[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 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#473423210729352469202831"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="89faedefc9e7fbeaa7eee6ff">[email protected]</span></a>.

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.<SUP>1</SUP> 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<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b88bf8d6cadb96dfd7ce"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6457240a16074a030b12">[email protected]</span></a>. For information about 
the interactive rulemaking site, contact Ms. Carol Gallagher, (301) 
415-5905; e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="47040600072935246920283169">[email protected]</a>

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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d2909881e3929c8091fc959d84">[email protected]</a>; 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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>