ML20127C270
| ML20127C270 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/24/1992 |
| From: | Mckee P Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Shelton B NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20127C273 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-57FR55443, RULE-PR-26 AD61-2-002, AD61-2-2, NUDOCS 9203300213 | |
| Download: ML20127C270 (10) | |
Text
. . . .- ,
p -
iAD61-2) gonec
- g ,
yh[{
q- _;p,g W g[ok
.p UNITED STATES . .
^$0te
- e g4 t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ,
WAsHINoTON, D, C,20sss
.t % e
' '%* . . . + #' March 24, 1992' MEMORANDUM FOR: Brenda J. She3 ton, Chief Information and Records Managenfent Branch Division of 2nformation Support Services -
>0ffice of :nformation Resources Management FROM:
Pnillip F. McKee, Chief Reactor Safeguards Branch Division of Reactor Inspection and Safeguards-Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
NRC RESPONSE'TO NUMARC' COMMENTS TO OMB CONCERNING THE COLLECTION OF FFD INFORMATION ,
. The following comments are in response to the Nuclear Management and:Resourc~s Council's (NUMARC'S) comments of February 25, 1992, on the NRC's request for-e _
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval of information collection' requirements on for a final rule published in the Federal . Register (56 FR 41922)'
August 26, 1991, concerning fitness-fc,r-duty programs. : Based on our review -
of NUMARC's comments, we assume they are objecting to. the addition'ofE the. .
reporting changes of test-results to.10 CFR 26c71. by process stage by all-licensees:and not the other=
The amendment to the regulations that contains'the new reporting requirements-was made'to address the issues <that could arise:from-actions 1that could be taken by licensees based upon on-site presumptive positive tests.. This islan issue that the Commission has carefully considered, trying to find the proper '
balance in Augustbetween 21, 1990,safety and individual' rights..;The_ proposed rule,;publinhed; on an on site presumptive positive test-resulttook thel position that'.noiactions shoul
_ Ini considerationLof public comments from NUMARC-'on--thel issue, the Commission decided that administrative actions could be taken against an individual ~for certain. drugs based onla-presumptive positive :,est undernvery controlled conditions. One~of those conditions is that such options.are. based on screening. test protocols'and:
. controls.which provide?high levels'of accuracy /and reliability. The finali rule was revised to reflect the Commission's final 1 position. : The addition of; the reporting requirementLin the final rule is_ consistent:withithe Commissions-final position on the issue and with its' goal of' obtaining the minimum 1 ..
information or modifying needed to-formulateifuture.
policies in'this recommendations concerning changing;
<;ontroversial area. Specifically, the rule requires reporting'of-test results $ositive and negative) by process' stage, i.e., on site firmation screening.
tests,iand tests (when conducted), laboratory screening:and con-MROJreview.
- The information.would'need to be collected--
from all licensees,.not just'those that choose the option in the' rule,Vsince information from one licensee's program would not provide sufficient bases-for further policy changes'in this area.
s .
k
- t y
i Brenda Shelton .
It should be noted that since January 3,1990 the licensees have been required to be to collect and analyze the drug testing performance data that would be required reported.
Therefore, the NRC sees no addivional info mation collection requirement and only a small " pro forma" incremental reporting ourun. Also, the " Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug 31970)Law Public which implements Executive Order No. 12564, dated September 100-71. 15, 1986 and The Commission recognized that 10 CFR Part 26, " Fitness-Fot-Outy Program,"
established policies would need adjustments, and that the ru evaluated periodically to take advantage of lessons learned.
Commission is developing a proposed amendment which is based upon lessonsCurre learned from the first two years of operating experience and comments from NUMARC.
It is important that the Commission receive the data necessary to understand the broad policy issues and the drug testing environment which are necessary to discharge its regulatory responsibilities concerning matters that potentially have a large impact on public health and safety.
~
Original si- Loren Bush Ym-for Phi(l (llip w- Ff /$f) ri1./W.
cKee, Chief Reactor Safeguards Branch Division of Reactor Inspection-and Safeguards Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
, cc: Roberta Ingram, NRR Distribution:
Central Files P. McKee
-REGB r/f L. Bush DRIS r/f E. McPeek B. Grimes W. Russell R. Fonner i
0FC :R5GB:NRR : R5GB: NRR :R5G A N* A NAME E k R :0 Ff p -
I NRR :
LBush P me . .
DATE 03/ /92 03/ 92 :03 /92 03 92 3 /92 -
0FFICIAL RECORD COPY ' Document Name:
I BRENDA SHELTON /
1
7 <
AD61-2
,. PDR
% 41922 Federal Register / Vol. 56, No.185 / Monday. August D,1991 / Rules and Regulations olidays.These same fees or chamn duties, based on an unconfirmed - . amendrnent was that the public health a s!! be apphcable for hogshead, bale, positive result from an initial screening - ' and safety would be best protected by a es. or sample inspections, test for marijuana or cocaine. practke where an individual with a
- PosiUve result for certain illegal ansCTNE Oavs: September M.1991. ,
except for the information collection substances from a preliminary inlual 4 Subp rt F-Policy dtatement and requirements contained in screening test can be placed in a Regut lons Goveming the il 26.24(dK2)(iv), and atJ1(d), Thue . noowork pay status, pending -
Identifi tion and Certification information collection requirements will confirmation of the test result.
Nonquo Tobacc0 Produced become effecuve upon the Office of Market n a Quota Area Comments Supporting the Proposed Management and Budget OMB) a proval. The NRC will p bha), a netice hdent ~
3.The au . orit citauon fo subpan F continues to es as follows o the effee.tive cSte la the Federe'l %e NRC received comments from -
Register. : Congressasen Dingell and Bhley, two Anthorttr. Pu L 9?-as,a6 .st 1:06, sa licensees, two contractor organizationsc POR PU8tTHEN leWomesAT: Col C0erTACT: -
emended 17 U.s 1:14f) Eugene Mcpeek Reactor Safeguards two unions, emplayees oflicensees.
- 4. Section 29 1 is ised to read as Branch. Divisfori of Reactor inspection private citizens, and a professional .
follows: and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear society that supported the proposed :
Reactor Regulation. U.S. Nuclear amerdment to 10 CFR part 26. These -
i 2H251 Fm and ges. Reguls tory Comtninion. Wa shington, commenters agreed that no action Fees and charges it inspection and DC 20555. Telephone: (301) 492-3210. absuld be taken against an individcal certification servic all comprise the surturasawfANT weCassATs0N: that is based on a prelimina screening -
cost of salaries, tr e1. er diem, and , test result enless the individ al exhibits related expenses o cos r the costs of Background other signs ofimpairment or indicabons performing the tvice. es shall be for On August 31,1990, the Commission that he or she might pose a safety actual time te tred to re er the published in the Federal Register (55 FR hazard. Their central argument was the t -
service calcul ed to the n rest 30- 35648) proposed amendments to its the proposed rule will provide a degree -
minute peno The hourly r 'e shall be Staen-for duty reguleUons applicable to of fairness to an individual whose initial .
