Prasoon Goyal; Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC-Licensed Activities (Effective Immediately), 2576-2578 [E6-418]
Download as PDF
2576
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Notices
Counsel either by means of facsimile
transmission to 301–415–3725 or by email to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. If a
person other than Mr. Geisen 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 2.309.
If a hearing is requested by Mr. Geisen
or 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 Order should be
sustained.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(i), Mr.
Goyal, may, in addition to demanding a
hearing, at the time the answer is filed
or sooner, move the presiding officer to
set aside the immediate effectiveness of
the Order on the ground that the Order,
including the need for immediate
effectiveness, is not based on adequate
evidence but on mere suspicion,
unfounded allegations, or error.
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 V above shall be effective
immediately and shall be final 20 days
from the date of this Order without
further order or proceedings. If an
extension of time for requesting a
hearing has been approved, the
provisions specified in Section V shall
be final when the extension expires if a
hearing request has not been received.
Dated this 4th day of January 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Martin J. Virgilio,
Deputy Executive Director for Materials,
Research, State and Compliance Programs,
Office of the Executive Director for
Operations.
[FR Doc. E6–437 Filed 1–13–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[ IA–05–055]
Prasoon Goyal; Order Prohibiting
Involvement in NRC-Licensed
Activities (Effective Immediately)
sroberts on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES
I
Mr. Prasoon Goyal was previously
employed, at times relevant to this
Order, as a Senior Engineer at the DavisBesse Nuclear Power Station (DavisBesse) operated by FirstEnergy Nuclear
Operating Company (FENOC or
licensee). The licensee holds License
No. NPF–3 which was issued by the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:57 Jan 13, 2006
Jkt 208001
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC
or Commission) pursuant to 10 CFR part
50 on April 22, 1977. The license
authorizes the operation of Davis-Besse
in accordance with the conditions
specified therein. The facility is located
on the licensee’s site near Oak Harbor,
Ohio.
II
On August 3, 2001, the NRC issued
Bulletin 2001–001, ‘‘Circumferential
Cracking of Reactor Pressure Vessel
Head Penetration Nozzles,’’ (Bulletin).
In the Bulletin, the NRC requested that
all holders of operating licenses for
pressurized water nuclear power
reactors (PWR), including FENOC for
the Davis-Besse facility, provide
information to the NRC relating to the
structural integrity of the reactor
pressure vessel (RPV) head penetration
nozzles at their respective facilities. The
information requested from the
licensees included the extent of RPV
head penetration nozzle leakage and
cracking that had been found to date, a
description of the inspections and
repairs undertaken to satisfy applicable
regulatory requirements, and the basis
for concluding that a licensee’s plans for
future inspections would ensure
compliance with applicable regulatory
requirements. The NRC also required
that all Bulletin addressees, including
FENOC, submit a written response to
the NRC in accordance with the
provisions of 10 CFR 50.54(f). That
regulation provides, in part, that upon
request of the NRC, an NRC-licensee
must submit written statements, signed
under oath or affirmation, to enable the
NRC to determine whether the license
should be modified, suspended, or
revoked.
On September 4, October 17, and
October 30, 2001, the licensee provided
written responses to the Bulletin.
Additionally, the licensee met with the
NRC staff on numerous occasions
during October and November of 2001
to provide clarifying information. Based,
in part, on the information provided by
FENOC in its written responses to the
Bulletin and during meetings with the
NRC staff, the NRC staff allowed the
licensee to continue operation of the
Davis-Besse facility until February 2002,
rather than requiring FENOC to shut the
unit down to perform inspections by
December 31, 2001, as provided in the
Bulletin.
On February 16, 2002, FENOC shut
down Davis-Besse for refueling and
inspection of control rod drive
mechanism (CRDM) RPV head
penetration nozzles. Using ultrasonic
testing, the licensee found cracks in
three CRDM RPV head penetration
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
nozzles and on March 6, 2002, the
licensee discovered a cavity in the RPV
head in the vicinity of CRDM
Penetration Nozzle No. 3. The cavity
measured approximately 5 to 7 inches
long, 4 to 5 inches wide, and penetrated
through the 6.63 inch-thick low-alloy
steel portion of the RPV head, leaving
the stainless steel cladding material
(measuring 0.202 to 0.314 inches-thick)
as the sole reactor coolant system (RCS)
pressure boundary. A smaller cavity was
also found near CRDM Penetration
Nozzle No. 2.
