34202 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 120 /Tuesday, June 23, 1998 / Notices

a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays.

Copies of written comments received

may be examined at the NRC Public

Document Room, the Gelman Building,

2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC.

The filing of requests for hearing and

petitions for leave to intervene is

discussed below.

By July 23, 1998, the licensee may file

a request for a hearing with respect to

issuance of the amendment to the

subject facility operating license and

any person whose interest may be

affected by this proceeding and who

wishes to participate as a party in the

proceeding must file a written request

for a hearing and a petition for leave to

intervene. Requests for a hearing and a

petition for leave to intervene shall be

filed in accordance with the

Commission’s ‘‘Rules of Practice for

Domestic Licensing Proceedings’’ in 10

CFR Part 2. Interested persons should

consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.714

which is available at the Commission’s

Public Document Room, the Gelman

Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC, and at the local public

document room located at the Osterhout

Free Library, Reference Department, 71

South Franklin Street, Wilkes-Barre, PA

18701. If a request for a hearing or

petition for leave to intervene is filed by

the above date, the Commission or an

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board,

designated by the Commission or by the

Chairman of the Atomic Safety and

Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the

request and/or petition; and the

Secretary or the designated Atomic

Safety and Licensing Board will issue a

notice of hearing or an appropriate

order.

As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a

petition for leave to intervene shall set

forth with particularity the interest of

the petitioner in the proceeding, and

how that interest may be affected by the

results of the proceeding. The petition

should specifically explain the reasons

why intervention should be permitted

with particular reference to the

following factors: (1) the nature of the

petitioner’s right under the Act to be

made party to the proceeding; (2) the

nature and extent of the petitioner’s

property, financial, or other interest in

the proceeding; and (3) the possible

effect of any order which may be

entered in the proceeding on the

petitioner’s interest. The petition should

also identify the specific aspect(s) of the

subject matter of the proceeding as to

which petitioner wishes to intervene.

Any person who has filed a petition for

leave to intervene or who has been

admitted as a party may amend the

petition without requesting leave of the

Board up to 15 days prior to the first

prehearing conference scheduled in the

proceeding, but such an amended

petition must satisfy the specificity

requirements described above.

Not later than 15 days prior to the first

prehearing conference scheduled in the

proceeding, a petitioner shall file a

supplement to the petition to intervene

which must include a list of the

contentions which are sought to be

litigated in the matter. Each contention

must consist of a specific statement of

the issue of law or fact to be raised or

controverted. In addition, the petitioner

shall provide a brief explanation of the

bases of the contention and a concise

statement of the alleged facts or expert

opinion which support the contention

and on which the petitioner intends to

rely in proving the contention at the

hearing. The petitioner must also

provide references to those specific

sources and documents of which the

petitioner is aware and on which the

petitioner intends to rely to establish

those facts or expert opinion. Petitioner

must provide sufficient information to

show that a genuine dispute exists with

the applicant on a material issue of law

or fact. Contentions shall be limited to

matters within the scope of the

amendment under consideration. The

contention must be one which, if

proven, would entitle the petitioner to

relief. A petitioner who fails to file such

a supplement which satisfies these

requirements with respect to at least one

contention will not be permitted to

participate as a party.

Those permitted to intervene become

parties to the proceeding, subject to any

limitations in the order granting leave to

intervene, and have the opportunity to

participate fully in the conduct of the

hearing, including the opportunity to

present evidence and cross-examine

witnesses.

If the amendment is issued before the

expiration of the 30-day hearing period,

the Commission will make a final

determination on the issue of no

significant hazards consideration. If a

hearing is requested, the final

determination will serve to decide when

the hearing is held.

If the final determination is that the

amendment request involves no

significant hazards consideration, the

Commission may issue the amendment

and make it immediately effective,

notwithstanding the request for a

hearing. Any hearing held would take

place after issuance of the amendment.

If the final determination is that the

amendment request involves a

significant hazards consideration, any

hearing held would take place before

the issuance of any amendment.

A request for a hearing or a petition

for leave to intervene must be filed with

the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention:

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, or

may be delivered to the Commission’s

Public Document Room, the Gelman

Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC, by the above date. A

copy of the petition should also be sent

to the Office of the General Counsel,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001, and to Jay

Silberg, Esquire, Shaw, Pittman, Potts

and Trowbridge, 2300 N Street NW.,

Washington, DC 20037, attorney for the

licensee.