$32.40. He ertime rate for ervice licensees authorized to construct or test result may indeed prove in error. -
performed utside the inspect ?s operate nuclear power teactors.ne thereby furthering the protection of 1 regularly .heduled tour of dut shallbe proposed amendments sought to clarify worker's hta. One licensee indicated
$3a10 T e rate of $48 45 shall b the Commission's intent about the that the d ay in the revocahon of '
charge or work performed on ndays unacceptabihty of taking actions against - unescorted access until the Mtdical and h 2 days- en individual that are bued solely on Review Officer (MRO) has reviewed the Det d Auguet 15.1991. unconfirroed preliminary drug test confirmed laboratnry test results has not Ly, m ,,, results. affected the reliability or safety ofits -
Ac ng Adtmmststor. . Interested parties were invited io planta.
y# Doc 01-20:53 nled 6-:3-st ass am) ou e d b hpro d g,, NRC Response F "** * *"***'" publication in the Federal Register.The %e arguments for and against the staff received a total of 32 comment amendment to the rule center on the NUCt. EAR REGUt.ATORy ' h"** *Ponse to 6e Nouce of pmper balene.e between safeguadng an COMMISSION Proposed Rulemaking(NPRM). Upon individuate to and protecting pubbe .
consideration of the comments received. ' health and sa ty.nis is the same basic 10 CTR Part 26 the NRC la modif%ng the proposed luue that was considered during the ~
regubtion as discussed in the Statement development of to CFR part 26. .
IW 315o-ADe1 of Considerations. De Comminion believes that taking Fitness for-Duty-Programa Comrnents on the Proposed Rule and employment actions, up to and including Responses the actions of temporarily removing an aorwev: Nuclear Regulatory employee from normal duties or..
Commission. Comments were received from the temporarily suspending a person's 1.
general public, two Congressmen, access to a alte, based on 's presumptive action: Fmal rule.
workers in nuclear power planta, the . positive result from on initial screening suuuany:The Nuclear Regulatory internationalheadquarters of two. test has validity from a safety =
Commission (NRC)is amending its unions, the Nuclear Management and perspective when there is high ~.
regulations governing fitness-for-duty Resources Council (NUMARC),21 confidence that the initial results will be rograms that are applicable to power reactor licensees. two contractor - confirmed, and when measures nre .
censees who are authorized to organizations, one law firm, and a taken to ensure that the individuars construct or operate nuclear power professional society, rights are protected in those few reactors. The final rule is necessary to J. Comments Concerning the Balonce inetsnees when the preliminary test clarify the f RC's intent concerning the : Between Safety andindividualRights results are not confirmed.The unacceptability of taking action against ccnfirmation rate after the initial an individual that is based solely on the Comments Opposing the Proposed screening tests varies substantially prehminary results of a drta screening Amendment
- among the drugs that are the subject of-test and to permit. under certain . NUMARC and 19 licensees believe the screening tests. A large fraction of conditions employment actions, up to - that the current rule is adequate and presumptive positive results from initial and including the action of temporary that the proposed amendment should screening tests for certain drugs are removal of an individual from not be adopted.The central argument subseluently i confirmed as positive.
= unescorted access or from normal for their opposition to the proposed From a safety perspective, actions that -
q.
rederal Register / Vol. 56, No.165 / Monday. August 26, 1991 / Rules and Regulations 41923-are based on the results of these initial plant operations. The FFD rule includes i screening tests could result in an earlier instances of malevolent action by such a number of specific elements to ensure individuals dunng the first year of .
removal from normal duties or an earlier that nuclear power plant workers are fit suspension of access to a site for testing under the FFD rule. Considering to perform their o.ssigned tasks. For these factors, the Commission concludes individuals who are later determined by exemple, the requirements for the the confirmation test as having used that the increment of risk in clearly trummg of supervisors in behavioral prohibiting employment action except :n drugs obsersation is en element which, narrowly hmited circumstances is Some of those who favored although not adequate to detect negligible. The Commissien a!so sd nmistratne actions that are based on !mpair,nent in all cases, adds to the concludes that employment act: a the resans of stial screeains tests also likelihood that indwiduals who comrnented that such a practics and against andsviduals under the narro.Uy obviously are impaired will ~pe*
procedure needed to be handled hmited circumstances defined herein recognhed end removed from activities should be left as a management carefully.The Cen. minion ugrees that that can effect safety. In this regard.10 carefull) prepared and implemented prernative ofindividual utihties and CFR 2627(b)(1) requires that impaired not made snandatory, procedures are needed to protect ths workers or thone whose fitness may be The Commission, therefore, considera reputations and careers of mdividuals questiocable be remosed until that the rule, as modified as a result of whose test results are tw :onfirmed. As determined fit to safely and competently further consideration of the issu e mimum. the Commiwr. believes perform duties.
those procedures must ensure that there raised during the comment period, is no rtcord or disclosure hnking the The purpose of testing is not only to would continue to achieve the make impairment on the job less likely Commission's original objective and terted person to a positive screening test but to ensure a trustworthy and highly would strike a fair balance between result when the screeninF is not confirmed As pointed out by reliable workforce and increase the individual rights and the protection of ccmmenters. the administrative action is assurut.ce that workers will act properly public health and safety.
obvious to fellow workers. However, the in stressful situations resulting from in certain unusual circumstances.10 Commission beheves that there is a *off. normal" events. T)w Commission CFR 26.24(e) may require the reporting believes that the benefits of removing of test results to management by the hmited ret of circumstan :es when the afety benefit from admimstrative individuals a few days earlier, except in Medical Review Officer (MRO) before ection against workers who test positive limited circumstances, may have been confimed positive results are received.
on the screening test outweighs the over emphasized by commenters The MRO should be informed of the potentialimpact on an individual. opposed to the rule.First. as stated at presumptive positive results of onsite (53 TR 36798), a positive result from a initial screening tests if the Health and in deseloping the fitness.for duty (ITD) rule, the Commission tned to urine test does not establish that an Humar. Services (HHS) certified achieve a proper balence between individual is currently impaired, only laboratory has not reported within the safeguarding an individual's reputation that the individual may have drugs expected time as provided in i 2.7(g)(1) and right of privacy and its present in his or her system and, of appendix A to lo CFR part 2tk If the therefore, may not be reliable. MRO cannot complete the review within responsibihty to protect pubhc health and safety.The Commission carefully Information that a person may not be the 10-day period because of the reliable indicates a less immediate unavallability of HHS-certified considered how to achieve this balance safety r:sk than a determination of .
dunng the rule's development and 1.boratory test results or unsvallability requested comments on the issue (see $3 impairment would imply. 5econd. as of the individual, the report to FR 36796 September 22.1988). stated in the final rule on July 7.1989, management should be based on Prohibition against disclosure to (54 FR 24470), the existence of drug available information.
