[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