IR 05000263/2015008: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Adams
{{Adams
| number = ML16328A329
| number = ML15355A459
| issue date = 11/15/2016
| issue date = 12/21/2015
| title = Monticello - Information Responsive to Confirmatory Order Related to NRC Reports No. 05000263/2015008; 07200058/2014001 and OI Report 3-2014-004.)
| title = EA-14-193; Confirmatory Order Related to NRC Reports No. 05000263/2015008; 07200058/2014001 and OI Report 3-2014-004; Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant
| author name = Murphy M C
| author name = Pederson C D
| author affiliation = Northern States Power Company, Minnesota, Xcel Energy
| author affiliation = NRC/RGN-III
| addressee name =  
| addressee name = Gardner P A
| addressee affiliation = NRC/RGN-III/DNMS
| addressee affiliation = Northern States Power Co
| docket = 05000263, 07200058
| docket = 05000263, 07200058
| license number = DPR-022
| license number = DPR-022
| contact person = Learn M C
| contact person = Lambert, Kenneth
| case reference number = 3-2014-004, EA-14-193, IR 2014001, IR 2015008, L-MT-16-063
| case reference number = 3-2014-004, EA-14-193, IR 2015008
| document type = Letter, Licensee Response to Enforcement Action
| document type = Enforcement Action
| page count = 12
| page count = 20
}}
}}


Line 18: Line 18:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:,-2807 West County Road 75 Monticello, MN 55362 (l Xcel Energy November 15, 2016 ATIN: Director-Division of Nuclear Materials Safety U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region Ill 2443 Warrenville Road Suite 210 Lisle, Illinois 60532-4352 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Docket No. 50-263 Renewed FaCility Operating License No. DPR-22 Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Docket No. 72-058 RES P 0 N S I B l E BY NAT U R E L-MT -16-063 EA-14-193 Information Responsive to Confirmatory Order Related to NRC Reports No. 05000263/2015008; 07200058/2014001 and 01 Report 3-2014-004 References: 1) NRC Letter (Pederson) to Northern States Power-Minnesota (Gardner) EA-14-193, Confirmatory Order Related to NRC Reports No. 05000263/2015008; 07200058/2014001 and 01 Report 3-2014-004; Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, dated December 21, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML 15355A459) Pursuant to the subject Confirmatory Order (Reference 1 ), Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation (NSPM), doing business as Xcel Energy, provides information related to the following action: "Within 360 calendar days of the issuance date of the .Confirmatory Order, Xcel Energy shall submit an article to an industry publication, such as UxC Spent Fuel, describing the circumstances of the violation, the root and contributing causes, and the corrective actions. The licensee shall provide a draft to the Director, DNMS, Region Ill, at least 30 calendar days in advance of the submittal." To address this action, Xcel Energy will submit an article to the Ux Consulting Company, LLC ("UxC") for potential publication. Attached to this letter is a draft of the article. Please contact Michael Baumann (612-330-6816) or Martin Murphy (612-330-1992) if you have any questions or comments. RECFIVED NOV 2 8 2016 J.-MT -16-063 Page 2 Summary of Commitments This letter makes no new commitments and no revisions to existing commitments. artin C. Murphy Director Nuclear Licensing a Regulatory Affairs Northern States Power Company-Minnesota . Attachment cc: Document Control Desk, USNRC Administrator, Region Ill, USNRC Rob Kuntz, Project Manager, Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, USNRC Christian Jacobs, Project Manager, Spent Fuel Management, USNRC Resident Inspector, Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, USNRC Mark Lombard, NMSS/DSFM Darrell Roberts, Region Ill Richard Skokowski, Region Ill Jared Heck, Region Ill Matthew Learn, Region Ill Jorge Corujo-Sandin, Region Ill L-MT -16-063 Attachment Draft Article Spent Fuel Storage Dye Penetrant Test Issue 9 pages follow Confirmatory Order Commitment Industry Article A spent fuel lo.ading campaign was scheduled to be completed for the Xcel Energyi Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant during 2013. The plan was to load ten (10) AREVA TN NUHOMS 61 BTH Dry Shielded Canisters (DSC). A contractor with experience in loading AREVA DSCs was hired to complete the "Pool-to-Pad" activities. These activities included all work associated with loading spent fuel into the DSC, welding and weld inspections to seal the DSC, and moving and inserting the DSC into the concrete Horizontal Storage Module (HSM) at the Monticello Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI). It was a contractual requirement that the contractor perform the welding and weld inspection activities under their approved 1 0 CFR Part 50 Appendix B program using qualified personnel. Additional oversight of the contractor was provided by the licensee, but as discussed in this article, proved to be inadequate to ensure certain aspects of the loading procedures were being properly performed by the contractor. BOTTOM SHIELD PLUG r INNER BOTTOM COVER F'5118 BASKET NOTE: BASKET HOLDDOWN RING -AND BASKET RAILS ARE NOT SHOWN OUTER TOP COVER PLATE Figure 1 The AREVA TN NUHOMS 61 BTH Dry Shielded Canisters are welded canisters. The major components of the DSC are shown in Figure 1. There are several seal weld passes required to seal each DSC. The seal welds include welds on the Inner and Outer Top Cover Plates, the Siphon and Vent Port Cover Plates and the Test Port Plug. Each closure weld is required to pass a Dye Penetrant Test (PT) as required by the NUHOMS 61 BTH Technical Specifications. Specifically, Technical Specification 1.2.5 states: "All DSC closure welds except those subjected to full volumetric inspection shall be dye penetrant tested in accordance with the requirements of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section Ill, Division 1, Article NB-5000. The liquid penetrant test acceptance standards shall be those described in Subsection NB-5350 of the Code." DRAFT Confirmatory Order Commitment Industry Article Page 2 The 2013 loading campaign commenced on September 3, 2013 with five (5) DSCs being loaded and placed in their respective HSMs by October 14, 2013. Loading of the sixth canister, designated DSC-16, began on October 14, 2013 and work continued through October 17, 2013 at the time the PT of the final weld pass on the DSC-16 Outer Top Cover Plate was being completed. During the performance of this PT, a Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Inspector was observing the activities. The NRC Inspector questioned the PT inspection parameters he witnessed. Based on the questioning from the Inspector, the following was entered into the Condition Reporting System: "On 10/17/2013 at approximately 1530 NDE was performed on the final pass of the Dry Shielded Canister Outer Top Cover Plate. An NRC inspector observed part of this activity and questioned the ISFSI project team if the dwell and development times were sufficient to meet procedural requirements." In response to the question posed by the NRC Inspector, the following immediate actions were taken: * Stop Work Order was issued * Review of video taken during the entire loading process of the six (6) canisters loaded showed numerous failures to adhere to PT dwell times along with other* violations of procedural requirements by the individuals performing the PTs. In addition to the procedural violations, it was identified that the PT dwell and developer time written documentation did not match the actual dwell and developer times determined from the recorded video. The review ultimately identified that all weld PTs performed during the loading campaign did not meet procedural requirements. * Based on the issues identified during the review of the video, Operations declared DSCs 11 -16 Inoperable, Not Meeting Technical Specifications. * A review of results of final process used to ensure adequate confinement was completed. This final process includes a Helium Leak Test of the DSC confinement barrier. The review of the results of the Helium Leak Tests showed all six DSCs had passed, thereby providing confidence that the DSCs already in storage were capable of providing the required protection of the health and safety of the general public. * A Root Cause Evaluation Team was chartered to investigate this event. The Root Cause Evaluation completed by the licensee identified the root cause as "Inadequate organizational structure and process requirements to drive accountability in the oversight of [the to-Pad contractor] and other activities." There were three contributing factors identified by the Root Cause team. They were (1) "Inadequate site oversight to verify [the Pool-to-Pad contractor] was performing tasks in accordance with applicable procedures", (2) "Inadequate guidance in [the loading procedures] regarding verification of PT performance and documentation of PT information and (3) based on the performance of this same Pool-to-Pad contractor during the 2008 loading campaign at MNGP, "There was a lack of formality in the documentation and review of risk and consequences in the determination of level of cause evaluation." DRAFT Confirmatory Order Commitment Industry Article Page 3 Further event evaluation identified several additional areas as contributors. Based on a Nuclear Oversight (NOS) Missed Opportunity Review, it was identified that a number of oversight functions were weak barriers in support of the NOS Project Oversight process. In addition, project oversight plans for spent fuel storage activities focused on fabrication activity oversight with limited oversight during the completion of loading activities onsite. It was also identified that there was a single NOS Project Oversight plan for both the MNGP and the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant (PINGP) which lacked sufficient detail on the roles and responsibilities to assure adequate *oversight was applied to activities presenting the greatest risk to cask integrity and compliance. A single oversight plan could not adequately address the difference in oversight responsibilities based on the use of a welded canister system at MNGP and the bolted lid design in use at PINGP. A number of missed opportunities were identified that may have prevented or mitigated the consequences of the event. Those missed opportunities included relying on a supplier performance audit of the "Pool-to-Pad" contractor conducted by another utility without additional evaluation of the contractor by Xcel Energy. This was the second loading campaign at MNGP conducted by this to-Pad" contractor and the first campaign had quality control issues that were not factored into the selection process during evaluation of responses to our request for proposal for the pool-to-pad services or the oversight plan for on-site work performance by the contractor. The two Level II Destructive Examination (NDE) inspectors used by the "Pool-to-Pad" contractor had no previous experience in completing PT exams on DSCs. The Level Ill NDE inspector hired by the "Pool-to:-Pad" contractor provided only minimal oversight of the work being performed by the Level II inspectors. This lack of engagement by the Level Ill inspector may have been identified through more intrusive oversight of the performance of the work being done by the Level II inspectors_. Recovery efforts commenced concurrent with the incident evaluation. Five of the six DSCs loaded were located in their respective Horizontal Storage Modules (HSM) and the sixth remained in the transfer cask in the Reactor Building at MNGP. Three options were evaluated to address the current status of all six DSCs: (1) unload fuel from the six DSCs and return the fuel to the spent fuel pool, (2) repair the welds on the six DSCs or (3) request an exemption from Technical Specification 1.2.5. Following analysis of a number of factors, such as risk of damage to a DSC and radi,ation dose, it was decided to pursue the exemption request. Notwithstanding the non-compliant PT, the initial exemption request was based on confirmed quality assurance of the subject canisters which included quality material procurement, welder qualifications, and satisfactory results for helium leak test of the completed welds. Further support for canister weld integrity was derived from the inherent character of multi-layer welds to mend any surface flaws of root welds and prevent creation of continuous flaws between layers. Additional support for the exemption request was provided by a flaw-size analysis that provided satisfactory stress results for assumed flaw sizes that would bound the actual flaws detected on the accessible weld on DSC 16 and any other latent flaws in the other DSCs. In part, the DRAFT Confirmatory Order Commitment Industry Article Page4 exemption request applied NRC Interim Staff Guidance (ISG-15), where the NRC acknowledges that the performance of the PT exam may not identify all imperfections or flaws in the weld. To address this potential the ISG-15 states: "The structural lid weld should be examined by ultrasonic testing (UT) or other volumetric methods. Review the applicant's evaluation of the critical flaw size using the linear-elastic fracture mechanics methodology based on service temperature, dynamic fracture toughness, and critical design stress parameters, as specified in Section XI of the ASME. Code. Progressive surface examinations, utilizing dye penetrant testing (PT) or MT, are permitted only if unusual design and loading conditions exist. In addition, a reduction-factor of 0.8 is imposed on the weld strength of the closure joint to account for imperfections or flaws that may have been missed by progressive surface examinations. The weld design should be approved by the NRC on a case-by-case basis." However, NRC Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) Staff took issue with this analysis because: (1) it assumed a value of Stress Allowable Reduction Factor (SARF) that was qualitatively derived from ASME tables, and (2) the analysis was not supported by sufficient data of the subject welds. [For additional information the following is available through the NRC "Agencywide Document Access and Management System" (ADAMS) ascension number ML 14199A370]. Following extensive public discussions with NRC, the licensee decided to withdraw its initial exemption request. Due to the NRC interactions and significant amount of time expended on the initial exemption request, the licensee's recovery strategy changed to focus on the DSC remaining in the transfer cask on the refueling floor in the reactor building (designated DSC 16). With the DSC in this configuration there was a potential to develop an alternate inspection technique of the closure welds on the Inner Top Cover Plate and Outer Top Cover Plate. Working with AREVA, equipment was designed and an inspection technique was developed and qualified to allow inspection of the full circumference of the Outer Top Cover Plate and the majority of the Inner Top Cover Plate circumference utilizing Phased Array Ultrasonic Test (PAUT) methods. The PAUT was not capable of interrogating the area of the Vent/Siphon Block. The NRC witnessed the development and testing of the inspection technique. The basic equipment to complete the PAUT is shown in Figures 2 and 3. DRAFT
{{#Wiki_filter:
[[Issue date::December 21, 2015]]