Lcensee management of presumptive problems in the workplace cannot be Any individual teho is impaired or entirely eliminated and an undetected whose fitness for duty may be posit:5e results of prehminary testing i was one measure adopted by the presence of drugs will exist no matter questionable because of a basis other Commission for the purpose of how thorough the program.This than the result of a drug test must be protectmg individual rights. The undetected presence of drugs implies removed from unescorted status under Commission believes that the proper that a constant, but small, safety risk the provisions of to CFR part 26.27(b)(1).
balance will be maintained by placing exists even under the best program.
Other aspects of the Commission's 2 Comments Concerning the Reliability substantial conditions and hmstations o mene Tem on the exercise of management regulations, including design margins, prerogatives in the face of unconfirmed redundancy of accident mitigation Some of the commenters provided positive screening test results- systems. quality assurance, and training some statistical data in support of their From a broad perspective, FFD testing supervisors in behavioral observation position. One commenter recommended is only one element of many elemente provide reasonable assurance of safe that the NRC obtain statistical evidence plant operations. Third. those sites to support the rulemaking.
included in licensee programs (e.g.,
quahty assurance, quality control. without onsite testing regularly One licensee reported that trainirg. and necess authorization) that experience the delays in receipt of test approximately 06 percent of its addresses reactor safety from the results sought to be svolded by the presumptive positive initial screening standpoint of assurance that both commenters opposed to the amendment. tests are not confinned. The Tent'essee Fourth, anecdotal evidence indicates Valley Authority f!YA) commented that equipment and people will perform their that, generally, individuals who abuse its drug testing data Indicated a high functions as intended These programs, talien es a whole, provide an integrated drugs have unrealistic hopes of not confirmation rate for the !!!egal approach to ensure that individual exceeding the cutoff levels until substances of marijuana and cocaine.
actions do not adversely affect safe confronted with the confirmed positive For the period from October 13.1987, results. Malevolent acts in anticipation through September 30,1990, TVA of positive test results are therefore reported that positive results for 85
% i ratsu) .r.ppenda A to to cru pm ss . unlikely. The NRC is not aware of any percent of the marijuana and 89 percent s
At. ,
4 M24 4 Faderal Resseter / Voll 56. No. 25 / Monday, August 26.-1991-/ Rules and Regulations .
~
= of the cocaine prehminary initial . Commission collected data frcm several unwananied reinoes) or temporary :
screening tests for its nuclear power heensees where onsite testing is esapensiori had serious detrimental!
random testing program were confirmed conducted to compare those resulta to consequences to the indidduars
. by gas chromatographp/maae - the resuhe of GC/MS conbrmatico - reputation and results in other advene .
spectrometry (GC/MS) taats done et an ~ testing and MRO confirmed positives- e(fects on employesent. For example, the'
~ HHS-certified laboratory. TVA ne bcecoces were geographically / - job duration afed tryency of the work =
contended that the high cutfi mation dweise and the data cener.ted does - may require that a temporarily s t provide an overvsew of onsite acreenMg . suspended worker be removed from the ra9 frorntutathe.i seresning kstilmons!te d the usein.rmance:S'these of tests condacsed by these licenseen.ne Job site and be replaced.ne contractor-rescits to tale acaon against an degr e of agreement between concluded that the proposed amendment individual. prescreening tests and HHS GC/MS . would pmeide a reasonable balance >
A law firm reprpenting a licenset confirmatory taats varies widely by drug :
D'Iween safety and an individual,s ..
stated that tne proposed rule failed to type. Using NIDA establisbad cut.cff ,
provide an adequate basis for the levels, presum tive positives for cocaine " 8h18' contemplated revision ta 10 CFa'. are confirmed the laboratories elmost . Reprcear.tAtives of twointernational
'6.24[d). De law firm noted that tha 90% of the time. For delta.9- un5ans having twa of thenaands of:
NRC apparently dism!ssed the tetrahydrocannabinol-9 car'txxxybc acid ~ members working at licensed facilities distin: tion between the reliability of (THC). the confirmation rate was 38.5% that are effected by 10 CFR part 26 :
prehminary drug tests for marijuana and These statistics support the provided comments that supported thei cocaine and the reliability of such tests acceptabuity cf temporer'ly taking proposed amendment to the fitnewfor-for opiates and amphetamines when 11 employment action, up to the point of da,ty ru's.Thcee unions believe thet the -
promulFated the final fitness for duty suspending so individual from- proposed mle wou d provide a degree of.
regulation (54 FR 244681 ne law firm unescorted act.ess. based on so fairness to ardadivklual whose result contended that the NRC blurred the unconfirmed posi'ive test result from 6 kom an laitial test may ladeed prove distinction between the drugs and drug test fer marijuana or cccaine. ertoneous. By prohibitmg action on an emphasized a general policy equally Prodded licensees maintain a high . unconbrmed positive reech of an initial -
apphcable to.all four categories of confirmabon rate (s5% or higher) for screening taat, the proposed rulemakir.g substances, thus deciding in favor of those two iMegal drugs, the Commlaston : would provide further protection of a indrvidual nghts at the prehmmary test conclodes that employment action up to ,g,s reputation and privacy. Other stage. . and incloding temporary removal from comments from Individuals were --
ne lew firm recommended that the unescorted access or normal work-received that shared this support for the .
NRC not proceed with the proposed duties is acceptable if measures are amendment untilit has supplemented ' taken to lunit the negattve impact on - Proposed amendment. An individual the rulemaking record with statistical thse Indwiduals (fewer than one opt of provided an example where he evidence on the incidents in the rmelear - Lve) whose onsite positive test results considered that actions taken odth /
power industry since January 3,1990, of for these two drugs are not confirmed- MsPect to one individual based on an '
erroneous posit we resuhs from unconfirrned positive ruult from a test -
prehmmary drug tests for marijuana. A Comments Concem.Wncas and - had resulted in damage to that cocame, opiates, amphetaminesc JndwidualRigMs - indwiduets reputation. Another -
phencychdme. and alcohol.ne law firm Although NUMARC and several individual stated that the proposed -
urged the NRC to hold the amendment in licensees opposed the proposed atendment was a step in the right abeyance pending such comideration, amendment, they pointed out that direction and that further actions to. =
further notice, and opportunity to presumptive positive results from initial protect the individual abould be comment._ screening taste coold be caused by the = pursued.
consumption of ordir.ary food producta- The Professional Reactor Operator '
NRC Response and over-the counter mediantions.
