Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 18, 1996 / Notices 30925

Human Factors; and Subcommittee on

Accident Analysis.

Any inquiries regarding this notice or

any subsequent changes in the status

and schedule of the meeting, may be

made to the Designated Federal Officer,

Dr. Jose Luis M. Cortez (telephone: 301–

415–6596), between 8:15 am and 5:00

pm.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 12th day

of June, 1996.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Andrew L. Bates,

Federal Advisory Committee Management

Officer.

[FR Doc. 96–15396 Filed 6–17–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

Nuclear Safety Research Review

Committee (NSRRC); Meeting of the

Materials and Engineering

Subcommittee

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

The Materials and Engineering

Subcommittee will hold a meeting on

June 26, 1996. The meeting will take

place, starting at 9:00 a.m., in room T–

2B1, Two White Flint North (TWFN)

Building, 11545 Rockville Pike,

Rockville, MD and will be open to

public attendance.

The Materials and Engineering

Subcommittee will review the general

nuclear safety research activities of the

Division of Engineering Technology,

including:

• Recent research activities in the

area of reactor pressure vessel integrity

including developments in the vessel

thermal annealing demonstration

program,

• Progress in the research program on

the equipment qualification of electric

cables,

• Steam generator tube integrity

activities,

• Assessment of degraded structures

and components,

• Generic Safety Issues, and

• Other items of interest to the

Subcommittee.

A detailed agenda will be made

available at the meeting. Oral statements

may be presented by members of the

public with the concurrence of the

presiding Subcommittee Chairman;

written statements will be accepted and

made available to the Subcommittee.

Questions may be asked only by

members of the NSRRC Subcommittee

and the staff. Persons desiring to make

oral statements should notify the

Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff

member named below as far in advance

as is practicable so that appropriate

arrangements can be made.

During the initial portions of the

meetings, the Subcommittee may

exchange preliminary views regarding

matters to be considered during the

balance of the meeting. The

Subcommittee will then hear

presentations by and hold discussions

with representatives of the NRC staff

regarding the topics to be discussed.

Further information regarding topics

to be covered, the rescheduling and/or

cancellation of meeting sessions, and

the Chairman’s ruling on requests for

the opportunity to present oral

statements and the time allotted for

discussion can be obtained by a

telephone call to Dr. Jose Luis M. Cortez

(telephone 301/415–6596) between 9:00

a.m. and 4:30 p.m. (EST). Persons

planning to attend these meetings are

urged to contact the above named

individual one or two business days

before the scheduled meeting to be

advised of any changes in schedule, etc.,

that may have occurred.

Dated: June 10, 1996.

Jose Luis M. Cortez,

Senior Research Program Coordinator, Office

of Nuclear Regulatory Research.

[FR Doc. 96–15401 Filed 6–17–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

[Docket Nos. 50–528, 50–529, 50–530]

Arizona Public Service Company (Palo

Verde Nuclear Generating Station)

(License Nos. NPF–41, NPF–51, NPF–

74); Issuance of Director’s Decision

Under 10 CFR 2.206

A Petition was filed by Thomas J.

Saporito, Jr. (Petitioner), in accordance

with 10 CFR 2.206 on May 12, 1993.

The Petition requested that the NRC: (1)

Institute a show cause proceeding

pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202 to modify,

suspend, or revoke Arizona Public

Service (APS) Company’s operating

licenses for Palo Verde Nuclear

Generating Station (Palo Verde); (2)

initiate actions to shut down Palo

Verde; (3) take escalated enforcement

action against APS, including the

issuance of civil penalties against APS

and/or licensee management personnel

at Palo Verde; and (4) survey Palo Verde

employees to gauge the chilling effect

that may exist and whether the

licensee’s actions were effective in

limiting the chilling effect. On May 28,

1993, Petitioner forwarded a New Times

article to the NRC as a supplement to

this petition. On October 26, 1993,

Petitioner supplemented the May 12,

1993 Petition to include a copy of an

October 23, 1993 discrimination

complaint filed by the Petitioner with

the Department of Labor against APS

and The Atlantic Group (TAG). In the

October 26, 1993 supplement, Petitioner

reiterated his earlier request for action

and additionally requested escalated

enforcement action against TAG and

against any of its employees who are

found to have engaged in wrongdoing.

