Power Reactor Security Requirements, 62664-62874 [06-8678]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 207 (Thursday, October 26, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62664-62874]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-8678]



[[Page 62663]]

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

Part II





Nuclear Regulatory Commission





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



10 CFR Parts 50, 72, and 73



Power Reactor Security Requirements; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 2006 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 62664]]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Parts 50, 72, and 73

RIN 3150-AG63


Power Reactor Security Requirements

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend 
the current security regulations and add new security requirements 
pertaining to nuclear power reactors. Additionally, this rulemaking 
includes new security requirements for Category I strategic special 
nuclear material (SSNM) facilities for access to enhanced weapons and 
firearms background checks. The proposed rulemaking would: Make 
generically applicable security requirements imposed by Commission 
orders issued after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, based 
upon experience and insights gained by the Commission during 
implementation; fulfill certain provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 
2005; add several new requirements that resulted from insights from 
implementation of the security orders, review of site security plans, 
and implementation of the enhanced baseline inspection program and 
force-on-force exercises; update the regulatory framework in 
preparation for receiving license applications for new reactors; and 
impose requirements to assess and manage site activities that can 
adversely affect safety and security. The proposed safety and security 
requirements would address, in part, a petition for rulemaking (PRM 50-
80) that requests the establishment of regulations governing proposed 
changes to facilities which could adversely affect the protection 
against radiological sabotage.

DATES: Submit comments by January 9, 2007. Submit comments specific to 
the information collection aspects of this rule by November 27, 2006. 
Comments received after the above dates will be considered if it is 
practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given to 
comments received after these dates.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any one of the following methods. 
Please include the following number ``RIN 3150-AG63'' in the subject 
line of your comments. Comments on rulemakings submitted in writing or 
in electronic form will be made available for public inspection. 
Because your comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or 
contact information, the NRC cautions you against including any 
information in your submission that you do not want to be publicly 
disclosed.
    Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.
    E-mail comments to: SECY@nrc.gov. If you do not receive a reply e-
mail confirming that we have received your comments, contact us 
directly at (301) 415-1966. You may also submit comments via the NRC's 
rulemaking Web site at https://ruleforum.llnl.gov. Address questions 
about our rulemaking Web site to Carol Gallagher (301) 415-5905; E-mail 
CAG@nrc.gov. Comments can also be submitted via the Federal e-
Rulemaking Portal https://www.regulations.gov.
    Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 
20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays (telephone 
(301) 415-1966).
    Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 
(301) 415-1101.
    You may submit comments on the information collections by the 
methods indicated in the Paperwork Reduction Act Statement.
    Publicly available documents related to this rulemaking may be 
viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's 
Public Document Room (PDR), O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-2738. The PDR reproduction 
contractor will copy documents for a fee. Selected documents, including 
comments, may be viewed and downloaded electronically via the NRC 
rulemaking Web site at https://ruleforum.llnl.gov.
    Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC after 
November 1, 1999, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic 
Reading Room at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this 
site, the public can gain entry into the NRC's Agencywide Document 
Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image 
files of NRC's public documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS or 
if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, 
contact the NRC PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or 
by e-mail to PDR@nrc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Richard Rasmussen, Office of 
Nuclear Security and Incident Response, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone (301) 415-0610; e-
mail: RAR@nrc.gov or Mr. Timothy Reed, Office of Nuclear Reactor 
Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-
0001; telephone (301) 415-1462; e-mail: TAR@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Rulemaking Initiation
III. Proposed Regulations
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis
V. Guidance
VI. Criminal Penalties
VII. Compatibility of Agreement State Regulations
VIII. Availability of Documents
IX. Plain Language
X. Voluntary Consensus Standards
XI. Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact
XII. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
XIII. Public Protection Notification
XIV. Regulatory Analysis
XV. Regulatory Flexibility Certification
XVI. Backfit Analysis

I. Background

    Following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the NRC 
conducted a thorough review of security to ensure that nuclear power 
plants and other licensed facilities continued to have effective 
security measures in place given the changing threat environment. 
Through a series of orders, the Commission specified a supplement to 
the Design Basis Threat (DBT), as well as requirements for specific 
training enhancements, access authorization enhancements, security 
officer work hours, and enhancements to defensive strategies, 
mitigative measures, and integrated response. Additionally, in generic 
communications, the Commission specified expectations for enhanced 
notifications to the NRC for certain security events or suspicious 
activities.
    Most of the requirements in this proposed rulemaking are derived 
directly from, or through implementation of, the following four 
security orders:
     EA-02-026, ``Interim Compensatory Measures (ICM) Order,'' 
dated February 25, 2002 (March 4, 2002; 67 FR 9792).
     EA-02-261, ``Access Authorization Order,'' dated January 
7, 2003 (January 13, 2003; 68 FR 1643).
     EA-03-039, ``Security Personnel Training and Qualification 
Requirements (Training) Order,'' dated April 29, 2003 (May 7, 2003; 68 
FR 24514), and
     EA-03-086, ``Revised Design Basis Threat Order,'' dated 
April 29, 2003 (May 7, 2003; 68 FR 24517).

[[Page 62665]]

