Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 1997 / Notices 51915

the Commission’s Informal Hearing

Procedures for Adjudications in

Materials Licensing Proceedings in 10

CFR part 2, subpart L.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day

of September, 1997.

Joseph J. Holonich,

Chief, Uranium Recovery Branch, Division

of Waste Management, Office of Nuclear

Material Safety and Safeguards.

[FR Doc. 97–26271 Filed 10–2–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Updated Environmental Standard

Review Plan: Availability

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of availability and

request for comments.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) has prepared an

update to the Environmental Standard

Review Plan for the review of

environmental reports for nuclear power

plants (ESRP) for review and comment.

A draft of the updated ESRP, NUREG–

1555, incorporates changes in the

regulation of the nuclear power

industry, and changes in the treatment

of environmental protection and siting

issues that have occurred since the

ESRP was initially issued in 1978 as

NUREG–0555. Organizational changes

have been made to the structure of ESRP

sections to conform to the structure of

the companion safety Standard Review

Plan for the review of safety analysis

reports for nuclear power plants (SRP),

NUREG–0800. Most notably, significant

changes have been made to incorporate

the changes in environmental protection

and resource statutes, other Federal

regulations, Presidential executive

orders, hearing decisions and case law,

and NRC regulations related to new

plant and site licensing, and license

renewal. NUREG–1555 will supersede

NUREG–0555.

DATES: The comment period expires

January 30, 1998. Comments received

after this date will be considered if it is

practical to do so, but the Commission

is able to assure consideration only for

comments received on or before this

date.

ADDRESSES AND SUBMISSION OF

COMMENTS: Mail comments to: Chief,

Rules and Directives Branch, Division of

Freedom of Information and

Publications Services, Mail Stop T–

6D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001. Comments may be hand-delivered

to the NRC at 11545 Rockville Pike,

Rockville, Maryland between 7:45 a.m.

and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays.

Comments may be submitted

electronically in WordPerfect or ASCII

format via the Internet to the NRC at

esrp@nrc.gov. Written comments and

comments received electronically will

be available for inspection at the NRC

Public Document Room, 2120 L Street

NW (Lower Level), Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Barry Zalcman, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation, Mail Stop O–10H5,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001, telephone

(301) 415–3467.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

proposed text in NUREG–1555,

‘‘Environmental Standard Review Plan,’’

reflects the combined effort of NRC staff

and NRC contractors. NRC staff review

and evaluation, including resolution of

public comments, and consideration by

the Advisory Committee on Reactor

Safeguards will be needed before a final

version of NUREG–1555 can be

published.

Due to the significance of the changes

in NRC regulations related to new plant

and site licensing, NRC regulations

related to license renewal and

environmental protection, other Federal

regulations, environmental protection

and resource statutes, Presidential

executive orders, hearing decisions and

case law, and due to the goal of

restructuring the ESRP to conform to the

structure of NUREG–0800, ‘‘Standard

Review Plan for the Review of Safety

Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power

Plants—LWR Edition,’’ NUREG–1555

will supersede the earlier ESRP

(NUREG–0555). For every section, the

ESRP now identifies the specific

acceptance criteria, which may have

been the driver that forms the basis for

the change to ESRP sections. For these

reasons, the NRC judged that supporting

documentation, including a redline/

strikeout copy, that traces back to the

original ESRP need not be provided.

The updated ESRP also contains several

new sections to address issues that

emerged since 1978, for example, severe

accident mitigation design alternatives

and environmental justice.

The updated ESRP is not a generic

communication that proposes new NRC

staff positions or seeks additional

licensee commitments. It does not

impose new or revised requirements but

simply compiles and documents NRC

and other Federal requirements, and

NRC staff positions. The ESRP does not

explicitly incorporate State, regional or

Native American tribal agency

requirements that may also need to be

addressed by applicants or licensees.

Work activities related to updating the

ESRP were performed substantially in

conformance with the guidance in

NUREG–1447, ‘‘Standard Review Plan

Update and Development Program—

Implementing Procedures Document,’’

dated May 1992. NUREG–1447

documents the results of developing the

major work assumptions and work

processes for completing the standard

review plan revision process.

Information management protocols and

process modifications were made to

account for the unique drivers that

resulted from changes outside of the

Atomic Energy Act and NRC regulations

arena including, but not limited to, the

National Environmental Policy Act, the

Endangered Species Act, the

Presidential executive order on

environmental justice, guidance from

the Council on Environmental Quality,

and the regulations of the

Environmental Protection Agency on

non-radiological issues. The entire work

effort and responsibility for updating

the ESRP resides in the NRC Generic

Issues and Environmental Projects

Branch, which coordinates with the

appropriate technical review branches

and essential technical specialists on

particular issues.

The purpose of this notice is to solicit

specific public comment on whether the

updated ESRP accurately and fully

reflects established NRC staff positions

and existing requirements that include

statutes, regulations, executive orders,

and NRC decisions. Consideration

should be given to the thoroughness and

utility in use of the guidance provided

to implement NRC rules promulgated

since the original ESRP was published

in 1978 with particular emphasis given

to those related to siting and

environmental protection and to those

new licensing frameworks related to

early site permits, combined licenses,

and license renewal. The SRP is made

available to the public as part of NRC’s

policy to inform the nuclear industry

and general public of regulatory

procedures and policies. Environmental

standard review plans are not

substitutes for regulatory guides or NRC

regulations. Compliance with ESRPs is

not required. Published environmental

standard review plans will be revised

periodically, as appropriate, to

accommodate comments and to reflect

new information and experience.

The NRC encourages comment from

all interested parties; however, public

review is not intended to reopen a

dialogue on the merits of the

requirements themselves but should be

focused on the purposes stated above.
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