[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 7, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30117-30118]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-13978]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-498 and 499]
Houston Lighting & Power Company City Public Service Board of San
Antonio Central Power and Light Company City of Austin, Texas; South
Texas Project, 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 Facility Operating License
Nos. NPF-76 and NPF-80, issued to Houston Lighting & Power Company
(HL&P) acting on behalf of itself and for the City Public Service Board
of San Antonio (CPS), Central Power and Light Company (CPL), and City
of Austin, Texas (COA) (the licensees), for operation of the South
Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, (STP) located in Matagorda County, Texas.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the 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 March 27, 1995, 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 STP is
controlled through the use of a photograph on a combination badge and
keycard (hereafter referred to as a 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 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
[[Page 30118]] 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 concludes that the proposed
hand geometry system will provide the same high assurance objective
regarding onsite physical protection that is achieved by the current
system. 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 a 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 South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2,'' dated August
1986.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on May 12, 1995, the staff
consulted with the Texas State official, Arthur C. Tate of the Bureau
of Radiation Control, Texas Department of Health, regarding the
environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no
comments.
Findings of No Significant Impact
Based on the environmental assessment, the Commission concludes
that the proposed action will not have a significant impact 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 March 27, 1995, 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 Wharton County Junior College, J.M. Hodges
Learning Center, 911 Boling Highway, Wharton, TX 77488.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 31st day of May 1995.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Thomas W. Alexion,
Project Manager, Project Directorate IV-1, Division of Reactor Projects
III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-13978 Filed 6-6-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
