[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 243 (Tuesday, December 20, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-31197]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: December 20, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-325, 50-324, 50-400 and 50-261]
Carolina Power & Light Company; Brunswick Steam Electric Plant,
Units 1 and 2, et al.; 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 Nos. DPR-71, DPR-62, DPR-23,
NPF-63, issued to the Carolina Power & Light Company (the licensee) for
the operation of the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2
(Brunswick), H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2 (Robinson),
and Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 (Harris).
The facilities consist of two boiling water reactors at the
Brunswick site in Brunswick County, North Carolina; a pressurized water
reactor at the Robinson site in Darlington County, South Carolina; and
a pressurized water reactor in Wake County and Chatham County, North
Carolina.
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. The proposed action is in
accordance with the licensee's application for exemption dated July 29,
1994, as supplemented December 5, 1994.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action would give an exemption from certain
requirements of 10 CFR 73.55, ``Requirements for physical protection of
licensed activities in nuclear power reactors against radiological
sabotage.''
Pursuant to 10 CFR 73.55(a), the licensee shall establish and
maintain an onsite physical protection system and security
organization. Paragraph 1 of 10 CFR 73.55(d), ``Access Requirements,''
specifies that the ``licensee shall control all points of personnel and
vehicle access into a protected area.'' Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, paragraph 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.'' Paragraph
73.55(d)(5) also states that an individual not employed by the licensee
(i.e., a contractor) 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 Brunswick
and Robinson units is controlled through the use of a photograph on a
combination badge and keycard (hereafter, these are referred to as the
badge). At the Harris unit unescorted access into protected areas is
controlled through the use of a photograph on a badge and a separate
keycard. The security officers at each entrance station use the
photograph on the badge to visually identify the individual requesting
access. The badges for both licensee employees and contractor personnel
who have been granted unescorted access are issued upon entrance at
each entrance/exit location and are returned upon exit. The badges are
stored and are retrievable at each entrance/exit location. In
accordance with 10 CFR 73.55(d)(5), contract individuals are not
allowed to take badges offsite. In accordance with the plants' physical
security plans, neither licensee 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 each 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 permit
contractors to take their badges offsite instead of returning them when
exiting the site.
Under the proposed system, individuals who are 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 badge with them when they depart the site.
Based on a Sandia report entitled ``A Performance Evaluation of
Biometric Identification Devices'' (SAND91-0276 UC-906 Unlimited
Release, Printed June 1991) and on the licensee's experience with the
current photo identification system, the licensee demonstrated that the
proposed hand geometry system would provide enhanced site access
control. 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 the protected area. 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 Plans for the Brunswick, Robinson,
and Harris sites will be revised to include implementation and testing
of the hand geometry access control system and to allow licensee
employees and contractors to take their badges offsite.
The access will continue to be under the observation of security
personnel. A numbered picture badge identification system 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.
With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed
change does not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has no other
environmental impact. Therefore, the Commission concludes that there
are no significant nonradiological environmental impacts associated
with the proposed action.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action
and concludes that this proposed action would result in no significant
radiological environmental impact.
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 explosure.
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.
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 have no effect on the environmental impact,
would not enhance the protection of the environment, and would result
in an unjustified loss of cost savings to the licensee.
Alternative Use of Resources
This action does not involve the use of any resources not
previously considered in the Final Environmental Statements for the
Brunswick, Robinson, and Harris units.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
The NRC staff consulted with the North and South Carolina State
officials regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action.
The State officials had no commend.
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 letters dated July 29, 1994, as supplemented December 5,
1994, which are 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 rooms for
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, at the University of
North Carolina at Wilmington, William Madison Randall Library, 601 S.
College Road, Wilmington, North Carolina 28403-3297; for the H.B.
Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, at Hartsville Memorial
Library, 147 West College, Hartsville, South Carolina 29550; and for
the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, at the Cameron Village
Regional Library, 1930 Clark Avenue, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day of December.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michael L. Boyle,
Acting Director, Project Directorate II-1, Division of Reactor
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 94-31197 Filed 12-19-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
