[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 217 (Thursday, November 10, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27861]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 10, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-309]
Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co.; Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is
considering issuance of an exemption from Facility Operating License
No. DPR-36, issued to Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company, (the
licensee), for operation of the Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station,
located in Wiscasset, Maine.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's
application dated August 5, 1994, for an exemption from certain
requirements of 10 CFR Part 73, Appendix B, ``General Criteria for
Security Personnel.'' The requested exemption would relieve two
security officers from meeting the distant visual acuity requirements
in one eye, which was not discovered at the time of their initial
employment screening in 1989 and 1990.
The Need for the Proposed Action
Pursuant to 10 CFR Part 73, Appendix B, security personnel who are
responsible for the protection of special nuclear material on site or
in transit should, like other elements of the physical security system,
be required to meet minimum criteria to ensure that they will
effectively perform their assigned security-related job duties.
The Code of Federal Regulations at 10 CFR Part 73, Appendix B,
Section I.B.b.(1)(a), ``Vision,'' specifies, in part that: For each
individual (security officer), distant visual acuity in each eye shall
be correctable to 20/30 (Snellen or equivalent) in the better eye and
20/40 in the other eye with eyeglasses or contact lenses.
At the time of their employment in 1989 and 1990, the two subject
security officers were screened using a licensee-generated form that
was based on the requirements of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 73. However,
the form did not properly reflect the correct distant visual acuity
requirements of the ``other eye.'' On July 28, 1994, the discrepancy
between the licensee's form and the requirements of 10 CFR Part 73,
Appendix B, Section I.B.b.(1)(a) was noted for the first officer. A
review of the visual examination records for all security officers
found a second instance in which the distant visual acuity requirement
was not met for another security officer.
The licensee has provided expert professional medical opinions
asserting that each officer has normal peripheral vision, normal
peripheral depth perception, and normal binocular acuity. Further, each
security officer uses the right eye for firearms siting and each
currently tests 20/20 in the right eye. Finally, the licensee has
committed to have each security officer's vision tested by its
optometrist every 6 months to ensure no significant visual
deterioration occurs. The criteria to establish that no significant
visual deterioration has occurred will be:
1. Vision in the better eye will be at least 20/30 corrected or
uncorrected.
2. Vision in the other eye will be monitored. If eyesight in the
other eye should worsen, immediate testing will be performed to
demonstrate that the individual is physically capable of meeting all
the requirements of the Maine Yankee Security Training and
Qualification Plan prior to being reassigned duties of an armed
security officer. (This testing will include the complete firearms
qualification course.)
3. The remaining vision criteria of 10 CFR Part 73, Appendix B,
will be met or exceeded.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action,
including the expert professional medical opinions, vision screening
results, firearms qualifications, and the proposed alternate
qualification criteria the licensee has documented. The expert
professional medical opinions assert that the diminished central visual
acuity for each officer's left eye has existed since birth for one, and
since about the age of four, for the other. Thus, the early age of
onset and the nature of both conditions contribute to relative
functional normality for each officer. Further, each officer has normal
peripheral vision, normal peripheral depth perception, and normal
binocular acuity.
The underlying purpose for requiring vision criteria for security
officers is to ensure that they can effectively perform their assigned
security-related job duties. Expert professional opinions assert that
each officer has relative functional normality and that an exception
could thus be made because of the longevity of their vision loss (they
have adapted and effectively compensate for diminished central visual
acuity in their left eye).
Accordingly, the Commission concludes that an exemption to allow
continued service of the two subject employees as security officers at
Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station would not result in a reduction in
the physical protection capabilities for the protection of special
nuclear material--either on site or in transit--or of Maine Yankee
Atomic Power Station. Consequently, the Commission concludes that there
are no significant radiological 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 action would be to deny the
request. Denial of the requested action would not significantly enhance
the environment in that the proposed action will result in visual
capabilities for two security officers that are substantially
equivalent to the existing requirements.
Alternative Use of Resources
This action does not involve the use of any resources not
previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement Related to
Operation of Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
The NRC staff reviewed the licensee's request and did not consult
other agencies or persons.
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 August 5, 1994, which is available for public
inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, The Gelman
Building, 2120 L Street NW., Washington, DC 20555, at the local public
document room located at the Wiscasset Public Library, High Street,
P.O. Box 367, Wiscasset, Maine 04578.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of November, 1994.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Walter R. Butler,
Director, Project Directorate I-3, Division of Reactor Projects--I/II,
Office of Nuclear Reator Regulation.
[FR Doc. 94-27861 Filed 11-9-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