The licensee conducted a root cause
evaluation and determined, contrary to
the earlier information provided to the
NRC, that the cavities were caused by
boric acid from the RCS released
through cracks in the CRDM RPV head
penetration nozzles. The root cause
evaluation found that the licensee
conducted limited cleaning and
inspections of the RPV head during the
Twelfth Refueling Outage (12RFO) that
ended on May 18, 2000. However,
neither the limited RPV head cleaning
nor the resultant inspections during
12RFO were sufficient to ensure that the
significant boric acid deposits on the
RPV head were only a result of CRDM
flange leakage, as supposed, and were
not a result of RCS pressure boundary
leakage.
On March 6 and March 10, 2002, the
licensee provided information to the
NRC concerning the identification of a
large cavity in the RPV head adjacent to
CRDM Penetration Nozzle No. 3. The
NRC conducted an Augmented
Inspection Team (AIT) inspection at
Davis-Besse from March 12 to April 5,
2002, to determine the facts and
circumstances related to the significant
degradation of the RPV head. The
results of the AIT inspection were
documented in NRC Inspection Report
No. 50–346/2002–03, issued on May 3,
2002. A follow-up Special Inspection
was conducted from May 15 to August
9, 2002, and on October 2, 2002, the
NRC issued the AIT Follow-up Special
Inspection Report No. 50–346/2002–08
documenting ten apparent violations
associated with the RPV head
degradation.
On April 22, 2002, the NRC Office of
Investigations (OI) initiated an
investigation at Davis-Besse to
determine, among other matters,
whether FENOC and individual
employees at the Davis-Besse facility
failed to provide complete and accurate
information to the NRC in its September
4, October 17, and October 30, 2001,
responses to the Bulletin and during
numerous conference calls and meetings
in violation of 10 CFR 50.9 and 10 CFR
50.5(a)(2). The OI report (No. 3–2002–
E:\FR\FM\17JAN1.SGM
17JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Notices
006) was issued on August 22, 2003. A
copy of the OI report was provided to
the U. S. Department of Justice (DOJ),
Office of the United States Attorney,
Northern District of Ohio for review.
The matter remains under continued
Federal investigation.
Mr. Goyal, through the performance of
his engineering duties, through his
direct involvement in the licensee’s
1996 RPV head inspection and cleaning
activities, and through oral and written
communications with other FENOC
employees was aware of the results of
previous RPV head inspections.
• Mr. Goyal was the engineer
responsible for performing the 1996
reactor head inspection during the
Tenth Refueling Outage (10RFO).
During a sworn, transcribed interview
with OI, Mr. Goyal stated that he could
not see the top of the RPV head during
10RFO due to the limited access
through the mouseholes and the
accumulation of boric acid on the RPV
head.
• Mr. Goyal wrote Potential
Condition Adverse to Quality Report
(PCAQR) 96–0551 documenting that the
accumulation of boric acid on the head
and the size of the mouseholes limited
the extent of the inspection. Mr. Goyal
documented in PCAQR 96–0551, in
part:
‘‘Since the boric acid deposits are not
cleaned it is difficult to distinguish whether
the deposits occurred because of the leaking
flanges or the leaking CRDM.’’
‘‘This PCAQR is the quality document
which recorded the boric acid deposit on the
RV head. The deposits were discovered
during the visual inspection of the RV head
performed through the mouseholes utilizing
a video camera. The extent of the inspection
was limited to approximately 50 to 60% of
the head areas because of the restrictions
imposed by the location and sized of
mouseholes. The inspection showed varying
sizes of boric acid mounds scattered in
various areas of head. It is extremely difficult
to develop an estimate of the amount of boric
acid deposit because of the deposit scatter
and limited inspection.’’
sroberts on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES
• Mr. Goyal authored a ‘‘White’’
paper, distributed to other Davis-Besse
staff on May 8, 1996, that discussed
control rod drive nozzle cracking within
the nuclear power industry. Mr. Goyal
documented in the ‘‘White’’ paper, in
part:
‘‘All plants, except Davis-Besse and
Arkansas Nuclear 1, have large access holes
in the skirt area of the service structure to
view/clean the entire head. Davis-Besse’s
access is limited to about 50 percent of the
head area.’’