    Nuclear power plant licensees revised their security plans, 
training and qualification plans, and safeguards contingency plans in 
response to these orders. The NRC completed its review and approval of 
all of the revised security plans, training and qualification plans, 
and safeguards contingency plans on October 29, 2004. These plans 
incorporated the enhancements instituted through the orders. While the 
specifics of these changes are Safeguards Information, in general, the 
changes resulted in enhancements such as increased patrols, augmented 
security forces and capabilities, additional security posts, additional 
physical barriers, vehicle checks at greater standoff distances, 
enhanced coordination with law enforcement and military authorities, 
augmented security and emergency response training, equipment, and 
communication, and more restrictive site access controls for personnel, 
including expanded, expedited, and more thorough employee background 
checks.
    The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005), signed into law on 
August 8, 2005, is another source of some of the proposed requirements 
reflected in this rulemaking. Section 653, for instance, allows the NRC 
to authorize licensees to use, as part of their protective strategies, 
an expanded arsenal of weapons, including machine guns and semi-
automatic assault weapons. Section 653 also requires that all security 
personnel with access to any weapons undergo a background check that 
would include fingerprinting and a check against the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation's (FBI) National Instant Criminal Background Check System 
(NICS) database. These provisions of EPAct 2005 would be reflected in 
the newly proposed Sec. Sec.  73.18 and 73.19, and the proposed NRC 
Form 754. Though this rulemaking primarily affects power reactor 
security requirements, to implement the EPAct 2005 provisions 
efficiently, the NRC expanded the rulemaking's scope in newly proposed 
Sec. Sec.  73.18 and 73.19 to include facilities authorized to possess 
formula quantities or greater of strategic special nuclear material, 
i.e., Category I SSNM facilities. Such facilities would include 
production facilities, spent fuel reprocessing facilities, fuel 
processing facilities, and uranium enrichment facilities. Additionally, 
Section 651 of the EPAct 2005 requires the NRC to conduct security 
evaluations at selected licensed facilities, including periodic force-
on-force exercises. That provision also requires the NRC to mitigate 
any potential conflict of interest that could influence the results of 
force-on-force exercises. These provisions would be reflected in 
proposed Sec.  73.55.
    Through implementing the security orders, reviewing the revised 
site security plans across the fleet of reactors, conducting the 
enhanced baseline inspection program, and evaluating force-on-force 
exercises, the NRC has identified some additional security measures 
that would provide additional assurance of a licensee's capability to 
protect against the DBT.
    Finally, a petition for rulemaking submitted by the Union of 
Concerned Scientists and San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace (PRM 50-80), 
requested the establishment of regulations governing proposed changes 
to facilities which could adversely affect their protection against 
radiological sabotage. This petition was partially granted on November 
17, 2005 (70 FR 69690). The proposed new Sec.  73.58 contains 
requirements to address the remaining issues.
    The proposed amendments to the security requirements for power 
reactors, and for enhanced weapons requirements for power reactor and 
Category I SSNM facilities, would result in changes to the following 
existing sections and appendices in 10 CFR part 73:
     10 CFR 73.2, Definitions.
     10 CFR 73.55, Requirements for physical protection of 
licensed activities in nuclear power reactors against radiological 
sabotage.
     10 CFR 73.56, Personnel access authorization requirements 
for nuclear power plants.
     10 CFR 73.71, Reporting of safeguards events.
     10 CFR 73, Appendix B, General criteria for security 
personnel.
     10 CFR 73, Appendix C, Licensee safeguards contingency 
plans.
     10 CFR 73, Appendix G, Reportable safeguards events.
    The proposed amendments would also add three new sections to part 
73:
     Proposed Sec.  73.18, Firearms background checks for armed 
security personnel.
     Proposed Sec.  73.19, Authorization for use of enhanced 
weapons.
     Proposed Sec.  73.58, Safety/security interface 
requirements for nuclear power reactors.
    The proposed rule would also add a new NRC Form 754 under the newly 
proposed Sec.  73.18.

EPAct 2005 Weapons Guidelines

    In order to accomplish Sec. 161A. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 
as amended (AEA), concerning the transfer, receipt, possession, 
transport, import, and use of enhanced weapons and the requirements for 
firearms background checks, the NRC has engaged with representatives 
from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the FBI, and the U.S. Bureau 
of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), to develop 
guidelines required by Sec. 161A.d of the AEA. The provisions of 
Sec.161A. of the AEA take effect upon the issuance of these guidelines 
by the Commission, with the approval of the Attorney General. The 
Commission will publish a separate Federal Register notice on the 
issuance of these guidelines. This proposed rule would not rescind the 
authority of certain NRC licensees, currently possessing automatic 
weapons through alternate processes, to possess such enhanced weapons; 
however, these licensees would be subject to the new firearms 
background check requirements of Sec. 161A. of the AEA. Information on 
new provisions (Sec. Sec.  73.18 and 73.19) that would implement Sec. 
161A. may be found in Section III.

Conforming and Corrective Changes

    Conforming changes to the requirements listed below are proposed in 
order to ensure that cross-referencing between the various security 
regulations in part 73 is preserved, and to avoid revising requirements 
for licensees who are not within the scope of this proposed rule. The 
following requirements contain conforming changes:
     Section 50.34, ``Contents of applications; technical 
information'' would be revised to align the application requirements 
with the proposed revisions to appendix C to 10 CFR part 73.
     Section 50.54, ``Conditions of licenses'' would be revised 
to conform with the proposed revisions to sections in appendix C to 10 
CFR part 73.
     Section 50.72, ``Immediate notification requirements for 
operating nuclear power reactors'' would be revised to state (in 
footnote 1) that immediate notification to the NRC may be required (per 
the proposed Sec.  73.71 requirements) prior to the notification 
requirements under the current Sec.  50.72.
     Section 72.212, ``Conditions of general license issued 
under Sec.  72.210'' would be revised to reference the appropriate 
revised paragraph designations in proposed Sec.  73.55.
     Section 73.8, ``Information collection requirements: OMB 
approval'' would be revised to add the newly proposed requirements 
(Sec. Sec.  73.18, 73.19, 73.58, and NRC Form 754) to the list of 
sections and forms with Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

[[Page 62666]]

information collection requirements. A corrective revision to Sec.  
73.8 would also be made to reflect OMB approval of existing information 
collection requirements for NRC Form 366 under existing Sec.  73.71.
     Section 73.70, ``Records'' would be revised to reference 
the appropriate revised paragraph designations in proposed Sec.  73.55 
regarding the need to retain a record of the registry of visitors.
    Additionally, Sec.  73.81, ``Criminal penalties'' which sets forth 
the sections within part 73 that are not subject to criminal sanctions 
under the AEA, would remain unchanged since willful violations of the 
newly proposed Sec. Sec.  73.18, 73.19, and 73.58 may be subject to 
criminal sanctions.
    Appendix B and appendix C to part 73 require special treatment in 
this rulemaking to preserve, with a minimum of conforming changes, the 
current requirements for licensees and applicants to whom this proposed 
rule would not apply. Accordingly, sections I through V of appendix B 
would remain unchanged, and the proposed new language for power 
reactors would be added as section VI. Appendix C would be divided into 
two sections, with Section I maintaining all current requirements, and 
Section II containing all proposed requirements related to power 
reactors.

