Frequency of Reviews and Audits for Emergency Preparedness Programs, Safeguards Contingency Plans, and Security Programs For Nuclear Power Reactors

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