ML060170472

SECY-05-0060, for the Commissioners from Reyes, Proposed $5,450,000 Civil Penalty to Firstenergy Nuclear Operating Company Concerning Violations at Davis Besse Nuclear Power Station

ML060170472
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse
Issue date:	04/13/2005
From:	Reyes L A NRC/EDO
To:	NRC/OCM
References
EA-03-025, EA-05-066, EA-05-067, EA-05-068, EA-05-069, EA-05-070, EA-05-071, EA-05-072, FOIA/PA-2005-0261 SECY-05-0060
Download: ML060170472 (41)

Text

In I 4 , ; -: " : NOTE: SENSITIVE INSORMATIO LIMITED TO NR ESS THE COM F416 N DETERMINES OTHERW[April 13. 2005 FOR: FROM: POLICY ISSUE (Information)

The Commissioners SECY-05-0060 Luis A. Reyes Executive Director for Operations

SUBJECT:

PROPOSED $5,450,000 CIVIL PENALTY TO FIRSTENERGY

-NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY CONCERNING VIOLATIONS AT DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION (EAs03-025; 05-066;05-067; 05-068;05-069; 05-070;05-071;05-072)PURPOSE: To consult with the Commission regarding issuance of the proposed Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties in the cumulative amount of $5,450,000.

Consultation with the Commission is required, in-accordance with Sections llI.(2) & IV.5.b of the enforcement policy, since the proposed penalties are in excess of three times the Severity Level I values shown in Table 1A of the policy and include a penalty for a violation processed under the reactor oversight process (ROP).

SUMMARY

Based on information developed during a U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) special inspection and an NRC Office of Investigation's (01) Investigation at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (Davis-Besse) regarding degradation of the reactor vessel head, the NRC staff has determined that nine violations of NRC requirements occurred.

The NRC staff has determined that all of the violations were associated with a RED Significance Determination CONTACTS:

Chris Nolan, OE 301-415-3360 Doug Starkey, OE 301-415-3456 NOTE SENSITIVE INFOR ATIONz -MITED TO NRC UILSSTHE COMm I DETERMINES OTHERWIS Information in this record was de.;:.e in accordance with th Freedom of Infgrmation Act, exemptions FOIA. 20S222J-01 6\1 3 The Commissioners Process (SDP) finding. As a result, a cumulative civil penalty in the amount of $ 5,450,000 is proposed as outlined in the following paragraphs and in the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties.

BACKGROUND:

On February 16, 2002, FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company's (FENOC) Davis-Besse Station shut down for refueling and inspection of control rod drive mechanism reactor pressure vessel head penetration nozzles. On February 27 and March 5, 2002, the licensee notified the NRC that their evaluation of ultrasonic test data, for axial indications in three control rod drive mechanism nozzles, confirmed that there was reactor pressure boundary leakage. During repair of one of the nozzles on March 6, 2002, the nozzle became loose in the reactor pressure vessel head. Further investigation revealed a cavity adjacent to a control rod drive penetration nozzle approximately 5 to 7 inches long and 4 to 5 inches wide. Within this area, the 6.63 inch-thick low-alloy steel head had been corroded away, leaving only the stainless steel cladding layer on the inside of the reactor vessel head. A similar but much smaller cavity was subsequently identified at the location of one of the other leaking nozzles.The NRC dispatched an Augmented Inspection Team (AIT) to Davis-Besse on March 12, 2002, to determine the facts and circumstances related to the significant degradation of the reactor vessel head pressure boundary.

On March 13, 2002, the NRC issued a Confirmatory Action Letter to FENOC, documenting FENOC's agreement to fully investigate and repair the damage and to obtain NRC authorization prior to resuming operations.

The AIT report was issued on May 3, 2002.On April 22, 2002, 01, Region Ill, initiated an investigation to determine whether FENOC personnel at Davis-Besse willfully violated NRC requirements regarding the reactor vessel head issue. 01 report number 3-2002-006, issued on August 22, 2003, substantiated several allegations of willfully violating NRC requirements.

On May 15, 2002, NRC staff began a special inspection at Davis-Besse focused on compliance with NRC regulations as they relate to the facts and circumstances documented in the AIT report. Inspection Report No. 50-346/02-08(DRS) was issued on October 2, 2002. The report documented ten findings, of which all were considered apparent violations of NRC requirements.

Some of these apparent violations included multiple examples.

Those findings included:

operating the reactor with prohibited pressure boundary leakage; failure to take effective action to correct multiple identified safety concerns; inadequacies in the boric acid corrosion control procedure; failure to effectively Implement the boric acid corrosion control procedure and the corrective action procedure; and multiple examples of inaccurate or incomplete information in letters to the NRC or records required by the NRC to be maintained onsite. At the time of the issuance of the inspection report, the NRC staff had not made a final determination as to the safety significance of the reactor vessel head degradation.

On February 25, 2003, the staff notified the licensee of the NRC's preliminary determination that the performance deficiency resulting in the reactor pressure vessel head degradation and control rod drive mechanism nozzle cracking had high safety significance in the RED range.NO .ITIVE INFOR9N -LIMITED TOY UNLESS T OMMISSI'N D RMI T WHER I The Commissioners The February 25h letter provided FENOC an opportunity to request a Regulatory Conference.

In lieu of a Regulatory Conference, FENOC submitted a written response dated April 24, 2003, which did not contest the RED finding or the safety significance determination.

In the Final Significance Determination letter to the licensee dated May 29, 2003, the staff concluded that FENOC's response of April 24, 2003, provided no new information to change the NRC staffs preliminary conclusion that the performance deficiency resulting in the reactor pressure vessel head degradation and control rod drive mechanism nozzle cracking had high safety significance in the RED range.The staffs May 29, 2003, letter to the licensee expressly stated that the safety significance is only one of the inputs into the final characterization and resolution of the apparent violations described in the AIT Inspection Followup Report and that the NRC's investigation into the cause of those apparent violations, which was referred to 01, is ongoing. The letter also informed the licensee that the results of the 01 investigation would be factored into the final enforcement deliberations and that the number and nature of those violations could change as a result of further NRC review. As a result, no Notice of Violation was issued concurrent with the May 29t letter. Based on the results of the 01 investigation and after coordination with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the staff proposes to go forward with the issuance of violations to the licensee.

The violations are described in the enclosed proposal.DISCUSSION:

The violations associated with the enforcement action fall within three categories, namely: (1) violations associated with the RED finding that are normally processed under the ROP;(2) willful and non-willful violations of` 0 CFR 50.9, Completeness and accuracy of information, 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI, Corrective action, and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, Instructions, procedures, and drawings, that are processed under the traditional enforcement program; and (3) a single individual action for a violation of 10 CFR 50.5,"Deliberate misconduct." The investigation of violations determined to be willful is discussed in 01 report No. 3-2002-006.

The first category involves the numerous violations associated with the RED finding related to the reactor vessel head wastage event finding issued on May 29, 2003. The performance deficiency was determined to be the licensee's failure to properly implement the boric acid corrosion control and corrective action programs, which allowed reactor coolant system pressure boundary leakage to occur undetected for a prolonged period of time, resulting in reactor pressure vessel head degradation and control rod drive nozzle circumferential cracking.Central to the significance of this finding is the licensee's violation of Technical Specification (TS) 3.4.6.2.a which requires, in part, that the licensee shall limit primary coolant operational leakage to "No Pressure Boundary Leakage" during Modes 1 through 4. From at least May 18, 2000, to February 16, 2002, the licensee violated this TS requirement when it operated Davis-Besse in Modes I through 4 with pressure boundary leakage through the control rod drive mechanisms.

Based on the significance and continuing nature of this violation the staff has proposed a civil penalty for this violation.

NOTE: SENSITIVE I ATION -LIMIT EDL NRC UN co ON INES OT SE

.1 The Commissioners The NRC on past occasions has exercised discretion and not cited violations against the TS leakage requirement because this leakage has typically been identified at the end of the operating cycle and the licensee had no prior knowledge and, therefore, no opportunity to take the required actions. For these cases, no performance deficiency has been identified under the ROP. For this Davis-Besse Enforcement Action, a performance deficiency was identified in that there is substantial evidence of failures in the licensee's quality assurance program and management controls which resulted in a condition where the licensee either knew or should have known that there was uncorrected reactor coolant system pressure boundary leakage prior to entry into Mode 4 operations on May 18, 2000. There are additional violations associated with the RED finding that are included in the enclosed proposal.

The staff is not proposing separate civil penalties for any of the additional violations.

The second category includes four willful violations of NRC requirements for which the staff is proposing civil penalties.

Based upon the 01 investigation, the staff determined that the apparent violations associated with the failure to properly implement the boric acid control program, the failure to properly implement the corrective action program, including failures to adequately remove boric acid and rust deposits from the reactor vessel head, the decision to return to power from a refueling outage with those deposits on the reactor vessel head, and the failure to provide complete and accurate information concerning those issues were willful violations.

Given a complete and accurate understanding of the condition, the NRC would not have allowed the licensee to re-start the plant following the previous outage or would have issued a shutdown order had the NRC learned of this information while the unit was operating.

