ML20137T027

Request for OMB Review & Supporting Statement Re 10CFR50, Domestic Licensing of Production & Utilization Facilities

ML20137T027
Person / Time
Issue date:	11/26/1985
From:	Norry P NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
To:	OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT & BUDGET
References
NUDOCS 8512060367
Download: ML20137T027 (25)

Text

l e .

PDK rt so - o,m83 s.v.~.tv s >

Request for OMB ReviI8* ~

important Read instrLctions before comp;eting form. Do r,ot use the same SF 83 Send three copies of this form, the matene to te revw.ed, anal for to request both on Executive Order 12291 review and apprnval under paperwork-three copies of the supporting statemes t. to the Paperwork Reduction Act Answer all questions in Part 1. If this request is for reuew under E.O_ Office of Information and Regulatory Af tes 12291. cornplete Part Il and sign the regulatory certif cation. If this Office of Management and Buags e reauest is for approval under the Paperwork Redaction Act and 5 CFR Attention Docket Eibrary, Roor,3201 1320, sk,p Part II. complete Part til and sign the paperwork certificat,on Washington. DC ?0503 PAftT l.-Complete 1ffts Part for All Requests.

Department / agency and 8t reau/ot' ice oronating reouest

' 2.Agenq rcde U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 3 1 5 0

3. Name of person who can best ar swer questions reFarding tnis request Telephoi'e numt#er

~

Priscilla Dwyer < 301 427-4773 3

4. Title of information collection or rulemaking ~

10 CFR 50, Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities

5. Legst sutnonty for informatnon collection tv rute (cste Unstea States Code. Publoc lan. or Executwe Order) 42 use 2201(o) , o,

6. Affected public(check allthatJppio )

c, O r geratagencies e er emy;oyees 1 C Individuais or households 3 0 Farms 6 Non prof.t institut ons 2 O stateoriocaigovernments 4 S suunesses or other for profit '

7 0 sma!i nusinesses or organ rations PART ll.-Complete This Part Only if the Request is for OMB Review Under Executive Order 12291

7. Rrgulation Identifier Nureber (PIN)

- _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ ._ _ . or, None ass,gned O

8. Type of submiss on (check cne on each category)

Type of review requested Classifkation Stage ofdevelopment 1 O standard 1 O Major i O Proposed or draft 2 Pending 2 Nonmajor 2 O Finalorintenmf.nal,withpnorpropet 3 0 Emergency 3 0 rinaiorinterim finai witnout pnor proposai 4 0 statutoryorjudiciaideadiine

9. CFR section affected j CFR

10. Does this regulation contain reporting or recordbeeping requirements that require oMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act and 5 CFR 1320?

O ves O Nu 1

11. lf a rnasor rule. is there a regulatory impact analysis attached?

1 O ves 2 O t40 l if"No," did OMB waive the analysis?

3 0 ves 4 O No C:rtification for Regulatory Submissions in subrnitting pohty this request directives have for oMB been corrptied review, the authorized regulatory contact and the program official certify that the requirements of E o 12291 and any apphca with.

signature of program official Date sig,ature of authorized regulatory cor; tact Date

12. (OMB use only) '

s N 5 N o s N E* B512060367 851126

• 5"''

'7,""s','$po$

PDR ORG EUSOMB s cra 1320.no E o 12291 PDR

. a ,

PART lit.-CcmplIte This Pzrt Only if the Rsquist is f:r Apprsulcf a Collection of Information Under the Paperwork Reduction Act and 5 CFR 1320.

13. Abstract-Descr be rieeds, uses and affcctert pubhc in 50 words or less "Nu Cl ea r poWe rpl an t s e Curi ty" Power reactor licensees and applicants will be required to prepare and submit for NRC approval an Access Authorization Plan in accordance with the criteria contained in 10 CFR 73.56 delineating how the licensee intends to implement the requirements of the Access Authorization Rule.

14. Tyx of mformation coitection (check en4 one)

InfIrmation collectler's not containedin rules 10 Regular submission 2 O Emergency submission (certifscationattached)

Information collections t*Dntained in rules 3 0 Existing regurai,on(no changeprogesed) e rinai or intenm final without pnor NPRM 7. Enter date of eupected or actual Federal 4 O Notice of proposed rulemaking(NPRM) A O Regular submission Register pubhcation at this stage of rulemakerig 5 Q Final. NPRM was previously pubhshed B O Emergency submission (certificarron attached) (month, day. year): Dec 1985

15. Type of review requested (check only one) 1 O New coiiection 4 O Reinstatement of a prevw:usly approved collecta for which approval 2 h Revision of a currently approved collection has expired 3 0 Extension of tne expiration date of a currentir approved cosiection 5 O Existing cohection in use without an oMB control number without any change in the substance or in the method of collection

16. Agency teport form number (s)(unclude standard / optional form numver(s)) 22. Purpose of information collection (check as many as apply) g 1 O Apphcation for benefits 2 O Program evaivation

17. Annualreportingordisclosure burden 3 0 ceneraipurposestatistics 1 Number of respondents .

202 2 Number of responses per respondent Varie5 5 0 Programplanningormanagement 3 Total annual responses (hne 1 times hne 2) 6 0 Research 4 Hours per response Var 1es 7 O Aud t 5 Total hours (hne 3 times hoe 4) 2*636*040

18. Annuilrecordkeepingburden

23. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting (check allthat apply) 1 Number of recordkeepers 202 i O Recordkeeping 2 Annua! hours per recordkeeper. Vanes nepor,in ,

3 Totzt recorcheeping hours (hne 1 times hne 2) 1,283,674 2 G onoccasion 4 RIcordkeeping retention penod Life years 3 0 weekly

19. Tottl annual burden 3,880,522 4 O Monthiy 1 Requested (bne 17-5 plus hne 18-3) . $ 0 Quartury 3,377,85?

2 In current oMB inventory 6 0 semi-annuaisy 3 Dittsrence(kne lless kne 2) *E*050 7 O An nuany Esplanation otdifference 8 0 Biennially 4 Program change ~+2,670 9 g otn,,(,,,,,,3,y 5 Adjustment .

