Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 62 / Friday, March 31, 1995 / Notices 16683

material, notify Dr. D. Blair Spitzberg,

Chief, Nuclear Materials Licensing

Branch, NRC, Region IV, by telephone

(817–860–8191) so that the NRC may, if

it elects, observe the transfer of the

material to the authorized recipient.

E. Within seven days following

completion of the transfer, provide to

the Regional Administrator, Region IV,

in writing, under oath or affirmation: (1)

Confirmation on NRC Form 314, as

required by 10 CFR 30.36(c) at the time

the License expired, that the cesium-137

and americium-241:beryllim byproduct

material have been transferred, (2) the

last date that the byproduct material

was used, (3) a copy of the survey

performed in accordance with 10 CFR

30.36, as required by the regulation at

the time the License expired, and (4) a

copy of the certification from the

authorized recipient that the source has

been received.

Copies of the response to this Order

shall be sent to the Regional

Administrator, Region IV, 611 Ryan

Plaza Dr., Suite 400, Arlington, Texas

76011–8064, and to the Assistant

General Counsel for Hearings and

Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555.

After reviewing your response, the

NRC will determine whether further

action is necessary to ensure

compliance with NRC requirements.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 24th day

of March 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Hugh L. Thompson, Jr.,

Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear

Materials Safety, Safeguards, and Operations

Support.

[FR Doc. 95–7921 Filed 3–30–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

[License No. 19089–01]

Advanced Medical Systems, Inc;

Notice of Amendment to Byproduct

Materials and Opportunity for Hearing

This provides notice to the public that

the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission has issued a license

amendment to Byproduct Material

License No. 34–19089–01 issued to

Advanced Medical Systems, Inc. for

possession and use of byproduct

material, cobalt-60 and cesium-137, at

the licensee’s Cleveland, Ohio facility.

The licensee requested the amendment

by letter dated March 1, 1995, to

establish plans and schedules for (1)

dealing with the accumulation of

ground water in and around the AMS

facility basement and that stored in

above ground tanks, (2) immobilizing

and/or remediating contamination that

has collected in below ground sewage

piping and manholes, and (3) processing

ground water that may build up around

the facility in the future. The

amendment requires that these activities

begin immediately and be completed

within 90 days. The license amendment

references letters from the licensee

dated January 27, February 2, 10, 14,

and March 1, 3, 8, and 10, 1995.

The NRC hereby provides notice and

an opportunity for a hearing on the

license amendment under the

provisions of 10 CFR part 2, subpart L,

‘‘Informal Hearing Procedures for

Adjudications in Materials and Operator

Licensing Proceedings.’’ Pursuant to

Section 2.1205(a), any person whose

interest may be affected by this

proceeding may file a request for a

hearing in accordance with section

2.1205(c). A request for a hearing must

be filed within thirty (30) days of the

date of publication of this Federal

Register notice.

The request for a hearing must be

filed with the Office of the Secretary

either:

(1) By delivery to the Docketing and

Service Branch of the Office of the

Secretary at One White Flint North,

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD

20852; or

(2) By mail or telegram addressed to

the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555,

Attention: Docketing and Service

Branch.

In addition to meeting other

applicable requirements of 10 CFR Part

2 of the NRC’s regulations, a request for

a hearing filed by a person other than

an applicant must describe in detail:

(1) The interest of the requestor in the

proceeding;

(2) How that interest may be affected

by the results of the proceeding,

including the reasons why the requestor

should be permitted a hearing, with

particular reference to the factors set out

in § 2.1205(g);

(3) The requestor’s areas of concern

about the licensing activity that is the

subject matter of the proceeding; and

(4) The circumstances establishing

that the request for a hearing is timely

in accordance with § 2.1205(c).

Each request for a hearing must also

be served, by delivering it personally or

by mail to:

(1) The licensee, Advanced Medical

Systems, Inc., to the attention of

Seymour S. Stein, Ph.D., President, 121

North Eagle Street, Geneva, Oh 44041;

and

(2) The NRC staff, by delivery to the

Executive Director for Operations, One

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville

Pike, Rockville, MD 20852, or by mail

Commission, Washington, DC 20555.

For further details with respect to this

action, see the licensee’s request for

license amendment dated March 1,

1995, and the letters referenced above,

which are available for inspection at the

Commission’s Region III Office, 801

Warrenville Road, Lisle, Illinois.

