[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 154 (Thursday, August 10, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40865-40866]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-19765]



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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-382]


Entergy Operations, Inc.; Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 
3; 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-38, issued to Entergy 
Operations, Inc. (the licensee), for operation of the Waterford Steam 
Electric Station, Unit 3 (Waterford 3) located in St. Charles Parish, 
Louisiana.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of Proposed Action

    The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's 
application dated October 24, 1994, 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 exemption would allow implementation of a hand geometry 
biometric system for site access control such that picture badges and 
access control cards for certain non-employees can be taken offsite.

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.
    10 CFR 73.55(d), ``Access Requirements,'' paragraph (1), specifies 
that ``licensee shall control all points of personnel and vehicle 
access into a protected area.'' 10 CFR 73.55(d)(5) specifies that ``A 
numbered picture badge identification system shall be used for all 
individuals who are authorized access to protected areas without 
escort.'' 10 CFR 73.55(d)(5) 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, employee and contractor identification/access control 
badges are issued and retrieved on the occasion of each entry to and 
exit from the protected areas of the Waterford 3 site. Station security 
personnel are required to maintain control of the badges while the 
individuals are offsite. Security personnel retain each identification/
access control badge when not in use by the authorized individual, 
within appropriately designed storage receptacles inside a bullet-
resistant enclosure. An individual who meets the access authorization 
requirements is issued the individual picture identification/access 
control card which allows entry into preauthorized areas of the 
station. While entering the plant in the present configuration, an 
authorized individual is ``screened'' by the required detection 
equipment. The individual provides a personal identification number 
(PIN) to the issuing guard and is screened again by the issuing 
security officer using the picture identification on the access card. 
Having received the badge, the individual proceeds to the access 
portal, inserts the access control card into the card reader, and 
passes through the turnstile which is unlocked by the access card. Once 
inside the station, the access card allows entry only to preauthorized 
areas and the individual's PIN is no longer required.
    This present procedure is labor intensive since security personnel 
are required to verify badge issuance, ensure badge retrieval, and 
maintain the badge in orderly storage until the next entry into the 
protected area. The regulations permit employees to remove their badge 
from the site, but an exemption from 10 CFR 73.55(d)(5) is required to 
permit contractors to take their badge offsite instead of returning 
them when exiting the site.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The Commission has completed its evaluation of the licensee's 
application. Under the proposed system, all individuals authorized to 
gain unescorted access will have the physical characteristics of their 
hand (hand geometry) recorded with their badge number. Since the hand 
geometry is unique to each individual and its application in the entry 
screening function would preclude unauthorized use of a badge, the 
requested exemption would allow employees and contractors to keep their 
badges at the time of exiting the protected area. The process of 
verifying badge issuance, ensuring badge retrieval, and maintaining 
badges could be eliminated while the balanced of the access procedure 
would remain intact. Firearm, explosive, and metal detection equipment 
and provisions for conducting searches will remain as well. The 
security officer responsible for the last access control function 
(controlling admission to the protected area) will also remain isolated 
within a bullet-resistant structure in order to assure his or her 
ability to respond or to summon assistance.
    Use of a hand geometry biometrics system exceeds the present 
verification 

[[Page 40866]]
methodology's capability to discern an individual's identity. Unlike 
the photograph identification badge, hand geometry is nontransferable. 
During the initial access authorization or registration process, hand 
measurements are recorded and the template is stored for subsequent use 
in the identity verification process required for entry into the 
protected area. Authorized individuals insert their access 
authorization card into the card reader and the biometrics system 
records an image of the hand geometry. The unique features of the newly 
recorded image are then compared to the template previously stored in 
the database. Access is ultimately granted based on the degree to which 
the characteristics of the image match those of the ``signature'' 
template.
    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 access process will continue to be under the observation of 
security personnel. The system of identification/access control badges 
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. Addition 
of a hand geometry biometrics system will provide a significant 
contribution to effective implementation of the security plan at each 
site.
    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 does involve 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.

Alternative 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 alternate action 
are similar.

Alternative Use of Resources

    This action does not involve the use of any resources not 
previously considered in the Final Environmental Statements related to 
operation of Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3 dated September 
1981.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on July 24, 1995, the NRC 
staff consulted with the Louisiana State official, Dr. Stan Shaw, 
Assistant Administrator of the Louisiana Radiation Protection Division, 
Department of Environmental Quality, 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 this proposed action, see the 
request for exemption dated October 24, 1994, 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 University of New Orleans Library, 
Louisiana Collection, Lakefront, New Orleans, Louisiana 70122.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day of August 1995.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Chandu P. Patel,
Project Manager, Project Directorate IV-1, Division of Reactor Projects 
III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-19765 Filed 8-9-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M