Confirmatory Order Commitment Industry Article Page 6 * The first apparent violation involves the apparent deliberate failure, on the part of two technicians, to perform liquid penetrant nondestructive examinations on the dry shielded canisters in accordance with required procedures. * The second apparent violation involves the apparent deliberate failure by the same technicians to accurately record the results of the liquid penetrant nondestructive examinations. * The third apparent violation involves the apparent failure to assess the effectiveness of the technicians' work. In determining the potential for escalated enforcement action, the NRC provided NSPM with the opportunity to: (1) Provide a written response to the NRC; (2) Request a Predecisional Enforcement Conference (PEC) (3) Request Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). NSPM decided to meet with the NRC staff for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). The ADR meeting between NSPM and NRC occurred on October 15, 2015. The ADR process uses an independent professional mediator to work with both parties to develop a common basis for agreement on the issues and develop a corrective action plan. Based on the preliminary settlement agreement reached during the ADR meeting the NRC issued a Confirmatory Order (ML 15355A459) on December 21, 2015. The Confirmatory Order issued to NSPM requires the completion of nine items summarized below: 1. The licensee shall restore compliance to 1 0 CFR Part 72 to DSCs 11 through 16 within 5 years of the date the NRC takes final action upon the September 29, 2015, exemption request pending for DSC 16 (ML 15275A023). 2. Within 180 calendar days of the NRC's final action on the docketed exemption request dated September 29, 2015, the licensee shalf submit a project plan for returning DSCs 11 through 16 to compliance. 3. Within 180 calendar days after submittal of the DSCs 11 through 16 project plan, Xcel Energy shall submit a letter regarding progress under the plan. A letter providing a progress update shall be provided every 360 calendar days thereafter. 4. Within 90 calendar days of the issuance of the Confirmatory Order, Xcel Energy shall evaluate Monticello's dry storage procedures and ensure the procedures require direct licensee oversight during the entire evolution of each dye penetrant test performed by contractors on DSC closure welds. 5. Within 120 calendar days of the issuance of the Confirmatory Order, Xcel Energy shall ensure and documentthat all first line supervisors and above, who oversee contractors DRAFT Confirmatory Order Commitment Industry Article Page 7 performing field work in the Xcel Energy nuclear fleet, review the circumstances and lessons learned from the events that gave rise to the Confirmatory Order. 6. Within 360 calendar days of the issuance of the Confirmatory Order, the licensee shall assess and document the effectiveness of improvements in oversight of supplemental workers (e.g., contractors) in the Xcel Energy nuclear fleet, including the actions taken in item 5. 7. Within 540 calendar days of the issuance date of the Confirmatory Order, Xcel Energy shall develop and make a presentation based on the facts and lessons learned from the events that gave rise to the Confirmatory Order, with emphasis on corrective actions taken as a result. Xcel Energy shall make the presentation materials available to NRC for review at least 30 days in advance of the presentation. 8. Within 360 days of the issuance date of the Confirmatory Order, Xcel Energy shall submit an article to an industry publication, such as UxC Spent Fuel, describing the circumstances of the violation, the root and contributing causes, and the corrective actions. The licensee shall provide a draft to the NRC at least 30 calendar days in advance of the submittal. 9. Upon completion of all terms of the Confirmatory Order,. Xcel Energy shall submit to the NRC a letter discussing its basis for concluding that the Confirmatory Letter has been satisfied. At this time a number of the actions required or associated with the Confirmatory Order have been completed or are underway. One of the main drivers on the tim of completion of these items is the requirement in the Confirmatory Order that actions are based on when" ... the NRC takes final action upon the September 29, 2015, exemption request pending for DSC 16". The exemption request to allow DSC 16 to be placed in the Horizontal Storage Module based on the results and analyses of the PAUT data was approved by NRC on June 15, 2016 (ML 16167A036). DSC 16 was successfully moved from the Reactor Buildi.ng and inserted into the HSM on October 5, 2016. Xcel Energy is working on plans to meet the Confirmatory Order requirement to " ... submit a project plan for returning DSCs 11 through 16 to compliance" by December 12, 2016. NSPM is planning on conducting a public meeting with the NRC regarding the plan to restore compliance prior to actually submitting the plan in accordance with the confirmatory order. [Note that the timing of the requirement to submit this article for publication b.y December 15, 2016 and the requirement to submit the project plan by December 12, 2016, does not allow for further description of the project plan at this time]. Xcel Energy implemented a number of corrective actions to enhance not only the oversight of activities related to spent fuel dry storage activities but also to help manage other high-risk evolutions. The corrective actions implemented to date are summarized below. DRAFT Confirmatory Order Commitment Industry Article Page 8 1. Revised its Nuclear Oversight (NOS) procedures to require the establishment of an NOS Project Oversight Plan for any Safety-Related or Augmented Quality fabrication or construction activities performed at the nuclear plant sites under a supplier's Quality Assurance (QA) Program. 2. The NOS procedure for project oversight was also revised to address site project implementation in addition to project component fabrication, and associated project risks. Upfront planning of the level and type of NOS oversight is based on those risks. 3. Xcel Energy Supply Chain procedures were revised to strengthen NOS involvement in vendor selection and qualification. 4. Separate NOS Spent Fuel Project Plans were developed for MNGP and PINGP to address the differing requirements for welded canister designs and bolted lid designs that provide greafer detaU on implementation of oversight responsibilities. 5. A nuclear fleet procedure for oversight of supplemental personnel (e.g., contractors) based upon the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (IN PO) AP-930 "Supplemental Personnel Process Description," which includes a requirement that each incoming contractworker have a face-to-face review of station standards, expectations, and requirements with the Maintenance Manager or designee. This includes current and all future contract personnel including contract quality control (QC) inspectors. 6. Energy issued a rapid operational experience notice for this event, which prompted a review of the event by Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant staff and shared the event with the nuclear industry through the INPO Consolidated Event System (ICES). 7. Xcel Energy reviewed its General Access Training to ensure it adequately addresses the consequences of willful violations. 8. Spent Fuel Dry Storage Loading procedures for both MNGP and PINGS were reviewed and revised to ensure better oversight. Specifically for MNGP, the following requirements are now included in the procedures. a. The procedures now require oversight of all procedural steps related to AREVA TN NUHOMS 61 BTH Dry Shielded Canisters Technical Specifications. b. Quality Control Hold Points were added to the procedures to ensure Xcel Energy Nuclear Oversight is in attendance to witness ali Dye Penetrant Tests (PTs). c. Sign-offs in the procedures by Xcel Energy Nuclear QC are required to acknowledge the direct oversight of the PTs, to ensure the proper recording of the PT parameters, and to acknowledge that the PT parameters are in compliance with the procedural requirements. d. The Operations Shift Manager is required to review all actions related to the AREVA TN NUHOMS 61 BTH Dry Shielded Canisters Technical Specifications immediately following completion of the procedural steps to ensure compliance with the requirements. e. The NOS Project Oversight Procedure has been expanded in scope to require formal oversight plans for all high-risk projects. As you enter into the initial process of loading spent fuel for storage in an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) or you are preparing for your next loading campaign, take a look at your DRAFT
EA-14-193 Mr. Peter Site Vice President Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Northern States Power Company, Minnesota 2807 West County Road 75 Monticello, MN 55362-9637
' . Confirmatory Order Commitment Industry Article Page 9 processes and standards with respect to this event to ensure no one in the industry experiences a similar event. Consider also the experience and past performance of any organization involved in spent fuel activities. Where there is limited experience with or by a vendor, or where there may have been past vendor performance challenges ensure there is sufficient, effective oversight of performance to assure compliance with all relevant codes, standards and regulatory requirements. In addition, review your processes and standards against numerous industry guidance documents including, as a beginning, the INPO "Principles for an Engaged, Thinking Organization" and the INPO "Principles for a Strong Nuclear Safety Culture". ; Legal entity -Northern States Power Company doing business as Xcel Energy. Northern States Power Company, Minnesota (NSPM) is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Licensee for the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (MNGP). DRAFT
 
