Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 7, 2000 / Notices 66777

I. Background

The CPS has been the principal

source of the official Government

statistics on employment and

unemployment for over 50 years.

Collection of labor force data through

the CPS is necessary to meet the

requirements in Title 29, United States

Code, Sections 1 and 2. Over the past

several decades, the economy of the

United States has been undergoing a

fundamental restructuring. Advances in

computer and communications

technology have increasingly enabled

some workers to perform part or all of

their work at home. The growth of this

phenomenon represents an important

development in this country’s labor

markets. This supplement will provide

a substantial and objective set of data

about work at home and work in homebased businesses. It will provide

valuable information on the work

schedules of employed persons, that is,

the beginning and ending times of work,

type of shift worked, and calendar days

worked. It also will provide information

about employed persons who do work at

home. Work schedule supplements have

been conducted since the 1970s.

Questions on home-based work were

included in May 1985, May 1991, and

May 1997. A key purpose of the May

2001 collection is to gather updated

information on these topics. In

particular, it is widely believed that the

number of persons who work at home

is growing rapidly, and the May 2001

supplement will provide information

that will help researchers gauge the

extent to which this group is expanding

and provide additional detail on the

nature of this work activity. More

generally, the May 2001 Work Schedule

Supplement will be used by BLS

researchers and others to examine the

changes in work schedules and work at

home that are taking place over time.

II. Desired Focus of Comments

The Bureau of Labor Statistics is

particularly interested in comments

which:

• Evaluate whether the proposed

collection of information is necessary

for the proper performance of the

functions of the agency, including

whether the information will have

practical utility;

• Evaluate the accuracy of the

agency’s estimate of the burden of the

proposed collection of information,

including the validity of the

methodology and assumptions used;

• Enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information to be

collected; and

• Minimize the burden of the

collection of information on those who

are to respond, including through the

use of appropriate automated,

electronic, mechanical, or other

technological collection techniques or

other forms of information technology,

e.g., permitting electronic submissions

of responses.

III. Current Action

OMB clearance is being sought for the

Work Schedules Supplement to the

CPS.

Type of Review: Reinstatement, with

change, of a previously approved

collection for which approval has

expired.

Agency: Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Title: Work Schedules Supplement to

the CPS.

OMB Number: 1220–0119.

Affected Public: Households.

Total Respondents: 58,000.

Frequency: Monthly.

Total Responses: 58,000.

Average Time Per Response: 4.5

Minutes.

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 4,350

Hours.

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup):

$0

Total Burden Cost (operating/

maintenance): $0

Comments submitted in response to

this notice will be summarized and/or

included in the request for Office of

Management and Budget approval of the

information collection request; they also

will become a matter of public record.

Signed at Washington, D.C., this 31st day

of October, 2000.

W. Stuart Rust, Jr.,

Chief, Division of Management Systems,

Bureau of Labor Statistics.

[FR Doc. 00–28511 Filed 11–6–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–24–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[IA–00–032]

In the Matter of Hiram J. Bass; Order

Prohibiting Involvement in NRCLicensed Activities (Effective

Immediately)

I

Hiram J. Bass was formerly employed

as the Measuring and Test Equipment

(M&TE) Program Administrator by

Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA or

Licensee). The Licensee is the holder of

License Nos. DPR–33, DPR–52, DPR–68,

issued by the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC or Commission)

pursuant to 10 CFR part 50 on December

20, 1973, August 2, 1974, and August

18, 1976, respectively. The licenses

authorize the operation of the Browns

Ferry Nuclear Plant Units 1, 2, and 3

(BFN or facility) in accordance with the

conditions specified therein. The

facility is located on the Licensee’s site

in Athens, Alabama.

II

On September 21, 1999, the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) Office

of Investigations (OI) initiated an

investigation to determine whether

Hiram J. Bass deliberately failed to issue

and/or disposition nonconformance

evaluations as required by site

procedures while employed as the

M&TE Program Administrator at the

facility. The NRC also conducted an

inspection of this issue during the

period April 2 through June 24, 2000.

The results of this investigation and

inspection were documented in NRC

Inspection Report 50–259/00–03, 50–

260/00–03, 50–296/00–03, issued on

July 27, 2000, and our letter to Mr. Bass

dated July 31, 2000.