Several FENOC employees, including
Mr. Prasoon Goyal, were responsible for
the information provided to the NRC by
FENOC in response to the Bulletin.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:57 Jan 13, 2006
Jkt 208001
III
Prasoon Goyal was employed by
FENOC as a senior engineer in the
Design Basis Engineering organization at
Davis-Besse at the time the responses to
the Bulletin were developed and
transmitted to the NRC. Mr. Goyal was
a design engineer and the individual
who reviewed the licensee’s 1996
inspection of the CRDM flanges, and
conducted the licensee’s inspection of
the RPV head and CRDM nozzles during
10RFO.
Mr. Goyal reviewed the October 17,
2001 supplemental response to the
bulletin. On October 17, 2001, Mr.
Goyal concurred as ‘‘Design Basis
Engrg—Mech’’ [Design Basis
Engineering—Mechanical] in the
issuance of the licensee’s October 17,
2001 supplemental response to the
Bulletin.
Item 1.d of the Bulletin requested
each pressurized water reactor (PWR)
licensee, including FENOC for DavisBesse, to provide a description of the
RPV head penetration nozzles and RPV
head inspection (including type, scope,
qualification requirements, and
acceptance criteria) that were performed
at PWRs in the 4 years preceding the
date of the Bulletin, and the findings
resulting from the inspections. The
licensees were requested to include a
description of any limitations
(insulation or other impediments) to
accessibility of the bare metal of the
RPV head for visual examinations.
On September 4, 2001, FENOC
submitted its written response to the
Bulletin for Davis-Besse. On October 17,
2001, FENOC submitted a supplemental
response to the Bulletin for Davis-Besse
and included information not provided
in the September 4, 2001, response with
regard to RPV inspections and cleaning
conducted during 10RFO. Attachment 1
to the licensee’s October 17, 2001,
supplemental response to the Bulletin
stated under the section entitled,
‘‘Summary,’’ in part:
‘‘In May 1996, during a refueling outage,
the RPV head was inspected. No leakage was
identified, and these results have been
recently verified by a re-review of the video
tapes obtained from that inspection.’’
The October 17, 2001, supplemental
response to the Bulletin also stated
under the section entitled, ‘‘Previous
Inspection Results,’’ in part:
‘‘The inspections performed during the
10th, 11th, and 12th Refueling Outage
(10RFO, conducted April 8 to June 2, 1996;
11RFO, conducted April 10, to May 23, 1998;
and, 12RFO, conducted April 1 to May 28,
2000) consisted of a whole head visual
inspection of the RPV head in accordance
with the DBNPS Boric Acid Control Program
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2577
pursuant to Generic Letter 88–05, ‘Boric Acid
Corrosion of Carbon Steel Reactor Pressure
Boundary Components in PWR Plants.’ The
visual inspections were conducted by remote
camera and included below insulation
inspections of the RPV bare head such that
the Control Rod Drive Mechanism (CRDM)
nozzle penetrations were viewed. During
10RFO, 65 of 69 nozzles were viewed, during
11RFO, 50 of 69 nozzles were viewed, and
during 12 RFO, 45 of 69 nozzles were
viewed.’’
Information included under Column 6
of Attachment 2 of the licensee’s
October 17, 2001, supplemental
response stated, in part, that 24 nozzles
have a ‘‘flange leak evident.’’ Note 1 on
the same table stated, in part:
‘‘In 1996 during 10 RFO, the entire RPV
head was inspected. Since the video was
void of head orientation narration, each
specific nozzle view could not be
correlated.’’
The licensee’s October 17, 2001,
supplemental response was materially
incomplete and inaccurate in that the
licensee did not view the stated number
of RPV head penetration nozzles during
the referenced outages, and the licensee
believed that only five RPV head control
rod drive mechanism flanges were
leaking instead of the 24 RPV head
control rod drive mechanism flanges
noted in the response. Mr. Goyal was
aware that the licensee’s October 17,
2001, supplemental response was
materially incomplete and inaccurate
and concurred on the response, thereby
allowing it to be submitted to the NRC.
Based on the above information, the
NRC concludes that Mr. Goyal had
sufficient knowledge of the condition of
the RPV head and the limitations
experienced during the RPV head
inspections conducted during 10RFO,
and notwithstanding that knowledge, he
deliberately provided materially
incomplete and inaccurate information,
when on October 17, 2001, he concurred
on the licensee’s October 17, 2001,
supplemental response to the NRC.
The information provided by the
licensee under oath in the Bulletin
supplemental response was material to
the NRC because the NRC used the
information, in part, to allow FENOC to
operate Davis-Besse until February 2002
rather than requiring the plant to shut
down by December 31, 2001, to conduct
inspections of the head as discussed in
Item 3.v.1. of the Bulletin.
