ML20205L019

Final Rule 10CFR50 & 73, Frequency of Reviews & Audits for Emergency Preparedness Programs,Safeguards Contingency Plans & Security Programs for Nuclear Power Reactors

ML20205L019
Person / Time
Issue date:	03/29/1999
From:	NRC
To:
References
FRN-64FR14814, RULE-PR-50, RULE-PR-73 NUDOCS 9904140092
Download: ML20205L019 (5)

Text

14814 Federal Register /Vol. 64, No. 59/ Monday, March 29,1999/ Rules and Regulations NUCLEAR REGULATORY PRM 50-59 and PRM 50L-60. These on performance indicators appropriate COMMISSION petitions were published for public for the emergency preparedness and comment by the NRC in the Federal security programs that would amplify 10 CFR Parte 50 and 73 Register (59 FR 23641 April 13,1994, the regulation. Three of the industry RIN 3150-AF63 and 59 FR 17449; May 6,1994, commenters responded to this request, respectively). This final rule grants the but only one suggested specific Frequency of Reviews and Audite for Petitioner's request in each of these performance indicators.

Emergency Preparedneae Programe, Petitions with some additional copies of the letters are available for Safeguarde Contingency Plane, and qualifications and conditions. This final public inspection and copying for a fee Security Programe for Nuclear Power rule completes NRC action on PRM at the Commission's Public Document Reactore 59 and PRM-50-60. Room, located at 2120 L Street, NW As written, the proposed rule would (Lower Level), Washington, DC.

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory have required all power reactor The public comments were grouped Commission. licensees to conduct program reviews and are discussed below.

ACTION: Final rule. and audits in response to program performance indicators or after a Comment Resolution 30MMARY:The Nuclear Regulatory significant change in persoanel, Commission (NRC)is amending its PerformanceIndicators procedures, equipment, or facilities, but regulations to allow nuclear power in no case less frequently than every 24 Performance indicators are used by reactor licensees the option to change months. Although the proposed rule nuclear operating organizations to the frequency of licensees' independent was a reduction in the burden on the Provide a quantitative indication of reviews and audits of their emergency power reactor licensees, the Pl ant performance. A performance preparedness programs, safeguards requirements might have constituted a indicator is a parameter derived from contingency plans, and security backfit for some licensees as they would Pl ant performance data that can be programs. The amendment allows be required to make procedural changes correlated with individual plant nuclear power reactor licensees to elect and possibly take other actions. regulatory and safety performance.

to conduct program reviewi and audits Therefore, the final rule has been Licensees typically utilize performance either at intervals not to exceed 12 modified to allow the licensees the indicators to gain additional perspective months as is currently required, or as option of continuing to use the current on plant activities and to provide an necessary, based on an assessment by regulations and thus a backfit analysis is indication of the possible need to adjust the licensee against performance not required for this proposed action. Pnorities and resources to achieve indicators, and as soon as reasonably The following sections of to CFR improved overall performance.

practicable after a change occurs in Parts 50 and 73 are amended by this Performance indicators as related to this personnel, procedures, equipment, or rulemaking: requirements pertaining to rulemaking refer to numerical facilities that potentially could the review frequency of safeguards parameters ga terally derived from adversely affect the emergency contingency plans by power reactor quantitative data to monitor the preparedness program, the safeguards licensees contained in 6 50.54(p)(3) and Performance and gain insight to the contingency plan, and security program, in Appendix C to Part 73;' requirements effectiveness of the emergency but no longer than 12 months after the for security program reviews contained preparedness and security programs.

change. In any case, each element of the in S 73.55(g)(4); and requirements Performance indicators are usually emergency preparedness program, the Pertaining to the frequency of program denved from data m a way that provides safeguards contingency plan, and the reviews of the emergency preparedness measurement of success in a summary s'ocurity program must be reviewed at Program by nuclear power reactor fashion. Some examples of performance least every 24 months. This action will licensees contained in 5 50.54(t). indicators for emergency preparedness reduce the re latory burden on Public Comments lic ees out compromising public Ten public co nments were received, avalla i$ity,  !