As background, certain M&TE used at

BFN is calibrated on a regular basis by

TVA’s Central Laboratory Field Testing

Services (CLFTS). When CLFTS

identifies an instrument that is out of

tolerance, that information is forwarded

to the BFN Maintenance Department,

M&TE Group. The M&TE Program

Administrator is responsible for issuing

and ensuring disposition of each

nonconformance evaluation for M&TE

found to be out of tolerance. The

purpose of a nonconformance

evaluation is, among other reasons, to

initiate the facility review process to

ensure that plant components have not

been negatively affected by the out-oftolerance M&TE, and to initiate action to

address plant components that have

been affected.

BFN Technical Specification 5.4.1,

BFN Site Standard Practice Procedure

(SSP)–6.7, Control of Measuring and

Test Equipment, Revision 8A, effective

May 27, 1997 through June 1, 1998, and

TVA Standard Programs and Processes

Procedure (SPP)–6.4, Measuring and

Test Equipment, Revision 0, effective

May 29, 1998, through August 15, 1999,

together require nonconformance

evaluations to be issued and

dispositioned for conditions such as lost

M&TE or standards, out-of-tolerance

M&TE or plant standards, damaged or

otherwise defective M&TE or plant

standards, and disassembled M&TE or

plant standards.

In June 1999, a BFN self-assessment of

the M&TE program revealed that several

out-of-tolerance M&TE items did not

have nonconformance evaluations

initiated by BFN. Further TVA review

determined that, from June 1997 to June

66778 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 7, 2000 / Notices

1999, approximately 500

nonconformance evaluations were not

properly issued and/or dispositioned for

components tested or inspected using

the out-of-tolerance M&TE. When

questioned by TVA and subsequently by

the NRC OI, Mr. Bass failed to explain

why the large number of

nonconformance evaluations had not

been issued and/or dispositioned. On

June 21, 1999, following questions by

TVA regarding this matter, Mr. Bass

resigned from TVA.

The NRC’s investigation and

inspection of this matter concluded that

Mr. Bass deliberately failed to issue

and/or disposition nonconformance

evaluations on test equipment that was

out-of-tolerance, in accordance with

BFN Technical Specification required

Licensee procedures.

The NRC informed Mr. Bass by

certified letter dated July 31, 2000, of

the results of the NRC’s investigation

and inspection of this matter, and

provided Mr. Bass the opportunity to

respond to this matter or request a

predecisional enforcement conference.

Receipt of the letter by Mr. Bass was

verified by his signature on the certified

mail return receipt. The NRC has

attempted to contact Mr. Bass by

telephone on numerous occasions;

however, to date he has not responded

to the NRC’s July 31, 2000 letter.

III

Based on the above, the NRC has

concluded that Mr. Bass engaged in

deliberate misconduct from

approximately June 1997 to June 1999,

by deliberately failing to adhere to

Technical Specification 5.4.1 required

Licensee procedures related to out of

tolerance measuring and test equipment

(M&TE).

These actions constituted a violation

of 10 CFR 50.5(a)(1), which prohibits an

individual from engaging in deliberate

misconduct that causes a licensee to be

in violation of any rule, regulation, or

order or any term, condition or

limitation of any license issued by the

Commission. As defined by 10 CFR

50.5(c)(2), deliberate misconduct means

an intentional act or omission that the

person knows constitutes a violation of

a requirement, procedure, or instruction

of a licensee; in this case Technical

Specification 5.4.1. The NRC must be

able to rely on the Licensee and its

employees to comply with NRC

requirements. Mr. Bass’ conduct raises

serious doubt about his trustworthiness

and reliability; particularly whether he

can be relied upon to comply with NRC

requirements in the future.

Consequently, I lack the requisite

reasonable assurance that licensed

activities can be conducted in

compliance with the Commission’s

requirements and that the health and

safety of the public will be protected if

Mr. Bass were permitted at this time to

be involved in NRC-licensed activities.

Therefore, the public health, safety and

interest require that Mr. Bass be

prohibited from any involvement in

NRC-licensed activities for a period of

three years from the date of his

resignation from the Licensee (June 21,

1999). Additionally, Mr. Bass is

required to notify the NRC of his first

employment after the prohibition period

ends and all subsequent employment in

NRC-licensed activities for a period of

three years following the prohibition

period. Furthermore, pursuant to 10

CFR 2.202, I find that the significance of

Mr. Bass’ conduct described above is

such that the public health, safety and

interest require that this Order be

immediately effective.

