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

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