Instead, the licensee continued to operate Davis-Besse until February 16, 2002.There are two additional violations related to the completeness and accuracy of information that will be noticed with no associated civil penalty.The third category includes the issuance of an order banning an individual from all NRC-licensed activities for a period of 5 years for.a violation of 10 CFR 50.5, 'Deliberate misconduct," for the individual's role in providing inaccurate information included in a Condition Report which stated that accumulated boron deposited between the reactor head and the thermal insulation was removed during the cleaning process, when, in fact, the individual knew that the accumulated boron deposits were not removed from all areas between the reactor head and the thermal insulation.

The individual also documented in a completed Work Order that boron accumulation was cleaned from the top of the reactor head and on top of the insulation, without deviation, when, in fact, the individual knew that boric acid deposits were left on the head after the cleaning was completed.

The ban will not be immediately effective and the NRC will consider granting an extension to the individual to answer the order and request a hearing until after the DOJ completes its actions in the related criminal cases. Currently, the individual is not involved in NRC-regulated activities.

Because this will be the only individual action issued on this event to date and it involves an individual in a non-supervisory position, the staff recognizes a potential for criticism from external stakeholders regarding the absence of individual actions to members of the licensee's management.

The staffs decision to move forward was based on concern regarding the egregiousness of the individual's actions and the running Statute of Limitations (SOL).NOTE: SENSITIVE INFO T -LIMITED TO NRC UNLESS THE COMMISSION a/Di t *MNSO W The Commissioners The willful violations described above are associated with issues that were referred to DOJ.The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) (53 FR 50317; December 14,1988) between the NRC and DOJ states that if the NRC concludes that regulatory action is necessary in the public interest, the NRC shall first consult with DOJ concerning its contemplated action. The staff previously concluded that there was no imminent health and safety need requiring immediate action. With respect to this enforcement action, the NRC has accomplished this consultation per the MOU.1'.-S.This will be the first time that the Commission will exercise its discretion to issue a civil penalty for a violation processed under the ROP and given a color under the SDP. While a civil penalty is not usually considered for issues evaluated under the SDP, absent actual consequences, the NRC considers this RED finding to be of significant regulatory concern and, accordingly, the staff is proposing a civil penalty.In determining the base value of the proposed civil penalty, the NRC considered the risk, safety significance and economic benefit that FENOC gained by operating Davis-Besse with primary coolant pressure boundary leakage, during the previous operating cycle and from January 1, 2002, until February 16, 2002. For these reasons the staff proposes the issuance of a$5,450,000 civil penalty for the related violations.

The penalty is based on $5,000,000 for the continuing violation of the TS limit on reactor coolant system pressure boundary leakage and$450,000 for the four willful violations of NRC requirements associated with corrective actions, adherence to procedures, and Incomplete and inaccurate information, i.e., $110,000 each for three of the violations and $120,000 for the fourth violation. (The maximum civil penalty increased from $110,000 to $120,000 on November 2, 2000.)In determining the amount of the civil penalty for the violation of the TS leakage limit, the staff considered that the violation continued for an entire operating cycle which started on May 18, 2000, and ended on February 16, 2002. Since this violation is central to the significance of the RED finding, the staff considered that a civil penalty cited at the maximum statutory limit for every day of violation would be approximately

$75,000,000.

The staff considered that the licensee experienced substantial adverse economic Impact resulting from their extended outage to replace the reactor vessel head and make improvements to satisfy NRC requirements and concerns.

The staff does not consider its approach in assessing the civil penalty to be punitive, but rather deterrence to emphasize the importance of compliance with requirements and to NO SENSITIVE INFORMATION

-LIMITED TO NRC UNLES THE COMMISSION

/E NE' E The Commissioners encourage prompt identification and comprehensive correction of violations.

Therefore, the staff determined that for the significance of this issue a $5,000,000 civil penalty would be an appropriate deterrent.

If approved, this civil penalty will be the largest civil penalty ever proposed by the NRC. The previous highest civil penalty was proposed to Dominion Nuclear Connecticut (then Northeast Nuclear Energy Company) on December 10, 1997, in the amount of $2,100,000 for violations at Millstone Units 1, 2, and 3. The Millstone violations involved longstanding deficiencies in engineering programs and practices and the failure to either identify deficiencies or take appropriate corrective actions in a timely manner to address known deficiencies, including design-related issues.If the Commission does not direct otherwise, the staff intends to issue the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties to the licensee, after completing coordination with DOJ, by April 22, 2005.COORDINATION:

The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this Commission paper and has no legal objection.

The Department of Justice will be consulted concerning this matter prior to issuance.NOTE: This paper and its issues should not be publicly disclosed because the matter involves predecisional enforcement issues.Luis A. Reyes Executive Director for Operations Attachments:

1. Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty 2. Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC-Licensed Activities DISTRIBUTION:

Commissioners EDO DOC REGIONS OGC SECY OPA OCA CFO NOTE: S N -LTO N UNLES SION/E RMINES OTHERWISE

+ & 1A UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

• WASHINGTON, DC 20555 -0001 E 0 0 A-EA-03-025; EA-05-066; EA-05-067; EA-05-068; EA-05-069; EA-05-070; EA-05-071; EA-05-072 Mr. Gary Leidich, President FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company 76 S. Main St.Akron, OH 44308

SUBJECT:

NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY -$5,450,000; (NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS REPORT NO. 3-2002-006; NRC SPECIAL INSPECTION REPORT NO. 50-346/2002-08(DRS));

DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION

Dear Mr. Leidich:

This refers to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) inspections and investigations relative to the significant degradation of the reactor pressure vessel head identified at the FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company's (FENOC) Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station in February and March 2002. Based upon the discovery of the reactor pressure vessel head degradation, the NRC issued Confirmatory Action Letter Number 3-02-001 to Davis-Besse documenting six commitments required to be accomplished prior to restarting of the reactor.The NRC also chartered an Augmented Inspection Team (AIT) inspection of the reactor pressure vessel degradation, the results of which were documented in Inspection Report No. 50-346/2002-03, issued on May 3, 2002. 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 reactor pressure vessel degradation.

In a February 25, 2003, letter to FENOC, the NRC documented a performance deficiency associated with the control rod drive penetration cracking and reactor pressure vessel head degradation.

The performance deficiency involved FENOC's failure to properly implement its boric acid corrosion control and corrective action programs, which allowed reactor coolant system pressure boundary leakage to occur undetected for a prolonged period of time, resulting in reactor pressure vessel head degradation.

The NRC assessed the significance of the performance deficiency using the Significance Determination Process (SDP) and preliminarily concluded that the significance was in the RED range. A RED finding is one with high importance to safety that will result in increased NRC inspection and other NRC action. The NRC offered FENOC an opportunity to request a Regulatory Conference to discuss the preliminary significance determination.

In lieu of a Regulatory Conference, FENOC submitted a written response, dated April 24, 2003, in which FENOC acknowledged the performance deficiency and did not contest the RED finding.PROPOSED E C T ACTION, NOT FOR RELEASE WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF TH ETOR, OFFIE F NFORGEIVNT G. Leidich-2-In a letter to FENOC, dated May 29, 2003, the NRC documented its conclusions that the significance of the performance deficiency, involving the control rod drive penetration cracking and the reactor pressure vessel head degradation, was appropriately characterized as RED.The NRC noted that the safety signficance of the performance deficiency was one of the inputs into the final characterization and resolution of the apparent violations described in the October 2002 AIT Follow-up Special Inspection Report. The NRC also noted that the results of an ongoing Office of Investigations (01) investigation into the cause of the apparent violations would be a factor in the final enforcement deliberations.

As a result, no Notice of Violation (Notice) was issued concurrent with the May 2003 letter.Based upon its investigation into the causes of the apparent violations, 01 determined that the apparent violations involved the licensee's willful failure to: (1) properly implement the boric acid control program; (2) properly implement the corrective action program; (3) adequately remove, on several occasions, boric acid and rust deposits from the reactor pressure vessel head; (4) maintain the plant shutdown, i.e., not startup and return the plant to power from the Twelfth Refueling Outage (12RFO), until boric acid deposits were removed and the reactor pressure vessel head was inspected, and; (5) maintain and submit to the NRC, complete and accurate information.

As a result, the NRC referred the 01 report to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) for its review and consideration of criminal prosecution.

While the DOJ's review is still ongoing, the NRC has determined that enforcement action should now be taken relative to the apparent violations documented in the AIT Follow-up Special Inspection and the 01 Investigation Reports. The NRC does not anticipate taking further enforcement action in this matter, relative to FENOC, absent the DOJ developing new additional information.

Since the licensee's initial discovery of the reactor pressure vessel head degradation and the NRC's issuance of a Confirmatory Action Letter which outlined those actions necessary for the licensee to restart the plant, the NRC has provided extensive oversight of the licensee's evaluation of and corrective actions for the conditions which contributed to the reactor pressure vessel head degradation and the performance deficiency.

In a March 8, 2004, letter, the NRC documented its determination that the matters contained in the NRC's Confirmatory Action Letter and Restart Checklist had been adequately resolved and that the NRC had reasonable assurance that the Davis-Besse Station could be restarted and operated safety. Therefore, the NRC has determined that the following results do not represent current licensee performance.

Based on information developed during the AIT Follow-up Special Inspection and 01 Investigation, the NRC has determined that nine violations of NRC requirements occurred.

