67366 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 250 / Friday, December 29, 1995 / Notices

Commission may authorize a licensee to

provide measures for protection against

radiological sabotage provided the

licensee demonstrates that the 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.

At the VCSNS site, unescorted access

into protected areas is controlled

through the use of a photograph on a

combination badge and keycard

(hereafter, referred to as badge). 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 offsite. In accordance with the

plant’s physical security plan, neither

licensee employees nor contractors are

allowed to take badges offsite.

Under the proposed system, each

individual who is authorized for

unescorted access 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 in the access

control system 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 and

thus eliminate the process 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, i.e., visitors.

Based on a Sandia National

Laboratories report entitled, ‘‘A

Performance Evaluation of Biometric

Identification Devices’’ (SAND91–0276

UC–906 Unlimited Release, Printed June

1991), and on the licensee’s experience

with the current photo-identification

system, the licensee stated that the falseaccept rate for the hand geometry

system is at least equal to the current

system. 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 VCSNS, Unit 1, 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

offsite.

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 verification of hand geometry. A

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 area.

Since both the badges and hand

geometry would be necessary for access

into the protected areas, the proposed

system would provide for 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.

For the foregoing reasons, pursuant to

10 CFR 73.55(a), the NRC staff has

determined that the proposed

alternative measures for protection

against radiological sabotage meet ‘‘the

same high assurance objective’’ and ‘‘the

general performance requirements’’ of

the regulation and that ‘‘the overall level

of system performance provides

protection against radiological sabotage

equivalent’’ to that which would be

provided by the regulation.

IV

Accordingly, the Commission has

determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR

73.5, an exemption is authorized by law,

will not endanger life or property or

common defense and security, and is

otherwise in the public interest.

Therefore, the Commission hereby

grants an exemption from those

requirements of 10 CFR 73.55(d)(5)

relating to the returning of picture

badges upon exit from the protected

area such that individuals not employed

by the licensee, i.e., contractors who are

authorized unescorted access into the

protected area, may take their picture

badges offsite.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the

Commission has determined that the

granting of this exemption will not

result in any significant adverse

environmental impact (60 FR 43819).

This exemption is effective upon

issuance.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day

of December 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Steven A. Varga,

Director, Division of Reactor Projects—I/II,

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–31478 Filed 12–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

[Docket Nos. 50–295 and 50–304]

Commonwealth Edison Company;

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of

Amendments to Facility Operating

Licenses and Opportunity for a

Hearing

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of amendments to

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–39

and DPR–48, issued to Commonwealth

Edison Company (ComEd, the licensee),

for operation of the Zion Nuclear Power

Station, Units 1 and 2, located in Lake

County, Illinois.

The proposed amendments, requested

by the licensee in its letter of November

3, 1995, as supplemented on November

22, 1995, would represent a full

conversion from the current Technical

Specifications (TS) to a set of TS based

on NUREG–1431, ‘‘Standard Technical

Specifications, Westinghouse Plants,’’

September 1992. NUREG–1431 has been

developed through working groups

composed of both NRC staff members

and Westinghouse owners and has been

endorsed by the staff as part of an

industry-wide initiative to standardize

and improve TS. As part of this

submittal, the licensee has applied the

criteria contained in the NRC Final

Policy Statement on Technical

Specification Improvement for Nuclear

Power Reactors (58 FR 39132, dated 7/

22/93) to the current Zion Nuclear

Power Station TS.

The licensee has categorized the

proposed changes into four general

groupings. These groupings are

characterized as relocated requirements,

administrative changes, less restrictive

changes involving deletion of

requirements, and more restrictive

changes.

‘‘R’’—Relocation of Requirements

Relocating requirements that do not

meet the TS criteria, to documents with

an established control program, allows

the TS to be reserved only for those

conditions or limitations upon reactor

operation that are necessary to
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 250 / Friday, December 29, 1995 / Notices 67367

adequately limit the possibility of an

abnormal situation or event giving rise

to an immediate threat to the public

health and safety, thereby focusing the

scope of TS.

Therefore, requirements that do not

meet the TS criteria in the NRC Final

Policy Statement on Technical

Specification Improvement for Nuclear

Power Reactors have been relocated to

other 10 CFR 50.59 controlled

documents. This policy statement

addresses the scope and purpose of TS.

In doing so, it establishes a specific set

of objective criteria for determining

which regulatory requirements and

operating restrictions should be

included in the TS. These criteria are as

follows:

Criterion 1: Installed instrumentation

that is used to detect and indicate in the

control room, a significant abnormal

degradation of the reactor coolant

pressure boundary;

Criterion 2: A process variable that is

an initial condition of a design basis

accident (DBA) or transient analyses

that either assumes the failure of or

presents a challenge to the integrity of

a fission product barrier;

Criterion 3: A structure, system or

component that is part of the primary

success path and which functions or

actuates to mitigate a design basis

accident or transient that either assumes

the failure of or presents a challenge to

the integrity of a fission barrier;

Criterion 4: A structure, system or

component which operating experience

or probabilistic safety assessment has

shown to be significant to public health

and safety.

