ML20214M176
| ML20214M176 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/18/1986 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20214L519 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-86-470 NUDOCS 8609100565 | |
| Download: ML20214M176 (1) | |
Text
P J <
L. .
. FOR AFFIRMATION I WEDNESDAY, JUNE 18, 1986 ,
SUBJECT:
SECY-85-381 - INSIDER SAFEGUARDS RULES The Commission is being asked to act on final rules dealing with Search Requirements for entry at power reactor facilitids and Miscellaneous Safeguards Related Amendments including access controls, suspension of safeguards measures during emergencies, key and lock controls and protection of certain items of security equipment. , , ,
All Commissioners have approved the final rules on Search .
Requirements And the Miscellaneous Safegua'rds-Related Amendments.l .
1 k
, h -l
( W amuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission cc: Chairman Palladino Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Asselstine ,
Commissioner Bernthal Commissioner Zech OPE
~
OGC t
8609100565 860904 J~
R,DDINSOB6-470, PDR - )
..g.
L.l ,%.= _ _ , ;' -
3 ;_',. s ci - = i
IN RESFCNSE, PLEASE '
REFER TO: M860619c jf9s = < c"'* o* UNITED STATES
[ ,,.. 'g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W ASHINGTON,0.C. 20555 d g s
June 25, 1986
%, "s /. . . . . sf OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY MEMORANCCM FOR: Victcr Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations FROM: h " Samuel
%c, J. Chilk, Secretary L-
SUBJECT:
STAFF RECUIREMENTS - AFFIRMATION / DISCUSSION AND VOTE, 3:30 P.M., WEDNESDAY, JUNE 18, 1986, COM-MISSIONERS' CONFERENCE ROCM, D.C. OFFICE (OPEN TO PUBLIC ATTENDANCE)
I. SECY-85-391 - Insider Safeguards Rules The Commissicn, by a vote c f 5-0, has approved the staff's proposed rules en Search Pecuirerents and Miscellaneous Safeguards-Related Amendments.
The statements of consideration should be modified as suggested in the CGC memorandur to Chairman Palladino dated April 14, 1986, to state th7" the costs of the rule are justified by a substantial increase in safety and the justification of the conclusions. The rederal Register Notices'should be fcrwarded for signature and puclication and the appropriate public and Congressicnal anncuncements made.
(SECY) (SECY Suspense: 7/28/86)
Additionally, the Cer.ission, by a vote of 3-2 (with Commis-sioners Roberts, Bern:hal, and Zech agreeing), has disapproved issuire an Access Authcrt ation Rule in favor of a policy statement. The staff is directed to develop and submit for Commissicn approval, a policy statement, in ccoperation with NUMARC, *hich endorses the NUMARC Guidelines for Nuclear Power Plant Access Authorizaticn. The policy statetent should address the NUMARC corrieront for the licensees tc voluntarily incorporate the NUMAFC Guidelines as part of-their security plans. The policy sh:uld also recognize the NBC positicn that an appeal prccedure is an important element of this process.
Chairman Palladinc and Commissioner Asselstine approved issuance of the access authcrization rule and do not believe it shculd be a policy statement.
(EDO) (SECY Suspense: 10/30/E6) cc: Chairman Palladinc Commissioner ?ci:erts Commissioner Ar elstine Commissioner aar. thal Cornissicne: _ + . ,
Corr.issier S t r i f 'ffices PDR - Advance , j DCS - 016 Phill:.cs ( p[' -
> (, ,
o :1 ~ fl I 3 g,9, ; ' ] It hI N KMC, Inc.
M '
~-
- r ] 801 18TH 1,T AEET. N W N SUITE 300 l
WASHINGioN. O C 20006 (202) 293 4200
. t March 31, 1986
~ . _
~ . _ ;
~~1 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
SUBJECT:
Additional Comments to Commissioners on Proposed Access Authorization Program
Dear Sir:
The Commissioners currently have under consideration for possible vote a proposed Access Authorization Program for Nuclear Power Plants. The Physical Security Coordinating Group, con-sisting of 26 utilities, urges Commission consideration of these additional comments. The Group previously provided comments on the proposed rule in March of 1985.