Dated: at Lisle, Illinois, this 24th day of

March, 1995.

John A Grobe,

Chief, Nuclear Materials Inspection, Section

2, Division of Radiation Safety and

Safeguards, RIII.

[FR Doc. 95–7923 Filed 3–30–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

[Docket No. 50–416]

Entergy Operations, Inc.; Grand Gulf

Nuclear Station, Unit 1; Environmental

Assessment and Finding of No

Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an exemption

from certain requirements of its

regulations to Facility Operating License

No. NPF–29, issued to Entergy

Operations, Inc. (the licensee), for

operation of the Grand Gulf Nuclear

Station, Unit 1 (GGNS), located in

Claiborne County, Mississippi.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of Proposed Action

The proposed action is in accordance

with the licensee’s application dated

October 24, 1994, 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 picture badges and access

control cards 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.

10 CFR 73.55(d), ‘‘Access

Requirements,’’ paragraph (1), specifies

that ‘‘licensee shall control all points of

personnel and vehicle access into a

protected area.’’ 10 CFR 73.55(d)(5)

specifies that ‘‘A numbered picture

badge identification system shall be

used for all individuals who are

authorized access to protected areas

without escort.’’ 10 CFR 73.55(d)(5) also

states that an individual not employed
16684 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 62 / Friday, March 31, 1995 / Notices

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

identification badges, coupled with

their associated access control cards, are

issued and retrieved on the occasion of

each entry to and exit from the

protected areas of the Grand Gulf 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 Grand Gulf

Nuclear Station since the operating

license was issued. Security personnel

retain each identification badge, as well

as the associated access control card,

when not in use by the authorized

individual, within appropriately

designed storage receptacles inside a

bullet-resistant enclosure. An individual

who meets the access authorization

requirements is issued an individual

picture identification card and an

individual access control card 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, the individual proceeds to the

access portal, inserts the access control

card into the card reader, enters a

personal identification number (PIN),

and passes through the turnstile which

unlocks if the preset criteria are met.

Once inside the station, the individual’s

PIN is not required in order to further

utilize the access authorization card.

This present procedure is labor

intensive since security personnel are

required to verify badge issuance,

ensure badge retrieval, and maintain the

badges 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

number. Since the hand geometry is

unique to each individual and its

application in the entry screening

function would preclude unauthorized

use of a badge, the requested exemption

would allow employees and contractors

to keep their badges at the time of

existing the protected area. The process

of verifying badge issuance, ensuring

badge retrieval, and maintaining badges

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

photograph identification badge, 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

access authorization card into 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 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 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 coupled with their associated

access control cards will continue to be

used for all individuals who are

authorized access to protected areas

without escorts. Badges 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 each 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

affect 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.

Alternative 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 are similar.

Alternative Use of Resources

This action does not involve the use

of any resources not previously

considered in the Final Environmental

Statements related to operation of Grand

Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

the staff consulted with the Mississippi

State official 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 this

proposed action, see the request for

exemption dated May 27, 1994, 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 Judge George W.

Armstrong Library, 220 S. Commerce

Street, Natchez, Mississippi 39120.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 62 / Friday, March 31, 1995 / Notices 16685

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 27th day

of March 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Paul W. O’Connor,

Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate

IV–1, Division of Reactor Projects III/IV, Office

of Nuclear Reactor Regulations.

[FR Doc. 95–7920 Filed 3–30–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

Nuclear Safety Research Review

Committee; Meeting of Waste

Subcommittee

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

The NSRRC Waste Subcommittee will

hold a meeting on May 1, 1995 in Room

C–103, Main Building, Department of

Energy Federal Building, 2753 South

Highland, Las Vegas, Nevada.

The meeting will be open to public

attendance.

The subject of review will be research

addressed to assessing the safety of

high-level waste disposal.

The agenda will be as follows:

8:00–8:15—Introductory remarks.

8:15–9:45—Research program overview.

10:00–12:00—Review of key technical

uncertainties and their relationship

to specific research projects

(regional hydrologic processes, rock

mechanics, performance

assessment).

1:15–5:30—Review of key technical

uncertainties and their relationship

to specific research projects,

continued (geochemical natural

analogs, sorption mechanisms,

integrated waste package

experiments, tectonics, volcanic

systems).

