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.