[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 59 (Monday, March 29, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14814-14818]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-7597]



[[Page 14814]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Parts 50 and 73

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: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its 
regulations to allow nuclear power reactor licensees the option to 
change the frequency of licensees' independent reviews and audits of 
their emergency preparedness programs, safeguards contingency plans, 
and security programs. The amendment allows nuclear power reactor 
licensees to elect to conduct program reviews and audits either at 
intervals not to exceed 12 months as is currently required, or as 
necessary, based on an assessment by the licensee against performance 
indicators, and as soon as reasonably practicable after a change occurs 
in personnel, procedures, equipment, or facilities that potentially 
could adversely affect the emergency preparedness program, the 
safeguards contingency plan, and security program, but no longer than 
12 months after the change. In any case, each element of the emergency 
preparedness program, the safeguards contingency plan, and the security 
program must be reviewed at least every 24 months. This action will 
reduce the regulatory burden on licensees without compromising public 
health and safety.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 28, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Sandra D. Frattali, Office of 
Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-3703, e-mail 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On July 31, 1997 (62 FR 40978), the NRC published a proposed rule 
in the Federal Register to amend the NRC's regulations for the 
frequency of program reviews and audits for emergency preparedness 
programs, safeguards contingency plans, and security programs at 
nuclear power reactors. This rulemaking was developed in response to 
two petitions for rulemaking submitted by Virginia Power Company, PRM 
50-59 and PRM 50-60. These petitions were published for public comment 
by the NRC in the Federal Register (59 FR 23641; April 13, 1994, and 59 
FR 17449; May 6, 1994, respectively). This final rule grants the 
petitioner's request in each of these petitions with some additional 
qualifications and conditions. This final rule completes NRC action on 
PRM-50-59 and PRM-50-60.
    As written, the proposed rule would have required all 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. Although the proposed rule was a reduction in the 
burden on the power reactor licensees, the requirements might have 
constituted a backfit for some licensees as they would be required to 
make procedural changes and possibly take other actions. Therefore, the 
final rule has been modified to allow the licensees the option of 
continuing to use the current regulations and thus a backfit analysis 
is not required for this proposed action.
    The following sections of 10 CFR Parts 50 and 73 are amended by 
this rulemaking: requirements pertaining to the review frequency of 
safeguards contingency plans by power reactor licensees contained in 
Sec. 50.54(p)(3) and in Appendix C to Part 73; 1 
requirements for security program reviews contained in 
Sec. 73.55(g)(4); and requirements pertaining to the frequency of 
program reviews of the emergency preparedness program by nuclear power 
reactor licensees contained in Sec. 50.54(t).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Comments

    Ten public comments were received, one from an Agreement State, one 
from a utility industry group, and eight from licensees. The only 
comment that did not support the rulemaking was from the State of 
Illinois, the Agreement State. The utility group supported the rule 
with comments. Of the eight licensee commenters that supported the 
rulemaking, two supported the rulemaking with no additional comments, 
three supported the rulemaking with additional comments, one supported 
the industry group's comments and two supported the industry group's 
comments with additional comments. The NRC had specifically requested 
public comments on performance indicators appropriate for the emergency 
preparedness and security programs that would amplify the regulation. 
Three of the industry commenters responded to this request, but only 
one suggested specific performance indicators.
    Copies of the letters are available for public inspection and 
copying for a fee at the Commission's Public Document Room, located at 
2120 L Street, NW (Lower Level), Washington, DC.
    The public comments were grouped and are discussed below.