II. Rulemaking Initiation

    On July 19, 2004, NRC staff issued a memorandum entitled ``Status 
of Security-Related Rulemaking'' (accession number ML041180532) to 
inform the Commission of plans to close former security-related actions 
and replace them with a comprehensive rulemaking plan to modify 
physical protection requirements for power reactors. This memorandum 
described rulemaking efforts that were suspended by the terrorist 
activities of September 11, 2001, and summarized the security-related 
actions taken following the attack. In response to this memorandum, the 
Commission directed the staff in an August 23, 2004, Staff Requirements 
Memorandum (SRM) (COMSECY-04-0047, accession number ML042360548) to 
forego the development of a rulemaking plan, and provide a schedule for 
the completion of security-related rulemakings. The staff provided this 
schedule to the Commission by memorandum dated November 16, 2004 
(accession number ML043060572). Subsequently, the staff revised its 
plans to amend the part 73 security requirements to include a 
requirement for licensees to assess and manage site activities that 
could compromise either safety or security (i.e., the safety/security 
interface requirements). This revision is discussed in a memorandum 
dated July 29, 2005 (accession number ML051800350). Finally, by 
memorandum dated September 29, 2005 (COMSECY-05-0046, accession number 
ML052710167), the staff discussed its plans to incorporate select 
provisions of the EPAct 2005 into the power reactor security 
requirements rulemaking. In COMSECY-05-0046, dated November 1, 2005 
(accession number ML053050439), the Commission approved the staff's 
approach in incorporating the select provisions of EPAct 2005.

III. Proposed Regulations

    This section describes significant provisions of this rulemaking:
    1. EPAct 2005 weapons requirements. The new Sec. Sec.  73.18 and 
73.19 would contain requirements to implement provisions of section 
161A of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA). Section 653 of 
the EPAct amended the AEA by adding section 161A, ``Use of Firearms by 
Security Personnel.'' Section 161A provides new authority to the 
Commission to enhance security at certain NRC licensee and certificate 
holder facilities by authorizing the security personnel of those 
licensees or certificate holders to transfer, receive, possess, 
transport, import, and use an expanded arsenal of weapons, to include: 
Short-barreled shotguns, short-barreled rifles, and machine guns. In 
addition, section 161A also provides that NRC-designated licensees and 
certificate holders may apply to the NRC for authority to preempt 
local, State, or certain Federal firearms laws (including regulations) 
that prohibits the transfer, receipt, possession, transportation, 
importation, or use of handguns, rifles, shotguns, short-barreled 
shotguns, short-barreled rifles, machine guns, semiautomatic assault 
weapons, ammunition for such guns or weapons, and large capacity 
ammunition feeding devices. Prior to granting either authority, 
however, the Commission must determine that the proposed use of this 
authority is necessary in the discharge of official duties by security 
personnel engaged in protecting: (1) Facilities owned or operated by an 
NRC licensee or certificate holder and designated by the Commission, or 
(2) radioactive material or other property that is owned or possessed 
by an NRC licensee or certificate holder, or that is being transported 
to or from an NRC-regulated facility, if the Commission has determined 
the radioactive material or other property to be of significance to the 
common defense and security or public health and safety. Licensees and 
certificate holders must receive preemption authority before receiving 
NRC approval for enhanced weapons authority. Finally, the NRC may 
consider making preemption authority or enhanced-weapons authority 
available to other types of licensees or certificate holders in future 
rulemakings.
    Under the provisions of section 161A.d, section 161A takes effect 
on the date that implementing guidelines are issued by the Commission 
after being approved by the U.S. Attorney General. Following enactment 
of the EPAct 2005, NRC staff began discussions with staffs from the 
U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and its subordinate agencies the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, 
Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to develop these guidelines. 
Issuance of these guidelines is a prerequisite for the issuance of a 
final rule on Sec. Sec.  73.18 and 73.19, and the conforming changes in 
Sec.  73.2. The proposed language for Sec. Sec.  73.18 and 73.19, and 
the conforming changes in Sec.  73.2, set forth in this proposed rule 
is consistent, to the extent possible, with the discussions between NRC 
and DOJ. However, because NRC and DOJ staffs continue to work to 
resolve the remaining issues, the guidelines have not been finalized as 
of the issuance of this notice. Once the final guidelines are issued, 
the Commission will, if necessary, take the appropriate actions to 
ensure that the language of proposed Sec. Sec.  73.18, 73.19, and 73.2, 
conforms with the guidelines. The Commission is utilizing this parallel 
approach to provide the most expeditious process for promulgating the 
necessary regulations implementing section 161A; thereby enhancing the 
security (i.e., weapons) capabilities of NRC-licensed facilities, while 
being mindful of our obligations to provide stakeholders an opportunity 
to comment on proposed regulations.
    2. Safety/Security interface requirements. These requirements are 
located in proposed Sec.  73.58. The safety/security requirements are 
intended to explicitly require licensee coordination of potential 
adverse interactions between security activities and other plant 
activities that could compromise either plant security or plant safety. 
The proposed requirements would direct licensees to assess and manage 
these interactions so that neither safety nor security is compromised. 
These proposed requirements address, in part, a Petition for Rulemaking 
(PRM 50-80) that requested the establishment of regulations governing 
proposed changes

[[Page 62667]]

