31234 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 109 / Monday, June 8, 1998 / Notices

NRC IMPORT LICENSE APPLICATION

Name of applicant, date of application, date received, application No.

Description of material Country of

origin Material type Total quantity End use

GTS Duratek, April 19, 1998, April

21, 1998, IW007.

Contaminated Condenser tubes and

tubes sheets.

612,356 kgs ... Decontamination and recycling ........ Taiwan.

Dated this 2nd day of June 1998 at

Rockville, Maryland.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Ronald D. Hauber,

Director, Division of Nonproliferation,

Exports and Multilateral Relations, Office of

International Programs.

[FR Doc. 98–15138 Filed 6–5–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–U

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–245, 50–336, and 50–423]

Northeast Utilities (Millstone Nuclear

Power Station, Units 1, 2, and 3);

Issuance of Director’s Decision Under

10 CFR 2.206

Notice is hereby given that the

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation, has issued a Director’s

Decision with regard to a Petition dated

February 2, 1998, filed by Ms. Deborah

Katz, Ms. Rosemary Bassilakis, and Mr.

Paul Gunter on behalf of the Citizens

Awareness Network (CAN) and the

Nuclear Information and Resource

Service (NIRS) (Petitioners). The

Petition pertains to the Millstone

Nuclear Power Station, Units 1, 2, and

3.

The Petitioners requested that the

NRC immediately: (1) revoke Northeast

Utilities’ (NU’s, the licensee’s) license to

operate Millstone Units 1, 2, and 3 as

the result of ongoing intimidation and

harassment of its workforce by NU

management; (2) revoke NU’s license to

operate Millstone Units 1, 2, and 3 as

the result of persistent licensee defiance

of NRC regulations and directives to

create a ‘‘questioning attitude’’ for its

workers to challenge management on

nuclear safety issues without fear of

harassment, intimidation, or reprisals by

NU; and (3) refer the Nuclear Oversight

Department’s Focus 98 List and the

reported NU management attempt to

destroy the list to the Department of

Justice for investigation of a potential

coverup.

As the bases for these assertions, the

Petition states that an NU document

(Nuclear Oversight Department’s Focus

98 List, dated January 11, 1998) directs

the group to address areas needing

improvement by focusing on the

‘‘inability to ‘‘isolate’’ cynics from the

group culture’’ and ‘‘pockets of

negativism.’’ The Petition further states

that the list demonstrates the sustained

and unrelenting policy of NU’s senior

management to undermine a safetyconscious workplace at Millstone, and

that despite 2 years of increased

regulatory scrutiny of the managerial

mistreatment of its workers and the

corporation’s mismanagement of its

employees’ safety concerns program, a

‘‘chilled atmosphere’’ remains intact

and entrenched.

As a basis for the Petitioners’ request

for a Department of Justice

investigation, the Petition makes the

following statement: ‘‘Since it has been

reported that NU management

employees attempted to destroy the list,

NRC has a duty to refer this apparent

deliberate attempt to evade the

otherwise lawful exercise of authority

by NRC to the Department of Justice for

complete investigation. This alleged

attempt to cover up wrong doing by

NRC’s licensee is a potential obstruction

of justice that should be fully and fairly

investigated.’’

The Director of the Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation has denied the

Petition. The reasons for this denial are

explained in the ‘‘Director’s Decision

Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206’’ (DD–98–04),

the complete text of which follows this

notice and 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 rooms

located at the Learning Resources

Center, Three Rivers CommunityTechnical College, New London

Turnpike, Norwich, Connecticut, and at

the Waterford Library, 49 Rope Ferry

Road, Waterford, Connecticut.

A copy of the Director’s Decision will

be filed with the Secretary of the

Commission for the Commission’s

review in accordance with 10 CFR

2.206(c) of the Commission’s

regulations. As provided for by this

regulation, the Decision will constitute

the final action of the Commission 25

days after the date of issuance unless

the Commission, on its own motion,

institutes a review of the Decision in

that time.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day

of June 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Samuel J. Collins,

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

Director’s Decision Pursuant to 10 CFR

2.206

[DD–98–04]

I. Introduction

On February 2, 1998, Ms. Deborah

Katz, Ms. Rosemary Bassilakis, and Mr.