Comment Resolution

Performance Indicators

    Performance indicators are used by nuclear operating organizations 
to provide a quantitative indication of plant performance. A 
performance indicator is a parameter derived from plant performance 
data that can be correlated with individual plant regulatory and safety 
performance. Licensees typically utilize performance indicators to gain 
additional perspective on plant activities and to provide an indication 
of the possible need to adjust priorities and resources to achieve 
improved overall performance. Performance indicators as related to this 
rulemaking refer to numerical parameters generally derived from 
quantitative data to monitor the performance and gain insight to the 
effectiveness of the emergency preparedness and security programs.
    Performance indicators are usually derived from data in a way that 
provides measurement of success in a summary fashion. Some examples of 
performance indicators for emergency preparedness are:
     Emergency response facility availability,
     Completeness of emergency preparedness duty roster 
personnel training,
     Quality of response to declared plant emergencies,
     Timeliness of corrective action closure,
     Measure of state and local interface, and
     Percentage of drill objectives successfully demonstrated.
    Some examples of performance indicators for physical security 
programs (including safeguards contingency plans) are:
     Exercise and drill performance
     Instances of unescorted access granted incorrectly,
     Instances of uncompensated degradation of security 
equipment,
     Compensatory hours expended due to equipment failures,

[[Page 14815]]

     Test failures involving security equipment,
     False/nuisance alarm rates, and
     Nature, frequency, and type of equipment failures.
    Performance indicators are generally intended to monitor success in 
performing an activity relative to a success level identified as 
acceptable. For a performance indicator to be meaningful a level of 
acceptable success is identified. This may be based on historical 
success levels, common industry success levels, design parameters, 
management expectations, improvement goals, or other such bases. 
Performance that is indicated as being below the acceptable success 
level would indicate the need for a program review or audit of the 
affected area.
    The proposed rule specifically requested suggestions for 
performance indicators. Only one commenter replied directly with 
suggestions for emergency preparedness indicators. This commenter also 
indicated that the performance indicators for security would be 
difficult to manage and an industry consensus would be extremely 
difficult to reach on this issue. The commenter noted that some 
performance indicators for security are tracked differently between 
plants or not at all. One commenter wanted performance standards or 
measurements to be defined and approved in industry guidelines. One 
commenter wanted each utility to be allowed to develop its own 
performance indicators. The industry group stated its interest in 
developing industry guidance for this new approach. Because of the 
licensees' experience in implementing and performing self-assessment of 
their programs, the NRC has decided that at this time it will be the 
responsibility of the individual utilities to define their own 
performance indicators. Industry development of performance indicators 
is to be encouraged.
    Additional information concerning performance indicators is 
included in the Inspection and Enforcement section.

Audit Frequency

    The State of Illinois commented that the current requirement for 
annual emergency preparedness audits 2 does not constitute 
an excessive burden, especially when offsite agencies must certify 
annually that their emergency preparedness plan meets NUREG-0654 Rev.1/
FEMA-REP-1, ``Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological 
Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power 
Plants,'' 3 and that a review every 24 months is not 
sufficiently frequent to ensure that all the multiple and complex 
aspects of an emergency preparedness plan remain current. Another 
commenter believed that specifying any maximum frequency is not 
necessary but, if one is specified, it should be defined in an industry 
developed standard. Another commenter specifically stated that 
performance-based testing to correct demonstrated weaknesses is 
significantly better than schedule-driven audits but did not object to 
the 24-month requirement. The other commenters agreed with the rule as 
written.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Although the commenter used the term ``audits,'' the term 
used in the emergency planning regulations is ``reviews.''
    \3\ Available from the National Technical Information Service, 
Springfield, VA 22161.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The comments of the State of Illinois in response to the original 
publication of the petitions were the same as the State's comments in 
response to the proposed rulemaking. In each comment, Illinois 
expressed concern with lengthening the period between reviews. This 
concern was addressed 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 change in licensee personnel, procedures, 
equipment, or facilities that potentially could adversely affect 
emergency preparedness or security. Although some commenters believed 
that there should be no maximum audit period specified, most commenters 
had no problem with the proposed frequency of not less than 24 months. 
The final rule retains this specified frequency.

