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).
40326 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 144 /Tuesday, July 28, 1998 / Notices

Week of August 3—Tentative

Thursday, August 6

10:00 a.m.—Briefing on Recent Research

Program Results and Core

Capabilities (Public Meeting),

(Contact: Lloyd Donnelly, 301–415–

5828).

11:30 a.m.—Affirmation Session (Public

Meeting), (if needed).

Week of August 10—Tentative

Tuesday, August 11

2:00 p.m.—Briefing on 10 CFR Part 70—

Proposed Rulemaking, ‘‘Revised

Requirements for the Domestic

Licensing of Special Nuclear

Material (Public Meeting), (Contact:

Elizabeth Ten Eyck, 301–415–7212).

Wednesday, August 12

2:00 p.m.—Briefing on PRA

Implementation Plan (Public

Meeting), (Contact: Tom King, 301–

415–5790).

3:30 p.m.—Affirmation Session (Public

Meeting), (if needed).

Week of August 17—Tentative

Wednesday, August 19

11:30 a.m.—Affirmation Session (Public

Meeting), (if needed).

*The schedule for Commission

meetings is subject to change on short

notice. To verify the status of meetings

call (recording)—(301) 415–1292.

Contact person for more information:

Bill Hill (301) 415–1661.

The NRC Commission Meeting

Schedule can be found on the Internet

at: http://www.nrc.gov/SECY/smj/

schedule.htm.

* * * * *

This notice is distributed by mail to

several hundred subscribers; if you no

longer wish to receive it, or would like

to be added to it, please contact the

Office of the Secretary, Attn: Operations

Branch, Washington, D.C. 20555 (301–

415–1661). In addition, distribution of

this meeting notice over the Internet

system is available. If you are interested

in receiving this Commission meeting

schedule electronically, please send an

electronic message to wmh@nrc.gov or

dkw@nrc.gov.

* * * * *

Dated: July 24, 1998.

William M. Hill, Jr.,

SECY Tracking Officer, Office of the

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–20261 Filed 7–24–98; 2:28 pm]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Agreement State Compatibility

Designation for NRC Employee

Protection Regulations

AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Request for public comment.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission is requesting public

comment as to whether Agreement

States should adopt the equivalent of 10

CFR Parts 30.7, 40.7, 61.9, and 70.7

(NRC’s Employee Protection

requirements) in accordance with NRC’s

Policy Statement on Adequacy and

Compatibility of Agreement State

Programs, and if so, under which

compatibility category.

Background

Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act

of 1954 (AEA), as amended, provides for

a special Federal-State regulatory

framework for the control of radioactive

materials under which the NRC, by

agreement with a State, discontinues

regulatory authority in certain areas.

Under such an agreement, the State

government exercises that authority as

long as the State program is adequate to

protect public health and safety and

compatible with the Commission’s

program. As defined by the

Commission’s Policy Statement on

Adequacy and Compatibility of

Agreement State Programs (62FR46517,

September 3, 1997), an Agreement

State’s radiation control program is

adequate to protect public health and

safety if administration of the program

provides reasonable assurance of

protection of public health and safety in

regulating the use of source, byproduct,

and small quantities of special nuclear

material as identified by Section 274b.

of the AEA. An Agreement State

radiation control program is compatible

with the Commission’s regulatory

program when its program does not

create conflicts, duplications, gaps, or

other conditions that would jeopardize

an orderly pattern in the regulation of

agreement material on a nationwide

basis.

Discussion

In implementing the Commission’s

Policy Statement on Adequacy and

Compatibility of Agreement State

Programs, the NRC staff has developed

the following guidance to determine the

appropriate compatibility category for

NRC regulations:

Keys to categories:

A Basic radiation protection standard

or related definitions, signs, labels or

terms necessary for a common

understanding of radiation protection

principles. The State program element

should be essentially identical to that

of NRC.

B Program element with significant

direct transboundary implications.

The State program element should be

essentially identical to that of NRC.

C Program element, the essential

objectives of which should be adopted

by the State to avoid conflicts,

duplications or gaps. The manner in

which the essential objectives are

addressed need not be the same as

NRC provided the essential objectives

are met.

D Not required for purposes of

compatibility.

In addition, certain rules are

designated as Health and Safety (H&S)

due to their health and safety

significance. Agreement States should

adopt the essential objectives of these

rules.

In a 10 CFR 2.206 petition dated

December 12, 1997, Thomas B. Cochran,

Ph.D., Director of the Nuclear Program

of the Natural Resources Defense

Council, identified the question of

whether NRC’s employee protection

regulations should be made a matter of

Agreement State compatibility. These

regulations concern the protection of

employees who provide information to

the NRC or their employers concerning

safety issues and conform to the nuclear

employee protection provisions of the

Energy Policy Act of 1992, which was

enacted on October 24, 1992. Under the

current designation, these regulations

are compatibility category D—not

required for purposes of compatibility.

Neither are these regulations currently

required for the single purpose of

assuring public health and safety. The

Commission has directed the NRC staff

to survey and discuss this issue with the

Agreement States and appropriate

organizations and to provide an

opportunity for public comment. The

public is requested to provide

comments on whether NRC’s employee

protection requirements should be made

a matter of Agreement State

compatibility, and if so, under what

compatibility category designation as

described above. Public comment is also

requested on whether NRC’s employee

protection requirements should be

adopted by Agreement States to assure

public health and safety, even though

these regulations may not be necessary

to assure compatibility of regulatory

programs.