ML20149D841
| ML20149D841 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/28/1994 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Wolf F HOUSE OF REP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19352C427 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-58FR58804, RULE-PR-73 CCS, NUDOCS 9405110254 | |
| Download: ML20149D841 (7) | |
Text
.
pn ota J
's
?.4 g
S UNITED STATES E
I NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION k.....,/
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555M1 April 28, 1994 The Honorable Frank R. Wolf Member, United States House of Representatives 13873 Park Center Road, Suite 130 Herndon, Virginia 22071
Dear Congressman Wolf:
I am responding to your letters of April 5,1994, and April 11, 1994, to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) in which you forwarded two inquiries from your constituent, Mr. Ralph True, regarding proposed amendments to the physical protection regulations for operating commercial nuclear power reactors. The proposed rule change is still pending.
I have enclosed a copy of the proposed rule published in the Federal Reaister (58 FR 58804) for your convenience.
As indicated in the Federal Reaister notice under the section entitled
" Regulatory Approach," the proposed rule change would require each licensed operator of a commercial nuclear power reactor (licensee) to establish a barrier system to prevent access of a land vehicle to the proximity of vital areas of the plant.
The development and installation of a vehicle barrier system to meet the requirements of the pending rule change would be the responsibility of the licensee. The individual licensee may elect to contract with various vendors to provide the necessary services or products. The selection of vendors is determined by the licensee's procurement process.
With regard to Mr. True's first letter, the NRC would not be involved in the licensee's selection of vendor (s) to provide vehicle barriers.
In a telephone conversation with a member of the NRC staff, Mr. True indicated that his barriers have been certified for use in Department of State (DOS) applications. Mr. True was informed that any barrier that holds the DOS K8 certification or greater would meet the barrier performance specifications for tha proposed rule change. The Safeguards Information that Mr. True referred to should not be necessary for marketing his products.
With regard to Mr. True's difficulty in contacting licensees, a copy of a publicly available NRC document entitled, " Nuclear Regulatory Commission-Information Digest 1993 Edition," NUREG-1350, Volume 5, is being forwarded to you. The document contains information identifying och licensee.
24CICO
-~
sym + Mt
~
Wasuoas W 9q, g.
. =.
4
-I.
The Honorable Frank R. Wolfe ~.I trust this response adequately addresses your constituent's inquiry.
Sincerely, J'
-fff af s. Thor Executive Director
/ for Operations-
Enclosures:
Federal Reaister Notice (58 FR 58804)
NUREG-1350, Volume S I
1 f
f I
+
.h
?
t t
i 4
g y-.
,. +
58804' Proposed Rules we Vol. 58, No. 212 Thurodey. Hovember 4,1993 hs seceon of the FEDERAL HEGtSTER based, proposed regulatory analysis, United States without advance comers nonces so the pec of the poposed propcsed had m analysis, and proposed intelligexe.
asuance of rules and regdabons. The regulatory guide are available for De unat.thorized intrusion at the ptrpose et the.se nmes a to gNo treemsted inspection at the NRC Public Document "Ihree Mile Ishnd nudear power station pemons an oppcrtung m perecoate in ane Room. 2120 L Street NW. (lower level), demonstrated that a vehicle could be "j****"O P" ' " 'h* **P* " 'h* '""'
washington, DC. Single copies of the used 1o gain quick access to the environmental assessment and finding protected area at a nudear power plant.
of no signi5 cant impact are available in light of these incidents, NRC held a NUCLEAR REGULATORY from Carrie Brown, U.S. Nuclear public meeting on May 10,1993, to COMMISSION Regulatory Commission, Washington,, obtain additionalinformattan from the DC 20555, talephone (301) 504-2382.
public, afhesed licensees, and other 10 CFR Port 73 Single copies of the regulatory and interested parties concaming the need backfit anal are available from for any changes to the design basis m at m t Robert }.
. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory threat far radiolo6 scal sabotage Protection Against Malevolent Use of Commission, Washington, DC 20555, r
Vehicles at Nuclear Power Plants telephone (301) 504-2912. Single copies of the regulatory guide are available Findings. NRC bas concluded that AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatog from Ann Beranek, U.S. Nuclear there is no indication of an actual Commission.
Regulatory Commission, Washington, vehicle threat against the domestic ACT10m Picposed rule.
DC 20555, talephone (301) 492-3519.
commercial nuclear industry. Howere r.
FOR FURTMER MFORMATION CONTACTt besed on remnt events NRC believes
SUMMARY
- The Nuclear Regulatory Priscilla A.Dwyer Office of Nuclear that a vehicle intrusion or bomb threst Commission (NRC)is proposing to Material Safety and Safeguarda, U.S.
to a nuclear power plant could develop amend its physical protection Nuclear Regulatory Commission, without warning in the future. To regulations for operating nuclear power Washington, DC, talephone (301) 504-maintain a prudent margin between the reactors. The proposed amendment 2478.
current threat estimate (lowl and the w ould modify the design basis threat for design basis threet (higher) NRC is radiological sabotage to include use of a sOPPLEMENTAM MFORMAT10m proposing io amend 10 CFR part 73 to land vehide by adversanes for Back round modify the design basis threat for 6
transporting personnel, hand-carried equipment, and or explosius. The
.in the development ofits physical radiological sabotage to include ion s
C uses the Protection against the malevolent use of
{ rot Commission believes this action is g
fnt n incid t t e 1
unto protectio.
i sis P o of Pose Island nudear power station and the yP bombing st the World Trade Center. The intended to represent a real threat.ne to CFR 73.1 to explici ly include use of objective of the proposed rule is to design basis threat serves three g
enhance reactor safety by precluding the Pgprovides a standard with which s
Personnel,losives. Proposed criteria hand-carried equipment, snalevolent use of a vehicle to gain and/or exp unauthorized proximity to a vital area to measure changes in the real threat specifying vehicle and explosive barrier. Further, the proposed rule (2)It is use'd to develop regulatory characteristics are exempted from would en! *nm reactor safety by ublic disclosure as Safeguards protecting vital equipiant from damage ])irements, and lt provides a standard for ormation and have been previously by detonation of ap explosive charge et evaluation ofimplemented safeguards Provided to personnel of affected the point of vehicle derdal.
limnsees authorized access to BQTts: Comment period expires January Nntent of the oesign basis threat Sefeguards Information pursuant to 10 s.
3,1994. Comments received after this for power reactors is to provide a CFR 73.21 on a need.to know basis.
date will be considered if it is practical pbysical protection system that protects Four provisions would be added to to do so, but the Commission is able to against radiological sabotage, amend to CFR 73.55. he first assure consideratic,n only for comments To assure adequacy of the design provision, to CFR 73.55(c)(7), would receised on or before this date.
basis threat, NRC continually monitors include new regulatory requirements to ADDRESSES: Mail written comments to:
and evaluates the threat environment establish measures to protect a reactor Secretcry, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory worldwide. The Commission is also from use of a land vehicle to gsin Commission, Washington, DC 20555, briefed periodically by agencies such as proximity to vital areas. The vital areas Attention: Docketing and Services the CentralIntelligence Agency and the mntain egulpment, systems, devices, or Branch.
Federal Bureau oflavestigation to keep material the failure or destruction or Deliver comments to: 11555 Rociville abreast of domestic and foreign release of which could directly or Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:45 intelligence concerning threat. The indirectly endanger the public health am and 4:15 pm Federal workdays.
bombing at the World Trade Center and safety by exposure to radiation. The A proposed environmental demonstrated that a large explosive second provision.10 CFR 73.55(c)(8),
assessment and finding of no significant devim could be assembled, dahvered to would propose a process for license ~s to J
tml sct on which the determination is a public area, and detonated in the assess whether the protective measures
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 212 / Thursday, November 4,1993 / Proposed Rules 58805 established in accordance with to CFR attemadve equipment nnt damaged by resubmit their.omments. Previously 73.55(c)(7) protect against a vehicle the assumed explosion, and damage submitted comments will be addressed bomb consistent with design goals and control measures.
during the review of the comments criteria specified by the Commission.
