48120 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 177 / Friday, September 12, 1997 / Notices

9Mr. Saporito elaborated on these alleged

falsifications at the meeting held on July 14, 1997.

Specifically, Mr. Saporito asserted, with regard to

the missing transcript pages, that 20 pages

containing testimony by the licensee’s vice

president were missing from the initial copy of the

transcript that he was provided (although the record

was eventually amended to contain these pages).

With regard to the falsification of a business record,

he asserted that minutes of a meeting held between

him and licensee officials did not accurately reflect

the real reason that his site access was being

revoked; that is, that union officials had told

licensee management officials that he might

sabotage the plant.

3. Petitioners’ Request for Initiation of

NRC Investigations

The Petitioners request that the NRC

investigate the ‘‘willful falsification’’ of

a company business record and the

cause of ‘‘transcripts found missing’’ in

the DOL proceeding.9 During the

meeting held with the NRC on July 14,

1997, Mr. Saporito also raised what he

asserted were certain improprieties

which occurred during the DOL hearing

and specifically requested that the NRC

investigate an additional concern that

the licensee or its attorneys may have

‘‘whited out’’ a page of a document he

had requested during the DOL

proceeding. Mr. Saporito stated that he

was adding this request to his Petition.

This matter relates solely to the

conduct of a DOL proceeding. The NRC

staff has, therefore, referred these issues

to DOL. The Petitioners’ request that the

NRC investigate these matters is denied.

4. Other Petition Issues

The Petitioners request that the NRC

require the licensee to post a written

notice alongside each NRC Form 3

currently posted at the licensee’s

nuclear facilities that alerts employees

that they can directly contact the NRC

about nuclear safety concerns without

first identifying the safety concerns to

the licensee. In addition, the Petitioners

request that the NRC require the

licensee to provide a copy of this posted

communication to all employees and

ensure that all employees are made

aware of those communications through

the licensee’s General Employee

Training Program. Finally, the

Petitioners request that the NRC require

the licensee to provide the Commission

with documents authored by an officer

of the licensee under affirmation

affirming that the licensee has complied

with these requests.

This request is similar to a request

made by Mr. Saporito in a Petition filed

on March 8, 1995, and responded to in

a Director’s Decision issued on May 25,

1995 (DD–95–8, 41 NRC 346 (1995)). In

that Petition, Mr. Saporito requested

that each licensee be required to report

to the Commission under oath or

affirmation that it had completed a

review of its station operating

procedures to determine whether those

procedures included restrictions that

would prevent an employee from

bringing safety concerns directly to the

NRC and that it had communicated to

its employees that they were free to

bring concerns directly to the NRC

without following the normal chain of

command. As explained in that

Director’s Decision, the Secretary of

Labor did not hold in his decision of

June 3, 1994, that employees have an

‘‘absolute right’’ to refuse to inform

licensee management of public health

and safety concerns and to bypass the

licensee’s management in order to bring

safety concerns directly to the NRC.

Although an employee may not be

discriminated against by the employer

for coming directly to the NRC with

safety concerns, an employee may also

be required by the employer to bring

these same concerns to the employee’s

management. Whether an employee

must bring issues to licensee

management is dependent on the facts

of each specific case.

As further explained in DD–95–8, the

NRC requires in 10 CFR 19.11(c) that all

licensees and applicants for a specific

license post NRC Form 3, ‘‘Notice to

Employees,’’ which describes employee

rights and protections. In addition, 10

CFR 50.7 and associated regulations

were amended in 1990 to prohibit

agreements and/or conditions of

employment that would restrict,

prohibit, or otherwise discourage

employees from engaging in protected

activity. Finally, in November 1996, the

NRC issued a brochure, ‘‘Reporting

Safety Concerns to the NRC’’ (NUREG/

BR–0240), which provided information

to nuclear workers on how to report

safety concerns to the NRC, the degree

of protection that was afforded the

worker’s identity, and the NRC process

for handling a worker’s allegations of

discrimination. These measures are

sufficient to (1) alert employees in the

nuclear industry that they may take

their concerns to the NRC and (2) alert

licensees that they shall not take

adverse action against an employee who

exercises the right to take concerns

directly to the NRC.

