[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 238 (Tuesday, December 13, 2005)]
[Pages 73801-73802]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-7270]



[Docket Nos. 50-334 and 50-412; License Nos. DPR-66 AND NPF-73]

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC), et al.; Notice of 
Issuance of Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206

    Notice is hereby given that the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor 
Regulation, Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) has 
issued a Director's Decision with regard to a petition dated April 12, 
2005, filed by Mr. David Lochbaum, of the Union of Concerned 
Scientists, hereinafter referred to as the ``Petitioner.'' The petition 
concerns the operation of the Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 
and 2 (BVPS-1 and 2).
    The Petitioner requested that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
(NRC or Commission) either (1) take enforcement action against 
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC or the licensee) and 
impose a civil penalty of at least $55,000, or (2) move the license 
renewal application for the Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 
and 2 (BVPS-1 and 2), to the end of the current review queue.
    As a basis for the requests, the Petitioner cited NRC news release 
05-052, dated March 24, 2005, which stated that the NRC returned the 
February 9, 2005, license renewal application submitted by FirstEnergy 
Nuclear Operating Company. The Petitioner quoted a statement made by 
Mr. David Matthews, Director of the Division of Regulatory Improvement 
Programs at NRC:

    The NRC's primary mission is ensuring protection of public 
health and safety, and we cannot do that for an additional 20 years 
of Beaver Valley operation unless we have complete, accurate, and 
up-to-date information on the plant. Given the gaps in the current 
application, we simply could not properly review FirstEnergy's 

    The Petitioner further stated that the licensee's February 9, 2005, 
submittal was not complete and accurate in all material respects and 
that this is a violation of 10 CFR 50.9(a) which requires, in part, 
that information provided to the Commission by a licensee shall be 
complete and accurate in all material respects. The Petitioner stated 
his basis for the alternative sanction of moving the license renewal 
application: Moving the application to the end of the current queue 
would allow time for the licensee to ensure the resubmittal is complete 
and accurate. It would also allow the NRC to review the application 
without requiring additional resources to recheck the resubmittal 
concurrent with other license renewal reviews, which the Petitioner 
stated could compromise the quality of the NRC review.
    The NRC staff performed an acceptance review of the license renewal 
application to determine if sufficient information existed for the NRC 
staff to begin its detailed technical review. The NRC staff determined 
that the application did not contain sufficient detail and therefore 
was not acceptable for docketing. This determination was conveyed to 
the applicant by letter dated March 24, 2005. The licensee responded to 
this letter by letter dated April 19, 2005.
    In an acknowledgment letter dated May 20, 2005, the NRC informed 
the Petitioner that the portion of the petition requesting that 
enforcement action be taken was accepted for review under 10 CFR 2.206 
and had been referred to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation for 
appropriate action.
    The NRC staff sent a copy of the proposed Director's Decision to 
the Petitioner and to the licensee for comment by letters dated 
September 15, 2005. The NRC staff did not receive any comments on the 
proposed Director's Decision.
    The Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation has 
determined that the request to take enforcement action against the 
licensee and impose a civil penalty of at least $55,000 is denied. The 
reasons for this decision are explained in the Director's Decision 
pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 (DD-05-06), the complete text of which is 
available for inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, 
located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, or electronically 
from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) 
Public Electronic Reading Room on the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.
    The Director's Decision addresses (1) whether a violation of NRC 
regulations occurred with respect to the licensee's license renewal 
application and (2) whether enforcement action should be taken.
    With respect to the first issue, the NRC staff concluded that the 
licensee's license renewal application did contain an example of 
incorrect information and that the submission of incorrect information 
in the licensee's application is a violation of 10 CFR 54.13. With 
respect to the second issue, the NRC staff concluded that the violation 
is appropriately classified as minor and pursuant to Section 3.9 of the 
NRC Enforcement Manual, the NRC did not document its identification of 
this minor violation in an inspection report or correspondence to the 
applicant. Further, pursuant to Section 3.9 of the NRC Enforcement 
Manual and the NRC Enforcement Policy, Sections IV.B, VI.A-B, and 
Supplement VII.E, the NRC did not cite this minor violation and did not 
propose a civil penalty.
    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 of the Commission's regulations. As

[[Page 73802]]

provided for by this regulation, the Director's Decision will 
constitute the final action of the Commission 25 days after the date of 
the decision, unless the Commission, on its own motion, institutes a 
review of the director's decision in that time.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of December, 2005.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
J.E. Dyer,
Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E5-7270 Filed 12-12-05; 8:45 am]