51916 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 1997 / Notices

1One of these was the site chosen by NSP for

inclusion in its application to NRC. It is described

as being situated south of Frontenac Station, north

of Wells Creek, and between Territorial Road and

the CP Rail railroad tracks.

Comments should reference the page

number and section (either ESRP

section or Introduction or appendices).

The updated ESRP in printed paper,

3.5-inch disks and compact disk (CD)

versions, and comments submitted are

available for inspection and copying for

a fee at the NRC Public Document

Room, 2120 L Street NW (Lower Level),

Washington, DC 20555–0001.

A limited number of copies of the

updated draft ESRP in printed paper

and CD versions (in WordPerfect 6.1

format) are available free, to the extent

of supply, upon written request to the

Office of Information Resources

Management, Distribution Section, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day

of September, 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

David B. Matthews,

Acting Chief, Generic Issues and

Environmental Projects Branch, Division of

Reactor Program Management, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–26269 Filed 10–2–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. 72–10]

Northern States Power Company

Issuance of Director’s Decision Under

10 CFR 2.206 (DD–97–24)

Notice is hereby given that the

Director, Office of Nuclear Material

Safety and Safeguards, has issued a

Director’s Decision concerning a

Petition dated August 26, 1996, filed by

Carol A. Overland, on behalf of the

Florence Township, Minnesota, Board

of Supervisors (Petitioner), under

Section 2.206 of Title 10 of the Code of

Federal Regulations (10 CFR 2.206).

The Director of the Office of Nuclear

Material Safety and Safeguards has

determined that the Petition should be

denied for the reasons stated in the

‘‘Director’s Decision Under 10 CFR

2.206’’ (DD–97–24), the complete text of

which follows this notice. The Decision

and documents cited in the Decision are

available for public inspection and

copying in the Commission’s Public

Document Room, the Gelman Building,

2120 L Street, NW, Washington, DC.

A copy of this Decision has been filed

with the Secretary of the Commission

for the Commission’s review in

accordance with 10 CFR 2.206(c). As

provided therein, this Decision will

become the final action of the

Commission 25 days after issuance

unless the Commission, on its own

motion, institutes review of the Decision

within that time.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day

of September 1997.

For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Carl J. Paperiello,

Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety

and Safeguards.

Director’s Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206

I. Introduction

On August 26, 1996, Florence

Township, Minnesota (Petitioner) filed a

petition requesting that the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (NRC) institute

a proceeding pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202

with regard to the application by

Northern States Power Company (NSP),

claiming, that NSP violated the

Commission’s regulations by failing to

provide Lake City, Minnesota, with an

opportunity to comment on a proposed

emergency plan for an independent

spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI)

before submission to the NRC. The

Petitioner requested that NRC: (1)

Determine that NSP violated the

requirements of 10 CFR 72.32(a)(14) by

refusing to allow Lake City, Minnesota,

60 days to comment on NSP’s

emergency plan before submitting it to

NRC; (2) reject NSP’s application as

incomplete and inadequate and return it

to the corporation; (3) require that NSP

specifically name the local governments

referred to in section 5.6 of the

emergency plan which are expected to

respond in case of an accident; (4)

require that NSP allow 60 days to the

named local governments to review and

comment upon NSP’s emergency plan

prior to NSP’s resubmission of the

application; (5) impose a penalty in the

amount of one million dollars and

require NSP to compensate the

Petitioner in the amount of $7,500.00 for

time expended by its Board and attorney

in attempting to obtain the emergency

plan before its submission to the NRC;

and (6) provide hearings on this petition

at which the Petitioner and members of

the public may participate.

The Petitioner asserts as the basis for

this request the regulatory requirement

found at § 72.32(a)(14) of Chapter 10 of

the Code of Federal Regulations [10 CFR

72.32(a)(14)]:

The licensee shall allow the offsite

response organizations expected to respond

in case of an accident 60 days to comment

on the initial submittal of the licensee’s

emergency plan before submitting it to NRC.

Subsequent plan changes need not have the

offsite comment period unless the plan

changes affect the offsite response

organizations. The licensee shall provide any

comments received within 60 days to NRC

with the emergency plan.

The petition has been referred to me

for a decision. For the reasons given

below, I have concluded that the

Petitioner’s requests should be denied.

