[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 12, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35965-35966]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-17026]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-397]
Washington Public Power Supply System; WPPSS Nuclear Project No.
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 to Facility Operating License No. NPF-21, issued to
Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS, or the licensee) for
operation of the WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2, located in Benton County,
Washington.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The exemption would allow implementation of a hand geometry
biometric system of site access control so that photograph
identification badges can be taken offsite by personnel badged at the
site but not employed by the Supply System.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's
application, dated March 1, 1995, for exemption from certain
requirements of 10 CFR 73.55, ``Requirements for physical protection of
licensed activities in nuclear power reactors against radiological
sabotage.''
The Need for the Proposed Action
Pursuant to 10 CFR 73.55(a), the licensee is required to establish
and maintain an onsite physical protection system and security
organization. Section 73.55(d)(1) of Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, ``Access Requirements,'' specifies that ``the licensee
shall control all points of personnel and vehicle access into a
protected area.'' Section 73.55(d)(5) further specifies that ``a
numbered picture badge identification system shall be used for all
individuals who are authorized access to protected areas without
escort.'' This paragraph also states that an individual not employed by
the licensee, but who requires frequent and extended access to
protected and vital areas, may be authorized access to such areas
without escort provided that he 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 WNP-2 site
is controlled through use of a photograph on a badge with a keycard
attached (hereafter, these are referred to as the badge). The security
officers at the entrance station use the photograph on the badge to
visually identify the individual requesting access. The
[[Page 35966]]
individual is then given the badge to allow access. Another security
officer collects the badges upon exit from the protected area. The
badges are then placed in a badge rack located at the badge issue
station and stored at the entrance station until the individual again
needs access into the protected area.
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 allow
contractors to take their badges offsite instead of returning them when
exiting the site.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The staff has completed its evaluation of the licensee's
application. Under the proposed system, individuals who are authorized
for unescorted entry into the protected area would have the physical
characteristics of their hand (hand geometry) registered with their
badge number in the access control system. When an individual presents
his badge to the card reader and places their hand on the measuring
surface, the system compares the hand geometry to that registered for
the badge number to verify authorization for entry. This system
provides a positive means of assuring that a stolen or lost badge could
not be used to gain access. Individuals, including licensee employees
and personnel not employed by the licensee (e.g., contractors), would
be allowed to keep their badge with them when they depart the site.
This would reduce the need for security personnel to issue and retrieve
badges at the access point. The access process will continue to be
under the observation of security personnel located within a hardened
cubicle who have final control over release of the entrance station
turnstiles.
Based on Sandia Report, SAND91-0276 UC-906 (unlimited release),
printed June 1991, ``A Performance Evaluation of Biometric
Identification Devices,'' and on the licensee's experience with the
current photo identification system, the licensee has demonstrated that
the proposed hand geometry will maintain the same high level of
assurance that access will be granted to the protected area to only
authorized individuals. Since both the badge and hand geometry are
necessary for access into the protected area, the proposed system
provides a positive verification process. Potential loss of a badge by
an individual that takes a badge offsite would not enable unauthorized
entry into the protected area. Badges will continue to be displayed by
all individuals while inside the protected area. 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 for WNP-2.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on June 19, 1995, the staff
consulted with the Washington State official, Mr. R.R. Cowley of the
Department of Health, State of Washington Energy Facility Site
Evaluation Council, 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 March 1, 1995, which is available for public
inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, The Gelman
Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20555, and at the local
public document room located at the Richland Public Library, 955
Northgate Street, Richland, Washington 99352.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of July 1995.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Eileen M. McKenna,
Acting Director, Project Directorate IV-2, Division of Reactor Projects
III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-17026 Filed 7-11-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