The violations are cited in the enclosed Notice and are described in detail in the AIT Follow-up Special Inspection and the 01 Investigation Reports. The NRC has determined that all of the violations were associated with the RED finding and the performance deficiency previously communicated to FENOC in our February and May 2003 letters.Section I of the Notice documents five violations which were considered for civil penalties in accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforcement Action," (Enforcement Policy), NUREG-1600.

The NRC determined that these violations were of very high safety and regulatory significance because they clearly documented a pattern of PENT ACTION, E WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF I FICEOF ENF MN G. Leidich-3-willful violations of FENOC's boric acid corrosion control and corrective action programs over a protracted period of time, and a pattern of willful inaccurate or incomplete documentation of information that was required to be maintained or submitted to the NRC. As a direct result of these violations, the NRC determined that FENOC started up and operated the plant, for at least the last operating cycle prior to the February 16, 2002, shutdown without: (1) fully understanding or characterizing the condition of the reactor pressure vessel head and the control rod drive penetrations; (2) determining the cause of significant boric acid buildup on the reactor pressure vessel head, the control rod drive penetrations, and several other components in the reactor containment building; (3) properly identifying the presence of ongoing reactor coolant system pressure boundary leakage and taking appropriate corrective actions, and;(4) identifying the very significant ongoing degradation of the reactor pressure vessel head which required a number of years to reach the level of material wastage observed in March 2002. Finally, the NRC determined that FENOC willfully provided incomplete and inaccurate information associated with its responses to the NRC Bulletin 2001-01, 'Circumferential Cracking of Reactor Pressure Vessel Head Penetration Nozzles," which contributed to continued operation of the plant with ongoing reactor coolant system pressure boundary leakage and the significant degradation of the reactor pressure vessel head. As a result, a civil penalty in the amount of $5,450,000 is proposed as outlined in the following paragraphs and in the enclosed Notice.Violation l.A of the enclosed Notice concerns a violation of Davis-Besse Technical Specification 3.4.6.2.a which prohibits plant operation in Modes I through 4 with any reactor coolant system leakage associated with the reactor coolant system pressure boundary.

From at least May 18, 2000, to February 16, 2002, FENOC started up and operated the Davis-Besse Station in Modes I through 4 while being aware of the presence of significant boric acid deposits, on the reactor pressure vessel head, which were indicative of reactor coolant system leakage and which could not be justified as being caused by reactor coolant system non-pressure boundary leakage alone. The licensee conducted limited cleaning and inspection of the reactor pressure vessel head during the 12RFO in April-May 2000. However, the limited cleaning and inspection of the reactor pressure vessel head were not sufficient to ensure the integrity of the reactor coolant system pressure boundary.The NRC determined that the licensee's failure to exercise adequate management oversight and controls, in its assessment of substantial recurring boric acid deposits on the reactor pressure vessel head during 12RFO and the build-up of boric acid deposits on other reactor containment equipment during plant operations, significantly contributed to the length of the Technical Specification violation and the significant reactor pressure vessel head degradation.

The licensee's decision to return the unit to power on May 18, 2000, with ongoing reactor coolant system leakage, with significant boric acid deposits on the reactor pressure vessel head, which could not be associated with reactor coolant system non-pressure boundary leakage, and without conducting the reactor pressure vessel head cleaning and inspection required by the boric acid corrosion control procedure, is a serious safety and regulatory concern.PRO E R CTIOrNNO E Wl UTTHE APPROVAL OF THE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT G. Leidich-4 The seriousness of this safety and regulatory concern was exacerbated by FENOC's inaccurate and incomplete response to NRC Bulletin 2001-01, "Circumferential Cracking of Reactor Pressure Vessel Head Penetration Nozzles." The inaccurate and incomplete information provided by FENOC in its responses directly contributed to enabling FENOC to operate the plant beyond the Bulletin 2001-01 recommended shutdown date of December 31, 2001. Had the NRC known that the Davis-Besse Station was being operated with reactor coolant system pressure boundary leakage, the NRC would have taken immediate regulatory action to shutdown the plant and to require the licensee to implement appropriate corrective actions.The startup and operation of the Davis-Besse Station, with reactor coolant system pressure boundary leakage, was a continuing violation of Davis-Besse Technical Specification 3.4.6.2.a.

This continuing Technical Specification (TS) violation is associated with a RED finding (EA-03-025) and was evaluated using the Significance Determination Process of the NRC Reactor Oversight Process. While a civil penalty is not usually considered for issues evaluated under the SDP, absent actual consequences (Section VI.C of the Enforcement Policy), the NRC considers RED SDP finding to be of significant regulatory concern and may issue a civil penalty, up to the statutory maximum civil penalty, for such violations (Section VII.A of the Enforcement Policy).In consultation with the Commission and because of the safety significance of the violation and the particularly poor performance of FENOC in this matter, the NRC is proposing, in accordance with Section VII.A. of the Enforcement Policy, to issue a civil penalty for the Technical Specification violation associated with a RED finding evaluated under the SDP. In determining the proposed civil penalty, the NRC considered the safety significance of the violation, FENOC's multiple opportunities to identify and take corrective action for the violation, prior to and following restart of the plant in May 2000, and the economic benefit FENOC gained by operating the plant with reactor coolant system pressure boundary leakage between May 18, 2000, and February 16, 2002.The statutory maximum civil penalty for the Technical Specification violation would be $110,000 per day for the period of time prior to and including November 2, 2000, and would be $120,000 per day for the period of time beginning on November 3, 2000 until the plant shutdown on February 16, 2002. If the civil penalty for the Technical Specification violation was assessed for the entire operating cycle, the statutory maximum civil penalty would be approximately

$75,000,000.

However, the NRC's approach in assessing a civil penalty is not punitive, but focuses on deterrence to emphasize the importance of compliance with requirements and to encourage prompt identification and comprehensive corrective actions for violations.

In determining the civil penalty, the NRC also noted that the licensee experienced substantial adverse economic impact resulting from the extended outage to replace the reactor vessel head and to make improvements necessary to address NRC requirements and concerns.Therefore, on balance, the NRC determined that a proposed civil penalty of $5,000,000 was appropriate for Violation l.A (EA-05-071).

Violation l.B of the enclosed Notice concerns FENOC willfully maintaining incomplete and inaccurate information in documents required to be maintained by the NRC. The documents PROP ENT ACTIO WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF R, OFFICE OF ENFO G. Leidich-5-indicated that accumulated boric acid deposits were removed from the reactor pressure vessel head and that the entire reactor pressure vessel head was inspected.

However, the licensee did not clean or inspect the entire reactor pressure vessel head. The licensee's willful failure to accurately document the condition and cleanliness of the reactor pressure vessel head, including the willful failure to fully describe the accumulated boric acid deposits that remained on the head, is a significant violation that permitted uncorrected reactor coolant system pressure boundary leakage and boric acid corrosion of the reactor pressure vessel head to continue for an extended period of time. Had the NRC known of the reactor coolant system pressure boundary leakage, the NRC would have taken a different regulatory position, including the issuance of an Order. Therefore, this violation is categorized in accordance with the Enforcement Policy at Severity Level I.In accordance with the Enforcement Policy, a base civil penalty of $110,000 was considered for a Severity Level I violation at the time of occurrence.

Because the violation was willful and categorized at Severity Level I, the NRC considered whether credit was warranted for the civil penalty adjustment factors of Identification and Corrective Action. Credit was not warranted for Identification because the NRC identified the violation.

Credit was not warranted for Corrective Action because significant intervention was required by the NRC to focus FENOC on the evaluative and corrective action process in order that comprehensive corrective action be taken.While credit was not warranted for the immediate corrective actions, the NRC recognized that your corrective actions ultimately were sufficient to permit restarting the facility.

Since credit for Identification and Corrective Action was not warranted, the civil penalty assessment would normally be twice the base civil penalty for a Severity Level I violation or $220,000.

However,Section VI.C.2.d of the Enforcement Policy limits the civil penalty to $110,000 per violation, per day.- Therefore, a civil penalty of $110,000 is proposed for Violation l.B (EA-05-068).

Violation l.C of the enclosed Notice concerns FENOC willfully failing to ensure that a significant condition adverse to quality, associated with the presence of boric acid on the reactor pressure vessel head, at the end of 12 RFO, on May 18, 2000, was evaluated and corrected prior to restart of the plant. Specifically, the licensee closed at least three condition reports documenting the presence of significant boric acid deposits on the reactor pressure vessel head and associated components without determining the cause of each condition, i.e., the source of the reactor coolant system leakage, without taking corrective action to address the immediate condition adverse to quality, I.e., the presence of significant deposits of boric acid on the reactor vessel head, and without taking corrective action to prevent recurrence.

Therefore, this willful violation is categorized at Severity Level II in accordance with the Enforcement Policy.In accordance with the Enforcement Policy, a base civil penalty of $88,000 was considered for a Severity Level II violation at the time of occurrence.