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 28,1999, one from an Agrcement State, one from . Completeness of emergency h,['/

a utility industry p up, and eight from preparedness duty roster personnel FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. licensees. The c. u ,mment that did training, Sandra D. Frattali, Office of Nuclear not support the ruk .iaking was from . Quality of response to declared yO3 i

Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear the State of1111noit, the Agreement plant emergencies, Regulatory Commission Washington, State. The utility group supported the . Timeliness of corrective action DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415- rule with comments. Of the eight closure, 3703, e-mail sdf@nte. gov, licensee commenters that supported the . Measure of state and localinterface, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: rulemaking, two supported the and rulemaking with no additional . Percenta Background comments, three supported the successfully he of drill objectives emonstrated.

On July 31,1997 (62 FR 40978), the rulemaking with additional comments, Some examples of performance NRC published a proposed rule in the one supported the industry group's indicators for physical security Federal Register to amend the NRC's comments and two supported the programs (including safeguards regulations for the frequency of program industry group's comments with contingency plans) are:

reviews and audits for emergency additional comments. The NRC had . Exercise and drill performance preparedness programs, safeguards specifically requested public comments . Instances of unescorted access contingency plans, and security granted incorrectly, programs at nuclear power reactors. i Note that this appendix is currently cit.d by . Instances of uncompensated This rulemaking was developed in (,hM*,8gfCA*3PPj'*g,ppN,j"'Indear degradation of security equipment, response to two petitions for rulemaking po.., re.ctor tic.n . This rulemahng applies

• Compensatory hours expended due submitted by Virginia Power Company, unty to nuct.ar power reactors. to equi ment failures, 41 092 990329

~

[Y'f Q )d/ q X g _4 gyc) 5 64FR14814 PDR ICG f g - q g7 g gp

Federal Register /Vol. 64, No. 59/ Monday, March 29,1999/ Rules and Regulations 14815

• Test failures involving security and Preparedness in Supp rt of Nuclear language has been changed to replace equipment, Power Plants,") and that a review every the phrase "significant change in

• False / nuisance alarm rates, and 24 months is not sufficiently frequent to personnel, procedures equipment or

• Nature, frequency, and type of ensure that all the multiple and f cilities" with "a change in personnel, equipment failures. complex aspects of an emergency procedures, equipment or facilities, that Performance indicators are generally preparedness plan remain cunent. potentially could adversaly afhet intended to monitor success in Another commenter believed that emergency preparedness or security."

performing an activity relative to a specifying any maximum frequency is One commenter wanted to eliminate success level identified as acceptable. not necessary but, if one is specified, it all the requirements for audits. One For a performance indicator to be should be defined in an industry commenter wanted clear and standard meaningful a level of acceptable success developed standard. Another criteria for emergency preparedness is identified. This may be based on commenter specifically stated that audits. One commenter wanted the level historical success levels, common performance-based testing to correct ofindependence required for reviewers industry success levels, design demonstrated weaknesses is and the qualifications of the persons parameters, management expectations, significantly better than schedule-driven conducting the reviews to be clarified.

Improvement goals, or other such bases. audits but did not object to the 24 Finally, one commenter observed that Performance that is indicated as being month requiren.ent. The o+ber the review of performance should be below the acceptable success level commenters agreed with the rule as against the emergency plan.

