UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION III

2443 WARRENVILLE ROAD, SUITE 210

LISLE, IL 60532-4352

August 25, 2011

EA-11-148

Mr. Mark Bezilla

Site Vice President

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company

Perry Nuclear Power Plant

P. O. Box 97, 10 Center Road, A-PY-A290

Perry, OH 44081-0097

SUBJECT: FINAL SIGNIFICANCE DETERMINATION OF WHITE FINDING WITH 

ASSESSMENT FOLLOWUP AND NOTICE OF VIOLATION; 

NRC INSPECTION REPORT NO. 05000440/2011014

PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

Dear Mr. Bezilla:

This letter provides you the final significance determination of the preliminary White finding as 

discussed in our previous communication dated June 30, 2011, which included U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC) Inspection Report No. 05000440/2011013. The finding involved 

your staff’s radiological performance associated with the retraction of a stuck source range 

monitor from the reactor vessel.

In a letter dated August 1, 2011, you provided a response to the NRC staff preliminary 

determination regarding the finding. Your response indicated that FirstEnergy Nuclear 

Operating Company did not contest the facts and assumptions used by the NRC to arrive at the 

finding and its significance. Your letter further described the corrective actions being taken in 

response to the finding.

After considering the information developed during the inspection and based on the absence of 

any new or additional information in your August 1, 2011, letter regarding the basis for the 

finding, the NRC has concluded that the finding is appropriately characterized as White, a 

finding of low to moderate risk significance. According to NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 

(IMC) 0609, appeal rights only apply to those licensees that have either attended a Regulatory 

Conference or submitted a written response to the preliminary determination letter.

The NRC has also determined that violations were associated with the White finding, as cited in 

the enclosed Notice of Violation (Notice). The circumstances surrounding the violations were 

described in detail in NRC Inspection Report No. 05000440/2011013. In accordance with the 

NRC Enforcement Policy, the Notice is considered escalated enforcement action because it is 

associated with a White finding.
M. Bezilla -2-

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

actions taken and planned to be taken to correct the violations and prevent recurrence, and the 

date when full compliance was achieved, is already adequately addressed on the docket in 

NRC Inspection Report No. 05000440/2011013 and in your letter dated August 1, 2011. 

Therefore, you are not required to respond to this letter unless the description therein does not 

accurately reflect your corrective actions or your position. In that case, or if you choose to 

provide additional information, you should follow the instructions specified in the enclosed 

Notice.

As a result of our review of Perry’s performance, including this White finding and the existing 

White performance indicator in the Occupational Radiation Safety Cornerstone, we have 

assessed Perry to be in the Degraded Cornerstone column (Column 3) of the NRC’s Action 

Matrix. Therefore, we plan to conduct a supplemental inspection using Inspection 

Procedure 95002, “Supplemental Inspection for One Degraded Cornerstone or Any Three 

White Inputs in a Strategic Performance Area,” when your staff has notified us of your readiness 

for this inspection. This inspection procedure is conducted to provide assurance that the root 

cause and contributing causes of risk significant performance issues are understood, to 

independently assess and provide assurance that the extent of condition and the extent of 

cause are identified, to independently determine if safety culture components caused or 

significantly contributed the performance issues, and to provide assurance that your corrective 

actions are sufficient to address the root and contributing causes and prevent recurrence.

In accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 2.390 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 Agencywide Documents Access and Management 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 http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/ 

enforcement/actions.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Mark A. Satorius

Regional Administrator

Docket No. 050-00440

License No. NPF-58

Enclosure:

Notice of Violation

cc w/encl: Distribution via ListServ
ENCLOSURE

NOTICE OF VIOLATION

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company Docket No. 050-00440

Perry Nuclear Power Plant License No. NPF-58

EA-11-148

During a U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) special inspection conducted from 

April 25 to May 25, 2011, violations of NRC requirements were identified. In accordance with 

the NRC Enforcement Policy, the violations are listed below:

A. Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 20 Subpart F – Surveys and 

Monitoring Section 20.1501 requires, in part, that licensees make surveys that may be 

necessary to comply with the regulations in Part 20 and are reasonable under the 

circumstances to evaluate the magnitude and extent of radiation levels and the potential 

radiological hazards. Pursuant to 10 CFR 20.1003, survey means an evaluation of the 

radiological conditions and potential hazards incident to the production, use, transfer, 

release, disposal or presence of radioactive material or other sources of radiation.