II. Background

NSP has an onsite ISFSI at Prairie

Island Nuclear Generating Plant

(PINGP), which has a capacity to store

1920 spent fuel assembles in 48

Transnuclear TN–40 casks. In 1994, the

Minnesota legislature enacted statutes

authorizing NSP to store spent nuclear

fuel at the ISFSI. 1994 Minn. Laws ch

641, arts. 1, 6 (codified at Minn. Stat

§§ 116C.77-.80(1996)). The legislation

authorized the immediate use of five

casks and allowed the use of four

additional casks upon a determination

that NSP had: (1) Filed a license

application with NRC for a separate dry

cask storage facility in Goodhue County;

(2) continued a good faith effort to

implement the alternate site; and (3)

arranged for the use of additional

megawatts of wind power. The law also

provided that NSP could not construct

at the second site without first obtaining

a Certificate of Site Compatibility from

the Minnesota Environmental Quality

Board (MEQB). The MEQB was

authorized to certify that the alternative

Goodhue County site was comparable to

the independent spent fuel storage

facility site located on Prairie Island.

NSP applied for a certificate from the

MEQB in July 1995. It identified two

possible sites for the Goodhue County

spent fuel storage facility, both in

Florence Township, south of the City of

Red Wing. 1 On October 2, 1996, after

receiving the report of a citizen

Advisory Task Force, the MEQB

determined that because of the

additional risks it believed to be

inherent in transporting spent nuclear

fuel to a second site in Goodhue County

away from PINGP, no other site in

Goodhue County would be comparable

to the Prairie Island facility and denied

a certificate.

NSP’s application to NRC included an

emergency plan for the Goodhue County

facility, which contained comments

from the Minnesota Departments of

Public Safety and Public Health, as well

as the Goodhue County, Minnesota,

Office of Emergency Management which

coordinates emergency services within

the county. NRC completed its

acceptance review and docketed the

NSP application on September 9, 1996.

A ‘‘Notice of Consideration of Issuance

of a Materials License for the Storage of
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 1997 / Notices 51917

2On July 30, 1997, the Petitioner filed a response

to NSP’s July 24, 1997, Motion for Withdrawal of

Application and Termination of Proceeding. In the

response, the Petitioner requested that the ASLB

dismiss the NSP application with prejudice, or

alternatively, deny NSP’s application, or impose a

condition of withdrawal that the application for the

Florence Township site shall not be resubmitted.

The ASLB considered this Petitioner’s June 30,

1997, submittal to be a motion for reconsideration.

On August 29, 1997, the staff responded that

Florence Township’s motion for reconsideration

should be denied on the basis that the proceeding

had not sufficiently progressed such that dismissal

with prejudice is appropriate, and on the basis that

Florence Township has not demonstrated legal

harm warranting the relief it requests.

3The regulatory requirements for comments on

the emergency plans for ISFSIs, like the

requirements for the emergency plans, are separate

and quite different from those for nuclear reactors.

The requirements for emergency plans for ISFSIs

are for on-site emergencies only. Because offsite

health effects have not been identified for accidents

at ISFSIs, there is no requirement for neighboring

jurisdictions to be involved in emergency response.

There is, for instance, no requirement for

evacuation planning and hence no need for the

kinds of more elaborate plans associated with

nuclear reactors.

4See NUREG–1140, ‘‘A Regulatory Analysis on

Emergency Preparedness for Fuel Cycle and Other

Radioactive Material Licensees.’’

Spent Fuel and Notice of Opportunity

for Hearing’’ was published in the

Federal Register on September 17, 1996.

The Petitioner and several others sought

a hearing as provided by 10 CFR 2.105.

An Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

(ASLB) was established on October 9,

1996. Among the issues raised in the

petitions to intervene by the Petitioner

and by Lake City, Minnesota, were

issues associated with emergency

planning, substantially similar to the

issues raised by the Petitioner in the

petition requesting that the NRC

institute a proceeding pursuant to 10

CFR 2.202. Consequently, the staff

deferred the response to the Petition

until completion of the ASLB hearing

process.