Nontimely filings of petitions for

leave to intervene, amended petitions,

supplemental petitions and/or requests

for hearing will not be entertained

absent a determination by the

Commission, the presiding officer or the

presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board that the petition and/or request

should be granted based upon a

balancing of the factors specified in 10

CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)–(v) and 2.714(d).

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendment dated June 17, 1998, which

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 room located at the

Osterhout Free Library, Reference

Department, 71 South Franklin Street,

Wilkes-Barre, PA 18701.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day

of June 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Victor Nerses,

Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate

I–2, Division of Reactor Projects, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–16652 Filed 6–22–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–498/499; License Nos.

NPF–76, 80 EA 97–341]

STP Nuclear Operating Company; STP

Nuclear Generating Station;

Confirmatory Order Modifying License

(Effective Immediately)

I

STP Nuclear Operating Company

(STP or the Licensee) is an NRC

Licensee and the holder of Facility

Operating License Nos. NPF–76 and

NPF–80, issued by the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (NRC or
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 120 /Tuesday, June 23, 1998 / Notices 34203

Commission) pursuant to 10 CFR Part

50 on March 22, 1988 and March 28,

1989 respectfully . The licenses

authorize operation of the STP Electric

Generating Station (the Station or

facility) in accordance with the

conditions specified in the license. The

facility is located on the Licensee’s site

in Wadsworth, Texas.

II

NRC Office of Investigations (OI)

Report Nos. 4–96–035 and 4–96–059

concluded that STP had subjected four

employees to a hostile work

environment created by the former

Electrical/Instrumentation & Controls

(E/I&C) division manager in retaliation

for the employees’ having engaged in

protected activities, and had thus

violated the Employee Protection

requirements, 10 CFR 50.7. The NRC

staff, by letter dated January 8, 1998,

invited the Licensee to a predecisional

enforcement conference (PEC) to discuss

the apparent violation, which was fully

detailed in that letter. On February 26,

1998, a PEC was held at the NRC offices

of NRC Region IV in Arlington, Texas.

By letter dated March 12, 1998, the

Licensee submitted additional data and

information requested by the NRC staff

during the PEC.

The Licensee maintains that no

violation of 10 CFR 50.7 occurred, and

that it took prompt and effective

corrective action in response to

concerns raised by its employees

regarding the behavior of the E/I&C

division manager, including discipline

in accordance with the STP

Constructive Discipline Policy,

appropriate reflection in annual

performance appraisals of the E/I&C

division manager, the provision of peer

and management counseling to the E/

I&C division manager and assistance

from industrial psychologists. The

actions culminated in the resignation of

the E/I&C division manager from STP in

mid-1996. In addition, the Licensee

states that it took a number of specific

steps to address concerns which arose

in the E/I&C Division in 1996. These

included the STP President’s meetings

with division personnel, similar

meetings conducted by the Vice

President, Nuclear Engineering, and the

Design Engineering Department

Manager, as well as one-on-one

meetings between the new division

manager and all division personnel. In

these meetings, and in station-wide

communications, the Licensee advised

employees that it had settled the claims

filed by four facility employees with the

United States Department of Labor

(DOL), which claim alleged violations of

the Employee Protection requirements

of Section 211 of the Energy

Reorganization Act, and the fact that the

NRC was considering escalated

enforcement action. The Licensee states

that it intends to keep station personnel

apprised of the results of the NRC’s

consideration of this matter.

The Licensee maintains that

employees have not been deterred from

reporting safety concerns as a result of

events in the E/I&C division.

Specifically, the Licensee states that a

1994 Climate Assessment of employee

attitudes in the E/I&C division does not

suggest that employees were subject to

harassment or are reluctant to use the

routine systems for reporting concerns.

