[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 147 (Thursday, July 31, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40978-40982]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20191]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Parts 50 and 73
[PRM 50-59 and PRM 50-60]
RIN 3150-AF63
Frequency of Reviews and Audits for Emergency Preparedness
Programs, Safeguards Contingency Plans, and Security Programs For
Nuclear Power Reactors
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing to amend its
regulations to change the frequency of licensees' independent reviews
and audits of their emergency preparedness programs, safeguards
contingency plans, and security programs. This amendment is being
proposed in response to petitions for rulemaking submitted by Virginia
Power Company. Specifically, instead of conducting reviews every 12
months, as is currently required, the proposed amendment would require
nuclear power reactor licensees to conduct program reviews and audits
in response to program performance indicators, or after a significant
change in personnel, procedures, equipment, or facilities, but in no
case less frequently than every 24 months.
DATES: Submit comments October 14, 1997. Comments received after this
date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission
is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before
this date.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be sent to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Attention: Rulemakings and
Adjudications Staff.
Deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland,
between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays.
For information on submitting comments electronically, see the
discussion under Electronic Access in the Supplementary Information
Section.
Certain documents related to this rulemaking, including comments
received, may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L
Street NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC. These documents may also be
viewed and downloaded electronically via the Electronic Bulletin Board
established by NRC for this rulemaking as discussed under Electronic
Access in the Supplementary Information section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Sandra D. Frattali, Office of
Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-6261, e-mail
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On January 7, 1994, the Commission docketed a petition for
rulemaking from Virginia Power, dated December 30, 1993, (PRM-50-59) to
change the required audit frequency for safeguards contingency plans
and security programs at nuclear power reactors. On January 19, 1994,
the Commission docketed, as a separate petition for rulemaking (PRM-50-
60), Virginia Power's request that the NRC change the required audit
frequency for emergency preparedness programs at nuclear power reactor
facilities. NRC published these two petitions for public comment in the
Federal Register. PRM-50-59 was published on May 6, 1994 (59 FR 23641).
PRM 50-60 was published on April 13, 1994 (59 FR 17449).
The Commission's regulations currently require power reactor
licensees to conduct independent reviews and audits of each of these
programs at least every 12 months. Virginia Power requested that the
frequency be changed to nominally every 24 months. This rulemaking
addresses the issues raised in these petitions.
[[Page 40979]]
The Commission notes that although the petitioner uses the term
``audit,'' the emergency planning regulations use the term ``program
reviews.'' Further, the security program and safeguards contingency
plan regulations also use ``reviews.'' When describing what is required
by a ``review'' of the physical security plan, the regulations use the
term ``audits'' for some of the requirements. This rule change will
continue to use the term ``program reviews'' for the emergency
preparedness regulations and the safeguards contingency and security
regulations. The use of the term ``audit'' in the requirements for the
``reviews'' of the safeguards contingency and security plans remains
unchanged. The NRC understands that licensees have assumed that the
term ``audit'' in Appendix C to Part 73 means a quality assurance (QA)
audit that conforms to their normal audit program requirements and
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards such as ANSI
N45.2, ``Quality Assurance Programs for Nuclear Facilities;'' ANSI
N45.2.12, ``Requirements for Auditing of Quality Assurance Programs for
Nuclear Power Plants;'' ANSI N45.2.33, ``Qualifications of Quality
Assurance Program Audit Personnel for Nuclear Power Plants;'' and ANSI
N18.7, ``Administrative Controls and Quality Assurance for the
Operation Phase of Nuclear Power Plants.'' The NRC does not require
that these audits be performed by the QA organization in accordance
with the QA program commitments for the conduct of the audits. As
stated in the current rule, the NRC expects that these audits must be
conducted by individuals who are qualified (technically competent) in
the subject(s) being audited and are independent of the program (to
assure objectivity and no conflict of interest). At the licensee's
option, the QA organization may perform, lead, or assist in these
audits.
Along with the petitions for rulemaking related to security and
emergency preparedness, Virginia Power submitted a third petition (PRM-
26-1) to relax the existing audit (i.e. program review) frequency
required for fitness-for-duty (FFD). Issues related to the FFD petition
are being addressed in a separate NRC rulemaking.