The Comminion recognizes that the Society, wWch repmaenta am mem9rs NUMARC therefore recomreerwied that supp rted the proposed amendinent to 7 immunoanay process used for onsite licensees be allowed to take preliminary scaeening tests (as well as precautionary. nondisciphnary action to 10 CFR 26.24(d).The society contended the initial screenirut si the I tilS-certified remove a weekse from unescorted -. that the rule allowing administrative i laboratory) will result in presumptive - access only when the results of taitial - action on a positive .esuh from a :
positn es due to the consumption of screening tests are presumptively prehminary screening test is an :
certain food prtxiucts and over the- positive for illegal, nonmedical drugs. tilustration of the philosophy of being c counter d.ugs.
Also. the Commission is - specincelly cocaine, phencyclidme guilty until proven innocent and that this -
aware that the immunoassay is a more - (PCP). and marijuana. - . philosophy further alienates a highly?
rehable predictor for marijuana and One licensee disagreed with . dedicated and professional workforce j cocaine than for other drugs. NUMARC's recommandation and said that is increasingly sensitive to 1 The Nationalinstitute on Drug Abuse. tha t removal procedures. no matter how - unwarranted personal attack:The -
(NIDA) has confirmed that data . carefully written and implemented.' society contended that the current rule provided by TVA is fairly consistent could not adequately prevent tainting an has a great potential for " ratchet prone q - with that reported by HHS. certified innocent individuars reputation. Several rule interpreters" to damage an.
"- laboratories except that the TVA- - licensees, induding two that opposed individuars reputation and self-esteem -
confirmation rate for amphetamines is the amendment. indicated that the that has contributed greatly to thei much lower.NIDA believes that this program needed to be sensitive to the .
decline in the number of experienced -
( may be caused by the use of over the-counter sumulants, commonly potential effect on the individual and must include measures to ensure that .
nuclear profesa onala sad indicates that the nuclear industry la Wcoming Ien l associated with long hours and shift the individual's reputation and career desirable as a profession for future work. Such use is usually declared were not adversely aEected. Alac, a major contractor commented that genusuons, acceptable by the MRO.The -
1
~
u.
l'ederal kegister / Vol. 56. No tas / Monday. August 26, 1991 / Rules and Regulations- 41sp25 NRC Response NUMARC. emphaalted the importance agrees that behavioral observation The Ca. minion bueses that its of the MRO review in the testmg- alone is not adequate to detect drug use amendment to 10 CFR 26.24(d will process. NUMARC and nveral or impairment. However. it can make en continue to provide the proper) balance licensees indicated that no disciplinary 6portant contribution to workplace between individual rights and the need action should be taken until the MRO's safety by removing individuals whose to protect public health and safety. evaluation is completed. Comments behavior gives rise to questions as to Commission has hmited licensees, Thefrom Cugrusmen Dingel! and Blife their rerisbihty.
option to take administrative action fy',*f *,'g t n ed cla fy against employees on the basis of . ,,) 6. Comments Concerning Onsite Testing
' information associated with thv iest and A licensee that supported the resulfs to oI t aldr go rohl e that determine whether an allemative proposed amendmerit stated that the specific reportmg location medical explanation can account for a drug test result. pennitting temporary nmova,1 of an conbrmation rate remains high for the Individual based upon unconfirmed test drugs in question. In esdsbon, for 6d NRC Response 7esults would pu' its existing program in admir.istrative actions against the The Commission recognizes the h*o#ftheo^ns e stIt ptfo employees. the Commission is providm.g importance of the MRO review for is 8 a to licensee reported that de sys in granting -
h'ni ri [t 1r p o sji attemative medical explanations which acceu caused by the loss of pre. access frequently occur because of dietary ind viduals whose onsite test is not babits or ths legitimate bse of onsite drug testing could cost it con irmed. approximately $15 milhon annually,
- The option to take action for nrescription drugs. However, the language of the preposed amendment h'tC Resporae res s I be i it d to r a '"" "'
na and/ al The Comminin neognl es that the or cocaine at d will be confined to those " " " 7*
- d ".88 t8 f8n onsite testing option permits a licensee licensees with screening test rotocols ,"*"f" "8 ted b bl t ied to develop an efhciet process for f abil t oh85% ' " "
ce rae) o r '8 ""
ri he nsu y person removed from his or her "8 8"d position on the basis of an unconfirmed "f*e$""" '"' " *'.*g "* 'l which, in certain circumstana s. permits tmporary administrative action agamst positive scre-ning test must be retained positive or ." negative. (except for en Individual on the basis of in a pay status pendmg the results of the alcohol) See to CFR 26 3. Defmitions*
Thmfore. in ruponn to thue unconfirmed onsite positive screening test conbrmation process'- test results for marijuana and/or
- No personnel er other record c nm .
texto W W M
- * " " " cocaine. is sondly based and does not containing information linking the * **I N I
- " "" ""I place the onsite testing option in employee to the positive screening test
"* "d l". i"iIi"!
result may be retained when the screening test'. with any drug test other l'opardy.This provision is not mandatory and licensees need not adopt 8
a D sc os e of temp ra mo al Y l tv act er on or suspension based un e test result not later confirmed is prohibiad. and fo7i,[,[y$ o$g 3 ,"ul of a un n imd onsite positives.
- Measures are provided to assure CC/MS procedure at an HHS-certified 1. Comment Concerning Work /Foy that disclosures of unconfirmed tests are laboratory and an MRO determination Status not required by the tested individual. th*t th* 18 If alllocations now using onsite exp!mation," *Il**ti" S'diC8l One commenter recommended that the rule should protect an employee's testing odopted the policy permitted by 5. Comments Concerning Detection of right to receive pay during the interim this rule, about 50 individuals per year Impoirment Pened between suspension and the could be temporarily suspended after completi n of the confirmatory testing.
random tests and later restored Two licensees contended that *other (assuming 90% conhrmation for cocam, e evidence" mey be difficult to develop NRC Response and 85% for marijuana). However. ribout because imp 61rment caused by drugs is difficult to detect through behavioral The Commlulu agmnSe rule 350 individuals per year who are Inter observation. requires that there not be any loss of confirmed poettive would be subject to compensation or benefits during the earlier administrative action. A NRC Response i period of any temporary administrative '
provision has been added to the fir al action.
his inue was discussed extensively rule to assure that data on the nurnber of during development of the current rule occasions that this rule provision is Environmentallmpact: Categorical 4 at 53 FR 36797-3e804. 53 FR 36807. 54 FR Exclusion . '
exercised. and that the rnanage:nent 24469, chapters 4 and 5 of NUREG/CR actions. includmg appeals. ere reported 5227. and chapter 4 of NUREC/CR 5227 The NRC has determined that this to the Comniission as well as Supplement 1.8 In summary the NRC final rule is the ty information which will allow the in categorical exc.g cf action usion 20 CFR described s
Commission to monitor confirmation . copies of Nunc/cR-am end NUREC/CR. 51.22(c)(2). Therefore, the NRC has not I rates from onsite and IDIS-certified sm supplemeni1. mer be purche.ed from th, prepared an environmentalimpact laboratory screening processes, supenniendeni ot Documente. us covemmeni Fnnema ofr,ce. P o som sms:. washinaion, oc statement nor an enviror nental I Comments Concernw, g MROReviews exnwoa copien er, etso evealeble from the assesement for this final rule.