Most sites would likely meet the submitted on this proposed rule.
Licensees whose vehicle denial Commission's design goals for The Comminion wishes to receive measures do not fully satisfy the design protection against a vehicle bomb by comments on the need to revise the goals for protection against a vehicle establishing protective measures against design basia threat and on the proposed bomb would have the option to vehicle intrusion in the vicinity of implementation schedule for the rule, establish additional measures to meet existing protected area boundaries.%e particularly on the availability of active the design goals or propose other licensee would have two options if its vehicle denial systems for purchase.
additional measures that give evaluation shows that these protective Implementation. rhe proposed rule substantial protection against a land measures do not fully meet the design would likely be implemented through vehicle bomb. The third provision,10 goals and criteria for protecting against to CFR 50.54(p)(no decrease in CFR 73.55(c)(9), describes proposed a land vehicle bomb. It may implement effectiveness of security plan), or 10 implementation schedules and additional measures that would fully CFR 50.54(p) coupled with to CFR information that would be required to meet the design goals and criteria such 50.59 (no change to the technical be submitted to the Commission. In as moving vehicle barriers further away specifications incorporated in the order to protect certain documents.
from vital areas or egulpment, installing license or an unreviewed safety issue) required by amendments to 10 CFR blast shields, or modifying plant changes. Each licensee would be 73.55. as Safeguards Information.10 systems and equipment. Alternatively, required to submit to the NRC within 90 CFR 73.21 would also be amended. The the licensee may propose to the day s from the effective date of the rule fourth provision.10 CFR 73.55(c)(10),
Commission additional measures other a summary description of the proposed treats applicants for a license to operate than ones needed to fully meet the vehicle intrusion control measures and a nuclear power reactor, design goals and criteria, provided this the results of its evaluation comparing Regulotory Approoch. The NRC approach provides substantial the measures to protect against vehicle proposes that licensees establish protection against a vehicle bomb and intrusion with the design goals and measures to protect vital equipment that it can be demonstrated that the criteria for protecting against a land within power reactor vital areas from:
costs of measures to fully meet the vehicle bomb. A licensee proposing (1) Access by persons transported by design goals and criteria are not justified measums, as alternatives to those a land vehicle and by the added protection that would be needed to fully meet the Commission's (2) Damage from the detonation of a provided.
criteria for protecting against a vehicle vehicle bomb in the vicinity of the vital Guidance.The staff prepared a bomb, would be required to submit area.
regulatory guide containing preliminary details of their analyses, including The NRC would emphasir.e the informadon for licensees in initial justification that substantial protection protection of vital equipment by assessments of protective measures was provided and that the cost of requiring licensees to establish against vehicle intrusions and measures needed to fully meet the measures to protect against the use of a approaches to assess whether the design goals and criteria are not justified land vehicle to gain proximity to vital Commission's design goals and criteria by the added protection that would be areas of a facility.The NRC would are met by measures taken to protect provided. Proposals by licensees to use require each licensee to establish a against vehicle intrusion. He regulatory alternative measures would be handled barrier system to prevent land vehicle guide is titled DG-5006,"Protecdon as to CFR 50.90 amendments. Licensees proximity Io vital areas of the plant. The Against Malevolent Use of Vehicles at would be required to implement their NRC would allow for use of natural Nuclear Power Plants." Additional measures within 360 days of the rule features such as cliffs and natural guidance is available in NUREG/CR-effective date.