The application of these criteria is

provided in the ‘‘Application of

Selection Criteria to the Zion Technical

Specifications.’’ Requirements which

met the criteria have been included in

the proposed improved TS. ComEd

proposes to remove the requirements

which do not meet the criteria from the

TS and relocate the requirements to a

suitable owner controlled document.

The requirements in the relocated

Specifications will not be affected by

this TS change. ComEd will initially

continue to perform the required

operation and maintenance to assure

that the requirements are satisfied.

Relocating specific requirements for

systems or variables will have no impact

on the system’s operability or the

variable’s maintenance, as applicable.

10 CFR 50.59 will be utilized as the

control mechanism for the relocated

Specifications as they will be placed in

plant procedures or other controlled

documents governed by 10 CFR 50.59.

This would allow ComEd to make

changes to these requirements, without

NRC approval, if the change does not

involve an unreviewed safety question.

These controls are considered adequate

for assuring structures, systems and

components in the relocated

specifications are maintained operable

and variables in the relocated

specifications are maintained within

limits.

‘‘A’’—Administrative Changes to

Requirements

Reformatting and rewording the

remaining requirements in accordance

with the style of the improved

Westinghouse Standard Technical

Specifications in NUREG–1431 will

make the TS more readily

understandable to plant operators and

other users. Application of the format

and style will also assure consistency is

achieved between specifications. As a

result, the reformatting and rewording

of the TS has been performed to make

them more readily understandable by

plant operators and other users. During

this reformatting and rewording process,

no technical changes (either actual or

interpretational) to the TS were made

unless they were identified and

justified.

‘‘LA’’—Less Restrictive, Administrative

Deletion of Requirements

Portions of some specifications

provide information that is descriptive

in nature regarding the equipment,

system(s), actions or surveillances. This

information is proposed to be deleted

from the specification and moved to the

proposed Bases, Updated Final Safety

Analysis Report (UFSAR), or

procedures. The removal of descriptive

information to the Bases of the TS,

UFSAR or procedures is permissible,

because the Bases, UFSAR or

procedures will be controlled through a

process which utilizes 10 CFR 50.59.

This will not impact the actual

requirements but may provide some

flexibility and how the requirement is

conducted. Therefore, the descriptive

information that has been moved

continues to be maintained in an

appropriately controlled manner.

‘‘M’’—More Restrictive Changes to

Requirements

The Zion TS are proposed to be

modified in some areas to impose more

stringent requirements than previously

identified. These more restrictive

modifications are being imposed to be

consistent with the improved

Westinghouse Standard TS. Such

changes have been made after ensuring

the previously evaluated safety analysis

was not affected. Also, other more

restrictive technical changes have been

made to achieve consistency, correct

discrepancies, and remove ambiguities

from the specification.

The modifying of the Zion TS and the

changes made to achieve consistency

within the specifications have been

performed in a manner such that the

most stringent requirements are

imposed, except in cases which are

individually evaluated.

Before issuance of the proposed

license amendments, the Commission

will have made findings required by the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended

(the Act) and the Commission’s

regulations.

By January 29, 1996, the licensee may

file a request for a hearing with respect

to issuance of the amendments to the

subject facility operating licenses and

any person whose interest may be

affected by this proceeding and who

wishes to participate as a party in the

proceeding must file a written request

for a hearing and a petition for leave to

intervene. Requests for a hearing and a

petition for leave to intervene shall be

filed in accordance with the

Commission’s ‘‘Rules of Practice for

Domestic Licensing Proceedings’’ in 10

CFR Part 2. Interested persons should

consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.714

which is available 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

Waukegan Public Library, 128 N.

County Street, Waukegan, Illinois

60085. If a request for a hearing or

petition for leave to intervene is filed by

the above date, the Commission or an

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board,

designated by the Commission or by the

Chairman of the Atomic Safety and

Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the

request and/or petition, and the

Secretary or the designated Atomic

Safety and Licensing Board will issue a

notice of hearing or an appropriate

order.

As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a

petition for leave to intervene shall set

forth with particularity the interest of

the petitioner in the proceeding, and

how that interest may be affected by the

results of the proceeding. The petition

should specifically explain the reasons

why intervention should be permitted

with particular reference to the

following factors: (1) The nature of the

petitioner’s right under the Act to be

made a party to the proceeding; (2) the

nature and extent of the petitioner’s

property, financial, or other interest in

the proceeding; and (3) the possible

effect of any order which may be

entered in the proceeding on the

petitioner’s interest. The petition should
67368 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 250 / Friday, December 29, 1995 / Notices

also identify the specific aspect(s) of the

subject matter of the proceeding as to

which petitioner wishes to intervene.

Any person who has filed a petition for

leave to intervene or who has been

admitted as a party may amend the

petition without requesting leave of the

Board up to fifteen (15) days prior to the

first prehearing conference scheduled in

the proceeding, but such an amended

petition must satisfy the specificity

requirements described above.