Discussion
Requirements pertaining to the review frequency of safeguards
contingency plans by power reactor licensees are contained in
Sec. 50.54(p)(3) and in Appendix C to Part 73.1 Section
50.54(p)(3) requires that licensees provide for a review of the
safeguards contingency plan at least every 12 months by individuals who
are independent of both security program management and personnel who
have direct responsibility for implementation of the security program.
This 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 current records retention period for the results of
this review and audit in this section is 2 years. It is being changed
to 3 years to correspond to the retention period for the same records
in Appendix C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Note that this appendix is currently cited by both
Sec. 73.46, which applies to nuclear fuel licensees, and Sec. 73.55,
which applies to nuclear power reactor licensees. This rulemaking
applies only to nuclear power reactors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Appendix C to Part 73, the section entitled ``AUDIT AND REVIEW''
requires a review of the safeguards contingency plan at intervals not
to exceed 12 months. 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
results of this review and audit must be maintained for a period of 3
years.
Requirements for security program reviews are contained in
Sec. 73.55(g)(4). This section requires that the security program be
reviewed at least every 12 months by individuals independent of both
security program management and personnel who have direct
responsibility for the implementation of the security program. The
review must include an audit of the security procedures and practices,
an evaluation of the effectiveness of the physical protection system,
an audit of that system's testing and maintenance program, and an audit
of commitments established for response by local law enforcement
authorities. The results of this review and audit must be maintained
for a period of 3 years.
Requirements pertaining to the frequency of program reviews of the
emergency preparedness program by nuclear power reactor licensees are
contained in Sec. 50.54(t). This section requires that licensees
provide for a review of their emergency preparedness program at least
every 12 months by persons who have no direct responsibility for
implementation of the emergency preparedness program. The review must
include an evaluation for adequacy of interfaces with State and local
governments, as well as the adequacy of licensee drills, exercises,
capabilities, and procedures. The results of the review, along with
recommendations for improvement, must be documented, reported to the
licensee's corporate and plant management, and must be retained for a
period of 5 years.
The Virginia Power petitions requested that the regulations be
amended to change the frequency of the required audit (i.e. program
review) from at least every 12 months to nominally every 24 months with
additional audits if performance warranted. NRC has carefully reviewed
the arguments presented by the petitioner and the public comments that
were submitted on the petitions. The NRC is proposing to resolve the
petitions with regard to 10 CFR Part 50 licensees by initiating this
rulemaking. The proposed rule incorporates the petitions in part, and
modifies some petition requests in response to the public comments as
indicated in the following discussion.
Twenty-eight public comments resulted from the publication of the
petitions in the Federal Register. Of these, 9 comments concerned the
safeguards contingency plan and the security program, and 19 concerned
the emergency preparedness program.
All the comments on the security program were from the nuclear
industry and supported the petition. Of the 19 public comments on
emergency preparedness, 17 were from the nuclear power industry and
supported the petition. Two were from States, who expressed some
concern with lengthening the period between reviews. The States'
concern has been addressed in this proposed revision by clarifying that
more frequent, focused program reviews and audits may be required based
on an assessment of security or emergency preparedness by the licensee
against performance indicators, or after a significant change in
personnel, procedures, equipment, or facilities.
The NRC staff is proposing changing the regulations, which will
reduce the burden on the licensees without affecting public health and
safety, for the following reasons.
First, after these rules were first implemented, industry
performance improved to the point that annual program reviews and
audits are not necessary to ensure that the emergency preparedness
programs, safeguards contingency plans, or security programs are
adequate. Inspection findings and enforcement actions, licensee
[[Page 40980]]
performance during exercises and operational safeguards response
evaluation, and the systematic assessment of licensee performance
(SALP) evaluations indicate sufficient improvement to justify the
recommended reduction in audit burden. Furthermore, if a licensee's
program is in fact not performing properly, the proposed changes could
result in audits more frequently than every 24 months.
Second, the current requirements for annual reviews and audits
result in a lack of licensee flexibility, which can compromise the
completion of effective audits. Licensees are currently limited in
their ability to allocate audit resources according to safety needs and
priorities, because available resources and personnel must be committed
according to a set review and audit schedule, rather than used to
monitor or assess other areas of concern. In addition, licensees are
not always able to conduct reviews and audits at the same time as other
activities. Concurrent scheduling with activities such as separately
scheduled drills, inspections, or operational activities would permit a
better review and evaluation of plant systems. This can lead to reviews
and audits of little or marginal benefit, or the need to perform extra
reviews and audits to reconfirm that a program is still adequate after
there has been a change. It can also lead to auditing before corrective
actions are completed, when waiting a short time could allow the review
and audit to be done when the effectiveness of a corrective action can
be evaluated.
