Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 70 / Friday, April 11, 1997 / Notices 17887

and foundation of each specification. In

addition to NUREG–1433, portions of

the existing TSs were also used as the

basis for the ITS. Plant-specific issues

(unique design features, requirements,

and operating practices) were discussed

at length with the licensee, and generic

matters with the OGs.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

As stated above, the only plausible

consequence of the proposed action is a

rod withdrawal error during low power.

The effects of such an error were

analyzed in ‘‘Rod Withdrawal Error-Low

Power,’’ Section 15.4.1 of the UFSAR.

This analysis indicates that withdrawal

of a single rod during refueling is

insufficient to cause criticality and thus

no radioactive materials would be

released. The proposed change to the

TSs does not change this conclusion.

Additionally, the proposed revision to

the TS was found to provide control of

plant operations, specifically control of

rod movement during Conditions 3 and

4. Thus, reasonable assurance will be

provided that the health and safety of

the public will be adequately protected.

These TS changes will not increase

the probability or consequences of

accidents, no changes are being made in

the types of any effluent that may be

released offsite, and there is no

significant increase in the allowable

individual or cumulative occupational

radiation exposure. Therefore, the

Commission concludes that there are no

significant radiological environmental

impacts associated with the proposed

TS amendment.

With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed

amendment involves features located

entirely within the restricted areas as

defined in 10 CFR Part 20. It does not

affect non-radiological plant effluents

and has no other environmental impact.

Therefore, the Commission concludes

that there are no significant nonradiological impacts associated with the

proposed amendment.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

The Commission has concluded there

are no significant environmental

impacts associated with the proposed

amendment. Any alternatives with

equal or greater environmental impact

need not be evaluated. As an alternative

to the proposed action, the staff

considered denial of the proposed

action. Denial of the application would

result in no change in current

environmental impacts. The

environmental impacts of the proposed

action and the no-action alternative

action are similar.

Alternative Use of Resources

This action does not involve the use

of any resources not considered

previously in the Final Environmental

Statement for the Susquehanna Steam

Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, dated

June 1981.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on March 27, 1997, the staff consulted

with the Pennsylvania State official, Mr.

David Ney of the Pennsylvania

Department of Environmental

Resources, Bureau of Radiation

Protection, regarding the environmental

impact of the proposed action. The State

official had no comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

Based upon the 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 action.

For further details with respect to this

proposed action, see the licensee’s letter

dated February 11, 1997. The letter is

available for public inspection at the

Commission’s Public Document Room,

the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street,

NW, Washington, DC 20555, and at the

local public document room located at

the Osterhout Free Library, Reference

Department, 71 South Franklin Street,

Wilkes-Barre, PA 18701.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 4th day

April of 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

John F. Stolz,

Director, Project Directorate I–2, Division of

Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–9393 Filed 4–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Degradation of Control Rod Drive

Mechanism Nozzle and Other Vessel

Closure Head Penetrations; Issued

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of issuance.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) has issued Generic

Letter 97–01 to notify all holders of

operating licenses for pressurized water

reactors (PWRs), except those who have

permanently ceased operations and

have certified that fuel has been

permanently removed from the reactor

vessel, of the need for information

concerning their programs for ensuring

the timely inspection of control rod

drive mechanism (CRDM) and other

vessel closure head penetrations. The

information requested is needed by the

NRC staff to verify compliance with 10

CFR 50.55a and 10 CFR Part 50,

Appendix A, GDC 14, and to determine

whether an augmented inspection

program, pursuant to 10 CFR

50.55a(g)(6)(ii), is required.

The proposed generic letter is a ‘‘rule’’

for purposes of the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5

U.S.C., Chapter 8). The staff has

received confirmation from the Office of

Management and Budget that the

generic letter is a non-major rule.

This generic letter is available in the

NRC Public Document Room under

accession number 9703260336.

DATES: The generic letter was issued on

April 1, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Not applicable.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: C. E.

Carpenter, Jr. at (301) 415–2169.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NRC

staff has concluded that vessel closure

head penetration (VHP) cracking does

not pose an immediate or near term

safety concern. In the long term,

however, the degradation of CRDM

nozzles and other VHPs is an important

safety consideration that warrants

further evaluation. The vessel closure

head provides the vital function of

maintaining reactor pressure boundary.

Cracking in the VHPs has occurred and

is expected to continue to occur as

plants age. The NRC staff considers

cracking of VHPs to be a safety concern

for the long term based on the

possibility of (1) Exceeding the

American Society of Mechanical

Engineers (ASME) Code for margins if

the cracks are sufficiently deep and

continue to propagate during

subsequent operating cycles, and (2)

eliminating a layer of defense in depth

for plant safety. Therefore, to verify that

the margins required by the ASME

Code, as specified in 10 CFR 50.55a are

met, that the guidance of General Design

Criterion 14 of Appendix A to 10 CFR

Part 50 is continued to be satisfied, and

to ensure that the safety significance of

VHP cracking remains low, the NRC

staff believes that an integrated, longterm program, which includes periodic

inspections and monitoring of VHPs, is

necessary. In addition, the NRC staff

finds that the requested information is

also needed to determine if the

imposition of an augmented inspection

program, pursuant to 10 CFR

50.55a(g)(6)(ii), is required to maintain

public health and safety. The staff is not
17888 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 70 / Friday, April 11, 1997 / Notices

establishing a new position for

compliance in this generic letter.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day

of April 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Marylee M. Slosson,

Deputy Director, Division of Reactor Program

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–9392 Filed 4–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Notice of Removal of the Texas

