[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 235 (Thursday, December 8, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-30152]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: December 8, 1994]
=======================================================================
[Docket Nos. 50-213, 50-245, 50-336, 50-423]
Northeast Nuclear Energy Co., Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power
Co., Haddam Neck Plant and Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit Nos.
1, 2, and 3 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. DRP-61, issued to
Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (the licensee), for operation
of the Haddam Neck Plant located in Middlesex County, Connecticut, and
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-21, DPR-65, and NPF-49, issued to
Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (the licensee), for operation of the
Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3, located in New
London County, Connecticut.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would allow use of a hand geometry biometric
system to control unescorted access into the protected areas of the
Haddam Neck Plant and the Millstone Station and to allow photograph
identification badges to be taken off site.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's
application for exemption dated September 28, 1994.
The Need for the Proposed Action
Pursuant to 10 CFR 73.55(a), the licensee is required to establish
and maintain an onsite physical system and security organization.
The Code of Federal Regulations at 10 CFR 73.55(d), ``Access
Requirements,'' specifies in part that: ``The licensee shall control
all points of personnel and vehicle access into a protected area.'' The
Code of Federal Regulations at 10 CFR 73.55(d)(5), specifies in part
that: ``A numbered picture 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 Haddam Neck Plant and the Millstone Station 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 visual comparison of
the individual requesting access and that individual's picture badge.
The picture badges are issued, stored, and retrieved at the entrance/
exit location to the protected area. These picture badges are not taken
offsite. This current practice is in accordance with the applicable
requirements of 10 CFR Part 73 discussed above.
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 all individuals, including contractors, who
have unescorted access to keep their picture badges in their possession
when departing the Haddam Neck Plant and the Millstone Station. Thus,
an exemption is required from 10 CFR 73.55(d)(5) to allow individuals,
including contractors, who have unescorted access to keep their picture
badges in their possession when departing the Haddam Neck Plant and the
Millstone Station.
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-resisting 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 offsite, 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 to take their picture badges offsite will not result in an
increase in the risk that an unauthorized individual could potentially
enter the protected area. 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.
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.
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 significantly enhance the protection of
the environment in that the 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
Haddam Neck Plant (October 1973), Millstone, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (June
1973), and Millstone, Unit 3 (December 1984).
Agencies and Persons Consulted
The NRC staff consulted with the Connecticut 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 the proposed action, see the
licensee's letter dated September 28, 1994, which is 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 Russell Library, 123 Broad Street,
Middletown, CT 06457 for the Haddam Neck Plant, and the Learning
Resource Center, Three Rivers Community-Technical College, Thames
Valley Campus, 574 New London Turnpike, Norwich, CT 06360 for the
Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day of November 1994.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Phillip F. McKee,
Director, Project Directorate I-4, Division of Reactor Projects--I/II,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 94-30152 Filed 12-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
