ML091270080

IR 05000282-09-008, and IR 05000306-09-008, for Prairie Island, Units 1 & 2, Final Significance Determination of White Finding and Notice of Violation

ML091270080
Person / Time
Site:	Prairie Island
Issue date:	05/06/2009
From:	Satorius M Region 3 Administrator
To:	Wadley M Northern States Power Co
References
EA-08-349 IR-09-008
Download: ML091270080 (7)

See also: IR 05000282/2009008

Text

May 6, 2009

EA-08-349

Mr. Michael D. Wadley

Site Vice President

Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant

Northern States Power Company-Minnesota

1717 Wakonade Drive East

Welch, MN 55089

SUBJECT: FINAL SIGNIFICANCE DETERMINATION OF WHITE FINDING AND NOTICE

OF VIOLATION; NRC INSPECTION REPORT NO. 05000282/2009008;

05000306/2009008; PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT,

UNITS 1 AND 2

Dear Mr. Wadley:

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

discussed in our previous communication dated February 10, 2009, which provided Inspection

Report Number 05000282/2008009; 05000306/2008009 (ML090410466). The finding involved

the shipment of a package containing radioactive material, via an exclusive-use open transport

vehicle. When the package arrived at its destination, the detected radiation levels exceeded

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations, which invoke the Department of

Transportation requirements limiting the radiation level on the surface of a package shipped in an

open transport vehicle to 200 millirem per hour.

At your request, a Regulatory Conference was held on March 17, 2009, to further discuss your

views on this issue. During the conference, you and your staff described your assessment of

the significance of the finding, and the corrective actions taken to resolve it, including the root

cause evaluation of the finding. Specifically, your assessment of the significance of the finding

focused on the appropriateness of the different radiation detectors used to accurately

characterize the true dose rate for the source of the radiation. You presented information to

support your belief that an ion chamber detector was the appropriate instrument to be used, due

to the detectors slower response and its ability to accurately measure the true dose rate. You

also provided information to support your belief that a Geiger-Mueller detector would greatly

overestimate the actual dose rate. Therefore, you concluded that a White significance was the

appropriate outcome.

On March 26, 2009, your staff provided supplemental information in response to NRC

questions raised during the Regulatory Conference (ML090890369). After reviewing the

information developed during the inspection and provided during and after the conference, we

determined that both instruments provided valid measurements of the radiation levels near the

surface of the package. The differences in the instrument responses appeared to be primarily

due to the differences in detector geometries and response characteristics. While both

M. Wadley -2-

instruments provided measured radiation levels that exceeded the regulatory limit of

200 millirem per hour, the significance assessed using the public radiation safety Significance

Determination Process (SDP) resulted in different significance levels depending on the

instrument used.

The source of the radiation was from a discrete radioactive particle, which was a point source.

The NRC is aware that the biological effect of exposure to point sources of radiation is less than

that from an equivalent exposure to the whole body resulting from exposure to broader beams

of radiation. However, this risk insight is not fully factored into the current public radiation safety

cornerstone SDP, whose risk outcomes are based solely on the radiation level at the surface of

a package relative to the regulatory limits. In this particular case, the source of radiation, the

discrete radioactive particle, was located on the underside of the package in an area that was

not readily accessible to a member of the public during transport. Therefore, because of the

limited actual radiological risk to the public, the NRC determined that the application of

Inspection Manual Chapter 0609, Appendix M, Significance Determination Process Using

Qualitative Criteria, was more appropriate to evaluate the actual public radiation safety

significance of this finding.

The NRC used the results of the measurements obtained at the receipt of the package and the

relative risk from the point radiation source to develop the significance of the finding. As stated

above, both radiation detection instruments measured radiation levels that exceeded the

regulatory limit, which provides a level of protection to a member of the public that may come

into contact with the shipment. Although no exposures to the public resulted from the shipment,

the potential consequences could have been greater under less favorable circumstances. Any

shipment with radiation levels that exceed regulatory limits can be potentially significant, and in

this case the risk was more than minimal. Based on this assessment and after considering the

information developed during the inspection, the information you provided at the conference,

and the supplemental information, the NRC has concluded that the finding is appropriately

characterized as White, a finding with low to moderate increased importance to safety that may

require additional NRC inspections.

You have 30 calendar days from the date of this letter to appeal the staffs determination of

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

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

The NRC has determined that the failure to properly characterize, prepare, and ship a package

containing radioactive material and the failure to provide adequate training to workers who

were involved in the preparation of the package for transport are violations of 10 CFR 71.5,

which invokes 49 CFR 173.441(a) and 49 CFR 172.704, as cited in the enclosed Notice of

Violation (Notice). The circumstances surrounding the violations were described in detail in the

subject inspection report. 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 the information regarding the reason for the violations, the

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

the date when full compliance was achieved were adequately addressed at the Regulatory

Conference and on the docket (ML090790543 and ML090700284). Therefore, you are not

required to respond to this letter unless the description therein does not accurately reflect your

corrective actions or your position.