Because the violation was willful and categorized at Severity Level II, the NRC considered whether credit was warranted for either of the civil penalty adjustment factors of Identification or Corrective Action. As discussed in Violation l.B above, credit was not warranted for either of the civil penalty adjustment factors because the NRC identified the violation, the licensee had multiple opportunities to identify the violation and failed to do so, and significant intervention by the NRC was necessary to focus the PROI O C TG ,OTOR ESWITHOUTTHEAPPROVAL OF THE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF E G. Leidich-6-licensee on corrective actions and determining the root cause of the violation.

Since credit was not warranted for the civil penalty adjustment factors, the civil penalty assessment would normally be twice the base civil penalty for a Severity Level II violation or $176,000.However, the civil penalty is reduced to the statutory maximum of $110,000 per violation (Section VI.C.2.d of the Enforcement Policy). Therefore, a civil penalty of $110,000 is proposed for Violation l.C (EA-05-066).

Violation l.D of the enclosed Notice documented that FENOC, at the end of 12RFO, willfully failed to fully implement the boric acid corrosion control procedure.

Specifically, FENOC did not conduct a complete cleaning and inspection of the reactor pressure vessel head as a result of its willful deferral of the implementation of a modification which was a corrective action for previous boric acid corrosion control program implementation non-conformances.

As a result, FENOC willfully restarted the plant on May 18, 2000, and operated until February 16, 2002, with visible boric acid deposits on the reactor pressure vessel head and uncharacterized reactor coolant system pressure boundary leakage. Therefore, this willful violation is categorized at Severity Level II in accordance with the Enforcement Policy.In accordance with the Enforcement Policy, a base civil penalty of $88,000 was considered for a Severity Level II violation at the time occurrence.

Because the violation was willful and categorized at Severity Level II, the NRC considered whether credit was warranted for either of the civil penalty adjustment factors of Identification or Corrective Action. As discussed in Violation l.B above, credit was not warranted for either of the civil penalty adjustment factors because the NRC identified the violation, the licensee had multiple opportunities to identify the violation and failed to do so, and significant intervention by the NRC was necessary to focus the licensee on corrective actions and determining the root cause of the violation; Since credit was not warranted for the civil penalty adjustment factors, the civil penalty assessment would normally be twice the base civil penalty for a Severity Level II violation or $176,000.However, the civil penalty is reduced to the statutory maximum of $110,000 per violation (Section VI.C.2.d of the Enforcement Policy). Therefore, a civil penalty of $110,000 is proposed for Violation l.D (EA-05-067).

Violation L.E of the enclosed Notice concerns FENOC willfully providing incomplete and inaccurate information in two responses to the NRC relative to NRC Bulletin 2001-01. The incomplete and inaccurate information was significant because the NRC relied, in part, on the information to assess the adequacy of FENOC's previous implementation of those quality assurance and management controls necessary to ensure a complete understanding of the physical condition of the reactor pressure vessel head, the control rod drive penetrations, and the absence of reactor coolant system pressure boundary leakage. Had the NRC known of the reactor coolant system pressure boundary leakage, the NRC would have taken a different regulatory position, including the issuance of an Order. Therefore, this willful violation is categorized at Severity Level I in accordance with the Enforcement Policy.In accordance with the Enforcement Policy, a base civil penalty of $120,000 was considered for a Severity Level I violation at the time occurrence.

The NRC considered whether credit was warranted for the for either of the civil penalty adjustment factors of Identification or Corrective PROP ACTION, NOT REA WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF_-~IH IRED F FICE OF ENFOR MENT G. Leidich-7-Action. As discussed in Violation l.B above, credit was not warranted for either of the civil penalty adjustment factors because the NRC identified the violation, the licensee had multiple opportunities to identify the violation and failed to do so, and significant intervention by the NRC was necessary to focus the licensee on corrective actions and determining the root cause of the violation.

Since credit was not warranted for the civil penalty adjustment factors, the civil penalty assessment would normally be twice the base civil penalty for a Severity Level I violation or $240,000.

However, the civil penalty is reduced to the statutory maximum of$120,000 per violation (Section VI.C.2.d of the Enforcement Policy). Therefore, a civil penalty of $120,000 is proposed for Violation L.E (EA-05-072).

Section II of the enclosed Notice describes other violations of NRC requirements that are associated with the previously issued RED SDP finding (EA-03-025).

Also described in Section II of the enclosed Notice are two non-willful violations of 10 CFR 50.9, "Completeness and Accuracy of Information" (Severity Level lIl violation without civil penalty (EA-04-069) and a Severity Level IV violation).

The NRC is exercising discretionary authority under Section VII.B.6 of the Enforcement Policy and is not proposing a civil penalty be issued for the other violations associated with a RED SDP finding and the Severity Level lIl violation of 10 CFR 50.9, in part, because of the significant civil penalty proposed in Section I of the Notice.Therefore, to emphasize the very high safety and regulatory significance of compliance with TSs, FENOC's willful failure to effectively implement its boric acid corrosion control and corrective action programs, and FENOC's willful failure to maintain and provide to the NRC complete and accurate information, and in consultation with the Commission, I am issuing the enclosed Notice with a cumulative civil penalty of $5,450,000.

You are required to respond to this letter within 90 days and should follow the instructions specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response.

However, since the NRC enforcement action is being proposed prior to any final action by the U.S. Department of Justice, consideration may be given to extending the response time for good cause shown.In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, its enclosures , 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.pov/readinp-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, then 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 material, y6u 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.PROPOSE TION, NO R41ELEASE WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF DR FFICE OF Disc _

G. Leidich-8-Questions concerning this matter should be addressed to Mr. Steven Reynolds, the NRC Senior Manager responsible for the NRC's Manual Chapter 0350 oversight activities associated with the Davis Besse Station. Mr. Reynolds may be reached at (630) 829-9601.Sincerely, Luis A. Reyes Executive Director for Operations

Enclosures:

1. Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties 2. NUREG/BR-0254 Payment Methods (Licensee Only)Docket No. 50-346 License No. NPF-3 cc w/encl: The Honorable Dennis Kucinich M. Bezilla, Vice President, Davis-Besse J. Hagan, Senior Vice President Engineering and Services, FENOC L. Myers, Chief Operating Officer, FENOC Plant Manager Manager -Regulatory Compliance D. Jenkins, Attorney, FirstEnergy Ohio State Liaison Officer R. Owen, Administrator, Ohio Department of Health Public Utilities Commission of Ohio President, Board of County Commissioners of Lucas County J. Papcun, President, Ottawa County Board of Commissioners PROPOT NO ELEA WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF TO FIC~E OF E=NF0=ENT- DISTRIBUTION:

ADAMS (PARS)SECY OCA L. Reyes, EDO E. Merschoff, DEDR W. Kane, DEDA F. Congel, OE J. Caldwell, RIII:RA S. Reynolds, RIII:DRP L. Chandler, OGC J. Moore, OGC J. Dyer, NRR D. Holody, Enforcement Coordinator, RI C. Evans, Enforcement Coordinator, Rll K. O'Brien, Enforcement Coordinator, R1iI G. Sanborn, Enforcement Coordinator, RIV R. Franovich, Enforcement Coordinator, NRR C. Nolan, OE D. Starkey, OE M. Burrell, OE B. Fretz, OE B. Clayton, OEDO J. Grobe, OEDO D. Nelson, OEDO Sara Brock, OGC Marian Zobler, OGC Shelly Cole, OGC Melissa Duffy, OGC Resident Inspector S. Gagner, OPA H. Bell, OIG G. Caputo, 01 J. Piccone, OSTP D. Dandois, OCFO/DAF/LFARB R. Paul, RIII:Ol J. Ulie, RIII:OI J. Strasma, RIII:PA R. Lickus, Rill J. Lynch, Rill OEWEB OEMAIL OAC3 GYS SPS1 RidsNrrDipmlipb CST1 CM1 DRPIII DRSIII PLBI JRKI DB0350 PROROOPi IOUT THE AP AL OF r fl nTnD A;ItF NFl FSrn> MFMF NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTIES FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company Docket No. 50-346 Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License No. NPF-3 EA-03-025; EA-05-066; EA-05-067; EA-05-068; EA-05-069; EA-05-070; EA-05-071; EA-05-072 During an NRC inspection conducted from May 15 to August 9, 2002, and an NRC investigation completed on August 22, 2003, violations of NRC requirements were identified.

In accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," NUREG-1600, the NRC proposes to impose civil penalties pursuant to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (Act), 42 U.S.C. 2282, and 10 CFR 2.205. The particular violations and associated civil penalties are set forth below: I. Violations Assessed a Civil Penalty A. Technical Specification 3.4.6.2.a, Amendment 220, dated April 14, 1998, requires, in part, that the licensee shall limit reactor coolant system leakage to "No PRESSURE BOUNDARY LEAKAGE" during Modes 1 through 4.Contrary to the above, between May 18, 2000, and February 16, 2002, the licensee started up and operated the plant in Modes 1 through 4 with reactor coolant system pressure boundary leakage, i.e. control rod drive penetration leakage. Specifically, the licensee returned the plant to operation following the 2000 refueling outages without fully characterizing and eliminating reactor coolant system pressure boundary leakage on the reactor pressure vessel head as evidenced by significant boric acid deposits on the reactor pressure vessel head at the start and end of the outage and by the development of new and extensive boric acid deposits on reactor containment equipment during the operation cycle.This is a violation associated with a RED SDP finding.Civil Penalty -$5,000,000 (EA-05-071)

B. 10 CFR 50.9 requires that information provided to the Commission by a licensee 6r information required by statute or by the Commission's regulations, orders, or license conditions to be maintained by the licensee shall be complete and accurate in all material respects.10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI requires, in part, that for significant conditions adverse to quality, the cause of the condition and the corrective actions taken to preclude repetition shall be documented.