S.eteral commentera including Netional Technical Informe tion Service. stas Pof't --
g,y 1 Poed. Spnngt.ehl VA 221:1. A copy le eleo NRC Pubhc Document Room r120 L Street. Nw.
i Congressmen Dingell and Dhley and assueble for inspection and coprina for a fee in the l (tower leve11. we nnston. DC. '
i e
a (1926 Federal Redster / Vol. 5E No.165 / Wriday, %st 28. N / NM d Mb Fsperwork Reduction Act Statement was already performed. The trdirect I H.N Chemkat weting.
costs to worken in this matter was * * * *
- This final nde amends information collection requirements that are subject covered by the responacs in the feal (d)(1)1Jeanness may condiact initial to the Peperwork Reduction Act of19eo rule to pubbe cornments on the backht screening tests of an shquot before (64 USC. 3301 et negl. faist ng ardysis in paragrspb isL2.15 at H FR forwardmg aelected specimera to a the 2H9:. laboratory cert 4ad by the Department requirstnenta OfLee of Manspment were andappved Do gget Tbe rmal rde alsoincludes minor of Hrotth ud Humas Services 0015),
(OMD) under ap royal curnber 3150- mate.s to b s% mvM b ham's stan puessu m46 The amen ed information requirement to cohect and report h necenary training and skills for the collection requirements contained in the Qtam nt ydormace analysts wasdata, for Wch performed in a M s n W b M rsqul h u final rule wiD tot become effecuer antil are documentei and adequate quahty efter the are approved by the OAul' conjactbo with the promulgetion of controls for the tastina are implemented.
Nobce o 0601 apprvral will be part 26. A negligible incremental burden Quabty control urocedures for initial pubbshed in the rWaraliteginet. weuld :esult Ly reporting to the NRC acreening tests by a heensee's testing hta (lj that licersees tre cumt? Ocibty muu inrJuca the processing of Regulatory Analph requin4 to t4Dec under the existmS bhrW perk,rmance tast specimens and The regulauona in to Cm part 28 rule (section 2J(g) of appendix A) and the submisulan to the IDiS certified estabhah regimmerits for bcemee* wtach NRC needs reported to evaluate laboratory of a sampling of specimera authorized to construct or operate the hvels of accuracy ard rehabibr1 in:tlally teeted as negauva. lacept for nuclear power reactors to impi-nt s achievable thrwugh initial screentag the purposes discussed below, access to fitness.for duty program. tests. (ii) on the number of ea:asions the results of preluninary tests mui be Tha (mel e,mendmat.t to 10 C17 patt that endari3ush are remored based limited to the hcensee's testing stafL the 26 clenf es the Comttaston'o previous upon prwumptive positrve acnening test Medical Reilew O! Leer (MRO), the position that no acton shouhl be taken results under the previa!ons of this rule Fitness. foe Dety Program Manager, and against an indmdaal that is based change, and (til) to savun that a als the employee asslatance prostam staff, solely on av unconkrud psiuve resdt e.nd toeir iesolution nie inclad . in the when appropriate, from an mitial vreening test and to summary M ogent es y g gM g k mvd w permit, under certsia condawns, required to be reported under the temporarily suspended froin unescorted Wetmg rdo Then mince nporting tempora administrouve action, up to requirements an reamonably within the a w W @M dr administrauve action based solely on an un scorted ac m 1 8e pe of the backfit analyms and do not unconfirmed positiva nault from any dubes, based on an unconfirmed she hs Msh drag test, olha than for manjuana positive result imm an initial screenmg List of Subjects in 10 CTR Part 2e (THC) or cocaina, unless other evidence test for manyuana or cocame. indicates that b individal is impatred it is esttmated that tf alllocat,ons now Alcohol abuse. Alcohol testing, i
Appeals Chemicaltestins Drug abuse
- or might otherwise pose a safety hazard usms onsite tesbng adopted the pobey With respect to onsite initial screening tted by the tius e about 50 Drug testing, Employee assistance programa, Fitness for duty. Management tests for marijuana (THC) and cocaine, i u e per year e actions, Nuclear power reactors, licensee manaaement may be informed temporarily suspende.d after random Protection ol laformation. Reporting and and licensees may temporarily suspend tests and later restored (assummg 90% ladividuals from unescorted access or recordkeeping requirements, and confirmation for cocaine and 85% for Sasttaons, from normal duties or take lesser manjuana) However, about 350 For the nasona stated in the preamble admirdstrative actions against the indniduals per year who are later individual based on an unconarmed and under the authority of the Atomic conbrmed positive would be subjed 2 Energy Act of1954, as amended, the ul ded th earher admmistrative actou- Energy Reorganization Act of1974, as fc'en e co phes fol o ing Regulatory Fleafbility Aci Certification amended. and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the conditions:
(1) For the drug for whir.h action will in accordance with the Regulatory '" * * * * * *' " E*#
me tt to Flexibility Act of1980. [5 U.S C. 605(b)). specimens which were determined to be the Commircon certihea that this rule PART 26-FITNESS-FOR-OUTY presumpusely posh as a nsuh M will not have a signincant economic PROGRA&tS pulunipary onde acnening tests dunns effect on a suletantial number of small the last 6-month data reportmg period entities. Thus final rule affects only the 1.The authority citation for part 26 submitted to the Commission under licensing and opetstioo of nuclear continues to read as follows: i 28.71(d) were subsequently reported pwer plants. The companies that own Authoellyt Sect 5181.1oA 10L to?. tal. se as positive by the HHMartined these plants do not fall within the scope Sist ino. 935. s37, Ma, as amended (42 UAC. laboratory as the result of a GC/Mo,,
of the def'mition of *'small entities" set 20712111. 21112L13,?tM. 223?,2201) sect confirmatory 6 cal.
forth in the Regulatory Fledbihty Act or 201. 201206 as Stat 124112n 1248. as (11)There is no loos of compensetion the Small Businen Size Standards **N,p H2 nS C pt m223esSbosa,as or benefits to the tested person dunng issued by the Small Baincs8 the period of lemporary adaum,strative amended ( 2273k secs 2&Jo 28,21, Administratron in 13 CFR pet 12L 2ett 22128,24. 26.21 m27, to 28. 20.29 and aetion.
