2162 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 1995 / Notices

consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.714

which is available 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 Phoenix

Public Library, 12 East McDowell Road,

Phoenix, Arizona 85004. If a request for

a hearing or petition for leave to

intervene is filed by the above date, the

Commission or an Atomic Safety and

Licensing Board, designated by the

Commission or by the Chairman of the

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

Panel, will rule on the request and/or

petition; and the Secretary or the

designated Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board will issue a notice of hearing or

an appropriate order.

As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a

petition for leave to intervene shall set

forth with particularity the interest of

the petitioner in the proceeding, and

how that interest may be affected by the

results of the proceeding. The petition

should specifically explain the reasons

why intervention should be permitted

with particular reference to the

following factors: (1) the nature of the

petitioner’s right under the Act to be

made party to the proceeding; (2) the

nature and extent of the petitioner’s

property, financial, or other interest in

the proceeding; and (3) the possible

effect of any order which may be

entered in the proceeding on the

petitioner’s interest. The petition should

also identify the specific aspect(s) of the

subject matter of the proceeding as to

which petitioner wishes to intervene.

Any person who has filed a petition for

leave to intervene or who has been

admitted as a party may amend the

petition without requesting leave of the

Board up to 15 days prior to the first

prehearing conference scheduled in the

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

amendments 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.

If a hearing is requested, the

Commission will make a final

determination on the issue of no

significant hazards consideration. The

final determination will serve to decide

when the hearing is held.

If the final determination is that the

amendment request involves no

significant hazards consideration, the

Commission may issue the amendments

and make it immediately effective,

notwithstanding the request for a

hearing. Any hearing held would take

place after issuance of the amendments.

If the final determination is that the

amendment request involves a

significant hazards consideration, any

hearing held would take place before

the issuance of any amendment.

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, Attention:

Docketing and Services Branch, or may

be delivered to the Commission’s Public

Document Room, the Gelman Building,

2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, by

the above date. Where petitions are filed

during the last 10 days of the notice

period, it is requested that the petitioner

promptly so inform the Commission by

a toll-free telephone call to Western

Union at 1–(800) 248–5100 (in Missouri

1–(800) 342–6700). The Western Union

operator should be given Datagram

Identification Number N1023 and the

following message addressed to

Theodore R. Quay: petitioner’s name

and telephone number, date petition

was mailed, plant name, and

publication date and page number of

this Federal Register notice. A copy of

the petition should also be sent to the

Office of the General Counsel, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555, and to Nancy C.

Loftin, Esq., Corporate Secretary and

Counsel, Arizona Public Service

Company, P.O. Box 53999, Mail Station

9068, Phoenix, Arizona 85072–3999,

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).

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendment dated October 31, 1994, as

supplemented by letter dated December

28, 1994, 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 Phoenix Public Library,

12 East McDowell Road, Phoenix,

Arizona 85004.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day

of January 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Linh N. Tran,

Project Manager, Project Directorate IV–2,

Division of Reactor Projects III/IV, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 94–319 Filed 1–5–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

[Docket No. 50–440]

The Cleveland Electric Illuminating

Co., et al.; 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. NPF–

58, issued to the Cleveland Electric

Illuminating Company, Centerior

Service Company, Duquesne Light

Company, Ohio Edison Company,

Pennsylvania Power Company, and

Toledo Edison Company (the licensee),

for operation of the Perry Nuclear Power

Plant, Unit No. 1, located in Lake

County, Ohio.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed amendment will

replace the existing Technical

Specifications (TS), in their entirety,

with the Improved Technical

Specification (ITS). The proposed action

is in accordance with the licensee’s

amendment request dated December 16,
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 1995 / Notices 2163

1993, as supplemented November 7,

1994.

The Need for the Proposed Action

It has been recognized that nuclear

safety in all plants would benefit from

improvement and standardization of TS.

The ‘‘NRC Interim Policy Statement on

Technical Specification Improvements

for Nuclear Power Reactors,’’ (Federal

Register 52 FR 3788, February 6, 1987)

and later the Final Policy Statement,

formalized this need. To facilitate the

development of individual ITS, each

reactor vendor owners’ group (OG) and

the NRC staff, developed standard

Technical Specifications. For General

Electric (GE) plants, the standard TS

(STS) are NUREG–1433 for BWR/4

reactor facilities and NUREG–1434 for

BWR/6 facilities. NUREG–1434 formed

the basis of the Perry ITS. The NRC

Committee to Review Generic

Requirements (CRGR) reviewed the STS

and made note of the safety merits of the

STS and indicated its support of

conversion by operating plants to the

STS.