The NRC staff believes that these

existing requirements for posting and

making other information available to

workers are adequate. The Petitioners

have not provided a sufficient basis for

requiring their suggested additional

measures. Therefore, Petitioners’

requests related to a supplemental

posting are denied.

As previously stated, a public meeting

was held with Mr. Saporito enabling

him to fully present information

regarding the issues raised in the

Petition. In addition, the NRC will

monitor the DOL proceeding referenced

in the Petition to determine whether

there has been a violation of NRC

regulations. In view of these facts, there

is no basis to hold any hearing at this

time. Therefore, the Petitioners’ requests

related to a public hearing are denied.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons discussed above, no

basis exists for taking the enforcement

actions requested in the Petition and its

supplements. Nonetheless, as

previously described, on July 14, 1997,

a public meeting was held between Mr.

Saporito and representatives of the NRC

staff, the purpose of which was to

provide Mr. Saporito with the

opportunity to provide additional

information regarding the substance of

this Petition. Therefore, to the extent

that the Petitioners have requested that

the NRC conduct an interview with the

Petitioners regarding the substance of

their 10 CFR 2.206 Petition, the Petition

has been granted. With regard to all

other aspects of the Petition, the Petition

has been denied.

A copy of this Decision will be filed

with the Secretary of the Commission

for the Commission to review in

accordance with 10 CFR 2.206(c). As

provided by that regulation, the

Decision will constitute the final action

of the Commission 25 days after

issuance, unless the Commission, on its

own motion, institutes a review of the

decision within that time.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day

of September 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Samuel J. Collins,

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–24220 Filed 9–11–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Appointments to Performance Review

Boards for Senior Executive Service

AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Appointment to Performance

Review Boards for Senior Executive

Service.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) has announced the

following appointments to the NRC

Performance Review Boards. The

appointments were recently published
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 177 / Friday, September 12, 1997 / Notices 48121

but are being republished to indicate

several changes in the membership.

The following individuals are

appointed as members of the NRC

Performance Review Board (PRB)

responsible for making

recommendations to the appointing and

awarding authorities on performance

appraisal ratings and performance

awards for Senior Executives:

Patricia G. Norry, Deputy Executive

Director for Management Services

Richard L. Bangart, Director, Office of

State Programs

Stephen G. Burns, Associate General

Counsel, Office of the General

Counsel

Guy P. Caputo, Director, Office of

Investigations

James E. Dyer, Deputy Regional

Administration, Region IV

Jesse L. Funches, Chief Financial Officer

Edward L. Halman, Director, Office of

Administration

Malcolm R. Knapp, Deputy Director,

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and

Safeguards

Joseph A. Murphy, Division Director,

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

Marylee M. Slosson, Deputy Division

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation

Roy P. Zimmerman, Associate Director

for Projects, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation

The following individuals will serve

as members of the NRC PRB Panel that

was established to review appraisals

and make recommendations to the

appointing and awarding authorities for

NRC PRB members:

Hugh L. Thompson, Jr., Deputy

Executive Director for Regulatory

Programs

Karen D. Cyr, General Counsel, Office of

the General Counsel

Ashok C. Thadani, Acting Deputy

Executive Director for Regulatory

Effectiveness

All appointments are made pursuant

to Section 4314 of Chapter 43 of Title

5 of the United States Code.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 12, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Carolyn J. Swanson, Secretary,

Executive Resources Board, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555, (301) 415–7103.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day

of September 1997.

For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

Carolyn J. Swanson,

Secretary, Executive Resources Board.

[FR Doc. 97–24217 Filed 9–11–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL

REVIEW BOARD

Notice of Board Meeting

Board Meeting: October 22 (beginning

9:30 a.m.) & 23, 1997—Fairfax, Virginia:

Department of Energy (DOE) program

update, underground repository design,

waste package (design, performance,

and modeling), repository concept of

operations, and DOE-owned spent fuel.

