ML20195G946
| ML20195G946 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/31/1987 |
| From: | Murley T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Jordan E NRC OFFICE FOR ANALYSIS & EVALUATION OF OPERATIONAL DATA (AEOD) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151L073 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8801070083 | |
| Download: ML20195G946 (15) | |
Text
. _ _ _ _ _ _
DEC 31 O ns DISTRIBUTION Central File LReiter TMurley/Sniezek JRichardson ESGB Rdg File GBagchi JSniezek LShao MEMORANDUM FOR: Edward L. Jordan Director Office fer Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data FROM:
Thenas E. Hurley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
'UBJECT:
NRR PROPOSED GUIDELINES FOR DETERMINING EXCEEDANCE OF THE OPERATING BASIS EARTHQUAKE (0BE)
Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100 requires that a plant be shut down if the Operating Basis Earthquake (OBE) is exceeded during an earthquake. No guidance is offered as to how an exceedance, significant enough to warrant such a shutdown, is to be determined. Recent earthquakes, such as that which occurred in Illinois on June 10, 1987, emphasized that a better definition of such an exceedance was needed to avoid confusion and conflict between licensees and the NRC. The NRR staff, aided by coments fron RES, has proposed a set of interim guidelines to be used by the staff ard transnitted to licensees. The use of these guidelines would minimize confusion, require shutdowns when they are consistent with the intent of the reguletions, and avoid shutdowns when they are not.
I is a proposed draf t of the guidelines in the fem of a generic letter. These guidelines would provide a substantial increase in the overall protection of public health and safety in that the licensees would have enn-sistent guidance as to when the plant would be required to shutdown and thus the plants would not be operated in a degraded condition. As a result, the direct and indirect costs of implerentation for the facilities affected are justified, especially since unnecessary shutdown will be avoided. Attachnent 2 is the CRGR review package that addresses the responses to the infomatien requirerents included in the CRGR Charter.
Please schedule a CRGR review of this proposal at the earliest opportunity.
Thomas E. Murley,y J. H. Sniezek Original signed b Director
[for)
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
As stated cc:
V. Stello W. Russell J. Grace A. Davis R. Martin J. Martin CONTACT:
L. Reiter, NRR/ESGB Ext. 27626
- See previous concurrence page.
- DEST:ESGB
- EDITOR
- DEST:ESGB
- DEST:EAD Q
ST LReiter:jch RS GBagchi JRichardson L3hao 12/ /87 12/ /87 12/ /87 12/ /87 12
/87 DIhA\\T' "I f,NRR 6I JSnQlek J1 ezek TgyJvy g g,_ /87..
2.
187 le
TO ALL HOLDERS OF AN OPERATING LICENSE (OL) OR A CONSTRUCTION PERMIT (CP)
FOR A NUCLEAR POWER REACTOR F/CILITY.
Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
STAFF POSITION Oh EXCEEDANCE OF THE OPERATING BASIS EARTHQUAKE (OBE)
PURPOSE:
This generic letter is being provided to inform recipients about an NRC staff position on guidelines that will be used to detemine whether the OBE has been exceeded and a nuclear pcwer reactor f acility is required to shut down. These guidelines are applicable to (1) all plants that were licensed subsequent to the adoption of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100 (1973) and (2) those plants licensed before that date whose safety evaluation reports include a reference to the proposed regulation. These guidelines are not being imposed upon older plants; however the staff would rely heavily upon these guidelines as a starting point in any plant-specific evaluation of earthquake related shutdown.
It is expected that recipients will review the information for applicability to their facilities and review their own procedures for determining OBE exceedance, ho specific action is required at this time; however recipients will be expected to be aware of this position when an earthquake occurs and OBE exceedance is being determined.
BACKGROUND:
Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100 requires that a nuclear power plant be shut down following an earthquake if /ibratory grcund notion exceeding that of the OBE cccurs. Before the plant resumes operation, the liceasee must demonstrate that no functional damage has occurred to those features necessary for continued operation without undue risk to the health and safety of the public. The O!E d
2 is defined by response spectra, and seismic instrumentation should be available so that if an earthquake occurs, the seismic response of features can be detemined promptly to permit timely action as may be appropriate. Given the nur.ber of operating nuclear power plants and the occurrence of earthquakes in almost all parts of the United States, earthquakes that are felt at nuclear power plants and/or trigger instruments therein are likely events. For exarple, the moderate (magnitude 5.0) earthquake that occurred on June 10, 1987 in southern Illinois was either felt or triggered instruments at six plants, the most distant of which was almost 800 km from the earthquake epicenter. Much smaller and more frequent earthquakes can also be felt at closer distances.
Thus, experience indicates that a clearer definition is needed of what constitutes an OBE exceedance warranting shutdown.
4
)
PROBLEMS:
l I
l Experience indicates that the ability to detemine OBE exceedance and require plant shutdown can vary from plant to plant and earthquake to earthquake.
M6jor factors affecting this variance are:
1.
Varying levels of instrumentation: Types and capabilities of seismic i
I instrumentation at nuclear power plants vary from those capable of
(
providing imediate readings of both peak acceleration and response j
spectra to those capable of providing only peak acceleration, and/or response spectra that take several days to process and interpret. 5 cme l
older plants licensed before the promulgation of Appendix A have no
(
seismic instrumentation.
[.
d
~
(
3 2.
Varying levels of instrument operability: Experience indicates that often, when an earthquake occurs, all or part of the seismic instrumen-tation has been inoperable during the earthquake.
3.
Poor indicatien of likelihood of earthquake dar. age: Peak accelerations j
and high frequency response spectra alor,e may be unsatisfactory indicators of likelihood to cause earthquake damage. Cngoing research and detailed evaluation of exceedance of the OBE (and even of exceedance of the Safe Shutdown Earthquake) at the Sumer and Perry nuclear power plants during 1
earthquakes indicate that some OBE exceedances are of little or no signifi-cance. When OBE exceedance is confir.ed to the high frequency portion of the response spectrum (greater than 10 Hz), and is due to short duration (less than one second), low energy ground motion, any adverse offect en l
plant operability or safety seems highly unlikely.
This was most recently i
confir.ned cW.ig the June 10, 1987 earthquake when the OBE response 8
spectrum was exceeded in the 20 to 25 H2 range at Clinton and no adverse effects were observed.
The NRC Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research is investigating the suscept-ability of equipent to high-frequency damage. Studies by the Electric Power Research Institute and the American Nuclear Society are also under way to l
better define instrumentally determined seismic damage parameters and a mean-f l
ingful definition of OBE exceedance. However, these studies are Nt expected
.. rm i
to be available for review and endorsement by the NRC'unfil 1988 at the
_v earliest.
l l
I
+,
STAFF FOSITION:
In consideration of the above problems and to avoid misunderstanding with respect to the NRC staff's position about what constitutes an OBE ext;eeda.,
warranting shutdown, the following guidelines are offered l
1.