to the facilities which could adversely affect the protection against 
radiological sabotage.
    3. EPAct 2005 additional requirements. The EPAct 2005 requirements 
that would be implemented by this proposed rulemaking, in addition to 
the weapons-related additions described previously, consist of new 
requirements to perform force-on-force exercises, and to mitigate 
potential conflicts of interest that could influence the results of 
NRC-conducted force-on-force exercises. These proposed new requirements 
would be included in proposed Sec.  73.55 and appendix C to part 73.
    4. Accelerated notification and revised four-hour reporting 
requirements. This proposed rule contains accelerated security 
notification requirements (i.e., within 15 minutes) in proposed Sec.  
73.71 and appendix G to part 73 for attacks and imminent threats to 
power reactors. The proposed accelerated notification requirements are 
similar to what was provided to the industry in NRC Bulletin 2005-02, 
``Emergency Preparedness and Response Actions for Security-Based 
Events,'' dated July 18, 2005. The proposed rule also contains two new 
four-hour reporting requirements. The proposed rule would direct 
licensees to report to the NRC information pertaining to suspicious 
activities as described in the proposed requirement. The proposed rule 
would also include a new four-hour reporting requirement for tampering 
events that do not meet the current threshold for one-hour reporting.
    5. Mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel requirements. These requirements would be 
incorporated into proposed Sec.  73.55 for licensees who propose to use 
MOX fuel in their reactor(s). These proposed requirements are in lieu 
of unnecessarily rigorous part 73 requirements (e.g., Sec. Sec.  73.45 
and 73.46), which would otherwise apply because of the MOX fuel's low 
plutonium content and the weight and size of the MOX fuel assemblies. 
The proposed MOX fuel security requirements are intended to be 
consistent with the approach implemented at Catawba Nuclear Station 
through the MOX lead test assembly effort.
    6. Cyber-security requirements. This proposed rule would contain 
more detailed programmatic requirements for addressing cyber security 
at power reactors, which build on the requirements imposed by the 
February 2002 order. The proposed cyber-security requirements are 
designed to be consistent with ongoing industry cyber-security efforts.
    7. Mitigating strategies. The proposed rule would require licensees 
to develop specific guidance and strategies to maintain or restore core 
cooling, containment, and spent fuel pool cooling capabilities using 
existing or readily available resources (equipment and personnel) that 
can be effectively implemented under the circumstances associated with 
the loss of large areas of the plant due to explosions or fire. These 
proposed requirements would be incorporated into the proposed appendix 
C to part 73.
    8. Access authorization enhancements. The proposed changes would 
improve the integration of the access authorization requirements, 
fitness-for-duty requirements, and security program requirements. The 
proposed rule would include an increase in the rigor for some elements 
of the access authorization program including requirements for the 
conduct of psychological assessments, requirements for individuals to 
report arrests to the reviewing official, and requirements to clarify 
the responsibility for the acceptance of shared information. The 
proposed rule would also add requirements to allow NRC inspection of 
licensee information sharing records and requirements that subject 
additional individuals, such as those who have electronic access via 
computer systems or those who administer the access authorization 
program, to the access authorization requirements.
    9. Training and qualification enhancements. The proposed rule 
includes modifications to the training and qualification requirements 
that are based on insights from implementation of the security orders, 
review of site security plans, and implementation of the enhanced 
baseline inspection program and force-on-force exercises. These new 
requirements would include additional physical requirements for unarmed 
security personnel to assure that personnel performing these functions 
meet physical requirements commensurate with their duties. Proposed new 
requirements also include a minimum age requirement of 18 years for 
unarmed responders, qualification scores for testing required by the 
training and qualification plan, qualification requirements for 
security trainers, qualification requirements of personnel assessing 
psychological qualifications, armorer certification requirements, and 
program requirements for on-the-job training.
    10. Security Program Implementation insights. The proposed rule 
would impose new enhancements identified from implementation of the 
security orders, review of site security plans, and implementation of 
the enhanced baseline inspection program and force-on-force exercises. 
These new requirements would include changes to specifically require 
that the central alarm station (CAS) and secondary alarm station (SAS) 
have functionally equivalent capabilities such that no single act can 
disable the key functions of both CAS and SAS. The proposed additions 
would also include requirements for new reactor licensees to position 
the SAS within the protected area, add bullet resistance and limit the 
visibility into SAS. Proposed additions also require uninterruptible 
backup power supplies for detection and assessment equipment, ``video-
capture'' capability, and qualification requirements for drill and 
exercise controllers.
    11. Miscellaneous. The proposed rule would eliminate some 
requirements that the staff found to be unnecessary, while still 
providing high assurance that activities involving special nuclear 
material are not inimical to the common defense and security and do not 
constitute an unreasonable risk to the public health and safety. One 
such requirement to be eliminated provides for guards to escort 
operators of motor vehicles within the protected area if the operators 
are cleared for unescorted access. The proposed rule would also add new 
requirements, including predefined provisions for the suspension of 
safeguards measures for severe weather conditions that could result in 
life-threatening situations for security personnel (e.g., tornadoes, 
floods, and hurricanes), and reduced overly-prescriptive requirements 
through the inclusion of performance-based language to allow 
flexibility in the methods used to accomplish requirements.

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis

IV.1. New Weapons Requirements

    This proposed rulemaking would implement new weapons requirements 
that stem from the EPAct 2005. This is the only portion of this 
proposed rulemaking that involves facilities other than nuclear power 
reactors. The newly proposed weapons requirements would apply to power 
reactors and facilities authorized to possess a formula quantity or 
greater of strategic special nuclear material whose security plans are 
governed by Sec. Sec.  73.20, 73.45, and 73.46. The new requirements 
would be in three different sections and would include the utilization 
of an NRC Form:
     Revised proposed Sec.  73.2, ``Definitions''.

[[Page 62668]]