SUBJECT: CONFIRMATORY ORDER RELATED TO NRC REPORTS NO. 05000263/2015008; 07200058/2014001 AND OI REPORT 3-2014-004; MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT
 
==Dear Mr. Gardner:==
The enclosed Confirmatory Order is being issued to Northern States Power Company, Minnesota, as a result of a successful Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) session. The enclosed commitments were made by you, as the licensee, as part of a settlement agreement between you and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) concerning apparent violations of NRC requirements, as discussed in the enclosure to our letter dated July 23, 2015. Our July 23, 2015 (ML15203B187), letter provided you with the results of an investigation conducted by the NRC's Office of Investigations to determine whether two contractor technicians at the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (Monticello) deliberately failed to perform nondestructive examinations (NDEs) on the Dry Shielded Canisters (DSCs) in accordance with procedural requirements and whether they falsified records when recording the NDE results, contrary to the requirements in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 72.158, "Control of special processes," 10 CFR 72.11, "Completeness and accuracy of information," and 10 CFR 72.154(c), "Control of purchased material, equipment, and services." Our letter also informed you that the apparent violations were being considered for enforcement action in accordance with the NRC's Enforcement Policy, and provided you with the option of: (1) providing a written response to the violation; (2) attending a Predecisional Enforcement Conference; or (3) requesting ADR with the NRC. In response to our letter, you requested ADR. An ADR mediation session was held on October 15, 2015, and a preliminary settlement agreement was reached. The elements of the preliminary agreement were formulated and agreed to at the mediation session. Consistent with the purposes of ADR, you and the NRC acknowledged that the session was not for the purposes of reaching any conclusions regarding any facts or circumstances discussed in our letter dated July 23, 2015. At the session, you agreed that a Confirmatory Order would be issued in settlement of a disputed claim in order to avoid further action by the NRC. In light of the corrective actions you took or agreed to take, as described in the Confirmatory Order (Enclosure 1), the NRC is satisfied that its concerns will be addressed by making your commitments legally binding. As evidenced by your signed "Consent and Hearing Waiver Form" (Enclosure 2), dated December 10, 2015, you agreed to the issuance of the Confirmatory Order. Pursuant to Section 223 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, any person who willfully violates, attempts to violate, or conspires to violate, any provision of this Confirmatory Order shall be subject to criminal prosecution, as set forth in that section. Violation of this Confirmatory Order may also subject the person to civil monetary penalties. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, along with its enclosures, 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. The Confirmatory Order will be published in the Federal Register. The NRC also publishes Confirmatory Orders on its Web site under Significant Enforcement Actions at http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/enforcement.html.
 