would indicate the need for a program written. If the licensee chooses to maintain the review or audit of the affected uea. The comments of the State of filinois current rule intervals, there is no The proposed rule specifically in response to the original publication additional layer of requirements. The requested suggestions for performance of the petitions were the same as the final rule adds a voluntary option. If the indicators. Only one commenter replied State's comments in response to the licensee chooses to implement it, it directly with suggestions for emergency proposed rulemaking. In each comment, relaxes the existing requirement for preparedness indicators. This It'inois expressed concern with frequency of audits, and provides commenter also indicated that the leichening the period between reviews. decision criteria for determining when performance indicators for security This concern was addressed by focused audits need to be conducted, would be difficult to manage and an clarifying that more frequent, focused but makes no changes in how those industry consensus would be extremely program reviews and audits may be audits and reviews are conducted.

difficult to reach on this issue. The required, based on an assessment of commenter noted that some security or emergency preparedness by Definitions and Clarifications performance indicators for security are the licensee against performance There were a few requests from ,

tracked differently between plants or indicators or after a change in licensee co,mmenters to define the terms not at all. One commenter wanted personnel, procedures, equipment, or "significant," "significant change," "a-performance standards or measurements facilities that potentially could necessary," and " reasonably practical."

to be defined and approved in industry adversely affect emergency The terms sagt.ificant" and "significant guidelines. One commenter wanted preparedness or security. Although change" in the rule language have been each utility to be allowed to develop its some commenters believed that there replaced with the words "a change that own performance indicators. The should be no maximum audit period potentially could adversely affect industry group stated its interest in specified, most commenters had no emergency preparedness or security, developing industry guidance for this problem with the pro The term "as necessary' is a function of

, new approach. Because of the licensees

• not less than 24 monthosed s. The finalfrequency rule of the nature of the change. The scope and experience in implementing and retains this specified frequency. depth of the review would be expected performing self-assessment of their to vary with the change. Thus, judgment Audit Procedures will need to be exercised in making the programs, the NRC has decided that at this time it will be the responsibility of One commenter said that the rule decisions. Similarly, " reasonably would add an additionallayer of practicable"is a function of the the individual utilities to define their significance of the change and needs to own performance indicators. Industry requirements, especially in security.

development of performance indicators This commenter wanted to eliminate the be factored into the scope and depth of ed requirement to audit 4 in response to a review Other changes in the rule isAdditional to be encouraform.

in ation concerning significant change in personnel, language from the proposed rule were performance indicators is included in Procedures, equipment, or facilities. The editorialin nature to make the rule the Inspection and Enforcement section. commenter also wanted a clear language more understandahe.

specification in the rule that the audit Another commenter observed that the Audit frequency frequency should be altered only after NRC should use the terms " review" and The State ofIllinois commented that the licen>ee has determined that a " audit" consistently. The Commission the current requirement for annual significant change has orsurred. The notes that the emergency planning emergency preparedness audits 2 does rule change has been made an regulations use the term " program not constitute an excessive burden, additional voluntary option. The reviews," and the security program and especially when offsite agencies must licensee has the option to maintain the safeguards contingency plan regulations certify annually that their emergency current review intervals, which does not als use " reviews.' When desenbing tha preparedness plan meets NUREG-0654 add an additional layer of requirements. requirements for a " review" of the Rev.1/ FEMA-REP-1," Criteria for Alternatively, under the new option, it physical security plan, the regulations Preparation and Evaluation of is the licensee who determines when a use the term " audits" for some of the Radiological Emergency Response Plans review is necessary, and the rule requirements. These amendments do not change the use of any of these terms

Although the commenter used the term ' As allable fium the National Technical from the previous text of the rule, and are consistent with other NRC

~

amhts. ' tho esim used m the emerg,w plannmg ininematmn Serm Spnngfield VA 22161.

rnulatianus "rmews? 'see rootnuw 2. regulatory usage of these terms.