Contrary to the above, as of April 21, 2011, the licensee failed to make surveys to 

evaluate the potential radiological hazards incident to work activity to assure compliance 

with 10 CFR 20.1201, which limits the occupational dose to individual adults. 

Specifically, the licensee did not perform an evaluation of the potential radiological 

hazards associated with the work activity prior to authorizing removal of an irradiated 

in-core source range monitor (SRM).

B. Technical Specification 5.7.1.b states, in part, that entry into high and locked high 

radiation areas be made after the dose rate levels in the area have been established and 

personnel are made aware of them. 

Contrary to the above, on April 21, 2011, the licensee permitted entry into a high 

radiation area without establishing the dose rate levels in the area and without personnel 

being made aware of the dose rates. Specifically, the licensee did not perform a

complete radiological characterization of the SRM (a radiological source of unknown 

magnitude), which was being pulled toward the work area and toward the workers’

escape path. Consequently, the licensee did not inform the workers of the potential 

dose rate levels associated with their entry into the high radiation area.

C. Technical Specification 5.4.1 requires that written procedures be established, 

implemented, and maintained covering the activities in Regulatory Guide 1.33, 

Revision 2, Appendix A, dated February 1978. 

Regulatory Guide 1.33, Revision 2, Appendix A Section 7 addresses, in part, procedures 

for control of radioactivity for limiting personnel exposure. Section 7.e(1) addresses 

procedures for access control to radiation areas including a radiation work permits 

system and Section 7.e(9) addresses procedures for implementation of an as low as is 

reasonably achievable (ALARA) program.
Notice of Violation -2-

ENCLOSURE

The licensee established Procedure HPI-C0015, Revision 00, “Radiological Controls for 

Highly Radioactive and Irradiated Components or Materials,” to control highly radioactive 

objects and materials removed from the reactor vessel. 

The licensee established Procedure NOP-OP-4107, Revision 05, “Radiation Work 

Permit,” in part, for implementation of an ALARA program. Step 4.3.2.3 of this 

procedure states, in part, that ALARA plans are developed with sufficient detail on what 

requirements, considerations and actions are to be ALARA for the work activity. 

Contrary to the above, as of April 21, 2011, the licensee:

a. Failed to establish a procedure that addressed access control to all radiation 

areas. Specifically, Procedure HPI-C0015 only addressed work activities on the 

refueling floor and did not address access control to the undervessel radiation 

area or control of highly radioactive objects and materials removed from the 

reactor vessel through the undervessel area.

b. Failed to implement Procedure NOP-OP-4107, in that the ALARA plan for work 

on the SRM lacked sufficient detail about the requirements, consideration, and 

actions to ensure that the work activity was performed in an ALARA manner. 

Specifically, the ALARA plan did not ensure that the work activity to retract the 

irradiated SRM-C contained steps to ensure that the ambient radiation field in the 

work area in the carousel and sub-pile room areas was being controlled and that 

the worker actions were in accordance with ALARA considerations.

These violations are associated with a White Significance Determination Process finding

(VIO 0500440/2011014-01).

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

actions taken and planned to be taken to correct the violations and prevent recurrence, and the 

date when full compliance was achieved, is already adequately addressed on the docket in NRC 

Inspection Report No. 05000440/2011013 and in your letter dated August 1, 2011. 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, EA-11-148,” and send it to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document 

Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555-0001, with a copy to the Regional Administrator and the 

Enforcement Officer, Region III, 2443 Warrenville Road, Suite 210, Lisle, IL 60532, and a copy to 

the NRC Resident Inspector at the Perry facility 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.
Notice of Violation -3-

ENCLOSURE

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 Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management 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 of receipt. 

