UNITED STATES 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Region III 

2443 Warrenville Road, Suite 210

Lisle IL 60532-4352

July 24, 2012 

EA-12-106 

Mr. Larry Meyer 

Site Vice President 

NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC 

6610 Nuclear Road 

Two Rivers, WI 54241 

SUBJECT: FINAL SIGNIFICANCE DETERMINATION OF A WHITE FINDING WITH 

ASSESSMENT FOLLOWUP AND NOTICE OF VIOLATION; 

NRC INSPECTION REPORT NOS. 05000266/2012504 

AND 05000301/2012504; POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 

Dear Mr. Meyer: 

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

discussed in our previous communication dated June 1, 2012, which included U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC) Inspection Report Nos. 05000266/2012503 and 

05000301/2012503. The finding involved an apparent logic error in a Point Beach emergency 

planning implementing procedure that directed the emergency director to revisit the question of 

impediments to evacuation after a prior decision to evacuate affected downwind sectors had 

been implemented by local authorities, resulting in a contradictory recommendation for 

sheltering being given during an exercise. Additionally, the NRC determined that Point Beach 

did not initiate protective action recommendations when the projected dose to an individual was 

1 rem beyond the 10-mile plume exposure pathway. 

In a telephone conversation with Mr. Melvin Holmberg of NRC, Region III, on June 11, 2012, 

you indicated that NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC did not contest the characterization of the 

risk significance of this finding and that you declined your opportunity to discuss this issue in a 

Regulatory Conference or to provide any additional information concerning the validity of the 

finding or the significance determination in a written response. NextEra Energy Point 

Beach, LLC followed this verbal notification with a letter dated June 29, 2012. 

Therefore, after considering the information developed during the inspection, the NRC has 

concluded that the finding is appropriately characterized for Units 1 and 2 as White, a finding of 

low to moderate risk significance. 

According to NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 0609, Attachment 2, “Process for Appealing 

NRC Characterization of Inspection Findings (SDP Appeal Process),” appeal rights only apply 

to those licensees that have either attended a Regulatory Conference or have submitted a 

written response to the preliminary determination letter which submits additional information 

not previously considered by the NRC staff. In its June 29, 2012, letter, NextEra Energy Point 

Beach, LLC noted that it concurred with the finding and did not request a Regulatory 

Conference or provide a written response containing additional information concerning the 
L. Meyer -2- 

validity of the finding or the significance determination. By this statement, NextEra Energy Point 

Beach, LLC gave up its right to appeal the finding. 

In its June 29, 2012, letter, NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC suggested that the cross-cutting 

aspect appeared to be more appropriately categorized in the area of Human Performance, 

Decision Making, Systematic Process (H.1(a)) rather than in the area of Human Performance, 

Resources, Documentation (H.2(c)). The NRC reviewed the information provided and 

determined that the original cross-cutting aspect will be retained. 

The NRC has also determined that a violation was associated with the finding, as cited in the 

Notice of Violation (Notice) provided in the enclosure. The circumstances surrounding the 

violation were described in detail in NRC Inspection Report Nos. 05000266/2012503; 

05000301/2012503. In accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy, the Notice is considered 

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

The NRC has concluded that information regarding the reasons for the violation, the 

corrective actions taken and planned to be taken to correct the violation, and the date when full 

compliance was achieved, is already adequately addressed on the docket in NRC Inspection 

Report Nos. 05000266/2012503; 05000301/2012503. 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 Point Beach’s performance, including this White finding, we have 

assessed the plant to be in the Regulatory Response column of the NRC’s Action Matrix, 

effective the second quarter of 2012. Therefore, we plan to conduct a supplemental inspection 

using Inspection Procedure 95001, “Inspection for One or Two 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, the extent of condition and the 

extent of cause are identified, and the corrective actions are sufficient to 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 you choose to provide one, 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 

 
L. Meyer -3- 

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/ 

Charles A. Casto

Regional Administrator

Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301 

License Nos. DPR-24 and DPR-27 

Enclosure: 

Notice of Violation 

cc: Distribution via ListServ
Enclosure 

NOTICE OF VIOLATION 

NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC Docket Nos. 50-266; 50-301 

Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 License Nos. DPR-24; DPR-27 

 EA-12-106 

During a U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) inspection conducted from April 16 

through 20, 2012, a violation of NRC requirements was identified. In accordance with 

the NRC Enforcement Policy, the violation is listed below: 

Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 50.54(q)(2) requires licensees to 

follow and maintain the effectiveness of an emergency plan that meets the requirements 

in Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50 and the planning standards of 50.47(b). 

Title 10 CFR 50.47(b)(10) requires, in part, for licensees to develop and have in place 

guidelines for the choice of protective actions during an emergency that were consistent 

with Federal guidance. 