-_.-__w

14816 Register /Vol. 64, No. 59/ Monday, March 29,1999/ Rules and Regulations The NRC does not require that the additional guidance should be sponsor, and a person is not required to reviews and audits addressed in this develo ed. respond to, the information collection.

rulemaking be performed by the QA The ommission recognizes that Regulatory Analysis orgsnization in accordance with the QA licensees will need to exercise p am commitments for the conduct judgement in light of the nature of the This rulemaking revises the o e audits. The NRC expects these variety of chan es that may occur and the diffi :ulty o defining in advance, ' 8ul 11 1 audits to be conducted by individuals conduct p rm ve an audits of who are qualified (technically except .n general terms, the threshold of their emergency preparedness programs, competent) in the subjects being audited changes that potentially could adversely safeguards contingency plans, and and are independent of the program to affect emergen paredness and security programs either:

ensure objectivity and no conflict of security. Accor i y, where the inttrest. At the licensee's option, the QA licensee has made a good faith effort in (1) At intervals not to exceed 12 months as is currently required, or organization may perform, lead, or assist making the judgements needed to la these audits. comply with this rule, the staffintends (ii) As necessary, based on an l

n t to make citations unless the assessment by the licensee against Regulatory Action licensee s actions were clearly performance indicators, and as soon as The public comments have been unreasonable. In the absence of reasonably practicable after a change considered as discussed above, and the willfulness, these violations are occurs in personnel, procedures, final rule amendment is promulgated as expected to be Severity LevelIV equipment, or facilities that potentially a voluntary option, with changes made violations- could adversely affect the emergency to the proposed rule language to clarify Enrironmental Impact: Categorical Preparodness pmgram, the safeguards ths requirements and address public Exclusion contingency plan, and the security comments. One comment, that the NRC . program, but no longer than 12 months should implement perfonnance-based &Mthat bgmM re8ulations across the full spectrum of

[h Commissi n has deterr ined element ithe emergency preparedness described as a categohcal exclusion in emergency preparedness and security to CFR 51.22(c)(3)(I ). Therefore, neither Program, the safeguards contingency requirements,is beyond the scope of Pl an, and the security program must be this rulemaking. These revisions are an envimnmental impact statement nor reviewed at least every 24 months -

an envimamental assessment a n consistent with those requested in tha The optional changes,if elected by Prepared for this final rule.

two petitions for rulemakip (PRM 50,. the licensee, represent a potential cost 59 and PRM 50-60) and wil promote Paperwork Reduction Act Statement savings because it is anticipated that performance-based rather than s na ru e amen s in nuation fewer reviews and audits will be compliance-based review and audit collection requirements that are sub}ect necessary. Most licensees include the a g es.

to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 safeguards contingency plan as part of Inspection and Enforcement (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). These the physical security program, and one requirements were approved b the audit (review) covers both. Information 2"$d *[e'a")fk"k*fei audits of their emergency preparedness 3i "i $ l'""~2*~O enI'25o- L~n'A'c't ns rU'Ie"'

if ti.e licensee chooses the option of li en8ee emer8en Y Preparedness and physical security programs vanes, but is programs, safeguards contingency plans. focused reviews and audits as the final estimated to cost approximately $15,000 and security programs as needed, either rule allows, the public burden for this Per annual review or audit, for a total based on an assessment by the licensee information collection is expected to be i530,000 annually for both audits rg: inst performance indicators or in decreased by approximately 275 hours0.00318 days <br />0.0764 hours <br />4.546958e-4 weeks <br />1.046375e-4 months <br /> (reviews). Each element of the program response to a change in personnel- per licensee per year. This reduction is audited (reviewed) at least once every procedures, eq ment, or facilities, that includes the time required for reviewing 24 months. The potential maximum potzntially cou adversely affect instructions, searchin existing data savings of 50 percent to licensees in the emrrgency preparedness or security. sources, athenng an maintaining the emergency preparedness and physical and it requires in any case that all data nee ed and completing and security program audit costs is an program elements be reviewed and reviewing the information collection.