For plants at which instrumentally determined peak acceleration and response spectra are available, exceedance of the 08E peak acceleration and/or any OBE response spectral ordinate shall be considered an excee.
l dance of the 08E. The staff will consider a request for relief fron s.ie shutdown criteria if the OBE response spectrum is not exceeded or any such exceedance is confined to frequencies greater than 10 Hz and in either case was not due to an earthquake that:
resultedinModifiedMercalltIntensity(MMI)effectsofVII' a,
l or greater within 5 km of the plant er l
l b.
was equal to or greater than magnitude 5.0* and occurred within l
l i
l 25' km of the plant or 4
l l
1 was equal to or greater than magnitude 3.75 and occurred within c.
5 kn of the plant.
S n these guidelines the U. S. Geological Survey, National Earthquake Infor-Imation Center deterwinations of epicentral loca',4.cn, magnitude, and intensity will usus11y take precedence over other estimates; however, regional and loest determinations will be used if they are considered to be more accurate.
l l
r 5-i 2.
For plants at which only instrur4ntally determined peak accelerations are P
available, exceedance of the 08E peak acceleration shall be considered an exceedance of the OBE. The staff vill consider a request for relief from the shutdown criteria if the exceedance was not due to an earthquake f
that:
a.
resulted in MMI effects of Y! or greater within 5 km of the plant gr l
b.
was of regnitude 6.0 or greater it c.
was equal to or greater than r.agnitude 5.0 and occurred within i
200 km of the plant Er i
d.
was equal to or greater than magnitude 3.75 and occurred within j
5 km of the plant.
l 3.
For plants at which no instruwental data are available, the OBE will be considered to have been exceeded and shutdown to be warranted if the earthquake:
was felt within the plant and resulted in MM! Y! or greater within a.
L 5 km of the plant 21 i
b.
was felt within the plant and was of regnitude 6.0 or greater og i
l e
wm
,q-
6-was felt within the plant, was of magnitude 5.0 or greater, and c.
occurred within 200 kn of the plant or d.
was felt within the plant, was of magnitude 3.75 or greater, and 4
occurred within 5 km of the plant.
4.
A delay of up to 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> oecause of the processing and interpretation of data is considered acceptable.
If the licensee needs more time, the staff will base its evaluation on the information available within the first 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> using guidelines I, 2 or 3 depending on which type of data is available. When new data becomes available after 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br />, the staff will assess its significance, using those guidelines applicable to the new data.
5.
If the earthquake is felt within the plant and the above criterie do not require shutdown, a walkdown should be conducted withir '4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> of the earthquake by experienced engineers to detennine if there is any earthquake-relsted damagt. (safety-related er non-safety-related) within the plant, If any non-trivial damage or pervasive effects that can be attributed to j
l the earthquake are observed, shutdown is considered warranted.
l l
6.
If plant shutdown is warranted under the above guidelines, the plant should be shut down in an orderly manner. Before shutdown is started, the status of the heat removal systers and supporting components and l
l system that are reauired for shutdown should be checked. Shutdown I
should then proceed according to plant operating procedures.
7.
Informat;cn submitted orally by a licensee in support of a request for relief from the plant shutdown requirement should be confirmed in writing within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of the request.
The above criteria should be viewed as guidelines to be used by the staff until more detailed criteria are proposed by the scientific and technical community and reviewed by the NRC. No specific action or written response is required by this generic letter.
If you have any questions about this matter, please conta:t the appropriate technical co tact.
Sincerely.
Frank J. Miraglia, Associate Director for Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation TECHNICAL CONTACT: Leon Reiter, NRR/ESGB (301) 492-7626 h
9 4e&
6e 4eg 6 mGe e
-e
=
wge
-4
>4g>-a n.
en g. m e
,e.
CRGR $UBMITTAL PACKAGE
_FOR APPROVAL OF A STAFF P05ITI0h ON EXCEEDANCE OF THE OPERATIhG BASIS EARTHQUAKE (OBE)
NRR has identified this as a Category 2 requirement. The items that follow correspond to the requirements specified in the Comittee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR) Charter, Revision 4, April 1987, Paragraph IV.B.
(i) The proposed generic requirement or staff position as it is proposed to be sent out to licensees.
NRR is proposing a set of guidelines to be used in defining what consti-tutes an exceedance of the OBE warranting shutdown. These guidelines define criteria to be used when an instrumental exceedance of the OBE during an eartnquake is not considered significant and a licensee request for relief from the required shutdown is considered justified. These guidelines also define OBE exceedance warranting shutdown when no instru-mental data are available. The only existing criteria for OBE exceedance, which were never officially approved by the NRC, appear in ANSI /ANS 2.10, 1979; these make no attempt to distinguish between non-significant, low-energy, short-duratior OBE exceedances at high frequencies of ground motion and those exceedances for which shutdown and further inspection would be warranted before the plant is allowed to resume operations.
The proposed guidelines are considered appropriate for use until studies f
being conducted by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES), and other agencies can be 1
f l
l 2
completed and reviewed by the NRC staff. When that review is complete, the guidelines will be replaced, if neccssary, by criteria that reflect a more thorough understanding of the damage-producing aspects of earthquake ground motion.
(ii)
Draft staff papers or other underlyirg staff documents supporting the requirements or staff positions.
s The proposed canaric letter appearing as Attachment 1.
(iii)
Each proposed requirement or staff position shall contain the sponsoring office's position as to whether the proposal would
[
increase requirements or staff positions, implement existing requirements or staff positions, or would relax or reduce existing requirements or staff positions.
A new staff position is being proposed to clarify and interpret the intent of existing regulations since there is no previous approved generic staff position that provides this information.
l I
l l
(iv)
The proposed method of implementation along with the concurrence l
(and any concerts) of the Office of the General Counsel (0GC) on the method proposed.
l l
Concurrence is not necessary, although the S oposed p:sition was dis-cussed with OGC. The position was prepared in acccrdance with these discussions 1
- 3...
(v) Regulatory analyses generally conforming to the directives and guidance of NUREG/BR-0058 and NUREG/CR-3568.
The staff believes approval of the guidelines does not involve new requirements but does establish a new generic position interpreting the intent of the regulation.
Ne action is required of licensees.
The interim guidelines when implemented, will avoid confusion and state clearly what is currently required to meet the regulations and require shutdowns due to OBE exceedance that are consistent with the intent of the regulations.
No specific regulatory analysis is provided but the intent is met by the information contained % this attachment.
(vi) Identification of the category of reactor plants to which the generic requirement or staff position is to apply.
t All plants that were licensed after Appendix A to P CFR Part 100 was adopted (1973) and those plants that were licensed before that date in whicn the staff made reference to the proposed regulation in its safety l
l evaluation reports. These guidelines are not being 1:aposed upon plants l
-4 that do not fall into these categories, however the staff would rely heavily upon these guidelines as a starting point in any plant specific evaluation of earthquake related shutdown.
(vii)
For each such category of reactor plants, an evaluation which demonstrates how the action should be prioritized and scheduled in I Vht of other ongoing regulatory activities. The evaluation shall document for consideration information available concerning any of the following factors as may be appropriate and any other information relevant and material to the proposed action:
(a) Statement of the specific objective that the proposed action is designed to achie~,
The objective is to establish a new position that clarifies and interprets the intent of existing regulations with regard to what constitutes an exceedance of the OBE to warrant plant 1
shutdown.
