January 23, 2004

EA-03-194

Mr. William R. Kanda

Vice President - Nuclear, Perry

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company

P. O. Box 97, A210

Perry, OH 44081

SUBJECT: PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

FINAL SIGNIFICANCE DETERMINATION FOR A WHITE FINDING AND

NOTICE OF VIOLATION (NRC INSPECTION REPORT NO. 50-440/04-03)

 

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 identified in Inspection Report No. 50-440/03-06. 

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 inspections). This preliminary White finding

concerned the failure to follow the requirements of the Perry Emergency Plan during an Alert

level event on April 24, 2003.

The finding involved an undue delay in declaring an actual emergency condition on April 24,

2003, when the shift manager did not properly classify the event in a timely manner in

accordance with your emergency plan when damage to irradiated fuel caused a high alarm on

the fuel handling building ventilation exhaust gaseous radiation monitor. This finding was

preliminarily classified as White because it involved a failure to implement a risk significant

planning standard. This preliminary White finding was associated with an apparent violation of

10 CFR 50.47.

In our letter dated October 30, 2003, transmitting the inspection report, we provided FirstEnergy

Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) an opportunity to request a Regulatory Conference or

provide a written response. At your request, a Regulatory Conference was held on December 9,

2003, at the Region III Office in Lisle, IL. A copy of the handout you provided at the conference

has been entered in the NRC’s document system (ADAMS) and is accessible from the NRC

Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html, ADAMS accession number

ML033500224.

During the conference, you agreed with the NRC’s preliminary assessment of the violation and

use of the significance determination process, however you requested that the NRC use

discretion in determining the significance of the violation. You also believed that the

significance would be more appropriately characterized as Green since: (1) actions had been

taken to protect onsite personnel; (2) the duration of the building ventilation radiation monitor

alarm was short (less than one minute); (3) the building ventilation radiation monitor was in

close proximity to the bubbles from the damaged fuel (from which you concluded the exhaust 
W. Kanda -2-

air that activated the alarm may not have been a representative sample of the building’s air);

(4) the technicians inspecting the fuel did not associate bubbles from the damaged fuel to the

building alarms (due to many past similar occurrences); (5) there was no significant release to

pose a threat to the public health and safety; and (6) your root cause evaluation and corrective

actions taken were thorough.

Your presentation and slides identified the results of your root cause evaluation issues which

included: (1) the failure to communicate timely information concerning the failed fuel to the

control room; (2) the lack of adequate roles and responsibilities for the fuel handling building

activities; and (3) the shift manager’s ineffective assessment of plant conditions and delayed

response to those conditions. The presentation also included slides of the event timeline, your

root cause evaluation, corrective actions, regulatory and radiological considerations.

The NRC acknowledges that: (1) there was no impact on actions to protect public health and

safety; (2) actions were taken to protect onsite personnel; (3) there was no significant

radiological impact to onsite personnel; and (4) your root cause evaluation appeared to capture

the major factors of the event. However, the NRC concludes that your emergency classification

system was not properly used during the event. After completing safety actions, as appropriate

(i.e., area evacuations and ensuring safe plant conditions), the shift manager did not carry out

his continuing responsibilities to review emergency action levels, classify the event, and fulfill

the duties of the Emergency Coordinator. Specifically, once the possibility that there was fuel

damage was brought to his attention 20 to 30 minutes into the event, the shift manager failed to

promptly use the emergency classification scheme as required by the Perry Emergency Plan in

accordance with 10 CFR 50.47 (b)(4), and consequently, the event classification was

unnecessarily delayed.

With respect to your position that there was no safety significance to this event, the NRC

recognizes that the safety significance of this particular event was low. Per the emergency

preparedness SDP (during an actual event), significance is based on the event classification

level, and whether or not there was a failure to implement a risk significant planning standard. 

During the time period noted above, the shift manager failed to implement a risk significant

planning standard during an Alert condition. The failure to implement a risk significant planning

standard is important to safety, since the emergency classification is the trigger for ensuring

that emergency response personnel and equipment are quickly in place if it becomes necessary

to implement actions to protect the public health and safety. In addition, timely emergency

classification allows the state and surrounding counties the time necessary to assess

conditions, staff their facilities, and make informed decisions for protecting public safety. Such

a finding is considered White in accordance with IMC 0609, Appendix B, and has low to

moderate importance to safety. 

