27992 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 102 / Friday, May 26, 1995 / Notices

Federal Advisory Committee Act

(FACA) (Pub. L. 82–463). Pursuant to

Section 10(a) of FACA, this is to

announce that the Task Force will meet

at the time and place shown below.

TIME AND PLACE: The meeting will be

held on Thursday, June 22, 1995, from

approximately 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. and on

Friday, June 23, 1995, from

approximately 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. in

Conference Room N–3437 B–D in the

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC.

Agenda

At this meeting, the Task Force

intends to hear testimony on and

discuss the following topics, among

others: (1) Effects on finance, budget,

and pension trends on labormanagement-cooperation and (2)

experiences of state or local elected

officials in implementing workplace

changes through labor-management

cooperation.

Public Participation

The meeting will be open to the

pubic. Seating will be available on a

first-come, first-served basis.

Individuals with disabilities wishing to

attend should contact the Task Force if

special accommodations are necessary.

Individuals or organizations wishing to

submit written statements should send

20 copies on or before June 14 to Mr.

Charles A. Richards, Designated Federal

Official, Secretary of Labor’s Task Force

on Excellence in State and Local

Government through Labor-Management

Cooperation, U.S. Department of labor,

200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Room S–

2203, Washington, DC 20210. These

statements will be thoroughly reviewed

and become part of the record.

For the purposes of this meeting, the

Task Force is primarily interested in

statements that address the topics

mentioned above under the heading

‘‘Agenda.’’ However, the Task Force

continues to welcome submissions that

address the questions in the mission

statement and the following eight

general areas: (1) Finding Models,

Ingredients, and Barriers to Service

Excellence and Labor-Management

Cooperation and, as the following relate

to promotion workplace cooperation

and excellence; (2) Bargaining and

Related Institutions and Practices; (3)

Conflict Resolution Skills, Practices,

and Institutions; (4) Legal and

Regulatory Issues; (5) Effects of Civil

Service; (6) Ensuring a HighPerformance Work Environment; (7)

Political and Electoral Considerations

and Relationships; and (8) Financial

Background, Financial Security, and

Budget Systems.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Charles A. Richards, Designated Federal

Official, Secretary of Labor’s Task Force

on Excellence in State and Local

Government through Labor-Management

Cooperation, U.S. Department of labor,

Room S–2203, Washington, DC 20210,

(202) 219–6231.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 22nd day

of May 1995.

Robert B. Reich,

Secretary of Labor.

[FR Doc. 95–12961 Filed 5–25–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–86–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–334 and 50–412]

Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos.

1 and 2; Environmental Assessment

and Finding of No Significant Impact

In the matter of Duquesne Light Company;

Ohio Edison Company; Pennsylvania Power

Company; The Cleveland Electric

Illuminating Company; and The Toledo

Edison Company.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an exemption

from certain requirements of its

regulations to Facility Operating

Licenses No. DPR–66 and NPF–73,

issued to Duquesne Light Company, et

al. (the licensee), for operation of the

Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos.

1 and 2, located in Beaver County,

Pennsylvania.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed action is in accordance

with the licensee’s application dated

February 8, 1995, for exemption from

certain requirements of 10 CFR 73.55,

‘‘Requirements for physical protection

of licensed activities in nuclear power

reactors against radiological sabotage.’’

The exemption would allow

implementation of a hand geometry

biometric system for site access control

such that combined picture badges/

keycards for certain non-employees can

be taken offsite.

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.’’ Paragraph (5) of 10 CFR

73.55(d) specifies that ‘‘A numbered

picture badge identification system shall

be used for all individuals who are

authorized access to protected areas

without escort.’’ Paragraph (5) of 10 CFR

73.55(d) 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, employee and contractor

combined identification badges/

keycards are issued and retrieved on the

occasion of each entry to and exit from

the protected areas of the Beaver Valley

Power Station site. Station security

personnel are required to maintain

control of the badges while the

individuals are offsite. This practice has

been in effect at the Beaver Valley

Power Station since the operating

license was issued. Security personnel

retain each identification badge/

keycard, when not in use by the

authorized individual, within

appropriately designed storage

receptacles inside a bullet-resistance

enclosure. An individual who meets the

access authorization requirements is

issued an individual picture

identification card/keycard which

allows entry into preauthorized areas of

the station. While entering the plant in

the present configuration, an authorized

individual is ‘‘screened’’ by the required

detection equipment and by the issuing

security officer. Having received the

badge/keycard, the individual proceeds

to the access portal, inserts the badge/

keycard into the card reader and passes

through the turnstile which unlocks if

the badge/keycard is valid.