(b) General description of the activity th?+, would be required by the licensee or applicant in order to complete the action No atslon is required.
l e-
5-(c) Potential change in the risk to the public from the accidental offsite release of radioactive material Although specific change has not bee) quantified, substantial risk would be avoided if tile guidance prevents a plant from 4
operating in a degraded condition due to feilure to shutdown after OBD exceedance.
(d) Potential impact on radiological exposure of facility employees and other onsite workers No change is predicted.
(e)
Installation and continuing costs associated with the action, including the cost of facility downtime or the cost of con-
~
struction delay Not applicable.
(f) The potential safety impact of changes in plant or operational complexity, including the relationship to proposed and existing regulatory requirements and staff positions Not applicable.
(g) The estimated resource burden on the NRC associated with the proposed action and the availability of such resources
p-------
7
-, g,,,.
_,,,--.-,-_~-,_--..----m------
No resource burden on the NRC.
i (h) The potential impact of differences in facility type, design, or age on the relevancy and practicality of the proposed action The proposed guidelines are not approved for imposition on older plants not subject to Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100. However, the staff would rely heavily on these guidelines ss starting points in any plant-specific avaluation of earthquake exceedance at older plants.
(i) Whether the proposed action is interim or final, and if interim, the justification for imposing the proposed action on an interim basis
~
The proposed guidelines are interim. Their approval is justified because until ongoing studies are completed and final criteria are approved, no staff position exists interpreting the reguia-tions. The, occurrence of an earthquake could lead to confusion and conflict between the licensees and the NRC as to when instrumental exceedance of the OBE warrants shutdown and how the regulation is to be interpreted when no instrumental data are available.
(viii)
For each evaluation conducted pursuant to 10 CFR 50.019, the proposin3 office director's determination, together with the rationale for the determination based on the considerations of paragraphs (1) through (vil) above, that
- T ::::.
7 (a) there is a substantial increase in the overall protection of public health and safety or the common defense and security to be derived from the proposal; and (b) the direct and indirect costs of implementation, for the facilities affected, are justified in view of this increased protection.
The Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation has made this finding as evidenced by his signature on this package.
(ix)
For each evaluation conducted, proposed relaxations or decreases in current requirements or staff positions, the proposing office director's determination, together with the rationale for the determination based on the considerations of paragraphs (1) through (vii) above, that (a) the public health and safety and the connon defense and security would be adequately protected if the proposed reduction in requirements or positions were implemented, and I
(b) the cost savings attributed to the action would be substantial enough to justify taking the action.
Not applicable.
w----.--
-w, w-s
%,..--_,,.y.,-.-w-..-- r ---
y-
.pyr
+--,.---www-%-,
-,ww-e--
-t-
7 UNITED STATES
[
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '
s j
wAssiNoTow, p. c. rosss
- s.,...../
JAN 191988 NEMORANDUM FOR:
Robert M. Bernero, NMSS T. T. Martin, Region I Denwood F. Ross, RES e^
Joseph Scinto, 0GC James H. Sniezek, NRR FROM:
Edward L. Jordan, C5 airman, Committee to Review Generic Requirements e.x,,
SUBJECT:
REVIEW OF RES RULEMAKING AND POLICY-STATEMENT ACTIVITIES E. Beckjord has requested CRGR consideration of several Rulemakin0 and Policy Statement activities.(see Enclosure 1).
I concur with the CRGR staff finding tnat this request warrants CRGR review under the CharterM an '
recommending C m mittee consideration of the Final Rule at eur next'aeetigg,>.
~ 'e?
s Due to the minor significance of this change, I believe a' briefing'Dy RE5 Ts" l
not required.
With regard to the other items addressed by RES in their October 28, 1987 memo, I propose forwarding the attached memo (Enclosure 2).
If you have no objections, I will issue this memo within five days.
I e
l l
or an, Chair 1 san Committ to Review Generic f:equ ements I
l
Enclosures:
l As stated l
l l
l
k*%
/
UNITED STATES e
f NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSKW I
wAsumeorow, o, c. seses 3s,**'*/
b0btMk OCi t 8 ggy w s.k
-S n $r.,
~
%l<& 2:..fspi HEMORANDUM FOR:
Edward L. Jordan, Chairman Mr
/s J
Cosesittee to Review Generic Requiremen 7
g.
g3 FROM:
Eric S. Beckjord, Director p
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research g.
SUBJECT:
DETERMINATION ON NEED FOR CRGR REVIEW 0F SPECIFIC RULEMAKING AND POLICY STATEMENT ACTIVITIES
~
i The purpose of this memorandum is to srelicit your views on the need for CRGR review of the following RES Rulemaking and Policy Statement activities:'-
1.
Final Rule, 10 CFR Part 73, Appendix 9, "General Criteria for Security Personnel"
,s
-2.
Proposed Rule,10 CFR Part 71, "Packaging aad Trans,portation of Radioactive Material'
' 3.
Proposed Policy Statement, "Nuclear Power Plant Access Authorization Program' The first item involves a final rule (Enclosure 1) which deletes a 30-day scheduling link between the annual physical fitness test and preceding medical examination given to all armed security personnel. This rule responds to'a petition for rulemaking (PRM 73-6) which was denied in part in 52 FR 33428 dated September 3,1987. The rule being implemented does not chance the requirement that the medical examination and physical fitness test be given at least annually - it only eliminates the current requirement that the medical examination be given within the 30 days preceding the physical fitness test.
No change in security force effectiveness is involved and a cost saying by licensees is envisioned.
In my opinion the minor significance of this final rule obviates the need for a CRGR review.
The second item involves a proposed rule which would modify NRC regulations on Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive Materials,10 CFR Part 71, to achieve maximum compatibility with IAEA regulations (Enclosure 2). The major provisions of the proposed rule would (1) establish a new qualification test for certain transport packages, (2) modify and extend the table of allowable i
quantities of various radionuclides for transport in packages which are not accident-resistant (3) upgrade requiresents for shipping low specific activity (LSA) material, and (4) simplify rules for shipment of fissile materials.
1 l
Most aspects of this proposed rule have little or no impact on power reactor licensees. The major exception involves the proposed upgrade in requirements for shipping LSA material.
This change could impact a few hundred such shipments per year, many of which originate at power reactors, as indicated in I
the supporting regulatory analysis.
I suggest that CRGR involvement in this l 1FC? !$46/-j2. /6 p.
f
m
- ^f er y
OCT t s 'k ~~
proposed rule be deferred until preparation of the final rule package in which the impact on power reactor licensees will be more precisely defined as a result of public (utility) corrnent.
If the CRGR desires to review the proposed rule, RES could prepare a package which focuses CRGR attention on those aspects which irrpact the procedures of power reactor licensees. The CRGR review could follow receipt of office concurrence, currently scheduled for late December er early January.