10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVII, requires, in part, that the licensee shall maintain sufficient records to furnish evidence of activities affecting quality and that those records shall include monitoring of work performance.

PON, FOR REL T THE APP _ OF/ IRECTOR, OFFIC NFORCEMENT Condition Report (CR) 2000-1037, closed May 1, 2000, documented corrective actions for the presence of boric acid on the reactor pressure vessel head, a significant condition adverse to quality, that included: "Accumulated boron deposited.

between the reactor head and the thermal insulation was removed during the cleaning process performed under W.O. [Work Order] 00-001846-000.

No boric acid induced damage to the head surface was noted during the subsequent inspection." Work Order 00-001846-000, uClean Boron Accumulation from Top of Reactor Head and Top of Insulation," dated April 25, 2000, required the licensee staff to"clean boron accumulation from top of reactor head and on top of insulation." The Work Order Log, included as Page Four of the completed Work Order, documented that the, 'work [was] performed without deviation" and was signed by the System Engineer on April 25, 2000.Contrary to the above, 1. The information included in CR 2000-1037 relative to the completed corrective actions and the subsequent inspection results were not complete and accurate in all material respects.

Specifically, the licensee did not remove the accumulated boron deposits from all areas between the reactor head and the thermal insulation and did not conduct subsequent inspections of the entire reactor head. Instead, the licensee removed accumulated boric acid deposits from a portion of the reactor vessel head and conducted subsequent inspections for those portions of the reactor vessel head where the boric acid deposits had been removed.2. The Work Order Log, included as Page Four of completed Work Order 00-001846-000, a record required by Commission regulations to furnish evidence of activities affecting quality, contained information that was not accurate in all material respects.

Specifically, the Work Order Log indicated that boron accumulation was cleaned from the top of the reactor head and on top of the insulation, without deviation, when, in fact, boric acid deposits were left on the head after the cleaning was completed on April 25, 2000.This is a Severity Level I violation (Supplement VII).Civil Penalty $110,000 (EA-05-068)

C. 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI, requires, in part, that licensees shall establish measures to ensure that conditions adverse to quality such as failures, malfunctions, deficiencies, deviations, defective material and equipment, and non-conformances are promptly identified and corrected.

For significant conditions adverse to quality, the licensee shall establish measures to ensure that the cause of the condition is determined and that corrective actions are taken to preclude repetition.

PROPO TCEMNT FOR RELH AP VAL OF IRECTOR, OFE Plant Procedure NG-NA-00702, "Corrective Action Program," Revision 3, defined a significant condition adverse to quality to be a condition, which, if left uncorrected, could have an undesirable effect on plant safety, personal safety, regulatory position, financial liability, or environmental impact.Contrary to the above, the licensee closed condition reports (CRs) associated with the identification and removal of boric acid on the reactor vessel head, a significant condition adverse to quality, without determining the cause of the condition and without implementing corrective actions to preclude repetition of the condition.

Specifically:

1. On April 27, 2000, the licensee closed CR 2000-0781, "Leakage from CRD[Control Rod Drive] Structure Blocked Visual Exam of Reactor Vessel Head Studs," issued on April 6, 2000, associated with the accumulation of boric acid deposits on the reactor vessel head studs without determining the cause of the deposits, i.e., identifying the source of the reactor coolant system leakage, and without taking corrective actions to preclude recurrence.

2. On April 27, 2000, the licensee closed CR 2000-0782, "Inspection of Reactor Flange Indicated Boric Acid Leakage From Weep Holes," issued on April 6, 2000, associated with the accumulation of boric acid deposits on the reactor vessel head, without determining the cause of the boric acid deposits, i.e., identifying the source of the reactor coolant system leakage, without removing all of the known boric acid deposits on the reactor pressure vessel head, and without taking corrective actions to prevent recurrence.

3. On May 1, 2000, the licensee closed CR 2000-1037, "Inspection of Reactor Head Indicated Accumulation of Boron in Area of the CRD [Control Rod Drive] Nozzle Penetration," issued on April 17, 2000, associated with the accumulation of boric acid deposits on the reactor vessel head, without determining the cause of the boric acid deposits, i.e., identifying the source of the reactor coolant system leakage, without removing all of the known boric acid deposits on the reactor vessel head, and without taking corrective actions to prevent recurrence.

This is a Severity Level II violation (Supplement I)Civil Penalty -$110,000 (EA-05-066)

D. 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, requires, in part, that activities affecting quality be accomplished in accordance with written procedures.

Davis-Besse Station Procedure NG-EN-00324, "Boric Acid Corrosion Control Program," Revisions 1/Cl and 2, Step 6.3.1, required, in part, that an initial inspection of boric acid buildup shall be performed to determine the "as found" PROPOSE MENT ACTION FOR RELEASE WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF Dl R, OFFIC E NFORC conditions and to document the inspection results. The procedure also required, in Attachment 3, that insulation and other hindrances to direct visual [inspection]

be removed as needed to allow detailed inspections of components suspected of leakage.Potential Condition Adverse to Quality (PCAQ) 96-0551, initiated on April 21, 1996, documented the licensee's inability to comply with some inspections of the reactor pressure vessel head, as required by Procedure NG-EN-00324, and an inability to accurately determine the reactor pressure vessel head "as found" conditions, associated with boric acid deposits on the reactor pressure vessel head, due to the restrictions resulting from the location and size of the inspection ports, "mouse holes." The PCAQ further documented that only 50 to 60 percent of the reactor pressure vessel head could be inspected using the current inspection ports.Modification 94-0025, initiated on May 27, 1994, and referenced as corrective action for PCAQ 96-0551, directed the completion of modifications to the reactor pressure vessel head service structure inspection ports to permit the inspection and cleaning of 100 percent of the reactor vessel head in accordance with Procedure NG-EN-00324.

Contrary to the above, on May 18, 2000, and at the end of Refueling Outage 12, the licensee failed to remove obstructions, including boric acid deposit buildups, necessary to conduct a detailed inspection of the reactor pressure vessel head and other components that may be suspected of leakage, as required by Plant Procedure NG-EN-00324, "Boric Acid Corrosion Control Program." The licensee's ability to conduct the inspections was significantly limited as a result of its concurrent deferral of the installation of Modification 94-0025, a corrective action for a significant condition adverse to quality documented in PCAQ 96-0551 and associated with the licensee's failure during previous outages to conduct complete inspections and cleaning of boric acid deposits on the reactor pressure vessel head.This is a Severity Level II violation (Supplement I)Civil Penalty $110,000 (EA-05-067)

E. 10 CFR 50.9 requires that information provided to the Commission by a licensee or information required by statute or by the Commission's regulations, orders, or license conditions to be maintained by the licensee shall be complete and accurate in all material respects.NRC Bulletin 2001-01, "Circumferential Cracking of Reactor Pressure Vessel Head Penetration Nozzles," required all holders of operating licenses for pressurized water nuclear power reactors to provide information related to the structural integrity of the reactor vessel head penetration (VHP) nozzles for their respective facilities, Including the extent of VHP nozzle leakage and cracking that has been PROPOSED ENF ACTI OF GT RR_ EASE W OF THE D ,OFFICEOFEN RG found to date, the inspections and repairs that have been undertaken to satisfy applicable regulatory requirements, and the basis for concluding that their plans for future inspections will ensure compliance with applicable regulatory requirements.

Contrary to the above, the licensee, a holder of an operating license for a pressurized water nuclear power reactor, the Davis Besse Station, provided the Commission responses to Bulletin 2001-01 which included materially inaccurate and incomplete information as follows: 1. In a September 4, 2001, response to the Bulletin entitled, "Response to Bulletin 2001-01," Serial 2731, the licensee made the following four materially inaccurate and incomplete statements: (a) The licensee's response to Bulletin Item 1.c, on page 2 of 19, stated: "the minimum gap being at the dome center of the RPV [reactor pressure vessel] head where it is approximately 2 inches, and does not impede a qualified visual inspection." The licensee's response was materially inaccurate, in that, the statement contradicted statements in the licensee's documents identified as PCAQR 94-0295 and 96-0551, which clearly stated that inspection capability at the top of the reactor vessel head was limited. The limitation was stated to be caused by the restricted access to the area through the service structure "weep holes", the curvature of the reactor pressure vessel head, and by the limited space to manipulate a camera due to the insulation that creates the two inch gap.(b) The licensee's response to Bulletin Item 1.d, which requested inclusion of a description of any limitations (insulation or other impediments) to accessibility of the bare metal of the reactor pressure vessel head for visual examinations, did not include a description of any limitations.