Instruments, Incorporated, Attleboro,

Massachusetts Site From the NRC Site

Decommissioning Management Plan

and Termination of the NRC License

for the Facility

SUMMARY: This notice is to inform the

public that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission is removing the Texas

Instruments, Incorporated, Attleboro,

Massachusetts site from the NRC Site

Decommissioning Management Plan

(SDMP). NRC has determined that

remediation of residual radioactive

contamination, as a result of past

operations with NRC licensed material

in buildings and in exterior areas on the

site, has successfully been completed

and the facility meets the current NRC

criteria for release for unrestricted use.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mark Roberts, Division of Radiation

Safety and Safeguards, Region I, 475

Allendale Road, King of Prussia, PA

19406, Telephone: (610) 337–5094.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Texas

Instruments, Incorporated site in

Attleboro, Massachusetts was identified

in 1990 by NRC as a site where residual

radioactive contamination was present,

as a result of past operations.

Radioactive contamination was

identified by Texas Instruments in a

former burial area on the site. In order

to ensure that remediation of the burial

area was accomplished in a timely

manner, NRC added this site to its

SDMP. Contamination in three of the

site buildings, as well as additional

exterior contamination, was

subsequently identified. Texas

Instruments has remediated residual

contamination in all of these areas,

performed radiological surveys

throughout the entire site and site

buildings, where radioactive materials

may have been used, and requested, by

letter dated October 29, 1996, that NRC

remove the Attleboro, Massachusetts

site from the SDMP and terminate the

license.

NRC staff has periodically inspected

the site remediation activities, reviewed

final radiological surveys performed by

the licensee’s contractors, and

performed confirmatory measurements

at the site. NRC staff has determined

that the facility meets the requirements

for release for unrestricted use and has

removed the site from the SDMP and

terminated the NRC license.

For further details with respect to this

action, documents are available for

inspection at NRC’s Region I office

located at 475 Allendale Road, King of

Prussia, PA 19406. Persons desiring to

review documents at the Region I office

should call Ms. Cheryl Buracker at (610)

337–5093 several days in advance to

assure that the documents will be

readily available for review.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 7th day

of April 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

John W.N. Hickey,

Chief, Low-Level Waste and Decommissioning

Projects Branch, Division of Waste

Management, Office of Nuclear Material

Safety and Safeguards.

[FR Doc. 97–9394 Filed 4–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Rel. No. IC–22602; File No. 812–10476]

EQ Advisors Trust, et al.

April 4, 1997.

AGENCY: The Securities and Exchange

Commission (the ‘‘Commission’’).

ACTION: Notice of application for an

exemption pursuant to the Investment

Company Act of 1940 (the ‘‘1940 Act’’).

APPLICANTS: EQ Advisors Trust

(‘‘Trust’’), The Equitable Life Assurance

Society of the United States

(‘‘Equitable’’), Equitable Distributors,

Inc. (‘‘EDI’’), EQ Financial Consultants,

Inc. (‘‘Manager’’) and certain life

insurance companies and their separate

accounts investing now or in the future

in the Trust.

RELEVANT 1940 ACT SECTIONS: Order

requested pursuant to Section 6(c) of the

1940 Act for exemptions from Sections

9(a), 13(a), 15(a), and 15(b) thereof and

Rules 6e–2(b)(15) and 6e–3(T)(b)(15)

thereunder.

SUMMARY OF APPLICATION: Appliants seek

exemptive relief to the extent necessary

to permit shares of the Trust and any

other investment company that is

designed to fund variable insurance

products and for which Equitable, EDI,

the Manager of any of their affiliates

may serve as investment adviser,

manager, administrator, principal

underwriter, or depositor (collectively

‘‘Insurance Products Funds’’) to be sold

to and held by separate accounts

funding variable annuity and variable

life insurance contracts issued by

affiliated or unaffiliated life insurance

companies (‘‘Participating Insurance

Companies’’) or qualified pension and

retirement plans outside of the separate

account context (‘‘Plans’’).

FILING DATE: The application was filed

on December 31, 1996, and amended on

April 1, 1997.

HEARING AND NOTIFICATION OF HEARING:

An order granting the application will

be issued unless the Commission orders

a hearing. Interested persons may

request a hearing by writing to the

Secretary of the Commission and

serving Applicants with a copy of the

request, personally or by mail. Hearing

requests must be received by the

Commission by 5:30 p.m. on April 29,

1997, and must be accompanied by

proof of service on Applicants in the

form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a

certificate of service. Hearing requests

should state the nature of the writer’s

interest, the reason for the request, and

the issues contested. Persons may

request notification of a hearing by

writing to the Secretary of the

Commission.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, Securities and

Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20549.

Applicants, c/o Jane A. Kanter, Esq.,

Katten Muchin & Zavis, 1025 Thomas

Jefferson Street, N.W., East Lobby, Suite

700, Washington, D.C. 20007–5201.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael B. Koffler, Staff Attorney, or

Kevin M. Kirchoff, Branch Chief, Office

of Insurance Products, Division of

Investment Management, at (202) 942–

0670.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

following is a summary of the

application; the complete application is

available for a fee from the Public

Reference Branch of the Commission.

Applicants’ Representations

1. The Trust is a Delaware business

trust which is registered pursuant to the

1940 Act as an open-end, management

investment company. The Trust consists

of multiple separately managed

investment portfolios (‘‘Portfolios’’) and

may in the future issue shares of

additional portfolios.

2. The Trust has adopted a plan

pursuant to Rule 18f–3 of the 1940 Act

in order to offer multiple classes of

shares of each of its Portfolios. Two

such classes are currently contemplated

and have been preliminarily designated