[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