Description of the Proposed Change

The proposed revision to the TS is

based on NUREG–1434, and on

guidance provided in the Policy

Statement. Its objective is to completely

rewrite, reformat, and streamline the

existing TS. Emphasis is placed on

human factors’ principles to improve

clarity and understanding. The Bases

section has been significantly expanded

to clarify, and better explain the

purpose and foundation of each

specification. In addition to NUREG–

1434, portions of the existing TS were

also used as the basis for the ITS. Plantspecific issues (unique design features,

requirements, and operating practices)

were discussed at length with the

licensee, and generic matters with the

GE and other OGs.

The proposed changes from the

existing TS can be grouped into four

general categories, as follows:

1. Non-technical (administrative)

changes, which were intended to make

the ITS easier to use for plant operations

personnel. They are purely editorial in

nature, or involve the movement or

reformat of requirements without

affecting technical content. Every

section of the Perry TS has undergone

these types of changes. In order to

ensure consistency, the NRC staff and

the licensee have used NUREG–1434 as

guidance to reformat and make other

administrative changes.

2. Relocation of requirements, which

includes items that were in the existing

Perry TS, but did not meet the criteria

set forth in the Policy Statement for

inclusion in TS. In general, the

proposed relocation of items in the

Perry TS to the Updated Safety Analysis

report (USAR), appropriate plantspecific programs, procedures and ITS

Bases, follows the guidance of the BWR/

6 STS, NUREG–1434. Once these items

have been relocated, by removing them

from the TS to other licensee-controlled

documents, the licensee may revise

them under the provisions of 10 CFR

50.59 or other NRC staff-approved

control mechanisms, which provide

appropriate procedural means to control

changes.

3. More restrictive requirements,

which consist of proposed Perry ITS

items that are either more conservative

than corresponding requirements in the

existing Perry TS, or are additional

restrictions, which are not in the

existing Perry TS, but are contained in

NUREG–1434. Examples of more

restrictive requirements include: placing

a Limiting Conditions for Operation

(LCO) on plant equipment, which is not

required by the present TS to be

operable; more restrictive requirements

to restore inoperable equipment; and

more restrictive surveillance

requirements.

4. Less restrictive requirements,

which are relaxations of corresponding

requirements in the existing Perry TS,

which provided little or no safety

benefit, and placed unnecessary burden

on the licensee. These relaxations were

the result of generic NRC action or other

analyses. They have been justified on a

case-by-case basis for Perry, as

described in the Safety Evaluation to be

issued with the license amendment,

which will be noticed in the Federal

Register.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The Commission has completed its

evaluation of the proposed revision to

the TS. Changes which are

administrative in nature have been

found to have no effect on technical

content of the TS, and are acceptable.

The increased clarity and understanding

these changes bring to the TS, are

expected to improve the operator’s

control of the plant in normal and

accident conditions.

Relocation of requirements to other

licensee-controlled documents does not

change the requirements themselves.

Future changes to these requirements

may be made by the licensee, under 10

CFR 50.59, or other NRC-approved

control mechanisms, which assures

continued maintenance of adequate

requirements. All such relocations have

been found to be in conformance with

the guidelines of NUREG–1434 and the

Policy Statement, and, therefore, to be

acceptable.

Changes involving more restrictive

requirements have been found to be

acceptable.

Changes involving less restrictive

requirements have been reviewed

individually. When requirements have

been shown to provide little or no safety

benefit, or to place unnecessary burden

on the licensee, their removal from the

TS was justified. In most cases,

relaxations previously granted to

individual plants, on a plant-specific

basis, were the result of a generic NRC

action, or of agreements reached during

discussions with the OG and found to

be acceptable for Perry. Generic

relaxations contained in NUREG–1434

have also been reviewed by the NRC

staff and have been found to be

acceptable.

In summary, the proposed revision to

the TS has been found to provide

control of plant operations, such that

reasonable assurance will be provided

that the health and safety of the public

will be adequately protected. These TS

changes will not increase the

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 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

Since the Commission has concluded

there is no measurable environmental

impact associated with the proposed

amendment, any alternatives with equal

or greater environmental impact need

not be evaluated. The principal

alternative to the amendment would be

to deny the amendment request. Such

action would not enhance the protection

of the environment.

Alternative Use of Resources

This action does not involve the use

of resources not considered previously

in the Final Environmental Statement

for the Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit

1.
2164 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 1995 / Notices

Agencies and Persons Consulted

The NRC staff consulted with the

State of Ohio 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 amendment.

For futher details with respect to this

proposed action, see the licensee’s

letters dated December 16, 1993 (PY–

CEI/NRR–1732 L), and November 7,

1994 (PY–CEI/NRR–1880 L). These

letters 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 Perry Public Library, 3753

Main Street, Perry, Ohio 44081.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 30th day

of December 1994.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Leif J. Norrholm,

Director, Project Directorate III–3, Division

of Reactor Projects III/IV, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–318 Filed 1–5–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Rel. No. IC–20808; File No. 812–9122]

The Ohio National Life Insurance Co.,

et al.

December 29, 1994.