Sincerely,/RA/ Cynthia D. Pederson Regional Administrator Docket Nos. 50-263; 72-058 License No. DPR-22
 
===Enclosures:===
1. Confirmatory Order 2. Consent and Hearing Waiver cc: Distribution via LISTSERV Enclosure 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of ) ) Docket Nos. 50-263; 72-058 Northern States Power Company, Minnesota ) License No. DPR-22 (Doing business as Xcel Energy) ) EA-14-193 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant ) CONFIRMATORY ORDER MODIFYING LICENSE I
Northern States Power Company, Minnesota, doing business as Xcel Energy, (Licensee) is the holder of Reactor Operating License No. DPR-22 issued by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50 on September 8, 1970, and renewed on November 8, 2006. The license authorizes the operation of the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (Monticello) in accordance with conditions specified therein. The facility is located on the Licensee's site in Monticello, Minnesota. This Confirmatory Order is the result of an agreement reached during an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mediation session conducted on October 15, 2015. II On December 18, 2013, the NRC Office of Investigations (OI), Region III Field Office initiated an investigation (OI Case No. 3-2014-004) to determine whether two contractor technicians at the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant deliberately failed to perform nondestructive examinations (NDEs) on the Dry Shielded Canisters (DSCs) in accordance with procedural requirements, and 2 to determine whether they falsified records when recording the NDE results. The results of the investigation, completed on November 13, 2014, were sent to Xcel Energy in a letter dated July 23, 2015 (ML15203B187). Based on the review of the OI investigation report the NRC determined that both contractor technicians willfully violated 10 CFR 72.158, "Control of special processes," and 10 CFR 72.11, "Completeness and accuracy of information." In addition, the NRC determined the licensee violated Title 10 CFR 72.154(c), "Control of purchased material, equipment, and services." Specifically, on October 17, 2013, an NRC inspector observed, by video display, the NDE liquid penetrant testing (PT) of the outer top cover plate weld for DSCs being conducted by a contractor technician. The inspector believed that the technician failed to comply with procedural requirements in conducting the PT. The inspector reviewed the procedure, confirmed that the PT was not being performed in accordance with the procedure, and notified Monticello management. Monticello management and the NDE contractor management reviewed the video, and concluded the PT was not performed properly. Upon further review, the NRC inspector determined that two contractor NDE technicians were involved in performing the PT examinations. These individuals were involved with examining a total of 66 welds on six DSCs. Based on the evidence gathered in the OI investigation, the NRC determined that the two NDE contractors deliberately violated NRC requirements by failing to perform NDE PT of DSCs, a special process, in accordance with procedures by not allowing the developer to dwell for the period of time specified in procedure 12751 QP-9.202, Rev. 1, "Color Contrast Liquid Penetrant Examination using the Solvent-Removable Method." Their actions caused the licensee to be in violation of Certificate of Compliance 1004, Amendment 10, Technical Specification 1.2.5, "DSC Dye Penetrant Tests of Closure Welds," which was implemented by the procedure, and 3 10 CFR 72.158, as NDE testing, a special process, was not accomplished in accordance with the applicable standards and requirements. The NRC further determined that the two contractors willfully violated NRC requirements by recording false information concerning developer dwell times on the PT examination report for each NDE. This caused the licensee to be in violation of 10 CFR 72.11(a), which requires information required to be maintained by the licensee to be complete and accurate in all material respects. The NRC also determined the licensee failed to assess the effectiveness of the controls of quality by the contractors. Specifically, the licensee did not adequately monitor the work of the contractors performing PT testing on DSCs No. 11 through 16. This caused the licensee to be in violation of 10 CFR 72.154(c), "Control of purchased material, equipment, and services," which required, in part, that licensees assess the effectiveness of the control of quality by contractors and subcontractors at intervals consistent with the importance, complexity, and quantity of the product or services. In response to the NRC's offer, Xcel Energy requested use of the NRC ADR process to resolve differences it had with the NRC. Alternative Dispute Resolution is a process in which a neutral mediator with no decision-making authority assists the parties in reaching an agreement on resolving any differences regarding the dispute. On October 15, 2015, Xcel Energy and the NRC met in an ADR session mediated by a professional mediator, arranged through the Cornell University's Institute on Conflict Resolution.
 
4 III During the ADR session, a preliminary settlement agreement was reached. This Confirmatory Order is issued pursuant to the agreement reached during the ADR process. The elements of the agreement, as signed by both parties, consisted of the following: 1. The licensee shall restore compliance to 10 CFR Part 72 to DSCs 11 through 16 within 5 years of the date the NRC takes final action upon the September 29, 2015, exemption request pending for DSC 16 (ML15275A023), or the exemption request is withdrawn, whichever is earlier. 2. Within 180 calendar days of the NRC's final action on the docketed exemption request dated September 29, 2015 (ML15275A023), or the date the exemption request is withdrawn, whichever is earlier, the licensee shall submit a project plan to the Director, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety (DNMS), Region III, for returning DSCs 11 through 16 to compliance to 10 CFR Part 72. 3. Within 180 calendar days after submittal of the DSCs 11 through 16 project plan, Xcel Energy shall submit a letter to the Director, DNMS, Region III, regarding progress under the plan, and any non-editorial changes to the plan. A letter providing a progress update and any non-editorial plan changes shall be provided every 360 calendar days thereafter to the Director, DNMS, Region III, until the plan is completed. 4. Within 90 calendar days of the issuance date of the Confirmatory Order, Xcel Energy shall evaluate Monticello's dry fuel storage procedures and ensure the procedures 5 require direct licensee oversight during the entire evolution of each dye penetrant test performed by contractors on DSC closure welds. 5. Within 120 calendar days of the issuance date of the Confirmatory Order, Xcel Energy shall ensure and document that all first line supervisors and above, who oversee contractors performing field work in the Xcel Energy nuclear fleet, review the circumstances and lessons learned from the events that gave rise to the Confirmatory Order. 6. Within 360 calendar days of the issuance date of the Confirmatory Order, the licensee shall assess and document the effectiveness of improvements in oversight of supplemental workers (e.g., contractors) in the Xcel Energy nuclear fleet, including the actions taken in item 5. 7. Within 540 calendar days of the issuance date of the Confirmatory Order, Xcel Energy shall develop and make a presentation based on the facts and lessons learned from the events that gave rise to the Confirmatory Order, with emphasis on corrective actions taken as a result. Xcel Energy agrees to make this presentation at an appropriate industry forum such that industry personnel across the entirety of the United States would have the opportunity to receive the material. Xcel Energy shall inform the Director, DNMS, Region III, of where the presentation will be made, and shall make the presentation materials available to the NRC for review at least 30 calendar days in advance of the presentation. 8. Within 360 calendar days of the issuance date of the Confirmatory Order, Xcel Energy shall submit an article to an industry publication, such as UxC Spent Fuel, describing the 6 circumstances of the violation, the root and contributing causes, and the corrective actions. The licensee shall provide a draft to the Director, DNMS, Region III, at least 30 calendar days in advance of the submittal. 9. Upon completion of all terms of the Confirmatory Order, Xcel Energy shall submit to the NRC a letter discussing its basis for concluding that the Order has been satisfied. In addition to the elements described above, Xcel Energy took the following corrective actions: 1. Xcel Energy revised its nuclear fleet Nuclear Oversight ("NOS") and Supply Chain procedures to require the establishment of a NOS Project Oversight Plan for any Safety-Related or Augmented Quality fabrication or construction activities performed at the nuclear plant sites under a supplier's Quality Assurance (QA) Program. The NOS procedure for project oversight was also revised to address site project implementation in addition to project component fabrication, and associated project risks. Upfront planning of the level and type NOS oversight is based on those risks. 2. Xcel Energy created a nuclear fleet procedure for oversight of supplemental personnel (e.g., contractors) based upon the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) AP-930 "Supplemental Personnel Process Description," which includes a requirement that each incoming contract worker have a face-to-face review of station standards, expectations, and requirements with the Maintenance Manager or designee. This includes current and all future contract personnel including contract quality control (QC) inspectors. 3. Xcel Energy issued a rapid operational experience notice for this event, which prompted a review of the event by Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant staff and shared the 7 event with the nuclear industry through a process called the INPO Consolidated Event System (ICES). 4. Xcel Energy reviewed its General Access Training to ensure it addresses the consequences of willful violations.
 
