Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 239 / Friday, December 12, 1997 / Notices 65449

‘‘electric utility’’ under Commission

regulations. According to the

application, there will be no effect on

the management, or sources of funds for

operation, maintenance, or

decommissioning, of the PNPS as a

result of the corporate restructuring.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80, the

Commission may approve the transfer of

control of a license after notice to

interested persons. Such approval is

contingent upon the Commission’s

determination that the holder of the

license following the transfer is

qualified to hold the license and that the

transfer is otherwise consistent with

applicable provisions of law,

regulations, and orders of the

Commission.

For further details with respect to this

proposed action, see the licensee’s

application dated June 9, 1997. This

document is available for public

inspection at the Commission’s Public

Document Room, the Gelman Building,

2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, DC,

and at the local public document room

located at the Plymouth Public Library,

11 North Street, Plymouth,

Massachusetts.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 8th day

of December 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Alan B. Wang,

Project Manager, Project Directorate I–3,

Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–32525 Filed 12–11–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–003 and 50–247]

Consolidated Edison Company of New

York, Inc.; (Indian Point Nuclear

Generating Unit Nos. 1 and 2)

I

Consolidated Edison Company of

New York, Inc. (Con Edison), is sole

owner of Indian Point Nuclear

Generating Units Nos. 1 and 2. Con

Edison holds Facility Operating License

Nos. DPR–5 and DPR–26 issued by the

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission

pursuant to Part 50 of Title 10 of the

Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR

Part 50) on March 26, 1962, and

September 28, 1973, respectively. Under

these licenses, Con Edison has the

authority to possess, but not operate,

Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit

No. 1 (IP1), and to operate Indian Point

Nuclear Generating Unit No. 2 (IP2).

Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units

Nos. 1 and 2 are located in Westchester

County, New York.

II

By letter dated December 24, 1996,

Con Edison informed the Commission

that it was in the process of

implementing a corporate restructuring

that will result in the creation of a

holding company under the temporary

name of HoldCo., of which Con Edison

would become a wholly owned

subsidiary. Under the restructuring, the

holders of Con Edison common stock

will exchange their shares for common

stock of the parent company on a sharefor-share basis. By letter dated February

19, 1997, the staff deemed Con Edison’s

letter as an application for comment,

under 10 CFR 50.80, to the indirect

transfer of the licenses that would result

from the corporate restructuring. Notice

of this application for consent was

published in the Federal Register on

July 14, 1997 (62 FR 37627), and an

Environmental Assessment and Finding

of No Significant Impact was published

in the Federal Register on October 6,

1997 (62 FR 52159).

Under 10 CFR 50.80, no license shall

be transferred, directly or indirectly,

through transfer of control of the

license, unless the Commission shall

give its consent in writing. Upon review

of the information submitted in the

application dated December 24, 1996,

the NRC staff has determined that the

restructuring of Con Edison will not

affect the qualifications of Con Edison

as holder of the licenses, and that the

transfer of control of the licenses for IP1

and IP2, to the extent effected by the

restructuring of Con Edison, is

otherwise consistent with applicable

provisions of law, regulations, and

orders issued by the Commission,

subject to the conditions set forth

herein. These findings are supported by

a Safety Evaluation dated December 4,

1997.

III

Accordingly, pursuant to Sections

161b, 161i, 161o, and 184 of the Atomic

Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42

USC 2201(b), 2201(i), 2201(o) and 2234,

and 10 CFR 50.80, it is hereby ordered

that the Commission approves the

application regarding the restructuring

of Con Edison subject to the following:

(1) Con Edison shall provide the

Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation a copy of any application, at

the time it is filed, to transfer (excluding

grants of security interests or liens) from

Con Edison to its proposed parent or to

any other affiliated company, facilities

for the production, transmission, or

distribution of electric energy having a

depreciated book value exceeding 10

percent (10%) of Con Edison’s

consolidated net utility plant, as

recorded on Con Edison’s books of

account, and (2) should the

restructuring of Con Edison not be

completed by December 31, 1998, this

Order shall become null and void,

provided, however, on application and

for good cause shown, such date may be

extended.

IV

By December 31, 1997, any person

adversely affected by this Order may file

a request for a hearing with respect to

issuance of the Order. Any person

requesting a hearing shall set forth with

particularity how that interest is

adversely affected by this Order and

shall address the criteria set forth in 10

CFR 2.714(d).

If a hearing is to be held, the

Commission will issue an Order

designating the time and place of such

hearing.

The issue to be considered at any

such hearing shall be whether this

Order should be sustained.

Any request for a hearing must be

filed with the Secretary of the

Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001, Attention: Rulemakings and

Adjudications Staff, or may be delivered

to 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,

Maryland, between 7:45 a.m. and 4:15

p.m. Federal workdays, by the above

date. Copies should be also sent to the

Office of the General Counsel, and to the

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555,

and to Brent L. Brandenburg,

Consolidated Edison Company of New

York, Inc., 4 Irving Place, New York, NY

10003, Assistant General Counsel for

Con Edison.

For further details with respect to this

Order, see the application for approval

regarding the corporate restructuring

dated December 24, 1996, and the Safety

Evaluation dated December 4, 1997,

which is available for public inspection

at the Commission’s Public Document

Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L

Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the

local public document room located at

White Plains Public Library, 100

Martine Avenue, White Plains, New

York 10610.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 4th day

of December 1997.
65450 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 239 / Friday, December 12, 1997 / Notices

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Frank J. Miraglia,

Acting Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–32524 Filed 12–11–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–321 and 50–366]

In the Matter of Southern Nuclear

Operating Company, Inc., et al. Edwin

I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2;

Exemption

I

Southern Nuclear Operating

Company, Inc., et al. (the licensee) is the

holder of Facility Operating License

Nos. DPR–57 and NPF–5 for the Edwin

I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2.