One time reauirement

20. Current (most r f) ontrol number or comment number 24. Respondents' obhgation to comply (check the strongest obhgation that af'phes)

21. Requested expiration date 1 O voiuntary 2 O Required to obtain or retain a benefit 9/30/86 3 g u,no,,,,,

25. Ar) the respondents pnmanly eJucational agencies nr institutions or is the primary purpose of the collection related to Federal education programs? O Yes

26. Does the agency use samphng to select respondents or does the agerk:y recommend or prescnbe the use of samphng or statistical analysis by respondents? L

. . Yes CJ No i 27. Regulatory honty the information collection CFR  : or FR  ; or,Other(specify);

Paperwork Certification in submdting this request for oMB approval. the agency head. the senior official or an authonzed representative. certifies that the requirements of 5 CFR 1320. the Pnvacy Act, statistical standards or directives. and any other apphcable information pobcy directives have been comphad with.

signaturnf program official Date senatura of agency nead, the senior official or an authonzed representative Date Patricia G. Norry, Director Office of Administration edd 8 m '

1. GPO i 1984 0 - 453-776 -

m .1,.

.33[ Request for UMB Review Img ortant t,..a- . . ,y, . .,

ul insh u tms oete c i otrp. . n torm + . , . . ,ir. -a ss e, ,, ap . te, , , , ,

'u regest (WL dn 1. net ut.." Oni. r '?."il este. ,.se. .. .  ;.,, v. - $ o . , , 14. .. . , ,t . , , . ,

e e Papse wm Pee.ct on Ad Answer ali quretions m Part i U in, n, i a

• 1. +

mv. o n. 4 1 t'd! ' ' "' I"h""ut um and Pw.uf i 12291. corap ete Part !! ond y tt - r@tn > . w ate o tir T '"

• f " " W"""'n t a"d M' '

. request is for approval ur der th*I Pap.frv.ork Rr A;&r ,i at d *.; ';f k Atte '&"rr. Dor _ i.et i ibrary Ho. m i. f ,

13.70. 6.+ P et H. c o'npiete Pet 11l a.v' s t' c t.sp t e e ' d v.t -u W.rts.c*or.DC 20503

, - PART 1.-Complete TM Part for All R.:queus.

EDUstnGJEesc, La eJ,b > WJ o.baw ..w t

~

? . .

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission  ; 3 1 5 0

3. nanie et person ec uuest m.er q,stan%ra e to m ,~ .

, Priscilla Dwyer r301 4 427-4773

4. htlc of in*cem.coi(o: lect.on or rufemamenE 10 CFR 73, Physical Protection of Plants and Materials

5. t etaiautnenty for vormation conection or runtae ur,w Stres cooe. Puti,c Law or f econwe Orded 42,& ,.2201(o) _ . cv _ . . _ _ _ _ _ - _. _._. _

. ~ - .

e-,

6, Affectt*C puDI.C (Cf'**ck all!? J'aM)! 5 L. ! Fece<ai 4 ren<aes c' e-r.-c, -t s 1 C Indoncua.s or riousetoNe 3 C l an".. 6 C Nov. pmt t a!.Ltm.

2 C State or tout rovernments 4 *X Busenesses or otr'er for prot t 7 O hman tm.re ss. c n gy. rat.cr.s PARTll.-Complete This Part Only if the Request is for OMB Review Under Executive Order 12291

7. Regutation teent+ce PWber (P;N)

~

r.Ik.ne w gned U j 8. Type of ubnussace (cnera or:e m eact' categorn 7ppe of re6tew requested Classo1ication Stage of aeselopment 1 Q stacca,n

, 1 C Major 1 U Proposedor d att 2 C Pend.ng 2 C Nonrnajor 2 C F,raiur interim f.nal. witn pr.or pioposat 3 C Emergent.y 3 C Final or intenm final, w,thout pnor proposa6 4 Statutory or jud cal ceadime

9. CF R section affected CFR _ _ _ _

10. Dees this regulation contain reporting cr record.eep ng eequiremerts that sequire CM3 approvai uncer the Paperwork Reduction Act OM

' ; No and 5 CF R 1320?

11. It a rnalor rule. is there a regulatory impact analysis anabad' 1tj hs 2 [_s fs if No." d d OMB waive the analysis) 3_ U Yes 4 C ?q C$rtification f or Regulatory Submissions j h submitt ng this request for OMB review, the authcniec 9,utatory co .ta t and tt'e umg am of fioat certrfy that the requen ents of f O R291 a ad any appwath pohc y cire(in,es i ave t,een cornched w th ~

Strature of p<cgram of'ic at I Date i

~

6 rnatu e ciautr os /et teruta*ary tor tact ,

'De

12. (OMB use only) g j j g'$ 5ISIIdOId OIE 8 3 P" h k rt etOtJS et}'t.cfD lf# )*rOk!t *'

'h i fa5f4 M40 00 fi14 4034 S Cf k 1RO P"a<m ' t f"o U 15 ' .'31 e_,e--,-,,-m.v,,-,**.e _.w,m-,-.--,.---,,,m-..,--w ,-w.,.a,-ee,-wr- +-e-c,.g.,,we.- e,--.-.m+1,*-

F%RT llc--ComplIta This Part Only if the Rzqu:st is1:r Apprevilef a Cdlicti:n of information Under the Paperwork Reduction Act and 5 CFR 1320.

13. Abstract-Descr'be needs. uses and af'ected pubNc in 50 words or less "Nu clea r powe rpl an t s e curi ty" Power reactor licensees and applicants will be required to submit an Access Authorization Plan and revisions to the security plan, establish and maintain access authorization files, and take other safeguards measures.

