[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