Paul Gunter filed a Petition, pursuant to

Section 2.206 of Title 10 of the Code of

Federal Regulations (10 CFR 2.206), on

behalf of the Citizens Awareness

Network (CAN) and the Nuclear

Information and Resource Service

(NIRS) (Petitioners).

The Petitioners requested that the

NRC take the following immediate

actions: (1) revoke Northeast Utilities’

(NU’s or the licensee’s) license to

operate Millstone Units 1, 2, and 3 as

the result of ongoing intimidation and

harassment of its workforce by NU

management; (2) revoke NU’s license to

operate Millstone Units 1, 2, and 3 as

the result of persistent licensee defiance

of NRC regulations and directives to

create a ‘‘questioning attitude’’ for its

workers to challenge management on

nuclear safety issues without fear of

harassment, intimidation, or reprisals by

NU; and (3) refer the Nuclear Oversight

Focus 98 List and the reported NU

management attempt to destroy the list

to the Department of Justice for

investigation of a potential coverup.

As bases for the Petitioners’

assertions, the Petition states that an NU

document (Nuclear Oversight

Department’s Focus 98 List, dated

January 11, 1998) directs the Nuclear

Oversight group to address areas

needing improvement by focusing on

the ‘‘inability to ‘isolate’ cynics from the

group culture’’ and ‘‘pockets of

negativism.’’ The Petition further states

that the list demonstrates the sustained

and unrelenting policy of NU’s senior

management to undermine a safetyconscious workplace at Millstone, and

that despite 2 years of increased

regulatory scrutiny of the managerial

mistreatment of its workers and the

corporation’s mismanagement of its
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 109 / Monday, June 8, 1998 / Notices 31235

employees’ safety concerns program, a

‘‘chilled atmosphere’’ remains intact

and entrenched.

As a basis for the Petitioners’ request

for a Department of Justice

investigation, the Petition states that

‘‘[s]ince it has been reported that NU

management employees attempted to

destroy the list, NRC has a duty to refer

this apparent deliberate attempt to

evade the otherwise lawful exercise of

authority by NRC to the Department of

Justice for complete investigation. This

alleged attempt to cover up wrong doing

by NRC’s licensee is a potential

obstruction of justice that should be

fully and fairly investigated.’’

On March 11, 1998, the NRC

acknowledged receipt of the Petition

and informed the Petitioners that the

Petition had been assigned to the Office

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to prepare

a response and that action would be

taken within a reasonable time

regarding the specific concerns raised in

the Petition. The Petitioners were also

informed that their request for

immediate action to revoke the

operating license and refer the incident

to the Department of Justice was denied

because, due to the three Millstone units

being shut down, protection of public

health and safety did not warrant

immediate action. The Petitioners were

also informed that the NRC would

consider the licensee’s response to the

staff’s February 10, 1998, request for

information concerning the incident

before the Commission allows restart of

any Millstone unit. To this extent, the

Petitioners’ request for immediate action

was partially granted.

II. Discussion

The NRC staff has completed its

evaluation of the Petitioners’ requests.

The following discussion is based on

information provided by the licensee

and information independently

obtained by the NRC staff. The

Petitioners’ first two requests are similar

in nature and are addressed in Section

II.A. The third request is addressed in

Section II.B.

A. Request To Revoke the Operating

License for Millstone Units 1, 2, and 3

The Petitioners based this request on

their assertion of ongoing intimidation

and harassment of the workforce by NU

management and persistent licensee

defiance of NRC regulations and

directives to create a ‘‘questioning

attitude’’ for its workers to challenge

management on nuclear safety issues

without fear of harassment,

intimidation, or reprisals. As support for

their assertions, the Petitioners referred

to the wording in a document prepared

by NU’s Nuclear Oversight Department

titled ‘‘Focus 98: Director/VP View of

Nuclear Oversight (1/11/98).’’ The

document listed seven ‘‘Positive

Qualities of Nuclear Oversight’’ and

seven ‘‘Areas Needing Improvement.’’