Another Petition was filed by

Petitioner on January 15, 1994. This

Petition, which has been treated as a

supplement to the May 12, 1993

Petition: (1) Reiterated the requests for

escalated enforcement action against

APS that were made in the May 12,

1993 Petition; (2) requested that APS be

required to provide a make-whole

remedy for Petitioner for terminating

Petitioner and failing to rehire him as a

result of Petitioner’s engaging in

protected activities; and (3) requested

that APS be required to abate and

obviate the chilling effect at APS arising

from the failure to provide the Petitioner

with employee protections afforded

under 10 CFR 50.7.

As the bases for the May 12, 1993

request, Petitioner asserted that: (1) A

Department of Labor (DOL)

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled

that APS discriminated against

Petitioner; (2) the DOL case is evidence

that ‘‘the licensee appears to have

violated numerous NRC requirements

regarding operation of the Palo Verde

nuclear station; and (3) licensee

managers have made questionable if not

false statements to the NRC regarding

the emergency lighting at Palo Verde.

Petitioner’s October 26, 1993

supplement to the original Petition

bases the request for action on

Petitioner’s October 23, 1993 complaint

filed with DOL and the ruling in favor

of Ms. Sarah C. Thomas against APS.

Petitioner’s January 15, 1994

supplement to the original Petition

bases the request for action on the

admission by one of the witnesses at the

Petitioner’s DOL hearing that the

witness lied under oath, as evidence of

APS’ intent to discriminate against

Petitioner and that the discriminatory

treatment of Petitioner has caused a

chilling effect on other employees at

Palo Verde.

Another Petition was filed by

Petitioner and Florida Energy

Consultants (Petitioners) on May 27,

1994. This Petition: (1) Reiterated the

request for a show cause proceeding,

and further requested that the NRC: (2)

issue a notice of violation against the

Licensee for continuing to employ TAG

as a labor contractor at Palo Verde; (3)

investigate alleged material false

statements made by William F. Conway,

Executive Vice President at Palo Verde,
30926 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 18, 1996 / Notices

during his testimony at a DOL hearing

(ERA Case No. 92–ERA–030) and that,

in the interim, the NRC require that Mr.

Conway be relieved of any authority

over operations at Palo Verde; (4)

investigate the Licensee’s statements

regarding Petitioner Saporito in an

August 10, 1993 letter from Mr. Conway

to NRC Administrator, Mr. Bobby H.

Faulkenberry, in which the Licensee

said that Mr. Saporito gave materially

false, inaccurate, and incomplete

information on his application for

unescorted access to Palo Verde so that,

as a result of that event, Petitioner

Saporito lacks trustworthiness and

reliability for access to Palo Verde; (5)

investigate the circumstances

surrounding the February 1994

termination of Licensee employee

Joseph Straub, a former radiation

protection technician at Palo Verde, to

determine if his employment was

illegally terminated by the Licensee for

having engaged in ‘‘protected activity’’

during the course of his employment;

(6) require that the Licensee respond to

a ‘‘chilling effect’’ letter regarding the

circumstances surrounding Mr. Straub’s

termination from Palo Verde and

whether any measures were taken to

ensure that his termination did not

cause a chilling effect at Palo Verde; (7)

initiate appropriate actions to require

the Licensee to immediately conduct

eddy current testing on all steam

generators at Palo Verde, because the

steam generator tubes were recently

subjected to cracking.

As the bases for these requests,

Petitioners asserted that: (1) A show

cause proceeding is necessary because

the public health and safety concerns

alleged are significant and to permit

public participation to provide NRC

with new and relevant information; (2)

past practices of TAG demonstrate that

employees of TAG were retaliated

against for having raised safety concerns

while employed at Palo Verde; (3)

citations to testimony from transcripts

and numerous newspaper articles

(appended as exhibits to the Petition),

demonstrate that Mr. Conway’s

testimony is not credible; (4) statements

in the August 10, 1993 letter are

inaccurate and materially false and

characterize Mr. Saporito as an

individual lacking trustworthiness and

reliability for access to Palo Verde, so

that such negative characterizations

have blacklisted him from continued

employment in the nuclear industry,

which is all in retaliation for him raising

safety concerns about operations at Palo

Verde; thus, Petitioners ask that these

statements be rescinded; (5) an

investigation into the termination of Mr.

