[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 7, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30117-30118]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-13978]



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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-498 and 499]


Houston Lighting & Power Company City Public Service Board of San 
Antonio Central Power and Light Company City of Austin, Texas; South 
Texas Project, 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 Facility Operating License 
Nos. NPF-76 and NPF-80, issued to Houston Lighting & Power Company 
(HL&P) acting on behalf of itself and for the City Public Service Board 
of San Antonio (CPS), Central Power and Light Company (CPL), and City 
of Austin, Texas (COA) (the licensees), for operation of the South 
Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, (STP) located in Matagorda County, Texas.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the 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 March 27, 1995, 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 STP is 
controlled through the use of a photograph on a combination badge and 
keycard (hereafter referred to as a badge). 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 
[[Page 30118]] 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 concludes that the proposed 
hand geometry system will provide the same high assurance objective 
regarding onsite physical protection that is achieved by the current 
system. 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 a 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 South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2,'' dated August 
1986.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on May 12, 1995, the staff 
consulted with the Texas State official, Arthur C. Tate of the Bureau 
of Radiation Control, Texas Department of Health, regarding the 
environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no 
comments.

Findings of No Significant Impact

    Based on the environmental assessment, the Commission concludes 
that the proposed action will not have a significant impact 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 27, 1995, 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 Wharton County Junior College, J.M. Hodges 
Learning Center, 911 Boling Highway, Wharton, TX 77488.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 31st day of May 1995.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Thomas W. Alexion,
Project Manager, Project Directorate IV-1, Division of Reactor Projects 
III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-13978 Filed 6-6-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M