Two possible options for this program are apparently de-scribed in SECY 85-381, the NRC staff paper currently before the Commissions one would be an NRC rule, the other would be a decision that all utilities should incorporate the NUMARC guidelines in their security plans. Although SECY 85-381 has not been publicly released, NRC staff testimony before the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards identified the options and .
indicated that they are very similar with one important exception
- the need for an NRC mandated and approved employee appeals process.
The purpose of this letter is to clarify for the Commission the Physical Security Coordinating Group's position on whether or not the proposed rule should be issued. We understand that SECY 85-381 indicates that the group favors issuance of the proposed rule. That conclusion was based upon our March 7, 1985 co=ments.
It does not, however, reflect our current position. Developments which have occurred since our comments were filed lead us to conclude that the proposed rule should not be issued.
Since March, 1985, NUMARC has completed the formulation of its guidelines and has obtained the commitment of all nuclear utilities to incorporate in their security plans access authori-Such incorpor-zation programs which meet the NUMARC guidelines.
ation would give the NRC enforcement authority over the access authorization program and would assure that changes in the pro- 1
!b)
. Eg 99
grams which might si prior NRC ap'roval p (gnificantly see 10 C.F.R. reduce
$50.54(p)).
their effectiveness receive This commitment by by the Commission of the NUMARC iinitiative,all by the Commission not e.,
nuclear utilities a determination to issue a final access authorization rule.
necessary With that the NUMARC initiative, no NRC rule is needed. Nor is it the Commission issue a policy statement. NUMARC's role will assure that all nuclear utilities adopt the guidelines.
With this background, we believe that the Commission will understand why the Physical Security Coordinating Group no longer supports the promulgation the issuance of a rule, of an access authorization rule. Without to deal with the legal issue of whether or not such action manthe Com -
dates the imposition of a Commission-required appeals process .
ment exists - based upon such recent Supreme Court de Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991 (1982) - the NUMARC initiative existing legal doctrines governing employeeTherelations. NRC allow should simply not become involved in these issues. The NUMARC initiative gives unnecessary the Commission the opportunity to avoid this entanglement.
We urge the Commission to accept the NUMARC approach on this issueendorse.
fully which we believe all nuclear utilities and industry groups Sincerely,
- a F- K - 4 .
Donald F. Knuth President 1
9 9
1 w -e.-w -.m - w-,- m .<,,y -- - - - - - ~ - - - -s---w p--m.~ --w w- v--p---r-~w--m n-' w --aam- --wm- e --
g
MAR 27 '88 7:04 PPL TOWER 1 PO2
/
% 8 Pennsylvania Power & Ught Company lj /N Two North Ninth Street
- Mentown, PA la101
- 215 / 77GS1$1 ~N March 27, 1986 v -
enfor Ice $ dent-Nucleat 215/T70-4194 l
.f
, . [.(fx \ I , [< ' m Mr. Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission
_' r <
g' Washington, DC 20555 i.~
Dear Mr. Palladino:
y This letter provides the Comission with additional infomation- ( '
regarding the access authorization issue. In the absence of an opportunity (
for NU'4 ARC to address the Comission regarding NUMARC's access authorization ip guidelines as a preferred alternative to the proposed access authorization rule, the attached detailed information is provided. This infomation is gd s consistent with what was presented by NUMARC to the ACRS on February 14, 1986.
As NUMARC discussed in its February 26, 1986 meeting with the Commission, the NUMARC guidelines on access authorization were developed through considerable discussions between the NLHARC Working Grpup on Security and the NRC Division of Safeguards. In these meetings, NRC personnel discussed the reasons for and the security value of various proposed rule requirements. Working Group personnel discussed those proposed rule and implementing regulatory guide provisions which were particularly impractical or difficult to implement. Both NUMARC and NRC personnel worked sincerely to agree on elements of an access authorization program which would provide the essential security festeres and could be reasonably implemented. As a consequence of this process, the resulting guidelines provide a superior approach to access authorization.
