
Opportunity Fund, Ltd., Hard Asset
Partners LP, Hard Assets Portfolio Ltd.,
Hard Assets ERISA Ltd., Hard Asset
Partners 2X LP, Hard Assets 2X Fund
Ltd., Hard Assets 2X Master Fund Ltd.,
Hard Assets Opportunity Fund LP, Hard
Assets Opportunity Fund Ltd., Hard
Assets Opportunity Master Fund Ltd.,
G–175 Strategies LP, G–175 Strategies
Ltd., G–175 Strategies Master Fund Ltd.,
Van Eck Veda Emerging Markets Long/
Short Fund LP, Van Eck Veda Emerging
Markets Long/Short Fund Ltd., Van Eck
Veda Emerging Markets Long/Short
Master Fund Ltd. (each, an ‘‘Existing
Unregistered Account,’’ and
collectively, the ‘‘Existing Unregistered
Accounts’’), Van Eck Associates
Corporation (‘‘VEAC’’) and Van Eck
Absolute Return Advisers Corporation
(‘‘VEARA’’).
Filing Dates: The application was
filed on December 31, 2009, and
amended on June 29, 2010, April 27,
2012 and October 19, 2012.
HEARING OR NOTIFICATION OF HEARING: An
order granting the requested relief will
be issued unless the Commission orders
a hearing. Interested persons may
request a hearing by writing to the
Commission’s Secretary and serving
applicants with a copy of the request,
personally or by mail. Hearing requests
should be received by the Commission
by 5:30 p.m. on November 21, 2012, and
should be accompanied by proof of
service on applicants, in the form of an
affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of
service. Hearing requests should state
the nature of the writer’s interest, the
reason for the request, and the issues
contested. Persons who wish to be
notified of a hearing may request
notification by writing to the
Commission’s Secretary.
ADDRESSES: Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, 100 F St. NE., Washington,
DC 20549–1090. Applicants: c/o Joseph
J. McBrien, Esq., Senior Vice President
and General Counsel, Van Eck
Associates Corporation, 335 Madison
Avenue, 19th Floor, New York, NY
10017–4632.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Laura J. Riegel, Senior Counsel, at (202)
551–6873 or Mary Kay Frech, Branch
Chief, at (202) 551–6821 (Office of
Investment Company Regulation,
Division of Investment Management).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
following is a summary of the
application. The complete application
may be obtained via the Commission’s
Web site by searching for the file
number, or for an applicant using the
Company name box, at https://
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\05NON1.SGM
05NON1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 214 (Monday, November 5, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66492-66493]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26926]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos.: 50-003, 50-247, 50-286; NRC-2012-0265: License Nos.: DPR-
5, DPR-26, and DPR-64]
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2,
LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC; Issuance of Director's
Decision
Notice is hereby given that the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) has
issued a Director's Decision with regard to a petition filed by Eric T.
Schneiderman, Attorney General, State of New York. The petition, dated
March 28, 2011, was supplemented by a transcript of a public meeting
held on May 9, 2011, between representatives of the petitioner and the
NRC. The petition concerns the operation of the Indian Point Nuclear
Generating Units 1, 2, and 3 (Indian Point), owned by Entergy Nuclear
Indian Point 2, LLC (Units 1 and 2) and Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3,
LLC (Unit 3) and operated by Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy
or the licensee).
The petitioner asked the NRC to take immediate action and issue an
Order requiring the following actions regarding Indian Point Nuclear
Generating Units 1, 2, and 3, that would (1) identify the violations of
paragraphs F and G of Section III of Appendix R, ``Fire Protection
Program for Nuclear Power Facilities Operating Prior to January 1,
1979,'' to part 50 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10
CFR), ``Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities,''
which exist as of the date of the petition (March 28, 2011), at Indian
Point Units 1, 2, and 3, (2) compel Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
(Entergy, or the licensee), and its affiliates to comply on or before
September 20, 2011, with the requirements in paragraphs F and G for all
fire zones in Indian Point Units 2 and 3, and any Indian Point Unit 1
fire zone or system, structure, or component that Indian Point Units 2
and 3, rely upon, and (3) convene an evidentiary
[[Page 66493]]
hearing before the Commission to adjudicate the violation of paragraphs
F and G at Indian Point Units 1, 2, and 3, by Entergy and its
affiliates.
As the basis for the petition, the petitioner (1) cited the
population centers adjacent to the Indian Point facility, (2) described
past investigations by both the NRC's Office of Investigations and the
Government Accountability Office on fire barriers, most specifically
Thermo-Lag and Hemyc, (3) stated his belief that the NRC staff has not
been aggressive in resolving fire barrier issues or in taking
meaningful enforcement action toward Indian Point, (4) focused on the
exemptions to Appendix R to 10 CFR Part 50 that the licensee submitted
in March 2009, that rely upon operator manual actions (OMAs) in a large
number of fire areas at Indian Point, (5) stated his belief that the
regulations do not authorize OMAs as a means for protecting a redundant
system from fire, and (6) referenced the accident at the Fukushima Dai-
ichi nuclear power plant in Japan resulting from the March 11, 2011,
Great T[omacr]hoku Earthquake and questioned whether plant operators
would be physically capable of performing these duties. Finally, the
petitioner expressed his belief that (1) the NRC should reserve
exemptions for extraordinary circumstances, (2) the NRC should not
approve the exemptions, and (3) Entergy has not made a serious effort
to comply with Federal regulations.
On May 9, 2011, the petitioner and the licensee met with the NRC's
Petition Review Board. The meeting provided the petitioner and the
licensee an opportunity to provide additional information and to
clarify issues cited in the petition.
The NRC sent a copy of the proposed Director's Decision to the
petitioner and the licensee for comment on July 2, 2012. Comments were
received from both the petitioner and the licensee and are addressed in
an attachment to the final Director's Decision.
The Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation granted
the petitioner's request, in part, with respect to identifying
violations of fire protection requirements at Indian Point and
developing a schedule and date for full compliance with the applicable
regulations. The petitioner's request to order full compliance by
September 20, 2011, and conduct an evidentiary hearing before the
Commission to adjudicate the violations was denied. The reasons for
this decision are explained in the Director's Decision pursuant to 10
CFR Section 2.206 (DD-12-03), the complete text of which is available
in Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession
No. ML12240A077 and is available for inspection at the Commission's
Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, Public File
Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland,
and from the ADAMS Public Library component on the NRC's Web site,
http:www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).
A copy of the Director's Decision will be filed with the Secretary
of the Commission for the Commission's review in accordance with 10 CFR
2.206 of the Commission's regulations. As provided for by this
regulation, the Director's Decision will constitute the final action of
the Commission 25 days after the date of the decision, unless the
Commission, on its own motion, institutes a review of the Director's
Decision in that time.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day of October 2012.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Eric J. Leeds,
Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2012-26926 Filed 11-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P