The licensee's response was materially incomplete in that the response did not mention that accessibility to the bare metal of the reactor pressure vessel head was impeded, during the Eleventh (1998) and the Twelfth (2000) Refueling Outages, by the presence of significant accumulations of boric acid deposits.(c) The licensee's response to Bulletin Item 1.d, which also requested a discussion of the findings of reactor pressure vessel head inspections, stated that for the Twelfth Refueling Outage (2000), the inspection of the reactor pressure vessel head/nozzles indicated some accumulation of boric acid deposits.PROPO5 DM ENT ACTIONNOT-FQR RELEASE WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF R OFFICE' The licensee's response was materially incomplete and inaccurate in that it mischaracterized the accumulation of boric acid on the reactor pressure vessel head and did not mention the evidence of corrosion that was evidenced by the pictures and the video examination of reactor pressure vessel head conditions documented at the beginning and ending of the Twelfth Refueling Outage (2000).(d) The licensee's response to the Bulletin, on Page 3, stated: "The boric acid deposits were located beneath the leaking flanges with clear evidence of downward flow. No visible evidence of nozzle leakage was detected." The licensee's response was materially inaccurate in that the boric acid deposits were not all located under leaking flanges and the licensee lacked clear evidence of the absence of downward flow for all nozzles.Specifically, the presence of boric acid deposits was not limited only to the areas beneath the flanges, as implied by that statement.

The build-up of boric acid deposits was so significant that the licensee could not inspect all of the nozzles. As a result, the licensee also did not have a basis for stating that no visible evidence of nozzle leakage was detected.2. In an October 17, 2001, response to the Bulletin entitled, "Supplemental Response to Bulletin 2001-01," Serial 2735, the licensee stated: 'In May 1996, during a refueling outage, the RPV [reactor pressure vessel] 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 RPV head was mechanically cleaned at the end of the outage. Subsequent inspections of the RPV head in the next two refueling outages (1998 and 2000), also did not identify any leakage in the CRDM [control rod drive mechanism]

nozzle-to-head areas that could be inspected.

Video tapes taken during these inspections have also been re-reviewed." The licensee's response was materially inaccurate, in that: (1) each reactor pressure vessel head control rod drive penetration was not inspected in May 1996, as documented in PCAQR 96-0551, and; (2) the reactor pressure vessel head, including the area around each control rod drive penetration, was not completely cleaned, as noted in PCAQR 98-0649, which was prepared at the start of the Eleventh Refueling Outage (1998), which stated that there were old boric acid deposits on the head.This is a Severity Level I violation (Supplement VII)Civil Penalty $120,000 (EA-05-072)

PROPOSED RCEMENT OT FOR RELEASE WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF IRECTOR,0 OROEENT II. Violations Not Assessed a Civil Penalty A. 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI, requires, in part, that the licensee shall establish measures to ensure that conditions adverse to quality such as failures, malfunctions, deficiencies, deviations, defective material and equipment, and non-conformances are promptly identified and corrected.

Criterion XVI also requires that for significant conditions adverse to quality, the measures shall assure that the cause of the condition is determined and that corrective actions are taken to preclude repetition.

Plant Procedure NG-NA-00702, "Corrective Action Program," Revision 3, defined a significant condition adverse to quality to be a c6ndition adverse to quality, which, if left uncorrected, could have an undesirable effect on plant safety, personal safety, regulatory position, financial liability, or environmental impact.Contrary to the above, the licensee failed to determine the root cause of and take corrective actions to preclude the repetition of: 1. Fouling of containment air cooling fins by boric acid, between June 2000 and February 16, 2002, a significant condition adverse to quality, as documented in: Condition Report (CR) 2000-1547, 'CAC [containment air cooler] Plenum Pressure Drop Following 12 RFO," dated June 2, 2000;CR 2000-4138, "Frequency for Cleaning Boron From CAC Fins Increased to Interval of Approximately 8 Weeks," dated December 21, 2000, and;CR 2001-0039, UCAC Plenum Pressure Experienced Step Drop," dated January 4, 2001.2. Fouling of the containment radiation elements by boric acid and iron oxide, between April 2001, and February 16, 2002, a significant condition adverse to quality, as documented in: Condition Report (CR) 99-1300, uAnalysis of CTMT [containment]

Radiation Monitor Filters.'

dated May 13,1999;CR 2001 -1110, "Chemistry is Changing Filters on RE4597BA More Frequently," dated April 23, 2001;CR 2001-1822, "Frequency of Filter Changes for RE4597BA is Increasing," dated July 23, 2001;PROPOSED E MENT ACTION, NOT FOR RELEASE WITHOUT THE APPROV L OF/E DIRECTOR, OFNFORCEMENT CR 2001-2795, "RE4597BA Alarmed on Saturation," dated October 22, 2001, and;CR 2001-3411, 'Received Equipment Fail Alarm for Detector Saturation on RE4597BA," dated December 18, 2001.3. An increasing trend in unidentified reactor coolant system leakage, between March 2001, and December 2001, a significant condition adverse to quality, as documented in: Condition Report (CR) 2001-0890, uUnidentified RCS [reactor coolant system] Leak Rate Varies Daily by as Much as 100 percent of the Value," March 29, 2001;CR 2001-1857, "RCS Unidentified Leakage at .125 to .145 gpm [gallons per minute]," July 25, 2001;CR 2001-2862, "Calculated Unidentified Leakage for Reactor Coolant System has Indicated Increasing Trend," October 22, 2001, and;CR 2001-3025, Increase in RCS Unidentified Leakage," November 12, 2001.This is a violation associated with a RED SDP finding (EA-03-025).

B. 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, requires, in part, that activities affecting quality shall be prescribed by documented instructions, procedures, or drawings, of a type appropriate to the circumstances and shall be accomplished in accordance with these instructions, procedures, or drawings.Procedure NG-EN-00324, "Boric Acid Corrosion Control Program," Revisions 0 through 2 (effective date October 1, 1999), were classified as a procedure affecting quality under the licensee's administrative system.Contrary to the above, between October 1,1999, and March 6, 2002, Procedure NG-EN-00324, "Boric Acid Corrosion Control Program," Revisions 0 through 2, were not appropriate to the circumstances and contributed to the licensee's failure to detect and address boric acid corrosion of the reactor vessel head, as follows: 1. The procedure inappropriately focused on bolted and flanged connections in the definition of leakage (Sections

4.2 though

4.4), the definition of reactor coolant system pressure boundary components (Section 4.9), and the identification of investigation locations (Section 6.1) at the expense of identifying the potential for through-wall leakage.PROPOSED FR MENTACTION, OR LEASE WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF/ DhIREC OFFICE OF E ROEME= 2. The procedure did not include adequate guidance, specifications, or threshold levels for initiating a "detailed inspection" in order to ensure consistent implementation of Section 6.3.4 of the procedure.

3. The procedure did not require the identification of and corrective actions to preclude the repetition of boric acid leaks, a significant condition adverse to quality, but instead only required the preparation of a repair tag or work order to facilitate repair of the leak.4. The procedure did not define the qualifications and training necessary to permit engineering staff to conduct inspections and evaluations in a consistent manner, including the use of proper inspection techniques, observations, recording of results, and evaluations.

5. The procedure inappropriately exempted stainless steel or Inconel components from further examination related to boric acid corrosion, unless the examination was during an ASME Section Xl test which might require a bolting examination.

6. The procedure inappropriately did not require the licensee staff to maintain records necessary to demonstrate the proper completion of activities affecting quality.This is a violation associated with a RED SDP finding (EA-03-025).

C. 10 CFR 50.9 requires that information provided to the Commission by a licensee or information required by statute or by the Commission's regulations, orders, or license conditions to be maintained by the licensee shall be complete and accurate in all material respects.10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVII, requires, in part, that the licensee shall maintain sufficient records to furnish evidence of activities affecting quality and that those records shall include actions taken to correct any deficient conditions.

Contrary to the above, the following information was not complete or accurate in all material respects for documents required to be maintained or provided to the Commission:

1. Potential Condition Adverse to Quality Report (PCAQR) 98-0649, dated April 18, 1998, contained the following closure statement: "Accumulation of boric acid on the reactor vessel caused by leaking CRDMs [control rod drive mechanisms]

has not resulted in any boric acid corrosion.

This was identified through inspections following reactor vessel head cleaning in past outages....Additionally, B&W [Babcock & Wilcox] documentation discussing PROPOS NO MENT ACTIO , 0rOR RELEASE WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF E DR R, OFFICOF ~ ENFOR ENT~--'- CRDM nozzle cracking further stated that boric acid deposits on the head caused by leaking CRDM flanges would not result in head corrosion." However, the quoted statements were not accurate in all material respects in that the licensee had previously not cleaned all areas of the reactor head of boric acid deposits, had not inspected the base metal under all the deposits to determine whether corrosion was present, and no B&W documentation was available to support the claim that boric acid would not result in head corrosion.

2. Potential Condition Adverse to Quality Report (PCAQR) 98-0767, dated April 25, 1998, Section 4A, Item F, included the following closure justification, "The boric acid deposits were removed from the head." However, the quoted statement was not accurate in all material respects in that the licensee had not removed all of the boric acid deposits from the head as of the end of the eleventh refueling outage.This is a Severity Level IlIl violation (Supplement VII) (EA-05-069)

D. 10 CFR 50.9 requires that information provided to the Commission by a licensee or information required by statute or by the Commission's regulations, orders, or license conditions to be maintained by the licensee shall be complete and accurate in all material respects.10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVII, requires, in part, that the licensee shall maintain sufficient records to furnish evidence of activities affecting quality and that those records shall include audits and those actions taken to correct any deficient conditions.