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange

Commission (‘‘SEC’’ or the

‘‘Commission’’).

ACTION: Notice of Application for an

order under the Investment Company

Act of 1940 (the ‘‘1940 Act’’).

APPLICANTS: The Ohio National Life

Insurance Company (the ‘‘Company’’),

Ohio National Variable Account D

(‘‘VAD’’), and The O.N. Equity Sales

Company (‘‘ONESCO’’), collectively, the

‘‘Applicants.’’

RELEVANT 1940 ACT SECTIONS: Order

requested under Section 6(c) of the 1940

Act, granting exemptions from Sections

26(a)(2)(C) and 27(c)(2) thereof.

SUMMARY OF APPLICATION: Applicants

seek an order to the extent necessary to

permit the issuance and sale of certain

group variable annuity contracts offered

presently (the ‘‘Contracts’’) or in the

future through existing and future

subaccounts of VAD, from which a

mortality and expense risk charge and/

or a distribution charge may be

deducted.

FILING DATE: The application was filed

initially on July 20, 1994. An amended

and restated application was filed on

December 20, 1994.

HEARING OR NOTIFCATION OF HEARING: An

order granting the application will be

issued unless the Commission orders a

hearing. Interested persons may request

a hearing on the application by writing

to the Secretary of the Commission and

serving the Applicants with a copy of

the request, either personally, or by

mail. Hearing requests must be received

by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on

January 23, 1995, and should be

accompanied by proof of service on the

Applicants in the form of an affidavit or,

for lawyers, by certificate. Hearing

requests should state the nature of the

interest, the reason for the request, and

the issues contested. Persons may

request notification of the date of a

hearing by writing to the Secretary of

the Commission.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, SEC, 450 5th

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549.

Applicants, 237 William Howard Taft

Road, Cincinnati, OH 45219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Patrice M. Pitts, Attorney, at (202) 942–

0670, Office of Insurance Products,

Division of Investment Management.

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 SEC.

Applicants’ Representations

1. The Company was organized under

the laws of Ohio in 1909 as a stock life

insurance company, and became a

mutual life insurance company in 1959.

The Company writes life, accident and

health insurance, and annuities in 45

states and the District of Columbia.

2. Established by the Company in

1969 as a separate account under Ohio

law, VAD funds group variable annuity

contracts (including the Contracts).

Income, gains and losses, whether or not

realized, from assets allocated to VAD

are credited to or charged against VAD

without regard to other income, gains or

losses of the Company. The assets

maintained in VAD will not be charged

with any liabilities arising out of any

other business conducted by the

Company. Nevertheless, all obligations

arising under the variable annuity

contracts funded by VAD, including the

commitment to make annuity payments,

are general corporate obligations of the

Company. Accordingly, all of the

Company’s assets are available to meet

its obligations under those variable

annuity contracts. VAD is registered as

a unit investment trust under the 1940

Act.

3. ONESCO, a wholly-owned

subsidiary of the Company, is a

registered broker-dealer and a member

of the National Association of Securities

Dealers, Inc. ONESCO is the principal

underwriter of the Contracts.

4. The Contracts are group variable

annuity contracts that provide for the

accumulation of values and the payment

of annuity benefits on a variable and/or

fixed basis. The Contracts are designed

for the following types of tax-qualified

retirement plans (‘‘Plans’’): (a) annuity

purchase plans adopted by public

school systems or by certain tax-exempt

organizations which qualify for taxdeferred treatment pursuant to Section

403(b) of the Internal Revenue Code (the

‘‘Code’’); (b) other employee pension or

profit-sharing trusts or plans which

qualify for tax-deferred treatment under

Section 401(a), 401(k) or 403(a) of the

Code; and (c) state and municipal

deferred compensation plans.

5. The minimum contribution amount

under each Contract is $25 per Plan

participant. Additional contributions

may be made at any time, but not more

often than biweekly. Generally,

maximum contributions under the

Contracts equal the maximum amounts

permitted under the respective Plan.

6. Net purchase payments under the

Contracts (after deduction of any

applicable state premium tax) are

allocated to one or more subaccounts of

VAD and/or to the Company’s general

account. Assets of the subaccounts of

VAD are invested in shares of a

corresponding portfolio of Ohio

National Fund, Inc., a mutual fund

having seven diversified investment

portfolios. Additional subaccounts may

be created by VAD in the future to

invest in new investment portfolios of

Ohio National Fund, Inc., or in

investment portfolios of other

investment companies. In the future,

VAD also may offer additional variable

annuity contracts (the ‘‘future

contracts’’) which are materially similar

to the Contracts.

7. The Company will assess an

administration expense charge, on an

annual basis, to 0.35 percent of Contract

value. The expenses reimbursed by the

administration charge include, but are

not limited to, those for: accounting,

auditing, legal, and Contract owner

services; reports to regulatory

authorities and Contract owners; and