Backfit Analysis 26.80 are issued under secs.182 (b) and (fl. 68 (ill)Immediately upon receipt of a Stat. Mr and M9. as amended (42 U S C 2201 negative report from the }UIS. certified The NRC has determined that the (b) and (ill. seca ts.7a W1. and 26.73 are labnratory, any matter wbich could Imk betkfit rule.10 CFR 50.109. does not inad und*t **c tela es Stac e6a as the individual to a temporary apply to this final rule. This is a minor amended H2 nS.C W E suspension is eliminated from the tested modshcation to a final rule. alteady 2. In sectico 28.24, paragraph (d) is individumfa personnel record or other published, for whtd. a backfit analysis revised to read as fonows: recorde.
a*
a e
Fe,deral Registar / Vol 50m No. 265 / hdonary. August 25. 110 1 / Rules ad Regulatiores 429 5 (es) No 6adeure el the Nmporary 4. In section 2.7 d appeed:x A to part compression er structural damage remees) or suspemion of. or other 26. paragraph (g)(2)is rettsed to read as o ra.
administrative actron against, an followsi on e Effective September 3,1991 inividual whose test is not Appendix A to Part 26-Culdelines for subsequently confttmed as positive by incorpmation by mfennce of Nucles: Power Plant Drug and Alcohol c in pubbcations listed in the the MRO may be made in response to a suitable inquiry candocted under the Tuting Pmgums regu twns is approved by the Direc provisions af L 2&27(a), a backsmund 23 Labarmy ed Tntag Feelhty of tb FederalRegister as of Septemb r 3, g intestigatiori connJcted under the ^^*N N provaions of I 7:LR or to acy other * * * *
- Co . nents for melusion in the ilul s inquiry orirweetigat'mn For the purpose f8M'8 **d'^8 R**d
Docke must be retMvsd on o-belo of assunng that no records have been * * * '
- Novem er 15.1991.
retained, access 1o the systern of files (2) The HiISeerttB6beton and any Aponts aar Beech klandatory Se ice and recorda must ne provided to Bubetin 'o. 244 da'ed July 1991 Nat is bcensee personnel conducting appeal 1lC 'gu]28 'M ci discusse in this AD may be obt red reviews, inquiries into en allegataca, or specuner s being analyzed under special from b ech Aircraft Corpora m.
suite under the provssens of ( 2620. or procesem wb]ch ar* nesaun on the ininal P.0L EoM , Wichita. Nansas 6?
- test os ness'in o.: the unfirinatory test. 0065. nis ation may a be to an NRC inspector er other Federal sp,cunem testing poetm oe the officials The tested individmal must be confirmatcq analysts ehall te repxted exar.uaed the Rules Docket 't b provided a statement that the records in positwe for a spe.Mc s.5stana rucept " addien be w. Send commen on this paragraph (d)t2Ril11oft his sntios have provided in i 2t.2sidl. presumpure posture.
AD b tripla k to b FAA, uttal not been retained and Inust be informed rudta of prehmman teenna at ttw hesases a R Of dbMmtM in wnting that the temporary removal or wth not be npomd to kansw Counsel, Att tioru Ramles et 91-suspensioa sr other admisustrative CE-67-AD. m 15 % 801 12th Street, aetion that was taken will not be
. . . . . Kansas Caty, ouri &M disclosed and need not be duciosed by Dated at Rock ville. P.taryiand, rius IMh day Fost PuerTMa A CossTACT.
- of August.1 set. respace Mr. James M. a.
lo info at on onc en g rem tal For the Ndear Regulatory Commisston. Engineer, Wichi Aircs i Certificahon suspensions, administrative actions or Samudf. m Mca. M 1 @ hai M history of substance abuse. Secretory of the Cammission. Contment Ai W te Kansas (TR Doc. 91-20tel nied e-23-et; e-45 am) 67209. 'lelephone .6) 4., .
- 3. In t 2811 paragraph (d)is revised a m .o cops rs * ,, su m .ase u tAprr Attoec There to read as follows: -
have been 23 re . f aft ecwling doors separattng certain Beech 100 i K71 Recordheeng requiremente. "" se PARTMENT OF TRAFtSPORTATKM
'h {s have stmck the fu i , wing.
{
e g,
(d) Collect and compile fitness-for, Fe tal Av6 tion Adelnistrauon dug program perforrr.ance data on a empennage, cabin t ows. and other 14 C Part 39 parts of the airpla e, is has caused standard form and submit this data to the Commission within 60 days of the depressurization. vell aks, and/or (Docket o. 91-CE-57-AD; Amend 39- structural dama to th 6.rplane, end of each 6. month reporting period 8014; AD 18-11)
(January-]une and july-Cecember) The Structural dams e has i cluded the data for each site (corporate and other Airworthin s Okectives; M leading edge of e verti I stabilizer, and 200 s Airptenes the leading e of the h irontal support staff locations may be separately consolidated) must include: stabilizer. the levator, a the elevator Aotwcy:Fede 1 Aviation trim tab.The fl inciden resulted in random testina rate; drugs tested for and Administration AA), DO , complete sep rations of an ft cowhng cut.off levels. including results of tests using lower cut.off levels and testa for mom Fbal rul nm im door from th airplane.
c mments. %e mam acturer. Beech, as lasued other drugs; workforce populations tested. numbers of tests and results by Mandatory rvice Buhtm )No, suuuARY:This ame . ent adopts a 2416. date July 1991. which ecifies population. process stage (i.e., onsite screemng. feboratory screening.
new altworthinesa d etive (AD) that is procedure forinspecting and difying oplien% to certii B eb 100 and 200 the aft co ling doors ofboth gine confirmatory tests. and MRO series aftplanes e ac 'on requires a nacelles certain Beech 100 .d 200 determinations). and type of test (Ut one time inspec ' n and edification or series a lanes. After exa - 'the prebadging, random. for.cause, etc.); the att cowhng ses of b h engine substances idarliied, b number of circums -
and reviewing al nacelles. Ther ave been 1 reports of availab information related to e temporary suspensions or other aft cowling d rs separating incide. .s describedebove, the F m the has administrative actions taken against airplane. Ti separated engm cowling deter .ned that the inspection an individuals based on nasite presomptive doors in s . e instances have e ack the modi tion spec &d in the abov positives for marilumna (THC) and for fuselage, mg. ampennage, ce servi e bulletin must be accomphs ed in cocatne. summary of management window and other parts of the actions, includmg appeals and their orde to cantinue to assure the airplar . which caused ni -thinesa of the effected airp 's.
resolutions ard a hat of events reported. depre urization, fuel leaks, and/or . . ce the condibon described la rly
, The data swst be analyzed and approprinte actions taken to correct strur aral damage.The actions speci d to xist or developin cartain other by is AD are intended to prevent ch 100 and 200 m e 'en airplanes of e program weaknesses The data and se aration of an aft cowling door that s .e type design aa airworthmess analysis must be retained for 3 years, uld result in occupant injury !! rectiveis beinglasued that specifies
't,,
- tig a$% *$.