~
The third item involves the proposed policy statement on the nuclear power t
plant access authorization program. This policy statement was reviewed by CRGR on December 4,1986 (CRCR Meeting No.,102). CRGR corments, at that time, went directed at the issue of access authorization for temporary workers. This issue was addressed in NRR generic letter 87-10 which received CRGR review on I'
January 5,1987 (CRGR Meeting No.146). The decision that the policy statement should be issued for public consnent has led to the need for resubmission of the supporting package to the Comission. As a result RES currently is not i
planning to resubetit this package for CRGR review.
I would appreciate your views on these matters.
e L.
2 EricS.Beckjorh, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research i
Enclosures:
1.
Final Rule, 10 CFR Part 73, Appendix B
}
2.
Proposed Rule 10 CFR Part 71, with Regulatory Analysis 3.
Proposed Policy Statement l
l l
l^
,a.
s i sw..
DRAFT MEMORANDUM FOR:
.Eric S. Beckjord, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research FROM:
Edward L. Jordan, Chairman
-- Committee to Review Generic Requirements
SUBJECT:
' REVIEW 0F RES AULEMAKING AND POLICY
^
STATEMENT ACTIVITIES
-n Your memorandum of October 28, 1987 requested CRGR consideration of three issues.
The CRGR will review the final rule, 10 CFR Part 73, Appendix B, a
- General Criter f a for Security Personnel," at the next Committee meeting and..,
due to the minor significance of this final rule, no brieff.ng is needed.fnYou '
will be informed of the results of.our review following the. meeting. '*>
3*"
l The second item, proposed rule 10 CFR 71, "Packaging and Transportation of l
Radioactive Material" should be forwarded to CRGR for consideration as soon as it is available.
l The third issue involves a proposed Policy Statement, "Nuclear Power Plant Access Authorization Program" which is being issued for public coment.
Based on RES having previously addressed CRGR comments on this issue, further CRGR l
review is not needed.
Edward L. Jordan, Chairman Committee to Review Generic Requirements l
t
9-y,z.
r-i 4
[7590-01]
r, OMa n e'* w. '
lhin,ily sedergemy Nuclear Regulatory Comission 10 CFR Part 73 v
General Criteria for Security Perso,nnel,
2-
_ M,. '.
AGENCY:
Nuclear Regulatory Comission ACTION:
Final Rule,,,
SUMMARY
- TheNuclearRegulatoryCosumission(NRC)is,amendingits 4 m, regulations regarding physical ~ fitness qualif}6st' ions for secuHty personnel. The amendment continues to require annual medical examinations and annual physical fitness testing for guards, armed response personnel, anned escorts and Tactical Response Team members but deletes the scheduling requirement that the tredical examination be conducted within the 30 days preceding the physical fitness test. The amendment is supported by findings made by the Cossaission 'in response to a petition for rulemaking, denied in part, which was published in the Federal Register on September 3, 1987 (52 FR 33428).
EFFECTIVE DATE:
(insert date of publication in Federal Register.)
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. William R. Lahs, Division of Regulatory Applications Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research,
'U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, DC 20555, Telephone 301-443-7632.
i 1
l I
l
wn
[7590-01],
r, SUPPLENENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Nuclear Regulatory Connission received a petition for rulemaking
-(PitM 73-6) dated December 2.d981, filed by Shaw, Pittman, Rotts and Trowbridge on behalf of the Wisconsin Electric Power Company, the Public Service Electric and Gas Company, the Cossenwealth Edison Company, the i
Yankee Atomic Electric Company, the Northern States Power Company, and -u i
the Sacramento Municipal Utility District. The petiti,on requested, changes in the qualifications for armed security personnel, set out in 10 CFR Part 73, Appendix B, entitled, "General Criteria for Security Personnel." Although the, petition was denied,in part "as documented in 52 FR 33428 dated September 3,1987, the Cossaission n'oticed that it intended..to grant that part of.the petition which requ,ested deletion of an existing requirement that amed security personnel undergo a medical l
examination within the 30 days preceding their individual annual physical fitness test.
This final rule completes Comission action on PRM 73-6.
RESPONSES TO PUBLIC COPNENTS ON THE PETITION FOR RULEMAKING
~
g The petition was published for coment in the Federal Register on February 16, 1982 (47 FR 6659). The NRC received 13 connent letters on PRM 73-6 and two related petitions.
The sources were as follows:
Congress 1
General Public 1
Nuclear Industry 11 The industry coments and the single "general public" connent supported the petition position that the link between the medical examination and the physical fitness test be deleted. These comenters typically noted that the requirement for an annual medical examination
(
within the 30 days preceding the physical fitness test is unnecessary l
with regard to the ef fectiveress of the sccurity force and presents a l
l l
I l
2 l
l
~. -.
...w
~
[7590-01]
scheduling nightmare. Rotating shif ts, weather elements, and the availability of trainers / instructors to administer the physical fitness test complicate the scheduling problem. The Congressional conwenter ceutioned against doing away with security requirements based only on the claim that the regulations are cumbersome.
The change in regulations being implemented through this amendment has taken into account the concerns of all commenters. The amendment leaves in, place the requirement that all armed security persgnel undergo both annual medical examinations and physical fitness testing. These existing requirements are intended to ensure that guard force personnel are physically able to perform their duties. The Ccenission also recognizes that to protect the well-being of the security' force personnel, prudent practice would dictate that a medical examination be given sometime prior to physi. cal testing. However, the Commission believes that the exact timing between the medical examination ai.d the physical fitness test is primarily a scheduling matter in which the licensee requires discretion for efficient management. The Connission agrees with the petiti'oners that there is no necessary relationship between this schedule interval and the level of protection being provided. The revised 10 CFR 73, Appendix B.I.C., retitled, "Medical examination and physical fitness qualifications," continues to require a physical fitness test to be preceded by a medical examination as a criteria for establishing employment suitability and qualification. Only the 30 day link between the medical examination and the physical testing has been deleted.
In addition,10 CFR 73, Appendix B.I.E., has been retitled "Physical and medical requalification," and has been modi.fied to clearly specify that, at least every 12 months, guards, armed response personnel, arwed escorts, and Tactical Response Team r:cmbers shall be required to neet the referenced physical requiremt.nts and shall be subject to a physical fitness test and a medical examination.
The provisions of this amendinent may be adopted through appropriate rodifications in the licensee's safeguards contingency plan made under the authority of this rule.
3
.u"
^
.,g.
[7590-01]
~. s
-~
Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion The NRC has determined that this final rule is the type of action described in categorical exclusion 10 CFR 50.22(c)(2). Therefore, neither an environmental impact statement ner an environmental assessment has been prepared for this final rule.
.y Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
~
This final rule does not contain a new or amended information collection. requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980(44_
U.S.C.3501etseq.). Existing reqeirements were approved by the Office of Management and Budget approval number 3150-0002.
1 Regulatory Analysis m
e w
This final rule amends 10 CFR Part 73, deleting a requirement which specifies a scheduling link between the medical examination and the physical fitness test'to which all armed security personnel are subjected at least every 12 months. The amendment was initiated as a response to a petition for rulemaking (PRM 73-6) dated December 2,1981, filed by Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge on behalf of six utilities operating nuclear power reactors. The amendment is directed at relieving a scheduling problem which has no impact on the effectiveness of the security force.
