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