Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 250 / Friday, December 29, 1995 / Notices 67369

pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, an exemption

is authorized by law, will not present an

undue risk to the public health and

safety and is consistent with common

defense or security, and is otherwise in

the public interest. The Commission has

also determined that special

circumstances are present as defined in

10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii). The Commission

hereby grants the licensee an exemption

from the requirement of 10 CFR

50.71(e)(4) to submit updates to the

BSEP FSAR within six months of each

outage. The licensee will be required to

submit updates to the BSEP FSAR once

per fuel cycle (based upon the Unit 1

refueling outage schedule). With the

current length of fuel cycles, FSAR

updates would be submitted every 18

months, but not to exceed 24 months

from the last submittal.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the

Commission has determined that

granting of this exemption will have no

significant effect on the quality of the

human environment (60 FR 64456). 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. 95–31481 Filed 12–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

[Docket Nos. STN 50–454 and STN 50–455]

Commonwealth Edison Company

(Byron 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 to

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–37

and NPF–66, issued to Commonwealth

Edison Company (ComEd, the licensee),

for operation of the Byron Station, Units

1 and 2, located in Ogle County, Illinois.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of Proposed Action

The proposed action is in accordance

with the licensee’s application for an

exemption from certain requirements of

10 CFR 73.55, ‘‘Requirements for

Physical Protection of Licensed

Activities in Nuclear Power Reactors

Against Radiological Sabotage.’’ The

requested exemption would allow the

implementation of a hand geometry

biometric system off site access control

in conjunction with photograph

identification badges, and would allow

the badges to be taken off site.

The Need for the Proposed Action

Pursuant to 10 CFR 73.55(a), the

licensee is required to establish and

maintain an onsite physical protection

system and security organization.

In 10 CFR 73.55(d), ‘‘Access

Requirements,’’ it specifies in part that

‘‘The licensee shall control all points of

personnel and vehicle access into a

protected area.’’ In 10 CFR 73.55(d)(5),

it specifies in part that ‘‘A numbered

pictured badge identification system

shall be used for all individuals who are

authorized access to protected areas

without escort.’’ It further indicates that

an individual not employed by the

licensee (e.g., contractors) may be

authorized access to protected areas

without an 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 for both

employee and contractor personnel into

the Byron Station, Units 1 and 2, is

controlled through the use of picture

badges. Positive identification of

personnel who are authorized and

request access into the protected area is

established by security personnel

making a visual comparison of the

individual requesting access and that

individual’s picture badge. The picture

badges are issued, sorted, and retrieved

at the entrance/exit location to the

protected area. In accordance with 10

CFR 73.55(d)(5), contractor personnel

are not allowed to take their picture

badges off site. In addition, in

accordance with plant’s physical

security plan, the licensee’s employees

are also not allowed to take their picture

badges off site. The licensee proposes to

implement an alternative unescorted

access control system which would

eliminate the need to issue and retrieve

picture badges at the entrance/exit

location to the protected area. The

proposal would also allow contractors

who have unescorted access to keep

their picture badges in their possession

when departing the Byron site. In

addition, the site security plans will be

revised to allow implementation of the

hand geometry system and to allow

employees and contractors with

unescorted access to keep their picture

badges in their possession when leaving

the Byron site.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action.

The Commission has completed its

evaluation of the proposed action. In

addition to their picture badges, all

individuals with authorized unescorted

access will have the physical

characteristics of their hand (hand

geometry) registered with their picture

badge number in a computerized access

control system. Therefore, all authorized

individuals must not only have their

picture badges to gain access into the

protected area, but must also have their

hand geometry confirmed.

All other access processes, including

search function capability and access

revocation, will remain the same. A

security officer responsible for access

control will continue to be positioned

within a bullet-resistant structure. The

proposed system is only for individuals

with authorized unescorted access and

will not be used for individuals

requiring escorts.

The underlying purpose for requiring

that individuals not employed by the

licensee must receive and return their

picture badges at the entrance/exit is to

provide reasonable assurance that the

access badges could not be

compromised or stolen with a resulting

risk that an unauthorized individual

could potentially enter the protected

area. Although the proposed exemption

will allow individuals to take their

picture badges off site, the proposed

measures require not only that the

picture badge be provided for access to

the protected area, but also that

verification of the hand geometry

registered with the badge be performed

as discussed above. Thus, the proposed

system provides an identity verification

process that is equivalent to the existing

process.

Accordingly, the Commission

concludes that the exemption to allow

individuals not employed by the

licensee to take their picture badges off

site will not result in an increase in the

risk that an unauthorized individual

could potentially enter the protected

area. Consequently, the Commission

concludes that there are no significant

radiological impacts associated with the

proposed action.

The proposed exemption does not

affect non-radiological 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. The principal alternative

to the proposed action would be to deny

the requested action. Denial of the

requested action would not significantly

enhance the environment in that the
67370 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 250 / Friday, December 29, 1995 / Notices

proposed action will result in a process

that is equivalent to the existing

identification verification process.