Within ‘‘Areas Needing Improvement’’

was a category entitled ‘‘Current SCWE

[safety-conscious work environment]

and issues.’’ One of the six areas listed

in this category was ‘‘inability to

‘‘isolate’’ cynics from group culture.’’

On January 29, 1998, the U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (NRC) became

aware of the Nuclear Oversight

Department’s Focus 98 document. The

NRC was concerned that language

contained in the document was not

consistent with encouraging a

questioning attitude necessary for

fostering a safety-conscious work

environment. As a result, the NRC

required the licensee, in a February 10,

1998, letter, to describe in writing,

under oath or affirmation (1) the

circumstances surrounding the creation

and distribution of the document and

whether the events constitute a

violation of 10 CFR 50.7; (2) how this

document came into existence, in light

of NU’s efforts to create a safetyconscious work environment, and NU’s

assessment of the document’s effect on

the willingness of employees to raise

concerns with the Company; and (3) any

remedial actions needed to prevent

recurrence.

NU responded to the NRC’s request in

March 12, March 26, and April 24, 1998,

letters. NU’s March 12, 1998, response

included reference to an NU-directed

investigation into the circumstances

surrounding the creation and

distribution of the Focus 98 document.

The March 12, 1998, response also

contained a redacted copy of a survey

conducted in February 1998 by

consultants Nilsson and Associates to

determine whether the events that the

Petitioners complained about negatively

impacted the Millstone workforce and

had created any reluctance to raise

safety issues at the Millstone facility.

The investigation report was transmitted

to the NRC by the March 26, 1998,

letter. The April 24, 1998, letter

provided additional information

regarding the collection of the Focus 98

document. In its submittals, NU

described two Nuclear Oversight

Department meetings relevant to the

development of the Focus 98 document,

its use, and its distribution.

The first meeting was held on January

11, 1998, and involved the Vice

President—Nuclear Oversight, his three

Directors, the Executive Assistant to the

Vice President, and a consultant to the

Vice President. The meeting was held to

prepare for an upcoming Nuclear

Oversight management team-building

session and explore the strengths and

weaknesses of the Nuclear Oversight

organization for discussion at that

meeting. Each of the six participants

brought to the meeting approximately

three strengths and three weaknesses

that each considered applicable to

Nuclear Oversight, and it was from

these inputs that the Focus 98 document

list of ‘‘Positive Qualities of Nuclear

Oversight’’ and ‘‘Areas Needing

Improvement’’ was developed. The

inputs from the meeting participants

were recorded and grouped, and the

licensee’s consultant used this

information to prepare the one-page

Focus 98 document. Prior to the January

21, 1998, team-building session, the

Focus 98 document had been

distributed to the January 11, 1998,

meeting participants for review and had

generated no comments. NU concluded

from its investigation, including

interviews with each of the meeting

participants, that the participants did

not intend for the wording to convey the

notion that Nuclear Oversight

management should seek to isolate

individuals who have raised concerns in

the past, nor did management intend to

send the signal that it views people who

raise concerns as ‘‘cynics’’ or bad

influences on the organization. NU

concluded that the phrases in the

document ‘‘isolation of ‘cynics,’’ ’ ‘‘too

much negative energy (personnel

issues),’’ and ‘‘pockets of negativism’’

were poorly chosen words that were

intended to convey the belief that the

Nuclear Oversight organization

recognizes that there are people who

have ill feelings toward NU and who are

seeking to impose their views on others

who may disagree, and that this

imposition was affecting the

organization. NU pointed out in its

submittal that the document was

intended to generate discussion and did

not represent policy or direction of

Nuclear Oversight management.

The second meeting was held on

January 21, 1998, and involved Nuclear

Oversight management ranging from

first-line supervisors to the Vice

President—Nuclear Oversight. The

purpose of the meeting was Nuclear

Oversight team building and one topic

on the agenda was a discussion of the

organization’s strengths and

weaknesses. The Focus 98 document

was distributed when the organization’s

strengths and weaknesses were to be

discussed. NU states that soon after the

Focus 98 document was distributed,

several managers/supervisors objected

to the included phrase ‘‘inability to
31236 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 109 / Monday, June 8, 1998 / Notices

‘isolate’ cynics from group culture.’’ NU

further states that the Vice President

and Directors were initially surprised by

the reaction, and ultimately agreed that

the words had been poorly chosen and

were not reflective of management’s

position.