     Proposed Sec.  73.18, ``Firearms background checks for 
armed security personnel''.
     Proposed Sec.  73.19, ``Authorization for use of enhanced 
weapons''.
     Proposed NRC Form 754, ``Armed Security Personnel 
Background Check''.
    Under proposed Sec.  73.18, after the NRC approves the licensee's 
or certificate holder's application, all security personnel must have a 
satisfactorily completed firearms background check to have access to 
covered weapons. Licensees and certificate holders would be required 
under proposed Sec.  73.19 to notify the NRC that they have 
satisfactorily completed a sufficient number of firearms background 
checks to staff their security organization. The firearms background 
checks required by proposed Sec.  73.18 would be intended to verify 
that armed security personnel are not prohibited from receiving, 
possessing, transporting, or using firearms under Federal or State law. 
A firearms background check would consist of two parts, a check of an 
individual's fingerprints against the FBI's fingerprint system and a 
check of the individual's identity against the FBI's National Instant 
Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The NRC would propose a new 
NRC Form 754 for licensee or certificate holder security personnel to 
submit the necessary information to the NRC for forwarding to the FBI 
to perform the NICS portion of the firearms background check. The 
requirement to satisfactorily complete a firearms background check 
would apply to security personnel either directly employed by the 
licensee or certificate holder or employed by a security contractor to 
the licensee or certificate holder and whose official duties require 
access to covered weapons (i.e., armed security personnel) [see also 
new definitions for covered weapons, enhanced weapons, and standard 
weapons in Sec.  73.2]. Additionally, the requirement for licensees or 
certificate holders to ensure that their security personnel have 
satisfactorily completed a firearms background check would apply to 
licensees and certificate holders who have applied for and received NRC 
approval of preemption authority or enhanced-weapons authority. In 
order to simplify the rule language, Sec.  73.18 would only refer to 
applications for preemption authority because preemption authority 
would always be a necessary prerequisite for the receipt of enhanced 
weapons authority.
    The NRC would propose that a licensee or certificate holder may 
begin firearms background checks on armed security personnel after the 
licensee or certificate holder has applied to the NRC for the 
preemption authority section 161A of the AEA. Because the NRC has not 
previously had the authority to require its licensees or certificate 
holders to complete firearms background checks on security personnel, 
in most instances these requirements would be new to licensees and 
uncertainties exist over the amount of time to complete these checks. 
Thus delays in completing the checks (e.g., the time necessary to 
resolve any errors of fact in the FBI's NICS databases) could reduce 
the number of available security officers and create fatigue or minimum 
staffing level issues. Therefore, the NRC envisions working with 
licensees and certificate holders on a case-by-case basis to establish 
the date for NRC approval of an application for preemption authority; 
and thereby ensure that the licensee's or certificate holder's security 
organizations can continue to adequately protect the facility when the 
approval is issued.
    The Commission has not yet determined whether licensees and 
certificate holders may apply for preemption authority alone or 
combined preemption and enhanced-weapons authority prior to issuance of 
a final rule. In anticipation that the Commission does permit 
applications for section 161A authority prior to promulgation of a 
final rule, the proposed rule would include language to support a 
transition to these regulations from requirements imposed by Commission 
orders granting section 161A authority. The proposed rule would not, 
however, require a licensee or certificate holder to repeat a firearms 
background check for security personnel who previously satisfactorily 
completed a firearms background check that was required under 
Commission order. Consequently, this approach would provide both the 
Commission and industry with the maximum flexibility to expeditiously 
implement the security enhancements authorized by section 161A. The 
exception to this requirement would be for security personnel who have 
had a break in employment with the licensee or certificate holder or 
their security contractor, or who have transferred from another 
licensee or certificate holder (who previously completed a firearms 
background check on them). In either case these security personnel 
would be treated as new security personnel and they would be subject to 
a new firearms background check.
    The proposed rule would also provide direction on how security 
personnel who have received an adverse firearms background check (i.e., 
a ``denied'' or ``delayed'' NICS response) may: (1) Obtain further 
information from the FBI on the reason for the adverse response, (2) 
appeal a ``denied'' response, or (3) provide additional information to 
resolve a ``delayed'' response. Security personnel would be required to 
apply directly to the FBI for these actions (i.e., the licensee or 
certificate holder may not appeal to the FBI on behalf of the security 
personnel). Only after such personnel have successfully appealed their 
``denied'' response, and have subsequently received a ``proceed'' NICS 
response, would they be permitted access to covered weapons.
    Security personnel who receive a ``denied'' NICS response are 
presumed by ATF to be prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm 
under federal law (see 18 U.S.C. 922) and may not have access to 
covered weapons unless they have successfully appealed the ``denied'' 
NICS response and received a ``proceed'' NICS response. Because of the 
structure of section 161A, the proposed rule would not require 
licensees or certificate holders to remove personnel with a ``denied'' 
response until after the NRC has approved the licensee's or certificate 
holder's application for preemption authority (i.e., licensee's and 
certificate holders would not be subject to the requirements of Sec.  
73.18 until after the NRC's approval of their application for 
preemption authority is issued). However, the NRC's expectation is that 
current licensees or certificate holders who receive a ``denied'' 
response for current security personnel would remove those personnel 
from any security duties requiring possession of firearms to comport 
with applicable Federal law and ATF regulations.
    The NRC would propose to charge the same fee for fingerprints 
submitted for a firearms background check as is currently imposed for 
fingerprints submitted for other NRC-required criminal history checks 
including fingerprints (i.e., an NRC administrative fee plus the FBI's 
processing fee). In addition, the NRC would charge an administrative 
fee for processing the NICS check information; however, no FBI fee 
would be charged for the NICS check.
    The proposed Sec.  73.19 would only apply to power reactor 
licensees and Category I special nuclear material licensees; therefore, 
only these two classes of licensees would be subject to the firearms 
background check provisions of Sec.  73.18. The NRC may, however, 
consider making stand-alone preemption authority or combined enhanced-
weapons authority and preemption authority available to other

[[Page 62669]]

types of licensees or certificate holders in future rulemakings.
    In Sec.  73.19, the NRC would propose requirements for a licensee 
or certificate holder to apply for stand-alone preemption authority or 
to apply for combined enhanced-weapons authority and preemption 
authority. Licensees and certificate holders who apply for enhanced-
weapons authority, must also apply for and receive NRC approval of 
preemption authority as a necessary prerequisite to receiving enhanced-
weapons authority. The NRC would propose limiting either authority to 
power reactor licensees and Category I SSNM licensees at this time. The 
NRC may consider applying this authority to other types of licensees, 
certificate holders, radioactive material, or other property (as 
authorized under section 161A) in future rulemakings. Obtaining 
enhanced-weapons authority from the NRC would be a necessary 
prerequisite for a licensee or certificate holder to apply under ATF's 
regulations for a Federal firearms license for these weapons. The NRC 
would propose that licensees and certificate holders who want to apply 
for enhanced-weapons authority must provide the NRC, for prior review 
and approval, a new or revised security plan, training and 
qualification plan, and safeguards contingency plan to reflect the use 
of these specific new weapons the licensee or certificate holder 
intends to employ and to provide a safety assessment of the onsite and 
offsite impact of these specific enhanced weapons.
    The proposed rule would also provide direction on acceptable 
training standards for training and qualification on enhanced weapons. 
The NRC would require licensees and certificate holders to complete 
training and qualification of security personnel on any enhanced 
weapons, before these personnel employ those weapons to protect the 
facility. The NRC would also require Commission licensees and 
certificate holders to notify the NRC of any adverse ATF findings 
associated with ATF's inspections, audits, or reviews of their Federal 
firearms license (FFL) (i.e., an FFL held by an NRC licensee or 
certificate holder).
    Finally, the NRC would propose to treat enhanced weapons the same 
as existing weapons for the purpose of ``use'' of these weapons; and 
therefore Sec.  73.19 would cross reference to existing regulation in 
Sec. Sec.  73.55 and 73.46 on the use of weapons by reactor licensees 
and by Category I SSNM licensees ( i.e., the NRC is not proposing 
separate requirements on enhanced weapons versus standard weapons; 
rather, requirements on the use of any weaponry possessed by the 
licensee or certificate holder should be appropriate for the facility).
    To implement the new weapons provisions, three new terms would be 
added to Sec.  73.2: covered weapon, enhanced weapon, and standard 
weapon.
    The proposed new weapons requirements and supporting discussion for 
the proposed language are set forth in more detail (including the 
proposed new definitions) in Table 1.