The Licensee also maintains that annual

surveys conducted between 1993 and

1997, both facility-wide and by

department, by Behavioral Consultant

Services, Inc., do not suggest the

existence of a hostile work environment

in the E/I&C division. In addition, the

Licensee states that implementation of

its new Corrective Action Program was

reviewed by a team of NRC inspectors

in early 1996. Specifically, the NRC

team reviewed a sample of Condition

Reports and interviewed various

engineers regarding their roles and

responsibilities to determine whether

significant issues were being identified

and corrected in a timely fashion and

how those problems were documented.

The NRC team found that all the

interviewed engineers were aware of

when and how to document identified

problems. See NRC Inspection Report

50–498/96–11; 50–499/96–11 (April 12,

1996).

III

The Licensee has planned additional

actions to assess the station

environment and to enhance safetyconsciousness, as described in

Attachment D to the March 12, 1998,

submission. Specifically, the Licensee

plans: (1) ‘‘Comprehensive Cultural

Assessments’’ to be performed by an

independent consultant at 18 to 24

month intervals, and intermediate

‘‘mini’’ surveys in selected areas; (2)

annual ratings of supervisors and

managers by employees via the

Licensee’s ‘‘Leadership Assessment

Tool’; and (3) a mandatory continuing

training program for all supervisors and

managers. The training program will

have the objectives of reinforcing the

importance of maintaining a safetyconscious work environment and of

assisting managers and supervisors in

dealing with conflicts in the work place

in the context of a safety-conscious

work environment. The training

program will also include a specific

course entitled ‘‘Safety Speaking.’’

During a telephone conversation with

the NRC staff on May 29, 1998, the

Licensee agreed to include in its

mandatory training for all supervisors

and managers training on the

requirements of 10 CFR 50.7, including,

but not limited to, what constitutes

protected activity and what constitutes

discrimination, and appropriate

responses to the raising of safety

concerns by employees.

IV

Since the Licensee settled the four

employee protection complaints prior to

an evidentiary hearing before, and prior

to a finding that discrimination had

occurred by, the United States

Department of Labor; since the Licensee

took corrective actions as outlined

above; and since the Licensee has

planned actions to monitor the safety

environment and to promote an

atmosphere conducive to the raising of

safety concerns by employees without

fear of retaliation, the NRC staff is

satisfied that its concerns regarding

employee protection at South Texas

Project Electric Generating Station can

be resolved by confirming the Licensee’s

plans for further corrective action by

this Order. Accordingly, the staff is

exercising its enforcement discretion

pursuant to Section VII B.6 of the NRC

Enforcement Policy and will not pursue

a Notice of Violation or a civil penalty

in this case.

By letter dated May 29, 1998, the

Licensee consented to issuance of this

Order with the commitments described

in Section V, below, and to waive its

right to a hearing on this Order. The

Licensee further consented to the

immediate effectiveness of this Order.

I find that the Licensee’s

commitments, as set forth in Section V,

below, are acceptable and necessary and

conclude that with these commitments,

the Licensee’s process for addressing

employee protection and safety

concerns will be enhanced. In view of

the foregoing, I have determined that

public health and safety require that the

Licensee’s commitments be confirmed

by this Order. Based on the above and

the Licensee’s consent, this Order is

immediately effective upon issuance.

V

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

Part 50, It Is Hereby Ordered, Effective

Immediately, That License Nos. NPF–76

and NPF–80 Are Modified As Follows:

1. Beginning in 1998, the STP Nuclear

Operating Company will integrate into
34204 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 120 /Tuesday, June 23, 1998 / Notices

its overall program for enhancing the

work environment and safety culture at

the facility a ‘‘Comprehensive Cultural

Assessment’’, as described in

Attachment D to the Licensee’s March

12, 1998, submission, to be performed

by an independent contractor. The

Cultural Assessment will include both a

written survey of employees (including

supervision and management) and

baseline contractors, and confidential

interviews of selected individuals. The

first assessment is scheduled for the

second quarter of 1998 and will be

performed at least three more times at

intervals of 18 to 24 months. Annual

‘‘mini’’ surveys will be conducted and

shall include, but not be limited to,

annual surveys through at least the year

2002. Before conducting each minisurvey, the Licensee will identify to the

NRC Regional Administrator the

departments and divisions to be

surveyed. The Licensee will submit to

the NRC for review all Cultural

Assessment results, including all

intermediate ‘‘mini’’ surveys. Within 60

days of receipt of the survey results, the

Licensee will provide to the NRC

Regional Administrator any plans

necessary to address issues raised by the

survey results.

