January 28, 2004

EA-03-197

Mr. William R. Kanda

Vice President - Nuclear, Perry

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company

P. O. Box 97, A210

10 Center Road

Perry, OH 44081

SUBJECT: FINAL SIGNIFICANCE DETERMINATION FOR A WHITE FINDING

(NRC INSPECTION REPORT 50-440/2004-005)

Dear Mr. Kanda:

The purpose of this letter is to provide you with the final results of our significance

determination of the preliminary White finding associated with the A emergency service water

(ESW) pump discussed in Inspection Report 50-440/2003-006, issued October 30, 2003. The

inspection finding was assessed using the Significance Determination Process and was

preliminarily characterized as White (i.e., a finding with low to moderate increased importance

to safety, which may require additional NRC inspection). This preliminary White finding was

identified on September 1, 2003, when the ESW A pump shaft failure occurred at the Perry

Nuclear Plant.

At your request, a Regulatory Conference was held on December 17, 2003, to further discuss

your views on this issue. At the Regulatory Conference, your staff presented an overview of the

event, related corrective actions, and the methodology and results of your independent safety

assessment of the preliminary White finding. A copy of your slide presentation is enclosed. 

Your staff’s presentation also included a discussion, based upon the additional information

presented, that it is your view that the finding would be more properly characterized as Green,

that is, a finding of very low safety significance. The NRC and Perry staffs held extensive

discussions regarding specific technical issues related to your analysis. You provided the

details of your risk analysis to us in a letter dated December 23, 2003. 

Following our review of your information, we determined that the results of your risk analysis

were not compelling enough to change our preliminary position that the finding is White. Your

initial determination, as stated in LER 2003-004-00, concluded the finding was White consistent

with our preliminary assessment. Subsequently, in the regulatory conference and your 
W. Kanda -2-

submittal of December 23, 2003, you shared with us your analysis that the risk significance of

the finding was reduced by partitioning the risk and by addressing conservatisms in the PSA

model and in the specific condition assessment. In general, your analysis supported your

conclusion that the overall risk was reduced below the Green/White threshold. We

acknowledge the validity of the points you made in your analysis. However, your approach

appeared to be limited to considering only those factors where the overall risk could be

decreased. It did not consider other factors where the overall risk could be increased. As a

check, we performed a similar assessment for Large Early Release Frequency (LERF), utilizing

your CDF reduction factor and the NRC’s risk model, and determined the finding would be

above the Green/White threshold. The overall results of your calculations were approximately

9.7XE-7, or just below the Green/White threshold of 1XE-6. The NRC’s analysis concluded the

significance value was 2.7XE-6. Considering the two analytic approaches and their differences,

we determined that the issue should be considered a White finding. 

Therefore, after considering the information developed during the inspection; the additional

information you provided in your letter dated December 23, 2003; and the information you

provided at the conference; the NRC has concluded that the inspection finding is appropriately

characterized as White, that is, an issue with low to moderate increased importance to safety,

which may require additional NRC inspection.

You have 30 calendar days from the date of this letter to appeal the staff’s determination of

significance for the identified White finding. Such appeals will be considered to have merit only

if they meet the criteria given in NRC Inspection Manual 0609, Attachment 2.

The NRC has also determined that the failure to develop a procedure that adequately

incorporated instructions for proper reassembly of the ESW pump is a violation of Technical

Specification 5.4, as cited in the enclosed Notice of Violation (Notice). The circumstances

surrounding the violation are described in detail in Inspection Report 05000440/2003-006. In

accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy, NUREG-1600, the Notice of Violation is

considered escalated enforcement action because it is associated with a White finding.

Because plant performance for this issue has been determined to be in the regulatory response

band, we will use the NRC Action Matrix to determine the most appropriate NRC response for

this event. We will notify you by separate correspondence of that determination.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, its

enclosure, and your response, if any, will be made available electronically for public inspection

in the NRC Public Document Room or from the NRC’s document system (ADAMS), accessible 
W. Kanda -3-

from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-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. The NRC also includes

significant enforcement actions on its Web site at www.nrc.gov; select What We Do,

Enforcement, then Significant Enforcement Actions.

Sincerely,

/RA by Geoffrey E. Grant for/

James L. Caldwell

Regional Administrator

Docket No. 50-440

License No. NPF-58

Enclosure: 1. Notice of Violation

2. Licensee Presentation

3. Regulatory Conference Attendance List

cc w/encl: G. Leidich, President - FENOC

K. Cimorelli, Acting Director,

 Maintenance Department

V. Higaki, Manager, Regulatory Affairs

J. Messina, Director, Nuclear

 Services Department

T. Lentz, Director, Nuclear

 Engineering Department

T. Rausch, Plant Manager, 

 Nuclear Power Plant Department

M. O’Reilly, Attorney, First Energy

Public Utilities Commission of Ohio

Ohio State Liaison Officer

R. Owen, Ohio Department of Health
DOCUMENT NAME: G:\Per\Perry Response to Reg Conf & Final Significance Letter.wpd

To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box:"C" = Copy without enclosure "E"= Copy with enclosure"N"= No copy

OFFICE RIII RIII RIII RIII OE RIII

NAME MRing:dtp SReynolds BClayton BBerson FCongel*via

telephone fr

JDixon-Herrity

JCaldwell

*GEG for

DATE 01/23/04 01/23/04 01/27/04 01/27/04 01/27/04 01/28/04

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
W. Kanda -4-

ADAMS Distribution:

D. Dambly (DCD), Assistant General Counsel for Material Litigation and Enforcement, OGC

B. Sheron (BWS), Associate Director for Projects Licensing and Technical Review, NRR

L. Marsh (LBM), Director, Division of Licensing Project Management, NRR

L. Dudes (LAD), Enforcement Coordinator, NRR

R. Franovich (RLF2), Enforcement Coordinator, NRR

J. Dixon Herrity, Senior Enforcement Specialist

D. Weaver (DWW), Region III Coordinator, OEDO

W. Ruland (WHR), Project Directorate, Division of Licensing Project Management, NRR

S. Sands, Perry Project Manager, Project Directorate, Division of Licensing 

 Project Management, NRR

P. Hiland (PLH), Deputy Director, Division of Reactor Projects, RIII

C. Pederson (CDP1), Director, Division of Reactor Safety, RIII

R. Caniano (RJC1), Deputy Director, Division of Reactor Safety, RIII

R. Powell, SRI, Perry

DRS Branch Chiefs (JFL, DEH, RDL, KXR)

R. Lickus (RML2), State Liaison Officer, RIII

PMNS

RIII Public Affairs (VTM, RJS2)

J. Kweiser (JRK1), ORA 

P. Buckley (PLB1), ORA

OEMAIL

OEWEB
NOTICE OF VIOLATION

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company Docket No. 50-440

Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 License No. NFP-58

EA-03-197

During an NRC inspection conducted from July 1 through September 30, 2003, a violation of

NRC requirements was identified. In accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and

Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," NUREG-1600, the violation is listed below:

Technical Specification 5.4 requires, in part, that procedures shall be established,

implemented and maintained as recommended in Regulatory Guide 1.33, Revision 2,

Appendix A, February 1978. Regulatory Guide 1.33, Appendix A, Section 9,

“Procedures for Performing Maintenance,” recommends, in part, that maintenance

activities that can affect the performance of safety-related equipment be performed in

accordance with written procedures appropriate to the circumstances. The licensee

developed Procedure GMI-0039, “Disassembly of the Emergency Service Water

Pumps,” to disassemble and reassemble the Division 1 and 2 emergency service water

pumps. This procedure provides direction for the coupling of the pump shaft sections

during reassembly. 

Contrary to the above, the licensee failed to establish written procedures appropriate to

the circumstances. Specifically, the vendor procedure specified that the setscrew holes

should align with the groove in the slip ring such that the setscrews should be flush with

the coupling sleeve. The licensee failed to transfer this requirement to the procedure for

pump reassembly resulting in improper alignment of the coupling components when the

pump was reassembled on July 24, 1997, using GMI-0039, Revision 3. As a result, the

pump subsequently failed on September 1, 2003.

This violation is associated with a White Significance Determination Process finding.

Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company is hereby

required to submit a written statement or explanation to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555 with a copy to the

Regional Administrator, Region III, and a copy to the NRC Resident Inspector at the Perry

Nuclear Power Plant, within 30 days of the date of the letter transmitting this Notice of Violation

(Notice). This reply should be clearly marked as a "Reply to a Notice of Violation; EA-03-197"

and should include for each violation: (1) the reason for the violation, or, if contested, the basis

for disputing the violation or severity level, (2) the corrective steps that have been taken and the

results achieved, (3) the corrective steps that will be taken to avoid further violations, and

(4) 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. 

Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the response time.
Notice of Violation -2-

If you contest this enforcement action, you should also provide a copy of your response, with

the basis for your denial, to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

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), accessible from the

NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/html., 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. 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 28th day of January 2004