![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Southern California Edison Company; San Onofre Nuclear Gener
Southern California Edison Company; San Onofre Nuclear Gener
al Register: July 19, 1995 (Volume 60, Number 138)] [Notices]
[Page 37110-37112]
>From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-206, 50-361, 50-362]Southern California Edison Company; San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3; 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 13, NPF-10, and NPF- 15, issued to Southern California Edison (the licensee), for operation of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, located in San Diego County, California.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed exemption would allow individuals not employed by the licensee (i.e., contractors) who have unescorted access to retain possession of their picture badges instead of returning them as they exit the protected area.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application dated[[Page 37111]]
March 13, 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
Paragraph (1) of 10 CFR 73.55(a), the licensee is required to establish and maintain an onsite physical system and security organization.
Paragraph (1) of 10 CFR 73.55(d), ``Access Requirements,'' specifies in part 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), ``A numbered picture badge identification system shall be used for all individuals who are authorized access to protected areas without escort.'' It further indicates that an individual not employed by the licensee (e.g., contractors) may be authorized access to protected areas without an 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 for both employee and contractor personnel into the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station is controlled through the use of picture badges. Positive identification of personnel who are authorized and request access into the protected area is established by security personnel making visual comparison of the individual requesting access and that individual's picture badge. The picture badges are issued, stored, and retrieved at the entrance/exit locations to the protected area. These picture badges are not taken offsite. This current practice is in accordance with the applicable requirements of 10 CFR Part 73 discussed above. The licensee proposes to revise its security plan to implement an alternative unescorted access control system which would eliminate the need for site security personnel to issue and retrieve picture badges at the entrance/exit locations to the protected area. The proposal would enable the licensee to revise the SONGS security plan to allow all individuals, including contractors, who have unescorted access to the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station to retrieve their own badges before entering the protected area and return their badges when exiting the protected area for retrieval for their next entrance. Thus, an exemption is required from 10 CFR 73.55(d)(5) to allow individuals, including contractors, who have unescorted access to keep their picture badges in their possession when departing the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station.Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action. In addition to their picture badges, all individuals with authorized unescorted access will have the physical characteristics of their hand (hand geometry) registered with their picture badge number in a computerized access control system. Therefore, all authorized individuals must not only have their picture badges to gain access into the protected area, but must also have their hand geometry confirmed. All other access processes, including search function capability and access revocation, will remain the same. A security officer responsible for access control will continue to be positioned within a hardened cubicle. The proposed system is only for individuals with authorized unescorted access and will not be used for individuals requiring escorts.
The underlying purpose for requiring that individuals not employed by the licensee must receive and return their picture badges at the entrance/exit is to provide reasonable assurance that the access badges could not be compromised or stolen with a resulting risk that an unauthorized individual could potentially enter the protected area. Although the proposed exemption will allow individuals to take their picture badges offsite, the proposed measures require not only that the picture badge be provided for access to the protected area, but also that verification of the hand geometry registered with the badge be performed as discussed above. Thus, the proposed system provides an identity verification process that is equivalent to the existing process.
Accordingly, the Commission concludes that the exemption to allow individuals to take their picture badges offsite will not result in an increase in the risk that an unauthorized individual could potentially enter the protected area. 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 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 actions 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 ActionSince 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 not significantly enhance the protection of the environment in that the proposed action will result in a process that is equivalent to the existing identification verification process.
Alternative Use of Resources
This action does not involve the use of any resources not previously considered in the Environmental Assessment related to the conversion of the Provisional Operating License to a Full Term Operating License issued to Southern California Edison Company for the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1, on September 26, 1991, or the Final Environmental Report Related to the Operation of San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, units 2 and 3 (April 1981).
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on June 19, 1995, the staff consulted with the California State official, Mr. Stephen Hsu of the California Department of health Services, 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 March 13, 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 Main Library, University of California,[[Page 37112]]
Post Office Box 19557, Irvine, California 92713.Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day of July 1995.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Seymour H. Weiss,
Director, Non-Power Reactor's and Decommissioning Project Directorate, Division of Project Support, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. 95-17722 Filed 7-18-95; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
<DOC>