Contrary to the above, the following information was not complete or accurate in all material respects for documents required to be maintained or provided to the Commission:

1. On September 23, 1993, the licensee processed a uDocument Void Request" to cancel Modification 90-012 which stated, "Current inspection techniques using high-powered cameras preclude the need for inspection ports, additionally, cleaning of the reactor vessel head during last three outages was completed successfully without requiring access ports." However, the quoted statement was not accurate in all material respects, in that, the licensee left boric acid deposits on the reactor vessel head at the end of both the seventh and eighth refueling outages, the two outages preceding this statement.

2. Quality Assurance Audit Report AR-00-OUTAG-01, dated July 7, 2000, stated, in part, "Boric Acid Corrosion Control Checklists and Condition Reports were initiated by inspectors when prudent to document and evaluate PROPOSED CEMENT ACTION ELEASE WITHOUT E APPROVAL OF THE DIRE , OFFICE 0 NFO boric acid accumulation and leaks. Boric acid leakage was adequately classified and corrected when appropriate.

Engineering displayed noteworthy persistence in ensuring boric acid accumulation from the reactor head was thoroughly cleaned." However, the audit report was not accurate in all material respects in that the licensee did not: 1) thoroughly clean the reactor head during the outage; 2) did not prepare a boric acid corrosion control checklist for the boric acid left on the head after the cleaning attempt; and 3)identify, properly classify, or correct the boric acid accumulation and leaks.This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement VII) (EA-05-070)

Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (Licensee) is hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, in response to this Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties (Notice) within 90 days of the date of this letter.However, since this enforcement action is being proposed prior to any final action by the U.S.Department of Justice, consideration may be given to extending the response time for good cause shown. The reply should be clearly marked as a "Reply to a Notice of Violation:

EA-03-025; EA-05-066; EA-05-067; EA-05-068; EA-05-069; EA-05-070; EA-05-071 and EA-05-072" and should include for each alleged violation:

(1) admission or denial of the alleged violation, (2) the reasons for the violation if admitted, and if denied, the reasons why, (3) the corrective steps that have been taken and the results achieved, (4) the corrective steps that will be taken to avoid further violations, and (5) the date when full compliance will be achieved.

Your response may reference or include previous docketed correspondence, if the correspondence adequately addresses the required response.

If an adequate reply is not received within the time specified in this Notice, an Order or a Demand for Information may be issued as to why the license should not be modified, suspended, or revoked or why such other action as may be proper should not be taken. Under the authority of Section 182 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 2232, this response shall be submitted under oath or affirmation.

Within the same time as provided for the response required above under 10 CFR 2.201, the Licensee may pay the civil penalties proposed above or the cumulative amount of the civil penalties, if more than one civil penalty is proposed, in accordance with NUREG/BR-0254 and by submitting to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, a statement indicating when and by what method payment was made, or may protest imposition of the civil penalties in whole or in part, by a written answer addressed to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Should the Licensee fail to answer within the time specified, an order imposing the civil penalties will be issued. Should the Licensee elect to file an answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 protesting the civil penalties, in whole or in part, such answer should be clearly marked as an "Answer to a Notice of Violation" and may: (1) deny the violations listed in this Notice, in whole or in part, (2) demonstrate extenuating circumstances, (3) show error in this Notice, or (4) show other reasons why the penalties should not be imposed. In addition to protesting the civil penalties, in whole or in part, such answer may request remission or mitigation of the penalties.

PROPOSE RCEMENTAC VAFELL OF_THE CTOR, OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT In requesting mitigation of the proposed penalties, the factors addressed in Section VI.C.2 of the Enforcement Policy should be addressed.

Any written answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 should be set forth separately from the statement or explanation in reply pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201, but may incorporate parts of the 10 CFR 2.201 reply by specific reference (e.g., citing page and paragraph numbers) to avoid repetition.

The attention of the Licensee is directed to the other provisions of 10 CFR 2.205, regarding the procedure for imposing civil penalties.

Upon failure to pay any civil penalties due which subsequently has been determined in accordance with the applicable provisions of 10 CFR 2.205, this matter may be referred to the Attorney General, and the penalties, unless compromised, remitted, or mitigated, may be collected by civil action pursuant to Section 234(c)) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 2282c.The response noted above (Reply to Notice of Violation, statement as to payment of civil penalties, and Answer to a Notice of Violation) should be addressed to: Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-2738, with a copy to the Regional Administrator and Enforcement Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region Ill, and a copy to the NRC Resident Inspector at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station.Because your response will be made available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the NRC's document system (ADAMS), to the extent possible, it should not include any personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information so that it can be made available to the public without redaction.

ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at httD://www.nrc.cov/readinQ-rm/adams.html.

If personal privacy or proprietary information is necessary to provide an acceptable response, then 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 material, 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 2.790(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.In accordance with 10 CFR 19.11, you may be required to post this Notice within two working days.Dated this 2nd day of April 2005 PROPOS NFORCEMENT ACTION, FO ELEASE WITHOUT PRO VAL OF THE I OFFICE O FOBR 0o UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

• WASHINGTON, DC 20555 -0001 IA-05-021 Andrew Siemaszko[Home Address Deleted Under 10 CFR 2.390(a)]

SUBJECT:

ORDER PROHIBITING INVOLVEMENT IN NRC-LICENSED ACTIVITIES (NRC SPECIAL INSPECTION REPORT NO. 50-346/2002-08(DRS))

Dear Mr. Siemaszko:

,5s The enclosed Order Prohibiting Involvement in U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)Licensed Activities (Order) is being issued because you engaged in deliberate misconduct as defined in 10 CFR 50.5, causing the FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) to be in violation of 10 CFR 50.9 at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station. The incomplete and inaccurate information you deliberately provided concerned the description of the efforts and results associated with removal of boric acid deposits from the reactor pressure vessel head and was a significant contributing factor to FENOC's decision to return the reactor to power on May 18, 2000, with reactor coolant system leakage. Davis-Besse Station Technical Specification 3.4.6.2.a prohibits operation of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station with any reactor coolant system pressure boundary leakage. The matter was investigated by the NRC's Office of Investigations (01) and the results were documented in 01 Report No. 3-2002-006.

The 01 investigation results were provided to the U.S. Department of Justice for its review.The enclosed Order prohibits your involvement in all NRC-licensed activities for a period of five years commencing 90 days from the effective date of this Order. However, since this enforcement action is being proposed prior to the Department of Justice completing its review of the 01 investigation results, consideration may be given to extending the effective date of the Order, when good cause is shown. The Order also requires you to cease your involvement in NRC-licensed activities, if you are involved with an NRC licensee at the time the Order becomes effective, to provide a copy of the Order to the NRC licensee, and to inform the NRC of the name, address, and telephone number of that licensee at that time. Additionally, for a period of five years, after the five-year period of prohibition has expired, you are required, within 20 days of your acceptance of your first employment offer involving NRC-licensed activities or becoming involved in NRC-licensed activities, to 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 you are, or will be, involved in the NRC-licensed activities.

PROPO EFO CION, NOT FARE SEWITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE D ENFORCEEE A. Siemaszko-2-Pursuant to Section 223 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, any person who willfully violates, attempts to violate, or conspires to violate, any provision of this Order shall be subject to criminal prosecution as set forth in that section. Violation of this order may also subject the person to civil monetary penalty.A copy of this letter and its enclosure is being sent to FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC), the operator of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station.Questions concerning this Order should be addressed to Frank J. Congel, Director, Office of Enforcement, who can be reached at (301) 415-2741.This letter will be maintained by the Office of Enforcement in an NRC Privacy Act system of records, NRC-3, "Enforcement Actions Against Individuals." The NRC-3 system notice, which provides detailed information about this system of records, can be accessed from our Web site at http://www.nrc.pov/readinp-rm/foia/privacv-svstems.html.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, its enclosure, 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.aov/readinp-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, then 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 material, 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.PROPOSED ORCEM ACTION, NO E EW OUTTHAP ROVAL OF THE Dl R7OPFICE O ENFORCEME A. Siemaszko-3 -The NRC also includes significant enforcement actions on its Web site at www.nrc.oov; select What We Do, Enforcement, then Significant Enforcement Actions.Sincerely, Luis A. Reyes Executive Director for Operations

Enclosure:

As Stated cc w/encls: Billie Pirner Garde, Esq.Clifford, Lyons and Garde 1620 L Street, NW Suite 625 Washington, DC 20036-5600 Gary Leidich, President FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company 76 Main Street Akron, OH 44308 PROPO NACTIO R EASE WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE TOR, OFFICE OF E RCEMENT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [7590-01-P]

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of )) IA-05-021 Andrew Siemaszko

)ORDER PROHIBITING INVOLVEMENT IN NRC-LICENSED ACTIVITIES Mr. Andrew Siemaszko wa- Previously employed as a system 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.11 On February 16, 2002, Davis-Besse was shut down for refueling and inspection of control rod drive mechanism (CRDM) reactor pressure vessel (RPV) head penetration nozzles. Using ultrasonic testing, the Licensee found cracks in three CRDM 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 though the 6.63 inch-thick low-alloy steel portion of the RPV head, leaving the stainless steel clad material (measuring 0.202 to 0.314 inches-thick) as the sole reactor PROPSED-ENFQRCEMENT ACTVATELEASE WITL ,7 lTE-DI CTORI OFFICE OF EIF7RMN coolant system (RCS) pressure boundary.