The licenses provide, among other

things, that the licensee is subject to all

rules, regulations, and orders of the

Commission in effect now and hereafter.

The facility consists of two 4-loop

boiling water reactors located in

Appling County, Georgia.

II

Title 10 of the Code of Federal

Regulations (10 CFR), Section 73.55,

‘‘Requirements for Physical Protection

of Licensed Activities in Nuclear Power

Reactors Against Radiological

Sabotage,’’ paragraph (a), in part, states

that ‘‘The licensee shall establish and

maintain an onsite physical protection

system and security organization which

will have as its objective to provide high

assurance that activities involving

special nuclear material are not inimical

to the common defense and security and

do not constitute an unreasonable risk

to the public health and safety.’’

Section 73.55(d), ‘‘Access

Requirements,’’ paragraph (1), specifies

that ‘‘The licensee shall control all

points of personnel and vehicle access

into a protected area.’’ Section

73.55(d)(5) requires that ‘‘A numbered

picture badge identification system shall

be used for all individuals who are

authorized access to protected areas

without escort.’’ Section 73.55(d)(5) also

states that an individual not employed

by the licensee, e.g., contractor, but who

requires frequent and extended access to

protected and vital areas may be

authorized access to such areas without

escort provided the individual ‘‘receives

a picture badge upon entrance into the

protected area which must be returned

upon exit from the protected area

* * *.’’

The licensee has proposed to

implement an alternative unescorted

access control system that would

eliminate the need to issue, store, and

retrieve badges from a central location

onsite and would allow all individuals

with unescorted access to keep their

badges when departing the site.

An exemption from 10 CFR

73.55(d)(5) is required to allow

contractors who have unescorted access

to take their badges offsite instead of

returning them when exiting the site. By

letter dated July 2, 1997, the licensee

requested an exemption from the

requirements of 10 CFR 73.55(d)(5) for

this purpose.

III

Pursuant to 10 CFR 73.5, ‘‘Specific

exemptions,’’ the Commission may,

upon application of any interested

person or upon its own initiative, grant

such exemptions in this part 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.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 73.55, the

Commission may authorize a licensee to

provide alternative measures for

protection against radiological sabotage

provided the licensee demonstrates that

the alternative measures have ‘‘the same

high assurance objective’’ and meet ‘‘the

general performance requirements’’ of

the regulation, and ‘‘the overall level of

system performance provides protection

against radiological sabotage

equivalent’’ to that which would be

provided by the regulation.

Currently, unescorted access into the

protected areas at the Hatch site is

controlled through the use of a

photograph on a badge/keycard

(hereafter, referred to as ‘‘badge’’). The

security officers use the photograph on

the badge to visually identify the

individual requesting access. The

licensee’s employees and contractor

personnel who have been granted

unescorted access are issued badges

upon entrance to the protected area and

the badges are returned upon exit. In

accordance with 10 CFR 73.55(d)(5),

contractors are not allowed to take these

badges offsite.

Under the proposed biometric system,

individuals who are authorized

unescorted entry into protected areas

would have the physical characteristics

of their hand (i.e., hand geometry)

registered, along with their badge

number, in the access control system.

When registered users enter their badge

into the card reader and place their

hand onto the measuring surface, the

system detects that the hand is properly

positioned, and records the image. The

unique characteristics of the hand image

are then compared with the previously

stored template in the access control

computer system corresponding to the

badge to verify authorization for entry.

Individuals, including Hatch plant

employees and contractors, would be

allowed to keep their badges when they

depart the site and, thus, eliminate the

need to issue, retrieve, and store badges

at the entrance stations to the plant.

Badges do not carry any information

other than a unique identification

number. All other access processes,

including search function capability,

would remain the same. This system

would not be used for persons requiring

escorted access, e.g., visitors.

On the basis of the Sandia report, ‘‘A

Performance Evaluation of Biometrics

Identification Devices,’’ SAND91–0276/

UC–906, Unlimited Release, June 1991,

that concluded hand geometry

equipment possesses strong

performance and high detection

characteristics, and on its own

experience with the current photoidentification system, the licensee

determined that the proposed hand

geometry system would provide the

same high level of assurance as the

current system that access is only

granted to authorized individuals. The

biometrics system has been in use for a

number of years at several sensitive

Department of Energy facilities and,

recently, at some nuclear power plants.

The licensee will implement a process

for testing the proposed system to

ensure continued overall level of

performance equivalent to that specified

in the regulation. When the changes are

implemented, the respective Physical

Security Plan will be revised to include

implementation and testing of the hand

geometry access control system and to

allow Hatch plant employees and

contractors to take their badges offsite.

When implemented, the licensee will

control all points of personnel access

into a protected area under the

observation of security personnel

through the use of a badge and a hand

geometry verification system. The

numbered picture badge identification

system will continue to be used for all

individuals who are authorized

unescorted access to protected areas.

Badges will continue to be displayed by

all individuals while inside the

protected areas.

Since both the badge and hand

geometry would be necessary for access

into the protected areas, the proposed

system would provide a positive

verification process. The potential loss

of a badge by an individual as a result

of taking the badge offsite would not

enable an unauthorized entry into

protected areas.