The requirement that, at least every 12 months, all armed security personnel be subjected to both a medical examination and a physical fitness test remains unchanged. Only the requirement that the roedical examination precede the physical fitness test by 30-days or less is being deleted.
The amendment results in no impact on NRC resources and a cost j
savings to those licensees adversely impacted by the current requirement I
that all anned security personnel be subjected to an annual physical fitness test which must be preceded within 30 days by a medical I
examination.
4
.+
D590-01]
~
There are no apparent conflicts or overlaps with other hRC regulations or policies nor with other agencies' regulations or policies.
The amendment is intended to ensure effective security force performance without imposing an unnecessary burden on licensees.
Regulatory Flexibility Certification w
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5.U.S.C. 605(b)), the Connission certifies that this rule, does not have a significant economic.,
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The regulation affecti ' "
about 200 nuclear power reactor and fuel facility licensees and is expected to reduce unnecessary costs currently associated witN the schedule linkage between the medical examination and physical fitness ~
r test to which all armed security personnel are subjected.
a.m &
~Backfit Analysis This final rule modifies the safeguards contingency plan procedures associated with the op'eration of a nucicar power reactor. The objective of the modification is to eliminate a requirement which specifies a scheduling link between the medical examination and the physical fitness test to which all armed security personnel are subjected. The current requirement that both the medical examination and physical fitness test be administered at least every 12 months remains unchanged. As a result, the effectiveness of the security force is unaffected and no change is involved in the risk to the public or facility employees. No action by licensees is needed in order to comply with the rule. However, if the current link between the medical examination and physical fitness test presents an unnecessary scheduling problem, appropriate changes may be made to the licensee's safeguards contingency plan under the authority of this nJ1e.
The final rule involves no installation or continuing costs to the i
licensee, potentially relieves an unnecessary scheduling burden, and imposes no r.ew resource burden on the hRC.
i 5
A.
- :r 17590-013
~
.;wn List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 73 Hazardous materials-transportation, Incorporation by reference, huclear materials, fluclear power plants and reactors, Penalty, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures.
4 n
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of w
the Atomic Energy Act oi' 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act a.,
of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 553, the NRC is adopting the following,g amendments to 10 CFR Part 73.
l PART73--PHYSICALPROTECTIONOFPLANTSANDMATERIAli~
,q 1.
The authority cjtation for CFR Part 73 is revised to read as follows:
l AUTHORITY: Secs. 53,161, 68 Stat 930, 948, 'as amendN, sec."147, 4,~
94 Stat. 780 (42 U.S.C. 2073, 2167, 2201); sec. 201, as amended, 204, 88 Stat.1242, as amended, 1245 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5844).
Section73.37(f)'isalsoissuedundersec.301, Pub.L.96-295,94 Stat.789(42U.S.C.5841 note).
Section 73.57 is issued under,sec. 206, Pub. L.99-399 and sec. 1611, 68 Stat. 949 (42 U.S.C. 2201(i))r For the purposes of sec. 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C.
2273);%%73.21,73.37(g),and73.55areissuedundersec.161b,68 Stat.
948, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(b)); 6673.20, 73.24, 73.25, 73.26, 73.27, 73.37, 73.40, 73.45, 73.46, 73.50, 73.55, and 73.67 are issued undar sec. 1611, 68 Stat. 949 as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(1)); and $573.20(c)(1),
73.24(b)(1), 73.26(b)(3), (h)(6), and (k)(4), 73.27(a) and (b), 73.37(f),
73.40(b) and (d), 73.46(g)(6) and (h)(2), 73.50(g)(2), (3)(iii)(B), and (h), 73.55(h)(2) and (4)(iii)(B), 73.70, 73.71, and 73.72 are issued l
under sec. 1610, 68 Stat. 950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(o)).
2.
In appendix B, the Table of Contents is revised to read as a
follows:
I B - General Criteria for Security Personnel l
6 i
+me w
[7596011. _
~~'
an..
Table of Contents introduction Definitions Criteria
~
r
~
1 Employment suitability and qualification
?
5.
s.,,
A.
Suitability j, g_,
B.
Physical and mental qualifications
.g4
,, y C.
Medical examination and physical fitness qualifications D.
Contract security personnel E.
Physical and inedical requalification _
F.
Documentation ne8 %
.a gg m
3.
In appendix B, paragraph 1.C. is revised to read as follows:
APPENDIX B - General Criteria for Security Personnel C.
Medical examinations and physical fitness qualifications -
Guards, armed response personnel, armed escorts and Tactical Response Team merrbers shall be subject to a medical examination including a determination and written certification by a licensed physician that there are no medical contraindications as disclosed by the medical examination to participation by the individual in physical fitness tests.
Subsequent to this medical examination, guards, armed response personnel, armed escorts and Tactical Response Team members shall demonstrate physical fitness for assigned security job duties by performing a practical physical exercise program within a specific time period. The exercise program perfonnance objectives shall ce described in the licensee training and qualifications plan, and shall consider such job related functions as strenuous activity, physical exertion, levels of 7
-w o
[7590-01]'"
~
- + -
.m.
t stress, and exposure to the elements as they pertain to each individual's assigned security job duties for both normal and ewrgency operations.
The physical fitness qualification of each guard, amed response person, armed escort, and Tactical Respense Team member shall be documented and attested to by a licensee security supervisor.
n.
4.
InAppendixB. paragraph 1.E.isrevisedtgreadasfollows:
APPENDIX B - General Criteria for Security Personde$
E.
Physical and redical requalification - At least every 12 months, central alann station operators shall be required,te meet the physical.
requirements of B.1.b of this section and guards.,arned response personnel, anned escorts and Tactical Response Team members shall be' 7
required to reet the physical requirerents of paragraphs B.I.b(1) and (2) and shall be subject tc redical examination and physical fitness qualification requirenients of paragraph C of this section.
w Dated at Bethesda, MD, this day of 1987.
For the Nuclear Pegulatory Comission.
Victor Stello. Jr.
Executive 01 rector for Operations.
8
+
4.4
,O e
.; c Approved For Publication The Commission has delegated to the E00 (10 CFR 1.31(a)(3)) the authority to develop and promulgate rules as defined in the APA (5 U.S.C. 551(4))
subject to the limitations in NRC Manual Chapter 0103, Organization and Functions Office of the, Executive Director for Operations, paragraphs 0213. 038, 039, and 0310.
r The enclosed final rule, entitled "General Criteria for Security Personnel," will amend 10 CFR Part 73, Appendix B, by deleting the existing scheduling link betweenEthe physical fitness. test and medical examination given at least annually to all armed security personnel. The effectiveness of the security force will not be changed by tra provisions of this rule.
This final rule does not constitute a significant question of policy, nor does it amend regulations contained in 10 CFR Parts 7, 8, and 9 Subpart C concerning matters of policy.
I therefore find that this rule is within the scope of my rulemaking authority and am proceeding to issue it.
Date Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations.
e..
<J,.
m,- se Proposed Rules ra-a nee-Vol St No. grt n
Thesday. Sgiaanbee 4. saar h..
