[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 12, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35965-35966]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-17026]



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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-397]


Washington Public Power Supply System; WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 
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 No. NPF-21, issued to 
Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS, or the licensee) for 
operation of the WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2, located in Benton County, 
Washington.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The exemption would allow implementation of a hand geometry 
biometric system of site access control so that photograph 
identification badges can be taken offsite by personnel badged at the 
site but not employed by the Supply System.
    The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's 
application, dated March 1, 1995, for exemption from certain 
requirements of 10 CFR 73.55, ``Requirements for physical protection of 
licensed activities in nuclear power reactors against radiological 
sabotage.''

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. Section 73.55(d)(1) of Title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations, ``Access Requirements,'' specifies that ``the licensee 
shall control all points of personnel and vehicle access into a 
protected area.'' Section 73.55(d)(5) further specifies that ``a 
numbered picture badge identification system shall be used for all 
individuals who are authorized access to protected areas without 
escort.'' This paragraph also states that an individual not employed by 
the licensee, but who requires frequent and extended access to 
protected and vital areas, may be authorized access to such areas 
without escort provided that he 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 WNP-2 site 
is controlled through use of a photograph on a badge with a keycard 
attached (hereafter, these are referred to as the badge). The security 
officers at the entrance station use the photograph on the badge to 
visually identify the individual requesting access. The 

[[Page 35966]]
individual is then given the badge to allow access. Another security 
officer collects the badges upon exit from the protected area. The 
badges are then placed in a badge rack located at the badge issue 
station and stored at the entrance station until the individual again 
needs access into the protected area.
    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 allow 
contractors to take their badges offsite instead of returning them when 
exiting the site.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The staff has completed its evaluation of the licensee's 
application. Under the proposed system, individuals who are authorized 
for unescorted entry into the protected area would have the physical 
characteristics of their hand (hand geometry) registered with their 
badge number in the access control system. When an individual presents 
his badge to the card reader and places their hand on the measuring 
surface, the system compares the hand geometry to that registered for 
the badge number to verify authorization for entry. This system 
provides a positive means of assuring that a stolen or lost badge could 
not be used to gain access. Individuals, including licensee employees 
and personnel not employed by the licensee (e.g., contractors), would 
be allowed to keep their badge with them when they depart the site. 
This would reduce the need for security personnel to issue and retrieve 
badges at the access point. The access process will continue to be 
under the observation of security personnel located within a hardened 
cubicle who have final control over release of the entrance station 
turnstiles.
    Based on Sandia Report, SAND91-0276 UC-906 (unlimited release), 
printed June 1991, ``A Performance Evaluation of Biometric 
Identification Devices,'' and on the licensee's experience with the 
current photo identification system, the licensee has demonstrated that 
the proposed hand geometry will maintain the same high level of 
assurance that access will be granted to the protected area to only 
authorized individuals. Since both the badge and hand geometry are 
necessary for access into the protected area, the proposed system 
provides a positive verification process. Potential loss of a badge by 
an individual that takes a badge offsite would not enable unauthorized 
entry into the protected area. Badges will continue to be displayed by 
all individuals while inside the protected area. 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 for WNP-2.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on June 19, 1995, the staff 
consulted with the Washington State official, Mr. R.R. Cowley of the 
Department of Health, State of Washington Energy Facility Site 
Evaluation Council, 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 March 1, 1995, which is 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 the Richland Public Library, 955 
Northgate Street, Richland, Washington 99352.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of July 1995.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Eileen M. McKenna,
Acting Director, Project Directorate IV-2, Division of Reactor Projects 
III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-17026 Filed 7-11-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M