Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 168 / Friday, August 29, 1997 / Notices 45883

Alternative Use of Resources

This action does not involve the use

of any resources not previously

considered in the Final Environmental

Statement for the Point Beach Nuclear

Plant, Units 1 and 2.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on July 29, 1997, the staff consulted

with the Wisconsin State official, Ms.

Sarah Jenkins of the Wisconsin Public

Service Commission, 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 the

proposed action, see the licensee’s letter

dated January 21, 1997, 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

Lester Public Library, 1001 Adams

Street, Two Rivers, WI 54241.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd

day of August 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Linda L. Gundrum,

Project Manager, Project Directorate III–1,

Division of Reactor Projects—III/IV, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–23042 Filed 8–28–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–266 and 50–301]

Wisconsin Electric Power Company;

Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and

2; Environmental Assessment and

Finding of No Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering granting an exemption from

the requirements of 10 CFR 70.24(a) to

Wisconsin Electric Power Company,

(the licensee), in connection with the

operation of the Point Beach Nuclear

Plant (PBNP), Units 1 and 2, located in

Manitowoc County, Wisconsin, under

Facility Operating Licenses Nos. DPR–

24 and DPR–27.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of Proposed Action

The proposed action would exempt

the licensee from the requirements of 10

CFR 70.24(a), which requires a

monitoring system that will energize

clear audible alarms if accidental

criticality occurs in each area in which

special nuclear material is handled,

used, or stored. The proposed action

would also exempt the licensee from the

requirements to maintain emergency

procedures for each area in which this

licensed special nuclear material is

handled, used, or stored to ensure that

all personnel withdraw to an area of

safety upon the sounding of the alarm,

to familiarize personnel with the

evacuation plan, and to designate

responsible individuals for determining

the cause of the alarm, and to place

radiation survey instruments in

accessible locations for use in such an

emergency.

The proposed action is in accordance

with the licensee’s application for

exemption dated June 7, 1997.

The Need for the Proposed Action

The purpose of 10 CFR 70.24 is to

ensure that if a criticality were to occur

during the handling of special nuclear

material, personnel would be alerted to

that fact and would take appropriate

action. At a commercial nuclear power

plant the inadvertent criticality with

which 10 CFR 70.24 is concerned could

occur during fuel handling operations.

The special nuclear material that could

be assembled into a critical mass at a

commercial nuclear power plant is in

the form of nuclear fuel; the quantity of

other forms of special nuclear material

that is stored on site is small enough to

preclude achieving a critical mass.

Because the fuel is not enriched beyond

5.0 weight percent Uranium-235 and

because commercial nuclear plant

licensees have procedures and features

designed to prevent inadvertent

criticality, the staff has determined that

it is unlikely that an inadvertent

criticality could occur due to the

handling of special nuclear material at

a commercial power reactor. The

requirements of 10 CFR 70.24, therefore,

are not necessary to ensure the safety of

personnel during the handling of special

nuclear materials at commercial power

reactors.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The Commission has completed its

evaluation of the proposed action and

concludes that there is no significant

environmental impact if the exemption

is granted. Inadvertent or accidental

criticality will be precluded through

compliance with the PBNP, Units 1 and

2, Technical Specifications, the design

of the fuel storage racks providing

geometric spacing of fuel assemblies in

their storage locations, and

administrative controls imposed on fuel

handling procedures. Technical

Specifications requirements specify

reactivity limits for the fuel storage

racks and minimum spacing between

the fuel assemblies in the storage racks.

Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 50,

‘‘General Design Criteria for Nuclear

Power Plants,’’ Criterion 62, requires

that criticality in the fuel storage and

handling system shall be prevented by

physical systems or processes,

preferably by use of geometrically safe

configurations. This is met at PBNP, as

identified in the Technical

Specifications and the Final Safety

Analysis Report (FSAR). PBNP

Technical Specifications Section 15.5.4,

‘‘Fuel Storage,’’ states that ‘‘The new

and spent fuel storage racks are

designed so that it is impossible to store

assemblies in other than the prescribed

storage locations. The fuel is stored

vertically in an array with sufficient

center-to-center distance between

assemblies to assure Keff<0.95 * * *.’’

FSAR Section 9.5, ‘‘Fuel Handling

System,’’ Subsection 9.5.1, ‘‘Design

Basis,’’ states the Point Beach general

design criterion for prevention of fuel

storage criticality is ‘‘Criticality in the

new and spent fuel storage pits shall be

prevented by physical systems or

processes. Such means as geometrically

safe configurations shall be emphasized

over procedural controls.’’

The proposed action would not result

in any significant radiological impacts.

The proposed action would not affect

radiological plant effluents nor cause

any significant occupational exposures

since the Technical Specifications,

design controls (including geometric

spacing of fuel assembly storage spaces),

and administrative controls preclude

inadvertent criticality. The amount of

radioactive waste would not be changed

by the proposed action.