In exchange for the commitments and corrective actions taken by the licensee, the NRC agrees to the following conditions: 1. The NRC will consider the Confirmatory Order as an escalated enforcement action for a period of one year from its issuance date. 2. The NRC will refrain from issuing a Notice of Violation and a proposed imposition of a civil penalty. This agreement is binding upon the successors and assigns of Xcel Energy. On December 10, 2015, Xcel Energy consented to issuing this Confirmatory Order with the commitments, as described in Section V below. Xcel Energy further agreed that this Confirmatory Order is to be effective 30 calendar days after issuance of the Confirmatory Order and that it has waived its right to a hearing. IV Since the licensee agreed to take additional actions to address NRC concerns, as set forth in Section III above, the NRC concluded that its concerns can be resolved through issuance of this Confirmatory Order.
 
8 I find that Xcel Energy's commitments as set forth in Section V are acceptable and necessary and conclude that with these commitments the public health and safety are reasonably assured. In view of the foregoing, I have determined that public health and safety require that Xcel Energy's commitments be confirmed by this Confirmatory Order. Based on the above and Xcel Energy's consent, this Confirmatory Order is effective 30 calendar days after issuance of the Confirmatory Order. V Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 104b, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182, and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202, 10 CFR Part 50 and 10 CFR Part 72, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE ACTIONS DESCRIBED BELOW WILL BE TAKEN AT MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT AND OTHER NUCLEAR PLANTS IN XCEL ENERGY'S FLEET WHERE INDICATED AND THAT LICENSE NO. DPR-22 IS MODIFIED AS FOLLOWS WITH RESPECT TO THE ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN AT THE MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT: 1. The licensee shall restore compliance to 10 CFR Part 72 to DSCs 11 through 16 within 5 years of the date the NRC takes final action upon the September 29, 2015, exemption request pending for DSC 16 (ML15275A023), or the exemption request is withdrawn, whichever is earlier. 2. Within 180 calendar days of the NRC's final action on the docketed exemption request dated September 29, 2015 (ML15275A023), or the date the exemption request is withdrawn, whichever is earlier, the licensee shall submit a project plan to the Director, 9 Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region III, for returning DSCs 11 through 16 to compliance to 10 CFR Part 72. 3. Within 180 days after submittal of the DSCs 11 through 16 project plan, Xcel Energy shall submit a letter to the Director, DNMS, Region III, regarding progress under the plan, and any non-editorial changes to the plan. A letter providing a progress update and any non-editorial plan changes shall be provided every 360 calendar days thereafter to the Director, DNMS, Region III, until the plan is completed. 4. Within 90 calendar days of the issuance date of the Confirmatory Order, Xcel Energy shall evaluate Monticello's dry fuel storage procedures and ensure the procedures require direct licensee oversight during the entire evolution of each dye penetrant test performed by contractors on DSC closure welds. 5. Within 120 calendar days of the issuance date of the Confirmatory Order, Xcel Energy shall ensure and document that all first line supervisors and above, who oversee contractors performing field work in the Xcel Energy nuclear fleet, review the circumstances and lessons learned from the events that gave rise to the Confirmatory Order. 6. Within 360 calendar days of the issuance date of the Confirmatory Order, the licensee shall assess and document the effectiveness of improvements in oversight of supplemental workers (e.g., contractors) in the Xcel Energy nuclear fleet, including the actions taken in item 5.
 
10 7. Within 540 calendar days of the issuance date of the Confirmatory Order, Xcel Energy shall develop and make a presentation based on the facts and lessons learned from the events that gave rise to the Confirmatory Order, with emphasis on corrective actions taken as a result. Xcel Energy agrees to make this presentation at an appropriate industry forum such that industry personnel across the entirety of the United States would have the opportunity to receive the material. Xcel Energy shall inform the Director, DNMS, Region III, of where the presentation will be made, and make the presentation materials available to the NRC for review at least 30 calendar days in advance of the presentation. 8. Within 360 calendar days of the issuance date of the Confirmatory Order, Xcel Energy shall submit an article to an industry publication, such as UxC Spent Fuel, describing the circumstances of the violation, the root and contributing causes, and the corrective actions. The licensee shall provide a draft to the Director, DNMS, Region III, at least 30 calendar days in advance of the submittal. 9. Upon completion of all terms of the Confirmatory Order, Xcel Energy shall submit to the NRC a letter discussing its basis for concluding that the Order has been satisfied. The Regional Administrator, Region III, may, in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration by the Licensee of good cause. VI Any person adversely affected by this Confirmatory Order, other than Xcel Nuclear, may request a hearing within 30 days of the issuance date of this Confirmatory Order. Where good cause is 11 shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to request a hearing. A request for extension of time must be directed to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and include a statement of good cause for the extension.
 
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007), as amended by 77 FR 46562; August 3, 2012 (codified in pertinent part at 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart C). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below. To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least ten (10) days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone at 301-415-1677, to (1) request a digital (ID) certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a request or petition for hearing (even in instances in which the participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic docket.
 
12 Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. System requirements for accessing the E-Submittal server are detailed in NRC's "Guidance for Electronic Submission," which is available on the agency's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but should note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted software, and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer assistance in using unlisted software. If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange (EIE), users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene through the EIE. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on the due date. Upon receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends the submitter an e-mail notice confirming receipt of the document. The E-Filing system also distributes an e-mail notice that provides access to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any 13 others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the documents on those participants separately.
 
Therefore, any others who wish to participate in the proceeding (or their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/ petition to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document via the E-Filing system.
 
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System Help Desk through the "Contact Us" link located on the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by e-mail at MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll-free call at (866) 672-7640. The NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
 
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) first class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption 14 request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists. Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket, which is available to the public at http://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law requires submission of such information. With respect to copyrighted works, participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application. If a person other than the licensee requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his interest is adversely affected by this Confirmatory Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.309(d) and (f). If a hearing is requested by a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue a separate Order designating the time and place of any hearings, as appropriate. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Confirmatory Order should be sustained.
 
In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in Section V above shall be final 30 days after issuance of the Confirmatory Order without further order or proceedings. If an extension of time 15 for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions specified in Section V shall be final when the extension expires if a hearing request has not been received. Dated at Lisle, Illinois this 21st day of December 2015 For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission /RA/ Cynthia D. Pederson Regional Administrator Enclosure 2 At the session, you agreed that a Confirmatory Order would be issued in settlement of a disputed claim in order to avoid further action by the NRC. In light of the corrective actions you took or agreed to take, as described in the Confirmatory Order (Enclosure 1), the NRC is satisfied that its concerns will be addressed by making your commitments legally binding. As evidenced by your signed "Consent and Hearing Waiver Form" (Enclosure 2), dated December 10, 2015, you agreed to the issuance of the Confirmatory Order. Pursuant to Section 223 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, any person who willfully violates, attempts to violate, or conspires to violate, any provision of this Confirmatory Order shall be subject to criminal prosecution, as set forth in that section. Violation of this Confirmatory Order may also subject the person to civil monetary penalties. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, along with its enclosures, 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. The Confirmatory Order will be published in the Federal Register. The NRC also publishes Confirmatory Orders on its Web site under Significant Enforcement Actions at http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/enforcement.html.
 