Audit Procedures

    One commenter said that the rule would add an additional layer of 
requirements, especially in security. This commenter wanted to 
eliminate the requirement to audit 4 in response to a 
significant change in personnel, procedures, equipment, or facilities. 
The commenter also wanted a clear specification in the rule that the 
audit frequency should be altered only after the licensee has 
determined that a significant change has occurred. The rule change has 
been made an additional voluntary option. The licensee has the option 
to maintain the current review intervals, which does not add an 
additional layer of requirements. Alternatively, under the new option, 
it is the licensee who determines when a review is necessary, and the 
rule language has been changed to replace the phrase ``significant 
change in personnel, procedures equipment or facilities'' with ``a 
change in personnel, procedures, equipment or facilities, that 
potentially could adversely affect emergency preparedness or 
security.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See footnote 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter wanted to eliminate all the requirements for audits. 
One commenter wanted clear and standard criteria for emergency 
preparedness audits. One commenter wanted the level of independence 
required for reviewers and the qualifications of the persons conducting 
the reviews to be clarified. Finally, one commenter observed that the 
review of performance should be against the emergency plan.
    If the licensee chooses to maintain the current rule intervals, 
there is no additional layer of requirements. The final rule adds a 
voluntary option. If the licensee chooses to implement it, it relaxes 
the existing requirement for frequency of audits, and provides decision 
criteria for determining when focused audits need to be conducted, but 
makes no changes in how those audits and reviews are conducted.

Definitions and Clarifications

    There were a few requests from commenters to define the terms 
``significant,'' ``significant change,'' ``as necessary,'' and 
``reasonably practical.'' The terms ``significant'' and ``significant 
change'' in the rule language have been replaced with the words ``a 
change that potentially could adversely affect emergency preparedness 
or security.'' The term ``as necessary'' is a function of the nature of 
the change. The scope and depth of the review would be expected to vary 
with the change. Thus, judgment will need to be exercised in making the 
decisions. Similarly, ``reasonably practicable'' is a function of the 
significance of the change and needs to be factored into the scope and 
depth of review. Other changes in the rule language from the proposed 
rule were editorial in nature to make the rule language more 
understandable.
    Another commenter observed that the NRC should use the terms 
``review'' and ``audit'' consistently. The Commission notes that the 
emergency planning regulations use the term ``program reviews,'' and 
the security program and safeguards contingency plan regulations also 
use ``reviews.'' When describing the requirements for a ``review'' of 
the physical security plan, the regulations use the term ``audits'' for 
some of the requirements. These amendments do not change the use of any 
of these terms from the previous text of the rule, and are consistent 
with other NRC regulatory usage of these terms.

[[Page 14816]]

    The NRC does not require that the reviews and audits addressed in 
this rulemaking be performed by the QA organization in accordance with 
the QA program commitments for the conduct of the audits. The NRC 
expects these audits to be conducted by individuals who are qualified 
(technically competent) in the subjects being audited and are 
independent of the program to ensure objectivity and no conflict of 
interest. At the licensee's option, the QA organization may perform, 
lead, or assist in these audits.

Regulatory Action

    The public comments have been considered as discussed above, and 
the final rule amendment is promulgated as a voluntary option, with 
changes made to the proposed rule language to clarify the requirements 
and address public comments. One comment, that the NRC should implement 
performance-based regulations across the full spectrum of emergency 
preparedness and security requirements, is beyond the scope of this 
rulemaking. These revisions are consistent with those requested 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.

Inspection and Enforcement

    This rulemaking revises the regulations to allow licensees the 
option to conduct focused program reviews and audits of their emergency 
preparedness programs, safeguards contingency plans, and security 
programs as needed, either based on an assessment by the licensee 
against performance indicators or in response to a change in personnel, 
procedures, equipment, or facilities, that potentially could adversely 
affect emergency preparedness or security, and it requires in any case 
that all program elements be reviewed and audited at least every 24 
months. The focused program reviews by the licensees following changes 
in licensee personnel, procedures, or equipment that potentially could 
adversely affect emergency preparedness or security are to be performed 
as soon as reasonably practicable, but no later than 12 months after 
the changes. Inspection procedures will be changed to reflect the 
revised rule. The NRC will review the performance indicators developed 
by licensees choosing this option and observe whether and to what 
extent these performance indicators are assisting licensees in 
conducting their program reviews. The NRC will use this experience to 
determine if specific and additional guidance should be developed.
    The Commission recognizes that licensees will need to exercise 
judgement in light of the nature of the variety of changes that may 
occur and the difficulty of defining in advance, except in general 
terms, the threshold of changes that potentially could adversely affect 
emergency preparedness and security. Accordingly, where the licensee 
has made a good faith effort in making the judgements needed to comply 
with this rule, the staff intends not to make citations unless the 
licensee's actions were clearly unreasonable. In the absence of 
willfulness, these violations are expected to be Severity Level IV 
violations.

Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion

    The Commission has determined that this final 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 final rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

    This final rule amends information collection requirements that are 
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq.). These requirements were approved by the Office of Management and 
Budget, approval numbers 3150-0002 and 3150-0011.
    If the licensee chooses the option of focused reviews and audits as 
the final rule allows, the public burden for this information 
collection 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 
information collection.
    Send comments on any aspect of this information collection, 
including suggestions for further reducing the burden, to the Records 
Management Branch (T-6 F 33), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by Internet electronic mail at 
BJS[email protected]; and to the Desk Officer, Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-10202, (3150-0002, -0011), Office of 
Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.

Public Protection Notification

    If an information collection does not display a currently valid OMB 
control number, the NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 
required to respond to, the information collection.

Regulatory Analysis

    This rulemaking revises the regulations to allow licensees to 
conduct program reviews and audits of their emergency preparedness 
programs, safeguards contingency plans, and security programs either:
    (i) At intervals not to exceed 12 months as is currently required, 
or
    (ii) As necessary, based on an assessment by the licensee against 
performance indicators, and as soon as reasonably practicable after a 
change occurs in personnel, procedures, equipment, or facilities that 
potentially could adversely affect the emergency preparedness program, 
the safeguards contingency plan, and the security program, but no 
longer than 12 months after the change. In any case, each element of 
the emergency preparedness program, the safeguards contingency plan, 
and the security program must be reviewed at least every 24 months .
    The optional changes, if elected by the licensee, represent a 
potential cost savings 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 (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 or audit, for a total of 
$30,000 annually for both audits (reviews). Each element of the program 
is audited (reviewed) at least once every 24 months. The potential 
maximum savings of 50 percent to licensees in the emergency 
preparedness and physical security program audit costs is an estimated 
$30,000 per licensee every 24 months. The total cost savings to the 
industry is approximately $1.1M per year. Even if some elements of the 
programs are audited more frequently, the cost to the licensee will 
likely be less than auditing the entire program every year. Limited 
focused audits that address changes in personnel, procedures, 
equipment, or facilities, that potentially could adversely affect 
emergency preparedness or security, 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.

[[Page 14817]]

Regulatory Flexibility Certification

    As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the 
Commission certifies that this final rule does not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final 
rule affects only licensees authorized to operate nuclear power 
reactors. These licensees do not fall within the scope of the 
definition of ``small entities'' under the size standards developed by 
the NRC and codified in 10 CFR 2.810.

Backfit Analysis

    In the proposed rule, the NRC took the position that the backfit 
rule, 10 CFR 50.109, did not apply because it did not propose new 
requirements on existing 10 CFR Part 50 licensees except to reduce the 
frequency with which licensees conduct independent reviews and audits 
of their emergency preparedness programs, safeguards contingency plans, 
and security programs. Since this action did not impose any new or 
increased requirements in this area, no backfit was intended or 
approved in connection with this rule change. Therefore, a backfit 
analysis was not prepared for this amendment. However, upon further 
review, the NRC has concluded that there is an insufficient basis to 
support the original position. Some licensees may not have performance 
indicators and may find it necessary to develop them. In such a case a 
backfit analysis would be required. Therefore, the final rule has been 
revised so that the changes are an additional voluntary option and 
power reactor licensees may elect to continue to follow the current 
requirements. Making the new requirements optional obviates the need 
for a backfit analysis for this proposed action.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    In accordance with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996, the NRC has determined that this action is not a 
``major rule'' and has verified this determination with the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget.

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 
record keeping requirements.