14. Type of enformation collect on(check only one)

Information coHections not contained on rules 1 I Regular submission 2 O Emergency submission (certehcationattached)

Information collections catstained in rules 3 O Existing reguletion(no chaveproposed) ti Final or intenm f,nal without priur NPRM 7. Enter date of expected or actual Federal 4 Notice of proposed rulemaking(NPRM) A O Reguiar submission Register pubhcation at this stage of rulemaking 5 3 Final. NPRM was previously pubhshed B O Emergency submession (certsfication artached) (month. day, year) Dec 1985 15, Type of review requested (checa only orw) 1 New collectKm 4 0 Reinstatement of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired 2 3 Revision of a currently approved col lection 3 O Extension of the expiration date of a currently approved cohection 5 0 Esiisting collection in use without an oMB control number without any change in the substance or en the method of co4lection 16 4ency report form number (s)(include standard / optional form number (s)) 22. Purpose of information conection (check as many as apply) 1 O Apphcation for benefits N/A 2 Program evaluation

17. Annual reporting or disclosure burden 3 0 ceneraipurposestatistics 1 Number of respondents . b1 4 $ Regulatoryorcomphance 2 Number of responses per respondent 1 5 O Program planning or management 3 Total annual responses (hne 1 times hne 2) 61 6 0 Research 4 Hours per response 280 7 O Audit 5 Total hours (hne 3 times hne 4) 17,080

18. Annual recordheeping burden 23. Frequency of recordkeepmg or reporting (checa all that apply) 1 Number of recordkeepers 1 Recordkeeping 2 Annual hours per recordkeeper. 3, M .4 neportin, 3 Tttal recordkeeping hours (hne 1 times hne 2) 276,363 2 G onoccasion 4 Recordkeeping retent.on pened 3 years 3 0 weekiy

19. Total annual burden 4 Monthly 1 Requested (hne 17 5 plus hne 18 3) .

396,259 3 no,,,,,,y 2 in current oMB inventory 102,816 6 0 semi-annuaily 3 D,f terence (line 1 less hne 2) N* 7 Annually Esplanation aldifference 8 Biennially 4 Program change +293,443 9 t.3 o,n,,g,,,eno,y; One time submi ttal 5 Adjustment .

20. Current (most recent) oM B control number or comment number 24. Respondents' obhgation to comply (check the stroqgest o6hgation that applies) 3150-0002 3 v,,on,,,,

21. Req;ested expiration date 2 Required to obtain or retain a benefit 5/31/86 3 uandatory

25. Are the respondents primari!y educational agencies or institutions or rs the pnmary purpose of the collection related to Federal education programs? O ves 00 No

26. Does the agencg use samphng to select respondents or does the agency recommend or prescribe the use of sampling or stattst: Cal analysis L by respondents. . O Yes CJ No

27. Regulatogthonty the information col!ect on CFR :or FR :or,other(specify):

Paperwork Certification in submitting this request for oMB approval, the a6ency head, the sensor official or an authonzed representative. Certifies that the requirements ot 5 CFR 1320 the .

Pnvacy Act, statistical standards or directives, and any other apphcable iriformation pohcy directives have been comphed with. l signaturaof program official Date i.

signatura of agency head, the senior official or an authonzed representative Date Patricia G. Norry, Director

! Office of Administration [./ 8 b* dr

/ e cie , to,44 o - as3->>e

N0Y 191995 SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR

- 10 CFR PARTS 50 AND 73 INSIDER SAFEGUARDS RULES INTRODUCTION The Commission has published three related proposed rules concerning protection against the " insider" threat at nuclear power reactors. The corner-stone of the rule package is the Access Authorization Program which is designed to provide increased assurance of employee reliability and at the same time minimize the burden en the licensee by providing reciprocity of screening pro-grams among licensees.

The second rule of the package is the Search Require-ments Rule which clarifies requirements for searches of individuals at power reactors.

Present requirements for personnel searches have been interim for the past several years pending the codification this rule will provide. The remaining rule of the package is the Miscellaneous Amendments. The intent of this amendment is to provide a more safety-conscious safeguards system while maintaining current levels of protection.

JUSTIFICATION Access Authorization Rule History On March 17, 1977, the Commission published proposed amendments to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 42 FR 14880, that sought to establish an unescorted access authorization program for individuals who have access to or control over special nuclear material. Written comments were invited and received. On December 28, 1977, the Commission issued a notice of i

1 L

public hearing, 42 FR 64703, on the proposed regulations, and subsequently established a Hearing Board to gather additional testimony. As a result of information gathered at the public hearing and its own examination of the pro-posed access authorization program, the Hearing Board made recommendations to the Commission concerning future personnel screening requirements applicable to nuclear power reactors. The Hearing Board recommended that the NRC issue a screening rule based on the American National Standard Institute's Standard N18.17

" Industrial Security for Nuclear Power Plants" (ANSI N18.17), to ensure the trustworthiness and suitability of persons granted unescorted access to pro-tected areas and vital areas at nuclear power plants. The Commission adopted this recommendation.

Need for Information Collection The Commission's pursuit of an access authorization program is based upor.

the fact that the disoriented person and disgruntled employee, generic adversaries, are of primary safeguards concern because of their inside positions.

Commission study has shown that the goal-oriented, technically sophisticated disoriented person, particularly the psychotic, is perhaps one of the most dangerous of the generic adversaries.1 Both,the disoriented person and disgruntled employee may have inside access to restricted sreas, files and sensitive security information. They are also privy tc shop and loose talk and often have knowledge of critical and vulnerable areas of facility operation.

Further, NRC records show that in 1584 out of a total of 111 safeguards events reported by licensees, 43 involved insiders. These events included drug-related incidents, vandalism, hoaxes, firearm incidents and other miscellaneous safe-guards events.