Through NUMARC, all nuclear utilities have comitted to revise their sticurity plans, as necessary, to meet or exceed all the elements of the NUMARC guidelines if the Comission accepts the guidelines in lieu of the rule. By so doing, the access authorization program for each utility would be subject to inspection and enforcement by the NRC. Also, the guidelines are strongly supported by EEI, AIF, and the KMC Physical Security Gro6p. On February 14, 1986, the guidelines were presented to the ACRS. Subsequently. ACRS endorsed the guidelines as preferable to the rule. Recently, the Office of Management and Budget issued a letter objecting to portions of the proposed rule and recomending that this matter be handled through an industry initiative.
A concern of the NRC's Office of the Executive Legal Director has been the need for an NRC recuired appeal process fcr those who are denied access authorization. NUMARC agrees that individuals who have been denied access authorization and who perceive that such denial may have infringed on their legal rights should have avenues of appeal. However, wo believe that appropriate appeal rechanisms currently are afforded through existing federal and state laws and that an additional appeal process is neither warranted nor '
[ h b ~
- - -- - __ ___ Dfu __ _
MAR 27 '86 7:05 PPL TOWER 1 P03 Mr. N. J. Palladino March 27, 1986 Page 2 required. Wc strongly object to the highly prescriptive and onerous appeal process preposed by the rule package.
The Comission is urged to approve the adoption of the NUMARC guidelines en access authorization in lieu of the rule. As is further
! detailed in the attachment to this letter, we not only believe that the guidelines are a far superior approach to access authorization, but also believe that the proposed rule package contains many significantly deficient and troublesome provisions. While the EUHARC guidelines and the rule share many coman elements, we believe the guidelines fulfill. the perfomance of those elemnts in a more flexible, less prescriptive, and more cost effective manner without sacrificing the quality that is contained in the spirit and intent of the access authorization program.
As already stated, there is overwhelming support for the NWARC guidelines. The staff has acknowledged the acceptability of the guidelines even thcugh it continues to prefer the rule for reasons'we believe are not particularly ccepelling. In our opinion, all substantive issues have been acceptably dispositioned. Consequently, we do not foresee a basis for the Commission to reject the NUMARC guidelines. It is emphasized that NWARC's guidelines are not in opposition to the NRC's regulatory responsibilities, but rather thay are a proposal to achieve a better program.
I would be pleased to meet individually with any of the Comissioners who desira clarification or amplification of NUMARC's position on access authorization, or NUMARC would be pleased to address the Comissicn.
Your careful consideration of this matter is appreciated.
cerel ,
ruce O Chairman, NWARC Working Group on Security BOK:sgf Attachment '
[bdk/dr7]
cc: Mr. James. K. Asselstine, NRC Mr. Frederick M. Bernthal, NRC Mr. Thomas M. Roberts, NRC Mr. 1.ando W. Zech, Jr., NRC Mr. Samuel J. Chilk, NRC Mr. Victor Stallo, Jr., NRC
MAR 27 '86 1. 7 : O S PPL TOWER l' PO4 Attachment to letter dated March 27, 1986 Page 1 of 5 NUMARC GUIDELINES VERSUS INSIDER RULE There are many important differences between the NUMARC proposed guidelines on access authorization and the staff's proposed insider rule. Our comments are grouped under the following headings: (1)Concernfor Individuals, (2) Correction of Significant Deficiencies, (3) Guideline ,
Requirements Which Exceed the Requirements of the Rule, (4) Cost / Benefit Considerations, and (5) Additional Provisions. These ecmparisons are based on the rule as published for cotment in August of 1984 and the NRC staff presentation to the ACRS on February 14, 1986. We have not been permitted to review the rule package as currently proposed to the Comissioners; however, based on the staff's presentation to the ACRS, we do not believe NUMARC's concerns with the rule package have been significantly mitigated.
