[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 148 (Wednesday, August 2, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39464-39465]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-18931]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265]
Commonwealth Edison Company, Iowa-Illinois Gas and Electric
Company, Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, 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 certain requirements of its
regulations to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-29 and DPR-30,
issued to Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd, the licensee), for
operation of Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, located
in Rock Island County, Illinois.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's
application 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.
[[Page 39465]]
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 Quad Cities Station, Units 1 and 2, 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 licensee's employees are also not allowed to take their
picture badges off site. The licensee proposes 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 contractor who
have unescorted access to keep their picture badges in their possession
when departing the Quad Cities 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 Quad
Cities 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 not only have 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 licensee 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 not only that
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 exemption to allow
individuals not employed by the licensee 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 there are no significant
radiological impacts associated with the proposed action.
The proposed exemption 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 proposed action would be to
deny the requested action. Denial of the requested action would not
significantly enhance the environment in that the proposed action will
result in a process that is equivalent to the existing identification
verification process.
Alternative Use of Resources
This action does not involve the use of any resources not
previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for the Quad
Cities Station, Units 1 and 2.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on July 20, 1995, the staff
consulted with the Illinois State Official, Mr. Mike Parker, Chief,
Reactor Safety Section; Division of Engineering; Illinois Department of
Nuclear Safety; regarding the environmental impact of the proposed
action. The State official had no comments.
Finding of No Significant Impact
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. Accordingly, the Commission
has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the
proposed exemption.
For further details with respect to this action, see the licensee's
letter dated June 21, 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 the Dixon Public
Library, 221 Hennepin Avenue, Dixon, Illinois 61021.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day of July 1995.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Robert M. Pulsifer,
Project Manager, Project Directorate III-2, Division of Reactor
Projects--III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-18931 Filed 8-1-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