IV.2. Section 73.55, ``Requirements for Physical Protection of Licensed 
Activities in Nuclear Power Reactors Against Radiological Sabotage''

    Proposed Sec.  73.55 contains security program requirements for 
power reactor licensees. The security program requirements in Sec.  
73.55 would apply to all nuclear power plant licensees that hold a 10 
CFR part 50 license and to applicants who are applying for either a 
part 50 license or a part 52 combined license. Paragraph (a) of Sec.  
73.55 would identify the licensees and applicants for which the 
requirements apply, and the need for submitting to NRC (for review and 
approval) a ``Physical Security Plan,'' a ``Training and Qualification 
Plan,'' and a ``Safeguards Contingency Plan.'' Paragraph (b) of Sec.  
73.55 would set forth the performance objectives that govern power 
reactor security programs. The remaining paragraphs of Sec.  73.55 
would implement the detailed requirements for each of the security 
plans, as well as for the various features of physical security.
    This section would be extensively revised in an effort to make 
generically applicable security requirements imposed by Commission 
orders issued after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, based 
upon experience and insights gained by the Commission during 
implementation, fulfill certain provisions of the EPAct of 2005, and 
add several new requirements that resulted from evaluation insights 
from implementation of the security orders, review of site security 
plans, and implementation of the enhanced baseline inspection program 
and force-on-force exercises. The proposed regulations would require an 
integrated security plan that begins at the owner controlled area 
boundary and would implement defense-in-depth concepts and protective 
strategies based on protecting target sets from the various attributes 
of the design basis threat. Notable additions to the proposed Sec.  
73.55 are summarized below.
Cyber Security Requirements
    The current security regulations do not contain requirements 
related to cyber security. Subsequent to the events of September 11, 
2001, the NRC issued orders to require power reactor licensees to 
implement measures to enhance cyber security. These security measures 
required an assessment of cyber systems and the implementation of 
corrective measures sufficient to provide protection against the cyber 
threats at the time the orders were issued.
    The proposed requirements maintain the intent of the security 
orders by establishing the requirement for a cyber security program to 
protect any system that, if compromised, can adversely impact safety, 
security, or emergency preparedness.
Requirements for CAS and SAS To Have Functionally Equivalent 
Capabilities Such That No Single Act Can Disable the Function of CAS 
and SAS
    Current regulatory requirements ensure that both CAS and SAS have 
equivalent alarm annunciation and communication capabilities, but do 
not explicitly require equivalent assessment, monitoring, observation, 
and surveillance capabilities. Further, the current requirement of 
Sec.  73.55(e)(1) states ``All alarms required pursuant to this part 
must annunciate in a continuously manned central alarm station located 
within the protected area and in at least one other continuously manned 
station not necessarily onsite, so that a single act cannot remove the 
capability of calling for assistance or otherwise responding to an 
alarm.'' The Commission orders added enhanced detection and assessment 
capabilities, but did not require equivalent capabilities for both CAS 
and SAS. The security plans approved by the Commission on October 29, 
2004, varied, due to the performance-based nature of the requirements, 
with respect to how the individual licensees implemented these 
requirements, but all sites were required to provide a CAS and SAS with 
functionally equivalent capabilities to support the implementation of 
the site protective strategy.
    The proposed rule would extend the requirement for no single act to 
remove capabilities to the key functions of the alarm stations and 
would require licensees to implement protective measures such that a 
single act would not disable the intrusion detection, assessment, and 
communications capabilities of both the CAS and SAS. This proposed 
requirement would ensure continuity of response

[[Page 62670]]

operations during a security event by ensuring that the detection, 
assessment, and communications functions required to effectively 
implement the licensee's protective strategy are maintained despite the 
loss of one or the other alarm station. For the purposes of assessing 
the regulatory burden of this proposed rule, the NRC assumed that all 
licensees would require assessments and approximately one third of the 
licensees would choose to implement hardware modifications.
    The NRC has concluded that protecting the alarm stations such that 
a single act does not disable the key functions would provide an 
enhanced level of assurance that a licensee can maintain detection, 
assessment and communications capabilities required to protect the 
facility against the design basis threat of radiological sabotage. For 
new reactor licensees, licensed after the publication of this rule, the 
Commission would require CAS and SAS to be designed, constructed, and 
equipped with equivalent standards.
Uninterruptible Power for Intrusion Detection and Assessment Systems
    Current regulatory requirements require back-up power for alarm 
annunciation and non-portable communication equipment, but do not 
require this back-up power to be uninterruptible. Although not 
specifically required, many licensees have installed uninterruptible 
power to their security systems for added reliability of these 
electronic systems. However, the Commission had not required 
uninterruptible power for assessment systems. For the purposes of 
assessing the regulatory burden of this proposed rule, the NRC assumed 
that only a small number of licensees would require hardware 
modifications to meet this proposed requirement.
    Through implementation of the Commission-approved security plans, 
baseline inspections, and force-on-force testing, the NRC has concluded 
that uninterruptible back-up power would provide an enhanced level of 
assurance that a licensee can maintain detection, assessment and 
communication capabilities required to protect the facility against the 
design basis threat of radiological sabotage. This new requirement 
would reduce the risk of losing detection, assessment, and 
communication capabilities during a loss of the normal power supply.
``Video-Capture'' Capability
    Current regulatory requirements address the use of closed circuit 
television systems, but do not explicitly require them. Although not 
specifically required, all licensees have adopted the use of video 
surveillance in their site security plans. Many of the licensees have 
adopted advanced video surveillance technology to provide real-time and 
play-back/recorded video images to assist security personnel in 
determining the cause of an alarm annunciation. For the purposes of 
assessing the regulatory burden of this proposed rule, the NRC assumed 
that a small percentage of licensees would require hardware 
modifications to comply with this proposed requirement for advanced 
video surveillance technology.
    Through implementation of the Commission-approved security plans, 
baseline inspections, and force-on-force testing, the NRC has concluded 
that advanced video technology would provide an enhanced level of 
assurance that a licensee can assess the cause of an alarm annunciation 
and initiate a timely response capable of defending the facility 
against the threat up to and including the design basis threat of 
radiological sabotage. Therefore the proposed rule would require 
advanced video surveillance technology.
    Implementation of Sec.  73.55 is linked principally to the 
application of appendix B to part 73, ``General criteria for security 
personnel,'' and appendix C to part 73, ``Licensee safeguards 
contingency plans,'' both of which would be revised in this proposed 
rulemaking. Proposed changes to these appendices are discussed in 
Sections IV.6 and IV.7 of this document.
    Table 2 sets forth the proposed Sec.  73.55 language as compared to 
the current language, and provides the supporting discussion for the 
proposed language including new definitions for security officer and 
target set that would be added to Sec.  73.2. Because Sec.  73.55 would 
be restructured extensively, Table 9 (See Section VIII) provides a 
cross reference to locate individual requirements of the current 
regulation within the proposed regulation.
    The Commission is interested in obtaining specific stakeholder 
input on the impacts and burdens for certain areas of proposed changes 
to Sec.  73.55. Due to the accelerated rulemaking schedule, the NRC 
staff's assessments of impacts to individual licensees as a result of 
the proposed new requirements have not been informed by stakeholder 
insights on potential implementation issues. Consequently, the 
Commission recognizes that its views on the feasability, costs, and 
time necessary to fully implement certain portions of this proposed 
rule (e.g., alarm station, supporting systems, video systems, and cyber 
security issues) by selected licensees may not be fully informed. 
Accordingly, the Commission is requesting persons commenting on this 
proposed rule to address the following questions:
    1. What insights and estimates can stakeholders provide on the 
feasability, costs, and time necessary to implement the proposed rule's 
changes to existing alarm stations, supporting systems, video systems, 
and cyber security?
    2. Are there any actions that should be considered, such as 
authorizing alternative measures, exemptions, extended implementation 
schedules, etc., that would allow the NRC to mitigate any unnecessary 
regulatory burden created by these requirements?