Thrs sect,on of te FEDERAL REGrSTEA FOf4 FUftTHER lesFOftsdAT10s: CoorTaCT; e atre pas of glassee estas immde to bees & age
,a conta,ns nous to the ptAc of the Dr. Sandra D. Frattali. Radiation or toes. Caneequently, cos@snce esa 5'M558d '.*The espose of rese notees Protection and Ifealth Effects Branch, becorne un tneficctive yet co cy eserdu.
- nc* 08 ruS *ad El ngulatons Division of Regulatory Applications.
Regard ng the requirement that Office of Nuclear Regulatory Raeseech, secwitv personnel an anneal eneksg pnce to lhe assopsen of the enal U.S. Nudea: Regulatory Cosamleelen, medkul examination wi 30 4 eye d Wa shington DC yo655, lelephone [301) an anneel phyolcal fitnoes teet,tse a
~443-y746, peUUonses*suggut bl $se two type SUPPtJennestTAsry assponsamfeest of testa need not be tied to the tune 900C OULATORY.
ockedule, and that 4%g d medical examinanone should very with at Regulatwy M age. * *
- ne ; : ~ -
seesgmime 10 CFM Part y3
.is respondin6 to a petitico for the *-ta ef @
toccaet Pres.Ts-41 rulemaking dated December 2,1981 fitnesa'teettag and filed by Shaw, Pittraan, Potte and examlastions for security posseemal*
Par'.i Denial of petstion for Trowbridge on behalf of time Wlamaaln and state that, under the revised Rulemaking; Wisconsin Doctric Power Dectric Power Company, the Peblic language proposed in ese petisoe, Co.etaL Service Doctric and Ces Cemepet.y. the "existing requirements for eddleend Acemer. Nudear Regulatory Commonweal & Edism &==Pany. ee sned! cal ammmetions Isikmlag auslaus Commission.
Yankee Atotnic Doctric thpany, the ninese,inkary, disease or opereelse Northern Statee Power Conspany, and would aut he affected." he petitwearse acno c Partial denial of peution for the Sacreento idonidpal Utility
, reviewed the pirretcal Aluees and
'"lemaking.
District.no petition requested shameos usedicalessenkseeiseseguicessanted -
sussedAsm %e Nuclear Regulatory in the qualiBcatione for armed security the various breedsee of Gee siittery Commission (NRC)is responding to a personnel set out in to CFR Part T3.
service. Gie HR. and ebnaar '
petition submitted by Wisconsin Dectric Appendix B. and entitled "Ceneral enforcement <eleted orgenteatteris set &
Power Company, et af, to amend to CR Criteria for Secondary Personnel" g
Part 73. Appendix B.De petition SPecificaUy. the petitioners requested hn b.e d eeMty deers e udur includes three proposals: Dirninate the -
changes to criteria LB.1.b(1)(a). I C. and pwerptes * *
- knd twe)ht&e requirement that armed security LE.
pnwnt fatC requirements are vieseehdy persormel carry an extra pair of The changes the petitioners requested strics. 4e esear d h see=esamenes es she corrective lenses, reduce the mandated would eliminate the requirement that, at mulitary amia4.br indesel and stase frequency of medical examinations for nudear power plants or other fadlities agendes. the petitioners H personnel under age 39, and ellininate Ucensed to handle special audear etuninatma a the Ceme==We pones requirements that armed security material, armed security peesonnel who "94A""'ennytag md%1 examinatiam to personnel undergo a medical need corrective lenses cany an extra P,b :
nesstes
,g examination witnin tne 3Gday period pair and the requirement that security M ed ues ede,Me loe m precedmg the physkal fitness test that is personnel undergo a medical
,,p;,pn w,2,,, cat,tw,g gj,q,,
given at least yearly. After considering examination within 30 days preceding nq.u se..<aibeeusang po w e a the issues raised, the Commission finds an annual physical fitness test.
pecy n,
II8'I' IO' R *9u**t W petitioners indode prs 5med r u e o the g of an eatra amendments to the test of patacas c(
pair of corrective lenses and annual m petitioners in an accompanying medical examinations. These two parta memorandurn in support of the petitjon.
Appendix B to Part 13.
of the petition are bdng denied becaun state that "the requirement for security Pubuc Commentste h Pemion it han not been shown that the penonnel to carry an entre pair of relasation of present requirements corrective lenses is an unnecessary ne peWon was published for would result in the asme level of nuisance to those personnelit also comment la the Fedual Register on Irotection provided by the cunent makes them sub}ect to harassing February 16.1982 (47 R 6659). ne NRC received 13 comment letters.De regulations. %e Commission intends to inspections to check for their second set sounn wne as foUows:
grant, through lucance of a rule, the of eyeglassee or contact lenees."%e third part of the petition requesting petitioners also state that o&er Federal Congress-1 deletion of a specified Itn1 tetween the and State agencies,induding-General pubhc+1 timing of the med2 cal examination and h mihtery wrvkes, h IBt. k bemJeration Nudear industry-11 the physical fitness tret.
Seruca. AIF. M Cutoma Seevka, the CSA.
Ten of the comrnent letters supported A00mt sst 3: Cyles of the petitL>n for not the Distrkt d Colombia Peixe the petition, pt none of thern contained rulemaking. the public comments Depenet ce the Maryland State Polace (de say te<.hnjcel information beyond that thereon, and the NRC's letter of denial
[,",9,j,],
{,gg,",3,,
W" in th peWon. One commentu argued that brnien eyeglasses are meaningful are available foe enemination and unmencied ens @t falls t.elow a cerein emina for a fee at the Commission's i,,,1 n,,e NRC navnment thee appear, only if the enure guard force is eneging Pubhc Document Room at 1717 ll Street.
,,erly sermgent. Moreover, the reqwement le in a reponse and pointed out that there NW, Washington. lX;.
ofien darauh to senefy t.euuee certpr s en has never been a cell up of the total b1C los urc Z i
..m.
an Federal Register / Vol. 52. No.171 / Thursday September 3.1987 / Proposed ules 33421 guard force ott N.
- aother commenter flaearms, the study makes the statement carrying an extra pair of'gla <ses by expanded on b. we. cal examina tion that "point shooting was estremely poor armed personnel will be relained.
inne by describing the practices of at night with visual acuties over 20/
With respect to the second proposal.
certain other State and Federal '.
<r 30."