Based on the above information, Mr.
Prasoon Goyal, while employed by the
licensee, engaged in deliberate
misconduct by deliberately providing
incomplete or inaccurate information
that he knew was not complete and
accurate in all material respects to the
NRC, a violation of 10 CFR 50.5(a)(2).
E:\FR\FM\17JAN1.SGM
17JAN1
2578
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Notices
Mr. Goyal’s actions also placed FENOC
in violation of 10 CFR 50.9. The NRC
determined that these violations were of
very high safety and regulatory
significance because they involved a
pattern of deliberate documentation of
inaccurate or incomplete information
that was required to be submitted to the
NRC. Had the NRC been aware of this
incomplete and inaccurate information,
the NRC would likely have taken
immediate regulatory action to shut
down the plant and require the licensee
to implement appropriate corrective
actions.
IV
The NRC must be able to rely on the
licensee and its employees to comply
with NRC requirements, including the
requirement to provide information and
maintain records that are complete and
accurate in all material respects. Mr.
Goyal’s deliberate actions raise serious
doubt as to whether he can be relied
upon to comply with NRC requirements
and to provide complete and accurate
information to the NRC.
Consequently, I lack the requisite
reasonable assurance that licensed
activities can be conducted in
compliance with the Commission’s
requirements and that the health and
safety of the public will be protected if
Mr. Goyal is permitted to be involved in
NRC-licensed activities. Therefore, the
public health, safety and interest require
that Mr. Goyal be prohibited from any
involvement in NRC-licensed activities
for a period of one year effective
immediately. Additionally, Mr. Goyal is
required to notify the NRC of his first
employment in NRC-licensed activities
for a period of one year following the
prohibition period.
sroberts on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES
V
Accordingly, pursuant to sections
103, 104, 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, 10 CFR
50.5, and 10 CFR 150.20, It is hereby
ordered that effective immediately:
1. Mr. Prasoon Goyal is prohibited for
one year from the date of this Order
from engaging in NRC-licensed
activities. The NRC considers NRClicensed activities to be those activities
that are conducted pursuant to a
specific or general license issued by the
NRC, including those activities of
Agreement State licensees conducted
pursuant to the authority granted by 10
CFR 150.20.
2. If Mr. Goyal is currently involved
with another licensee in NRC-licensed
activities, he must immediately cease
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:57 Jan 13, 2006
Jkt 208001
those activities, and inform the NRC of
the name, address and telephone
number of the employer, and provide a
copy of this Order to the employer.
3. For a period of one year after the
one-year period of prohibition has
expired, Mr. Goyal shall, within 20 days
of acceptance of his first employment
offer involving NRC-licensed activities
or his becoming involved in NRClicensed activities, as defined in
Paragraph IV.1 above, provide notice to
the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555, of the name,
address, and telephone number of the
employer or the entity where he is, or
will be, involved in NRC-licensed
activities. In the notification, Mr. Goyal
shall include a statement of his
commitment to compliance with
regulatory requirements and the basis
why the Commission should have
confidence that he will now comply
with applicable NRC requirements.
The Director, Office of Enforcement,
may, in writing, relax or rescind any of
the above conditions upon
demonstration by Mr. Goyal of good
cause.
VI
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202,
Prasoon Goyal must, and any other
person adversely affected by this Order
may, submit an answer to this Order,
and may request a hearing on this Order
within 20 days of the date of this Order,
consideration may be given to extending
the response time for submitting an
answer as well as the time for requesting
a hearing, for good cause shown. A
request for extension of time must be
made in writing to the Director, Office
of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555,
and include a statement of good cause
for the extension. The answer may
consent to this Order. Unless the answer
consents to this Order, the answer shall,
in writing and under oath or
affirmation, specifically admit or deny
each allegation or charge made in this
Order and shall set forth the matters of
fact and law on which Mr. Goyal or
other person adversely affected relies
and the reasons as to why the Order
should not have been issued. Any
answer or request for a hearing shall be
submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Attn:
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff,
Washington, DC 20555. Copies also
shall be sent to the Director, Office of
Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555, to
the Assistant General Counsel for
Materials Litigation and Enforcement at
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the same address, to the Regional
Administrator, NRC Region III, 2443
Warrenville Road, Lisle, IL 60532–4352,
and to Mr. Goyal if the answer or
hearing request is by a person other than
Mr. Goyal. Because of continuing
disruptions in delivery of mail to United
States Government offices, it is
requested that answers and requests for
hearing be transmitted to the Secretary
of the Commission either by means of
facsimile transmission to 301–415–1101
or by e-mail to hearingdocket@nrc.gov
and also to the Office of the General
Counsel either by means of facsimile
transmission to 301–415–3725 or by email to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. If a
person other than the Mr. Goyal
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 2.309.