In line with ANSI N18.17, the proposed unescorted access authorization rule consists of three major components: background investigation, psychological assessment, and continual behavioral observation. The proposed criteria have been designed to codify and make more uniform what many licensees INUREG 0459, Generic Adversary Characteristics Summary Report , U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, March,1979.

2 l

t

i 1

are doing either in part or in whole to meet industry standard ANSI N18.17. In '

the fall of 1978, the staff included in its closing statement to the Hearing Board the results of a survey on the personnel screening programs used by 39 power reactor facilities.

The results of the survey clearly indicate that ANSI N18.17 did not result in a consistent and uniform program and that a mandatory, more consistent access authorization program was needed. The proposea' rule would provide a more consistent and uniform streening program as well as codify much of what the industry is already doing. This is of benefit to the nuclear industry because standardized programs would permit reciprocity among licensees and eliminate the need for " rescreening" of previously screened transient workers as they move from plant to plant.

This information provides a clear need for the promulgation of an access authorization program designed to identify individuals who are untrustworthy or otherwise unsuitable for unescorted access to protected areas and vital areas at nuclear power reactors.

Practical Utility of Information Collection A 1982 article published in the periodical " Security World"2 resulting from a security survey of 2000 individuals indicated that virtually all large companies and organizations in the United States are using some form of screening of employees. Within the Federal government, the Department of Defense nuclear weapon personnel reliability program (PRP) uses background investigations as part of its program "..to er.sure the highest possible standards in individual reliability..."3 Federal agencies such as the National Security Agency (NSA), Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and Coast Guard use psychological testing as an initial screening tool to assess stability and reliability.4 Hence, the practical utility of such programs has been established by their wide-spread usage throughout industry and government.

2"What Companies are Doing About Employee Screening and Testing " Security World pp. 29-40, April, 1985. , ,

3 Enclosure B, SECY84-72, Background Information on Proposed Insider Safeguards Rules, February 9,1984.

4 Ibid.

t 3

-a

Experts in the field of employee screening generally agree that a three component program consisting of background investigations, psychological assess-ment, and continued behavioral observation is more effective than any one element used alone. This is reiterated by such industry standards as ANSI 18.17, and its update ANS 3.3, Security for Nuclear Power Plants, both of which contain a three temponent screening program. Comments received from the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), Department of Health and Human Services noted that psychological assessment could provide some useful information about the emotional stability of persons given access to a nuclear power plant environment, however, such testing has questionable predictive value. The Commission agrecs and for this specific reascii ha:, proposed a tnree component screening program. NIMH views on the NRC proposed rule were further solicited i

by NRC staff.

This discussion yielded the agreement that while no screening program is 100 percent accurate the measures proposed by the NRC, when properly administered, appear to constitute the best approach presently available in detecting emotional instability in individuals.

(See Enclosure 1).

Background investigations are used to determine undesirable elements in an individual's history which to a certain extent may be used to predict future behavior.

Background investigations however do not give an indication as to an individual's current emotional stability. Current emotional stability is deter-mined through the use of psychological assessment. The uti #.y of psychological assessment was tested in an analogous case to the NRC usage when the use of psychological tasting by the FAA was challenged in 1969 before the United States District Court, Central District of California.

The court remanded the issue to the Civil Service Commission for a formal hearing, and among ot.her things, directed the Commission ta determine the validity of the 16-PF test. On the basis of testimony of expert witnesses, the Commission found that the validity of the test was clearly established. Moreover, the Commission also found that tne FAA had acted within its authority by requiring a psychological evaluation of air traffic controllers as part of a " fitness for duty" examination, and that psychological testing is accepted as a legitimate adjunct of a medical examination particularly in areas involving the safety and security of the nation and its people.

The Commission also found that psychological testing, and the 16-PF in particular, did not deprive the appellant of any Constitutional 4

rights and that in the case of FAA procedures, adequate precautions were taken to protect the appellant's right of privacy. (Board of Appeals and Review, U.S. Civil Service Commission; Decision in the matter of Duane E. Legget, Air Traffic Control Specialist (Tower), April 16, 1984.)

Psychological assessment further contributes to an emoloyee screening 4

program by functioning as an initial detector based upon professional judgment.

The third component of the access authorization program, behavioral observation, monitors individuals to' assure continuing suitability within the nuclear environment. However, thic monitoring is done by supervisors trained to observe, not assess. Hence, a continuum relationship exists between psychological assess-ment and behavioral observation with psychological assessment providing the professional judgment that allows behavioral observation to be effectively 4

conducted by first-line supervisors.

1 j Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements In the pruposed rule, 10 CFR 50.34(h) and 73.56(a) require that the applicant prepare an Access Authorization Plan in accordance with the criteria contained in 10 CFR 73.56 and submit it to the Commission for review and approval. This plan will delineate how the licensee intends to implement the various requirements of the Access Authorization Rule. A review and approval l'

! of the plan by the Commission is needed to assure that a uniform screening pro-gram consistent with Commission regulations is implemented throughout the industry.

3

a. Section 73.56(b) specifies the performance objective and requirements that s must be met by the access authorization plan.

b. Regulatory Guide 5.64, Standard Format and Content Guide for Access Authorization Plan for Nuclear Power Plants, was developed to explain the

intent of the rule and content of the plan. This guide will assist 4

applicants and licensees to prepare an access authorization plan.

2  !

l Certain records which are enumerated below need to be maintained by the j licensee in order:

1 I

5 '

.i

a. that the NRC, through inspection against the approved plan, can assure licensee compliance with the requirements of this rule; and

b. to provide needed records in any review proceedings which may occur due to implementation of this rule.

The records, developed in the course of administering the Access Authoriza-tion Program and which the licensee is required to maintain, are as follows:

a.