IV

Accordingly, pursuant to sections

103, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182 and 186 of

the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as

amended, and the Commission’s

regulations in 10 CFR 2.202, and 10 CFR

50.5, it is hereby ordered, effective

immediately, that:

1. Hiram J. Bass is prohibited for three

years from the date of his resignation,

June 21, 1999, from engaging in NRClicensed activities. NRC-licensed

activities are those activities that are

conducted pursuant to a specific or

general license issued by the NRC,

including, but not limited to, those

activities of Agreement State licensees

conducted pursuant to the authority

granted by 10 CFR 150.20.

2. If Mr. Bass is currently involved

with another licensee in NRC-licensed

activities, he must immediately cease

those activities, and inform the NRC of

the name, address and telephone

number of the employer, and provide a

copy of this Order to the employer.

3. For a period of three years after the

three year period of prohibition has

expired, Mr. Bass shall, within 20 days

of his acceptance of each employment

offer involving NRC-licensed activities

or his becoming involved in NRClicensed activities, as defined in

Paragraph IV.1 above, provide notice to

the Director, Office of Enforcement (OE),

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555, of the name,

address, and telephone number of the

employer or the entity where he is, or

will be, involved in the NRC-licensed

activities. In the first notification, Mr.

Bass shall include a statement of his

commitment to compliance with

regulatory requirements and the basis

why the Commission should have

confidence that he will now comply

with applicable NRC requirements.

The Director, OE, may, in writing,

relax or rescind any of the above

conditions upon demonstration by Mr.

Bass of good cause.

V

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202,

Hiram J. Bass must, and any other

person adversely affected by this Order

may, submit an answer to this Order,

and may request a hearing on this

Order, within 20 days of the date of this

Order. Where good cause is shown,

consideration will be given to extending

the time to request a hearing. A request

for extension of time must be made in

writing to the Director, Office of

Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555,

and include a statement of good cause

for the extension. The answer may

consent to this Order. Unless the answer

consents to this Order, the answer shall,

in writing and under oath or

affirmation, specifically admit or deny

each allegation or charge made in this

Order and shall set forth the matters of

fact and law on which Mr. Bass or other

person adversely affected relies and the

reasons as to why the Order should not

have been issued.

Any answer or request for a hearing

shall be submitted to the Secretary, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN:

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff,

Washington, DC 20555. Copies also

shall be sent to the Director, Office of

Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555, to

the Associate General Counsel for

Hearings, Enforcement &

Administration at the same address, to

the Regional Administrator, NRC Region

II, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Suite 23T85,

Atlanta, GA, 30303, and to Mr. Bass, if

the answer or hearing request is by a

person other than Mr. Bass.

If a person other than Mr. Bass

requests a hearing, that person shall set

forth with particularity the manner in

which his interest is adversely affected

by this Order and shall address the

criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.714(d).

If a hearing is requested by Mr. Bass

or a person whose interest is adversely

affected, the Commission will issue an

Order designating the time and place of

any hearing. If a hearing is held, the

issue to be considered at such hearing

shall be whether this Order should be

sustained.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(i), Mr.

Bass may, in addition to demanding a

hearing, at the time the answer is filed

or sooner, move the presiding officer to

set aside the immediate effectiveness of

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 7, 2000 / Notices 66779

the Order on the ground that the Order,

including the need for immediate

effectiveness, is not based on adequate

evidence but on mere suspicion,

unfounded allegations, or error.

In the absence of any request for

hearing, or written approval of an

extension of time in which to request a

hearing, the provisions specified in

Section IV above shall be final 20 days

from the date of this Order without

further order or proceedings. If an

extension of time for requesting a

hearing has been approved, the

provisions specified in Section IV shall

be final when the extension expires if a

hearing request has not been received.

An answer or a request for hearing shall

not stay the immediate effectiveness of

this order.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Dated: Dated this 27th day of October 2000.

R.W. Borchardt,

Director, Office of Enforcement.

[FR Doc. 00–28496 Filed 11–06–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–255]

Consumers Energy Co.; Palisades

Plant; Environmental Assessment and

Finding of No Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is considering

issuance of an amendment to Facility

Operating License No. DPR–20, issued

to Consumers Energy Company (the

licensee), for operation of the Palisades

Plant, located in Van Buren County,

Michigan.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed action would change

the expiration date of the Operating

License from ‘‘midnight on March 14,

2007’’ to ‘‘midnight on March 24, 2011.’’