- 1. Concern for Individuals The guidelines provide important considerations for individuals as follows:
) - (a) The guidelines are a consent based program. The permission of the individual seeking unescorted access is required prior to conducting a background investigation or psychologipal evaluation whereas the proposed rule does not require the individual's consent.
(b) The guidelines provide greater consideration for transient workers.
The rule. requires verifying all employment for the previous five !
years. Because many transient workers are unable to recall all cmployment over a five-year period, the guidelinos require
7:07 PPL TOWER l' P05 MAR 27 '86 )
1 March 27, 1986 Page 2 of 5 endeavoring to verify employment over the previous five years but accepting a verification of not less than three years.
(c) The guldelines minimize the potential undermining of employee assistance programs. The rule requires employees to report occurrences which may have a tearing on the individual's access authorization. In contrast, many utilities have employee assistance programs which include a requirement that if an employee seeks help through the program, the program administrators are prohibited from We are very reporting the employee's problems to company managemant.
concerned that the "self incrimination" requirement of the rule will cause many employees not to seek help rather than report their probisms to management. Accordingly, the guidelines limit self Other reporting to any arrests which may impact on trustworthiness.
matters which may affect behavior or judgement in the work environment are subject to reporting by supervisors under other provisions of the Continual Behavior Observation Program.
2, Correction of Significant Deficiencies In our opinion, the proposed rule package contains or fails to address certain provisions which are serious deficiencies. The guidelines correct these deficiencies in a manner which is acceptable to the NRC Division of Safeguards as follows:
(a) It is essential that licensees have a reasonable capability to grant temporary clearances to craft or vendor technicd1 personnel on relatively short notice in order to support plant outages and equipment repairs. The guidelines provide a viable temporary clearance process whereas the rule allows a interim clearance which is virtually useless as a means to grant workers unescorted access on short notice.
e 0
MAR 27 '86 '7:08 PPL TOWER l' pos March 27, 1986 Page 3 of 5 (b) The guidelines provide latitude for transient workers as described in 1(b) whereas the rule does not.
(c) By limiting the self reporting provision as discussed in 1(c), the guidelines minimize the potential undermining of employee assistance programs.
(d) The guidelines permit grandfathering all individuals who have a valid access authorization at the time the guidelines are effective whereas the rule limits grandfathering to personnel previously cleared under an industry standard program, presumably ANSI 18.17 or ANS 3.3.
Consoquently, the rule would require the rescreening of many individuals who have had access authorization without any problems l and which may have been previously approved by the NRC staff in the licensee's security plan.
- 3. Guideline Reautrements Which Exceed the Requirements of the Rule In developing the guidelines, we believe it was appropriate to exceed the i
rule requirements in certain areas. These are as follows:
(a) The rule requires verifying all education within a five-year retrospective period whereas the guidelines additionally require verifying the highest level of post high school education obtained, regardless of how long ago.
l (b) The guidelines require'two listed references as well as the two developed references required by the rule.
' (c) Both the rule and the guidelines require an annual evaluation of contractor programs in support of access authorization and, in addition, the guidelines require an independent evaluation of the utility program every two years.
l
-* - - -,,.-__,m.. - , _ , , _ . - . - , - - . .-
, . - . , , - , - - - , --r__- ,--.y.,-..-- v- - - - , .w--_,., - - . - - - - . - , , , . . . - , , -
'86 1.7:09 IC PO7 s
March 27, 1986 Page 4 of 5
- 4. Cost / Benefit Considerations In out opinion, certain proposed requirements or their specified implementation are particularly difficult to achieve and are of marginal security value which does not justify the associated cost. Accordingly, the guidelines contain the following modifications to rule requirements which, for purposes of the guidelines, have been accepted by the NRC Division of Safeguards:
(a) It is not necessary to verify claimed employment of less than 30 days or older than 5 years.
(b) A time consuming military records check is not required if (1) no military service is claimed or (2) if the military service was longer than 5 years ago.
(c) Only one psychological test backed up by a clinical evaluation, if necessary, is required.
