[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 3, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21835-21836]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-10888]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446]
Texas Utilities Electric Co., Comanche Peak Steam Electric
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 for Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-87 and NPF-89,
issued to Texas Utilities Electric Company (TU Electric, the licensee),
for operation of the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES),
Units 1 and 2, located in Somervell County, Texas.
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 off site.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's
application dated January 16, 1995 (TXX-95012), as supplemented by
letters dated March 1 (TXX-95064), and April 3, 1995 (TXX-95089), 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.
Paragraph (1) of 10 CFR 73.55(d), ``Access Requirements,''
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 CPSES 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 the 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 the entrance/exit
location and are returned upon exit. The badges are stored and are
retrievable at the entrance/exit location. In accordance with 10 CFR
73.55(d)(5), contractor individuals are not allowed to take badges off
site. In accordance with the plant's physical security plans, neither
licensee employees nor contractors are allowed to take badges off site.
The licensee proposes to implement an alternative unescorted access
control system which would eliminate the need to issue and retrieve
badges at the 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 off site [[Page 21836]] 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 badges 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 stated that the false
acceptance rate of the proposed hand geometry system is comparable to
that of the current system. The licensee stated that the use of the
badges with the hand geometry system would increase the overall level
of 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 off site, 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 Plan for CPSES 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 off site.
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 Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action
and concludes that the change will not increase the probability or
consequences of accidents, no changes are being made in the types of
any effluent that may be released off site, 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. 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 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 for the
CPSES, Units 1 and 2 dated October 1989.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on April 7, 1995, the staff
consulted with Texas State official, Mr. John Haygood of the Texas
Department of Health, Bureau of Radiation control, 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 January 16, 1995 (TXX-95012), as supplemented
by letters dated March 1 (TXX-95064), and April 3, 1995 (TXX-95089),
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 University of
Texas at Arlington Library, Government Publications/Maps, 702 College,
P.O. Box 19497, Arlington, TX 76019.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day of April 1995.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Timothy J. Polich,
Project Manager, Project Directorate IV-1, Division of Reactor Projects
III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-10888 Filed 5-2-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