If a hearing is requested by Mr. Goyal
or 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 Order should be
sustained.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(i), Mr.
Goyal, may, in addition to demanding a
hearing, at the time the answer is filed
or sooner, move the presiding officer to
set aside the immediate effectiveness of
the Order on the ground that the Order,
including the need for immediate
effectiveness, is not based on adequate
evidence but on mere suspicion,
unfounded allegations, or error.
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 V above shall be effective
immediately and final 20 days from the
date of this Order without further order
or proceedings. If an extension of time
for requesting a hearing has been
approved, the provisions specified in
Section V shall be final when the
extension expires if a hearing request
has not been received.
Dated this 4th day of January 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Martin J. Virgilio,
Deputy Executive Director for Materials,
Research, State, and Compliance Programs,
Office of the Executive Director for
Operations.
[FR Doc. E6–418 Filed 1–13–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
E:\FR\FM\17JAN1.SGM
17JAN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 17, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2576-2578]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-418]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[ IA-05-055]
Prasoon Goyal; Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC-Licensed
Activities (Effective Immediately)
I
Mr. Prasoon Goyal was previously employed, at times relevant to
this Order, as a Senior Engineer at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power
Station (Davis-Besse) operated by FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company
(FENOC or licensee). The licensee holds License No. NPF-3 which was
issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission)
pursuant to 10 CFR part 50 on April 22, 1977. The license authorizes
the operation of Davis-Besse in accordance with the conditions
specified therein. The facility is located on the licensee's site near
Oak Harbor, Ohio.
II
On August 3, 2001, the NRC issued Bulletin 2001-001,
``Circumferential Cracking of Reactor Pressure Vessel Head Penetration
Nozzles,'' (Bulletin). In the Bulletin, the NRC requested that all
holders of operating licenses for pressurized water nuclear power
reactors (PWR), including FENOC for the Davis-Besse facility, provide
information to the NRC relating to the structural integrity of the
reactor pressure vessel (RPV) head penetration nozzles at their
respective facilities. The information requested from the licensees
included the extent of RPV head penetration nozzle leakage and cracking
that had been found to date, a description of the inspections and
repairs undertaken to satisfy applicable regulatory requirements, and
the basis for concluding that a licensee's plans for future inspections
would ensure compliance with applicable regulatory requirements. The
NRC also required that all Bulletin addressees, including FENOC, submit
a written response to the NRC in accordance with the provisions of 10
CFR 50.54(f). That regulation provides, in part, that upon request of
the NRC, an NRC-licensee must submit written statements, signed under
oath or affirmation, to enable the NRC to determine whether the license
should be modified, suspended, or revoked.
On September 4, October 17, and October 30, 2001, the licensee
provided written responses to the Bulletin. Additionally, the licensee
met with the NRC staff on numerous occasions during October and
November of 2001 to provide clarifying information. Based, in part, on
the information provided by FENOC in its written responses to the
Bulletin and during meetings with the NRC staff, the NRC staff allowed
the licensee to continue operation of the Davis-Besse facility until
February 2002, rather than requiring FENOC to shut the unit down to
perform inspections by December 31, 2001, as provided in the Bulletin.
On February 16, 2002, FENOC shut down Davis-Besse for refueling and
inspection of control rod drive mechanism (CRDM) RPV head penetration
nozzles. Using ultrasonic testing, the licensee found cracks in three
CRDM RPV head penetration nozzles and on March 6, 2002, the licensee
discovered a cavity in the RPV head in the vicinity of CRDM Penetration
Nozzle No. 3. The cavity measured approximately 5 to 7 inches long, 4
to 5 inches wide, and penetrated through the 6.63 inch-thick low-alloy
steel portion of the RPV head, leaving the stainless steel cladding
material (measuring 0.202 to 0.314 inches-thick) as the sole reactor
coolant system (RCS) pressure boundary. A smaller cavity was also found
near CRDM Penetration Nozzle No. 2.
