ML14002A294
| ML14002A294 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/29/2015 |
| From: | NRC/RES/DE |
| To: | |
| Bayssie M | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML14002A287 | List: |
| References | |
| RG 5.77, RG DG-5044 | |
| Download: ML14002A294 (2) | |
Text
REGULATORY ANALYSIS DRAFT REGULATORY GUIDE DG-5044 INSIDER MITIGATION PROGRAM (Proposed Revision 1 of Regulatory Guide 5.77, dated March 2009)
- 1.
Statement of the Problem The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published Revision 0 of Regulatory Guide 5.77, Insider Mitigation Program, in March of 2009 to provide licensees and applicants with agency approved guidance for complying with the portions of section 50.34 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50, Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities and section 52.79 of Part 52, Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants concerning how a license or applicant can meet the insider mitigation requirements in 10 CFR Part 73, Physical Protection of Plants and Materials.
Revision 0 is outdated because it does not incorporate the latest insights gained from industry and NRC staff lessons learned, inspections, operating experience, and licensee interactions with staff. In addition, it does not provide guidance for the situation following a licensees determination to permanently cease operations and complete permanent fuel removal in accordance with 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1)(i) and 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1)(ii).
- 2.
Objective The objective of this regulatory action is to assess the need to update NRC guidance on a security related insider mitigation program to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 73.55(b)(9)(i).
- 3.
Alternative Approaches The NRC staff considered the following alternative approaches:
- 1. Do not revise Regulatory Guide 5.77
- 2. Withdraw Regulatory Guide 5.77
- 3. Revise Regulatory Guide 5.77 to address the current methods and procedures.
Alternative 1: Do not revise Regulatory Guide 5.77 Under this alternative, the NRC would not revise or issue additional guidance, and the current guidance would be retained. This alternative is considered the no-action alternative and provides a baseline condition from which any other alternatives will be assessed. If the NRC does not take action, there would not be any changes in costs or benefit to the public, licensees or NRC. However, the no-action alternative would not address identified concerns with the current version of the regulatory guide. Despite new methodologies and technical advancements that have been developed since 2009 for addressing insider directed behaviors, licensees and applicants would lack technical guidance on acceptable approaches to implement these new methodologies and technical advancements.
Page 2 Alternative 2: Withdraw Regulatory Guide 5.77 Under this alternative, the NRC would withdraw this regulatory guide. Withdrawal of the guide would eliminate the important information already provided by the NRC regarding the implementation of a robust insider mitigation program. Although the process of withdrawing the guide would cost less than revising the guide under Alternative 3, this alternative would also eliminate the only publicly available description of the methods the NRC staff considers acceptable for demonstrating compliance with10 CFR 73.55(b)(9)(i). Licensees and applicants would not have a generically-applicable, NRC-acceptable method of complying with 10 CFR 73.55(b)(9)(i). As a result, each licensee and applicant could develop a different method of meeting the requirements, potentially increasing NRC inspection costs and licensee implementation costs.
Alternative 3: Revise Regulatory Guide 5.77 Under this alternative, the NRC would revise Regulatory Guide 5.77. This revision would incorporate the latest information available to the NRC in the form of supporting guidance, practices, lessons learned, and operating experience developed since 2009 for demonstrating compliance with 10 CFR 73.55(b)(9)(i). By doing so, the NRC would ensure that the RG in this area is current, and accurately reflects the staffs position.
The impact to the NRC would be the costs associated with preparing and issuing the regulatory guide revision. The impact to the public would be the voluntary costs associated with reviewing and providing comments to NRC during the public/stakeholder comment period. The value to NRC staff, licensees, and applicants would be the benefits associated with enhanced efficiency and effectiveness in using a common guidance document, containing the most current methodologies and technical advancements for insider mitigation programs, as the technical basis for license applications and other interactions between the NRC and its regulated entities.
Conclusion Based on this regulatory analysis, the NRC staff concludes that a revision of Regulatory Guide 5.77 is warranted. The benefits of revising the regulatory guide to reflect current operating experience (Alternative 3) outweigh the benefits considered under Alternative 1 and Alternative 2, whose costs (i.e., new information about insider mitigation programs would not be made available to the NRC staff, regulated entities, or the public) exceed the costs of Alternative
- 3. The staff concludes that the proposed action will greatly enhance a licensees or applicants access to the most current information available since the guide was last issued. Applicants for standard plant design certifications and combined licenses could use the new guidance and incorporate it during the conceptual phase of their designs and programs.