Sincerely,/RA/ Cynthia D. Pederson Regional Administrator Docket Nos. 50-263; 72-058 License No. DPR-22
 
===Enclosures:===
1. Confirmatory Order 2. Consent and Hearing Waiver cc: Distribution via LISTSERV ADAMS Accession Number ML15355A459 OFFICE RIII RIII RIII RIII NAME Lambert Orlikowski Giessner Heck DATE 11/13/15 11/17/15 11/18/15 11/19/15 OFFICE D: NMSS D:OGC D:OE RIII RIII NAME Burgess for Moore 1 Monteith for Scott 2 Hanley for Holahan 3 Skokowski Pederson DATE 12/08/15 11/20/15 11/20/15 12/15/15 12/21/15 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY    1 NMSS concurred per e-mail from M. Burgess dated 12/08/15 2 OGC concurred per e-mail from E. Monteith dated 11/20/15 3 OE concurred per e-mail from K. Hanley dated 11/20/15 Letter to Mr. Peter from Ms. Cynthia D. Pederson dated December 21, 2015
 
SUBJECT: CONFIRMATORY ORDER RELATED TO NRC REPORTS NO. 05000263/2015008; 07200058/2014001 AND OI REPORT 3-2014-004; MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT DISTRIBUTION:RidsSecyMailCenter Resource OCADistribution Victor McCree Michael Johnson Glenn Tracy Patricia Holahan Nick Hilton Kyle Hanley Cynthia Pederson Darrell Roberts Daniel Dorman Len Wert Marc Dapas Marian Zobler Catherine Scott Emily Monteith Michelle Burgess Lauren Casey Brice Bickett David Gamberoni Michael Hay Holly Harrington Hubert Bell Anthony Hsia Cheryl McCrary David D'Abate Cindy Rosales-Cooper Janelle Jessie RidsNrrDorlLpl3-1 Resource RidsNrrPMMonticello RidsNrrDirsIrib Resource Richard Skokowski Allan Barker Harral Logaras Viktoria Mitlyng Prema Chandrathil Kenneth Lambert Paul Pelke Magdalena Gryglak Sarah Bahksh Jorge Corujo-Sandin Carole Ariano Linda Linn DRPIII DRSIII Jim Clay Carmen Olteanu RidsOemailCenter OEWEB Resource ROPassessment.Resource@nrc.gov
}}
}}

Revision as of 00:48, 6 June 2018

EA-14-193; Confirmatory Order Related to NRC Reports No. 05000263/2015008; 07200058/2014001 and OI Report 3-2014-004; Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant
ML15355A459
Person / Time
Site: Monticello  Xcel Energy icon.png
Issue date: 12/21/2015
From: Pederson C D
NRC/RGN-III
To: Gardner P A
Northern States Power Co
Lambert, Kenneth
References
3-2014-004, EA-14-193, IR 2015008
Download: ML15355A459 (20)


Text

December 21, 2015

EA-14-193 Mr. Peter Site Vice President Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Northern States Power Company, Minnesota 2807 West County Road 75 Monticello, MN 55362-9637

SUBJECT: CONFIRMATORY ORDER RELATED TO NRC REPORTS NO. 05000263/2015008; 07200058/2014001 AND OI REPORT 3-2014-004; MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT

Dear Mr. Gardner:

The enclosed Confirmatory Order is being issued to Northern States Power Company, Minnesota, as a result of a successful Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) session. The enclosed commitments were made by you, as the licensee, as part of a settlement agreement between you and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) concerning apparent violations of NRC requirements, as discussed in the enclosure to our letter dated July 23, 2015. Our July 23, 2015 (ML15203B187), letter provided you with the results of an investigation conducted by the NRC's Office of Investigations to determine whether two contractor technicians at the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (Monticello) deliberately failed to perform nondestructive examinations (NDEs) on the Dry Shielded Canisters (DSCs) in accordance with procedural requirements and whether they falsified records when recording the NDE results, contrary to the requirements in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 72.158, "Control of special processes," 10 CFR 72.11, "Completeness and accuracy of information," and 10 CFR 72.154(c), "Control of purchased material, equipment, and services." Our letter also informed you that the apparent violations were being considered for enforcement action in accordance with the NRC's Enforcement Policy, and provided you with the option of: (1) providing a written response to the violation; (2) attending a Predecisional Enforcement Conference; or (3) requesting ADR with the NRC. In response to our letter, you requested ADR. An ADR mediation session was held on October 15, 2015, and a preliminary settlement agreement was reached. The elements of the preliminary agreement were formulated and agreed to at the mediation session. Consistent with the purposes of ADR, you and the NRC acknowledged that the session was not for the purposes of reaching any conclusions regarding any facts or circumstances discussed in our letter dated July 23, 2015. At the session, you agreed that a Confirmatory Order would be issued in settlement of a disputed claim in order to avoid further action by the NRC. In light of the corrective actions you took or agreed to take, as described in the Confirmatory Order (Enclosure 1), the NRC is satisfied that its concerns will be addressed by making your commitments legally binding. As evidenced by your signed "Consent and Hearing Waiver Form" (Enclosure 2), dated December 10, 2015, you agreed to the issuance of the Confirmatory Order. Pursuant to Section 223 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, any person who willfully violates, attempts to violate, or conspires to violate, any provision of this Confirmatory Order shall be subject to criminal prosecution, as set forth in that section. Violation of this Confirmatory Order may also subject the person to civil monetary penalties. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, along with its enclosures, 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. The Confirmatory Order will be published in the Federal Register. The NRC also publishes Confirmatory Orders on its Web site under Significant Enforcement Actions at http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/enforcement.html.

Sincerely,/RA/ Cynthia D. Pederson Regional Administrator Docket Nos. 50-263;72-058 License No. DPR-22

Enclosures:

1. Confirmatory Order 2. Consent and Hearing Waiver cc: Distribution via LISTSERV Enclosure 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of ) ) Docket Nos. 50-263;72-058 Northern States Power Company, Minnesota ) License No. DPR-22 (Doing business as Xcel Energy) ) EA-14-193 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant ) CONFIRMATORY ORDER MODIFYING LICENSE I