After considering the information developed during the inspection and at the Regulatory

Conference, the NRC has concluded that the inspection finding is appropriately characterized

as White (i.e., an issue with low to moderate increased importance to safety, which may require

additional NRC inspections).
W. Kanda -3-

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 Chapter 0609, Attachment 2.

The NRC has also determined that the failure to properly implement the standard emergency

classification and action level scheme resulting in an undue delay in declaring an actual

emergency is a violation of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(4), as cited in the enclosed Notice of Violation

(Notice). The circumstances surrounding the violation are described in detail in the subject

inspection report. 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

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 Grant Acting for/

James L. Caldwell

Regional Administrator

Docket No. 50-440

License No. NPF-58

Enclosure: 1. Notice of Violation

2. Licensee Presentation ADAMS Accession #033500224

3. Regulatory Conference Attendance List

See Attached Distribution
W. Kanda -3-

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 Chapter 0609, Attachment 2.

The NRC has also determined that the failure to properly implement the standard emergency

classification and action level scheme resulting in an undue delay in declaring an actual

emergency is a violation of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(4), as cited in the enclosed Notice of Violation

(Notice). The circumstances surrounding the violation are described in detail in the subject

inspection report. 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

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 Grant Acting for/

James L. Caldwell

Regional Administrator

Docket No. 50-440

License No. NPF-58

Enclosure: 1. Notice of Violation

2. Licensee Presentation ADAMS Accession #033500224

3. Regulatory Conference Attendance List

See Attached Distribution

*See Attached Distribution

DOCUMENT NAME: C:\MYFILES\Copies\PER 012304 EA-03-194 DRS.wpd

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

OFFICE RIII * E RIII * E RIII * RIII * E

NAME RJickling:tr/sd KRiemer MRing BClayton

DATE 01/16/04 01/16/04 01/20/04 01/20/04

OFFICE OE * N RIII * RIII * RIII

NAME FCongel** BBerson RCaniano for

CPederson

GGrant for

JCaldwell

DATE 01/16/04 01/20/04 01/20/04 01/23/04

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

**via e-mail from J. Dixon-Herrity.
W. Kanda -4-

cc w/encls: 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
W. Kanda -4-

cc w/encls: 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

ADAMS Distribution: 

F. Congel (FJC), Director, Office of Enforcement

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

R. Franovich (RLF2), Enforcement Coordinator, NRR

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

J. Dixon-Herrity (JLD), OE

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

S. Sands (SPS1), Perry Project Manager, Project Directorate, Division of Licensing 

 Project Management, NRR

D. Holody (DJH), Enforcement Coordinator, RI

C. Evans (CFE), Enforcement Coordinator, RII

G. Sanborn (GFS), Enforcement Coordinator, RIV

S. Reynolds (SAR1), Acting Director, Division of Reactor Projects, RIII 

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

M. Ring, DRP Branch Chief

R. Powell, SRI, Perry

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

B. Clayton (HBC), Enforcement/Investigations Officer, RIII

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

PMNS

RIII Public Affairs (VTM, RJS2)

J. Kweiser (JRK1), ORA 

P. Buckley (PLB1), ORA
1 Enclosure 1

NOTICE OF VIOLATION

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company Docket No. 50-440

Perry Nuclear Power Plant License No. NPF-58

EA-03-194

During an NRC inspection conducted between August 5, and October 5, 2003, at the Perry

Nuclear Power Plant, 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:

10 CFR 50.54(q) requires, in part, that a licensee authorized to operate a nuclear power

reactor shall follow and maintain in effect emergency plans which meet the standards in

Section 50.47(b). 10 CFR 50.47(b)(2) requires, in part, that on-shift facility licensee

responsibilities for emergency response are unambiguously defined, and adequate

staffing to provide initial facility accident response is maintained at all times. 

10 CFR 50.47(b)(4) requires, in part, that a standard emergency classification and

action level scheme is in use by the nuclear facility licensee.

The Emergency Plan for Perry sets forth, among other things, on-shift facility licensee

responsibilities for emergency response (in accordance with 10 CFR 50.47(b)(2)), and

delineates the standard emergency classification and action level scheme in use by the

licensee (in accordance with 10 CFR 50.47(b)(4)). Section 4.1 of this Emergency Plan

states, in part, that the classification system provided in Emergency Plan Instruction

EPI-A1, provides for implementation of certain actions applicable to specific indications,

and identifies that the Emergency Coordinator shall declare the emergency classification

and the actions to be taken.

Emergency Plan Instruction EPI-A1, “Emergency Action Levels,” delineates licensee

emergency response responsibilities in accordance with 10 CFR 50.47(b)(2), as well as

the emergency action level scheme in accordance with 10 CFR 50.47(b)(4). Section 4.0

requires, in part, that the Control Room Shift Supervisor be designated the Emergency

Coordinator, classify an Emergency Plan event when actual or potential plant conditions

dictate, and ensure required actions are implemented. Section 5.0 requires, in part, that

the Emergency Coordinator: (1) place high priority on classification; (2) determine the

most appropriate initiating condition based on the operating mode and plant conditions;

(3) review emergency action level entry criteria for initiating conditions and determine

whether the criteria was met for the operating mode listed; and (4) declare an

emergency class when all the conditions listed in at least one emergency action level

column have been met, based on the most severe emergency class met. Attachment 2,

Initiating Condition GA2 specifies that an Alert emergency action level is met when there

is a high alarm on the fuel handling building vent gas radiation monitor from damage to

irradiated fuel.

Contrary to the above, on April 24, 2003, the standard emergency classification and

action level scheme was not properly used by the operations crew. Specifically, at

11:00 a.m., a condition occurred that warranted an Alert declaration in accordance with

EPI-A1 when the end cap separated from a previously damaged fuel pin being

inspected and the fuel handling building ventilation gaseous radiation monitor activated
2 Enclosure 1

Notice of Violation -2-

a high alarm in the control room. After the shift manager reviewed emergency plan

implementing procedures for emergency action levels at approximately 11:10 a.m., and

initiated actions to assure safe plant conditions and fuel handling building and

containment evacuations, the shift manager did not then carry out his responsibility as

Emergency Coordinator and assess, identify, and classify the event in a timely manner. 

Even after the report of damaged fuel was received between 11:20 a.m. and 11:30 a.m.,

there was an undue delay in properly classifying the event and the Alert classification

was not made until 11:50 a.m.

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

The NRC has concluded that information regarding the reason for the violation, the corrective

actions taken and planned to correct the violation and prevent recurrence and the date when

full compliance will be achieved is already adequately addressed on the docket in your

presentation handout provided during the December 9, 2003 regulatory conference. However,

you are required to submit a written statement or explanation pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201 if the

description therein does not accurately reflect your corrective actions or your position. In that

case, or if you choose to respond, clearly mark your response as a “Reply to a Notice of

Violation,” include the EA number, and send it 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 facility that is the

subject of this Notice, within 30 days of the date of the letter transmitting this Notice of Violation

(Notice).

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.

If you choose to respond, 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. Therefore, to

the extent possible, the response should not include any personal privacy, proprietary, or

safeguards information so that it can be made available to the Public without redaction.

In accordance with 10 CFR 19.11, you may be required to post this Notice within two working

days.

Dated this 23rd day of January 2004
Enclosure 3

Attendance List

Licensee

D. Bauguess, Emergency Planning Unit Supervisor

V. Higaki, Regulatory Affairs Manager

B. Kanda, Site Vice President

R. Kearney, Plant Operations Manager

M. Laris, Reactor Engineering Supervisor

J. Lausberg, Compliance/Regulatory Affairs Supervisor

L. Myers, Chief Operating Officer

T. Raush, Operations Director

T. Veitch, Shift Manager

T. Lentz, Engineering Director

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

T. Blount, Emergency Preparedness Specialist

R. Caniano, Deputy Director, Division of Reactor Safety

J. Dixon-Herrity, Senior Enforcement Specialist

G. Grant, Deputy Regional Administrator

R. Jickling; Emergency Preparedness Analyst

K. Lambert, Enforcement Specialist

V. Mitlyng, Public Affairs

R. Powell, Senior Resident Inspector

K. Riemer, Chief, Plant Support Branch, DRS

M. Ring, Chief, Branch 1, DRP

T. Steadham, Resident Inspector