IV.3. Section 73.56, ``Personnel Access Authorization Requirements for 
Nuclear Power Plants''

    This section would continue to apply to all current part 50 
licensees and to all applicants who are applying for a new reactor 
license under parts 50 or 52, but would be extensively revised. 
Proposed Sec.  73.56 would retain the requirement for a licensee to 
determine that an individual is trustworthy and reliable before 
permitting the individual to have unescorted access to nuclear power 
plant protected areas and vital areas. The majority of the revisions in 
proposed Sec.  73.56 reflect several fundamental changes to the NRC's 
approach to access authorization requirements since the terrorist 
attacks of September 11, 2001, and the NRC's concern with the threat of 
an active or passive insider who may collude with adversaries to commit 
radiological sabotage. These changes would include: (1) An increase in 
the rigor of some elements of the access authorization program to 
provide increased assurance that individuals who have unescorted access 
authorization are trustworthy and reliable; (2) an elimination of 
temporary unescorted access provisions [prior to the completion of the 
full background check]; (3) an elimination of the provisions that 
permit relaxation of the program when a reactor is in cold shutdown; 
and (4) the addition of a new category of individuals who would be 
subject to Sec.  73.56.
    Proposed Sec.  73.56(b)(ii) would require licensees' access 
authorization programs to cover individuals whose job duties and 
responsibilities permit them to access or use digital computer systems 
that may affect licensees' operational safety and security systems, and 
emergency response capabilities. Historically digital computer systems 
have played a limited role in the operation of nuclear power plants. 
However, the role of computer systems

[[Page 62671]]

at nuclear power plants is increasing, as licensees take advantage of 
computer technology to maximize plant productivity. In general, 
licensees currently exclude from their access authorization programs, 
individuals who may electronically access equipment in the protected 
areas of nuclear power plants to perform their job functions, if their 
duties and responsibilities do not require physical unescorted access 
to the equipment located within protected or vital areas. However, 
because these individuals manage and maintain the networks that connect 
to equipment located within protected or vital areas and are 
responsible for permitting authorized and/or trusted personnel to gain 
electronic access to equipment and systems, they are often granted 
greater electronic privileges than the trusted and authorized 
personnel. With advancements in electronic technology and 
telecommunications, differences in the potential adverse impacts of a 
saboteur's actions through physical access and electronic access are 
lessening. Thus, the proposed rule would require those individuals who 
have authority to electronically access equipment that, if compromised, 
can adversely impact operational safety, security or emergency 
preparedness of the nuclear power plants, to be determined to be 
trustworthy and reliable.
    The proposed revisions to Sec.  73.56 would also address changes in 
the nuclear industry's structure and business practices since this rule 
was originally promulgated. At the time the current Sec.  73.56 was 
developed, personnel transfers between licensees (i.e., leaving the 
employment of one licensee to work for another licensee) with 
interruptions in unescorted access authorization were less common. Most 
licensees operated plants at a single site and maintained an access 
authorization program that applied only to that site. When an 
individual left employment at one site and began working for another 
licensee, the individual was subject to a different access 
authorization program that often had different requirements. Because 
some licensees were reluctant to share information about previous 
employees with the new employer, licensees often did not have access to 
the information the previous licensee had gathered about the individual 
and so were required to gather the necessary information again. The 
additional effort to collect information that another licensee held 
created a burden on both licensees and applicants for unescorted access 
authorization. But, because few individuals transferred, the burden was 
not excessive.
    However, since 1991, the industry has undergone significant 
consolidation and developed new business practices to use its workforce 
more efficiently. Industry efforts to better use staffing resources 
have resulted in the development of a transient workforce that travels 
from site to site as needed, such as roving outage crews. Although the 
industry has always relied on contractors and vendors (C/V) for special 
expertise and staff for outages, the number of transient personnel who 
work solely in the nuclear industry has increased and the length of 
time they are on site has decreased. Because the current regulations 
were written on the basis that the majority of nuclear personnel would 
remain at one site for years, and that licensees would maintain 
independent, site-specific access authorization programs and share 
limited information, the current regulations do not adequately address 
the transfer of personnel between sites.
    In light of the NRC's increased concern with an insider threat 
since September 11, 2001, the increasingly mobile nuclear industry 
workforce has heightened the need for information sharing among 
licensee access authorization programs, including C/V authorization 
programs upon which licensees rely, to ensure that licensees have 
information that is as complete as possible about an individual when 
making an unescorted access authorization decision. To address this 
need, the access authorization orders issued by the NRC to nuclear 
power plant licensees on January 7, 2003, mandated increased sharing of 
information. In addition, proposed Sec.  73.56 would require licensees 
and C/V to collect and share greater amounts of information than under 
the current rule, subject to the protections of individuals' privacy 
that would be specified in proposed Sec.  73.56(m) [Protection of 
information]. As a result, individuals who are subject to this section 
would establish a detailed ``track record'' within the industry that 
would potentially cover their activities over long periods of time and 
would follow them if they change jobs and move to a new position that 
requires them to be granted unescorted access authorization by another 
licensee. The proposed requirement acknowledges the industry initiative 
to develop and utilize a database to ensure accurate information 
sharing between sites. This increased information sharing is necessary 
to provide high assurance that individuals who are granted and maintain 
unescorted access authorization are trustworthy and reliable when 
individuals move between access authorization programs. In addition, 
the increased information sharing would reduce regulatory burden on 
licensees when processing individuals who have had only short breaks 
between periods of unescorted access authorization.
    Another change in the NRC's proposed approach to access 
authorization requirements is the result of a series of public meetings 
that were held with stakeholders during 2001-2004 to discuss potential 
revisions to 10 CFR part, 26, ``Fitness-for-Duty Programs.'' Part 26 
establishes additional steps that the licensees who are subject to 
Sec.  73.56 must take as part of the process of determining whether to 
grant unescorted access authorization to an individual or permit an 
individual to maintain unescorted access authorization. These 
additional requirements focus on aspects of an individual's behavior, 
character, and reputation related to substance abuse. They require the 
licensee and other entities who are subject to part 26 to conduct drug 
and alcohol testing of individuals and an inquiry into the individual's 
past behavior with respect to illegal drug use or consumption of 
alcohol to excess, as part of determining whether the individual may be 
granted unescorted access authorization. However, historically there 
have been some inconsistencies and redundancies between the Sec.  73.56 
access authorization requirements and the related requirements in part 
26. These inconsistencies have led to implementation questions from 
licensees, as well as inconsistencies in how licensees have implemented 
the requirements. The redundancies have, in other cases, imposed an 
unnecessary regulatory burden on licensees.
    During public meetings held to discuss potential changes to part 
26, the stakeholders pointed out ambiguities in the terms used in both 
part 26 and Sec.  73.56, apparent inconsistencies and redundancies in 
the related requirements, and reported many experiences in which the 
ambiguities and lack of specificity and clarity in current Sec.  73.56 
had resulted in unintended consequences. Although these meetings did 
not focus on Sec.  73.56, many of the stakeholders' comments directly 
resulted in some of the proposed changes to Sec.  73.56. (Summaries of 
these meetings, and any comments provided through the Web site, are 
available at https://ruleforum.llnl.gov/cgi-bin/rulemake?source=Part26_
risk&st=risk.) In response to stakeholder requests, the