Federal guidance in EPA 400-R-92-001, “The Manual of Protective Action Guides and 

Protective Actions for Nuclear Incidents,” states on page 5-3, “Withdrawal of protective 

actions from areas where they have already been implemented is usually not advisable 

during the early phase because of the potential for changing conditions and confusion.” 

Also, Federal guidance in NUREG-0654, FEMA-REP-1, Revision 1, Supplement 3, 

“Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and 

Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants,” similarly states licensees should not 

relax protective actions until the source of the threat is under control. 

Additionally, Federal guidance in EPA 400, Table 2-1 states, in part, that protective 

actions, evacuation or sheltering, are normally to be initiated when the projected dose to 

an individual is 1 rem. These protective actions are not limited by distance. In the 

absence of an acceptable licensee-proposed alternative method, the NRC utilizes this 

guidance for determining compliance with the applicable regulation. 

Contrary to the above, as of April 20, 2012, the licensee failed to provide guidelines 

consistent with Federal guidance in its emergency procedures. Specifically the 

Point Beach emergency plan implementing procedure, EPIP 1.3, “Dose Assessment and 

Protective Action Recommendations”: 

a) allowed the emergency response organization to make a protective action 

recommendation (PAR) during an exercise that had the effect of withdrawing an 

earlier PAR that the local authorities had already started to implement, and 

b) did not initiate PARs when the projected dose to an individual was 1 rem beyond 

the 10 mile plume exposure pathway. 

This violation is associated with a White Significance Determination Process finding. 
Notice of Violation -2- 

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

actions taken and planned to be taken to correct the violation, and the date when full compliance 

was achieved, is already adequately addressed on the docket in NRC Inspection Report 

Nos. 05000266/2012503; 05000301/2012503. 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-12-106” 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, Region III, 2443 Warrenville Road, 

Suite 210, Lisle, IL 60532, and a copy to the NRC Resident Inspector at the Point Beach Nuclear 

facility, within 30 days of the date of the letter transmitting this Notice of Violation (Notice). 

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, 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 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. 

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

days of receipt. 

Dated this 24th day of July 2012 
L. Meyer -2- 

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/ 

Charles A. Casto

Regional Administrator 

Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301 

License Nos. DPR-24 and DPR-27 

Enclosure: 

Notice of Violation 

DISTRIBUTION: 

See next page 

SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE

FILE NAME: G:\ORAIII\EICS\ENFORCEMENT\Cases\Enforcement Cases 2012\EA-12-106 Point Beach EP 

PARS\EA-12-106 Point Beach Final determination letter.docx 

OFFICE RIII RIII RIII OE RIII RIII 

NAME Lougheed 

PRP for 

Holmberg Reynolds Zimmerman1

LRC for 

Orth 

PL for 

Casto 

DATE 07/09/12 07/09/12 07/10/12 07/18/12 07/20/12 07/19/12 

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

 

1

 OE concurrence received via e-mail from L. Casey on July 18, 2012. 
Letter to Larry Meyer from Charles A. Casto dated July 24th, 2012 

SUBJECT: FINAL SIGNIFICANCE DETERMINATION OF A WHITE FINDING WITH 

ASSESSMENT FOLLOWUP AND NOTICE OF VIOLATION; NRC INSPECTION 

REPORT NOS. 05000266/2012504 AND 05000301/2012504; POINT BEACH 

NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 

DISTRIBUTION:

RidsSecyMailCenter.Resource 

OCADistribution 

Bill Borchardt 

Michael Johnson 

Roy Zimmerman 

Nick Hilton 

Lauren Casey 

Chuck Casto 

Cynthia Pederson 

Marvin Itzkowitz 

Catherine Scott 

Eric Leeds 

Bruce Boger 

Jeremy Bowen 

James Wiggins 

Robert Lewis 

Shyrl Coker 

Niry Simonian 

Daniel Holody 

Caroline Evans 

Heather Gepford 

Holly Harrington 

Hubert Bell 

Cheryl McCrary 

Mona Williams 

Shawn Williams 

RidsNrrPMPointBeach Resource 

RidsNrrDorlLpl3-1 Resource 

RidsNrrDirsIrib Resource 

Steven Orth 

Allan Barker 

Harral Logaras 

Viktoria Mitlyng 

Prema Chandrathil 

Patricia Lougheed 

Paul Pelke 

Magdalena Gryglak 

Sarah Bahksh 

Carole Ariano 

Linda Linn 

DRPIII 

DRSIII 

Patricia Buckley 

Tammy Tomczak 

OEMAIL Resource 

OEWEB Resource 

ROPassessment.Resource@nrc.gov