[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 88 (Wednesday, May 7, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24982-24983]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-11854]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-302]
Florida Power Corporation; 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. DPR-72 issued to Florida
Power Corporation, (the licensee), for operation of the Crystal River
Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant (CR3) located in Citrus County,
Florida.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of Proposed Action
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's
application dated June 22, as supplemented November 22, 1995 and
January 31, 1996 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
exemption would allow implementation of a hand geometry biometric
system to the site access control such that photograph identification
badges 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 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 CR3 is controlled through the
use of a photograph on a badge and a separate keycard (hereafter, these
are referred to as ``badge''). 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 contract 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), contractors are
not allowed to take badges offsite. In accordance with the plant's
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.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The Commission has completed its evaluation of the licensee's
application. 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 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 a continued overall
level of performance equivalent to that specified in the regulation.
The Physical Security Plans for the facility 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 areas.
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
[[Page 24983]]
Commission concludes that there are no significant radiological
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed
action involves features located within the restricted area as defined
in 10 CFR Part 20. The proposed change 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
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 did not involve the use of any resources not previously
considered in the Final Environmental Statements related to operation
of CR3, dated May 1973.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on April 28, 1997 the staff
consulted with the Florida State Official, Mr. Mike Stephens of the
Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, regarding the
environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no
comments.
Finding of No Significant Impact
The Commission has determined not to prepare an environmental
impact statement for the proposed exemption. Based upon the foregoing
environmental assessment, the Commission concludes that the proposed
action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human
environment.
For further details with respect to this action, see the request
for exemption dated June 22, 1995 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
Coastal Region Library, 8619 W. Crystal Street, Crystal River, Florida
32629.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day of May 1997.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Frederick J. Hebdon,
Director, Project Directorate II-3, Division of Reactor Projects--I/II,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 97-11854 Filed 5-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
