Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 1995 / Notices 64183

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–302]

Florida Power Company, Crystal River

Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 3;

Environmental Assessment and

Finding of No Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an amendment

to Facility Operating License No. DPR–

72 issued to Florida Power Compant

(the licensee) for operation of Crystal

River Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 3,

located in Citrus County, Florida.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of Proposed Action

The proposed amendment would

include provisions in Technical

Specifications (TS) Section 3.7 which

allow for the storage of fuel with an

enrichment not to exceed 5.0 w/o U–235

in the new and spent fuel storage racks.

The proposed action is in accordance

with the licensee’s application for

amendment dated January 26, 1995, as

supplemented March 9, 1995, and May

24, 1995.

The Need for Proposed Action

The proposed changes are needed so

that the licensee can use higher fuel

enrichment to provide the flexibility of

extending the fuel irradiation and to

permit operation for longer fuel cycles.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The Commission has completed its

evaluation of the proposed revisions to

the TS. The proposed revisions would

permit use of fuel enriched to a nominal

5.0 weight percent Uranium 235. The

safety considerations associated with

reactor operation with higher

enrichment and extended irradiation

have been evaluated by the NRC staff.

The staff has concluded that such

changes would not adversely affect

plant safety. The proposed changes have

no adverse effect on the probability of

any accident. The higher enrichment,

with fuel burnup to 60,000 megawatt

days per metric ton uranium, may

slightly change the mix of fission

products that might be released in the

event of a serious accident, but such

small changes would not significantly

affect the consequences of serious

accidents. No changes are being made in

the types or amounts of any radiological

effluents that may be released offsite.

There is no significant increase in the

allowable individual or cumulative

occupational radiation exposure.

With regard to potential

nonradiological impacts of reactor

operation with higher enrichment and

extended irradiation, the proposed

changes to the TS involve systems

located within the restricted area, as

defined in 10 CFR Part 20. They do not

affect nonradiological plant effluents

and have no other environmental

impact.

The environmental impacts of

transportation resulting from the use of

higher enrichment fuel and extended

irradiation were published and

discussed in the staff assessment

entitled, ‘‘NRC Assessment of the

Environmental Effects of Transportation

Resulting from Extended Fuel

Enrichment and Irradiation,’’ dated July

7, 1988, and published in the Federal

Register (53 FR 30355) on August 11,

1988. As indicated therein, the

environmental cost contribution of the

proposed increase in the fuel

enrichment and irradiation limits are

either unchanged or may, in fact, be

reduced from those summarized in

Table S–4 as set forth in 10 CFR

51.52(c). Accordingly, the Commission

concludes that there are no significant

radiological environmental impacts

associated with the proposed

amendment.

With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed

action does involve features located

entirely within the restricted area as

defined in 10 CFR Part 20. It does not

affect non-radiological plant effluents

and has no other environmental impact.

Accordingly, the Commission concludes

that there are no significant nonradiological environmental impacts

associated with the proposed action.

Alternative to the Proposed Action

Since the Commission concluded that

there are no significant environmental

effects that would result from the

proposed action, any other alternative

would have equal or greater

environmental impacts and need not be

evaluated.

The principal alternative would be to

deny the requested amendments. This

would not reduce the environmental

impact of plant operations and would

result in reduced operational flexibility.

Alternative Use of Resources

This action does not involve the use

of any resources not previously

considered in the Final Environmental

Statement related to operation of the

Crystal River Nuclear Generating Plant,

Unit 3.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on November 16, 1995, the NRC staff

consulted with the Florida State official,

Dr. Lyle Jerrett of the State Office of

Radiation Control, regarding the

environmental impact of the proposed

action. The State official had no

comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

The Commission has determined not

to prepare an environmental impact

statement for the proposed license

amendments.

Based upon the foregoing

environmental assessment, we conclude

that the proposed action will not have

a significant effect on the quality of the

human environment.

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendment dated January 26, 1995, and

supplements to the application dated

March 9, 1995, and May 24, 1995. These

documents are 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 for the Crystal River Nuclear

Generating Station, Unit 3, located at

the Coastal Region Library, 8619 W.

Crystal Street, Crystal River, Florida

32629.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day

of December 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

David B. Matthews,

Director, Project Directorate II–1, Division of

Reactor Projects I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–30457 Filed 12–13–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

[Docket Nos. 50–315 and 50–316]

Indiana Michigan Power Company

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit

Nos. 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 10 CFR

73.55 for Facility Operating License

Nos. DPR–58 and DPR–74, issued to

Indiana Michigan Power Company, (the

licensee), for operation of the D.C. Cook

Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, located in

Berrien County, Michigan.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed action would exempt

the licensee from certain requirements
64184 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 1995 / Notices

of 10 CFR 73.55, ‘‘Requirements for

physical protection of licensed activities

in nuclear power reactors against

radiological sabotage.’’ The proposed

action would allow implementation of a

hand geometry biometric system of site

access control such that photograph

identification badges can be taken off

site.

