Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 3, 1995 / Notices 21835

lock fails a leakage rate test during a

period of frequent opening, the air lock

shall be required to pass two

consecutive leakage rate tests at a test

interval of 72 hours prior to returning to

the 30-day interval. Since the Grand

Gulf air lock doors have testable seals,

testing the seals fulfills the 30-day test

requirement. This exemption will

continue in effect until startup from

RFO 9.

VII

The staff’s safety evaluation, which is

enclosed and summarized above,

concludes that the licensee’s proposed

extension of Appendix J test intervals is

acceptable. This exemption will remain

valid until startup following Refueling

Outage 9. This approval is based on the

assumption that all other aspects of

Appendix J testing not explicitly

addressed will be conducted in

accordance with Appendix J.

Section 50.12 of Title 10 of the Code

of Federal Regulations, ‘‘Specific

Exemptions’’, delineates the conditions

which must be satisfied in order for the

Commission to grant an exemption from

the regulations of 10 CFR Part 50. The

proposed exemption must not violate

applicable law, it must not ‘‘present an

undue risk to the public health and

safety’’, and must be ‘‘consistent with

the common defense and security’’. The

licensee states that it believes these

conditions are satisfied. The staff

concurs.

In addition, 10 CFR 50.12 states that

the Commission will not consider

granting an exemption unless special

circumstances are present. The licensee,

in the August 13, 1993, submittal

presented its argument as to why this

exemption request meets several of the

special circumstances specified in 10

CFR 50.12. It is the staff’s opinion that

the licensee’s proposal satisfies special

circumstance 50.12(a)(2)(iv). Special

circumstance (iv) states that: The

exemption would result in benefit to the

public health and safety that

compensates for any decrease in safety

that may result from the grant of the

exemption.

It is the staff’s judgment that there is

a significant public benefit to be derived

from granting the licensee’s exemption

request to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J.

The licensee’s proposal was detailed

and well thought-out and thoroughly

considered the effect on safety of the

proposed changes. Reviewing this

exemption request was beneficial to the

staff’s Appendix J rulemaking effort.

Granting the exemption will assist the

staff in assessing the process of

implementing a performance-based

containment leakage rate testing rule

which, inturn, is of a clear benefit to the

public. The staff considers any decrease

in safety that may result from granting

the exemption to be very small. This

was confirmed by the risk studies

discussed in Section 3 of the safety

evaluation on this exemption request.

Accordingly, the Commission has

determined, pursuant to 10 CFR

50.12(a), that this exemption is

authorized by law and will not present

an undue risk to the public health and

safety, and is consistent with the

common defense and security. In

addition, the Commission has found

special circumstances in that granting of

this exemption will result in a benefit to

public health and safety that

compensates for any decrease in safety

that may result from the grant of the

exemption. Therefore, the Commission

hereby grants the exemption from 10

CFR Part 50, Appendix J, Sections

III.D.1(a), III.D.2(a) and III.D.3 and

Section III.D.(b)(i) and III.D.2(b)(iii). The

specific exemptions are stated as in

Sections IV, V, and VI above.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the

Commission has determined that the

granting of this exemption will have no

significant impact on the quality of the

human environment (60 FR 19791). The

exemption is effective upon issuance.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day

of April 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Elinor G. Adensam

Acting Director, Division of Reactor ProjectsIII/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–10887 Filed 5–2–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

[Docket Nos. 50–445 and 50–446]

Texas Utilities Electric Co., Comanche

Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1

and 2; Environmental Assessment and

Finding of No Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an exemption

from certain requirements of its

regulations for Facility Operating

License Nos. NPF–87 and NPF–89,

issued to Texas Utilities Electric

Company (TU Electric, the licensee), for

operation of the Comanche Peak Steam

Electric Station (CPSES), Units 1 and 2,

located in Somervell County, Texas.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of Proposed Action

The proposed action would allow

implementation of a hand geometry

biometric system of site access control

such that photograph identification

badges can be taken off site.

The proposed action is in accordance

with the licensee’s application dated

January 16, 1995 (TXX–95012), as

supplemented by letters dated March 1

(TXX–95064), and April 3, 1995 (TXX–

95089), for exemption from certain

requirements of 10 CFR 73.55,

‘‘Requirements for physical protection

of licensed activities in nuclear power

plant reactors against radiological

sabotage.’’

The Need for the Proposed Action

Pursuant to 10 CFR 73.55, paragraph

(a), the licensee shall establish and

maintain an onsite physical protection

system and security organization.

Paragraph (1) of 10 CFR 73.55(d),

‘‘Access Requirements,’’ specifies that

‘‘licensee shall control all points of

personnel and vehicle access into a

protected area * * *’’ It is specified in

10 CFR 73.55(d)(5) that ‘‘A numbered

picture badge identification system shall

be used for all individuals who are

authorized access to protected areas

without escort.’’ It also states that an

individual not employed by the licensee

(i.e., contractors) may be authorized

access to protected 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

* * *’’

Currently, unescorted access into

protected areas of the CPSES is

controlled through the use of a

photograph on a combination badge and

keycard. (Hereafter, these are referred to

as badges). The security officers at the

entrance station use the photograph on

the badge to visually identify the

individual requesting access. The

badges for both licensee employees and

contractor personnel who have been

granted unescorted access are issued

upon entrance at the entrance/exit

location and are returned upon exit. The

badges are stored and are retrievable at

the entrance/exit location. In

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

contractor individuals are not allowed

to take badges off site. In accordance

with the plant’s physical security plans,

neither licensee employees nor

contractors are allowed to take badges

off site.

