[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 87 (Friday, May 6, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-10917]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: May 6, 1994]
VOL. 59, NO. 87
Friday, May 6, 1994
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Parts 50 and 73
[Docket No. PRM-50-59]
Virginia Power; Filing of Petition for Rulemaking
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition for rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is publishing for public
comment a notice of receipt of petition for rulemaking dated December
30, 1993, which was filed with the Commission by Virginia Power. The
petition was assigned Docket No. PRM-50-59 on January 19, 1994. The
petitioner requests that the Commission amend its regulations to change
the frequency with which each licensee conducts independent reviews and
audits of its safeguards contingency plan and security program from
annually to biennially.
DATES: Submit comments July 20, 1994. Comments received after this date
will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of
consideration cannot be given except as to comments received on or
before this date.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch, Washington DC
20555. For a copy of the petition, write to the Rules Review Section,
Rules Review and Directives Branch, Division of Freedom of Information
and Publications Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael T. Lesar, Chief, Rules Review
Section, Rules Review and Directives Branch, Division of Freedom of
Information and Publications Services, Office of Administration, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Telephone: 301-
415-7163 or Toll Free: 800-368-5642.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Commission's regulations currently require that independent
reviews and audits of each licensee's safeguards contingency plan and
security program be conducted every 12 months by personnel who have no
direct responsibility for the subject areas.
The NRC is considering rulemaking in several program areas that
would modify audit requirements so that the frequency, scope, and depth
of auditing activities would be based on review of program performance
indicators but would not exceed a 36-month interval to accomplish an
audit of all program elements. Final NRC action on this petition would
be consistent with actions taken on modifications to other program
audit requirements.
Petitioner's Request
Virginia Power requests that the NRC amend its regulations in 10
CFR parts 50 and 73 to change the requirements that each licensee
provide for a review at least every 12 months (annually) of its
safeguards contingency plan and security programs to nominally every 24
months (biennially). The petitioner also requests that appendix C to 10
CFR part 73 be amended to change the requirement that each licensee
provide for a review and audit of its safeguards contingency plan at
intervals not to exceed 12 months to a frequency of 24 months.
The petitioner states that the proposed amendments would require
each licensee to conduct independent reviews and audits of its
safeguards contingency plan and security program at least biennially.
The petitioner states that the resources presently used for audits in
each area could be reallocated if justified by performance to address
more safety-significant concerns that might be identified. The
petitioner also states that the proposed audit frequency provides a
greater degree of flexibility in applying resources, thereby permitting
a licensee to implement a more performance-based audit program.
Grounds for Request
The petitioner states that the changes requested are identified as
present requirements that are resource intensive but of marginal
importance to safety. The petitioner offers the following reasons for
the request.
1. The underlying purpose of the requirements is to overview and
ensure effective implementation of security programs. Given the
available objective criteria that industry performance is
commendable in this area, aggressive overview activities do not seem
to be warranted. Resources, which previously would have been
strictly dedicated to the conduct of mandatory audits, could now be
more effectively used to address performance issues having safety
significance. Biennial audits are sufficient to provide an
acceptable, formal confirmation of security program implementation.
The underlying purpose of the existing requirement will continue to
be met by the proposed rule.
2. The current industry Systematic Assessment of Licensee
Performance (SALP) average for the security category is 1.27 as of
October 15, 1993. Clearly, this represents a commendable overall
performance in this area and supports the move to biennial audits
which can be supplemented as performance warrants. Based on the
overall industry SALP ratings concerning safeguards contingency plan
and security program effectiveness, Virginia Power concludes that
changing the audit frequency to two years will have no adverse
impact on implementation of the plan and program.
3. A two-year audit schedule would permit the licensee an
increased degree of flexibility to concentrate available audit
resources in areas of observed weakness based on performance rather
than conducting a mandatory annual audit of marginal safety
significance. Thus, personnel resources would be allowed to address
and resolve issues having greater safety significance.
4. Regulatory Guide 1.33, Quality Assurance Program Requirements
(Operation), prescribes a two-year audit frequency for most
operational phase activities commensurate with the activity's
operational safety significance. The proposed rule would be
consistent with this previously defined regulatory position and the
present safety significance as evidenced by industry performance.
5. The requirements to conduct annual audits are not of
themselves necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of 10 CFR
50.54(p) and 10 CFR part 73. Biennial audits are sufficient to
provide an acceptable formal confirmation of program effectiveness.
