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, 28525-28527 [E7-9715]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 97 / Monday, May 21, 2007 / Notices
1. Proposed Rule: Section 701.2 of
NCUA’s Rules and Regulations, Federal
Credit Union Bylaws.
2. Proposed Rule: Interpretive Ruling
and Policy Statement (IRPS) 07–1,
Section 701.1 of NCUA’s Rules and
Regulations, Amendments to NCUA’s
Chartering and Field of Membership
Policies.
3. Final Rule: Part 701 of NCUA’s
Rules and Regulations, Technical
Amendments.
Recess: 11:15 a.m.
Time and Date: 11:30 a.m., Thursday,
May 24, 2007.
Place: Board Room, 7th Floor, Room
7047, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA
22314–3428.
Status: Closed.
Matters to be Considered:
1. Action under Section 205 of the
Federal Credit Union Act. Closed
pursuant to Exemptions (6), (7), and (8).
For Further Information Contact:
Mary Rupp, Secretary of the Board,
Telephone: 703–518–6304.
Mary Rupp,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 07–2548 Filed 5–17–07; 2:15 am]
BILLING CODE 7535–01–M
THE NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE
ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES
Meetings of Humanities Panel
Heather C. Gottry,
Acting Advisory Committee, Management
Officer.
[FR Doc. E7–9717 Filed 5–18–07; 8:45 am]
The National Endowment for
the Humanities.
ACTION: Notice of meetings.
AGENCY:
Pursuant to the provisions of
the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(Pub. L. 92–463, as amended), notice is
hereby given that the following
meetings of Humanities Panels will be
held at the Old Post Office, 1100
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20506.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Heather C. Gottry, Acting Advisory
Committee Management Officer,
National Endowment for the
Humanities, Washington, DC 20506;
telephone (202) 606–8322. Hearingimpaired individuals are advised that
information on this matter may be
obtained by contacting the
Endowment’s TDD terminal on (202)
606–8282.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
proposed meetings are for the purpose
of panel review, discussion, evaluation
and recommendation on applications
for financial assistance under the
National Foundation on the Arts and the
Humanities Act of 1965, as amended,
including discussion of information
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:57 May 18, 2007
Jkt 211001
given in confidence to the agency by the
grant applicants. Because the proposed
meetings will consider information that
is likely to disclose trade secrets and
commercial or financial information
obtained from a person and privileged
or confidential and/or information of a
personal nature the disclosure of which
would constitute a clearly unwarranted
invasion of personal privacy, pursuant
to authority granted me by the
Chairman’s Delegation of Authority to
Close Advisory Committee meetings,
dated July 19, 1993, I have determined
that these meetings will be closed to the
public pursuant to subsections (c) (4),
and (6) of section 552b of Title 5, United
States Code.
1. Date: June 1, 2007.
Time: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Room: 415.
Program: This meeting will review
applications for The IMLS/NEH Digital
Partnership Advancing Knowledge I,
submitted to the Division of
Preservation and Access, at the March
27, 2007 deadline.
2. Date: June 12, 2007.
Time: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Room: 415.
Program: This meeting will review
applications for The IMLS/NEH Digital
Partnership Advancing Knowledge II,
submitted to the Division of
Preservation and Access, at the March
27, 2007 deadline.
BILLING CODE 7536–01–P
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
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
28525
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
E:\FR\FM\21MYN1.SGM
21MYN1
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
28526
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 97 / Monday, May 21, 2007 / Notices
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 DavisBesse 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:57 May 18, 2007
Jkt 211001
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 DavisBesse 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
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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
E:\FR\FM\21MYN1.SGM
21MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 97 / Monday, May 21, 2007 / Notices
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.
1724 F Street, NW., Room F–220,
Washington, DC 20508. The telephone
number is (202) 395–6971, the facsimile
number is (202) 395–9481, and the
e-mail address is
FR0711@USTR.EOP.GOV. Public
versions of all documents relating to
this Review will be available for
examination approximately 30 days
after the pertinent due date, by
appointment, in the USTR public
reading room, 1724 F Street, NW.,
Washington, DC. Availability of
documents may be ascertained, and
appointments may be made from 9:30
a.m. to noon and 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, by calling (202)
395–6186.