Pursuant to its authority under

section 5051 of Public Law 100–203, the

Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act

of 1987, the Nuclear Waste Technical

Review Board will hold its fall meeting

on Wednesday and Thursday, October

22–23, 1997, in Fairfax, Virginia. The

meeting, which is open to the public,

will be held at the Hyatt Fair Lakes,

12777 Fair Lakes Circle, Fairfax,

Virginia 22033; Tel (703) 818–1234; Fax

(703) 818–3140. Reservations for

accommodations must be made by

October 16, 1997, and you must indicate

that you are attending the Nuclear

Waste Technical Review Board meeting

to receive the preferred rate.

The meeting will include an update

on the DOE’s nuclear waste

management program and activities at

Yucca Mountain, Nevada, and sessions

on the underground repository design;

waste package design, performance, and

modeling; repository concept of

operations; and DOE-owned spent fuel.

A detailed agenda will be available

approximately two weeks prior to the

meeting by fax or email, or at the

Board’s website, www. nwtrb.gov.

Time has been set aside for public

comment and questions on both days.

Those wishing to speak are encouraged

to sign the Public Comment Register at

the check-in table. A time limit may

have to be set on the length of

individual remarks; however, written

comments of any length may be

submitted for the record.

Transcripts of this meeting will be

available via e-mail, on computer disk,

or on a library-loan basis in paper

format from Davonya, Barnes, Board

staff, beginning November 18, 1997. For

further information, contact Frank

Randall, External Affairs, 2300

Clarendon Boulevard, Suite 1300,

Arlington, Virginia 22201–3367; (Tel)

703–235–4473; (Fax) 703–235–4495; (Email) info@nwtrb.gov.

The Nuclear Waste Technical Review

Board was created by Congress in the

Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act

of 1987 to evaluate the technical and

scientific validity of activities

undertaken by the DOE in its program

to manage the disposal of the nation’s

commercial spent nuclear fuel and

defense high-level waste. In the same

legislation, Congress directed the DOE

to characterize a site at Yucca Mountain,

Nevada, for its suitability as a potential

location for a permanent repository for

the disposal of that waste.

Dated: September 9, 1997.

William Barnard,

Executive Director, Nuclear Waste Technical

Review Board.

[FR Doc. 97–24200 Filed 9–11–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820–AM–M

NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL

REVIEW BOARD

Notice of Panel Meeting

Panel meeting: October 21, 1997—

Fairfax, Virginia: Biosphere modeling

and the Yucca Mountain performance

standard currently being used by the

Department of Energy.

Pursuant to its authority under

section 5051 of Public Law 100–203, the

Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act

of 1987, the Nuclear Waste Technical

Review Board’s Panel on the

Environment, Regulations, and Quality

Assurance will hold a meeting October

21, 1997, beginning at 8:30 a.m. The

meeting, which is open to the public,

will cover biosphere modeling and the

Yucca Mountain performance standard.

The Department of Energy currently is

using this standard until the

Environmental Protection Agency

standard is announced and a Nuclear

Regulatory Commission rule

promulgated. A detailed agenda will be

available approximately two weeks

prior to the meeting by fax or email, or

on the Board’s website at

www.nwtrb.gov.

The meeting will be held at the Hyatt

Fair Lakes, 12777 Fair Lakes Circle,

Fairfax, Virginia 22033; (Tel) 703–818–

1234; (Fax) 703–818–3140. Reservations

for accommodations must be made by

October 16, 1997, and you must indicate

that you are attending the Nuclear

Waste Technical Review Board meeting

to receive the preferred rate.

Time has been set aside on the agenda

for comments and questions from the

public. Those wishing to speak are

encouraged to sign the Public Comment

Register at the check-in table. A time

limit may have to be set on the length

of individual remarks; however, written

comments of any length may be

submitted for the record.

Transcript of this meeting will be

available on computer disk, via e-mail,

or on a library-loan basis in paper

format from Davonya Barnes, Board

staff, beginning November 18, 1997. For

further information, contact Frank