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,
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