10 CFR Part 73

    Criminal penalties, Hazardous materials transportation, Export, 
Import, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Reporting 
and record keeping 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 adopting the 
following amendments to 10 CFR Parts 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).
    Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L. 95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 
2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851). Section 50.10 also issued under secs. 101, 
185, 68 Stat. 955 as amended (42 U.S.C. 2131, 2235), sec. 102, Pub. 
L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.13, 50.54(dd), 
and 50.103 also issued under sec. 108, 68 Stat. 939, as amended (42 
U.S.C. 2138). Sections 50.23, 50.35, 50.55, and 50.56 also issued 
under sec. 185, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2235). Sections 50.33a, 
50.55a and Appendix Q also issued under sec. 102, Pub. L. 91-190, 83 
Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.34 and 50.54 also issued 
under sec. 204, 88 Stat. 1245 (42 U.S.C. 5844). Section 50.37 also 
issued under E.O. 12829, 3 CFR 1993 Comp., p. 570; E.O. 12958, as 
amended, 3 CFR, 1995 Comp., p. 333; E.O. 12968, 3 CFR 1995 Comp., p. 
391. Sections 50.58, 50.91, and 50.92 also issued under Pub. L. 97-
415, 96 Stat. 2073 (42 U.S.C. 2239). Section 50.78 also issued under 
sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152). Sections 50.80--50.81 also 
issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). 
Appendix F also issued under sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C 2237).

    2. Section 50.54 is amended by revising paragraphs (p)(3) and (t), 
and adding (p)(4) to read as follows:


Sec. 50.54  Conditions of license.

* * * * *
    (p) * * *
    (3) The licensee shall provide for the development, revision, 
implementation, and maintenance of its safeguards contingency plan. The 
licensee shall ensure that all program elements are reviewed by 
individuals independent of both security program management and 
personnel who have direct responsibility for implementation of the 
security program either:
    (i) At intervals not to exceed 12 months, or
    (ii) As necessary, based on an assessment by the licensee against 
performance indicators, and as soon as reasonably practicable after a 
change occurs in personnel, procedures, equipment, or facilities that 
potentially could adversely affect security, but no longer than 12 
months after the change. In any case, all elements of the safeguards 
contingency plan must be reviewed at least once every 24 months.
    (4) 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)(1) The licensee shall provide for the development, revision, 
implementation, and maintenance of its emergency preparedness program. 
The licensee shall ensure that all program elements are reviewed by 
persons who have no direct responsibility for the implementation of the 
emergency preparedness program either:
    (i) At intervals not to exceed 12 months or,
    (ii) As necessary, based on an assessment by the licensee against 
performance indicators, and as soon as reasonably practicable after a 
change occurs in personnel, procedures, equipment, or facilities that 
potentially could adversely affect emergency preparedness, but no 
longer than 12 months after the change. In any case, all elements of 
the emergency preparedness program must be reviewed at least once every 
24 months.
    (2) The review must 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, must be documented, 
reported to the licensee's corporate and plant management, and retained 
for a

[[Page 14818]]

period of 5 years. The part of the review involving the evaluation for 
adequacy of interface with State and local governments must 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)(1) The licensee shall review implementation of the security 
program by individuals who have no direct responsibility for the 
security program either:
    (i) At intervals not to exceed 12 months, or
    (ii) As necessary, based on an assessment by the licensee against 
performance indicators and as soon as reasonably practicable after a 
change occurs in personnel, procedures, equipment, or facilities that 
potentially could adversely affect security but no longer than 12 
months after the change. In any case, each element of the security 
program must be reviewed at least every 24 months.
    (2) 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 10 CFR 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--License Safeguards Contingency Plans

* * * * *

Audit and Review

    (1) 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 either:
    (i) At intervals not to exceed 12 months, or
    (ii) As necessary, based on an assessment by the licensee 
against performance indicators, and as soon as reasonably 
practicable after a change occurs in personnel, procedures, 
equipment, or facilities that potentially could adversely affect 
security, but no longer than 12 months after the change. In any 
case, each element of the safeguards contingency plan must be 
reviewed at least every 24 months.
    (2) A licensee subject to the requirements of either Sec. 73.46 
or Sec. 73.55 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.
    (3) 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 9th day of March, 1999.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
William D. Travers,
Executive Director for Operations.
[FR Doc. 99-7597 Filed 3-26-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P