N'$. N{8::$$<.'I' J 's 0 k.,j:gtqg;'k$ d%
ifi A;t$,,
$.vijf h)!'.h;D:yfi{f S:^\es k
k!
k[4 s
- .--~*
K
.. _ . - =- - - - -
y-AD61-2 PDR Fed:ral Register / Vol. 57. No. 9 / Tuesday, J:nuity 14, 1992 / Notices 1497 i
(b)flequestforReconsideration.lf the panel was not affected, the declination - advice and recommendations conceming K.
l Program Director's explanation, or other will be affirmed.
rebat *.e information, appears to the 12 Mathematics. Science and Technology (vil)If the Deputy determines that one TAucation, and Assessment of Student or more of the "Crounds forappheut to indstate the resence of one orI"*more *l"8 of the grounds listed in Paragraph 2(b) existed, and he or she Reconsideration" listed in Paragraph can determine, based on the materials gnT,e('j'N,$"h,*,("pf,,,
2(b) above, the applicant may submit to reviewed, that but for the infirmity in proposals as part of the selection process for the Deputy a written Request for a wards, the peer review procesa, the application Reconsideration. This written request ' would have been recommended, the Reason for Closiip The proposals being eniewed include inrormation of a propriety must reference a particular ground (s) for application will be considered by the confidential nature,includAng technical reconsideration and specify the facts National Council on the Arts at its next Information; financial data. such as salaries supporting his or her claim, with enough regularly scheduled meeting. . and personalinformation concerning particularity to enable the Deputy to (vul)If the Deputy deterndnes that indMduals suociated with the proposals. -
determine whether the claim ia one or more of the grounds listed in 'Nse matters are within exemptions (4) and meritorious. A request of this nature will Paragraph 2(b) occ':rred, but he or she I be considered only if (a) the Request for g Maub(cl.Govemment in tLe ;
cannot determine whether but for the Reconsideration is based on one or more infinnity, the peer review panel would Dated @uary a.1 A, of fl.e grounds listed in Paragraph 2(b); ;
1 (b) the applicaM has obalned an have recommended the application, the R Rebecca % W ,
l explanauon from the appropriate application will be rev'ewco by a new C**/" MN#'**"' Off'C'^
Program Director- (c) the applicant has application, the Nationa? Council on the specified with sufficient particularity the a m ocoot m sas facts supportmg his or her claim;(dt the Arts will review it at the text regularly schaduled metting.
Request for Reconsde aw is received (ix) The Deputy's determination shall by O'e Deputy within 45 days after the be final. HUCIEAR REGULATORY applicant received the Program COMMISSION Director's explanation. 4. Reporting Requiremen's ;
(c) Action by the Apprcpriate Deputy. Document Contalnlag Reporting or Each appropriate Deputy will Recordkeeping Requirementa: Office (i) The appropriate Deputy will review the applicant's Request for maintain a record of Requests for of Management and Budget Review bconsideration, records of the psnel Reconsideration.The record willinclude 'l d e datc. of receipt, the name of the Act .S. Nuclear Regulatory dacussions, the applicarfs ap;,licadon file, and any other relevant materials to applicant, including name of Canission M organization or institution where ACDO*c Notice of the ONice of determine if the panel's applicable, the application number, and Management and Budget (OMB) review recommendation was influenced by one once the Deputy's review is complete, or more of the grounds hsted in ofinformation coDection.
Paragraph 2(b). In conductma this the date on which each applicant was notified of the results of the 73 ' 'gft3'E"Igh*g'N",t reconsideration, and what those results $'[' tekt O. ew t e foDowing proposal for collection of apphcant and ma cbtain additional Dated: January a.1991 information under the provisions of the peer review. In a dition. the Deputy Paperwork Reduction Act.1980(44 may request an audit, financial survey, Amy Sabria.
U.S.C. chapter 35).
or site visit of the applicant, but no CenerclCounsel. Netiono/Endowmentfor fAe Arts. 1. Type of submission new, revision revisions or additions to the grant or extension: Reviolon.
application materials wiu be accepted in [Mt Doc.93-807 Filed 1-th2: 8:45 am) 2.ne title of the infonnation connection with the Request for a m o caos m 5.es Reconsideration. collectiom 10 CFR part 28. Fitnesa.for.
(ii) The Deputy may conduct the Puty Prosr*m$-
3.The form number,1f applicable: Not reconsideration personally or may NATIONAL SCIEME FOUNDATION applicable.
designate anothcr Endowment official who had no part in the initial evaluation Advisory Panel for instructional 4. liow often the collection is required: Biannual.
to do so. The term " Deputy " as used Matertala Development; Notlee of here, applies to such designees. Meeting 5. Who will be required to report: All (iii) The Deputy wiu provide written nuclear power plant licensees.
ne National Science Foundation Additionalinformation, such as the notification of the results of the reconsideration within 45 days.lf the announces the following meeting: number of actions taken. would be Deputy cannot * *II 'I"8t"C***I regalred to be reported by those within 45 days, the provide applicantsuch will notice yh$$,^No , "g, licensees who choose to implement the receive a written explanation of the Date and 71mellanuary 24-25,1992. Lom option provided by this ameodment.
8:30 a m. to 5:30 p.m.
need for more time and an estimate of 6. An estimate of the number of Place: ANA Hotel,2401 M Street, NW., responses anticipated annually:198 when the results can be expected. Washington. DC 2oor.
liv)If the Deputy dotermines that responses.
7)Pe e/ Meeting: Closed Meeting.
none of the grounds listed in Paragroph 7. Annual burden per response:11.2 Contact Person Abca 1. Moses. Gerhard 2(b) existed, the declina tion will be Saldger, Franuutman, Maramt Cana, additional bours per nemlannual report:
- 0.1 per notification to individual, affirmed.