Palisades is currently licensed to

operate 40 years commencing with the

issuance of the construction permit on

March 14, 1967. At present, the Facility

Operating License expires at midnight

on March 14, 2007. The licensee seeks

an extension of the license term to allow

Palisades to operate until 40 years from

the issuance of its Provisional Operating

License. The Provisional Operating

License for Palisades was issued on

March 24, 1971. This action would

extend the period of operation to the

full 40 years provided by the Atomic

Energy Act and the Code of Federal

Regulations.

The proposed action is in accordance

with the licensee’s application for

license amendment dated April 27,

2000.

The Need for the Proposed Action

The proposed action is needed to

allow the licensee to continue to operate

Palisades for 40 years from the date of

issuance of the Provisional Operating

License. This extension of 4 years and

10 days would permit Palisades to

operate for the full 40-year design-basis

lifetime, consistent with the

Commission’s policy stated in a

memorandum dated August 16, 1982,

from William Dircks, Executive Director

for Operations, to the Commissioners,

and as evidenced by the issuance of

more than 50 such extensions to other

licensees.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The NRC has completed its evaluation

of the proposed action and concludes

that extending Facility Operating

License No. DPR–20 for 4 years and 10

days would not create any new or

unreviewed environmental impacts.

This change does not involve any

physical modifications to Palisades and

there are no new or unreviewed

environmental impacts that were not

considered as part of the Final

Environmental Statement (FES) related

to operation of Palisades, dated June

1972, as supplemented by a final

addendum (NUREG–0343), dated

February 1978, related to an increase in

core power level, and as supplemented

by an environmental assessment (EA)

dated October 22, 1990, related to

conversion of the Provisional Operating

License to a 40-year full-term Facility

Operating License, which concluded

that an FES supplement was not

necessary. Evaluations for the FES, as

supplemented by the final addendum

and by the EA, considered a 40-year

operating life. The considerations

involved in the NRC staff’s

determination are discussed below.

Radiological Impacts of the

Hypothetical Design-Basis Accidents

The offsite exposure from releases

during postulated accidents was

evaluated and found acceptable during

the operating license stage and

subsequent license amendments. This

type of evaluation involves four issues:

(1) Type and probability of postulated

accidents, (2) the radioactive material

releases calculated for each accident, (3)

the assumed meteorological conditions,

and (4) population size and distribution

in the vicinity of Palisades. The NRC

staff has concluded that neither the type

and probability of postulated accidents

nor the radioactive material releases

calculated for each accident would

change through the proposed extended

operation. As discussed in Sections

2.5.5 and 2.5.6 of Palisades’ Updated

Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR),

more recent meteorological data

collected onsite (1983 to 1997 for shortterm and 1988 to 1993 for long-term

atmospheric dispersion potentials) since

issuance of the Operating License have

resulted in generally more favorable

atmospheric dispersion estimates such

that the earlier analyses of the offsite

consequences of postulated radiological

releases to the atmosphere remain

bounding. A comparison of the 1980

population in the UFSAR with the

actual 1990 census data shows a 3.5-

percent decline in the permanent

resident population within 10 miles of

Palisades. Using 1990 census data and

recent surveys to establish the possible

transient population, the licensee found

that the maximum probable population

within the 10-mile Emergency Planning

Zone has declined from that shown in

the UFSAR for 1980. The 1998

estimated population for the 13 cities

and townships within 10 miles of

Palisades declined by 1 percent from the

1990 census. These declining trends are

expected to continue such that the

population for the period 2007 through

2011 should be well within the previous

FES and UFSAR projections. There are

no changes to the current exclusion

area, low population zone, and nearest

population center distance, and the

licensee will continue to meet the

requirements of 10 CFR 100.11(a) for the

proposed license term extension. Also,

there is no expected change in land

usage during the license terms that

would affect offsite dose calculations.

Therefore, cumulative exposure to the

general public due to a design-basis

accident would be within the bounds of

the original projections because of the

lower than projected population and

improved meteorological conditions for

the site and surrounding area.

Accordingly, the NRC staff concludes

that the proposed action will not

significantly change previous

conclusions regarding the potential

environmental effects of offsite releases

from postulated accident conditions.

Radiological Impacts of Annual

Releases and Occupational Exposures

On an annual basis, the licensee

submits an Occupational Radiation

Exposure Report to the NRC. The data

in these reports show that the collective

occupational exposure at Palisades is in

a declining trend. The 3-year annual

average collective occupational