[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 158 (Wednesday, August 14, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42273-42274]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-20679]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-346]
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
In the Matter of: Toledo Edison Company; Centerior Service
Company; and The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company; Davis-
Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1.
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-3, issued to the
Toledo Edison Company, Centerior Service Company and The Cleveland
Electric Illuminating Company (the licensees), for operation of the
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (DBNPS), located in Ottawa County,
Ohio.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensees'
application dated June 28, 1996, for an exemption from certain
requirements of 10 CFR 73.55, ``Requirements for Physical Protection of
Licensed Activities in Nuclear Power Reactors Against Radiological
Sabotage.'' The requested exemption would allow the implementation of a
hand geometry biometric system of site access control in conjunction
with photograph identification badges and would allow the badges to be
taken off site.
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.
In 10 CFR 73.55(d), ``Access Requirements,'' it specifies in part
that ``The licensee shall control all points of personnel and vehicle
access into a protected area.'' In 10 CFR 73.55(d)(5), it specifies in
part that ``A numbered picture badge identification system shall be
used for all individuals who are authorized access to protected areas
without escort.'' It further indicates that an individual not employed
by the licensee (e.g., contractors) may be authorized access to
protected areas without an 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 for both employee and contractor
personnel into the DBNPS is controlled through the use of picture
badges. Positive identification of personnel who are authorized and
request access into the protected area is established by security
personnel making a visual comparison of the individual requesting
access and that individual's picture badge. The picture badges are
issued, stored, and retrieved at the entrance/exit location to the
protected area. In accordance with 10 CFR 73.55(d)(5), contractor
personnel are not allowed to take their picture badges off site. In
addition, in accordance with the plant's physical security plan, the
licensees' employees are also not allowed to take their picture badges
off site. The licensees propose to implement an alternative unescorted
access control system which would eliminate the need to issue and
retrieve picture badges at the entrance/exit location to the protected
area. The proposal would also allow contractors who have unescorted
access to keep their picture badges in their possession when departing
the DBNPS site. In addition, the site security plans will be revised to
allow implementation of the hand geometry system and to allow employees
and contractors with unescorted access to keep their picture badges in
their possession when leaving the DBNPS site.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action.
In addition to their picture badges, all individuals with authorized
unescorted access will have the physical characteristics of their hand
(hand geometry) registered with their picture badge number in a
computerized access control system. Therefore, all authorized
individuals must have not only their picture badges to gain access into
the protected area, but must also have their hand geometry confirmed.
All other access processes, including search function capability
and access revocation, will remain the same. A security officer
responsible for access control will continue to be positioned within a
bullet-resistant structure. The proposed system is only for individuals
with authorized unescorted access and will not be used for individuals
requiring escorts.
The underlying purpose for requiring that individuals not employed
by the licensees must receive and return their picture badges at the
entrance/exit is to provide reasonable assurance that the access badges
could not be compromised or stolen with a resulting risk that an
unauthorized individual could potentially enter the protected area.
Although the proposed exemption will allow individuals to take their
picture badges off site, the proposed measures require that not only
the picture badge be provided for access to the protected area, but
also that verification of the hand geometry registered with the badge
be performed as discussed above. Thus, the proposed system provides an
identity verification process that is equivalent to the existing
process.
Accordingly, the Commission concludes that the proposed exemption
to allow individuals not employed by the licensees to take their
picture badges off site will not result in an increase in the risk that
an unauthorized individual could potentially enter the protected area.
Consequently, the Commission concludes that granting the exemption will
not increase the probability or consequences of accidents, will make no
changes in the types of any effluents that may be released offsite, and
will not significantly increase 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 does involve 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
[[Page 42274]]
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
DBNPS.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on July 22, 1996, the staff
consulted with the Ohio State official, Carol O'Claire of the Ohio
Emergency Management Agency, 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
licensees' letter dated June 28, 1996, 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 University of Toledo, William Carlson
Library, Government Documents Collection, 2801 West Bancroft Avenue,
Toledo, Ohio 43606.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day of August 1996.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Linda L. Gundrum,
Project Manager, Project Directorate III-3, Division of Reactor
Projects--III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 96-20679 Filed 8-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
