[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 216 (Wednesday, November 9, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27740]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: November 9, 1994]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353]

 

Philadelphia Electric Co.; Limerick Generating 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. NPF-39 and NPF-85, 
issued to Philadelphia Electric Company (the licensee), for operation 
of the Limerick Generating Station (LGS), Units 1 and 2, located in 
Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of 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 August 10, 1994 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 the LGS is 
controlled through the use of a photograph on a combination badge and 
keycard. (Hereafter, these are referred to as badges). 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 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 demonstrated that the 
proposed hand geometry system would provide enhanced site access 
control. 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 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 Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2,'' dated 
April 1984.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    The NRC staff consulted with the State of Pennsylvania 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 letters dated August 10, October 7, 1994, and October 13, 
1994, which are 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 
Pottstown Public Library, 500 High Street, Pottstown, Pennsylvania 
19464.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3d day of November, 1994.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

John F. Stolz,
Director, Project Directorate I-2, Division of Reactor Projects-I/II, 
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 94-27740 Filed 11-8-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M