[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 216 (Wednesday, November 9, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27740]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 9, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353]
Philadelphia Electric Co.; Limerick Generating 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 from certain requirements of its
regulations to Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-39 and NPF-85,
issued to Philadelphia Electric Company (the licensee), for operation
of the Limerick Generating Station (LGS), Units 1 and 2, located in
Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of Proposed Action
The proposed action would allow implementation of a hand geometry
biometric system of site access control such that photograph
identification badges can be taken offsite.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's
application dated August 10, 1994 for exemption from certain
requirements of 10 CFR 73.55, ``Requirements for physical protection of
licensed activities in nuclear power plant reactors against
radiological sabotage.''
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.
``Access Requirements,'' of 10 CFR 73.55(d), paragraph (1),
specifies that ``licensee shall control all points of personnel and
vehicle access into a protected area * * *.'' It is specified in 10 CFR
73.55(d)(5) that ``A numbered picture badge identification system shall
be used for all individuals who are authorized access to protected
areas without escort.'' It also states that an individual not employed
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, unescorted access into protected areas of the LGS is
controlled through the use of a photograph on a combination badge and
keycard. (Hereafter, these are referred to as badges). The security
officers at each 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 each entrance/exit
location and are returned upon exit. The badges are stored and are
retrievable at each 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 plants' physical security plans,
neither licensee employees nor contractors are allowed to take badges
offsite.
The licensee proposes to implement an alternative unescorted access
control system which would eliminate the need to issue and retrieve
badges at each entrance/exit location and would allow all individuals
with unescorted access to keep their badges with them when departing
the site.
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.
The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action.
Under the proposed system, each individual who is authorized for
unescorted entry 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 to verify authorization for entry.
Individuals, including licensee employees and contractors, would be
allowed to keep their badge with them when they depart the site.
Based on a Sandia report entitled ``A Performance Evaluation of
Biometric Identification Devices'' (SAND91-0276 UC-906 Unlimited
Release, Printed June 1991), and on its experience with the current
photo-identification system, the licensee demonstrated that the
proposed hand geometry system would provide enhanced site access
control. 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 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 Plans for both sites 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 access process will continue to be under the observation of
security personnel. A numbered picture badge identification system 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.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
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 involves 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.
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. Such action would not change any current environmental
impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the
alternative action are similar.
Alternative Use of Resources
This action does not involve the use of any resources not
previously considered in the ``Final Environmental Statement related to
the operation of Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2,'' dated
April 1984.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
The NRC staff consulted with the State of Pennsylvania 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 the proposed action, see the
licensee's letters dated August 10, October 7, 1994, and October 13,
1994, which are available for public inspection at the Commission's
Public Document Room, The Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20555 and at the local public document room located at
Pottstown Public Library, 500 High Street, Pottstown, Pennsylvania
19464.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3d day of November, 1994.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John F. Stolz,
Director, Project Directorate I-2, Division of Reactor Projects-I/II,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 94-27740 Filed 11-8-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