waterways or artificial features such as 5248,"A Methodology to Assist in Once implemented, the control buildings and canals to be included as Contingency Plming for Protection of measures required to meet these part of the barrier system. In Nuclear Power Plants Against land regulations supersede contingency establishing a system of physical Vehicle Bombs." NRC has also arrsnged requirements initiated in response to barriers to protect against access of a for the United States Army Corps of Generic Letter 89-07," Power Reactor i
land vehicle to vital areas, the licensee Engineers to write a NUREG-series Safeguards Contingency Planning for i
would also protect the facility against a report that would be available to the Surface Vehicle Bombs " dated April 28 vehicle transporting a bomb which licensees through the Commission in 1989. However, licensees chose vehicle a
could detonate at or near the point of time for publication of the final rule.
control measures do not fu:ly meet the the vehicle barrier.
This NUREG report would include NRC's design goals and measures may The licensee would be required to simple methods for the licensee to select choose to maintain vehicle bomb determine if measures established to barriers and perform an analysis of contin cy planning as one element of protect against vehicle proximity to vital ex.isting structures and equipment to p
altemative measures.
areas of the facility also protect against demonstrate their ability to withstand ords Information.The the threat of a land vehicle bomb as the effects of an explosive blast.
Commission cautions liansees not to defined by the design goals and criteria Public Comment. The Commission is submit any data that is protected as set by the Commission. Essendally, the issuing this proposed rule with a 30 day Safeguards Information as of their licensee would need 1o protect vital or public comment period.The comments on the rule.
altemativo equipment needed to shut Comminion notes that some of the Enforcement. V ion of these down the reactor and maintain the issues associsted with a design basis proposed rules, if codified, may subject reactor in a shutdown condiUon. In threat modificadon have been a person to the criminal penalties in evaluaung the protection of vital previously discussed in a public section 223 of the Atomic Energy Act of equipment, the licensee could consider meeting. Interested parties who 1954, as amended.
protection provided by structures near previously submitted comments at the Decommissioning Reactors. He rule the equipment, assigning credit for time of the public meeting need not would apply to licensees who are either
58806 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 212 / Thursday, November 4,1993 / Proposed Rules in the pmmsa of dommmissioning or instrudions, nearching existing data a cost which la justiBed the plan to dommmission in the near future sourma, gethering and maintaining the substantialincmaan.The fit and do not have a possession. coly data needed, and completing and analysis on which this determination is limnse, nose licensees would rwed to reviewing the collection of inforrnetlon. based is evallable for inspecion at the be evaluated Individually to determine Send comments regarding this burden NRC Public Document Rcom,2120 L if full or partial exemption imm the new estimate or any other asped of this Street NW. (lawer imell, Washington, rule is appmpriate.
collection of informetton, including DC. Single copies of the beckfit analysis FJectronic Subminals. Comments may suggestions for reducing the burden, to are available from Robert ). Dube. U.S.
b3 submitted, in addition to the original the Information and Recorda Nuclear Regulatory Commission, paper copy, by copy of the letter in Management Branch (MNBB-7714),
Washington, DC, telephone (301) 504-electronic format on IBM personal U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
2912.11 should be noted that the computer MS-DOS compatible 3.5-or Washington. DC 20555-000t and to the conclusions reached are based on best 5.25. inch double 41de, double density Desk Officer. Office of Information and available data. The proposed rule (DS/DD) or high density (HD) diskettes.
Regulatory Affairs,NEOB-3019,(3150- contains a pmvision for affoc ted Data files should be submitted in 0002), Office of Management and licensees to conduct site-specific Wordperfect 5.0 or 5.1, unformatted Budget, Washington, DC 20503.
analyses if they so choose.
ASCII code, or if formatted text is Regulatory Analysis List of Subjecta la 10 CFR Part 73 required IBM Revisable Form-Text Document c.ontext Architecture (RFT/
ne Commission has prepared a draft Criminal penalties, Hazardous DCA) format, regulatory analysis on this proposed materialstransportation Nuclear regulation.The analysis examines the materials. Nuclear power planta and
{
[ S[P8C8"[ g cost and benefits of the alternatives reactora, Reporting and recordieeping considered by the Commission.The requirements, Security measures.
