[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 107 (Wednesday, June 4, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30627-30628]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-14533]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-346]


 Toledo Edison Company, Centerior Service Company and the 
Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company; Davis-Besse Nuclear Power 
Station, Unit No. 1; 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-3, issued to the 
Toledo Edison Company, Centerior Service Company, and The Cleveland 
Electric Illuminating Company (the licensees), for operation of the 
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (DBNPS), located in Ottawa County, 
Ohio.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would exempt the licensees from certain 
requirements of 10 CFR 73.55, ``Requirements for Physical Protection of 
Licensed Activities in Nuclear Power Reactors Against Radiological 
Sabotage.'' The requested exemption would allow the implementation of a 
hand geometry biometric system of site access control in conjunction 
with photograph identification badges and would allow the badges to be 
taken offsite. The proposed action is in accordance with the licensees' 
application for exemption dated January 20, 1997, which superseded the 
previous application dated June 28, 1996, as supplemented by letter 
dated October 4, 1996. A previous environmental assessment addressing 
the June 28, 1996, submittal, as supplemented October 4, 1996, was 
published on August 14, 1996 (61 FR 42273).

The Need for the Proposed Action

    Pursuant to 10 CFR 73.55(a), the licensees are required to 
establish and maintain an onsite physical protection system and 
security organization.
    In 10 CFR 73.55(d), ``Access Requirements,'' it is specified in 
part that ``The licensee shall control all points of personnel and 
vehicle access into a protected area.'' In 10 CFR 73.55(d)(5), it is 
specified in part that ``A numbered picture badge identification system 
shall be used for all individuals who are authorized access to 
protected areas without escort.'' It is further specified that an 
individual not employed by the licensee (for example, contractors) may 
be authorized access to protected areas without an 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 for both employee and contractor 
personnel into the DBNPS is controlled through the use of picture 
badges. Positive identification of personnel who are authorized and 
request access into the protected area is established by security 
personnel making a visual comparison of the individual requesting 
access and that individual's picture badge. The picture badges are 
issued, stored, and retrieved at the entrance/exit location to the 
protected area. In accordance with 10 CFR 73.55(d)(5), contractor 
personnel are not allowed to take their picture badges offsite. In 
addition, in accordance with the plant's physical security plan, the 
licensees' employees are also not allowed to take their picture badges 
offsite. The licensees propose to implement an alternative unescorted 
access control system that would eliminate the need to issue and 
retrieve picture badges at the entrance/exit location to the protected 
area. The proposal would also allow contractors who have unescorted 
access to keep their picture badges in their possession

[[Page 30628]]

when departing the DBNPS site. In addition, the site security plans 
will be revised to allow implementation of the hand geometry system and 
to allow employees and contractors with unescorted access to keep their 
picture badges in their possession when leaving the DBNPS site.
    An exemption from certain requirements of 10 CFR 73.55(d)(5) is 
needed to authorize implementation of the licensees' proposal.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action. 
In addition to their picture badges, all individuals with authorized 
unescorted access will have the physical characteristics of their hand 
(hand geometry) registered with their picture badge number in a 
computerized access control system. Therefore, all authorized 
individuals must have not only their picture badges to gain access into 
the protected area, but must also have their hand geometry confirmed.
    All other access processes, including search function capability 
and access revocation, will remain the same. A security officer 
responsible for access control will continue to be positioned within a 
bullet-resistant structure. The proposed system is only for individuals 
with authorized unescorted access and will not be used for individuals 
requiring escorts.
    The underlying purpose for requiring that individuals not employed 
by the licensees must receive and return their picture badges at the 
entrance/exit is to provide reasonable assurance that the access badges 
could not be compromised or stolen with a resulting risk that an 
unauthorized individual could potentially enter the protected area. 
Although the proposed exemption will allow individuals to take their 
picture badges offsite, the proposed measures require that not only the 
picture badge be provided for access to the protected area, but also 
that verification of the hand geometry registered with the badge be 
performed as discussed above. Thus, the proposed system provides an 
identity verification process that is at least equivalent to the 
existing process.
    Accordingly, the Commission concludes that the proposed exemption 
to allow individuals not employed by the licensees to take their 
picture badges offsite will not result in an increase in the risk that 
an unauthorized individual could potentially enter the protected area. 
Consequently, the Commission concludes that granting the exemption will 
not increase the probability or consequences of any accident, will make 
no changes in the types of any effluents that may be released offsite, 
and will not significantly increase 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 non-radiological impacts, the proposed 
action does involve features located entirely within the restricted 
area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. It does not affect non-radiological 
plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. Accordingly, the 
Commission concludes that there are no significant non-radiological 
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 
DBNPS.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on April 1, 1997, the staff 
consulted with the Ohio State official, Carol O'Claire of the Ohio 
Emergency Management Agency, 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 
licensees' letter dated January 20, 1997, 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 Toledo, William Carlson 
Library, Government Documents Collection, 2801 West Bancroft Avenue, 
Toledo, Ohio 43606.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of May 1997.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Jon B. Hopkins,
Acting Director, Project Directorate III-3, Division of Reactor 
Projects--III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 97-14533 Filed 6-3-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P