40324 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 144 /Tuesday, July 28, 1998 / Notices

proceeding, but such an amended

petition must satisfy the specificity

requirements described above.

Not later than 15 days prior to the first

prehearing conference scheduled in the

proceeding, a petitioner shall file a

supplement to the petition to intervene

which must include a list of the

contentions which are sought to be

litigated in the matter. Each contention

must consist of a specific statement of

the issue of law or fact to be raised or

controverted. In addition, the petitioner

shall provide a brief explanation of the

bases of the contention and a concise

statement of the alleged facts or expert

opinion which support the contention

and on which the petitioner intends to

rely in proving the contention at the

hearing. The petitioner must also

provide references to those specific

sources and documents of which the

petitioner is aware and on which the

petitioner intends to rely to establish

those facts or expert opinion. Petitioner

must provide sufficient information to

show that a genuine dispute exists with

the applicant on a material issue of law

or fact. Contentions shall be limited to

matters within the scope of the

amendment under consideration. The

contention must be one which, if

proven, would entitle the petitioner to

relief. A petitioner who fails to file such

a supplement which satisfies these

requirements with respect to at least one

contention will not be permitted to

participate as a party.

Those permitted to intervene become

parties to the proceeding, subject to any

limitations in the order granting leave to

intervene, and have the opportunity to

participate fully in the conduct of the

hearing, including the opportunity to

present evidence and cross-examine

witnesses.

A request for a hearing or a petition

for leave to intervene must be filed with

the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention:

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, or

may be delivered to the Commission’s

Public Document Room, the Gelman

Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC, by the above date. A

copy of the petition should also be sent

to the Office of the General Counsel,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001, and to

General Counsel, Tennessee Valley

Authority, 400 West Summit Drive, ET

10H, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902,

attorney for the licensee.

Nontimely filings of petitions for

leave to intervene, amended petitions,

supplemental petitions and/or requests

for hearing will not be entertained

absent a determination by the

Commission, the presiding officer or the

presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board that the petition and/or request

should be granted based upon a

balancing of the factors specified in 10

CFR 2.714(a)(1) (i)–(v) and 2.714(d).

If a request for a hearing is received,

the Commission’s staff may issue the

amendment after it completes its

technical review and prior to the

completion of any required hearing if it

publishes a further notice for public

comment of its proposed finding of no

significant hazards consideration in

accordance with 10 CFR 50.91 and

50.92. For further details with respect to

this action, see the application for

amendments dated June 26, and July 17,

1998 which are available for public

inspection at the Commission’s Public

Document Room, the Gelman Building,

2120 L Street NW., Washington, DC and

at the local public document room

located at the Athens Public Library,

405 E. South Street, Athens, Alabama.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd

day of July 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

L. Raghavan,

Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate

II–3, Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–20108 Filed 7–27–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–482]

Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating

Corporation; Notice of Partial

Withdrawal of Application for

Amendment to Facility Operating

License

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) has

granted a request by Wolf Creek Nuclear

Operating Corporation (the licensee) to

withdraw part of its March 24, 1995,

application for an amendment to

Facility Operating License No. NPF–42,

issued to the licensee for operation of

the Wolf Creek Nuclear Generating

Station, Unit No. 1, located in Coffey

County, Kansas. Notice of Consideration

of Issuance of this amendment was

published in the Federal Register on

April 12, 1995 (60 FR 18632).

The portion of the licensee’s

amendment request which is being

withdrawn is the revision of the

Technical Specifications (TS) that

would change the allowed outage time

(AOT) for other reasons of accumulator

inoperability from 1 hour to 24 hours.

Subsequently the licensee informed

the staff that this portion of the

amendment will be resubmitted at a

later time. Thus, this portion of the

amendment application is considered to

be withdrawn by the licensee.

For further details with respect to this

action, see (1) the application for

amendment dated March 24, 1995, as

supplemented by letters dated July 26,

1995 and September 5, 1996, and (2) the

staff’s letter dated July 21, 1998.

These documents are available for

public inspection at the Commission’s

Public Document Room, the Gelman

Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC and at the Emporia

State University, Wiliam Allen White

Library, 1200 Commercial Street,

Emporia, Kansas 66801 and Washburn

University School of Law Library,

Topeka, Kansas 66621.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day

of July 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Kristine M. Thomas,

Project Manager, Project Directorate IV–2,

Division of Reactor Projects III/IV, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–20109 Filed 7–27–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–338 and 50–339]

Virginia Electric and Power Company,

North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and

2; Environmental Assessment and

Finding of No Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an exemption

from certain requirements of its

regulations with respect to Facility

Operating License No. NPF–4 and

Facility Operating License No. NPF–7,

issued to Virginia Electric and Power

Company (VEPCO, the licensee) for

operation of the North Anna Power

Station, Units 1 and 2 (NAPS1&2),

located in Louisa County, Virginia.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of Proposed Action

The proposed action is in accordance

with the licensee’s application dated

March 3, 1998, as supplemented May 5,

1998, concerning the use of respiratory

protection equipment which has not

been tested by the National Institute for

Occupational Safety and Health/Mine

Safety and Health Administration

(NIOSH/MSHA). Pursuant to 10 CFR

20.2301, the licensee has requested

exemptions from the following:

1. 10 CFR 20.1703(a)(1) which

requires that ‘‘* * * the licensee shall
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 144 /Tuesday, July 28, 1998 / Notices 40325

use only respiratory protection

equipment that is tested and certified or

had certification extended by NIOSH/

MSHA;’

2. 10 CFR 20.1703(c) which requires

that ‘‘the licensee shall use as

emergency devices only respiratory

protection equipment that has been

specifically certified or had certification

extended for emergency use by NIOSH/

MSHA;’’ and

3. 10 CFR Part 20 Appendix A,

Protection Factors for Respirators,

Footnote d.2.(d), which states, in part,

that ‘‘* * * the protection factors apply

for atmosphere-supplying respirators

only when supplied with adequate

respirable air. Respirable air shall be

provided of the quality and quantity

required in accordance with NIOSH/

MSHA certification (described in 30

CFR Part 11). Oxygen and air shall not

be used in the same apparatus.’’