audited at least every 24 months.The t of this estimated $30,000 per liceasee every 24 Send comments on any as information collection, incl ding months. The total cost savings to the focused program reviews by the licensees following changes in licensee su estions for further reducing the industry is approximately $1.1M per b den, to the Records Management year. Even if some elements of the personnel, procedures, or equi ment Branch (T.-6 F 33), U.S. Nuclear Pmgrams are audited more frequently, th:t potentially could adversel affect the cost to the licensee will likely be emtrgency preparedness or security are Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by Internet less than auditing the entire program to be performed as soon as reasonably practicable, but no later than 12 months electronic mail at B)St@nrc. gov; and to every year. Limited focused audits that aftrr the changes. Inspection procedures the Desk Officer, Office of Information address changes in personnel, will be changed to reflect the revised and Regulatory Affairs.NEOB-10202, Procedures, equ ment, or facilities, that rule.The NRC will review the (3150-0002,-0011) Office of Potentially coul adversely affect performance indicators developed by Management and Budget, Washington, emergency preparedness or security, licensees choosing this option and DC 20503.

will cost about 55,000 per year if they observe whether and to what extent are needed. There is no additional cost Public Protection Notification anticipated for collecting and analyzing these performance indicators are assisting licensees in conducting their if an information collection does not program performance indicators since program reviews. The NRC will use this display a currently valid OMB control most licensees already do so in some

,xpsrience to determine if specific and number, the NRC may not conduct or fashion.

Fed:rzl Registzr/Vol. 64, No. 59/ Monday, March 29,1999/ Rules and Regulations 14817 Regulatory Flexibility Certification Reporting and record keeping reviewed by individuals independent of r quirements, both security program management and As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act,5 U.S.C. 605(b). the m CFR rart 73 {, ,];'bil ty f ri pl entation of the Commission certifies that this final rule Criminal penalties. Hazardous security program either:

does not have a sigmficant economic materials transportation, Export, hnport. (i) At intervals not to exceed 12 impr.ct on a substantial number of small Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants * " 3"' #

entities. This final rule affects only and reactors, Reporting and record licensees authorized to operate nuclear (ii) As necessary, based on an keeping requirements, Security power reactors. These licensees do not assessment by the licensee against measures.

fall within the scope of the definition of Performance indicators, and as soon as For the reasons set out i.a the reasonsibly practicable after a change "small entities" under the size stzndards developed by the NRC and Preamble and under the authority of the occurs in personnel, procedures, codified in 10 CFR 2.810. At mi Energy Act of1954,as amended; equipment, or facilities that potentially the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 could adversely affect security, but no Backfit Analysis as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 553; the NRC' longer than 12 months after the change.

In the proposed rule, the,NRC took 8 ' 8 In a y ase, all plem ts of the

$ *10 P s5 73- safeguards contmgency plan must be the position that the backfit rule,10 CFR 50.109, did not apply because it did not PART 50-DOMESTIC LICENSING OF reviewed at least once every 24 months.

pmpose new requirements on existing PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION (4) The review must include a review ,

10 CFR Part 50 licensees except to FACluTIES and audit of safeguards contingency reduce the frequency with which procedures and practices, an audit of licensees conduct independent reviews 1. The authority citation for Part 50 the security system testing and and audits of their emergency c ntinues to read as follows: maintenance program, and a test of the preparedness programs, safeguards Authortty: Secs. 102.103,104,105,181, safeguards systems along with contingency plans, and security 182.183.186.189. 68 Stat. 936,937,938, commitments established for response programs. Since this action did not 948. 953,954,955,956, as amended, sec. by local law enforcement authorities.

234,83 Stat.1244 as amended (42 U.S.C The results of the review and audit.

