EXHIBIT 99.1
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001
May 14, 2007
EA-07-123
Mr. Anthony Alexander
Chief Executive Officer
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company
76 South Main Street
Akron, OH 44308
SUBJECT: DEMAND FOR INFORMATION
Dear Mr. Alexander:
The enclosed Demand for Information (DFI) is being issued in response to information provided
by FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) relative to its re-analysis of the timeline
and root causes for the 2002 Davis-Besse reactor pressure vessel head degradation event.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requires information in order to understand and
determine the appropriateness of FENOC's actions following its receipt of a report prepared by
its contractor, Exponent Failure Analysis Associates and Altran Solutions Corporation
(Exponent), that provided a re-analysis of the timeline and root causes of the 2002 Davis Besse
reactor pressure vessel head degradation event (2002 event). In particular, given the
significant changes in the timelines, the NRC needs further detailed and specific information
relative to the timing of FENOC's review of the Exponent Report and the factors it considered
when determining if the conclusions should be communicated to the NRC.
The NRC also needs information to understand the depth and completeness of FENOC's
evaluation of the assumptions, methods, and conclusions of the Exponent Report. In particular,
the NRC requires detailed and specific information with regard to differences between the
assumptions, methods, and conclusions of the Exponent Report and the technical and
programmatic root cause reports previously developed by FENOC relative to the 2002 event.
This information is also needed for the NRC to determine the appropriateness of FENOC's
assessment of the continued adequacy of corrective actions taken in response to the
2002 event.
Finally, the NRC requires information in order to understand FENOC's position regarding a
second contracted report that was prepared for FENOC entitled, "Report of Reactor Pressure
A. Alexander 2
Vessel Wastage at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Plant," dated December 2006. In
particular, the NRC requires detailed and specific information relative to FENOC's assessment
and endorsement of the report's conclusions and the implications of any new positions taken by
FENOC compared to those previously communicated to the NRC in response to the NRC's
Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties, dated April 21, 2005.
You are required to provide a written response to this Demand for Information and should follow
the instructions in Section III of the Demand for Information. In addition, you are requested to
contact Mr. Doug Starkey, of my staff, at 301-415-3456, within 7 days of the date of this letter in
order to identify a date when a management meeting may be held to discuss your written
response to this Demand for Information.
Failure to comply with the provisions of this Demand for Information may result in enforcement
action, including, if appropriate, criminal prosecution in accordance with Section 223 of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter,
its enclosure(s), and your response will be made available electronically for public inspection in the
NRC Public Document Room or from the NRC's document system (ADAMS), accessible from
the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/readinq-rm/adams.html. To the extent possible, your
response should not include any personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information so
that it can be made available to the Public without redaction. If personal privacy or proprietary
information is necessary to provide an acceptable response, please provide a bracketed copy
of your response that identifies the information that should be protected and a redacted copy of
your response that deletes such information. If you request withholding of such information,
you must specifically identify the portions of your response that you seek to have withheld and
provide in detail the bases for your claim of withholding (e.g., explain why the disclosure of
information will create an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy or provide the information
required by 10 CFR 2.390(b) to support a request for withholding confidential commercial or
financial information). If safeguards information is necessary to provide an acceptable
response, please provide the level of protection, described in 10 CFR 73.21.
| | |
| | Sincerely, |
| | |
| | Cynthia A. Carpenter, Director |
| | Office of Enforcement |
Docket Nos. 50-346; 50-440; 50-334; 50-412
License Nos. NPF-3; NPF-58; DPR-66; NPF-73
Enclosure: Demand for Information
cc w/encl: (See Page 3)
A. Alexander 3
cc w/encl: The Honorable George V. Voinovich
The Honorable Dennis Kucinich
J. Lash, Senior Vice President of
Operations and Chief Operating Officer
Richard Anderson, Vice President, Nuclear Support
Mark Bezilla, Site Vice President, Davis-Besse
L. W. Pearce, Site Vice President, Perry
Manager - Site Regulatory Compliance
D. Pace, Senior Vice President of
of Fleet Engineering
J. Rinckel, Vice President, Fleet Oversight
D. Jenkins, Attorney, FirstEnergy
R. Anderson, Vice President, Nuclear Support
Director, Fleet Regulatory Affairs
Manager, Fleet Licensing
Ohio State Liaison Officer
R. Owen, Administrator, Ohio Department of Health
Public Utilities Commission of Ohio
D. Hill, Chief, Radiological Health Program, State of West Virginia
J. Lewis, Commissioner, Division of Labor, State of West Virginia
W. Hill, Beaver County Emergency Management Agency
J. Johnsrud, National Energy Committee, Sierra Club
President, Lucas County Board of Commissioners
President, Ottawa County Board of Commissioners
R. Owen, Ohio Department of Health
M. Clancey, Mayor, Shippingport, PA
D. Allard, PADEF
Ohio State Liaison Officer
Pennsylvania State Liaison Officer
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
In the Matter of
FIRSTENERGY NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY
| (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Plant) | ) | Docket No. 50-346 |
| (Perry Nuclear Power Plant) | ) | 50-440 |
| (Beaver Valley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2) | ) | 50-334 |
| | ) | 50-412 |
| | ) | |
| | ) | License No. NPF-3 |
| | ) | NPF-58 |
| | ) | DPR-66 |
| | ) | NPF-73 |
| | ) | |
| | ) | EA 07-123 |
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.
2
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 4 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
3
the result of ongoing nozzle leakage which had gone undetected for more than 4 years.
FENOC also obtained a second report, dated in December 2006, from 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, NElL sent to FENOC a letter identifying what NElL believed to be potential
safety concerns raised by the Exponent report conclusions. Upon receipt of the NElL 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 NElL
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
4
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;
5
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.
6
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,
7
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 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 |
| | |
| | Cynthia A. Carpenter, Director |
| | Office of Enforcement |
Dated this 14 day of May 2007