Section 73.56(c) requires a background investigation for individuals seeking unescorted access to protected areas and vita) areas, and specifies that licensees must require individuals subject to this program to report to the licensee any subsequent occurrence or circumstance that may have a bearing on continued access authorization. A record of background investigation, including any derogatury information obtained on an indi-vidual during the background investigation will be kept on file as well as any information related to subsequent occurrences that may have a bearing on an individual's access authorization.

b. Section 73.56(d) requires that a written recommendation be provided to the licensee by the psychiatrist or psychologist as to the individual's behavioral suitability for unescorted access. This requires the establish-ment and maintenance of a psychological assessment program, and includes the need for the licensee to keep on file the recommendation of a qualified and, if applicable, State-licensed psychologist or psychiatrist on an individual's suitability for employment in a nuclear setting.

c. Paragraph 73.56(e) requires the establishment and maintenance of a con-tinual behavioral observation program, which includes training supervisors, providing'a supervisor's guide and a need for the licensee to keep on file behavioral observation records made by the indi'.idual's immediate superior.

d. Paragraph 73.56(f) indicates a need for the licensee to keep on file the unescorted access authorization certification received from another licensee on a temporary worker or transferring employee. The gaining licensee must request of the original granting licensee a photograph of 6 I

t. j

the individual or other unique personal data and a written verification of the individual's unescorted access authorization along with a statement which indicates last effective date of unescorted access authorization and reason authorization was suspended. The licensee will keep on file the unescorted access authorization certification received from another licensee on a transferring employee. A record of temporary workers granted access during major outages will be maintained by the licensee.

e.

Section 73.56(g) requires the establishment of an appeals grievance procedure for employees suspended from or denied access authorization to include; rotification of suspension-denial, employee rebuttal, hearing and notification of final decision. The licenseo will keep on file any records used as a basis for denying or revoking an individual's unescorted access authorization and subsequent appeal, hearing and decision records, f.

Section 73.56(h) requires the licensee to establish and maintain protection measures for the individuals access authorization files, .

audit procedures to ensure compliance with requirements and that an individual's access authorization file be kept a minimum of 3 years after termination of the individual's access authorization.

Search Requirements Rule History The Commission was petitioned in 1977 to suspend a requirement for the use of " pat-down" searches as a matter of routine. Interim search requirements were established and action was deferred on the petition pending the development of a rule specifying entry search requirements. A proposed rule on this subject was issued for public comment in 1980.

The staff has now revised the rule con-cerning search requirements in light of the comments and in response to recom-mendations made by the Safety / Safeguards Review Committee. This Committee, which was formed in response to the Chairman's request of August 16, 1982, had the overall task of studying power reactor safeguards requirements and practices to determine whether actual or potential conflicts exist with plant safety objectives.

7

F The Safety / Safeguards Review Committee recommended that all persons enter-ing the protected areas of a nuclear power plant should be searched using metal detectors and explosive detectors. This recommendation, which the staff endorses, differs from the current interim procedures in that visitors would be subject to routine equipment searches rather than physical " pat-down" searches.

" Pat-dowa" searches would be required only when the licensee has cause to suspect that an individual is attempting to introduce contraband (firearms, explosives, or incendiaries), or when the detection equipment is out of service.

The staff has considered the use of random searches for screened individuals, but the Safety / Safeguards Review Committee found that most licensees have successfully adjusted to 100% equipment searches, and believed that changing to random searches would be disruptive. Due to their interrelationship with other provisions of the Insider Safeguards Rule Package, these revised search require-ments are again being published in proposed form.

Need for and Practical Utility of Information Collection Licensees will be required under this rule to amend their facility's physical protection plan documenting how they will meet the requirements of the rule. This permits NRC approval of the licensee's proposal and, once approved, allows NRC inspection and enforcement. This amendment is anticipated to be of a minor nature because the majority of utilities presently conduct equipment searches of individuals entering a protected area at nuclear reactors.

10 CFR 73.55(g) requires testing and maintenance of security-related equipment, e.g. , search equipment, to assure proper operation of the equipment. Any new equipment purchased as a result of this amendment would be required to have documented operational testing. This recordkeeping is considered to be of minimal impact to the licensee because, as previously mentioned, the vast majority of licensees currently have the equipment in place.

Miscellaneous Safeguards Related Amendments History The Commission proposes to amend 10 CFR 73.55, " Requirements for Physical Protection of Licensed Activities in Nuclear Power Reactors Against Radiological 8

L. _

Sabotage," to clarify and refine this policy for (1) vital area access controls, (2) authority to suspend safeguards measures during safety emergencies, (3) pro-

, tection of .certain items of security equipment which significantly impact nuclear plant security, and (4) key and local controls. The requirements have been designed to accommodate recommendations of the previously mentioned Safety /

Safeguards Review Committee established in response to the Chairman's request of August 16, 1982.

The staff has proposed amendments to 10 CFR 73.55(d)(7) that address both non-emergency and emergency access controls to vital areas. These revisions assure adequate access for safety purposes while maintaining safeguards require-ments.

The staff has also proposed a revision to S 73.55(a) to clearly indicate the licensee's authority under S 50.54(x) and (y) to suspend safeguards measures if required to accommodate emergency response. These changes are based upon recommendations made by the Safety / Safeguards Committee that power reactor licensees be given improved flexibility to facilitate response to site

, emergencies or " unusual events."

The Commission is considering requiring protection of specified onsite physical security equipment (e.g., secondary power supplies for, intrusion alarms and nonportable communications equipment) which is required for the pro-per functioning of the security system. Usually this equipment does not qualify as vital equipment but sabotage of such equipment could seriously impair the security of the plant. Such protection is necessary to achieve the general performance requirements of 10 CFR 73.55(a).

In a matter associated with access control, the Commission is considering amending S 73.55(d)(9) to reduce unnecessary costs associated with key and lock controls. The present requirements call for key, locks, and combination changes when any employee who has access to such devices is terminated.