The licensee conducted a root cause evaluation and determined,
contrary to the earlier information provided to the NRC, that the
cavities were caused by boric acid from the RCS released through cracks
in the CRDM RPV head penetration nozzles. The root cause evaluation
found that the licensee conducted limited cleaning and inspections of
the RPV head during the Twelfth Refueling Outage (12RFO) that ended on
May 18, 2000. However, neither the limited RPV head cleaning nor the
resultant inspections during 12RFO were sufficient to ensure that the
significant boric acid deposits on the RPV head were only a result of
CRDM flange leakage, as supposed, and were not a result of RCS pressure
boundary leakage.
On March 6 and March 10, 2002, the licensee provided information to
the NRC concerning the identification of a large cavity in the RPV head
adjacent to CRDM Penetration Nozzle No. 3. The NRC conducted an
Augmented Inspection Team (AIT) inspection at Davis-Besse from March 12
to April 5, 2002, to determine the facts and circumstances related to
the significant degradation of the RPV head. The results of the AIT
inspection were documented in NRC Inspection Report No. 50-346/2002-03,
issued on May 3, 2002. A follow-up Special Inspection was conducted
from May 15 to August 9, 2002, and on October 2, 2002, the NRC issued
the AIT Follow-up Special Inspection Report No. 50-346/2002-08
documenting ten apparent violations associated with the RPV head
degradation.
On April 22, 2002, the NRC Office of Investigations (OI) initiated
an investigation at Davis-Besse to determine, among other matters,
whether FENOC and individual employees at the Davis-Besse facility
failed to provide complete and accurate information to the NRC in its
September 4, October 17, and October 30, 2001, responses to the
Bulletin and during numerous conference calls and meetings in violation
of 10 CFR 50.9 and 10 CFR 50.5(a)(2). The OI report (No. 3-2002-
[[Page 2577]]
006) was issued on August 22, 2003. A copy of the OI report was
provided to the U. S. Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of the United
States Attorney, Northern District of Ohio for review. The matter
remains under continued Federal investigation.
Mr. Goyal, through the performance of his engineering duties,
through his direct involvement in the licensee's 1996 RPV head
inspection and cleaning activities, and through oral and written
communications with other FENOC employees was aware of the results of
previous RPV head inspections.
Mr. Goyal was the engineer responsible for performing the
1996 reactor head inspection during the Tenth Refueling Outage (10RFO).
During a sworn, transcribed interview with OI, Mr. Goyal stated that he
could not see the top of the RPV head during 10RFO due to the limited
access through the mouseholes and the accumulation of boric acid on the
RPV head.
Mr. Goyal wrote Potential Condition Adverse to Quality
Report (PCAQR) 96-0551 documenting that the accumulation of boric acid
on the head and the size of the mouseholes limited the extent of the
inspection. Mr. Goyal documented in PCAQR 96-0551, in part:
``Since the boric acid deposits are not cleaned it is difficult
to distinguish whether the deposits occurred because of the leaking
flanges or the leaking CRDM.''
``This PCAQR is the quality document which recorded the boric
acid deposit on the RV head. The deposits were discovered during the
visual inspection of the RV head performed through the mouseholes
utilizing a video camera. The extent of the inspection was limited
to approximately 50 to 60% of the head areas because of the
restrictions imposed by the location and sized of mouseholes. The
inspection showed varying sizes of boric acid mounds scattered in
various areas of head. It is extremely difficult to develop an
estimate of the amount of boric acid deposit because of the deposit
scatter and limited inspection.''
Mr. Goyal authored a ``White'' paper, distributed to other
Davis-Besse staff on May 8, 1996, that discussed control rod drive
nozzle cracking within the nuclear power industry. Mr. Goyal documented
in the ``White'' paper, in part:
``All plants, except Davis-Besse and Arkansas Nuclear 1, have
large access holes in the skirt area of the service structure to
view/clean the entire head. Davis-Besse's access is limited to about
50 percent of the head area.''
Several FENOC employees, including Mr. Prasoon Goyal, were
responsible for the information provided to the NRC by FENOC in
response to the Bulletin.
III
Prasoon Goyal was employed by FENOC as a senior engineer in the
Design Basis Engineering organization at Davis-Besse at the time the
responses to the Bulletin were developed and transmitted to the NRC.
Mr. Goyal was a design engineer and the individual who reviewed the
licensee's 1996 inspection of the CRDM flanges, and conducted the
licensee's inspection of the RPV head and CRDM nozzles during 10RFO.