This environmental assessment has

been prepared to address potential

environmental issues related to the

licensee’s application of August 17,

1995.

The Need for the Proposed Action

Pursuant to 10 CFR 73.55, paragraph

(a), the licensee shall establish and

maintain an onsite physical protection

system and security organization.

Paragraph (1) of 10 CFR 73.55(d),

‘‘Access Requirements,’’ specifies that

‘‘licensee shall control all points of

personnel and vehicle access into a

protected area.’’ It is specified in 10 CFR

73.55(d)(5) that ‘‘A numbered picture

badge identification system shall be

used of all individuals who are

authorized access to protected areas

without escort.’’ It also states that an

individual not employed by the licensee

(i.e., contractors) may be authorized

access to protected areas without escort

provided the individual ‘‘receives a

picture badge upon entrance into the

protected area which must be returned

upon exit from the protected area.

* * *’’

Currently, unescorted access into the

protected areas of the Cook Nuclear

Plant is controlled through the use of a

photograph on a combination badge and

keycard. (Hereafter, these are referred to

as badges). The security officers at the

entrance station use the photograph on

the badge to visually identify the

individual requesting access. The

badges for both licensee employees and

contractor personnel who have been

granted unescorted access are issued

upon entrance at the entrance/exit

location and are returned upon exit. The

badges are stored and retrievable at the

entrance/exit location. In accordance

with 10 CFR 73.55(d)(5), contractor

individuals are not allowed to take

badges off site. In accordance with the

plant’s physical security plans, neither

licensee employees nor contractors are

allowed to take badges off site.

The licensee proposes to implement

an alternative unescorted access control

system which would eliminate the need

to issue and retrieve badges at the

entrance/exit location and would allow

all individuals with unescorted access

to keep their badges with them when

departing the site.

An exemption from certain

requirements of 10 CFR 73.55(d)(5) is

required to permit contractors to take

their badges off site instead of returning

them when exiting the site.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The Commission has completed its

evaluation of the proposed action and

concludes that the proposed exemption

would not increase the probability or

consequences of accidents previously

analyzed and the proposed exemption

would not affect facility radiation levels

or facility radiological effluents. Under

the proposed system, each individual

who is authorized for unescorted entry

into protected areas would have the

physical characteristics of their hand

(hand geometry) registered with their

badge number in the access control

system. When an individual enters the

badge into the card reader and places

the hand on the measuring surface, the

system would record the individual’s

hand image. The unique characteristics

of the extracted hand image would be

compared with the previously stored

template to verify authorization for

entry. Individuals, including licensee

employees and contractors, would be

allowed to keep their badges with them

when they depart the site.

Based on a Sandia report entitled ‘‘A

Performance Evaluation of Biometric

Identification Devices’’ (SAND91—

0276, UC—906 Unlimited Release,

printed June 1991), and on its

experience with the current photoidentification system, the licensee stated

that the false acceptance rate of the

proposed hand geometry system is

comparable to that of the current

system. The licensee stated that the use

of the badges with the hand geometry

system would increase the overall level

of access control. Since both the badge

and hand geometry would be necessary

for access into the protected area, the

proposed system would provide for a

positive verification process. Potential

loss of a badge by an individual, as a

result of taking the badge off site, would

not enable an unauthorized entry into

protected areas. The licensee will

implement a process for testing the

proposed system to ensure continued

overall level of performance equivalent

to that specified in the regulation. The

Physical Security Plan for D.C. Cook

will be revised to include

implementation and testing of the hand

geometry access control system and to

allow licensee employees and

contractors to take their badges off site.

All other access processes, including

search function capability and access

revocation, will remain the same. A

security officer responsible for access

control will continue to be positioned

within a bullet-resistant structure. A

numbered picture badge identification

system will continue to be used for all

individuals who are authorized access

to protected areas without escorts.

Badges will continue to be displayed by

all individuals while inside the

protected area. The proposed system is

only for individuals with authorized

unescorted access and will not be used

for individuals requiring escorts.

The change will not increase the

probability or consequences of

accidents, no changes are being made in

the types or amounts of any effluents

that may be released off site, and there

is no significant increase in the

allowable individual or cumulative

occupational radiation exposure.

Accordingly, the Commission concludes

that there are no significant radiological

environmental impacts associated with

the proposed action.

With regard to potential

nonradiological impacts, the proposed

action involves features located entirely

within the restricted area as defined in

10 CFR Part 20. It does not affect

nonradiological plant effluents and has

no other environmental impact.

Accordingly, the Commission concludes

that there are no significant

nonradiological environmental impacts

associated with the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Since the Commission has concluded

there is no measurable environmental

impact associated with the proposed

action, any alternatives with equal or

greater environmental impact need not

be evaluated. As an alternative to the

proposed action, the NRC 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 alternative action are

similar.