[[Page 62672]]

NRC has proposed language changes to improve the clarity and 
specificity of the requirements in proposed Sec.  73.56 and 
substantially reorganized the section to present the requirements 
generally in the order in which they would apply to licensees' access 
authorization processes. The proposed changes are expected to result in 
more uniform implementation of the requirements, and, consequently, 
greater consistency in achieving the goals of Sec.  73.56. Table 3 sets 
forth the proposed Sec.  73.56 language as compared to the current 
language, and discusses the proposed language.
    The Commission is interested in obtaining specific stakeholder 
input on the following two issues:
    1. The Commission requests public comment specific to the 
appropriateness of the framework for the Insider Mitigation Program as 
specified by the proposed 10 CFR 73.55(b)(7)(i) and 73.55(b)(7)(ii). 
The proposed rule specifies that the Insider Mitigation Program include 
elements of the access authorization program, fitness-for-duty program, 
behavioral observation program, and various physical security measures 
for the purpose of providing assurance that insider activities would be 
detected before adverse affects could be realized.
    2. The Commission requests public comment on the feasibility of 
adding a requirement to the proposed rule to require a modified 
escorted visitor access provision which would allow site visits by 
members of the public to limited areas of the facility for the purpose 
of enhancing public education and awareness through informational 
briefings and tours at the facility.

IV.4. Section 73.58 ``Safety/Security Interface Requirements for 
Nuclear Power Reactors''

    The NRC is proposing to add a new requirement to part 73 addressing 
the safety/security interface for nuclear power reactor licensees. The 
need for the proposed new requirement is based upon the NRC's 
experience in reviewing licensees' implementation of a significant 
number of new security requirements since the terrorist attacks of 
September 11, 2001. Licensees have always been required to ensure that 
any changes to safety functions, systems, programs, and activities do 
not have unintended consequences on other facility safety functions, 
systems, programs, and activities. Likewise, licensees have been 
required to ensure that any changes to security functions, systems, 
programs, and activities do not have unintended consequences on other 
facility security functions, systems, programs, and activities. 
However, the Commission has concluded that the pace, number, and 
complexity of these security changes warrant the establishment of a 
more formal program to ensure licensees properly assess the safety/
security interface in implementing these changes.
    On April 28, 2003, the Union of Concerned Scientists and the San 
Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace submitted a petition for rulemaking (PRM-
50-80) requesting that, in part, the NRC's regulations establishing 
conditions of licenses and requirements for evaluating proposed 
changes, tests, and experiments for nuclear power plants be amended to 
require licensee evaluation of whether the proposed changes, tests, and 
experiments cause protection against radiological sabotage to be 
decreased and, if so, that the changes, tests, and experiments only be 
conducted with prior NRC approval. In SECY-05-0048, dated March 28, 
2005, the NRC staff recommended that the Commission approve rulemaking 
for the requested action, but did not necessarily endorse the specific 
amendments suggested by the petition. In SECY-05-0048, dated June 28, 
2005, the Commission directed the staff to develop the technical basis 
for such a rule and to incorporate its provisions within the ongoing 
power reactor security requirements rulemaking. This proposed rule 
addresses, in part, the petitioner's request by incorporating proposed 
Sec.  73.58 within this rulemaking.
    The Commission has determined that the proposed safety/security 
interface rule requirements are necessary because the current 
regulations do not specifically require evaluation of the effects of 
plant changes on security or the effects of security changes on plant 
safety. Further, current regulations do not require communication about 
the implementation and timing of changes, which would promote awareness 
of the effects of changing facility conditions and result in 
appropriate assessment and response.
    The NRC is aware of a number of occurrences of adverse safety/
security interactions at nuclear power plants over the years to justify 
consideration of a new rule. Examples of adverse interactions include: 
(1) Inadvertent security barrier breaches w