Northern States Power Company, Minnesota, doing business as Xcel Energy, (Licensee) is the holder of Reactor Operating License No. DPR-22 issued by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50 on September 8, 1970, and renewed on November 8, 2006. The license authorizes the operation of the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (Monticello) in accordance with conditions specified therein. The facility is located on the Licensee's site in Monticello, Minnesota. This Confirmatory Order is the result of an agreement reached during an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mediation session conducted on October 15, 2015. II On December 18, 2013, the NRC Office of Investigations (OI), Region III Field Office initiated an investigation (OI Case No. 3-2014-004) to determine whether two contractor technicians at the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant deliberately failed to perform nondestructive examinations (NDEs) on the Dry Shielded Canisters (DSCs) in accordance with procedural requirements, and 2 to determine whether they falsified records when recording the NDE results. The results of the investigation, completed on November 13, 2014, were sent to Xcel Energy in a letter dated July 23, 2015 (ML15203B187). Based on the review of the OI investigation report the NRC determined that both contractor technicians willfully violated 10 CFR 72.158, "Control of special processes," and 10 CFR 72.11, "Completeness and accuracy of information." In addition, the NRC determined the licensee violated Title 10 CFR 72.154(c), "Control of purchased material, equipment, and services." Specifically, on October 17, 2013, an NRC inspector observed, by video display, the NDE liquid penetrant testing (PT) of the outer top cover plate weld for DSCs being conducted by a contractor technician. The inspector believed that the technician failed to comply with procedural requirements in conducting the PT. The inspector reviewed the procedure, confirmed that the PT was not being performed in accordance with the procedure, and notified Monticello management. Monticello management and the NDE contractor management reviewed the video, and concluded the PT was not performed properly. Upon further review, the NRC inspector determined that two contractor NDE technicians were involved in performing the PT examinations. These individuals were involved with examining a total of 66 welds on six DSCs. Based on the evidence gathered in the OI investigation, the NRC determined that the two NDE contractors deliberately violated NRC requirements by failing to perform NDE PT of DSCs, a special process, in accordance with procedures by not allowing the developer to dwell for the period of time specified in procedure 12751 QP-9.202, Rev. 1, "Color Contrast Liquid Penetrant Examination using the Solvent-Removable Method." Their actions caused the licensee to be in violation of Certificate of Compliance 1004, Amendment 10, Technical Specification 1.2.5, "DSC Dye Penetrant Tests of Closure Welds," which was implemented by the procedure, and 3 10 CFR 72.158, as NDE testing, a special process, was not accomplished in accordance with the applicable standards and requirements. The NRC further determined that the two contractors willfully violated NRC requirements by recording false information concerning developer dwell times on the PT examination report for each NDE. This caused the licensee to be in violation of 10 CFR 72.11(a), which requires information required to be maintained by the licensee to be complete and accurate in all material respects. The NRC also determined the licensee failed to assess the effectiveness of the controls of quality by the contractors. Specifically, the licensee did not adequately monitor the work of the contractors performing PT testing on DSCs No. 11 through 16. This caused the licensee to be in violation of 10 CFR 72.154(c), "Control of purchased material, equipment, and services," which required, in part, that licensees assess the effectiveness of the control of quality by contractors and subcontractors at intervals consistent with the importance, complexity, and quantity of the product or services. In response to the NRC's offer, Xcel Energy requested use of the NRC ADR process to resolve differences it had with the NRC. Alternative Dispute Resolution is a process in which a neutral mediator with no decision-making authority assists the parties in reaching an agreement on resolving any differences regarding the dispute. On October 15, 2015, Xcel Energy and the NRC met in an ADR session mediated by a professional mediator, arranged through the Cornell University's Institute on Conflict Resolution.

4 III During the ADR session, a preliminary settlement agreement was reached. This Confirmatory Order is issued pursuant to the agreement reached during the ADR process. The elements of the agreement, as signed by both parties, consisted of the following: 1. The licensee shall restore compliance to 10 CFR Part 72 to DSCs 11 through 16 within 5 years of the date the NRC takes final action upon the September 29, 2015, exemption request pending for DSC 16 (ML15275A023), or the exemption request is withdrawn, whichever is earlier. 2. Within 180 calendar days of the NRC's final action on the docketed exemption request dated September 29, 2015 (ML15275A023), or the date the exemption request is withdrawn, whichever is earlier, the licensee shall submit a project plan to the Director, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety (DNMS), Region III, for returning DSCs 11 through 16 to compliance to 10 CFR Part 72. 3. Within 180 calendar days after submittal of the DSCs 11 through 16 project plan, Xcel Energy shall submit a letter to the Director, DNMS, Region III, regarding progress under the plan, and any non-editorial changes to the plan. A letter providing a progress update and any non-editorial plan changes shall be provided every 360 calendar days thereafter to the Director, DNMS, Region III, until the plan is completed. 4. Within 90 calendar days of the issuance date of the Confirmatory Order, Xcel Energy shall evaluate Monticello's dry fuel storage procedures and ensure the procedures 5 require direct licensee oversight during the entire evolution of each dye penetrant test performed by contractors on DSC closure welds. 5. Within 120 calendar days of the issuance date of the Confirmatory Order, Xcel Energy shall ensure and document that all first line supervisors and above, who oversee contractors performing field work in the Xcel Energy nuclear fleet, review the circumstances and lessons learned from the events that gave rise to the Confirmatory Order. 6. Within 360 calendar days of the issuance date of the Confirmatory Order, the licensee shall assess and document the effectiveness of improvements in oversight of supplemental workers (e.g., contractors) in the Xcel Energy nuclear fleet, including the actions taken in item 5. 7. Within 540 calendar days of the issuance date of the Confirmatory Order, Xcel Energy shall develop and make a presentation based on the facts and lessons learned from the events that gave rise to the Confirmatory Order, with emphasis on corrective actions taken as a result. Xcel Energy agrees to make this presentation at an appropriate industry forum such that industry personnel across the entirety of the United States would have the opportunity to receive the material. Xcel Energy shall inform the Director, DNMS, Region III, of where the presentation will be made, and shall make the presentation materials available to the NRC for review at least 30 calendar days in advance of the presentation. 8. Within 360 calendar days of the issuance date of the Confirmatory Order, Xcel Energy shall submit an article to an industry publication, such as UxC Spent Fuel, describing the 6 circumstances of the violation, the root and contributing causes, and the corrective actions. The licensee shall provide a draft to the Director, DNMS, Region III, at least 30 calendar days in advance of the submittal. 9. Upon completion of all terms of the Confirmatory Order, Xcel Energy shall submit to the NRC a letter discussing its basis for concluding that the Order has been satisfied. In addition to the elements described above, Xcel Energy took the following corrective actions: 1. Xcel Energy revised its nuclear fleet Nuclear Oversight ("NOS") and Supply Chain procedures to require the establishment of a NOS Project Oversight Plan for any Safety-Related or Augmented Quality fabrication or construction activities performed at the nuclear plant sites under a supplier's Quality Assurance (QA) Program. The NOS procedure for project oversight was also revised to address site project implementation in addition to project component fabrication, and associated project risks. Upfront planning of the level and type NOS oversight is based on those risks. 2. Xcel Energy created a nuclear fleet procedure for oversight of supplemental personnel (e.g., contractors) based upon the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) AP-930 "Supplemental Personnel Process Description," which includes a requirement that each incoming contract worker have a face-to-face review of station standards, expectations, and requirements with the Maintenance Manager or designee. This includes current and all future contract personnel including contract quality control (QC) inspectors. 3. Xcel Energy issued a rapid operational experience notice for this event, which prompted a review of the event by Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant staff and shared the 7 event with the nuclear industry through a process called the INPO Consolidated Event System (ICES). 4. Xcel Energy reviewed its General Access Training to ensure it addresses the consequences of willful violations.

In exchange for the commitments and corrective actions taken by the licensee, the NRC agrees to the following conditions: 1. The NRC will consider the Confirmatory Order as an escalated enforcement action for a period of one year from its issuance date. 2. The NRC will refrain from issuing a Notice of Violation and a proposed imposition of a civil penalty. This agreement is binding upon the successors and assigns of Xcel Energy. On December 10, 2015, Xcel Energy consented to issuing this Confirmatory Order with the commitments, as described in Section V below. Xcel Energy further agreed that this Confirmatory Order is to be effective 30 calendar days after issuance of the Confirmatory Order and that it has waived its right to a hearing. IV Since the licensee agreed to take additional actions to address NRC concerns, as set forth in Section III above, the NRC concluded that its concerns can be resolved through issuance of this Confirmatory Order.