Alternative Use of Resources

This action does not involve the use

of any resources not previously

considered in the Final Environmental

Statement for D.C. Cook, Units 1 and 2,

dated August 1973.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on November 20, 1995, the NRC staff

consulted with the Michigan State

official, Dennis Hahn, of the Michigan

Department of Public Health, Nuclear

Facilities and Environmental

Monitoring, regarding the

environmental impact of the proposed
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 1995 / Notices 64185

1Applicants represent that they will amend the

application during the notice period to make this

representation.

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 the

proposed action, see the licensee’s letter

dated August 17, 1995, which is

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

Maud Preston Palenske Memorial

Library, 500 Market Street, St. Joseph,

Michigan 49085.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day

of December 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

John B. Hickman,

Project Manager, Project Directorate III–1,

Division of Reactor Projects—III/IV, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–30456 Filed 12–13–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

Issuer Delisting; Notice of Application

To Withdraw From Listing and

Registration; (American Eco

Corporation, Common Stock, No Par

Value) File No. 1–10621

December 8, 1995.

American Eco Corporation

(‘‘Company’’) has filed an application

with the Securities and Exchange

Commission (‘‘Commission’’), pursuant

to Section 12(d) of the Securities

Exchange Act of 1934 (‘‘Act’’) and Rule

12d2–2(d) promulgated thereunder, to

withdraw the above specified security

(‘‘Security’’) from listing and

registration on the American Stock

Exchange, Inc. (‘‘Amex’’).

The reasons alleged in the application

for withdrawing the Security from

listing and registration include the

following:

According to the Company, its Board

of Directors approved resolutions on

September 14, 1995 to withdraw the

Security from listing on the Amex and

instead, to list the Security on the

National Association of Securities

Dealers Automated Quotations National

Market System (‘‘Nasdaq/NMS’’). The

NASD approved the Company’s

application for initial inclusion on the

Nasdaq/NMS on November 3, 1995.

The decision of the Board followed a

thorough study of the matter and was

based upon the belief that listing the

Security on the Nasdaq/NMS will be

more beneficial to the Company’s

shareholders than the present listing on

the Amex for the following reasons:

(a) The Company believes that the

Nasdaq/NMS system of competing

market makers will result in increased

visibility and sponsorship for the

Security than is presently available on

the Amex;

(b) The Company believes that the

Nasdaq/NMS system will offer the

Company’s shareholders more liquidity

than is presently available on the Amex

and less volatility in quoted prices for

share when trading volume is slight;

(c) The Company believes that the

Nasdaq/NMS system will offer an

opportunity for the Company to secure

its own group of market makers and to

expand the capital base available for

trading in the Security; and

(d) The Company believes that the

firms making a market in the Security

on the Nasdaq/NMS system will also be

inclined to issue research reports

concerning the Company, thereby

increasing the number of firms

providing institutional research and

advisory reports.

Any interested person may, on or

before January 2, 1996 submit by letter

to the Secretary of the Securities and

Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street,

NW., Washington, DC 20549, facts

bearing upon whether the application

has been made in accordance with the

rules of the exchanges and what terms,

if any, should be imposed by the

Commission for the protection of

investors. The Commission, based on

the information submitted to it, will

issue an order granting the application

after the date mentioned above, unless

the Commission determines to order a

hearing on the matter.

For the Commission, by the Division of

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated

authority.

Jonathan G. Katz,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–30421 Filed 12–13–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

[Rel. No. IC–21587; No. 812–9156]

Safeco Life Insurance Company, et al.

December 7, 1995.

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange

Commission (‘‘Commission’’).

ACTION: Notice of Application for an

Order under the Investment Company

Act of 1940 (‘‘1940 Act’’).

APPLICANTS: Safeco Life Insurance

Company (‘‘SAFECO’’) and Separate

Account SL (‘‘Separate Account’’).

RELEVANT 1940 ACT SECTION: Order

requested under Section 26(b) of the

1940 Act.1

SUMMARY OF APPLICATION: Applicants

seek an order authorizing the

substitution of shares of certain

portfolios of the Variable Insurance

Products Fund and the Variable

Insurance Products Fund II (‘‘VIP

Trusts’’) for shares of certain portfolios

of The Hudson River Trust (‘‘Hudson

Trust’’) currently held by the Separate

Account.

FILING DATE: The application was filed

on August 10, 1994, and amended on

September 6, 1995.

HEARING OR 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 should be

received by the Commission by 5:30

p.m. on December 27, 1995, and should

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 requester’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 5th Street,

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

Applicants, c/o Leslie Harrison,

Counsel, SAFECO Life Insurance

Company, P.O. Box 34690, Seattle,

Washington 98124–1690.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Yvonne M. Hunold, Assistant Special

Counsel, or Brenda Sneed, Assistant

Director, Division of Investment

Management (Office of Insurance

Products), 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. SAFECO is a stock life insurance

company licensed to sell insurance and