Straub is warranted in view of the fact

that the Licensee has engaged in similar

illegal conduct in the past where the

NRC has required the Licensee to pay

fines; (6) Mr. Straub is entitled to

reinstatement with pay and benefits

pending the NRC’s investigation into his

termination to offset any chilling effect

his termination had on the Palo Verde

workforce; and (7) the stress corrosion

and cracking in the steam generators is

a recurring problem of which the

Licensee is aware and which the

Licensee has failed to properly correct,

in addition to cooling tower problems,

so that the NRC should be concerned

about proper maintenance of safety

systems and equipment there.

Immediate action with respect to item

7 of the May 27, 1994 Petition, regarding

eddy current testing of the steam

generators, was denied by William T.

Russell, Director, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation in a letter to the

Petitioners dated July 26, 1994. The

non-immediate portion of the request is

being addressed in a separate Director’s

Decision by Mr. Russell and the issue

will not be discussed further here.

On July 8, 1994, Petitioners filed a

supplement to the May 27, 1994 Petition

raising additional issues concerning

technical matters unrelated to the issues

addressed in this Decision. The requests

filed in this July 8, 1994 supplement

will be addressed in the above-noted

Director’s Decision by Mr. Russell and

will not be addressed here.

Another Petition was filed by Thomas

J. Saporito, Jr., Florida Energy

Consultants, and Linda Mitchell

(Petitioners) on November 14, 1994. The

Petition requested that NRC: (1) Issue a

confirmatory order requiring APS to

reduce power at all Palo Verde units to

0% until APS can demonstrate

corrective actions for the hostile work

environment at Palo Verde; (2) issue a

demand for information to APS asking

(a) why NRC should have confidence

that APS can operate Palo Verde

without a hostile work environment; (b)

about the current duties and

responsibilities of certain listed

employees, including whether any of

those employees is currently involved

in NRC-licensed activities; (c) why the

Commission should have confidence

that these employees will comply with

NRC requirements; and (d) why the NRC

should not take action to prohibit the

involvement of these employees in NRC

licensed activities.

As the bases for these requests,

Petitioners assert that: (1) DOL found

that Sarah Thomas was discriminated

against by APS; (2) DOL found that

Linda Mitchell was discriminated

against by APS; (3) DOL found that

Thomas J. Saporito, Jr., was

discriminated against by APS; (4) these

matters could have been settled before

adjudication by DOL; (5) recent other

DOL complaints by Straub and Irick are

indicators that discrimination is the

normal course of business at Palo Verde;

(6) Petitioner Linda Mitchell lives

within 2 air miles of Palo Verde and,

therefore, has standing to intervene in a

hearing before the NRC Atomic Safety

and Licensing Board (Board); (7)

Petitioners Saporito and Florida Energy

Consultants have requisite standing to

intervene in a hearing before a Licensing

Board through Ms. Mitchell; Petitioner

Saporito has requisite standing to

intervene in a hearing before the Board

through Ms. Mitchell; (8) Petitioners are

subject to physical harm and loss of

personal property in the event of a

nuclear accident at Palo Verde as a

direct or indirect result of the hostile

work environment fostered at Palo

Verde; and (9) a hostile work

environment exists and is pervasive at

Palo Verde and is condoned and

fostered by licensee management.

The request for enforcement action

against APS has been granted. For the

reasons discussed in the Director’s

Decision, the remaining requests, other

than those being addressed by Mr.

Russell in his separate Director’s

Decision, have been denied.

A copy of this Decision will be filed

with the Secretary for the Commission’s

review in accordance with 10 CFR

2.206. As provided by this regulation,

the Decision will constitute the final

action of the Commission on the issues

discussed herein 25 days after the date

of issuance of the Decision unless the

Commission on its own motion

institutes a review of the Decision

within that time.

Dated: at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day

of June 1996.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

James Lieberman,

Director, Office of Enforcement.

[FR Doc. 96–15400 Filed 6–17–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

Sunshine Act Meeting

DATES: Weeks of June 17, 24, July 1, and

8, 1996.

PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference

Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,

Maryland.

STATUS: Public and Closed.

MATTERS OF BE CONSIDERED:

Week of June 17

Tuesday, June 18

10:00 a.m.