ML20140A379
| ML20140A379 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 05/29/1997 |
| From: | Hopkins J NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20140A383 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9706040187 | |
| Download: ML20140A379 (6) | |
Text
-.
7590-01-P UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY a
CENTERIOR SERVICE COMPANY l
AND THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY DOCKET N0. 50-346 i
DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION. UNIT NO. I j
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING 0F NOLSLGNIFICANT IMPACT The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of an exemption from certain requirements of its regulations t5 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.
l ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of the Proposed Action:
i r
The proposed action would exempt the licensees from certain requirements I
of 10 CFR 73.55, " Requirements for Physical Protection of Licensed Activities in Nuclear Power Reactors Against Radiological Saootage." The requested exemption would allow the implementation of a hand geometry biometric system of site access control in conjunction with photograph identification badges f
and would allow the badges to be taken offsite.
The proposed action is in l
accordance with the licensees' application for exemption dated January 20, i
1997, which superseded the previous application dated June 28, 1996, as i
supplemented by letter dated October 4, 1996.
A previous environmental 4
i 9706040187 970529 PDR ADOCK 05000346 i
F PDR
1 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 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 s
authorize implementation of the licensees' proposal.
Environmental Imoacts 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 individu'als 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
_._ ~
_.m i
4 j :
2 i
to provide reasonable assurance that the access badges could not be l
compromised or stolen with a resulting risk that an unauthorized individual i-could potentially enter the protected area. Although the proposed exemption will allow individuals to take their picture badges offsite, the proposed 5
measures require that not only the picture badge be provided for access to the i
protected area, but also that verification 'of the hand geometry registered j
with the badge be performed as discussed above.
Thus, the proposed system i
j provides an identity verification process that is at least equivalent to the j
existing process.
1 l
Accordingly, the Commission concludes that the proposed exemption to allow individuals not employed by the licensees to take their picture badges offsite l
i will not result in an increase in the risk that an unauthorized individual i
could potentially enter the protected area.
Consequently, the Commission l
concludes that granting the exemption will not increase the probability or i
consequences of any accident, will make no changes in the types of any 3
j effluents that may be released offsite, and will not significantly increase j.
the allowable individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
3 Accordingly, the Comission concludes that there are no significant l
radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
i With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed action l
does involve features located entirely within the restricted area as defined l
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 O
l with the proposed action.
]
~
O 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.
Aaencies 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 N0 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.
l For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the i
i 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 l
l l
l
\\
6-i located at the University of Toledo, William Carlson Library, Government l
Documents Collection, 2801 West Bancroft Avenue, Toledo, Ohio 43606.
l Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of May 1997.
l FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f
i
_y
.u-r
/
l
/Jen B. Hopkins, Ac ing Director v' Project Directorate III-3 Division of Reactor Projects III/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation l-1 i
l 1
I i
4 i
i l