[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 97 (Monday, May 21, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28525-28527]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9715]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-346, 50-440, 50-334, and 50-412; License Nos. NPF-3,
NPF-58, DPR-66, NPF-73; EA 07-123]
In the Matter of First Energy Nuclear Operating Company--Davis-
Besse Nuclear Power Plant, Perry Nuclear Power Plant, and Beaver Valley
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2; Demand for Information
I
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC or licensee) is the
holder of four NRC Facility Operating Licenses issued by the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) pursuant to 10 CFR
part 50, which authorizes the operation of the specifically named
facilities in accordance with the conditions specified in each license.
License No. NPF-3 was issued on April 22, 1977, to operate the Davis-
Besse Nuclear Power Station (Davis-Besse). License No. NPF-58 was
issued on November 13, 1986, to operate the Perry Nuclear Power Plant.
Licenses No. DPR-66 and NPF-73 to operate the Beaver Valley Nuclear
Plant, Units 1 and 2 were issued on July 2, 1976, and August 14,1987,
respectively. The facilities are located on the licensee's properties
near Toledo and Painesville, Ohio, for the Davis-Besse and Perry
Plants, respectively, and near McCandless, Pennsylvania, for the Beaver
Valley Nuclear Plant.
II
On March 8, 2004, the NRC issued a Confirmatory Order to FENOC and
approved restart of the Davis-Besse Plant following substantial
licensee action to evaluate and develop appropriate corrective actions
for the technical and programmatic issues that were associated with the
2002 reactor pressure vessel head degradation event.
On April 21, 2005, the NRC issued a Notice of Violation and
Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties in the amount of 5,450,000
dollars involving violations associated with the 2002 Davis-Besse
reactor pressure vessel head degradation event and the root causes for
the event. On September 14, 2005, FENOC responded to the Notice of
Violation, paid the proposed civil penalty and addressed each of the
violations cited. Its response also addressed FENOC's assessment of the
root cause for each violation. On January 23, 2006, FENOC provided a
supplemental reply to the Notice of Violation.
FENOC obtained a report from its contractor, Exponent Failure
Analysis Associates and Altran Solutions Corporations (Exponent), dated
December 2006, prepared in connection with its claim against Nuclear
Electric Insurance Limited (NEIL), which included an updated analysis
of the timeline and root cause for the 2002 Davis-Besse reactor
pressure vessel head degradation event. A significant conclusion of
this analysis was a determination by Exponent that the time period
between the beginning of substantial leakage from the reactor pressure
vessel head nozzle causing the development of the large cavity next to
the nozzle may have been as short as four months. Previously, FENOC had
conducted its own technical and programmatic root cause evaluations of
the event and concluded that the reactor pressure vessel head cavity
was the result of ongoing nozzle leakage which had gone undetected for
more than four years. FENOC also obtained a second report, dated in
December 2006, from
[[Page 28526]]
another contractor, entitled, ``Report on Reactor Pressure Vessel
Wastage at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Plant.'' This second report
included conclusions that appeared to be inconsistent with FENOC's
previous communications with the NRC and the April 21, 2005, Notice of
Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties associated with
the 2002 Davis-Besse reactor pressure vessel degradation event.
In February 2007, NEIL sent to FENOC a letter identifying what NEIL
believed to be potential safety concerns raised by the Exponent report
conclusions. Upon receipt of the NEIL letter, the Davis-Besse plant
staff generated a condition report in its corrective action program to
document the issue.
During March 2007, the NRC held several conference calls with the
Davis-Besse staff to obtain additional information regarding the
licensee's assessment of the concerns raised in the NEIL letter and to
understand the licensee's planned actions to address the concerns.
By letter dated April 2, 2007, the NRC requested the licensee to
respond, in writing, to four questions regarding information and
conclusions presented in the Exponent Report to assist the NRC in
understanding the assumptions, analysis, and conclusions of the
Exponent Report, and to confirm the information provided during the
March 2007 conference calls.
By letter dated May 2, 2007, FENOC provided a written response to
the NRC's questions. In its response, FENOC stated, among other things,
that the Exponent Report set forth an informed analysis that more
accurately characterizes the timeline of the reactor head degradation
event based upon the use of more recently available test data in
conjunction with detailed analytical modeling. FENOC's response did not
indicate whether it had completed a comprehensive review of the
Exponent Report relative to its previous root cause reports.