The Commission has determined drsft analysis is available for inspedian For the reasons set out in the under the National Environmental in the NRC Public Document Room, preamble and under the authority of the Policy Act of 1%9. as amended, and the 2120 L Street NW. (Lower level),
Atomic Energy Act as amended, and 5 Commission's regulations in subpart A Washington, DC Single copies of the U.S.C 553. the NRC is proposing to of 10 CFR part 51. that this rule,il draft analysis may be obtained from adopt the following amendments to part adopted, would not be a major Federal Robert J. Dube. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 73.
action significantly affecting the quahty Commission, Washington, DC 20555, of the human envimnment and therefore telephone (301) 504-2912.
PART 73-PHYSCAL PROTECTX)N OF an environmentalimpact statement 1:
Tbe Commission requests public PLANTS AND MATER 1ALS not required. The proposed rule comment on the dreft regulatory
- 1. He authority citation for Pait 73 involves installation of vehicle barriers analysis. Comments on the dran c ntinues to read as follows:
at operating power reactor sites and an analysis may be submitted to the NRC evaluation of these barriers by the as indicated under the ADoRESSES Anthority: Seca. 53,161. 64 Stat. 930. 94 8.
as amcoded. sec.147,94 stat. 780 (42 U.S.C Iloensee to determine whether they
- headin8, 2073. 2167. 22011. sec. 201, as auwnded. 2D4.
d Regulatory Flexibility Certification sa sta 42, as emended.1245 (42 U.S.C fa veh cl b und r des gn is cnd criterie established by the Based on the information available at Commission. Implementation of these this stage of the rularnaking pmcoeding s um b h w a m um/
Pub. L 97-425. 96 Stat. 2222. 2241 (42 U.s cmandmena would not involve release and in accordance with the Regulatory 10155,101611. Section n.371f) also taeued of or exposure to radioactivity from the Flexibility Act 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the under sec. 3o1. Pub.1.96-295.94 Stat. 789 site. The environmental assessment and Commission artifies that,iI (42 U.S C 5841 notel. Section 73.21 le leeued finding of no significant impact on pm:nutgated, this rule will not have a under est 006, Puh 1.99-399,100 Stat. 876 which this determination is based are significant economic impact upon a (42 U.S.C 21e9).
available for inspection at the Public substantial number of small entities.
- 2. In $ 73.1, the Intmductory text of Document Room. 2120 L Street NW.
De proposed rule affects only licensees paragraph (a)is revised and a new (Lower level). Washington. DC Single authorized to operate a nuclear power ph (a)(1)(1)(E)is added to read as copies of the emironmental assessment reactor. The utilities that operate these ollows and the finding of no significant impact nuclear power reactors do not fall are available from Carne Brown, U.S.
within the empe of the definition of S n.1 Purpose and soops.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Msmall entities" as given in the (a) Purpose. This part pres.*ibes Washingt on. DC, telephone (301) 504-Regulatory Flexibility Act orthe Small requirements for the establishment and 2382.
Business Size Standarda promulgated in maintenance of a physical pmtection regulations issued by the Small system which will have apabilities for Pcperwork Reduction Act Statement Business Adininistration (13 CFR part me pmtection of special nuclear material at fixed sites and in transit and This proposed rule amends 121).
in plants in which special nuclear information collection requirements that BaMt Analysis material is used. The following design are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C 3501 et seq.) Tb As required by to CFR 50.109, the basis throots, where referenced in j
rule has been submitted to the OfGce of Commission bas completed a backfit enaulng sections of this
, shall be l
Management and Budget for review and analysis for the proposed rule.no used to dealgn systems to cpproval of he information ellection Commluion has determined, based on protect against ac2a of radiological I
t requirements.
this analysis, that backfitting to comp!
sabotage and to prewat the theft of ne public nporting burden for this with the requirements of this special nuclear material. IJcensees collection ofinformation is estimated to rule will provide a substantia increase subject to the provisions of 5 73.20.