- 5. Additional Provisions The guidelines contain additional provisions which are not addressed in the proposed rule package and which are necessary to facilitate the implementation of access authorization requirements as follows:
l (a) The guidelines pemit a utiitty to reinstate unescorted access l authorization if it was previously terminated urider favorable circumstances within the previous 365 days.
l (b) The guidelines provide corrmon criteria for the auditing of contractors utilized in support of the access authorization program. l This provides for and promotes the sharing of audit results so as to greatly reduce or eliminate dupitcative audits.
l l
l l -
- l
. . _ . . _ - - _ - . _ - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . . - - - _. - . J
MAR,27 '86 17:10 PPL TOWER l' P08 March 27, 1986 -
Page 5 of 5 (c) The guidelines permit the transferring of all valid clearances (excludingtemporary)byseveralmeansincludingelectronic'whereas the rule limits the transferring of clearances for non-licensee employees and only by m'eans of document transfer. Consequently, the guidelines are supportive of and facilitate the Nuclear Employee Data System (NEOS), !
3/27/86 (bdk/dr5]
j 9
O i
I *
%. anog o UNITED STATES
!' 'n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{.o .$ ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%4 $g February 19, 1986 Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino Chairman U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555
Dear Dr. Palladinn:
SUBJECT:
ACRS COMMENTS ON PROPOSED INSIDER SAFEGUARDS PROVISIONS 1
During its 310th meeting, February 13-15, 1986, the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards was briefed by the NRC Staff on the subject of the Insider Safeguards Rules proposed by the Staff, and by industry representatives (NUMARC, in particular), on the Guidelines, which utility executives were said to prefer, for achieving a similar purpose. The general subject of Insider Safeguards' provisions was also discussed during our 281st meeting, August 31-September 1,1983, and reported on in our letter of September 6, 1983. Some of these matters were reviewed again in a meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Safeguards and Security on January 7',1986.
Three separate, though related, items are included in the Staff proposed Insider Safeguards Rules: the item concerning Access Authoritation, the iten concerning Search Requirerents, and some Miscellaneous Safeguards-Related Amendments. In our letter of September 6,1983, we generally approved of the provisions being considered; these provisions have not changed greatly in the meantime. The following comments are addressed only to the Access Authori-zation Item.
l Recently a so-called "NUMARC initiative" has been develoned; it is the l consensus of the nuclear utilities that the proposed NUMARC Guidelines are a preferable alternative to the issuance of a rule by the Commission. It appears that the sort of screening required in connection with an individual being authorized for unescorted access to vital areas of a plant would be very similar under the two proposals. The major differences brought to our attention were (1) the specific provision for an " appeals process" provided in the Staff's Rule to be available in the event that authorization for unescorted access were refused, and (2) the auestion of whether and how compliance should be ensured in the absence of a rule. Subiect to resolution of these differences, the Staf f has acknowledged that the irdustry proposal represents an acceptable option. ,
With respect to the first of these, we were informed (but have not been able to confirm) that an appeals process would be a necessary nrovision in the context of a federally (NPC) imposed requirement, but not in the context of 1
- . e.. .
Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino February 19, 1986 practices voluntarily adopted by private employers. In the latter case, all existing regulations providing protection against discrimination, violation of civil rights, and so forth, would continue to apply. In addition, persons currently employed in the security forces of the utilities go through essen-tially the same screening, and no special appeals process is considered necessary on that account; some licensees already follow similar practices with other than security force employees.
With respect to the second of the above matters (ensuring compliance), on the assumption that the utilities commit to adding the screening procedures to their security plans, we suppose it would be possible to inspect for com- !
pliance and prnceed much as in the case of any other licensee comitment. )
In addition, the specific matter of "grandfathering" access authorization would appear to deserve further consideration and definition by the utilities and the Staff.
In our opinion, the industry-proposed approach is to be preferred, at least on a trial basis, with the option of following later with a rule in the event that should seem necessary. This process could be initiated on the basis of a Policy Statement issued by the Comission.
Sincerely yours, e .
David A. Ward Chairman
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . __.__