Virginia Electric and Power Company (Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2); Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281]

Virginia Electric and Power Company (Surry 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. DPR-32 and

Facility Operating License No. DPR-37, issued to Virginia Electric and

Power Company (VEPCO, the licensee) for operation of the Surry Power

Station (SPS), Units 1 and 2 located in Surry County, Virginia.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of Proposed Action

The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's

application dated

[[Page 45098]]

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 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 SPS1&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, pressure-demand 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 the Final Environmental Statement for the Surry Power

Station.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy, the NRC staff consulted with

Mr. Foldesi of the Virginia Department of Health on July 27, 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 the proposed action, see the

licensee's letter 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 Swem Library, College of

William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia 23185.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day of August 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

G.E. Edison, Sr.,

Project Manager, Project Directorate II-1, Division of Reactor

Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98-22633 Filed 8-21-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P