}
average 497 hours0.00575 days <br />0.138 hours <br />8.217593e-4 weeks <br />1.891085e-4 months <br /> per response, in protection to public beelth and safety $ 73.50. or $ 73.80 are exernpt from including the time for reviewing of the common oefense and security at
$ 73.1(a)(1)(1)(E).
l
Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 212 / %ursday, November 4.1993 / Proposed Rules 58807 (1) * *
- 10 CFR 73.55(c)(7) and the results of the that h cavity vent tube. If nct properly (i)
- vehicle bomb comparisco as required by g*ounded, could act as an electrical path (E) A four. wheel drive land vehicle 10 CFR 73.55(cM8). For limnaces who in the event of a lightning strike.no used for the transport of personnel, choose to propose alternative measures actions specified by b proposed AD hand 4 carried equipment. and/or as provided for in 10 CFR 73.55(c)(8),
are intended to prevent arcing in the ex plosives, and the submittal must includa the analysis tank avity and possible resulting Dre.
and justification for the proposed Darts:Cuouma must be received by
- 3. Ir. $ 73.21. a new patograph altematives:
January 3.1993.
(bl(1)(xiii)is added to road as follows:
(ii) By (insert 360 days frpm final rule A00mtsses: Submit comments in efiective date), fully implement the triplicate to the Federal Aviation j 73.2 t Requ6rernents for the protect 6on of. required vehicle control meesures.
Administration (FAA). Transport
- '*9"*'**W**8'"-
including site-specific alternative Airplane Directorate. ANM-103.
measures as approved by the Attent;on: Rules Docket No. 93-NM-(b) * *
- Commission:
154-AD.1601 Lind Avenue. SW.,
(11* *
- information required by the Comments may be inspected at this (iii) Protect as Safeguards information. Renton, Washington 98055-4056.
(xiii)Information requm.d b.y the Commission pursuant to 10 CFR 73.55 Commission pursuant to 10 CFR location between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m..
(GS) (9), and (10)-
73.55(c)(8) and (9), and Monday through Friday, except Federal (iv) Retain.in accordance with 10 holidays.
- 4. In $ 73.55. new paragraphs (c)(7).
CFR 73.70. all comparisons and The service information referenced in (8). (9), and (10) are added to read as analyses prepared pursuant to 10 CFR the proposed rule may be obtained from follow:
73.55(c)(7) and (8).
McDonnell Douglas Corporation. P.O.
(10) Each a licant for a limnse to Box 1771. Long Beach, California t tio e med vt hn uclear OPmte a rmc ear power reactor 90846-1771. Attantion: Business Unit power reactors egainat radiologscat Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.21(b) or 10 CFR Manager. Technical Publimtions--
sabotage.
50.22 of this chapter whose application Technical Administrative Support C1-was submitted prior to (insert effective L5B. His information may be examined (c)...
date of rule), shallincorporete the
'at the FAA. Transport Airplane (7) Vehicle control rneasures required vehicle control program into Directorate.1601 Lind Avenue. SW..
including vehide barner systems must the site **.sysical Security Plan and Renton, WashinFtan: or at the FAA Los be established to protect against use of implement it by the date of receipt of Angeles Aircraft Certification Office a land vehicle. as specified by the the opmting bcense.
(ACO). 3229 East Spring Street 12mg Beach. Cahfornia.
Commission. as a means of Dnted as Rockvale. Maryland this 29th day transportation to gain unauthorized of October 1993.
M MTHEA WOMAT10N CONTACT:
proximity to vital areas.
For the Nuclear Regulatory rw.m.
Raymond Vakili. Aerospace Engineer.
a (8) Each licensee sball compare the Samuel J. Gilk.