Because of the physical proximity of

its Reservation to PINGP, the Prairie

Island Indian Community had been

particularly interested in seeing the

offsite ISFSI built. Since the MEQB

decision effectively ended the

possibility of that facility being

developed, the Indian Community

initiated litigation in the Minnesota

State Courts in December 1996, seeking

to overturn the MEQB decision. When

the litigation began, NSP requested and

was granted a suspension of both NRC

staff’s review of the Goodhue County

application and the ASLB proceeding,

just prior to the pre-hearing conference

which was scheduled for December

1996. State litigation ended in July

1997, when the Minnesota Supreme

Count declined to hear an appeal of the

Minnesota Court of Appeals ruling

which affirmed the MEQB decision.

Subsequently, in a letter dated July 22,

1997, NSP withdrew the Goodhue

County application. NRC acknowledged

the withdrawal in a letter dated August

4, 1997. The ASLB issued a

Memorandum and Order terminating its

proceeding on July 30, 1997. However,

a motion for reconsideration is currently

under review by the Board. 2

III. Discussion

Section 72.32(a)(14) provides that the

offsite response organizations expected

by the licensee to respond to an on-site

emergency should be provided an

opportunity to comment on an ISFSI

emergency plan. 3 As required by 10

CFR 72.32(a)(14), NSP contacted the

offsite response organizations it

expected to respond to an on-site

emergency at the proposed Goodhue

County facility. NSP requested

comments from the Minnesota

Departments of Public Safety and Public

Health and the Goodhue County,

Minnesota, Office of Emergency

Management. All three responded to

NSP’s request. Their comments were

provided to NRC with the emergency

plan.

The Petitioner claims that because the

Lake City, Minnesota, Fire Department

contracts with Florence Township to

provide fire protection, it is one of the

offsite response organizations that NSP

would contact in case of an on-site

emergency at the Goodhue County

ISFSI. Lake City is not located in

Goodhue County, however, and

therefore is not expected by the

applicant to respond to an on-site

emergency.

The emergency plan appropriate for

an ISFSI is an on-site emergency plan.

The staff has determined that there are

no credible accidents at an ISFSI which

have significance for offsite emergency

preparedness. 4 There is no specific

requirement that any particular political

jurisdiction be contacted to comment on

an ISFSI emergency plan. Rather, the

applicant is required to determine

which services it will require from

offsite providers and to seek comments

from those organizations. NSP did not

indicate in the emergency plan that

Lake City, Minnesota, was expected to

respond to an on-site emergency.

Further, no evidence has been provided

that NSP, at the time of the submittal of

the license application, had plans to

seek emergency planning assistance

from Lake City, Minnesota. Thus, there

is no violation of 10 CFR 72.32(a)(14) to

warrant any enforcement action.

The Petitioner raised several

additional requests regarding NRC’s

review of NSP’s Goodhue County

application. These are matters which

the NRC considers during the license

review, not as part of a Petition filed

under 10 CFR 2.206. Further, in light of

the fact that NSP has now withdrawn

the application, they are moot.

Conclusion

I have concluded that NSP did not

violate NRC regulations by failing to

provide Lake City, Minnesota, with an

opportunity to respond to the proposed

emergency plan. As provided by 10 CFR

2.206(c), a copy of this Decision will be

filed with the Secretary of the

Commission for the Commission’s

review.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day

of September, 1997.

For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Carl J. Paperiello,

Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety

and Safeguards.

[FR Doc. 97–26273 Filed 10–2–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Release No. 34–39143; File No. SR–Amex–

97–29]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice

of Filing of Proposed Rule Change by

the American Stock Exchange, Inc.

Relating to Listing and Trading of

DIAMONDSSM Trust Units

September 29, 1997.

Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934

(‘‘Act’’), 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1), notice is

hereby given that on August 11, 1997,

the American Stock Exchange, Inc.

(‘‘Amex’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the

Securities and Exchange Commission

(‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule

change as described in Items I, II, and

III below, which Items have been

prepared by the self-regulatory

organization. The Commission is

publishing this notice to solicit

comments on the proposed rule change

from interested persons.

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement of the Terms of Substance of

the Proposed Rule Change

The Amex proposes to list and trade

under Amex Rules 1000 et seq.

DIAMONDSSM, units of beneficial

interest in the DIAMONDS Trust. In

addition, the Exchange proposes to

adopt Amex Rule 1005, ‘‘Dow Jones

Indexes,’’ relating to license and

warranty issues. The text of the

proposed rule change is available at the