Supporting Information
The petitioner states that the regulations that require licensees
to implement safeguards contingency plans and security programs are
essential to ensure operation of the facilities in an environment free
from external threats. The petitioner notes that independent audits of
these programs are required to overview their effectiveness.
Furthermore, the petitioner believes that the frequency or extent of
overview of these plans and programs by mandatory audits is not
providing a commensurate performance in security programs. According to
the petitioner, safeguards contingency plans and security programs have
been in place in the industry for an extended period and that despite
recent reconsideration of the design basis threat, nuclear security is
otherwise being adequately addressed and implemented by the plans and
programs as they are presently configured. The petitioner believes that
a biennial audit frequency would more than adequately provide the
requisite feedback and assurance regarding the effectiveness of each
licensee's safeguards contingency plan and security program.
The petitioner further states that technological advancements and
applications have resulted in and will continue to generate
improvements to security equipment and facilities. The petitioner
asserts that industry-wide programmatic enhancements continue to be
made available to improve the effective utilization of security staff
as well as equipment and that the results of the improvements to
equipment and facilities and programmatic enhancements within nuclear
safeguards and security programs over the past decade have elevated
plan effectiveness throughout the industry. The petitioner notes that
the improvement is evidenced, in part, through the SALP program which
is used to assess security indicators.
Proposed Amendments to 10 CFR Part 50
The petitioner proposed that in Sec. 50.54, paragraph (p)(3) be
revised to read as follows:
Sec. 50.54 Conditions of licenses.
* * * * *
(p) * * *
(3) The licensee shall provide for the development, revision,
implementation, and maintenance of its safeguards contingency plan. To
this end, the licensee shall provide for a review nominally every 24
months of the safeguards contingency plan by individuals independent of
both security program management and personnel who have direct
responsibility for implementation of the security program. The review
must include a review and audit of safeguards contingency procedures
and practices, an audit of the security system testing and maintenance
program, and a test of the safeguards systems, along with commitments
established for response by local law enforcement authorities. The
results of the review and audit, along with recommendations for
improvements, must be documented, reported to the licensee's corporate
and plant management, and kept available at the plant for inspection
for a period of three years.
* * * * *
Proposed Amendments to 10 CFR Part 73
The petitioner proposes that in Sec. 73.55, paragraph (g)(4) be
revised to read as follows:
Sec. 73.55 Requirements for physical protection of licensed activities
in nuclear power reactors against radiological sabotage.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(4) The security program must be reviewed nominally every 24 months
by individuals independent of both security program management and
personnel who have direct responsibility for implementation of the
security program. The security program review must include an audit of
security procedures and practices, an evaluation of the effectiveness
of the physical protection system, an audit of the physical protection
system testing and maintenance program, and an audit of commitments
established for response by local law enforcement authorities. The
results and recommendations of the security program review,
management's findings on whether the security program is currently
effective, and any actions taken as a result of recommendations from
prior program reviews must be documented in a report to the licensee's
plant manager and to corporate management at least one level higher
than that having responsibility for the day-to-day plant operation.
These reports must be maintained in an auditable form, available for
inspection, for a period of three years.
* * * * *
The petitioner proposes that the text of appendix C to part 73
following the Audit and Review heading be revised to read as follows:
Appendix C--Licensee Safeguards Contingency Plans
* * * * *
Audit and Review
Nominally every 24 months, the licensee shall provide for a
review of the safeguards contingency plan by individuals independent
of both security program management and personnel who have direct
responsibility for implementation of the security program. The
review must include an audit of safeguards contingency procedures
and practices, and an audit of commitments established for response
by local law enforcement authorities. The licensee shall document
the results and the recommendations of the safeguards contingency
plan review, management findings on whether the safeguards
contingency plan is currently effective, and any actions taken as a
result of recommendations from prior reviews in a report to the
licensee's plant manager and to corporate management at least one
level higher than that having responsibility for the day-to-day
plant operation. The report must be maintained in an auditable form,
available for inspection for a period of three years.
Conclusion
The petitioner states that this petition for rulemaking merely
allows successful, existing functions to continue without formal review
at a frequency of nominally every two years rather than once per 12
months. The petitioner states that the annual audit frequency is not
necessary to ensure an adequate safeguards contingency plan and
security program, nor is it commensurate with present industry
performance in this area. Further, the petitioner states that it is not
required to support NRC evaluation of program adequacy.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day of May 1994.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John C. Hoyle,
Assistant Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 94-10917 Filed 5-5-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
