[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 7, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30118-30120]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-13977]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-443]
North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation, Seabrook Station, Unit
No. 1; 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. NPF-86, issued to North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation (the
licensee or North Atlantic), for operation of the Seabrook Station,
Unit No. 1 (Seabrook) located in Rockingham County, New Hampshire.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
This Environmental Assessment has been prepared to address
potential environmental issues related to North Atlantic's request for
exemption dated October 17, 1994, as supplemented by letters dated
February 13, 1995, April 26, 1995, and May 12, 1995. The proposed
action would exempt North Atlantic from certain requirements of 10 CFR
73.55. The proposed action would allow North Atlantic to eliminate
issuing and retrieving photograph identification badges at the entrance
and exit location to the Seabrook protected area upon implementation of
a biometric (hand geometry) system of site access control. North
Atlantic would be authorized to permit all individuals with unescorted
access, including North Atlantic employees, contractor personnel, NRC
employees, and others to retain their badges when leaving the Seabrook
protected area.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The requirements for the establishment and maintenance of a
physical protection system against theft of special nuclear material
and against radiological sabotage at certain sites where special
nuclear material is used are prescribed in 10 CFR Part 73. Facilities
licensed under 10 CFR Part 50 are included in the scope of 10 CFR Part
73. Paragraph 73.55(a) specifies the general performance objectives and
requirements of an onsite physical protection system and security
organization, and paragraphs 73.55(b) through 73.55(h) specify minimum
[[Page 30119]] specific requirements for the onsite physical protection
system and security organization. Access requirements are specified in
73.55(d). Paragraph 73.55(d)(1) requires that licensees control all
points of personnel and vehicle access into a protected area, and
73.55(d)(5) requires a numbered picture badge identification system to
be used for all individuals who are authorized access to protected
areas without escort. Paragraph 73.55(d)(5) also states that an
individual not employed by the licensee 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 Seabrook is
controlled through the use of a numbered picture badge and an attached
but separate keycard (containing encoded information to relate the
keycard to the badged individual) which is used to actuate the entrance
turnstile for access into the protected area and certain other specific
areas authorized within the protected area. The badges and keycards for
all individuals who have been granted unescorted access, including
North Atlantic employees, contractor personnel, NRC employees, and
others, are stored by security personnel at the entrance to the
protected area whenever they are not being used by the authorized
individuals. Security personnel stationed at the entrance to the
protected area use the photograph on the badge to visually verify the
identity of an individual requesting access. After verification, the
badge and keycard are issued to the individual to allow entrance to the
protected area. The badge and keycard are retrieved when the individual
is exiting the protected area. In accordance with the Seabrook Physical
Security Plan and Safeguards Contingency Plan, no individual is allowed
to retain a badge and keycard when leaving the protected area.
North Atlantic proposes to implement an alternative unescorted
access control system which would eliminate the need to issue and
retrieve badges and keycards at the protected area entrance/exit
location and, instead, would allow all individuals with unescorted
access to retain their badges and keycards when leaving the protected
area.
An exemption from 10 CFR 73.55(d)(5) is required to permit
individuals who are not North Atlantic employees to take their numbered
picture badges from the protected area.
The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action.
Under the proposed system, each individual who is authorized for
unescorted entry into the protected area would have the physical
characteristics of their hand (hand geometry) registered with their
badge number and keycard in the access control system. When an
individual inserts the keycard 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 associated with that badge
and keycard to verify authorization for entry. All individuals
authorized for unescorted access would be allowed to retain their badge
and keycard when leaving the protected area.
Based on Sandia Laboratory report, SAND91--0276 UC--906, A
Performance Evaluation of Biometric Identification Devices, (Unlimited
Release, Printed June 1991), and on North Atlantic's experience with
the current photo-identification system, North Atlantic demonstrated
that the proposed hand geometry system would provide enhanced site
access control. Since the badge, keycard, and hand geometry would be
necessary for access into the protected area, the proposed system would
provide for a positive verification process. Loss of either a picture
badge, keycard or both badge and keycard outside the protected area
would not enable an unauthorized entry into the protected area. North
Atlantic 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 and Safeguards
Contingency Plan for Seabrook will be revised to include implementation
and testing of the hand geometry access control system and to allow
badges and keycards to be taken from the protected area.
The access 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, and picture 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
exemption and concludes that there will be no changes to Seabrook or
the environment as a result of this action. The proposed exemption does
not in any way affect the manner by which the facility is operated or
change the facility itself. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that
the proposed action would result in no radiological or nonradiological
environmental impact.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Since the Commission has concluded there is no 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 for the
Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on May 17, 1995 the NRC staff
consulted with the Massachusetts State official, Mr. James Muckerheid
of the Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency regarding the
environmental impact of the proposed action. On May 18, 1995 the NRC
staff consulted with the New Hampshire State official, Mr. George
Iverson of the New Hampshire Emergency Management Agency. The State
officials had no comments.
Finding of No Significant Impact
Based on 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 North
Atlantic's letters dated October 17, 1994, February 13, 1995, April 26,
1995, and May 12, 1995, 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 Exeter Public Library, Founders Park, Exeter, NH 03833.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 31st day of May 1995.
[[Page 30120]] For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Phillip F. McKee,
Director, Project Directorate I-3, Division of Reactor Projects--I/II,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-13977 Filed 6-6-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
