ML20092L663
| ML20092L663 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 09/20/1995 |
| From: | Stone J NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20092L667 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9509280097 | |
| Download: ML20092L663 (5) | |
Text
O 7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY DOCKET NOS. 50-272 AND 50-323 DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT. 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. DPR-80 and DPR-82, issued to Pacific Gas and Electric Company (the licensee), for operation of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant (DCPP) located in San Luis Obispo County, California.
EMEIRONMENTAL 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 offsite.
l The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's epplication i
e dated May 5,1995, and supplemental letters dated July 28, 1995, September 14, 1995 and September 19, 1995, for exemption from certain l
requirements of 10 CFR 73.55, " Requirements for physical protection of i
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 i
and maintain an onsite physical protection system and security organization.
Paragraph (1) of 10 CFR 73.55(d), " Access Requirements," specifies that l
" licensee shall control all points o.f personnel and vehicle access into a 9509280097 950921 PDR ADDCK 05000275
_ F PDR
.I
l protected area...."
It is specified in 10 CFR 73.ES(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 DCPP is controlled through the use of a photograph on a combination badge and keycard.
(Hereafter, ti:ese are referred to as badges).
The security officers at the j
entrance station use the photograph on the badge to visually identify the j
individual requesting access. The badges for both licensee employees and 1
contractor personnel who have been granted unescorted access are issued upon entrance at the entrance / exit location and are returned upon exit.
The badges o
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 j
offsite.
In accordance with the plant's physical security plans, neither lic7nsee 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 the entrance / exit location and would allow all individuals with unescorted i
access to keep their badges with them when departing the site.
An exemption from certain requirements of 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.
t O
3-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 l
Identification Devices" (SAND 91--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 i
i provide for a positive verification process.
Potential loss of a badge by an i
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 continued overall level of performance equivalent to that specified in the regulation. The Physical Security Plan for DCPP will be-revised to include implementation and testing j.
of the hand geometry access control system and to allow licensee employees and l
contractors to take their badges offsite.
4 t
l c.
The access process will continue to be under the observation of security personnel. A numbered picture badge identification system will continue to be j
used for all individuals who are authorized access to protected areas without i
escorts.
Badges will continue to be displayed by all individuals while inside i
1 the protected area.
j 1
Environmental Imoacts of the Proposed Action:
The change will not increase the probability or consequences of j
accidents, no changes are being made in the types of any effluent that may be f
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 <ignificant 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 1
i I
It does not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has no i
i other environmental impact. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action'.
I Alternativas to the Proposed Action:
l Since the Commission has concluded there is no measurable environmental impact associated with the propcsed 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.
L
I
+
m.
~
_5_
' Alternative Use of Resources:
This action does not' involve the use of any resources not previously l
considered in the " Final Environmental Statement related to the Nuclear i
- Generating Station Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2", dated May 1973.
Aaencies and Persons Consulted:
In accordance with its stated policy, on August 23, 1995, the staff consulted with the California State official, Mr. Steve Hsu of the Department of Health Services, regarding-the environmental impact statement for the-
. propos'ed action. The State official had no coments.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Based upon the environmental assessment, the Comission concludes that the proposed actiun will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the Comission 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 May 5,1995, and supplements dated July 28, 1995, i
l September.14, 1995 and September 19, 1995, which are available for public inspection at the Comission's Public Document Room, The Gelman Building, 2120 l
L Street, NW., Washington, DC and at the local public document room located at I
the California Polytechnic State University, Robert E. Kennedy Library, Government Documents and Maps Department, San Luis Obispo, California 93407.
i Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day of September 1995.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION i
J)
M
[
James C. Stone, Senior Project Manager l
Project Directorate IV-2 Division of Reactor Projects III/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor' Regulation lL
- -