- ne experience of the New York NRC finds that an annual medical agencies.
ew Cary police Department shows that 20 examination is necessary to ensure that percent of officer gunfights occur at the guard force personnel are physicauy
,gp m
distances greater than 20 feet.%e able to perform their duties nd that On the first proposal regarding the importance of having an assured level of there are no contraindications to requirement for the extra pair of glasses. visusi aculty is stressed by the authors.*
participation in the anneal physical neither stafi reevaluation nor public in March.1987, another study of the fitness testing. Annual or cominents have identified substantive Columbus. Ohio, police Department was "preparucipadon" medical ways in which the proposed changes published and provided further evidence examinations are casamon practice for would either benefit the public or result that police om:ers mat periodically.
young people who empse in sporte er in the same level of protection provided functJon with impaired vision. Also strenvous physical activity.no by cairnot regulauona. While the need included la this published study were Department of Energy. Secret Service.
to marry an entra palt of cornetive results cf a servey of police omcers who ard U.S. Marshal Servios all reque leases is not m==mly required by rouunely wear correctW -
no duty, annual medical examinations regardless paesons charged with pubue safety and Of the omcers respord-wey.
of age, as does the Department oflabor protectJon a requirement for a minimura 52% reported tb! 60 w for its mine recome team leeting.no neceptable uncorncted vision la become "diskdy# v@..'
peutioner has not presented perousalve
- caemmon, their dutiae' evidance that a three. year examination A few examples of those public Albugh erracks ?
agencies whose regulauona requin Service do a rev pstiod wiD provide b same stegres of assurance achieved by b current extra correctin lenses for their pers<
wits e.
y an annual requirement.
operstional personnel are ae follows..
extra I > ofcm 43..
With respect to the third proposal, the he Department of Energy reqsine that persona wc
- ~
i.ssA 4:
Commlulon recognizes that b timing e
anned personnel who need correctfn Mores aldar between medical examinauona and a leasee carry an extra pair. Federal agencies
- b
.&d physicall4 ness teet is primarily a 14oter Carrier Safety regulations provide vision etan g ot, e
.nying scheduling asatter le which the liceam that persons, who drive motor vehicles personnel %
%. Joe on behalf of anotor ceniers and who use example, requ(w
. 7ruita to bove requires discreden for emcient comenet lenses, cany a spare pair on at least 20/40 tu. syt.ted vision.
- oanagement.%e present regulation their penon. He Cosst Guard requins A minimurn vision standard was require the physical examination to be that a pilot (t.e. marine pilot). who needs suer sted in one of the public comments scheduled within 30 days of the physical corrective lenses, have a spare pair to 10 CIP part 73 when it was published test. The Commission agrees with the evallable on the venct Since the pilot la as a proposed rule.%e commente' petitioners that there is no necessary normally on the vessel bridge, a
' suggested a vision standard as a relationship between this schedule interval and the level of protection.De considerably smaller area than a substitute for b requirement to cany la tter is satisfied in demonstrating nuclear facility, this situation an extra pair of corrective lenses, approximates actually carrying them.
flowever, this proposed alternative, physical ability by an annual examination and an annual test.
On 6 other hand. most agencies which suggested as uncorrected vision charged with the protection of the public of 20/97 in the better eye, was rejected Accordingly, the Commission recogrires set misdmurn uncorrected as weU as as making the vision rer3uirements tu that h timing between medical examinationa and physical fitness corrected vision standards for their restrictive for NRC lie.ensee guard force armed penonnel.' ne NRC does not. It emplopnent.
testing is priinarily a scheduling matter sets on}y corrected vision etandards. In Smc4 h%C has no non<orrected in which the hcensee requires discretjoa a published report 8 the importance of vision standards for armed personnel for efricient management %e current rule denies this discretiot De good visual sculty for police officers is and has not determined that a need documented. Officers deprt ed of exists to place such restrictions on Commission intends to implement this optica) correction are shown to have licensee guard personnel the change by amending the appropriate sections of Appenda D to 10 CFR part suffered impaired perfortnance in some requirement to carry an extra palt of tasks such as the use of firearms and corrective lenses is necessary to
- 73. llowever, as a matter of prudence to protect the well being of the guard force punuit of criminals. With regard to maintain the cunent level of protection.
personnel, the Commission believes that pursult, the emperience of the Coluinbus. Furthennore, the need for good vision W intetul between 6 medical Ohja, pohce Departiment is reported. In atandards for armed personnelis well the perfod from December 1977 to june recognised la the above-cited studies, eaarnination and the physical fitness ints should be minimised.
197s eleven instanus of damaged Denfore. in the absence of any eyewear were reported, including one minimum unconected vision Reasons for the Partial Deolal involving a fall and six involving pursuit requirement, and in view of the and apprehension of prisoners. One Commisalon's determination not, to Consideration of b petition and the instan e resulled in a suspect not being reduce the present level of prutection, public comments did not result in a apprehended. With regaid to the use of the NRC's canent requirement for conclusion that granting the petition in its entirety would result in maintaining the present level of aseurance that the e netwe N HeWee, *Vmies 5 eMe de fee 14 w
'n*L nattJnal security and public bealth and reeceanent A Deerrphee $ sed, /*me/c/
e n.4; gx,,47, N. wesmi seehap 14 saIsty would be proleCled. $1nce the PsAv Scie =e eMMae**ermtm ll(1884L P lsi
' Ceesory W. Ceed and Aae4 sL Avedaaree'
- %reneto d %evet Armt,5'eadeeds f.s Nee Commission does not intend to change e gen,, r, p,e4 *peJ,e v,,.nn $ie pJe ed: "
e A=vnw! er r.W, e $ eem s ed.41*
- s mree e Arp4= ea's /Nmele#1We 57em e edef its present pojacy. it a prvjent to requgre p eng, in As.+stmw is linen p s that replacements for corrective lenses
i
..~
1 andan Fed =el mesheer / vd. sr. No. tri / norsday. Hee a-e 3.1sur / moposed males tw immed6ately awelial,le 6e a.mmed 1204.r.u 60 escinas.1eelut elshe aO_-?' - ! through a e4=wAv=g eewruy pr==nalle an esnargenq Act. %e eteencses emped. treme e 6aal procese es drestietne booe pesterame j
eituatico eaJ to require the mnh=mse rtde by Acdl 3.1968.
most effecahe to rededng eocider*s.
of annual medica 3.==mtione Iceall casas:ne pebesc benetmips we be ked injuries and desths, armed security peceannel.DelEC on Sepkasbee as, and Otteber 8 and 14 Section 206(d) provi.&re alist the therelom, denlas the two of the 1987. All arrttereia-=este asset be Secretary begin a rulemaking process petition propoolrg those sla the twened try Oct.4er :S,1967. E 6e role not teter than Septemtc 1,2957. and h prosseipeed by Aprd 1.79mit. R wel prmmdgste a fmal mle not talet kn
, reguliementa Deted et Bethe,de.wsr8 erd, the am d,y be effective Ochtwe L 19es. If tw role is Apn11.1sNL t! the Dnal nie is
'a C of Auswet tee 7 pateneigseed ce a later date, A wE be promdguted 17 Apr01.1988,h Act
[
Pee she Nesisar ", '
- th-e==h=
=dt-e*oe Ocember L 3BER.
proddes that me tde shalltehe effect g
viam si.au,er.
acesseetneDaytoseber ab seer octoberttsen.uk rule h
?
g ecuris,geocarperCp --
bearing wul be beld in hoeus 1230 of die prends.ted em a lster date.11 shell take N eself 9 4 dise. U X. t -
^d efhct Odeber1.2ses.Nif15A and p1tnot.w-meas 70.d H w w q Tvonsputeuca.4EB ytikt,9W.
