[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 163 (Wednesday, August 23, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43819-43821]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-20882]



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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-395]


South Carolina Electric and Gas Company; Virgil C. Summer Nuclear 
Station, Unit 1, 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 for Facility Operating License No. NPF-12, issued to South 
Carolina Electric and Gas Company (the licensee), for operation of the 
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS), Unit 1, located in Fairfield 
County, South Carolina.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would allow implementation of a hand geometry 
biometric system of site access control 

[[Page 43820]]
such that photograph identification badges can be taken offsite.
    The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's 
application dated June 28, 1995, for exemption from certain 
requirements of 10 CFR 73.55, ``Requirements for physical protection of 
licensed activities in nuclear power plant reactors against 
radiological sabotage.''

The Need for the Proposed Action

    Pursuant to 10 CFR 73.55, paragraph (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. * * *'' It is specified in 10 CFR 
73.55(d)(5) that ``A numbered picture badge identification system shall 
be used for all individuals who are authorized access to protected 
areas without escort.'' It 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 of the VCSNS is 
controlled through the use of a photograph on a badge/keycard 
(hereafter, these are referred to as badges). The security officers at 
the entrance station use the badge number, name and photograph on the 
badge to identify the individual requesting access. Under the current 
system, badges are not taken offsite and are issued, stored, and 
retrieved at the entrance/exit location. In accordance with 10 CFR 
73.55(d)(5), contractor individuals are not allowed to take badges 
offsite. In accordance with the plant's procedures, neither licensee 
employees nor contractors are currently allowed to take badges offsite.
    The licensee proposes to implement alternative unescorted access 
control system which would eliminate the need to issue and retrieve 
badges at the 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.
    The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action. 
Under the proposed system, each individual who is 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 National Laboratories report titled ``A 
Performance Evaluation of Biometric Identification Devices,'' (SAND91--
0276 UC--906 Unlimited Release, Printed June 1991), and on its 
experience with the current photo-identification system, the licensee 
stated that the false acceptance rate of the proposed hand geometry 
system is at least equal to that of the current system. The licensee 
stated that the use of the badges with hand geometry system would 
enhance access control capabilities at the protected area perimeter, 
reduce security force staffing requirements, and improve the emergency 
accountability process. 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 protected areas. 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 Plan will be revised to include 
implementation and testing of the hand geometry access control system.
    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 area.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The change will not increase the probability or consequences of 
accidents, no changes are being made in the types of any effluent that 
may be released offsite, and there is no significant increase in the 
allowable individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. 
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 involves features located entirely within the restricted area as 
defined in 10 CFR Part 20. It does not affect nonradiological plant 
effluent 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. 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 does not involve the use of any resources not 
previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for the 
VCSNS.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on July 31, 1995, the staff 
consulted with the South Carolina State official, Mr. Virgil Autry of 
the Bureau of Solid and Hazardous Waste Management, Department of 
Health and Environmental Control, regarding the environmental impact of 
the proposed action. The State official had no comments.

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 letter dated June 28, 1995, which is available for public 
inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, The Gelman 
Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public 
document room located at the 

[[Page 43821]]
Fairfield County Library, 300 Washington Street, Winnsboro, SC.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day of August 1995.
    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Frederick J. Hebdon,
Director, Project Directorate II-3, Division of Reactor Projects--I/II, 
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-20882 Filed 8-22-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P