The proposed action does not result

in any significant nonradiological

environmental 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.
45884 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 168 / Friday, August 29, 1997 / Notices

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Since the Commission has concluded

that 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

staff considered denial of the requested

exemption. Denial of the request 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 Related to the Operation of

Point Beach Nuclear Plant,’’ dated May

1972.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on July 29, 1997, the staff consulted

with the Wisconsin State official, Ms.

Sarah Jenkins of the Wisconsin Public

Service Commission, 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 the

proposed action, see the licensee’s letter

dated June 6, 1997, which is available

for public inspection at the

Commission’s Public Document Room,

which is located at The Gelman

Building, 2120 L Street NW.,

Washington, DC, and at the local public

document room located at The Lester

Public Library, 1001 Adams Street, Two

Rivers, WI 54241.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd

day of August 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Linda L. Gundrum,

Project Manager, Project Directorate III–1,

Division of Reactor Projects—III/IV, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–23043 Filed 8–28–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–U

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Rel. No. IC–22795; 812–10718]

First American Investment Funds, Inc.,

et al.; Notice of Application

August 22, 1997.

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange

Commission (‘‘SEC’’).

ACTION: Notice of application for

exemption under the Investment

Company Act of 1940 (the ‘‘Act’’).

SUMMARY OF APPLICATION: Applicants

request an order under sections 6(c) and

17(b) of the Act for an exemption from

section 17(a) to permit a common trust

fund sponsored by U.S. Bank National

Association (‘‘U.S. Bank’’) to transfer

securities to a series of First American

Investment Funds, Inc. (‘‘FAIF’’), in

exchange for shares of the series.

APPLICANTS: FAIF, Large Companies

Value Trust Fund (‘‘LCVT’’), and U.S.

Bank.

FILING DATE: The application was filed

on July 11, 1997. Applicants have

agreed to file an amendment during the

notice period, the substance of which is

included in this notice.

HEARING OR NOTIFICATION OF HEARING: An

order granting the application will be

issued unless the SEC orders a hearing.

Interested persons may request a

hearing by writing to the SEC’s

Secretary and serving applicants with a

copy of the request, personally or by

mail. Hearing requests should be

received by the SEC by 5:30 p.m. on

September 17, 1997, and should be

accompanied by proof of service on the

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 who wish to be notified of a

hearing may request notification by

writing to the SEC’s Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, SEC, 450 Fifth

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

Applicants c/o James D. Alt, Esq.,

Dorsey & Whitney LLP, 220 South Sixth

Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John K. Forst, Attorney Advisory, at

(202) 942–0569, or Mary Kay Frech,

Branch Chief, at (202) 942–0564,

(Division of Investment Management,

Office of Investment Company

Regulation).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

following is a summary of the

application. The complete application

may be obtained for a fee at the SEC’s

Public Reference Branch, 450 Fifth

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

(tel. 202–942–8090).

Applicants’ Representations

1. U.S. Bank is a national banking

association and a wholly-owned

subsidiary of U.S. Bancorp. (‘‘USB’’), a

publicly held bank holding company.

U.S. Bank, through its First Asset

Management group, acts as investment

adviser to each series of FAIF. USB

maintains a defined benefit pension

plan (‘‘Parent Company Plan’’) for the

benefit of employees of USB and its

subsidiaries. The Parent Company Plan

owns more than 5% of the outstanding

voting shares of the Stock Fund series

of FAIF (the ‘‘Fund’’). The Fund is a

multiple class fund.

2. FAIF is a Maryland corporation

registered under the Act as an open-end

management investment company. FAIF

currently offers its shares to the public

in several series with varying

investment objectives and policies.

3. LCVT is a common trust fund as

defines in Section 584(a) of the Internal

Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.

LCVT is maintained by U.S. Bank

exclusively for the collective investment

and reinvestment of moneys contributed

by U.S. Bank in its capacity as a trustee,

executor, administrator, or guardian.

The persons and entities for which U.S.

Bank acts in such capacity are referred

to as ‘‘Participants’’ in LCVT. LCVT is

excluded from the definition of

investment company under section

3(c)(3) of the Act.

4. Applicants propose to transfer to

transfer the assets held by LCVT to the

Fund in exchange for Class C shares of

the Fund. Class C shares are offered

without a front-end or deferred sales

charge, are not subject to any

redemption fees, and do not bear any

rule 12b–1 distribution fees or any

shareholder servicing fees. LCVT assets

to be transferred to the Fund will be

valued in accordance with the

provisions of rule 71a–7(b), and the

Fund’s shares issued will have an

aggregate net asset value equal to the

value of the LCVT assets transferred.

Following the proposed transaction,

LCVT will be terminated, and the Fund

shares issued will be held by U.S. Bank

directly as trustee, executor,

administrator, or guardian. The Fund

shares held by U.S. Bank, as fiduciary,

will be credited to the benefit of each

Participant, pro rata, according to each

Participant’s interest in LCVT

immediately prior to the transfer.

5. The proposed transaction will be

carried out in accordance with

procedures previously adopted by

FAIF’s board of directors pursuant to

rule 17a–7(e), and the provisions of rule