Impose any new or increased requirements in this area, no backfit was 2132.2133.2134.2135.2201.2232.2233 along with recommendations for j' intended or approved in connection impr vements, must be documented.  ;

with this rule change. Therefore, a

$'$'h2S a \24Issa nd d.124 . reported to the licensee's corporate and 1246 (42 U.S.C 5841,5842,5846).

backfit analysis was not prepared for Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L. 95- Pl ant management, and kept available at this amendment. Ilowever, upon further Sol, sec. lo. 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C 5851). the plant for inspection for a penod of review, the NRC has concluded that Section 50.10 also issued under secs.101, 3 years, there is an insufficient basis to support 1a5. 68 stat 955 as emended (42 U.S.C. 2131. * * * *

• the original position. Some licensees 2235). sec.102. Pub. L.91-190. 83 Stat. 853 (t)(1) The licensee shall provide for may not have performance indicators (42 U.S.C 4332). Sections so.13. 50.54(dd). g ,, g g' s"'d und' s a. 68 end may find it necessary to develop, {d 50103

,, 9, 9 ,, a ded ,US 2 g)_ implementation,'and maintenance ofits ,

them. In such a case a backfit analysis Sections 50.23. 50.35. 50.55, and 50.56 also emergency preparedness param. The would be required. Thecefore, the final issued under sec.185. 68 Stat. 955142 U.S.C. licensee shall ensure that ea program rule has been revised so that the 2235) Sections so.33a.50.55a and Appendix elements are reviewed by persons who

. chtnges are an additional voluntary Q also issued under sec.102. Pub. L.91-190. have no direct responsibility for the l Option and power reactor licensees may 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C 4332). Sections 50.34 implementation of the emergency slect to continue to follow the current and 50 54 also issued under sec. 204,88 Stat- preparedness program either: I requirements. Making the new 1245 (42 U S.C 5844). Section 50.37 als (i) At intervals not to exceed 12 requirements optional obviates the need 'ssued under E.O. 12829. 3 CFR 1993 Comp.,

P. 570. E.O.12958, as amended. 3 CFR 1995 months or, for a backfit analysis for this proposed Comp.. p 333: E.O.12968. 3 CFR 1995 (ii) As necessary, based on an d a- Comp.. p. 391 Sections 50.58, 50.91. and assessment by the licenseo against Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 50 92 also issued under Pub L 97-415.96 performance indicators, and as soon as Feirness Act Stat. 2073 (42 U.S C 2239). Section 50.78 reasonably practicable after a change also issued under sec.122,68 Stat. 939 (42 occurs in Personnel, Procedures, In accordance with the Small U.S C 2152). Section 50.80-50.81 also usued under sec 184. 68 Stat. 954. as equipment, or facilities that potentially Business Regulatory Enforcement could adversely affect emergency Fairnrss Act of 1996, the NRC has amended (42 U.S.C 2234). Appendix F also issued under sec.187.68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C Preparedness, but no longer than 12 dittrmined that this action is not a m nths after the change. In any case, all 2237). ,

" major rule" and has verified this elements of the emergency preparedness determination with the Office of 2. Section 50.54 is amended by revising paragraphs (p)(3) and (t), and Program must be reviewed t east once ,

Information and Regulatory Affairs. every 24 mon s.

Office of Management and Budget. adding (p)(4) to read as follows:

(2) The review must include an Iist of Subjects $ 50.54 Conditlena of license. evaluation for adequacy of interfaces '

• * * *

• with State and local governments and of -

to CFR Port 50 (p) * *

• licensee drills. exercises, capabilities, Antitrust, Classified information. (3) The licensee shall provide for the and procedures. The results of the Criminal penalties. Fire protection, development, revision, implementation. review, along with recommendations for Intergovernmental relations. Nuclear and maintenance ofits safeguards improvements. must be documented, I

power plants and reactors. Radiation contingency plan. The licensee shall reported to the licensee's corporate and protection. Reactor siting criteria, ensure that all program elements are plant management, and retained for a 1

l

14818 Federal Register /Vol. 64, No. 59/ Monday, March 29,1999/Rulzs and Replations period of 5 years. The part of the review to the licensee's plant manager and to involving the evaluation for adequacy of co orate management at least one level interface with State and local hi er than that having responsibility 8overnments must be available to the fo the day-to-day plant operation.

appropriate State and local These reports must be maintained in an governments. auditable foam, available for inspection, e * * *

• for a period of 3 yearr.