Mr. Goyal reviewed the October 17, 2001 supplemental response to
the bulletin. On October 17, 2001, Mr. Goyal concurred as ``Design
Basis Engrg--Mech'' [Design Basis Engineering--Mechanical] in the
issuance of the licensee's October 17, 2001 supplemental response to
the Bulletin.
Item 1.d of the Bulletin requested each pressurized water reactor
(PWR) licensee, including FENOC for Davis-Besse, to provide a
description of the RPV head penetration nozzles and RPV head inspection
(including type, scope, qualification requirements, and acceptance
criteria) that were performed at PWRs in the 4 years preceding the date
of the Bulletin, and the findings resulting from the inspections. The
licensees were requested to include a description of any limitations
(insulation or other impediments) to accessibility of the bare metal of
the RPV head for visual examinations.
On September 4, 2001, FENOC submitted its written response to the
Bulletin for Davis-Besse. On October 17, 2001, FENOC submitted a
supplemental response to the Bulletin for Davis-Besse and included
information not provided in the September 4, 2001, response with regard
to RPV inspections and cleaning conducted during 10RFO. Attachment 1 to
the licensee's October 17, 2001, supplemental response to the Bulletin
stated under the section entitled, ``Summary,'' in part:
``In May 1996, during a refueling outage, the RPV head was
inspected. No leakage was identified, and these results have been
recently verified by a re-review of the video tapes obtained from
that inspection.''
The October 17, 2001, supplemental response to the Bulletin also
stated under the section entitled, ``Previous Inspection Results,'' in
part:
``The inspections performed during the 10th, 11th, and 12th
Refueling Outage (10RFO, conducted April 8 to June 2, 1996; 11RFO,
conducted April 10, to May 23, 1998; and, 12RFO, conducted April 1
to May 28, 2000) consisted of a whole head visual inspection of the
RPV head in accordance with the DBNPS Boric Acid Control Program
pursuant to Generic Letter 88-05, `Boric Acid Corrosion of Carbon
Steel Reactor Pressure Boundary Components in PWR Plants.' The
visual inspections were conducted by remote camera and included
below insulation inspections of the RPV bare head such that the
Control Rod Drive Mechanism (CRDM) nozzle penetrations were viewed.
During 10RFO, 65 of 69 nozzles were viewed, during 11RFO, 50 of 69
nozzles were viewed, and during 12 RFO, 45 of 69 nozzles were
viewed.''
Information included under Column 6 of Attachment 2 of the
licensee's October 17, 2001, supplemental response stated, in part,
that 24 nozzles have a ``flange leak evident.'' Note 1 on the same
table stated, in part:
``In 1996 during 10 RFO, the entire RPV head was inspected.
Since the video was void of head orientation narration, each
specific nozzle view could not be correlated.''
The licensee's October 17, 2001, supplemental response was
materially incomplete and inaccurate in that the licensee did not view
the stated number of RPV head penetration nozzles during the referenced
outages, and the licensee believed that only five RPV head control rod
drive mechanism flanges were leaking instead of the 24 RPV head control
rod drive mechanism flanges noted in the response. Mr. Goyal was aware
that the licensee's October 17, 2001, supplemental response was
materially incomplete and inaccurate and concurred on the response,
thereby allowing it to be submitted to the NRC.
Based on the above information, the NRC concludes that Mr. Goyal
had sufficient knowledge of the condition of the RPV head and the
limitations experienced during the RPV head inspections conducted
during 10RFO, and notwithstanding that knowledge, he deliberately
provided materially incomplete and inaccurate information, when on
October 17, 2001, he concurred on the licensee's October 17, 2001,
supplemental response to the NRC.
The information provided by the licensee under oath in the Bulletin
supplemental response was material to the NRC because the NRC used the
information, in part, to allow FENOC to operate Davis-Besse until
February 2002 rather than requiring the plant to shut down by December
31, 2001, to conduct inspections of the head as discussed in Item
3.v.1. of the Bulletin.
Based on the above information, Mr. Prasoon Goyal, while employed
by the licensee, engaged in deliberate misconduct by deliberately
providing incomplete or inaccurate information that he knew was not
complete and accurate in all material respects to the NRC, a violation
of 10 CFR 50.5(a)(2).
[[Page 2578]]
Mr. Goyal's actions also placed FENOC in violation of 10 CFR 50.9. The
NRC determined that these violations were of very high safety and
regulatory significance because they involved a pattern of deliberate
documentation of inaccurate or incomplete information that was required
to be submitted to the NRC. Had the NRC been aware of this incomplete
and inaccurate information, the NRC would likely have taken immediate
regulatory action to shut down the plant and require the licensee to
implement appropriate corrective actions.
