[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 12, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35964-35965]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-17025]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425]
Vogtle Electric Generating 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 to Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-68 and NPF-81. These
licenses are issued to Georgia Power Company, et al. (GPC, or the
licensee) for operation of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units
1 and 2, located in Burke County, Georgia.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of Proposed Action
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's
application dated February 14, 1995, 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
biometrics system to control site access at Vogtle so that photo
identification badges may be taken offsite by individuals not employed
by the licensee who have been granted unescorted access into protected
and vital areas.
The Need for the Proposed Action
Pursuant to 10 CFR 73.55, paragraph (a), GPC shall establish and
maintain an onsite physical protection system and security
organization. Regulation 10 CFR 73.55(d), ``Access Requirements,''
paragraph (1), specifies that the ``licensee shall control all points
of personnel and vehicle access into a protected area.'' Regulation 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.'' Regulation 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, unescorted access into protected areas at the Vogtle
plant is controlled through the use of a photograph on a badge/keycard
(hereafter referred to as a ``badge''), which is stored at the access
point when not in use. The security officers at each entrance station
use the photograph on the badge to visually identify the individual
requesting access. The badges for GPC employees and contractor
personnel who have been granted unescorted access are given to the
individuals at the entrance location upon entry and are returned upon
exit. In accordance with 10 CFR 73.55(d)(5), the badges are not allowed
to be taken offsite.
The licensee proposes to implement an alternate unescorted access
control system that would eliminate the need to issue and retrieve
badges at the entry point and would allow all individuals with
unescorted access to keep their badges 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.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The Commission has completed its evaluation of the licensee's
application. Under the proposed system, each individual who is
authorized unescorted access 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
[[Page 35965]]
hand image. The unique characteristics of the 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 when departing the site.
Based on the Sandia report, ``A Performance Evaluation of Biometric
Identification Devices,'' SAND91-0276UC-906, Unlimited Release,
June 1991, that concluded hand geometry equipment possesses strong
performance and high detection characteristics, and on its own
experience with the current photo-identification system, the licensee
determined that the proposed hand geometry system would provide the
same level of assurance as the current system that access is only
granted to authorized individuals. Since both the badge and hand
geometry would be necessary for access into the protected areas, the
proposed system would provide a positive verification process.
Potential loss of a badge by an individual, as a result of taking the
badge offsite, would not enable unauthorized entry into protected
areas. The licensee has stated it will implement a process for
periodically testing the proposed system to ensure continued overall
level of performance equivalent to that specified in the regulation.
The Physical Security Plan 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 licensee has determined that the proposed hand geometry access
control process for identifying personnel will provide the same high
assurance objective regarding onsite physical protection as provided by
the photo-identification process now in use.
The access process 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 areas.
Accordingly, the Commission concludes that this proposed action
would result in no significant radiological environmental impacts. With
regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed action does
not affect non-radiological plant effluents and has no other
environmental impact. Therefore, the Commission concludes that there
are no significant non-radiological environmental impacts associated
with the proposed action.
Alternative to the Proposed Action
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 did not involve the use of any resources not previously
considered in the Final Environmental Statement related to operation of
the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, dated March 1985.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy on June 13, 1995, the staff
consulted with the Georgia State official, Mr. James Setser of the
Environmental Protection Division, Georgia Department of Natural
Resources, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action.
The State official had no comments.
Finding of No Significant Impact
The Commission has determined not to prepare an environmental
impact statement for the proposed exemption. Based upon the foregoing
environmental assessment, the Commission has concluded that the
proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of
the human environment.
For further details with respect to this action, see the request
for exemption dated February 14, 1995, which is available for public
inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, The Gelman
Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC at the local public
document room located at the Burke County Public Library, 412 Fourth
Street, Waynesboro, Georgia.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day of July 1995.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Herbert N. Berkow,
Director, Project Directorate II-2, Division of Reactor Projects--I/II,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-17025 Filed 7-11-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