M. Wadley -3-

As a result of our review of Prairie Island Units 1 and 2 performance, including this White

finding, we have assessed you to be in the Regulatory Response column of the NRCs

Action Matrix. 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 is 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 enclosures, 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

NRCs 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.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Mark A. Satorius

Regional Administrator

Docket Nos. 50-282; 50-306

License Nos. DPR-42; DPR-60

Enclosure:

Notice of Violation

cc w/encl: D. Koehl, Chief Nuclear Officer

Regulatory Affairs Manager

P. Glass, Assistant General Counsel

Nuclear Asset Manager

J. Stine, State Liaison Officer, Minnesota Department of Health

Tribal Council, Prairie Island Indian Community

Administrator, Goodhue County Courthouse

Commissioner, Minnesota Department of Commerce

Manager, Environmental Protection Division

Office of the Attorney General of Minnesota

Emergency Preparedness Coordinator, Dakota

County Law Enforcement Center

M. Wadley -3-

As a result of our review of Prairie Island Units 1 and 2 performance, including this White finding, we have

assessed you to be in the Regulatory Response column of the NRCs Action Matrix. 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 is

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 enclosures,

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 NRCs 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.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Mark A. Satorius

Regional Administrator

Docket Nos. 50-282; 50-306

License Nos. DPR-42; DPR-60

Enclosure:

Notice of Violation

cc w/encl: D. Koehl, Chief Nuclear Officer

Regulatory Affairs Manager

P. Glass, Assistant General Counsel

Nuclear Asset Manager

J. Stine, State Liaison Officer, Minnesota Department of Health

Tribal Council, Prairie Island Indian Community

Administrator, Goodhue County Courthouse

Commissioner, Minnesota Department of Commerce

Manager, Environmental Protection Division

Office of the Attorney General of Minnesota

Emergency Preparedness Coordinator, Dakota

County Law Enforcement Center

DISTRIBUTION:

See next page

DOCUMENT NAME: G:\EICS\ENFORCEMENT\Enforcement Cases 2008\EA-08-349 Prairie Island

Transportation\EA-08-349 Draft Final Letter White and NOV.doc

Publicly Available Non-Publicly Available Sensitive  ; Non-Sensitive

OFFICE RIII RIII RIII RIII D: OE D: NRR RIII RIII

2

NAME Gryglak Lougheed Cassidy West Hilton for Pedersen Heck Satorius

1

for Orth Carpenter

DATE 05/04/09 05/01/09 05/04/09 05/04/09 04/30/09 04/30/09 05/05/09 05/05/09

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

1 OE concurrence per N. Hilton received via e-mail from Gregory Bowman on April 30, 2009.

2 NRR concurrence per R. Pedersen received via e-mail from Gregory Bowman on April 30, 2009.

Letter to Mr. Michael D. Wadley from Mr. Mark A. Satorius dated May 6, 2009

SUBJECT: FINAL SIGNIFICANCE DETERMINATION OF WHITE FINDING AND NOTICE

OF VIOLATION; NRC INSPECTION REPORT NO. 05000282/2009008;

05000306/2009008; PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT,

UNITS 1 AND 2

DISTRIBUTION:

ADAMS (PARS)

RidsSecyMailCenter Resource

OCADistribution

Bill Borchardt, EDO

Bruce Mallett, DEDR

Cynthia Carpenter, OE

Nick Hilton, OE

Gregory Bowman, OE

Mark Satorius, RIII

Catherine Marco, OGC

Marvin Itzkowitz, OGC

Eric Leeds, NRR

Bruce Boger, NRR

Daniel Holody, RI

Carolyn Evans, RII

Jared Heck, RIII

William Jones, RIV

MaryAnn Ashley, NRR

Karla Stoedter, RIII

Paul Zurawski, RIII

Eliot Brenner, OPA

Hubert Bell, OIG

Guy Caputo, OI

Mona Williams, OCFO

John Giessner, RIII

Scott Thomas, RIII

Martin J. Phalen, RIII

Mark W. Mitchell, RIII

Peter J. Lee, RIII

Viktoria Mitlyng, OPA RIII

Prema Chandrathil, OPA RIII

Allan Barker, RIII

Paul Pelke, RIII

Patricia Lougheed, RIII

Magdalena Gryglak, RIII

RidsNrrDirsIrib

OEMAIL Resource

OEWEB Resource

NOTICE OF VIOLATION

Northern States Power Company - Minnesota Docket Nos. 50-282; 50-306

Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2 License Nos. DPR-42; DPR-60

EA-08-349

During an NRC inspection conducted on November 17, 2008 through January 21, 2009, two

violations of NRC requirements were identified. In accordance with the NRC Enforcement

Policy, the violations are listed below:

Title 10 CFR 71.5, Transportation of Licensed Material, requires licensees to comply

with the Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations in Title 49 CFR parts 170

through 189 relative to the transportation of licensed material. Specifically,

1) Title 49 CFR 173.441(a) requires that each package of radioactive material

offered for transportation must be designed and prepared for shipment, so that

under conditions normally incident to transportation, the radiation level does not

exceed 2 millisievert per hour (200 millirem per hour) at any point on the external

surface of the package.

Contrary to the above, on October 29, 2008, the licensee shipped a package

containing radioactive material that was not designed or prepared to assure that,

under conditions normally incident to transportation, the radiation level on the

external surface of the package would not exceed 200 mrem per hour.

2) Title 49 CFR 172.704, Training Requirements, requires that individuals involved

in the transport of hazardous materials receive function specific training relative

to their specific tasks, and that these individuals receive recurrent training at least

once every three years.

Contrary to the above, as of October 29, 2008, five people involved in preparing

a package for radioactive shipment and transport had not received the required

function-specific training.

These violations are associated with a White Significance Determination Process

finding.

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

actions taken and planned to correct the violations and prevent recurrence and the date

when full compliance was achieved was adequately addressed on the docket in Inspection

Report No. 05000282/2008009; 05000306/2008009, at the Regulatory Conference, and in

your letter dated March 26, 2009. 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-08-349", and send it to the

Notice of Violation -2-

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555-

0001 with a copy to the Regional Administrator, Region III, and a copy to the Prairie Island

Resident Inspectors, 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, United States 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 NRCs 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 6th day of May 2009