PART 73-PHYSICAL PROTECTION OF PM AND MATERIALS 5. Appendix C to 10 CPR Part 73 Licensee Safeguards Contingency Plans,

3. The authority citation for Part 73 is amended by revising the section titled continues to read as follows: " Audit and Review" to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 53,161. 68 Stat. 930,948* A lx C to Part 73-License as amended sec.147,94 Stat. 780 (42 U.S.C 2073,2167,2201); sec. 201, as amended. 204, Conting Plans 88 Stat.1242, as amended,1245, sec.1701, * * * *

• 106 Stat. 2951,2952,2953 (42 U.S.C 5841' Audit and Review 5844,2297(f)l.

Section 73.1 also issued under secs.135 (1) For nuclear facilities subject to the 141, Pub. L 97-425,96 Stat. 2232,2241 (42 requirements of 6 73.46, the licensee shall U.S.C 10155,10161). Section 73.37(f) also provide for a review of the safeguards issued under sec. 301, Pub. L 96-295,94 contingency plan at intervals not to exceed Stat. 789 (42 U.S.C 5841 note). Section 73.57 12 months. For nuclear power reactor is issued under sec. 606 Pub. L 99-399.100 licensees subject to the requirements of Stat. 876 (42 U.S.C. 2169)* 5 73.55, the licensee shall provide for a

4. Section 73.55 is amended by review of the safeguards contingency plan ys paragraph (g)(4) to read as *ity)# ( t intervals not to exceed 12 months, or (ii) As necessary, based on an assessment 9 73.56 .W _ i for physical by the licensee against performance protection of liconeed activitise in nuclear indicators, and as soon as reasonably power reactore against M ; - - practicable sher a change occurs in amisetage personnel, procedures, equipment, or e e e a e facilities that potentially could adversely (g) e e e affect security, but no longer than 12 months after the change. In any case, each element (4)(1) The licensee shall review implementation of the security program of the safeguards contingency plan must be reviewed at least every 24 months.

by individuals who have no direct (2) A licensee subject to the requirements sponsibility for the security program re.g of either $ 73.46 or 6 73.55 shall ensure that the review of the safeguards contingency (i) t intervals not to exceed 12 plan is by individuals independent of both security program management and personnel (ii) As necessary, based on an who have direct responsibility for assessment by the licensee against implementation of the security program. The performance indicators and as soon as review must include an audit'of safeguards reasonably practicable after a change conungency procedures and practices, and occurs in personnel, procedures, an audit of commitments established for equipment, or facilities that potentially response by local law enforcement could adversely affect security but no authorities longer than 12 months after the change. 13) The licensee shall document the results In any case, each element of the security and the recommendations of the safeguards program must be reviewed at least every contingency plan review, management 24 months, findings on whether the safeguards (2)The security program review must contingency plan is currently effxtive. and include an audit of security procedures any actions taken as a result of recommendations from prior reviews in a and practices, an evaluation of the

'ePort to the licensee's plant manager and to effectiveness of the physical protection L rPorate management at least one level system, an audit of the physical

' higher than that having responsibility for the Protection sIstem testinE and day-to. day plant operation.The report must maintenance pr, gram, and an audit of be maintiined in an auditable form. available commitments established for response for inspection for a period of 3 3 ears.

by local law enforcement authorities. Dated at Rockville. Maryland, this 9th day The results and recommendations of the of March,1999.

security program review, rnanagement's For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, findings on whether the security Willi'* E TNS-program is currently effective, and any actions taken as a result of 1%ecutwe Director for Operohons recommendations from prior program (FR Doc. 90-7597 Filed 3-26-99; 8:45 aml reviews must be documented in a report sicuwo coot nee-ei e 1

l l

t i

o Paper Federal Recyding Program l

.