On the basis of its investigation, NU

concluded that the circumstances of the

creation of the Focus 98 document

indicated that no one in management

intended to encourage any form of

discrimination against anyone engaging

in protected activity. NU also responded

that no action took place because of the

document’s existence and, thus, no

person who had engaged in protected

activity suffered any adverse

employment action.

The NRC staff reviewed NU’s

responses to the NRC’s February 10,

1998, letter, including the investigation

report, and separately interviewed eight

people involved in the preparation, use,

and distribution of the Focus 98

document. The staff determined that the

Focus 98 document had been developed

as material for establishing talking

points for a then-upcoming January 21,

1998, management team-building

session. The staff also determined that

points listed in the Focus 98 document

under ‘‘Areas Needing Improvement’’

were intended by those participating in

the January 11, 1998, meeting to convey

potential organizational weaknesses as

points for discussion, and not to

represent current or future management

policy. The staff also found that the

Focus 98 document had been developed

informally, with no formal review and

approval process, for use as a handout

at an upcoming Nuclear Oversight

Department team-building session.

The NRC staff’s reviews, including

interviews with NU staff involved in the

incident, confirmed that the general

purpose of the Nuclear Oversight

management team meeting on January

21, 1998, was to improve Nuclear

Oversight organizational interactions.

Furthermore, the NRC staff found that

the Focus 98 document was intended to

facilitate the discussion of one of many

topic areas to be covered at the all-day

meeting. The NRC staff’s inquiries

confirmed that Nuclear Oversight

management was surprised by the

immediate reaction and concern of the

January 21, 1998, meeting participants

regarding certain language in the Focus

98 document, and that following a

discussion of the wording, management

recognized the unintended implication

of the words. After reviewing the

available information, the NRC staff

concludes that the wording at issue

used in the Focus 98 document was no

more than poorly selected terminology

intended to convey a perceived Nuclear

Oversight organizational weakness.

In its March 12, 1998, response, NU

stated that once it became apparent that

non-supervisory employees in the

Nuclear Oversight Department, who had

not attended either the January 11 or

January 21, 1998, meetings, knew about

the troubling language in the Focus 98

document, NU took several actions to

mitigate and assess the potential

consequences to ensure that the release

of the Focus 98 document and

surrounding circumstances did not

cause a chilling effect on the

organization. On January 29, 1998, the

Vice President—Nuclear Oversight held

an all-hands meeting with members of

his organization at which he apologized

for the language in the document and

assured the organization that he and the

Directors were not trying to discourage

anyone from voicing concerns. That

same day, the President and Chief

Executive Officer of Millstone and the

Vice President—Nuclear Oversight met

with the Millstone leadership team and

described the circumstances

surrounding the document. On January

30, 1998, NU issued a site-wide

communication discussing the two

meetings in detail. NU also assessed the

effect of the document on the workforce

through investigations and surveys. NU

directed the consulting firm Nilsson and

Associates to conduct an in-depth

assessment of the document’s effect on

Nuclear Oversight Department

employees and on employees who

interact with the Nuclear Oversight

Department. The assessment found that

none of the 56 people interviewed

indicated that the document has made

them reluctant to raise concerns.

The Petitioners also refer generally, as

a basis for their request, to ongoing NU

intimidation and harassment of its

workforce and persistent licensee

defiance of NRC regulations and

directives to create a safety-conscious

work environment. NU performance in

these areas has been extensively

assessed. An NRC Order issued on

October 24, 1996, required NU to take

specific actions to resolve problems in

its processes for handling employee

safety concerns at the Millstone station.