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]
2007 Annual GSP Review
The GSP regulations (15 CFR part
2007) provide the timetable for
conducting an annual review, unless
otherwise specified by Federal Register
notice. Notice is hereby given that, in
order to be considered in the 2007
Annual GSP Product and Country
Eligibility Practices Review, all petitions
to modify the list of articles eligible for
duty-free treatment under GSP or to
review the GSP status of any beneficiary
developing country, with the exception
of petitions requesting CNL waivers,
must be received by the GSP
Subcommittee of the Trade Policy Staff
Committee no later than 5 p.m. on June
22, 2007. Petitions requesting CNL
waivers must be received by the GSP
Subcommittee of the Trade Policy Staff
Committee no later than 5 p.m. on
November 16, 2007 in order to be
considered in the 2007 Annual Review.
Petitions submitted after the respective
deadlines will not be considered for
review.
Interested parties, including foreign
governments, may submit petitions to:
(1) Designate additional articles as
eligible for GSP benefits, including to
designate articles as eligible for GSP
benefits only for countries designated as
least-developed beneficiary developing
countries, or only for countries
designated as beneficiary sub-Saharan
African countries under the African
Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA);
(2) withdraw, suspend or limit the
application of duty-free treatment
accorded under the GSP with respect to
any article, either for all beneficiary
developing countries, least-developed
beneficiary developing countries or
beneficiary sub-Saharan African
countries, or for any of these countries
individually; (3) waive the ‘‘competitive
need limitations’’ for individual
beneficiary developing countries with
respect to specific GSP-eligible articles
(these limits do not apply to either least-
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
TRADE REPRESENTATIVE
Generalized System of Preferences
(GSP): Notice Regarding the Initiation
of the 2007 Annual GSP Product and
Country Eligibility Practices Review
and Change in Deadlines for Filing
Certain Petitions
Office of the United States
Trade Representative.
ACTION: Notice and solicitation for
public petition.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This notice announces that
the Office of the United States Trade
Representative (USTR) will receive
petitions in 2007 to modify the list of
products that are eligible for duty-free
treatment under the GSP program, and
to modify the GSP status of certain GSP
beneficiary developing countries
because of country practices. This
notice further determines that the
deadline for submission of product
petitions, other than those requesting
competitive need limitation (CNL)
waivers, and country practice petitions
for the 2007 Annual GSP Product and
Country Eligibility Practices Review is
5 p.m., June 22, 2007. The deadline for
submission of product petitions
requesting CNL waivers is 5 p.m.,
November 16, 2007. The list of product
petitions and country practice petitions
accepted for review will be announced
in the Federal Register at later dates.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Contact the GSP Subcommittee of the
Trade Policy Staff Committee, Office of
the United States Trade Representative,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:57 May 18, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
28527
developed beneficiary developing
countries or AGOA beneficiary subSaharan African countries); and (4)
otherwise modify GSP coverage.
As specified in 15 CFR 2007.1, all
product petitions must include a
detailed description of the product and
the subheading of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)
under which the product is classified.
Further, product petitions requesting
CNL waivers for GSP-eligible articles
from beneficiary developing countries
that exceed the CNLs in 2007 must be
filed in the 2007 Annual Review. In
order to allow petitioners an
opportunity to review additional 2007
U.S. import statistics, these petitions
may be filed after June 22, 2007, but
must be received on or before the
November 16, 2007, deadline described
above in order to be considered in the
2007 Annual Review. Copies will be
made available for public inspection
after the November 16, 2007, deadline.
Any person may also submit petitions
to review the designation of any
beneficiary developing country,
including any least-developed
beneficiary developing country, with
respect to any of the designation criteria
listed in sections 502(b) or 502(c) of the
Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2462(b) and (c))
(petitions to review the designation of
beneficiary sub-Saharan African
countries are considered in the Annual
Review of the AGOA, a separate
administrative process not governed by
the GSP regulations). Such petitions
must comply with the requirements of
15 CFR 2007.0(b).
Requirements for Submissions
All such submissions must conform to
the GSP regulations set forth at 15 CFR
part 2007, except as modified below.
These regulations are reprinted in the
‘‘U.S. Generalized System of Preferences
Guidebook’’ (February 2007) (‘‘GSP
Guidebook’’), available at https://
www.ustr.gov/assets/
Trade_Development/
Preference_Programs/GSP/
asset_upload_file412_8359.pdf.
Any person or party making a
submission is strongly advised to review
the GSP regulations. Submissions that
do not provide the information required
by sections 2007.0 and 2007.1 of the
GSP regulations will not be accepted for
review, except upon a detailed showing
in the submission that the petitioner
made a good faith effort to obtain the
information required. Petitions with
respect to waivers of the ‘‘competitive
need limitations’’ must meet the
information requirements for product
addition requests in section 2007.1(c) of
the GSP regulations. A model petition
E:\FR\FM\21MYN1.SGM
21MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 97 (Monday, May 21, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28525-28527]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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