The information provided by the licensee regarding the foregoing
did not provide the NRC with sufficient information to determine if
FENOC had conducted a prompt and thorough review of the Exponent
Report. In particular, the NRC needs additional information to
determine whether FENOC conducted a timely and comprehensive analysis
of the assumptions and conclusions of the Exponent Report to assess
their accuracy relative to the technical and programmatic root cause
reports previously developed by FENOC and an assessment of whether the
NRC should have been notified regarding its conclusions. In addition,
FENOC did not provide the NRC with sufficient information to determine
if FENOC endorsed the conclusions of the second contractor report and,
if so, the effect such positions may have regarding its earlier
responses to the April 2005 enforcement actions.
In light of the foregoing, further information is needed for the
Commission to determine whether an Order or other action should be
taken pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, to provide reasonable assurance that
FENOC will continue to operate its licensed facilities in accordance
with the terms of its licenses and the Commission's regulations; in
particular, to assure that:
1. FENOC demonstrates an appropriate focus, centered on the timely
and critical evaluation of information developed internally by FENOC,
by its contractors, and by industry sources which may affect safety
assessments of its operating nuclear fleet;
2. FENOC promptly communicates to the NRC all information that it
develops, receives, or becomes aware of that has the potential to have
a significant impact on public health and safety;
3. FENOC has completed a comprehensive assessment of the
assumptions and conclusions of the Exponent Report and has determined
whether the assumptions and conclusions are consistent with the past
operational experience at the Davis-Besse Plant, the assumptions of the
previous technical and non-technical root cause reports developed by
FENOC as a part of its assessment of the 2002 reactor pressure vessel
head degradation event; and the corrective actions developed and
implemented by FENOC and relied upon by the NRC as a basis for the
restart of the Davis-Besse Plant.
4. FENOC has completed a comprehensive assessment of the
conclusions of its contractor's report, entitled, ``Report on Reactor
Pressure Vessel Wastage at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Plant,'' and
has determined whether the root cause reports and licensee event
reports related to the 2002 reactor pressure vessel head degradation
event and the responses to the NRC Notice of Violation and Proposed
Imposition of Civil Penalties dated April 21, 2005, should be updated
to ensure they are complete and accurate in all material respects.
III
Accordingly, pursuant to sections 161c, 161o, 182 and 186 of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations
in 10 CFR 2.204 and 10 CFR 50.54(f), in order to determine whether your
licenses should be modified, suspended or revoked, or other action
should be taken, the licensee is required to submit to the Director,
Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555-0001, with copies to the Assistant General Counsel for
Materials Litigation and Enforcement at the same address, to the
Regional Administrator, NRC Region III, 2443 Warrenville, Road, Suite
210, Lisle, IL 60532-4352 and to the Resident Inspectors, within 30
days of the date of this Demand for Information the following
information, in writing, and under oath or affirmation:
A. A detailed discussion of the process used, the specific
information evaluated, and the conclusions reached as a part of FENOC's
assessment of the Exponent Report, upon receipt or subsequently, to
determine if the Exponent Report assumptions, analyses, conclusions, or
other related information, should have been reported to the NRC in a
more prompt manner. Your response shall include sufficient information
for the NRC to assess how FENOC evaluated the significant differences
between the crack growth and leakage timelines developed in the
Exponent Report and previous root cause reports.
B. A detailed discussion of the differences in assumptions,
analyses, conclusions, and other related information of the Exponent
Report and previous technical and programmatic root cause reports,
developed following the 2002 Davis-Besse reactor pressure vessel head
degradation event. Your response shall address, among other matters you
believe warranted, differences between the operational experience data,
such as the origin and presence of boric acid deposits and corrosion
products on air coolers, radiation filters, the reactor vessel head,
and other components in the containment, and the Exponent Report
assumptions for these items. Your response shall also indicate if
differences in the Exponent Report assumptions, analyses, information,
or conclusions and previous root cause reports demonstrate a need for
any new or different corrective actions relative to the 2002 Davis-
Besse reactor pressure vessel head degradation event and related
issues. Your response shall also address the impact on the continued
effectiveness of your corrective actions.
C. With regard to the ``Report on Reactor Pressure Vessel Wastage
at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Plant,'' dated December 2006, indicate
if
[[Page 28527]]
FENOC endorses the report's conclusions. If so, your response shall set
forth your assessment of whether this position is in conflict with
previous root cause and licensee event reports regarding the 2002
Davis-Besse reactor pressure vessel head degradation event and FENOC's
responses to the NRC Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of
Civil Penalties, dated April 21, 2005. Your response shall also address
the impact on the continued effectiveness of your corrective actions.
After reviewing your response, the NRC will determine whether
further action is necessary to ensure compliance with regulatory
requirements.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Dated this 14th day of May, 2007.
Cynthia A. Carpenter,
Director, Office of Enforcement.
[FR Doc. E7-9715 Filed 5-18-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P