[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 247 (Tuesday, December 27, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-31776]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: December 27, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50-529, and STN 50-530]
Arizona Public Service Company, et al.; Palo Verde Nuclear
Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3; Receipt of Petition for
Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206
Notice is hereby given that by petition dated November 14, 1994,
Florida Energy Consultants, Inc. (FEC) and Linda E. Mitchell
(petitioners), in a petition signed by Mr. Thomas J. Saporito, Jr.,
request that they be granted (1) an administrative public hearing
before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Atomic Safety and
Licensing Board (Board) and (2) leave to intervene in such a hearing.
The petitioners also request that the NRC (3) issue a confirmatory
order requiring the Arizona Public Service Company, et al. (licensee)
to immediately bring all three units at the Palo Verde Nuclear
Generating Station to 0 percent power until such time as the licensee
can demonstrate corrective actions obviating any inference of a hostile
work environment and (4) issue a demand for information (DFI) to the
licensee seeking an explanation as to why the NRC can have confidence
that the licensee will ensure that an environment exists free of
harassment, intimidation, and discrimination, both in general
throughout its organization and in particular with respect to certain
named individuals. In addition, with respect to these individuals, the
NRC interprets the petition as also requesting that the NRC require the
licensee to provide (5) a description of these individuals' current
employment duties and responsibilities, (6) an explanation as to why
the NRC can have confidence that these individuals will comply with NRC
requirements, (7) information as to why the Commission should not take
action to prohibit these individuals from being involved in NRC-
licensed activities, (8) information as to why the NRC should have
reasonable assurance that these individuals will abide by NRC
regulations that protect individuals who engage in protected
activities, and (9) any other information the licensee believes to be
relevant to the Commission's decision in this matter.
The petitioners assert as a basis for their requests that the
licensee has been the subject of numerous complaints filed under the
Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 and adjudicated by the Department of
Labor under the employee protection provisions found in 29 CFR part 24.
In addition, the petitioners assert that a hostile work environment is
pervasive and encompasses all three units at Palo Verde, as well as
being condoned and fostered by license management to dissuade employees
at Palo Verde from identifying safety concerns internally or directly
to NRC representatives. The petitioners also assert that they are
subject to physical harm and the loss of personal property should Palo
Verde experience a nuclear accident as a direct or indirect result of
the hostile work environment at this facility.
The petitioners' current requests are similar to those in a
petition dated May 12, 1993, as supplemented on May 28, 1993, in which
Mr. Saporito requested that the NRC institute a proceeding pursuant to
10 CFR 2.202 to modify, suspend, or revoke the Palo Verde Nuclear
Generating Station operating licenses; initiate actions to immediately
shut down the three nuclear reactors at Palo Verde; take escalated
enforcement action against the licensee and/or licensee management
personnel; and take immediate actions to cause an exhaustive survey of
licensee employees at Palo Verde to ascertain the scope and breadth of
any chilling effect that may exist at the nuclear station and to
discover if licensee management actions, if any, were effective in
limiting any chilling effect at the nuclear station. In addition, the
bases for the petitioners' current requests are similar to those in Mr.
Saporito's request of May 12, 1993. Mr. Saporito asserted as bases for
his prior requests, in part, that the licensee had violated 10 CFR
50.7, ``Employee Protection''; alleged that the licensee had a
reputation for leading the nation in whistleblower complaints; pointed
to the Department of Labor discrimination cases involving licensee
employees, Linda Mitchell and Sarah Thomas, and the resulting issuance
by the NRC of a notice of violation and proposed imposition of civil
penalties on September 20, 1992; and asserted continuing discrimination
by the licensee against the petitioner in denying him employment at the
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station. Since the requests of May 12,
1993, and November 14, 1994, are similar, the staff is addressing the
current petition together with the petition of May 12, 1993, as
supplemented, for purposes of preparing a director's decision. The
petition has been referred to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206. As provided by Section 2.206, appropriate
action will be taken with regard to the specific issues raised by the
petition in a reasonable time.
Copies of the petition are available for inspection at the
Commission's Public Document Room at 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC
20555 and local public document room at the Phoenix Public Library, 12
East McDowell Road, Phoenix, Arizona 85004.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 20th day of December 1994.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
William T. Russell,
Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 94-31776 Filed 12-23-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M