As required by the Order, NU developed

and implemented a comprehensive plan

for reviewing and dispositioning safety

issues raised by its employees, and for

ensuring that employees who raise

safety concerns can raise them without

fear of retaliation. NU’s plan included

elements to (1) improve the operation of

its Employee Concerns Program

organization; (2) enhance management

and employee training related to

establishing and maintaining a safetyconscious work environment; (3) form

an Employee Concerns Oversight Panel;

and (4) identify and respond to

organizational safety-conscious work

environment challenges. NU began

implementing the plan in February

1997, and substantially completed

implementation by January 1998. As

required by the Order, NU also

submitted for NRC approval a proposed

independent third-party oversight

program organization to oversee

implementation of its comprehensive

plan. Little Harbor Consultants Inc.

(LHC) was approved by the NRC as the

third-party oversight organization and

has been performing that function since

April 1997.

LHC’s assessments of NU’s programs

to improve the safety-conscious work

environment at Millstone station have

noted significant improvements in the

past year. Based on information gained

from interviews with NU staff, program

reviews, and assessment of licensee

responses to emerging personnel issues,

LHC concluded at an April 7, 1998,

meeting with NRC and NU that

programs have improved and are at an

acceptable level. As reported in an LHC

quarterly report for the first 3 months of

1998, transmitted to the NRC on April

22, 1998, LHC’s interviews with 298 NU

employees, conducted in February 1998,

showed an improved work

environment. LHC concluded from the

results of these interviews that at

Millstone improvements have been

made regarding the willingness of the

workforce to raise concerns, the

confidence of the workforce that safety

concerns will be handled properly, the

existence of a questioning attitude, and

the lack of any chilling effect.

The NRC has monitored and assessed

LHC’s oversight activities and

independently assessed NU’s actions to

upgrade its Employee Concerns Program

and improve the safety-conscious work

environment at the Millstone station.

The NRC’s April 21, 1998, letter to John

Beck, President, LHC, documents the

NRC staff’s evaluation of LHC’s

oversight of NU’s programs for handling

employee concerns. The staff found that

LHC’s oversight activities have been

thorough and complete and that LHC

has effectively carried out its oversight

activities. The NRC’s April 20, 1998,

letter to NU forwarded the results of the

NRC staff’s evaluation of the Employee

Concerns Program and safety-conscious

work environment at the Millstone

station. The NRC staff’s assessment of

these NU programs found that they were

improved and functioning effectively.

Based on the above, the Petitioners’

request that the NRC revoke Millstone’s

operating licenses for workforce
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 109 / Monday, June 8, 1998 / Notices 31237

intimidation and actions to prevent the

establishment of a ‘‘questioning

attitude’’ with regard to employees

voicing safety concerns is denied.

B. Request for Investigation of NU

Attempt To Destroy Focus 98 Document

The Petitioners also request that the

NRC refer the Focus 98 document and

NU’s attempt to destroy the document to

the Department of Justice for

investigation of a potential coverup. The

Petitioners base this request on reports

that NU management attempted to

destroy the document. The Petitioners

consider the NRC to have a duty to refer

this apparently deliberate attempt to

evade the otherwise lawful exercise of

authority by the NRC to the Department

of Justice for a complete investigation.

In its March 12, 1998, letter to the

NRC, NU states that participants at the

January 21, 1998, management team

meeting agreed that the words in the

document were poorly chosen and, at

the suggestion of a consultant who was

facilitating the meeting, the participants

agreed that the Focus 98 document

should not be distributed further

because of the deficient wording. NU

states that most meeting participants

dropped off their copy of the document

with the consultant when the meeting

was over at the end of the day, and

others left it on tables in the room before

they left. NU stated that no one

attempted to ensure that all the Focus

98 documents were returned, counted

the returned documents to determine if

some had not been turned in, or ordered

the participants to turn in the

documents.

The NRC staff reviewed NU’s

responses to the NRC’s February 10,

1998, letter, including NU’s

investigation report, and conducted

separate interviews of individuals

involved with the distribution and

collection of the Focus 98 document.