Staff experience indicates that adequate protection could be obtained by l

changing or rotating keys, locks, and combinations: (1) routinely on an annual basis, (2) whenever a person's access authorization is revoked for reasons of I

[.

9 k .

lack of trustworthiness, reliability or inadequate performance, and (3) when compromise of locks is suspected.

Need for and Practical Utility of Information Collection Licensees will be required under this rule to amend their facility's physical protection plan documenting how they will meet the requirements of the rule. This permits NRC approval of the licensee's proposal and, once approved, allows NRC inspection and enforcement. The licensee will also be required to maintain current authorization access lists for each vital area (VA). These lists would be required to be updated at least every 31 days.

. This action is necessary to.er.syre that only those individuals requiring VA access to perform their duties are allowed access to the most vital areas of nuclear reactors. Most licensees presently maintain such listings and the

' impact of this recordkeeping re'uirement q is anticipated to be minimal.

DUPLICATION OF OTHER COLLECTIONS OF INFORMATION These reporting requirements do not duplicate or overlap other information collections.

CONSULTATIONS OUTSIDE THE NRC Access Authorization Rule Both informal and formal consultations were made with some licensees, l investigative agencies, psychiatrists, and psychologists to determine impact, l receive guidance, and identify and help solve potential problems with the proposed rLie. ,

The formal consultations were in the form of NRC contracts made to:

Personnel Decision, Inc. (PDI), Minneapolis, Minnesota for guidance con-cerning the behavioral observation program. In developing this guidance, PDI also convened a panel of experts from around the country to make recommenda-j tions, including certain reactor licensees.

i 10

.-- >J

l also obtained from the Atomic Industrial Forum. Industry and academic experts in the field of psychological-assessment were contacted to determine the utility of psychological assessment and behavioral observation programs.

All suggestions and recommendations were taken under consideration in developitg the rule.

Search Requirements Rule The Safety / Safeguards Review Committee, during their task of studying power reactor safeguards requirements and practices in order to determine whether actual or potential conflicts existed with plant safety objectives, visited several licensee sites to informally discuss sear.ch requirements. The suggestions and recommendations of the Committee have been taken into censidera-tion in the proposed revision of the rule.

Miscellaneous Safeguards-Related Amendments The Safety / Safeguards Review Committee, during their task of studying power reactor safeguards requirements and practices in order to determine whether actual or potential conflicts existed with plant safety objectives, visited several licensee sites and observed plant operating conditions. The suggestions and recommendations of the Committee's findings have been taken into considera-tion in the proposed revision of the rule.

OTHER SUPPORTING INFORMATION i

These proposed rule changes are presented together because of their marked interrelationship. Any major changes to the principal components of the pro-posed access authorization program could affect the prcposal to relax require-ments for lock and key controls and other current recuirements.

]

11

DESCRIPTION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION l 1

Number and Type of Respondents Although the proposed rule applies to all existing and future nuclear power reactor operating licensees, the information collection requirements in the proposed rule will be applied on a reactor site basis and not on the basis of reactor units.

Some sites have multiple units; thus, proposed informatien collection requirements will apply to 61 existing reactor sites, and approxi-mately 10 additional sites over a 3 year period, covered by the OMB clearance for a total of 71 respondents. ,

Reasonableness oi the Schedule for Collecting Information The license applicant whose application for an operating license was submitted prior to the publication date of the final rule in the Federal Register will be required to submit to the Commission his Access Authorization Plan and security plan for approval within 120 days of the effective date of the rule .

I Based upon NRC staff experience in preparation of security and contingency plans and experience in implementing ANSI 18.17, the NRC believes that 1 is a reasonable period of time for a licensee to compile and submit n. such a Under rules currently in effect, a licensee may request an extension of time which is.normally granted based upon good cause.

Within 360 days after the rule becomes effective or 120 days after approval by the Commission, which eve is later, the licensee is required to implement the requirements of his approved plan.

The applicant whose application is submitted after the final rule is published in the _ Federal Register shall include the Access Authoriza-tion Plan with the application submittal.

METHOD OF COLLECTING INFORMATION Access Authorization Plans and amendments to security plans submitted to the Commission will be reviewed, approved, and filed by the Commission .

Specific licensee Access Authori2ation Plans and amendments to security plans will not be published for public review or comment in accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(d).

12

ADEQUACY OF THE DESCRIPTION OF THE INFORMATION It should be noted that the burden hours for following the guidance have '

l been section.

included in the estimate of burden hours found in the Estimate of Burde 4

Access Authorization Rule A draft " Standard Format and Content Guice for the Nuclear Reactor Access Authorization Rule," being published with the proposed requirements, provides a detailed description of the recommended format for the plan. This standard format will be provided to each licensee as a guide for use in developing its j plans.

The information collection is designed to provide a uniform basis for i

determining an individual's trustworthiness and reliability through investiga-tion into an individual's past history and background, as well as through a psychological assessment of the individual's personality.

Search Requirements Rule i ,

Regulatory Guide 5.7 provides guidance to the licensee for conducting personnel searches.

According to this guidance, the licensee will document the testing of the search equipment before the beginning of each guard shift.

Such testing and docucentation is necessary to assure that search by metal detectors and explosive detectors is meeting rule requirements.

l l Miscellaneous Safeguards-Related Amendments A draft " Miscellaneous Amendments Guide," being published with the proposed requirements, provides guidance to the licensee for meeting the requirements of the Miscellaneous Amendments. The licensee is required to document any revisions to the licensee's physical security plan as a result of these amend-t ments through submittal of revised portions of the licensee's security plan as 4 l

appropriate.

i 1

13 i

i

d

RECORD RETENTION PERIOD Access Authorization Ryle Each licensee, c3ntractor or supplier whc collects personal information on an employee for the pur, nose of ccmplying with this section is required to establish and maintain a system of files and procedures for the protection of the personal information.