IV
The NRC must be able to rely on the licensee and its employees to
comply with NRC requirements, including the requirement to provide
information and maintain records that are complete and accurate in all
material respects. Mr. Goyal's deliberate actions raise serious doubt
as to whether he can be relied upon to comply with NRC requirements and
to provide complete and accurate information to the NRC.
Consequently, I lack the requisite reasonable assurance that
licensed activities can be conducted in compliance with the
Commission's requirements and that the health and safety of the public
will be protected if Mr. Goyal is permitted to be involved in NRC-
licensed activities. Therefore, the public health, safety and interest
require that Mr. Goyal be prohibited from any involvement in NRC-
licensed activities for a period of one year effective immediately.
Additionally, Mr. Goyal is required to notify the NRC of his first
employment in NRC-licensed activities for a period of one year
following the prohibition period.
V
Accordingly, pursuant to sections 103, 104, 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, 10 CFR 50.5, and 10 CFR
150.20, It is hereby ordered that effective immediately:
1. Mr. Prasoon Goyal is prohibited for one year from the date of
this Order from engaging in NRC-licensed activities. The NRC considers
NRC-licensed activities to be those activities that are conducted
pursuant to a specific or general license issued by the NRC, including
those activities of Agreement State licensees conducted pursuant to the
authority granted by 10 CFR 150.20.
2. If Mr. Goyal is currently involved with another licensee in NRC-
licensed activities, he must immediately cease those activities, and
inform the NRC of the name, address and telephone number of the
employer, and provide a copy of this Order to the employer.
3. For a period of one year after the one-year period of
prohibition has expired, Mr. Goyal shall, within 20 days of acceptance
of his first employment offer involving NRC-licensed activities or his
becoming involved in NRC-licensed activities, as defined in Paragraph
IV.1 above, provide notice to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, of the name,
address, and telephone number of the employer or the entity where he
is, or will be, involved in NRC-licensed activities. In the
notification, Mr. Goyal shall include a statement of his commitment to
compliance with regulatory requirements and the basis why the
Commission should have confidence that he will now comply with
applicable NRC requirements.
The Director, Office of Enforcement, may, in writing, relax or
rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration by Mr. Goyal of
good cause.
VI
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, Prasoon Goyal must, and any other
person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this
Order, and may request a hearing on this Order within 20 days of the
date of this Order, consideration may be given to extending the
response time for submitting an answer as well as the time for
requesting a hearing, for good cause shown. A request for extension of
time must be made in writing to the Director, Office of Enforcement,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and include a
statement of good cause for the extension. The answer may consent to
this Order. Unless the answer consents to this Order, the answer shall,
in writing and under oath or affirmation, specifically admit or deny
each allegation or charge made in this Order and shall set forth the
matters of fact and law on which Mr. Goyal or other person adversely
affected relies and the reasons as to why the Order should not have
been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to
the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Attn: Rulemakings
and Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 20555. Copies also shall be
sent to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555, to the Assistant General Counsel for
Materials Litigation and Enforcement at the same address, to the
Regional Administrator, NRC Region III, 2443 Warrenville Road, Lisle,
IL 60532-4352, and to Mr. Goyal if the answer or hearing request is by
a person other than Mr. Goyal. Because of continuing disruptions in
delivery of mail to United States Government offices, it is requested
that answers and requests for hearing be transmitted to the Secretary
of the Commission either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-
1101 or by e-mail to hearingdocket@nrc.gov and also to the Office of
the General Counsel either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-
415-3725 or by e-mail to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. If a person other than
the Mr. Goyal 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 2.309.
If a hearing is requested by Mr. Goyal or 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 Order should be
sustained.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(i), Mr. Goyal, may, in addition to
demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or sooner, move
the presiding officer to set aside the immediate effectiveness of the
Order on the ground that the Order, including the need for immediate
effectiveness, is not based on adequate evidence but on mere suspicion,
unfounded allegations, or error.
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 V above shall be effective immediately and final
20 days from the date of this Order without further order or
proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been
approved, the provisions specified in Section V shall be final when the
extension expires if a hearing request has not been received.
Dated this 4th day of January 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Martin J. Virgilio,
Deputy Executive Director for Materials, Research, State, and
Compliance Programs, Office of the Executive Director for Operations.
[FR Doc. E6-418 Filed 1-13-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P