[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)] [Notices] [Page 0] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 94-27127] [[Page Unknown]] [Federal Register: November 2, 1994] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Proposed Generic Letter Reconsideration of Nuclear Power Plant Security Requirements for an Internal Threat AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of opportunity of public comment. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to issue a generic letter to notify all holders of operating licenses or construction permits for nuclear power reactors that NRC is reconsidering its positions about certain security measures to protect against an internal threat at nuclear power plants. NRC expects recipients to review the information for applicability to their facilities and consider actions, as appropriate. However, suggestions contained in this draft generic letter are not NRC requirements; therefore, recipients are not required to take specific action or make a written response to the NRC. NRC is seeking comment from interested parties regarding both the technical and regulatory aspects of the proposed generic letter presented herein. NRC will consider comments received from interested parties in the final evaluation of the proposed generic letter and will review the technical position and, when appropriate, analyze the value/impact on licensees. If NRC issues this generic letter, it will become available for public inspection in the Public Document Rooms. The comment period expires December 2, 1994. Comments submitted after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except for comments received on or before this date. ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to Chief, Rules Review and Directives Branch, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Written comments may also be delivered to 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., Federal workdays. Copies of written comments received may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert F. Skelton, (301) 504-3208. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NRC Generic Letter XXXX: Reconsideration of Nuclear Power Plant Requirements Associated With an Internal Threat. Addressees All holders of operating licenses or construction permits for nuclear power reactors. Purpose The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing this generic letter to notify you that it is reconsidering its positions concerning certain security measures to protect against an internal threat at nuclear power plants. It is expected that recipients will review the information for applicability to their facilities and consider actions, as appropriate. However, suggestions contained in this generic letter are not NRC requirements; therefore, no specific action or written response is required. Background The fitness-for-duty rule (10 CFR Part 26) published on June 7, 1989, required power reactor licensees to implement fitness-for-duty programs. The access authorization rule (10 CFR 73.56) published on April 25, 1991, required power reactor licensees to implement access authorization programs. One objective of these regulations was to ensure the reliability and trustworthiness of persons granted unescorted access to protected areas at power reactor facilities. In light of these regulations, the NRC evaluated security requirements for protection against the insider threat at nuclear power plants to verify that they remain appropriate. The staff discussed the initial results of this review in SECY 92-272, ``Re-examination of Nuclear Power Plant Security Requirements Associated With the Internal Threat,'' of August 4, 1992. The staff then recommended reducing or eliminating certain security requirements that gave marginal protection against the insider threat. The Commission reviewed SECY 92-292 and asked the staff to re-visit the subject and explore alternatives for allowing reductions in unnecessary or marginally effective security measures. The staff discussed the results of this re-evaluation in SECY 93-326, ``Reconsideration of Nuclear Power Plant Security Requirements Associated with an Internal Threat,'' December 2, 1993. Description of Circumstances In a staff requirements memorandum of February 18, 1994, the Commission endorsed staff recommendations to (1) issue generic correspondence informing licensees of the opportunity to revise certain commitments in their security plan and (2) proceed with rulemaking regarding specific changes to reduce or eliminate certain security requirements. This generic letter discusses those areas in which licensees may choose to revise their plans. Discussion NRC may accept changes to a licensee security plan in the following four areas: (I) Vital Area Access Control Measures NRC may accept the changes to vital area (VA) access control measures in security plans discussed below upon confirmation that (1) certain other site-specific measures are in place or will be implemented to demonstrate (e.g., through contingency drills) a capability, including a protective strategy, to protect against an external adversary after making any of the changes and (2) measures are in place to examine hand-carried packages for explosives using equipment specifically designed for that purpose. A. Compensatory Measures 1. Eliminate compensatory measures for failure of vital area mechanical lock hardware if the access control hardware and alarms are operable. 2. Extend the timeliness requirements for implementing compensatory measures for any malfunctioning element of the vital area access control system from 10 minutes to a period similar to that which technical specifications permit for safety equipment to be out of service while the plant is in Mode 1 until required to be in Mode 3. The licensee could extend the time to implement compensatory measures only if either the VA door lock or alarms are operable. The most restrictive limiting condition for the timeliness of the compensatory measure(s) would be the most restrictive safety equipment in the vital areas accessed by the VA door needing compensatory measures. B. Maintenance of Discrete Vital Area Access Lists Eliminate separate access authorization lists for each vital area of the facility. As an alternative, maintain a single list of persons who have access to any vital area. This list would have to be revised as status of persons changes in order to maintain its accuracy, especially for removing vital area access authorization from individuals. C. Alarm Response Modify the response to vital area access control alarms (doors). Response would only be needed to vital area access control alarms that coincide with an unresolved alarm at the protected area perimeter, a known intrusion, or a constant alarm, such as that caused by an open door. D. Locked Condition of Door Although locking mechanisms and access control systems, including door alarms, would be retained, doors to vital areas could be left unlocked. A licensee choosing this option would be expected to have the capability to remotely lock the door(s) from both alarm stations, as necessary, in response to an external threat. Licensees choosing this option would be expected to demonstrate, as part of the demonstration of their capability to protect against an external adversary, the ability to remotely lock doors in time to delay the adversary where delay was essential in the protective strategy. Access control systems retained on vital area doors would continue to maintain a record of personnel access and generate alarms if the door was open without a proper access. The process for licensees to revise their security plans to implement the changes to security measures in vital areas will depend on the content of their present security plans. Since these changes would reduce slightly the effectiveness of the security program, most changes would need to be processed in accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 50.90. Some of the changes may be processed by an exemption request or in accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(p). If appropriate, changes in security plans should include commitments to the measures described in paragraph (I) above. To ensure unrestricted emergency access, the NRC staff notes the advantages of (1) having the ability to remotely unlock doors to vital areas from each alarm station, (2) ensuring that malfunctions result in doors failing unlocked rather than locked, and (3) allowing all operators and auxiliary operators to carry metal keys that can override keycard-operated lock mechanisms. (II) Access Search of On-duty Armed Security Guards NRC may accept changes to allow armed security officers who (1) are on duty and carry a weapon in accordance with assigned duties, (2) have already been searched during their current shift, and (3) have left the protected area on official business, to reenter the protected area without being subject to the metal detector searches (but still be subjected to explosive searches). If search equipment is a single unit containing both metal and explosive detection equipment, alarms from the metal detector may be disregarded. This change could be made to security plans in accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(p). (III) Containment Access Control Measures NRC may accept changes to allow persons other than security personnel, provided they are appropriately trained in access control procedures in accordance with the security plan, to control access for personnel and materials entering the containment any time frequent access is permitted to the containment. This change could be made to security plans in accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(p). (IV) Alternative Measures for Control of Security Badges NRC may accept changes to allow for alternative approaches for accountability of picture badges used for unescorted access so that certain types of badges may be taken outside the protected area. Alternative approaches need to include the ability to ensure positive identification of individuals upon entry to the protected area and to ensure the badge is disabled of its access function when taken out of the protected area. For employees, such changes can be made under 10 CFR 50.54(p) because the regulations currently allow licensee employees to take badges off site. Changes to security plans to allow contractors to take security picture badges off site would require a request for exemption from the provisions of 10 CFR 73.55(d)(5). Coincident with receiving approval of the exemption request, the licensee would be able to implement the change in accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(p). This generic letter requires no specific action or written response. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day of October, 1994. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Brian K. Grimes, Director, Division of Project Support, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations. [FR Doc. 94-27127 Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-M