~ Such personal information collected and maintained will not be disclosed to persons other than the subject individual or those who have a need to have access to the information in performing assigned duties in the process of granting or denying access to protected areas and vital areas.

The licensee will also confidentially maintain the records of those audits per-formed on contractor screening programs. Files of documents relied upon by the licensee will be available, at the licensee's site, for examination by the NRC to determine the licensee's compliance in implementing its approved plan. The Commission requires that the licensee maintain the access authorization file of an individual for the period of access authorization and for an additional 3 year period subsequent to termination of the individual's unescorted access authorization for protected areas and vital areas.

Search Requirement and Miscellaneous Safeguards Related Amendments Neither of these two reporting amendments contains a new record retention requirement.

Records necessary to execute the new requirements are already being kept by the Licensee under OMB Clearance 3150-0002.

EFFORT TO REDUCE SMALL BUSINESS BURDEN The NRC has determined that the affected entities are not small entities of businesses as those terms are used in the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION None, except for proprietary or safeguards information.

I 14 m

l SENSITIVE QUESTIONS None.

REPORTING PERIOD Submittal of an Access Authorization plan and amendments to the security plan are required from each licensee 120 days af ter the effective rule is published in the Federal Register, in order to obtain NRC approval. The plans are then maintained by the licensee for the life of the plant and are available for review by the NRC as needed.

COPIES REQU1 RED TO BE SUBMITTED Access Authorization Plan Licensees are required to submit the original and two copies of each required submittal to the NRC for review and approval.

Amendments to Security Plans Licensees are required to submit five copies of each required submittal to the NRC for review and approval. One copy of each will be disturbed to:

o Regulatory Files (Docketing) o Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards o Regional Office o Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) o Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation The security plans contain safeguards information and, therefore, cannot be duplicated by the Docketing Office where they are initially received and then distributed to the appropriate offices. Since the plans contain large blueprints and various photographs, it is more cost effective for the licensees to reproduce the five needed copies for submittal to the NRC for expedient review and approval as they are corrently doing.

t 15 e

E5iI M E F7 00 ROE? "

M to Industry

a. Reportfsg Requirements .

Per Site Respondent Industry Respondents frequency Staff Hours

. Of Response Surden Hours Total Annual Total Industry Regulatory Section Per 3 year . Annual Burden Hours 6n_e time Annual Response Site Burden Hours Numby of One time Average Annual Existina Future Esisting Future

1. Respondents (61 sitesi 10 CFR 50.34(h) 1 800 (10 sites)

Access Authorization 800 267 Plan 267 10 2.670

2. 10 CFR 73.56(a) 1 800 800 Access Authorization 267 267 61 Plan 16,287

3. 10 CFR 73.55(d)(1) 5 amend Physical Security 1

16 16 5 5 Plan 61 305 (Search Requirements)

4. 10 CFR 5 73.55 1 24 amend Physical 24 8 8 Security Plan 61 488 (Misc. Amen h nts)

Total Reporting:. 28d 257 11,080 2,670 Reporting Total Hours: '

19,750

+

b. Recirdkeepine Rtquirements

Ptr Sits R7spandent Industry R2spondents frequency Total Industry '

Staff Hours Burden Hours Total Annual Annual Burden Hours of Response Per 3 year Regu1*tsry Section One time Site Burden Hours Existing' Existing 2 Future Annual Response One time Average Annual E x'i s ting Future

~

(9 sites) 52 sf*es (10 site's)

1. 10 CFR 73.56(c)

Background Investigation 1500 75 5 7500 2500 375 Review and Action 375 2875 3. --

29,750 1500 75 4 6000 2000 300 300 2,]15 Employee reveals new 5 2300 m0 --

23,000 2 10 10 10 ixfirmation and action 90 --

100

2. 10 CFR 73.56(d)

Psychological Assessment T:sts 1500 75 3 4500 1500 225 225 1725 2,025 17,250 Ixterview 500 25 1 500 167 25 25 192 225 --

1,920 Riview and Action 1500 100 .5 750 250 50 50 300 450 --

3,000

3. 10 CFR 73.56(e)

Contenual Observation Program Employee Evaluations 1500 .5 750 750 750 6,750 39,000 7,500 Referals 3 5 15 15 15 135 780 150 Supervisor Training Program 1 320 320 107 107 Maintain 107 963 5,564 1,070 1 12 12 12 12 106 624 120

4. 10 CFR 73.56(f)

Reciprocity and Temporary Accsss Trantfer & Reinstatement 225 .3 675 675 675 6,075 Temporary Access 35,10C 6,750 1000 .5 500 500 500 4,500 26,000 5,000

5. 10 CFR 73.56(g)

Appesi-Grievance Establish-amend procedures 1 80 80 27 27 27 243 --

270 Infura Employees 1500 300 .1 150 50 30 80 80 720 --

800 Notice of Suspension 60 9 1 60 20 9 9 28 Pebuttal 81 --

280 60 9 1 60 20 9 9 28 Hearing 81 --

280 60 9 64 3840 1280 576 576 1856 5,184 Decision Motification 60 18,560 9 16 960 320 144 144 464 1,296 --

4,640 8Denot:5 sites not subject to "grandfathering" * *

• 2Denotts sites subject to "grandfathering"

~

I ___ _ _ _ _ __ _

b. Rec 7rdkeeping Rrquirements (Continued) - .

Pir Site Rasprndent Industry Rispondents Frequency Staff Hours Burden Hours Total Indusiry

• Regul'twry Section of Response Per Total Annual Annual Burden Hours

• 3 year One t.ine Annual Response One time Average Annual Site Burden Hours Exist'ng3 Existing 2 Future 6.