8 I find that Xcel Energy's commitments as set forth in Section V are acceptable and necessary and conclude that with these commitments the public health and safety are reasonably assured. In view of the foregoing, I have determined that public health and safety require that Xcel Energy's commitments be confirmed by this Confirmatory Order. Based on the above and Xcel Energy's consent, this Confirmatory Order is effective 30 calendar days after issuance of the Confirmatory Order. V Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 104b, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182, and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202, 10 CFR Part 50 and 10 CFR Part 72, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE ACTIONS DESCRIBED BELOW WILL BE TAKEN AT MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT AND OTHER NUCLEAR PLANTS IN XCEL ENERGY'S FLEET WHERE INDICATED AND THAT LICENSE NO. DPR-22 IS MODIFIED AS FOLLOWS WITH RESPECT TO THE ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN AT THE MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT: 1. The licensee shall restore compliance to 10 CFR Part 72 to DSCs 11 through 16 within 5 years of the date the NRC takes final action upon the September 29, 2015, exemption request pending for DSC 16 (ML15275A023), or the exemption request is withdrawn, whichever is earlier. 2. Within 180 calendar days of the NRC's final action on the docketed exemption request dated September 29, 2015 (ML15275A023), or the date the exemption request is withdrawn, whichever is earlier, the licensee shall submit a project plan to the Director, 9 Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region III, for returning DSCs 11 through 16 to compliance to 10 CFR Part 72. 3. Within 180 days after submittal of the DSCs 11 through 16 project plan, Xcel Energy shall submit a letter to the Director, DNMS, Region III, regarding progress under the plan, and any non-editorial changes to the plan. A letter providing a progress update and any non-editorial plan changes shall be provided every 360 calendar days thereafter to the Director, DNMS, Region III, until the plan is completed. 4. Within 90 calendar days of the issuance date of the Confirmatory Order, Xcel Energy shall evaluate Monticello's dry fuel storage procedures and ensure the procedures require direct licensee oversight during the entire evolution of each dye penetrant test performed by contractors on DSC closure welds. 5. Within 120 calendar days of the issuance date of the Confirmatory Order, Xcel Energy shall ensure and document that all first line supervisors and above, who oversee contractors performing field work in the Xcel Energy nuclear fleet, review the circumstances and lessons learned from the events that gave rise to the Confirmatory Order. 6. Within 360 calendar days of the issuance date of the Confirmatory Order, the licensee shall assess and document the effectiveness of improvements in oversight of supplemental workers (e.g., contractors) in the Xcel Energy nuclear fleet, including the actions taken in item 5.

10 7. Within 540 calendar days of the issuance date of the Confirmatory Order, Xcel Energy shall develop and make a presentation based on the facts and lessons learned from the events that gave rise to the Confirmatory Order, with emphasis on corrective actions taken as a result. Xcel Energy agrees to make this presentation at an appropriate industry forum such that industry personnel across the entirety of the United States would have the opportunity to receive the material. Xcel Energy shall inform the Director, DNMS, Region III, of where the presentation will be made, and make the presentation materials available to the NRC for review at least 30 calendar days in advance of the presentation. 8. Within 360 calendar days of the issuance date of the Confirmatory Order, Xcel Energy shall submit an article to an industry publication, such as UxC Spent Fuel, describing the circumstances of the violation, the root and contributing causes, and the corrective actions. The licensee shall provide a draft to the Director, DNMS, Region III, at least 30 calendar days in advance of the submittal. 9. Upon completion of all terms of the Confirmatory Order, Xcel Energy shall submit to the NRC a letter discussing its basis for concluding that the Order has been satisfied. The Regional Administrator, Region III, may, in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration by the Licensee of good cause. VI Any person adversely affected by this Confirmatory Order, other than Xcel Nuclear, may request a hearing within 30 days of the issuance date of this Confirmatory Order. Where good cause is 11 shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to request a hearing. A request for extension of time must be directed to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and include a statement of good cause for the extension.

All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007), as amended by 77 FR 46562; August 3, 2012 (codified in pertinent part at 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart C). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below. To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least ten (10) days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone at 301-415-1677, to (1) request a digital (ID) certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a request or petition for hearing (even in instances in which the participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic docket.

12 Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. System requirements for accessing the E-Submittal server are detailed in NRC's "Guidance for Electronic Submission," which is available on the agency's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but should note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted software, and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer assistance in using unlisted software. If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange (EIE), users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene through the EIE. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on the due date. Upon receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends the submitter an e-mail notice confirming receipt of the document. The E-Filing system also distributes an e-mail notice that provides access to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any 13 others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the documents on those participants separately.

Therefore, any others who wish to participate in the proceeding (or their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/ petition to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document via the E-Filing system.

A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System Help Desk through the "Contact Us" link located on the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by e-mail at MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll-free call at (866) 672-7640. The NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.

Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) first class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption 14 request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists. Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket, which is available to the public at http://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law requires submission of such information. With respect to copyrighted works, participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application. If a person other than the licensee requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his interest is adversely affected by this Confirmatory Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.309(d) and (f). If a hearing is requested by a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue a separate Order designating the time and place of any hearings, as appropriate. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Confirmatory Order should be sustained.

In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in Section V above shall be final 30 days after issuance of the Confirmatory Order without further order or proceedings. If an extension of time 15 for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions specified in Section V shall be final when the extension expires if a hearing request has not been received. Dated at Lisle, Illinois this 21st day of December 2015 For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission /RA/ Cynthia D. Pederson Regional Administrator Enclosure 2 At the session, you agreed that a Confirmatory Order would be issued in settlement of a disputed claim in order to avoid further action by the NRC. In light of the corrective actions you took or agreed to take, as described in the Confirmatory Order (Enclosure 1), the NRC is satisfied that its concerns will be addressed by making your commitments legally binding. As evidenced by your signed "Consent and Hearing Waiver Form" (Enclosure 2), dated December 10, 2015, you agreed to the issuance of the Confirmatory Order. Pursuant to Section 223 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, any person who willfully violates, attempts to violate, or conspires to violate, any provision of this Confirmatory Order shall be subject to criminal prosecution, as set forth in that section. Violation of this Confirmatory Order may also subject the person to civil monetary penalties. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, along with its enclosures, 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. The Confirmatory Order will be published in the Federal Register. The NRC also publishes Confirmatory Orders on its Web site under Significant Enforcement Actions at http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/enforcement.html.

Sincerely,/RA/ Cynthia D. Pederson Regional Administrator Docket Nos. 50-263;72-058 License No. DPR-22

Enclosures:

1. Confirmatory Order 2. Consent and Hearing Waiver cc: Distribution via LISTSERV ADAMS Accession Number ML15355A459 OFFICE RIII RIII RIII RIII NAME Lambert Orlikowski Giessner Heck DATE 11/13/15 11/17/15 11/18/15 11/19/15 OFFICE D: NMSS D:OGC D:OE RIII RIII NAME Burgess for Moore 1 Monteith for Scott 2 Hanley for Holahan 3 Skokowski Pederson DATE 12/08/15 11/20/15 11/20/15 12/15/15 12/21/15 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 1 NMSS concurred per e-mail from M. Burgess dated 12/08/15 2 OGC concurred per e-mail from E. Monteith dated 11/20/15 3 OE concurred per e-mail from K. Hanley dated 11/20/15 Letter to Mr. Peter from Ms. Cynthia D. Pederson dated December 21, 2015

SUBJECT: CONFIRMATORY ORDER RELATED TO NRC REPORTS NO. 05000263/2015008; 07200058/2014001 AND OI REPORT 3-2014-004; MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT DISTRIBUTION:RidsSecyMailCenter Resource OCADistribution Victor McCree Michael Johnson Glenn Tracy Patricia Holahan Nick Hilton Kyle Hanley Cynthia Pederson Darrell Roberts Daniel Dorman Len Wert Marc Dapas Marian Zobler Catherine Scott Emily Monteith Michelle Burgess Lauren Casey Brice Bickett David Gamberoni Michael Hay Holly Harrington Hubert Bell Anthony Hsia Cheryl McCrary David D'Abate Cindy Rosales-Cooper Janelle Jessie RidsNrrDorlLpl3-1 Resource RidsNrrPMMonticello RidsNrrDirsIrib Resource Richard Skokowski Allan Barker Harral Logaras Viktoria Mitlyng Prema Chandrathil Kenneth Lambert Paul Pelke Magdalena Gryglak Sarah Bahksh Jorge Corujo-Sandin Carole Ariano Linda Linn DRPIII DRSIII Jim Clay Carmen Olteanu RidsOemailCenter OEWEB Resource ROPassessment.Resource@nrc.gov