Pmpulsion Branch. ANM-140L.FAA.
vehide control measures established in soc,, tory of the Comrnazion.
Transport Airplane Directorate. Los Angeles Aircraft Certification OfSce, accordance with to CFR 73.55(c)(7) to IFR h 91-27137 Fued 11-3 43,835 aml the Commission's der.ign goals and 3229 East Spring Street. lang Beach, criteria for protection against a land Califorula 90806-2425: telephone (310) vehicle bomb. Each licensee shall eithee.
988-5262; fax (3101938-5210.
(i) Confirm to the Commission that DEPAFITMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SUPPt.EnfENTARY WFOR RATION:
the vehicle control measures meet the gg design goals and criteria specified; or Federal Aviation Admi.huon (ii) Propose altemative measures. In laterested persons are invited to addition to the meesures established in 14 CFR Par 139 participate in the making of the accordance with 10 CFR 73.55(c)(7),
proposed rule by submitting such describe the level of protection that
[ Docket h NtS4-AD) written data, views. or arguments as these measures would provide against a Airworthiness Directivos1 McDonnell they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number and land vehicle bomb, nr.d compare the Douglas Model DC-10 40 and -40 Series Airplanes and KC-10A (Mimary) be suhr dtted in triplicate 1o the address j
costs of the alternativa measures with the costs of measures nemssary 1o fully specified abova. All communications meet the design goals and criteria. De received on or before the closing date Commission will approve the proposed AcENCY: Federal Aviation for commenta, specified above, will be alternative measures if they provide Adrninieration. DOT.
cxmsidered before taking action on the substantial protection against a land ACTION: Notice of proposed ruta =h Proposed rule. no proposals enntained vehicle bomb and it is determined by an (NPRM).
in thIs notice may be changed in light analysis, using the essential elements of of the comments recalved.
10 CFR 50.109, that the costs of fully SunohtARY: his document propose the Comments are speciScnlly invited on meeting the design goals and criteria are adoption of a new airwonhiness the overall regulatory, economic.
i not justified by the added protection directive (AD) that is applicable to environmental, and anargy aspects of that would be provided.
certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-the proposed rule. All comments (9) Each licensee authorized Io 10 series airplanes and KC-10A submitted will be available, both before operate a nuclear power mactor shall; (military) airplanes. nis proposal and after the closing date for comments.
(i) By (insert 90 days from effective would require modification of the cavity in the Rules Docket for examination by date of rule) submit to the Commission vent drain tube assembly at the canter interestad persons. A report a summary description of the proposed wing lower auxiliary fuel tank cavity.
summarizing aech FAA.public contact vehicle control measures as required by This proposalis prompted by a report concerned with the substance of this
April 28, 1994 The Honsrable Frank R. Wolfe -
I trust this response adequately addresses your constituent's inquiry.
Sincerely, Ongbut t!g:wd lyf
. ames N. Tey!ct James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
Federal Recister Notice (58 FR 58804)
NUREG-1350, Volume 5 Distribution:
Central Files R. Burnett PSGB r/f EJButcher EDO r/f PFMcKee JMTaylor RJDube WTRussell FIYoung ACThadani NRR Mail Room (GT0009956 & 0009974]
FJCongel JAcrutchley (GT 0009956 & 0009974]
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE Doc. Name: G:Berney\\Wol f.ltr TECH EDITOR'S COMMENTS HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED Office PSGB:NRR, PSGB:NRR*
FCSS:NMSS*
BC:PSGB:NRR*
TECH ED FIYoungh RJDube RFBurnett PFMcKee MMejac Name Date 4/p6/94 4/20/94 4/20/94 4/20/94 4/13/94 Office D:DRSS:NRR*
ADT:NRR*
D:NRR*
EQ0 OCA Name FJCongel ACThadani WTRussell JMkylor DKRathbun Date 4/20/94 4/21/94-4/22/94 4fj7M4 4/ /D 94
/
1
-l
)