This present procedure is labor

intensive since security personnel are

required to verify badge/keycard

issuance, ensure badge/keycard

retrieval, and maintain the badges/

keycards in orderly storage until the

next entry into the protected area. The

regulations permit employees to remove

their badges from the site, but an

exemption from 10 CFR 73.55(d)(5) is

required to permit contractors to take

their badges offsite instead of returning

them when exiting the site.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The Commission has completed its

evaluation of the licensee’s application.

Under the proposed system, all

individuals authorized to gain

unescorted access will have the physical

characteristics of their hand (hand

geometry) recorded with their badge/

keycard number. Since the hand

geometry is unique to each individual
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 102 / Friday, May 26, 1995 / Notices 27993

and its application in the entry

screening function would preclude

unauthorized use of a badge/keycard,

the requested exemption would allow

employees and contractors to keep their

badges at the time of exiting the

protected area. The process of verifying

badge/keycard issuance, ensuring

badge/keycard retrieval, and

maintaining badges/keycards, could be

eliminated while the balance of the

access procedure would remain intact.

Firearm, explosive, and metal detection

equipment and provisions for

conducting searches will remain as

well. The security officer responsible for

the last access control function

(controlling admission to the protected

area) will also remain isolated within a

bullet-resistant structure in order to

assure his or her ability to respond or

to summon assistance.

Use of a hand geometry biometrics

system exceeds the present verification

methodology’s capability to discern an

individual’s identity. Unlike the

combined photograph identification

badge/keycard, hand geometry is

nontransferable. During the initial

access authorization or registration

process, hand measurements are

recorded and the template is stored for

subsequent use in the identity

verification process required for entry

into the protected area. Authorized

individuals insert their badge/keycard

into the card reader and the biometrics

system records an image of the hand

geometry. The unique features of the

newly recorded image are then

compared to the template previously

stored in the database. Access is

ultimately granted based on the degree

to which the characteristics of the image

match those of the ‘‘signature’’ template.

Since both the badge/keycard 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/keycard by an

individual, as a result of taking the

badge offsite, would not enable an

unauthorized entry into protected areas.

The access process will continue to be

under the observation of security

personnel. The system of identification

badges/keycards will continue to be

used for all individuals who are

authorized access to protected areas

without escorts. Badges/keycards will

continue to be displayed by all

individuals while inside the protected

area. Addition of a hand geometry

biometrics system will provide a

significant contribution to effective

implementation of the security plan at

the site.

The change will not increase the

probability or consequences of

accidents, no changes are being made in

the types of any effluents that may be

released offsite, 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 does involve features located

entirely within the restricted area as

defined in 10 CFR Part 20. It does not

effect 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

Statements for the Beaver Valley Power

Station Units Nos. 1 and 2.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on April 18, 1995, the staff consulted

with the Pennsylvania State official,

Robert C. Maiers of the Bureau of

Radiation Protection. Department of

Environmental Resources, 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 February 8, 1995, 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 the

B.F. Jones Memorial Library, 663

Franklin Avenue, Aliquippa,

Pennsylvania 15001.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd

day of May 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

John F. Stolz,

Director, Project Directorate I–2, Division of

Reactor Projects–I/II, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–12970 Filed 5–25–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

Supplement 1 to Revision 1 to Generic

Letter 92–01, ‘‘Reactor Vessel

Structural Integrity’’; Issued

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of issuance.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) issued Supplement

1 to Revision 1 to Generic Letter 92–01,

‘‘Reactor Vessel Structural Integrity,’’ on

May 19, 1995. This generic letter

supplement will be available in the NRC

Public Document Room under accession

number 9505090312. This generic letter

supplement was issued on an expedited

basis in accordance with NRC

procedures. This generic letter

supplement is discussed in Commission

information paper SECY–95–118 which

will also be available in the NRC Public

Document Room.

DATES: The generic letter supplement

was issued on May 19, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Not applicable.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Edwin M. Hackett, (301) 415–2751.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Not

applicable.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day

of May 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Brian K. Grimes,

Director, Division of Project Support, Office

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–12969 Filed 5–25–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

Uranium Recovery Facilities:

Availability of Staff Technical Position

on Effluent Disposal at Licensed

Uranium Recovery Facilities

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of availability.