Not later than fifteen (15) days prior

to the first prehearing conference

scheduled in the proceeding, a

petitioner shall file a supplement to the

petition to intervene which must

include a list of the contentions which

are sought to be litigated in the matter.

Each contention must consist of a

specific statement of the issue of law or

fact to be raised or controverted. In

addition, the petitioner shall provide a

brief explanation of the bases of the

contention and a concise statement of

the alleged facts or expert opinion

which support the contention and on

which the petitioner intends to rely in

proving the contention at the hearing.

The petitioner must also provide

references to those specific sources and

documents of which the petitioner is

aware and on which the petitioner

intends to rely to establish those facts or

expert opinion. Petitioner must provide

sufficient information to show that a

genuine dispute exists with the

applicant on a material issue of law or

fact. Contentions shall be limited to

matters within the scope of the

amendments under consideration. The

contention must be one which, if

proven, would entitle the petitioner to

relief. A petitioner who fails to file such

a supplement which satisfies these

requirements with respect to at least one

contention will not be permitted to

participate as a party.

Those permitted to intervene become

parties to the proceeding, subject to any

limitations in the order granting leave to

intervene, and have the opportunity to

participate fully in the conduct of the

hearing, including the opportunity to

present evidence and cross-examine

witnesses.

A request for a hearing or a petition

for leave to intervene must be filed with

the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555, Attention:

Docketing and Services Branch, or may

be delivered to the Commission’s Public

Document Room, the Gelman Building,

2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, by

the above date. Where petitions are filed

during the last ten (10) days of the

notice period, it is requested that the

petitioner promptly so inform the

Commission by a toll-free telephone call

to Western Union at 1-(800) 248–5100

(in Missouri 1-(800) 342–6700). The

Western Union operator should be given

Datagram Identification Number N1023

and the following message addressed to

Robert A. Capra, Director, Project

Directorate III–2: petitioner’s name and

telephone number; date petition was

mailed; plant name; and publication

date and page number of this Federal

Register notice. A copy of the petition

should also be sent to the Office of the

General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555, and to Michael I. Miller,

Esquire; Sidley and Austin, One First

National Plaza, Chicago, Illinois 60690,

attorney for the licensee.

Nontimely filings of petitions for

leave to intervene, amended petitions,

supplemental petitions and/or requests

for hearing will not be entertained

absent a determination by the

Commission, the presiding officer or the

presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board that the petition and/or request

should be granted based upon a

balancing of the factors specified in 10

CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)–(v) and 2.714(d).

If a request for a hearing is received,

the Commission’s staff may issue the

amendment after it completes its

technical review and prior to the

completion of any required hearing if it

publishes a further notice for public

comment of its proposed finding of no

significant hazards consideration in

accordance with 10 CFR 50.91 and

50.92.

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendments dated November 3, 1995,

as supplemented on November 22, 1995,

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 Waukegan Public Library,

128 N. County Street, Waukegan,

Illinois 60085.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd

day of December 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Robert A. Capra,

Director, Project Directorate III–2, Division

of Reactor Projects—III/IV, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–31480 Filed 12–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

[Docket Nos. 50–325 and 50–324]

Carolina Power & Light Company;

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units

1 and 2; Exemption

I

The Carolina Power & Light Company

(the licensee) is the holder of Facility

Operating License Nos. DPR–71 and

DPR–62, which authorize operation of

the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant

(BSEP). The licenses provide, among

other things, that the licensee is subject

to all rules, regulations, and orders of

the Commission now or hereafter in

effect.

These facilities consist of two boiling

water reactors located at the licensee’s

site in Brunswick County, North

Carolina.

II

Title 10 CFR 50.71 ‘‘Maintenance of

records, making of reports,’’ paragraph

(e)(4) states, in part, that ‘‘Subsequent

revisions [to the Final Safety Analysis

Report (FSAR)] must be filed annually

or 6 months after each refueling outage

provided the interval between

successive updates to the FSAR does

not exceed 24 months.’’ The two BSEP

units share a common FSAR; therefore,

this rule requires the licensee to update

the same document within 6 months

after a refueling outage for either unit.

III

10 CFR 50.12(a), ‘‘Specific

exemptions,’’ states that * * *

The Commission may, upon application by

any interested person, or upon its own

initiative, grant exemptions from the

requirements of the regulations of this part,

which are- (1) Authorized by law, will not

present an undue risk to the public health

and safety, and are consistent with the

common defense and security. (2) The

Commission will not consider granting an

exemption unless special circumstances are

present.

10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii) states that

special circumstances are present when

* * *

Application of the regulation in the

particular circumstances would not serve the

underlying purpose of the rule or is not

necessary to achieve the underlying purpose

of the rule * * *

IV

As noted in the staff’s safety

evaluation, the licensee’s proposed

schedule for FSAR updates will ensure

that the BSEP FSAR will be maintained

current within 24 months of the last

revision and the interval for submission

of the 10 CFR 50.59 design change

report will not exceed 24 months. The

Commission has determined that,