Third, the current requirements concerning review and audit
frequency are inconsistent with recent regulatory trends, which have
moved toward performance-based requirements that focus attention on
action to correct demonstrated weaknesses rather than schedule-driven
needs. By establishing performance-based criteria for triggering
reviews and audits, the NRC staff's resolution to PRM-50-59 and PRM-50-
60 would be consistent with recent recommendations of the NRC
Regulatory Review Group, the National Performance Review, and the
proposed amendments that were published in the Federal Register on May
9, 1996 (61 FR 21105), to resolve the FFD audit frequency petition for
rulemaking, PRM-26-1. This approach is intended to promote flexibility
and efficiency in nuclear facility operations while maintaining the
highest standards of public health and safety. Both NRC policy
directives and Congressional action emphasize the need for the
Commission to move toward performance-based regulations.
As a result, the NRC staff proposes to revise the regulations to
require that licensees conduct focused program reviews and audits as
needed, based on an assessment by the licensee against performance
indicators or in response to a significant change in personnel,
procedures, equipment, or facilities, and that all program elements are
reviewed and audited at least every 24 months. These changes are
consistent with the requested changes in the two petitions for
rulemaking (PRM 50-59 and PRM 50-60) and will promote performance-based
rather than compliance-based review and audit activities.
The proposed changes will further clarify that programs must be
reviewed and audited following a significant change in personnel,
procedures, or equipment as soon as reasonably practicable, but no
later than 12 months after the changes. The purpose of these focused
audits would be to ensure that changes have not adversely affected the
operation of the particular program element or function in question.
Accordingly, this proposed rule would better ensure that programmatic
problems will be detected and corrected on a timely basis and that
program reviews and audits are based on specific performance indicators
rather than on rigidly specified time limits.
It is anticipated that a regulatory guide may be necessary. The NRC
specifically requests public comments on suggested performance
indicators appropriate for the emergency preparedness and security
programs that would amplify the regulation.
Electronic Access
Comments may be submitted electronically, in either ASCII text or
WordPerfect format (version 5.1 or later), by calling the NRC
Electronic Bulletin Board (BBS) on FedWorld or connecting to the NRC
interactive rulemaking web site, ``Rulemaking Forum.'' The bulletin
board may be accessed using a personal computer, a modem, and one of
the commonly available communications software packages, or directly
via Internet. Background documents on the rulemaking are also
available, as practical, for downloading and viewing on the bulletin
board.
If using a personal computer and modem, the NRC rulemaking
subsystem on FedWorld can be accessed directly by dialing the toll free
number (800) 303-9672. Communication software indicators should be set
as follows: parity to none, data bits to 8, and stop bits to 1 (N,8,1).
Using ANSI or VT-100 terminal emulation, the NRC rulemaking subsystem
can then be accessed by selecting the ``Rules Menu'' option from the
``NRC Main Menu.'' Users will find the ``FedWorld Online User's
Guides'' particularly helpful. Many NRC subsystems and data bases also
have a ``Help/Information Center'' option that is tailored to the
particular subsystem.
The NRC subsystem on FedWorld can also be accessed by a direct dial
phone number for the main FedWorld BBS, (703) 321-3339, or by using
Telnet via Internet: fedworld.gov. If using (703) 321-3339 to contact
FedWorld, the NRC subsystem will be accessed from the main FedWorld
menu by selecting the ``Regulatory, Government Administration and State
Systems,'' then selecting ``Regulatory Information Mall.'' At that
point, a menu will be displayed that has an option ``U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission'' that will take you to the NRC Online main menu.
The NRC Online area also can be accessed directly by typing ``/go nrc''
at a FedWorld command line. If you access NRC from FedWorld's main
menu, you may return to FedWorld by selecting the ``Return to
FedWorld'' option from the NRC Online Main Menu. However, if you access
NRC at FedWorld by using NRC's toll-free number, you will have full
access to all NRC systems, but you will not have access to the main
FedWorld system.
If you contact FedWorld using Telnet, you will see the NRC area and
menus, including the Rules Menu. Although you will be able to download
documents and leave messages, you will not be able to write comments or
upload files (comments). If you contact FedWorld using FTP, all files
can be accessed and downloaded but uploads are not allowed; all you
will see is a list of files without descriptions (normal Gopher look).
