[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 3, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21835-21836]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-10888]



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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446]


Texas Utilities Electric Co., Comanche Peak Steam Electric 
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 for Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-87 and NPF-89, 
issued to Texas Utilities Electric Company (TU Electric, the licensee), 
for operation of the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES), 
Units 1 and 2, located in Somervell County, Texas.

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 off site.
    The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's 
application dated January 16, 1995 (TXX-95012), as supplemented by 
letters dated March 1 (TXX-95064), and April 3, 1995 (TXX-95089), 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.
    Paragraph (1) of 10 CFR 73.55(d), ``Access Requirements,'' 
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 CPSES 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 the 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 the entrance/exit 
location and are returned upon exit. The badges are stored and are 
retrievable at the entrance/exit location. In accordance with 10 CFR 
73.55(d)(5), contractor individuals are not allowed to take badges off 
site. In accordance with the plant's physical security plans, neither 
licensee employees nor contractors are allowed to take badges off site.
    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 permit 
contractors to take their badges off site [[Page 21836]] 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 badges 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 stated that the false 
acceptance rate of the proposed hand geometry system is comparable to 
that of the current system. The licensee stated that the use of the 
badges with the hand geometry system would increase the overall level 
of 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 off site, 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 Plan for CPSES 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 off site.
    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 Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action 
and concludes that the change will not increase the probability or 
consequences of accidents, no changes are being made in the types of 
any effluent that may be released off site, 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. 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 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 
CPSES, Units 1 and 2 dated October 1989.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on April 7, 1995, the staff 
consulted with Texas State official, Mr. John Haygood of the Texas 
Department of Health, Bureau of Radiation control, 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 January 16, 1995 (TXX-95012), as supplemented 
by letters dated March 1 (TXX-95064), and April 3, 1995 (TXX-95089), 
which are 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 
Texas at Arlington Library, Government Publications/Maps, 702 College, 
P.O. Box 19497, Arlington, TX 76019.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day of April 1995.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Timothy J. Polich,
Project Manager, Project Directorate IV-1, Division of Reactor Projects 
III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-10888 Filed 5-2-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M