Alternative Use of Resources

This action does not involve the use

of any resources not previously

considered in the Final Environmental

Statement for the Byron Station, Units 1

and 2.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its state policy, on

December 20, 1995, the staff consulted

with the Illinois State official, Mr. Frank

Niziolek, Head, Reactor Safety Section;

Division of Engineering; Illinois

Department of Nuclear Safety, regarding

the environmental impact of the

proposed action. The State official had

no comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

Based upon the foregoing

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 exemption.

For further details with respect to this

action, see the licensee’s letter dated

November 6, 1995, which is available

for public inspection at the

Commission’s Public Document Room,

2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC,

and at the local public document room

located at the Byron Public Library, 109

N. Franklin, P.O. Box 434, Byron,

Illinois.

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. 95–31479 Filed 12–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

Documents Containing Reporting or

Recordkeeping Requirements: Office

of Management and Budget (OMB)

Review

AGENCY: U. S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC).

ACTION: Notice of the OMB review of

information collection and solicitation

of public comment. The NRC hereby

informs potential respondents that an

agency may not conduct or sponsor, and

that a person is not required to respond

to, a collection of information unless it

displays a currently valid OMB control

number.

SUMMARY: The NRC has recently

submitted to OMB for review the

following proposal for the collection of

information under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. Chapter 35).

1. Type of submission: Revision.

2. The title of the information

collection: 10 CFR 35.32 and 35.33,

‘‘Quality Management Program and

Misadministrations’’.

3. The form number if applicable: Not

applicable.

4. How often the collection is

required: One time submittal of a

quality management program (QMP) for

each existing and new licensee, when

the QMP is modified, or when new

modalities (uses) are added to an

existing license. Misadministrations are

reported as they occur. Records of

written directives, administered dose or

dosage, an annual review of the QMP,

and recordable events must be

maintained in auditable form for 3 years

and misadministrations for 5 years.

5. Who will be required or asked to

report: 10 CFR Part 35 licensees and

equivalent Agreement State licensees

who use byproduct material in limited

diagnostic and therapeutic ranges.

6. An estimate of the number of

responses: 3825.

7. The estimated number of annual

respondents: 6388.

8. An estimate of the total number of

hours needed annually to complete the

requirement or request: Approximately

51,778 hours (reporting: 38,706 hrs/yr

and recordkeeping: 13,072 hrs/yr).

9. An indication of whether Section

3507(d), Pub. L. 104–13 applies:

applicable.

10. Abstract: In the medical use of

byproduct material, there have been

instances where byproduct material was

not administered as intended or

administered to a wrong individual

which resulted in unnecessary

exposures or inadequate or incorrect

diagnostic or therapeutic procedures.

The most frequent causes of these

incidents were: insufficient supervision,

deficient procedures, failure to follow

procedures, and inattention to detail. To

reduce the frequency of such events, the

NRC requires licensees to implement a

quality management program (10 CFR

35.32) to provide high confidence that

byproduct material or radiation from

byproduct material will be administered

as directed by an authorized user

physician.

Records and reports to NRC are

required for certain errors in the

administration of limited diagnostic and

therapeutic quantities of byproduct

material by medical use licensees.

Section 35.33 clarifies these

requirements to avoid confusion over

whether certain events should be

reported to NRC and to help ensure that

the licensee is in compliance with the

requirements. NRC has a responsibility

to inform the medical community of

generic issues identified in the NRC

review of misadministrations.

NRC has revised the definition for

‘‘misadministration’’ in 10 CFR 35.2,

‘‘Definitions.’’ The revision

considerably reduces the number of

‘‘errors’’ that must be reported to the

NRC or an Agreement State.

Collection of this information will

enable the NRC to ascertain whether

misadministrations are investigated by

the licensee and that corrective action is

taken.

A copy of the submittal may be

viewed free of charge at the NRC Public

Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW,

(Lower Level), Washington, DC.

Members of the public who are in the

Washington, DC, area can access the

submittal via modem on the Public

Document Room Bulletin Board (NRC’s

Advanced Copy Document Library) NRC

subsystem at FedWorld, 703–321–3339.

Members of the public who are located

outside of the Washington, DC, area can

dial FedWorld, 1–800–303–9672, or use

the FedWorld Internet address:

fedworld.gov (Telnet). The document

will be available on the bulletin board

for 30 days after the signature date of

this notice. If assistance is needed in

accessing the document, please contact

the FedWorld help desk at 703–487–

4608.

Comments and questions should be

directed to the OMB reviewer by

January 29, 1996: Troy Hillier, Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs

(3150–0171), NEOB–10202, Office of

Management and Budget, Washington,

DC 20503.

Comments can also be submitted by

telephone at (202) 395–3084.

The NRC Clearance Officer is Brenda

Jo. Shelton, (301) 415–7233.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day

of December 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Gerald F. Cranford,

Designated Senior Official for Information

Resources Management.

[FR Doc. 95–31545 Filed 12–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P