An index file listing all files within a subdirectory, with
descriptions, is available. There is a 15-minute time limit for FTP
access.
Although FedWorld also can be accessed through the World Wide Web,
like FTP, that mode only provides access for downloading files and does
not display the NRC Rules Menu.
You may also access the NRC's interactive rulemaking web site
through the NRC home page (http://www.nrc.gov). This site provides the
same access as the FedWorld bulletin board, including the facility to
upload comments as files (any format), if your web browser supports
that function.
For more information on NRC bulletin boards call Mr. Arthur Davis,
Systems Integration and Development Branch, NRC, Washington, DC 20555-
0001,
[[Page 40981]]
telephone (301) 415-5780; e-mail AXD[email protected]. For information about
the interactive rulemaking site, contact Ms. Carol Gallagher, (301)
415-5905; e-mail [email protected].
Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion
The Commission has determined that this proposed rule is the type
of action described as a categorical exclusion in 10 CFR 51.22
(c)(3)(i). Therefore, neither an environmental impact statement nor an
environmental assessment has been prepared for this proposed rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
This proposed rule amends information collection requirements that
are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.). This rule has been submitted to the Office of Management and
Budget for review and approval of the paperwork requirements.
Because the rule will reduce existing information collection
requirements, the public burden for this collection of information is
expected to be decreased by approximately 275 hours per licensee per
year. This reduction includes the time required for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed and completing and reviewing the collection
of information. The NRC is seeking public comments on the potential
impact of the collection of information contained in the proposed rule
and on the following issues:
1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the
proper performance of the functions of the NRC, including whether the
information will have practical utility?
2. Is the estimate of the burden accurate?
3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of
the information to be collected?
4. How can the burden of the collection of information be
minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques?
Send comments on any aspect of this proposed collection of
information, including suggestions for further reducing the burden, to
the Information and Records Management Branch (T-6 F33), U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by Internet
electronic mail at [email protected]; and to the Desk Officer, Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-10202, (3150-0002), Office of
Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.
Comments to OMB on the collections of information or on the above
issues should be submitted by September 2, 1997. Comments received
after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but
assurance of consideration cannot be given to comments received after
this date.
Public Protection Notification
The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.
Regulatory Analysis
A discussion of each of the changes proposed in this rule is
provided above in the supplementary information section. The proposed
changes represent a potential cost savings for licensees because it is
anticipated that fewer reviews and audits will be necessary. Most
licensees include the safeguards contingency plan as part of the
physical security program and one audit and review covers both.
Information provided by licensees on the cost for conducting reviews
and audits of the licensee emergency preparedness and physical security
programs varies, but is estimated to cost approximately $15,000 per
annual review and audit, for a total for both audits of $30,000
annually. Each element of the program would be audited at least once
every 2 years. This would represent a potential maximum savings of 50
percent to licensees in the emergency preparedness and physical
security program audit costs, or an estimated $30,000 per licensee
every 2 years. The total cost savings to the industry would be
approximately $1.1M per year. Even if some elements of the programs
were audited more frequently, the cost to the licensee will likely be
less than auditing the entire program every year. Limited focused
audits that address significant problems or changes will cost about
$5,000 per year if they are needed. There is no additional cost
anticipated for collecting and analyzing program performance indicators
since most licensees already do so in some fashion.
Regulatory Flexibility Certification
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act OF 1980, 5 U.S.C.
605(b), the Commission certifies that this proposed rule, if adopted,
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. This proposed rule would affect only licensees
authorized to operate nuclear power reactors. These licensees do not
fall within the scope of the definition of ``small entities'' set forth
in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, or the Small Business Size Standards
set out in regulations issued by the Small Business Administration Act,
13 CFR Part 121.
Backfit Analysis
The Commission has determined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109,
does not apply to this proposed amendment because this amendment would
not impose new requirements on existing 10 CFR part 50 licensees. The
proposed changes would reduce the frequency with which licensees
conduct independent reviews and audits of their emergency preparedness
programs, safeguards contingency plans, and security programs. This
action does not seek to impose any new or increased requirements in
this area. It will be a decrease of burden on the licensee. No
backfitting is intended or approved in connection with this proposed
rule change. Therefore, a backfit analysis has not been prepared for
this amendment.