Dated this 25th day of August 2011
M. Bezilla -2-

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

actions taken and planned to be taken to correct the violations and prevent recurrence, and the 

date when full compliance was achieved, is already adequately addressed on the docket in 

NRC Inspection Report No. 05000440/2011013 and in your letter dated August 1, 2011. 

Therefore, you are not required to respond to this letter unless the description therein does not 

accurately reflect your corrective actions or your position. In that case, or if you choose to 

provide additional information, you should follow the instructions specified in the enclosed 

Notice.

As a result of our review of Perry’s performance, including this White finding and the existing 

White performance indicator in the Occupational Radiation Safety Cornerstone, we have 

assessed Perry to be in the Degraded Cornerstone column (Column 3) of the NRC’s Action 

Matrix. Therefore, we plan to conduct a supplemental inspection using Inspection Procedure 

95002, “Supplemental Inspection for One Degraded Cornerstone or Any Three White Inputs in a 

Strategic Performance Area,” when your staff has notified us of your readiness for this 

inspection. This inspection procedure is conducted to provide assurance that the root cause 

and contributing causes of risk significant performance issues are understood, to independently 

assess and provide assurance that the extent of condition and the extent of cause are identified, 

to independently determine if safety culture components caused or significantly contributed the 

performance issues, and to provide assurance that your corrective actions are sufficient to 

address the root and contributing causes and prevent recurrence.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 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 Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management 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 http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/enforcement/actions.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Mark A. Satorius

Regional Administrator

Docket No. 050-00440

License No. NPF-58

Enclosure:

Notice of Violation

cc w/encl: Distribution via ListServ

DISTRIBUTION:

See next page

FILE NAME: G:\ORAIII\EICS\ENFORCEMENT\Enforcement Cases 2011\EA-11-148 Perry RP\EA-11-148 

Perry Final Action (REV 25Aug11).docx

 Publicly Available, non-sensitive 

OFFICE RIII RIII RIII OE RIII RIII

NAME Orth for

Lougheed

O’Brien for

Dickson

O’Brien for

Reynolds

Coleman for

Zimmerman1

Orth Satorius

DATE 08/25/11 08/25/11 08/25/11 08/09/11 08/25/11 08/25/11

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

 1 OE concurrence received via e-mail from N. Coleman on August 9, 2011.
Letter to Mark Bezilla from Mark Satorius, dated August 25, 2011

SUBJECT: FINAL SIGNIFICANCE DETERMINATION OF WHITE FINDING WITH 

ASSESSMENT FOLLOWUP AND NOTICE OF VIOLATION; 

NRC INSPECTION REPORT NO. 05000440/2011014

PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

DISTRIBUTION:

RidsSecyMailCenter.Resource

OCADistribution

Bill Borchardt

Martin Virgilio

Roy Zimmerman

Nick Hilton

Nicole Coleman

Mark Satorius

Cynthia Pederson

Marvin Itzkowitz

Catherine Scott

Eric Leeds

Bruce Boger

Mary Ann Ashley

Daniel Holody

Scott Sparks

Heather Gepford

Holly Harrington

Hubert Bell

Cheryl McCrary

Mona Williams

Steven West

Gary Shear

Steven Orth

Jared Heck

Allan Barker

Viktoria Mitlyng

Prema Chandrathil

Patricia Lougheed

Paul Pelke

Magdalena Gryglak

Sarah Bakhsh

Daniel Merzke

RidsNrrPMPerry Resource

RidsNrrDorlLpI3-2 Resource

RidsNrrDirsIrib Resource

Carole Ariano

Linda Linn

DRPIII

DRSIII

Patricia Buckley

Tammy Tomczak

ROPreports Resource

OEMAIL

OEWEB