```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 145 (Tuesday, July 29, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40551-40553]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-19932]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311, etc.]

Public Service Electric & Gas Co., et al; Environmental 
Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

    In the matter of: Public Service Electric & Gas Company, 
Philadelphia Electric Company, Delmarva Power and Light Company, 
Atlantic City Electric Company, Salem Nuclear Generating Station, 
Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311; and Public Service 
Electric & Gas Company, Atlantic City Electric Company, Hope Creek 
Generating Station; Docket No. 50-354; 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 Nos. DPR-70, DPR-75, and 
NPF-57, issued to Public Service Electric & Gas Company (PSE&G, the 
licensee), for operation of the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 
1 and 2, and Hope Creek Generating Station (Salem/Hope Creek), 
respectively.
    The facilities consist of two pressurized water reactors, Salem 
Units 1 and 2, and a boiling water reactor, Hope Creek, at the 
licensee's site located in Salem County, New Jersey.

[[Page 40552]]

Environmental Assessment

Identification of Proposed Action

    The proposed action would allow implementation of a hand geometry 
biometric system of site access control such that photograph 
identification badges can be taken offsite.
    The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's 
application dated January 17, 1997, 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 Need for the Proposed Action

    Pursuant to 10 CFR 73.55, paragraph (a), ``General performance 
objective and requirements,'' 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 ``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 Salem/Hope 
Creek site is controlled through the use of a photograph on a 
combination badge and keycard. (Hereafter, these are referred to as a 
``badge''). The security officers at the 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 the 
entrance/exit location and are returned upon exit. The badges are 
stored and are retrievable 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 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 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.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    Under the proposed alternative unescorted access control 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 report entitled ``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 comparable to 
that of the current system. The licensee stated that the use of the 
badges with the hand geometry system would increase the overall level 
of 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 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 for the Salem/Hope Creek site 
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 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.
    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. The principal alternative to the action would be to deny the 
request. Such action would not change any 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 related to 
the operation of Hope Creek Generating Station,'' NUREG-1074, dated 
December 1984 or ``Final Environmental Statement related to the 
operation of Salem Nuclear Generating Station Units 1 and 2,'' dated 
April 1973.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on February 19, 1997, the 
staff consulted with the New Jersey State Official, Mr. Dennis Zannoni, 
of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy, 
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

[[Page 40553]]

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 January 17, 1997, 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 rooms located at the Salem Free Public Library, 112 West 
Broadway, Salem, New Jersey, for Salem and at the Pennsville Public 
Library, 190 S. Broadway, Pennsville, New Jersey, for Hope Creek.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day of July 1997.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John F. Stolz,
Director Project Directorate, I-2, Division of Reactor Projects--I/II, 
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 97-19932 Filed 7-28-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
```