List of Subjects
10 CFR Part 50
Antitrust, Classified information, Criminal penalties, Fire
protection, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear power plants and
reactors, Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
10 CFR Part 73
Criminal penalties, Hazardous materials transportation, Export,
Import, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization
Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 553; the NRC is proposing to
adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR part 50 and 73.
PART 50--DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION
FACILITIES
1. The authority citation for part 50 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 102, 103, 104, 105, 161, 182, 183, 186, 189, 68
Stat. 936, 937, 938, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 234,
83 Stat. 1244, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201,
2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 2282); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88
Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846).
2. Section 50.54 is amended by revising paragraphs (p)(3) and (t)
to read as follows:
Sec. 50.54 Conditions of license.
* * * * *
[[Page 40982]]
(p) * * *
(3) The licensee shall provide for the development, revision,
implementation, and maintenance of its safeguards contingency plan by a
review, as necessary, based on an assessment by the licensee against
performance indicators, or as soon as reasonably practicable after a
significant change occurs in personnel, procedures, equipment, or
facilities, but no longer than 12 months after the change. The licensee
shall ensure that all program elements are reviewed at least every 24
months 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 3 years.
* * * * *
(t) The licensee shall provide for the development, revision,
implementation, and maintenance of its emergency preparedness program
by a review, as necessary, based on an assessment by the licensee
against performance indicators, or as soon as reasonably practicable
after a significant change occurs in personnel, procedures, equipment,
or facilities, but no longer than 12 months after the change. The
licensee shall ensure that all program elements are reviewed at least
every 24 months by persons who have no direct responsibility for the
implementation of the emergency preparedness program. The review shall
include an evaluation for adequacy of interfaces with State and local
governments and of licensee drills, exercises, capabilities, and
procedures. The results of the review, along with recommendations for
improvements, shall be documented, reported to the licensee's corporate
and plant management, and retained for a period of five years. The part
of the review involving the evaluation for adequacy of interface with
State and local governments shall be available to the appropriate State
and local governments.
* * * * *
PART 73--PHYSICAL PROTECTION OF PLANTS AND MATERIALS
3. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 53, 161, 68 Stat. 930, 948, as amended, sec.
147, 94 Stat. 780 (42 U.S.C. 2073, 2167, 2201); sec. 201, as
amended, 204, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1245, sec. 1701, 106 Stat.
2951, 2952, 2953 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5844, 2297(f)).
Section 73.1 also issued under secs. 135, 141, Pub. L. 97-425, 96
Stat. 2232, 2241 (42 U.S.C. 10155, 10161). Section 73.37(f) also issued
under sec. 301, Pub. L. 96-295, 94 Stat. 789 (42 U.S.C. 5841 note).
Section 73.57 is issued under sec. 606, Pub. L. 99-399, 100 Stat. 876
(42 U.S.C. 2169).
4. Section 73.55 is amended by revising paragraph (g)(4) to read as
follows:
Sec. 73.55 Requirements for physical protection of licensed activities
in nuclear power reactors against radiological sabotage.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(4) The licensee shall review the security program, as necessary,
based on an assessment by the licensee against performance indicators,
or as soon as reasonably practicable after a significant change occurs
in personnel, procedures, equipment, or facilities, but no longer than
12 months after the change. The licensee shall ensure that all program
elements are reviewed at least every 24 months by individuals who have
no direct responsibility for the 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 3 years.
* * * * *
5. Appendix C to Part 73, Licensee Safeguards Contingency Plans, is
amended by revising the section titled ``Audit and Review'' to read as
follows:
Appendix C to Part 73--Licensee Safeguards Contingency Plans.
* * * * *
Audit and Review
For nuclear facilities subject to the requirements of
Sec. 73.46, the licensee shall provide for a review of the
safeguards contingency plan at intervals not to exceed 12 months.
For nuclear power reactor licensees subject to the requirements of
Sec. 73.55, the licensee shall provide for a review of the
safeguards contingency plan, as necessary, based on an assessment by
the licensee against performance indicators, or as soon as
reasonably practicable after a significant change occurs in
personnel, procedures, equipment, or facilities, but no longer than
12 months after the change and shall ensure that all program
elements are reviewed at least every 24 months. A licensee subject
to either requirement shall ensure that the review of the safeguards
contingency plan is 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 3 years.
* * * * *
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day of July 1997.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Hugh L. Thompson, Jr.,
Acting Executive Director for Operations.
[FR Doc. 97-20191 Filed 7-30-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P