2. The STP Nuclear Operating

Company will conduct annual ratings of

supervisors and managers by employees

via the ‘‘Leadership Assessment Tool’’,

as described in Attachment D to the

Licensee’s March 12, 1998, submission,

through at least the year 2002.

3. The STP Nuclear Operating

Company will conduct a mandatory

continuing training program for all

supervisors and managers. This program

will include:

(a) Scheduled training on building

positive relationships, as outlined in

Attachment D to the Licensee’s March

12, 1998, submission. The training

program will have the objective of

reinforcing the importance of

maintaining a safety-conscious work

environment and assisting managers

and supervisors in dealing with

conflicts in the work place in the

context of a safety-conscious work

environment. The training program also

will include a course entitled ‘‘Safely

Speaking,’’ as described in Attachment

D to the Licensee’s March 12, 1998,

submission; and

(b) Annual training on the

requirements of 10 CFR 50.7, through at

least the year 2002, including, but not

limited to, what constitutes protected

activity and what constitutes

discrimination, and appropriate

responses to the raising of safety

concerns by employees. Such training

shall stress the freedom of employees in

the nuclear industry to raise safety

concerns without fear of retaliation by

their supervisors or managers.

4. The licensee shall issue a site-wide

publication to inform its employees and

contractor employees of this

Confirmatory Order as well as their

rights to raise safety concerns to the

NRC and their management without fear

of retaliation.

The Regional Administrator, Region

IV, may relax or rescind, in writing, any

of the above conditions upon a showing

by the Licensee of good cause.

VI

Any person adversely affected by this

Confirmatory Order, other than the

Licensee, may request a hearing within

20 days of its issuance. 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,

D.C. 20555, and include a statement of

good cause for the extension. Any

request for a hearing shall be submitted

to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Chief,

Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff,

Washington, D.C. 20555. Copies of the

hearing request shall also be sent to the

Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington D.C. 20555, to the Deputy

Assistant General Counsel for

Enforcement at the same address, to the

Regional Administrator, NRC Region IV,

611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400,

Arlington, TX 76011–8064, and to the

Licensee. If such a person 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 the hearing is requested by 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 Confirmatory Order should

be sustained.

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 proceeding. If an

extension of time 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 A

HEARING SHALL NOT STAY THE

IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS

ORDER.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 9th day

of June 1998.

For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

Ashok A. Thadani,

Deputy Executive Director for Regulatory

Effectiveness.

[FR Doc. 98–16649 Filed 6–22–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–338]

Virginia Electric and Power Company;

North Anna Power Station, Unit 1;

Confirmatory Order Modifying License

Effective Immediately

I

Virginia Electric and Power Company

(VEPCO, the licensee) is the holder of

Facility Operating License No. NPF–4,

which authorizes operation of North

Anna Power Station (NAPS), Unit 1,

located in Louisa County, Viginia.

II

The staff of the U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (NRC) has been

concerned that Thermo-Lag 330–1 fire

barrier systems installed by licensees

may not provide the level of fire

endurance intended and that licensees

that use Thermo-Lag 330–1 fire barriers

may not be meeting regulatory

requirements. During the 1992 to 1994

timeframe, the NRC staff issued Generic

Letter (GL) 92–08, ‘‘Thermo-Lag 330–1

Fire Barriers’’ and subsequent requests

for additional information that

requested licensees to submit plans and

schedules for resolving the Thermo-Lag

issue. The NRC staff has obtained and

reviewed all licensees’ corrective plans

and schedules. The staff is concerned

that some licensees may not be making

adequate progress toward resolving the

plant-specific issues, and that some

implementation schedules may be either

too tenuous or too protracted. For

example, several licensees informed the

NRC staff that their completion dates

had slipped by 6 months to as much as

3 years. For NAPS, Unit 1, that had

corrective action scheduled beyond

1997, the NRC reviewed with VEPCO

the schedule of Thermo-Lag corrective

actions described in the VEPCO

submittal to the NRC dated December

18,1997. Based on the information

submitted by VEPCO, the NRC staff has

concluded that the schedules presented

are reasonable. This conclusion is based