The Need for the Proposed Action

Subpart H to 10 CFR Part 20,

‘‘Respiratory Protection and Controls to

Restrict Internal Exposure in Restricted

Areas’ states in 10 CFR 20.1702, ‘‘When

it is not practical * * * to control the

concentrations of radioactive material in

air to values below those that define an

airborne radioactivity area, the licensee

shall, consistent with maintaining the

total effective dose equivalent ALARA,

increase monitoring and limit intakes by

* * * (c) Use of respiratory protection

equipment* * *.’’

It is necessary for station personnel to

periodically enter containments while

the units are operating in order to

perform inspection or maintenance. The

NAPS1&2 containments are designed to

be maintained at subatmospheric

pressure during power operations. The

containment pressure can range from

9.0 to 11.0 pounds per square inch,

absolute (psia). This containment

environment could potentially impact

the safety of personnel donning

respiratory protection equipment, due to

reduced pressure and resulting oxygen

deficiency. Under these circumstances,

the use of a self-contained breathing

apparatus (SCBA) with enriched oxygen

breathing gas is required. The licensee

initially purchased Mine Safety

Appliances, Inc. (MSA) Model 401

open-circuit, dual-purpose, pressuredemand SCBAs constructed of brass

components which were originally

intended for use with compressed air.

The licensee qualified the Model 401

cylinders for use with 35% oxygen/65%

nitrogen following the

recommendations of the Compressed

Gas Association’s Pamphlet C–10,

‘‘Recommended Procedures for Changes

of Gas Service for Compressed Gas

Cylinders,’’ established procedures to

utilize these devices with an enriched

oxygen mixture, and is currently using

these SCBAs with a 35% oxygen/65%

nitrogen mixture instead of compressed

air. The MSA Model 401 SCBA has

received the NIOSH/MSHA certification

for use with compressed air, but has not

been tested for 35% enriched oxygen

applications. Using these SCBAs

without the NIOSH/MSHA certification

requires an exemption from 10 CFR

20.1703(a)(1), 10 CFR 20.1703(c), and 10

CFR Part 20 Appendix A, Protection

Factors for Respirators, Footnote d.2.(d).

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The proposed action will not alter

plant operations, result in an increase in

the probability or consequences of

accidents, or result in a change in

occupational or offsite dose. Therefore,

there are no significant radiological

impacts associated with the proposed

action.

With regard to potential

nonradiological impacts, the proposed

action will not result in a change in

nonradiological plant effluents and will

have no other nonradiological

environmental impact.

Accordingly, the Commission

concludes that there are no significant

environmental impacts associated with

the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Because the Commission’s staff has

concluded that there is no significant

environmental impact associated with

the proposed exemption, any alternative

to the proposed exemption will have

either no significantly different

environmental impact or greater

environmental impact. The principal

alternative would be to deny the

requested exemption. Denial would

result in no change in current

environmental impact.

Alternative Use of Resources

This action does not involve the use

of resources not previously considered

in connection with the Final

Environmental Statement related to the

operation of North Anna Power Station,

Units 1 and 2, issued by the

Commission in April 1973.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

the NRC staff consulted with Mr.

Foldesi of the Virginia Department of

Health on June 23, 1998, regarding the

environmental impact of the proposed

action. Mr. Foldesi had no comments on

behalf of the Commonwealth of

Virginia.

Finding of No Significant Impact

Based upon the foregoing

environmental assessment, the

Commission concludes that the

proposed action will not have a

significant effect on the quality of the

human environment. Accordingly, the

Commission has determined not to

prepare an environmental impact

statement for the proposed exemption.

For further details with respect to this

action, see the request for exemption

dated March 3, 1998, as supplemented

May 5, 1998, which is available for

public inspection at the Commission’s

Public Document Room, 2120 L Street,

NW., Washington, DC 20555 and at the

local public document room located at

the Alderman Library, Special

Collections Department, University of

Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia

22903–2498.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 22nd day

of July 1998.

For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

P.T. Kuo,

Acting Director, Project Directorate II–1,

Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–20106 Filed 7–27–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Nuclear

Regulatory Commission.

DATE: Weeks of July 27, August 3, 10,

and 17, 1998.

PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference

Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,

Maryland.

STATUS: Public and Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Week of July 27

Wednesday, July 29

2:00 p.m.—Briefing on Operating

Reactors and Fuel Facilities (Public

Meeting), (Contact: Glenn Tracy,

301–415–1725).

4:00 p.m.—Affirmation Session (Public

Meeting). *(Please note: This item

will be affirmed immediately

following the conclusion of the

preceding meeting.) a: Private Fuel

Storage, L.L.C.; Atomic Safety and

Licensing Board Memorandum and

Order, LBP–98–7 (April 22, 1998),

(Tentative).