5:30–6:00—Subcommittee discussion.

The Subcommittee will report to the

full Committee on the facts and analyses

discussed at the meeting

A detailed agenda will be made

available at the meeting.

Oral statements may be presented by

members of the public with the

concurrence of the Subcommittee

Chairman; written statements will be

accepted and made available to the

Subcommittee. Questions may be asked

only by members of the Committee and

the staff. Persons desiring to make oral

statements should notify the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission staff member

named below as far in advance as is

practicable so that appropriate

arrangements can be made.

During the initial portion of the

meeting, the Subcommittee may

exchange preliminary views regarding

matters to be considered during the

balance of the meeting. The

Subcommittee will then hear

presentations by and hold discussions

with representatives of the NRC staff

and NRC contractors regarding this

review.

Further information regarding topics

to be discussed, the scheduling of

sessions, whether the meeting has been

canceled or rescheduled, and the

Chairman’s ruling on requests for the

opportunity to present oral statements

and the time allotted therefore can be

obtained by a prepaid telephone call to

Mr. George Sege (telephone 301/415–

6593) between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.

(EST). Persons planning to attend this

meeting are urged to contact the above

named individual one or two business

days before the scheduled meeting to be

advised of any changes in schedule, etc.,

that may have occurred.

Dated: March 27, 1995.

George Sege,

Technical Assistant to the Director, Office

of Nuclear Regulatory Research.

[FR Doc. 95–7919 Filed 3–30–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

All Licensees; Receipt of Petition for

Director’s Decision Under 10 CFR

2.206

Notice is hereby given that by a letter

dated March 8, 1995 from Thomas J.

Saporito, Jr., to the Executive Director

for Operations, the NRC received a

Petition under 10 CFR 2.206 requesting

that all licensees be required to review

their operating procedures in order to

ascertain whether those procedures

place any restrictions on the ability of

employees to bring safety concerns

directly to the NRC without following

the normal chain of command. The

Petition requests that each licensee be

required to report to the Commission,

under oath or affirmation, that the

review has been completed, that its

employees are free to bring concerns to

the NRC without following the normal

chain of command, and that this

information has been communicated to

all of its employees.

Petitioner’s request is being

considered pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 of

the Commission’s regulations. Action

will be taken on these requests within

a reasonable time. A copy of the Petition

is available for inspection at the

Commission’s Public Document Room

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

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 23rd day

of March 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Joseph R. Gray,

Deputy Director, Office of Enforcement.

[FR Doc. 95–7918 Filed 3–30–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

Draft Report on Responsiveness to the

Public; Availability

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC) has published its Draft Report on

Responsiveness to the Public. It has

been a long-standing policy of the NRC

to conduct its business activities in an

open and public manner, and in recent

years NRC has moved to be even more

open and responsive to the public. The

public is defined as individual citizens,

public interest groups, petitioners,

licensees, industry groups, contractors,

the Congress, and others with whom

NRC does business.

Recent initiatives to be more

responsive to the public have included

increased use of public workshops for

rulemaking activities, participatory

rulemaking, a pilot program opening

enforcement conferences to the public,

surveys of licensees to identify ways to

reduce the regulatory burden on

licensees, and the Cost Beneficial

Licensing Action Program. While these

initiatives represent significant

improvements, the NRC has not

heretofore given responsiveness to the

public priority attention in all NRC

programs nor had there been a

systematic review of NRC business

activities to identify potential

improvements.

The National Performance Review has

placed new emphasis on Federal

agencies ‘‘placing the customer first.’’

More can be done to broaden and

institutionalize public responsiveness

and openness as an underpinning tenet

of how NRC does business. In this spirit,

on July 27, 1994, the Executive Director

for Operations launched the Public

Responsiveness Initiative asking NRC

program directors to identify the

business activities where public

interaction is relatively frequent and to

develop Public Responsiveness

Improvement Plans. The draft report

reflects the initial results of that effort

and contains improvement plans

prepared by the offices. The

improvement plans are being published

for public comment so that NRC can

consider comments and make

adjustments and improvements in the

plans as implementation proceeds.

Those considering public comment

may obtain a free single copy of draft

NUREG/BR–0199 by writing to the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office

of Administration, Printing and Mail