Existing future (9 sites) (52 sites) (10 sites) 10 CFR 73.56(h)

Protection of Information Privacy Protection Program 1 80 Infrom Employees 80 27 27 1500 300 27 245 1404 270 Audit 1 150 50 30 80 80 720 1 40 40 4160 800

+ 0ther burdens are included 40 40 360 2080 400 in previous sections.

7. 10 CFR 73.55(d)

Equipment test record 365 5 min 30 30 30 270 1560 30

?. 10 CFR 73.55 AccGss Authorization List 12 3 36 36 36 325 1872 360 Subtotal: 213 213 1918 11,076 1860 Total recordkeeping: 4,102 12,157 36,919 118,144 121,300 Recordkeeping Total Hours:

276,363 GRANO TOTAL i

'l1 Reporting Hours 19,750 Recordkeeping Hours Total Annual Industry Burden: 276.363 296,113 Denotis sites not subject to grandfathering Denot s sites subject to grandfathering.

I __

c. Estimat's Crst Requir+d te R:spond to the C4115ctirn Existing site Future Site Industry * ,-

1. Reporting Requirements $ 16,800 $ 16,020 $ 1,185,000

2. Rec 1rdkeeping Requirements 246,120 729,420 16,581,780 sm Total $ 262,920 $ 745.440 $ 17,766,780 l

• Industry cost consists of 61 existing sites and 10 future sites.

d. Sourcs of Burden Data and Method for Estimating Burden Number of burden hours x fully loaded salary at $60 per hour x site.

o. Re sonableness of Burden Estimates The burden estimates are derived from consultation with the regulated industry and staf f experience.

Cu t tw the Federal Government

a. Access Authorization Rule 10 CFR 50.34(h):

It is estimated that ten new sites will submit plans for review and approval within three years which will cost the NRC about $67.2K (14 staf f-days /

plan x 10 new plans x $480/ staff-day) to process and $58.6K (2 staff-days / plan x $480/ staff-day x 61 plans) to maintain.

10 CFR Part 73:

It is estimated that it will initially cost the NRC $409.9K (14 staff-days / plan x 480/ staff-days) to review and approve all submitted Access Authorization Plans and $187.2K additional inspection effort (preparation cf revised inspection procedures (0.5 man year) + additional inspection hours (1.0 man year).

It is estimated that the ten new sites will cost the NRC about $124.8K (1.0 man year efforts 9 124,800/ man years) for additional inspection efforts.

.. a-COST

SUMMARY

TABLE Subsequent

• NRC Initial Years Licensing Review $ 409.9K $ 125.8K Additional Inspection Effort $ 187.2K $ 124.8K Total $ 597.lK $ 250.6K ,

b. Se*rch Requirements Rule It is estimated that it will cost the NRC $58.6K (2 staff-days / plan x 61 plans x 480/ staff-days) to review and approve all submitted security plans.

It isstaf (2 estimated that ten f-days / plan x 10new sites plans willstaf x 480 submit plans for review and approval within three years which will cost the NRC about $9.6K to process f-day)

c. Miscellaneous Safeguards Related Amendments It is estimated security plans. that it will cost the NRC $234.2K (8 staf f-days / plan x 61 plans x 480 staf f-days) to review and approve all submitted revised It isstaff-days (8 estimated that xten

/ plan 10new sites plans will staff-day).

x 480/ submit plans for review and approval within three years which will cost the NRC about $38.4K to process

d. T*tti Cost: $ 1.188.5K e

i

HOV 13 1985 Dr. Lyle Bivens. Director Division of Basic Sciences flational , Institute of 11 ental !!ealth Department of Health and 11uman Services Roan 11103 Parklawn Building 5600 Fishers Lane Rockville,110 20857

Dear Dr. 81vens:

This is to acknowledge our Hovember 12, 1985 telephone conversation concerning your September 7,1984 connents on the Hucicar Regulatory Connission's (HRC) proposed Access Authorization Progran for nuclear power reactor licensees. He appreciate having had the opportunity to discuss these connents and your additional professional opinions with you.

As noted in our conversation, it was agreed that while no screening progran is 100 percent accurate, the measures proposed in the NRC's program (i.e., background investigation, psychological assessment, and behavioral observation) appear to constitute the best approach presently available (when pmperly administered) to detect emotional instability in an individual .

Your concerns on the use of psychological assessnent and beha/ioral observation are well taken. We agree that psyt:hological assessment cannot and should not be used as a predictive tool but that it is useful in assessing current emotional stability. As discussed in our conversation, it is believed your concerns are addressed in a number of ways in the supporting guidance for this perfomance-oriented regulation. He are sorry that the guidance was not available to you at the time of your review and cocnent on the proposed rule in 1984. As indicated to you, among other ,

things, this guidance recommends the use of both the flinnesota Itulti-Phasic Inventory (INPI) and the 16 Personality Factor (16PF) tests and includes a list of relevant criteria to be used as measures of behavioral unreliability in the nuclear work setting. Further, the guidance includes training and que.lification criteria reconoended for the selection of the professionals who interpret the assessment. These individuals are required to be qualified and, if applicable, state-licensed psychologists or psychiatrists. With respect to behavioral observation, your concerns regarding periodic training for supervisors to identify employee health and mental health problems are also accoccoJated in our supporting guidance. This guidance sets forth the objective of the program, stressing its nonpunitive nature, reconnends the develogient of an enployee assistance progran and calls for supervisor " awareness" training on an annual basis.

Enclosure 1

~ -

Based on our conversation as synopsized above, it is my impression that you are in general agreement that your concerns were addressed during our development of this orogram. Please feel free to contact me at (301)427-4018 if we have misstated any of your views. Once again, we l very nuch appreciate your vients on this natter.

l

- Sincerely, 1 "Oric itual Ligned by G. W. secorkle' George W.11cCorkle, Chief Safeguards Reactor and Transportation Licensing Branch Division of Safeguanis, itiSS l

l

+ . - . . ,

. -