A smaller cavity was also found near CRDM Penetration Nozzle No. 2.The Licensee had conducted a root cause evaluation and determined that the cavities were caused by boric acid from the RCS released through cracks in the CRDM penetration nozzles.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 the Davis-Besse Station 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.

Based upon an investigation into the causes for the apparent violations documented in the special inspection report, the NRC Office of Investigations (01) determined that the apparent violations involved deliberate failures to comply with NRC requirements and regulations.

The 01 investigation results were PROP98E NFORCEMENT ACTION. NOT FOR RELEASE WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF TFNTOR,_ CEM documented in 01 Report No. 3-2002-006, dated August 22, 2003 and the matter remains under Federal investigation.

Based on the results of the special inspection conducted by the NRC staff and the 0l investigation, the NRC determined that Mr. Andrew Siemaszko engaged in deliberate misconduct that caused the Licensee to be in violation of the NRC requirement to maintain and provide to the NRC materially complete and accurate information, 10 CFR 50.9.Andrew Siemaszko, a System Engineer at Davis-Besse Station, was responsible for ensuring the RPV head was cleaned during April 2000. Davis-Besse Work Order No. 00-001846-000 described the problem to be resolved as: 'Large boron accumulation was noted on the top of the RX [reactor]

head and on top of the insulation.

Boric acid corrosion may occur ... Work Description

... Clean boron accumulation from top of reactor head and on top of insulation.

See Andrew Siemaszko (Plant Engineering)

...for additional details." On April 25, 2000, in the uFailure Evaluation/Description of Work Performed" section of Work Order No.00-001846-000, Mr. Siemaszko wrote "work performed without deviation." Mr. Siemaszko Initiated Condition Report (CR) No. 2000-1037 on April 17, 2000, and described the condition as: PFOR LEASE WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF "Inspection of the Reactor Head indicated accumulation of boron in the area of the CRD[control rod drive] nozzle penetrations through the head. Boron accumulation was also discovered on top of the thermal insulation under the CRD flanges. Boron accumulated on the top of the thermal insulation resulted from the CRD leakage. The CRD leakage issues are discussed in CR 2000-0782." Entered in the "Remedial Actions" Section of CR No. 2000-1037 was,"Accumulated boron deposited between the reactor head and the thermal insulation was removed during the cleaning process performed under W.O. (Work Order)00-001846-000.

No boric acid induced damage to the head surface was noted during the subsequent inspection." Also included on Condition Report No. 2000-0137 was,"MODE 4 RESTRAINT

-Complete all actions necessary to restore equipment to allow the Mode change. When all actions are complete, document on a Cause/Action Sheet (ED83242B) and provide a copy of the CR to Quality Programs." Information that Mr. Siemaszko told 01 during a sworn, transcribed interview indicated the Mr. Siemaszko knew at the completion of 12RFO that the RPV head had not been cleaned of all boric acid deposits, yet he provided information on Condition Report No. 2000-0137 and RPEMENT AC 9NT FbRELEASE WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF ECTOR, OFFICE 0F ORE MENT Work Order No. 00-001846-000 indicating that the RPV head was cleaned of boric acid deposits.The Licensee removed the restraint to changing operations to Mode 4 on April 27, 2000, based, in part, on the information provided to the Licensee by Mr. Siemaszko that the reactor vessel had been cleaned of boric acid deposits, as documented on CR No. 2000-1037 and Work Order No. 00-001846-000.

10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI, requires that the Licensee establish measures to ensure that conditions adverse to quality, such as failures, malfunctions, deficiencies, deviations, defective material and equipment, and nonconformances are promptly identified and corrected.

In the case of significant conditions adverse to quality, the measures shall ensure that the cause of the condition is determined and corrective action taken to preclude repetition.

The identification of the significant condition adverse to quality, the cause of the condition, and the corrective action taken shall be documented and reported to appropriate levels of management.

10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVII, requires, in part, that the Licensee maintain sufficient records to furnish evidence of activities affecting quality, including records of work performance.

Condition Report (CR) No. 2000-1037 described a significant condition adverse to quality and PROPOENT ACTI SE WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF T OR, OFFICE OF ENF0RGEMENT the corrective actions taken to preclude repetition.

Work Order No. 00-001846-000 is a record of an activity affecting quality and documented work performance.

Review of documents and videotapes concerning the inspection of the RPV head during 12RFO, that ended on May 18, 2000, and the inspections of the RPV head during Refueling Outage 13, that began on February 12, 2002, indicated that boric acid deposits remained on the RPV head following 12RFO. This is contrary to information Mr. Siemaszko documented in: (1) Work Order No. 00-001846-000 that work was performed without deviation; and (2) CR No. 2000-1037 that the accumulated boron deposited between the reactor head and the thermal insulation was removed during the cleaning process performed and no boric acid induced damage to the head surface was noted during the subsequent inspection.

10 CFR 50.9 requires, in part, that information required by statute or by the Commission's regulations, orders, or license conditions to be maintained by the licensee shall be complete and accurate in all material respects.Based on the above information, the NRC concludes that Mr. Siemaszko deliberately provided materially incomplete and inaccurate information in CR No. 2000-1037 and Work Order No. 00-001846-000, that are records the NRC requires the Licensee to maintain.

The information provided by Mr. Siemaszko in CR No. 2000-1037 and Work Order No. 00-001846-000 was material to the NRC because the presence of boric acid deposits on the RPV head is a significant condition adverse to quality that went uncorrected, in part, due to Mr. Siemaszko's incomplete and inaccurate description of the work activities and corrective actions.PROP EENT FOR RELEASE WITHOUTTHE APPROVAL OF T RECTOR, OF EN Based on the above, Mr. Andrew Siemaszko, while employed by the Licensee, engaged in deliberate misconduct that has caused the Licensee to be in violation of 10 CFR 50.9 by deliberately providing to the Licensee information that he knew to be incomplete or inaccurate in a respect material to the NRC, in violation of 10 CFR 50.5. The NRC determined that these violations were of very high safety and regulatory significance because they documented a pattern of deliberate inaccurate or incomplete documentation of information that was required to be maintained or 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.111 As a direct result of these violations, the NRC determined that FENOC started up and operated the plant, for the last operating cycle prior to the February 16, 2002, shutdown without: (1) fully understanding or characterizing the condition of the reactor pressure vessel head and the control rod drive penetrations; (2) determining the cause of significant boric acid build up on the reactor pressure vessel head, the control rod drive penetrations, and several other components in the reactor containment building; (3) properly identifying the presence of ongoing reactor coolant system pressure boundary leakage and taking appropriate corrective actions, and;(4) identifying a very significant ongoing degradation of the reactor pressure vessel head which required a number of years to reach the level of material wastage observed in March 2002.Finally, the NRC determined that the inaccurate and incomplete information provided by Mr. Siemaszko contributed to continued operation of the plant with ongoing reactor coolant PROPO T ACT R RELEASE WITHOU E APPROVAL0 system pressure boundary leakage and the significant degradation of the reactor pressure vessel head, a significant condition adverse to quality.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. Siemaszko's action caused the Licensee to violate 10 CFR 50.9 and raised 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. Siemaszko is permitted to be involved in NRC-licensed activities.

Therefore, the public health, safety and interest require that Mr. Siemaszko be prohibited from any involvement in NRC-licensed activities for a period of five years from the effective date of this Order. Additionally, Mr. Siemaszko is required to notify the NRC of his first employment in NRC-licensed activities for a period of five years following the prohibition period.IV Accordingly, pursuant to sections 103, 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 30.10, and 10 CFR 150.20, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: PROP EMENT R RELEASE WIT T APPROVAL OF ECTOR, OF F ENT 1. Mr. Andrew Siemaszko is prohibited for five years from the effective 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. Siemaszko 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 five years after the five year period of prohibition has expired, Mr. Siemaszko 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. Siemaszko 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.

PROP EFORCEMENTAC OT FOR RELEASE WIT THE APPROVAL OF E TOR, I The Director, Office of Enforcement, may, in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration by Mr. Siemaszko of good cause.V In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, Andrew Siemaszko 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 90 days of the date of this Order. However, since this enforcement action is being proposed prior to the U.S. Department of Justice completing its review of the 01 investigation results, 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. Siemaszko 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. Siemaszko if the PRO E ELEASEWI UTTHE APPROVAL F THE DIRECTOR,OFFICE EN answer or hearing request is by a person other than Mr. Siemaszko.

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 hearinadocketonrc.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 OGCMailCenterinrc.gov.

If a person other than the Mr. Siemaszko 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. Siemaszko 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.

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 IV above shall be effective and final 90 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 IV shall be final when the extension expires if a hearing request has not been received.FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Luis A. Reyes Executive Director for Operations Dated this day of April 2005 PR N OT FOR RE A WITHOUT THE APPR AL OF IRECTOR, ENFOR