Information from interviews conducted

by the staff confirmed that meeting

participants generally concluded that

certain wording in the Focus 98

document was inappropriate and

susceptible to misinterpretation. Also,

the staff’s information was consistent

with NU’s report that there was general

agreement by meeting participants to

leave the document at the meeting. The

staff concludes that NU’s actions to

address the Focus 98 document were

not inappropriate. Therefore, the

Petitioners’ request to refer the Focus 98

document and its recall and destruction

to the Department of Justice is denied.

III. Conclusion

The NRC staff has determined, for the

reasons provided in the above

discussion, that the incident involving

preparation and distribution of the

Focus 98 document does not represent

action by NU to discriminate against

persons in the Nuclear Oversight

Department. Although wording in the

document may have been inappropriate,

the process for preparation of the

document, the informal nature of the

document, and the use of the document

as discussion points on organizational

strengths and weaknesses, all indicate

that the language in question in the

document involved a matter of poor

word choice. The NRC staff also has

determined that efforts to collect the

Focus 98 document after its distribution

at the end of the January 21, 1998,

Nuclear Oversight Department teambuilding session were not inappropriate,

and that NU, given the nature and use

of the document, had no regulatory

obligation to provide it to the NRC or

inform the NRC of its existence. As

discussed previously, the NRC was

concerned that a document prepared for

use at an NU organizational function

could contain such inappropriate

language, even if unintended. The NRC

was further concerned that the

document could have a ‘‘chilling effect’’

on the NU workforce. The NRC’s

February 10, 1998, letter to NU required

NU to respond to these NRC concerns.

Based on the NRC staff’s review of NU’s

response and the NRC’s own

independent assessment of the event,

the NRC staff is satisfied with the

actions taken by the licensee to assess

the chilling effect of the incident and to

prevent recurrence. Accordingly, the

Petitioners’ requests for revocation of

NU’s license to operate Millstone Units

1, 2, and 3 for reasons associated with

development of the Focus 98 document

are denied. The Petitioners’ request that

the NRC refer the matter of the

document’s collection and destruction

to the Department of Justice for

investigation is also denied.

As provided for in 10 CFR 2.206(c), a

copy of this Director’s Decision will be

filed with the Secretary of the

Commission for the Commission’s

review. This Decision will constitute the

final action of the Commission 25 days

after issuance unless the Commission,

on its own motion, institutes review of

the Decision in that time.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day

of June 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Samuel J. Collins,

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–15139 Filed 6–5–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL

MANAGEMENT

Submission For OMB Review;

Comment Request For Reclearance of

an Information Collection: OPM Form

2809

AGENCY: Office of Personnel

Management.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(Public Law 104–13, May 22, 1995), this

notice announces that the Office of

Personnel Management (OPM) intends

to submit to the Office of Management

and Budget a request for reclearance of

an information collection. OPM Form

2809, Health Benefits Registration Form,

is used by annuitants and former

spouses to elect, cancel, or change

health benefits enrollment during

periods other than open season.

Comments are particularly invited on:

Whether this information is necessary

for the proper performance of functions

of the Office of Personnel Management,

and whether it will have practical

utility; whether our estimate of the

public burden of this collection of

information is accurate, and based on

valid assumptions and methodology;

and ways in which we can minimize the

burden of the collection of information

on those who are to respond, through

the use of appropriate technological

collection techniques or other forms of

information technology.

Approximately 34,800 OPM Form

2809s are completed annually. We

estimate it takes approximately 45

minutes to complete the form. The

annual burden is 26,100 hours.

For copies of this proposal, contact

Jim Farron on (202) 418–3208, or E-mail

to jmfarron@opm.gov

DATES: Comments on this proposal

should be received on or before August

7, 1998.

ADDRESS: Send or deliver comments

to— Lorraine E. Dettman, Chief,

Operations Support Division,

Retirement and Insurance Service, U.S.

Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E

Street, NW, Room 3349, Washington,

DC 20415.

FOR INFORMATION REGARDING

ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATION—

CONTACT: Mary Beth Smith-Toomey,

Budget & Administrative Services

Division, (202) 606–0623.

U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Janice R. Lachance,

Director.

[FR Doc. 98–15118 Filed 6–5–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6325–01–P