MiWA expect to mieet h Apiitt,teus Weekstem.DQGee estaber e,18W desdlhse.
headsg wel klee84 toRoemi1AEB of tl*
Secties 3ce(s) of b Act, smeeshag 23 DEPMtThsEstiCF TRA483PORTAT4014 Frits imediam De& Bug. Set hylor Stee. 01C. 4Gt. replaces the samme Fort Wee ti.Turest h th* 4=- 14.19Er "standard' end
- standards" whosseet Natismed 44ghesey Teettle Sudsty bearing will be beld in Caudseemos bv oppear Mah b so wde *gnddase*
t Ade=Imietsetten Reene A a3 of Gie QDuaeng.155
,3J p3g,,. 7h ch wel alee be eddressed la alile ng edi.aa.
Federedit@vwey A&ninletratori g
w edesdatsUtres M
12 noon and freen tse pia.to 5 m.er BM o.M 23CFMPeste NH esedT3W5 unal the tismalwInnesstoobesa g g,,3,,,g f. __- - - -
g liefESA Dechet No.4$.12; Notes 4J weiseewebr,earter.
Wiesen eosemeene ehemed neder toIbe 8'IFG'**A 'MP*" W M eepeen)
P dodist number and the =
h== et this was estehladed ender en Higiewsy UnNorm Standards for State Nighw*f
- Servty Prograrne and Highway Safety modce and he re-am a hedosably tt Seisty Asd of 2ese,as UAC. est.He
^88 '**'i'ed she es6abliebmeed of Prograses;Determino6oe of tea copies) ter Duchee ssuaism.Steami Eff*c'honens 5100. UA t' =-
oft; --- ^ ^ -
Unifonn Steadande iw Seene Highway S*3*4 h
**eW 6e Setes sed Na.,:sif Dual ade, eso Semanth Siired SW.'
secoct f4enisealifr/rwey TnJ6c local conneursues e orgedae their g
mm3 Safety Adraienstreeica WitTSA) emi b! h8 W eden FWA an irwa a am to e paa.)
t Fedend Hmiroey AdrasukJresen ^ ^ -
F0" N'*ER **0**8*M8 CCT*cn 13 4e2 p ynenwse (R(WA).Deerteens of Tsai"-
{g N1iTSA: Mr. J.Mched Sheeben. }r.
principally srw:teJ worside edardag a
acuoec Ho6cs of pnrposed abaking
,t]
9elety I gbwey Safety 14endarde.
(NM) and nde of TaaWe Merings.
Admialdn,6en. 4ae Sreerth Street SW.
whie wem cosmidered siendowry suesenaav: On April 2. IW1.Camerees Wemhingien. DC Berie.teb pbene (5t) -
requisonnesse with 1senchi se actmene seaAable Tw noncompearice Unda 6m enacted the Surdeos Traatpostenen e nd 364-175L Uniforte R Jontalice Aemmunce Ad of In f1(WA:Mr.Howard ilenna. Omce II]ghwey Safety Ad((19Ps,Ceestese 1987. Sect.o e ana(dj d the Ad.
ofI f,gh wey Safety, Rowem13.Pedent provided be e marv Iledb4e asw ederg 23 UAC.M:G. requirn the I(ighway Administration. 40s Semth irnpJecnMatsvs d the pregnm oc thet Secee4ery to bv3 e e rt4emeabug perwee Street SW. Weshepun.DC tesi, the Sare9ery wowid not best to reTsire h
to determirse bee pec g a sse armet telep4wme Orc)14t171:er Mr.%omes State errmphwe with every vMicem o
eficc%e se redudng ecodrets Jegwies, llollas.Ofice af 04e4 Cearrse4.Federet steedeed or witli etch elemetit d ere y ard deaths eew# Is anseed 2J OR laert Ihhwa) A ^. _..i.eme., tc9e;4 sine un2 form stedetd. As e tml(. the 1205 euirttikgfy. PursawanJ to the Ad.
(202) 3 %.1330.
etendsvfde hve becom* mmt Int thisse prugreens ledged te le==est sunts seman weowmanose On Apn1 snAde(met br ese by t%e Stetwo.
ehcme no the Depectanears final rule 2.1967, the Scrfere Transportation and M an* tent ef h Pfr% rem h** Shia'*d w JJ be clairNe int federal forubng ender Urrdorm Reirntirin Assistants Att of from ederting ihnderds to one of the Siete ead Ceramurney Haskenry 1967,7th. IM17, was enacted by petMem 6deneifica tbn. cmuitetu esm S4fety Crwtit Progrere (23 UAC. W).
Congress.Section fr(d)of the Ad.
development end evehietion. vsing the his notics is beuig kweeJ w **k-it amendrng 23 U AC. 40@,requirn k etewsarde e a e framewmk for the Sitte public comtnents to eseist the f s di Secretary to besta a reemaking proces, programs.TM erproeth wn formaltred liighway Trefbe Safety Admirevt 1ca to determine then progreme rest in seekn D38(e)d the 1957 Act. fe h (N)fiBA)and time lednel Hashway eflective la redoctng act3 dents,infusies, discvsnm below etititied. *disige from Adrnirs*4retone (71fWAJ oo de4eM n*
and deoths and 1o emend 23 OR Part Standerde to Geridelrres.*
whkh h4shwey niety peerems see 120S etterdirrsty. Punwrnt to the Ad.
We 402 program has been mceJ ettetAles. ite autoe emanismi.ee those prisnms tuded to be most administered at b f4detalletelby the pulJac beieimee eu J irnn e subensee=r effective in the Department e f.nel twke Federalliighwey Admitustrateen or smuce oeiuments 64 sk pe%.
will t>e eligible for Federal funding ender inM Al and the Netnonet lQhwe7 doch et es thle absect. It doo genposee the See te ered Commanity llo4rwey Traffic Satety Admlaistration(F1ITSA)
Io resJa4= ti= 4erms % nerd' and S.fety Crura Prtstam t:3 U SC. c4 NITTWs responnA14 f.,e deseJera "otan.t.cd e" i.4 de m was "a s>h" The Act eleo shes the 5ccietary and erAenenLns NAay sekty enJ "padehnes" es Part W4 d se subniy to reme in reje fr =.a tww u provams relating to the s ehkle end esencies' joint regulation 23 GH Pari time thereaf ter. Any revision must be dm er. tl(WA has sirritar
c,,, -
9 e
4
.,eph..
DAILY STAFF NOTES OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION AND RESOURCES PANAGEMENT 2
~
Final Rule to be signed by EDO On 1987, the Executive Director for Operations t
approved a final rule that amends 10 CFR Part 73, Appendix B. "General Criteria for Security Personnel." The rule deletes an existing p
scheduling link between the physical fitness, test and medical examination
[-
given at least annually to all armed security personnel. The effectiveness of the security force will not be changed by the provisions of this rule.
This constitutes notice to the Comission that, in accordance with the ruleinaking authority delegated to the E00, the EDO has signed this final rule and proposes to fonvard it on to the Office of the Federal Register for publication, unless otherwise directed by the Connission, j
[
H h
n it l
f l
Inclosure 3
,i l