The licensee proposes to implement

an alternative unescorted access control

system which would eliminate the need

to issue and retrieve badges at the

entrance/exit location and would allow

all individuals with unescorted access

to keep their badges with them when

departing the site.

An exemption from 10 CFR

73.55(d)(5) is required to permit

contractors to take their badges off site
21836 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 3, 1995 / Notices

instead of returning them when exiting

the site.

The Commission has completed its

evaluation of the proposed action.

Under the proposed system, each

individual who is authorized for

unescorted entry into protected areas

would have the physical characteristics

of their hand (hand geometry) registered

with their badge number in the access

control system. When an individual

enters the badge into the card reader

and places the hand on the measuring

surface, the system would record the

individual’s hand image. The unique

characteristics of the extracted hand

image would be compared with the

previously stored template to verify

authorization for entry. Individuals,

including licensee employees and

contractors, would be allowed to keep

their badges with them when they

depart the site.

Based on a Sandia report entitled ‘‘A

Performance Evaluation of Biometric

Identification Devices’’ (SAND91—0276

UC—906 Unlimited Release, printed

June 1991), and on its experience with

the current photo-identification system,

the licensee stated that the false

acceptance rate of the proposed hand

geometry system is comparable to that

of the current system. The licensee

stated that the use of the badges with

the hand geometry system would

increase the overall level of access

control. Since both the badge and hand

geometry would be necessary for access

into the protected area, the proposed

system would provide for a positive

verification process. Potential loss of a

badge by an individual, as a result of

taking the badge off site, would not

enable an unauthorized entry into

protected areas. 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. The

Physical Security Plan for CPSES will

be revised to include implementation

and testing of the hand geometry access

control system and to allow licensee

employees and contractors to take their

badges off site.

The access process will continue to be

under the observation of security

personnel. A numbered picture badge

identification system will continue to be

used for all individuals who are

authorized access to protected areas

without escorts. Badges will continue to

be displayed by all individuals while

inside the protected area.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The Commission has completed its

evaluation of the proposed action and

concludes that the change will not

increase the probability or consequences

of accidents, no changes are being made

in the types of any effluent that may be

released off site, and there is no

significant increase in the allowable

individual or cumulative occupational

radiation exposure. Accordingly, the

Commission concludes that there are no

significant radiological environmental

impacts associated with the proposed

action.

With regard to potential

nonradiological impacts, the proposed

action involves features located entirely

within the restricted area as defined in

10 CFR Part 20. It does not affect

nonradiological plant effluents and has

no other environmental impact.

Accordingly, the Commission concludes

that there are no significant

nonradiological environmental impacts

associated with the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Since the Commission has concluded

there is no measurable environmental

impact associated with the proposed

action, any alternatives with equal or

greater environmental impact need not

be evaluated. As an alternative to the

proposed action, the staff considered

denial of the proposed action. Denial of

the application would result in no

change in current environmental

impacts. the environmental impacts of

the proposed action and the alternative

action are similar.

Alternative Use of Resources

This action does not involve the use

of any resources not previously

considered in the Final Environmental

Statement for the CPSES, Units 1 and 2

dated October 1989.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on April 7, 1995, the staff consulted

with Texas State official, Mr. John

Haygood of the Texas Department of

Health, Bureau of Radiation control,

regarding the environmental impact of

the proposed action. The State official

had no comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

Based upon the environmental

assessment, the Commission concludes

that the proposed action will not have

a significant effect on the quality of the

human environment. Accordingly, the

Commission has determined not to

prepare an environmental impact

statement for the proposed action.

For further details with respect to the

proposed action, see the licensee’s letter

dated January 16, 1995 (TXX–95012), as

supplemented by letters dated March 1

(TXX–95064), and April 3, 1995 (TXX–

95089), which are 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 the University of Texas at

Arlington Library, Government

Publications/Maps, 702 College, P.O.

Box 19497, Arlington, TX 76019.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day

of April 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Timothy J. Polich,

Project Manager, Project Directorate IV–1,

Division of Reactor Projects III/IV, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–10888 Filed 5–2–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

Use of NUMARC/EPRI Report TR–

102348 for Analog-to-Digital

Replacements; Issued

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of issuance.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) has issued Generic

Letter 95–02 on informing licensees for

reactors of the NRC staff’s new position

on the use of Nuclear Management and

Resource Council/Electric Power

Research Institute (NUMARC/EPRI)

Report TR–102348, ‘‘Guideline on

Licensing Digital Upgrades,’’ dated

December 1993, as acceptable guidance

for determining when an analog-todigital replacement can be performed

without prior NRC staff approval under

the requirements of § 50.59 of Title 10

of the Code of Federal Regulations. This

generic letter is available in the Public

Document Rooms under accession

number 9504140227. The resolution of

public comments received on this

generic letter is discussed in a

memorandum which is also available in

the Public Document Rooms under

accession number 9504260141.

DATES: The generic letter was issued on

April 26, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Not applicable.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Paul J. Loeser at (301) 415–2825.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: None.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day

of April, 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Boen`-Dar` Liaw,

Acting Director, Division of Project Support,

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–10890 Filed 5–2–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M