[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 107 (Monday, June 5, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29718-29719]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-13632]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364]


Joseph M. Farley Nuclear 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-2 and NPF-8. These 
licenses are issued to the Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC) and 
the Alabama Power Company for operation of the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear 
Plant, Units 1 and 2 (Farley), located in Houston County, Alabama.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of Proposed Action

    The proposed action is in accordance with the SNC's application 
dated April 3, 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 Farley so that photo identification badges for 
non-SNC employees that have been granted unescorted access into 
protected and vital areas may be taken offsite.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    Pursuant to 10 CFR 73.55, paragraph (a), SNC 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 Farley 
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 both SNC 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.
    Southern Nuclear 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 SNC'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 hand image. The unique characteristics of the hand image 
would be compared with the previously stored template to verify 
authorization for entry. Individuals, including SNC employees and 
contractors, would be allowed to keep their badge 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, SNC 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. Southern Nuclear 
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 SNC employees and 
contractors to take their badges offsite.
    Southern Nuclear 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 Joseph M. [[Page 29719]] Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, dated 
June 1972.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy on May 11, 1995, the staff 
consulted with the Alabama State official, James McNees of the Alabama 
Department of Public Health, 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 April 3, 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 Houston-Love Memorial Library, 212 W. 
Burnshaw Street, Post Office Box 1369, Dothan, Alabama.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day of May 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. 95-13632 Filed 6-2-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M