(vi)If the Deputy determines that one N,$3,NgGftk[ QDC . 8. An estimate of the total number of or more of the grounds listed in 20550, Instructional Materials Development. hours needed annuaUy by the industry Paragraph 2(b) existed. but the room 635.-A. Phone (2G2) 357-7006, to complete the requirement: 3717 hours0.043 days <br />1.033 hours <br />0.00615 weeks <br />0.00141 months <br /> recommendation of the peer review Purpose of Meeting:To attend Instructional plus a one-time development burden of Ma terials Development Panel and provide -128 honra. ..
1
_ . __ _ - ----- - - - - - ~
. - , 1_ . , g;g ggQq -- ^
, s 1498 A ._ Federal Ragistee / Vd. 57. Na,9 / Tuesday, January 10 1992 / Notices 3
9 An indication of whether section the workplate that might be aseful to 35Nih). Public law 96411 applies: Licensees. The report was written in commenta consideration for comments Applicable.
support of a Rtgulatory Guide on air received on or before this date.
- 10. Abstract:10 CFR part 26 of NRC's Comments should be sent to: Chief.
sampling that is being developed; the regulations " Fitness Regulatory Publications Branch, P-223, requires operators of nuclearfor Duty Programs" availability of a draft of the power Guide " Air Sampling in the Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
plants to implement fitness.for duty Washington, DC 20555.
programs to assure that personnel are Workplace " DG.9003. was announced A free single copy of draft NUREC/
not under the miluence of any substance in the Federal Register on October 17 CR-0006 may be requested by those or mentally or ph> sically impaired, to 1991 (56 FR 52087).
De comment period on NUREG-1400 considering public comment by writing retain certain records associated with expires March 18,1992. Cemeth to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory the managem-nt of these programs, and to provide reports concerning the received after this datt 'will te Commission Atta: Distribution and Mai.
" Services Section, Mall Stop P-370, performance of the programs and certain considered ifit is practical to do so, but
[ significant events. The fmal revision to the Commission is able to assure Washington. DC 20555. A copy is aleo available for inspection and/or cop g
the rule permits indwiduals to be comments consideration for comments received on or before this date. in the NRC Public Document Room,ying 2120 temporarily suspended as a result of a L Street, NW. (lewer Level),
prehminary positive test result for Comments should be sent to: Chief- ~Na shhgton, DC.
Reguhatory Publicatione Branch, P-223, tocaine or manJuana not confirmed by U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
the Medical Review Officer and requires Washington, DC 20535. Deted at Rochville. Maryland this 7th day the dele. ion uf specified eecords when d I* ""* 'Y' *
- A free single copy of draft NUREG- For the Nuclear Regulatory Commispion.
, tests results are not confirmed. The 1400 may be requested by those revision requires additional data Daald A Cal-considenna public comment by writing Chief RadiationProuctionondNeoM c'ements to be included in a biannual report to anure that data on the number to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Effects Smach Divelan ofReidotory of occasions that this rule provisionla Commission, Attn: Distribqtion and Mall MDhc8'J888 Cfl* 8/N8'I'0'R'8"l8"Y exercised and that the management Services Section, Mail Stop P410, ResearcA Washington, DC 20555. A copy is also actions includ2ng apocals, are reported available for inspection and/or copying (FR DK 928 F2ed 1-tmu am) to the Commission as well as 88484 cootF*see w in the NRC Pubhc Document Room,2120 Information which will allow the L Street, NW. (lower 14 vel),
Commission to monitor confinnation Washington, DC,
} rato frorr. onsite and U.S. Department , IDocket No,50-213]
g of Health and Human Services-certified of Dated at Roch111a. Maryland, this 7th day January,1981 Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power laborstory screening processes and to eva'uate the accuracy and reliabihtY For the Nuclear Regulatory twW Cog Notice of Partial Withdrawal of athievable through initial screening DM A. Cool, Application for Amendment to Facility tests. Chief. Radiation Protection cadNeohA -- opygg hw Copies of the submittal may be inspected or obtained for a fee from the Effects Bmoch Division ofRegulatobvy ApphcoDons. Office ofNucJearRegu The United States Nuclear Regulatory f Research Commission (the Commission) has NRC Pubhc Document Room. 2120 L granted the request of Connecticut Street. NW Lower level, Washington, [FR Doc. 92-a:9 Filed 1-1be:Ju am) Yankee Atomic Power Company (the 1- DC 20555. sa m o coot reeo m s licensee) to withdraw a portion ofits Comments and questions should be April 8,1991 application for proposed directed to the OMB reviewer Ronald DepoWtion: Software To Calculate amendment to Facility Operating M:nsk, Office ofinformation and Regula tory Affairs (315& 01481. NEOS- Particle Penetration Wrough Aerosol License DPR-61 for the Haddam Neck Transport Unes; AvaltabHtty Plant, located in Middlesex County,
"'" 8"' Connecticut.
l h[ son ton C >b3 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission Comments can also be submitted by De Portion of the amendment being has published for comment a report on tele hone at (202) 39mm " Deposition: Software to Calculate withdrawn would have revised the facility Technical Specifications T e NRC Clearance Officer is Brenda Particle Penetration through Aerosol j Shelton. (301) 492-8132. sections 3/4 9 4, Containment Building Transport Lines."(NUREC/GR-0000). Penetrations and 3/4 9.8, Residual Heat Dated t ads. Maryland, this sist day his report describes software Removal and Coolant Recirculation,
'!' developed for NRC under the direction
'" which will be resubmitted at a later of Dr.NX Anand and Dr. Andrew R. date.
Des :pc ted Senwr Oficialfor hformate.n McFarland at Texas A&M University.
Amources Management The Commission has previously he NRC is considering an endorsement issued a Notice of Consideration of IFR Dx 9:-9r Fded 1-1>9:. a.45 am) of the software in a Regulatory Culde on Issuance of Amendment published in the h """* C ' " " a)r sampling that is being developed; the Federal Registar on July 24.1991 (56 FR
! availability of a draft of the Regulatory 33952). However, by letter dated
- Cuide," Air Ssmpling in the December 12,.1991, the licensee '
Air SampHog in the Workplace,' W rkplace." DG-8003, was announced Avaltability withdrew the proposed change, in the Federal Register on October 17,
. For further details with respect to this ,
The Nuclear Regulatory Commiulon 19R1 (56FR52087). action. See the application for has pubbshed for comment a report on he comment period on NUREG/GR- amendment dated April 6.1991, and the
' Air Sampimgin the Workplace." D006 e.xpires March 16.1992. Comments licensee's letter dated December 12, (NUREG-1400). His report cootains received aftet this date will be which withdrew a portion of the considered if it is practical to do so, but V technical informa tion on alt sampling in application forlicense amendment he the Commission is able to assure t above documents are available for I
1 b.
1
.. . _ _ _ __ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ -