March 29, 2005

EA-04-214

Mr. R. Anderson

Vice President

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company

Perry Nuclear Power Plant

P. O. Box 97, A290

10 Center Road

Perry, OH 44081

SUBJECT: PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

FINAL SIGNIFICANCE DETERMINATION FOR A WHITE FINDING

AND NOTICE OF VIOLATION (NRC INSPECTION REPORT

NO. 05000440/2005007(DRS))

Dear Mr. Anderson:

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. 05000440/2004016(DRS). 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 event which was classified at the Alert

level on July 20, 2004.

The finding involved a failure to conduct an emergency dose assessment within 15 minutes of

your classifying the event at the Alert level as required by your Emergency Plan on

July 20, 2004. 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, “Emergency Plans.”

In our letter dated December 23, 2004, transmitting the inspection report, we provided

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

Conference or provide a written response. You declined the opportunity to discuss this issue in

a Regulatory Conference and instead on January 26, 2005, provided a written response to our

December 23, 2004, letter. A copy of the written response you provided to the NRC 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 ML050460286.

In your letter, you disagreed with the NRC’s preliminary assessment of the violation and

application of the significance determination process, and provided additional information that

you requested the NRC use to re-evaluate the significance of the violation. The attachment to
R. Anderson -2-

your letter provided a timeline of events describing the Shift Manager’s (Emergency

Coordinator) actions to assess both the event and the potential for escalating the emergency

classification level. The attachment to your letter also provided an outline of FENOC’s position

regarding performance deficiencies and the significance of those performance deficiencies. 

Specifically, your letter stated that you believed the events resulted in the identification of two

performance issues: (1) the Emergency Action Level HA1 note was not clear; and (2) the Shift

Manager failed to direct a Computer Aided Dose Assessment Program (CADAP) run within

15 minutes of classifying the event at the Alert level. Your letter also stated that neither of

these performance issues resulted in a failure to implement the Emergency Action Levels or the

Emergency Plan and that neither of these performance issues had an impact or a potential

impact on the health and safety of the general public. As a result, you concluded that the

performance deficiencies did not rise to the level of a White finding.

We have reviewed the information you provided relative to the timeline of events, and your

position that the Shift Manager monitored plant indications and survey results during the event

in order to assess actual plant conditions and to determine if an escalation of the event was

required. We determined that the Shift Manager did not direct the performance of the CADAP

run within 15 minutes of the initial classification of the event at the Alert level, a fact

acknowledged in your January 26, 2005, letter. You also stated that the plant staff questioned

the appropriateness of the Emergency Action Level note directing the Shift Manager to have a

CADAP run completed since, according to Perry Nuclear Power Plant procedure development

guidance, actions are not to be contained within notes. Notwithstanding the potential conflict

between the Emergency Plan Emergency Action Level note and the lower tier procedure

development guidance, the Perry Emergency Plan, as a part of the station’s license, must be

implemented as written and approved.

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

acknowledge that the actual safety significance of this particular event was low. However, the

NRC Significance Determination Process (SDP) defines the significance of an actual event

based upon the declared emergency classification level and your success in implementing the

risk significant planning standards. During the time period noted above, the Shift Manager

failed to implement a risk significant planning standard during an event classified at the Alert

level. 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 prepared to implement actions to protect the public health and safety. Such a

finding is considered White in accordance with Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 0609,

Appendix B, and has low to moderate importance to safety.

After considering the information developed during the inspection and the additional information

provided in your January 26, 2005, letter, 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).

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.
R. Anderson -3-

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

classification and action level scheme 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 NRC Inspection Report No. 05000440/2004016(DRS). 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.

You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the

enclosed Notice when preparing your response.

Because plant performance has been determined to be in the Multiple/Repetitive Degraded

Cornerstone Column, we will use the NRC Action Matrix to determine the most appropriate

NRC response for this event. We will notify you of that determination by separate

correspondence.

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.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 Mark Satorius Acting for/

James L. Caldwell

Regional Administrator

Docket No. 50-440

License No. NPF-58

Enclosures: 1. Notice of Violation

2. Licensee Response ADAMS Accession #ML050460286

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

L. Myers, Chief Operating Officer, FENOC

J. Hagan, Senior Vice President Engineering and Services, FENOC

Director, Site Operations

Director, Regulatory Affairs

W. O’Malley, Manager, Maintenance Department

Manager, Regulatory Compliance

J. Messina, Director, Performance Improvement

T. Lentz, Director, Nuclear Engineering Department

F. Von Ahn, Plant Manager,

 Nuclear Power Plant Department

D. Jenkins, Attorney, First Energy

Public Utilities Commission of Ohio

Ohio State Liaison Officer

R. Owen, Ohio Department of Health
R. Anderson -4-

ADAMS Distribution:

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

J. Moore, (JEM), 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

Unding Shoop, (USS), Region III Coordinator, OEDO

C. Nolan, (MCN), OE

L. Trocine, (LXT), 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

M. Satorius (MAS), Director, Division of Reactor Projects, RIII

S. Reynolds (SAR1), 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, AMS1)

K. O’Brien (KGO), Enforcement/Investigations Officer, RIII

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

PMNS

RIII Public Affairs (VTM, RJS2)

AJM

SPS1

RidsNrrDipmIipb

GEG

RJP

DRPIII 

DRSIII

PLB1

JRK1

WDL (IR’s only)

ROPreports@nrc.gov 

OEWEB

OEMAIL
*See Previous Concurrence

DOCUMENT NAME: E:\Filenet\ML050890076.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 * N RIII * 

NAME KRiemer:tr/sd MPhillips for CLipa BBerson RCaniano for CPederson

DATE 03/16/05 03/16/05 03/08/05 03/17/05

OFFICE RIII * NSIR E OE E RIII RIII

NAME SReynolds RKahler FCongel (MCN for) KO’Brien JCaldwell

DATE 03/18/05 03/23/05 03/24/05 03/21/05 03/29/05

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
NOTICE OF VIOLATION

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company Docket No. 50-440

Perry Nuclear Power Plant License No. NPF-58

EA-04-214

During an NRC inspection conducted between October 4 and November 19, 2004, 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:

Title 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). Title 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 Perry Nuclear Power Plant Emergency Plan, Section 4.0, provided an emergency

classification system which includes Emergency Action Levels. Emergency Action

Level (EAL) HA1 required, in part, that when entered, an emergency dose assessment

run using the appropriate source term, determined at the time of the event, must be

performed within 15 minutes concurrently with Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM)

calculations to determine if Site Area Emergency entry criteria have been met.

Contrary to the above, on July 20, 2004, the First Energy Nuclear Operating Company,

a licensee authorized to operate the Perry Nuclear Plant, failed to implement the

emergency classification system and emergency action levels described in Section 4.0

of the Perry Power Plant Emergency Plan. Specifically, the licensee did not conduct the

emergency dose assessment required by EAL HA1 within 15 minutes of its classification

of the event as an Alert at 3:44 a.m. on July 20, 2004. The licensee completed the

emergency dose assessment at 6:24 a.m., 2 hours and 40 minutes after the Alert

declaration. As a result, the licensee failed to meet the requirements of their emergency

plan during a declared Alert.

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

Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, First Energy 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 facility that

is the subject of this Notice, 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-04-214,” 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 
Notice of Violation -2-

be taken. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the response

time.

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 2.390(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.

In accordance with 10 CFR 19.11, you may be required to post this Notice within 2 working

days.

Dated this 29th day of March 2005